Well, that was the problem, vows, if you read again, he made a vow to the Lord that whoever comes out of my house to meet him after his triumph over the Ammonites will be yours and sacrifice it as a burnt offering.

So because of his vow, he is no choice but to do what he says or God will be angry because he has broken it.

However, her daughter accepted in being the sacrifice and it became a custom for young Israeli woman to go out four days to comemorate the daughter of Jephthah.

Now about vows/oaths, something not taken likely, like what I just explained here about Jephthah making his vow or oaths to God. That is why Jesus said that don't make anymore vows because most of the time, you can't perform or complete them, thus he said that let your yes be yes and no be no.

Hrm, what are you getting at with that quote Vertitrax?

I read it and it appears Jesus is telling the Pharisees and teachers that they are teaching things which are incorrect.

Stoning was used to get rid of sin. It served as a deterrant and showed how much sin offends God. Execution killed the person and prevented the person from spreading any false teachings.

Edit: Add a quote.

(NCV version) Mark 7: 13 By your own rules, which you teach people, you are rejecting what God said. And you do many things like that.

I really wish I had an older Bible on hand. These newer ones are easier to read, but the older ones have something classic to them.

Yes, after all, God said that go fill the Earth and multiply and probably gave them long life just so they could reproduce, though I shudder to think how many times he had sex with Eve and how incest was still acceptable that time just to fill the earth...

When you bring up things like this, you just show your ignorance on the subject.

here is a random Christain's take on the whole issue.

http://members.aol.com/johnodhner/Sacrifice.html

His broad statements are supported in many texts that I myself have read.

If you read Liviticus more closely, you would notice that 90% of the animal that was sacrificed was in fact eaten, and often even commanded to be eaten. Something that was not normally done by the surrounding cultures.

I think Daganev touched on this one. I don't have my bible with me at the moment, but from my recollection God never encourages Jephthah to make his vow, nor to follow through on it. In fact, it was his daughter who encouraged him to go through with it. In reality, he simply made a foolish vow. He was expecting to see one of the animals come out of the house (since they were kept in the house on an inset level during the cooler times of the year), and made s very foolish decision. God did not encourage or condone the sacrifice, and in fact (if my memory is correct), He does not even come up in the story, other than giving the battle to Jephthah.

I have always thought this was an interesting question. My first thought is that it is speaking of individuals, simply because of God's comment in Genesis 6 that he wanted to shorten the lifespan of man (which does appear to slowly happen over several generations). Still, it might make more logical sense to say that it refers to the society.

Ultimately, I don't know. I think that is part of what makes it difficult to try to read much more into the geneologies than just what they say.

I recommend Carissimi's Jeptha, btw, if anyone is in to early oratorios. Last movement is amazing.

What is your yes to? it was an A or B question, not a yes or no question

But as to your reasoning of long life so they could reproduce, that doesn't make much sense to me for two reasons. 1. Nobody seems to have more than 7 children that are stated. (Not really a problem, since everyone who is stated is related to another character in some way eventually down the line.) And, the number of children had is not stated either. If their purpose of long life was to reproduce, I would think that it would mention how "successful" they were in that task. 2. People don't seem to be having children in thier 20's they seem to be having children in their 100's, which would mean that the longer life was purpotiantly similar as our shorter lives, meaning, the longer life gave no benefit to more children. People were just older before they had children. (Very similar to D&D's view on elves and dwarves and age in general)

I have to agree that I'm not completely sure where you're going with this quote.

I'm guessing that you are touching on the morality issue again, that Jesus condones death as a punishment for sin. There are many cases of people being killed because of disobedience, I think it would be a lost cause for any of us to try to argue about that. I think again, though, that we only see half of the picture. From the point of view of an atemporal, eternal God, death is not all that severe of a punishment. It does not actually destroy the person, it simply moves them on to the next life. Moses is a prime example - his punishment was that he would die, and could not enter the promised land. The true punishment was that he worked so hard to see this promised land and could not enter it. The death part was merely circumstantial, and is not that big of a deal.

In the traditional Jewish texts, they are clearly seen as individuals, and spoken about as individuals. However, in the deeper texts, individuals are all seen as archetypes of groups of people. It is used to explain the slow transition in the Bible from personal miracles out to national miracles. So I was a bit curious how you saw it.

Personally, I would answer the question with "Both", as in the wave particle duality construct

The term "shorten thier lives" would in theory then come to mean that A. Thier lives were shortened and B. That they accomplished more of their life in a shorter period of time. (i.e. an early version of Moors law)

Ok, I've got a few questions...

