Author Topic: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?  (Read 7147 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2012, 10:27:00 AM »

The wages of sin are death. All sin leads to death in some way. Things that we know not to do. Things we are aware of but still do. We are all guilty in some way or another and we can no longer say we didn't know or blame someone else for. We all have participated and have fallen short.

But GOD still loves us anyways. Even though we neither deserved it nor earned it. And has chosen to reconcile to Himself, All things. Through The Lord Jesus Christ.

I fully trust in The Lord and His plan for Salvation. The Lord Jesus Christ.

Take care...


Quote
Jer 7:30  For the children of Judah have done what is evil in my eyes, says the Lord: they have put their disgusting images in the house which is named by my name, making it unclean.
Jer 7:31  And they have put up the high place of Topheth in the valley of the son of Hinnom, burning their sons and their daughters there in the fire; a thing which was not ordered by me and never came into my mind.

It seems that this version of god had a serious issue with child sacrifice and in particular the idea of burning humans....

If this is so, then how can the doctrine of the vicarious atonement through the blood sacrifice of his own son, and the doctrine of hell, be justified if we have a deity who is appalled by human sacrifices--and the tortures of forcing humans to burn to death--and makes it very clear that he does not order them. ?

If a god abhors human sacrifice to appease gods, and loathes to see death by burning--how can these doctrines be true ?
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2012, 11:09:31 AM »
It seems that this version of god had a serious issue with child sacrifice and in particular the idea of burning humans....

that line was added in later, after the hebrews/ canaanites stopped that particular tradition. In the older version of Abe & Isaac, he kills Isaac.  Notice in the remaining version, Abe goes down the mountain and we don't hear anything about Isaac again in that tale.  And in later stories there are references to child sacrifice actually being effective.  I forget which ones, though.  the jooz were fighting someone and he sacrificed a son and as a result, won the battle.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2012, 11:15:31 AM »
GOD desires mercy not sacrifice. It is Jesus who declared this. And it is through Jesus Christ that GOD has announced and put a stop to it. Once and for all.
  No, not even remotely.  Again, a Christian who depends on ignorance to keep their fuzzy-wuzzy god. 

Quote
The idea of sacrifice " I think" was to transfer the punishment of a persons transgressions to something else. It couldn't be just anything. Spotless or pure. Innocent. No deformities. It had to be prepared a certain way as well.
In this, the word "think" should be replaced with "hope".  In that ILY hopes that their nonsense is true, and that their version of their religion is the only right one.  Of course, no evidence of this at all. 

Quote
The wages of sin are death. All sin leads to death in some way. Things that we know not to do. Things we are aware of but still do. We are all guilty in some way or another and we can no longer say we didn't know or blame someone else for. We all have participated and have fallen short.
more lies and preaching.  You might be a horrible person, ILY.  Many people aren't.

andn more lies about atheists being "angry" as an excuse the theist tells themselves so they don't have to listen.

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline rev45

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1202
  • Darwins +37/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Did your parents raise you to be an idiot?
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2012, 11:18:37 AM »
that line was added in later, after the hebrews/ canaanites stopped that particular tradition. In the older version of Abe & Isaac, he kills Isaac.  Notice in the remaining version, Abe goes down the mountain and we don't hear anything about Isaac again in that tale.  And in later stories there are references to child sacrifice actually being effective.  I forget which ones, though.  the jooz were fighting someone and he sacrificed a son and as a result, won the battle.
Are you talking about Judges 11:30-40?  It was Jephthah's daughter that he sacrificed.

I don't have the link but Doctor X wrote the essay on how Israel performed child sacrifice because it was commanded by their god.
Here read a book.  It's free.
http://www.literatureproject.com/

Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?   Ron Patterson

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2030
  • Darwins +121/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2012, 11:30:37 AM »
I don't have the link but Doctor X wrote the essay on how Israel performed child sacrifice because it was commanded by their god.

Ask and ye shall recieve, rev45.

This was an essay written by Doctor x back in '06 or earlier.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Child Sacrifice (by Doctor x):

While traditionally more of a Christmas subject [Stop that.--Ed.] here is an essay I have put together on the subject of child sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible. It was John J. Collins' address to the Society of Biblical Literature that started this:


It is now widely recognized that human sacrifice was practiced in ancient Israel much later than scholars of an earlier generation had assumed. (Collins)

"Much later?" Since when was it recognized that it was practiced at all? Yet another principle of biblical scholarship that does not seem well-advertised! I began hunting down references and had some very entertaining conversations with some of their authors on the matter. I summarized these initially to discuss the subject, and over time I have expanded it as more information became available.

To begin, one must understand that different authors were responsible for different portions of the texts of the Pentateuch [Torah--Ed.]. I will use the Documentary Hypothesis [DH--Ed.] as presented in Friedman's references. First, let me give a brief overview of the DH for those who may never have delved into this area. Friedman's second source provides a nice summary of the arguments for multi-authorship in a 31-page introduction, whilst providing the texts of the Pentateuch divided into the authors. This makes seeing how the Redactor blended the J and P versions of the Flood Myth much easier, for example. I will not get into possible layers of authorship, though it appears that the main authors represent the work of individuals rather than committees or schools. D is usually divided into two authors, and Friedman argues for the same author writing at different periods. Friedman details theories on the dates for these authors in his references.

J: is the "Jahwist" author, known for his use of YHWH for the name of the deity. He never uses Elohim, though individuals in the J stories may. Friedman demonstrates the connection between J and Judah which I will not summarize for space.

E: is the "Eloist" author, known for his use of Elohim for the name of the deity. "Elohim" is actually plural--"gods"--and while the traditions may preserve truly polytheistic conceptions, by context the name refers to at least a deity more important than the others. Just to cause confusion, E will switch to YHWH after he appears to Moses and identifies himself as such. Friedman identifies E as a Shiloh Levite priest, possibly descended from the Mosaic line, named Bob [Stop that.--Ed.]. Right, again, he devotes about a chapter to the evidence for this.

D: is the Deutronomistic author, who, according to Friedman, writes a lot of the OT--Deuteronomy-Joshua-Judges-1 & 2 Samuel-1 & 2 Kings. He has similar attitudes as E--hates Aaronid priesthood: "In his introduction and conclusion to the book of Deuteronomy, he mentioned Aaron only twice: once to say that he died, and once to say that God was mad enough to destroy him in the matter of the golden calf." Long . . . long . . . long story short, Friedman suggests he is Jeremiah or, more likely, Jeremiah's scribe Baruch.

D generally uses JE, but does quote P to reverse P. For example, the book of Jeremiah contains quotes from P. It ". . . reverses the language of the P creation story, denies that God emphasized matters of sacrifices in the day that Israel left Egypt. Jeremiah knew the Priestly laws and stories. He did not like them, but he knew them."

P: is the "Priestly" author. He uses JE and follows the stories. Indeed, he uses Elohim like E, though, according to Friedman, his style is so identifiable, he was easy to separate from E. Also, the "Elohim" stories have "doublets"--repeated material--which suggests two authors. Friedman identifies him as an Aaronid priest, or one serving their interests. P promotes Aaron and diminishes Moses:


P was written as an alternative to JE. The JE stories regularly said: "And Yahweh said unto Moses. . . ." But the author of P often made it: "And Yahweh said unto Moses and unto Aaron. . . ."

Again, Friedman goes into detail. Here is a fun one for you Creation Fans:


. . . in the twin stories of the flood . . . the J version said that Noah took seven pairs of all the clean (i.e., fit for sacrifice) animals and one pair of the unclean animals on the ark. But P just said that it was two of every kind of animal. Why? Because, in J, at the end of the story Noah offers a sacrifice. He therefore needs more than two of each of the clean animals or his sacrifice would wipe out a species. In P's perspective, however, two sheep and two cows are enough because there will be no portrayals of sacrifices until the consecration of Aaron.

R: is the "Redactor" who put together the texts. Interestingly, he does not significantly "harmonize" the stories--removing repetitions or even conflicts--and contributes little "new" material.

It is One of the Commandments! To Redeem or Not to Redeem:


Exod 22:28-29 "You shall not delay your fulfillment and your flowing.
"You shall give me the firstborn of your sons.
"You shall do this to your ox and to your sheep: Seven days it will be with its mother. On the eighth day you shall give it to me."

Exod 34:19-20 Every first issue of the womb is Mine, from all your livestock that drop a male as firstling. . . . . . . And you must redeem every first-born among your sons.

Exod 13:1-2 YHWH said to Moses, "Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." [From RSV--Ed.]

"Redemption" does not arise until Exod 13:13b: "'Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem.'"

Exod 22:28-29 is part of the Elohist or E material. Exod 13 is controversial. Friedman notes the possibility of the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian or D material. Frankly, given the "distance" between redemption and the requirement, I think it possible that Exod 13:13b is an addition. However, assigning both Exod 22:28-29 and Exod 13 to E creates a "doublet" or a repetition of material which Friedman does not explain.

Now, Exod 34:19-20 is assigned to the Yahwist/Jahwist or J material. Back to Levenson:


Though Exodus 34 and 13 show faithful YHWHists how they might--indeed, must--evade the sacrifice of their first-born sons, these texts also point up by contrast the absence of any such provision in the corpus of law in which Exod 22:28-29 appears.

"I'm Not Dead!!" "You're Not Fooling Anyone, Isaac!" Genesis 22:

The text of Genesis 22 is complicated. This story is often referred to as the aqedah/akedah or "binding." Note that in the beginning you have "God"--Elohim--then suddenly you wander into YHWH. The Redactor of J and E [RJE--Ed.]--whom scholars feel combined the texts into one--is considered responsible for the "saving" of Isaac. At least, that portion of the story is his work. Gen 22:11-16a represents this combination. Exactly which portions of 11-16a is J, E, and RJE is difficult to prove.

As Friedman describes in Who Wrote the Bible?, citing Spiegel:


As extraordinary as it may seem, it has been suggested that in the original version of this story Isaac was actually sacrificed, and that the intervening four verses were added subsequently, when the notion of human sacrifice was rejected (perhaps by the person who combined J and E). (Friedman, WWtB)

Significantly, Isaac never again appears in the E narrative.

It can drive one a little nuts trying to separate and follow the sources in your basic RSV/JPS bibles! Friedman, who made the Documentary Hypothesis accessible to those who are not scholars, finally came out with a version of the Pentateuch with the sources in different type. It is much easier to see how 22:1-10 flows right into 16b-19.

Here is how the chapter works out according to Friedman:

E: 22:1-10; 16b-19

RJE: 22:11-16a

J: 20:20-24

and how it looks, using the colors above, the RSV from BlueLetterBible (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gen&chapter=22&version=rsv&Go.x=29&Go.y=5) to save me some typing, Friedman's translation to correct some parts, and with name Elohim used by E for "god" to highlight the differences. Note also that the change from Abram to Abraham never occurs in E. It is felt that the RJE "fixes" this subsequently:

And it was after these things and Elohim tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!"

And he said, "Here am I."

He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his ass, and took his two boys with him and Isaac, his son. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place that Elohim had said to him. On the third day: and Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from a distance. And Abraham said to his boys, "Sit here with the ass; I and the boy will go over there, and we will bow, and we will come again to you." And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife.

So they went both of them together.

And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!"

And he said, "Here am I, my son."

He said, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for a burnt offering?"

Abraham said, "Elohim will provide himself the sheep for a burnt offering, my son."

So they went both of them together.

And they came to the place of which Elohim had told him, and Abraham built an altar there, and arranged the wood, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. And Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

And an angel of YHWH called to him from the skies and said, "Abraham, Abraham!"

And he said, "Here am I."

And he said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear Elohim, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."
And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and here was a ram behind, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place "YHWH Yir'eh," as is said to this day: "In YHWH's mountain it will be seen."

And an angel of YHWH called to Abraham a second time from the skies. And he said, "I swear by me--word of YHWH--that because you did this thing, and did not withhold your son, your only one, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

And Abraham returned to his boys, and they got up and went together to Beer-sheba, and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba.

Note the parallels in the E story--Elohim calls to Abraham who responds, "here I am," Abraham calls to Isaac who responds, "here I am." Also note the strange reward--because Abraham gave his only son he is rewarded with more sons. This proves strange if his son still lives. As Spiegel notes, the fact that the verb "returned" from "And Abraham returned to, . . ." is in the singular did not pass unnoticed by theologians and scholars throughout history. The search for the answers to the obvious question "where was Issac?" and explain why he disappears from the subsequent narratives, pestered theologians and scholars for centuries.

While Friedman may consider this interpretation so "extraordinary" he buries it in an endnote, Speigel demonstrates that it was not at all "extraordinary" through generations. He details appeals to the akedah amongst communities committing suicide in the face persecution as if Isaac actually died. Never is there the complaint or qualification that Isaac received a divine reprieve:


How is it then that from out of the mouths of these votaries and victims, or the relations of the slain, there did not burst forth a painful groan like to that of the saintly mother, bereft of all her sons, as she addressed herself to Father Abraham and, even to the deaf-mute heavens--You built one altar and did not sacrifice your son, but we built altars in the hundreds and thousands and did sacrifice our children on them! Yours was the trial, but ours were the performances! (Speigel)

Speigel then asks rhetorically:


Is it possible that those who did the sacrificing and those who where the sacrifices in those calamity-laden times imagined that on Mount Moriah also, at the command of his Creator, the father rose up and took his son Isaac, bound him, slew him, then burnt his victim, and the ashes thereof are still in a heap on top of the alter as stored-up merit and for the atonement of generation after generation to the end of time . . . ? (Speigel)

Speigel reviews the traditions that Isaac did indeed die and was even burned to ashes as required. In some cases, Isaac is resurrected, in others he is not. (Speigel)

Since there are no extant witnesses to the separate E and J works one cannot prove Isaac's death. However, it is very odd that the RJE suddenly prefers the J story exclusively when it deals with Isaac, discarding any comparable E material.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks in Jeremiah 19:5-6:


They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal--which I never commanded, never decreed, and which never came into My mind. Assuredly, a time is coming--declares the Lord--when this place shall not longer be called Topeth or Valley of Benihinnom ["Valley of the son of Hinnom" in RSV.--Ed.], but Valley of Slaughter.

Levenson gives the date for Jeremiah between late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE. Friedman argues strongly for the connection between the D material and Jeremiah and that the same author wrote and edited both. Day notes that the phrase "which I have not commanded"--'(a)s(h)er lo' siwwiti--is found in Deut 17:3 where, ". . . reference is made to one who 'has gone and served other gods and worshipped them or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven,which I have not commanded.'" (Day, YHWH). Friedman further speculates D is Baruch son of Neriyah. He dates the first "part" of D to before the death of Josiah in 609 BCE and the second after the Babylonian destruction and exile in 587 BCE. The relevance of that is the lateness of the texts; Jeremiah does not condemn an "ancient" practice. Levenson comments:


The threefold denial of the origin of the practice in YHWH's will . . . suggests that the prophet doth protest too much. . . . If the practitioners of child sacrifice, unlike Jeremiah, thought that YHWH did indeed ordain the rite, then we may have here some indirect evidence that the literal reading of Exod 22:28b . . . was not absurd in ancient Israel, . . . It appears, instead, that Jeremiah's attacks on child sacrifice are aimed not only at the practice itself, but also at the tradition that YHWH desires it.

It's a fair cop! Ezek 20:25-26:


I [YHWH.--Ed.], in turn, gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts--that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord.

The RSV and other translations preserve perhaps a better translation:


Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know I am the Lord.

in that they preserve the reference to immolation--"passing through fire." Day notes comparisons of the phrase translated as "passing through fire"--h'byr--with other OT passages demonstrates equivalence with "sacrifice" and ". . . confirms that h'byr applied to human beings was something terrifying. . . . . . . A more appropriate translation of h'byr b's(h) would be 'he offered up in the fire' rather than 'he passed . . . through the fire'." (Day, YHWH). Levenson cites this passage in support of the contention:


. . . that only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH. . . .

But, whereas Jeremiah vociferously denied the origin of the practice in the will of YHWH, Ezekiel affirmed it: YHWH gave Israel "laws that were not good" in order to desolate them, . . . The evil that he once willed is the law that requires sacrifice of the first-born.

Combining this with the blunt statement that YHWH did indeed ordain child sacrifice, Ezek 20:25-26 has over the centuries had most exegetes running for cover.

Friedman dates Ezekiel to the Babylonian exile. Smith cites this text to indicate, "that in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed in the name of Yahweh." (Smith, EHG). Schmidt agrees that this, ". . . indicates that YHWH gave Israel over to such a abomination, that is, if one is justified in assuming that the sacrifice of the firstborn was intimately related to, if not the same as . . . Molek sacrifice."

Isaiah 30:27-33


For the oven (topteh) has long been prepared, yea for the king (lammelek) it is made ready, its pyre made deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance; the breadth of YHWH, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it (Day, Molech).

Smith considers this the best evidence for the early practice of child sacrifice in Israel (Smith, EHG). Schmidt agrees that it ". . . clearly implicates YHWH in the child sacrifices performed at the Tophet. . . . If no such connection were intended in the use of this cult language to describe Assyria's total destruction, then one would have expected some disclaimer to that effect." Day notes that the, ". . . importance of this passage lies in the fact that it is set in a context speaking of the total destruction of the Assyrians. . . . . . . and is inconsistent with the view that merely dedication was involved." (Day, Molech). Regarding the etymology of the Hebrew topet, Day notes in both his works that scholars widely feel that it is cognate with the Aramaic tapya or "stove, fireplace, pot," the Syriac t(e)paya or "bakehouse, oven, kettle, three-legged cauldron," and the Arabic 'utfiya or "the stove." (Day, Molech, YHWH).

