What about the poor?

[livlovmo]

Ok. I have had a question for a while, so I'm going to ask it. You know how people are born with "special needs" including brain damage? Well, if they are incapable of thinking (at least on Earth) then are those people sent here to teach those needing to be humbled in compassion or are they sent here to show us ture happiness through their needs? Because I know of a girl my age that has brain damage, but she smiles and finds some sort of happiness. She could be getting happiness from something unbeknowns to this world, while the only happiness many find is only of this world. Does anyone see what I mean?

[Ryokan]

Or are they here because their is no God, or because he is callous enough to cripple people to make a point?

Some are happy, but most, in most, live lives that are short, brutal, and far below the quality of "normal" people. Its not a lesson for people like you, but a tragedy, and it shouldn't be spun.

[livlovmo]

But at the same time if you believed in Heaven then think of how lucky you would be if you were in their place? They get to go to the most wonderful place while we would be stuck here until our time came to meet our Creator?

[livlovmo]

How could anyone create something and then make it be of lesser value than anything else made by them? It can't be done because the Creator takes pride in ALL of his work. Everything is equally as special...favoritism is not an issue.

[Ryokan]

if you believe that, liv, than why do anything here but sit in a monastary? I am talking about the quality of life here, which the "poor" are lacking. Any many don't die, but merely suffer horribly. Jesus's love or pride doesn't put clothes on anyones back, or food on anyones table.

On another tac, its okay for God to torture if he will reward later?

[Ryokan]

Bye the bye, sorry if I have been a little gruff. I am usually a goof, and not so serious.:teeth:

[Ryokan]

welcome to TWEB!

[Piebald]

are those people sent here to teach those needing to be humbled in compassion or are they sent here to show us ture happiness through their needs?

That is a very interesting thing to say. That is something my Grandmother used to say with regards to people like her son who is schizophrenic. I am not sure if these people were sent specifically to teach the rest of us to be our brother's keeper, but it would not surprise me.

[livlovmo]

Thanks for the welcome Ryokan! I'm loving this site for the little amount of time I've been here. But in regards to your saying that some people who live long suffer, well in the Bible Jesus says that "blessed are the poor in spirit for they will see God." All I'm saying is that "happiness" is something humans cannot get a grasp on. It never quite lasts on Earth. But what about after your life on Earth? There is something unfathomable that we do not understand and maybe aren't meant to understand...completely. But maybe there are lessons placed right under our noses...like what the Bible says about "Blessed are the poor in Spirit" that people tend to overlook. Could it be that the happiness we so desire is the company of an onipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God whos love streches as far east as it does west? Or what about a friend that will never leave us nor forsake us in times of need? Remember that God does not make people suffer...Satan does. Yes it's true that God does knit people together in the wombs of mothers everywhere and places them in specific situations, but he also knows how much that person can handle on Earth. I probably couldn't handle living in Africa with the AIDS disease running rampant but I can handle what situation I'm in now. I wish I could be as strong as those starving people in Africa but I have to be strong in other areas here in the US. Do you understand what I mean?

[PostHoc]

liv you said, "are those people sent here to teach those needing to be humbled in compassion or are they sent here to show us ture happiness through their needs?"

Well the only reason why people have deformities and such is because sin entered the world. Sin has so drastically changed the world and has made it a ticking time bomb. I think God uses people with "special needs" to teach people a thing or two about true love, compassion, and humilty. But I don't think God sent them for that specific reason. The Bible says that through one man (Adam) sin (and its implications) entered the world, and by grace Jesus came and by Him sin will leave. Basically death by Adam and life through Christ.

Ryokan you said, "(is it) okay for God to torture if he will reward later?"

The Bible has a little analogy for this specific question. God is the potter and we are clay. Who are we to question what He is doing? He is omniscient and has been in the future. He knows what is best. You should read Job too, that addresses your "conundrum" as well. :read:

[Ryokan]

We are the clay. We are the ones who are being shaped. We have a right, I think, at least to ask why. And job, while a nice story, seemed short on answers to me.

[kiwimac]

Amen Ryo,

Just because we ARE means we have the right to ask for answers!

God maybe the potter & I the clay but I cannot / will not worship a God less moral than myself.

Kiwimac

[FirstSunday33ad]

Yesterday @ 06:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119721#post119721)
Ryokan:

if you believe that, liv, than why do anything here but sit in a monastary? I am talking about the quality of life here, which the "poor" are lacking. Any many don't die, but merely suffer horribly. Jesus's love or pride doesn't put clothes on anyones back, or food on anyones table.

On another tac, its okay for God to torture if he will reward later?

This is an absolute statement for which you are completely and totally WRONG!!!

WORLD VISION...and other Christian charities do - put clothes on people's backs and food on their tables. They do much more besides - and they do it because of the love of Christ.

Don't talk about things you have no knowledge of; its annoying.

