Homeschool: Obedience is better than sacrifice;

[FJismyheadship]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... f=bookmark

This is a pastors wife from a First Assembly church in Atlanta. I think they have a mega church and their serviced are on TBN.

Anyway, they have three kids and they are starting to homeschool them. I'm not sure what she means by obedience is better than sacrifice, but I figured I would let you all check it out.

[formergothardite]

I think she was trying to say that obeying God and homeschooling is worth the sacrifice she will have to make. Maybe?

[doggie]

fundies keep forgetting back in the bronze age there was not really any education past what was needed for the job. so trying to use the bible to run todays education is trying to run a car with grape juice. if they want to try to recreate that ear's education they better stop teaching their children to read or write or teach much of anything else.

[Firiel]

Context of quote:

1 Samuel 15:21-24

21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal.

22 And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.

I think formergothardite is basically right. It's a "Yeah, we are scared, but we know that obedience is important." It doesn't seem to fit exactly (with the sacrifice part), but I think it's just something people say when they are emphasizing how important it is to obey God.

[FJismyheadship]

Oh okay, so its nothing to snark about.

I wasn't sure if it was that, or if she meant that her kids obeying her was more important than sacrificing them to the evils of public school and watching them turn into bad kids or something like that.

[It'sFunToRun]

Context of quote:

I think formergothardite is basically right. It's a "Yeah, we are scared, but we know that obedience is important." It doesn't seem to fit exactly (with the sacrifice part), but I think it's just something people say when they are emphasizing how important it is to obey God.

What Samuel is saying is that man feels better by obeying the Lord than the Lord feels when he receives delightful sacrifices. I'm not sure what homeschooling mom is trying to say.

[salex]

I read it as God loves burnt offerings, but God also loves, even more, people being obedient to God. As an old cynical person, I read it as how the richer/powerful people controlled the poorer people who couldn't afford fatted calves as burnt offerings.

"We please god by doing is will and offering up sacrifices of oxen and sheep on his altar-- since you can't afford that, here are God's laws we've written up for you-- if you follow them, God will be as pleased with you as he is with us, because he loves obedience as much as sacrifices of cattle."

IE< Be good and do as you are told and we God will be happy.

How it fits in her context is iffy at best, whatever reading you use.

[Firiel]

The way we were always taught it growing up is a legalism vs. the heart matter.

God told Saul to, well, commit genocide, including livestock. But instead, Saul saved some of the best animals to sacrifice to God. Samuel comes back and basically says, "Well, that's nice, but it isn't what God wanted you to do..." In other words, their traditions called for sacrifices which are good, but God wanted Saul to kill everything. Obeying God was more important than going through the ritual of sacrifice.

Reading it again, though, it looks like Saul just wanted a bunch of nice cows and when Samuel came back and called him on it, Saul backtracked to, "Uhhhhhh... but they're for sacrifices. Yeah, yeah. That's it. We only saved them to sacrifice to God!"

[halcionne]

Oh okay, so its nothing to snark about.

I wasn't sure if it was that, or if she meant that her kids obeying her was more important than sacrificing them to the evils of public school and watching them turn into bad kids or something like that.

We can still snark on fundies' piss poor bible interpretation skills. Full disclosure: I was raised nominally southern baptist, now agnostic or atheist (I go back and forth a lot). I haven't done much bible study, ever, but I was curious about this verse. So I went on over to biblegateway.com and looked up the NASB translation, because I'm not gonna try and make sense out of the KJV. :lol:

Starting at verse 21 is like coming in to a 90 minute movie in the last twenty minutes, imo. I wound up reading the whole chapter and here's what I got:

God tells Samuel to tell Saul that Saul will be the king of Israel, but first he has to wipe out the Amalekites: completely destroy them, God says. So Saul goes and does it, but he holds back the best livestock (and the Amalekite king Agag--was he to be sacrificed too?!) to be a burnt offering, as is the usual custom.

God then gets angry because Saul didn't kill everyone and everything like he ordered (smh at god changing rules and playing head games with Saul--this is abuse if you ask me) and proclaims obedience is better than sacrifice and now you don't get to be king of Israel. The end. Except Samuel chopped king Agag to bits. And God regrets having made Saul king. (I didn't think God ever regretted anything, but it's right there in black and white.)

And this is why I'm an atheist today. :snooty:

I really would have preferred if this story was about rich vs poor; the fact that somebody can make this bizarre story about homeschooling is just way off base, if you ask me.

[It'sFunToRun]

The way we were always taught it growing up is a legalism vs. the heart matter.

God told Saul to, well, commit genocide, including livestock. But instead, Saul saved some of the best animals to sacrifice to God. Samuel comes back and basically says, "Well, that's nice, but it isn't what God wanted you to do..." In other words, their traditions called for sacrifices which are good, but God wanted Saul to kill everything. Obeying God was more important than going through the ritual of sacrifice.

Reading it again, though, it looks like Saul just wanted a bunch of nice cows and when Samuel came back and called him on it, Saul backtracked to, "Uhhhhhh... but they're for sacrifices. Yeah, yeah. That's it. We only saved them to sacrifice to God!"

You know your Bible very well. I'm impressed. What religion/sect did you grow up in?

[iateallthebrownies]

The way we were always taught it growing up is a legalism vs. the heart matter.

God told Saul to, well, commit genocide, including livestock. But instead, Saul saved some of the best animals to sacrifice to God. Samuel comes back and basically says, "Well, that's nice, but it isn't what God wanted you to do..." In other words, their traditions called for sacrifices which are good, but God wanted Saul to kill everything. Obeying God was more important than going through the ritual of sacrifice.

Reading it again, though, it looks like Saul just wanted a bunch of nice cows and when Samuel came back and called him on it, Saul backtracked to, "Uhhhhhh... but they're for sacrifices. Yeah, yeah. That's it. We only saved them to sacrifice to God!"

That's always how I understood the text as well: Saul didn't want to follow the exact instructions, and figured he could make it look like he was being extra spiritual by saying he spared some livestock and the enemy king because he intended to sacrifice them.

God was angry because He didn't like to give someone instructions and then have them partially followed, not to mention the self-righteous excuses Saul gave for why he decided on his own not to follow the instructions fully.

Also, at this point in the history of Saul's potential kingship (if I remember correctly, that is), he was being carefully scrutinized by God to see if he was actually kingly material. The tribes he meant to lead had not had a king, ever, and they wanted one; so God -- through Samuel -- set about to vet one for them. Saul's job interview wasn't going so well at this point.

[Firiel]

You know your Bible very well. I'm impressed. What religion/sect did you grow up in?

Just conservative Christian in the rather non-descript Nazarene denomination. I went to a Christian school all through elementary and high school, though, hence why I know more about the Bible than a lot of mainstream Christians.

[formergothardite]

We can still snark on fundies' piss poor bible interpretation skills. Full disclosure: I was raised nominally southern baptist, now agnostic or atheist (I go back and forth a lot). I haven't done much bible study, ever, but I was curious about this verse. So I went on over to biblegateway.com and looked up the NASB translation, because I'm not gonna try and make sense out of the KJV. :lol:

Starting at verse 21 is like coming in to a 90 minute movie in the last twenty minutes, imo. I wound up reading the whole chapter and here's what I got:

God tells Samuel to tell Saul that Saul will be the king of Israel, but first he has to wipe out the Amalekites: completely destroy them, God says. So Saul goes and does it, but he holds back the best livestock (and the Amalekite king Agag--was he to be sacrificed too?!) to be a burnt offering, as is the usual custom.

God then gets angry because Saul didn't kill everyone and everything like he ordered (smh at god changing rules and playing head games with Saul--this is abuse if you ask me) and proclaims obedience is better than sacrifice and now you don't get to be king of Israel. The end. Except Samuel chopped king Agag to bits. And God regrets having made Saul king. (I didn't think God ever regretted anything, but it's right there in black and white.)

And this is why I'm an atheist today. :snooty:

I really would have preferred if this story was about rich vs poor; the fact that somebody can make this bizarre story about homeschooling is just way off base, if you ask me.

You would think God could have seen this coming. :roll: The Bible is a great way to become an atheist. As a child I used to worry about all the kids who God commanded his people to kill and enslave. As an adult I realize how truly horrific it is that genocide and enslaving people was presented to me as being done by a loving God.

[halcionne]

The way we were always taught it growing up is a legalism vs. the heart matter.

God told Saul to, well, commit genocide, including livestock. But instead, Saul saved some of the best animals to sacrifice to God. Samuel comes back and basically says, "Well, that's nice, but it isn't what God wanted you to do..." In other words, their traditions called for sacrifices which are good, but God wanted Saul to kill everything. Obeying God was more important than going through the ritual of sacrifice.

Reading it again, though, it looks like Saul just wanted a bunch of nice cows and when Samuel came back and called him on it, Saul backtracked to, "Uhhhhhh... but they're for sacrifices. Yeah, yeah. That's it. We only saved them to sacrifice to God!"

Somehow I skipped right over this insightful comment the first time around. :doh: Can you elaborate on why you feel Saul was trying to pull a fast one then backpedals?

[Firiel]

Somehow I skipped right over this insightful comment the first time around. :doh: Can you elaborate on why you feel Saul was trying to pull a fast one then backpedals?

Well, there is history of God saying "Destroy everything" and then people keeping pretty things (think Achan and Jericho). And it doesn't say Saul kept a some nice animals to sacrifice or even that he simply kept a portion of the best loot. It says he kept the best of all the livestock and all that was good. That would be A LOT of sacrifices. And also, he kept the king alive, who he clearly wasn't going to sacrifice. I'm not a Biblical scholar by any means, so I don't know what keeping the king alive after a military victory signified in the cultural context in question. But I do know it wasn't to burn him as an offering.

It just reads like he's keeping the spoils of victory, but when Samuel shows up, it's suddenly all there for burnt offerings. This is all coming from a literature major, so I may be reading too much into this for a "plot."

[halcionne]

Well, there is history of God saying "Destroy everything" and then people keeping pretty things (think Achan and Jericho). And it doesn't say Saul kept a some nice animals to sacrifice or even that he simply kept a portion of the best loot. It says he kept the best of all the livestock and all that was good. That would be A LOT of sacrifices. And also, he kept the king alive, who he clearly wasn't going to sacrifice. I'm not a Biblical scholar by any means, so I don't know what keeping the king alive after a military victory signified in the cultural context in question. But I do know it wasn't to burn him as an offering.

It just reads like he's keeping the spoils of victory, but when Samuel shows up, it's suddenly all there for burnt offerings. This is all coming from a literature major, so I may be reading too much into this for a "plot."

Thanks for responding. I am basically biblically illiterate, so you won't get any criticism from me on your analysis; I think it makes sense, based on the history you mentioned. And for what it's worth, your and my interpretations are both superior to fundie SOTDRT ones, imo. :D