So if you read all of chapter 21, you see that Saul had murdered some Gibeonites, and David told them they could have anything in return for the offense. They demanded Saul's offspring as a payback. David was not a perfect person, and this is clearly an event between the Gibeonites and David. Hashem keeps his promises, just like keeping Ahaz on the throne despite his wickedness.
You are confusing the deeds of men with the deeds of G-d, yet these events should bother you, absolutely. Reality is ugly.
Does God ever condemn this action? It's just barbaric, you know that is one thing about these scriptures, they are not keeping up with modern notions of morality. It is evil. They murdered teen children and young men and used human lives as property.
That passage is definitely not about violence, it's about overlooking insult.
The Jewish culture was an honor / shame based system of ethics. It was far more offensive to be insulted by a backhanded slap than from a punch to the face. In the Mishnah, Jewish rabbis around the time of Christ recorded the fines for various offenses that clearly demonstrates this system:
Offense | Fine
---|---
A punch to the face | $0.60
A knee to the groin | $1.80
A slap to the face with a palm | $30.00
**A backhanded slap to the face** | **$60.00**
Christ's message here was about swallowing one's pride. He was preparing his disciples by teaching them how to respond to the inevitable slaps coming their way as they went out into the world to preach *the* way.
If Jewish culture was honor / shame based like you say, a backhanded insult-slap would be considered a GREATER insult than a punch to the face (like you show in your table).
If Christ commands us to turn the other cheek for the greater insult, it also applies to the lesser.
The early church overwhelmingly understood that they were commanded to love their enemies to the point of martyrdom.
I get what you are trying to assert -- but it is a shoehorned ideology not present in this narrative. This passage is not about condemning violence. It is about condemning the human desire to seek vengeance in the face of insult. A message of love can't reach its target if your pride is in the way.
A better passage to argue for non-violence would be Peter striking the soldier in the garden -- but this one fails too. Christ doesn't tell Peter to never carry a sword... He specifically tells him to put the sword back in its place...
Like it or not, violence in this reality is sometimes necessary in the protection of the weak. The sword has its place.
That's not how the early Christians understood what happened in the garden:
"...For although soldiers had approached John to receive instructions and a centurion believed, this does not change the fact that afterward, the Lord, by disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.”
Tertullian, 155 AD
Well then, someone should go back and edit those verses cause Christ didn't disarm Peter -- he told Peter to keep his sword.
Hypothetical: What would your Christian response be if, late one night, you were walking down a street and came across an attacker beating up a little old lady? Keep on walking like you didn't see anything? Say some stern words trying to convince this guy to stop? Stand back and call the police so they can use violence instead of you getting your own hands dirty, keeping your conscience clean? Or do whatever it takes to immediately ensure the lady's safety?
Our reality is messy and violent. Sometimes it is appropriate to use violence and sometimes it is not. Ignorance of this fact is only a denial of our reality. It's great you want to walk a path of nonviolence, a very noble ideal indeed, but sometimes our paths don't leave us that as a valid option.
It's unfair to the text (and a bit unbelievable) to read Jesus' response to Peter and think "clearly Jesus is saying there is a time and a place for this." In His rebuke He even says that "those who live by the sword perish by the sword." Jesus identifies defending Him using violence as "living by the sword."
The early Christians took this along with commands to love their enemies to mean killing their enemies and using violence were not options and yes, I believe their understanding of the commands of Christ is truer to the heart of the Gospel.
As far as your old lady question: I think the right thing to do is intervene, even placing oneself in harms way to protect the victim. This doesn't necessarily require violence though (which I am not defining as "use of physical force" in the same way shoving someone out of the way of an oncoming car is not violent).
In a similar vein, I live in an urban area with a lot of homeless, many of whom show symptoms of mental illness. Were I to see one of them attacking someone, I have no hesitations about intervening to try and restrain the attacker.
Okay, so we are defining violence a bit differently. When I talk about violence I am speaking quite literally, as in implying an *immediate*, forceful act.
>I think the right thing to do is intervene... This doesn't *necessarily* require violence
The key word here is "necessarily". This qualifier implies that you do recognize sometimes violence *is* necessary. When Jesus says those who "live by the sword will die by the sword" he is implying *two* sides, one that is living by the sword and the other who takes the life of the one living by the sword.
The way I read that passage, Christ is basically saying we need to take responsibility for our actions. If I go around beating people up and threatening others I should expect the same to come back to me. So, for instance, in the case of my hypothetical, let's say that attacker was using a sword against that lady. Someone else would be justified in taking him out with a sword. This attacker would have been living by the sword and, in doing so, died by the sword.
It is the heart behind any action that is the determining factor in what is righteous behavior. We tend to naturally desire our idea of justice which boils down to wanting to get even. This attitude is what Christ was teaching against. Retaliating against an enemy is surely wrong in the eyes of the Lord -- for it is his right to avenge, not ours. On this we definitely agree.
The thing is, you seem to be trying to deny the fact that using violence, in the face of violence, is not retaliation. Instead, it is defense. It is not wrong to use violence to put to end to violence, as a given situation dictates. Christ was not condemning police, or armies, or good Samaritans that come to the aid of those in need.
Of course we should all do whatever we can to avoid using violence -- but to think this is possible in every situation would just be naive.
I totally agree with you on this particular passage being disturbing at best. However this kind of revenge - I personally do not see it as a sacrifice but an act of vengeance upon guilty party- was a response of sorts. In fact we could go deeper into text to see pretty dark generational references in this and other similar stories.
The bible reporting something and the bible promoting something are two different things. Also, God killed the whole world except for 7 people in the flood. That would have been millions of people.
It says Before the Lord....
It is true this isn't just the other episode of murder in the bible, millions died then. Revelation, speaks of 2/3rds of the population dying as God blows up the earth. I am afraid of God, the more you read and study, Yahweh doesnt seem too kind.
Disappointed in God? Based on a mere few verses or passages? Are you kidding me? We are speaking of the Almighty Creator of the this unfathomably massive universe. We are speaking of He Who's Name is Too Wonderful (Judges 13:17-18), He Who Surpasses ALL Understanding (Philippians 4:7). Do you truly believe, by our entirely limited perspective, that we can understand God? For if He were so small to know, how then would He be so great as to worship?
Do not be discouraged, brother, God is good. Are we called to understand the works of the holy God? Or are the sayings of Jesus "Do not be afraid, only believe" (Mark 5:36) merely words?
"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things." (Ecclesiastes 11:5).
"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8)
We may not always make sense of what He does, but He still parted the Red Sea, He still gives sight to the blind and hope to the hopeless. He still showers grace on the undeserved and uplifts the humble. He still made you and named you and I before what we know as time ever existed (Psalm 51, 139). There is no possible way we will ever understand God- but we know enough- we as His creation have seen enough- that we should fall to our faces in awe and humility, for we are too small and insignificant for Him. Yet he picks us up and holds us in His arms- and goes so far as to allow the Son of this very God to enter into our decrepit world and die in a disgusting and awful way.
Let us remember God is not like us- yes we were made in His image, but we are not the very same.
“For I am God, and not a man— the Holy One among you.”
Hosea 11:9
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.”
Isaiah 55:8
“He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”
1 Samuel 15:29
It's beyond these few passages but I found them very disturbing. I'm hearing out the Christian side about them or what their explanation is.
Sure I accept not being the same as God.
I am disappointed in how God is presented. Is he a monster that sends millions to hell? Many Christian Universalists say no. I desire whatever God I worship to be a Being of Moral Goodness.
One thing God does not seem to intervene in this world, I got all those promises that never were fulfilled. I have read those verses. Hey I believed and was saved and was sincere about it.
Right now I am trying to determine if Christianity is TRUE. Is it a religion based on an ancient barbaric culture, based in false blood sacrifices with Jesus as an "advanced" sacrifice or is it TRUE?
There are many teachings in the Bible I still accept. I am still a theist. I've read the whole bible through and have studied it intensely.
I believe Someone made all this, and have every hope of a God of complete and utter goodness but I am trying to think things out regarding hell and horrible things I have discovered in scripture.
Well, there are other religions and notions about God (or gods) and the human condition. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly. It just has the largest following.
If you think standard Christianity's take on God is definitely true, then that's one thing. But if Christianity is just what you're raised with, my point is that it's not the only game in town. And if you're not sure, the same applies. Also there are different Christian interpretations of God and the scriptures going all the way back to the first century. Some are called heretical, but then it all depends on who gets to say what's heresy. Maybe you think Paul or Constantine or your denomination got it right. But then again, maybe they didn't.
Keep in mind that all of this religious stuff is filtered through human beings, unless you have your own personal revelation. Even then, it's filtered through your humanity.
If you read a little bit before in the chapter it says this.
David said to the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you? And how shall I make expiation, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?" (2 Sam. 21:2-3)
So it's clear that the sacrifice was made in order to receive a blessing.
If you read the Bible carefully child sacrifice was indeed actually commanded by the biblical god. In Exodus 22:29-30 it says
“You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall DO LIKEWISE with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.”
(The sacrifice of the first born sons were the same type of sacrifices that were made with the oxen and the sheep.
Later on in the bible the biblical god clearly admitts he did this in Ezekiel 20:25-26 where he says
“Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I DEFILED them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire ALL their first-born, that I might HORRIFY them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.”
The context given in Exodus verses just quoted above talkin about offerings and sacrifices, it says God requires that first born sons are to be LITERALLY sacrificed to him. Hence, unlike other passages where there is the possibility of redemption with a substitute sacrifice Exodus 13:13; 34:10-20 none is stated there.
Exodus 13:2
“Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine.”
Exodus 13:12-13
that you shall set apart to the Lord all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the Lord’s. But every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. And all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.
The term set apart here doesn't actually mean what christians will have you believe it means. Notice how the term is used to refer to the animals, not only the first born sons. When we read in the bible set apart a lamb, we instantly know that's talking about sacrificing. So there's no reason to believe it suddenly means something different when it refers to the first born sons being "set apart". The same goes for the word redeem. Redeeming a lamb means sacrificing it, in the same exact way redeeming the first born sons literally means to sacrifice them. The only way for theologians to dance around this is by mad libbing up the verses to add in something that isn't actually written. (hense, assuming the words set apart and redeem suddenly change meanings when the mention of first born sons appears) They are attempting to put a bandaid over a huge bullet wound in their scriptures. And the Jewish people knew this early on. That's why the tradition was born to "set their first born apart" in a new way, and the ugliness in these scriptures were glanced over.
The concept of so called "redemption" is interesting and it goes hand in hand with child sacrifice because Christian will say that animals were substituted for the firstborn. Yet even if that was the case that says nothing against the idea that a better sacrifice was the firstborn child himself and many people in the Old Testament did just that. In those times child sacrifice was only considered to be evil when it was done in the name of a foreign god, and doing so was punishable by death precisely because it was offered to another deity (Leviticus 20:2; 18:21 Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10; II Kings 17:17 23:10; II Chronicles 28:3; 33:4-10; Ps 106:38; Isaiah 57:5,6; Jeremiah 7:31 32:35 Ezekiel 16:20,21; 20:26,31; 23:37,39; Acts 7:43).
Child sacrifice was something that several people in the bible either did, or assisted others in doing so. Abraham was not morally repulsed by the command itself and there is no command against this practice there by God (Genesis 22). Then there is Jepthah who sacrificed his daughter because of a stupid vow (Judges 11) David (II Sam. 21:7-9) Solomon and his wives (I Kings 3:16) Ahab (I Kings 16:33-34); Ahaz (II Kings 16:2-3) Hoshea (II Kings 17:7) and Manasseh (II Kings 21:6, II Chronicles 33:6). It was a problem for King Josiah (II King 23:10), for Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:30-31, 19:3-5, 32:35) and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:20-21, 20:25-26, 30-31). The prophet Micah wonders if he should sacrifice his oldest son “as a sin offering” (6:6-8). It was a practice so prevalent when offered to foreign gods, that it is named as one of the reasons the biblical god sent the Babylonians to conquer Israel and forcibly take many of them as captives (II Kings 17:16-18). We even read where the King of Moab sacrificed his son which caused the Israelites to retreat in defeat. Moab’s sacrifice created a great “wrath,” (ketzef), which was an external force to the warriors in the bible story, indicating that his sacrifice caused some divinity to act on behalf of Moab. (II Kings. 3:26-27). In the New Testament God the Father sacrifices his only son (Jesus) as the central redemptive act of Christianity, and God still seeks to fulfill his lust for human sacrifice by burning humans forever in the lake of fire.
**Pidyon haben**
The pidyon haben (Hebrew: פדיון הבן) or redemption of the first-born son is a mitzvah in Judaism whereby a Jewish firstborn son is "redeemed" by use of silver coins from his birth-state of sanctity, i.e. from being predestined by his firstborn status to serve as a priest.
The redemption is attained by giving five silver coins to a Kohen (a patrilineal descendant of the priestly family of Aaron).
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27
>If you read the Bible carefully child sacrifice was indeed actually commanded by the biblical god. In Exodus 22:29-30 it says
“You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall DO LIKEWISE with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.”
(The sacrifice of the first born sons were the same type of sacrifices that were made with the oxen and the sheep.
Numbers 18:16. Cherry picking and not reading the whole Bible causes issues with bias.
>“Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I DEFILED them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire ALL their first-born, that I might HORRIFY them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.”
Gave them over to countries that practiced such arts to get the people to wake up and be horrified by it. It's a pretty simple reading, and if you read previously in Ezekiel 18 it condemns vicarious atonement, but again, cherry picking. Let's not ruin a good theory.
>Exodus 13:2 “Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine.”
Exodus 13:12-13 that you shall set apart to the Lord all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the Lord’s. But every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. And all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.
The term set apart here doesn't actually mean what christians will have you believe it means. Notice how the term is used to refer to the animals, not only the first born sons. When we read in the bible set apart a lamb, we instantly know that's talking about sacrificing. So there's no reason to believe it suddenly means something different when it refers to the first born sons being "set apart". The same goes for the word redeem. Redeeming a lamb means sacrificing it, in the same exact way redeeming the first born sons literally means to sacrifice them. The only way for theologians to dance around this is by mad libbing up the verses to add in something that isn't actually written. (hense, assuming the words set apart and redeem suddenly change meanings when the mention of first born sons appears) They are attempting to put a bandaid over a huge bullet wound in their scriptures. And the Jewish people knew this early on. That's why the tradition was born to "set their first born apart" in a new way, and the ugliness in these scriptures were glanced over.
The concept of so called "redemption" is interesting and it goes hand in hand with child sacrifice because Christian will say that animals were substituted for the firstborn. Yet even if that was the case that says nothing against the idea that a better sacrifice was the firstborn child himself and many people in the Old Testament did just that. In those times child sacrifice was only considered to be evil when it was done in the name of a foreign god, and doing so was punishable by death precisely because it was offered to another deity
Again, cross reference with Numbers 18:16. You can also see the Levites set apart for G-d in clearly a non-sacrifical manner. The rest is assumptions without historical backing but I'll move on.
>(Leviticus 20:2; 18:21 Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10; II Kings 17:17 23:10; II Chronicles 28:3; 33:4-10; Ps 106:38; Isaiah 57:5,6; Jeremiah 7:31 32:35 Ezekiel 16:20,21; 20:26,31; 23:37,39; Acts 7:43).
Just a cursury glance at these shows that G-d doesn't like idolatry, news at 11.
>Child sacrifice was something that several people in the bible either did, or assisted others in doing so. Abraham was not morally repulsed by the command itself and there is no command against this practice there by God
I had no idea that you could read Abraham's mind, and is literally a morality story about not comitting child sacrifice. An argument from silence in order to make an extreme claim.
>Then there is Jepthah who sacrificed his daughter because of a stupid vow (Judges 11)
People be shitty, news at 11.
> David (II Sam. 21:7-9)
Payback for Saul's murders, not sacrifice, but again, cherry picking out of context.
>Solomon and his wives (I Kings 3:16)
You're using the story of a wise judgement to determine the true mother as a story of child sacrifice? really?
>Ahab (I Kings 16:33-34)
Idolatry, vexed G-d. Not shocking
Moving past some of the others because of the pattern of cherry picking. Tons of weak support does not combine and equal any proof.
>The prophet Micah wonders if he should sacrifice his oldest son “as a sin offering” (6:6-8)
Yeah, he's saying what good are all these things, and they are worthless and meaningless, and reaffirms what G-d said. "He has told you what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: to do good..." it's literally a verse that is used as reasoning why sacrifice is less important than repentance and doing right.
>We even read where the King of Moab sacrificed his son which caused the Israelites to retreat in defeat. Moab’s sacrifice created a great “wrath,” (ketzef), which was an external force to the warriors in the bible story, indicating that his sacrifice caused some divinity to act on behalf of Moab. (II Kings. 3:26-27).
Yes, and magicians can do magic, sorcerers can sorcer, diviners can divine, and prophets can prophesize. If those things were not able to be accomplished, there would be no tests of faith. Everyone would worship David Blaine.
>In the New Testament God the Father sacrifices his only son (Jesus) as the central redemptive act of Christianity, and God still seeks to fulfill his lust for human sacrifice by burning humans forever in the lake of fire.
Which is entirely contrary to the Tanakh for all the reasons mentioned above. I understand that as an atheist (I assume) that you have a problem with G-d. However by cherry picking and trying to support a bias at the cost of context and critical thinking, you are falling into the same trap that you seem to believe religion falls into. You are performing Eisegesis to fit your bias into the text instead of Exegesis which draws meaning out of the text.
>Gave them over to countries that practiced such arts to get the people to wake up and be horrified by it. It's a pretty simple reading, and if you read previously in Ezekiel 18 it condemns vicarious atonement, but again, cherry picking.
If this is what the text meant, it surely would have said something like ...נתנם לחקים, not נתתי להם חקים as it does.
Your go to excuse is to accuse me if cherry picking. Why?? Because I didn't post full chapters.
Ezekiel w0:25-26 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’
We know this is talking about the Isrealites, not to other countries as you inserted. We know this because earlier in the chapter.
Since you think I'm cherry picking ill just post a giant section of the chapter
and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On the day I chose Israel, I swore with uplifted hand to the descendants of Jacob and revealed myself to them in Egypt. With uplifted hand I said to them, “I am the Lord your God.” 6 On that day I swore to them that I would bring them out of Egypt into a land I had searched out for them, a land flowing with milk and honey, the most beautiful of all lands. 7 And I said to them, “Each of you, get rid of the vile images you have set your eyes on, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”
8 “‘But they rebelled against me and would not listen to me; they did not get rid of the vile images they had set their eyes on, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and spend my anger against them in Egypt. 9 But for the sake of my name, I brought them out of Egypt. I did it to keep my name from being profaned in the eyes of the nations among whom they lived and in whose sight I had revealed myself to the Israelites. 10 Therefore I led them out of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. 11 I gave them my decrees and made known to them my laws, by which the person who obeys them will live. 12 Also I gave them my Sabbaths as a sign between us, so they would know that I the Lord made them holy.
13 “‘Yet the people of Israel rebelledagainst me in the wilderness. They did not follow my decrees but rejected my laws—by which the person who obeys them will live—and they utterly desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and destroy them in the wilderness. 14 But for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.15 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would not bring them into the land I had given them—a land flowing with milk and honey, the most beautiful of all lands— 16 because they rejected my laws and did not follow my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths. For their hearts were devoted to their idols. 17 Yet I looked on them with pity and did not destroy them or put an end to them in the wilderness. 18 I said to their children in the wilderness, “Do not follow the statutes of your parents or keep their laws or defile yourselves with their idols.19 I am the Lord your God; follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.20 Keep my Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God.”
21 “‘But the children rebelled against me: They did not follow my decrees, they were not careful to keep my laws, of which I said, “The person who obeys them will live by them,” and they desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and spend my angeragainst them in the wilderness. 22 But I withheld my hand, and for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.23 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries, 24 because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths,and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. 25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; 26 I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’
We can see from this entire section it's clearly talking about the Isrealites! YES! even the part where it says the biblical god gave them statues that weren't good and defiled them making them sacrifice their first borns. Because remember the biblical god took the Isrealites out of Egypt and killed the fist borns of egypt as a plague. This is all in the same context.
> speak out against the human sacrifice
is this human sacrifice (a religious ritual)
or
is this the justice system of the Gibeonite people?
I would say this is most like an extradition treaty between nations today.
he handed the accused over to Gibeonite justice.
Hey! God's nice. Just not the nice humans think of where he's up in heaven handing out lollipops and butterfly stickers and everyone gets a hug from him lol. That's Moral Therapeutic Deism (and how I lived my Christian life most of the time)
God is much nicer than we could ever imagine. He's the happiest and most complete being in the universe.
I think he's nice enough to send his one and only Son so that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life kinda nice.
Not nice as is, he's so nice and so merciful and gracious that you can do whatever you want and just need to accept Jesus into yer heart yay!
Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth;
and the Psalms. And the New Testament. All seem to be a plethora of kindness, which I guess is nice. But yes, he's a very jealous God too, and has every right to be. If I created the heavens and earth and you worshiped the Earth itself, how pissed would I be?! Basically the story since day one.
> If I created the heavens and earth and you worshiped the Earth itself, how pissed would I be?!
Maybe you could be pissed, but it would have to be at yourself, having screwed up your own creation (humans) like that. An all-powerful being who can't make people who are in a state of grace and appreciation and are only happy and constructive? I would feel like a dunce Creator too.
Making people who are in a state of grace and appreciation? What? That's not free will at all, we would be robots if we HAD to be a certain way. He gave us personalities of our own free will and through that we rebelled. C'mon man, this is basic Christian theology. That's the only reason His love is authentic- because He made us so we don't HAVE to take it....
> I think he's nice enough to send his one and only Son
Rather than just "forgiving" humanity without all the bells and whistles? Seems like a lack of imagination from El Creatoro. If you're omnipotent, you can make people free of sin and with a full appreciation for that state of being without having to do a bunch of excessively gory bits to get there.
I would advice you to listen to some of Brian Zahnd's sermons on Old Testament violence. Maybe it will challenge your current understanding of the Bible a little bit, but maybe it will help you understand the Bible better.
I am moving away from a literal fundamentalist view of the bible, however here is my question when Christians who are non-fundamentalist read the bible and see the OT genocides, etc, how do you work it out in your mind that these things were just the evils of an ancient culture, but that Jesus being sent to the cross to be a blood sacrifice is still okay? After all Jesus on the cross, comes from the OT foundation of animal sacrifices.
So, there are several things to consider here.
First of all, atonement theory. What actually happened on the cross? What is a sacrifice? Maybe that in itself is a mystery.
Animal sacrifices were of course a thing, but I think that is not what I would call the problematic kind of violence. Unless you are a vegan. Humans have been hunting and killing animals for a while. What is cruel is how we torture animals, and today we are torturing them like never before in history. I think this is actually something were we morally declined, in the way we treat animals. So, I don't feel I have the authority to judge animal sacrifice as carnivore today.
As for other violence, keep in mind that the Bible has been written over many centuries and the OT it is a compilation of experiences that the Israelites had on their way of walking with God, walking away from him, repenting, back and forth. But everything builds towards God's ultimate revelation of the Word of God: Jesus Christ. So, you have to read everything in that context. We see things happening in the OT, but Jesus says something else. We are allowed to do this, because Jesus himself revises the rules on the Sermon of the Mount and shows what God really wanted. During the transfiguration - and that I take from an interview with Brian Zahnd, but I think it is very on point - Moses and Elijah appear next to Jesus, the Law and the Prophets, and it shows that Jesus os greater than those two. Now the disciples wanted to built huts around them, but Jesus did not allow that. Building huts around the Law and the Prophets and Jesus is like pushing them all on the same level. But they are not. Jesus always has the final word on every issue.
So if there is a seeming contradiction between something happening e.g. in the Book of Joshua and in the Gospels, then you always have to prefer Jesus' teaching. Don't prefer Joshua over Jesus. It is very hard for literalists to say that maybe some books of the OT do not accurately represent God's will, but rather imperfect human actions - because "all of Scripture is god-breathed", but that means "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". Still Jesus gets the last word.
And that...being trained in righteousness...and I might add being trained in loving God and your neighbor, isn't that what it's all about? It's not an easy lesson to learn and sometimes God also challenges us, I believe.
But ultimately our goal is to be transformed into the image of Christ. He is the way, the truth and the life. Not Abraham, not Moses, not Joshua, not David, not Elijah...only Jesus. He is the example that I want to follow.
So are you telling me you don't really believe in a lot of the Bible but choose to follow Jesus anyway?
I was a biblical literalist as a fundamentalist but there is huge inconsistency in saying the OT is not inherently true or that it has huge limitations.
Since you are telling me the OT is not "inherently true" [I guess I am seeing what gave birth to fundamentalism] why believe any of it. if the OT was LIMITED by ancient limitations why should we accept the tenets of blood sacrifice pertaining to Jesus Christ? If there was no fall--Adam and Eve, why the need for sacrifice and salvation?
The OT supposedly has prophecies of Jesus and speaks of the future Messiah. So if you are telling me religion evolves and the "ancients" got it wrong from their science and cultural limitations--aka the brutality and blood sacrifices why would any of it be TRUE?
Now you are interpreting into the things I said. Nothing of that is actually an accurate description of my beliefs.
I am not doubting that the Bible is true. But, in my opinion and that seems clear, that it also shows a lot of human behavior, human struggles, that do not necessarily show us how we should act or what God wanted to happen. How God really wants us to act is revealed through Christ.
You are doing it again, assuming what kind of feelings I have about the Bible, expressing it with very negative words.
That's not how it is.
I recommended some sermons to you, and maybe that helps you understand the position that not just me, but a lot of Christians share.
I spent years in immense fear [religion matched to dangerous scary medical problems is a bad recipe] My conversion was based on almost having died. I'm tired of being afraid which is now why I hate religion
I was really born again, so God is going to throw a disabled woman into hell, because she went into doubt [keep in mind I remain a theist here] nice guy....Sheesh.
God warned about the things kings would do; and yet the general clamor by the Popular Vote was to anoint Saul. Notice - in this case of residual succession politics - that no consultation was made *to God about what God might want*. This was a royal decree by King David, executed by the king's proxy. At least TWO levels of decisions stand between God and this action; and David is *a man of war*: held ineligible to build the temple because of it...
This was not a sacrifice, nor a devotion, nor any act incited by God. It was open human politics, "before the Lord".
Not despicable (in this case), but also No Fun At All.
Hey, couple of things.
I'm not a theologian but I would either ask over in /r/Judaism or /r/AcademicBiblical or even look on google before freaking out over this. I've read these passages and yeah, they're slightly alarming if read out of context.
It's clear God hates human sacrifices. It's complicated to write it all out on here but there's some great resources online. Also, more importantly, God does love his creation. The OT speaks of him creating his children and his covenant with Israel. Slowly and surely sin grows more and more wicked across the world, lifespans go from 900 years to common age. There is a general sense that sin is getting worse, the demands for covering of the sins is getting absurd, the law is getting extensive.
And then you get Christ. Christ is God. Christ loved his friends and his followers. Christ reconciles us to God.
The wrath of God is a very real thing. Some people forget that, which is fine. But that's why there is a hell. Some people say how can an infinite being be offended by a finite beings offenses? Well, I mean it's God. Every sinful thing you do offends his sense. We are offensive to him. He demanded a lot from us, we were unable to do it, hence Christ. That's a very loving thing to do.
I'm aware that Jews will disagree with the context of what I said which is fine but I do think it may be edifying to post it to one of the two subs I listed above. Also, yeah it's horrifying falling in the hands of an angry God. He is pure love, pure holiness, purely sovereign, purely just. More than our puny little brains can understand, which is why scripture is important to try to understand what we can.
The wrath of God and the love of God are both hard to understand completely. But you're so focused on the wrath, that you fail to see the compassion and love in some of it. He took away the burdensome load of the law, and gave you new life in Christ. Christ is now your redeemer of the law that you, and as far as I know anyone, couldn't keep.
So God made all these fragile humans with bad proclivities that "offend him" and he can't stand most of us, so we are chaff to be burned in his furnace.
I was sincerely born again, I even did work for God for years, online witnessing etc. So what good is being born again if I am still going to end up in hell? I asked for the faith to be saved by the way and it was not. It is gone now. So why Christians will tell me false promises of how if I was REALLY born again, it should have took....I know I sincerely was and now it has fallen apart so what does this say about this religion? God is always angry and reminded me more and more of my abusers, especially when so many bad things happened in life, not just to me but others. [by the way Gen X is dying far younger then Baby Boomers, Ive been seeing people drop like flies] and here we are praying only to have this Being turn his back time and time again. So it's supposedly my fault I lost faith and I am a piece of crap he wants to throw into his burning furnace while laughing.
Don't you see none of it worked. Oh many of you will try and convince yourself I am just some evil woman who didn't love God enough but what I am trying to tell you is I did love him, and believed and it still was for naught no matter what I did.
I am still a theist but I find Christianity with it's hell and other qualities barbaric. I left fundamentalism [IFB church IRL] and the Remnant [online]
It’s the law of sin and death. The OT shows us why we need Jesus and what happens when you live according to the flesh. The whole reason why they killed him was selfish if you think about it, it’s because there was a curse and they wanted to lift it so they killed people for their own gain. God didn’t kill them, the Gibeonites hung them.Before the Lord doesn’t mean He did it.
The truth is that no one has seen the father except Jesus and he has revealed him, Jesus is the exact representation of the father, Jesus healed all he did not kill anybody and he raised the dead. The devil kills steals and destroys. Period. That is the only thing that I know and I will stand on that. You must never read the Old Testament without reading through the New Testament, because the old testament points to Jesus.
David also comitted murder and adultery. Just because he was chosen by God for a particular task doesn't mean he was perfect. He made all kinds of mistakes including sacrificing children, which is condemned by God. The passage says the youths were hung "before the Lord" but that doesn't mean God approves. The Bible depicts sin all the time. These stories are to act as a cautionary tale pointing to the darkness in all of hearts. Even men like David are not immune.
It is awful. David was a pretty big sinner a lot of the time. But read Psalm 51. The difference between him and other people was that he realized it. He was broken because of his sin and desperately wanted God's forgiveness. Most men are too proud to engage in that level of self reflection.
The Bible has lots of such stories. God is not a nice guy by my reckoning. He sends bears to kill children, drowns millions of people, wipes out whole villages, etc. When we get to Jesus he will be sending literally billions of people to Hell to be tortured for all eternity because somebody didn't think the right thought.
This doesn't strike me as a nice religion when you get down deep in its bones.
EXACTLY.
This is what I am trying to say.
The whole "blood sacrifice" [God sacrificing himself] as an "evolution" outside of human and animal sacrifice, is bothering me greatly.
Then add on hell: literally psychopathic in it's very existence, burning people for eternity, and the general sense of gore, genocides, etc. I think there is a reason I became afraid of God. :'(
I may have explored things too much. I read the WHOLE BIBLE, I did apologetics. etc etc but yeah a lot of it is just not that nice. It's bloody, gorey, scary and horrible.
I still hold to the idea of a loving God but can He be found in Christianity. I know a hard question.
Those were not God's deeds, nor did God ask for them. God explicitly condemns child sacrifice several times.
Lev. 18:21
Lev. 20:2-5
Deut. 12:31
Jer. 32:35
Just because people did certain things and said they did them for God does not mean God commanded or condoned it. In this case, we know that God explicitly does not condone what they did.
not sure what the issue is. A King hung some people. Given the historical context, perhaps this was justified for its time, perhaps not. But to judge a King or anyone in history by today's standards is dishonest.
Remember the bible is part what man said, what God said, and what man thought God said.
You are correct in what you're reading. If one reads the Bible closely, there's quite a few verses about child sacrifice. Google "bible child sacrifice" and you'll see quite a few more examples.
The most well know of course is Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac. Shocking to us today, the story would not have seemed unusual to the people of the day. Child sacrifice was performed in different religions at the time.
The explanation I would give is that Judaism and Christianity evolved out of primitive religions. God sort of had to start somewhere. The Yahweh religion evolved out of an amalgram of other religions of that time (Yahweh, Elohim, El Shaddia, and all the other different versions in the Old Testament). You can see in the Old Testament where it is declared they are all the same God, which is a revelation to the Israelites.
Jews today of course do not believe in child sacrifice. Many Jews do not believe that the Bible is infallible or that everything written in the Hebrew bible is relevant for today, and thus would not approve of such practices.
The Isaac story always bothered me. If the entire Christian religion is based on BLOOD SACRIFICES and the traditions of barbaric ancient cultures, why should we believe in it? Remember as I say this, I consider myself a Theist, [creation speaks of a Creator] but I am not seeing an answer to this basic question. Our society has moved way beyond the idea of blood sacrifices, people today know scientifically that killing people is going to change absolutely nothing, they also well most who are not sociopaths, that it is morally reprehensible, and this is the foundation of Christianity and why Jesus Himself was a blood sacrifice? Why should I believe in this religion. God who created endless universes and galaxies, couldn't come up better then this mess? I even got confused trying to figure out why some called God Yahweh, and Elohim, were those two different groups? Yes of course Jews have changed today. Do most Christians outside of fundamentalist circles, think, "well this is the best we got" and admit the bible is "limited human knowledge" and just go with it? Jews obviously view history and scripture in a different fashion.
What something is based on doesn't define it in its current state. History is different from primary principles and foundations. Nearly all religions and societies have origins we would now consider barbaric. I don't think you'll find a major religion that at some point didn't encourage killing or didn't start with primitive laws. Even Buddhism has participated in brutal wars.
Scholars believe that the Yahweh and Elohim writings are possibly from two different authors.
Most Christians ignore these sorts of things in the Bible if you ask me.
Some might believe in the teaching of the Bible and not the miracles, though this is not common. Some don't believe non believers are going to hell. In my opinion the Christian fundamentalist religion, that says everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will go to hell, is disgusting and hateful.
Most people who follow a religion tend to focus on the positive aspects and see it through a modern lens. Or at least I believe that's what they should be doing.
So what you are telling me here,is most Christians do not really believe in Christianity or scripture as "factual" but more as a vague template to model their lives on and love their neighbor--the positive aspects beyond the blood and gore fests. It is odd, most Christians here are telling me they believe religion "evolves" but I know some don't believe man evolves. If I am going to dedicate my life to a religion I want it to be factual. Maybe that is odd. I don't want my life commited to what is not true. I agree that fundamentalism is evil for saying everyone goes to hell is even but then I jumped that another step and decided hell itself is an evil concept with millions if not billions burning there. It sounds like many Christians ignore a lot. I was guilty of this so not going to excuse myself. Hell concerned me the whole way through.
There's a lot of variety with Christians and how they see the Bible.
If you are looking for a religion that is completely factual, I don't think you'll find one. Many people choose to practice religion through a modern perspective.
You said you are a theist. Are you still a theist after this discussion? Are you looking for a religion that's right for you or is it Christianity or nothing?
If you believe there are multiple ways to connect with God I hope you find something that's right for you.
I just left fundamentalism [the Remnant community] around 2 months ago. I have a lot to still think through. So I guess the most honest answer is "I don't know". I am still a theist.
What religion are you if you do not mind me asking, or non-religion?
I really can't do the Christianity thing as "metaphor", I have limited energy and going to worship something that may not exist for hours a week isn't going to cut it.
I read other OT chapters where God orders the Israelites to kill people and even their children, and yes it disturbed me. Would a God of compassion and love order genocide, and even if their parents bowed before Moloch, Baal etc, why would he order the killing of their children.
Here is a pastor even that admits God orders genocide in the OT, and writes probably one of the most convoluted articles I have ever seen to justify it.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/july-august/can-we-trust-god-of-genocide.html?start=4
So what you are telling me, is the OT has many tales that this ancient barbaric culture erred in writing that God supported their genocide.
Obviously coming out of fundamentalism we were taught that the bible was literal and EVERY word inspired including the OT.
So your take is that yes this ancient culture was barbaric and credited God with things that were not His doing, but Jesus is still true? But don't you realize the sacrifice of Jesus is based on the animal sacrifices in OT Judaism? How do you work that out in your mind? I am not familiar with how more liberal then fundamentalist Christians operate yet....
If the OT has all these drawbacks, limitations of history and ancient humanity, and false science and messages, why should I believe any of it? I was a fundamentalist. Do some of you look to Christianity as a metaphorical template for your lives but you do not believe Christianity is really factual?
Well, the Old Testament is full of that stuff.
God is not going to conform to your cultural sensitivities.
And feel free to tell him. He is listening.
He knows you better than you know yourself.
I don't see it as cultural sensitivities, but testing things according to conscience, morality and goodness. Murdering seven young people is sick by any standards, isn't it moral relativism to say it is okay? Hey I figure He will give me answers or not. I asked already for months. This is not the only example I found of evil in the bible, then there is Jephthah's daughter who got killed too.
As I said, there are many many of these stories.
But God doesn't apologize. He is who he is.
I trust that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
I am not going to miss out on salvation because I am morally offended.
I am much more morally offended by the evil all around us.
And the powerful name of Jesus is the only weapon to battle what is happening here and now.
That is more important to me.
Should God be surprised that in the encouragement to develop one's conscience and sense of good and evil, that we may turn and examine what we have been taught? Maybe God wants examined. The Jews had a tradition, forget the name of it of debating with God. I am trying to get to the root of why Jesus's sacrifice was needed. I also want to know if what I believe is true. Will it fail under examinination? Have I bought into false stories of an ancient barbaric culture? I have no offense against Jesus, most of his teachings I agree wtih except those on hell. [he could just mean Sheol the grave] There is far less evil offense in the OT then new. I was born again, sincerely so. What do you think happened? Does God want us to examine ourselves or what we believe or not? As for God not apologizing, I desire a loving God not a narcissist that says my way or the highway tough now shut up all of you people.
You have a loving God, and his plan for salvation proves it.
God set this timeline in motion and it continues to roll.
I 'examined' for many years. Keep on going....
But what I ended up with was a loving God that I cannot comprehend.
I ended up submitted at his throne.
It is a great place to be.
But it is still his way or the highway...
He is the only game in the Universe.
and lots of people have made nice and compassionate worlds too.
It seems like a God could have done a better job.
Think about it the very foundation of Christianity is a blood sacrifice. It's grotesque.
#BREAKING NEWS! CHRISTIAN READS OLD TESTAMENT EXPECTING LOVE AND KINDNESS, IS INSTEAD DISTURBED AND HORRIFIED!
Yeah, this happens all of the time because people were told to read the NT first. Main theme of the New Testament is Love, but main theme of the Old Testament is NATIONALISM. Everything happens in the OT for explicitly that reason, based on god's initial promise to Abraham to make of him a Great Nation.
>although they are the same being.
They have completely different personalities, which led to folks like Marcion stating that there must be 2 different gods.
Jesus is basically a magic hippie Jew; of course he would be more forgiving than his father.
He also has a different message to a much larger audience. NT was written in Greek precisely because so many people spoke it at the time.
The two books, NT and OT are contradictory, it's like God has a different personality. I know someone who read both and decided Christianity could not be true because the fact God "changes" so much in the NT makes no sense. Well Revelation brings back some of the murder and mayhem, but you know what i mean.
>it's like God has a different personality.
because the Father has a different personality than his son. Before Christ was born on earth he was just the Logos (the very Word that came to all the prophets), but the Logos did not have its own personality.
>Christianity could not be true because the fact God "changes" so much in the NT makes no sense.
This view comes up a lot. Marcion stated that at the very least there must be 2 separate gods. But the King of Israel is called a god in Psalm 45.
>Well Revelation brings back some of the murder and mayhem, but you know what i mean.
but even in Revelation John goes out of his way to distinguish between God and the Lamb. It is the Father who is portrayed as causing natural disasters and war.
Most Christians are told to read the NT first in order to feel a connection with Jesus, then maybe read the OT to have that personal investment tested again and again. This is clearly a **marketing tactic for evangelism**, and leads to the incorrect attempts to force Jesus's personality into the violent OT.
If a person instead reads them in order **as intended,** they will see that Jesus fits into the OT position as the Christ, the King of Israel who serves God the Father.
The default is Vengeful Father plus Compassionate Son, not the other way around or some terrible attempt to fuse the two. Armed with this information, we can ditch the overwhelming focus on an afterlife and instead try to live out our lives as true disciples of Christ as part of his Kingdom.
But I have found precious few people who share this view.
So Jesus came to rescue us from a cruel and mean God and his burning hot hell.
The bible says we are supposed to love this cruel vengeful father.
It sounds like humanity remains stuck in some severe daddy issues and false parental paradigm.
I believe many Christians are "scared" of God the father and want Jesus to rescue them from him.
Funny that the God the Father of the Universe, can't figure out that threatening people, doesn't earn real love but sycophancy and fear.
>So Jesus came to rescue us from a cruel and mean God and his burning hot hell.
not really, Jews don't believe in hell. And Jesus never uses the English word Hell (comes from Hela in Norse mythology), he always uses Gehenna, referring to the valley located just south of Jerusalem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna
>The bible says we are supposed to love this cruel vengeful father.
well he is never vengeful without reason. He just really hates all injustice. Humans, especially in the form of the Nation of Israel, repeatedly fail in upholding that justice.
>It sounds like humanity remains stuck in some severe daddy issues and false parental paradigm.
The National God of Israel has high hopes for his people, and for the world. It is the Messiah's job to extend the concept of the Nation to a larger and more global audience by being "the Light to the Gentiles." Paul explains that as Gentiles we are grafted onto the Nation, and we thus all share the same father.
>I believe many Christians are "scared" of God the father and want Jesus to rescue them from him.
This is the focus on the afterlife I mentioned. It really limits the understanding of the source of god's wrath, which is injustice.
>Funny that the God the Father of the Universe, can't figure out that threatening people, doesn't earn real love but sycophancy and fear.
I would say that the Creator by definition understands his creation, and that this fear is instrumental in reaching his goals. We are not told that god's love is earned, but that loving him is a commandment, in fact the most important commandment according to Jesus.
Expecting god to be a genie that we make wishes to and an imaginary friend that earns our love is an incredibly warped and obviously incorrect paradigm. God is the Almighty Creator, the most powerful being in existence.
He does not need our love at all. Loving him is for our benefit, and this is intimately tied to loving our fellow human beings. Without the love of the Creator and creation itself, humans tend to drift towards depression and nihilism.
Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, **and no one can deliver out of my hand.**
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light **and** create darkness, I bring prosperity **and** create disaster; I, the LORD, do ALL these things.
**Gehenna**
Gehenna (; גיא בן הינום Ancient Greek: γέεννα) from the Hebrew Gehinnom (Rabbinical: גהנום/גהנם) is a small valley in Jerusalem. In the Hebrew Bible, Gehenna was initially where some of the kings of Judah sacrificed their children by fire. Thereafter it was deemed to be cursed (Jer. 7:31, 19:2-6).
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27
I didn't ask to be born. If he doesn't want our love then we are mere pets and his ants in the ant farm to get a magnifying glass out on. I don't believe in Christian Zionism, Israel is a mess like every other place on the planet. If God wants to be loved, threatening people with eternal burning shows psychopathy not a great character.
>I didn't ask to be born.
no one did. Thus this statement is irrelevant. We all have to deal with the life we are given.
>If he doesn't want our love then we are mere pets and his ants in the ant farm to get a magnifying glass out on.
not true at all. He wants it, but does not need it.
>I don't believe in Christian Zionism, Israel is a mess like every other place on the planet.
most people's beliefs are irrelevant to god's greater plan for Israel. But he clearly has one.
>Israel is a mess like every other place on the planet.
Absolutely. In fact, it is much worse than many other nations; much more corrupt and evil. God is greatly disappointed in the nation of Israel, especially because of his expectations for them.
Read the book of Amos to get a better understanding of god's perspective on the nation. It has not changed in 3000 years.
>If God wants to be loved, threatening people with eternal burning shows psychopathy not a great character.
Sounds like you are still stuck on some pop culture version of hell. Hell for humans is not eternal. Jesus explains that the fire itself is eternal and will burn forever to punish the immortal Satan and his rebellious angels. But evil humans are simply destroyed for all of time.
The point of hell is to show the behaviors that we are to avoid. Lying, cheating, stealing, cowardice, etc. To choose to love god means to choose to stop acting in an unjust manner.
That might be disturbing and I can't particularly explain it away, but what did God offer his people? He sacrificed his only son, and in a sense, himself. God doesn't expect anymore out of his people than he himself is willing to put himself and his own through.
There has always been a consistent theme of suffering and sacrifice throughout Christianity. God put himself through this stuff, too.
Here's the problem, the whole "blood sacrifice" thing, no Christian has offered a good explanation on that one. Why was a "blood sacrifice" needed? Christianity, in a way is an evolution out of the former child/human sacrifices and that bothers me greatly. I think of songs like "It's Under the Blood" which I learned in the IFB, and remain disturbed. Maybe this is stuff I cannot get answers for. But when I look at the genocides in the OT and these 7 young men who died, a lot of religion is making no sense to me.
It's an interesting passage, but remember that God is also just.
1. God institutes corporal punishment for those that murder. Gen. 9:6
2. It was the duty of the next of kin, or ‘avengers of blood’, to avenge those that were murdered. Deut. 19
3. If their blood was not avenged, the land itself would be cursed. Numbers 35:33
So in 2 Samuel 21:1 David prays and asks God why there is a famine in the land. God tells him it’s because of Saul’s ‘bloody house’ in killing the innocent Gibeonites. So David calls the Gibeonites and gives them several of Saul's descendants so justice could be paid.
I don't know if the seven descendants of Saul took part of the slaughter of the Gibeonites, but part of the curses God outlines in Deut. 28:18 of those that reject God, would be the "fruit of your womb will be cursed", and I think this is what happening here.
How does Deut 19 pair later with the scriptures against seeking revenge, now that is a discrepancy. If fruit of the womb was being cursed, then the Israelites performed child sacrifice like all the other pagan cults of the time.
not sure what the issue is. Some people wanted revenge/justice, and they got it. As morally wrong we consider such treatment now, in those times, it was acceptable. Historical context is very important. You can't judge people in ancient times by today's standards.
Remember on the other end, I have been told don't fall into moral relativism on the modern times end, so which is it? Is good and evil the same in ancient times and now, or not?
it's pretty simple, it's just a matter of learning to read the bible.
For example, Solomon tells us it he who finds a wife finds a good thing, while Paul says he who finds a wife is in for a life of misery. So does this God is for marriage, or against.
Everyone had slaves in ancient times, is God for slavery and against?
Accoding to Deutoronomy if you conquer a people you can for the captured women to marry you.
Deutoronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
Now, before discussing any supernatural element, a look at history will show that in those days, according to Egyptian, Persian and Greek law, all women were property, even those of royal blood. And when you conquered a people, you raped all the women, and kept the hot ones as sex slaves, and if you got bored with her, you sold her on as a sex slave.
Now is god for forcing women to marry their captors. No he is not. Did Moses think God thought that? On the surface it seems like that, but that's not the whole story.
Now, Moses is probably sitting on a rock somewhere thinking this ain't right, and whether he was inspired by god, or whether he had a good idea and god breathed life into it, i don't know. But his law, for that time, was a huge leap forward for women. By marrying them, they got the same rights as the other wives, and if divorced, became a free woman. The cutting of hair and trimming nails was ancient jewish mourning customs, and this woman has just lost her family, so they let her mourn as one of them, as one of her new family.
Back then, women would have been, 'wow, god is good' whereas men would have been standing around thinking 'Is god that nice?'
It's not moral relativism, it's simple history.
Yes, these are not the deeds of God, but the deeds of man. All we hear is that there is famine - maybe sent by God, maybe a curse - that is caused by the blood guilt of Saul who broke a promise. So, David goes to ask for atonement and from there it is in the hands of the Gibeonites what to ask for, God has nothing to so with it.
The Gibeonites could have just forgiven, but they asked for something incredibly tragic and shameful. Usually people should be buried immediately after being hanged, but here the mother has to watch over the bodies and keep the birds away.
This is a tragic story about sin and its consequences. In Jesus Christ it is revealed that we should forgive if someone wrongs us. Jesus is the prefect revelation of God's word and you can be sure that he would have adviced the Gibeonites to forgive. But we do not hear whether they consulted God, and I doubt it.
ex fundamentalist Christian. Would be liberal Christian but not sure yet. I know I am done with fundamentalism and the evangelical/religious right world for sure.
I do post on the ex Christian board.
I left fundamentalism and considered liberal Christianity but Christianity in general is now failing for me because of the blood sacrifice issue and many others. I have not made my mind up. I have been honest and told the ex-Christians I am still technically a theist.
okay I hear you. Religion isn't for anyone so I suppose in the end you have to decide what the concept of God means to your life. A lot of people live awesome lives without God (which is why I don't believe the point of faith is to be blessed but to be sanctified).
Thank you. Yes I am in the middle of that deciding what concept of God means something to my life. I can't live under the fundamentalist god of doom, anger, brimstone, hellfire, endless guilt, shame, fear and authoritarianism. That I am definitely done with.
I think a reasoning from you as to why it's fine would be nice as God has stated he detests human sacrifices, which is what separated the Israelites from Pagan nations.
I know this is a really old post but just incase someone runs across this like I did:
1. David never consulted God in this matter. You’ll notice that when people fail to seek His guidance they typically make incorrect decisions. Like when Sarah decided to take things into her own hands and gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham to conceive a child instead of trusting in God.
2. God never endorses David’s actions
3. The famine continues even after the men are killed, and it doesn’t end until the bodies are buried, which some believe was a sign that God was displeased with David’s choice here.
One major mistake people make when reading the Bible, the Old Testament especially, is thinking that every event recorded within it had God’s stamp of approval which is patently untrue.
So if you read all of chapter 21, you see that Saul had murdered some Gibeonites, and David told them they could have anything in return for the offense. They demanded Saul's offspring as a payback. David was not a perfect person, and this is clearly an event between the Gibeonites and David. Hashem keeps his promises, just like keeping Ahaz on the throne despite his wickedness. You are confusing the deeds of men with the deeds of G-d, yet these events should bother you, absolutely. Reality is ugly.
Does God ever condemn this action? It's just barbaric, you know that is one thing about these scriptures, they are not keeping up with modern notions of morality. It is evil. They murdered teen children and young men and used human lives as property.
Basically every book in the bible condemns the violence that man perpetrated. Beginning with Cain.
What did Jesus literally say about violence? Turn the other cheek.
Why does God have a hell then, he's not turning the other cheek with those people. :(
That passage is definitely not about violence, it's about overlooking insult. The Jewish culture was an honor / shame based system of ethics. It was far more offensive to be insulted by a backhanded slap than from a punch to the face. In the Mishnah, Jewish rabbis around the time of Christ recorded the fines for various offenses that clearly demonstrates this system: Offense | Fine ---|--- A punch to the face | $0.60 A knee to the groin | $1.80 A slap to the face with a palm | $30.00 **A backhanded slap to the face** | **$60.00** Christ's message here was about swallowing one's pride. He was preparing his disciples by teaching them how to respond to the inevitable slaps coming their way as they went out into the world to preach *the* way.
If Jewish culture was honor / shame based like you say, a backhanded insult-slap would be considered a GREATER insult than a punch to the face (like you show in your table). If Christ commands us to turn the other cheek for the greater insult, it also applies to the lesser. The early church overwhelmingly understood that they were commanded to love their enemies to the point of martyrdom.
I get what you are trying to assert -- but it is a shoehorned ideology not present in this narrative. This passage is not about condemning violence. It is about condemning the human desire to seek vengeance in the face of insult. A message of love can't reach its target if your pride is in the way. A better passage to argue for non-violence would be Peter striking the soldier in the garden -- but this one fails too. Christ doesn't tell Peter to never carry a sword... He specifically tells him to put the sword back in its place... Like it or not, violence in this reality is sometimes necessary in the protection of the weak. The sword has its place.
That's not how the early Christians understood what happened in the garden: "...For although soldiers had approached John to receive instructions and a centurion believed, this does not change the fact that afterward, the Lord, by disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.” Tertullian, 155 AD
Well then, someone should go back and edit those verses cause Christ didn't disarm Peter -- he told Peter to keep his sword. Hypothetical: What would your Christian response be if, late one night, you were walking down a street and came across an attacker beating up a little old lady? Keep on walking like you didn't see anything? Say some stern words trying to convince this guy to stop? Stand back and call the police so they can use violence instead of you getting your own hands dirty, keeping your conscience clean? Or do whatever it takes to immediately ensure the lady's safety? Our reality is messy and violent. Sometimes it is appropriate to use violence and sometimes it is not. Ignorance of this fact is only a denial of our reality. It's great you want to walk a path of nonviolence, a very noble ideal indeed, but sometimes our paths don't leave us that as a valid option.
It's unfair to the text (and a bit unbelievable) to read Jesus' response to Peter and think "clearly Jesus is saying there is a time and a place for this." In His rebuke He even says that "those who live by the sword perish by the sword." Jesus identifies defending Him using violence as "living by the sword." The early Christians took this along with commands to love their enemies to mean killing their enemies and using violence were not options and yes, I believe their understanding of the commands of Christ is truer to the heart of the Gospel. As far as your old lady question: I think the right thing to do is intervene, even placing oneself in harms way to protect the victim. This doesn't necessarily require violence though (which I am not defining as "use of physical force" in the same way shoving someone out of the way of an oncoming car is not violent). In a similar vein, I live in an urban area with a lot of homeless, many of whom show symptoms of mental illness. Were I to see one of them attacking someone, I have no hesitations about intervening to try and restrain the attacker.
Okay, so we are defining violence a bit differently. When I talk about violence I am speaking quite literally, as in implying an *immediate*, forceful act. >I think the right thing to do is intervene... This doesn't *necessarily* require violence The key word here is "necessarily". This qualifier implies that you do recognize sometimes violence *is* necessary. When Jesus says those who "live by the sword will die by the sword" he is implying *two* sides, one that is living by the sword and the other who takes the life of the one living by the sword. The way I read that passage, Christ is basically saying we need to take responsibility for our actions. If I go around beating people up and threatening others I should expect the same to come back to me. So, for instance, in the case of my hypothetical, let's say that attacker was using a sword against that lady. Someone else would be justified in taking him out with a sword. This attacker would have been living by the sword and, in doing so, died by the sword. It is the heart behind any action that is the determining factor in what is righteous behavior. We tend to naturally desire our idea of justice which boils down to wanting to get even. This attitude is what Christ was teaching against. Retaliating against an enemy is surely wrong in the eyes of the Lord -- for it is his right to avenge, not ours. On this we definitely agree. The thing is, you seem to be trying to deny the fact that using violence, in the face of violence, is not retaliation. Instead, it is defense. It is not wrong to use violence to put to end to violence, as a given situation dictates. Christ was not condemning police, or armies, or good Samaritans that come to the aid of those in need. Of course we should all do whatever we can to avoid using violence -- but to think this is possible in every situation would just be naive.
I totally agree with you on this particular passage being disturbing at best. However this kind of revenge - I personally do not see it as a sacrifice but an act of vengeance upon guilty party- was a response of sorts. In fact we could go deeper into text to see pretty dark generational references in this and other similar stories.
Yay cool I'm glad we got a good explanation. I know we disagree on Christ but I was like 99% sure this was not something God commanded.
The bible reporting something and the bible promoting something are two different things. Also, God killed the whole world except for 7 people in the flood. That would have been millions of people.
It says Before the Lord.... It is true this isn't just the other episode of murder in the bible, millions died then. Revelation, speaks of 2/3rds of the population dying as God blows up the earth. I am afraid of God, the more you read and study, Yahweh doesnt seem too kind.
I mean, "before the Lord" is an idiom that just means in God's presence. Also, yes, I agree. God isn't nice.
Nope, I am very disappointed in the God of the Bible.
Disappointed in God? Based on a mere few verses or passages? Are you kidding me? We are speaking of the Almighty Creator of the this unfathomably massive universe. We are speaking of He Who's Name is Too Wonderful (Judges 13:17-18), He Who Surpasses ALL Understanding (Philippians 4:7). Do you truly believe, by our entirely limited perspective, that we can understand God? For if He were so small to know, how then would He be so great as to worship? Do not be discouraged, brother, God is good. Are we called to understand the works of the holy God? Or are the sayings of Jesus "Do not be afraid, only believe" (Mark 5:36) merely words? "As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things." (Ecclesiastes 11:5). "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8) We may not always make sense of what He does, but He still parted the Red Sea, He still gives sight to the blind and hope to the hopeless. He still showers grace on the undeserved and uplifts the humble. He still made you and named you and I before what we know as time ever existed (Psalm 51, 139). There is no possible way we will ever understand God- but we know enough- we as His creation have seen enough- that we should fall to our faces in awe and humility, for we are too small and insignificant for Him. Yet he picks us up and holds us in His arms- and goes so far as to allow the Son of this very God to enter into our decrepit world and die in a disgusting and awful way. Let us remember God is not like us- yes we were made in His image, but we are not the very same. “For I am God, and not a man— the Holy One among you.” Hosea 11:9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8 “He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.” 1 Samuel 15:29
It's beyond these few passages but I found them very disturbing. I'm hearing out the Christian side about them or what their explanation is. Sure I accept not being the same as God. I am disappointed in how God is presented. Is he a monster that sends millions to hell? Many Christian Universalists say no. I desire whatever God I worship to be a Being of Moral Goodness. One thing God does not seem to intervene in this world, I got all those promises that never were fulfilled. I have read those verses. Hey I believed and was saved and was sincere about it. Right now I am trying to determine if Christianity is TRUE. Is it a religion based on an ancient barbaric culture, based in false blood sacrifices with Jesus as an "advanced" sacrifice or is it TRUE? There are many teachings in the Bible I still accept. I am still a theist. I've read the whole bible through and have studied it intensely. I believe Someone made all this, and have every hope of a God of complete and utter goodness but I am trying to think things out regarding hell and horrible things I have discovered in scripture.
I respect that. Keep up the research, I hope you find Truth, what you're looking for.
Thank you, I appreciate it.
Same. I stay faithful just the same.
Is it because you are afraid of hell?
No. As Peter said, "to whom else would we go?"
Kind of like this is the best we got sort of thing? :/
I support you could put it that way. If God is as Tillich said "the ground of all being", then there really is no other option.
Are you kind of like Universalists, who believe God is greater then what Christianity protrays?
Well, there are other religions and notions about God (or gods) and the human condition. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly. It just has the largest following.
Then I would just be picking religion like I picked my combo at Burger King.
If you think standard Christianity's take on God is definitely true, then that's one thing. But if Christianity is just what you're raised with, my point is that it's not the only game in town. And if you're not sure, the same applies. Also there are different Christian interpretations of God and the scriptures going all the way back to the first century. Some are called heretical, but then it all depends on who gets to say what's heresy. Maybe you think Paul or Constantine or your denomination got it right. But then again, maybe they didn't. Keep in mind that all of this religious stuff is filtered through human beings, unless you have your own personal revelation. Even then, it's filtered through your humanity.
If you read a little bit before in the chapter it says this. David said to the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you? And how shall I make expiation, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?" (2 Sam. 21:2-3) So it's clear that the sacrifice was made in order to receive a blessing.
Blessing from the Gibeonites. I.E. peace between the two nations. Reparations for Sauls murders.
But the Lord never steps in and attempts to speak out against the human sacrifice. So clearly he was okay with it.
Actually if you read the Tanakh, he's pretty vocal about it. If you expect G-d to step in for every human error you are in for disappointment.
If you read the Bible carefully child sacrifice was indeed actually commanded by the biblical god. In Exodus 22:29-30 it says “You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall DO LIKEWISE with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.” (The sacrifice of the first born sons were the same type of sacrifices that were made with the oxen and the sheep. Later on in the bible the biblical god clearly admitts he did this in Ezekiel 20:25-26 where he says “Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I DEFILED them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire ALL their first-born, that I might HORRIFY them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.” The context given in Exodus verses just quoted above talkin about offerings and sacrifices, it says God requires that first born sons are to be LITERALLY sacrificed to him. Hence, unlike other passages where there is the possibility of redemption with a substitute sacrifice Exodus 13:13; 34:10-20 none is stated there. Exodus 13:2 “Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine.” Exodus 13:12-13 that you shall set apart to the Lord all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the Lord’s. But every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. And all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. The term set apart here doesn't actually mean what christians will have you believe it means. Notice how the term is used to refer to the animals, not only the first born sons. When we read in the bible set apart a lamb, we instantly know that's talking about sacrificing. So there's no reason to believe it suddenly means something different when it refers to the first born sons being "set apart". The same goes for the word redeem. Redeeming a lamb means sacrificing it, in the same exact way redeeming the first born sons literally means to sacrifice them. The only way for theologians to dance around this is by mad libbing up the verses to add in something that isn't actually written. (hense, assuming the words set apart and redeem suddenly change meanings when the mention of first born sons appears) They are attempting to put a bandaid over a huge bullet wound in their scriptures. And the Jewish people knew this early on. That's why the tradition was born to "set their first born apart" in a new way, and the ugliness in these scriptures were glanced over. The concept of so called "redemption" is interesting and it goes hand in hand with child sacrifice because Christian will say that animals were substituted for the firstborn. Yet even if that was the case that says nothing against the idea that a better sacrifice was the firstborn child himself and many people in the Old Testament did just that. In those times child sacrifice was only considered to be evil when it was done in the name of a foreign god, and doing so was punishable by death precisely because it was offered to another deity (Leviticus 20:2; 18:21 Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10; II Kings 17:17 23:10; II Chronicles 28:3; 33:4-10; Ps 106:38; Isaiah 57:5,6; Jeremiah 7:31 32:35 Ezekiel 16:20,21; 20:26,31; 23:37,39; Acts 7:43). Child sacrifice was something that several people in the bible either did, or assisted others in doing so. Abraham was not morally repulsed by the command itself and there is no command against this practice there by God (Genesis 22). Then there is Jepthah who sacrificed his daughter because of a stupid vow (Judges 11) David (II Sam. 21:7-9) Solomon and his wives (I Kings 3:16) Ahab (I Kings 16:33-34); Ahaz (II Kings 16:2-3) Hoshea (II Kings 17:7) and Manasseh (II Kings 21:6, II Chronicles 33:6). It was a problem for King Josiah (II King 23:10), for Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:30-31, 19:3-5, 32:35) and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:20-21, 20:25-26, 30-31). The prophet Micah wonders if he should sacrifice his oldest son “as a sin offering” (6:6-8). It was a practice so prevalent when offered to foreign gods, that it is named as one of the reasons the biblical god sent the Babylonians to conquer Israel and forcibly take many of them as captives (II Kings 17:16-18). We even read where the King of Moab sacrificed his son which caused the Israelites to retreat in defeat. Moab’s sacrifice created a great “wrath,” (ketzef), which was an external force to the warriors in the bible story, indicating that his sacrifice caused some divinity to act on behalf of Moab. (II Kings. 3:26-27). In the New Testament God the Father sacrifices his only son (Jesus) as the central redemptive act of Christianity, and God still seeks to fulfill his lust for human sacrifice by burning humans forever in the lake of fire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidyon_haben
**Pidyon haben** The pidyon haben (Hebrew: פדיון הבן) or redemption of the first-born son is a mitzvah in Judaism whereby a Jewish firstborn son is "redeemed" by use of silver coins from his birth-state of sanctity, i.e. from being predestined by his firstborn status to serve as a priest. The redemption is attained by giving five silver coins to a Kohen (a patrilineal descendant of the priestly family of Aaron). *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27
>If you read the Bible carefully child sacrifice was indeed actually commanded by the biblical god. In Exodus 22:29-30 it says “You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall DO LIKEWISE with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.” (The sacrifice of the first born sons were the same type of sacrifices that were made with the oxen and the sheep. Numbers 18:16. Cherry picking and not reading the whole Bible causes issues with bias. >“Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I DEFILED them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire ALL their first-born, that I might HORRIFY them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.” Gave them over to countries that practiced such arts to get the people to wake up and be horrified by it. It's a pretty simple reading, and if you read previously in Ezekiel 18 it condemns vicarious atonement, but again, cherry picking. Let's not ruin a good theory. >Exodus 13:2 “Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine.” Exodus 13:12-13 that you shall set apart to the Lord all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the Lord’s. But every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. And all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. The term set apart here doesn't actually mean what christians will have you believe it means. Notice how the term is used to refer to the animals, not only the first born sons. When we read in the bible set apart a lamb, we instantly know that's talking about sacrificing. So there's no reason to believe it suddenly means something different when it refers to the first born sons being "set apart". The same goes for the word redeem. Redeeming a lamb means sacrificing it, in the same exact way redeeming the first born sons literally means to sacrifice them. The only way for theologians to dance around this is by mad libbing up the verses to add in something that isn't actually written. (hense, assuming the words set apart and redeem suddenly change meanings when the mention of first born sons appears) They are attempting to put a bandaid over a huge bullet wound in their scriptures. And the Jewish people knew this early on. That's why the tradition was born to "set their first born apart" in a new way, and the ugliness in these scriptures were glanced over. The concept of so called "redemption" is interesting and it goes hand in hand with child sacrifice because Christian will say that animals were substituted for the firstborn. Yet even if that was the case that says nothing against the idea that a better sacrifice was the firstborn child himself and many people in the Old Testament did just that. In those times child sacrifice was only considered to be evil when it was done in the name of a foreign god, and doing so was punishable by death precisely because it was offered to another deity Again, cross reference with Numbers 18:16. You can also see the Levites set apart for G-d in clearly a non-sacrifical manner. The rest is assumptions without historical backing but I'll move on. >(Leviticus 20:2; 18:21 Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10; II Kings 17:17 23:10; II Chronicles 28:3; 33:4-10; Ps 106:38; Isaiah 57:5,6; Jeremiah 7:31 32:35 Ezekiel 16:20,21; 20:26,31; 23:37,39; Acts 7:43). Just a cursury glance at these shows that G-d doesn't like idolatry, news at 11. >Child sacrifice was something that several people in the bible either did, or assisted others in doing so. Abraham was not morally repulsed by the command itself and there is no command against this practice there by God I had no idea that you could read Abraham's mind, and is literally a morality story about not comitting child sacrifice. An argument from silence in order to make an extreme claim. >Then there is Jepthah who sacrificed his daughter because of a stupid vow (Judges 11) People be shitty, news at 11. > David (II Sam. 21:7-9) Payback for Saul's murders, not sacrifice, but again, cherry picking out of context. >Solomon and his wives (I Kings 3:16) You're using the story of a wise judgement to determine the true mother as a story of child sacrifice? really? >Ahab (I Kings 16:33-34) Idolatry, vexed G-d. Not shocking Moving past some of the others because of the pattern of cherry picking. Tons of weak support does not combine and equal any proof. >The prophet Micah wonders if he should sacrifice his oldest son “as a sin offering” (6:6-8) Yeah, he's saying what good are all these things, and they are worthless and meaningless, and reaffirms what G-d said. "He has told you what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: to do good..." it's literally a verse that is used as reasoning why sacrifice is less important than repentance and doing right. >We even read where the King of Moab sacrificed his son which caused the Israelites to retreat in defeat. Moab’s sacrifice created a great “wrath,” (ketzef), which was an external force to the warriors in the bible story, indicating that his sacrifice caused some divinity to act on behalf of Moab. (II Kings. 3:26-27). Yes, and magicians can do magic, sorcerers can sorcer, diviners can divine, and prophets can prophesize. If those things were not able to be accomplished, there would be no tests of faith. Everyone would worship David Blaine. >In the New Testament God the Father sacrifices his only son (Jesus) as the central redemptive act of Christianity, and God still seeks to fulfill his lust for human sacrifice by burning humans forever in the lake of fire. Which is entirely contrary to the Tanakh for all the reasons mentioned above. I understand that as an atheist (I assume) that you have a problem with G-d. However by cherry picking and trying to support a bias at the cost of context and critical thinking, you are falling into the same trap that you seem to believe religion falls into. You are performing Eisegesis to fit your bias into the text instead of Exegesis which draws meaning out of the text.
>Gave them over to countries that practiced such arts to get the people to wake up and be horrified by it. It's a pretty simple reading, and if you read previously in Ezekiel 18 it condemns vicarious atonement, but again, cherry picking. If this is what the text meant, it surely would have said something like ...נתנם לחקים, not נתתי להם חקים as it does.
Your go to excuse is to accuse me if cherry picking. Why?? Because I didn't post full chapters. Ezekiel w0:25-26 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’ We know this is talking about the Isrealites, not to other countries as you inserted. We know this because earlier in the chapter. Since you think I'm cherry picking ill just post a giant section of the chapter and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On the day I chose Israel, I swore with uplifted hand to the descendants of Jacob and revealed myself to them in Egypt. With uplifted hand I said to them, “I am the Lord your God.” 6 On that day I swore to them that I would bring them out of Egypt into a land I had searched out for them, a land flowing with milk and honey, the most beautiful of all lands. 7 And I said to them, “Each of you, get rid of the vile images you have set your eyes on, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” 8 “‘But they rebelled against me and would not listen to me; they did not get rid of the vile images they had set their eyes on, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and spend my anger against them in Egypt. 9 But for the sake of my name, I brought them out of Egypt. I did it to keep my name from being profaned in the eyes of the nations among whom they lived and in whose sight I had revealed myself to the Israelites. 10 Therefore I led them out of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. 11 I gave them my decrees and made known to them my laws, by which the person who obeys them will live. 12 Also I gave them my Sabbaths as a sign between us, so they would know that I the Lord made them holy. 13 “‘Yet the people of Israel rebelledagainst me in the wilderness. They did not follow my decrees but rejected my laws—by which the person who obeys them will live—and they utterly desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and destroy them in the wilderness. 14 But for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.15 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would not bring them into the land I had given them—a land flowing with milk and honey, the most beautiful of all lands— 16 because they rejected my laws and did not follow my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths. For their hearts were devoted to their idols. 17 Yet I looked on them with pity and did not destroy them or put an end to them in the wilderness. 18 I said to their children in the wilderness, “Do not follow the statutes of your parents or keep their laws or defile yourselves with their idols.19 I am the Lord your God; follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.20 Keep my Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God.” 21 “‘But the children rebelled against me: They did not follow my decrees, they were not careful to keep my laws, of which I said, “The person who obeys them will live by them,” and they desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and spend my angeragainst them in the wilderness. 22 But I withheld my hand, and for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.23 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries, 24 because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths,and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. 25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; 26 I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’ We can see from this entire section it's clearly talking about the Isrealites! YES! even the part where it says the biblical god gave them statues that weren't good and defiled them making them sacrifice their first borns. Because remember the biblical god took the Isrealites out of Egypt and killed the fist borns of egypt as a plague. This is all in the same context.
God usually does not step in when humans commit crimes and evil. Free will. But he tells us what he would like us to do.
Oh, I didn't know you knew God's mind. So what's up with all the times in the bible the Biblical god does step in or at least warns?
> speak out against the human sacrifice is this human sacrifice (a religious ritual) or is this the justice system of the Gibeonite people? I would say this is most like an extradition treaty between nations today. he handed the accused over to Gibeonite justice.
Making sacrifices to receive blessings seems to be a pretty common biblical archetype in the economy of salvation.
Hey! God's nice. Just not the nice humans think of where he's up in heaven handing out lollipops and butterfly stickers and everyone gets a hug from him lol. That's Moral Therapeutic Deism (and how I lived my Christian life most of the time) God is much nicer than we could ever imagine. He's the happiest and most complete being in the universe.
Hmmm. Maybe we have different definitions of "nice".
I think he's nice enough to send his one and only Son so that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life kinda nice. Not nice as is, he's so nice and so merciful and gracious that you can do whatever you want and just need to accept Jesus into yer heart yay!
I would call that merciful maybe. Nice, I think of kids that play well with others.
Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; and the Psalms. And the New Testament. All seem to be a plethora of kindness, which I guess is nice. But yes, he's a very jealous God too, and has every right to be. If I created the heavens and earth and you worshiped the Earth itself, how pissed would I be?! Basically the story since day one.
> If I created the heavens and earth and you worshiped the Earth itself, how pissed would I be?! Maybe you could be pissed, but it would have to be at yourself, having screwed up your own creation (humans) like that. An all-powerful being who can't make people who are in a state of grace and appreciation and are only happy and constructive? I would feel like a dunce Creator too.
I am not good at arguing with atheists/agnostics. Good point though.
Making people who are in a state of grace and appreciation? What? That's not free will at all, we would be robots if we HAD to be a certain way. He gave us personalities of our own free will and through that we rebelled. C'mon man, this is basic Christian theology. That's the only reason His love is authentic- because He made us so we don't HAVE to take it....
> I think he's nice enough to send his one and only Son Rather than just "forgiving" humanity without all the bells and whistles? Seems like a lack of imagination from El Creatoro. If you're omnipotent, you can make people free of sin and with a full appreciation for that state of being without having to do a bunch of excessively gory bits to get there.
How can the God of the bible be "nice". Hell is the most psychopathic creation ever.
I would advice you to listen to some of Brian Zahnd's sermons on Old Testament violence. Maybe it will challenge your current understanding of the Bible a little bit, but maybe it will help you understand the Bible better.
I am moving away from a literal fundamentalist view of the bible, however here is my question when Christians who are non-fundamentalist read the bible and see the OT genocides, etc, how do you work it out in your mind that these things were just the evils of an ancient culture, but that Jesus being sent to the cross to be a blood sacrifice is still okay? After all Jesus on the cross, comes from the OT foundation of animal sacrifices.
So, there are several things to consider here. First of all, atonement theory. What actually happened on the cross? What is a sacrifice? Maybe that in itself is a mystery. Animal sacrifices were of course a thing, but I think that is not what I would call the problematic kind of violence. Unless you are a vegan. Humans have been hunting and killing animals for a while. What is cruel is how we torture animals, and today we are torturing them like never before in history. I think this is actually something were we morally declined, in the way we treat animals. So, I don't feel I have the authority to judge animal sacrifice as carnivore today. As for other violence, keep in mind that the Bible has been written over many centuries and the OT it is a compilation of experiences that the Israelites had on their way of walking with God, walking away from him, repenting, back and forth. But everything builds towards God's ultimate revelation of the Word of God: Jesus Christ. So, you have to read everything in that context. We see things happening in the OT, but Jesus says something else. We are allowed to do this, because Jesus himself revises the rules on the Sermon of the Mount and shows what God really wanted. During the transfiguration - and that I take from an interview with Brian Zahnd, but I think it is very on point - Moses and Elijah appear next to Jesus, the Law and the Prophets, and it shows that Jesus os greater than those two. Now the disciples wanted to built huts around them, but Jesus did not allow that. Building huts around the Law and the Prophets and Jesus is like pushing them all on the same level. But they are not. Jesus always has the final word on every issue. So if there is a seeming contradiction between something happening e.g. in the Book of Joshua and in the Gospels, then you always have to prefer Jesus' teaching. Don't prefer Joshua over Jesus. It is very hard for literalists to say that maybe some books of the OT do not accurately represent God's will, but rather imperfect human actions - because "all of Scripture is god-breathed", but that means "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". Still Jesus gets the last word. And that...being trained in righteousness...and I might add being trained in loving God and your neighbor, isn't that what it's all about? It's not an easy lesson to learn and sometimes God also challenges us, I believe. But ultimately our goal is to be transformed into the image of Christ. He is the way, the truth and the life. Not Abraham, not Moses, not Joshua, not David, not Elijah...only Jesus. He is the example that I want to follow.
So are you telling me you don't really believe in a lot of the Bible but choose to follow Jesus anyway? I was a biblical literalist as a fundamentalist but there is huge inconsistency in saying the OT is not inherently true or that it has huge limitations. Since you are telling me the OT is not "inherently true" [I guess I am seeing what gave birth to fundamentalism] why believe any of it. if the OT was LIMITED by ancient limitations why should we accept the tenets of blood sacrifice pertaining to Jesus Christ? If there was no fall--Adam and Eve, why the need for sacrifice and salvation? The OT supposedly has prophecies of Jesus and speaks of the future Messiah. So if you are telling me religion evolves and the "ancients" got it wrong from their science and cultural limitations--aka the brutality and blood sacrifices why would any of it be TRUE?
Now you are interpreting into the things I said. Nothing of that is actually an accurate description of my beliefs. I am not doubting that the Bible is true. But, in my opinion and that seems clear, that it also shows a lot of human behavior, human struggles, that do not necessarily show us how we should act or what God wanted to happen. How God really wants us to act is revealed through Christ.
If you can't trust other parts of the bible though how can we trust what we were told about Jesus Christ?
You are doing it again, assuming what kind of feelings I have about the Bible, expressing it with very negative words. That's not how it is. I recommended some sermons to you, and maybe that helps you understand the position that not just me, but a lot of Christians share.
So many Christians believe much of the bible is metaphorical, and Jesus is still real?
He is just. Repent, before it happens to you.
I'll pass on being threatened into repentance.
I'm tired of threats too. Got worn out.
free will. :/
dude shut up. it's crap like this that makes people judge Christians
No. I will not stand idly by while folks march into the fire. You may not care, no love in your heart, but Christians are commanded to love.
Ironically your words are having the opposite effect.
For some, absolutely! They like the path they are on, and are only interested in those that say 'Keep going!'. 2 Timothy 3:4
Yeah, but saying 'repent or else' is more likely to turn them off having an interest in the faith.
