Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Bohandas]

Of course, but we're talking about this event as something that actually happened at the time.

It just wants us to be sacrificed so we die and got to heaven and are closer to It. It's misunderstood and just wants to be loved, man... Or, something, I dunno.

Just like Papa Nurgle

[Arx]

Once again I'll be investigating a list compiled by skeptics, but I don't have time to go into as much detail as they did.  Though as usual, they include questionable edge cases for completeness sake:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/human_sacrifice.html

I've decided the main reason I deislike Skeptics' Annotated is the really low level of maturity. That, and the fact that basically every other thing is tagged as an absurdity.

The thing with the firstborns is, I think, dedication. Nowhere does it say they must be completely given over to Him, nor does it say they must be sacrificed. It would be nice if they used something other than the King James, too.

And indeed, the NIV*, CEV, and Good News all disagree with the King James that the plunder from Numbers 31 was to be sacrificed. It just says 'given to the Levites', who were basically at that time the Goddest of God's people, and the heave offering was the part given to the priests for sustenance. So, uh, rape but not human sacrifice. It's no worse than any other wartime activities of the Israelites.

The story of Jephthah is messed up, I agree. In terms of utilitarian morals, of course...

Josiah killing high priests is obviously acting in God's interests. Burning them is weird, though.

As regards the majority of the rest of the cases, they're human sacrifices in the same sense that killing the Canaanites and other inhabitants of the Promised Land was human sacrifice. Kill people in the name of the Lord -> the Lord gives you stuff.

*The NIV is, in my opinion, the translation with the best access to integrity ratio. It's pretty much all in modern, reasonably common English, but very tightly fitted to the original manuscripts, and worked from scratch not previous possibly flawed translations.

[TD1]

Once again I'll be investigating a list compiled by skeptics, but I don't have time to go into as much detail as they did.  Though as usual, they include questionable edge cases for completeness sake:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/human_sacrifice.html

I've decided the main reason I deislike Skeptics' Annotated is the really low level of maturity. That, and the fact that basically every other thing is tagged as an absurdity.

The thing with the firstborns is, I think, dedication. Nowhere does it say they must be completely given over to Him, nor does it say they must be sacrificed. It would be nice if they used something other than the King James, too.

And indeed, the NIV*, CEV, and Good News all disagree with the King James that the plunder from Numbers 31 was to be sacrificed. It just says 'given to the Levites', who were basically at that time the Goddest of God's people, and the heave offering was the part given to the priests for sustenance. So, uh, rape but not human sacrifice. It's no worse than any other wartime activities of the Israelites.

The story of Jephthah is messed up, I agree. In terms of utilitarian morals, of course...

Josiah killing high priests is obviously acting in God's interests. Burning them is weird, though.

As regards the majority of the rest of the cases, they're human sacrifices in the same sense that killing the Canaanites and other inhabitants of the Promised Land was human sacrifice. Kill people in the name of the Lord -> the Lord gives you stuff.

*The NIV is, in my opinion, the translation with the best access to integrity ratio. It's pretty much all in modern, reasonably common English, but very tightly fitted to the original manuscripts, and worked from scratch not previous possibly flawed translations.

Human sacrifices or no, I would not be able to stomach worshipping such a callous, evil god. Punch his celestial face? Yes. Praise him? For...what? Creating us? Well, my mother gave birth to me. She certainly deserves respect. Were she to treat me like Caroline's mum to "make me better" I would consider her contemptible, however. The act of creation is not enough to get my support.

Also, all that heave stuff... give of your wine, etc, and your oxen...well, I just finished the Iliad. Seems it would fit right in there what with all the libations. Another instance of "Bible borrowing?"

[Arx]

Human sacrifices or no, I would not be able to stomach worshipping such a callous, evil god. Punch his celestial face? Yes. Praise him? For...what? Creating us? Well, my mother gave birth to me. She certainly deserves respect. Were she to treat me like Caroline's mum to "make me better" I would consider her contemptible, however. The act of creation is not enough to get my support.

Please refrain from randomly bashing on Christianity.

Also, all that heave stuff... give of your wine, etc, and your oxen...well, I just finished the Iliad. Seems it would fit right in there what with all the libations. Another instance of "Bible borrowing?"

More likely an instance of a really easy way to sacrifice a liquid. I expect pretty much every religion featuring sacrifice also features liquid sacrifices comparable to libations.

[TempAcc]

:v the differences between the old testament god and god in the new testament is what possibly spawned gnosticism, altough some claim that gnosticism predates christianity. There's also the interpretation that the beings the old testament figures got in contact with weren't actualy god, just agents of his will with a certain degree of independence, IE angels and etc.

[TD1]

It was not my intent to insult, or bash, though in retrospect I could have chosen my words with more care. All I was doing was raising a point- God does not seem worthy of worship. Creation is not enough. A reward system is also not enough. I would need to be able to respect God abd acknowledge him as greater. God has commited far more atrocities than I could with an army of murderers at my back. Arguably, he has killed more than Lucifer, or whatever the enemy's real name is.

[Rolan7]

Edit: Removed a snipe at a translation, I'm not qualified for that.

And indeed, the NIV*, CEV, and Good News all disagree with the King James that the plunder from Numbers 31 was to be sacrificed. It just says 'given to the Levites', who were basically at that time the Goddest of God's people, and the heave offering was the part given to the priests for sustenance. So, uh, rape but not human sacrifice. It's no worse than any other wartime activities of the Israelites.

