Cindylou, appreciation thread !!

[cindylou]

Like that jesusy chick that drowned her kids in the bathtub because she claimed her god told her too?

How about Jepthah promising to sacrifice the first thing he saw after his military victory...turns out it was his daughter and unlike Abraham's commanded sacrifice of Jacob there was no reprieve and she was offered as a burnt offering, her only regret was dying a virgin; Brainwashing your children is a good thing when it comes to religion...can't have people asking why.

Of course human sacrifice isn't just from the Yahweh tradition...in the war against Moab the Israelite army had the capital surrounded and the king sacrificed his son to his god Chemash, fearing complete defeat, and upon seeing it the Israelite army fled in terror knowing that such a powerful sacrifice would lead to their complete defeat.

You've got to know that you're wrong about that yet you bring it up?

God still keeps his integrity

God would not have accepted his daughter as a burnt offering. No priest could have made the offering - the alter would have been defiled. A human is not a "clean" animal accepted for sacrifice. A human offering to the Lord would have been an abomination.


Lev 27:1-13

Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When a man consecrates by a vow certain persons to the LORD, according to your valuation, 3 if your valuation is of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 If it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels; 5 and if from five years old up to twenty years old, then your valuation for a male shall be twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels; 6 and if from a month old up to five years old, then your valuation for a male shall be five shekels of silver, and for a female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver; 7 and if from sixty years old and above, if it is a male, then your valuation shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.

8'But if he is too poor to pay your valuation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall set a value for him; according to the ability of him who vowed, the priest shall value him.

9'If it is an animal that men may bring as an offering to the LORD, all that anyone gives to the LORD shall be holy. 10 He shall not substitute it or exchange it, good for bad or bad for good; and if he at all exchanges animal for animal, then both it and the one exchanged for it shall be holy. 11 If it is an unclean animal which they do not offer as a sacrifice to the LORD, then he shall present the animal before the priest; 12 and the priest shall set a value for it, whether it is good or bad; as you, the priest, value it, so it shall be. 13 But if he wants at all to redeem it, then he must add one-fifth to your valuation.

So the Lord set up a redemtion clause - and she would have been redeemed - exchanged for money, and life given to service of the Lord, her virginity. A human is not any more clean than a pig or a donkey. This would explain the way the verse in Judges reads where she mourns that she will never marry, and then at the end when it explains again that she was a virgin. (Which would read strangely if she had actually died)

Even if they were to find a priest to make the sacrifice (considering the immorality of the time) it still would have been an abomination and not accepted by the Lord. The Lord never asked for it, and wouldnt have never been accepted.

Judges is a history book of human wickedness, notice the foolishness of the vow he made? There is a parallel between two stories. God tests Abraham - Abraham passes the test, God spares Issac. In Judges, it is not God testing Jephtha, but Jephtha testing God - not a good idea. Jephtha wants to bargain w/ God to win the battle, entering into that foolish vow not because he trusts God but because he thinks God could be bribed I suppose.

It is stated time and time again that human sacrifices are an abomination. Humans are unclean animals unworthy for sacrifice. Does the author have to remind us of a law that is well known at the time? Even so, not only did God NOT ask for the sacrifice, he never made the deal w/ Jephthah. So regardless if his daughter was literally a burnt offering or not, regardless if Jephthah was a fool or a murder, the point is still the fact that the faith and God retains His integrity.

You consistently miss the point.


I mean seriously! Sometimes I think you just make stuff up. Surely you can't blame some imaginary God for a foolish, selfish vow a man made so he could be victorious in battle. Because the story is in the bible you assume what? What is it about you that would read that and blame someone that does not exist to you when the story does not even read that way? If that is so, then keep reading the bible with the perspective you have. I realize that God is showing you yourself.

 

[ledhead]

You've got to know that you're wrong about that yet you bring it up because you think pokey does not know it (IDK why you'd assume that, pokey knows quite a bit actually).

God still keeps his integrity

God would not have accepted his daughter as a burnt offering. No priest could have made the offering - the alter would have been defiled. A human is not a "clean" animal accepted for sacrifice. A human offering to the Lord would have been an abomination.


Lev 27:1-13

Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When a man consecrates by a vow certain persons to the LORD, according to your valuation, 3 if your valuation is of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 If it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels; 5 and if from five years old up to twenty years old, then your valuation for a male shall be twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels; 6 and if from a month old up to five years old, then your valuation for a male shall be five shekels of silver, and for a female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver; 7 and if from sixty years old and above, if it is a male, then your valuation shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.

8'But if he is too poor to pay your valuation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall set a value for him; according to the ability of him who vowed, the priest shall value him.

9'If it is an animal that men may bring as an offering to the LORD, all that anyone gives to the LORD shall be holy. 10 He shall not substitute it or exchange it, good for bad or bad for good; and if he at all exchanges animal for animal, then both it and the one exchanged for it shall be holy. 11 If it is an unclean animal which they do not offer as a sacrifice to the LORD, then he shall present the animal before the priest; 12 and the priest shall set a value for it, whether it is good or bad; as you, the priest, value it, so it shall be. 13 But if he wants at all to redeem it, then he must add one-fifth to your valuation.

So the Lord set up a redemtion clause - and she would have been redeemed - exchanged for money, and life given to service of the Lord, her virginity. A human is not any more clean than a pig or a donkey. This would explain the way the verse in Judges reads where she mourns that she will never marry, and then at the end when it explains again that she was a virgin. (Which would read strangely if she had actually died)

Even if they were to find a priest to make the sacrifice (considering the immorality of the time) it still would have been an abomination and not accepted by the Lord. The Lord never asked for it, and wouldnt have never been accepted.

Judges is a history book of human wickedness, notice the foolishness of the vow he made? There is a parallel between two stories. God tests Abraham - Abraham passes the test, God spares Issac. In Judges, it is not God testing Jephtha, but Jephtha testing God - not a good idea. Jephtha wants to bargain w/ God to win the battle, entering into that foolish vow not because he trusts God but because he thinks God could be bribed I suppose.

It is stated time and time again that human sacrifices are an abomination. Humans are unclean animals unworthy for sacrifice. Does the author have to remind us of a law that is well known at the time? Even so, not only did God NOT ask for the sacrifice, he never made the deal w/ Jephthah. So regardless if his daughter was literally a burnt offering or not, regardless if Jephthah was a fool or a murder, the point is still the fact that the faith and God retains His integrity.

You consistently miss the point.


I mean seriously! Sometimes I think you just make stuff up. Surely you can't blame some imaginary God for a foolish, selfish vow a man made so he could be victorious in battle. Because the story is in the bible you assume what? What is it about you that would read that and blame someone that does not exist to you when the story does not even read that way? If that is so, then keep reading the bible with the perspective you have. I realize that God is showing you yourself.

Wow... Good one Cindy!! Oh, this is your apreciation thread, sorry almost forgot to apreciate you, almost... You're soooo lovely.....

 

[cindylou]

Wow... Good one Cindy!! Oh, this is your apreciation thread, sorry almost forgot to apreciate you, almost... You're soooo lovely.....

aahhhh thanks ledhead

 

[miplank]

Wow... Good one Cindy!! Oh, this is your apreciation thread, sorry almost forgot to apreciate you, almost... You're soooo lovely.....

*appreciation
*appreciate

 

[cindylou]

Wow... Good one Cindy!! Oh, this is your apreciation thread, sorry almost forgot to apreciate you, almost... You're soooo lovely.....

Most (not all) father daughter relationships in Judges suck. It was not a good time for Israel. They seem to get worse as the book goes on. The point of the story is what happens when you don't trust God, and to also show the integrity of his daughter who wouldn't allow her father to be compromised. She could have run away. She goes off to mourn her virginity and then returns. In fact, Jephthah makes the vow then BLAMES his daughter for his own foolishness “You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me.” Typical! (j/k). The contrast between male and female behavior in Judges is interesting. Jephthah was deprived of his inheritance because people looked down on his mother. I wonder if he really loved his daughter or resented her? I'd like to think he did but I don't know. Why would he blame his daughter?

 

[ledhead]

Most (not all) father daughter relationships in Judges suck. It was not a good time for Israel. They seem to get worse as the book goes on. The point of the story is what happens when you don't trust God, and to also show the integrity of his daughter who wouldn't allow her father to be compromised. She could have run away. She goes off to mourn her virginity and then returns. In fact, Jephthah makes the vow then BLAMES his daughter for his own foolishness “You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me.” Typical! (j/k). The contrast between male and female behavior in Judges is interesting. Jephthah was deprived of his inheritance because people looked down on his mother. I wonder if he really loved his daughter or resented her? I'd like to think he did but I don't know. Why would he blame his daughter?

Jephthah acted on impulse and made a rash vow to God. His daughter was his only child, so she was the ticket for a male heir in the family. Jephthah could have been upset about that or was upset she would not be able to marry and have children. Which during those times was considered a disgrace for women not to able to marry and have kids. It appears, that he did love her because he was distraught when she walked through the door. Hence, he blamed her for disgacing the family even tho it was not her fault. It was Jephthah's fault but it goes back to pride, people dont like to admit when they're wrong and tend to shift blame.

She was willing to live a life of shame for her father and God. Vows are important to God, so she went with the program (Deut 23: 21-23). However, we do know God was not requiring him to sacrifice her to death (Deut 12:31, and 18:10). So that dispells the notion of God wanting human sacrifices. But she did have to live a shameful life.

I would say YES, he did love his daughter, but they knew they had to keep the vow to God.

 

[ledhead]

Another, thing is "burnt offering" translated in the original language (Hebrew), is called "olah" it has an all-inclusive meaning. They made sin, peace, ect. offerings, but no human offerings which I gave you the text in the above post. OLAH, signified the total surrender of a worshiper's heart.....

 

[ceo]

lol that's not how I meant it, though I realized afterward it might come off that way.

There are people here who I like interacting with in this medium but it's hard to see myself having much in common with outside. I'm friends with them because I met them here, but would we have gelled in person if there had never been an EF? Who knows. You, for example. If I had met you at the gym instead of EF, it's unlikely we would have gotten past a nod hello. When I say Cindy is someone I would have been friends with IRL, I mean I think if I had met her somewhere randomly, we would have clicked instantly. Same with Annie.

Oh that hurts nef...that hurts me badly.

 

[javaguru]

Jephthah acted on impulse and made a rash vow to God. His daughter was his only child, so she was the ticket for a male heir in the family. Jephthah could have been upset about that or was upset she would not be able to marry and have children. Which during those times was considered a disgrace for women not to able to marry and have kids. It appears, that he did love her because he was distraught when she walked through the door. Hence, he blamed her for disgacing the family even tho it was not her fault. It was Jephthah's fault but it goes back to pride, people dont like to admit when they're wrong and tend to shift blame.

She was willing to live a life of shame for her father and God. Vows are important to God, so she went with the program (Deut 23: 21-23). However, we do know God was not requiring him to sacrifice her to death (Deut 12:31, and 18:10). So that dispells the notion of God wanting human sacrifices. But she did have to live a shameful life.

I would say YES, he did love his daughter, but they knew they had to keep the vow to God.

I'm happy you accept that Christianity is essentially a misogynistic religion....which makes perfect sense based on the culture that created it.

Also, until you accept the biblical truth of new wine you have no christian bona fides.

 

[ceo]

lol, He's the king of the straw man argument; if there's any room for misinterpretation he'll pounce and (I'm sure of it) intentionally respond to that (as he did with my post about you...when it's sort of obvious I didn't mean I wouldn't be friends with you on the internet lol)...I think I'd actually have an easier time talking to him about hot button stuff in person. I'm much more liable to get frustrated over the internet, but IRL I can rarely remember a time I really got heated about anything political or religious. Sports on the other hand....lol

Mitch, realistically bc you are married, probably not. I keep an intentional polite distance from any guy in any sort of committed relationship, even if I have no romatic inclination toward them. If you were single, we'd probably get along pretty well outside the internet medium.

 

[nefertiti]

Oh that hurts nef...that hurts me badly.

Shush, my reasons for you are mostly the same as mitch....I rarely befiend married men. I also have no idea what you like to do other than ruffle feathers on EF haha, so I don't know when our paths would ever hypothetically cross. I can think of two married guys I consider friends right now and it's because both are very regular customers and are on the boat with me once every week or two and I've traveled to dive in groups with both.

Dunno why I'm explaining, I know you aren't actually offended haha

 

[miplank]

I am

 

[nefertiti]

lol I almost told you once that I'd probably still be taking your bait if you had been more selective about where you dropped it.

 

[puddlemonkey]

Shush, my reasons for you are mostly the same as mitch....I rarely befiend married men. I also have no idea what you like to do other than ruffle feathers on EF haha, so I don't know when our paths would ever hypothetically cross. I can think of two married guys I consider friends right now and it's because both are very regular customers and are on the boat with me once every week or two and I've traveled to dive in groups with both.

I'm not married

 

[bigpokey]

I'm not married

red flag!

 

[puddlemonkey]

red flag!

 

[cindylou]

red flag!

lol

 

[cindylou]

I'm happy you accept that Christianity is essentially a misogynistic religion....which makes perfect sense based on the culture that created it.

Also, until you accept the biblical truth of new wine you have no christian bona fides.

How did you get from that post that he accepts that Christianity as a religion is misogynistic? I want to read like you read! I think you create things in your head You really don't have the right to accuse Christianity of being misogynistic.

I've noticed that many Christian men have a deep inner hatred for women (that has nothing to do with Christianity itself) but the same could be said for some atheists.

what do you mean...biblical truth of new wine? I hope you don't mean what I think you mean lol

 

[ledhead]

I'm happy you accept that Christianity is essentially a misogynistic religion....which makes perfect sense based on the culture that created it.

Also, until you accept the biblical truth of new wine you have no christian bona fides.

I think you missed the point. Women were/are not hated at all. The person made the situation what it was. It was about keeping his rash vow he made. Nothing to do with hating women, if it was his son that walked through the door he still would have kept the vow. If you read that text closer you will notice God never asked/commanded him to do anything. He was to consumed with self and defeating the Ammons. He wanted God to act on his behalf, so when God came upon him he pretty much made a retarded vow out of excitement. That would be classified as Judaism not Christianity there is a difference. It takes to long to explain, another time. People have created a sexist culture by misinterpreting things to benefit their selfish motives. The bible is full of stories glorifying women.

As for the new wine,bro save it.....

 

[Strongbow]

How did you get from that post that he accepts that Christianity as a religion is misogynistic? I want to read like you read! I think you create things in your head Have you ever READ Judges? You really don't have the right to accuse Christianity of being misogynistic.

I've noticed that many Christian men have a deep inner hatred for women (that has nothing to do with Christianity itself) but the same could be said for some atheists.

what do you mean...biblical truth of new wine? I hope you don't mean what I think you mean lol

Do you really care what fuck stick thinks, now do ya really?

 

[cindylou]

I think you missed the point. Women were/are not hated at all. The person made the situation what it was. It was about keeping his rash vow he made. Nothing to do with hating women, if it was his son that walked through the door he still would have kept the vow. If you read that text closer you will notice God never asked/commanded him to do anything. He was to consumed with self and defeating the Ammons. He wanted God to act on his behalf, so when God came upon him he pretty much made a retarded vow out of excitement. That would be classified as Judaism not Christianity there is a difference. It takes to long to explain, another time. People have created a sexist culture by misinterpreting things to benefit their selfish motives. The bible is full of stories glorifying women.

As for the new wine,bro save it.....

Not just that but the whole book of Judges could be read with the perspective that it condemns evil from a woman/feminist mindset. I'm just saying it could. Look at Deborah. I mean, we're talking Judges here and it's the last book where someone could bring up that up, and it make any sense. It's the book that Christian feminists usually use to back up the egalitarian view on men and women in the church and that women have the authority to lead men.

 

[ceo]

Lev 27:1-13

Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When a man consecrates by a vow certain persons to the LORD, according to your valuation, 3 if your valuation is of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 If it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels; 5 and if from five years old up to twenty years old, then your valuation for a male shall be twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels;

All I got from this is that God says men are worth twice as much as women.

Which is what we all knew anyway.

 

[cindylou]

All I got from this is that God says men are worth twice as much as women.

Which is what we all knew anyway.

stfu!

j/k

If I married a man that made more money than I did, he'd probably have a larger life insurance policy too.

 

[ledhead]

Not just that but the whole book of Judges could be read with the perspective that it condemns evil from a woman/feminist mindset. I'm just saying it could. Look at Deborah. I mean, we're talking Judges here and it's the last book where someone could bring up that up, and it make any sense. It's the book that Christian feminists usually use to back up the egalitarian view on men and women in the church and that women have the authority to lead men.

Egalitarianism is a elegant name for communism, that's all.... Thats all the Christian feminists need to know. They should treat it like they would the commies....

 

[iggy]

cindy's an awesome girl =)

 

[ceo]

Not just that but the whole book of Judges could be read with the perspective that it condemns evil from a woman/feminist mindset. I'm just saying it could. Look at Deborah. I mean, we're talking Judges here and it's the last book where someone could bring up that up, and it make any sense. It's the book that Christian feminists usually use to back up the egalitarian view on men and women in the church and that women have the authority to lead men.

The NT did away with all that shit though!!!

Those bitches are bound by the law.

NT ftmfw!!!!!!! JC...fuck yeah!

 

[cindylou]

cindy's an awesome girl =)

thanks iggy! you are awesome yourself

 

[cindylou]

I'm not a feminist by any means. lol That's the term they use. I was just trying to say that Judges would be the last place to point out how Christianity was misogynistic.

 

[cindylou]

The NT did away with all that shit though!!!

Those bitches are bound by the law.

NT ftmfw!!!!!!! JC...fuck yeah!

stfu!

 

[smurf2]

The NT did away with all that shit though!!!

Those bitches are bound by the law.

NT ftmfw!!!!!!! JC...fuck yeah!

lol

 

[javaguru]

Egalitarianism is a elegant name for communism, that's all.... Thats all the Christian feminists need to know. They should treat it like they would the commies....

Really, I consider an egalitarian system one in which everyone is valued based on merit; That's capitalism....

 

[ledhead]

Really, I consider an egalitarian system one in which everyone is valued based on merit; That's capitalism....

Hypothetical....

 

[javaguru]

Hypothetical....

Of course, but there are degrees of what I would call politicization. When I was young, dumb and full of cum I thought the military was the egalitarian system for me...after all, they have all kinds of objective metrics for success...marksmanship, pt scores, voluntary military courses, and college courses all give promotion points. That isn't to say I didn't benefit from politics, I went from e-1 to e-5 in a little over two years because I was perceived as one of the best and brightest up in comers by the senior NCO's;They sent me before the battalion board for NCO of the year even though I was just promoted to E-5 and had just returned from PLDC.

The point where I realized how political things are was when I went before the ROTC board for a scholarship and I've related that story. One thing I've learned is that as a contractor for the private sector things are still political, there is always a fiefdom someone wants to protect, but government entities are almost infinitely more political than the private sector.