[PostHoc]

Today @ 07:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120166#post120166)
kiwimac:


God maybe the potter & I the clay but I cannot / will not worship a God less moral than myself.

Kiwimac


Lets get your definitions down... by moral you mean human morality. God is not limited by human morality. His awesome nature is what He is "confined" to. Part of His nature is justice, so He thus has to punish sinners who deserve nothing less than death. Part of His nature is mercy, so He thus can save those that He wants.

[PostHoc]

Today @ 12:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120403#post120403)
PostHoc:




Lets get your definitions down... by moral you mean human morality.

Maybe you didn't mean that, but I assumed it, so if I'm wrong, then please tell me. Maybe I should've said "by moral you probably mean morals that suit you and your beliefs"

[xixax]

Today @ 08:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120405#post120405)
PostHoc:

Maybe you didn't mean that, but I assumed it, so if I'm wrong, then please tell me. Maybe I should've said "by moral you probably mean morals that suit you and your beliefs"

Yes, icky belief systems that hold genocide and mass murder as evil. Belief systems that wouldn't accept a man's daughter as a human sacrifice to prove a point about making promises. A belief that children of a slain enemy would be better adopted and raised as your own than slaughtered or sold into slavery.

These are the type of "horrible" morals that I would hold any deity accountable to, especially one claiming omnipotence and omniscience ( he's obviously powerful enough to do it differently, and smart enough to know he should ).

[livlovmo]

Whoa XIXAx!!! First of all, have you ever researched how they handled punishment back when the Bible was written? Well maybe you should because you are thinking that God would commit murder on the people he created! Have you ever heard of Capital punishment? It doesn't say the those actual words in the Bible but if you reasearch how they lived back then and the punishments for their crimes, you'll find that it fits. :read:

[xixax]

Yesterday @ 10:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120541#post120541)
livlovmo:

Whoa XIXAx!!! First of all, have you ever researched how they handled punishment back when the Bible was written?

Not specifically for the purpose of learning how they were punished back then, but the topic has come up in other research of mine. Most of the research I was doing then was for preparing sermons or understanding the cultural significance of certain passages.

Well maybe you should because you are thinking that God would commit murder on the people he created! Have you ever heard of Capital punishment?

Yes, and as far as I'm aware, any civil nation practicing capital punishment also demands the slaughter of the criminals children when they have done nothing wrong, or the murder of the children in the womb of the mother ( they would allow her pregnancy to come to full term and have the child before execution ).

That also does not excuse the allowance of Jephthah's daughter as a human sacrifice in order to teach the value of keeping promises. ( Judges 11 )

It doesn't say the those actual words in the Bible but if you reasearch how they lived back then and the punishments for their crimes, you'll find that it fits. :read:

I don't find that it fits. Especially since the "necessity" of the punishment you are describing puts limiting factors on a god that supposedly has none.

[xixax]

Yesterday @ 10:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120541#post120541)
livlovmo:

Whoa XIXAx!!!

Also, don't take my posts as full of any "emotion" etc. I'm not "attacking", I'm just pointing things out. No vitriol or anger here, just words from someone with a tangled past. :)

[livlovmo]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound offended. I wasn't offended in the least. I just wanted to help you understand that God is not just another hypocite like in everyday society. You also have to understand about Him that he is all-knowing. So when there is a part in the Bible like Jephathah and how his daugther was sacrificed on the Lord's behalf, you have to look at it from a different perspective. What if J's daughter was to live longer and ended up suffering because of a disease? Well then it would've been better for her to be sacrificed. Abviously if God didn't allow her to live longer on Earth then there was something out of this earth greater than anything we can fathom. That's how I look at it. Maybe I didn't explain it the best...sorry :(. If you need clearification, just ask. :)

[xixax]

Today @ 06:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121676#post121676)
livlovmo:

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound offended. I wasn't offended in the least. I just wanted to help you understand that God is not just another hypocite like in everyday society.

I would agree. I don't believe the god of the bible exists, at least not as he's described. I'm agnostic, and "open" to their being a deity, but I can't see that deity having any guided hand in our physical universe.

You also have to understand about Him that he is all-knowing.

*nods* Omniscient/Omnipotent/Omnibenevolent as I was told.

( can't be all three, but that's a discussion for another thread )

So when there is a part in the Bible like Jephathah and how his daugther was sacrificed on the Lord's behalf, you have to look at it from a different perspective.

I don't have a perspective that justifies sacrificing my daughter on an altar.

What if J's daughter was to live longer and ended up suffering because of a disease?

Was there any indication she was sacrificed to reduce her suffering? No. It's rather clear that his daughter was sacrificed becase he unknowingly made a promise to god to sacrifice her to him in return for victory in battle. ( God knew he was making that promise when he made it though, because god is omniscient. Would you accept a promise to sacrifice their daughter to you from someone? I wouldn't, no matter what the potential suffering of that daughter would be from disease. )

I suppose then you support euthanasia? Kevorkian was doing god's work.

Well then it would've been better for her to be sacrificed.


I don't think so. She didn't seem very happy about it, considering the time spent mourning on the mountain. I'm sure having your father sacrifice you would be emotionally traumatic, and she would have wanted to live as long as possible.

Abviously if God didn't allow her to live longer on Earth then there was something out of this earth greater than anything we can fathom.

No, the story makes a point to explain the reasoning: Jephthah made a promise he didn't understand, and doing that leads to calamity. God used the sacrifice of his daughter to teach that lesson. That's the reason, not to reduce her suffering, or to serve some other greater good. Her murder was an object lesson.

That's how I look at it. Maybe I didn't explain it the best...sorry :(. If you need clearification, just ask. :)

I understand. Reading scripture through the rose colored lens of religious fervor can help someone ignore the obvious and look at horrible things in a positive light.

God ordered the murder of pregnant women? Must be some good reason.

Thankfully we aren't so lenient on criminals.

"I know he slaughtered a half dozen women, but I'm sure there was some greater good served, let's thank him and buy him a new set of knives."

[PostHoc]

It looks like you and liv are not going to come to an understanding. I (and I'm pretty sure she does) believe that God is totally greater than us. I've accepted that I won't always understand what He's doing. Thats where faith come into the my relationship with God. I'm trusting Him (based on the amazing change He's produced in my life, on the perfect harmony of the scriptures, and on so many other things).

[Feet Of Clay]

Though the story of Jephthah is consistently, and erroneously, used as evidence of God's cold-hearted, dogmatic insistence upon justice, the reality of it could not be further from the truth.

It could be said that Jephthah had a cold-hearted insistence upon justice, because the love of a father would sacrifice himself (read:his "right-standing" before God) for the life of his daughter.

It is also an example of selfless love on the part of the daughter that she would willingly submit to her father simply to prevent him from sinning. She roamed the hills for 2 months, she could have stayed there.

Any irony that her story is similar to Christ's? I think not. Man is subjected to the law. He is a slave to it because he enslaves himself. Christ died to release man from the law by fulfilling it, just as Jephthah's daughter did for him.

You are judging God (as laughable a concept as that is) by Jephthah's ill-wrought vow. What you are saying is that you wanted God to suspend justice for just a moment simply because the outcome was desirable. Thankfully, He did no such thing because to do so would have created a precedent that would completely eliminate the basic tenet of creation: Free Will, that idea that gives you the ability to question Him.

Zm

[Tennisbuff]

well said feet o' clay :cheers:

[xixax]

Yesterday @ 02:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123234#post123234)
Feet Of Clay:

Though the story of Jephthah is consistently, and erroneously, used as evidence of God's cold-hearted, dogmatic insistence upon justice, the reality of it could not be further from the truth.


Curious statement. The reality of it seems plain and directly pointing to a lack of justice on god's part, not a strict adherence to it.


It could be said that Jephthah had a cold-hearted insistence upon justice, because the love of a father would sacrifice himself (read:his "right-standing" before God) for the life of his daughter.

No, Jephthah had a fear of breaking his vow unto a god that clearly at that point distributed great punishment and calamity to those who broke vows to him. Had he disobeyed, god may have destroyed his entire family. It's clear that he was distressed in the story.

It is also an example of selfless love on the part of the daughter that she would willingly submit to her father simply to prevent him from sinning. She roamed the hills for 2 months, she could have stayed there.

Why make the statement sound so "cute"? "Willingly submit" makes it sound as if it's almost a normal occurrence.

He sacrificed his daughter, murdered her. Having your daughter agree to die at your hand instead of let you break a vow ( although she may have also been aware that god may have struck out and destroyed the entire family, if not the armies of Israel for such an act ) is sick and twisted. It's not admirable, it's not noble, it's disturbed.

Any irony that her story is similar to Christ's? I think not. Man is subjected to the law. He is a slave to it because he enslaves himself. Christ died to release man from the law by fulfilling it, just as Jephthah's daughter did for him.

This wasn't an object lesson in self sacrifice for another, this was an object lesson in why you shouldn't make vows without careful thought, especially to god. Any take on it being similar to christ and his life is a projection from a christian perspective that is unwarranted.

You are judging God (as laughable a concept as that is) by Jephthah's ill-wrought vow.

No, the vow was irresponsible on its own. I'm holding god accountable for allowing the sacrifice. Place a punishment on Jephthah, not his daughter.

What you are saying is that you wanted God to suspend justice for just a moment simply because the outcome was desirable.

Yes, as god did at other times, it seems whenever it suited his particular whim.

Thankfully, He did no such thing because to do so would have created a precedent that would completely eliminate the basic tenet of creation: Free Will, that idea that gives you the ability to question Him.

Zm

....

What a leap. God, doing what he does do in other instances in the bible in this case, would negate free will? How does that follow?

What use of free will is in question here? The free will of the daughter to allow herself to be sacrificed? The free will of Jephthah to murder his daughter to keep a vow? The free will of god to not present an alternative to Jephthah so that his daughter didn't die, but yet Jephthah suffered for his vow ( the act that would have been real justice ).

Had god told Jephthah some alternative way of being punished for his poorly made vow, then the daughter would have had no sacrifice to make, and he would have not had to murder his daughter.

Proverbs 22:26/27 seems to have a different idea on how to deal with people who are in debt ( same principle ).

Twist it how you want to, but it only shows the lengths to which someone will go to avoid calling out morality objectively when they are held to subjective standards of morality such as fundamentalist christianity provides.

[Undomiel]

06-10-2003 @ 11:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=119701#post119701)

Ryokan:

Some are happy, but most, in most, live lives that are short, brutal, and far below the quality of "normal" people. Its not a lesson for people like you, but a tragedy, and it shouldn't be spun.


Which gives us all the more reason to believe that somewhere in the universe there is a happy place for people who were born without or are currently without the benefits of the average human being. Since humanity can't seem to deal these people a fair hand and biology certainly hasn't, it seems fitting that our God will see to it for eternity - an infinitely more humane and loving view of the universe than to consign such people to lives of misery with no recompense whatosever, either in life or after life.

[xixax]

Today @ 09:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124674#post124674)
Undomiel:


Which gives us all the more reason to believe that somewhere in the universe there is a happy place for people who were born without or are currently without the benefits of the average
human being.

No, I think this leads to inaction on the part of those that could be doing something to help. After all, it may be hard on them now, but they get to go to heaven, so it's not a big deal if they suffer during their "earthly lives".

Those who are confident that after death there is no existence would be interested in making every day spent here as painless as possible, and with compassion would try to make sure the same is true for those around them.

Since humanity can't seem to deal these people a fair hand...

The fault of individuals of all religious backgrounds.

...and biology certainly hasn't...

Neither has physics... (?) I don't see where biology fits into helping the poor except in helping to improve healthcare.

..., it seems fitting that our God will see to it for eternity - an infinitely more humane and loving view of the universe than to consign such people to lives of misery with no recompense whatosever, either in life or after life.

Would seem so, but unfortunately for them being poor isn't what it takes to get into heaven. It involves other rituals they may or may not participate in, making them suffer here first, and then suffer throughout eternity also.

[Undomiel]

Today @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124731#post124731)
xixax:



No, I think this leads to inaction on the part of those that could be doing something to help.

I already knew you would say that. Problem is, you know and I know, Utopian human societies are even more unrealistic and mythological than an afterlife Utopia.

[Undomiel]

Today @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124731#post124731)
xixax:





Would seem so, but unfortunately for them being poor isn't what it takes to get into heaven. It involves other rituals they may or may not participate in, making them suffer here first, and then suffer throughout eternity also.


I was actually referring to the mentally handicapped. I do believe we will be judged based on what knowledge we have at our disposal, our life experiences, etc.

[kiwimac]

Frankly,

I agree with Xixax. Jephthah's vow was irresponsible, what happened to his daughter was murder.

Kiwimac

[Feet Of Clay]

I'd like some examples of other places in the Bible where God suspended justice.

"The free will of Jephthah to murder his daughter to keep a vow?" EXACTLY!

I can't dive into this further, right now, but get me some more examples and i'll give it my full attention tomorrow

Zm

[xixax]

Today @ 05:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125124#post125124)
Feet Of Clay:

I'd like some examples of other places in the Bible where God suspended justice.

"The free will of Jephthah to murder his daughter to keep a vow?" EXACTLY!

I can't dive into this further, right now, but get me some more examples and i'll give it my full attention tomorrow

Zm

Sure, I won't have time at work today, have a date tonight, but I will grab examples for you in the next day or so.

[xixax]

06-17-2003 @ 02:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125413#post125413)
xixax:



Sure, I won't have time at work today, have a date tonight, but I will grab examples for you in the next day or so.

Sorry it took me a while, but I have been extremely busy.

An instance where God suspended "Justice" because of their repentance, also giving them a chance to repent.

King James Version, Jonah 3

Jonah 3
1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,
2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.
4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:
8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.


The story of Abraham, bargaining with God to save souls.

King James Version, Genesis 18

22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.



It seems that God would spare the entire town, including the wicked.

Isn't this a suspense of justice? What prevented a situation like this from being offered to Jephthah to avoid sacrificing his daughter to God? Isn't human sacrifice one of the things the Old Testament cries out against pagan gods?

[Socrates]

06-17-2003 @ 12:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124903#post124903)
kiwimac:

I agree with Xixax.

Who cares what Kiwi or xixax think? Like most infidels and apostates, they squeal self-righteously at what God has done, but provide no reason to think that objective good or evil exists under their evolutionary system.

Jephthah's vow was irresponsible,

Yes, and it wasn't commended.

