(January 21, 2014 at 9:58 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(January 21, 2014 at 9:33 pm)Drich Wrote: The word is:
נָתַן:nathan
I means to dedicate, give over, pledge..

It has nothing to do with a sacrifice.

not even close. What God is commanding is an offering of the first fruits. Meaning the OT Jews had to offer the first of everything? The priest decided what they could use. The offerings of first fruits were burn or killed they were used to help widows and orphans. Offering the first born sons was a kin to pledging the service of the boy to the temple/as a priest or temple benevolence if the community needed help.
Numbers 3:12-13 explains this

11 The Lord also said to Moses, 12-13 “I destroyed all the firstborn in Egypt. At that time I chose all the firstborn from every family in Israel to be mine in a special way. That included all the firstborn men and animals. But now I am choosing the Levites to take their place. Now they will be my special servants. I, the Lord, give this command!”





Ah, no.

Drippy why do you inccesantly feel the need to be arrogant?

I'm not arrogant, I'm just right the vast majority of the time and I enjoy it when I am. Why? Not because it makes you all look bad or even foolish. (Although that is a bonus especially when a thread constructed like this is proved well beyond wrong.) thread like this meaning a thread that makes an intentionally false statement about God or the bible, rather than asks a question.

I rejoice in the truth of God overcoming a false statement or out and out lie. All of that goes away if the 'statement' is made in the form of an earnest question.

In the 'Christian please explain' threads I made an effort to just answer the question asked unless the point I made was argued without cause or counter evidence. This is also true with any question I feel is asked with all sincerity. However the gloves come off when those who proclaim they do not believe in God pretend to teach from God's word.

Honestly look at the self righteousness and even the hostility the op and some of the other members had when they thought God was asking for human sacrifice. No one bothered to ask a question, they just got out their torches, pitchforks and was getting read for a witch hunt. Why shouldn't I rejoice when people like are corrected? It quiets the mob and it gives people who want to know the truth of the matter the info they are seeking.

Even if no one is seeking truth there is still opportunity to be humbled by it. That opportunity for humility can be the very first step in finding God.

---

(January 21, 2014 at 10:14 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(January 21, 2014 at 9:33 pm)Drich Wrote: The word is:
נָתַן:nathan
I means to dedicate, give over, pledge..

It has nothing to do with a sacrifice.

not even close. What God is commanding is an offering of the first fruits. Meaning the OT Jews had to offer the first of everything? The priest decided what they could use. The offerings of first fruits were burn or killed they were used to help widows and orphans. Offering the first born sons was a kin to pledging the service of the boy to the temple/as a priest or temple benevolence if the community needed help.
Numbers 3:12-13 explains this

11 The Lord also said to Moses, 12-13 “I destroyed all the firstborn in Egypt. At that time I chose all the firstborn from every family in Israel to be mine in a special way. That included all the firstborn men and animals. But now I am choosing the Levites to take their place. Now they will be my special servants. I, the Lord, give this command!”





Ah, no.

"With what shall I come before the Lord
and bow down before the exalted God?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?
Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of olive oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" - Micah 6:6-7

Oh yes, offering his firstborn, Micah pondered, as "the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul," was only meant "figuratively" as a "dedication," having nothing to do with sacrifice... I'm sure Drich doesn't read the story of Abraham and Isaac as a command from God for a "real sacrifice" either, just a "dedication" (albeit one involving an alter, rope, and a large knife). Sure.

Keep reading cherry picker:

8 Human, the Lord has told you what goodness is.
This is what he wants from you:
Be fair to other people.
Love kindness and loyalty,
and humbly obey your God.

Your verses repersent man asking God what he should do to meet Him.

Verse 8 is the answer.

The short version verse 6&7 "God should we do these things to meet you?"

Verse 8: "no just follow the two greatest commands."


To the second point you made I ask the following,
Did Abraham sacrifice Isaac?
Why? Answer from God: there was no need.

---

(January 21, 2014 at 10:49 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:11 The Lord also said to Moses, 12-13 “I destroyed all the firstborn in Egypt. At that time I chose all the firstborn from every family in Israel to be mine in a special way. That included all the firstborn men and animals. But now I am choosing the Levites to take their place. Now they will be my special servants. I, the Lord, give this command!”

BTW, Drippy. None of that shit ever happened. Just a fantasy. Fiction to keep the dolts in line.

We'll see.

