According to the old testament who aside from Abraham was demanded to sacrifice his kids? Also God spared the son of Abraham and gifted them meat instead. As for capital punishment that exists, but only in cases of severe and proven crimes.
Guy returns from war after vowing to God that if he made him victorious he would “sacrifice to him the first to greet him upon his arrival home” or something like that.
God doesn’t directly ask it. But his daughter comes to greet him first. And well God doesn’t stop it.
It’s obviously all nonsense. There isn’t a god to judge as being good or evil. This is a story about some delusion guy that murdered his daughter after winning a battle. But still.
The bible is filled with blood sacrifice stories like this.
The apologia is that since it says she “bemoans” her virginity, she was only consecrated as a virgin or something. That’s the ass pull you get on the off chance that a Christian recognizes Jephtah’s name - they don’t really read Judges lol. (The other interpretation is that god doesn’t ask Jepthah to do the sacrifice, he’s just a dumbass and promises to sacrifice the first thing he sees.)
I don’t think there are any other examples of explicit human sacrifice other than that story, the binding of Isaac (where god intervenes just in time), and then Jesus himself (which is supposed to be a deliberate parallel to Isaac - god goes through with sacrificing the Son of Man, Abraham was spared making the same sacrifice.) I might be missing something though.
There is evidence that historical ancient Israelites practiced human sacrifice though, and that does haunt some of those passages.
Well, I would say that all of the stories in which god tells the Israelites to slaughter the inhabitants of a land is a form of blood sacrifice.
Especially the ones where God is really angry apparently and instead of telling them to rape the women and children; he instead commands that they all be killed as well.
Again. Obviously god doesn’t do this. It’s just humans killing other humans and using their god to justify it. Not unique to the bible and no reason to call out a specific religion (though the three Abrahamic ones all believe the old testament in some way or another).
I guess I don’t see slaughter in war as comparable to ritualistic human sacrifice - ie your statement
The bible is filled with blood sacrifice stories like this.
I guess there’s something different between
Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
and a formalized ritual sacrifice. Again, there is evidence that the ancient Israelites practiced some forms of child sacrifice - I think the precedent of Isaac and some cultural memory/shame/repression is something a little different and more complicated (and more interesting) than “the Bible condones being bloodthirsty in war and this can be read as a form of human sacrifice.” I’m looking for frames/interpretations that enhance my understanding of the text - not stop at “these were bad people” - and I think there are very interesting parallels and connections to be made between the three demonstrated explorations of ritualistic human sacrifice in the Bible.
From my understanding there is debate among even biblical (religious or otherwise) scholars on the level of ceremonial human sacrifice that the stories of Moses and Joshua’s time partook in. There are laws against human sacrifice in the old testament. But there are also laws against most of what god commanded be done to non Hebrews. Most agree that the laws of the old testament primarily applied to the Hebrews only.
You can definitely read the early bible as “oh it was just war”. But you can’t really when there are specific stipulations on which women to kill or to “save for yourself”
They specifically are told to kill women that have “known men by lying with them”. How they determined this is not clear. Likely through rape.
Numbers 31 is basically explaining a lot of the after battle events. “Cleansing themselves” etc. It definitely seems to be an organized part of handling the spoils of war.
I’d say finding a women after the war, raping her, and then killing her if she doesn’t bleed sufficiently enough (likely how they determined this ‘known a man’) and doing this because it was commanded by your god is not necessarily “human sacrifice” in the ritualistic sense. But, I’d say it’s not something I’d care to distinguish if we’re talking about dehumanizing other people and killing them.
Which was my point to begin with. The bible is filled with these absolutely awful things being normalized to out groups. Whether they played drums and slit someone’s throat at an alter like a movie scene is not really the requirement for “human sacrifice” that I’d require.
Human sacrifice can just be killing innocents in the name of your god. Which the bible is absolutely filled with. Ceremonial or not is not really important to me. The ritualistic part of it can absolutely be the aftermath of a battle. Which is when this slaughter of innocents primarily took place.
After being thrown into fire by your own people for destroying their idols and leaving the fire unharmed? After Hajar, the wife of Abraham gave birth long after being past childbearing age?
Nonwithstanding the Prophets we know about all had to endure a lot of trials.
Does the question of whether you or i believe in it has any relevance to whether or not it is internally consistent or “sane”?
If you would watch a movie where the main character is saved from certain death by a power that is not limited by the natural laws that we humans are, is it “insane” for the main character to have unwavering loyalty and faith to that power? Would you tell the person sitting next to you how that is unrealistic and the plot is illogical?
You made the judgement "doesn’t that sound insane to you? " while you say you don’t believe in it. So for you to make this judgement it is not relevant whether you believe it happened or not. Now given that i brought you up to speed on what happened in “the first movie”, do you still consider “the second movie” to be “insane”? If so, why?