1) if God is perfect and knows all.. why does he have such ginormous moodswings? What justification is there for going from Hitler to Mother Theresa?

2) how can a book that is missing so many peices (as shown by the Dead Sea Scrolls) be infallable?

3) if someone pointed a gun at your child's head and told you to simply say that you didn't believe in God, would you say it? or would you let your child die? Would if the fate awaiting your child was worse? With extended suffering and rape and all sorts of horrible things?

4) do you believe (as I know some fundamentalist christians do) that a person can essentially be a Saint, giving to charity, helping people, basically living a better life than any christian on the planet.. but if he doesn't believe in God, that he'll end up in hell?

Free will, wot wot?

Garden of Eden, felix culpa through Christ.. it's all right after all if you're good..



I would agree for any number of reasons. Indeed, that's my most significant disagreement with fundamentalists: they go back to the fundament (ho ho) of the Bible, and read it literally, instead of allegorically or symbolically.

Not exactly sure what the definition of a saint is. I'm Southern Baptist. However, even if someone is a good person, if they don't (please forgive for sounding preachy at this point) believe Jesus died for them and repent of their sins, they still can not enter Heaven. God abhors sin, and will not allow it to enter Heaven.

Regarding the child and gun question, it is believed that a child does not understand the difference between right and wrong. They can't comprehend aspects of it and are generally considered sinless until they understand better. If a child dies, depending on the age, most people would say that the child goes to Heaven, or at least won't go to Hell. If someone is a Christian, they won't speak a lie. Even if they didn't mean it, there is no way to take your word back.

1) Is that a serious question? If it is, I will answer it. There is an old Rabbi from the 1200s who wote a book called "The guide to the perplexed", in it, he writes (paraphrased)" Even the youngest child knows that the attributes of various emotions the Torah gives to G-d are allegories, to be understood from our human perspective, and are not infact a description of reality." I really hope you know more than the youngest child.

2) The dead sea scrolls don't tell us much except what the Escenes wrote down. They were an eclectic sect which had many arguments with the Pharisees. If some of the dead sea scroll people were still around, we would better be able to know what was new text and what was considered holy scripture. I assume you are only talking about the "old t estimate" at this point, as the gospels are full of different versions of its text. However, there is a clear tradition of who wrote which book, and which ones were written on which level of divinity. And according to some of the guys on see on T.V on Sunday mornings, they know of these traditions as well.

3)In those times where it was truly a real threat and not just a simple hypothetical, that is how many if not most people acted. When its a random guy on the street doing it, it is a completely different hypothetical question. What you should be asking is "If the Government demanded that you renounce your faith or die, as a means to prove that the government's own power and faith is greater than your faith, which one would you do?" As that is that is the only time such a question matters.

So, in short, yes, you would let your young daughter be raped by a pack of men and tortured unto her death while you listened to her screaming for you to save her. Which you could do. By saying a single sentence.

Yes, that's a set of beliefs to aspire towards.

Isn't Jesus's whole sacrifice deal something too though? You wouldn't sacrifice your soul for the life of your daughter? Obviously life is meant to mean something, or there wouldn't be so much weight placed on it by God in the first place. So do you really think God would rather horrible things happen to your daughter rather than you lie? Is that love? Is that in any way logical? If you have the power to save someone by saying one thing, and you don't, you are essentially murdering them. Which is worse in the eyes of God, a lie, or murder?

1) Yes, it was a serious question. And in what way is God smiting people left and right allegorical? Killing people, and advocating people to kill people, is not in any way allegorical. Its something heinous and evil.

3) No, that's not the only time such a question matters. I know christians (such as Jigan just attested to) who would let their children have horrible things done to them rather than say, just once, that they don't believe in god, to a random guy on the street. That is why I asked that question. This isn't about you dying or renouncing your faith, but about your children being brutally tortured or you just saying one little lie. There's a big difference there, and its an important one.

Oh yes, blame the victim, way to go chap!

If someone is doing atrocious things because I won't say a sentence, then there is seriously something wrong with that person, and he will probably do it, even if I do say the sentence. Or worse, he will use the oppotrunity to not just hurt one person, but thousands.

I like to think of this as scientific highschool thinking, where facts are given to you in a vacum, literally. (Like the speed of light is X when in a vacum). Religion is never taught and rarely really discussed in a vacum, as that misses the whole point of it.

