Jephthah’s action is not endorsed. Every Bible student in history has either (1) condemned his action, or (2) attempted to argue that the “sacrifice” of his daughter did not involve her death. Assuming the worst, Jephthah is an example of a sociopath, and those exist but are rare–exactly as I already said.
As for Abraham, I’ve discussed this elsewhere, and I’m loth to waste my time with someone who will ignore most of what I say, and mock the rest, but here goes. Abraham’s action is in a separate category. Non-aggression governs human interaction. It doesn’t govern human interaction with animals, nor divine interaction with humans. We can own cows and slaughter them; gods can own people and, if they wish, slaughter them. God does generally interact humanely with humans, as evidenced by His intervention on Isaac’s behalf. (Slaughtering the Canaanites can be deemed inhumane, if you wish–but it’s justified the same way as veal is: property rights.)
So the latter example is useless, and the second is not applicable. If God looks me in the eye and tells me to do something, I’ll obey too. Since you’re an atheist, you should be happy: if the set of divinities is empty, non-aggression is the only law. Meanwhile, since God isn’t in the business of looking people in the eye and giving them direct orders, non-aggression is also my only law–at least until Messiah comes.
You are appealing to the assumption that “fulfilling a contract” is here synonymous with “paying a debt.” Presumably, you are assuming that the “payment” in question is “his blood,” i.e., the crucifixion. Both assumptions are incorrect. But I already told you that there are MANY false assumptions in your question, so why did you leap to the conclusion that the single example I gave you was an exhaustive list?
Among other things, you don’t know what “contract” I’m referring to, nor (probably) what a “contract of adhesion” is, nor in what sense Jesus “fulfilled” it, nor where we’re supposed to fit in. The subject would require lengthy explanation, and I’m not willing to spend the effort on a sysiphean task.
It has nothing to do with convenience. The new covenant supercedes the old in Christian doctrine. The law of moses is the law of the ancient Jews, not of the Christians. Christian law in regards to dealing with one another basically boils down to the non-aggression axiom.
…except that there is no such book. You had better abandon this analogy.
What the hell are you trying to do? You’ve gone beyond comparing apples and oranges; now you’re comparing screwdrivers to imaginary numbers. You’re accumulating an impressive array of fallacies. You sound silly, and your condescention is just plain juvenile.
Let me try this once more. Sticking to OBJECTIVE FACTS:
Objective fact: Scripturally sound Christian doctrine is derived exclusively from the New Testament, NOT from the Old (where “scripturally sound” refers to an interpretation of the Bible that is not internally contradictory).
Objective fact: The New Testament makes it clear that Old Testament law is not applicable to Christians. Therefore, a Christian who follows Old Testament law is not following scripturally sound Christian doctrine.
Logical conclusion: Stating that a Christian who does not embrace Old Testament law is not a true Christian is an objectively false statement; furthermore, stating that a strict follower of the New Testament is following a contradictory doctrine is also objectively false, as the New Testament clearly states that the Old Testament laws are not applicable, as mentioned above.
To Christians, the Old Testament is poetry, history, allegory, prophecy (now fulfilled) and some general good advice, as in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. It is not law.
You haven’t pointed out any faulty reasoning on my part, because I haven’t exhibited any. If you think you have, then you misunderstood something and wasted your effort on a straw man. Having a math PhD doesn’t make me infallible, but it certainly DOES mean that I’m not going to make logical blunders that can be spotted by any arrogant rookie who wanders by.
An arrogant jerk is someone so convinced of his rightness, on one hand, and so disdainful of his disputant, that he lards his discourse with demeaning and question-begging asides. For example, an arrogant jerk doesn’t refer to the “apparent contradictions” in the other’s case when he can refer instead to its “infinite contradictions.” And he doesn’t compare the other’s respected text to someone else’s respected text, such as the Gita, when he can compare it instead to Mein Kampf. When he succeeds in insulting the other, he replies, “Gee, it’s too bad you find the truth so insulting.” He refers to his position as “the truth” at all times, of course. And so on.
