Gehenna : The Valley of Slaughter

The Valley of Slaughter in Jeremiah refers to the Valley of Hinnom, also known as the Valley of Ben Hinnom, and then later as Gehenna.

It was a real geographical location just outside the walls of Jerusalem. It was a literal valley outside Jerusalem where garbage was burned, and it had a history of child sacrifice at the Topheth (Baal sacrificial alter). Over time, it became a place where garbage was burned, and possibly where the bodies of criminals were disposed of.

• Matthew 5:22: "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the Gehenna of fire."  
• Matthew 5:29: "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into Gehenna."  
• Matthew 5:30: "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into Gehenna."  
• Matthew 10:28: "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."  
• Matthew 18:9: "And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the Gehenna of fire."  
• Matthew 23:15: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twice as much a child of Gehenna as yourselves."
• Matthew 23:33: "You serpents! You brood of vipers! How are you to escape being sentenced to Gehenna?"
• Mark 9:43: "And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to Gehenna, to the unquenchable fire."  
• Mark 9:45: "And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna."  
• Mark 9:47: "And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna,"  
• Luke 12:5: "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into Gehenna. Yes, I tell you, fear him!"

Jeremiah Chapter 7

The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Stand in the gate of the Lord’s house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the Lord, all you men of Judah who enter these gates to worship the Lord. 3 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Amend your ways and your deeds, and I will let you dwell in this place. 4 Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.’

5 “For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly execute justice one with another, 6 if you do not oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own harm, 7 then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever.

8 “Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail. 9 rWill you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, oand go after other gods that you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, uwhich is called by my name, and say, ‘We are delivered!’—only to go on doing all these abominations? 11 Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, declares the Lord. 12 Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it because of the evil of my people Israel. 13 And now, because you have done all these things, declares the Lord, and awhen I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, 14 therefore I will do to the house uthat is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. 15 And I will cast you out of my sight, as I cast out all your kinsmen, all the offspring of Ephraim.

16 “As for you, fdo not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you. 17 Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. 19 Is it I whom they provoke? declares the Lord. Is it not themselves, to their own shame? 20 Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, my anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, upon man and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched.”

21 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. 22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this command I gave them: Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward. 25 From the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt to this day, I have persistently sent all my servants the prophets to them, day after day. 26 Yet they did not listen to me or incline their ear, abut stiffened their neck. They did worse than their fathers.

27 “So you shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you. You shall call to them, but they will not answer you. 28 And you shall say to them, This is the nation that did not obey the voice of the Lord their God, and did not accept discipline; etruth has perished; it is cut off from their lips.

29 ‘Cut off your hair and cast it away; raise a lamentation on the bare heights, for the Lord has rejected and forsaken the generation of his wrath.’

The Valley of Slaughter

30 “For the sons of Judah have done evil in my sight, declares the Lord. They have set their detestable things in the house ithat is called by my name, to hdefile it. 31 And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. 32 Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, because there is no room elsewhere. 33 And the dead bodies of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the beasts of the earth, and none will frighten them away. 34 And I will silence in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, for the land shall become a waste.

 

Kant: A Debate

"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as mere means to your ends." - Kant

---

Lance:

Couldn't be a more wrong orientation. Economic value of a person is the most dependable and closest to truth valuation we have, and equal valuation of all people is the furthest from truth we have. The Kant quote, along with some Rousseau quotes I'm sure, fuel the absurd social justice equality frameworks that have plagued the modern era. For example we should send more wealth and safety to the engineer in Tokyo than the peasant villager in Vietnam. While on that example, the anti-war peace movement of the late 60s that so valued those peasants in Vietnam....was a case of mass stupidity. It was then that the Left broke from technological progress as "progress" and began to lean in hard on the value of all lives and species over human innovation. The Left has been "the problem" ever since.

---

Richard:

From the perspective of Kant’s moral philosophy, this argument is fundamentally flawed because it treats human worth as contingent upon economic value rather than intrinsic dignity. Kant’s ethical framework, particularly his concept of the categorical imperative, asserts that every rational being possesses inherent worth and must be treated as an end in themselves, not merely as a means to an end.