... what happened to his daughter was murder.

Was it? The daughter's reaction, as well as the general prohibition against human sacrifice, indicates that Jepthah's daughter had a life of perpetual virginity -- see www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_02_04.html

[xixax]

Today @ 04:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130692#post130692)
Socrates:

Who cares what Kiwi or xixax think? Like most infidels and apostates, they squeal self-righteously at what God has done, but provide no reason to think that objective good or evil exists under their evolutionary system.

Evolutionary System? What are you talking about? Where did I say I feel morality is a result of an "Evolutionary System"?

What do you mean by "objective" good anyway? Does such a thing exist in your world? No.

Your morality is determined by the edicts of a deity that speaks through humans instead of directly to his followers. I'm sure you would be loathe to say that God is required to behave by a set of morals defined outside of himself. That wouldn't be very omnipotent of him. ;)

For me, there exists a morality that has been defined by thousands of years of cultural evolution ( which I know isn't what you meant by "Evolutionary System", you were implying that biological evolution must be responsible for morality since in your mind it's competing with god as a creator).

At least my morality has some stability. There is no single figure that can come up to me and say "Slaughter your children on an altar for me." and expect me to do anything besides call the authorities.

For you, as it was for Abraham, it would require obedience. Children-schmildren, God asked and you deliver right?

Was it? The daughter's reaction, as well as the general prohibition against human sacrifice, indicates that Jepthah's daughter had a life of perpetual virginity -- see www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_02_04.html

No, it's quite clear what happened to her. She went up to wail for her virginity, then was sacrificed.

King James Version

39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,


What did he vow? Did he vow to make her live as a virgin? No.

So, you can either say that the Bible is errant, or that the apologetic attempt to make this not a story of the god of Israel accepting a human sacrifice is in error.

[xixax]

Today @ 04:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130692#post130692)
Socrates:

-- see www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_02_04.html

I'm amused that you would even cite that as evidence.

At the end, his proof that she wasn't sacrificed? Her apparent unhappiness with being a virgin.

That doesn't preclude her being sacrificed whatsoever. As a matter of fact, it seems more likely to me that the reason she was so upset about remaining a virgin is that she knew she would be murdered by her father soon. No children, no lineage.

It says what happened very clearly. He did with her as he vowed.

[ChrisChillin]

Dude, is it as clear as you want it to be so you can prove your point?

As Glenn Miller puts it...

[Very Important:] Literal "burnt offerings" HAD TO BE male (Lev 22.18-19).


Human sacrifice was STRICTLY forbidden (Dt 12.31) and we have NO record of it being practiced (even in horrible Judges-period Israel) by mainstream Israel during this period.

The lament for the daughter is about 'not marrying' NOT about 'not living'--it makes me wonder if some kind of religious celibacy is not in view. (Maybe the women at the Entrance to the Tent were celibate--Ex 38.8--living as widows in Israel later did on Temple payrolls.)

Verse 39 calls his action a 'vow'. Lev 27.28 (coupled with 27.21) allowed people to be given over the Lord, who became servants of the Priests. As devoted to the Lord's service, some of them probably did NOT marry (cf. the Nazarite vow, in its restriction on becoming 'unclean' for family members (Num 6.7) omits the words 'husband' or 'wife'...perhaps it was sometimes involving celibacy. The only Nazies we know, though, were married--Samuel and Samson)

As the only child, and if given to the priest in this fashion, Jephthah's entire estate would go to someone else.

He would have had to offer her at some cultic site, which would have had a priest. I cannot imagine a priest (even those as lax as elsewhere in the book of Judges) that would have agreed to perform a human sacrifice!

We have the VERY parallel case of Hannah and Samuel. She takes a vow, and offers her son to the Lord for all his life. (I Sam 1-2), and such vows did NOT allow the person to be redeemed with money (Lev 27.28-29).

[Very Important:] Burnt offerings were ALWAYS associated with condemnation/evil--not thanksgiving and vows. Even the one non-literal use of it in Dt 13.16 (in which a town is offered as a burnt offering) involves abject judgment/condemnation--NOT at all in view in the Jephthah passage.

What I have to conclude from this passage is that Jephthat does not know what a BURNT offering is, and that he is meaning an 'irredeemable vow' as a thank-offering, along the line of Hannah/Samuel. This is the only way to make sense of all the particulars.

taken from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem02c.html, last bold emphasis is mine

[xixax]

Today @ 07:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130788#post130788)
ChrisChillin:

Dude, is it as clear as you want it to be so you can prove your point?



Yes. He did with her as he vowed. He vowed to offer her as a burnt offering.


As Glenn Miller puts it...

[Very Important:] Literal "burnt offerings" HAD TO BE male (Lev 22.18-19).