1. God is actually consistent, He didn't really swing from one mood suddenly to another. You might make this case if you are comparing the New and Old Testaments, in that God's approach in the New Testament seems to be more patient than in the Old Testament. The bible clarifies that there are different 'ages' in our interaction with God, where he changes his approach to us in order to further his plans. The ultimate result is all the same - there have been no major changes, other than the way in which he communicates with us. He rarely directly intervenes now the way He did in the Old Testament.

2. You have to be careful with this. There are a lot of things to be addressed here - what books should be included in the bible, and why? Obviously there are some forgeries, fakes, or even some that were written around that era which are just false. The bible actually evolved over some time. The canon currently used (by protestants, at least) was developed using several different criteria, including whether it was accepted by the public, whether it appeared to have been written by a believable source, and whether the theology taught in it made sense. The other gospels failed this test; so it's not so much that the bible is incomplete, as there are some competitors which were not accepted.

3. Honestly, if it were my child, I would probably say it. That isn't what I would necessarily advocate as the right thing to do in God's eyes. I can say several times that death is not in itself a huge punishment, but it would still be difficult for me to lose my child, so I would (somewhat selfishly) most likely say whatever I had to say. If you rephrase it the way Daganev did above, I would be willing to die instead of denounce faith. After all, we're all going to die eventually - what is really the loss in being killed early because of your faith? Still, that's much easier than letting someone else die.

4. Short answer: yes, I believe that. It actually makes sense if you think of it. For the sake of argument, imagine a God who is absolutely perfect. In turn, He demands absolute perfection from us. He doesn't compare us to each other - it doesn't matter much if you are closer to perfect than I am. If you're not absolutely perfect, then you don't live up to God's expectations. That's where Jesus comes in. He came and died in a sense to pay the punishment that we earned. So, anyone who doesn't accept that is still judged on their own merits - if you are absolutely perfect, then you have earned your way into heaven. If you are not, your only choice is to accept the sacrifice Jesus made, instead of being judged on your own merits.

1. God is actually consistent, He didn't really swing from one mood suddenly to another. You might make this case if you are comparing the New and Old Testaments, in that God's approach in the New Testament seems to be more patient than in the Old Testament. The bible clarifies that there are different 'ages' in our interaction with God, where he changes his approach to us in order to further his plans. The ultimate result is all the same - there have been no major changes, other than the way in which he communicates with us. He rarely directly intervenes now the way He did in the Old Testament.

2. You have to be careful with this. There are a lot of things to be addressed here - what books should be included in the bible, and why? Obviously there are some forgeries, fakes, or even some that were written around that era which are just false. The bible actually evolved over some time. The canon currently used (by protestants, at least) was developed using several different criteria, including whether it was accepted by the public, whether it appeared to have been written by a believable source, and whether the theology taught in it made sense. The other gospels failed this test; so it's not so much that the bible is incomplete, as there are some competitors which were not accepted.

3. Honestly, if it were my child, I would probably say it. That isn't what I would necessarily advocate as the right thing to do in God's eyes. I can say several times that death is not in itself a huge punishment, but it would still be difficult for me to lose my child, so I would (somewhat selfishly) most likely say whatever I had to say. If you rephrase it the way Daganev did above, I would be willing to die instead of denounce faith. After all, we're all going to die eventually - what is really the loss in being killed early because of your faith? Still, that's much easier than letting someone else die.

4. Short answer: yes, I believe that. It actually makes sense if you think of it. For the sake of argument, imagine a God who is absolutely perfect. In turn, He demands absolute perfection from us. He doesn't compare us to each other - it doesn't matter much if you are closer to perfect than I am. If you're not absolutely perfect, then you don't live up to God's expectations. That's where Jesus comes in. He came and died in a sense to pay the punishment that we earned. So, anyone who doesn't accept that is still judged on their own merits - if you are absolutely perfect, then you have earned your way into heaven. If you are not, your only choice is to accept the sacrifice Jesus made, instead of being judged on your own merits.

On the contrary, I think vacuums are very useful, because it lets you see potential. The potential of a christian in a circumstance where you can be 100% sure that the man would let you and your daughter go, is important in my mind. It says something about how they think and what their religion is really doing to them. That is what I'm curious about. Its not about the question, but about the thought process and reason behind the answer. In which case the vacuum is just fine, and helps, in my opinion, because it cancels out distractions and allows the point to be reached without "Well, what if?" There are no what-ifs. If you say it, the men leave. If you don't, you're forced to watch and listen as your daughter is brutalized. The answer to that says a whole lot about how a christian thinks. And that is what's interesting to me.