Treat others with respect. In so doing you will cease to be arrogant, and in one fell swoop, cease to be arrogant as well.
So Jephthah should not have kept his promise to God? If God is so powerful why couldn’t he have had Jephthah meet a chicken or a goat or something?
One of my concerns is abuse or misunderstanding by people who are corrupt, insane or have an hallucination (it is possible for a non-insane person to hallucinate). Suppose George W. Bush ate some bad food at the White House one afternoon and has an hallucination. He sees a man in a long beard appear before him say “George, this is Yahweh, you don’t have much time left in office, I need you to attack , now.” The American people might never find out about this “encounter”.If he TRULY believes this is Yahweh or at least something representing Yahweh and speaking for him, don’t you think he should act? What about someone like Andrea Yates? She truly believed at the time she acted that it was the right thing to do according to her faith. Religion contributed DIRECTLY to that tragedy. She might have been insane without it but at least her kids would not be dead.
Granting for the sake of argument that you’re right, and every aspect of my religious views is pure irrational nonsense, the fact remains that it would take quite a long time to explain them in any depth. Three times as long with you mocking at each step of the way instead of discussing courteously. You are in effect demanding that I condense a semester’s worth of material into a single post, which is impossible–and for no imaginable benefit except to gratify your wish to mock.
I must say, though, asking such a large amount of material, in a forum designed for discussion by many participants making brief posts, is pretty stupid.
See, this is the problem: you insist on discussing a subject without any of the background infomation–so much so that you pose absurdly trivial questions like this, and imagine you’re making some sort of point. I’ll give you three guesses what any religion would say about keeping a “promise to God” such as, “I vow to break each one of your commandments, in numerical order, twice.”
An even dumber question, on par with “If God is so benevolent then why does He permit cancer?” How do I know what God is thinking? If I knew that, I’d be God. Perhaps He thought it would teach the dumbass a lesson. Perhaps to see what he’d do. Perhaps any of another dozen possibilities I could come up with if I bothered to try. Probably, none of the reasons I’d come up with.
That’s a stupid concern: an insane atheist will kill you every bit as quickly as an insane theist.
Suppose he ate a spicy meat-a-ball, and hallucinated that Dick Cheney was telling him Iran had launched nuclear-tipped ICBMs? And truly believed it?
Your disclaimer is silly, though. I don’t consider your mother a sacred cow, but I still don’t refer to her as (pejorative deleted). Islam is not a sacred cow to me–indeed, it’s a dangerous false religion–but I still don’t refer to Mohammed as (pejorative deleted). Courtesy involes respecting others’ sensibilities, not only your own.
Christians are adherents to the New Testament, which says that the Old Testament law is not applicable to followers of Jesus Christ. You believe that Christian doctrine includes following the Old Testament. That is, in point of fact, false. You are changing the definition of Christianity to suit your argument. I am using the actual definition of Christianity. In case there’s ANY confusion left, let me clear things up:
Christian doctrine excludes the Old Testament law.
Doctrine that includes Old Testament law is not Christian doctrine; it is Judaic doctrine.
Christian doctrine is derived from the New Testament, which states clearly that Christian doctrine has nothing to do with Old Testament law.
Christianity is based on the gospel and the epistles, which do not endorse Old Testament Law; Judaism is based on the Torah, which IS Old Testament Law.
Christianity is not Judaism. Again, CHRISTIANITY IS NOT JUDAISM.
There, I’ve said it five different ways. Are you going to ignore them all and persist in erecting your strawman yet again?
If they are following it as a matter of religious docrine, they are not consistently following Christian doctrine. However, following it outside of religious doctrine is a matter of preference. I follow a kosher diet more or less because I feel better physically when I do, but I don’t believe I’m doing anything wrong if I eat pork or shrimp once in a while.
First of all, the vow was not specifically to kill his daughter but the first thing that met him. That was his daughter. Secondly, ritual human sacrifice is not such a far fetched idea in the ancient . Besides Abraham there is the more recent example of Yashua.
