Questions about Jews, Judaism and so on.

Status
Not open for further replies.
random
I'll rather answer your question than start the pointless discussion on how people tend to distort Judaism. :D
Mind explaining what about what Silouan said was so offensive?
Sorry for bringing so many LINKS - but I couldn't choose just one or two...
When you'll have time and IF you'll have the will, I do suggest to read through them - I'm sure you'll be surprised many times. :D
Good luck!
I appreciate it, but I'm really not looking for anything too in-depth. Since I was willing to summarize one link, any chance you'd be willing to summarize 12?
 
Semitic gods (or their priesthoods) tended to demand that you sacrifice your animals, your virginity, and sometimes your children.

No further reading is needed...
And you can definitely guess my opinion on this IDIOCY.

Animal and children sacrifice are in the Torah, and religious historians tend to accept that they were part of ancient Judaism, as well as that original Judaism wasn´t monotheistic as we understand it today. So it´s not as idiotic as you seem to think.
 
[C]hildren sacrifice [is] in the Torah...
Where exactly? I've seen this claim thrown around a lot, but the only things I can think of are God's command to sacrifice Isaac, which didn't go through, the curses that state that the people of Israel may one day have to eat their children, which would be a consequence of turning away from God, not an act of service to Him, and one of those long, repetitive, and seemingly pointless lists I just sort of skimmed, which could have all kinds of crazy stuff hidden in them nobody would ever know about. But yeah, I could have forgotten something, so feel free to point it out to me.
 
JEELEN
Yes it is - cause none of those "scientists" consider it Divine.
And as such, they can "juggle" it whichever way they want.
Which I simply despise.

Algeroth
I have a very direct opinion on all this "archeology" - easiest way to speak nonsense with a wise face.
Sorry.

random
Mentioned the above/quoted point.
This is enough to consider such an "expert" as a total nothing.
You all can call me whatever you want - but for ME, Torah is Divine, and thus all this "archeojunk" simply is irrelevant.
Not to mention, quite unreliable as a source.
Oh, and VERY good question about "poor children" - I was too lazy to point it out as an utter nonsense...

I'll summarize later on, I'm gonna go now.
 
Is there any truth to the joke that if there are two Jews arguing in a room there will be three different opinions?
 
random
OK, here we go.
I'm gonna summarize each link separately. :D
Will LOOK like quotes for easier READING.
These are MY posts though.
#1 said:
It's quite often that people "sacrifice" outwardly, but "inflate their ego" inwardly.
For Abraham, this was a test to show the opposite notion.
#2 said:
Abraham was ready to obey this obvious contradiction to G-d's previous promise.
And this alone was that was asked for - so nothing actual happened.
#3 said:
The entire episode was in order to strengthen the commitment to LIVE, but to live as G-d wants us to.
[QUOTE#4]
This was to show the ALL commandments must be fulfilled because G-d wants us to, not because WE want so.
[/QUOTE]
#5 said:
Um.. just basically retelling the story.
#6 said:
Not everything that we see as bad, is so.
Usually, it's the other way around.
#7 said:
Way of life is the best sermon.
#8 said:
Why is this TENTH test - the MAIN and DECIDING of them all?
Cause he showed an example for others.
An example of how to sacrifice not your life, but your SELF.
#9 said:
Why Abraham didn't argue for his son?
Cause you should argue when you see punishment (even argue with G-d), not when you're asked to do G-d's will.
#10 said:
Again, the true test of one's strength and devotion is when NOBODY sees it, but G-d.
And this test's power is working till this very day - to let people LIVE for G-d, the same way they would DIE for Him.
But living - is higher.
PHEEWWW... DONE!!! :D
 
JEELEN
Yes it is - cause none of those "scientists" consider it Divine.
And as such, they can "juggle" it whichever way they want.
Which I simply despise.

Algeroth
I have a very direct opinion on all this "archeology" - easiest way to speak nonsense with a wise face.
Sorry.

Well, since you seem not very accustomed with archaeology (including Jewish archaelogy), it seems rather inane to lump them all together as ´archeojunk´. It is not a scientist´s task to judge wether things are ´Divine´ or not, by the way - this notwithstanding, there are plenty of scientists with (private) religious convictions.

random
Mentioned the above/quoted point.
This is enough to consider such an "expert" as a total nothing.
You all can call me whatever you want - but for ME, Torah is Divine, and thus all this "archeojunk" simply is irrelevant.
Not to mention, quite unreliable as a source.

The Torah is quite unreliable as a source? :confused:

Where exactly? I've seen this claim thrown around a lot, but the only things I can think of are God's command to sacrifice Isaac, which didn't go through, the curses that state that the people of Israel may one day have to eat their children, which would be a consequence of turning away from God, not an act of service to Him, and one of those long, repetitive, and seemingly pointless lists I just sort of skimmed, which could have all kinds of crazy stuff hidden in them nobody would ever know about. But yeah, I could have forgotten something, so feel free to point it out to me.

References in the Tanakh point to an awareness of human sacrifice in the history of ancient Near Eastern practice. The king of Moab gives his firstborn son and heir as a whole burnt offering (olah, as used of the Temple sacrifice). It is apparently effective, as his enemy is promptly repelled by a 'great wrath' (2 Kings 3:27). In the book of the prophet Micah, one asks, 'Shall I give my firstborn for my sin, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?' (Micah 6:7), and receives a response, 'He has shown all you people what is good. And what does Yahweh require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.' (Micah 6:8) The Tanakh also implies that the Ammonites offered child sacrifices to Moloch. In Leviticus 18:21, 20:3 and Deuteronomy 12:30-31, 18:10, the Torah contains a number of imprecations against and laws forbidding child sacrifice. James Kugel argues that the Torah's specifically forbidding child sacrifice indicates that it happened in Israel as well.[4] Mark S. Smith argues that the mention of "Topeth" in Isaiah 30:27–33 indicates an acceptance of child sacrifice in the early Jerusalem practices, to which the law in Leviticus 20:2–5 forbidding child sacrifice is a response.[5] Jon D. Levenson, Susan Nidditch and Susan Ackerman have stated that at least some Israelites believed child sacrifice was a legitimate part of ancient Israelite religion.[6]
Genesis 22 relates the binding of Isaac, in which God tests Abraham by asking him to present his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. No reason is given within the text. Abraham agrees to this command without arguing. According to the text, God does not want Abraham to actually sacrifice his son; it states from the beginning that this is only a test of obedience. The story ends with an angel stopping Abraham at the last minute and making Isaac's sacrifice unnecessary by providing a ram, caught in some nearby bushes, to be sacrificed instead. Francesca Stavrakopoulou has speculated that it is possible that the story "contains traces of a tradition in which Abraham does sacrifice Isaac.[7] Richard Elliott Friedman has argued that the story may have originally had Abraham carrying out the sacrifice of Isaac, but that later repugnance at the idea of a human sacrifice led a redactor to add the lines in which a ram is substituted for Isaac.[8]
Another instance of human sacrifice mentioned in the Tanakh is the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11. Jephthah is victorious in battle against the children of Ammon and vows to sacrifice to God whatsoever comes to greet him at the door when he returns home. The vow is stated in Judges 11:31 as
"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." When he returns from battle, his virgin daughter runs out to greet him. That he actually does sacrifice her is shown in verse 11:39 "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". This example seems to be the exception rather than the rule, however, as the verse continues "And she was a virgin. From this comes the Israelite custom that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.".There you go. (Easy to find, just by googling it.)





 
random
Mentioned the above/quoted point.
This is enough to consider such an "expert" as a total nothing.
You all can call me whatever you want - but for ME, Torah is Divine, and thus all this "archeojunk" simply is irrelevant.
Not to mention, quite unreliable as a source.
Oh, and VERY good question about "poor children" - I was too lazy to point it out as an utter nonsense...
If you're referring to the blogger I linked to, he wasn't really an expert, just an Orthodox deacon who's studied the Old Testament presenting a neat perspective on it.
I'll summarize later on, I'm gonna go now.
Thanks for that. Seems pretty similar to most of the Christian material I've read on the subject.
None of that really promotes child sacrifice. The Jephthah example could be disputed I guess, but given the general attitude toward human sacrifice seen elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures and the fact that Judges records a lot of Israel ignoring morality in rather bizarre ways, I'd say its audience wouldn't take it that way and neither should we.
 
random
Well, obvious moral truths/examples stay such, regardless of "religion". :D
Anything more?

As of "children" and the stupid attempts to make Ancient Jews LOOK polytheistic.
SIMPLY CRAP.
Sorry but true.
Same goes for the "scientific theory" (used in Civ :lol:) that polytheism was a prerequisite for monotheism.
According to what I consider to be true (Torah), it's wrong logically - cause even the first Man (Adam, who else?) was clearly "monotheistic" (though not Jewish).
Polytheism is nothing more than a religious bureaucracy that grew up into being a "religion".
But G-d wasn't neither "invented" or even "reached" (meaning, at some later moment in history) - Adam definitely knew his Creator and even spoke with Him.
 
As of "children" and the stupid attempts to make Ancient Jews LOOK polytheistic.
SIMPLY CRAP.
Sorry but true.
Same goes for the "scientific theory"
Does your religion require you to dismiss theories without having any particular notion what they have used to support it by using the rocksolid argument "simply crap", in favour of a religious text despite the scientific evidence?

Aren't you afraid that by dismissing and ignoring the scientific view you might miss an insight into your cultural background?

How do you feel about this quote by a Jewish Scholar? (paraphrased)
"We need to understand the historical content of the Bible to understand our culture, we need to understand the spiritual content to understand our religion." He's arguing: "You don't need historical accuracy to get to the true spiritual message, you don't need the spiritual convictions to get to the true historical facts.". Being mindful that you have promoted the two (historical and spiritual content) to be the same.
 
None of that really promotes child sacrifice.

Keep in mind that there are two reasons for sacrifice. The first is to please the gods. The seconds is to prevent the wrath of the gods. These are not the same thing, but either motivation still constitutes `sacrifice`.

Given that, the sacrifice ordered by Samuel is glaring. He literally tells the people to go kill babies. AND it is very clear from the subtext that if they do not, God will be angry.

The mass slaughter of women and babies AND of livestock really is a type of sacrifice. IF the people had kept some of the goats (for example), God would have punished them. They HAD to spill all that blood.
 
Ziggy
The easiest example:
If you dismiss that Creation took place LITERALLY in SIX days - you're destroying the very idea of the SEVENTH day of rest as a reminder of the Creation.
There are more examples, how saying "it's all cultural" instead of real history, will lead to simply dismissing very important things.
So my view is - either it's all real-life truth, or it's worth nothing.
I prefer the first.

EM
That's the weirdest "description" of the term "sacrifice" I've ever heard.
Not to mention it was a direct command to "eradicate the MEMORY of Amalek" - an act of vengeance, not "sacrifice".
And you made it look as a command from SAMUEL, instead of G-d.
Which is, sorry, but just stupid.
Or did Nazis "sacrifice" Jews too???
To Hitler.
 
And you made it look as a command from SAMUEL, instead of G-d.

The command DID come from Samuel. The soldiers were obeying him, but they assumed that it was G-d making the commandment.

It is like Osama bin Laden telling the soldiers to go kill civilians. He claims to speak for God, but the soldiers assume he is talking for God.

And yes, I know you insist that the soldiers had to kill babies and goat out of vengeance for something done generations earlier. But, given that it was a divine commandment, and given that it was performed to avoid the wrath of a god, it is a sacrifice.
 
There's something unnerving about a God childish enough to succumb to vengeance. There's something equally unnerving about people using the motivation of vengeance as a justification for infanticide.
 
Ziggy
Quite the opposite.
Also, "rationality" is quite a personal choice thing - you CHOOSE what becomes "reasonable" to YOU.
I chose G-d.
As of honest - when did I ever say anything opposite to what I say now???
I always made it clear about my preferences.
EDIT:
You obviously DIDN'T read what I brought about Amalek...
They were basically the NAZIS of their time.
Actually, worse.
(Nazis weren't a NATION of murderers.)

EM
We definitely understand "sacrifice" differently.
Your view reminds of the pagan one, sorry.
When I say sacrifice, I mean giving something YOURS to G-d, not KILLING someone.
Therefore "children sacrifices" in my terminology means something like Moloch, a definitely NON-Jewish style.
And all those "Israelites worshiping pagan deities" was exactly how it sounds, PAGAN deities, not JEWISH.
Transgressors are NOT a "proof" for any rule.
Or you end up saying, it's permissible to steal - just look at the world's corruption.
 
Well, keep in mind that the concept of 'sacrificing prisoners to the gods' is a long-standing one.

Look, if you're stabbing babies to please a god, then yeah, it's "murdering babies to please the gods".
 
Question to anyone of the Jewish faith besides civ2, since I want to stress that we've only been hearing one person's view on this matter. Do you agree with the sentiment displayed?
 
EM
Exactly my point.
YOU are speaking of "pleasing G-d", I'm speaking about "fulfilling His command".
For YOU, it's the human's attempt to "get something from G-d" (or I prefer saying gods in this obviously pagan context).
For ME, it came from G-d, as a command, not a condition for "getting something" or "not being punished".
That's where we differ.
YOU do "in order to get through".
I do "cause G-d told so".
Side note:
And the people we call Prophets, were "practically tested" many times before they were considered trustworthy.
So, it couldn't be some passer-by to "tell the G-d's Will" - nobody would listen to him.

Ziggy
Yeah, you can wait for it... :lol:
Just keep in mind that I didn't see too many people of Jewish FAITH here, not just origin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom