A Bible question!!

[Boris Godunov]

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?

As I've said repeatedly, the point is to learn that one must always fulfill promises made to god, no matter how terrible they are. Even if the vows--as everyone here seems to agree--is a rash and wrong one. This is entirely consistent with the rest of the OT, which makes the point over and over to fulfill promises made to god. That's the entire point of the book of Judges--the people of Israel continually failed to live up to the bargains with god (the covenants are bargains, so clearly bargains with god aren't frowned upon in toto), and the judges bring the people back into the fold, only to eventually fall off again. In terms of the theme of Judges, the interpretation that the story of Jepthah is told to show a man who demonstrates the ultimate loyalty to god is consistent. Claiming it's meant as an example of someone doing something horrific that the OT god would have condemned? Not so much. Again, why is it the SPIRIT OF THE LORD came upon Jepthah to help him in war, but was silent when it came to him killing his kid? The only logical explanation as to its silence is that it approved the sacrifice (whether or not it approved of the oath) because it was a fulfillment of an oath, which is what it considered more important.

Here's the question as pertinent to this entire argument: If you'd been god in this instance, would you or would you not have intervened to stop Jepthah killing his daughter? Keeping in mind you'd just intervened on his behalf earlier...

Hell, you don't even have to imagine being god. If you'd been a bystander, wouldn't you have done anything possible to stop it?

[Boris Godunov]

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.

No, they didn't have free will, as I pointed out. You can't have free will if you can't tell right from wrong, period. The story is quite clear they didn't have this ability. If you're saying the story isn't literal and all symbolic, well I'd agree with that. The evidence is abundant for that, in fact.

[Kidlicious]

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.

All I've said is that you don't understand the Bible.

[BeBMan]

Rights can exist if there are people coming up with them, yes, but only in the sense that the space elevator exists now; people have imagined both, they're good ideas, but they remain unimplemented and so unreal. They can win power as ideas--but only in the way any other idea can. This is not to deny the power of ideas, but I think it's crucial to remember that they're just ideas.

"You know what would be cool? If we had the right to speak our minds without getting thumbscrewed!" "You know what else would be cool? Mint chocolate chip ice cream!" "You're right! Let's invent both!" (it's a quirk of history that the ice cream type, while far easier to generate, became available to the masses far later than freedom of speech--except in China)

HeHe

But I don't think ideas themselves are less real when their "content" is not put into practice /smartass

I agree (of course) insofar that until the idea of right x is practically implemented people certainly cannot enjoy any practical benefits right x is supposed to give them. So you may say right x does not practically exist at this point. However, that is not so much a prob of the idea (or the same prob with all ideas/thoughts).

And yeah, some dictatorguy may have the power to deny or violate rights, to redefine laws etc. But IMO it proves first and foremost only that he has *that* power. It does not mean that his POV is any more "right" in a normative sense. It does not automatically produce legitimacy for his stuff. If it would, dictatorships never would have to worry about opposition. If you hold competing views/ideas etc about how things should be run you usually don't start to think suddenly that the dictator's view is cool just because he has the power to declare whateverbadthing legal and torture/kill dissenters.

Since a good part of history was driven by the fight for rights people hadn't before I'd say those ideas are important, even when they're "just" ideas atm: the availability of them made these fight(s) possible. If you say then "right x doesn't exist since the dictator doesn't grant it" or "I think we all have right x, but that dictatorguy is constantly violating/denying it" becomes rather a matter of perspective IMO.

/end babble

[Boris Godunov]

All I've said is that you don't understand the Bible.

Nobody can, if we can't rely on direct readings of the text and instead interpolate things that aren't written, as you do. You invent an understanding based on your preconceived notions and what you want it to say. That's why there are so many different sects of Christianity, after all, and no one can lay claim to authority.

[Kidlicious]

As I've said repeatedly, the point is to learn that one must always fulfill promises made to god, no matter how terrible they are. Even if the vows--as everyone here seems to agree--is a rash and wrong one. This is entirely consistent with the rest of the OT, which makes the point over and over to fulfill promises made to god. That's the entire point of the book of Judges--the people of Israel continually failed to live up to the bargains with god (the covenants are bargains, so clearly bargains with god aren't frowned upon in toto), and the judges bring the people back into the fold, only to eventually fall off again. In terms of the theme of Judges, the interpretation that the story of Jepthah is told to show a man who demonstrates the ultimate loyalty to god is consistent. Claiming it's meant as an example of someone doing something horrific that the OT god would have condemned? Not so much. Again, why is it the SPIRIT OF THE LORD came upon Jepthah to help him in war, but was silent when it came to him killing his kid? The only logical explanation as to its silence is that it approved the sacrifice (whether or not it approved of the oath) because it was a fulfillment of an oath, which is what it considered more important.

Here's the question as pertinent to this entire argument: If you'd been god in this instance, would you or would you not have intervened to stop Jepthah killing his daughter? Keeping in mind you'd just intervened on his behalf earlier...

Hell, you don't even have to imagine being god. If you'd been a bystander, wouldn't you have done anything possible to stop it?

Yes it is important to keep your promises to keep you promises to God. That's another lesson.

Are you familiar with the Lord's ptayer? That's how Christians are suppose to pray. Jepthah certainly was not filled with the Spirit when he prayed. You can tell by how he prayed.

[Kidlicious]

Nobody can, if we can't rely on direct readings of the text and instead interpolate things that aren't written, as you do. You invent an understanding based on your preconceived notions and what you want it to say. That's why there are so many different sects of Christianity, after all, and no one can lay claim to authority.

Are you unfamiliar with dialectics? There is a 4ifferent way to convey meaning than by direct communication. A better way.

[Kidlicious]

No, they didn't have free will, as I pointed out. You can't have free will if you can't tell right from wrong, period. The story is quite clear they didn't have this ability. If you're saying the story isn't literal and all symbolic, well I'd agree with that. The evidence is abundant for that, in fact.

Well God told them not to eat from the tree. You wouldn't bother to tell the cat not to eat the tuna because the cat doesn't have a choice. It has instcnts. But Adam must have had free will already.

[Boris Godunov]

Yes it is important to keep your promises to keep you promises to God. That's another lesson.

Are you familiar with the Lord's ptayer? That's how Christians are suppose to pray. Jepthah certainly was not filled with the Spirit when he prayed. You can tell by how he prayed.

Nothing said here addresses the points made or answered the questions posed. Try again.

Are you unfamiliar with dialectics? There is a 4ifferent way to convey meaning than by direct communication. A better way.

You think that there are better ways to communicate meaning than directly stating what one means? Wow.

I'm all for symbolic story telling to communicate meaning in a more interesting way, sure. But to suggest that it's superior to present an ambiguous tale that can be interpreted many different ways rather than to just flat-out state the meaning clearly so no one could mistake it is ludicrous.

Well God told them not to eat from the tree. You wouldn't bother to tell the cat not to eat the tuna because the cat doesn't have a choice. It has instcnts. But Adam must have had free will already.

You're just repeating nonsense instead of responding to what I said. No, Adam did *not* have free will. You cannot have free will if you can't tell good from evil. That god told them to do something doesn't matter if they didn't know that disobeying him was evil. They were just like the cat: they had no means of knowing that what they were doing was wrong, because the big g-man didn't give them the capacity to do so.

[MrFun]

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?

You call laws merely exaggerations?

I think the law against theft is an exaggeration - so I'm not going to follow that law. I'm going to go to a store, and steal bags of gummie worms.

[Kidlicious]

Nothing said here addresses the points made or answered the questions posed. Try again.



You think that there are better ways to communicate meaning than directly stating what one means? Wow.

I'm all for symbolic story telling to communicate meaning in a more interesting way, sure. But to suggest that it's superior to present an ambiguous tale that can be interpreted many different ways rather than to just flat-out state the meaning clearly so no one could mistake it is ludicrous.

It's both interesting and understandable for those who love and obey God. Yes people interpret the Bible differently, but for the most part those differences aren't important. They actually make things interesting.

You're just repeating nonsense instead of responding to what I said. No, Adam did *not* have free will. You cannot have free will if you can't tell good from evil. That god told them to do something doesn't matter if they didn't know that disobeying him was evil. They were just like the cat: they had no means of knowing that what they were doing was wrong, because the big g-man didn't give them the capacity to do so.

I think we are defining free will two different ways. Free will doesn't mean that you know the difference between good and evil. It means that you have control of your own beliefs. For example, if you made a decision to believe that God's word was truth, you could make yourself believe that. Animals and AI don't have that power.

[Kidlicious]

You call laws merely exaggerations?

I think the law against theft is an exaggeration - so I'm not going to follow that law. I'm going to go to a store, and steal bags of gummie worms.

Have you ever heard of "the spirit of the law?" You see, direct communication has limitations.

[Elok]

HeHe

But I don't think ideas themselves are less real when their "content" is not put into practice /smartass

I agree (of course) insofar that until the idea of right x is practically implemented people certainly cannot enjoy any practical benefits right x is supposed to give them. So you may say right x does not practically exist at this point. However, that is not so much a prob of the idea (or the same prob with all ideas/thoughts).

And yeah, some dictatorguy may have the power to deny or violate rights, to redefine laws etc. But IMO it proves first and foremost only that he has *that* power. It does not mean that his POV is any more "right" in a normative sense. It does not automatically produce legitimacy for his stuff. If it would, dictatorships never would have to worry about opposition. If you hold competing views/ideas etc about how things should be run you usually don't start to think suddenly that the dictator's view is cool just because he has the power to declare whateverbadthing legal and torture/kill dissenters.

Since a good part of history was driven by the fight for rights people hadn't before I'd say those ideas are important, even when they're "just" ideas atm: the availability of them made these fight(s) possible. If you say then "right x doesn't exist since the dictator doesn't grant it" or "I think we all have right x, but that dictatorguy is constantly violating/denying it" becomes rather a matter of perspective IMO.