Quoting a scripture on standard offering practice in relation to this is rather ridiculous. I doubt you'll find the mention of sacrificing human men in Leviticus either, so her gender is meaningless compared to her species. This is a rather unique event in the bible, and I'm still curious how you can twist "as he vowed" into something other than "as he vowed".

Human sacrifice was STRICTLY forbidden (Dt 12.31) and we have NO record of it being practiced (even in horrible Judges-period Israel) by mainstream Israel during this period.

So was dishonoring your father and mother, and adultery. I bet I can find instances were someone of "god" did both. I'm sure you can too. ( David did one of them... and it says he was a man after god's own heart )

The lament for the daughter is about 'not marrying' NOT about 'not living'--it makes me wonder if some kind of religious celibacy is not in view. (Maybe the women at the Entrance to the Tent were celibate--Ex 38.8--living as widows in Israel later did on Temple payrolls.)

Yes, not marrying. I can think of a great deal of things I would lament over not doing if I knew I was to die soon. It wouldn't mean I wasn't dying soon.

Verse 39 calls his action a 'vow'. Lev 27.28 (coupled with 27.21) allowed people to be given over the Lord, who became servants of the Priests. As devoted to the Lord's service, some of them probably did NOT marry (cf. the Nazarite vow, in its restriction on becoming 'unclean' for family members (Num 6.7) omits the words 'husband' or 'wife'...perhaps it was sometimes involving celibacy. The only Nazies we know, though, were married--Samuel and Samson)

And that entire paragraph served to help explain this story how? His vow wasn't a vow of celibacy. His vow isn't ambiguous or unknowable, it's a clear vow earlier in the chapter to offer whatever he greets first as a burnt offering unto the lord.

As the only child, and if given to the priest in this fashion, Jephthah's entire estate would go to someone else.

Yeah... Except that wasn't the vow he made.

He would have had to offer her at some cultic site, which would have had a priest. I cannot imagine a priest (even those as lax as elsewhere in the book of Judges) that would have agreed to perform a human sacrifice!

Jephthah wouldn't be the first to offer a sacrifice without a preist ( although in the other case that comes clearly to mind the person was scolded rather severely for doing so ). Here you are again also inserting personal speculation into a story that doesn't leave room for any. It says, "as he vowed".

What did he vow?
We have the VERY parallel case of Hannah and Samuel. She takes a vow, and offers her son to the Lord for all his life. (I Sam 1-2), and such vows did NOT allow the person to be redeemed with money (Lev 27.28-29).

No, this isn't a parallel. They didn't make a vow to offer him as a burnt offering. You are still taking your personal speculation and projecting it everywhere in order to make it seem reasonable. It doesn't leave room for that speculation.

[Very Important:] Burnt offerings were ALWAYS associated with condemnation/evil--not thanksgiving and vows. Even the one non-literal use of it in Dt 13.16 (in which a town is offered as a burnt offering) involves abject judgment/condemnation--NOT at all in view in the Jephthah passage.p

Noah. Abraham.

What I have to conclude from this passage is that Jephthat does not know what a BURNT offering is, and that he is meaning an 'irredeemable vow' as a thank-offering, along the line of Hannah/Samuel. This is the only way to make sense of all the particulars.

You mean make sense of the particulars in light of your desire for god to have not accepted a human sacrifice.

The actual scripture can evidently be ignored. It must not mean "as he vowed" when it says "as he vowed". Why? Because you don't want it to, that's why. And because it's contradictory to other passages in the bible ( as if that's a unique occurence ).


taken from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem02c.html,...

I would put it back, it's not convincing in comparison to the plain text.

[xixax]

Today @ 07:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130788#post130788)
ChrisChillin:

Dude, is it as clear as you want it to be so you can prove your point?..............



Also, instead of trying to twist out of a single instance, focus on the rest also. The slaughter of children in the womb at the order of god by the Israelites. The destruction of children in the flood.

My point is clear throughout the entire Old Testament. Jephthah happens to be the one everyone focused on.

[ChrisChillin]

hey xixax, tonight it was either respond to you or talk with a cool girl. just wanted to let you know i got my priorities straight. :cool:

i'll have some more thoughts tomorrow, hopefully

[xixax]

Today @ 05:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131142#post131142)
ChrisChillin:

hey xixax, tonight it was either respond to you or talk with a cool girl. just wanted to let you know i got my priorities straight. :cool:

i'll have some more thoughts tomorrow, hopefully

Not a problem, I would have ( and have ) done the same. :)

[ChrisChillin]

Alright, this is what I got out of my I'm-too-poor-or-busy-to-buy-books-or-find-them-at-the-library internet search on Jephthah.

First, a few places note that the Hebrew conjunction (vav) doesn't have to mean "and" but can also be rendered "or", hence, in the NASB:
"it shall be the LORD's, or I will offer it up as a burnt offering." (Judges 11:31)
Therefore, this could be an indication of a double-edged vow: what Jephthah promised was either to dedicate something to God (if this something were a person, and could then be redeemed based on Leviticus 27), or to burn it as offering to God (if this something were an animal). So this at least seems pretty unclear to me, unless some Hebrew scholars can come along and make a definitive ruling..

According to Rabbi Simmons at Ask.com, the prevailing (I presume this to mean in Orthodox circles) opinion among Jews is that Jephthah's daughter fulfilled the vow by never marrying.

One minister notes that the law says any firstborn offered to God must come under the custody of the Aaronic priesthood - cf. Numbers 18:15

Another article notes that the word often translated "lament" in verse 40 is actually better rendered as "commemorate" or "praise." When I did a lexical study at crosswalk.com, the Hebrew word (tanah) was defined as "recount, rehearse, tell again." Meanwhile, there were plenty of other Hebrew words listed that more closely correlated to what we would think by the word lament. So this seems to me to be a rather light word to use to describe the remembrance of Jephthah's daughter by the young women of Israel if they were mourning her in a yearly ritual. This article I looked at also deals with the translation of the conjunction, citing Bullinger's Companion Bible as saying:
"The Hebrew Vav [translated ‘and’ in the KJV/NKJV] is a connective particle, and is rendered in many different ways. It is also used as a disjunctive, and is often rendered ‘or’ (or with a negative ‘nor’)."

And, again, there are clear denunciations of human sacrifice in the Law that should have constrained Jephthah..

Another article also cites the Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, which quotes two biblical students as maintaining that the main significance of an 'olah, or "whole burnt offering", is the "total surrender of the heart and the life of the offerer to God." In this sense, then, Jephthah's daughter may still have been considered a "burnt offering" in a metaphorical, spiritual sense.

Pushback:
Maybe Jephthah didn't know the Law all that well, or just didn't care if he followed it..

The story indicates Jephthah should have been familiar with the Law and in fact was. Obviously, he understood that vows were considered sacred (cf. Numbers 30), and before battling the Ammonites, he parleyed for terms as per the written code. He also knew about consecrating things to the Lord and burnt offerings, and the laws against human sacrifice should have been clear to him as well.

On the other hand, if he didn't follow the Law (on two counts - offering a sacrifice without a priest and offering a human sacrifice!), he surely would have lost any position of leadership or esteem among his people, yet the record shows that he remained a judge.

So the big question is, did God accept the sacrifice?

Short answer: No.

As noted in Holding's article on Jephthah, the descent of the Spirit of the Lord on figures in the OT was for temporary purposes and the purpose of the descent was described immediately. Jephthah was inspired to fight the Ammonites, not to make the vow. God already had it in mind to bring deliverance, Jephthah didn't have to "sweeten the deal" to really convince God, although that may have still been what he was thinking. Jephthah's vow was his own free decision and the blame for the consequences rests squarely on his shoulders. If you want to say it's God's fault, you might as well say every bad consequence is directly God's fault just because He created the world, and that's a whole other philosophical issue I don't have the time to delve into.

Finally, there was still plenty of reason for the daughter to go off and grieve. After all, child-rearing was important for status in that day. And Jephthah no doubt found it real serious that his inheritance could not be passed down to a continuing lineage.

As for your comment that you would mourn not being married if you knew your death was near, I have to say that the emphasis on her virginity is suggestive. I want to go roam and weep because I won't marry, she says. She went and wept because she would never marry, says the text. And she was a virgin says the text. Sounds to me like waaaay too much focus on her virginity with her life about to be extinguished. In fact, I believe that if she stayed alive and became a consecrated individual, the mourning over her virginity would have to be more intense because she would have to live like that for years to come while friends and relatives birthed their heritage.

So then, it is possible to say that the young women of Israel commemorated/praised Jephthah for her sacrifice of remaining a consecrated virgin, instead of mourning the loss of her life.

When all is said and done, however, I admit that this is not conclusive. I'm willing to accept ambiguity on this one. But whether or not Jephthah actually sacrificed his daughter, there is absolutely no indication in the text that God sanctioned this act.

On another note....
I was reading through your account of your deconversion in another thread. I just want to let you know that I won't judge whether or not you were a sincere Christian or not, or go on about how you were "just in some modalist cult" as Socrates liked to point out. I do think that people on this board become too combative, and I worry that they're not following Christ's example of love. I know your experience wasn't easy, and harsh criticism of your motivations without knowing all the details is wrong and will do no good in having you reconsider the claims of the gospel. I'll be here to dialogue politely if you want, although not too frequentlly because I am quite busy. In fact, come August, I will spend a semester abroad in London and may not visit this board for the subsequent four months.

Anywho, I hope the above information is helpful and stimulating. This wasn't as well-organized or thought-out as I had hoped and planned, but alas time is working against me! If you want to find any of those web sites, you can just type "Jephthah" in Yahoo, or I can go back and get the links if you have trouble.

Cheers.