(January 21, 2014 at 10:32 pm)Polaris Wrote: Ezekiel 20 points to the fact that God allowed other nations and their statues to rule over His people because they had lost their way. It was basically like "you really want to see if the grass is greener? By all means and don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Exodus 20 is about the dedication of priests to the Levites. It has been assumed that it was not an actual tribe per say but a caste of those suited for priestly duties. I assume that was why there was a tithe as these priests had to forsake their inheritance to take on their roles. I'm not sure if marriage was allowed or not for the priests.

The Israelites emerged from Canaanite culture, many still embracing polytheism and some heinous practices, among which was child sacrifice. Only later on through the development and refinement of their texts did the Hebrew people mainstream a monotheistic deity and abolish a few horrible traditions (while keeping many others).

---

(January 21, 2014 at 11:18 pm)Drich Wrote: Keep reading cherry picker:

Human, the Lord has told you what goodness is.
This is what he wants from you:
Be fair to other people.
Love kindness and loyalty,
and humbly obey your God.

Your verses repersent man asking God what he should do to meet Him.

Verse 8 is the answer.

The short version verse 6&7 "God should we do these things to meet you?"

Verse 8: "no just follow the two greatest commands."


To the second point you made I ask the following,
Did Abraham sacrifice Isaac?
Why? Answer from God: there was no need.

Funny, nothing in there even attempts to repudiate the mere fact that these men even contemplated the act; neither of them seem particularly repulsed by it either. And why should Yahweh's sanctioning of child sacrifice surprise you? Didn't he kill David and Bathsheba's child because of their sexual primiscuities? The whole point of the Abraham and Isaac myth is to express to the Hebrews that killing their children was no longer required. To quote the work of Hector Avalos, prominent biblical scholar "Jon D. Levenson states that "only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH and thus ipso facto idolatrous." The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), p. 5. Susan Niditch, in War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) says, “While there is considerable controversy about the matter, the consensus over the last decade concludes that child sacrifice was a part of ancient Israelite religion to large segments of Israelite communities of various periods.” p. 47. S. Ackerman argues that within the ancient Israelite community, “the cult of child sacrifice was felt in some circles to be a legitimate expression of Yawistic faith.”

(January 22, 2014 at 12:57 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Funny, nothing in there even attempts to repudiate the mere fact that these men even contemplated the act;

nothing besides chapter 8.

Oh, and you are aware that a group of men are not doing the talking in verses 6&7 right? Micah is illerating the position man has created in the religious expressions of that time. To which God answers all religion is wrong, all one must do is follow the two greatest commands.

Quote:neither of them seem particularly repulsed by it either. And why should Yahweh's sanctioning of child sacrifice surprise you? Didn't he kill David and Bathsheba's child because of their sexual primiscuities?

Is that your understanding of what a sacrifice is?

Quote: The whole point of the Abraham and Isaac myth is to express to the Hebrews that killing their children was no longer required.

ah, no. The 'whole understanding' of Abraham and Isaac's trip is explained in detail in Hebrews 11.

Quote:To quote the work of Hector Avalos, prominent biblical scholar "Jon D. Levenson states that "only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH and thus ipso facto idolatrous." The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), p. 5. Susan Niditch, in War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) says, “While there is considerable controversy about the matter, the consensus over the last decade concludes that child sacrifice was a part of ancient Israelite religion to large segments of Israelite communities of various periods.” p. 47. S. Ackerman argues that within the ancient Israelite community, “the cult of child sacrifice was felt in some circles to be a legitimate expression of Yawistic faith.”

A quote, of a quote from a guy who apparently never read numbers 3. But it does reference a whole laundry list of unrelated material. Which apparently is good enough for you.

... Verses the bible explaining itself right down to the very letter of what your questioning... Seems to me (and I am not of Yale or Oxford press whatever that is) when a book from the Pentateuch that explains a passage from another book of the Pentateuch (meaning it was written and explained by the guy who wrote the passage inquestion) holds a heck of a lot more weight that some anti god hater who quotes another anti god guy who ties his work to several sources that have nothing to do with the bible, but is designed to entice other god want to be haters.

Look I know you've told your self all theist are stoopid and don't know nuffin, so it is hard for you to admit when your wrong. or when what you believe to be iron clad source material is wrong. especially when said source material seems to come from a place with the right pedigree.

Just remember this. God says He chooses the simple, and foolish things to confound the knowledgeable and wise of this world.. You can't get much simpler than me, but at the same time you nor your boys are not really going up against me are you?

Illerating. I'll have to remember that one.

I iller, you illered, they illerated.

Have you been drinking?

