What evidence has your friend produced? The onus is on him. To me, the practice would sound like "geno-suicide" (or whatever the word isignatius said:
).He posted this on Facebook and, as you know, unless you call someone on what they say, the masses assume it's valid. I know that isn't fair but it's the way of the world now.genesisone said:What evidence has your friend produced? The onus is on him. To me, the practice would sound like "geno-suicide" (or whatever the word isignatius said:
Wow! Facebook as an authority! I'm impressed! (just don't ask what I'm impressed withignatius said:He posted this on Facebook and, as you know, unless you call someone on what they say, the masses assume it's valid. I know that isn't fair but it's the way of the world now.genesisone said:What evidence has your friend produced? The onus is on him. To me, the practice would sound like "geno-suicide" (or whatever the word isignatius said:
!)genesisone said:Wow! Facebook as an authority! I'm impressed! (just don't ask what I'm impressed withignatius said:genesisone said:What evidence has your friend produced? The onus is on him. To me, the practice would sound like "geno-suicide" (or whatever the word isignatius said:
He posted this on Facebook and, as you know, unless you call someone on what they say, the masses assume it's valid. I know that isn't fair but it's the way of the world now.
So, have you called him on what he has said?
Real evidence? Nope; there's a lot of racist ideologies that promulgate this kind of nonsense though. I reckon Goebbels' Big Lie technique is alive and well today as it ever was. If your friend really believes this, you might not have much luck with changing their mind, but I'd still ask them to verify how they know this 'fact'.ignatius said:
I understand that in those times, such sacrifices would have been known to Abraham... but Abraham is the Father of the Faithful. He didn't sacrifice Isaac but a ram... could this be the end of such practices?Schultz said:
That's what I was getting at. The ancestral language of Hebrew that Abraham spoke was most likely replete with such references, but since Abraham's God refused such human sacrifice and accepted the ram instead, the phrase took on a whole new meaning within the monotheistic context that Abraham founded. Much like how Christians baptised all sorts of pagan practices and linguistic idioms, so did Abraham, in a way.ignatius said:
The Lord claims the firstborn of Israel because He spared them from the final plague in Egypt. But He later permits these firstborn to be redeemed. Instead, He claims the Levite tribe in place of the firstborn of the other tribes. The Levites are the roadies of Tabernacle worship.
I know I've read various scholars books and articles suggesting pretty strongly that the dedication to the Lord of the first born was in fact an "anti" child sacrifice practice. In the sense that in some other religions people brought their children to a temple handed them over to the priests, and then...well obviously they never got them back. This practice is believed to be a sort of politically subversive act to tell those nations that did practice child sacrifice, they had it wrong, where the first born was handed over to the priests, and then handed back to the parents still alive. For the life of me I cannot recall where I read this, but I'm sure in was a pretty famous scholar of ancient Judaism, (or foot noted in a book about ancient Judaism?)....As I think about it the only book that I can think of by title that it could have been was a book titled, something along the lines of "A Study of Israel's Second God".....or something to that affect. There are relatively few scholars of ancient Hebrew religion as it's a really specialized field....ignatius said:
Argument from silence fallacy.Alveus Lacuna said:I've worked for a professor now for a couple of years who absolutely hates all religion with a passion, and teaches a class designed to systematically destroy peoples' confidence in the Bible, and I have never heard him suggest this. That in itself should tell you that its not true!
You have got to be kidding me. Do you seriously think I considered that a legitimate argument?Super Apostolic Bros. said:
First, did he clearly say that it was not "necessary" Judaic critics of Christianity say Christianity doesn't work because it is not "necessary". One response I think to the critics is that a sacrifice of a sinful person would not be effective, and besides, God say "no" to human sacrifice because murder is bad.Schultz said:
Good point! Thank you! I remember that Mary or Jesus or John Baptist was according to the Bible "dedicated" in the temple after birth.NorthernPines said:
