Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
(Edited)
And we (were) almost off the rails yet again.
First off, you will agree with me that some wars (not all) are necessary in fighting off certain evils. What if I told you the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice and that it was quite commonplace. Evidence for this? We have Biblical and Non-biblical sources:
Lev 18:21 forbade the Israelites from sacrificing their children to the Canaanite deity Molech
- This command existed for a reason... in response to people who were obviously sacrificing their children to Molech
Lev 20:2 requires that anyone who sacrifices to Molech be stoned.
2 Kings 23:10 tells how King Josiah destroyed sites in Israel where these sacrifices took places so that "no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech."
Non-biblical:
Greek Historian Cleitarchus (3rd century BC) described such ceremony:
"There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier , the falmes fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing, until the contracted [body] clips quietly into the brazier"
Roman historian Plutarch adds:
"The whole are before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums [so that] the cries of wailing should not reach the ears of the people." (Cleitarchusm on Superstition)
Archaeologists have even uncovered a site in Salammbo in modern Carthage that contains vast deposits of human bones. The soil which has ash and charcoal suggest that this wasn't a burial site. Some bones seem to be from infants and some from 2-year olds which suggest yet again, child sacrifice from the Canaanites.
So taking all of this context into account, do you still honestly think that the war against the Canaanites was not a war needed to be fought?
@ JoC
No JoC, there is no evidence that the followers of El (who were animal and human blood sacrifice enthusiasts) went to war to stop the sacrifices to Moloch.
You are also confusing the rumours of Carthage to events reputedly occurring centuries before, you seem to be conflating the Roman propaganda against their great trading rival, Carthage, with an earlier war of genocide conducted by the tribes of El. There is not a connection between the events.
The fact is the bible contains a pattern of racist and genocidal attacks, cruelty, misogyny and other crimes against humanity. There are so many examples of 'god' inspired brutality that any apologetics are useless and like your argument above, flim flam and smoke and mirrors. To try and excuse or minimise one event from the dozens that litter the bloodstained scenery of the OT is nonsense.And then to try and make that conclusion fit all the others? Balderdash abd befitting of the worst sort of apologetics.
No it won't fly.
You must take all the evidence presented together, old man. You have two Leviticus passages which hint at this Molech deity and children being sacrificed to that deity. You have a Kings passage which mentions places where children were sacrificed. Then you have extra biblical sources telling us of child sacrifice which occured in the area where the war of the Canaanites happened.
I'd agree with you. One passage or another will not convince me. Together, however, they form a stronger cumulative case. Maybe I haven't asked you yet. You've mentioned a bunch of "evil bible verses". Please cite the one which is the most bothersome to you.
@ JoC They all bother me.
What also bothers me is your attempt to justify the commands of genocide supposedly given by your god to the tribes of El to justify their atrocities.
What else would you justify in your rather warped world view? Just to save face for your Church/faith? That is the real bother. It seems that for you church nothing is anathema, and all can be justified from the destruction of the Akelemites to organised peadophilia in the modern church, with the church's cosying up to Mussolini and Hitler as a side dish.
That all 'bothers' me. Your weak attempt to ameliorate the atrocities committed by the "chosen" tribes of El is the worst of the worst kind of apologetics. No excuse.
Okay. So they all bother you equally? That's hard to believe actually but sure.
I wasn't trying to justify genocide. What I was trying to justify was the war the Israelites waged on the Canaanites. As to the language used, we can talk about that. My only point was that the attack on the Canaanites was justifiable.
@ JoC
“Completely destroy all the people: the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the LORD ordered you to do.”—DEUTERONOMY 20:17,
That's a command for genocide JoC...and inexcusable. The attack on all those peoples was justified? Sounds like a bit of propaganda to me...much like Hitler and Goebbels used over Sudetenland.
You do know one of the thousand or so Hittite gods was Ishara? Nor did they practise child sacrifice! At least no archaeologist has found evidence of such practises.
Okay. Can we agree to focus on just this order by the Lord? We good? Okay.
Just one verse after you have the explanation as to why this command is given. By the way, all the people you've mentioned, are Canaanites for all intents and purposes. Amorites, for example were mountain dwelling Canaanites.
