Close, but no cigar, this looks more like a prohibition not to burn your progeny to other gods, or that other faiths do it the wrong way! (I am taking the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter in context here)
Regarding Balak: (don’t think I missed that you had to go underhandedly outside the chosen people to get your prohibition against human sacrifice) While you make a good point that there are examples of “looking the other way” from god with other people, I hope you realize I am not much a believer, and this info actually makes me realize even more that, if there is a god, the god of the bible is not it.
It all comes down to which law she feels is more important: the law of man or the law of God.
If she chose to follow the law of God (or what she thought God wanted), and chose to break the law of man, there is no reason why she shouldn’t win points with God, and get punishment from the law of man.
As I recall, people throughout history have suffered pretty harsh penalties for following their religion. (See Martyrdom). There isn’t any special get-out-of-jail-free card if your religion tells you to do things that violate the law of the society you choose to live it.
If she believed she had dialogue with God, then she should be thrilled to be joining him so soon.
Isn’t that what we’re looking for? A prohibition against child sacrifice? I gave it to you. Don’t do as they do; they burn their children to their gods, don’t burn yours to Me. (see the beginning of verse 31 - Don’t do this for the Lord your God).
What was underhanded about it? I provided you with several examples of people who did wrong but for whom no punishment was recorded. You then responded with your assertion that for certain people (I presumed you meant Jews) God sometimes looks the other way. So I gave you non-Jewish examples.
Well, if you believe that the Bible is fiction, then I guess we simply have to agree to disagree.
In any event, it is a tenet of Jewish belief that God eventually pays everyone back for everything they do; both good and evil. The Talmud relates examples of people who were otherwise rotten, miserable human beings who may have had one shining moment of goodness and the reward for that moment is noted. Conversely, examples are given of people who were exceedingly righteous and who, at one moment or another sinned in one particular case; and their punishemnt is likewise recorded. In short, we believe that God balances His books.
JMSO- I gotta go with LHOD (best name I have seen) and GIGO. But ZEV, you seem to be a scholar of sorts, can you please tell me why cutting off the foreskin should indicate some devine bargain? (While I am circumcised, and have no complaints, it just seems to be one of the wierder traditions) I also wonder if women were intentionally left out of the deal.
NOT TO BE TAKEN AS RACIST RANT, I REALLY WANT TO KNOW THE REASONING BEHIND CIRCUMCISION
Except that, as you know, according to, said bible, god did order (the hebrews, a bear) to kill children from time to time. Though you might personnaly think these parts of the bible aren’t the word of god, I would suspect this picking and choosing is essentially based on your own morals (doing X is bad, according to our current morals, hence god can’t possibly have really ordered that).
One could certainly make the point, backed with bible quotes, that god can order to kill a child, and that a true believer must obey any order given by god.
And assuming that tomorrow god speaks to you and order you to do something not as crazy as kiling your own children, but somewhat objectionnable, would you quote the bible and tell him to fuck off? What if you could find some elements in the bible which seem to suport this supposed god’s point, despite this acceptation not being currently mainstream?
Let’s assume for instance that you don’t think that homosexuality is condemned by the scriptures, but that god tells you to advocate for laws forbidding homosexuality. Could you refuse to abide only on the basis that your own interpretation of the scriptures make you think that god couldn’t order you such a thing (as opposed to believing it’s a hallucination because god doesn’t speak to people)?
Now, this woman’s behavior is crazy because believing god would order to kill your own children is totally out of the mainstream current religious beliefs. But if you forget for a moment the “current” and “mainstream” part, from a purely intellectual point of view, it’s difficult to assume that :
-God does exist and is the perfect, ominiscient, etc…being christians believe in
-God does speak to people sometimes
-The bible is the ultimate reference about god, his will, his actions, etc…
and at the same time utterly rejecting the idea that god could tell someone to do something you find criminal or despicable.
Since he ordered the Hebrews, according to the bible, to slaughter women and children some thousand years ago, why couldn’t he order someone now to kill a child? Or to crash a plane in a building? And then, who could object to the orders of a perfect, benevolent and omniscient being? And how could one state “my morals, derived from my personnal interpretation of your previous statements contained in the bible overules your current, direct and unambiguous statements”?
If you’re asking me why God commanded that all Jewish males be circumcised, I don’t have a definite answer for you. Ultimately, we observe the commandments because we believe God said to. Period.
One can certainly hypothosize a reason why God would want this, but ultimately, it’s because He said so.
I know that this isn’t the answer you’re looking for, but that’s it.
No. Women (obviously) do not need a circumcision. But it’s simply because they don’t have the proper equipment, that’s all.
Though in this situation, one could make the case that she was acting under duress. Having an almighty god teling you do something is hardly better than having a man holding a gun telling you to do the same thing.
That’s an aside, but personnally, given the circumstances, my assumption would be that she is insane, and regardless the way law might be worded, I would have to be handed some serious evidences that she’s actually sane before supporting a possible sentence.
