Nope... post #39 had multiple errors disproven by FACTS... as pointed out in post #40.
Christianity is a grotesque blight!
- Thread starter Leumas
- Start date
Nope... post #39 had multiple errors disproven by FACTS... as pointed out in post #40.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,123
In this context, "Ok" is clearly an acknowledgement that you would answer the question in the affirmative, followed by a question as to what you think this leads to. Do you think you're going to prove to a largely atheist audience that the fictional character of YHWH is a dick? In short, what is your god-damning point?
You clearly desire to lead people around by the nose in what you imagine to be a sort of Socratic dialog in which they're always trapped into agreeing with your points. Perhaps if you stopped condescending to your audience that way and demanding that they follow a script that only you have, and started offering your opinions and actually paying attention to the opinions of others, you might succeed in starting a thread in which people would be interested in having a genuine discussion with you.
Yes... but the OP pointed out 9... and contended that there are plenty of apologetics for 7 of them which are often mentioned.
And the OP pointed out 2 of the 9 as not being mentioned often and that there are so far no coherent or correct apologetics for either, and invited a discussion about them trying to see if anyone can offer any coherent and correct apologetics.
He did... many more... as pointed out in the OP.
So... then... do you agree that YHWH is a human sacrifice demanding and accepting deity??
Not the point of the discussion of the OP.... the point of the OP is to invite a discussion about 2 Samuel 21 and Joshua 7 trying to see if anyone can offer any coherent and correct apologetics as to why they are not
a clinching proof that YHWH is a deity who causes calamities then demands human sacrifice to abate these calamities, and accepts the human sacrifice and gets appeased by the human sacrifice and then abates the calamities he wreaked in order to have an excuse to demand the human sacrifice from the desperate people he is torturing.
Although....
Is not quite correct.... symbolic (Consubstantiation)... and some argue actual (Transubstantiation ).... human sacrifice of the Zombified human sacrificed ill begotten son of this same YHWH, numerous times by scads of people in all but countless churches throughout the globe.
Last edited:
Post #40 pointed out how YOUR opinions were factually wrong by using citations from the Buybull and from facts about the religions you did not even know worshiped YHWH as their GOD.
Last edited:
Not the point of the OP.... the point of the OP is
Saying the Buybull is a load of claptrap and just made up stuff... IS TRUE... but not really the discussion being invited by the OP.
You did a good attempt for 2 Samuel 21 in post #27.... and I responded to that in post #36 where I also invited input regarding Joshua 7.... which post #31 is not even starting to do any.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Post 31 addresses both passages. The key is understanding the difference between a human sacrifice to a deity, and depicting the preferences of a deity as the moral basis for a system of laws and capital punishments. The former has been rare in Eurasian history; the latter has been very common. Narratives such as your selected passages, that involve the commission and punishment of crimes, are clearly illustrative of the latter.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
I don't get my opinions from holy books.
Still, if ever you want a constructive debate, I'll try to continue. Otherwise, don't bother.
Hans
Ok... let's have a look...
Well... the Buybull is clear on both points... The Torah has the Laws which are depicting the preferences of YHWH as the moral basis for a system of laws and capital punishments.... they are called the Mosaic Laws (Mitzvot) and there are 613 of them
Many of the Mitzvot demand BLOOD Sacrifice of animals with all the gruesome accompanying RITUALS of slaughtering and gutting and burning to cinders.
In addition there are Mitzvot for sacrificing one's own children to YHWH as mentioned in the OP.... that have nothing to do with crimes.
No it has not....
No they are not.... crime punishment in the buybull is for the person who commits the crime.
2 Samuel 21 had the slaughter of 7 boys to appease YHWH and have him stop causing a famine which he then accepted and was appeased to stop the famine.
No crime was done by the 7 children....
This was a Human Sacrifice....
Joshua 7 had an entire family of a guy slaughtered AND BURNED as human sacrifice to appease YHWH in order to stop sulking and refraining from aiding and abetting in the conduct of war crimes he commanded and was earlier participating in their conduct... and his sulking caused the death of numerous war criminals.
You may argue that in this case there was a crime committed by Achan... but the war criminals who died while YHWH was sulking had nothing to do with this one guy's "crime".
Much less did the innocent women and children and animals and possessions and items and tents which were stoned to death AND THEN BURNED to cinders... as YHWH commanded and received and accepted and was appeased by and consequently resumed carrying out war crimes afterwards.
Also... there are very clear Mitzvot in the Buybull regarding the burial of the bodies of dead people EVEN EXECUTED criminals.... that is burial... not BURNING to cinders ala ritual sacrifice.
.
So your opinions about texts is never based upon having actually read the texts???
How can you constructively debate about the content of texts that you have not read???
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Yes... but the OP pointed out 9... and contended that there are plenty of apologetics for 7 of them which are often mentioned.
And the OP pointed out 2 of the 9 as not being mentioned often and that there are so far no coherent or correct apologetics for either, and invited a discussion about them trying to see if anyone can offer any coherent and correct apologetics.
He did... many more... as pointed out in the OP.
So... then... do you agree that YHWH is a human sacrifice demanding and accepting deity??
Sure, so what? Yahweh as presented in the bible is a massive dick for a huge number of reasons. What's your point?
Who exactly are you expecting to argue with you on this and why is it important?
That's not human sacrifice. He's already dead, if anything it's cannibalism. That's not the same thing.
Great... so you agree with the OP fully and you have no further things to add in regards to the OP's thesis.
All the other "questions" you posed are utterly immaterial and irrelevant to the OP's thesis witch you agree with and have no other input upon.
Thanks... QED!!!
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
You seem unwilling to accept the usual order of things. A human sacrifice is a kind of sacrifice. Whatever defines a human sacrifice is included in whatever defines a sacrifice. The general contains the particular. The particular does not contain the general.
We could argue all day about how various things are finely divided and defined. I believe that, in the context of the Bible stories, not all murders and genocides would be considered sacrifices, even if requested by a god and even if the completion of the act makes that god happy.
You can disagree if you want, and I'm not going to bother to argue the point further. I think it a minor quibble, really. I think the god of the Bible is a thoroughgoing rotter, murderous and bloodthirsty, but that his taste for the blood of Israel's enemies would not fall under the category of sacrifice as it was practiced by his followers, whose acts of sacrifice consisted of things that they valued, their livestock (and perhaps once their comarades), {e.t.a. and I seem to recall spices and the like too,} not the enemies they slew, nor the malefactors among them that they slew, even though the despicable monster god is said to have ordered the bloodshed and been happy when it was done.
If you want to count that as sacrifice, fine. Dead is dead. I think my view of the Biblical god may be a little darker than yours, as I consider him to have micromanaged aggression and excused genocide beyond the usual bounds of religious ceremony and beyond his apparent taste for the smoke of sacrificial altars.
Last edited:
I am glad I noticed that bit in between the heaps of fallacies in the above...
So... pray tell... how exactly is this Context!!! relevant or even expository or at all exegetical in regards to the thesis of the OP???
I am quite intrigued because I may have missed something about sycophantic charlatans in the employment of brigands sitting in the halls of palaces writing perfidy and myths to fabricate for their employer brigand some amusing rationalizing fairy tales based on other fairy tales and fables.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
It's not even that.
And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
It's obviously a metaphor. Subsequent attempts to equate the bread with the actual presence of Jesus are clearly wrong, otherwise he would not have said 'do this in remembrance of me'.
Some Christians get it right. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the bread symbolizes Jesus Christ's body which he gave on behalf of mankind, and that the wine symbolizes his blood which redeems from sin.
