"King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities" by Francesca Stavrakopoulou
This forum primarily exists to discuss a secret war between Q and an entity which Q refers to as "them". We are left with the obvious question: who is "them"?
Wild speculation on the identity of "them" (sometimes referred to as "The Cabal") pervade the community of followers of Q. Q's statements about "them" suggest that "them" is a secret and old (how old?) group identifiable by several practices, one of which being various forms of child sacrifice (rape, cannibalism, etc.). Various contradictory speculations about "them", abound, including of the age of "them". We find suggestions that (1) "them" is fairly recent in history, perhaps a banking cabal from the last few centuries, or (2) that "them" is older, perhaps being integrated into the Catholic Church from Roman times, or (3) that "them" is even older still. Q is vague on this point.
On the nature of time and human culture:
-
Do ancient organizations live now?: One question I would like the reader to consider: we know that there were terrible societies/organization/religions/practices in ancient times (BCE), but what happened to them? Did they just "die out"? Can we be sure that they all "died out"? If so, how would you be so sure?
-
Humans behavior is cultural: I would like to suggest that people who assume that such ancient terrible practices died out are making an unwarranted assumption about the nature of time and human beings. Most animals largely operate on instinct, but humans are different: humans learn. The behavior of humans is largely due to their learned practices, not their inherent biology (which is quite similar across the world, despite superficial appearances). Therefore, to best predict the behavior of humans, we should look at what they have learned; over the scale of large numbers of people, this is called their culture.
-
Cultural practices are largely timeless: In other words, when we look at the past and how people behaved, if we want to know if people still behave that way, we should not look at how much calendar time has passed, we should instead look at if they retain the same culture. Culture can change but it often stabilizes and then does not change at all, and then changes suddenly in a cultural discontinuity.
-
Therefore cultural time is fundamentally different from calendar time: I therefore suggest that measuring time in boundaries of cultural discontinuities is a much better way to make a map of human behavior than just looking at what year it was then and what year it is now.
An example: in the 1937 the Japanese government conducted a terrible rape of the city of Nanjing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre and around 1960 the Chinese government conducted the "Great Leap Forward" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward . Each action killed many innocent people.
-
We may conclude that the Japanese and Chinese governments are therefore bad. Why then would we today be allies of the Japanese and not of the Chinese?
-
Well the Japanese government underwent a cultural discontinuity, they lost WWII, whereas the Chinese government did not, they are still the same Chinese Communist Party as they were then. As we can see, even though similar amounts of calendar time has passed, in the government of China cultural time has not passed, whereas in the government of Japan, it has.
Conjecturing that such a terrible organization as the "them" of which Q speaks could arise today may seem implausible, and so many doubt it. But we know for a fact from historical record that many such terrible practices were part of the cultures of the long calendar-time past. Could "them" be an ancient culture for which still lives in ancient cultural-time? For which culture-time has not passed?
I suggest for your consideration the writings of a real researcher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Stavrakopoulou : "Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter. The main focus of her research is on the Hebrew Bible, and on Israelite and Judahite history and religion." In particular, I think it is important to note that "Stavrakopoulou was brought up in no particular religion and is a self-described atheist." In other words, her scholarship is not inclined to be distorted by identifying personally with the subject matter.
I think this work of hers is of particular relevance:
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110899641/html
The Hebrew Bible portrays King Manasseh and child sacrifice as the most reprehensible person and the most objectionable practice within the story of 'Israel'. This monograph suggests that historically, neither were as deviant as the Hebrew Bible appears to insist. Through careful historical reconstruction, it is argued that Manasseh was one of Judah's most successful monarchs, and child sacrifice played a central role in ancient Judahite religious practice. The biblical writers, motivated by ideological concerns, have thus deliberately distorted the truth about Manasseh and child sacrifice.
Further, from the book:
Indeed, a closer examination of the Hebrew Bible suggests that the offering of the firstborn to YHWH may well have included the sacrifice of human babies along with the offering of animals and crops. In spite of these text, the debate appears to have come full circle within modern scholarship with the relatively recent defence of the biblical concept of "Molek" as a foreign god of child sacrifice. However, contrary to this view, this study will argue that the identification of child sacrifice as a foreign element within Judahite religious practice is based on the distortion of the historical reality of child sacrifice within the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, it will be argued that the academic acceptance of this biblical distortion as a historical probability reflects a persistent and unself-critical ideological bias within modern scholarship. Unlike most other areas of academic enquiry, the subject of child sacrifice is particularly susceptible to misrepresentation within modern scholarship because of its sensitive nature. The historical reality of child sacrifice in ancient (and indeed modern) civilizations is an unpleasant reality, particularly, as van der Horst comments, if such a practice is attested within a culture that has played some role in the formation of one's personal world-view. This may well account in part of the apparent reluctance within biblical scholarship to apply the perspectives of ideological criticism to the examination of the subject of child sacrifice and the Hebrew Bible. As Bergmann suggests:
"We have a particular difficultly in understanding this phenomenon because the Judeo-Christian tradition has accustomed us to regard God as an ego-ideal. Therefore how could God tolerate human sacrifices?"
As observed above, ideological criticism suggest that ideology generally exists within a dynamic context of opposition. In seeking to distinguish between the biblical portrayal of child sacrifice and the historical reality of this practice, this discussion will argue that the biblical material concerning child sacrifice is generally opposed o the historical reality that children were sacrificed to Yhwh, and that an "ideology of separateness" governs the biblical insistence that child sacrifice was a Canaanite practice. Moreover, it will be argued that child sacrifice played an important role within the royal Judahite cult, and that "Molek" is best understood as a biblical character making the historical reality of the sacrifice of children to Yhwh.
We've been sternly warned around here that Q is not a Christian movement and to limit the posts as such. Then we get a post that says "don't believe the bible" stickied. Quite the contradiction.
That’s a stupid rule from the mods then, since the very name “great awakening” refers to the spread of Christian beliefs. WTF do they think it means. In fact, without God and moral belief, what does it matter that people sacrifice children? That may sound harsh, but if you consider what godlessness means, then it is not so far fetched a question.
The constitution was written for a moral and upright people. There needs to be defining of what a moral/upright person means. Being generally “religious” means nothing, it has no weight. There needs to be real and tangible structure underneath it, lest we become crazed by senseless thought.
This is why a church fundamentally exists, and why God himself commands it. He knows the evil of man’s heart.
We are in agreement...
Yes
It most certainly does not mean that. It means waking up to the truth. Just because you believe you know what the truth is doesn't mean you do. The truth that we need to wake up to is the manipulation of beliefs, and the actions that they do hiding behind our false beliefs.
This questions how far back that manipulation goes. How is that bad?
What are you waking up to? What is truth? There is a recent belief that has occurred in humanity (red flag #1) that believes in the theory of relativism, that all truth is relative to each person. The reason this is wrong is because if you take it to it’s logical extremes, you will find that it empowers people to do whatever they want, and commit all sorts of atrocities in the name of “their truth” which is just as bad, if not worse, than an evil cabal doing evil things. The Christian faith, teaches people that they have this good news of salvation and thereby gives hope for the future, if you have that hope and that grounding, you’re less likely to fall for whatever some random leader tells you, because you have a foundation to base it off of. If you say nothing is true, you are already deceived, and nothing will ground you. Christian belief stands alone in a world of religions. It is like none other. If you don’t believe, there is no earthly punishment another Christian will impose on you. (I’m not saying Christianity was performed well in the past, and I don’t consider most of Catholicism as Christianity, but that is another discussion). In fact, I’d argue the only Christian founded nation would really be the USA. The founding documents are laced with biblical beliefs mixed with governmental (freedom based) ideas from Socrates and the like (since Christianity has no government within the texts). So we share this news in hopes that others would believe, but there is no attack on them, then there’s the matter of sexual purity, in accordance with the Bible, there is no acceptable form of sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman, sex with relatives, children, and animals are not allowed. This is not true across many religions, read the Quran, read the Talmud, see what they say about sex with children. Did you think that the only difference was some surface level things? These people are freaks of nature, deranged in the mind. The reason many people even have the basis behind their way of thinking today is because we stand on the shoulders of giants who’ve come before us, and we look down on them in pity, when we ought to elevate them. If you were born somewhere else, you may believe something else. The one thing that remains steadfast and truly right is an original church (talking about the apostles style church) and those that have kept the faith over the millennia, who have crafted this world we know today, and have paid the ultimate price for their beliefs. They raised up a nation that would change the course of history and make our movement even possible today. Christianity spreads best when in warfare, because it is at the brink of life and death, that man looks outside of himself, and realizes he is not the end all be all. Think of the greatest man kind in history, they couldn’t change the wind, the length of day, how long they lived (though they could shorten it). We are but a breath, here today and gone tomorrow. By measure of strength we live 70, maybe 80 years. What does any of it mean, if life is meaningless? To answer why the cause is worth fighting for must mean there is something bigger than ourselves, something eternal. To that, we must believe in a God. Unmoved mover, uncreated creator, the ultimate mathematician.
Relativism has nothing to do with people doing whatever they want. That has to do with the nature of free will. People can do whatever they want because they can, not because some philosophical idea says they can.
If you mean it attempts to provide some justification for aberrant action, well, maybe, but maybe not. I suggest the philosophical ideals of relativism do not do that, but coupled with certain other ideas (the belief in a fundamental social hierarchy e.g.) it can lead to that. It also really depends on which version of relativism you are talking about on whether or not it can be suggested as contributing to aberrant (anti-social) action. On the whole, your statement is not well formed, and most certainly not supported by the overall ideas or evidence. Having said that, I do agree that the strictest form of relativism is fuckery, just not for the reasons you suggest.
This assumes that "following some random leader" is worse than following a specific leader who may be the opposite of what they appear to be. It also assumes that "the good news of salvation" (as you understand the term) is how things actually work, and that the path espoused is the only path to achieve it. A whole lot of assumptions in there.
Sure, maybe. But if you say "I know the truth," then you become incapable of seeing the evidence to the contrary, even if it is literally biting you in the ass.
I suggest you dig a little deeper. Your heroes of the past are not the people you think they are.
The church as it exists today looks absolutely nothing like the original churches. Nothing. And it was not they that crafted the world we know today, it was the Cabal. The Cabal also wrote your favorite book. Why does no one think that might be suspicious? The Jewish Priest class uncontroversally wrote the OT. The Catholic Church uncontroversally wrote the NT (final edit, leaving out many gospels, and putting in all of Saul the mass murdering Pharisee's interpretations, which are in direct conflict with those gospels and quotes of Jesus).
I promise you, our "Founding Fathers" were not good people, not a single one. You REALLY need to dig deeper into history. You have to understand. History has been rewritten. Until you dig into the primary evidence, you can't understand the depth of the fuckery of the world we live in. The Cabal wants you to believe in the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. The Cabal wants you to believe the bible you have is the Truth. That is exactly what Controlled Opposition looks like.
The only way to always win is to control both sides. The world is today controlled through Controlled Opposition. It's literally the only play in their play book. THey have, and always do control both sides. Why do you think one side in this case is not controlled, when the Cabal always wins? Your view is far too narrow. Dig deeper.
What if the God you believe in, isn't the God you think it is?
How deep does the fuckery go?
If you can't even ask those questions, you have a ways to go to understand what the Great Awakening really means.
Also, please use paragraphs if you wish to respond. It is really hard to read your writing. To make a paragraph, press enter twice. Once will not create a paragraph break.
Additionally, the great awakening was coined in the 1700’s with people like Jonathan Edwards who revived the spiritual beliefs of this nation gone by. He was an amazing preacher, who taught and preached some very hard hitting / hits close to home style sermons. Unfortunately as we are never more than 1 generation from losing the freedoms we fought for, so is the Christian faith. This should be further proof for Christianity’s validity. It is the most attacked religion, and for no reason is it attacked.
That is not how these things work. The things they don't want you to talk about are completely lost to history, because they write our history books and they have since history was a thing (millennia). The things they keep around and attack are controlled opposition.
This post doesn't say anything about what you should or should not believe. It presents an argument. Should debate not be encouraged?
How is that relevant? I am not making a post insisting in some particular religion, including Christianity.
First, there is no one single object called "the bible". It is a collection of the writings of many people over many centuries and was also edited and changed by many people in history. What books it includes really depends on who you ask.
Second, my post is not directly about any particular bible at all. It is a reference to scholarly research on the context of the Eastern Mediterranean / South-West Asian culture in ancient times, and the written and archaeological evidence we have for that culture. This culture pre-dates the Hebrew bible as well as the Christian bible, and was one of the cultures from which they came. We do the same kind of historical research regarding Greek, Egyptian, Norse, Chinese, etc. and other cultures as well. This kind of work helps inform us of how we got to where we are today.
My primary point in making the post is to point out that Q makes a reference to "Them", which we have also come to call "The Cabal". Whatever this group is, like all groups it has a specific purpose and specific practices. Those come from somewhere and have likely been around for a long time. Did they come out of nowhere? History does not seem to work that way. Where do they come from then?
Well, we can look at the historical record for similar cultures. Further, my point about cultures being timeless until the encounter a cultural discontinuity is that it makes sense to consider ancient cultures that have possibly persisted for a long time as possibly being the source of "The Cabal".
I then offer one scholarly work by a professional who actually knows the history and languages of ancient South-West Asia better than likely nearly all of you. Unless you can read your favorite ancient book in the original language that it was written in and know the history of how it was written and put together over time, you might want to at least listen to those who do, such as Stavrakopoulou. You might learn something.
Okay, thanks
What is the contradiction? The bible exists, whether people believe it or not, and it has an influence on people. This book can be studied using the same methods as historians use to study anything else. Here I point to a professional who has done that and whose work seems relevant to the discussion. That's all that is going on here.