Which religious group?

[Benny Holiday]

Thanks BeBop, you reminded me that I didn't get to my 2nd point regarding why God moves so powerfully in some lives and not others in my earlier post lol (I wrote "firstly", but forgot the other point!).

In Matthew 12, the religious leaders asked Jesus to perform a miracle especially for them, and then they would believe Him. They asked Him even though they had already seen Him do so many miraculous things. Jesus denied them, because no matter how many miraculous things they saw, they would never believe.

So it is with someone who isn't interested in the spiritual. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, because they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." That's why you think religion foolish and that believers are 'blind' or have 'blind faith'.

I'm not criticising you for your own beliefs - I hope it doesn't come across that way. I'm just trying, as best I can, to explain, from my point of view, why you made the reference "Today too much light has been shed to still depend on the blind to lead us." And to argue, amiacbly, that I'm not as blind as you might think!

 

[Bebop]

Thanks BeBop, you reminded me that I didn't get to my 2nd point regarding why God moves so powerfully in some lives and not others in my earlier post lol (I wrote "firstly", but forgot the other point!).

In Matthew 12, the religious leaders asked Jesus to perform a miracle especially for them, and then they would believe Him. They asked Him even though they had already seen Him do so many miraculous things. Jesus denied them, because no matter how many miraculous things they saw, they would never believe.

So it is with someone who isn't interested in the spiritual. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, because they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." That's why you think religion foolish and that believers are 'blind' or have 'blind faith'.


I'm not criticising you for your own beliefs - I hope it doesn't come across that way. I'm just trying, as best I can, to explain, from my point of view, why you made the reference "Today too much light has been shed to still depend on the blind to lead us." And to argue, amiacbly, that I'm not as blind as you might think!

I don't mind being criticized for my beliefs. It seems to go along with not believing by consensus.

What I said seems to be ignored. Quoting the bible does not mean a thing to me. Facts do. There is no argument for bible quotes. There are many places in the bible that can be quoted, that can be very horrible and would not be accepted in todays society. You must know that you are quoting a book that was written a very long time ago, for a very different society, by people in need to control this society. If you don't believe that, you are only fueled by faith.


I don't see you personally as a blind leader. I see religion as the blind leader. You are just a follower, or part of the flock, that does not seem to need proof. Is that not what religion asks of you? Follow but don't ask too many questions and if you do, accept our answers without asking any more questions? I don't want to criticize your beliefs either and I hope you don't take it personal. I am talking about religion in general. For example, why mutilate childrens genitalia? I know some religions do and some don't, but why does religion accept this at all? Why does society accept it? These are not rhetorical questions. They are questions I have asked with an open heart and mind and have never recieved a factual answer. I believe it is because there is no reason other than belief by consensus. That is how many of my religious questions end up answered. "You have to believe like the rest of us to know what it's like". [huh]

 

[Benny Holiday]

Well I won't criticise you BeBop. Because I believe differently from you doesn't mean I don't respect you or your opinions. I've enjoyed reading allof your posts on the Lounge since I discovered this place and I enjoy discussing points of view with other intelligent, thinking adults.

I have proof for my faith that I imagine you would not believe or perhaps see as valid. However, I do ask questions and look for answers, not, as you say, that answers are always forthcoming. And I can only answer from the perspective of the Christian Bible. If, as I understand it, the mutilation you're referring to is the 'c' word (enough to make any man cringe and shudder), the early Christian Apostles opposed it. It was given by God to the Jews in the Old Testament, as a sign of the convenant between God and them. It isn't mentioned as being done for the improved health of boys, although that is a huge debate going on here in Australia these days, and with a lot of the Levitical laws aimed at preserving the health and well-being of the ancient Israelites, if there is indeed any health benefit to the practise God may have had that in mind also. But in the early Church it was spoken against.

With the Bible, one must indeed be very careful to take into account the culture of the time and the context in which any verse or part is being read. For instance, the command God gave the Israelites in Deuteronomy 20 to destroy the Amorites, Canannites, and others who lived in the lands the Israelites were to conquer sounds like murder and genocide to our modern ears. At the time, though, those peoples were practising child sacrifices in worshiping their idols, a practise God called "detestable" and "an abomination". He knew that if the Israelites didn't destroy those people, the tribes would intermix and intermarry and the Israelites would be turned towards following some of those terrible practices too. And that's what happened.
Did God want to destroy those people? No. In Ezekiel 33, God says "As surely as I live . . . I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways an live." But sacrificing children to Molech and its attendant grisly and perverted rituals could not be allowed to continue and spread.

It's good have a searching heart and an inquiring mind. You're not the only one who has questions, believe me!

 

[dr greg]

nothing much changes

With the Bible, one must indeed be very careful to take into account the culture of the time and the context in which any verse or part is being read. For instance, the command God gave the Israelites in Deuteronomy 20 to destroy the Amorites, Canannites, and others who lived in the lands the Israelites were to conquer sounds like murder and genocide to our modern ears. At the time, though, those peoples were practising child sacrifices in worshiping their idols, a practise God called "detestable" and "an abomination". He knew that if the Israelites didn't destroy those people, the tribes would intermix and intermarry and the Israelites would be turned towards following some of those terrible practices too. And that's what happened.
QUOTE]

I recall seeing one of those endless SBS docos about the bible in which archaelogists clearly stated that there was no historical or cultural evidence at all for the allegations of child murder against the Canaanites etc, it was merely a post-hoc justification for invading their land because the Israelites wanted it. The child-murder routine has been one of the classic con-jobs of history, used whenever required to justify taking things that don't belong to you.
The Romans accused the Carthaginians of it, mediaeval Christians burnt Jews alive for supposedly doing it and so on right down to the Kuwaiti babies supposedly torn from the humidicribs by them evil Irackies. That was proven to be utter lies cooked up by a PR company hired by the Pentagon.
Remember as well the huge wave of accusations in the US about 'Satanist child sacrifice" which channelled millions of dollars towards psychiatrists and organisations that pushed the fiction, and that was what it was because no evidence at all was ever found for any of it.
The point being...don't believe everything you read. Or are TOLD!
It's just someone's opinion without evidence to the contrary.

 

[carter]

Originally posted by Dixon Cannon pg...somewher near the middle of this thread
Me? I believe in a Science of Religion and a Religion of Science. I believe in one Infinite Intelligence back of all that exists. I believe in our oneness with It and with all creation. I believe in the consciousness of Christ.

At risk of being run out on a rail, I have to say this is a very entertaining thread,
Having been a member at various times of the Evangelical United Brethren, United Methodist, Episcopalian, and Church of Christ branches (I hesitate to say sects) of Christianity, I have finally decided that I am simply a "Christian" in my beliefs.
If I didn't, the fact that these groups constantly recruit from each other would be maddening. It's like trading day or the draft. If 1/2 the money spent on larger edifices and better parking lots and better Youth Group outings was actually spent on ministering to the needy, downtrodden, and suffering in our own country and the world, Christianity would be a far more positive force in the world. If someone who lives in a country where they have either Protestant or Catholics si confused by the varieties of faith-based groups in the US, what do nations with no basis in Christianity see? What do they perceive?
I have friends who are missionaries in South America, Thailand, Ireland, and India. They all struggle for funding to keep their ministries alive. They all come back to the US to make speeches and give slide shows to raise money. It's not a glamorous life and some finally decide to come home, not because they have lost faith or their care forothers but, because they are exhausted.
If the nation that is the largest consumer of the world's products was the largest exporter of care and hope in the world, our entire existence would make far more sense.
Which brings me to the quotation at the top of this response. We on this planet are all ONE. Like it or not, we're all in this life together. The sooner we come to realize this and embrace it, the sooner we can get on with acting like Christ or any other great Teacher whether someone believes they were the Messiah or not.
All the debate is entertaining and, I suppose, fulfilling at some level but the essence of faith, any faith, lies in actions, not for oneself to achieve some mystical goal, but to, bring us into that oneness and consciousness spoken of above.

End of sermon. Now I'll go back to the corner.

ps. I haven't visited a Zen Baptist meeting yet, but I'm looking for one.

