Stupidest 'sin'

Post Reply New Topic

Pride is also a sin... Yet almost all Christians are massively proud of their faith, or if living in a jingoist nation (looks at America, Russia...) of their country

It's because those laws were not intended for Gentiles or even Christians. The Bible does not say that Gentiles cannot build altars or community shrines outside Israel. The Bible does not restrict Yahweh worship to Jews only. In fact, it is written (in the prophets, I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong; there might be mention of it in Moses) that Israel was to be a "nation of priests." The center of religion for the Israelites was the tabernacle and later the temple. Gentiles were welcome in the Hebrew community to worship with them. Only certain groups of people were forbidden from the "assembly," and there were specific reasons why. Since God rescued the Israelites from Egypt, the kinds of worship required of them did not apply to outsiders. Outsiders were nevertheless welcome to participate if they so desired.

Other laws, like dietary laws and such, are either ceremonial laws (laws of purity and who may enter the holy assembly to worship) or are distinguishing laws to separate God's chosen, covenant people from the heathen as a witness of Israel's devotion to the God of Abraham. If you are a Gentile and a Christian, don't worry--you can still eat pork. It's OK! It just means people can tell the difference between you and a Jew.

The laws that DO apply to Christians have to do with moral laws that do apply universally--things like prohibitions on murder, perjury, sexual impurity/immorality, and idol worship just to name a few. We are to avoid activities that have ties to false religion/idol worship. The way I read this, it includes abortion, unwelcome participation in religious rites by consuming meat offered to idols (not because it's harmful to the believer, but disrespectful to someone who observes a different religion than you), and sexual activity such as ritual prostitution and homosexuality. I mentioned abortion because I am convinced not only that it is murder but also that it too closely resembles the child sacrifices of the ancient world. Even the ancient Romans were disgusted by Molech worship and used child sacrifice customs as a justification for eliminating certain groups of people--the razing of Carthage being a prime example. And by no means is this an exhaustive list. We Christians tend to take a single reference Jesus made to Moses as the summation of our dealings with God and each other: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength; love your neighbor as yourself. This is the law and the prophets." You can't go wrong with that!

The Romans and Greeks had no problem getting rid of unwanted children by leaving them to exposure. The idea that the Romans razed Carthage because of their disgust with their religion is false, and created later by Christian story tellers. The prevalence or validity of child sacrifice in Carthage is also suspect. Additionally that razing constitutes one of the first recorded genocides

I didn't say that was the reason behind the destruction of Carthage. I said it was used to justify it. In other words, for all we know, it could have just been propaganda in order to gain support of war against the Tunisians. It reflects the historical attitudes of the Romans regarding certain kinds of ritual religious practices. Whether child sacrifice was a reality in Carthage is a whole other matter.

Personally, though, I don't see why that necessarily disproves that it happened. Carthage was a Phoenician city. The Phoenicians were Molech worshipers. Molech worship included "passing children through the fire." It's entirely plausible that this was going on in Carthage, and therefore no need to challenge the validity of it.

AngelRho - Your post, while interesting, doesn't really address my post.

Ignore the word "Christian" in my post. The god of the Jews is the same god the Christians worship, anyway.
I'm wondering why God (as defined by Judeo-Christian beliefs) would be so concerned with fabrics and colors and dimensions. The text seems to imply that these are not merely aesthetic concerns, but that there is some important underlying REASON the tabernacle must be constructed this way. Not just that God likes it that way, but that perhaps God cannot enter it if it is not thus.
This raises a lot of questions. Is God not omnipotent? Is there more spiritual significance to the physical stuff around us than we typically think? What kinds of unknown interactions may there be between the physical and spiritual realms?
Does anyone know if any modern scholars have attempted to re-create the tabernacle? I'm thinking it has probably been done, but I've not heard about it.

The 'they kill and/or eat babies' cliché has been used about virtually any group in history that someone wanted to discredit...in the early centuries AD it was used against Christians themselves, and Christians have, since gaining civil power, used it against Cathars, witches, Jews and a variety of other groups, including different Christian sects using it against each other. I believe there were claims and counter-claims of the same thing going on in Kosovo a few years back. And it was being used against Wiccans and pagans in the UK by evangelical Christians in the 1980s. It's very easy to claim it, and hard to refute it, of ancient civilisations, as any culture that practised cremation will turn up caches of burned children's bones, given the huge infant mortality rate back then. Doesn't mean the culture immolated live children any more than finding bones in the ground means someone was buried alive, but of course the rumors carry on.

And, the Irish always 'passed children through the fire', and cattle, as a traditional part of their May Day (Beltaine) rituals, and perhaps still do in some rural parts. Surviving accounts describe either leaping over a fire or (in the case of the cows) passing between two fires. Catholic clergy in the 18th-19thC tried to stamp these rituals out for the very reason that they explicitly connected them to what the Canaanites used to do in honor of Moloch. They obviously saw them as abhorrent even if they didn't involve the actual death of a child, and no doubt the ancient Israelites would have seen it the same way.

Just to be clear, the Irish do not burn their children.
Nor their cattle.

They build two bonfires and walk the cattle and/or children through the space between the fires.
No one gets hurt.

I just don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about what "passing through the fire" means.

I think the stupidest sin is the one about not mixing manmade and natural fibres, or the fibres of two plants. I forget the bible quote for this one, I'm sure it's in the old testament somewhere
Edit: Leviticus 19:19... and I thought it was one of the seven noachide laws but according to wikipedia, it's not on there.

It is true, though, that the pagan ancestors of the Irish practiced Druidism, which certainly did involve human and animal sacrifice, much like my own Pre-Christian Germanic ancestors had.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I don't recall that ever being used to justify it. Most of the justification came from Elder Cato, who was somewhat like the antiquity's Glen Beck, in xenophobic rhetoric. All his speeches ended with him claiming Carthage must be destroyed. Ultimately the justification for the destruction was Carthage's violation of the peace treaty forced upon them at the end of the Second Punic War, where they were not allowed to go on the offense militarily.

Long story short, the Romans tacitly supported neighboring Numidians in attacking Carthage, and denied the Carthaginians the right to launch attacks against the camps set up on the border. This was because even after two military defeats Carthage was still the richest, most populous city in the world, naturally making the Romans jealous. Nothing at all to do with the religion. Additionally they were not referred to as Tunisians at the time.

Carthaginians did worship Moloch but their patron saint was the Goddess Tanit, as well as Ba'al Hammon. The Roman stories of the religion are likely false, and written centuries after the fact. They left none of the Carthaginian records intact, so it is unfair to make any claims based on Roman accounts, who had every reason to lie. Even the Hebrew descriptions of Phoenicians in their homeland are not trustworthy for similar reasons

Lastly, even if they practiced ritual sacrifice, it is not our place to judge them. The Romans and Greeks willingly disposed of children by exposure simply because they were unwanted or there were too many heirs to divide a family fortune. The Carthaginians may have sacrificed children, but it was considered a great honor and was done with good intentions, as hard as that may be to accept

I'm not even sure if modern Tunisians are that related to ancient Carthaginians. As I said, the Romans inflicted genocide upon them. The later incarnations of Carthage were inhabited by Roman settlers, Berbers, Numidians and Libyans. Eventually Roman Carthage was razed by the armies of Islam and Tunis was founded as its successor (its a great place for a city)


*Apologies if I'm boring any of you fine ladies and gentlemen with this somewhat tangential discussion; Carthage has been an almost lifelong interest of mine, its very hard to get me to shut up about it once you get me started!

Last edited by Vigilans on 08 Apr 2011, 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ok, but I think maybe you're making some false assumptions.

If God wants His people to worship Him in the proper context and identify a certain people with Him, He might feel the need to instruct His people directly on how to do so, hence the plans for the Tabernacle. Where ever Israel went, there'd be no mistaking the tent of meeting. It would be obvious that THESE people wandering around believe THEIR God is the one true and living God of the nations. The covering was dyed animal skins (probably manatee). You KNEW that place was a place of worship. Also, God's plans for a portable house of worship dedicated to Him most likely would have resembled something they were already familiar with. The Egyptians, for example, erected similar tents of worship to carry with them on military campaigns. THIS one, however, was God's House. Many people, myself included here, believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. The point is that God wants THIS to be done THIS way, and not in such a way that His people can say it was all their idea. A dwelling place designed by the human mind is not fit for a holy and powerful God. But if Yahweh says do it, then do it.

Mixtures of certain fibers reflect the divine will of God, and such mixtures are not right for common usage. Such would be trying to approach God in an unworthy manner, or hold one's self up to God's level. That's arrogant, presumptuous, and flat-out stupid. It's the exact same thing with incense. The Israelites were strictly forbidden to mix anything even resembling incense sacrificed to God. Now, the Israelites could make gift offerings of the ingredients used to make the incense, but the actual preparation and use of it was reserved for the consecrated priests.