Daddy's Little Girl or This Lady Is for Burning Judges 11:29-40:


Then the Spirit of YHWH came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manas'seh, and passed on to Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he passed on to the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to YHWH, and said, "If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be YHWH's, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering." So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and YHWH gave them into his hand. And he smote them from Aro'er to the neighborhood of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim, with a very great slaughter. So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel. Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. And when he saw her, he rent his clothes, and said, "Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me; for I have opened my mouth to YHWH, and I cannot take back my vow." And she said to him, "My father, if you have opened your mouth to the YHWH, do to me according to what has gone forth from your mouth, now that the YHWH has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites." And she said to her father, "Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions." And he said, "Go." And he sent her away for two months; and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had made. She had never known a man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.[RSV--Ed.]

The Biblical Hebrew term for "sacrifice" or "burnt offering" is ' ôl âh (Levenson, Smith, EHG), and it "denotes an offering entirely consumed by fire." (Smith, EHG). It is the same word used in the first chapter of Leviticus (Smith, EHG). Levenson stresses:


But what is missing in this story is any indication that child sacrifice, painful to father and offspring alive, was inappropriate from God's standpoint. Quite the opposite: Jephthah's actions are intelligible only on the assumption that his daughter--he had no son--could legitimately be sacrificed as a burnt offering to YHWH. Had she not been fit to sacrifice, the vow would have been unfulfillable, as he obviously wishes were the case (v 35).

Unlike the Redacted portion of the aqedah, YHWH does not order a substitution. YHWH does not act in any fashion that would indicate he finds Jephthah promise at all offensive.

Micah 6:6-7:

Similar to the disturbing realization that child sacrifice is not inappropriate in the Jephthah story is the question asked:


"With what shall I come before YHWH, and bow myself before God [Elohim--Ed.] on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will YHWH be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"

Do Not Try to Pick Up Chicks in THIS Herem:

Collins article discusses the herem, ". . . or ban, the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction." There is a "." underneath the "h" for ye purists, indicating het. This section alone makes Collins' article worth a read. Basically, he notes that the various YHWH-ordered smiting of various Somethingorotherakites--such as 1 Sam 15:3: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy (hrm) all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Apparently he likes bunnies. . . . Anyways, the herem is not an odd practice. The Moabite Stone erected by the 9th century BCE King Mesha has him squishing "Nebo from Israel" and offering "seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, and maid-servant" to Ashtar-Chemosh. [Text of Moabite Stone is from the ANET.--Ed.]

The point Collins stresses:


The enemy is deemed worthy of being offered to God. [That refers to the argument of Niditch.--Ed.] One hopes that the Canaanites appreciated the honor. Rather than respect for human life, the practice bespeaks a totalistic attitude, which is common in armies and warfare, wherein the individual is completely subordinated to the interests of the group. Niditch is quite right, however, that the ban as sacrifice requires "a God who appreciates human sacrifice," and that those who practiced the ban "would presumably have something in common with those who believed in the efficacy of child sacrifice." (Collins)

Smith notes the Ugaritic tradition of *hrm expressed in Anat's battle in CAT 1.13 [Dietrich reference.--Ed.]:


Destroy under the ban (hrm) for two days,
Sh[ed blood (?)] for three days,
go, kill for fo[ur] days. . . ! (Smith, OBM)

Anat conducts *hrm warfare by slaying her enemies in battle, taking the captives to her home/temple, then devours them (Smith, OBM). Similar language underlies the ban of the Moabite stele and Israeli battles. Smith offers I Kings 20:24 in which when Ahab spares the life of Ben-hadad, a prophet confronts him:


Thus said the Lord: "Because you have set free the man whom I doomed [literally, the man of my herem], your life shall be forfeit for his life and your people for his people." (Smith, OBM)

The herem is not an option. Kings fighting under YHWH must devote the enemy to him. As with the Saul story, mercy towards even one captive ignites the wrath of YHWH. For those who might consider that those "devoted" to YHWH were given light cleaning duties in the Tabernacle, consider Lev 27:29: "No one devoted who is to be utterly destroyed from among men shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death." Similarly, human sacrifice does not involve anything less than the death and immolation of the victim. As Speigel stresses, understanding of Lev 1:9--"And the priest shall turn the whole into smoke on the altar as a burnt offering, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to YHWH."--drove commentary that held the entire ram substituted for Isaac in the J portion of the aqedah narrative was burned including the bones, tendons, horns and hoofs (Speigel, quoting Mishnah Zebahim 9.5 and the Talmud) in distinction to those such as Rashi and Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa who imagined portions of the ram handling such duties as providing strings for David's harp, and the horn that sounded alarm on Mt. Sinai! Commentators underwent some torturous exegetical gymnastics to "save the ram" for such stories:


There were some naturally who tried to solve this problem by assuming that before the actual offering was made, the tendons and horns fell from the ram's body and therefore never went up in smoke--or perhaps they dropped from the alter and were not put back on. (Speigel)

An even more imaginative commentator argues that YHWH "kneaded" the ashes of the horns together to recreate them! (Speigel) Worse for those who argue a less-than-crispy fate for the sacrificed is the understanding of the "talmudic Sages" that, according to Lev 1:7--"And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar and lay wood in order upon the fire"--the utterly correct Abraham must have laid Isaac on wood that was already on the altar's fire! So, in keeping with the instruction, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him," Abraham must have left Isaac on the burning wood until he reduced to ashes. (Speigel)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10560
  • Darwins +264/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2012, 11:32:17 AM »
Some gods are fully tolerant no matter how much you do or don't kiss their asses. 

Such as...?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2012, 12:18:12 PM »
Are you talking about Judges 11:30-40?  It was Jephthah's daughter that he sacrificed.

Not specifically, but yes, that is a piece of the puzzle.

I don't have the link but Doctor X wrote the essay on how Israel performed child sacrifice because it was commanded by their god.

yeah.  he did a good job with that.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline BaalServant

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
  • Darwins +8/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Praise Ba'al really hard!
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2012, 12:20:03 PM »
Such as...?

Well, the lord Ba'al.  He may cringe when people do stupidly atrocious things, but he has the respect not to intervene.  If people can't solve problems and get past things on their own, there's no sense in delaying the inevitable.