(January 22, 2014 at 1:58 am)Drich Wrote: nothing besides chapter 8.

Oh, and you are aware that a group of men are not doing the talking in verses 6&7 right? Micah is illerating the position man has created in the religious expressions of that time. To which God answers all religion is wrong, all one must do is follow the two greatest commands.

Chapter 8 condemns offering the firstborn as a child sacrifice? Rather than simply stating that it isn't necessary? Sorry, I know it would be so much more convenient for you if it actually did though.

Quote:Is that your understanding of what a sacrifice is?

Not exactly but it does demonstrate the irrational and immoral nature of a deity who would, to your surprise, find the death of children perfectly acceptable, at least as a punishment for "the sins of the soul."

Quote: ah, no. The 'whole understanding' of Abraham and Isaac's trip is explained in detail in Hebrews 11.

... Verses the bible explaining itself right down to the very letter of what your questioning... Seems to me (and I am not of Yale or Oxford press whatever that is) when a book from the Pentateuch that explains a passage from another book of the Pentateuch (meaning it was written and explained by the guy who wrote the passage inquestion) holds a heck of a lot more weight that some anti god hater who quotes another anti god guy who ties his work to several sources that have nothing to do with the bible, but is designed to entice other god want to be haters.

Look I know you've told your self all theist are stoopid and don't know nuffin, so it is hard for you to admit when your wrong. or when what you believe to be iron clad source material is wrong. especially when said source material seems to come from a place with the right pedigree.

Just remember this. God says He chooses the simple, and foolish things to confound the knowledgeable and wise of this world.. You can't get much simpler than me, but at the same time you nor your boys are not really going up against me are you?

I appreciate your thorough demonstration of the effects of a delusion. I don't think you are stupid but clearly you exhibit the tendencies of a person under the powerful influence of fantasy, evident by your ability to see all contrary scholarly views as "anti-god." This is an invaluable tool of the faithful used to keep the sheep inside the pen--automatically distrust all outsiders, which of course, is where all disagreeable views originate. Here's another amusing bit of your delusion: the notion that you personally are doing the work of God (us atheist boys aren't against you...no..we are against HIM...so you think in your little head). That's very sweet. I always enjoy watching Christians claim the side of God only to find themselves in complete disagreement with one another.

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying:12 I hereby take the Levites from among the Israelites in place of all the first- born, the first issue of the womb among the Israelites:the Levites shall be Mine. 13 For every first- born is Mine:at the time that I smote every first- born in the land of Egypt, I consecrated every first- born in Israel, MAN and beast, to Myself, to be Mine, the LORD's. (JPS Tanakh)

depends on which bible is chosen to interpret! Why wouldn't someone read the original meaning?

(January 22, 2014 at 2:13 am)rasetsu Wrote:


Illerating. I'll have to remember that one.

I iller, you illered, they illerated.

Have you been drinking?

Sorry don't get it, rats-et-sue

Moshe Greenberg, a Jewish rabbi who wrote a major commentary on the book of Ezekiel (otherwise known as qualifications for a person's "anti-godness," in the words of Drich), minimizes the view that child sacrifice was practiced under Yahwism but nonetheless confesses: "The polemic against child sacrifice (to YHWH) in Deuteronomy indicates that at least from the time of the last kings of Judah it was popularly believed that at least YHWH accepted, perhaps even commanded, it."

Oh, and concerning my previous quotations, here is some background on my "anti-god" sources. As you can see, very Satanic and untrustworthy anti-Christ vessels of destruction:
Jon Levenson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_D._Levenson
Susan Niditch: https://www.amherst.edu/people/facstaff/sniditch
Susan Ackerman: http://dartmouth.edu/faculty-directory/susan-ackerman

These people clearly have an agenda: to spread their holy message of atheism (which, by the way, is something Drich would obviously never do when it comes to his Christian beliefs... right?).

(January 22, 2014 at 10:38 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Moshe Greenberg, a Jewish rabbi who wrote a major commentary on the book of Ezekiel (otherwise known as qualifications for a person's "anti-godness," in the words of Drich), minimizes the view that child sacrifice was practiced under Yahwism but nonetheless confesses: "The polemic against child sacrifice (to YHWH) in Deuteronomy indicates that at least from the time of the last kings of Judah it was popularly believed that at least YHWH accepted, perhaps even commanded, it."

the the good rabbi should be able to provide a clear example of book chaper and verse where God commands such a thing. This would end all arguements, but he/you cant seem to be able to do that. all you seem to be able to offer is conjecture and speculation based on a very narrow english only view of the passage.