It doesn't raise any question of omnipotence at all. None. God is powerful and can do what He wants at any time using any means He feels necessary, or He can merely supersede laws of nature and act supernaturally. God CAN enter a place not properly prepared for Him, or rather He could if He chose to. God can consecrate anything to make it holy if it isn't. But it isn't in God's nature to be in the presence of anything that is unholy. God gave the instructions to His people through Moses on how to construct the Most Holy Place. By following the instructions and doing exactly as commanded, His people collectively "open their arms" and their hearts to Him. They invite Him into their presence, and He graciously does enters. God's Holy Place, therefore, is NOT for God's benefit, but rather for the benefit of His people. Even the writers of the OT had to confess that God is too big for the Tabernacle and even the temple. Indeed, the poets said Heaven itself is not big enough to contain God. Also, having a "house for God" hints that God can be restricted or limited in some way. Scripture reminds us that this is false, but by His grace He dwells among us.

The objects themselves have no power. When you read about various objects that healed people, it's easy to confuse the power of God to bring healing as residing in the object. It is rather the faith of His people that God has the power to heal that leads them to regard objects. The snake in the wilderness, for example. Looking at it healed the Israelites of the venom not because it had power, but because their actions of repentance and faith by following a simple instruction showed that they had humbled themselves and acknowledged God in their affliction. God extends His mercy to those who believe and repent, symbolized by the believers among the Israelites looking at the image of the snake, and God, not the snake image, healed them.

Same thing with the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' clothes. Power went out from Jesus not because she touched the hem of his clothes, but because she believed so strongly that doing so would be all that as little as doing so would be enough for Jesus to heal her. The Bible reports that people were healed by coming in contact with relics of the apostles. Again, it wasn't the objects that healed them. By touching those objects, those people professed their faith in what and Who the apostles represented. God healed them because of their faith. They didn't heal themselves through any magical properties of religious relics.

"It is true, though, that the pagan ancestors of the Irish practiced Druidism, which certainly did involve human and animal sacrifice, much like my own Pre-Christian Germanic ancestors had."

True. Even the modern Christian faith has human sacrifice at its core.
Jesus is called the "lamb of God" who died on the cross to save humanity.
That's human sacrifice. Or god-man sacrifice, if you prefer.
Then we eat his flesh (real or symbolic, depending on one's creed).
So....a little cannibalism just to top things off.

By "Tunisian," I'm just referring to geography for the sake of simply. I could just as well have called them "Libyans."

You're assuming, though, that the Hebrew descriptions of Phoenicians are incorrect due to lack of evidence, same as with the Roman razing of Carthage. By the same logic, you could also deny the modern-day Holocaust by saying that the Jews never had a place in Germany in the first place, ignoring the fact that the Nazis destroyed entire Jewish centers of population such that the Jews didn't have a home to return to. The assumption here is that the writers of the Bible were wrong from the outset. Lack of external evidence TODAY doesn't mean that what was recorded of the ancient Canaanite tribes was untrue. It just means that there is nothing left of those civilizations other than what was written about them. Your reasoning is in error.

Actually, along those same lines... The deal with Elder Cato, same as with Glen Beck, is that he echoes the sentiment of a significant segment of the population. Glen Beck's ideas are not unique to Glen Beck; he merely acts as a spokesman for those who share such ideas and dares to formulate his own opinions and analysis from a factual backdrop. Whether we agree, of course, is another story, but I don't care to debate whether Beck is right or wrong. Cato would merely have sold the Romans the stories they wanted. Even in ancient Rome, a popular uprising was not out of the question if the Romans felt that a war was pointless and unable to be won. Carthage would have been the equivalent of our Vietnam or, as some may think, Afghanistan ("the War on Terror"). Without initial popular support, there is little political advantage to going to war. Anti-Carthaginian or anti-Phoenician rhetoric would not be out of place. Demonizing the baby-burners is just a convenient excuse to convince some holdouts to favor exterminating the Carthaginians. I mean, think about it--if Carthage was such a huge population and trade center, would it not make better sense to conquer and control it rather than completely destroy it?

Given the reputation of the Phoenicians throughout that part of that world in that period of time, though, I doubt they were pure as driven snow. I wouldn't put baby-burning past them.

No reason to apologize - I have a BA in history, and I particularly love ancient history.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Modern Tunisians are probably NOT ethnically related, at least not by much if they are at all. Destroying a city, a city-state, or entire nation doesn't mean that there aren't survivors. One mistake the Israelites made in Canaan was not following through the extermination of Canaanite inhabitants. But later on we find Hittites fighting side-by-side with Israel's army in the time of David. Tribes that could not be dislodged (haha) became forced laborers. Israel was tricked into a covenant with at least one such people group without consulting God first. The consequence was that even though Israel technically dominated the conquered people, they were not above their influence. In the end, much of Israel was in reality more ethnically (and religiously) diverse than what they writers of the Bible would have liked, at least so far as the Bible indicates. And then there are the Samaritans...