Your claim that "economic value of a person is the most dependable and closest to truth valuation" contradicts Kant’s idea that moral worth is not based on utility, productivity, or wealth. For Kant, human dignity arises from our ability to act according to moral law, not from our market value. This is why Kant would reject the idea that an engineer in Tokyo is morally more deserving of wealth and safety than a peasant in Vietnam—such a valuation relies on instrumental reasoning, which treats people as means rather than ends.

Moreover, your critique of the "anti-war peace movement" and "the Left" for valuing all human lives equally would also be problematic from a Kantian standpoint. Kant advocated for universal moral principles, which include valuing every human life equally in moral considerations, regardless of nationality, economic status, or role in technological progress. The idea that some lives should be prioritized over others based on economic contribution is a consequentialist argument, not a deontological one—and Kant firmly rejected consequentialism.

In short, Kant’s moral philosophy stands in direct opposition to your argument. He would argue that your framework reduces human worth to material conditions, which is exactly the kind of thinking that his moral philosophy was designed to refute.

---

Lance:

Humans exist within "material conditions". For secular thought this is especially fundamental. To be both secular and hold this anti-material valuation scheme is to be up to something nonsensical and if one truly pursues this in the real world the outcome will be perverse and miserable across the whole culture in which it spread. And we have so much in the last 200 years as examples of this perversity and misery. It is not Lance versus Kant, reality in the historical record slays this Kantian platitude.

---

Richard:

You’re making a category error between moral philosophy and historical materialism. Yes, humans exist within material conditions, but that doesn’t mean moral worth should be measured by economic value. Kant’s argument isn’t about denying economic realities—it’s about setting a normative principle that people should be treated as ends, not just means.

Being secular doesn’t require adopting a purely materialist valuation. Human dignity, rights, and justice aren’t strictly economic constructs, yet they shape law, ethics, and policy worldwide. Calling Kant’s principle a “platitude” ignores how deeply it has influenced real-world institutions, from human rights to constitutional law.

And if we’re using history as proof, let’s be clear: materialist systems have caused just as much suffering—whether through slavery, colonialism, or unregulated capitalism. Societies that recognize universal dignity tend to be freer, more stable, and more just. If you want to argue that human worth is purely economic, then you’re also arguing that the rich are inherently more valuable than the poor—which is exactly the kind of thinking that led to some of history’s worst atrocities. Reality doesn’t “slay” Kant—it actually vindicates him.

---

Lance:

The humans clustered around innovation receive the benefits of higher living standards. By higher living standards I mean very real wealth, health, and safety. The backward receive less of these, regardless of their personal character. This is perfect justice.

---

Richard:

Sure, innovation clusters lead to higher living standards—no argument there. But calling the resulting inequality "perfect justice" is where you go from observation to moral assertion without justification. You're essentially saying, “The people who end up with more deserve it, and those with less deserve that too, regardless of personal character.” That’s not justice—that’s just the status quo with a moral stamp of approval.

If your standard for justice is purely outcome-based (whoever gets more, deserves more), then you'd have to argue that every historical power imbalance—slavery, colonialism, feudalism—was also “perfect justice” just because one group ended up better off. That’s straight-up might-makes-right thinking, and it contradicts your supposed commitment to materialist realism. Justice isn’t just “who gets more stuff.” Otherwise, you'd have to admit that if innovation shifted elsewhere, your entire moral framework collapses. What happens if the “backward” overtake the “innovators” due to factors outside of individual merit—like geopolitical shifts or resource exploitation? By your own reasoning, you’d have to suddenly agree that they deserve everything and the former “innovators” deserve nothing. That’s not a moral principle—it’s just cheerleading for whoever is winning at the moment.

So which is it—are you making a materialist observation (which is fair) or trying to force a moral conclusion that doesn’t hold up? Because if it’s the latter, you’ve just argued for a world where power alone defines justice—which means you’d better be ready to accept any outcome as “just” as long as it’s the result of material conditions.

---

Lance:

I'm cheerleading for whoever is winning at the moment. And by winning I remind you the innovation(s) are the sum of a lot of factors, it is not a brute force kind of victory, it is not "brutish". Outcomes are the best moral assertions.