Mmm, come to think of it, maybe I an not having my terms right, when I say “chosen people” I mean the broad meaning that whoever hero appears in the bible it is a member of the chosen. Yes, many were not Jews, but they dealt with the same god. The god in the bible was, in the end, very helpful to them too, warts and all. (Even when god gave the warts to them (Job) )
As for Child sacrifice: I was talking of human sacrifice but feel free to concentrate on child sacrifice, I don’t think you are right on your interpretation since it makes the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter an even bigger contradiction.
As for the beginning of that Deuteronomy passage:
That reminded me that it was not only places of worship of other gods, that were the “god allowed” targets in those days, just remember what happened to:
The Canaanites Num.21:3
Bashan and all his people Num.21:34-35
The Midianites Num.31:1-54
Sihon and all of his people Dt.2:33-36
Og, the king of Bashan, and all his people Dt.3:3, 6
And even the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites Dt.7:1-2
Don’t know about you, but seeing that (and many other examples of condoned annihilation) I guess that for this god, child sacrifice is ok, if you are eliminating their parents also. And ok also in the context of war (Jephthah again)
Zev, my comments were really meant to be complimentary. You are right in that is not the answer I was looking for. I was wondering what possible logic structure could account for a requirement to cut the penis of infants? It seems to me that it is just a post hoc rationalization for a method (that no freakin sane group would think of) to distinguish the “chosen” from those not “chosen”. Furthermore, why did god choose a certain group as “chosen”? Are we not all “created in his image”?(except women of course)(the women comment was an attempt to make a joke, not meant as a serious statement of MY belief)
Another question that has made me wonder, How is Judiasm a definition of race, if Sammy Davis JR could become Jewish? Does that not indicate that Judiasm is a belief structure? And that it is niether more nor less valid than any other?
I’ll answer your last question first, since it’s the easist.
Judaism isn’t a race. Since you can convert to Judaism, then it’s not a race.
Judaism is a belief system, as well as an ethnicity. And of course Jews believe that that belief system is more valid than others - no different than a Catholic would believe that their belief system is more valid than a Muslim system.
Going back to your first questions…
Again, I don’t have a definite reason for you as to why God commanded us to do this. I’m fairly certain (and this is just MHO) that it was meant to be a means of identifying us and separating us from the other nations of the world.
All human beings (women too) are created in God’s image (we’ll leave the exact definiton of “God’s image” aside for now). In fact the Talmud relates that the reason that we were all created from one person is so that no one should be able to say to another “My ancestry is better than yours…”
That being said, God chose Abraham and his descendants to be the ones to observe the commandments of the Torah. He and his descendants were chosen to observe His laws and be a part of His covenant. The implication of “chosen” is not necessarily that we are “better” than anyone else (see my comments above), but that we were chosen to keep His Torah and observe His laws. And, in addition, if any non-Jew wants to come and join us, he (or she) is more than welcome.
Jewish laws are grouped into two categories. One group are the laws for which we can logically understand the reason (don’t murder, don’t steal, etc.). The other is the category of laws for which the reason is not clearly evident (eating kosher, not wearing wool/linen blends, etc.). Circumcision can be chalked up to the second group.
I’m afraid you’re wrong here too. I wouldn’t qualify any of the people I named (Balak, Lot, Achashverosh) as heroes. Furthermore, Balak and Achashverosh were idolators!
Yes, Jeptaths daughter was a contradiction. He was wrong. I’m not going to defend Jeptath.
Sacrifice and warfare are two very different terms. In some of the cases you presented, the people mentioned attacked the Jews first. In others, the Jews were commanded by God to wage war on them. But that is still a far cry from a ritual sacrifice which is what (I suspect) we are dealing with (considering how this thread started). In that respect, taking a person and sacrificing them (as some mesoAmerican cultures did) is prohibited in Judaism based on the verse I gave you.
Warning! links with circumcised penises… penii? Penes?
Ah, Forget it! Some pictures and drawings of wieners in the following links, but from educational sites, still just to be safe, don’t access these at work:
Interesting chronology here: http://www.circumstitions.com/Chronology.html
Anyhow, this idea that circumcision is here because “The God” say so, or to separate the chosen people from the rest of the world, is not an accurate one.
Seems this debate has gone in a few different directions. Which is fine, because I’m learning an awful lot.
I realize to come to terms with the idea that any God would instruct a person to do such a horrible thing, one might figure out amongst the teachings and books how this could actually happen. However, it’s all futile knowledge, in this case, since the real answer lies in that womans head.
My interest lied initially with the idea that because what she claims God told her is looked upon by most as something God would never instruct someone to do, she must be insane. However, anyone who subscribes to the idea of faith cannot discount that she very well could have spoken to God and to think otherwise would be hypocrisy. For any person of faith to trivialize what this woman claims to have experienced could be considered equal to these same people trivializing their own faith. It’s all based in the same principal.
The latter reason I presented as my own opinion, nothing more.
As to the former reason, I’m afraid that I have to disagree. The reason we keep the commandments is because God said to. Period. There is, ultimately, no other reason.