According to the old testament who aside from Abraham was demanded to sacrifice his kids? Also God spared the son of Abraham and gifted them meat instead. As for capital punishment that exists, but only in cases of severe and proven crimes.
Jephthah. Judges 10:30-40.
Guy returns from war after vowing to God that if he made him victorious he would “sacrifice to him the first to greet him upon his arrival home” or something like that.
God doesn’t directly ask it. But his daughter comes to greet him first. And well God doesn’t stop it.
It’s obviously all nonsense. There isn’t a god to judge as being good or evil. This is a story about some delusion guy that murdered his daughter after winning a battle. But still.
The bible is filled with blood sacrifice stories like this.
The apologia is that since it says she “bemoans” her virginity, she was only consecrated as a virgin or something. That’s the ass pull you get on the off chance that a Christian recognizes Jephtah’s name - they don’t really read Judges lol. (The other interpretation is that god doesn’t ask Jepthah to do the sacrifice, he’s just a dumbass and promises to sacrifice the first thing he sees.)
I don’t think there are any other examples of explicit human sacrifice other than that story, the binding of Isaac (where god intervenes just in time), and then Jesus himself (which is supposed to be a deliberate parallel to Isaac - god goes through with sacrificing the Son of Man, Abraham was spared making the same sacrifice.) I might be missing something though.
There is evidence that historical ancient Israelites practiced human sacrifice though, and that does haunt some of those passages.
Well, I would say that all of the stories in which god tells the Israelites to slaughter the inhabitants of a land is a form of blood sacrifice.
Especially the ones where God is really angry apparently and instead of telling them to rape the women and children; he instead commands that they all be killed as well.
Again. Obviously god doesn’t do this. It’s just humans killing other humans and using their god to justify it. Not unique to the bible and no reason to call out a specific religion (though the three Abrahamic ones all believe the old testament in some way or another).
I guess I don’t see slaughter in war as comparable to ritualistic human sacrifice - ie your statement
I guess there’s something different between
and a formalized ritual sacrifice. Again, there is evidence that the ancient Israelites practiced some forms of child sacrifice - I think the precedent of Isaac and some cultural memory/shame/repression is something a little different and more complicated (and more interesting) than “the Bible condones being bloodthirsty in war and this can be read as a form of human sacrifice.” I’m looking for frames/interpretations that enhance my understanding of the text - not stop at “these were bad people” - and I think there are very interesting parallels and connections to be made between the three demonstrated explorations of ritualistic human sacrifice in the Bible.
From my understanding there is debate among even biblical (religious or otherwise) scholars on the level of ceremonial human sacrifice that the stories of Moses and Joshua’s time partook in. There are laws against human sacrifice in the old testament. But there are also laws against most of what god commanded be done to non Hebrews. Most agree that the laws of the old testament primarily applied to the Hebrews only.
You can definitely read the early bible as “oh it was just war”. But you can’t really when there are specific stipulations on which women to kill or to “save for yourself”
They specifically are told to kill women that have “known men by lying with them”. How they determined this is not clear. Likely through rape.
Numbers 31 is basically explaining a lot of the after battle events. “Cleansing themselves” etc. It definitely seems to be an organized part of handling the spoils of war.
I’d say finding a women after the war, raping her, and then killing her if she doesn’t bleed sufficiently enough (likely how they determined this ‘known a man’) and doing this because it was commanded by your god is not necessarily “human sacrifice” in the ritualistic sense. But, I’d say it’s not something I’d care to distinguish if we’re talking about dehumanizing other people and killing them.
Which was my point to begin with. The bible is filled with these absolutely awful things being normalized to out groups. Whether they played drums and slit someone’s throat at an alter like a movie scene is not really the requirement for “human sacrifice” that I’d require.
Human sacrifice can just be killing innocents in the name of your god. Which the bible is absolutely filled with. Ceremonial or not is not really important to me. The ritualistic part of it can absolutely be the aftermath of a battle. Which is when this slaughter of innocents primarily took place.
Yeah, doesn’t that sound insane to you? Hey, sacrifice your kid for me… ope, just kidding bro, here’s some meat for being an obedient little bitch.
After being thrown into fire by your own people for destroying their idols and leaving the fire unharmed? After Hajar, the wife of Abraham gave birth long after being past childbearing age?
Nonwithstanding the Prophets we know about all had to endure a lot of trials.
Dude, you know none of that is real right?
Does the question of whether you or i believe in it has any relevance to whether or not it is internally consistent or “sane”?
If you would watch a movie where the main character is saved from certain death by a power that is not limited by the natural laws that we humans are, is it “insane” for the main character to have unwavering loyalty and faith to that power? Would you tell the person sitting next to you how that is unrealistic and the plot is illogical?
You made the judgement "doesn’t that sound insane to you? " while you say you don’t believe in it. So for you to make this judgement it is not relevant whether you believe it happened or not. Now given that i brought you up to speed on what happened in “the first movie”, do you still consider “the second movie” to be “insane”? If so, why?