Yes thanks for that; I am trying to find the stories I saw (possibly first on https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology) about some early inscriptions to Yahweh in the Sinai region suggesting a link with smithing as well.
Christianity is a grotesque blight!
- Thread starter Leumas
- Start date
Yes thanks for that; I am trying to find the stories I saw (possibly first on https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology) about some early inscriptions to Yahweh in the Sinai region suggesting a link with smithing as well.
Thread needs a cleanout to deal with the many breaches of the Membership Agreement especially rule 12 and 11. Rather than closing it until the clean-up is done I'm placing it on [Moderated] status.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Darat
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology...w-theory/0000017f-dc86-d3ff-a7ff-fda6aa390000
also
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology...-judaism/0000017f-f0a3-df98-a5ff-f3affe360000
Cherem is distinct from sacrifice in my opinion. One key difference I would say is that sacrifices usually involve sacrificing something of value to yourself.
How does genocidewhile conquering Nebo by an Egyptian Pharaoh as cherem have anything at all that might negate 2 Samuel 21 being a proof of YHWH causing misery and demanding human sacrifice to stop doing it and getting appeased by the human sacrifice when Israelite David handed over 7 Israelite boys to his slaves to make a human sacrifice of to YHWH so as to stop the famine YHWH was wreaking and he accepted the sacrifice and stopped the blight???
Aren't 7 Israelite grandchildren of Saul the Israelite king valuable to Israelites???
Aren't the family of Israelite Achan and his daughters and sons valuable to Israelites???
How does the genocide in Nebo by an Egyptian Pharaoh have any resemblance or relevance to Joshua 7 where an entire Israelite family was burned as a human sacrifice to YHWH at the commands of YHWH in order to appease YHWH so that he would remove a CURSE that YHWH put on the Israelites and stopped aiding and leading war crimes???
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
No.
The "via" part is your invention.
The "sacrifice" part is your invention.
It was revenge. Plain and simple.
Your claims are FALSE.
QED.
Where does it say the people executed in 2 Samuel were boys? They were of the generation following David's (of whom David was on the younger side, being the 7th or 8th son of Jesse), and David was already elderly in the latter years of his reign toward the end of 2 Samuel.
Sure the passage describes the individuals killed as "sons of" other people, but, well, that's true of all males, at least by the definition of "male" that applied in those benighted ancient times.
Does calling them "7 boys" just make it sound more sacrificial?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Also, in such ancient times, and indeed in not nearly as ancient times, it has in places been a known practice to wipe out entire families in punishment for various transgressions of a single individual, or to ensure that sons did not grow up to revenge their father.
Anyway after all that has been said, I still struggle to understand exactly what it is Leumas wants to prove here. All that is in evidence is that someone wrote about an incident where some people were killed, and then the author claims that this influenced the actions of the preferred god at the time.
We cannot know if the whole incident is historical or fictional, and in particular the interaction from the god is obviously entirely unevidenced and must be assumed fictional.
Hans
If the idea is to say that there are passages in the bible which condone, or promote human sacrifice, then I'd probably agree. But there are also passages in the Old Testament which condemn it. And as has been said before, promotion of genocidal atrocities to please whichever Cananite deity one is thinking of, does look different to what is usually considered to be a human sacrifice
Tassman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,248
ALL gods demand a human sacrifice - including the Christian one. It's what gods do.
That's pretty simplistic.
I'm not sure that Aphrodite, or Osiris demanded human sacrifice, for example or indeed many Greek deities, which often had animal sacrifices.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I think that (and likely the whole argument here) hinges on how you define a sacrifice. You can always say on one hand that gods, in general at least, demand nasty things, usually including the murder of their opponents and bloody deeds of one sort or another. YHWH is notorious for this. If you decide that demanding, requesting, rewarding or encouraging such things is sacrifice, then the argument makes itself. In fact, it so makes itself that chapter and verse citations are unnecessary ornament. Everybody knows that the OT god as portrayed in the Bible is nasty and bloodthirsty.
If, however, you define sacrifice as a ceremonial event, in which certain specified things are done in specified ways, as the ritual sacrifices of the Old Testament are described, then the argument falls apart.
I would suggest, for example, that if God tells you to raid a city and murder everyone that pisseth against a wall, and expresses his pleasure in the result, that is not a sacrifice if, at any time thereafter, the same God still demands a ritual sacrifice. If, after genocidally wiping out the population of a city, the same God says "now you need to go burn a goat on the altar," he has effectively separated the massacre from the sacrifice.
It doesn't make old YHWH any better. From any viewpoint other than that of his chosen people, it makes him worse. But it does not make the two things the same either.
So according to your above definition Jesus' farcical melodrama was not a sacrifice either... just another execution of an imbecilic pathetic cultist.
I wonder how many Christians would agree with you there? I'll bet that they will go through all sorts of mental contortions and wily twists of language in order to REDFEINE English words their own way so as to make Jesus' pointless melodrama still be a sacrifice but also at the same time carry on absolving his deadbeat sky daddy of being a human sacrifice loving, demanding and accepting monster.