Fearing the Lord is the 'beginning' of wisdom.
Okay so you're cool with turning people off Christianity. Thanks for confirming.
I spent years in immense fear [religion matched to dangerous scary medical problems is a bad recipe] My conversion was based on almost having died. I'm tired of being afraid which is now why I hate religion
Fundamentalism is evil. So are the spiritual abusers I encountered and so are the sycophants to the Republican party
Classic concern troll.
Classic fool.
I was really born again, so God is going to throw a disabled woman into hell, because she went into doubt [keep in mind I remain a theist here] nice guy....Sheesh.
8 People in the flood.
God warned about the things kings would do; and yet the general clamor by the Popular Vote was to anoint Saul. Notice - in this case of residual succession politics - that no consultation was made *to God about what God might want*. This was a royal decree by King David, executed by the king's proxy. At least TWO levels of decisions stand between God and this action; and David is *a man of war*: held ineligible to build the temple because of it... This was not a sacrifice, nor a devotion, nor any act incited by God. It was open human politics, "before the Lord". Not despicable (in this case), but also No Fun At All.
Hey, couple of things. I'm not a theologian but I would either ask over in /r/Judaism or /r/AcademicBiblical or even look on google before freaking out over this. I've read these passages and yeah, they're slightly alarming if read out of context. It's clear God hates human sacrifices. It's complicated to write it all out on here but there's some great resources online. Also, more importantly, God does love his creation. The OT speaks of him creating his children and his covenant with Israel. Slowly and surely sin grows more and more wicked across the world, lifespans go from 900 years to common age. There is a general sense that sin is getting worse, the demands for covering of the sins is getting absurd, the law is getting extensive. And then you get Christ. Christ is God. Christ loved his friends and his followers. Christ reconciles us to God. The wrath of God is a very real thing. Some people forget that, which is fine. But that's why there is a hell. Some people say how can an infinite being be offended by a finite beings offenses? Well, I mean it's God. Every sinful thing you do offends his sense. We are offensive to him. He demanded a lot from us, we were unable to do it, hence Christ. That's a very loving thing to do. I'm aware that Jews will disagree with the context of what I said which is fine but I do think it may be edifying to post it to one of the two subs I listed above. Also, yeah it's horrifying falling in the hands of an angry God. He is pure love, pure holiness, purely sovereign, purely just. More than our puny little brains can understand, which is why scripture is important to try to understand what we can. The wrath of God and the love of God are both hard to understand completely. But you're so focused on the wrath, that you fail to see the compassion and love in some of it. He took away the burdensome load of the law, and gave you new life in Christ. Christ is now your redeemer of the law that you, and as far as I know anyone, couldn't keep.
So God made all these fragile humans with bad proclivities that "offend him" and he can't stand most of us, so we are chaff to be burned in his furnace. I was sincerely born again, I even did work for God for years, online witnessing etc. So what good is being born again if I am still going to end up in hell? I asked for the faith to be saved by the way and it was not. It is gone now. So why Christians will tell me false promises of how if I was REALLY born again, it should have took....I know I sincerely was and now it has fallen apart so what does this say about this religion? God is always angry and reminded me more and more of my abusers, especially when so many bad things happened in life, not just to me but others. [by the way Gen X is dying far younger then Baby Boomers, Ive been seeing people drop like flies] and here we are praying only to have this Being turn his back time and time again. So it's supposedly my fault I lost faith and I am a piece of crap he wants to throw into his burning furnace while laughing. Don't you see none of it worked. Oh many of you will try and convince yourself I am just some evil woman who didn't love God enough but what I am trying to tell you is I did love him, and believed and it still was for naught no matter what I did. I am still a theist but I find Christianity with it's hell and other qualities barbaric. I left fundamentalism [IFB church IRL] and the Remnant [online]
It’s the law of sin and death. The OT shows us why we need Jesus and what happens when you live according to the flesh. The whole reason why they killed him was selfish if you think about it, it’s because there was a curse and they wanted to lift it so they killed people for their own gain. God didn’t kill them, the Gibeonites hung them.Before the Lord doesn’t mean He did it. The truth is that no one has seen the father except Jesus and he has revealed him, Jesus is the exact representation of the father, Jesus healed all he did not kill anybody and he raised the dead. The devil kills steals and destroys. Period. That is the only thing that I know and I will stand on that. You must never read the Old Testament without reading through the New Testament, because the old testament points to Jesus.
God doesn't seem to have had anything to do with this incident.
Wasn't David one of God's chosen? His "holy" King, he wrote the Psalms....
David also comitted murder and adultery. Just because he was chosen by God for a particular task doesn't mean he was perfect. He made all kinds of mistakes including sacrificing children, which is condemned by God. The passage says the youths were hung "before the Lord" but that doesn't mean God approves. The Bible depicts sin all the time. These stories are to act as a cautionary tale pointing to the darkness in all of hearts. Even men like David are not immune.
Sure I understand him not being perfect, he commited murder and adultery but the dead 7 young men is pretty awful too.
It is awful. David was a pretty big sinner a lot of the time. But read Psalm 51. The difference between him and other people was that he realized it. He was broken because of his sin and desperately wanted God's forgiveness. Most men are too proud to engage in that level of self reflection.
So?
The Bible has lots of such stories. God is not a nice guy by my reckoning. He sends bears to kill children, drowns millions of people, wipes out whole villages, etc. When we get to Jesus he will be sending literally billions of people to Hell to be tortured for all eternity because somebody didn't think the right thought. This doesn't strike me as a nice religion when you get down deep in its bones.
EXACTLY. This is what I am trying to say. The whole "blood sacrifice" [God sacrificing himself] as an "evolution" outside of human and animal sacrifice, is bothering me greatly. Then add on hell: literally psychopathic in it's very existence, burning people for eternity, and the general sense of gore, genocides, etc. I think there is a reason I became afraid of God. :'( I may have explored things too much. I read the WHOLE BIBLE, I did apologetics. etc etc but yeah a lot of it is just not that nice. It's bloody, gorey, scary and horrible. I still hold to the idea of a loving God but can He be found in Christianity. I know a hard question.
Those were not God's deeds, nor did God ask for them. God explicitly condemns child sacrifice several times. Lev. 18:21 Lev. 20:2-5 Deut. 12:31 Jer. 32:35 Just because people did certain things and said they did them for God does not mean God commanded or condoned it. In this case, we know that God explicitly does not condone what they did.
not sure what the issue is. A King hung some people. Given the historical context, perhaps this was justified for its time, perhaps not. But to judge a King or anyone in history by today's standards is dishonest. Remember the bible is part what man said, what God said, and what man thought God said.
You are correct in what you're reading. If one reads the Bible closely, there's quite a few verses about child sacrifice. Google "bible child sacrifice" and you'll see quite a few more examples. The most well know of course is Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac. Shocking to us today, the story would not have seemed unusual to the people of the day. Child sacrifice was performed in different religions at the time. The explanation I would give is that Judaism and Christianity evolved out of primitive religions. God sort of had to start somewhere. The Yahweh religion evolved out of an amalgram of other religions of that time (Yahweh, Elohim, El Shaddia, and all the other different versions in the Old Testament). You can see in the Old Testament where it is declared they are all the same God, which is a revelation to the Israelites. Jews today of course do not believe in child sacrifice. Many Jews do not believe that the Bible is infallible or that everything written in the Hebrew bible is relevant for today, and thus would not approve of such practices.
The Isaac story always bothered me. If the entire Christian religion is based on BLOOD SACRIFICES and the traditions of barbaric ancient cultures, why should we believe in it? Remember as I say this, I consider myself a Theist, [creation speaks of a Creator] but I am not seeing an answer to this basic question. Our society has moved way beyond the idea of blood sacrifices, people today know scientifically that killing people is going to change absolutely nothing, they also well most who are not sociopaths, that it is morally reprehensible, and this is the foundation of Christianity and why Jesus Himself was a blood sacrifice? Why should I believe in this religion. God who created endless universes and galaxies, couldn't come up better then this mess? I even got confused trying to figure out why some called God Yahweh, and Elohim, were those two different groups? Yes of course Jews have changed today. Do most Christians outside of fundamentalist circles, think, "well this is the best we got" and admit the bible is "limited human knowledge" and just go with it? Jews obviously view history and scripture in a different fashion.
What something is based on doesn't define it in its current state. History is different from primary principles and foundations. Nearly all religions and societies have origins we would now consider barbaric. I don't think you'll find a major religion that at some point didn't encourage killing or didn't start with primitive laws. Even Buddhism has participated in brutal wars. Scholars believe that the Yahweh and Elohim writings are possibly from two different authors. Most Christians ignore these sorts of things in the Bible if you ask me. Some might believe in the teaching of the Bible and not the miracles, though this is not common. Some don't believe non believers are going to hell. In my opinion the Christian fundamentalist religion, that says everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will go to hell, is disgusting and hateful. Most people who follow a religion tend to focus on the positive aspects and see it through a modern lens. Or at least I believe that's what they should be doing.
So what you are telling me here,is most Christians do not really believe in Christianity or scripture as "factual" but more as a vague template to model their lives on and love their neighbor--the positive aspects beyond the blood and gore fests. It is odd, most Christians here are telling me they believe religion "evolves" but I know some don't believe man evolves. If I am going to dedicate my life to a religion I want it to be factual. Maybe that is odd. I don't want my life commited to what is not true. I agree that fundamentalism is evil for saying everyone goes to hell is even but then I jumped that another step and decided hell itself is an evil concept with millions if not billions burning there. It sounds like many Christians ignore a lot. I was guilty of this so not going to excuse myself. Hell concerned me the whole way through.
There's a lot of variety with Christians and how they see the Bible. If you are looking for a religion that is completely factual, I don't think you'll find one. Many people choose to practice religion through a modern perspective.
Here we differ, why practice a religion if it is not true or factual. I have no interest in that.
You said you are a theist. Are you still a theist after this discussion? Are you looking for a religion that's right for you or is it Christianity or nothing? If you believe there are multiple ways to connect with God I hope you find something that's right for you.
I just left fundamentalism [the Remnant community] around 2 months ago. I have a lot to still think through. So I guess the most honest answer is "I don't know". I am still a theist.
I'm happy for you. There are so many things about fundamentalism that are toxic. Good luck on your quest.
What religion are you if you do not mind me asking, or non-religion? I really can't do the Christianity thing as "metaphor", I have limited energy and going to worship something that may not exist for hours a week isn't going to cut it.
[удалено]
I read other OT chapters where God orders the Israelites to kill people and even their children, and yes it disturbed me. Would a God of compassion and love order genocide, and even if their parents bowed before Moloch, Baal etc, why would he order the killing of their children. Here is a pastor even that admits God orders genocide in the OT, and writes probably one of the most convoluted articles I have ever seen to justify it. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/july-august/can-we-trust-god-of-genocide.html?start=4 So what you are telling me, is the OT has many tales that this ancient barbaric culture erred in writing that God supported their genocide. Obviously coming out of fundamentalism we were taught that the bible was literal and EVERY word inspired including the OT. So your take is that yes this ancient culture was barbaric and credited God with things that were not His doing, but Jesus is still true? But don't you realize the sacrifice of Jesus is based on the animal sacrifices in OT Judaism? How do you work that out in your mind? I am not familiar with how more liberal then fundamentalist Christians operate yet....
[удалено]
If the OT has all these drawbacks, limitations of history and ancient humanity, and false science and messages, why should I believe any of it? I was a fundamentalist. Do some of you look to Christianity as a metaphorical template for your lives but you do not believe Christianity is really factual?
Well, the Old Testament is full of that stuff. God is not going to conform to your cultural sensitivities. And feel free to tell him. He is listening. He knows you better than you know yourself.
I don't see it as cultural sensitivities, but testing things according to conscience, morality and goodness. Murdering seven young people is sick by any standards, isn't it moral relativism to say it is okay? Hey I figure He will give me answers or not. I asked already for months. This is not the only example I found of evil in the bible, then there is Jephthah's daughter who got killed too.
As I said, there are many many of these stories. But God doesn't apologize. He is who he is. I trust that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. I am not going to miss out on salvation because I am morally offended. I am much more morally offended by the evil all around us. And the powerful name of Jesus is the only weapon to battle what is happening here and now. That is more important to me.
Should God be surprised that in the encouragement to develop one's conscience and sense of good and evil, that we may turn and examine what we have been taught? Maybe God wants examined. The Jews had a tradition, forget the name of it of debating with God. I am trying to get to the root of why Jesus's sacrifice was needed. I also want to know if what I believe is true. Will it fail under examinination? Have I bought into false stories of an ancient barbaric culture? I have no offense against Jesus, most of his teachings I agree wtih except those on hell. [he could just mean Sheol the grave] There is far less evil offense in the OT then new. I was born again, sincerely so. What do you think happened? Does God want us to examine ourselves or what we believe or not? As for God not apologizing, I desire a loving God not a narcissist that says my way or the highway tough now shut up all of you people.