Deuteronomy 20:18
"Otherwise, they may TEACH YOUTO DO ALL THE ABOMINATION WHICH THEY HAVE COMMITTED for their own gods..."
What abomination could this verse in Deuteronomy refer to? Among them, were child sacrifice (already explained so I won't explain this again). This was also hinted at in Genesis 15:15-16:
"... And they shall come back here [Canaan] in the fourth generation; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."
What is this iniquity? What abominations could this be? Two of them bestiality and incest (in addition to child sacrifice) come to mind. The Canaanite deity Baal, for example practiced both of these so we actually have positive evidence that these behaviors were endorsed by Canaanite culture. A solid example of incest happening in the Canaanite culture actually comes from one of the biblical characters. Remember Sodom? One man who made it out of there was Lot. Lot's daughters saw nothing wrong with having sex with their father precisely because they came from a Canaanite culture (Sodom was a Canaanite city).
A solid case could be made that the people of Israel practiced these as well, and that I do not deny. However, Canaanite society praised or endorsed these actions while the Israelites denounced these actions legally and socially. There is no question that these actions were prohibited by the Hebrew Bible. People did still break these laws, but the teaching was, these actions are wrong are are meant to be punished.
JoC,
Don't you realize that all you know about these wars is from the biased pen of the authors? Once we make a reasonable correction for that bias, we are left with little viscous Bronze Age wars that would properly be condemned as genocidal today. That's like justifying the wars against the Native Americans because a book written by their conquerors portrays it as part of the glorious, God-given destiny of the United States.
Fortunately, most of these atrocities associated with Joshua never happened. Archaeologists now know that the Israelites were little more than just another Canaanite people who assumed their new identify upon migrating to the highlands. This business of an army of Israelites coming out of Egypt is mythology, no doubt invented later to supply a glorious history for a new people.
"Don't you realize that all you know about these wars is from the biased pen of the authors?"
- That I do know. No author is totally deprived of bias. Unfortunately, this is all we have to go off of. What I find rich is atheists seem really upset about the atrocities committed in the Bible but when it's shown the reason for why certain things happen, the next argument is, "we don't know if these things actually happened." Well, if they never actually happened, why be upset over them?
I will however, contend that nowhere in the text of the Bible is there a hint of the authors trying to paint their own people in a better light than the rest of the neighboring cultures. Take for example the first 5 books of the Bible which tell how Israel became a nation. How'd it begin? With 12 brothers and 11 of them selling the other off to slavery and then later selling themselves to slavery because of a famine. If people were making this stuff up, you think they'd make their patriarchs to start off as kings of their own nations instead of slaves to another. What possible reason would the authors of the Bible have to make up the origins of their nation and make it up to be a nation of slaves?
@ JoC
and you conveniently do not mention Hittites as I am now playing your transparent game....who were not Canaanites who were a separate Semitic tribe, as different as the tribes of El were, but part of the Empire of Hisha. Nor is there any evidence, apart from unreliable bible verses, of the practises that you accuse. In fact your god only ever says he wants the land....and that speaks volumes. The tribes of El just wanted 'Lebensraum" and screw anyone already there whatever ethnicity.
It really is a breathtakingly pathetic attempt at justification to take an unproven accusation against multiple ethnicities and say it justifies murdering every single man woman and child in a geographical location....sounds more like ISIS than a benevolently guided tribe just doing the bidding of their just and loving god?
In fact it seems not too different than that which is currently happening in Israel/Palestine no? Wherever religion rears its head bloodshed surely follows, surely JoC, you can read that much history?
Focus now, old man. I'm sure you'd want to get into the "Which is the deadlier worldview?" debate. I have some points on that as well but for now, let's focus on this.
Who were these people? And what did they do? Again, the only reason why these people were clumped together in one command was because they belonged to one larger group, the Canaanites. I don't see the mention of the Chinese, or even Egyptians, or other places that did not worship the Jewish God. It is therefore more probable that the reason these groups are mentioned together is that, they're all part of a bigger group who all had similar practices.
In The Message of Deuteronomy (1993), Raymond Brown puts it this way:
"Canaanite worship was socially destructive. Its religious acts were pornographic and sick, seriously damaging to children, creating early impressions of deities with no interest in moral behavior. It tried to dignify, by the use of religious labels, depraved acts of bestiality and corruption. It had low estimate of human life. It suggested that anything was permissible, promiscuity, murder, or anything else, in order to guarantee a good crop at harvest. It ignored the highest values of both in the family and in the wider community - love, loyalty, purity, peace and security - and encouraged the view that all these were inferior to prosperity, physical satisfaction and human pleasure. A society where those things matter most is self-destructive."
I think I've shown that Canaanite worship did in fact involve human sacrifice. Now, atheists always clamor that God does nothing when evil exists in the world. We have here, an account of God commanding his chosen people to rid the world of a certain evil. And in turn, he gets painted as evil. It does seem like there's no satisfying the atheist on this matter.
Your apologetics for genocide---even a fictional genocide---is fucking disgusting. You should never make an appeal to morality after that doozie.
@ JoC
Once again you demonstrate your one eyed view...I gave you the Hittites, which you obviously know nothing about. In fact you lumped them in with your "bete noir' when they were in fact an entirely separate ethnicity and belief system, they were invaders, much like your lovely tribes of El.
Unlike the tribes of El the Hittites built cities, were herders and horsemen,. Great archers and for the time a civilising influence on the nomadic goat herders of the fringes. The Hittites had a great Empire. Are you saying that your bearded Jewish elders didn't know all this? Or maybe they just wanted to demonise those who had the lands they coveted? which is more likely JoC?
Yous story is cracked Joc, as it usually is. Cracked and broken by facts,not prejudiced words from a book that has no credibility at all. We have the archeology, the descriptions of the Hittites from the Egyptians, Sumerians, and others...we have the evidence of their civilisation, their conquests, their gods and their lives...biblical archeology just shows up the lies in the book you worship. ...
@JoC
"Well, if they never actually happened, why be upset over them?"
There a lot of graveyards and mass graves in the world, lots of trauma can be found on the skeletal remains. Unless you want to say that various religions had no part in most of the wars of the past, there is a lot of real world evidence of lots of blood on the collective religions hands. They may have controlled nearly all literature for an age or two, but they cannot control all the evidence of human history.
@JoC Re: "Lev 18:21 forbade the Israelites from sacrificing their children to the Canaanite deity Molech
- This command existed for a reason... in response to people who were obviously sacrificing their children to Molech"
Well, by his own admittance, God is a jealous god. Therefore, I would suppose it is only natural that he would get upset about them sacrificing all those children to Molech. Those stupid Canaanites obviously should have been sacrificing all those children to God, and then they would have been okay. Hell, he may have even rewarded them greatly and allowed them to take over some other tribe that was maybe sacrificing chickens to the Lord Colonel Sanders. However, like I already said, all of this is totally beside the point.
Hate to disappoint, JoC ol' boy, but I do believe I will once again decline your invitation to sidetrack away from my initial point. I have given you my opinion about war, so that will have to suffice, as I am not the least bit interested in going into any further in-depth discussions about that particular topic. Been there, done that. Got a t-shirt. And since you have obviously failed to understand what I wrote the first time, I will once again tell you that particular example I used was totally random. And the fact it happened to be about war is totally irrelevant. Google could have just as easily popped up with a bible verse/chapter relating to slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, or any one of multiple other such atrocities ordered/condoned by God in the bible. (Please see the list of references provided by Old Man in a couple of previous posts.)
You see, here is the point you seem to be trying not-so-subtly and not-so-gracefully to avoid. You stated that simply writing/recording something is not the same as teaching that same something as being correct. And I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with you on that. You are totally on point with that statement. Congratulations! Here, have a cookie....*handing over an Oreo*.... Here is the problem, though, when trying to apply that to the bible. The bible is not written simply as a "recording of events" in an unbiased manner such as to allow an individual to evaluate and draw his/her own conclusions about that particular event. Nope. Not even close. Instead, a vast majority of the bible is written very much like an overly-complicated, vague, and contradicting "instruction manual", with the supposed "inspiring author/entity" being the main character giving the commands, laws, and examples of how one should conduct himself/herself in day to day life. And let's face it, a vast majority of those commands/laws/examples are quite horrendous, to put it mildly. Therefore, your wanting to go off on a tangent to discuss the pros and cons of war is pretty much useless, and I'm simply not going to waste my time doing so. Now, I do hope that was plain enough for you to understand, because I'm afraid I might have to break out my crayons and first grade writing tablet to make that any more simple.
I see. So all this time, we really weren't having an honest conversation (as in I listen to you and you listen to me). Your bias is showing.
"Here is the problem, though, when trying to apply that (distinction between recording something and commanding it) to the bible."
- Where does this double standard come from?
"Instead, a vast majority of the bible is written very much like an overly-complicated, vague, and contradicting "instruction manual", with the supposed "inspiring author/entity" being the main character giving the commands, laws, and examples of how one should conduct himself/herself in day to day life."
- I'm assuming you're talking about some Biblical books. Doesn't seem like you know what more than half the Bible is. Look up genre and you'll see the Bible has a bunch of what Biblical scholars call historical books.
You ask me why I'm trying to discuss the pros and cons of war and the reason being, it was you who responded to my original challenge with the war against the Canaanites when my original challenge asked you to pick the most morally reprehensible thing you can find in the Bible.
@JoC Re: "You ask me why I'm trying to discuss the pros and cons of war and the reason being, it was you who responded to my original challenge with the war against the Canaanites ..."
Oooooooh..... NOW I see from where your confusion stems!..... *slapping my forehead with palm of hand*.... It all makes perfect sense now. Good thing, too, because I was just about to break out the crayons and writing tablet. (Which is never a good thing, because for some reason I still get these strange urges to eat the crayons. Never mind that, though.) Had to go back and review that original post you made that prompted my initial response. (I have included it below for easy reference.) It is now quite obvious to me that YOU are under the impression that I was responding to some "challenge" you issued involving finding the worst atrocity among all those depicted and condoned in the bible. Whoopsie! Nope. I'm afraid you were mistaken, good sir. To be perfectly honest, I didn't even really pay that much attention to that part of the post. And even if I had given it more than a passing thought, I have no desire nor intentions of jumping down into the septic tank to search around for one special turd among all the other turds. Sorry. You will have to find somebody else to play that little game with you. Although, judging from other responses so far, there does not seem to be many takers. Oh, and by the way, even if I had been so inclined to accept that "challenge", I certainly would have picked a much better example.
So, just to be as absolutely clear and simple as I possibly can without having to resort to using my over-sized writing tablet and my temptingly delicious crayons:
1. I was not responding to your challenge.
2. My response was based solely on the last paragraph/sentence in that post. ("Simply recording something doesn't mean it was taught as correct.")
3. That example I used was a totally random pick from a Google search. (Like I told you before, I was being lazy and used the very first thing that popped up.)
There. I do hope that clears things up a bit more, as I would like to try saving my crayons for a special occasion. And one other thing... As for my bias showing, could you please be more specific? I have several, so it would be helpful to know which one you are seeing. I keep meaning to organize the damn things in alphabetical order, but just never seem to have enough time. Thanks.
JoC - "This topic has been rahashed so many many times. I think everyone on here would agree that of the number of evil things in the Bible, there's got to be that one thing that's a cut above the rest. It may be best if we do just that one.
I would agree with you though that there are morally evil things in the Bible. Rape, murder, infanticide, slavery, etc. However, note that not everything recorded by the Bible is taught/endorsed by the Bible. Following that logic, a book recording the atrocities of World War 2 could actually be said to be endorsing war crimes, and the holocaust. Simply recording something doesn't mean it was taught as correct."
I see. So basically, you responded to my post without reading it. All well and good. Have a good day to you.
@JoC Re: "So basically, you responded to my post without reading it."
*annoying buzzer sound*.... Wrong. Try again. I told you I did not pay it that much attention. I read it. The whole thing. It is just that particular part did not interest me enough to give it much thought. Like I said, I had no interest in fishing around in the septic tank. Reading comprehension. It's a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime. *Big Grin*
I wonder what makes you think that. Have you read the Qur'an?
