Christianity is a grotesque blight!

[Leumas]

Yes, blood sacrifices of animals are prescribed and described......

Your post boils down to ...

if one thinks the Buybull is a load of ... well... bull.... then YHWH is not a human sacrifice demanding and accepting myth... but just a nasty myth.​

Fine... partially (see below) true.... but... unfortunately this has nothing to do with the OP's thesis and does not even begin to approach a rebuttal for the below from a believer in the Buybull as... well.... NOT bull....

...
However... there are verses [2 Samuel 21 and Joshua 7] that I never see any polemicists use...

I think the following verses are impossible to refute as an airtight clinching case for YHWH being a demander and accepter and enjoyer of human blood sacrifice.

...

I am, nevertheless, intrigued what agnostics and secular-theists and even atheists might be able to concoct in rebuttal to these verses being an impossible to thwart proof that YHWH is a blood sacrifice demander and accepter and enjoyer.

Note: Even if one believes YHWH is a sordid myth... it still stands that this grotesque myth is also a demander and accepter and enjoyer of human blood sacrifice as depicted in the fairy tales of the myth and as definitively and irrefragably proven in 2 Samuel 21 and Joshua 7.



.

 

[sackett]

The OP uses the tactic of seeming to reify YWHW as if to offend religious people. Well fine, nothing wrong with once again striking the cracked bell of the Old Testament to stir up literal believers. They don't deserve a quiet life.

But the OP insists on ranting on about Yehuōwao (Robert Graves's notion of "the unspeakable name of God") as if such a thing really exists. The rhetorical trick of personifying a supernatural being is useless with unbelievers, and (pardon me for observing) tiresome as hell.

Those texts that make up the OT are of value as evidences of beliefs in Semitic antiquity. So are inscriptions, potsherds, and surviving clay documents. Winkling knowledge out of such objects is endlessly fascinating. And if you crave contention, argument, fierce debate, just tune in to any congress of biblical archeologists and epigraphers. Them parchment wranglers can be mighty sudden men!

But here? I must join other posters in posing a serious question:

WTAF?

 

[Thermal]

The OP uses the tactic of seeming to reify YWHW as if to offend religious people. Well fine, nothing wrong with once again striking the cracked bell of the Old Testament to stir up literal believers. They don't deserve a quiet life.

But the OP insists on ranting on about Yehuōwao (Robert Graves's notion of "the unspeakable name of God") as if such a thing really exists. The rhetorical trick of personifying a supernatural being is useless with unbelievers, and (pardon me for observing) tiresome as hell.

Those texts that make up the OT are of value as evidences of beliefs in Semitic antiquity. So are inscriptions, potsherds, and surviving clay documents. Winkling knowledge out of such objects is endlessly fascinating. And if you crave contention, argument, fierce debate, just tune in to any congress of biblical archeologists and epigraphers. Them parchment wranglers can be mighty sudden men!

But here? I must join other posters in posing a serious question:

WTAF?

The YHWH thing is pretty inexplicable on its own. It's substituting roman letters for old Hebrew characters, like a kid with a super spy decoder ring. That's not how languages and/or translating works.

 

[Myriad]

Fine... partially (see below) true.... but... unfortunately this has nothing to do with the OP's thesis and does not even begin to approach a rebuttal for the below from a believer in the Buybull as... well.... NOT bull....

Well, sure. If you disregard my rebuttal then there is no rebuttal (for you, at least; other readers can still plainly see it). Doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence that the executions described in your selected passages, or executions for crimes in general, in that historical milieu, were conducted or regarded as human sacrifices to YHWH.

Those Mitzvots you mentioned make it clear. If you want to offer blood sacrifice to YHWH, you cut your victim's throat and put the requisite parts on a properly consecrated altar (pending taking them off again and eating them yourself, in most cases). Also, you'd better have the requisite lineage and personal sanctifications. YHWH may have created your species but that doesn't mean he wants to hear from you, especially if you're an Amalekite. In any case, miscellaneous killings don't qualify.

 

[Leumas]

Well, sure. If you disregard my rebuttal then there is no rebuttal (for you, at least; other readers can still plainly see it). Doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence that the executions described in your selected passages, or executions for crimes in general, in that historical milieu, were conducted or regarded as human sacrifices to YHWH.

The 7 boys hung on a mountain top before YHWH did not commit any crime... and neither did the wives and children and animals and objects of Achan.

Those innocent people who did not commit any crime were killed to appease YHWH in order to stop doing harm he was wreaking on the people... i.e. Human Sacrifice.

And as I said earlier... in Judaism burning a dead person... even an executed criminal... is not legal... and the family of Achan was burned after they were stoned to death.

I suggest you read this carefully....

Human Sacrifice,

the offering of the life of a human being to a deity.

The occurrence of human sacrifice can usually be related to the recognition of human blood as the sacred life force. Bloodless forms of killing, however, such as strangulation and drowning, have been used in some cultures. The killing of a human being, or the substitution of an animal for a person, has often been part of an attempt to commune with a god and to participate in divine life. Human life, as the most valuable material for sacrifice, has also been offered in an attempt at expiation.

 

[Leumas]

They are fictional. Nobody knows who the writers were, only that they have been dead for thousands of years

Utterly immaterial and irrelevant to the OP.

it is totally immaterial what their meaning was.

Not if you want to discuss the OP.

What might be important is how modern believers interpret them.

Exactly.... and since you are not one... and as is clearly evident from this post, you do not know what these believers believe.... then I suggest you research it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Utterly immaterial and irrelevant to the OP.




Not if you want to discuss the OP.

So you say that the fact that the writers are ancient, unknown, and nameless is irrelevant, but you want to discuss their motives anyway?

Exactly.... and since you are not one... and as is clearly evident from this post, you do not know what these believers believe.... then I suggest you research it.

I don't have to be a believer to have a fair idea about what people in my culture tend to believe.

Hans

 

[jimbob]

Well, sure. If you disregard my rebuttal then there is no rebuttal (for you, at least; other readers can still plainly see it). Doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence that the executions described in your selected passages, or executions for crimes in general, in that historical milieu, were conducted or regarded as human sacrifices to YHWH.

Those Mitzvots you mentioned make it clear. If you want to offer blood sacrifice to YHWH, you cut your victim's throat and put the requisite parts on a properly consecrated altar (pending taking them off again and eating them yourself, in most cases). Also, you'd better have the requisite lineage and personal sanctifications. YHWH may have created your species but that doesn't mean he wants to hear from you, especially if you're an Amalekite. In any case, miscellaneous killings don't qualify.

What if you define sacrifice as any killing that the LORD wants?

 

[Myriad]

What if you define sacrifice as any killing that the LORD wants?

Then according to the Old Testament, absolutely every single human death is a sacrifice, as a consequence of the Fall if for no other reason. (Which makes the term pretty meaningless.)

ETA: Of course you can extend the meaning of "sacrifice" in less comprehensive ways; for instance, "...commands..." instead of "...wants..." in the above. But it runs into problems. YHWH commands a military offensive; are all the soldiers killed on both sides human sacrifices? Was the world's entire population (less a few) human sacrifices in the Flood? We decide to subsidize rooftop solar panels. A few dozen workers a year die in mishaps installing them. Are they human sacrifices? To what, or whom?

 

[Leumas]

So you say that the fact that the writers are ancient, unknown, and nameless is irrelevant, but you want to discuss their motives anyway?

No I do not want to discuss their motives... had you read the OP you would have known what I want to discuss since it is clearly and arrantly stated in the OP.

Strawman Fallacy...

I don't have to be a believer to have a fair idea about what people in my culture tend to believe.

So you have... in your culture... discussed 2 Samuel 21 and Joshua 7 with all sectssssssssssss and cultsssssssssssssssss of christianity and all sectssssssssss of Judaism and all sectssss of Mormonism and and and???

Hasty Generalization fallacy

And that is in addition to demonstrating very clearly that you do not as evinced in this post.

 

[Leumas]

What if you define sacrifice as any killing that the LORD wants?

Then according to the Old Testament, absolutely every single human death is a sacrifice, as a consequence of the Fall if for no other reason. (Which makes the term pretty meaningless.)

The term is defined in the Buybull itself

• Leviticus 18:21 You shall not offer any of your children to Molech. You shall not profane the name of your God. I am YHWH.
  
• Leviticus 27:28-29 But no devoted thing that a man devotes to YHWH, of anything that he has, whether man or beast, or of his inherited field, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy to YHWH. No one devoted, who is to be devoted for destruction from mankind, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.
  
• Judges 11:31 Then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be YHWH's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

Moreover... I suggest you read this carefully....

Human Sacrifice,

the offering of the life of a human being to a deity.

The occurrence of human sacrifice can usually be related to the recognition of human blood as the sacred life force. Bloodless forms of killing, however, such as strangulation and drowning, have been used in some cultures. The killing of a human being, or the substitution of an animal for a person, has often been part of an attempt to commune with a god and to participate in divine life. Human life, as the most valuable material for sacrifice, has also been offered in an attempt at expiation.

 

[Oystein]

...
I think the following verses are impossible to refute as an airtight clinching case for YHWH being a demander and accepter and enjoyer of human blood sacrifice.

That is not to say that some shrewd apologists have not tried and failed... and are always bound to fail because those verses unlike the ones mentioned earlier are not at all possible to repulse by any sane or rational or factual apologetics... nor even by chicanery and shenanigans... regardless of the splendidness of the mental gymnastics and dexterity of the sleight of pen and nimbleness of the linguistic legerdemain even the most seasoned of apologists could muster.

I am, nevertheless, intrigued what agnostics and secular-theists and even atheists might be able to concoct in rebuttal to these verses being an impossible to thwart proof that YHWH is a blood sacrifice demander and accepter and enjoyer.

1. In these verses... YHWH COMMANDED and received human sacrifice in order to abate a famine he caused. In the story, David sacrificed 7 grandsons of Saul to YHWH... and then YHWH was pleased and ended the famine he caused.
   
   • 2 Samuel 21:1-14... And there was a famine in the days of David three years.... And YHWH said: 'It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites.'... the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore unto Saul... and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul... and they hanged them in the mountain before YHWH, and they fell all seven together; and they were put to death in the days of harvest... And after that God was entreated for the land.
   ...

There are a few important verses that you are leaving out here, and never mention anywhere else in this present thread:

3*David asked the Gibeonites, ‘What shall I do for you? How shall I make atonement so that you will bless the Lord’s inheritance?’ 4*The Gibeonites answered him, ‘We have no right to demand silver or gold from Saul or his family, nor do we have the right to put anyone in Israel to death.’ ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ David asked. 5*They answered the king, ‘As for the man who destroyed us and plotted against us so that we have been decimated and have no place anywhere in Israel, 6*let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and their bodies exposed before the Lord at Gibeah of Saul – the Lord’s chosen one.’ So the king said, ‘I will give them to you.’

https://www.bibleserver.com/NIV/2 Samuel21

So, there it is, staring you into the face:

It was NOT the deity that demanded the men to be killed, but mere humans - the leaders of the Gibeonites. The purpose was simple, old-fashioned revenge, to satisfy the Gibeonites.
The deity merely stood by. It appears, from verse 2, that the Israelites had "sworn", i.e. made a promise to the deity, to not kill the Gibeonites, then Saul broke the promise and killed them anyway, which presumably pissed the deity off somewhat, for she seemingly had taken a liking to the Gibeonites.

Obviously, the deity was satisfied with the revenge when and because the Gibeonites were satisfied. It seems to me that the Gibeonites could ave asked for 100 shekels and an annual party with all the beer they could drink in their honor for seven years and be satisfied with that, and then the deity would have been satisfied as well.
Nothing in the story suggests that the deity made the Gibeonites demand revenge killings. Nothing in the story suggests that the deity enjoyed the revenge killings (it was the Gibeonites idea to expose them to the deity, not hers. Perhaps she found this slightly nauseating, but was too polite to cause a ruckus over it?)

 

[Leumas]

There are a few important verses that you are leaving out here, and never mention anywhere else in this present thread:


https://www.bibleserver.com/NIV/2 Samuel21

So, there it is, staring you into the face:

It was NOT the deity that demanded the men to be killed, but mere humans - the leaders of the Gibeonites. The purpose was simple, old-fashioned revenge, to satisfy the Gibeonites.
The deity merely stood by. It appears, from verse 2, that the Israelites had "sworn", i.e. made a promise to the deity, to not kill the Gibeonites, then Saul broke the promise and killed them anyway, which presumably pissed the deity off somewhat, for she seemingly had taken a liking to the Gibeonites.

Obviously, the deity was satisfied with the revenge when and because the Gibeonites were satisfied. It seems to me that the Gibeonites could ave asked for 100 shekels and an annual party with all the beer they could drink in their honor for seven years and be satisfied with that, and then the deity would have been satisfied as well.
Nothing in the story suggests that the deity made the Gibeonites demand revenge killings. Nothing in the story suggests that the deity enjoyed the revenge killings (it was the Gibeonites idea to expose them to the deity, not hers. Perhaps she found this slightly nauseating, but was too polite to cause a ruckus over it?)

No. They were killed to avenge Gibeonites who had been previously killed by Saul and his men, depsite a promise not to.
The deity picked the Gibeonites side in this case and put a litte pressure on David to appease the Gibeonites, but she did not call for the killings, she merely went along with being satisfied when the Gibeonites were satisfied... i.e. Revenge, as it were. Conceivably the Gibeonites might have chosen instead a monetary fine, or David writing on the blackboard 100 times "I shall not murder any more Gibeonites", and be satisfied with that.

Wonderful... thanks for this...

• What about Joshua 7
• I am going to wait before I respond to your wonderful rebuttal (which I have rebutted many times before in other places) to see if any ATHEISTS here might have a rebuttal to your rebuttal.
• I will wait for 12 hours to give as many atheists time to respond to your rebuttal as possible... then I will give mine.

Thanks for a great input... although to me it is not novel... but it is a good one nevertheless... despite failing to be a correct rebuttal.... let's see if anyone can spot the problems.

 

[Oystein]

...
Those innocent people who did not commit any crime were killed to appease YHWH in order to stop doing harm he was wreaking on the people... i.e. Human Sacrifice...

No. They were killed to avenge Gibeonites who had been previously killed by Saul and his men, depsite a promise not to.
The deity picked the Gibeonites side in this case and put a litte pressure on David to appease the Gibeonites, but she did not call for the killings, she merely went along with being satisfied when the Gibeonites were satisfied... i.e. Revenge, as it were. Conceivably the Gibeonites might have chosen instead a monetary fine, or David writing on the blackboard 100 times "I shall not murder any more Gibeonites", and be satisfied with that.

 

[Oystein]

Wonderful... thanks for this...

• What about Joshua 7
• I am going to wait before I respond to your wonderful rebuttal (which I have rebutted many times before in other places) to see if any ATHEISTS here might have a rebuttal to your rebuttal.
• I will wait for 12 hours to give as many atheists time to respond to your rebuttal as possible... then I will give mine.

Thanks for a great input... although to me it is not novel... but it is a good one nevertheless... despite failing to be a correct rebuttal.... let's see if anyone can spot the problems.

Not going to fall for your whataboutism.
You can rebut my argument now, or admit humbly, now, that this story in 2 Sam is NOT part of "an airtight clinching case for YHWH being a demander and accepter and enjoyer of human blood sacrifice" that is "impossible to refute".

 

[Leumas]

Not going to fall for your whataboutism.
You can rebut my argument now, or admit humbly, now, that this story in 2 Sam is NOT part of "an airtight clinching case for YHWH being a demander and accepter and enjoyer of human blood sacrifice" that is "impossible to refute".

You have read the OP... so you know that Joshua 7 is part of the airtight clinching case for YHWH being a demander and accepter and enjoyer of human blood sacrifice that is impossible to refute.

And so you know that it is not whataboutism since it is what the OP is about in the first place.

And I will give my argument to your often given casuistic for 2 Samuel 21 when I decide to do so... not when you command it.

And as I said... I will do it in 12 hours... in the meantime if there are any atheists here then let them point out the glaring errors in your input.

I do not want to influence anyone... let's see how many of the numerous atheists on this forum can see the errors in the good attempt you did... albeit a common one I have seen many times before.

And part of my interest in seeing what other atheists might respond is also to see if my response is obvious or not.... which is interesting to know.

Now... you as an atheist... can YOU see the problems in your input??



.

 

[Oystein]

...

• Joshua 7:1-26... for Achan, the son of Carmi,... took of the devoted thing; and the anger of YHWH was kindled against the children of Israel.... And YHWH said unto Joshua... there is a curse in the midst of thee, O Israel... take away the accursed thing from among you... And Joshua... took Achan... and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had... And all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire, and stoned them with stones....and YHWH turned from the fierceness of His anger...

[/LIST]

This is straightforward: The killings were the penalty for a transgression against a law put down by the deity.
https://www.bibleserver.com/NIV/Joshua7

Bibleserver puts a note on the first occurrence of "devoted things" (which Achan had stolen out of pure, selfish greed) in verse 1 that says: "The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them; also in verses 11, 12, 13 and 15."

So, Achan had stolen something from the deity, and that apparently is something that pissed her off royally. Since the deity is the sovereign giver of all laws, and since the Israelites at this point had not yet esteblished a constituted state, and instead were still on a long path towards constitutional institutions, with the deity interfering ad hoc in day-to-day affairs of governance and military command, it is not unreasonable to assume that she would also make up new punishments for specific new infringements on the spot.
Culturally, it was not unheard of for particularly nasty cases of mortal sins to be avenged by punshing not only the perpetrator but also his kin. "Sippenhaft".

So, punishment it is, not sacrifice.

You see, a true sacrifice that pleases the deity typically would involve something rather perfect - a first-born, a virgin, a particularly innocent victim (think Jesus himself!) - not a vile sinner.

You argue elsewhere that burning people was forbidden in Israel, but again, with the most sovereign legislative power present, any rule can be suspended, changed, amended any time. I don't see the problem.

Again, I cannot see anywhere in this chapter that the deity "enjoyed" the killing.

You claim that the deity abates some negative sanction (such as bad luck in a military campaign) as a result of having enjoyed a human sacrifice, but I read the story quite differently; That the point is to eliminate people who are not 100% committed to obedience to the deity. She is satisfied when disobedience has disappeared, not when dead flesh has appeared, or the smoke of burning dead flesh.
Much the same way that American conservatives like to see murderers executed, not to enjoy the dead body, but to know as a certain fact that a murderer no longer dwells amongst their society.

 

[Oystein]

You have read the OP... so you know that Joshua 7 is part of the airtight clinching case for YHWH being a demander and accepter and enjoyer of human blood sacrifice that is impossible to refute....

But Joshua 7 does not do that job on its own, nor does it fix any of the shortcomings of your claims made about 2 Sam 21.

So now we simply have 2 instead of only 1 bad example that don't actually support your claims, let alone in an "airtight clinching case".