I'm not even sure human sacrifice would be any worse, though that's a nasty discussion.  But okay, that does seem like a reasonable interpretation (as far as I know.  It's not like I know Hebrew  ).  God's people were kinda amazingly into polygamy and concubines.

The story of Jephthah is messed up, I agree. In terms of utilitarian morals, of course...

In terms of the morals of the New Testament.  I'm not trying to argue that God is evil, except to say his nature changes drastically between the books.  Which suggests that the books are fabrications.
So while I fixated on the "human sacrifice" aspect, it's really the overall cruelty of the OT God which supports my argument.

Though I do also still think that human sacrifice to God was a tenet of the religion.  Based on this story, Isaac's story, their treatment of conquered towns, and the fact that God *specifically* forbids them from sacrifice humans to *other* gods.

Josiah killing high priests is obviously acting in God's interests. Burning them is weird, though.

Seems like consistent behavior.

As regards the majority of the rest of the cases, they're human sacrifices in the same sense that killing the Canaanites and other inhabitants of the Promised Land was human sacrifice. Kill people in the name of the Lord -> the Lord gives you stuff.

Considering how they slaughtered noncombatants, especially children and nonvirgin women, I think that this does count.

Wait, wait, crap.  If humans aren't kosher then my whole theory falls apart, right?  Can't offer God unclean things.  And we don't have hooves so...
*I paused to do some Googling at this point*
http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/is-a-human-kosher/2013/04/04/

Short answer:  Specifically our milk and blood are considered kosher, according to Jewish texts.  What more can I possibly say?

[origamiscienceguy]

It was not my intent to insult, or bash, though in retrospect I could have chosen my words with more care. All I was doing was raising a point- God does not seem worthy of worship. Creation is not enough. A reward system is also not enough. I would need to be able to respect God abd acknowledge him as greater. God has commited far more atrocities than I could with an army of murderers at my back. Arguably, he has killed more than Lucifer, or whatever the enemy's real name is.

I am sorry to hear that. I just want you to know that I am praying for you.

[TD1]

My thanks for your concern.
However, your prayers will make no odds. If you are right and god exists, I am going to hell. If you are wrong and I am right, then god is not there/doesn't care enough to answer and so nothing will come of it.

Still, it's a nice sentiment. Though, if they can have effect I have a feeling when I die things will get....hot 

[Rolan7]

(Just got to reiterate that Lucifer was a human king, at least according to a reasonable reading of his only mention in the Bible, Isaiah 14)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/14.html

Postedit:  I know, but why would that stop me from interjecting 

[TD1]

That's why I said "or whatever his real name is."

[TempAcc]

The old testament god was depicted through a jewish view of the world. The god of the old testament is more like a god of the jews, unlike the new testament god, which encompasses all peoples who are faithful in him. The bible is also highly vague and unspecific about a lot of things and you have to keep in mind it was written over several hundred years, meaning some metaphors from old times might have been taken a little too literally at latter times.

This is why I tend to view christianity in the light of Allan Kardec's spiritism, which basically states, through multiple works, that our view of god was corrupted by the three stablished faiths and its derivates, IE catholicism, islam and judaism. Judaism depicts god everything related to him as things that are not pro humanity per se, just pro jewish people, to the point god is willing to slaughter anyone who threatens the people of Israel. Islam depicts god in a way that heavily favours muhammad and anyone who follows him, and makes god seem even more vengeful and cruel then the jews did. Catholicism took christianity and added a enourmous hierarchal orchestration of rituals and practices that gave it absolute power over Europe through hundreds of years, and made it flexible enough so they could turn anyone into a heretic.

[Arx]

It was not my intent to insult, or bash, though in retrospect I could have chosen my words with more care. All I was doing was raising a point- God does not seem worthy of worship. Creation is not enough. A reward system is also not enough. I would need to be able to respect God abd acknowledge him as greater. God has commited far more atrocities than I could with an army of murderers at my back. Arguably, he has killed more than Lucifer, or whatever the enemy's real name is.

I would be okay with it, except that it's a point that's been raised a million times before, you didn't add anything more compelling than previous versions, and it's not really that relevant to the current discussion. Especially the fact that it's come up a million times before.

Though I do also still think that human sacrifice to God was a tenet of the religion.

If it was, it was removed from the Bible literal millennia (nearly three) ago. If there was anything about actual human sacrifice according to the common definition in the Leningrad and Aleppo Codices, I'm sure there would have been plenty of uproar. It would also have to have been pretty comprehensively removed.

[TD1]

It was not my intent to insult, or bash, though in retrospect I could have chosen my words with more care. All I was doing was raising a point- God does not seem worthy of worship. Creation is not enough. A reward system is also not enough. I would need to be able to respect God abd acknowledge him as greater. God has commited far more atrocities than I could with an army of murderers at my back. Arguably, he has killed more than Lucifer, or whatever the enemy's real name is.

I would be okay with it, except that it's a point that's been raised a million times before, you didn't add anything more compelling than previous versions, and it's not really that relevant to the current discussion. Especially the fact that it's come up a million times before.

Yes it has come up before, but never with an answer. At least as far as I recall... why worship God? He begat you, but what else? He gives eschatological reward? All well and good, but my parents gave me sweets for good behaviour and I didn't worship them. It God truly is omnibenevolent, why does he need his children to love him so very much. Isn't love unconditional?

[Arx]

All well and good, but my parents gave me sweets for good behaviour and I didn't worship them.

Do you respect your parents?

It God truly is omnibenevolent, why does he need his children to love him so very much?

He doesn't.