@Calhais Re: "Have you read the Qur'an?"
Nope. Cannot say that I have. (Other than a few verses others have posted on here during the last few months.) Why would I, though? Look at it this way....
I am at a gathering of some sort, and I see a guy pick up a cup from a table and drink from it. And that guy immediately grabs at his throat, starts going into convulsions and foaming at the mouth, and collapses to the floor. Now, I know I am not the sharpest pencil in the pile, but I'm pretty sure my first thought is NOT going to be, "Gee, that's odd. Perhaps I should go take a sip of whatever is in that cup to see what is wrong with it." Thanks, but I'll just stick with the drink I brought with me.
I have. And all the Hadiths. Just as reprehensible and repugnant as the Bible.
rmfr
Really, Dude? REALLY?
Let's have some fun.
Well, let's see if you got the verses right:
Leviticus {18:21} You shall not give any of your children as a sacrifice to Molech.
OK that checks. However, just because the Primitive Goat-Herders (PGH) are commanded not to sacrifice THEIR children to Molech does NOT mean children WERE sacrificed to Molech. It does not say anywhere in the Bible that anyone was sacrificing children to Molech. It ONLY says the PGHs are not to sacrifice their children to Molech. Now here is a good one for you. What was the original Hebrew word used in this verse? Was it a word that meant "kid"? As in a baby goat? That would coincide with the verse about boiling a baby goat in goat's milk...
Leviticus {20:2} Moreover, you shall tell the children of Israel, "Anyone of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners in Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone that person with stones."
OK that also checks. It also says "his offspring." However, how can we be sure those illiterates during King James time translated the Bible absolutely correctly into English? This is one thing you Absolutists shall never be able to prove.
My favorite verse to argue this is Isaiah {7:14} Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
I have actually seen the copy of this verse in Ancient Greek. My wife, my daughters, and I once took vacation to Greece to visit her granparents. During that vacation, I was able to talk with the curator of a museum. I was able to look at an Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. I was even allowed to copy down some of the text. I chose Isaiah {7:14} because me mom said my birthdate was very important. She could not remember why, but said it was important in the Bible. Of all of the 7:14 verses throughout the entire Bible, it was the one in Isaiah that really stood out.
Want to know what Isaiah {7:14} says in Ancient Greek? (I'll be back. Have to find the file.)
In Ancient Greek:
ΑΡΧΟΝΤΑΣ ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΡΤΩ ΝΑ ΕΜΑΣ ΕΝΑ ΟΙΩΝΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΝΕΑΡΟΣ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑ ΘΑ ΔΙΝΩ ΓΕΝΝΗΣΗ ΝΑ ΕΝΑ ΥΙΟΣ ΕΜΕΙΣ ΘΑ ΛΕΝΕ ΑΥΤΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΘΕΟΣ ΜΕ ΜΑΣ
Into Latin English letters:
arksontas apokalypto na emas ena oionos tou nearos gynaika tha dino gennese na ena uios emeis tha lene autos einai theos me mas.
Into English:
lord reveal to us an omen of young woman shall give birth to a son we shall say he is god with us.
So completely different. Now tell me that even 400+ years ago you Absolutists still were not contriving methods to use to enslave all of humanity.
2nd Kings {23:10} He defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
OK. Give you that one also. However, read the entire book of Joshua. It is nothing more than the Sky Faerie's command to the PGHs to slaughter all men, all women, all children, all babies, all animals, and raze the city to the ground.
There is only one problem with this. Here is just one paragraph from the research I am writing a book about that I did for 20 years spanning a time of 30 years.
Lots of maniacal genocide in the history of the Sky Faerie and his chosen PGHs.
Nope. Don't see not one damned mention of child sacrifice.
Or it was another site where those PGHs committed genocide. Remember the book of Joshua. Joshua was supposedly commanded to kill all men, all women, all children, all babies, all animals and raze the cities. Thus, if you really wish to look at it, the progenitors of your religion were also committed child sacrifice. They just took it to the extreme. Oh, and cannot forget that the Sky Faerie was sometimes magnanimous. He sometimes allowed the PGHs to keep virgins as sex slaves and sometimes keep the animals.
