I had a chance to reread the story of Jephtah the other day because it was referenced in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and to be honest I was as shocked this time as I was when I read it as a child. I find it hard to understand how anyone can not only worship the Bible God, but also deign to call the Bible God a loving and good one. Furthermore, it's almost impossible for me to understand how that God is distinguishable from the other bloodthirsty Gods that have been condemned by Christians.

In any case, it made me wonder whether any theist here approves or condones the actions of Jephtah and the Bible God. If there are any, then I guess the question would be why.

Judges 11: 31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed

@KAG,

Please first read the following:

Exo. 20:7
'Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.'

Eccl. 5:2-7
'Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words. When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands? For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.'

Bloodthirsty. . .shocked. . etc. I just have a few questions:

#1. Did God ever demand of Jephtah what he pronounced with his own mouth?

#2. Did Richard Dawkins discuss the holiness of God, if he ever cared to know in the first place?

#3. Do you think that God would nonetheless have demanded of Jephtah that same thing if he never pronounced it with his own mouth?

shahan:

@KAG,

Please first read the following:

Exo. 20:7
'Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.'

Eccl. 5:2-7
'Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words. When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands? For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.'

Okay, I've read them. I don't see what the first has to do with Jephtah, though. The second does apply, however it still in no way excuses the fact that the story has God allowing and accepting the human sacrifice.

Bloodthirsty. . .shocked. . etc. I just have a few questions:

#1. Did God ever demand of Jephtah what he pronounced with his own mouth?

It would appear Jephtah had reason to believe he had to see his vow to the bloody end.

#2. Did Richard Dawkins discuss the holiness of God, if he ever cared to know in the first place?

No, and in my opinion, it's a little hard to discuss the holiness of being when faced with a story of human sacrifice to the being.

#3. Do you think that God would nonetheless have demanded of Jephtah that same thing if he never pronounced it with his own mouth?

Do you believe the Bible God is omniscient and omnipotent?

@KAG,

KAG:

Okay, I've read them. I don't see what the first has to do with Jephtah, though.

The first was an established precedence, with dire consequences when violated.

KAG:

The second does apply, however it still in no way excuses the fact that the story has God allowing and accepting the human sacrifice.

Jephtah was bound by his oath, which he was not obliged to have pronounced in the first place.

KAG:

It would appear Jephtah had reason to believe he had to see his vow to the bloody end.

And what reason might that be?

KAG:

No, and in my opinion, it's a little hard to discuss the holiness of being when faced with a story of human sacrifice to the being.

True. And that is why the bigger sacrifice is yet a very difficult one for many people to grasp - the Crucifixion of Jesus on the Cross, and the triumph of the resurrection.

KAG:

Do you believe the Bible God is omniscient and omnipotent?

Without detracting from my question earlier, I believe God to be omniscient and omnipotent. So, the question again:

#3. Do you think that God would nonetheless have demanded of Jephtah that same thing if he never pronounced it with his own mouth?

@kaG

YOU MUST UNDERSTAND GOD BY GOING TO HIM DIRECTLY READ THE BIBLE AT LEAST 2CE AND THEN YOU WILL BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THE MIND OF GOD.

THE BIBLE HAS A COMPILATION OF EVENTS POINTING TO THE MIND OF GOD YOU MUST ALWAYS USE SCRIPTURE TO INTEPRETE SCRIPTURE ANYWHERE YOU DONT DO THIS YOU ARE EITHER A FANATIC OR A HERETIC IN THE MAKING.

BUT MORE SO YOU MUST HAVE A SOUND SPIRIT CALLED THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH TO KNOW THE SCRIPTURE IF NOT IT WILL BE COMPLETE JARGONS.

LISTEN TO THE WORDS OF JESUS WE ARE NOT TO PUT EMBELLISHMENTS WHEN TALKING OR MAKING A REQUEST.

Matthew 5:37
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

THIS IS THE SITUATION OF THE CHURCH TODAY WHERE THE "CHRISTIANS" STEAL MONEY AND COME TO CHURCH AND GIVE GOD HIS "SHARE". THIS IS THE SPIRIT OF THE ANTICHRIST.

YOU GO TO CHURCH THE PREACHING IS GET RICH AND BRING THE OFFERING AND TITHE. YOU WONDER WETHER YOU ARE LISTENING TO A RAP ARTIST.

THE CHURCH IS NO MORE A MORAL AUTHORITY AGAIN EVEN SHANGO WORSHIPERS AND OTHER IDOL WORSHIPER HAVE SOME DEGREE OF MORALITY.

THERE WAS A CHURCH HERE THAT SOME PEOPLE SMOKED WEE! IMAGINE AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE CAUGHT WERE LAUGHING WHEN THEY WERE OPENLY REBUKED BY THE PASTOR OF THE CHURCH THEY BELONGED TO THE DRAMA GROUP.

THE LYING SPIRIT IN THE CHURCH NOW IS SO FREELY EXPRESSED PEOPLE HAVE FORGOTTEN JESUS AND THE HARDLY TALK ABOUT THE HOLINESS OF GOD. IT IS GOD PROTECT ME MY FAMILY MY MARRIAGE MY BUSINESS MY JOB. NOTHING FOR GOD BUT OFFERING, NO MERCY FOR PEOPLE SOME WILL TAKE THEIR MONEY AND THEY WILL NEVER SHOW MERCY.

SOME CHURCHES WHEN YOU HAVE A PROBLEM AND YOU GO TO THEM THEY WILL ASK YOU DO YOU PAY YOUR OFFERING? IMAGINE! WHERE IS KINDNESS WHERE IS LOVE WHERE IS MERCY WHERE GENEROSITY THAT EVEN EVIL MEN HAVE.

THE CHURCH IS LIKE A SHOP WHERE ANYTHING IS SOLD, LIKE MAKE ME FEEL GOOD SERMONS, MOTIVATIONAL MESSAGES AND PROSPERITY MESSAGES.

I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ASK THIS QUESTION BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE PREACHERS CHALLENGING TO HOLINESS RATHER YOU HAVE PREACHERS TALKING ABOUT MONEY MONEY MONEY AND MONEY.

THEY USE THIS MONEY TO BUILD BUILDINGS THAT WILL HAVE NO MORAL HOLD ON MAN. DONT GET ME WRONG THE WORD OF GOD NEEDS SPENDING BUT THIS PEOPLE ARE BUILDING TO MARKET THE NAME OF THE PASTOR. SOME PEOPLE CAN EVEN SAY THE GOD OF PASTOR SO AND SO. OR THEY SAY THE GOD OF XYZ BIBLE CHURCH.

shahan:

@KAG,

The first was an established precedence, with dire consequences when violated.

I still don't see what it has to do with Jephtah.

Jephtah was bound by his oath, which he was not obliged to have pronounced in the first place.

But he did pronounce it, and he did burn his daughter as an offering to his God.

And what reason might that be?

I don't know, but we can deduce that because the story has him seeing the oath to the end he must have felt he had to fulfill the sacrifice.

True. And that is why the bigger sacrifice is yet a very difficult one for many people to grasp - the Crucifixion of Jesus on the Cross, and the triumph of the resurrection.

Although that's another problematic aspect of Christianity(anyone heard the bit about a God sacrificing himself to himself?), exactly. That also brings us back to an earlier point: the Bible God is just as bloodthirsty and immoral as many of the Gods that we condemn today.

Without detracting from my question earlier, I believe God to be omniscient and omnipotent. So, the question again:

#3. Do you think that God would nonetheless have demanded of Jephtah that same thing if he never pronounced it with his own mouth?

Based on your response, yes.

Backslider:

@kaG

YOU MUST UNDERSTAND GOD BY GOING TO HIM DIRECTLY READ THE BIBLE AT LEAST 2CE AND THEN YOU WILL BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THE MIND OF GOD.

THE BIBLE HAS A COMPILATION OF EVENTS POINTING TO THE MIND OF GOD YOU MUST ALWAYS USE SCRIPTURE TO INTEPRETE SCRIPTURE ANYWHERE YOU DONT DO THIS YOU ARE EITHER A FANATIC OR A HERETIC IN THE MAKING.
[snipped]

Look, no offence, but all of that was just pointless rhetoric. In any case, I'm using the Christian book to explore the Christian ideas of their God.

@Kag

You must know this that we have been given direction Thou shall not Kill. We may Choose to Justify ourselves.

The MORAL LAW OF THE HEBREW PEOPLE IS THE OLD TESTAMENT TEN COMMANDEMENT.

THIS MEANS IN THE STATE OF ISRAEL JEWS ARE NOT TO KILL.

IT IS AS IF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WAS AS A GUINEA PIG SO AS THE SHOW THE WAY GODS WANTS TO HAVE A MECHANISM OF SAVING IMMORAL MAN.

THE LORD GOD WANTED TO ENLIGHTEN MAN ON TRANSGRESSION IN A STATE CALLED ISREAL. IF YOU READ THE BIBLE VERY WELL GOD AT TIMES STEPS OUT OF THIS AND WHENEVER HE FINDS A TRIBE OR A MAN THAT IS NOT EVEN AN ISREALITE HE WORKS WITH THIS PERSON TO THE GLORY OF HIS NAME.

YOU STILL HAVE TO DO A GOOD RESEARCH.

I AM HOWEVER HAPPY THAT YOU IN THE YEAR 2007 IS DOING AN ANALYSIS OF AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN 4000 YEARS AGO PLEASE DO A BETTER JOB OF KNOWING THE GOD BEHIND THIS.

YOU CAN SAY YOU WANT TO KILL YOURSELF NOW IT IS YOUR CHOICE JUST AS YOU WANT TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN.

YOU WILL HOWEVER BE READY TO STAND BEFORE THIS SAME GOD THAT GIVES YOU THE CHOICE TO CHOOSE WHATEVER YOU LIKE TO BELEIVE WHEN YOU ALLOW HIM TO SHOW YOU YOUR SINS AND THERE YOU CANNOT GIVE ANY EXCUSE.


IF JEPHTAH KNEW THOU SHALL NOT KILL HE WOULD HAVE PROMISED THIS.

SELAH

@KAG,

KAG:

I still don't see what it has to do with Jephtah.

It had everything to do with Jephtah as long as he was under the Law - a precedence well established in Exo. 20:7 unto Israel. God had clearly stated that the one who takes His Name in vain would not be guiltless. One was not obligated to make such pronouncements as Jephtah's; and whatever one did pronounce under oath was binding upon him --

"If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth" (Num. 30:2). It was irrevocable.

My reference to this precedence is in allusion to the Law of oaths in Lev. 5:4 -- "Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an aoth, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these."

Jephtah was not compelled to make such a pronouncement as he did; for the Law also stipulated what type of sacrifice an Israelite could offer - "Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering; Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats." - Lev. 22:18-19.

That Jephtah was rash to pronounce otherwise than recommended, does not make the Law less serious in its implimentation; and Num. 30:2 was well established long before Jephtah's mishap.

KAG:

But he did pronounce it, and he did burn his daughter as an offering to his God.

Sad as it was, Num. 30:2 could not be revoked solely on Jephtah's rash pronouncement. If it could, then would the whole Sinaitic Law be rendered ineffective.

We have political laws and constitutions today in many countries, such laws which would invite dire consequences where people violated them. Indeed, they are altogether different in structure from divine laws; yet, people have been judged severely by them according to the stipulations of such political laws.

However, in Jephtah's case, we are not looking at a political law; but rather one that was well-established and binding upon all who came under its operation. One was free to offer whatever was prescribed in the Law; anything outside of that prescription came under the treatment of Num. 30:2.

KAG:

I don't know, but we can deduce that because the story has him seeing the oath to the end he must have felt he had to fulfill the sacrifice.

I'd have to agree with you on that; and precisely to what I've discussed above with the repeated mention of Num. 30:2 - "If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."

KAG:

Although that's another problematic aspect of Christianity(anyone heard the bit about a God sacrificing himself to himself?), exactly. That also brings us back to an earlier point: the Bible God is just as bloodthirsty and immoral as many of the Gods that we condemn today.

You may be strongly opinionated about this; but even before I became a Christian, such strong views did not help the deeper felt need and question of my own heart, nor has the vexed opinions of Richard Dawkins. For us who believe, we can better appreciate the vicarious sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ on the Cross - and the love and mercy therefrom can only misrepresented by people who have a difficulty grasping the subject of Holiness.

KAG:

Based on your response, yes.

Wrong. Not after having carefully and honestly read the precedence spelt out in Exo. 20:7; Lev. 5:4; 22:18-19; and Num. 30:2.  One may be bitter and acrid in issues like this; but my question is: have such people actually, honestly examined their complaints in light of the precedence spelt out?

@Kag

Jephtah Violated the Natural law of God. God does not accept Human Sacrifice no where were the CHILDREN OF A NATION OF IRSREAL supposed to sacrifice a citizen.

He violated the Moral law of the state of Isreal, God had no hand it. It was wrong and no one should ever do it.

Abraham was tested on this and the lord did not allow him do it. So Jephtah was Foolish and over Zealous.

No where did God require normal human Sacrifice.

Selah

Backslider:

@Kag

IF JEPHTAH KNEW THOU SHALL NOT KILL HE WOULD HAVE PROMISED THIS.

SELAH

So you're trying to say Jephtah didn't know "thou shalt not kill"

shahan:

@KAG,

It had everything to do with Jephtah as long as he was under the Law - a precedence well established in Exo. 20:7 unto Israel. God had clearly stated that the one who takes His Name in vain would not be guiltless.

The thing is Jephtah didn't take the name of the Bible God in vain, so I still don't see how it applies.

One was not obligated to make such pronouncements as Jephtah's; and whatever one did pronounce under oath was binding upon him --

"If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth" (Num. 30:2). It was irrevocable.

My reference to this precedence is in allusion to the Law of oaths in Lev. 5:4 -- "Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an aoth, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these."

Jephtah was not compelled to make such a pronouncement as he did; for the Law also stipulated what type of sacrifice an Israelite could offer - "Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering; Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats." - Lev. 22:18-19.

That Jephtah was rash to pronounce otherwise than recommended, does not make the Law less serious in its implimentation; and Num. 30:2 was well established long before Jephtah's mishap.

Sad as it was, Num. 30:2 could not be revoked solely on Jephtah's rash pronouncement. If it could, then would the whole Sinaitic Law be rendered ineffective.

That is part of the problem from my perspective. You say Jephtah was under no obligation to make the vow, but he did for reasons best know to him; however, I disagree that the law couldn't be changed for his case. Since - and I've been told this several times - the Bible God abhorred the practices of the Gods of other tribes, especiallly their thirst for human sacrifice, then it stands to reason that the Bible God should have been able to stipulate that the sacrifice of Jephtah's daughter would be unacceptable.

Furthermore, it could have been reovoked for Jephtah's daughter's sake, not necessarily for Jephtah. Revoking or amending a law that would lead to the unnecesary death of a young child wouldn't have led to the "whole Sinaitic law be[ing] rendered ineffective" (I don't how it would), instead it may have led to better reasoning.

We have political laws and constitutions today in many countries, such laws which would invite dire consequences where people violated them. Indeed, they are altogether different in structure from divine laws; yet, people have been judged severely by them according to the stipulations of such political laws.

However, in Jephtah's case, we are not looking at a political law; but rather one that was well-established and binding upon all who came under its operation. One was free to offer whatever was prescribed in the Law; anything outside of that prescription came under the treatment of Num. 30:2.

I'd have to agree with you on that; and precisely to what I've discussed above with the repeated mention of Num. 30:2 - "If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."

Yes, we have laws and constitutions, and sometimes because of reasons - humane or otherwise - it is necessary to amend them to scenarios and individuals. I find it particularly disturbing that dogmatism as unwavering as what has been presented led to a human sacrifice. Also, that the child was killed and burnt presents, at least for me, a good reason to eschew dogmatism of that kind.

You may be strongly opinionated about this; but even before I became a Christian, such strong views did not help the deeper felt need and question of my own heart, nor has the vexed opinions of Richard Dawkins.

