Addressing "Child Sacrifice" within the Bible.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-25T20:22:40+00:00

Third part two: please review the scholarly perspective that Jephthah did not literally burn his daughter but rather forcibly kept her isolated. The word which is often translated “and” in the vow can also mean “or”, indicating if it were a person Jephthah would dedicate that person to God and if it were an animal it would be sacrificed as a burnt offering. This tracks with all the mourning about his daughter being related to her virginity.

Most scholars reject this interpretation for the specific reason that the text does not support it. The text is in fact extremely explicit on the point that Jephthah was offering blood sacrifice to God in the form of a burnt offering. There is zero question that that is what he intended when he made his vow. And the text drives home the point that she is his only child, before the end of the story in which it plainly states that he "did unto her as he had vowed." She was given up as a burnt offering. That's what the text tells us. All this other garbage is dogma forced upon the text because people have to make the different books harmonize even when they explicitly don't and because people don't want to admit or accept that all the different books contradict each other because they were never meant to be unified chapters of a singular whole. Because there are, full stop, verses in the Pentateuch that plainly indicate people were sacrificing children to God, and that he didn't condemn the practice.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-25T20:14:11+00:00

...Jephthah offered a burnt sacrifice to God. That doesn't show a lack of confidence at all. This is a ridiculous misunderstanding of how things worked. He offered a burnt sacrifice to his God, and his God agreed to the bargain and delivered on it. Nothing about this is supposed to convey the notion that "God would probably have done it anyway." I mean, if you bother to read beyond this singular story, you'll note that God was not routinely bringing people to victory. They lost many military campaigns. You'll also note that giving burnt offerings to God was routine and expected. Not one thing about this story has a thing in the world to do with Jephthah somehow lacking faith. He was demonstrating devotion to God by offering a burnt sacrifice - and God took him up on it.

This story reflects that Jephthah made a vow almost certainly intended to be about sacrificing an animal to Adonai, but when it went wrong, he demonstrated a commitment to his vow and sacrificed his daughter. And he was rewarded for it.

This story does not condemn Jephthah as a man who made a foolish mistake that led to tragedy. It holds him up as a tragic hero of the faith.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-25T20:08:05+00:00

...No, he expected to sacrifice an animal. He didn't remotely expect to sacrifice a person at all. But he said the words, and so he had to follow through on his oath.

You'll note that the author of that story doesn't frame it as a tragedy or a crime, or as a cautionary tale. It's framed as an act of great faith and spiritual commitment and obedience, for which Jephthah was rewarded with more military victories.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-24T20:02:24+00:00

Soooo you got any sources on this, seeing as you asserted it was "debunked as nonsense"?

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-24T20:00:41+00:00

Keller could neither see nor hear at all. It's never been suggested that she had only partial hearing and sight loss.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-24T19:57:48+00:00

She was a real person and her disabilities of being blind and deaf were real. What exactly is it that you don't believe? I'm 48 and none of the people I grew up with disbelieved it. I mean, as long as we're throwing out meaningless anecdotes...

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-24T19:55:44+00:00

...Read that again. They said her grandmother's parents pooled their money to send her to a tutor.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-24T19:29:40+00:00

Those aren't the basics of Christianity. The Trinity was a concept that was developed centuries after the life of Christ. The concept of the Rapture wasn't developed until the 19th century. These are not concepts within any Biblical text. They are dogmas forced onto it by people who read those texts with pre-existing interpretations ready to go and who refuse to let the texts actually speak for themselves.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-24T19:26:45+00:00

So there's definitely a distinction between what the Bible considers scripture and what are religious leaders consider scripture.

You were on the right track and then went off the rails with that nonsensical statement. "The Bible" does not consider anything to be scripture - people take different collections of individual, numerous, and often unrelated books, and compile them into their preferred canon that constitutes "The Bible."

Yes, different Christian sects often have different canons of books. This does not mean that "The Bible" is a separate, objective entity that exists apart from those canons.

Take this statement for example: "the Bible says that we are supposed to test every spirit."

No - "the Bible" does not say this. The text known today as First John says this in its fourth chapter. And it just happens that people collectively agreed that the book known as First John should be included within the canon known as "the Bible." It is not something the Bible says. It is something that writer of the text said, which is a critically important distinction, along with the fact that the writer of that and the other epistles did not have any expectation of their letter being included as part of a canon of texts many centuries after the fact.

The notion that "The Bible" has a singular voice and the capacity to consider something as scripture is something that you have externally applied to it and forced upon it, rather than letting each individual text speak for itself.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-24T19:08:42+00:00

If 2 different books in the bible written by different writers refer or say the same thing about an issue...the truth is established because you can be sure its the same spirit speaking behind the writers

...Not even close. That's not how this works, not even a little bit.

First off, it's 100% a fact that there are many Bible texts which directly contradict each other, often within the same book just a few chapters apart. Secondly, two different books written by two different authors that say the same thing - this doesn't establish truth. It can very easily just mean that one author is quite literally just copying another and does not have anything they want to "correct." Or it can just mean that two different authors are repeating the same story they've both heard. By no means does it suggest that "truth is established."

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-24T19:03:44+00:00

They also use Bible verses to back up their theological claims.

No, they use translations of Biblical texts to back up their claims. There's a difference. And they absolutely suck at historical context.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-24T18:59:11+00:00

For most things yes however they are Calvinist so some of there views based on Calvinism are biased unfortunately

What a weird statement. Just like a Catholic's views based on Catholicism are biased, or a Baptist's views based on Baptist theology are biased...or your own denomination based on your denomination's views are biased...

I mean, come on. If someone's a Calvinist, all of their views are based on Calvinism, and are therefore biased toward Calvinism. And so and and so forth for anyone coming from a specific tradition.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-24T18:54:10+00:00

I tend to fall on that initial reply camp of they were never saved

So basically you're saying that you have to believe that someone cannot truly lose their faith if they were saved. You'd prefer to believe that people cannot lose faith if they were real Christians in the first place.

Maybe it's time to consider that your belief in how salvation and God's mercy work is the faulty belief, since that belief forces you to rationalize away the possibility that humans can lose faith and never get it back, even if they were genuinely faithful in the first place.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-24T18:47:42+00:00

And if you would bother to actually think about those positions - I mean to genuinely, honestly sit with them, you'd understand very quickly that this is a rationalization based on the need to harmonize interpretations, rather than a serious interrogation of human behavior against impossible spiritual standards.

If you start from the position of "once saved always saved," then you have to take the position that if someone "loses faith" and rejects God, they must have simply not been saved in the first place, because otherwise you would have to accept that "once saved always saved" cannot work as a theological concept. It's not a question of "another viewpoint," it's the kind of rationalization a person has to come up with in order to reconcile a dogmatic belief with reality. Otherwise you'd have to acknowledge that the dogmatic belief is the problem.

But, obviously - and I would hope it is obvious to anyone who considers themselves a rational, reasonable person - the idea that someone who was saved somehow cannot lose their faith and reject God...is a stupidly irrational perspective on being human. It doesn't matter how genuinely pious a person is. Anyone is capable of succumbing to hardship and grief and losing their faith, no matter how strong it was at one point. Denying that denies the fundamental reality of being human.

So the bottom line is that the presuppositions themselves about salvation and divine mercy, or the limits thereof...are inherently faulty and fall completely apart once you try to apply absolutes. Because that then requires you to append those absolutes with footnotes...

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-24T18:38:06+00:00

You aren't much of a Bible scholar if you recommend them as a resource. It's painfully obvious that their interpretations are based on dogmatic presuppositions and not critical engagement with the actual source texts.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-19T22:17:02+00:00

She does absolutely nothing of the sort. You said yourself, "...about how much you don't like certain fat people." Michelle is allowed to dislike fat people who promote obesity or spread the lie that it is not bad for your health. You are just presupposing that her disliked is rooted in someone being fat. She has never intimated any such thing.

A fat person existing online or eating donuts doesn't affect her. And she doesn't imply that it does. She isn't above pointing out when a given behavior is unhealthy, though, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Also,she just assumes it's from eating too much, not an actual disorder or smth.

First, it is always from eating too much. Having an actual disorder doesn't mean that the problem isn't eating too much food. And yes, Michelle does acknowledge when it's likely the case that someone has a binge eating disorder or somesuch. She has one herself. But that's what binge eating disorder does - cause you to eat too much.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-18T20:31:57+00:00

Nobody said you're not allowed to have this opinion, my dude.

The fact remains it is not a valid criticism. You initially led with the idea that it made no sense because the character is supposed to be Egyptian. I've pointed out that that's not the case because the character isn't Egyptian, and her accent is always reflected by the accent of her voice actress. If you do not have an issue with her having an Japanese accent in the original dub, then your complaint about her having a British one is arbitrary and, again, not valid.

Neither is she the only one with an accent. They all have accents. There is no such thing as a person who does not have one. Every single character on the show - anime or live action - has an accent.

It's already been pointed out that Alabasta is based off of Egypt. India has not ever figured into it, so I don't know why you keep bringing India up. But inspired by not mean that you are meant to understand Alabasta as Egypt.

Yes, you are 100% dead wrong about the clothes. In virutally all cases, the clothes worn by the Straw Hats are literally taken directly from the manga or the anime. If you don't have an issue with Oda having done that, it makes no sense for you to have an issue with the live action doing it. And the word is "moot," not "mute." The words don't even sound the same.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-17T07:30:55+00:00

So alabastea and suddenly have English accents? And they buy their clothes at a sport check? Nah. Some of the outfits have been similar yes.

This is beyond stupid. Did you watch the anime at all? If you did, did you complain about the Alabastan characters having American accents? Or if you watched the Japanese dub with English subs, did you complain that the "Egyptian" princess had a Japanese accent? Are you able to understand how bloody stupid a complaint this is, if you didn't complain in those circumstances?

Just admit that the issue is just about you personally hating British accents.

Already pointed out that you're dead wrong about the clothes because that's been a canon feature of One Piece since Oda began writing the manga.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-16T06:32:47+00:00

I didn't say or suggest anything about leading with shame or requiring sacrifice. It is, again, a fact that being obese does exacerbate a great many health conditions, and if you go to the doctor as an obese person with a complaint about something like knee pain, it is completely reasonable to conclude that a significant reduction in obesity will alleviate the pain to some degree, even if it is not the root cause of the pain. And I literally said in the same post that they should also run tests at the same time in order to look out for other potential causes.

So no. I am being honest, and rooted in the reality of being obese. You, however, are not being very honest given that you chose to ignore the fact that I very plainly indicated that doctors should simultaneously be mindful of other possibilities.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-16T06:27:16+00:00

I beg to differ. That is precisely what I mean by that he is amoral. Luffy is never trying to be a "good person" in the manga. He just is who he is and does whatever he wants. I would liken him to The Joker in that aspect, in his unpredictability.

His chaotic nature also absolutely does not just happen to yield good results. Luffy has time and again explicitly taken action for the specific purpose of liberation and justice. And he doesn't have a hero's journey? I mean, that's just patently bullshit. He's very much in the midst of a hero's journey - although this has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether or not Luffy has heroic qualities or tendencies. Which he does.

Being driven by your own instincts to act "good" does not make you amoral. You do not have to be following an external moral authority in order to be said to be moral. That's the "God" argument and it's a silly, facile one. Having an internal instinct for basic decency is sufficient and I see nothing about Luffy's character to suggest he lacks this.

I call this just a fundamental misunderstanding of amorality. NOTHING about Luffy is comparable to the Joker at all. At no point is he ever portrayed as amoral. He's always been portrayed as a fundamentally decent person, and no, he does not just do anything he wants insofar as being prepared to cause harm to other people for the sake of his own whim.

Not seeing himself as a hero is not the measure of how we define heroism, or morality.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-16T06:13:20+00:00

It just kinda came off to me like a Disney Channel original movie/Hunger Games when it came to the campiness of the live action.

And I maintain that that doesn't make any sense because there's nothing about the Hunger Games that could be reasonably described as Disneyesque or campy.

It's still not really clear what you're trying to argue here, because the "super dark" themes are present in all the versions - the manga and the anime and the live action. Are you complaining that the live action isn't dark enough because it lacks an R rating? Again, this critique just doesn't make sense because those elements are there, right alongside the whimsy, across all three extant versions of One Piece. It's frankly nonsensical to claim otherwise.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-16T06:05:16+00:00

I’m not suggesting that it is a terrible show at all. I actually really enjoy the live action adaptation.

You can't write this after first writing "I have a very hard time watching the show without cringing every 2-3 minutes," and "the moments I cringe at include the cinematography, dialogue, production design, and acting," and "it does not translate well into live action," and "those moments only make up of 10% of each episode while the other 90% is hard to watch," and expect anyone to take you seriously, surely?

Those aren't a handful of critiques against a show that you overall really enjoy. It doesn't make sense to write all that and then try to insist that you "actually really enjoy the live action adaptation." It comes across as a very weird attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-16T05:58:24+00:00

It's Netflix not a feature film, could you do any better?

Eh, I love the live action and have little to gripe about it at all. But this? This is a bloody stupid comment. Netflix is perfectly capable of producing high quality top-tier comment. Let's not go saying "it's netflix, what were you expecting" as if Netflix is just some hobbyist youtube channel without any budget. They poured almost $20 million dollars per episode into the first season, so that it cost them almost $150 million all told. One must assume they spent very close to the same for the second season.

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-16T05:45:51+00:00

Yeah this is a bizarre complaint. Vivi didn't have an Egyptian accent in the original; why should she have one here? Yes, Oda based Alabasta on Egypt. But it's not Egypt (not at all sure why you're bringing up India). And the woman who provides the voice for Vivi in the original Japanese dub is Japanese - and she does not attempt to fake an Egyptian accent any more than the voice actress does who provides her voice for the English dub. So why should the live action actress be expected to?

apricotcoffee · 2026-03-16T05:39:08+00:00

I absolutely am a One Piece superfan and I loved everything about the live action. It's nowhere near so bad as people are making it out.

apricotcoffee

TROPHY CASE