Besides, Carthage was completely and utterly sacked and razed by the Romans back in 146 BCE.
That's centuries after the genocide of the Canaanites was supposed to have been done in about 1400 BCE.
Hell NO! There is absolutely no justification for what your Sky Faerie supposedly commanded his PGHs.
And you dare cite a "historical novel"? Salammbô is a fictional novel based on history. I'll be back...
[Sorry y'all. I had to go laugh my ass off. Literally. And I think I tore some stitches.]
The gloves are now off...
You dumb, retarded, stupid, piece of shit-eating filth. YOU DARE TO CITE A FICTIONAL NOVEL?
Good Riddance, JoC.
rmfr
That was a bunch of hand waving and concluding in straying off topic numerous times. Let me address the few times you actually stayed on topic.
You claim that just because Israel was not allowed to sacrifice their children to Molech doesn't mean that people sacrificed their children to Molech? I'd agree with you that that's no proof. It is however, the best explanation for why a certain command exists. And why it would be so specific. I'll give you an example (a non biblical one). Say you enter a city and you see a wall that has a sign on it, "Do not urinate on the wall." If I were to see that, my own rational thinking would lead me to conclude that people have done that and that's why this rule is put up there.
Second objection: You're actually assuming I use the King James version. I do not. Catholics do not use the King James translation. Mine is the New American translation. You then go off on a rant about translation and the meaning can become different. You're mistake is in assuming a certain translation is wrong because your translation says something different. For example, just because the greek translation into english says, "young woman" doesn't preclude it from meaning virgin. How the early Jews understood it was in fact meaning a virgin. So that's what I go on (but this is an off tangent argument)
"Or it was another site where those PGHs committed genocide."
-Evidence please? I've presented mine. All you did was assert.
"And you dare cite a "historical novel"? Salammbô is a fictional novel based on history."
- I didn't quote Salammbo as the source but the location. Read it again.
"You dumb, retarded, stupid, piece of shit-eating filth."
- This has got to be the worst way to close an supposed intelligent conversation. If you're getting this riled up about this, I think you're embarrassed to admit you learned something new. Anyway, good bye to you too. I doubt we'll ever have an intelligent back and forth.
Of the First Objection
I'll give you that one.
Yes, there is archaeological evidence that there were child sacrifices in Carthage to the god Baal Hammon. And guess where all this child sacrifice originated. With the Greek myth of Cronus devouring his children. Research it. I'll even bet that Old Man knows this. He knows as much as I do about True biblical history. His focus is different than mine. My particular foci have been into the Noahacian Flood Story and the Exodus.
Thus, yes, child sacrifices were performed. ALL over the globe, in almost every primitive culture. I shall at least concede one fact. Your Primitive Goat Herders finally did realize that child sacrifices were bad. However, that does not constitute the fact that they were moral. But that is another argument.
But you need to research the true archaeological evidence for the Exodus which led up to the conquering of the Land of Canaan by the Hebrews. Also research the origins of the Hebrew people. And I'll give a couple of hints. The Hebrews were NEVER enslaved in Egypt. The Hebrew people have been proven to have originated in Assyria circa 1000 BCE. The oldest Egyptian artifact (personally seen in the museum) that mentions Hebrews dates to only circa 900 BCE.
And on what is the New American translation based? I already know. I just want to see if you know, or search to find out. I don't use any particular translation. They are all repugnant. But I do tend to use the World English Version the most. However, the versions I do have are:
1611 Authorized Version (a.k.a. King James Version)
Revised King James Version
New International Version
World English Version
English Standard Version
American Standard Version
New American Bible, Revised Edition (the only one approved for Catholics)
And all of these also include the Deuterocanon, Apocrypha, The Lost Books of the Bible, and The Lost Books of Eden. However, I think the "The Lost Books..." is a misnomer and should be renamed to "The Books Not Included..."
Then by all means, PLEASE explain how they could confuse ΝΕΑΡΟΣ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑ with ΠΑΡΘΕΝΑ or ΠΑΡΘΕΝΟΣ?
The Anceint Greek word for "virgin" is ΠΑΡΘΕΝΑ (ΠΑΡΘΕΝΩΣ) and the adjective form is ΠΑΡΘΕΝΑΚΟΣ
ΝΕΑΡΟΣ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑ
nearos gynaika
nearos = young, youthful
gynaika = woman
ΠΑΡΘΕΝΑ (ΠΑΡΘΕΝΟΣ)
parthena (parthenos) = virgin
ΠΑΡΘΕΝΑΚΟΣ
parthenakos = virginal
Reiteration: PLEASE explain how ANYONE can confuse παρθενα (παρθενως) with νεαρος γυναικα? Please explain.
I know I have not said so in any post you read, but my wife's parents were Greek immigrants. My wife was born here, first generation Greek-American, about 15 months later. They were very well versed in the Greek language. And guess what that did to me?
No you did not present any evidence. You also asserted using a fictional novel. Do some research. Salammbô is a fiction. It is even a PC game. Although the novel is based on history, it is still fictional. Dan Brown's novels Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code are also based on historical fact. They are some very enjoyable yarns to read; however, they are still fictional. And I would NOT cite them. Unless I was playing a joke on someone...
I did. I read it several times. I even tried several different searches. All come up to the same thing. Salammbô is a fiction. Now, Carthage, was a real location. The point I am making is that you use a fictional novel to cite a fictional location. How dare you?
And as said, since Carthage was utterly destroyed by Rome, that means skeletal remains of men, women, children, and babies would be found when a city is completely razed. Rome was so pissed about what Hannibal had done that they decreed that Carthage was to be utterly razed from all existence. However, some ruins are going to be found later. Yes, evidence for child sacrifices were found. Granted.
I know you are catholic; however, here is a quote by one of the preeminent rabbis today: "The truth is that virtually every modern archaeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with so very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all."
And if the Exodus did not happen when and the way it was recorded in the Bible, then the Hebrew invasion of the Land of Canaan did not happen when and the way it was recorded in the Bible.
"History is always written by the victors." I forget who said that, but I have remembered it since high school (40+ years ago). OK. Just looked it up. Misattributed to Winston Churchill and its origin is actually unknown. It might be inspired by Hermann Göring's quote: "We will go down in history either as the world's greatest statesmen or its worst villains."
History is always written by those who win the war. When two peoples rise into conflict, sometimes the loser is annihilated. Or, at least, decimated and demolished. The victors shall always write and rewrite the history of the conflict to glorify and deify their own cause, while they also criticize, belittle, ridicule, disparage, marginalize, vilify, and villainize the foe upon which the victors have committed repugnant genocide. What is written, yet unverified, history than an agreed upon myth, legend, fable?
rmfr
When did I use Salammbo as a source? Not once did I cite that novel. I cited the location Salammbo (or Salambo) in Carthage. One word that refers to two different things need to be taken as two different things).
"Thus, yes, child sacrifices were performed. ALL over the globe, in almost every primitive culture. I shall at least concede one fact. Your Primitive Goat Herders finally did realize that child sacrifices were bad. However, that does not constitute the fact that they were moral."
- I actually didn't say they were moral. What I was implying was that the Israelites saw something that was morally reprehensible and sought to weed that out of the human experience. Were they perfect? Of course not! No people are. But you'd agree with me (hopefully) that just because the people who thought Hitler was wrong before are doing morally reprehensible things now, doesn't change the fact that what Hitler did was wrong.
"History is always written by those who win the war."
- I don't get what's being argued here. If we're still in the context of the Israelites vs the Canaanites, well, the Canaanites weren't annihilated. They continued to live in the areas around Israel. Some biblical books even talk about Canaanites way after this war against them happened.
No you did not cite anything. Please show your attribution.
Reiteration:
I have done so many searches for Salammbo (or Salambo) and about 75% of the results return the same damn reference to the fictional novel Salammbô by Gustave Flaubert.
Here is a small listing of the search results.
The Novel
The Novel
An Opera
A Hotel
A PC Game
A Passenger Ship
A 7-minute Short Fantasy Film
An Austrian Film (1925)
A Literary Painting
I give up. You already made me wast a whole day doing searches. I did find some journal articles/papers. Virtually all of them say the Tophet of Salammbó in Carthage was NOT the site of child sacrifices; rather, it was a necropolis, or graveyard, where children were buried separately from the adults. Why? I do not know. The papers did not delve into that aspect. Sorry, but it is a priveleged journal articles/papers site for those who work in scientific endeavors. However, I chose to use only the Great Wiki so you can disprove my attribution.
The Tophet of Salammbó
Modern scholars argue that evidence of Carthaginian child sacrifice is sketchy at best and that these reports are more likely to have been a Roman libel against the Carthaginians to justify their conquest and destruction (the Great Wiki, which you can access).
However, some historians have disputed that child sacrifice occurred, suggesting instead that the tophets were resting places for the cremated remains of children that died naturally. Sergio Ribichini has argued that the Tophet was "a child necropolis designed to receive the remains of infants who had died prematurely of sickness or other natural causes, and who for this reason were "offered" to specific deities and buried in a place different from the one reserved for the ordinary dead". The few Carthaginian texts which have survived make no mention of child sacrifice with very few even mentioning religion at all. Child sacrifice may also have been overemphasized for effect; after the Romans finally defeated Carthage and totally destroyed the city, they engaged in postwar propaganda to make their archenemies seem cruel and less civilized (the Great Wiki, which you can access).
And what did I say in my previous post? You know, the part you could not understand? The part that was NOT an argument, but simple statement of fact. JoC: "I don't get what's being argued here." Additionally, I never said the Canaanites were annihilated. Read it again.
The above statement also applies to the Goat Herders Guide to the Universe.
If you had included the full name of the location (The Tophet of Salammbó in Carthage) it would have helped. But Absolutists rarely tell the whole truth. Hell, just telling us that Salammbó was a Tophet (necropolis, graveyard) would have been helpful. However, like Absolutists, you practice the deception of only speaking partial truth. It would have also helped if you had spelled the name correctly (Salammbó). Then my searches would have been focused on "Salammbó" instead of "Salammbo."
Thus, I am now retracting my agreement with you about child sacrifices, etc. I am now stating that the invasion of the Land of Canaan by the Hebrews was a reprehensible and repugnant act of pure immoral genocide committed by a peoples just as bad as Hitler.
rmfr
It didn't take me as long to find the location of Salambo.
https://www.google.com.ph/maps/place/Salambo,+Tunisia/@36.8411756,10.3016872,13.56z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x12fd4b30ca557c1d:0xc8f5382ff39560ff!8m2!3d36.8384001!4d10.3203215
Anyway, back to the argument. Basically, you still hold that there is not proof that the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice. I'll quote a Near East scholar Christopher Hays (Death in the Iron Age II and in First Isaiah):
"Efforts to show that the Bible does not portray actual child sacrifice in the Molek cult, but rather dedications to the god by fire, have been convincingly disproved. Child sacrifice is well attested in the ancient world, especially in times of crisis."
Now, back to you:
"Thus, I am now retracting my agreement with you about child sacrifices, etc. I am now stating that the invasion of the Land of Canaan by the Hebrews was a reprehensible and repugnant act of pure immoral genocide committed by a peoples just as bad as Hitler."
- Well, this is just rich. So you see that my argument about the Canaanites practicing child sacrifice was a possibility and was a probable reason for the Israeli invasion of Canaan and so you say we shouldn't talk about that at all. I can actually flip the entire thing on it's head and claim (using your line of reasoning) that the Allies were in the wrong in WWII and that all talk about anti-semitism or genocide should be off the table. That case would be easily won in favor of the Nazis.
@ JoC
Actually, you are partially correct. I should have specifically stated that I retract what I said about child sacrifices in Carthage.
However, what about the Hebrews practicing "foundational sacrifices?"
rmfr
Keeping to the metaphor, I doubt you ever had pair of pants to speak of; it surprises me that you know what gloves are.
Pages