Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Under the Rules of Catholicism, the Vast Majority of People Are Going to Hell
September 25, 2012 at 12:16 am
We're always being reprimanded for not taking the context into account. The context in this particular story couldn't be clearer if the pages were transparent. Man promises god to sacrifice first thing to greet him on his return home, in return for winning a battle. Man wins battle, returns hime. Daughter rushes out to greet him. Man not very happy but proceeds with sacrifice anyway. Everyone laments. Fade to black; roll credits. If you want to continue to argue that we have no record of what actually happened, despite the text stating what happened, then you are ruling out speculative rationalising on your part as well. Perhaps she turned into a giant butterfly and flew to Mars?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: Under the Rules of Catholicism, the Vast Majority of People Are Going to Hell
September 25, 2012 at 12:20 am (This post was last modified: September 25, 2012 at 12:24 am by Drich.)
(September 24, 2012 at 11:59 pm)Darkstar Wrote: His vow is to sacrifice 'whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites' as a burnt offering.
Minimalist Wrote:When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”
(bolding mine)
He sees his daughter and is devestated that he must kill her.
Minimalist Wrote:After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed.
(bolding mine)
This is just short of explicitly saying "he burned he alive as a sacrifice". It can't be much more obvious.[/quote]
Yes but there is a problem that you and Mini don't see. In order to make a proper burnt offering to God their is a proceedure. it involves a priest of the levitical line. What is described in chapter 11 verse 1 about how Jep Came to be, disqualifies him as a preist able to make said sacerfice himself. Meaning He could only "OFFER" his daughter to the Temple/God/Preisthood. The preist would have to take part in the cermony in order for the killing/burnt offering to be acceptable before God. And because of the "Book Chapter and Verse" I left you saying ALL Human sacerfice was not acceptable before God, then a preist would have to refuse the ritual. Meaning if Jep was insistent to give his daughter to God they would have taken her as a slave to do all of the 'unclean' tasks in the temple. Meaning the even if Jep's intention was to kill his daughter and offer her as a burnt offering to God the preists would have stopped him.
However that does not mean she was not killed in some back alley and set on fire. If she was know in your heart God did not accept this sacerfice.
(September 25, 2012 at 12:16 am)Stimbo Wrote: We're always being reprimanded for not taking the context into account. The context in this particular story couldn't be clearer if the pages were transparent. Man promises god to sacrifice first thing to greet him on his return home, in return for winning a battle. Man wins battle, returns hime. Daughter rushes out to greet him. Man not very happy but proceeds with sacrifice anyway. Everyone laments. Fade to black; roll credits. If you want to continue to argue that we have no record of what actually happened, despite the text stating what happened, then you are ruling out speculative rationalising on your part as well. Perhaps she turned into a giant butterfly and flew to Mars?
No, this is still a matter of context, but on a slightly larger scale. Jep as a "Judge" of God was bound to God's expressed will. Which includes the bit I left about human sacerfice and who was to make burnt offerings. You have motive in your little screen play, but not the means nor oppertunity. If Jep killed his daughter anyway then this story is not about human sacerfice but murder.
RE: Under the Rules of Catholicism, the Vast Majority of People Are Going to Hell
September 25, 2012 at 12:29 am (This post was last modified: September 25, 2012 at 12:34 am by Drich.)
(September 25, 2012 at 12:14 am)Minimalist Wrote: "After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed.
Fuck you, Drippy. You know, even morons like you should be able to hold a thought long enough to get from point A to point B. Your boy "vowed" to sacrifice as a burnt offering what ever came out of his door first and then it says he did as he vowed.
Even you should be able to make this connection. Instead you retreat into the typical intellectual dishonesty which is commonplace among people who profess to believe in abject bullshit.
You are exposed as a bullshit artist for all to see. Not that it is news to anyone here.
And fuck your god, too.
Again only a FOOL speaks where the bible is silent. Appearently this fool knows little to nothing about the ritual he has so boldly highlighted.
(September 25, 2012 at 12:24 am)apophenia Wrote:
I can only say that I am greatly disappointed in this Christian.
me? why? were you fond of the idea that Jep had his daughter killed?
RE: Under the Rules of Catholicism, the Vast Majority of People Are Going to Hell
September 25, 2012 at 12:04 pm
(September 25, 2012 at 12:20 am)Drich Wrote:
(September 24, 2012 at 11:59 pm)Darkstar Wrote: His vow is to sacrifice 'whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites' as a burnt offering.
(bolding mine)
He sees his daughter and is devestated that he must kill her.
Minimalist Wrote:After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed.
(bolding mine)
This is just short of explicitly saying "he burned he alive as a sacrifice". It can't be much more obvious.