Peace, Carter

 

[Dr Doran]

In the end, people will believe what they want to believe. Some prefer to be atheists because they feel that their freedom is being threatened by religious inhibitions if they joined one. They may feel convicted, or even almost enlightened by the truth but may make excuses not to accept it because for fear of inhibitions. I heard one preacher say that some people don't want to be Christians because porno was more pleasurable to them.

Absolutely false, my good Gilbey. I do not "believe what I want to believe," and never have. Ever. I am a historian. (Most of us are, in some way.) I believe the most plausible hypothesis considering the available evidence. Period. I would prefer to think Julius Caesar did not kill one million Gauls. However, the evidence is that he did kill such a huge number as that. There is no preference in my following the evidence. I am not pleased with the genocide of the Gauls. I do not "want" to believe it. In fact, it makes me sick. But that is where the evidence lies. In his letters to the Senate, in reports of the Senate that have survived, in other reports of the massive slaughters that occurred, in the other historians (Livy, Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch) who mention it, in the coinage celebrating his victories, in the countless incidental mentions of many Gallic slaves coming into Rome.

I would vastly prefer that a benevolent being existed who was omnipotent. I have simply found no evidence for this other than other people's convictions and reports of sensations they have had and, I admit, beautiful stories (such as the heartbreakingly beautiful one of the Crucifixion, a wonderful story) and that is it. But the Oresteia of Aeschylus is beautiful too, in a similar way, and I do not believe it really happened. I do not believe that the goddess Athena, with Zeus' help, set up human society's first court system to make a better way of dealing with murder than the previously prevailing system, vendetta-killings and revenge.

While we are on the subject, I do not and never have "preferred to be an atheist because I felt my freedom was being threatened by religious inhibitions if I joined one." This has never, never, ever happened. Inhibitions or lack thereof have had zero effect on my "choice" of being an atheist. There are no inhibitions involved whatsoever. I am led inch by inch by a preponderance of evidence and nothing more. Sure, there might be a god. Any sort of god. It might resemble an octopus or Cthulhu more than a person. It might have no caring for the human race whatsoever. It might not even know we exist. It might have made ants as its special creation and we are only an epiphenomenon of its real purpose. There might be many gods. There are and have been many gods worshipped, that's for sure. As a historian I would more readily believe in a malevolent or uncaring god than otherwise.

I love almost all of Jesus' ideas. He was a genius, a great leader, a moral visionary. I hold him in the highest, highest regard. I can imagine a shrine in my house to him. Alongside shrines to other great people and great things, like Aeschylus. What connection his fine words and beautiful sentiments have to the events that have happened through history, the calamities, disasters and deaths on monstrous scales, is unproven.

If there is an uncaring god, I would regard it as a sign of bravery to REFUSE to worship it even if the punishment were pain in a Hell forever. I would consider myself a coward to worship a malevolent god, and I would have no respect for myself. I'll take eternal pain and torture over no self-respect.

TECHNICALLY speaking I am an agnostic. However, technically speaking, everyone is an agnostic since there is insufficient evidence either way (unless one's standard of evidence is quite low for this one thing and quite high for everything else -- or, worse, quite low for all things equally, in which case you must make some pretty bad decisions with your money, your marriage choice, and everything else). I call myself (somewhat improperly) an atheist because, yes, I have a strong suspicion (no proof, clearly) that there is no omnipotent eternal entity. My standards for evidence for all things I am willing to believe are high across the board and I have not found evidence for such a thing. I have looked, and it has not appeared. There is nothing I would like more than to believe in one (or more -- why not?) benevolent entities like that. It would make life rosier. I have not seen any. By an utterly remarkable coincidence, these entities are supposed to be invisible and untouchable. Even unsmellable. Nor can machines pick them up even though our machines are good enough to pick up things we cannot even see or feel. Our machines are subtle to the subtlest degree. It is a remarkable coincidence that this entity would make itself impervious to the very means of detection that every single other thing on earth can eventually be sensed by. Maybe one day our machines will be subtle enough to sense these divinities. When that happens, I will be atheist/agnostic no longer.

Perhaps God is not a being. Perhaps it is an "ordering principle" and stories and fables have accreted around it through time because people sensed it and could not make words to describe it except in vaguely anthropomorphic language, through metaphors and analogies. Possible; more likely than not. But then why worship it? We do not worship gravity or the strong electromagnetic force or the principles of reciprocity or even kindness or tolerance.

I don't mean to be rude. I hope I have not been. I would like to think I have been polite all the way through in all my posts on this thread. But I want to make it clear, because I respect Gilbey and all the other smart and interesting believers AND atheists AND agnostics on this thread, that I am led to my conclusions NOT because I "want" to be led there, but strictly through (my interpretation of the) evidence. Nothing else.

Thank you for indulging this overly long post.

 

[Benny Holiday]

From Wikipedia, regarding the Canaanites:

Eissfeldt's theory: a type of sacrifice
In 1921 Otto Eissfeldt, excavating in Carthage, discovered inscriptions with the word mlk which in the context meant neither 'king' nor the name of any god. He concluded that it was instead a term for a particular kind of sacrifice, one which at least in some cases involved human sacrifice. A relief was found showing a priest holding a child. Also uncovered was a sanctuary to the goddess Tanit comprising a cemetery with thousands of burned bodies of animals and of human infants, dating from the 8th century BC down to the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC. Eissfeldt identified the site as a tophet, using a Hebrew word of previously unknown meaning connected to the burning in some Biblical passages. Most of the children's bodies appeared to be those of newborns, but some were older, up to about six years of age.

Eissfeldt further concluded that the Hebrew writings were not talking about a god Moloch at all, but about the molk or mulk sacrifice, that the abomination was not in worshipping a god Molech who demanded children be sacrificed to him, but in the practice of sacrificing human children as a molk. Hebrews were strongly opposed to sacrificing first-born children as a molk to Yahweh himself. The practice may have been conducted by their neighbors in Canaan. The relevant Scriptural passages depict Yahweh condemning such practices in harsh terms. Hebrews who made such a sacrifice were executed by stoning. Any who knew about such a sacrifice, and did not act to prevent it, were ejected from the community along with their family. [1]

Similar "tophets" have since been found at Carthage and other places in North Africa, and in Sardinia, Malta, Sicily . In late 1990 a possible tophet consisting of cinerary urns containing bones and ashes and votive objects was retrieved from ransacking on the mainland just outside of Tyre in the Phoenician homeland [2].

Further discussion of Eissfeldt's theories unfolded.


[edit] Discussion of Eissfeldt's theory
From the beginning there were some who doubted Eissfeldt's theory but opposition was only sporadic until 1970. Prominent archaeologist Sabatino Moscati (who had accepted Eissfeldt's idea, like most others) changed his opinion and spoke against it. Others followed. [citation needed]

The arguments were that classical accounts of the sacrifices of children at Carthage were not numerous and were only particularly described as occurring in times of peril, not necessarily a regular occurrence. Might not the burned bodies of infants be mostly those of stillborn children or of children who had died very young of natural causes? Might not the burning of their bodies be a religious practice applied in such cases? Need one assume the burning of live children? Could the accounts be anti-Punic propaganda? Why were accusations of human sacrifice in Carthage found only among a small number of authors and not mentioned at all by many other writers who dealt with Carthage in greater depth or were more openly hostile to Carthage? Some accounts of the sacrifices described the children as lads and lasses, hardly infants.

Texts referring to the molk sacrifice mentioned animals more than they mentioned humans. Of course, those may have been animals offered instead of humans to redeem a human life. And the Biblical decrying of the sacrificing of one's children as a molk sacrifice doesn't indicate one way or the other that all molk sacrifices must involve human child sacrifice or even that a molk usually involved human sacrifice.

It was pointed out the phrase whoring after was elsewhere only used about seeking other gods, not about particular religious practices. And should one so casually turn aside from the Greek translation made by those who may have known far more about such things than we will ever know to say that lmlk must mean 'as a molk offering' and not 'to Moloch'?

Eissfeldt's use of the Biblical word tophet was criticized as arbitrary. Even those who believed in Eissfeldt's general theory mostly took tophet to mean something like 'hearth' in the Biblical context, not a cemetery of some kind.

John Day, in his book Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge, 1989; ISBN 0-521-36474-4), again put forth the argument that there was indeed a particular god named Molech, citing a god mlk from two Ugaritic serpent charms, and an obscure god Malik/Malku from some god lists who in two texts was equated with Nergal, the Mesopotamian god of the underworld. A god of the underworld is just the kind of god one might worship in the valley of Ben-Hinnom rather than on a hill top.

The debate remains hung, waiting for more evidence, some still strongly supporting Eissfeldt's theory and others decrying it as an erroneous interpretation of what has been found. It is for some a touchy issue with accusations of racial bias occasionally being made.[citation needed]


[edit] Archaeology
A temple at Amman (1400-1250 B.C.) excavated and reported upon by J.B. Hennessey, shows possibility of animal and human sacrifice by fire.

 

[carter]

Originally posted by Doran
Thank you for indulging this overly long post.

Doran, I may not always agree with you but I applaud your reason and your willingness to speak the truth as you see it. You inspire me to consider and evalute every time I read your posts.:eusa_clap

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Doran
I don't think you have been rude at all.
.....but perhaps existing with pure love for all eternity..in perfect harmony...and sharing that peace with others just by acknowledging the great sacrifice on the cross...along with regreting succumbing to certain enticements or vices as the only requirements...seems left out of your equations. If that does exist..facing truth some day...or total perfection...might be tremendously overwhelming. Embarrassing to say the least with our foibles in comparison. Perhaps enough to feel the redfaced heat in a consuming tormenting way. A regret that won't go away. If,however one is equiped with the prior knowledge and acceptance of that savior's deeds...that the debt of not being worthy when in the presence of perfection has been fully payed....and the reasons for eternal embarrassment erased..consuming regret,perhaps,has no hold. Existing in secure and total love that we all seek here...but never find. Instead of always most deeply regreting that we didn't accept at every next moment...might be worth a few personal steps of doing so before then..one would think.
This is just another "perhaps"....unseen...unproven...but possible. It is also possible even with all our criticism..there is a God...and he is the only true love....in spite of misconceptions and even many selfserving "religions".

 

[Gilbey]

My dear Doran, no rudeness from your part at all. I see an honest intellectual seeking an evidence of the Divine. But what kind of evidence must you need to convince you? I have posted a previous thread of a letter from Werner Von Braun that deemed be reposted for this argument. Although a former Nazi, he believed in the Divine. That's the first step to take before you can believe the bible; then hearing the bible will produce your faith. I hope you will find the reality of Jesus Christ in the future, or His work on the cross would be in vain for your soul. And you know what the consequence is. Anyway, here is the letter ...

Introduction
On September 14, 1972, the following letter written by Wernher von Braun was read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford.

Dear Mr. Grose:

In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?

Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature with a Divine Intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But, must we really light a candle to see the sun?

Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet, it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God.

I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowledging the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific alternative to the current "Case for CHANCE" lies in the inconceivability, in some scientists' minds, of a Designer. The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.

We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.

With kindest regards.

Sincerely,

(signed) Wernher von Braun

Dr. Wernher Von Braun, who served as the first Director of the Marshall Space Flight Center from 1960 to 1970, is most noted for directing the development of the giant Saturn V rocket that carried men to the moon for the first time in 1969.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

My dear Doran, no rudeness from your part at all. I see an honest intellectual seeking an evidence of the Divine. But what kind of evidence must you need to convince you? I have posted a previous thread of a letter from Werner Von Braun that deemed be reposted for this argument. Although a former Nazi, he believed in the Divine. That's the first step to take before you can believe the bible; then hearing the bible will produce your faith. I hope you will find the reality of Jesus Christ in the future, or His work on the cross would be in vain for your soul. And you know what the consequence is.

Fortunately we live in a country where there are no consequences for participating in one's own religion, or not at all.

As Doran and many others will tell you, they prefer to be true to what they truly believe, or not, and will pay any price to be able to do so.

It's most unfortunate when a discussion of religion turns to suggesting that others will burn in hell if they do not follow your own belief system.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I want to add one more thing. I don't mean that it is unfortunate that there are belief systems that state that "if you do not do ____ you will burn in hell." That is anyone's right to believe that and I respect that fully. I also understand that means that some people believe I will face that fate since I do not worship Jesus.

It's quite another in the course of a discussion such as this, in my opinion, to disregard the sacred beliefs of others (and that sacred belief can include the personal & spiritual freedom to not believe) by dropping hints of future damnation if they do not see it your way.