Now that that's out of the way, we can put to bed the idea that YHWH demands and loves human sacrifice. Jesus could easily have ripped of parts of his flesh and and drained some of his blood into a cup, but he didn't. Instead he have them bread and wine. That's the opposite of demanding and loving human sacrifice.
Even his own 'sacrifice' on the cross was only temporary. 3 days later he was back with only a few body piercings to show for it. Millions of people around the World enjoy body piercings, yet nobody is accused of human sacrifice for it.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong and metaphors don't exist. Hot dogs are actual dogs, angel's hair is actual hair from an angel, and a spotted dick really is...
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Most protestants consider the eucharist symbolic only. One can, of course, argue till the cows come home about who is right, and what is what, and what constitutes a sacrifice to whom. As far as I know, the only major churches that stick with transubstantiation are the Catholic and Orthodox. Some protestant churches use grape juice instead of wine, and plain old bread instead of custom made wafers. If it's symbolic it doesn't matter exactly what it's made of.
In the case of communion, even if you believe the literal nonsense, the death of Jesus would not be man sacrificing to God, but if you can bend the definition of sacrifice enough it would be the opposite. For the Romans and their collaborators it was just an execution, no god-pleasing intended. But if you accept the resurrection it's hard to see it as much of a sacrifice since the game was fixed from the start.
In the case of communion, even if you believe the literal nonsense, the death of Jesus would not be man sacrificing to God, but if you can bend the definition of sacrifice enough it would be the opposite. For the Romans and their collaborators it was just an execution, no god-pleasing intended. But if you accept the resurrection it's hard to see it as much of a sacrifice since the game was fixed from the start.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
So your opinions about texts is never based upon having actually read the texts???
How can you constructively debate about the content of texts that you have not read???
I hope you are not a smoker, because there would be a serious risk of all your strawmen catching fire *)
This is very dishonest debating style: Where do you get the idea that I haven't read it? If I have to explain the difference between "having an opinion about a text" and "getting an opinion from a text" to you, then I'm out of here.
Hans
*) Ya, I know, I didn't invent that one.
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
The people of Jesus' time knew the earth was round, and a reasonably accurate idea of its circumference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
On the story of Satan showing Jesus the kingdoms of the earth from a high mountain, Origen (writing in the Third Century CE) wrote that this was allegorical:
Origen De Principiis Book IV
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm
On the story of Satan showing Jesus the kingdoms of the earth from a high mountain, Origen (writing in the Third Century CE) wrote that this was allegorical:
Origen De Principiis Book IV
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm
Last edited:
Yes, blood sacrifices of animals are prescribed and described. I eat meat, so I can hardly object to anyone else slaughtering animals for their own purposes (as long as the methods are not unnecessarily cruel). Gutting is necessary after slaughter if the animal is to be eaten. What is done to an animal's body after it's dead is of little emotional import to me. Or a human's either, provided it's not done to cause suffering or distress to other humans. Ever heard of cremation?
As I mentioned, it's possible that such passages are vestiges of earlier practices that did include human sacrifice. But what you have excerpted is not strong evidence. It is obvious that the Hebrews at the time of the writing of the books of the Old Testament did not sacrifice all their first born children to YHWH, so they apparently disagreed with you about what their own book actually meant.
(Actually, if you're bent on taking that passage absolutely literally, you have nothing to worry about, because children, first-born and otherwise, are born to daughters, not sons.)
Yes, it was rare. That all the known examples can be described in a few paragraphs confirms that; thank you. Compared to death by capital punishment or warfare, your average time traveler has little to fear from human sacrifice.
Not so. Your own examples as well as other passages show otherwise. The family, household, and in some cases the entire nation shares the guilt and the punishment. We're not talking about medieval ideas of justice here (let alone modern day), but among tribal societies millennia earlier. Not that it was unanimously agreed or constant over the whole time period: Ezekiel appears to have disagreed with Exodus, for instance.
Ask a few billion Christians whether Jesus died for their sins, or just for his own.
Last edited: