A Bible question!!

[Kidlicious]

The Bible specifically instructs to kill disobedient children. The OT God targets children specifically to kill.

I'm not saying the Bible isn't contradictory, if that's the problem. Clearly, it is. Practically schizo, in fact. That's what you get from a book compiled from hundreds of different authors over thousands of years.

There's no problem at all. The Bible says you shouldn't kill your children and it also says disobedience is very serious sin. You just aren't understanding it, cause you don't want to.

[Boris Godunov]

The OT simply says that the entire period was one where the Israelites, Jepthah included, abandoned God.

No, it's a period wherein they abandon god, and then the "judges" bring them back to god, only to have the people fall away again:

The Book of Judges (Hebrew: Sefer Shoftim ספר שופטים) is the seventh book of the Hebrew bible and the Christian Old Testament. Its title describes its contents: it contains the history of Biblical judges, divinely inspired prophets whose direct knowledge of Yahweh allows them to act as decision-makers for the Israelites, as military deliverers from oppression for foreign rulers, and models of the proper behaviour required of them by their god, Yahweh following the exodus from Egypt and conquest of Canaan.^[1] The events of Judges takes place "between c. 1380 [B.C.E.] and the rise of Saul, c. 1050."^[2] The stories follow a consistent pattern: the people are unfaithful to Yahweh and he therefore delivers them into the hands of their enemies; the people then repent and entreat Yahweh for mercy, which he sends in the form of a judge; the judge delivers the Israelites from oppression, but after a while they fall into unfaithfulness again and the cycle is repeated.^[3]

What did Jepthah himself receive? He destroyed the Ammonites, yet was slaughtered when he returned. Hardly was he blessed by God for his actions. Instead he was ultimately destroyed. Was he a man of faith? Yes. That doesn't absolve him of what he did do, which is why, and why, he is listed in the passage.

He got to rule Israel for six years, go on to defeat another invasion and is listed in the NT as "Man of Faith" without any condemnation whatsoever of his actions. If you consider that being "ultimately destroyed," you've got a very low threshhold. Where is he "destroyed?" You're just assuming he somehow was without Biblical support.

You on the other hand are arguing that Child sacrifice is ok in abortion, and the bible sanctions it.

I'm arguing that the Bible clearly sanctions killing children in several circumstances, and does not ever condemn abortion explicitly. So the notion that the Bible is clear about it is just not true.

No, the moral of the passage is not to swear rash oaths.

Then why does the Holy Spirit prompt Jepthah to make the oath in the first place? That's what it clearly says--the "Spirit of the Lord" came upon him and inspired him to make the vow.

Defeating the Ammonites? Hello?

That's not why he's praised. He's praised because he fulfilled his vow to the lord, despite the personal cost. This absolutely in line with the story of Abraham, who is praised for his *willingness* to kill his own child for god, even if his hand was stayed and Jepthah's was not. Note that had Jepthah not fulfilled his vow, he would likely have been punished much worse. The Bible is full of examples of how mercilessly people are treated if they don't do exactly what god tells them (including not committing atrocities god commands).

And no, Jepthah's daughter was not the "only possible" sacrifice he could have made. Why would he have then made it? He wasn't retarded, presumably. Given his status, he likely expected it to be a servant/slave. Which of course begs the question of just why sacrificing a slave would be any better. At any rate, as mentioned above, Jepthah made his vow while the "Spirit of the Lord" was upon him. Did God do what he did to the likes of pharaoh, use mind control to make someone do something rash just to prove a point to others?

Not just a guidebook. It's a historical account of times which we have no other account. Does it instruct people how to live their lives? Yes. It's quite a few other things as well. Where does the bible say that Jepthah did right in sacrificing his daughter? You are arguing from silence here.

Presenting a story in which someone does something horrifically evil to fulfill a vow to a deity who, throughout that story and others, has actively intervened, and failing to show any judgment from that deity while going on to praise him later as a man of faith is pretty indicative that he's not condemned for it. You can squirm and weasel all you want, but the simple fact is that nowhere does the Bible condemn Jepthah for his killing his daughter, and it's strongly suggested that he's praised for fulfilling his vow at great personal cost.

[Boris Godunov]

Boris,
That passage doesn't say that he was filled with the Holy Spirit when he made the deal with God. It sayys that he was when he won the battles before that. The thing you aren't getting is when you are filled with the Holy Spirit you forget your own will to do God's will. Jepthath was driven by his own will that was his sin.

That's a stretch. Nowhere does it mention any "battles before that." The only battle mentioned is the one against Ammonites, and he makes the vow before then. I don't buy that the Holy Spirit was needed just to move his armies into enemy territory.

You guys are just making stuff up to try and get around this.

[Boris Godunov]

There's no problem at all. The Bible says you shouldn't kill your children and it also says disobedience is very serious sin. You just aren't understanding it, cause you don't want to.

That doesn't resolve the problem. Either killing children is wrong or it isn't. Disobedience doesn't justify killing them, unless you're a monster.

[Boris Godunov]

Rights exist like gravity does, they do not exist because people recognise them, they exist simply because they have always existed.

If this were true, then god would be held to the same standards as everyone else, because "rights" and "morals" and such would be immutable. Clearly, as you yourself have argued in the past, that is not the case, as the Biblical god violates his own rules on a regular basis.

[Boris Godunov]

They only "know good and evil" because they disobeyed God. It's not the evil. That's the cosequence. It's one thing for God to know evil, it's something else for humans.

This is contradictory. If A&E didn't "know good and evil" prior to disobeying god, then how could they know that disobeying god was wrong? God plops them down without giving them ability to tell right from wrong and in their midst places a tree with an easily-obtainable fruit that will provide them with the very knowledge god doesn't want them to have. Then he tells them not to touch it. When they do--because they can't tell right from wrong--he punished them.

This is like me putting an open can of tuna on the table, telling the cat not to touch it and then stepping out for a few hours, only to return and find (shock!) that the cat's eaten the tuna. Would it make sense for me to punish the cat and kick it out of the house?

[Kidlicious]

That's a stretch. Nowhere does it mention any "battles before that." The only battle mentioned is the one against Ammonites, and he makes the vow before then. I don't buy that the Holy Spirit was needed just to move his armies into enemy territory.

You guys are just making stuff up to try and get around this.

What it means is that Jepthah was doing God's will until He tried to make a deal with God. At that point he was driven by his own will. Being filled with the Spirit simply means doing God's will.

[Boris Godunov]

Which is fine, but I'm asking a different question. Why do you believe child sacrifice is wrong?

What does this have to do with what I said? You're trying to make this an examination of where I get my morals from, but that wasn't the point. The point was that if someone won't condemn a being for doing something that in any other circumstance they'd consider evil, then they have no grounds by which to proclaim the being morally good, either. Either we can morally judge this being or we cannot. It makes zero sense to morally judge it when it does good things but abrogate that moral judgment when it does something evil.

[Kidlicious]

This is contradictory. If A&E didn't "know good and evil" prior to disobeying god, then how could they know that disobeying god was wrong? God plops them down without giving them ability to tell right from wrong and in their midst places a tree with an easily-obtainable fruit that will provide them with the very knowledge god doesn't want them to have. Then he tells them not to touch it. When they do--because they can't tell right from wrong--he punished them.

This is like me putting an open can of tuna on the table, telling the cat not to touch it and then stepping out for a few hours, only to return and find (shock!) that the cat's eaten the tuna. Would it make sense for me to punish the cat and kick it out of the house?

Cat's don't have free will so they can't sin.

And as already said, there is irony in the story. That's what the phrase "know good and evil is for."

[Kidlicious]

That doesn't resolve the problem. Either killing children is wrong or it isn't. Disobedience doesn't justify killing them, unless you're a monster.

OF COURSE it's wrong to kill your kids! Everyone knows that. You do realize that there are many exagerations in the Bible don't you?

[Boris Godunov]

What it means is that Jepthah was doing God's will until He tried to make a deal with God. At that point he was driven by his own will. Being filled with the Spirit simply means doing God's will.

Jepthah wasn't bargaining, as far as I can tell. He'd been acting in according to god's will up until this point, after all. It was an oath to demonstrate his faithfulness and loyalty--he'd sacrifice something precious to please god to demonstrate his thanks for the victory. That's not the same as making a quid pro quo deal.

If Jepthah was so keen on bargaining with god, you'd think he'd try to bargain his way out of the sacrifice when it became apparent he'd have to kill his kid.

[Boris Godunov]

Cat's don't have free will so they can't sin.

And as already said, there is irony in the story. That's what the phrase "know good and evil is for."

Cat's don't have free will? How do you know this?

And if A&E didn't know good from evil, then they didn't have free will, either. Part of free will means having the tools to make choices. If they can't differentiate good from bad, "free will" as it relates to committing good or bad acts does not exist.

[Boris Godunov]

OF COURSE it's wrong to kill your kids! Everyone knows that. You do realize that there are many exagerations in the Bible don't you?

So the laws that say to kill disobedient children are "exaggerations?" The descriptions of god ordering children slaughtered and of him directly killing them are "exaggerations?"

Well, at least you've proven to me that you don't really rely on the Bible for your morality. Yes, it's wrong to kill children, despite what the Bible tells you. Now if only you'd actually admit to yourself that you don't get your morality from a book or god, but rather you invent a view of those things based on your moral views, you'd be making progress.

[Kidlicious]

Jepthah wasn't bargaining, as far as I can tell. He'd been acting in according to god's will up until this point, after all. It was an oath to demonstrate his faithfulness and loyalty--he'd sacrifice something precious to please god to demonstrate his thanks for the victory. That's not the same as making a quid pro quo deal.

If Jepthah was so keen on bargaining with god, you'd think he'd try to bargain his way out of the sacrifice when it became apparent he'd have to kill his kid.

The point is to learn something. Not, of course, to sacrifice people. Christians understand this, but you don't seem to. That's why you don't get that Jepthah was bargaining. You don't really think we are suppose to learn to kill do you?

[Kidlicious]

Cat's don't have free will? How do you know this?

And if A&E didn't know good from evil, then they didn't have free will, either. Part of free will means having the tools to make choices. If they can't differentiate good from bad, "free will" as it relates to committing good or bad acts does not exist.

You must not get what I said. Yes tthey already had free will. That's logical. But the purpose of the story is to teach that man's sin is wanting to be something other than what he is.