That is all.

 

[deanglen]

I would suggest that if one feels it necessary to evangelize Loungers, it should be done according to the following guidelines, mindful that these are offered to all of us, especially those who would like to see this thread remain open. And it will not be myself that closes it, I don't bartend in this forum:


1) Since the concern for someone's soul has become personal, a PM to them seems in order. That would be the venue for discussions of pending judgement, et. cetera Otherwise, the message board begins to violate one of the basic premises of the Fedora Lounge...a place 'where no puts the bite on anyone' which I interpret to mean we seek to alienate or intimidate no one for any reason, including carrying out the Great Commission, which I might add, might even undercut that effort. Also note, you might find your initial communication gaining you the status of "blocked" by that member from further contact.

2) Secondly, It is advisble to be familar with Acts 17:21-31 to follow a fine example of a guy who was trying to bring light to the public square for tone and sensitivity to the disposition of his hearers:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17:22-31

I hope this edifies our membership and promotes the discussion in harmony with the Lounge at large.

dean

 

[GoldLeaf]

All I have to say is:

I like pie!

This may be a misguided attempt at humor I read all the posts, and you all are having a fascinating discussion. I, however, feel better staying out of it

Yay for all personal beliefs, what ever they are.

Unless you say that cake is greater than pie. Then we have problems

 

[Bebop]

Eissfeldt's theory: a type of sacrifice
In 1921 Otto Eissfeldt, excavating in Carthage, discovered inscriptions with the word mlk which in the context meant neither 'king' nor the name of any god. He concluded that it was instead a term for a particular kind of sacrifice, one which at least in some cases involved human sacrifice. A relief was found showing a priest holding a child. Also uncovered was a sanctuary to the goddess Tanit comprising a cemetery with thousands of burned bodies of animals and of human infants, dating from the 8th century BC down to the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC. Eissfeldt identified the site as a tophet, using a Hebrew word of previously unknown meaning connected to the burning in some Biblical passages. Most of the children's bodies appeared to be those of newborns, but some were older, up to about six years of age.

Eissfeldt further concluded that the Hebrew writings were not talking about a god Moloch at all, but about the molk or mulk sacrifice, that the abomination was not in worshipping a god Molech who demanded children be sacrificed to him, but in the practice of sacrificing human children as a molk. Hebrews were strongly opposed to sacrificing first-born children as a molk to Yahweh himself. The practice may have been conducted by their neighbors in Canaan. The relevant Scriptural passages depict Yahweh condemning such practices in harsh terms. Hebrews who made such a sacrifice were executed by stoning. Any who knew about such a sacrifice, and did not act to prevent it, were ejected from the community along with their family. [1]

Similar "tophets" have since been found at Carthage and other places in North Africa, and in Sardinia, Malta, Sicily . In late 1990 a possible tophet consisting of cinerary urns containing bones and ashes and votive objects was retrieved from ransacking on the mainland just outside of Tyre in the Phoenician homeland [2].

Further discussion of Eissfeldt's theories unfolded.


[edit] Discussion of Eissfeldt's theory
From the beginning there were some who doubted Eissfeldt's theory but opposition was only sporadic until 1970. Prominent archaeologist Sabatino Moscati (who had accepted Eissfeldt's idea, like most others) changed his opinion and spoke against it. Others followed. [citation needed]

The arguments were that classical accounts of the sacrifices of children at Carthage were not numerous and were only particularly described as occurring in times of peril, not necessarily a regular occurrence. Might not the burned bodies of infants be mostly those of stillborn children or of children who had died very young of natural causes? Might not the burning of their bodies be a religious practice applied in such cases? Need one assume the burning of live children? Could the accounts be anti-Punic propaganda? Why were accusations of human sacrifice in Carthage found only among a small number of authors and not mentioned at all by many other writers who dealt with Carthage in greater depth or were more openly hostile to Carthage? Some accounts of the sacrifices described the children as lads and lasses, hardly infants.

Texts referring to the molk sacrifice mentioned animals more than they mentioned humans. Of course, those may have been animals offered instead of humans to redeem a human life. And the Biblical decrying of the sacrificing of one's children as a molk sacrifice doesn't indicate one way or the other that all molk sacrifices must involve human child sacrifice or even that a molk usually involved human sacrifice.

It was pointed out the phrase whoring after was elsewhere only used about seeking other gods, not about particular religious practices. And should one so casually turn aside from the Greek translation made by those who may have known far more about such things than we will ever know to say that lmlk must mean 'as a molk offering' and not 'to Moloch'?

Eissfeldt's use of the Biblical word tophet was criticized as arbitrary. Even those who believed in Eissfeldt's general theory mostly took tophet to mean something like 'hearth' in the Biblical context, not a cemetery of some kind.

John Day, in his book Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge, 1989; ISBN 0-521-36474-4), again put forth the argument that there was indeed a particular god named Molech, citing a god mlk from two Ugaritic serpent charms, and an obscure god Malik/Malku from some god lists who in two texts was equated with Nergal, the Mesopotamian god of the underworld. A god of the underworld is just the kind of god one might worship in the valley of Ben-Hinnom rather than on a hill top.

The debate remains hung, waiting for more evidence, some still strongly supporting Eissfeldt's theory and others decrying it as an erroneous interpretation of what has been found. It is for some a touchy issue with accusations of racial bias occasionally being made.[citation needed]


[edit] Archaeology
A temple at Amman (1400-1250 B.C.) excavated and reported upon by J.B. Hennessey, shows possibility of animal and human sacrifice by fire.

What??

 

[Samsa]

I would suggest that if one feels it necessary to evangelize Loungers, it should be done according to the following guidelines, mindful that these are offered to all of us, especially those who would like to see this thread remain open. And it will not be myself that closes it, I don't bartend in this forum:


1) Since the concern for someone's soul has become personal, a PM to them seems in order. That would be the venue for discussions of pending judgement, et. cetera Otherwise, the message board begins to violate one of the basic premises of the Fedora Lounge...a place 'where no puts the bite on anyone' which I interpret to mean we seek to alienate or intimidate no one for any reason, including carrying out the Great Commission, which I might add, might even undercut that effort. Also note, you might find your initial communication gaining you the status of "blocked" by that member from further contact.

2) Secondly, It is advisble to be familar with Acts 17:21-31 to follow a fine example of a guy who was trying to bring light to the public square for tone and sensitivity to the disposition of his hearers:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17:22-31

I hope this edifies our membership and promotes the discussion in harmony with the Lounge at large.

dean

This is an excellent idea. If I am not mistaken, the purpose of this thread was to simply get a feel for how many Loungers are religious, and which religion members identify with - not a chance for people to dump on each other.

That said, I find nothing wrong with polite, open discourse about what we all believe, and asking honest questions about other people's belief systems.

 

[deanglen]

I find nothing wrong with polite, open discourse about what we all believe, and asking honest questions about other people's belief systems.

Neither do I. Thank you for your assent to the post I made, Samsa. Your encouragement is appreciated.

dean

 

[scotrace]

A plea for mercy-

Churchill once requested from his generals their plan for the prosecution of the War in Europe - and specified that the entire plan be contained on one side of a standard sheet of paper, with normal sized type.

Proverbs 25:11 "A few words fitly spoken are like apples of gold in settings of silver."


Please remember that there are people who must read all this, whether they have time to do so or not. Have mercy!! Please try to be brief?

 

[surely]

amen....

 

[Undertow]

We on this planet are all ONE. Like it or not, we're all in this life together. The sooner we come to realize this and embrace it, the sooner we can get on with acting like Christ or any other great Teacher whether someone believes they were the Messiah or not. All the debate is entertaining and, I suppose, fulfilling at some level but the essence of faith, any faith, lies in actions, not for oneself to achieve some mystical goal, but to, bring us into that oneness and consciousness spoken of above.

I really like this statement and I think this definitely applies to most Judeo-Christian sentiments, even down to how members of the Church of Satan treat one another (not exactly, but to a point).

I believe it's interesting how this notion seems to span multiple religions and, in fact, seems quite intuitive even to atheists.

Please remember that there are people who must read all this, whether they have time to do so or not. Have mercy!! Please try to be brief?

lol That really made my morning!