Christians: Jephthah?

[zer0das]

I have provided ample evidence for the conclusions I have reached

I don't think you have, quite simply. It says whatever walks through the door he would offer as a burnt sacrifice, there is nothing to suggest that this vow was ever countermanded. Not one iota. I understand that marriage (and children) "made" a woman back in the day, but quite simply Jephthah's daughter remaining a virgin that isn't consistent with what is in the scripture.

Why would he be so distraught if his daughter were to live? Why would she ask for two months to roam if she would live the rest of her life out (she could do this whenever if she was simply to remain a virgin)? Is being a virgin the rest of her life enough for her friends to weep for her (they went to the hills with her to weep, for two months!), let alone all of Israel? What precisely could her father do to maintain her virginity in a singular event?

Your entire argument revolves around the idea that simply because God commanded something, an individual man would not do something against this command, when everything suggests to the contrary. The scripture places a lot of emphasis on the fact that she was a virgin, but that is what makes it such a tragedy, it is not the tragedy itself.

Now, back to several other issues.

1) God's active participation in the violent slaughter of the Ammonites

The Israelites wiping out other nations was done under the pretext of their evil accumulating to a certain point that God decided something must be done. The Israelites were an instrument in achieving this. It isn't the first time God punished people for their evil deeds, nor was the Israelite nation the only means through which God acted. At least one group of people (and perhaps two, but I can't recall the second at the moment) did escape the wrath of God by deceiving the Israelites into making covenants with them under false pretexts (surprise: see Joshua 9). Rahab and here household were also spared despite Jericho falling...

2) Is Jephthah really bartering with God, or was God going to do that anyway and Jephthah made an extraneous vow? What is happening regarding the promise?

I don't think God gave him victory under the pretense of his vow. I think Jephthah, in his zeal, thought that nothing was too little to sacrifice to the LORD if He gave him victory, for God is faithful in full. He only seems to have realized later that perhaps there are some things he most certainly would not want to sacrifice, although he did go through with it in the end.

3) Sacrificing an innocent girl for God. He stopped Abraham, why is it ok this time? God passively condones human sacrifice in His name here, yet was active enough to help kill other people.

As I mentioned before, it does set a precedent for Christ's sacrifice. God didn't require it out of Abraham or any man, but there it is. Whether He was satisfied with the whole affair is ambiguous at best, though given his commandments, I'm going to guess he wasn't terribly happy (perhaps Jephthah's pride prevented him from breaking his vow, when God would have far preferred this). Of course this raises the question if God would use Jephthah to bring justice to the Ammonites (whose sin had accumulated beyond a certain point), then why wouldn't He punish Jephthah as well? Perhaps because God was willing to forgive him in spite of the evil he had done, because he sought after God.

 

[Captain Sarcastic]

I'll temper my remarks with this addendum: my case is much stronger than those of the skeptics. I have provided ample reasons which demonstrate Jepthah's daughter's perpetual virginity. Since the skeptics did not see fit to attempt to disprove them, but instead attacked me personally, they engaged in the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem. :halo Then to top it off, one of them saw fit to trot out his dead horse of the red herring.

Do they care to vie for the coveted trifecta of logical fallacies in this thread?

 

[zer0das]

Is your case stronger than the skeptics? You didn't address any of my complaints with your explanation. Feel free to consider me a skeptic. Your case is hardly proven, so there is no point in pretending it is. Whatever the motives of the people bringing forth this discussion, it doesn't change the strength of your argument.

Leviticus 27:28, 29: "But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD- whether man or animal or family land- may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is holy to the LORD. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death."

I'm presuming this is referring to the Canaanites, but it would also explain why Jephthah would go through with the vow after making it and discovering it was his daughter. Perhaps he was being overly legalistic about things (this is referring to a person condemned by God for their sin, as opposed to an innocent), while completely missing the spirit of the commandments (hardly the first man that would have done that).

 

[Sanitarium]

Pot, meet kettle with the "ridiculous claims" nonsense. I have provided ample evidence for the conclusions I have reached--all you have is mockery and slander on your side. :halo

1. It was a response to what the OP & others had written and i was agreeing with it, so it's not 'all I have.'
2. There was no 'mockery' involved. please point it out.
3. Slander is spoken, libel is written - but since you have not shown me to have done any such thing, either word is misused here.

I also don't recall Muslims--or Islam--being a direct part of this thread. Red herring much, skeptic?

It's not a red herring - read my post again. My statement was that I see many rationalizations made by believers of all religions for the bad stuff in their texts. Since I am most familiar with Islam, this is the example I brought forth.

Please go and read up on your fallacies before you accuse people falsely.

@ALL: coelacanth is away for a few days. Please don't take his absence as a 'victory' lol

 

[Captain Sarcastic]

'Lol'? Am I debating a bunch of ten-year-olds here? Please, speak like a grown man.

I believe this link will help shed light on the points I was making earlier: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2320

and this

http://www.knollwoodchurch.org/yr2003/d04_jephthah.html

 

[Sanitarium]

'Lol'? Am I debating a bunch of ten-year-olds here? Please, speak like a grown man.

1. Ad hominem (logical fallacy).
2. I'm female
3.

:lol

I believe this link will help shed light on the points I was making earlier: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2320

and this

http://www.knollwoodchurch.org/yr2003/d04_jephthah.html

No, we know what your argument is, but we do not agree with what you said for the reasons already listed.

Thanks

 

[Paidion]

And thats the point. No human sacrifice was made.

It is stated clearly that Jephthah did sacrifice his daughter!

30,31 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the LORD’s, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering."

39 And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had made.

 

[Guest]

@coelacanth: Thanks for the excellent thread! I personally see that Christians use their own morality in order to decide (and interpret as seen by Captain Sarcastic) what to follow and what not to follow in their texts. Despite the assertation, it is not as 'black and white' as they'd like to claim.

It is my hope that such generalizations were intended to be applied as a selective brush rather than an all inclusive brush.

 

[Guest]

It is stated clearly that Jephthah did sacrifice his daughter!

I can't wait to see the spin on this one.

 

[Sanitarium]

It is my hope that such generalizations were intended to be applied as a selective brush rather than an all inclusive brush.

yes my apologies. I should have been more clear.

 

[Guest]

It is my hope that such generalizations were intended to be applied as a selective brush rather than an all inclusive brush.

yes my apologies. I should have been more clear.

No worries. I suspected as such, but merely wanted to clarify. Sometimes, you can never be too certain about the others here.

 

[coelacanth]

Alright, back from vacation… Where were we? Oh yes,

Did Jephthah do it while God's omniscient back was turned?

Just because we do something evil doesn't mean God doesn't care if there is no intervention. A lot more evil has been done in the world than a single innocent person losing their life. Was that done when God's back was turned?

I am aware of great evils that have occurred, and Christian theology does a half-way decent job of explaining how a God who is good could allow it (free will, etc.), but fails the test of raising itself above other forms of mythology by an inability to present evidence of its truth, and the abundance of evidence against it. I'd rank J.R.R. Tolkien’s Silmarillion as a better creation myth than Genesis, and it is rightly sold in the fiction section of bookstores. (Although I do think Quinn's interpretation of Genesis as presented in the book Ishmael is an interesting take, though.)

The analogy is absurd on a number of counts, so I won't address it.

, The analogy is intentionally silly, but has some very serious points that should be addressed. It is relevant on a number of counts that should be addressed. Perhaps you could tell me what is absurd about it and see where we agree and disagree about its relevance. I thought parables were an acceptable form of communication with Christians ;) You have, however, ignored my most serious point which is that Christians personally pick and choose what lessons to take from the Bible, which undermines any claim that it has instructions or knowledge of any type of absolute morality.

There we go, fixed it for you ;) No pun intended with the "I am", it was just the grammatically correct replacement.

So you think God was satisfied with Jephthah? He could have been disgusted with what happened, and yet He managed to work the situation toward some good despite it all. It wouldn't surprise me if all the ancillary stuff involved in Jesus's crucifixion disgusted Him, yet that was how God demonstrated His love for us.

I think that a God of the type imagined by Christians (moral, benevolent, etc.) would disapprove, yes. However, my point is that you have to read into it what you want to see. It sounds now like we have God as more of a utilitarian moralist who is willing to violate a law of absolute morality of his own making for a greater good. Not so absolute anymore… Should the commandment "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" be amended to something else to allow for this or is it absolute somehow? Perhaps, “Though shalt not murder unless I say so or otherwise passively encourage it�

Actually, on that last one, I have a serious question. Would you murder someone if God wanted you to?

 

[coelacanth]

I'll temper my remarks with this addendum: my case is much stronger than those of the skeptics. I have provided ample reasons which demonstrate Jepthah's daughter's perpetual virginity. Since the skeptics did not see fit to attempt to disprove them, but instead attacked me personally, they engaged in the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem. :halo Then to top it off, one of them saw fit to trot out his dead horse of the red herring.

Do they care to vie for the coveted trifecta of logical fallacies in this thread?

A strawman was created, and you beat it up pretty good with nobody stopping you. On the points that I actually raised as being problematic, "your case" is practically non-existent, although I see after the post I have quoted above you posted a couple links to someone else's case. I'll give them a read, though if you are prepared to discuss them. Mostly your posts have consisted of derision, scorn, and accusations of logical fallacies without explaining or pointing out where such fallacies exist. If you are prepared to discuss, by all means, lets raise the level a bit shall we? Raise counterpoints. If you see a problem with the "skeptics'" arguments, articulate what those problems are are so that we can advance the discussion. And please don't tell me this post qualifies as another ad hom. It is aimed at your premature conclusions and weak or nonexistent arguments, not you as a person.

 

[coelacanth]

@coelacanth: Thanks for the excellent thread! I personally see that Christians use their own morality in order to decide (and interpret as seen by Captain Sarcastic) what to follow and what not to follow in their texts. Despite the assertation, it is not as 'black and white' as they'd like to claim.

Thanks sani

 

[Guest]

Since the skeptics did not see fit to attempt to disprove them, but instead attacked me personally, they engaged in the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem.

Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy which attempts to discredit a person's argument by addressing the person rather than the argument. An ad hominem is not necessarily a logical fallacy, but it is a personal attack.

Argumentum ad hominem: You're wrong because you're stupid.
Ad hominem: You're stupid.

 

[Guest]

You don't gain your morality from the Bible, only the parts you agree with or are generally found by society to be moral.

I do not understand this objection. What do you mean by "gain your morality from the Bible?"

 

[coelacanth]

With this in mind, and while still pondering the mystery of my box of tapes on the OJ trial, I wonder. In what manner does the subject actually concern the original poster? It has been clearly stated, "It is this part that concerns me."

What concerns me is that people believe in this God, mainly the selective blindness and buffet-line morality of those who think the Bible has any real ties to absolute morality.

Maybe he is tilting at windmills.

This could mean many things, if you are advancing it as a serious conjecture, please elaborate.

Perhaps he seeks to right the social wrongs of yesteryear.

The past can’t be changed, and whether or not there is even historical accuracy to this one is something I am relegating to being a side issue for now. I haven’t quite gotten my time machine working yet ;) I think something is wrong with my flux capacitor
Social wrongs today can be remedied and changes can be made for the future.

Perhaps it is a case of being constantly vexed by God's so-called injustice?

Insofar as it is a work of literature, I find the injustice to be unpalatable in the character of God, yes. There is no personal distress about any actual occupant of the chair of “God†in reality. I’m quite comfortable with that.

Is his seemingly overwrought mind filled with philosophical dysphoria toward God Himself or man?

Man.

Why does he seem to single out Christians to address what he calls a question?

It’s a Christian forum. Should I have gone elsewhere and asked someone without ties to Judeo-Christian theology this question?

If the original post does not qualify as a question, what would you call it?

Can he hope to convince even one believer or be himself convinced by anyone?

Things can be learned by individuals on any side in a serious debate, and it is sometimes difficult to predict precisely what those things will be.

 

[coelacanth]

You don't gain your morality from the Bible, only the parts you agree with or are generally found by society to be moral.

I do not understand this objection. What do you mean by "gain your morality from the Bible?"

I mean, as an addendum and clarification of what I have said thus far, that:
1) there are moral lessons as well as immoral lessons in the Bible.
2) It cannot be claimed that the Bible is a source of absolute morality.
3) Many (I'd even say almost all) Christians are guilty of buffet-line morality when it comes to the Bible.

 

[Guest]

1) there are moral lessons as well as immoral lessons in the Bible.

Clarify what you mean by lesson.

2) It cannot be claimed that the Bible is a source of absolute morality.

What do you mean by absolute morality? And why can the Bible not be a source of said morality?

3) Many (I'd even say almost all) Christians are guilty of buffet-line morality when it comes to the Bible.

I would agree many Christians do pick-and-choose.

 

[coelacanth]

Coelacanth
The incident does not shake my faith in the least. I believe God judges righteously and therefore am content to leave it in His realm which alone is His.

I was not expecting it to rock the foundations of your faith, duval. Sadly, I read the second sentence as evidence of Christian-inspired learned helplessness, willful ignorance, and stagnation of the intellect. I hope I am wrong about that :yes

The Bible contains numerous passages warning against rash and hasty decisions we may make.

Yes, 1 Cor 3:18-20 and Proverbs 3:5-6 are also similar warnings about what I am doing right now, but are based on unsupported premises and can be thrown into the immense pile of coercive verses in the Bible.