God And Human Sacrifices

[Skwim]

I only bring this up because Christians like to point out god's great goodness. As one source puts it:

"To say that God is good means that God always acts in accordance to what is right, true, and good. Goodness is part of God’s nature, and He cannot contradict His nature. Holiness and righteousness are part of God’s nature; He cannot do anything that is unholy or unrighteous. God is the standard of all that is good."
source​

Now I don't know about others here on RF, but I don't see making and accepting human sacrifices as a good thing. And, to be honest, I've never heard any Christian who said they were. Furthermore, I consider accepting a human sacrifice in payment for a promise also to be wrong, as I expect most Christians would. Yet the god of Abraham does just that. In the Bible he grants a favor to a guy named Jephthah in return for the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter. And as a burnt offering no less.

Judges 11: 29-39
29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah, and he passed through the area of Gilead and Manasseh. He went through the city of Mizpah in Gilead on his way to the land of the Ammonites.

30 Jephthah made a promise to the Lord. He said, “If you will let me defeat the Ammonites, 31 I will give you the first thing that comes out of my house when I come back from the victory. I will give it to the Lord as a burnt offering.”

32 Then Jephthah went to the land of the Ammonites. He fought the Ammonites, and the Lord helped him defeat them. 33 He defeated them from the city of Aroer to the city of Minnith. Jephthah captured 20 cities. Then he fought the Ammonites to the city of Abel Keramim. The Israelites defeated them. It was a very great defeat for the Ammonites.

34 Jephthah went back to Mizpah. He went to his house, and his daughter came out to meet him. She was playing a tambourine and dancing. She was his only daughter, and Jephthah loved her very much. He did not have any other sons or daughters. 35 When Jephthah saw that his daughter was the first thing to come out of his house, he tore his clothes to show his sadness. Then he said, “Oh, my daughter! You have ruined me! You have made me very sad! I made a promise to the Lord, and I cannot change it!”

36 Then his daughter said to Jephthah, “Father, you have made a promise to the Lord, so keep your promise. Do what you said you would do. After all, the Lord did help you defeat your enemies, the Ammonites.”

37 Then Jephthah’s daughter said to her father, “But do this one thing for me first. Let me be alone for two months. Let me go to the mountains. I will not marry and have children, so let me and my friends go and cry together.”

38 Jephthah said, “Go.” He sent her away for two months. Jephthah’s daughter and her friends stayed in the mountains. They cried for her because she would not marry and have children.

39 At the end of two months, Jephthah’s daughter returned to her father, and Jephthah did what he had promised. ​

Now it may be objected that neither Jephthah nor god knew that Jephthah's daughter would be the first thing to come out of the house, but this simply isn't so. Being omniscient, god certainly knew that when Jephthah returned home the first thing to come out of the house would be his daughter, whom Jephthah would be obligated to sacrifice. In fact, god knew Jephthah’s daughter would be a burnt offering even before he granted him his request. And even if god was not omniscient, because of his divine goodness he would be morally bound to stop Jephthah from incinerating his daughter, just as he stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son. Wouldn't you feel morally bound to stop someone from sacrificing the life of another? Although, after reading that "God is the standard of all that is good" maybe human sacrifice isn't all that bad after all.

In any case, such an intervention never took place. Jephthah had made a deal with god for a favor, and in turn for granting this favor god accepted the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. Thing is, god had nothing to gain by the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter, yet he willingly accepted it. He could have said, No.


So, anyone up to defending god's inhumane action, or is it more convenient to forget about it and go on to some inane thread like TRUMP: The Movie?

.

.

 

[Tumah]

I assume you only mean to hear from Christians, even though you've quoted the Tanach.

 

[stvdv]

So, anyone up to defending god's inhumane action, or is it more convenient to forget about it and go on to some inane thread like TRUMP: The Movie?

I believe there are errors in the Bible. I am convinced this is one Human Error. Humans do the killings, humans create an image of God and humans are made scared about God by other humans who want control or whatever; hence humans invented this insane practice of Human Sacrifice;

 

[Kenny]

I only bring this up because Christians like to point out god's great goodness. As one source puts it:

"To say that God is good means that God always acts in accordance to what is right, true, and good. Goodness is part of God’s nature, and He cannot contradict His nature. Holiness and righteousness are part of God’s nature; He cannot do anything that is unholy or unrighteous. God is the standard of all that is good."
source​

Now I don't know about others here on RF, but I don't see making and accepting human sacrifices as a good thing. And, to be honest, I've never heard any Christian who said they were. Furthermore, I consider accepting a human sacrifice in payment for a promise also to be wrong, as I expect most Christians would. Yet the god of Abraham does just that. In the Bible he grants a favor to a guy named Jephthah in return for the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter. And as a burnt offering no less.

Judges 11: 29-39
29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah, and he passed through the area of Gilead and Manasseh. He went through the city of Mizpah in Gilead on his way to the land of the Ammonites.

30 Jephthah made a promise to the Lord. He said, “If you will let me defeat the Ammonites, 31 I will give you the first thing that comes out of my house when I come back from the victory. I will give it to the Lord as a burnt offering.”

32 Then Jephthah went to the land of the Ammonites. He fought the Ammonites, and the Lord helped him defeat them. 33 He defeated them from the city of Aroer to the city of Minnith. Jephthah captured 20 cities. Then he fought the Ammonites to the city of Abel Keramim. The Israelites defeated them. It was a very great defeat for the Ammonites.

34 Jephthah went back to Mizpah. He went to his house, and his daughter came out to meet him. She was playing a tambourine and dancing. She was his only daughter, and Jephthah loved her very much. He did not have any other sons or daughters. 35 When Jephthah saw that his daughter was the first thing to come out of his house, he tore his clothes to show his sadness. Then he said, “Oh, my daughter! You have ruined me! You have made me very sad! I made a promise to the Lord, and I cannot change it!”

36 Then his daughter said to Jephthah, “Father, you have made a promise to the Lord, so keep your promise. Do what you said you would do. After all, the Lord did help you defeat your enemies, the Ammonites.”

37 Then Jephthah’s daughter said to her father, “But do this one thing for me first. Let me be alone for two months. Let me go to the mountains. I will not marry and have children, so let me and my friends go and cry together.”

38 Jephthah said, “Go.” He sent her away for two months. Jephthah’s daughter and her friends stayed in the mountains. They cried for her because she would not marry and have children.

39 At the end of two months, Jephthah’s daughter returned to her father, and Jephthah did what he had promised. ​

Now it may be objected that neither Jephthah nor god knew that Jephthah's daughter would be the first thing to come out of the house, but this simply isn't so. Being omniscient, god certainly knew that when Jephthah returned home the first thing to come out of the house would be his daughter, whom Jephthah would be obligated to sacrifice. In fact, god knew Jephthah’s daughter would be a burnt offering even before he granted him his request. And even if god was not omniscient, because of his divine goodness he would be morally bound to stop Jephthah from incinerating his daughter, just as he stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son. Wouldn't you feel morally bound to stop someone from sacrificing the life of another? Although, after reading that "God is the standard of all that is good" maybe human sacrifice isn't all that bad after all.

In any case, such an intervention never took place. Jephthah had made a deal with god for a favor, and in turn for granting this favor god accepted the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. Thing is, god had nothing to gain by the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter, yet he willingly accepted it. He could have said, No.


So, anyone up to defending god's inhumane action, or is it more convenient to forget about it and go on to some inane thread like TRUMP: The Movie?

.

.

I'm sorry... but where did it say that God accepted it?

 

[stvdv]

The problem with a prophet is, that he gets a message in his mind. What he reproduces is totally dependent on how pure he (and his mind) is.

That can be a cause of all the cruelty in Bible/Koran. These writers were living in barbarian times

 

[Axe Elf]

maybe human sacrifice isn't all that bad after all.

anyone up to defending god's inhumane action

The crux of it is probably contained in those two sentences. Humans tend to judge everything by how it affects THEM, rather than the universe as a whole (because of course from their limited perspective, that's all they can really comprehend). Anything that hurts a human must be universally bad, humans think. But sometimes being inhumane is good for the universe as a whole. Natural disasters, for instance, are bad for humans--but good for a planet with an atmosphere that can sustain life in general.

And besides, if she was running/skipping out of the house playing the tambourine, there's a pretty good chance that the tambourine was the first thing out of his house, and he could have gotten away with just lighting up the tambourine.

Stupid is as stupid does...

 

[ecco]

So, anyone up to defending god's inhumane action?

.

The human sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter is really small potatoes.

Much more vicious is that omnipotent God used his powers to help Jephthah kill the Ammonites from the city of Aroer to the city of Minnith. Jephthah captured 20 cities. That would, of necessity, include the deaths of many civilians as well as soldiers. If other Bible stories are to be believed, it would also include the God-approved rape of the women in these towns.

Jephthah’s daughter is just icing on the cake.

 

[ecco]

On the other hand...
Some thousands of years ago some guys sitting around the campfire...

Shem: Listen up, we need a really good story to illustrate honoring the promises made to God.
Aaron: Yeah. But we gotta make it something really big.
Mica: War. Winning a war. Nothing's bigger than winning wars.
Shem: OK war. Now, about the promise...
Aaron: How about a sacrifice?
Mica: A human sacrifice.
Shem: The sacrifice of a daughter.
Aaron: Sacrifice the daughter by burning her at the stake!
Mica: I like it.
Shem: In exchange for destroying five cities.
Aaron: Make it ten.
Mica: Twenty - twenty cities for a crisped daughter.
Shem & Aaron: Yay! High Fives all around!!!

 

[Skwim]

I assume you only mean to hear from Christians, even though you've quoted the Tanach.

I mean to hear from anyone who cares to respond.

.

 

[Tumah]

I mean to hear from anyone who cares to respond.

.

Sometimes you say that you are only directing your questions at Christians, so I wasn't sure. But whenever someone quotes from the Tanach, I somehow feel obligated to defend it.

Anyway, the language that Jephthah uses isn't that of a deal, but that of an oath. In other words, he's not making a deal with G-d, he's taking an oath on what he would do if G-d grants them victory. The dependency is the opposite of what you imply in the OP, their victory isn't brought about by Jephthah's oath, the fulfillment of Jephthah's oath is dependent on whether G-d will choose to grant them victory.

What he should have done was had his oath annulled at some point. The Talmud understands that both Jephthah and Phineas the High Priest are at fault here for not going to the other to annul the oath. It understands that for this reason, Gilead is singled out in Jer. 8:22, 'is there no healer in Gilead?" and is a reference to Phinehas who should have rectified this oath. It's also derived from verses elsewhere, that they were both punished for this.

Somewhat more salient to the OP, is that it's not clear whether he actually sacrificed her or not. Some commentaries point to the fact that his daughter goes to cry about her virginity rather than her impending death and the vague "and Jephthah did what he had promised" rather than "and he brought her as a burnt-offering" as implying that sacrifice wasn't the question here. Instead, those commentaries explain that the "and" of verse 31 (And it will be the thing that exits... and it shall be for G-d and I will sacrifice it for a burnt-offering) should be interpreted as "or", meaning, either that thing will be dedicated to G-d, or [if it's something that can be brought on the altar] it will be sacrificed as a burnt offering (see Ex. 21:15 it literally says 'he who strikes his father and mother' with the interpretation being 'father or mother'). Since his daughter is not able to be sacrificed, she would be dedicated to G-d for the rest of her life and would never get married (see 1 Sam. 1:22 for parents dedicating their children's lives).

The truth is, that this interpretation kind of makes more sense. There are laws for determining how to deal with things that are not allowed to be sacrificed on the altar. The only things that are sanctioned on the altar are pigeons, sheep, goats, cows, and meal offerings (see Lev. 1:2 and also see 1:10, 22 specifically for burnt-offerings). So for instance, what would happen if someone took an oath to bring his bed as a sacrifice? Would the Priests in the Sanctuary/Temple be required to take it? What about a deer? What about a pig? There obviously has to be some mechanism in place to account for this type of thing (and there is) and human beings would fall into that category as well.

So it's somewhat difficult to believe that the simple meaning of the passage is that he thought he would actually need to bring his daughter as a literal sacrifice and that he did (although the Talmud does seem to have had a tradition that he actually did).

 

[Skwim]

I'm sorry... but where did it say that God accepted it?

By one huge implication.

1) Jephthah and god made a deal

"30 Jephthah made a promise to the Lord."
​

2) God held up his end of the bargain.

"32 Then Jephthah went to the land of the Ammonites. He fought the Ammonites, and the Lord helped him defeat them."​

3) Jephthah recognized his obligation to keep his end of the bargain just as god had.

"35 . . . I made a promise to the Lord, and I cannot change it!”
​

4) Jephthah kept his promise

39 At the end of two months, Jephthah’s daughter returned to her father, and Jephthah did what he had promised.
​

In light of the fact that at no time did god intervene in the sacrifice, as he did in the case of the Abraham incident, there's absolutely no reason to believe that, having granted Jephthah his request, god let him off the hook. If god had it would have been mentioned, as it was in Abraham's sacrifice. Nope, according to the story god remained silent while Jephthah incinerated his daughter, indicating the sacrifice was acceptable with god. Saying that god accepted the sacrifice is totally unnecessary.

The crux of it is probably contained in those two sentences. Humans tend to judge everything by how it affects THEM, rather than the universe as a whole (because of course from their limited perspective, that's all they can really comprehend). Anything that hurts a human must be universally bad, humans think. But sometimes being inhumane is good for the universe as a whole.

The universe as a whole you say. And just to be clear here, what universal good can you see coming from god going along with the sacrifice of a single innocent human being?

And besides, if she was running/skipping out of the house playing the tambourine, there's a pretty good chance that the tambourine was the first thing out of his house, and he could have gotten away with just lighting up the tambourine.

Stupid is as stupid does...

"Pretty good chance" just doesn't cut it. We have to go along with what Jephthah saw and decided.

The human sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter is really small potatoes.

Jephthah’s daughter is just icing on the cake.

Small potatoes or not, it does point up the fact that god is quite okay with human sacrifices.


.

​

 

[Axe Elf]

The universe as a whole you say. And just to be clear here, what universal good can you see coming from god going along with the sacrifice of a single innocent human being?

Well, I don't believe that such a thing exists in the first place, but even if I indulge you in that bit of human narcissicism...

Me? You're asking ME?? One mere human being, limited in perspective to his own virtually insignificant point in space and moment in time, to determine what is or is not good for the entire universe, virtually infinite in time and space?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I may be a prophet, but I'm not omniscient.

 

[Axe Elf]

"Pretty good chance" just doesn't cut it. We have to go along with what Jephthah saw and decided.

I don't have to go along with anything. Jephthah has to go along with what Jephthah saw and decided. I would have lit up the tambourine and been done with it.

(Since one of my comments was serious and the other was whimsical, I decided to separate my responses to your responses so as not to get them confused.)

 

[Skwim]

Sometimes you say that you are only directing your questions at Christians, so I wasn't sure. But whenever someone quotes from the Tanach, I somehow feel obligated to defend it.

Anyway, the language that Jephthah uses isn't that of a deal, but that of an oath. In other words, he's not making a deal with G-d, he's taking an oath on what he would do if G-d grants them victory.

Potato - potahto. The "oath" was made within the context of a deal:

"I, Jephthah, do solemnly swear that if you, god, help me defeat the Ammonites I will sacrifice the first thing that comes out of my house when I come back from the victory."​

The dependency is the opposite of what you imply in the OP, their victory isn't brought about by Jephthah's oath, the fulfillment of Jephthah's oath is dependent on whether G-d will choose to grant them victory.

Not at all. The story isn't mine, but that of the Bible as I related it in the OP. And because god did help Jephthah defeat the Ammonites he's obligated to carry out his part of the Bargain: Tit for tat.

What he should have done was had his oath annulled at some point.

Should have, Could have. Would have. It makes no difference. Jephthah didn't have his oath annulled.

Somewhat more salient to the OP, is that it's not clear whether he actually sacrificed her or not. Some commentaries point to the fact that his daughter goes to cry about her virginity rather than her impending death and the vague "and Jephthah did what he had promised" rather than "and he brought her as a burnt-offering" as implying that sacrifice wasn't the question here. Instead, those commentaries explain that the "and" of verse 31 (And it will be the thing that exits... and it shall be for G-d and I will sacrifice it for a burnt-offering) should be interpreted as "or", meaning, either that thing will be dedicated to G-d, or [if it's something that can be brought on the altar] it will be sacrificed as a burnt offering (see Ex. 21:15 it literally says 'he who strikes his father and mother' with the interpretation being 'father or mother').

And isn't this convenient. Another case where self-serving apologetics comes to the rescue by positing a "should be" so as to cover up an embarrassing piece of scripture. Give me a break.

 

[Skwim]

Well, I don't believe that such a thing exists in the first place, but even if I indulge you in that bit of human narcissicism...

Me? You're asking ME?? One mere human being, limited in perspective to his own virtually insignificant point in space and moment in time, to determine what is or is not good for the entire universe, virtually infinite in time and space?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I may be a prophet, but I'm not omniscient.

Then why bother saying, "sometimes being inhumane is good for the universe as a whole," implying this is one of those times?

I don't have to go along with anything. Jephthah has to go along with what Jephthah saw and decided. I would have lit up the tambourine and been done with it.

(Since one of my comments was serious and the other was whimsical, I decided to separate my responses to your responses so as not to get them confused.)

And, just what do you have against tambourines? Are they not one of god's creations, albeit by way of another of his creations, the tambourine maker?

.


.

 

[Curious George]

And isn't this convenient. Another case where self-serving apologetics comes to the rescue by positing a "should be" so as to cover up an embarrassing piece of scripture. Give me a break.

I am not so sure that it is self-serving. Dedicating your child to a particular life against their will and the culture that guilts children into accepting such a fate is hardly being served. Sure the kid wasn't killed, but this is unmistakably cult-like.

You asked for an answer and @Tumah provided one. Nevertheless, even in that explanation, basic human rights are denied.

 

[Axe Elf]

Then why bother saying, "sometimes being inhumane is good for the universe as a whole," implying this is one of those times?

Because the possibility that this is one of those times should be considered.

 

[Skwim]

I am not so sure that it is self-serving. Dedicating your child to a particular life against their will and the culture that guilts children into accepting such a fate is hardly being served. Sure the kid wasn't killed, but this is unmistakably cult-like.

You asked for an answer and @Tumah provided one. Nevertheless, even in that explanation, basic human rights are denied.

The self-serving is in reference to apologetics changing what was written.

.

 

[Curious George]

The self-serving is in reference to apologetics changing what was written.

.

Does it change what is written? In this manner she is still "sacrificed." Nothing textual contradicts the suggested meaning.

 

[Skwim]

Does it change what is written? In this manner she is still "sacrificed." Nothing textual contradicts the suggested meaning.

Tumah seems to think so, or, I presume, he wouldn't have bothered quoting it all.

.

.