If you look at post #56 (in response to your previous attempt at redefining the English term) and post #59 and post #74 and post #80 and post #101 you will see the correct definition of the phrase human sacrifice.
Yes of course... if one redefines anything every which way but the correct way, then conveniently and fallaciously and sophistically, nothing is ever the same.
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Etymology of sacrifice (n.)
The word 'sacrificium' as used by Christians predates the English language by several hundred years, and its meaning hasn't changed significantly since then.
Not the same thing.
Jesus didn't offer up a human sacrifice, he gave up his own life so that others no longer had to give up things dear to them in order to atone for their sins. And it worked too. 'Jesus died for your sins' was a huge draw-card for the Christian church.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,130
I'm sure that's how the Roman governor of Judaea saw it. And given that Jeshua ben Joseph probably thought that he was going to lead a revolution, expel the Romans and take the throne of David, he was likely right.
Maybe you should go find some Christians to argue with?
Bruto isn't redefining anything. He's simply pointing out that there are various interpretations. But you clearly aren't Interested in having a discussion. You never say, "here's what I think - what do you think?". All your threads start with a proclamation from on high, and then declarations that everyone but you is wrong. Hell, even if people don't disagree with something you say, you still treat them as though they do. Any actually interesting discussion arising from your threads rarely, if ever, seems to involve you.
Great... start a thread about that and let's discuss it...
This thread is about HUMAN SACRIFICE... and how YHWH demanded and commanded and accepted and was appeased by it...
AND... more specifically about 2 Samuel 21 and Joshua 7 as irrefragable proof for that.
Last edited:
Which is as it should be irrespective of how many times you try to make it so.
The topic of the discussion is not me as you seem to be yet again for the umpteenth time trying to make it...
The topic of this OP is
And any person who can read the above... can clearly see that it arrantly belies the ad hominem below...
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I know it's rather pointless, especially since we're dealing here with the often contradictory actions of fictional characters, but the issue of Jesus can be seen in more than one way.
I think most Christians, and certainly many vociferous and sign-toting ones, refer to John 3:16 as a statement that God is the giver, not the taker, of whatever sacrifice occurred. It's supposed to be a massive guilt trip for us, not himself. The question of whether the human manifestation of God is even properly a human being is rather cloudy, especially if we presume, as the Bible does, that the very conception and birth of Jesus, as well as that of his mother, was a carefully planned act by God himself. If you hold with the trinity, you could end up with God sacrificing himself to himself.
Of course the whole story is difficult if you assume God to be omniscient or even a competent judge of what's going on, since the whole point of it is that humanity is given a chance to get behind Jesus and blows it, which an omniscient god, or even one with a head for statistics, would have predicted, which makes the whole story a foregone conclusion and an unnecessary complication. A gigantic, "now see what you made me do." In that sense, I suppose you could say he did sacrifice himself to himself, being as he is a master of self-indulgent psychodrama.
Of course if you want to go with hard predestination, you'll have to conclude that God engineers everything, and that would mean that indeed, he both gave and took Jesus, tossed him into the world like a boomerang, knowing all along what would happen, but perhaps just enjoying it as one might a well rehearsed dance.
I think most Christians, and certainly many vociferous and sign-toting ones, refer to John 3:16 as a statement that God is the giver, not the taker, of whatever sacrifice occurred. It's supposed to be a massive guilt trip for us, not himself. The question of whether the human manifestation of God is even properly a human being is rather cloudy, especially if we presume, as the Bible does, that the very conception and birth of Jesus, as well as that of his mother, was a carefully planned act by God himself. If you hold with the trinity, you could end up with God sacrificing himself to himself.
Of course the whole story is difficult if you assume God to be omniscient or even a competent judge of what's going on, since the whole point of it is that humanity is given a chance to get behind Jesus and blows it, which an omniscient god, or even one with a head for statistics, would have predicted, which makes the whole story a foregone conclusion and an unnecessary complication. A gigantic, "now see what you made me do." In that sense, I suppose you could say he did sacrifice himself to himself, being as he is a master of self-indulgent psychodrama.
Of course if you want to go with hard predestination, you'll have to conclude that God engineers everything, and that would mean that indeed, he both gave and took Jesus, tossed him into the world like a boomerang, knowing all along what would happen, but perhaps just enjoying it as one might a well rehearsed dance.
Last edited:
Yes... much like what Jesus' deadbeat sky daddy did in 2 Samuel 21 ... and in Joshua 7...
YHWH engineered a CURSE ... and told the leaders how to remove the curse by giving him human sacrifice... which he accepted and by which he was appeased and consequently removed the curse.
I suggest you read this carefully.... and which I posted in post #56 (in response to your previous attempt at redefining the English term) and post #59 and post #74 and post #80 and post #101 and which is the correct definition of the phrase human sacrifice.
ETA: I also suggest you read this post and this one too.
Last edited:
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,130
There is no discussion. Not with you, anyway.