Okay.

For us who believe, we can better appreciate the vicarious sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ on the Cross - and the love and mercy therefrom can only misrepresented by people who have a difficulty grasping the subject of Holiness.

And for those of us that don't believe we can see that the tale is absurd, there's little mercy or love to be garnered from a story that involves an omnipotent deity temporarily dying to change an absurd belief he created.

Wrong. Not after having carefully and honestly read the precedence spelt out in Exo. 20:7; Lev. 5:4; 22:18-19; and Num. 30:2. One may be bitter and acrid in issues like this; but my question is: have such people actually, honestly examined their complaints in light of the precedence spelt out?

Wrong? So much for asking me what I thought. In any case, I said yes because if the Bible God is omniscient, etc, he would have known what Jephtah was going to pronounce and how it could potentially have ended. It certainly wouldn't have killed the Bible God to compel a goat or sheep to exit first - that shouldn't violate the thorny issue of freewill, since I hear other animals don't have freewill. So, based on the properties ascribed to Bible God and how Jephtah's tale ended, one must conclude that the Bible God expected and wanted it to end that way.

@KAG

So you're trying to say Jephtah didn't know "thou shalt not kill"

If He knew or did not Know. Let us Examine his heart.

If he knew he was to keep his oath are you saying that he did not know that he was not to kill any one for God?

He knows how to write and yet he does not know how to read ABC.

Backslider:

@Kag

Jephtah Violated the Natural law of God. God does not accept Human Sacrifice no where were the CHILDREN OF A NATION OF IRSREAL supposed to sacrifice a citizen.

But it seems the Bible God did accept his sacrifice, because he went on strongly and with God on his side (so to speak). I can't think of any incident in the Old Testament where the Bible God's displeasure isn't made known when he's displeased.

He violated the Moral law of the state of Isreal, God had no hand it. It was wrong and no one should ever do it.

The Bible doesn't say he did. In fact, the rest of Isreal didn't say he did, the maidens oly mourned and remembered the death of the daughter, but they didn't seem to disapprove of the way she died.

Abraham was tested on this and the lord did not allow him do it. So Jephtah was Foolish and over Zealous.

No where did God require normal human Sacrifice.

Selah

I'm glad you mentioned Abraham, because the Bible God DID ask him to sacrifice his son. That he stopped him at the last second brings up a lot of issues, but the one I'd like to focus on is the part where Bible God stops one and allows the other to go on. Why didn't the Bible God somehow intervene in Jephtah's case?

Backslider:

@KAG

So you're trying to say Jephtah didn't know "thou shalt not kill"

If He knew or did not Know. Let us Examine his heart.

If he knew he was to keep his oath are you saying that he did not know that he was not to kill any one for God?

He knows how to write and yet he does not know how to read ABC.

That's still not clear. While I could point out the many parts of the Bible where the Bible God commands "his people" to kill, thereby contradicting what you've written, I'd like to know whether you think Jephtah didn't know the "thou shalt not kill" edict.

After all the clarity if the above explanations given*_The scriptures thus has been fulfilled 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them,] because they are spiritually discerned.

KAG:
■ I had a chance to reread the story of Jephtah the other day because it was referenced in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and to be honest I was as shocked this time as I was when I read it as a child. I find it hard to understand how anyone can not only worship the Bible God, but also deign to call the Bible God a loving and good one. Furthermore, it's almost impossible for me to understand how that God is distinguishable from the other bloodthirsty Gods that have been condemned by Christians.
In any case, it made me wonder whether any theist here approves or condones the actions of Jephtah and the Bible God. If there are any, then I guess the question would be why.
Judges 11: 31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed

Did this God also approve of David's killing of Batsheba's husband in Scripture? Come on people.... the book does not record that God accepted what Jephtah did and it is clearly against the Law to offer such to God so what gives?

[

MORALITY AND PHILOSOPHY ARE BORNE IN "LOVE YOURSELVES AS YOURSELVES".

EXTREME MORALITY IS PHILOSOPHY AND COMMUNING WITH GOD.