Russel's Teapot, for another example.  When's the last time anyone's ever been smote, be they Teapot praiser or not?
.   ###$$$$$$$$$$$$###
   ################
   ###  PRAISE BA'AL  ####
 #### FOR THE ALTAR ####
##### OF BA'AL!!!!!! #####
####################

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2012, 09:31:29 AM »
It seems that this version of god had a serious issue with child sacrifice and in particular the idea of burning humans....

that line was added in later, after the Hebrews/ Canaanites stopped that particular tradition. In the older version of Abe & Isaac, he kills Isaac.  Notice in the remaining version, Abe goes down the mountain and we don't hear anything about Isaac again in that tale.  And in later stories there are references to child sacrifice actually being effective.  I forget which ones, though.  the jooz were fighting someone and he sacrificed a son and as a result, won the battle.

I think it's safe to say as well, that much of the reference to the child sacrificing that the Jews most certainly practiced was probably removed from the writtings in later times--As it was finally understood that, although YHWY never actually ordered human sacrifice to the degree of it being carried out to his satisfaction--it was still a rampant detestable practice by factions of the Jews that needed hiding.

I haven't seen the Abe-Isaac version that your speaking of, but I'll certainly look it up...actually I didn't know another version existed. Learn something new every day.

The Abe & Isaac account that we currently have is a head shaker for sure and doesn't look good on YHWY, but are there any references in the OT where we actually see god directly order a child or human sacrifice that is followed through with ? I can't seem to locate them if there are...maybe I'm just missing them ?

When I think more about that verse, is it's probably a better bet to think that the Jewish god was merely upset at Judah because they, of their own volition, had sacrificed the children to another god(Moloch), which of course would rile his jealous nature ?

YHWY:....""Hey you halfwitted morons, you know I've banned human sacrifice !! but if you're going to be barbaric enough to offer children as burnt offerings, then make sure it's to me !!...just ask that dunderhead Jephthah who put his gigantic foot in his mouth !!....I was going to give the stupid fuck a victory anyways and then he goes all mindless and uses the medium of a vow to me to ensure the victory !!... Selfish retard... !! ""
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2012, 09:43:29 AM »
some stuff on human sacrificein the bible here: http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm 

caveat: I've occasionally found the "Evil bible" to have some mistakes or really really stretching the point, so buyer beware.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2012, 10:50:00 AM »
GG,

read zankuu's repost of Doctor X's explanation.  It is thorough and answers all your questions.  The only thing he's missing is the colorized version of the Binding that shows which author wrote what, according to the Documentary Hypothesis.

His essays were located at the freethought forum, but it looks like he deleted them at the beginning of this month.  He always was kind of a prick that way.

edit - it appears he deleted everything he ever wrote there.  What a dick.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 10:55:59 AM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #40 on: April 25, 2012, 08:22:57 AM »
GG,

read zankuu's repost of Doctor X's explanation.  It is thorough and answers all your questions.  The only thing he's missing is the colorized version of the Binding that shows which author wrote what, according to the Documentary Hypothesis.


Wow, just finished that post by Zan....Doc X did a thorough job on that one.

Unfortunately, it clears up a lot of this disgusting shit for me.

The more I learn about the religion I once loved--the more I hate the fucking thing.


"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2030
  • Darwins +121/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #41 on: April 25, 2012, 08:26:18 AM »
His essays were located at the freethought forum, but it looks like he deleted them at the beginning of this month.  He always was kind of a prick that way.

edit - it appears he deleted everything he ever wrote there.  What a dick.

I actually have a jump drive somewhere around here that is full of "the best of the best" posts from doc x, kcrady, hermes, you, and a slew of other members. Pretty much anything I found well written. I don't think the good doctor would be very happy about. ;)
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2012, 10:44:11 AM »
X had somewhere between 6 and 10 fantastic essays at freethought forum.  One was the one you posted.  He deleted all of them.

I have a "best of" that links to posts I like.  My mistake to use links.  I had a bunch of DTE's from ATT, which is now no more. 


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline rev45

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1202
  • Darwins +37/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Did your parents raise you to be an idiot?
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2012, 03:43:10 PM »
^I don't see why he would put so much effort into typing those great essays to take them down and not have them somewhere on the internet.  The one that Zankuu posted was one that I've referenced a few times and I think that others would too.  Maybe it's just because I got along with him, but I feel like not having his works around is a step back on teaching others about Christian history.
Here read a book.  It's free.
http://www.literatureproject.com/

Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?   Ron Patterson

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1331
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #44 on: April 25, 2012, 06:10:03 PM »
The way I understand it is that justice must also be met.  The old "eye for eye....life for life" is what justice requires.  God himself is not above this.  The Bible states that the wages of sin is death.  This is why the Bible says there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood because "the life is in the blood".  The animal sacrifices were a temporary covering as well as a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of the "Lamb of God".  They also served as reminders of the seriousness of sin.

View it as a simple equation.  Sin = Death.  Why?  Not just because God says so, but because that's just the way it is and God is telling us that.  A lot of people seem to think that God just dreamed up all these laws just because he felt like it.  This is not the case.  Just as a loving parent makes rules for their children the biblical requirements have been made known to teach us what one must do to keep on living.    Simply put one cannot live forever while doing things that will kill you. 

We don't deny the law of gravity and working with it has allowed mankind to accomplish great things.  We don't blame god when we try to defy it and suffer the consequences.  The moral laws are no different.  Perhaps mankind just doesn't fully appreciate the need for moral laws or understand their importance or consequences for breaking them.

But basically the animal sacrifices were just bandaids until the wound could be fully fixed by the sacrifice of Jesus.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #45 on: April 25, 2012, 06:41:06 PM »
The way I understand it is that justice must also be met.  The old "eye for eye....life for life" is what justice requires.  God himself is not above this.  The Bible states that the wages of sin is death.  This is why the Bible says there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood because "the life is in the blood".  The animal sacrifices were a temporary covering as well as a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of the "Lamb of God".  They also served as reminders of the seriousness of sin.

If I am guilty before I exist, then what is justice?

