Mr_Anony:
Please mazaje, stop being dishonest (notice the part I highlighted)
The order was thus:
Step 1: when you hear such a report investigate and find out if it is true
Step 2: If it is true, attack the city and kill everyone as well as their lifestock
Step 3: Then pile up all the plunder and burn it
Step 4: Set the town on fire, it shall be a burnt offering to God
Step 5: Make sure you don't keep any of the plunder for yourself

Now what you have done is to equate burning of the town (the plunder) to human sacrifice. This is just simply being dishonest.

It is funny how you are willing to bend the truth just to make your point even though it is very clear that God in this case is not referring to the human beings - or even the animals - as the sacrifice.

The entire town with all its dead inhabitants and plunder are to be put to touch as a burnt offering is what was written. . .

davidylan:

So if i burn thrash and a cockroach is in there it is automatically a burnt offering to the Lord?

Why do you fail so much?


You go to a city in the name of the lord and kill the inhabitants and then you burn all of them including their livestock. How is that not a burnt human sacrifice to the lord? You compare this to mistakenly kiling one cockroach by lighting a dustbin?



furthermore, another translation makes it clear that you have to burn the bible. Two translations against your myopic logical gymnasytics in twisting your own quote;

13 that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14 In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15[b] you must attack that town and completely destroy[a] all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16 Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the Lord your God[/b]. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17 Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestor

mazaje:

You are just making up explanations on your own sorry. . .He made a vow according to the story, we know that the bible talks about God going against his own words sometimes. . .Some times he regrets his actions and lets his people know that he regrets his actions. . .There are passages about God apologizing or repenting for some of his actions in the bible. . .So claiming that Yahweh does not change his rules is absurd. . .The story also has the girl telling her father to go ahead and do to her what he had vowed to his God. . .[color=#000099[b]]And she said unto him, My father, [if] thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth[/b]; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, [even] of the children of Ammon.[/color]

Was the vow he made to make her a celibate unto God or to sacrifice her as a burnt offering?. . .

not true. the problem is you already have a biased view in your mind so everything else is chalked down to "making up excuses". That is the issue i have with most atheists... they seem to have a huge problem with objectivity. Only the view that sheds a negative light on the bible is ever to be considered.

1. Yes there are cases of God "repenting" for His actions but they are few and far between and this is certainly NOT one of them. If indeed this was a real "burnt offering" then why did God then go ahead to condemn the jews for doing exactly what Jephthah is alleged to have done? couldnt they just have used this as an excuse?

2. Yes the story tells us that the girl encourages her father to do according to his vow but what does that tell us with regard to the vow specifically? What was your point here? Didnt Samuel also encourage his mother to fullfil her vow to the Lord of giving him up to the temple?

3. We can glean from the chapter that the vow had a lot to do with her celibacy. Her virginity is emphasized THREE SEPARATE times in two verses and the only reason she goes off for 2 months to lament with her friends is about the loss of her s[i]e[/i]x life and not her life, family, friends and land? Unfortunately, i do not expect you to take 2 secs to think on these issues. For you... a negative light on the bible is all you need to run away and make outlandish claims.

mazaje:

The entire town with all its dead inhabitants and plunder are to be put to touch as a burnt offering is what was written. . .

that is what is written by the guy you copied the claims from. I posted the verse directly from the bible, it says no such thing. you folks can be nauseatingly dishonest.

MacDaddy01:


Why do you fail so much?


You go to a city in the name of the lord and kill the inhabitants and then you burn all of them including their livestock. How is that not a burnt human sacrifice to the lord? You compare this to mistakenly kiling one cockroach by lighting a dustbin?

How is it a burnt offering? I see you as the brainless version of mazaje, aggressive, hostile to the bible but largely bereft of intellectual graft to understand what you say.
Again let me ask... if a house burns down by error... were the mice incinerated inside a burnt offering to the Lord?

MacDaddy01:
furthermore, another translation makes it clear that you have to burn the bible. Two translations against your myopic logical gymnasytics in twisting your own quote;

13 that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14 In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15[b] you must attack that town and completely destroy[a] all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16 Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the Lord your God[/b]. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17 Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestor

and this version has no name?

davidylan:

that is what is written by the guy you copied the claims from. I posted the verse directly from the bible, it says no such thing. you folks can be nauseatingly dishonest.

You posted from another bible version. . .What I posted was lifted directly from the bible version as well. . .So what are you on about?. . .

mazaje:

You posted from another bible version. . .What I posted was lifted directly from the bible version as well. . .So what are you on about?. . .

i posted from the KJV and your version was?

davidylan:

i posted from the KJV and your version was?

New living translation. . .

mazaje:

The entire town with all its dead inhabitants and plunder are to be put to touch as a burnt offering is what was written. . .

Read it in the NLT. However and as is usual... you have quoted out of context. The goal of a "burnt offering" was to honor the Lord. The goal of burning this city was for utter destruction, ruin and that it never be rebuilt again. Please read verses 16 and 17. those are key contextual portions you are deliberately ignoring.

davidylan:

Read it in the NLT. However and as is usual... you have quoted out of context. The goal of a "burnt offering" was to honor the Lord. The goal of burning this city was for utter destruction, ruin and that it never be rebuilt again. Please read verses 16 and 17. those are key contextual portions you are deliberately ignoring.

The verse says

a) burn the plunder

b) burn the town.


Surely, the rebuilding of the city is only contextual to b.

Could the word holocaust be a problem? When something is burnt entirely does that make it a sacrifice, a burnt offering? I supposed the fact that the passage says 'to Yahweh' could be significant. A Holocaust to Yahweh. Is that the same as a religious sacrifice?

What exactly is a sacrifice and what should it entail? What is it's purpose?

It seems that that Jephthah the holocaust was a form of enticement to Yahweh, to encourage him in his war against the ammonites.

Here it seems that the point of the holocaust was to ward of Yahweh's anger at the people.

davidylan:

the only thing i could understand from this post was that you of course are on the side of man being moral by default. Aside from that, you just rambled on without making a coherent point.

I hope you aren't trolling, that isn't very good you know? If you really don't understand then let's establish something first. A question posed to an atheist means we are being objective here.

Religion is not a conscious entity. It is a tool created and used by man, sometimes nefariously, sometimes for good. When you say religion is the source of morality you are saying man, using religion as a tool, is the source of morality. The post you make to reply this wasn't made by your computer, well it was, but is more accurate to say it was made by you using your computer as a tool.

I think this should be clearer, yes?

davidylan:

Morality without christianity is relative. For example... the aztecs think it is morally ok to sacrifice young virgin girls to the gods... what about you?

That, good sir, is just plain hubris. It should read "Morality is relative". That is all. How in the world is christianity more special than any of the myriad unverified religions?

wiegraf:
That, good sir, is just plain hubris. It should read "Morality is relative". That is all. How in the world is christianity more special than any of the myriad unverified religions?

it doesnt have to be special to you to be special to others no?

MacDaddy01:

The verse says

a) burn the plunder

b) burn the town.


Surely, the rebuilding of the city is only contextual to b.

yawn. what is your point?

cyrexx: @ Mr Anony,

thanks for your reply, though i still have some objections to it. but no problem. moreso, since we dont want argue on this thread.




but as a side note.
i think i will later create a thread for you to directly address all my perceived absurdities in the christian faith in an educative, matured and non-confrontational manner. i will clearly state my position and assumptions and you will yours and then all the parts of the bible/christian faith that makes no sense to me you will kindly explain and clarify. will you do that, please?

yeah would love to ask some very important questions in the bible that I find incredibly stoopid that anyone will believe and quote with so much alacrity as an irrefutable source when more than half of the identities of the men that authored many of the books are unknown or at best a subject of speculations.
Like for instance, who exactly wrote the books of John? The book of John is claimed to have the best independent account of Jesus's life yet believers can not seem to agree on the identity of the author. And we are supposed to take seriously the accounts given in the books of John. Matthew, mark Luke and Act are obviously work from a source, which is suspected to be Paul who never met Jesus. So much for the absolutism of biblical truth.

davidylan:

yawn. what is your point?

That you have no point? Yawn

Just wanted to make this point: scientific theory is different from scientific law. Science eventually corrects wrong theories. The theory of evolution is now accepted as fact by mainstream scientists.

rhymz: yeah would love to ask some very important questions in the bible that I find incredibly stoopid that anyone will believe and quote with so much alacrity as an irrefutable source when more than half of the identities of the men that authored many of the books are unknown or at best a subject of speculations.
Like for instance, who exactly wrote the books of John? The book of John is claimed to have the best independent account of Jesus's life yet believers can not seem to agree on the identity of the author. And we are supposed to take seriously the accounts given in the books of John. Matthew, mark Luke and Act are obviously work from a source, which is suspected to be Paul who never met Jesus. So much for the absolutism of biblical truth.

ah i'm sure cyrexx would be quick to castigate such hostile aggression when levied against the bible...

davidylan:

ah i'm sure cyrexx would be quick to castigate such hostile aggression when levied against the bible...

why do you assume that one has to be an atheist to ask very logical and reasonable questions?
Why will anyone use accounts from books that were written almost half a century after the death of christ as a source to measure against what is the truth while accounts from books based on empirical evidence of science are taken with utter levity? Is it because it is not preceeded by the word "holy??
Let us even assume that Jesus's desciples wrote the books; how is it possible that they were able to write everything Jesus says word for word? Is that even remotely possible that one can write verbatim the conversations or teachings of Jesus without any direct effort to cross examine Jesus or get a kind of one to one recorded interview. Unless of course somebody is passing his own truths as what Jesus and God says.

rhymz: why do you assume that one has to be an atheist to ask very logical and reasonable questions?
Why will anyone use accounts from books that were written almost half a century after the death of christ as a source to measure against what is the truth while accounts from books based on empirical evidence of science are taken with utter levity? Is it because it is not preceeded by the word "holy??
Let us even assume that Jesus's desciples wrote the books; how is it possible that they were able to write everything Jesus says word for word? Is that even remotely possible that one can write verbatim the conversations or teachings of Jesus without any direct effort to cross examine Jesus or get a kind of one to one recorded interview. Unless of course somebody is passing his own truths as what Jesus and God says.

for starters, you flatter yourself when you label your "questions" as "logical and reasonable". Its the same cowardly arrogance even macdaddy was talking about on the other thread. The only reason i highlighted your post is for the likes of cyrexx who are quick to jump on christians for being confrontational and YET ignore atheists who spend all day labelling our faith as "stoopid".

Secondly, i see you touting "empirical evidence of science"... lol you wouldnt know that even if it hit you in the face.

Put your issues here and let us discuss it.

davidylan:

it doesnt have to be special to you to be special to others no?

What is the context here? Because you're just admitting you prefer it for subjective reasons

wiegraf:

What is the context here? Because you're just admitting you prefer it for subjective reasons

lol....Davidylan rambles nonsense when he has been proven wrong,

wiegraf:

What is the context here? Because you're just admitting you prefer it for subjective reasons

and i suppose you prefer pseudo-science for totally empirically sound reasons right? Yeah color me naive.
Religious belief/faith is a subjective matter. It is not and has never been dependent on logic or reason. The burden of proof is on you to show how science totally invalidates the faith-based belief system.

davidylan:

and i suppose you prefer pseudo-science for totally empirically sound reasons right? Yeah color me naive.
Religious belief/faith is a subjective matter. It is not and has never been dependent on logic or reason. The burden of proof is on you to show how science totally invalidates the faith-based belief system.

We established first that if you're posing the question to an atheist, then we are being strictly objective (or as much as we can)

I accept science as my currency, not pseudo-science. That's the beauty of the scientific method, if a theory/hypothesis doesn't stand up to rigorous testing, then its more or else out the door (as far as mainstream is concerned). You get empirical evidence you can bring it back and we all discuss and test, if you're right then your hypothesis is elevated to theory. Enough of that, you know this.

Ah, I didn't even read your post completely and I just started replying you my good dictator. You say the burden of proof rests on me... Well I'm off. Maybe I should have paid attention to talk of your crazy

wiegraf:

We established first that if you're posing the question to an atheist, then we are being strictly objective (or as much as we can)

I accept science as my currency, not pseudo-science. That's the beauty of the scientific method, if a theory/hypothesis doesn't stand up to rigorous testing, then its more or else out the door (as far as mainstream is concerned). You get empirical evidence you can bring it back and we all discuss and test, if you're right then your hypothesis is elevated to theory. Enough of that, you know this.

Ah, I didn't even read your post completely and I just started replying you my good dictator. You say the burden of proof rests on me... Well I'm off. Maybe I should have paid attention to talk of your crazy

unfortunately that process has not held up to careful scrutiny when it comes to the piffle most atheists like you spew here. the vast majority of you are mere copy-pasters and know very little about the science you tout. Of course as soon as you shift the burden of proof to the atheist, the coward takes off and runs. So much for the "beauty of science".

davidylan:

unfortunately that process has not held up to careful scrutiny when it comes to the piffle most atheists like you spew here. the vast majority of you are mere copy-pasters and know very little about the science you tout. Of course as soon as you shift the burden of proof to the atheist, the coward takes off and runs. So much for the "beauty of science".

I think its that people have more productive things to do, your case may to be too far gone to merit help from the average. It would be selfish to ask one to help you (at least without some sort of financial incentive), it likely requires Jesus-level altruism.

wiegraf:

I think its that people have more productive things to do, your case may to be too far gone to merit help from the average. It would be selfish to ask one to help you (at least without some sort of financial incentive), it likely requires Jesus-level altruism.

odd considering those same people spend inordinate amounts of time bleating about a religion they claim not to care about. You all seem to have no productive things to do until you are forced to defend your positions... then suddenly you're either all too busy or more than willing to move to another thread to continue the usual empty pontificating. There is a thread going on right now asking for the evolutionary explanation for differences in lifespan... its barely struggling to go beyond the first page since atheists are conspicuously absent. Funny you're all congregating on the "bash christianity" threads.

davidylan:

odd considering those same people spend inordinate amounts of time bleating about a religion they claim not to care about. You all seem to have no productive things to do until you are forced to defend your positions... then suddenly you're either all too busy or more than willing to move to another thread to continue the usual empty pontificating. There is a thread going on right now asking for the evolutionary explanation for differences in lifespan... its barely struggling to go beyond the first page since atheists are conspicuously absent. Funny you're all congregating on the "bash christianity" threads.

#deity, don't ignore the rest of the post oga. If the task requires too much effort for little gain, then one moves on, simple economics. In this case educating you requires far too much energy expended on one person, frankly expecting that is being selfish (its a huge problem with our society imo, ie, people not pulling their weight). And if you actually know you are wrong but are just being disingenuous...

Edit:
Did you start the evolution thread? That could explain a lot. Though it could be a variety of other reasons.

As for bashing, you asked for my opinion, then threw it out for subjective reasons. Actually anony asked for it, but you sort of too. You might have a case there at least if you look hard enough

wiegraf:

#deity, don't ignore the rest of the post oga. If the task requires too much effort for little gain, then one moves on, simple economics. In this case educating you requires far too much energy expended on one person, frankly expecting that is being selfish (its a huge problem with our society imo, ie, people not pulling their weight). And if you actually know you are wrong but are just being disingenuous...

The usual atheist escapist drivel. Not a surprise. Finding an atheist willing to defend his incomprehensible illogic is a feat of monumental proportions. For someone who supposedly has a lot to do, you certainly do find plenty of time to post factless claims around here. When challenged, all we get is mishmash of either "go and read" or "i dont want to spoonfeed you". Nothing new.

wiegraf:
Edit:
Did you start the evolution thread? That could explain a lot. Though it could be a variety of other reasons.

As for bashing, you asked for my opinion, then threw it out for subjective reasons. Actually anony asked for it, but you sort of too. You might have a case there at least if you look hard enough

I didnt start the thread. merely noted the glaring absence of scientific atheist gurus who seem to only show up when its time to bash the bible.

True that anony asked for your opinion... shame you fail woefully at backing up that "opinion". You would have been better off just keeping quiet since you dont seem to have a clue what it is you speak about.

I see all the atheists bunched up here... i wonder why none is willing to help us out here - https://www.nairaland.com/1016350/evolutionist-how-explain-human-lifespan

perhaps because they are just as vacuous as bro plaetton?

davidylan:

The usual atheist escapist drivel. Not a surprise. Finding an atheist willing to defend his incomprehensible illogic is a feat of monumental proportions. For someone who supposedly has a lot to do, you certainly do find plenty of time to post factless claims around here. When challenged, all we get is mishmash of either "go and read" or "i dont want to spoonfeed you". Nothing new.



I didnt start the thread. merely noted the glaring absence of scientific atheist gurus who seem to only show up when its time to bash the bible.

True that anony asked for your opinion... shame you fail woefully at backing up that "opinion". You would have been better off just keeping quiet since you dont seem to have a clue what it is you speak about.

Just note though, I never said I had a lot to do (though I actually do)

Edit: I see you still barking about another thread. That doesn't have anything to do with you being incredulously wrong in this one, you know? You're in essence doing what you accuse me of, avoiding the issue.

I'll leave you alone, for now.

davidylan:

for starters, you flatter yourself when you label your "questions" as "logical and reasonable". Its the same cowardly arrogance even macdaddy was talking about on the other thread. The only reason i highlighted your post is for the likes of cyrexx who are quick to jump on christians for being confrontational and YET ignore atheists who spend all day labelling our faith as "stoopid".

Secondly, i see you touting "empirical evidence of science"... lol you wouldnt know that even if it hit you in the face.

Put your issues here and let us discuss it.

Mr David,
Being unnecessarily confrontational does not add any value to the quality of your argument neither does it make you any smarter than those that see things differently from you.
The point I was trying to make was very clear, you would have seen that if only you were less petty.
Truth is relative and subjective to opinion. The absolutism of the nature of truth lies in its relativity. Your truth is your truth by virtue of the fact that you measured it up to opinions that you have come to accept or see as the standards for arriving at the truth. To others who do not agree with your accepted opinions for arriving at what you termed the "truth" it is not the truth let alone the absolute truth, there lies the dilemma of the absolutism of "Truth".
I questioned the authorship of the bible which obviously is your accepted standard for arriving at "your absolute Truth" because it is rife with inaccuracies and relies so much on a belief system that forces adherents to "play faith" without questioning its claims on what constitutes the truth.
Telling non-christians that the real truth lies in christian doctrines and moral laws is a tad bit close-ended and arrogant. Every society pretty much has set standards for arriving at what is right and wrong-some are laid down laws while some are generally accepted tacit mode of behaviour that society indirectly codefy into people. These things predate christianity therefore could not have borrowed from christianity, instead the reverse is the case. Christianity did not invent morality or the Truth, all they did was nothing different from what mainstream religions like islam and co have done.
Enough of your arrogant argument like you know any better than people that do not agree with you. I don't know what science you call opinions but the end products of science is what determines its truth. You are not the only scientist here my friend, in science, hypothesis will always be what it is until it is subjected to some empirical test and found to be true before it goes on to the next level. In engineering for instance, you don't just hypothesize your way into building big complicated machines, it is all a product of rigorous tests on design models and the use of well tested scientific theories. You will be damned to make any untested assumptions and incoporate them into manufacturing any product, that speculative science is fine in the church not in science and that my friend is where lies the superiority of science to the claims of what constitute the truth.