One can certainly hypothosize (and many throughout histroy have done so) reasons for the commandments, but the root reason is because God said so. For example, some think that God gave us the commandment of kashrus in order to prevent the Jews from getting trichinosis. It’s certainly possible that that was part of the reason. Maybe it had nothing to do with it. But, from a practical standpoint, if trichinosis were wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow, we would still keep kosher. Why? Because God said so.
In order to stop hijacking this thread, should one of us start a new one? I am really interested in what people like Zev and GIGO and others have to say. But are we guilty of hijacking? Not that I think there is anything wrong with the practice per se, just that I think we have opened a topic that disserves it’s own thread.
Thanks GIGO, I had not realized how widespread the practice was.[sincerity smilie]
Whoa!! You should REALLY not make assumptions about what parts of the Bible I may or may not be picking and choosing to believe in. Here’s a hint: Up until recently–until Jerry Falwell & Co. co-opted the term–I was wont to describe myself on these boards as a Fightin’ Fundie.
All clear now? Good.
Um, no, I’d have to differ with you on this. God did not order people to kill children “from time to time”. You make it sound like an ongoing thing, where in fact the only time that anyone was “ordered” to kill a child was Abraham, when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac.
However, asking someone to ritually sacrifice his son as proof of his loyalty is quite different from ordering a woman to beat her children’s heads in with a big rock because the “world was ending”, and presumably they were supposed to be thus spared the horrors of the Apocalypse.
And the incident with the bear was not a case of God ordering “people” to kill children–God ordered the BEARS to do it. And alternate translations give it variously as “young men” or “youths” rather than “boys” or “children”.
Beg to differ. Look forward to seeing you make your point that a true believer must obey any order given by God, backed by Bible quotes. As any Christian who’s ever wrestled with decision-making can tell you, God offers you choices at all times during the proceedings. You are never REQUIRED to obey God. It’s not like being in the Army. God does not say, in a pissy sort of way, “Well, all right then, be like that, but if you don’t obey me, it’s fire and brimstone and the death of all your relatives and camels…”
Um, yeah, actually Christians DO tell God to “fuck off” all the time, when he tells them to do something they don’t wanna do. I refer you to the story of Jonah, who told God to “fuck off”, he wasn’t going to go preach at Ninevah.
However, there’s a difference between God ordering you to do something “objectionable”, like go preach the gospel to the heathens, and something “despicable” or “criminal”, or “crazy”. God doesn’t order people to do things that are “despicable” or “criminal”. In the context of the Israelites invasion of Canaan, the slaughter as they went were “acts of war”, not “despicable” or “criminal” nstances where God simply ordered them to “kill children” and they mindlessly obeyed.
He ordered the Hebrews to massacre people they didn’t know as an act of war, for a compelling reason (cultural and religious contamination to be avoided), which is a far cry from ordering a mother to senselessly bash in her own sons’ heads with a rock, for no particular reason other than a rather vague and unexplained “the world is ending”. Those are two different things.
The difference between all of these acts of “killing children” is, there’s no reason for this particular killing. It didn’t involve a religious sacrifice, it wasn’t an act of war. When God orders (or asks) you to do something, the reasons for it may be obscure at the time, but later on, all becomes clear. We’re all still waiting for God to make clear why he told Deanna Laney to kill her boys. Until that time, the reasonable supposition is that he didn’t, since it would be contrary to everything we know about him.
Yes, certainly, people interpret the Scriptures however they please all the time, and use them to prove their points. Nothing new there. But the difference is, those are dealing with passages that are ambiguous, or that are subject to cultural interpretation. Is Paul’s injunction against allowing women to preach just his own opinion–or is it God’s word? Nothing else in the Bible seems to address the issue of whether women should or should not preach in church.
But the verse that says “thou shalt not kill” is pretty unambiguous, plus, it’s supported by doctrine found elsewhere in the Bible. Murder (as distinguished from “acts of war”) is bad, saith the Bible. Period.
No, it’s not “difficult to assume” at all. They actually go together. Perhaps you didn’t put it the way you meant to put it?
If you assume:
God does exist and is perfect and omniscient.
God does speak to people sometimes.
The Bible is the ultimate reference about God.
Then it’s perfectly consonant, not contradictory at all, to also reject the idea that God could tell you to do something that according to his own standards, as set down in his own words, would be criminal or despicable.
Again, maybe you didn’t say what you meant to say?
OK, I give up. Which version are we supposed to be talking about? Is it the American Standard Version, or the Douay-Rheims Bible or the King James version or the Revised Standard Version or the New Revised Standard Version, Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament or the NIV (New Improved Version?)…
Why does it matter what translation of the Bible we’re talking about? This isn’t a mere quibble about semantics, but whether God really spoke to Deanna Laney and told her to kill her children. No matter which version you’re using, there still aren’t any parts where God routinely tells people to kill their children.
(Job) )
Which is fine, because I’m learning an awful lot.