You are set to a default "power imbalances are inherently evil". From out of nowhere ( oh wait, all teachings of your era ) you get this a priori moral axis with a fixed positive side. I say power imbalances are only wrong when the result is a brutish backward society. Such as the Ottoman Empire or the colonial Spanish Empire. Note all these become the poorer dumber counter to an innovating Dutch or England, and then another power imbalance happens that is worth cheering for, the colonialism of the Dutch and the English.

The colonialism of the Hellenistic Greeks was a virtuous effect on that part of the world. It deleted dynastic Egypt from existence, making it a foreign occupied culture for at least 2000 years. This was all a positive.

---

Richard:

Kant’s quote is about human dignity—people should be treated as ends in themselves, not just as tools for others' goals. This means human worth isn’t based on wealth, status, or usefulness, but on being rational, autonomous beings. Using others purely for economic output or power contradicts this principle. Mutual benefit is fine, but exploitation isn’t. Kant’s philosophy is the foundation of human rights and modern ethics, rejecting the idea that some people are inherently worth more just because they produce more.

---

Lance:

Exploitation is not universally wrong. Universal equality certainly is wrong.

Prayers of Thanks during the Time of Jesus

I'm on a quest to more clearly understand the teachings in the New Testament by placing it in it's context - the Judaism of that era, more academically called "Second Tabernacle Judaism". The teachings and commandments of the Messiah gain precision and coherence when listened to within this context.

Using a AI to speed research that era Judaism I'm finding some really helpful religious practices that were the context Jesus operated within, and more importantly endorsed, corrected, refuted, and illuminated with his teachings and commandments.

The Christian traditions of church people I've known has had an emphasis on prayer before meals, before going to sleep. This is a very stunted version of the norm in Israel at the time of Jesus. See my screenshot for a much more enriching approach to prayer.

By enriching I mean it creates a sense of gratitude to God throughout many mundane moments in a day. Also note this implies the opposite of ascetic denial (being a monk that denies pleasure). Got new clothes that you like? Seeing beautiful scenery? All these and more are to be enjoyed and willingly send a thank you to God.

Also implied with this entire practice -God wants us to have nice things and pleasurable experiences.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I should stress. That's the only God that nurtured this way of being into a people.

---

Answer from AI below:

---

It seems you're interested in the concept of "100 blessings" recited on Shabbat. While there isn't a fixed list of 100 specific blessings from early Judaism, the idea of reciting 100 blessings daily, especially on Shabbat, is rooted in Jewish tradition.

Here's how the concept is understood and practiced:

Origins of the 100 Blessings:

• Talmudic Source: The Talmud (Menachot 43b) states that a person should recite 100 blessings each day. This is based on a verse in Deuteronomy (10:12), "And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." The rabbis interpreted "serving God with all your soul" to include praising God through blessings.   

How to Reach 100 Blessings on Shabbat:

While there's no mandated list, here are the primary ways people aim to fulfill this practice:

• Standard Prayers: Many regular prayers, like the Shema and Amidah, contain multiple blessings.
• Blessings on Food: Each meal requires blessings before and after eating, and there are specific blessings for different types of food.
• Blessings on Enjoyment: Blessings are recited upon smelling fragrant spices, seeing beautiful sights, hearing good news, etc.
• Torah Reading: The Torah reading service includes blessings before and after, and potentially during the reading itself.
• Other Prayers: Various other prayers throughout the day contribute to the count, including those for specific occasions or needs.

Significance of the Practice:

• Expressing Gratitude: Reciting blessings cultivates an attitude of gratitude and appreciation for God's gifts.
• Connecting with the Divine: Blessings acknowledge God's presence and involvement in everyday life.
• Spiritual Fulfillment: The act of blessing is seen as a way to elevate mundane activities and connect with the sacred.

Important Notes:

• No Fixed List: There isn't a single, definitive list of 100 blessings used universally in early Judaism. The practice focuses on the overall number and intention.
• Variations: Different communities and individuals may have their own customary sets of blessings they prioritize.
• Focus on Quality: The emphasis is not just on quantity but also on reciting blessings with sincerity and mindfulness.