Yes but there is a problem that you and Mini don't see. In order to make a proper burnt offering to God their is a proceedure. it involves a priest of the levitical line. What is described in chapter 11 verse 1 about how Jep Came to be, disqualifies him as a preist able to make said sacerfice himself. Meaning He could only "OFFER" his daughter to the Temple/God/Preisthood. The preist would have to take part in the cermony in order for the killing/burnt offering to be acceptable before God. And because of the "Book Chapter and Verse" I left you saying ALL Human sacerfice was not acceptable before God, then a preist would have to refuse the ritual. Meaning if Jep was insistent to give his daughter to God they would have taken her as a slave to do all of the 'unclean' tasks in the temple. Meaning the even if Jep's intention was to kill his daughter and offer her as a burnt offering to God the preists would have stopped him.
However that does not mean she was not killed in some back alley and set on fire. If she was know in your heart God did not accept this sacerfice.
(September 25, 2012 at 12:16 am)Stimbo Wrote: We're always being reprimanded for not taking the context into account. The context in this particular story couldn't be clearer if the pages were transparent. Man promises god to sacrifice first thing to greet him on his return home, in return for winning a battle. Man wins battle, returns hime. Daughter rushes out to greet him. Man not very happy but proceeds with sacrifice anyway. Everyone laments. Fade to black; roll credits. If you want to continue to argue that we have no record of what actually happened, despite the text stating what happened, then you are ruling out speculative rationalising on your part as well. Perhaps she turned into a giant butterfly and flew to Mars?
No, this is still a matter of context, but on a slightly larger scale. Jep as a "Judge" of God was bound to God's expressed will. Which includes the bit I left about human sacerfice and who was to make burnt offerings. You have motive in your little screen play, but not the means nor oppertunity. If Jep killed his daughter anyway then this story is not about human sacerfice but murder.
[/quote]
Now, even though it explicitly states that "he did to her as he had vowed", it isn't a sacrifice if it didn't explicitly list the method used? I give up...(No, this doesn't mean that you're right)
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
RE: Under the Rules of Catholicism, the Vast Majority of People Are Going to Hell
September 25, 2012 at 12:15 pm
(September 25, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Darkstar Wrote:
(September 25, 2012 at 12:20 am)Drich Wrote: Did you all miss the memo? See post 22 (at the bottom of the page i leave a link that describes how Acceptable sacerfices were made) http://atheistforums.org/thread-14973-page-3.html
(bolding mine)
This is just short of explicitly saying "he burned he alive as a sacrifice". It can't be much more obvious.
Yes but there is a problem that you and Mini don't see. In order to make a proper burnt offering to God their is a proceedure. it involves a priest of the levitical line. What is described in chapter 11 verse 1 about how Jep Came to be, disqualifies him as a preist able to make said sacerfice himself. Meaning He could only "OFFER" his daughter to the Temple/God/Preisthood. The preist would have to take part in the cermony in order for the killing/burnt offering to be acceptable before God. And because of the "Book Chapter and Verse" I left you saying ALL Human sacerfice was not acceptable before God, then a preist would have to refuse the ritual. Meaning if Jep was insistent to give his daughter to God they would have taken her as a slave to do all of the 'unclean' tasks in the temple. Meaning the even if Jep's intention was to kill his daughter and offer her as a burnt offering to God the preists would have stopped him.
However that does not mean she was not killed in some back alley and set on fire. If she was know in your heart God did not accept this sacerfice.
(September 25, 2012 at 12:16 am)Stimbo Wrote: We're always being reprimanded for not taking the context into account. The context in this particular story couldn't be clearer if the pages were transparent. Man promises god to sacrifice first thing to greet him on his return home, in return for winning a battle. Man wins battle, returns hime. Daughter rushes out to greet him. Man not very happy but proceeds with sacrifice anyway. Everyone laments. Fade to black; roll credits. If you want to continue to argue that we have no record of what actually happened, despite the text stating what happened, then you are ruling out speculative rationalising on your part as well. Perhaps she turned into a giant butterfly and flew to Mars?
No, this is still a matter of context, but on a slightly larger scale. Jep as a "Judge" of God was bound to God's expressed will. Which includes the bit I left about human sacerfice and who was to make burnt offerings. You have motive in your little screen play, but not the means nor oppertunity. If Jep killed his daughter anyway then this story is not about human sacerfice but murder.
Now, even though it explicitly states that "he did to her as he had vowed", it isn't a sacrifice if it didn't explicitly list the method used? I give up...(No, this doesn't mean that you're right)
[/quote]
Then please explain how this could be possiable if no one would perform the cermony. All Jep had to do to complete his vow is turn all rights and claims to his daughter over to the preists/God/Temple. That is was an offering is. He may have gone to the temple to kill and burn His daughter, but that does not mean the priest of the temple would have allowed it.
RE: Under the Rules of Catholicism, the Vast Majority of People Are Going to Hell
September 25, 2012 at 1:14 pm (This post was last modified: September 25, 2012 at 1:18 pm by Darkstar.)