Quote
View it as a simple equation.  Sin = Death.  Why?  Not just because God says so, but because that's just the way it is and God is telling us that.

I hate to break it to you but "that's just the way it is" IS because god 'says so'.  A random arbiter is deciding a abstract rhetorical qualification in a manner that defies any rational meaning as to the term itself.  You are 'guilty' only because god says so, not because of anything you could have done or could be responsible for.  There are no rational logical correlations other than the arbiter itself literally making up the condition in such a way that contradicts its meaning.  It is such a specious and poorly made qualification that one is guilty or applicable to justice for both the action they take and the opposite of that action itself.  You are guilty if you take the ring or if you don't take the ring, someone just comes a long later and calls it 'justice' because they said so.

Quote
A lot of people seem to think that God just dreamed up all these laws just because he felt like it.  This is not the case.

That is very much the case.  You can't have your cake and eat it too, you first describe the situation as it literally is.. then you just plainly deny it as if were supposed to take you seriously.  I'm sorry, I have to call this idiocy out.

Quote
  Just as a loving parent makes rules for their children the biblical requirements have been made known to teach us what one must do to keep on living.    Simply put one cannot live forever while doing things that will kill you. 

The laughable part is that you can't imagine that a god could construct any other situation differently; as if a god couldn't imagine a system of teaching that doesn't preclude those being taught to suffer or even the need to be taught.  It is an omnipotent and omniscient being.

Are you saying it isn't an omniscient and omnipotent being? Otherwise, the existence of suffering is as meaningless as the biblical gods use of 'justice'.

Quote
We don't deny the law of gravity and working with it has allowed mankind to accomplish great things.  We don't blame god when we try to defy it and suffer the consequences.  The moral laws are no different.  Perhaps mankind just doesn't fully appreciate the need for moral laws or understand their importance or consequences for breaking them.

This is a false analogy.  Abstract ethical commandments have nothing to do with observed natural attributes of existence. 

How can an abstract ethical command exist in reality?

Are you saying that an omnipotent and omniscient being can make the color red real or beauty absolute?

All you've done so far is engage in a game of pleading fallacies, making excuses to account for contradictions in meaning within the biblical metaphors.  You resort to evoking rhetorical use of words that if taken literally don't reflect the meaning that they do have or cannot seriously or rationally be considered as 'real' things ( like 'beauty' being real ).
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #46 on: April 25, 2012, 07:37:24 PM »
The animal sacrifices were a temporary covering as well as a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of the "Lamb of God".  They also served as reminders of the seriousness of sin.

Okay, you've been to Sunday School but you haven't read the Bible.  The Bible does not say the sacrifices were for sin.  The OT says that Yahweh fed off the sacrifices and enjoyed the flavor.  Being a spirit he feeds off of vapors and smoke.  There's a line in the Bible that says that.  No, wait, that appears a couple places.   No, wait, it appears a few times.  Look:

Quote
GENESIS
8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

EXODUS
29:17 And thou shalt cut the ram in pieces, and wash the inwards of him, and his legs, and put them unto his pieces, and unto his head. And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt offering unto the LORD: it is a sweet savor, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

29:25 And thou shalt receive them of their hands, and burn them upon the altar for a burnt offering, for a sweet savor before the LORD: it is an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

29:41 And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savor, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

NUMBERS
1:13 But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD.

15:3 And will make an offering by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice in performing a vow, or in a freewill offering, or in your solemn feasts, to make a sweet savor unto the LORD, of the herd or of the flock:

15:7 And for a drink offering thou shalt offer the third part of an hin of wine, for a sweet savor unto the LORD.

15:13 All that are born of the country shall do these things after this manner, in offering an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD.

15:24 Then it shall be, if ought be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, for a sweet savor unto the LORD, with his meat offering, and his drink offering, according to the manner, and one kid of the goats for a sin offering.

18:17 But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savor unto the LORD.

28:2 Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, My offering, and my bread for my sacrifices made by fire, for a sweet savor unto me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in their due season.

28:5 And a tenth part of an ephah of flour for a meat offering, mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil. It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in mount Sinai for a sweet savor, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD.

28:8 And the other lamb shalt thou offer at even: as the meat offering of the morning, and as the drink offering thereof, thou shalt offer it, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD.

28:13 And a several tenth deal of flour mingled with oil for a meat offering unto one lamb; for a burnt offering of a sweet savor, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD.

28:26 Also in the day of the firstfruits, when ye bring a new meat offering unto the LORD, after your weeks be out, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work: But ye shall offer the burnt offering for a sweet savor unto the LORD; two young bullocks, one ram, seven lambs of the first year;

29:2 And ye shall offer a burnt offering for a sweet savor unto the LORD; one young bullock, one ram, and seven lambs of the first year without blemish

29:5 And one kid of the goats for a sin offering, to make an atonement for you: Beside the burnt offering of the month, and his meat offering, and the daily burnt offering, and his meat offering, and their drink offerings, according unto their manner, for a sweet savor, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD.

29:13 And ye shall offer a burnt offering, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD; thirteen young bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year; they shall be without blemish:

29:36 But ye shall offer a burnt offering, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD: one bullock, one ram, seven lambs of the first year without blemish:

LEVITICUS
1:9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD.

1:13 But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD.

2:2 And he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD:

2:12 As for the oblation of the firstfruits, ye shall offer them unto the LORD: but they shall not be burnt on the altar for a sweet savor.

3:5 And Aaron's sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is on the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD.

3:16 And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savor: all the fat is the LORD's.

4:31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savor unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

6:21 In a pan it shall be made with oil; and when it is baken, thou shalt bring it in: and the baken pieces of the meat offering shalt thou offer for a sweet savor unto the LORD.

17:6 And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savor unto the LORD.

23:13 And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savor:  and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin.

23:18 And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the LORD, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savor unto the LORD.

EZRA
6:9 And that which they have need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the appointment of the priests which are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail: That they may offer sacrifices of sweet savors unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king, and of his sons.

ILLIAD
And they sacrificed to Apollo perfect hecatombs of bulls and goats, along the shore of the barren sea; and the savor involved in smoke ascended to heaven.
Whoops! That quote from the Illiad just slipped in[1]  But the point is that Yahweh wants sacrifices because He is a typical pagan god.


Here's something funny. Jesus is supposed to be prefigured in the sacrifice of a lamb for sin and that he had be without sin as the lamb had to be without blemish.  But look:
Quote
Leviticus 4:32 And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering.
So Jesus couldn't be prefigured by this sacrifice unless he was a girl.

 1. I'm lying, but the quote is real.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 07:43:22 PM by Historicity »

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1331
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #47 on: April 25, 2012, 07:47:05 PM »
If I am guilty before I exist, then what is justice?

You're right.  It wouldn't be justice for us to just die and be dead.  The justice was the sacrifice of God's own son.  Even though we're born guilty we are freely forgiven so we're not paying the price for Adam.  We're only guilty for what we personally do.  The suffering we go through is a slightly different related topic.  I will expand if you wish.

Quote
I hate to break it to you but "that's just the way it is" IS because god 'says so'....

You really have no more proof of this than I do to the contrary.  Whichever the case, God abides by the same standards he applies to us and it's important enough to him that he sent his own son.

Quote
The laughable part is that you can't imagine that a god could construct any other situation differently; as if a god couldn't imagine a system of teaching that doesn't preclude those being taught to suffer or even the need to be taught.

I'm sure he could.  He's created the angels in the least, according to the Bible.  Things are different for them.  But the question of human suffering does tie to them.  The one called Satan raised questions of universal importance.  Human suffering has been a result of answering these questions.

Quote
This is a false analogy.  Abstract ethical commandments have nothing to do with observed natural attributes of existence.

You should not state your opinion as fact.  Why would an orderly, loving god create abstract ethical commandments?  This is not even reasonable.  It's like saying a good parent would do the same.

Quote
Are you saying it isn't an omniscient and omnipotent being?

I can neither prove nor disprove, but I think that he must at least choose not to know everything or there's no point to our free will and he sort of knowingly wastes his time pleading with us to do good.  Whichever the case, I'm saying he abides by rules and these are the same rules he has given us.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2012, 09:51:25 PM »
If I am guilty before I exist, then what is justice?

 Even though we're born guilty we are freely forgiven so we're not paying the price for Adam.  We're only guilty for what we personally do. 

This doesn't address the problem.  You're just repeating the rhetoric of the biblical situation, the biblical situation renders any meaning of 'justice' void of any rational application.

I am also not freely forgiven:

John 3:18  18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

This is compulsion under a threat of violence.  This also shows that you don't know anything about your bible, because the only 'sin' that matters is the idea of original sin, it is the very crux of why jesus is supposed to be a sacrifice.

Quote
Quote
I hate to break it to you but "that's just the way it is" IS because god 'says so'....
You really have no more proof of this than I do to the contrary.

You didn't present a contrary, and I have the bible to support my claim.  All you did was state what was already known, then flatly deny your own sentiments.

Quote
Quote
The laughable part is that you can't imagine that a god could construct any other situation differently; as if a god couldn't imagine a system of teaching that doesn't preclude those being taught to suffer or even the need to be taught.

I'm sure he could.

Then all suffering is meaningless.

Quote
Quote
This is a false analogy.  Abstract ethical commandments have nothing to do with observed natural attributes of existence.

You should not state your opinion as fact.

It is a statement of fact.

Can you demonstrate abstract ethical commands as attributed to existence?

Quote
Quote
Are you saying it isn't an omniscient and omnipotent being?

I can neither prove nor disprove,

You don't have too, it's a logical negation, it disproves the claim through logical contradictions.  It is already disproven by the submission of contradictions.

Either an omnipotent omniscient being can do something or it can't, if it can't then it is not omnipotent/omniscient.   It is black or white, either or.


Quote
but I think that he must at least choose not to know everything or there's no point to our free will and he sort of knowingly wastes his time pleading with us to do good.  Whichever the case, I'm saying he abides by rules and these are the same rules he has given us.

Then it is not a god.  It is not omnipotent and not omniscient.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2012, 09:53:24 PM »
The problem with christian apologetic answers is that it doesn't really answer anything at all, case in point is our new christian friend here.

He/she is incapable of operating outside the repetitious evocation of a series of rhetorical platitudes tied to his/her belief.  They don't even demonstrate a reasonable expectation that they even have any capacity to understand what they're talking about.  They are fundamentally not equipped to deal with any counter argument that does not first treat their own beliefs as literally true.  It just is the way it is because it is the way it is.. is literally the best they can do.

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1331
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2012, 10:19:59 PM »
The problem with christian apologetic answers is that it doesn't really answer anything at all, case in point is our new christian friend here.

He/she is incapable of operating outside the repetitious evocation of a series of rhetorical platitudes tied to his/her belief.  They don't even demonstrate a reasonable expectation that they even have any capacity to understand what they're talking about.  They are fundamentally not equipped to deal with any counter argument that does not first treat their own beliefs as literally true.  It just is the way it is because it is the way it is.. is literally the best they can do.

If one assumes God does not exist then the Bible cannot be explained and there is no longer any need for debate.   You do what you accuse me of doing.  I have simply shown that if God does exist why the Bible says he required sacrifices.   

Quote
John 3:18  18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

This is compulsion under a threat of violence.  This also shows that you don't know anything about your bible, because the only 'sin' that matters is the idea of original sin, it is the very crux of why jesus is supposed to be a sacrifice.

To love someone is not usually considered a price.  I love my wife but I don't view that as something I'm paying.  And no, the question is bigger than original sin.  It's the reasons behind the original sin.  Original sin is yet another topic.

Quote
It is a statement of fact.

Can you demonstrate abstract ethical commands as attributed to existence?

Thou shalt not murder.

Quote
Then all suffering is meaningless.

Human suffering is a topic of it's own.

Altogether there are too many topics.  If you would like to choose one then we can examine it more closely.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2012, 10:26:04 PM »
If one assumes God does not exist then the Bible cannot be explained and there is no longer any need for debate.

This is a strawman, I'm already treating your beliefs as if they are true.  I have to in order to make a  reductio ad absurdum.

Quote
  You do what you accuse me of doing.  I have simply shown that if God does exist why the Bible says he required sacrifices.

You just repeated the biblical rhetoric, that in itself isn't an explanation, because the problem IS the biblical rhetoric isn't coherent.

Quote
Quote
John 3:18  18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

This is compulsion under a threat of violence.  This also shows that you don't know anything about your bible, because the only 'sin' that matters is the idea of original sin, it is the very crux of why jesus is supposed to be a sacrifice.

To love someone is not usually considered a price.  I love my wife but I don't view that as something I'm paying.  And no, the question is bigger than original sin.  It's the reasons behind the original sin.  Original sin is yet another topic.

And how does this answer anything?  Original Sin IS the topic.

Quote
Quote
It is a statement of fact.

Can you demonstrate abstract ethical commands as attributed to existence?

Thou shalt not murder.

Obviously, people kill in self defense and the bible even justifies the murder of others in imaginary historical genocides.

This isn't an ethical command attributed to existence.

Quote
Quote
Then all suffering is meaningless.
Human suffering is a topic of it's own.


This is a red herring, suffering has been the topic from the very beginning, it's even cited in my original post.  What the hell are you even responding too!?

Quote
Altogether there are too many topics.  If you would like to choose one then we can examine it more closely.

You keep changing the subject in order to avoid what we're talking about and never address rebuttals.

How exactly are we supposed to discuss anything if you can't sincerely and honestly engage others?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2012, 10:38:12 PM »

To love someone is not usually considered a price.  I love my wife but I don't view that as something I'm paying.

It is if you don't want to love that person. The love that we are supposed to have for god is forced or coerced. We are not to love god because he is good or kind, or because we feel he is deserving of our love. We are to love god because he will punish us if we don't. And if we give him this love throughout our lives, he will give us a paradise once we die.

So we are being asked to perform an act/provide something in exchange for something else that will be given to us once we are finished. And if we do not we will not be given that something and have to suffer the consequences.

By any definition a price is clearly being paid. Yours is not really a loving relationship with a god. He is simply giving you what you want in return for your display of love and obedience. It's a business arrangement. Metaphysical prostitution.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2012, 10:48:06 PM »
To love someone is not usually considered a price.  I love my wife but I don't view that as something I'm paying.  And no, the question is bigger than original sin.  It's the reasons behind the original sin.  Original sin is yet another topic.

Do you understand the difference between a gift and extortion?  An invisible pink unicorn explains...
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=7016.msg159058#msg159058

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1331
  • Darwins +21/-97
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2012, 10:54:02 PM »
You just repeated the biblical rhetoric, that in itself isn't an explanation, because the problem IS the biblical rhetoric isn't coherent.

Or course it is from the Bible.  I have not talked to God myself or witnessed most of these events.  Why the Bible.  Because I do not see a pr oven alternative for one.

Quote
Obviously, people kill in self defense and the bible even justifies the murder of others in imaginary historical genocides.

Killing in self defense is not murder.  But it does even further demonstrate the need for following the commandment.  The latter, carrying out God's judgements is also not murder.

Murder:  "crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defence or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law"

http://www.Bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+murder&Pvt=definition+of+murder&FORM=DTPDIA

I don't think you are as educated as you like to sound.

Quote
The love that we are supposed to have for god is forced or coerced. We are not to love god because he is good or kind, or because we feel he is deserving of our love. We are to love god because he will punish us if we don't.

No one would love God simply because of threat of punishment.  But the fact is that people do love him, even if he doesn't exist.  In fact the Bible shows that God IS worthy of our love.  The entire theme of the Bible is the vindication of God's name and his sovereignty.

I would just like to ask how many posters in this topic have read the Bible.  And how many have read it without a presumption that God does not exist?

« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 10:55:54 PM by Jstwebbrowsing »
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11990
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #55 on: April 25, 2012, 11:05:52 PM »
I would just like to ask how many posters in this topic have read the Bible.  And how many have read it without a presumption that God does not exist?

Most of us have read it.  Most of us were at one point in our lives religious.

For myself, I've read most of the bible, though not all of it. That was what ultimately made me leave xianity.  When I read genesis for the first time, I could hardly believe anyone took any of it seriously.  It was shocking.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #56 on: April 25, 2012, 11:25:43 PM »
No one would love God simply because of threat of punishment.

Then why include the threat? Why base the entire foundation of his religion on such a threat?

But the fact is that people do love him, even if he doesn't exist. 

If he doesn't really exist then no, they don't love him. They love the idea of him. They love the idea of the god that they picture in their minds.

In fact the Bible shows that God IS worthy of our love.  The entire theme of the Bible is the vindication of God's name and his sovereignty.

Then why does he need to command it? Why does he need to base salvation solely on whether a person loves him, if he's already worthy of that love without the threat?

If he was actually worthy of being loved he would not need to threaten or command it. In fact the very fact that he does command love would seem to be a very strong indicator that indeed he isn't worthy of it.

Throughout the bible we do not see one action that god does out of what seems to be genuine feelings of love. The many miracles and healings that Jesus does are done as a means of convincing people to follow his words. They're bribes. Where in the bible does god demonstrate even the slightest bit of worth?

I would just like to ask how many posters in this topic have read the Bible.

Most probably.

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline learnin

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
  • Darwins +7/-0
Re: Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?
« Reply #57 on: April 25, 2012, 11:50:53 PM »

To love someone is not usually considered a price.  I love my wife but I don't view that as something I'm paying.

It is if you don't want to love that person. The love that we are supposed to have for god is forced or coerced. We are not to love god because he is good or kind, or because we feel he is deserving of our love. We are to love god because he will punish us if we don't. And if we give him this love throughout our lives, he will give us a paradise once we die.


Not only are we to love god, as you say, because he will punish us if we don't, we are supposed to love god with "our whole heart, whole mind and whole soul"!!

Would someone please tell me how in the hell a human being can love anything with it's whole mind?   I love my wife.  But, if I love my children, doesn't that take part of my mind from my wife?????