/end babble

Oh, this is undoubtedly a matter of perspective. I'm just stuck asking in what sense a right exists, except as a generally-agreed set of things we have that other people shouldn't be allowed to touch. The Enlightenment view, which started the present discussion, seems to posit them as somehow having independent existence. "All men are granted certain rights by their creator, among which are life, liberty, and mint chocolate chip ice cream." It made sense then. But that notion of rights is a product of its time; I don't believe my creator wants me to kill or enslave or whatever, but that's morals, not rights, and the two are, as I said, distinct. The whole language of rights is something of a reverse of the traditional Judeo-Christian perspective, which emphasizes individual duties instead. And as for folks who don't believe there's a creator at all, what does that mean to them? In America at least, we're taught to basically worship those words (Newt Gingrich has integrated it into his wackadoo theology of American exceptionalism), but how many people really believe them?

Of course, this all ties into our weird American relationship with the Founding Fathers...but that's a whole other issue.

EDIT: In case it isn't obvious, I was kind of thinking out loud here. I apologize for the incoherence.

[Ben Kenobi]

What does this have to do with what I said?

Everything.

You're trying to make this an examination of where I get my morals from, but that wasn't the point.

It might not be your point, but it is mine.

The point was that if someone won't condemn a being for doing something that in any other circumstance they'd consider evil,

But you don't believe in God, so why do you believe that you are right and he is wrong? That's my point. You are saying two things. God is evil because he believes in child sacrfice, and two that child sacrifice is wrong.

Both presuppositions must be true in order to prove your case. I am challenging the second one. How do you know that child sacrifice is wrong?

My entire argument is this: you have God's moral laws written on your heart. You simply refuse to acknowledge that this is so. This is why I'm amused to hearing you say that God himself believes X and is evil, because you are using God to attack God.

It makes zero sense to morally judge it when it does good things but abrogate that moral judgment when it does something evil.

Which is why you evade the question.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

The actual passage in Hebrews includes people like SAMSON, who was also ultimately destroyed. I don't see how Hebrews is backing you up by comparing two tragic figures like Samson and Jepthah. Reinforces my point that Hebrews is making it clear that God forgives us despite our sins and the evil that we committ.

You on the other hand are arguing that Child sacrifice is ok in abortion

Again, where have I said Child sacrifice is ok? I have not done so. I have simply asked the question, "why is child sacrifice sinful", which you've been unable to answer. Speaks volumes. Do you often defend positions that you don't believe in yourself?

, and the bible sanctions it.

Which is why it condemns sacrificing children to Moloch? Odd that.

I'm arguing that the Bible clearly sanctions killing children in several circumstances

And you are wrong. As usual.

and does not ever condemn abortion explicitly.

Again, you are arguing from silence. You are trying to help yourself feel better by saying that whatever is not explicitly forbidden must be virtuous.

So the notion that the Bible is clear about it is just not true.

Before I formed you in the womb is pretty clear that our existence begins before birth.

Then why does the Holy Spirit prompt Jepthah to make the oath in the first place?

Uh,

That's what it clearly says--the "Spirit of the Lord" came upon him and inspired him to make the vow.

You're good at lying aren't you?

Then the Spirit of the LORD came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites.

And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

Just as I said, the spirit of the Lord drove Jepthah to defeat the Amorites. Somehow you missed that whole, important sentence.

Defeating the Ammonites? Hello? That's not why he's praised.

Why did the Israelites promise to him that they would appoint him as their leader if he defeated the Amorites? Yes, he defeated the Amorites who invaded Israel east of the Jordan in order to eliminate them.

He's praised because he fulfilled his vow to the lord,

Nonsense. He's praised because he fought and defeated the Amorites. That is why it says that he was driven to do so by the Spirit of God.

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.

So this is your argument? Did Abraham ever swear an oath that he would sacrifice his only child? As Abraham said, "God will provide a lamb to sacrfice." If God desired child sacrifice, why did he intervene to prevent Abraham from doing so?

Note that had Jepthah not fulfilled his vow, he would likely have been punished much worse.

He would have been punished, yes, but his line would have continued.

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).

Absolutely. Now show me where God explicitly comes to Jepthah and says, "sacrifice your daughter to me as a burnt offering". He does NOT say this. Judges does not say, "and the spirit of the Lord came to Jepthah and commanded him to sacrifice his daughter".

God's usually pretty specific about exactly what he wants.

And no, Jepthah's daughter was not the "only possible" sacrifice he could have made.

It was a dumb oath. Why not, "I will sacrifice my finest lamb to the Lord my God as a burnt offering?"

Why would he have then made it? He wasn't retarded, presumably. Given his status, he likely expected it to be a servant/slave.

Do you have any example of slaves being sacrificed to God?

Which of course begs the question of just why sacrificing a slave would be any better.

Disregarding the fact that 'burnt offerings' are sometimes livestock, sometimes part of the harvest. But damn, better to advance my crackpot theory.

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?

So since God loves slave sacrifices, and does mind control why didn't he just command Pharaoh to kill all the Israelites?

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

The bible actually goes on to say:

"From this comes the Israelite tradition that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite."

Why, if what Jephthah did was desired, would the women weep for his daughter? Why don't the celebrate her heroic sacrifice?

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.

Which is why he's compared to Samson in Hebrews? Both were tragic figures, not moral paragons.