[xixax]

Today @ 05:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132847#post132847)
ChrisChillin:

Alright, this is what I got out of my I'm-too-poor-or-busy-to-buy-books-or-find-them-at-the-library internet search on Jephthah.
....

Well done response. I won't use that as an example in the future.


On another note....
I was reading through your account of your deconversion in another thread. I just want to let you know that I won't judge whether or not you were a sincere Christian or not, or go on about how you were "just in some modalist cult" as Socrates liked to point out. I do think that people on this board become too combative, and I worry that they're not following Christ's example of love. I know your experience wasn't easy, and harsh criticism of your motivations without knowing all the details is wrong and will do no good in having you reconsider the claims of the gospel. I'll be here to dialogue politely if you want, although not too frequentlly because I am quite busy. In fact, come August, I will spend a semester abroad in London and may not visit this board for the subsequent four months.

Well, thank you for the kind words, but it bothers me much less than they would like to think. Because of how things happened, I've dealt with many people over the issue who responded in the same way. I can't even appear in my old church without "Only a fool has said in his heart, there is no god" being pounded over the pulpit.

Their example only serves to strengthen my agnosticism, and they have become the enemy to their own faith much more than I ever will be.

Definitely open to discussing it, and thanks again for the work put into the response.

[ChrisChillin]

Well done response. I won't use that as an example in the future.



Thank you so much for the engaging discussion! I was glad that you were able to challenge the two sources I typically cite (Christian Think Tank and Tekton) and made me do some more research. As a result, I feel confident about my position knowing there is even more data to support it. Also, thank you for being a fair fella to discuss with!

A TOAST! :cheers:

Now, the point I intend to make with this: You have just conceded that some problem in the Bible you thought was so clear and obvious was actually not the case. Although at first you accused me of "twisting" the text, I assume that since you will drop Jephthah as an example of biblical horrors, that accusation is now withdrawn. So here's what's very important about this: perhaps maybe there is more to other parts of the Bible that you have similarly described as clear and obvious.

Maybe Christians can reasonably explain what is going on in Joshua's Conquest so that God doesn't come out as an ogre. In fact, a few months back I bought a book called "Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and the Canaanite Genocide." There is not one single Christian opinion on this matter! For example, while I don't agree with his conclusion, one of my professors in the religion department at my college believes that God did not order the bloodbath, and the Israelites later invented this sanction and put it in Scripture. Meanwhile, Glenn Miller has a long article at the Think Tank that delves into text and context and suggests that what happened might not have been so bloody as we think.

Maybe this hell of "eternal torment and screaming agony" is actually quite different from the connotations that have arisen from centuries of imagination. When Jesus is saying "weeping and gnashing of teeth", that phrase refers to sorrow and lament, not agony from torture. Did you know that when the Rich Man in the parable says he is in "torments", the word used refers to anguish, and not really physical torture? Perhaps we've been too literal with the very figurative imagery of the Revelation as well...

Maybe, just maybe, this God you wish to forget has not forgotten you. Perhaps your journey of discovery can begin again. It sounds like when you were a Christian, you got too many easy answers and pat responses...


"Only a fool has said in his heart, there is no god" being pounded over the pulpit.


You know what? I don't like easy answers either. I don't like it when Christians spout cliches or mindlessly mimic Bible verses. I also don't like it when they all too quickly dismiss the agony of one's heart, like yours, with the wave of a hand and some trash-talk. Much of the development of my faith in recent years has been in response to that. Fortunately, I have found the love of Christ and His call for righteousness to work even stronger in my life. There was one day in Sunday School as a teen that I sat there, thinking it was all fake. I had just gone through lists of alleged Bible contradictions and felt ready to throw in the towel. But I pressed on, and as I've grown, I've been met with new challenges, but in my experience at least the claims of Jesus continue to win out. Perhaps, post-resurrection, I managed to meet Him on my road to Emmaus, but somehow you've kept walking down another path. But this trip ain't over yet.

Believe me, I have changed my thinking and I haven't been a theological statue. As I have studied and experienced the way the Christian faith has been worked out in my life has been through its transformations. For example, I don't consider myself an inerrantist, the concept of JEDP doesn't shake me (although I am basically agnostic on the matter of Pentateuch authorship), and I have come to accept an inclusivist stance on salvation, which means that I have hope that God will save all who earnestly seek Him, even if they're so conditioned by their experience that Jesus is never a serious thought (and for that I recommend No Other Name by John Sanders). So I want you to know that I consider myself pretty open-minded, and I think my development supports that.

So...this means that maybe, just maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe God isn't real at all. It will take a lot of convincing to get me to think otherwise, but it's important to me that I know what truth is. Meanwhile, I will continue, as William Barclay puts it, betting my life that Jesus is right.

Perhaps then, you, FirstSunday33AD, and I should get together and start a new thread on one of these topics that is important to you, such as Hell or the Canaanite Slaughter. If we remain civil and open, I believe we can accomplish much!


Keep us challenged, xixax!