I expect your repeated invocations, even incantantions of "But what about...???" - but 2 up, 2 refuted really have diminished greately my confidence that you might be onto something!
You see, I usually expect that people would start with their best cases and arguments.
When I then fail that their first / best case and argument fails, and then their second best fails, too, well, I start to think that I really have no time to also waste on your #3, #4, #5, and whatabout #s 7 to 23?

Now... you as an atheist... can YOU see the problems in your input??

That is your job to attempt.
My being an atheist does not factor into my argument at all. You present us with a text, I read it, and point out the important verses and context you (I suspect: deliberately) left out; and how a straightforward reading justifies doubts in your tall claims.

I notice that you chose not to rebut my first input, and instead doubled down on Joshua 7, which (as expected) also failed.

Good night.

 

[Leumas]

This is straightforward: The killings were the penalty for a transgression against a law put down by the deity.
https://www.bibleserver.com/NIV/Joshua7

Bibleserver puts a note on the first occurrence of "devoted things" (which Achan had stolen out of pure, selfish greed) in verse 1 that says: "The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them; also in verses 11, 12, 13 and 15."

So, Achan had stolen something from the deity, and that apparently is something that pissed her off royally. Since the deity is the sovereign giver of all laws, and since the Israelites at this point had not yet esteblished a constituted state, and instead were still on a long path towards constitutional institutions, with the deity interfering ad hoc in day-to-day affairs of governance and military command, it is not unreasonable to assume that she would also make up new punishments for specific new infringements on the spot.
Culturally, it was not unheard of for particularly nasty cases of mortal sins to be avenged by punshing not only the perpetrator but also his kin. "Sippenhaft".

So, punishment it is, not sacrifice.

You see, a true sacrifice that pleases the deity typically would involve something rather perfect - a first-born, a virgin, a particularly innocent victim (think Jesus himself!) - not a vile sinner.

You argue elsewhere that burning people was forbidden in Israel, but again, with the most sovereign legislative power present, any rule can be suspended, changed, amended any time. I don't see the problem.

Again, I cannot see anywhere in this chapter that the deity "enjoyed" the killing.

You claim that the deity abates some negative sanction (such as bad luck in a military campaign) as a result of having enjoyed a human sacrifice, but I read the story quite differently; That the point is to eliminate people who are not 100% committed to obedience to the deity. She is satisfied when disobedience has disappeared, not when dead flesh has appeared, or the smoke of burning dead flesh.
Much the same way that American conservatives like to see murderers executed, not to enjoy the dead body, but to know as a certain fact that a murderer no longer dwells amongst their society.

But Joshua 7 does not do that job on its own, nor does it fix any of the shortcomings of your claims made about 2 Sam 21.

So now we simply have 2 instead of only 1 bad example that don't actually support your claims, let alone in an "airtight clinching case".

I expect your repeated invocations, even incantantions of "But what about...???" - but 2 up, 2 refuted really have diminished greately my confidence that you might be onto something!
You see, I usually expect that people would start with their best cases and arguments.
When I then fail that their first / best case and argument fails, and then their second best fails, too, well, I start to think that I really have no time to also waste on your #3, #4, #5, and whatabout #s 7 to 23?


That is your job to attempt.
My being an atheist does not factor into my argument at all. You present us with a text, I read it, and point out the important verses and context you (I suspect: deliberately) left out; and how a straightforward reading justifies doubts in your tall claims.

I notice that you chose not to rebut my first input, and instead doubled down on Joshua 7, which (as expected) also failed.

Good night.

Great.... wonderful....

Now... that you have done that... can you as an Atheist see the problems with your inputs???

In other words as a fellow atheist, can you anticipate my rebuttal to your inputs???

Or can any of the numerous atheists here see the glaring problems in the inputs hailed as riving my OP???

I will wait 12 hours to see how many atheists will be able to spot the gaping problems in the above inputs failing to rebut either 2 Samuel 21 or Joshua 7.



.

 

[zooterkin]

Why should atheists, sorry, ATHEISTS, care one way or the other what’s written in any religious book?