Quote:Oh, and concerning my previous quotations, here is some background on my "anti-god" sources. As you can see, very Satanic and untrustworthy anti-Christ vessels of destruction:
Jon Levenson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_D._Levenson
Susan Niditch: https://www.amherst.edu/people/facstaff/sniditch
Susan Ackerman: http://dartmouth.edu/faculty-directory/susan-ackerman

Again, conjecture and speculation, verses the bible/The writter of the Pentateuch actually explaining the passage you and your sources have questioned.

The fact the bible explains what was meant in your orginal question means all of the other extra biblical sources you can quote that do not reference numbers 3 can be dismissed as being illinformed. No matter who or what agency made the assertion your quoting.

Quote:These people clearly have an agenda: to spread their holy message of atheism (which, by the way, is something Drich would obviously never do when it comes to his Christian beliefs... right?).

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and no follow through. If your sources did not have the follow through to reasearch and find the Passage in numbers 3, to the question posed from exo 22 (which I doubt, they'd even come across, it far more likly your just twisting their words to align yourself with what they have to say.) Then everything they said that supports Child sacrifice based on what was said in exo 22 is flat out wrong... Because again in numbers 3 We have Moses (The writter of Exo 22) explaining what God's intentions were with the 'offerings of first fruits' that included the first born..

In short they were to be temple preists before the levites were given that charge in numbers 3.

Your appeal to people smarter than you will not help you here. Because the statement of child sacrifice you made was proven wrong by an internal biblical break down of the 'offering of first fruits.' By moses himself just a few chapters after the command was given.

Whether you can admit it or not your arguement based in Exo 22 ends in numbers 3.

(January 22, 2014 at 11:43 am)Drich Wrote: Again, conjecture and speculation, verses the bible/The writter of the Pentateuch actually explaining the passage you and your sources have questioned.

The fact the bible explains what was meant in your orginal question means all of the other extra biblical sources you can quote that do not reference numbers 3 can be dismissed as being illinformed. No matter who or what agency made the assertion your quoting.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and no follow through. If your sources did not have the follow through to reasearch and find the Passage in numbers 3, to the question posed from exo 22 (which I doubt, they'd even come across, it far more likly your just twisting their words to align yourself with what they have to say.) Then everything they said that supports Child sacrifice based on what was said in exo 22 is flat out wrong... Because again in numbers 3 We have Moses (The writter of Exo 22) explaining what God's intentions were with the 'offerings of first fruits' that included the first born..

In short they were to be temple preists before the levites were given that charge in numbers 3.

Your appeal to people smarter than you will not help you here. Because the statement of child sacrifice you made was proven wrong by an internal biblical break down of the 'offering of first fruits.' By moses himself just a few chapters after the command was given.

Whether you can admit it or not your arguement based in Exo 22 ends in numbers 3.

A couple problems with your response: First, the claim that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch is at best highly controversial; at worse, source criticism supports alternative theories, such as the Documentary Hypothesis. Indeed, Moses may be called the most efficient autobiographical writer of all time, considering he even records the details of his own death and burial in Deuteronomy (Oh yeah, that was the *exception* and is easily explained by a later author, such as Joshua... *wink wink*). I see no reason to grant your presupposition. Secondly, Numbers 3 states, "The Lord also said to Moses, "Take the Levites in place of all the firstborn of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites in place of their livestock. The Levites are to be mine. I am the Lord. To redeem the 273 firstborn Israelites who exceed the number of the Levites, collect five shekels[c] for each one, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. Give the money for the redemption of the additional Israelites to Aaron and his sons" (v.45-48). So the firstborn Levites (and their livestock) served as a sacrificial substitution for all of the Israelites, who would otherwise all be required to "wholly" give up their firstborn to the Lord. Nothing in this contradicts rabbi Moshe Greenberg's confession that child sacrifice was endorsed and even commanded by Yahweh.

Additionally, I appreciate the fact that you ignored my reference to David and Bathsheba. If I remember correctly, the Torah explicitly demands capital punishment for murder and sexual adultery and furthermore states that children should not be held accountable for their father's sins. Strange how Yahweh completely contradicts this in David's situation and in fact kills his child for the moral failures of the parents. Maybe Yahweh's a moral relativist?

Here are some additional passages in the Old Testament that command, endorse, or reward child sacrifice:
Judges 11:29-40
2 Samuel 21:4-9
1 Kings 16:34
2 Kings 3:26-27