This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Isn't God the villain of the bible?

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#11
TyVulpine posted...

He did create Satan too, and being omniscient, would have known Satan would turn against him. So yes, God created evil.


Based on our past "conversations" about free will, I doubt this will go smoothly, but what do you think omniscience is?

User Info: Janitor

Janitor
4 months ago#12
OrangeWizard posted...
Adam and Eve would have been immortal, had they not eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad. It's not true that they were "kept in mortality".

Genesis 3:22 suggests that humans are mortal until they eat from the tree of life. Since the fruit of this tree was not offered to Adam and Eve from the beginning, it seems that keeping them mortal was a deliberate choice.

OrangeWizard posted...
The God of the bible has never demanded human sacrifice.

Genesis 22:2, Exodus 22:29-30, Numbers 31:25-30, 40-41, Judges 11:30-39.

TyVulpine posted...
He did create Satan too, and being omniscient, would have known Satan would turn against him. So yes, God created evil.

It's not even a "Well, technically..." sort of situation. God straight up owns it. Isaiah 45:7.
Member of SEM

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#13
Janitor posted...
Genesis 3:22 suggests that humans are mortal until they eat from the tree of life. Since the fruit of this tree was not offered to Adam and Eve from the beginning, it seems that keeping them mortal was a deliberate choice.


They were never forbidden from eating of the tree of life. It was there the whole time (Genesis 2:9), so yes, it was offered to Adam and Eve from the beginning.

It's more likely that, if it's a literal thing that literally grants immortality, it does so temporarily, so you have to keep going back and eating from it in order to keep living. Like some sort of fountain of youth that brings you back to your twenties, but doesn't keep you there.

But the fact is that we have no record of them ever being restricted from eating from this tree before they were kicked out of the Garden.

It's not even a "Well, technically..." sort of situation. God straight up owns it. Isaiah 45:7.


Sure, depending on your translation: https://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm

11 translations on that page say "evil". 14 do not.


Genesis 22:2, Exodus 22:29-30, Numbers 31:25-30, 40-41, Judges 11:30-39.


1. Genesis 22:2 Abraham and Issac. Was Issac ever sacrificed? No, he wasn't. It was just a test. Nobody was sacrificed.

2. Exodus 22:29-30 "The firstborn of your sons you are to give to me" - Let's be clear on what human sacrifice is. It's the ritualistic killing of a human to appease a deity. So, what makes you think that these firstborn are to be killed? There's more than one ways to "give your firstborn to God", for example, you can, as parent, devote them to lifelong service at the temple, like Hannah did for her son, Samuel (1 Samuel 1:11)

This would be consistent with the "don't make your sons pass through the fire" verse I linked earlier. It would also be consistent with the custom mentioned at 1 Samuel 1:11. It's more reasonable to conclude that the latter is what is meant whenever things like this are mentioned.

3. Numbers 31:25-30, 40-41 - I don't see what these verses have to do with human sacrifice. All I see here is giving a portion of the captives to the priest, presumably to be used as slaves. It doesn't even say that the animals given to the priest were sacrificed. They collected money too, at verse 51. Are you saying that they just destroyed all the people, animals, and money, instead of putting them to use? Money was never destroyed as a sacrifice.

4. Judges 11:30-39. - Jephthah's daughter was devoted to temple service like at 1 Samuel 1:11

User Info: Janitor

Janitor
4 months ago#14
OrangeWizard posted...
It's more likely that, if it's a literal thing that literally grants immortality, it does so temporarily, so you have to keep going back and eating from it in order to keep living.

Temporary immortality? We're all already temporarily immortal until we die.

OrangeWizard posted...
But the fact is that we have no record of them ever being restricted from eating from this tree before they were kicked out of the Garden.

Fair point. But God did forbid them from eating from the tree of knowledge, knowing at the time that he forbade it that they'd do it anyway. Then he punished them by kicking them out of the Garden for something he knew they'd do. Pretty much he created a punishment that he was going to give all along, and then justified it after the fact.

OrangeWizard posted...
Sure, depending on your translation: https://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm

11 translations on that page say "evil". 14 do not.

When I have an issue with the translation, I check the Hebrew. Looks like God is taking credit for everything bad.