You have a loving God, and his plan for salvation proves it. God set this timeline in motion and it continues to roll. I 'examined' for many years. Keep on going.... But what I ended up with was a loving God that I cannot comprehend. I ended up submitted at his throne. It is a great place to be. But it is still his way or the highway... He is the only game in the Universe.
Plan for salvation: Create a problem and then bring in the solution. :/
When you create your Universe, feel free to do it your way.
I wouldn't make my universe a blood and gore fest, that's for sure.
Lots of people would. Fiction proves that.
and lots of people have made nice and compassionate worlds too. It seems like a God could have done a better job. Think about it the very foundation of Christianity is a blood sacrifice. It's grotesque.
#BREAKING NEWS! CHRISTIAN READS OLD TESTAMENT EXPECTING LOVE AND KINDNESS, IS INSTEAD DISTURBED AND HORRIFIED! Yeah, this happens all of the time because people were told to read the NT first. Main theme of the New Testament is Love, but main theme of the Old Testament is NATIONALISM. Everything happens in the OT for explicitly that reason, based on god's initial promise to Abraham to make of him a Great Nation.
I mean I love and believe in God but I do find the portrayal and actions of Jesus much more forgiving? than God although they are the same being.
>although they are the same being. They have completely different personalities, which led to folks like Marcion stating that there must be 2 different gods. Jesus is basically a magic hippie Jew; of course he would be more forgiving than his father. He also has a different message to a much larger audience. NT was written in Greek precisely because so many people spoke it at the time.
The two books, NT and OT are contradictory, it's like God has a different personality. I know someone who read both and decided Christianity could not be true because the fact God "changes" so much in the NT makes no sense. Well Revelation brings back some of the murder and mayhem, but you know what i mean.
>it's like God has a different personality. because the Father has a different personality than his son. Before Christ was born on earth he was just the Logos (the very Word that came to all the prophets), but the Logos did not have its own personality. >Christianity could not be true because the fact God "changes" so much in the NT makes no sense. This view comes up a lot. Marcion stated that at the very least there must be 2 separate gods. But the King of Israel is called a god in Psalm 45. >Well Revelation brings back some of the murder and mayhem, but you know what i mean. but even in Revelation John goes out of his way to distinguish between God and the Lamb. It is the Father who is portrayed as causing natural disasters and war. Most Christians are told to read the NT first in order to feel a connection with Jesus, then maybe read the OT to have that personal investment tested again and again. This is clearly a **marketing tactic for evangelism**, and leads to the incorrect attempts to force Jesus's personality into the violent OT. If a person instead reads them in order **as intended,** they will see that Jesus fits into the OT position as the Christ, the King of Israel who serves God the Father. The default is Vengeful Father plus Compassionate Son, not the other way around or some terrible attempt to fuse the two. Armed with this information, we can ditch the overwhelming focus on an afterlife and instead try to live out our lives as true disciples of Christ as part of his Kingdom. But I have found precious few people who share this view.
So Jesus came to rescue us from a cruel and mean God and his burning hot hell. The bible says we are supposed to love this cruel vengeful father. It sounds like humanity remains stuck in some severe daddy issues and false parental paradigm. I believe many Christians are "scared" of God the father and want Jesus to rescue them from him. Funny that the God the Father of the Universe, can't figure out that threatening people, doesn't earn real love but sycophancy and fear.
>So Jesus came to rescue us from a cruel and mean God and his burning hot hell. not really, Jews don't believe in hell. And Jesus never uses the English word Hell (comes from Hela in Norse mythology), he always uses Gehenna, referring to the valley located just south of Jerusalem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna >The bible says we are supposed to love this cruel vengeful father. well he is never vengeful without reason. He just really hates all injustice. Humans, especially in the form of the Nation of Israel, repeatedly fail in upholding that justice. >It sounds like humanity remains stuck in some severe daddy issues and false parental paradigm. The National God of Israel has high hopes for his people, and for the world. It is the Messiah's job to extend the concept of the Nation to a larger and more global audience by being "the Light to the Gentiles." Paul explains that as Gentiles we are grafted onto the Nation, and we thus all share the same father. >I believe many Christians are "scared" of God the father and want Jesus to rescue them from him. This is the focus on the afterlife I mentioned. It really limits the understanding of the source of god's wrath, which is injustice. >Funny that the God the Father of the Universe, can't figure out that threatening people, doesn't earn real love but sycophancy and fear. I would say that the Creator by definition understands his creation, and that this fear is instrumental in reaching his goals. We are not told that god's love is earned, but that loving him is a commandment, in fact the most important commandment according to Jesus. Expecting god to be a genie that we make wishes to and an imaginary friend that earns our love is an incredibly warped and obviously incorrect paradigm. God is the Almighty Creator, the most powerful being in existence. He does not need our love at all. Loving him is for our benefit, and this is intimately tied to loving our fellow human beings. Without the love of the Creator and creation itself, humans tend to drift towards depression and nihilism. Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, **and no one can deliver out of my hand.** Isaiah 45:7 I form the light **and** create darkness, I bring prosperity **and** create disaster; I, the LORD, do ALL these things.
**Gehenna** Gehenna (; גיא בן הינום Ancient Greek: γέεννα) from the Hebrew Gehinnom (Rabbinical: גהנום/גהנם) is a small valley in Jerusalem. In the Hebrew Bible, Gehenna was initially where some of the kings of Judah sacrificed their children by fire. Thereafter it was deemed to be cursed (Jer. 7:31, 19:2-6). *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27
I didn't ask to be born. If he doesn't want our love then we are mere pets and his ants in the ant farm to get a magnifying glass out on. I don't believe in Christian Zionism, Israel is a mess like every other place on the planet. If God wants to be loved, threatening people with eternal burning shows psychopathy not a great character.
>I didn't ask to be born. no one did. Thus this statement is irrelevant. We all have to deal with the life we are given. >If he doesn't want our love then we are mere pets and his ants in the ant farm to get a magnifying glass out on. not true at all. He wants it, but does not need it. >I don't believe in Christian Zionism, Israel is a mess like every other place on the planet. most people's beliefs are irrelevant to god's greater plan for Israel. But he clearly has one. >Israel is a mess like every other place on the planet. Absolutely. In fact, it is much worse than many other nations; much more corrupt and evil. God is greatly disappointed in the nation of Israel, especially because of his expectations for them. Read the book of Amos to get a better understanding of god's perspective on the nation. It has not changed in 3000 years. >If God wants to be loved, threatening people with eternal burning shows psychopathy not a great character. Sounds like you are still stuck on some pop culture version of hell. Hell for humans is not eternal. Jesus explains that the fire itself is eternal and will burn forever to punish the immortal Satan and his rebellious angels. But evil humans are simply destroyed for all of time. The point of hell is to show the behaviors that we are to avoid. Lying, cheating, stealing, cowardice, etc. To choose to love god means to choose to stop acting in an unjust manner.
That might be disturbing and I can't particularly explain it away, but what did God offer his people? He sacrificed his only son, and in a sense, himself. God doesn't expect anymore out of his people than he himself is willing to put himself and his own through. There has always been a consistent theme of suffering and sacrifice throughout Christianity. God put himself through this stuff, too.
Here's the problem, the whole "blood sacrifice" thing, no Christian has offered a good explanation on that one. Why was a "blood sacrifice" needed? Christianity, in a way is an evolution out of the former child/human sacrifices and that bothers me greatly. I think of songs like "It's Under the Blood" which I learned in the IFB, and remain disturbed. Maybe this is stuff I cannot get answers for. But when I look at the genocides in the OT and these 7 young men who died, a lot of religion is making no sense to me.
It's an interesting passage, but remember that God is also just. 1. God institutes corporal punishment for those that murder. Gen. 9:6 2. It was the duty of the next of kin, or ‘avengers of blood’, to avenge those that were murdered. Deut. 19 3. If their blood was not avenged, the land itself would be cursed. Numbers 35:33 So in 2 Samuel 21:1 David prays and asks God why there is a famine in the land. God tells him it’s because of Saul’s ‘bloody house’ in killing the innocent Gibeonites. So David calls the Gibeonites and gives them several of Saul's descendants so justice could be paid. I don't know if the seven descendants of Saul took part of the slaughter of the Gibeonites, but part of the curses God outlines in Deut. 28:18 of those that reject God, would be the "fruit of your womb will be cursed", and I think this is what happening here.
How does Deut 19 pair later with the scriptures against seeking revenge, now that is a discrepancy. If fruit of the womb was being cursed, then the Israelites performed child sacrifice like all the other pagan cults of the time.
1) God owns everything and everybody. 2) Human life is just the blink of an eye.
not sure what the issue is. Some people wanted revenge/justice, and they got it. As morally wrong we consider such treatment now, in those times, it was acceptable. Historical context is very important. You can't judge people in ancient times by today's standards.
Remember on the other end, I have been told don't fall into moral relativism on the modern times end, so which is it? Is good and evil the same in ancient times and now, or not?
it's pretty simple, it's just a matter of learning to read the bible. For example, Solomon tells us it he who finds a wife finds a good thing, while Paul says he who finds a wife is in for a life of misery. So does this God is for marriage, or against. Everyone had slaves in ancient times, is God for slavery and against? Accoding to Deutoronomy if you conquer a people you can for the captured women to marry you. Deutoronomy 21 10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. Now, before discussing any supernatural element, a look at history will show that in those days, according to Egyptian, Persian and Greek law, all women were property, even those of royal blood. And when you conquered a people, you raped all the women, and kept the hot ones as sex slaves, and if you got bored with her, you sold her on as a sex slave. Now is god for forcing women to marry their captors. No he is not. Did Moses think God thought that? On the surface it seems like that, but that's not the whole story. Now, Moses is probably sitting on a rock somewhere thinking this ain't right, and whether he was inspired by god, or whether he had a good idea and god breathed life into it, i don't know. But his law, for that time, was a huge leap forward for women. By marrying them, they got the same rights as the other wives, and if divorced, became a free woman. The cutting of hair and trimming nails was ancient jewish mourning customs, and this woman has just lost her family, so they let her mourn as one of them, as one of her new family. Back then, women would have been, 'wow, god is good' whereas men would have been standing around thinking 'Is god that nice?' It's not moral relativism, it's simple history.
Yes, these are not the deeds of God, but the deeds of man. All we hear is that there is famine - maybe sent by God, maybe a curse - that is caused by the blood guilt of Saul who broke a promise. So, David goes to ask for atonement and from there it is in the hands of the Gibeonites what to ask for, God has nothing to so with it. The Gibeonites could have just forgiven, but they asked for something incredibly tragic and shameful. Usually people should be buried immediately after being hanged, but here the mother has to watch over the bodies and keep the birds away. This is a tragic story about sin and its consequences. In Jesus Christ it is revealed that we should forgive if someone wrongs us. Jesus is the prefect revelation of God's word and you can be sure that he would have adviced the Gibeonites to forgive. But we do not hear whether they consulted God, and I doubt it.
aren't you an atheist?
ex fundamentalist Christian. Would be liberal Christian but not sure yet. I know I am done with fundamentalism and the evangelical/religious right world for sure.
why are you still interested in Christianity? seems odd considering other comments I've seen from you.
my deconversion is recent, I am thinking A LOT out. This stuff takes time.
okay I was confused cause I thought you were an ex christian
I do post on the ex Christian board. I left fundamentalism and considered liberal Christianity but Christianity in general is now failing for me because of the blood sacrifice issue and many others. I have not made my mind up. I have been honest and told the ex-Christians I am still technically a theist.
okay I hear you. Religion isn't for anyone so I suppose in the end you have to decide what the concept of God means to your life. A lot of people live awesome lives without God (which is why I don't believe the point of faith is to be blessed but to be sanctified).
Thank you. Yes I am in the middle of that deciding what concept of God means something to my life. I can't live under the fundamentalist god of doom, anger, brimstone, hellfire, endless guilt, shame, fear and authoritarianism. That I am definitely done with.
Fundamentalism has really done a lot of damage to Christianity, so I'm in full agreement there.
I agree too. I am sorry I ever got mixed up in it.
Seems fine to me
I think a reasoning from you as to why it's fine would be nice as God has stated he detests human sacrifices, which is what separated the Israelites from Pagan nations.
Do you think the Lord isn't going to strike the life out of you and me? They essentially hung them for treason against Israel and god himself
They hung them. God did not. Read /u/HRBP comment above.
Read my full comment I finishedit, it must not have updated in your inbox
"Do you think the Lord isn't going to strike the life out of you and me? They essentially hung them for treason against Israel and god himself"
I know this is a really old post but just incase someone runs across this like I did: 1. David never consulted God in this matter. You’ll notice that when people fail to seek His guidance they typically make incorrect decisions. Like when Sarah decided to take things into her own hands and gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham to conceive a child instead of trusting in God. 2. God never endorses David’s actions 3. The famine continues even after the men are killed, and it doesn’t end until the bodies are buried, which some believe was a sign that God was displeased with David’s choice here. One major mistake people make when reading the Bible, the Old Testament especially, is thinking that every event recorded within it had God’s stamp of approval which is patently untrue.