Which is the Most Violent Religion Based on the Doctrine?

[Nietzsche]

Probably the one I've yet to write down. But I'm working on it!

 

[wizanda]

Probably the one I've yet to write down. But I'm working on it!

Doubt you could beat the Bible!!

 

[Nietzsche]

Doubt you could beat the Bible!!

And lo, I shall render unto thee, thine Firstest Commandment;

Thou shalt not tempt the Nietzsche, for he is subtle and there is not in all of creation a bar beneath which he will not saunter.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Wiccans eat babies so they are the worst.

 

[Nietzsche]

Wiccans eat babies so they are the worst.

Wicca is certainly the worst, but it has nothing to do with violence.

 

[LionofJuda]

it is definitely Islam no need to explain.

 

[wizanda]

it is definitely Islam no need to explain.

There is loads of need to explain that; Islam is based upon Judaism, which is then clearly the originator?

 

[Nietzsche]

it is definitely Islam no need to explain.

Would you oh learned one, care to allow the unwashed, those of us without your blessed knowledge of all religions in all eras, explain how that statement is true? Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

[rosends]

Not sure on that, haven't gone looking for evidence....Just the Tanakh saying we've been murdering prophets, animals, women, children, tribes, etc.

Clearly, you are against war, capital punishment and eating animals, and these become acts of violence to you. But you invent the "ritually sacrificing children" part and then hide behind some generic textual claim. Can you please show me the evidence that

a) there is ritual sacrifice of children within Judaism
b) the events as described textually are doctrinal elements of the religion
c) socio-cultural history is equated with theology.

TIA.

 

[Nietzsche]

Clearly, you are against war, capital punishment and eating animals, and these become acts of violence to you. But you invent the "ritually sacrificing children" part and then hide behind some generic textual claim. Can you please show me the evidence that

a) there is ritual sacrifice of children within Judaism
b) the events as described textually are doctrinal elements of the religion
c) socio-cultural history is equated with theology.

TIA.

There's three ways to approach that. The first and most obvious is the bit with Isaac. Yes, YHWH stopped him before the deed was done, but the text can be easily read as YHWH having demanded it, regardless of whether it was a test of faith or he was actually wanting it.

The second approach is the simple fact that child sacrifice needed to be explicitly banned. Was that going on commonly enough for there to be a need to specifically forbid it? You could argue back that it was put in place due to it supposedly being practiced by neighbouring peoples, however we've got no solid evidence that the specific sacrifice of children was ever actually employed(this goes for both Jews and the other peoples of the area).

The third involves the Plagues of Egypt. I would say that YHWH killing all the first-born in Egypt who didn't decide to redecorate with lamb's blood qualifies as child-sacrifice of some manner.

 

[rosends]

There's three ways to approach that. The first and most obvious is the bit with Isaac. Yes, YHWH stopped him before the deed was done, but the text can be easily read as YHWH having demanded it, regardless of whether it was a test of faith or he was actually wanting it.

Textually, God only asks that the boy be raised as a sacrifice, never actually sacrificed. There is a difference in language. If one wants to stick to the text, one has to stick to the exact words used. It also isn't a demand of the religion (which didn't exist at the time) nor was it a doctrinal demand, only a singular one.

The second approach is the simple fact that child sacrifice needed to be explicitly banned. Was that going on commonly enough for there to be a need to specifically forbid it? You could argue back that it was put in place due to it supposedly being practiced by neighbouring peoples, however we've got no solid evidence that the specific sacrifice of children was ever actually employed(this goes for both Jews and the other peoples of the area).

I have been looking through the 5 books to see where it is explicitly banned. Which verses do you have in mind? I see some stuff in Leviticus, but it never mentions sacrifices. The king of Moab (2 Kings, 3:27) did sacrifice his own child and evil kings like Ahaz were condemned when they did the same. Clearly, the practice existed and had to be banned.

The third involves the Plagues of Egypt. I would say that YHWH killing all the first-born in Egypt who didn't decide to redecorate with lamb's blood qualifies as child-sacrifice of some manner.

Then one would have to say that the Egyptian religion which had been demanding the killing of the Hebrew first born children would be equally violent. The difference is that the Egyptian behavior was carried out by adherents as a function of their faith. The plague was carried out by the deity himself and was never an act required of adherents. Sacrifice would be by the believers, wouldn't it? God sacrifices to himself?

So I see nothing which indicates that there was ever child sacrifice as part of Judaism.
None of this, then would come close to contextualizing the claim that, "the Jews have been kicked out of so many countries is for ritually sacrificing children".

 

[wizanda]

Clearly, you are against war, capital punishment and eating animals, and these become acts of violence to you.

Wow!
So war isn't violent?
Slitting an animals throat, then allowing it to drown in its own blood, as it writhes in pain, isn't violent?
Capital punishment has always been debated for being violent.

But you invent the "ritually sacrificing children" part and then hide behind some generic textual claim.

Didn't invent anything; was just watching a documentary about Jews being kicked out of different countries for being charged with child sacrifice....Here is the wiki page with some of the evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

 

[Nietzsche]

Textually, God only asks that the boy be raised as a sacrifice, never actually sacrificed. There is a difference in language. If one wants to stick to the text, one has to stick to the exact words used. It also isn't a demand of the religion (which didn't exist at the time) nor was it a doctrinal demand, only a singular one.

I have been looking through the 5 books to see where it is explicitly banned. Which verses do you have in mind? I see some stuff in Leviticus, but it never mentions sacrifices. The king of Moab (2 Kings, 3:27) did sacrifice his own child and evil kings like Ahaz were condemned when they did the same. Clearly, the practice existed and had to be banned.

Then one would have to say that the Egyptian religion which had been demanding the killing of the Hebrew first born children would be equally violent. The difference is that the Egyptian behavior was carried out by adherents as a function of their faith. The plague was carried out by the deity himself and was never an act required of adherents. Sacrifice would be by the believers, wouldn't it? God sacrifices to himself?

So I see nothing which indicates that there was ever child sacrifice as part of Judaism.
None of this, then would come close to contextualizing the claim that, "the Jews have been kicked out of so many countries is for ritually sacrificing children".

I believe there's been a miscommunication here;

I wasn't trying to imply Judaism is/was worse than its contemporaries. Just that it was no better either.

 

[rosends]

Wow!
So war isn't violent?
Slitting an animals throat, then allowing it to drown in its own blood, as it writhes in pain, isn't violent?
Capital punishment has always been debated for being violent.

Didn't invent anything; was just watching a documentary about Jews being kicked out of different countries for being charged with child sacrifice....Here is the wiki page with some of the evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

Evidence? You are citing a wiki page which explains, "The supposed torture and human sacrifice alleged in the blood libels run contrary to the teachings of Judaism." as its first line as "evidence"? You are referencing a page which mentions that, "The term 'blood libel' can also refer to any unpleasant and damaging false accusation," to prove a case about true accusations?

Jews have been kicked out for all sorts of reasons and because of all sorts of claims. You have now decided that they are true. Brilliant.

 

[rosends]

I believe there's been a miscommunication here;

I wasn't trying to imply Judaism is/was worse than its contemporaries. Just that it was no better either.

And I am just going through the statements made and seeing if they stand up to textual scrutiny either for their own accuracy or as statements which would support the contentions for which they were invoked.

 

[wizanda]

You have now decided that they are true.

Not decided anything, there are numerous cases that have happened, and expelled for this reason; not researched all the individual cases (God will do that), just observing.

As for the Bible this is Yeshua's point in Matthew 23:27-39, that due to the murdering of the prophets, and counting them as atonement sacrifices ('death of the righteous, can atone for the sins of that generation').... We were tried, capital punishment was applied to the whole nation, and expelled from the land due to this by YHVH.

 

[rosends]

Not decided anything, there are numerous cases that have happened, and expelled for this reason; not researched all the individual cases (God will do that), just observing.

So you are observing a litany of false accusations and not deciding anything, just referencing it as historic fact. Got it.

counting them as atonement sacrifices ('death of the righteous, can atone for the sins of that generation'

That reflects a serious lack of knowledge and understanding on your part. The idea comes from one specific event and is discussed in the Zohar (which you have never read, let alone studied). There is an associated idea presented talmudically, but that, also, is much more complex than you can possibly understand. I'll give you a simple resource. Of course, if you find any proof from gospels, don't expect it to be considered as anything related to judaism. http://www.mesora.org/Atonement.htm

 

[wizanda]

That reflects a serious lack of knowledge and understanding on your part.

Clearly you've misunderstood what was meant...

Didn't think you get atonement from Yeshua's death; was referring to why he kept saying, 'if you understood mercy, and not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6)'....

'And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent: for they commit lewdness.'(Hosea 6:9)

The 'death of the righteous can atone', has been misapplied by Rabbinic Judaism; whereas someone dying of natural causes is one thing, people murdered is an unrighteous act.

So when Yeshua states the Pharisees have built monuments; yet are full of dead men's bones, this is what he was meaning... In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, where it states the Pharisees will murder him thinking they get free inheritance from his death, is also in reference.

 

[rosends]

Clearly you've misunderstood what was meant...

Didn't think you get atonement from Yeshua's death; was referring to why he kept saying, 'if you understood mercy, and not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6)'....

'And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent: for they commit lewdness.'(Hosea 6:9)

The 'death of the righteous can atone', has been misapplied by Rabbinic Judaism; whereas someone dying of natural causes is one thing, people murdered is an unrighteous act.

So when Yeshua states the Pharisees have built monuments; yet are full of dead men's bones, this is what he was meaning... In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, where it states the Pharisees will murder him thinking they get free inheritance from his death, is also in reference.

Obviously you have missed the entire point of this. First, Hoshea 6:9 reads 9And as a man gathers fish, so do bands; a gang of priests murder on the way in one group, for they devised a plot.

Next, the idea that the death of the righteous can in some way effect atonement is not "misapplied" -- it is a teaching which comes FROM rabbinic Judaism and has a specific meaning. You can feel free not to understand it if you want. And then quoting Jesus is useless when your argument was supposed to be about your claims that Judaism allows for murder in the mistaken belief that it effects atonement. You should stay focused.

 

[metis]

So when Yeshua states the Pharisees have built monuments; yet are full of dead men's bones, this is what he was meaning... In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, where it states the Pharisees will murder him thinking they get free inheritance from his death, is also in reference.

Jesus was of the Pharisee tradition, especially the more liberal branch of it. Essentially, what we read in the gospels on this is pretty much a "family" (internal) dispute. The two main areas of disagreement especially reflect different positions vis-a-vis both the application of the Law and also opinions on the Oral Law.