(September 25, 2012 at 12:15 pm)Drich Wrote: [quote='Darkstar' pid='341243' dateline='1348589091']
Yes but there is a problem that you and Mini don't see. In order to make a proper burnt offering to God their is a proceedure. it involves a priest of the levitical line. What is described in chapter 11 verse 1 about how Jep Came to be, disqualifies him as a preist able to make said sacerfice himself. Meaning He could only "OFFER" his daughter to the Temple/God/Preisthood. The preist would have to take part in the cermony in order for the killing/burnt offering to be acceptable before God. And because of the "Book Chapter and Verse" I left you saying ALL Human sacerfice was not acceptable before God, then a preist would have to refuse the ritual. Meaning if Jep was insistent to give his daughter to God they would have taken her as a slave to do all of the 'unclean' tasks in the temple. Meaning the even if Jep's intention was to kill his daughter and offer her as a burnt offering to God the preists would have stopped him.
However that does not mean she was not killed in some back alley and set on fire. If she was know in your heart God did not accept this sacerfice.
No, this is still a matter of context, but on a slightly larger scale. Jep as a "Judge" of God was bound to God's expressed will. Which includes the bit I left about human sacerfice and who was to make burnt offerings. You have motive in your little screen play, but not the means nor oppertunity. If Jep killed his daughter anyway then this story is not about human sacerfice but murder.
I Wrote:Now, even though it explicitly states that "he did to her as he had vowed", it isn't a sacrifice if it didn't explicitly list the method used? I give up...(No, this doesn't mean that you're right)
Drich Wrote:Then please explain how this could be possiable if no one would perform the cermony. All Jep had to do to complete his vow is turn all rights and claims to his daughter over to the preists/God/Temple. That is was an offering is. He may have gone to the temple to kill and burn His daughter, but that does not mean the priest of the temple would have allowed it.
I said I gave up on you but... One more time: "He did to her as he had vowed". Did. As in past tense. As in it's already over by that verse. It didn't say "he went to do to her as he had vowed" or "he decided to do to her as he had vowed" or "he took her to the priest to do to her as he had vowed". he did it. The deed was already done.
Minimalist Wrote:“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.”
Nope, no just goving her to the priest. He had to sacrifice her as a burnt offering.
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
RE: Under the Rules of Catholicism, the Vast Majority of People Are Going to Hell
September 25, 2012 at 1:49 pm (This post was last modified: September 25, 2012 at 1:51 pm by Drich.)
(September 25, 2012 at 1:14 pm)Darkstar Wrote: I said I gave up on you but... One more time: "He did to her as he had vowed". Did. As in past tense. As in it's already over by that verse. It didn't say "he went to do to her as he had vowed" or "he decided to do to her as he had vowed" or "he took her to the priest to do to her as he had vowed". he did it. The deed was already done.
If you intenwith her [according] to his vow
In the Hebrew that whole section of scripture in which you wish to argue boils down to two words. In the english it reads: [with her [according] to his vow] which is derived from:
(נדר/ neder)
Which means to make a Votive offering (not a burnt offering) If your not familiar with the term wiki provides an acceptable defination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Votive_offering
and in the english:
[which he had vowed]
In the Hebrew: ( נדר nadar) which means to vow.
The Idea here is that Jep full filled his vow, and which could have been accomplished simply by leaving his daughter at the temple as a slave. The Hebrew suggests it in that the word for burnt offering was not used here, but the word that has the same meaning of offering leaving a penny to a wishing well, was used to described how Jep full filled his obligation to God.
Again, the problem with your arguement is that the Jewish religion is not set up to process human sacerfice, and in order for your interpertation of this passage to work one has to over look a 1/2 a dozen barriers in their religious practice and the orginal language in which the story was recorded to force this foolish interpertation.
all of that said i say again this does not mean that Jep did not try to have his daughter killed and burned. But in the end the religious establishment would not have allowed it. If Jep did kill his daughter it was not in compliance with how God mandates acceptable sacerfice.
RE: Under the Rules of Catholicism, the Vast Majority of People Are Going to Hell
September 25, 2012 at 2:00 pm
(September 25, 2012 at 1:49 pm)Drich Wrote: If you intenwith her [according] to his vow
In the Hebrew that whole section of scripture in which you wish to argue boils down to two words. In the english it reads: [with her [according] to his vow] which is derived from:
(נדר/ neder)
Which means to make a Votive offering (not a burnt offering) If your not familiar with the term wiki provides an acceptable defination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Votive_offering
and in the english:
[which he had vowed]
In the Hebrew: ( נדר nadar) which means to vow.
The Idea here is that Jep full filled his vow, and which could have been accomplished simply by leaving his daughter at the temple as a slave. The Hebrew suggests it in that the word for burnt offering was not used here, but the word that has the same meaning of offering leaving a penny to a wishing well, was used to described how Jep full filled his obligation to God.
Again, the problem with your arguement is that the Jewish religion is not set up to process human sacerfice, and in order for your interpertation of this passage to work one has to over look a 1/2 a dozen barriers in their religious practice and the orginal language in which the story was recorded to force this foolish interpertation.
all of that said i say again this does not mean that Jep did not try to have his daughter killed and burned. But in the end the religious establishment would not have allowed it. If Jep did kill his daughter it was not in compliance with how God mandates acceptable sacerfice.
What part of
Minimalist Wrote: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.”
is not clear? It explicitly states that his vow is to offer something (which turns out to be his daughter) as a burnt offernig.
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
