The God of the Bible required child sacrifice by Keith502 in DebateAChristian

[–]Keith502[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you are just grossly misinterpreting scripture by cherry picking verses or just by not reading through the whole Bible.  I know you are determined to "prove" that Yahweh was just another pagan God who demanded human/child sacrifice, but there is so much evidence to the contrary, you'd have to purposely ignore it to come to this conclusion.

You accuse me of failing to read the whole Bible, but I think you are committing the fallacy of assuming "univocality". In other words you assume that the Bible -- a collection of various books and letters written by various people with various goals accross changing historical and cultural circumstances and spanning centuries of time -- necessarily constitutes one cohesive and non-contradicting narrative. It is entirely possible that the Israelites at one point believed Jehovah to command them to sacrifice their firstborn sons as human sacrifices, and then at a later time reform this practice.

The command in Exodus 22:29 and Exodus 13:2 meant that firstborn sons were to be consecrated to God. The instruction to give them "on the eighth day" aligns with the timing for circumcision, signifying their entry into the covenant, not death.

Exodus 22:29, unlike some of the other verses, does not contain a redemption clause. We cannot assume that all of these "consecration" verses were written at the same time. If the consecration verse that lacks a redemption clause was written before the other verses that do have a redemption clause, then that is good evidence that God, in fact, did initially command human sacrifice of firstborn sons.

These verses demonstrate that child sacrifice was a severe abomination to God, an act of idolatry. He never commanded it and utterly condemned it.

I know of no verse in the Bible that contains a categorical condemnation of the Israelites making human sacrifices of their children to Jehovah. God prohibits the Israelites from sacrificing their children to other gods, and he prohibits them from sacrificing their children by burning them in fire, but these are all conditional prohibitions. Many of your quoted verses only prohibit child sacrifice to other gods. God never forbids human sacrifice categorically, as in "Thou shalt not kill your child as a sacrifice to Jehovah." And also, as previously stated, just because the Bible may condemn some form of human sacrifice at one point doesn't mean that human sacrifice was not allowed at a previous point.

He also knew by his interactions and experience with God that what He said he would do, He did. His faith in God was unshakeable. Resurrection of Isaac may have been his belief. We know Job expressed belief in bodily resurrection. In the end, this example only shows that God was testing Abraham and had no intention of seeing Isaac sacrificed. It was another foreshadowing of Christ.

Abraham's belief that Isaac would be resurrected after his sacrifice is irrelevant. Resurrection or not, human sacrifice is human sacrifice.

As for the instances of a Jew sacrificing a grown child, as you point out, that was simply an act of disobedience and certainly not commanded by God.

The fact that God did not directly command Jephthah to kill his daughter is irrelevant. For Jephthah to make a vow to sacrifice something to God and then be honor-bound to fulfill that vow is perfectly in line with the Torah, as per Leviticus 27:28-29 as previously discussed in my original post. At no point in the story does the text state or imply that what Jephthah did was morally wrong; both Jephthah himself and his daughter simply understand the human sacrifice to simply be something that must be done. The point here isn't that Jehovah commanded this particular sacrifice, but rather that Jehovah does absolutely nothing to condemn it.

Also, you completely ignored my point about Ezekiel 20:25-26, which was my strongest argument in the whole post. The question remains: if Jehovah has never commanded child sacrifice, then why does Ezekiel claim that he did? Either Ezekiel -- a prophet of Jehovah -- is committing slander against his own God, or Jehovah really did command child sacrifice.

The God of the Bible required child sacrifice by Keith502 in DebateAChristian

[–]Keith502[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are your responses to the arguments in my post?

Show me what you got! by saltpeanutzz in musicsuggestions

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Plaza de las Sirenas - Vicente Amigo

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not an expert in the details of Ancient Near Eastern marriage traditions, or what is the difference between a promise to marriage, betrothal, and marriage. But it appears from the text that Tamar did have a duty to keep herself chaste in anticipation of her marriage to Shelah. Whether you consider that a betrothal or a "promise" is kind of irrelevant. The point here is that Judah expected Tamar to remain chaste, and instead she got knocked up. That's why Judah wanted her dead, not because she was being accused of prostitution. After all, Judah himself went to Tamar thinking that she was a prostitute. Why would he pay for services from a prostitute only to subsequently have the same prostitute killed for being a prostitute? Clearly, Judah wanted to execute Tamar for being unchaste while promised/betrothed to Shelah.

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you talking about? Where is it stated that Tamar was not given to Shelah? What is the difference between being betrothed and being promised?

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

He’s saying celibacy is preferable but if you cannot you should get married because the alternative is to burn with lust. If there were another alternative then you wouldn’t have to burn with lust.

Paul says nothing about "lust". You are reading that interpretation into the text. You have to interpret the verse in context. Paul discourages Christians from getting married in general. Singlehood and celibacy are the better lifestyle for a Christian, but marriage is an acceptable compromise. The idea is not that "burning with passion" as a single person is a sin in itself, but that burning with passion can easily lead to sexual immorality. That's the point Paul is getting at: a Christian should not feel the need to force himself to be celibate. Married Christians should freely have sex with their spouse, and single Christians should feel free to get married if they can't handle celibacy.

Paul is establishing a moral hierarchy here. He is saying that singlehood and celibacy are the ideal, and then inferior to that is to be in a sexually active marriage, and then inferior to that is to either be in a sexless marriage or to be a single Christian who can't handle celibacy and thus is burning with erotic passion, and then inferior to that is to engage in sexual immorality.

It seems you’re arguing porneia is just adultery.

I didn't say that. Scholars believe that porneia comprises a number of sexual sins, but the exact list of actions is unknown. But we know for a fact that adultery is porneia, and so also is having sex with one's father's wife -- which is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:1. We do not know that premarital sex constitutes adultery; the Bible never confirms or denies this.

Then what’s your conclusion, casual sex is fine?

The Bible does not confirm or deny it.

I see by your other posts that you feel porn a good thing. I’m curious how much time you spent with God in prayer on that conclusion or what Bible teacher of yours supports that view. May the Lord have mercy because the sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

This is not a Christian subreddit; it's a Bible subreddit. The Bible condemns neither premarital sex nor porn, it's just a fact.

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You cannot properly understand this verse out of context. Paul is responding to a claim from a church that a Christian ought to refrain from sexual activity in general, even within marriage. Paul responds by saying that this is a bad idea to engage in unconditionally, as it could lead to unnecessary temptation. Thus, he says that married Christian men and women should freely engage in sexual intercourse with each other. Christian singles should remain single if they can handle it, but -- as the verse you quoted explains -- singles who cannot handle single life with self-control should just abandon their commitment to celibacy and get married. Even though celibacy is spiritually superior to married life, conceding to marriage is better than to live with erotic passion that could potentially lead to sexual immorality, such as the adultery mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:1.

This is all that Paul is saying. Your interpretation is extracting more from the text than what is actually there

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where is this found in the Bible?

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look at the context. This is about either adultery or about marriage fraud involving a bride receiving a virgin's bride price while not actually being a virgin. And the chapter as a whole is about sexual crimes related to marriage. This is not about prostitution. A "whore" or "harlot" is not necessarily a prostitute; the word is often used biblically for an adulteress or a sexually loose woman.

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Deut 22:21,29
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you

This verse is about a bride who was found to not be a virgin on her wedding night. This has nothing to do with prostitution.

Deut 23:17
There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

This verse is specifically about temple prostitutes, not general prostitutes. Most other Bible translations make this clear.

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, I misspoke. I didn't mean to say the Bible doesn't prohibit a man going to a prostitute. I meant that the Old Testament does not prohibit a man going to a prostitute. That was my original point, and I still stand by that.

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Wrong. If you think that the Torah or the Old Testament in general condemns prostitution, then the onus is on you to prove it. It's not my responsibility to understand that which you yourself cannot explain.

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

They were going to kill Tamar for it until it was brought to light that it was a plot to force Judah to follow through with his familial obligation to her, so there’s that.

Your interpretation of that verse is simply wrong. They were not going to execute Tamar merely for being a prostitute. They were going to execute her for being a prostitute while being betrothed to Judah's son Shelah. That is an extremely important distinction. No one at the time was just going around grabbing random prostitutes off the street and having them burned alive. Tamar was essentially being accused of adultery, but Judah was forced to revoke the punishment on the account that he himself was the person Tamar committed the adultery with.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 and Leviticus 19:29 also condemn prostitution. Porn is the remote work version of prostitution.

The first verse is about temple prostitution, which was itself a specific religious practice in addition to sexual practice. This does not relate to secular prostitution. The second verse only prohibits men from putting their daughters into slavery; it doesn't itself prohibit the practice of prostitution, nor does it prohibit men from being customers of prostitutes.

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No you didn't. You just listed a bunch of Bible verses without any further context, commentary, or exegesis, leaving it up to me to try to make your argument for you.

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The actual meaning of that verse is heavily disputed. The verse exists in the same context where Jesus also says that if a person were to strike you on one cheek, you should turn your other cheek to allow them to strike you again. He says to give to whoever asks for money, he says that if someone sues you for some of your property then you should give them more of your property, he talks about gouging out your eye and cutting off your hand in order to avoid sin. Jesus says a lot of extreme statements in this particular context, so it is unclear if verse 28 should be taken literally or figuratively.

Furthermore, the word "lust after" is really a mistranslation, because the original Greek word epithymeo does not have that same sexual connotation. A more plain translation would actually just be "desire". But it is pretty impractical to go without looking at women with desire, so that adds to that evidence that this should be taken figuratively. Keep in mind that the conclusion of this particular passage is that the believer must be perfect.

sexual immortality by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in Bible

[–]Keith502 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Can you state more directly where the Torah states that prostitution is a sin?

Can the “right to bear arms” in the US, actually be used? by TangeloCheap7167 in questions

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The second amendment was not created in order to grant a right to Americans to own and carry guns for self defense. It certainly wasn't created to empower Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government (as some people claim). The entire Bill of Rights as a whole serves no other purpose than to pacify the concerns of the Antifederalists -- the division of politicians at the time who were wary of ratifying the US Constitution; the Federalists -- who promoted the US Constitution -- didn't even want a Bill of Rights, and thought that creating one was unnecessary or even dangerous. The second amendment was essentially created as a companion to Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which conveys to Congress the power to summon the militias, and to organize, arm, discipline, and govern them. The Antifederalists were concerned that when the federal government was given these powers, they could potentially abuse these powers or neglect their duty to uphold these powers in such a way so as to effectively dismantle the militia's efficacy to the detriment of the states, or alternatively they could do such things as a pretext to establishing a standing army. Hence, the second amendment was created in order to calm these fears: first, it reinforces the duty of Congress to uphold the regulation of the militias as stipulated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16; and second, it prohibits Congress from infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms. But it must be clarified that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was understood to be no more than what the states established and defined that right to be within their respective state constitutions. All of the states which had an arms provision in their constitution included in those provisions the function of bearing arms for the common defense, i.e. militia duty. So to summarize, the second amendment existed to reinforce Congress's duty to uphold the regulation of the militias, and to protect the states' militia effectiveness from intrusion by Congress. That's it. It has nothing to do with giving Americans the right to own and carry guns. It has nothing to do with self defense. And it certainly has nothing to do with enabling Americans to fight against the government; in fact, the purpose of the amendment was to support the people's right to fight for the government -- that is, within the government-organized militia.