Jephthah a dumbass? He is honored in the New Testament along with Abraham! Besides, why should his daughter have to die to teach HIM a lesson? Is it acceptable to kill the child of a murderer to teach that person a lesson?
If he thought he was told by a real human being he would see a need to verify and he would probably even check back with Mr. Cheney who would tell him he never said such a thing.
That is the difference. Insanity without a belief in the supernatural is not as dangerous as insanity with a belief in an all powerful deity who outranks all human beings and can order a prophet to kill his son.
How do you search by post ID? Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else? I have never used a perjoritive. This forum does delete certain words that are very odd at times. The second half of the name of Herman Mellville’s most famous novel and the first name of the VPOTUS are replaced with astrisks. So is an alternative term for national-Socialists. I assure you I have never used pejoratives in this forum. How do you search for a post by post ID?
Give it up. Upon learning that his vow required him to sin, he was required to break it. No religion says otherwise, and in particular the Old Testament says exactly that. Further, nothing in scripture authorizes human sacrifice, let alone commands it, so attempting to impute human sacrifice to Bible believers is fallacious and dishonest. Finally, there’s the minor point that Deuteronomy 12:31 forbids child sacrifice. There’s no way to wring approval of child sacrifice out of Jephthah’s account.
Yep, insane and hallucinating people are famously excellent fact checkers. You’ve certainly got me there, yes you have!
You’re struggling to justify your bigotry, because you flatly refuse to be courteous to people you despise. That’s OK: in a free society, the people you despise are free to despise you back, and each can avoid the other. I’ll point out, though, that such division among the miniscule freedom-loving minority of humankind guarantees we’ll never live to see a free society. And, secondarily, any bigot is potentially violent. Potential violence isn’t actionable, but it’s a good reason to keep an eye on you. If you decide to express your bigotry through aggression or the threat of aggression, hopefully you will be resisted with deadly force.
For example, you said, “it is only OK to kill SOME disobedient children and not all of them. Ok, thanks for clearing that up.” That’s an inaccurate paraphrase that was not just sarcastic; it was condescending and extremely offensive. For the relevant post, search for “larded” on page 5. Bearing this comment of yours in mind, observe that it describes your behavior to a T.
Do you consider dancing back and forth between ad hominem to be a vialbe intellectual pursuit?
In trying to decide, as you suggest, I find myself confused by your lack of consistency.
Niccolo: " Alright, I’ve made some similar references to Stefan Molyneux - mistakenly - and I’m certain that were I to have any further discussions with Molyneux we would do very little but butt-heads, but his work isn’t really cultist or even similar to the types of behaviors observed in the Charles Manson’s or the Applegate’s of the world."
“…That being said, however, I respect Molyneux as a voice of interest, wit, intelligence, and value to the broader libertarian movement and consider serious allegations of cultism to be of little substance.”
“Second, Molyneux’s behavior isn’t actually typical of any kind of cult leader”
“Then again, however, the idea of “cult” is thrown around so lightly these days almost anything can be called a cult. As far as I can tell, however, under the specific guidelines qualifying a “political cult” - excessive fund raising, ends justifying means, etc. - Molyneux doesn’t qualify.”
Perhaps after being banned from FDR for making baseless claims and ad homs, you saw the real light and decided it was actually a cult. Or perhaps, better yet, it came by divine revelation - which is considered by you to be a vialbe method of obtaining knowledge?
By that same logic Abraham was required to disobey his order. Did he fail his test?
As stated earlier it is possible for someone who is not insane to halucinate.
I am not a bigot, I am not intollerant of people of faith nor do I “dispise them”. I am not even the one who started this debate. I tried to avoid it (look early in this thread). Just because I do not believe in your faith does not mean I hate you. Again, where have I ever been incourteous?
If you wish to avoid non-theists that is fine. I do not avoid people of faith. I have nothing against them and usualy do not talk about faith with them. Again, look early in this thread, I tried to avoid getting into this whole debate. I only did so when pressed.
Again, I am no bigot and in any case it has been non-believers of one kind or another who have been the ones who have had to “watch their back”.