Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Infant sacrifice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Infant sacrifice

    It has often been argued here that God, the Jewish/Christian God didn't condone child sacrifice as did the other tribal Gods of the ANC. It is often a topic of debate with regards to Abraham and Isaac, Christians arguing that God would never have allowed Abraham or anyone else to actually follow through with the act, and that Abraham himself actually knew this to be the case.
    So, I am just wondering how you as Christians square that with Exodus 13:12-14. "You shall dedicate every son that opens the womb. Every firstborn son you must redeem." It is implied in Exodus 13 that should you not redeem your first born son, then like the first born of the animals, they shall belong to the Lord, and you shall break its neck.

  • #2
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    It has often been argued here that God, the Jewish/Christian God didn't condone child sacrifice as did the other tribal Gods of the ANC. It is often a topic of debate with regards to Abraham and Isaac, Christians arguing that God would never have allowed Abraham or anyone else to actually follow through with the act, and that Abraham himself actually knew this to be the case.
    So, I am just wondering how you as Christians square that with Exodus 13:12-14. "You shall dedicate every son that opens the womb. Every firstborn son you must redeem." It is implied in Exodus 13 that should you not redeem your first born son, then like the first born of the animals, they shall belong to the Lord, and you shall break its neck.
    Uh, that's not implied at all. Continue reading verse 15.

    Source: Exodus 13:12-15 ESV


    12 you shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb. All the firstborn of your animals that are males shall be the Lord's. 13 Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. 14 And when in time to come your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ you shall say to him, ‘By a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. 15 For when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all the males that first open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.

    © Copyright Original Source



    I.e the option of not redeeming your firstborn son does not exist. You're supposed to redeem your firstborn son, no exceptions.
    ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      It has often been argued here that God, the Jewish/Christian God didn't condone child sacrifice as did the other tribal Gods of the ANC. It is often a topic of debate with regards to Abraham and Isaac, Christians arguing that God would never have allowed Abraham or anyone else to actually follow through with the act, and that Abraham himself actually knew this to be the case.
      So, I am just wondering how you as Christians square that with Exodus 13:12-14. "You shall dedicate every son that opens the womb. Every firstborn son you must redeem." It is implied in Exodus 13 that should you not redeem your first born son, then like the first born of the animals, they shall belong to the Lord, and you shall break its neck.

      They are commanded to redeem their children.

      Exodus 13:11 “After the Lord brings you into the land of the Canaanites and gives it to you, as he promised on oath to you and your ancestors, 12 you are to give over to the Lord the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the Lord. 13 Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.

      14 “In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, ‘With a mighty hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the Lord the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.’ 16 And it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the Lord brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand.”

      Exodus 34:20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. “No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

      A person dedicated to the Lord was a person who was to serve the Lord. Samuel and Samson[1] would be considered dedicated to the Lord.

      1.He seemed more dedicated to serving his own interests for much of his life though.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
        Uh, that's not implied at all. Continue reading verse 15.

        Source: Exodus 13:12-15 ESV


        12 you shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb. All the firstborn of your animals that are males shall be the Lord's. 13 Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. 14 And when in time to come your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ you shall say to him, ‘By a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. 15 For when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all the males that first open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.

        © Copyright Original Source



        I.e the option of not redeeming your firstborn son does not exist. You're supposed to redeem your firstborn son, no exceptions.
        Obviously you are supposed to redeem your firstborn, its a command of God, by what payment and to whom I don't know, but what is the penalty if you refuse to redeem him? It is implied that if you do not redeem him then, like the animals, you must sacrifice him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Obviously you are supposed to redeem your firstborn, its a command of God, by what payment and to whom I don't know, but what is the penalty if you refuse to redeem him? It is implied that if you do not redeem him then, like the animals, you must sacrifice him.
          Uh no, that's not implied at all. The command to tell your son "all the firstborn of my sons I redeem" implies that the option of not redeeming your son does not even exist. Or if it does you would probably have to dedicate him to the Lord in the same fashion Samuel was dedicated, as Cerebrum already mentioned. In any case, sacrificing your son is not an option that's on the table.
          ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