OrangeWizard posted...
1. Genesis 22:2 Abraham and Issac. Was Issac ever sacrificed? No, he wasn't. It was just a test. Nobody was sacrificed.

Technicality. God demanded human sacrifice, even if he took it back. I was presenting an example of God demanding human sacrifice. Also, even if he took it back, ordering a man to go almost all the way to killing his child is an evil act. If I did that to you, wouldn't you consider me an evil person?

OrangeWizard posted...
2. Exodus 22:29-30 "The firstborn of your sons you are to give to me" - Let's be clear on what human sacrifice is. It's the ritualistic killing of a human to appease a deity. So, what makes you think that these firstborn are to be killed? There's more than one ways to "give your firstborn to God", for example, you can, as parent, devote them to lifelong service at the temple, like Hannah did for her son, Samuel (1 Samuel 1:11)

So the livestock that he mentions right afterward are supposed to devote themselves to lifelong service at the temple? They're supposed to be devout little sheep and goats?

OrangeWizard posted...
3. Numbers 31:25-30, 40-41 - I don't see what these verses have to do with human sacrifice. All I see here is giving a portion of the captives to the priest, presumably to be used as slaves.

Fair enough.

OrangeWizard posted...
4. Judges 11:30-39. - Jephthah's daughter was devoted to temple service like at 1 Samuel 1:11

Judges 11:31 specifically says in the Hebrew she was to be given as a "burnt offering".
Member of SEM

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#15
Janitor posted...

knowing at the time that he forbade it that they'd do it anyway.


Why do you think so?


Technicality. God demanded human sacrifice


You're the one exploiting the technicality. Technically "God demanded human sacrifice" by saying the words "sacrifice your son Issac".

If that's all you care about, as opposed to caring about God's true intentions, and what he really thinks about human sacrifice then okay, that's on you.

If I did that to you, wouldn't you consider me an evil person?

No. Why would I?


So the livestock that he mentions right afterward are supposed to devote themselves to lifelong service at the temple? They're supposed to be devout little sheep and goats?


Nope. Different things are used for different purposes. Let's give the benefit of the doubt and assume some level of reasonableness and internal consistency.


Judges 11:31 specifically says in the Hebrew she was to be given as a "burnt offering".


Yes he did. So what does that mean? Does that mean "She will be burnt in the fire?" or does that mean "I will offer her to God like one offers a burnt sacrifice to God?", as in, the similarity is in the offering, not in the burning. Remember, humans can be offered in the manner that Samuel was, that is, forced to be a servant in the temple.

Did Jephthah violate the law against human sacrifice and get away clean? You decide. Remember, God has struck down people for much less.

User Info: Janitor

Janitor
4 months ago#16
OrangeWizard posted...
Janitor posted...

knowing at the time that he forbade it that they'd do it anyway.


Why do you think so?

Isn't that the whole thing with Christianity? God is all-knowing? It's all part of God's plan? But honestly, it doesn't take someone omnipotent, or even someone who created human minds to see this coming. If you put a child in a room with a big red button, saying "Don't push the big red button," as soon as you leave the room, the child's going to push the button. That's human nature. And God must have understood that, having created human nature.

OrangeWizard posted...
If that's all you care about, as opposed to caring about God's true intentions, and what he really thinks about human sacrifice then okay, that's on you.

Hitler intended to make the world a better place. We care about more than the intention. We care about the results. What are the results of coercing a man into a situation where he feels obligated to kill his own son? What does that do to the man? What does that do to the son? That is an inherently evil act, whether you say "lol just kidding!" or not.

OrangeWizard posted...
Judges 11:31 specifically says in the Hebrew she was to be given as a "burnt offering".


Yes he did. So what does that mean? Does that mean "She will be burnt in the fire?" or does that mean "I will offer her to God like one offers a burnt sacrifice to God?", as in, the similarity is in the offering, not in the burning. Remember, humans can be offered in the manner that Samuel was, that is, forced to be a servant in the temple.

Gosh, do you think that when my history books say that six million Jews were tortured to death in the Holocaust, they probably meant that the *unhappiness* of the Jews was tortured to death with hugs and puppies? Because words are like that: when something explicitly says one thing, they very often mean the exact opposite.

OrangeWizard posted...
Remember, God has struck down people for much less.

Yeah, one of my favorites is when Abraham (and later Isaac) goes around telling people that his wife is his sister and telling people to marry her, and then God comes along and punishes the person who married her and rewarding Abraham. Clearly the message is: don't believe anything God's followers tell you, or you will be subject to divine retribution.
Member of SEM

User Info: dhalsimrocks

dhalsimrocks
4 months ago#17
What if those Genesis, Exodus and Judges passages are from older sources and actually reflect an earlier practice that was actually accepted at one time in Israel (including Jerusalem), but later condemned by the time of the Deuteronomic reform?

There are linguistic indicators that the Binding of Isaac passage where YHWH steps in with the ram is actually a later addition, redacting what was once a passage of actual human sacrifice. In the Documentary hypothesis, this is an E (Elohist) passage. What is interesting is that it never specifically says that Isaac came back, only Abraham. And Isaac is never seen again in any Elohist material. Also interesting to note that Exodus 22 is an Elohist passage.

I think it's too far of a backwards bend to say that Jephthah's daughter is just going into temple service. In addition to having to suppose "burnt offering" doesn't mean "burnt offering", Jepthah seems pretty grief stricken, and for the daughters of Israel to lament his daughter four days per year... Seems pretty intense for someone just going into temple service.
May all your disgraces be private

User Info: Janitor

Janitor
4 months ago#18
I agree. The easiest explanation is that there were multiple writers of the Old Testament over the span of centuries, and sometimes they're inconsistent with what others have previously written. I mean anybody can go through the Bible saying "this passage is metaphorical, that passage is metaphorical", but there's as little indication that Judges 11:31 is metaphorical as there is that Deuteronomy 19:9,10 is metaphorical. Maybe God said that bit with a super sarcastic voice over the smoldering corpse of a child.
Member of SEM

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
4 months ago#19
Janitor posted...

Isn't that the whole thing with Christianity? God is all-knowing? It's all part of God's plan?


According to certain sects of Christianity, yes. Do you have any particular reason to insist on this interpretation over any other?


What are the results of coercing a man into a situation where he feels obligated to kill his own son? What does that do to the man? What does that do to the son? That is an inherently evil act


The issue was whether or not God approves of human sacrifice, and if the example of Abraham and Issac was indicative of God's approval or not.


Gosh, do you think that when my history books say that six million Jews were tortured to death in the Holocaust, they probably meant that the *unhappiness* of the Jews was tortured to death with hugs and puppies? Because words are like that: when something explicitly says one thing, they very often mean the exact opposite.


Do we have reasons for believing that jews in the holocaust were tortured to death with hugs and puppies? I don't know.

Do we have reasons for believing that this daughter was devoted to service in the temple? Yes. 1) This was explicitly condemned by the law, and Jephthah well knew that 2) There is a precedent of people being devoted to service this way in the case of Samuel

Do we have reasons for believing that she was literally burned to death, besides "I don't think a simile was used here"? Would taking this interpretation lead to contradictions with other verses?

User Info: Janitor

Janitor
4 months ago#20
OrangeWizard posted...
The issue was whether or not God approves of human sacrifice, and if the example of Abraham and Issac was indicative of God's approval or not.

The initial issue was whether God was the villain of the Bible. Demanding human sacrifice was one example of that. Whether or not he allowed it to be completed, the binding of Isaac is both 1.) demanding human sacrifice and 2.) a villainous act.

OrangeWizard posted...
Do we have reasons for believing that jews in the holocaust were tortured to death with hugs and puppies? I don't know.

Do we have reasons for believing that this daughter was devoted to service in the temple? Yes. 1) This was explicitly condemned by the law, and Jephthah well knew that 2) There is a precedent of people being devoted to service this way in the case of Samuel

Well, 1.) killing Jews was explicitly condemned by the ten commandments, and Germany was a Christian nation, and 2.) there is a precedent of Jews both being hugged and owning puppies which goes back thousands of years. Ergo it's just as likely as your interpretation of Judges.
Member of SEM
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Isn't God the villain of the bible?
  • Topic Archived