            "No one is to appear before me empty handed."
            Or what?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              Uh no, that's not implied at all. The command to tell your son "all the firstborn of my sons I redeem" implies that the option of not redeeming your son does not even exist. Or if it does you would probably have to dedicate him to the Lord in the same fashion Samuel was dedicated, as Cerebrum already mentioned. In any case, sacrificing your son is not an option that's on the table.
              The option does exist, thats just a fact of reality. And the implication in the chapter is that, like the animals as well as all the Egyptian first born innocents that God killed, the sons, if not redeemed, should be sacrificed to him. If killing them is not the implied meaning then why else would the two stories be meshed into one?
              Last edited by JimL; 02-08-2015, 02:56 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Or what?
                Yeah, snip out everything of my post that answers your question, that's the way you debate honestly and effectively.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  Yeah, snip out everything of my post that answers your question, that's the way you debate honestly and effectively.
                  I snipped it out because it is pertinent. What is the answer? What happens if one is unable to, or chooses not to pay the price for redemption?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    The option does exist, thats just a fact of reality. And the implication in the chapter is that, like the animals as well as all the Egyptian first born innocents that God killed, the sons should be sacrificed to him. If killing them is not the implied meaning then why else would the two stories be meshed into one?
                    They're meshed into one because both redeeming the males of your livestock and redeeming your firstborn son is to commemorate the fact that God slew all the firstborn of man and animal in Egypt when Pharaoh refused to let the Hebrews go. But the fact that the option of breaking the neck of the firstborn male of your donkey (or cattle, or whatever else livestock you might have) exists, instead of redeeming it, does not mean that the option of breaking the neck of your firstborn son, instead of redeeming him exist.
                    ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      I snipped it out because it is pertinent. What is the answer? What happens if one is unable to, or chooses not to pay the price for redemption?
                      One who could not pay had other options such as the child serving with the Levites in the Tabrnacle. There were also cheaper options for other sacrifices that were mandatory, but those were for those who were poor. Those who chose to disobey would likely be more likely be exiled. There's the possibility of execution given how important this law appears to be. It doesn't explicitly list a punishment here, and those who would be judging were allowed some leeway on different rules when it came to punishment.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        They're meshed into one because both redeeming the males of your livestock and redeeming your firstborn son is to commemorate the fact that God slew all the firstborn of man and animal in Egypt when Pharaoh refused to let the Hebrews go.
                        Yes, an atrocious thing in itself.

                        But the fact that the option of breaking the neck of the firstborn male of your donkey (or cattle, or whatever else livestock you might have) exists, instead of redeeming it, does not mean that the option of breaking the neck of your firstborn son, instead of redeeming him exist.
                        Why not, that is the implication like it or not. You can assert that the only option for the first born animals is not an option for the first born sons, but the implication there is that it is not only an option, it is the implied command. Even if one should dream up another option it is not an option that is indicated in the story. The argument seems to be that there is no choice but to redeem, but their is always a choice, for both the parents and the child when he is old enough to choose.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Yes, an atrocious thing in itself.
                          Yeah, because the Egyptians were totally innocent, and had no way of protecting themselves.

                          Why not, that is the implication like it or not. You can assert that the only option for the first born animals is not an option for the first born sons, but the implication there is that it is not only an option, it is the implied command. Even if one should dream up another option it is not an option that is indicated in the story. The argument seems to be that there is no choice but to redeem, but their is always a choice, for both the parents and the child when he is old enough to choose.
                          You really know nothing about a high context society do you? Basically, unlike our own low context society, such things were taken for granted as known by the reader. In this instance what would be taken for granted is the evils of human sacrifice. What you say is not be "implied", because it was already known that God finds such things as child sacrifice immoral. In fact, it's one of the major reasons the Canaanites are about to be driven out.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Yes, an atrocious thing in itself.
                            I'm sure the babies suffered immensely before they died. Or perhaps they just died peacefully in their sleep. Who knows.

                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Why not, that is the implication like it or not. You can assert that the only option for the first born animals is not an option for the first born sons, but the implication there is that it is not only an option, it is the implied command. Even if one should dream up another option it is not an option that is indicated in the story. The argument seems to be that there is no choice but to redeem, but their is always a choice, for both the parents and the child when he is old enough to choose.
                            You've been ignoring Cerebrums argument that dedicating a person to God would mean that that person would be living with the levites, serving in the tabernacle, or possibly live as a nazirite and have continued to repeat that the passage implies that you can dedicate your son to God by breaking his neck. If you don't deal with Cere's argument I'm going to continue this discussion on the premise that you're here not for genuine discussion, but that your motives are dishonest to say the least.
                            ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                              One who could not pay had other options such as the child serving with the Levites in the Tabrnacle.
                              But you said, or quoted: No one is to appear before me empty handed. And the child is an infant and hardly capable of serving in the tabernacle.

                              There were also cheaper options for other sacrifices that were mandatory, but those were for those who were poor. Those who chose to disobey would likely be more likely be exiled. There's the possibility of execution given how important this law appears to be.
                              The punishment implied is to be exacted on the child, not the parent. The Parent obviously loses his son as a punishment for non payment, but again there is no other implication in the story other than that the child is sacrificed, put to death like the first born animals. You can suggest any possibility other than sacrifice, but you won't find those possiblities in the story itself.
                              It doesn't explicitly list a punishment here, and those who would be judging were allowed some leeway on different rules when it came to punishment.
                              Yes it does explicitly list a punishment, the parent as punishment will lose his son, and the son as punishment will lose his life. Now your argument is that the son will not lose his life, he will just lose his freedom, but again, that is a fabricated argument, not to be found in the story itself
                              Last edited by JimL; 02-08-2015, 03:32 PM.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 10-30-2020, 09:01 PM
                              28 responses
                              115 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post thormas
                              by thormas
                               
                              Started by lee_merrill, 10-24-2020, 07:58 PM
                              13 responses
                              62 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Gondwanaland  
                              Started by Whateverman, 07-26-2020, 11:01 AM
                              330 responses
                              6,601 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Electric Skeptic  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
                              1,238 responses
                              54,947 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post thormas
                              by thormas
                               
                              Working...
                              X