Isn't it odd how the biblical deity like the many deities believed before him share so many things in common? But the one thing they all seem to share is that most of them desired blood sacrifices. For some of the so called pagan deities the blood of animals was enough to appease them temporarily, this was also true of the biblical deity as well. For others the sacrificing of people was the only thing that satisfied them.
When God decided to institute the system of sacrifices he laid out specific rules that had to be followed by the people and the priests. The animals could not have any blemish whatsoever and they had to be of a specific type of animal, there were what God considered clean and unclean animals. They had to be sacrificed at specific times of the year for specific purposes. But according to the N.T. these sacrifices only temporarily covered the sins of those that made them. It did not wipe away the sins completely.
In order to wipe away sin completely the sacrifice had to be perfect and without sin. Christianity provides for this through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ once and for all. They even refer to the O.T. system of blood atonement as a type of what was to come in the most perfect sacrifice of all: Jesus Christ the son of God. But if you read your bible carefully you will find out that Jesus was not the only human sacrifice the deity accepted.
In the O.T. there is a tale of a man named Jephthah who made a vow unto God where if he was given the victory over the Ammonites the first person that met him upon returning to his house he would sacrifice. It turned out to be his only daughter and in the end he had to do as he had vowed. You can read all about it in Judges 11:30-40. At times the bible mentions other groups whose deities required blood sacrifices.
All of this points me to believe that the institution of religion and the concept of God itself are all rooted in myths based on ignorance and superstition. People refer to the idea of God evolving but apparently he has not evolved much. He still loves the fragrance of blood. And even in Christianity it is only through the mythical blood pact of Christ that you can be saved.
"And by the law almost all things are made clean with blood, and without blood there is no forgiveness." - Hebrews 9:22
ReplyDelete"And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." - Mark 1:15
"He that covers his sins shall not prosper: but whoever confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy." - Proverbs 28:13
"Whoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." -Matthew 10:32
"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." -1 John 4:15
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." -2 John 1:7
"Who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" -1 John 5:5
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." - 1 Corinthians 1:18
http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=books&id=677&pagenumber=7
Finally a reply to my original post! A dumb reply but a reply nonetheless. First of all outside of religious circles the word sin has no meaning, in fact it is not a real word in secular circles. It is entirely a religious concept. The Mirriam Webster dictionary defines sin as such: a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c : an often serious shortcoming : fault
ReplyDelete2
a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
I think I've made my point. And another thing, arguing from the bible to an atheist who probably knows it better than yourself is just outright silly. I personally do not accept the bible as the word of God or divinely inspired. In fact the bible in my eyes should be categorized as ancient mythology right next to all the other ancient myths that arose before Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
Notice how the Bible writers conveniently separates the believers from the nonbelievers as if to degrade the nonbelievers as less intelligent than them. Those that don't believe are the fools...lol
ReplyDeletepoints me to believe that the institution of religion and the concept of God itself are all rooted in myths based on ignorance and superstition.
ReplyDelete... of course it is – the root of the Abrahamic religions is a very small group of people surrounded by pagan religions. Their initial understanding of a one spiritual deity was primitive and certainly they modelled their rituals on those of the religions around them ... why is this a surprise to you?
I am sure you have tracked the evolution away from blood sacrifice in the OT (Hosea 6:6-7 comes to mind but I am sure there are earlier reference - Isaiah somewhere?).
However the theology around Christ’s sacrifice and blood covenant is interesting and I have difficulty with that view.
I prefer the view that sees Christ’s death not as part of the reason He came but rather as the consequence thereof.
That His teaching would lead to his execution can be viewed as the non-preferred outcome. The preferred outcome was that the Jews would mend their ways. But in continuing to teach Christ must have recognised the outcome and it is quite reasonable that He and others would view the decision to go to Jerusalem and continue teaching as sacrificing his life for the Word – the teaching of salvation. This is not the same as a blood sacrifice and I think your wording reflects your appreciation of this.
It is also reasonable that He should portray the promise of salvation made at the cost of His life as a covenant. It is also reasonable that He should refer to His death as the blood of new covenant. Again this is quite different from a blood sacrifice or what you refer to as ‘blood atonement’. It is rather a case of a person making the supreme sacrifice for others.
Sala kahle - peace
Jesus is referred to as the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world John 1:29. The holy communion refers to Jesus and his intention of sacrificing himself for all mankind 1 Corinthians 11:24-26. Of course Jesus supposedly came to restore the house of Israel but overall it was intended that he should extend redemption for all mankind through his death and resurrection.
ReplyDeleteJesus was a blood sacrifice the perfect lamb without sin or without blemish. The only one worthy to serve as an atonement for the sins of mankind. The O.T. system of sacrifices were a type of the ultimate sacrifice that was to come in the person of Jesus Christ.
He bore the sins of the world on his shoulders and payed for them through his vicarious suffering, death, and resurrection. That is what the church teaches although it is of course an ancient myth with no evidence outside of the bible to support it.
Chatpilot, once again you make statements without bothering to get them right with no evidence outside of the bible to support it.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the gospels not included in the bible? ... or do you mean outside of any evidence to support it? So if evidence is contrary to your position you dismiss because it is contrary?
Besides you should also acknowledge that the bible is not a single source but a compilation of books from different sources – so to imply, as you do, that it is a single source is misleading to say the least.
What you are saying is that a collection of texts specifically brought together about a single topic should be dismissed simply because they are about the same topic ... oh really ????
Sala kahle - peace
Playing the semantics game again huh? Everyone knows that the bible is a collection of writings by different authors. I am referring to secular evidence not Christian writings. The apocryphal books of the bible don't count since they fall under Christian writings.
ReplyDeleteakakiwibear wrote:"What you are saying is that a collection of texts specifically brought together about a single topic should be dismissed simply because they are about the same topic ... oh really ????"
No, they should be dismissed because they are self contradictory, and because outside of religious texts none of the events it speaks of can be confirmed.
I am referring to secular evidence not Christian writings.. I guess you don’t believe science texts because they are prepared by scientists
ReplyDeleteBut then you say you dismiss the non-canonical texts because The apocryphal books of the bible don't count since they fall under Christian writings. so evidence by other authors does not count either if they agree? Well actually much of the non-canonical texts were excluded because they did not agree but still represent supportive evidence - the whole of the Gnostic texts for example.
Then you say they should be dismissed because they are self contradictory ... So you dismiss all of art criticism because some of it is contradictory?
Strange that part of the reasoning by Origen who was a pioneer in compiling the canonical books was that differing views should be offered in the compilation ... but had the founding fathers known that you would therefore reject it for that very reason maybe they would have only included one gospel.
Do you really have a case or are you just shooting at anything that moves?
Sala kahle - peace
You're pathetic and your arguments are weak. You can't seem to distinguish from religious texts and secular/historical texts. The apocryphal books were rejected because they contradicted what the church considered sound doctrine. They were too fantastical in some cases.
ReplyDelete"I guess you don’t believe science texts because they are prepared by scientists"
That is the beauty of science they don't ever claim certainty unless they are absolutely sure. But even then if their theories as disproven they are then discarded and we go back to the drawing board. The door is always open for further research and discovery.
The door is always open for further research and discovery. ... so too in theology - that is why it is a recognised field of study at leading secular universities ...
ReplyDelete... but wait you have already dismissed theology as the study of something which really can't be studied ... so rules out you recognising the scholarship there ;)
sala kahle -peace
Answers.com defines theology as the following: 1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
ReplyDelete2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.
It should be called what it really is, the study of mythology. Based on beliefs derived from ancient myths. God is a myth! The idea of God or gods comes from myths created to explain the then unknown world. Damn, you theists are shallow.
Once again, if reality is against your argument to just dismiss it It should be called what it really is ... but then I guess you are just so much deeper than the scholars.
ReplyDeletesala kahle -peace
Religion is not reality moron! A person who wastes his time and energy obtaining a useless doctorate in theology should really get a cheaper hobby. The study of a God who can't be known or discerned is the study of nothing. For that they should study Santa Clause and write learned theses on the North Pole, elves, and flying reindeer. wow true to your religious peers you love circular argumentation!
ReplyDeletepity you could not understand my comment, moron. I will explain real simple for you.
ReplyDeleteReality (1) is that theology is, by the definitions you quoted, The study of the nature of God and religious truth ... sorry if that upsets you.
Reality (2) religion is reality - it exists, it has billions of followers etc.
Reality (3) the study is about understanding, or discerning God ... guess there must be something that they study, like texts and old stuff and traditions ....
... anyway I am bored with this topic
sala kahle -peace
... anyway I am bored with this topic
ReplyDeleteIt's about fucking time!
You are missing the point of the story in the book of Judges.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, God does not require the human sacrifice. It is offered to God, in exchange for a "service". God fulfills the pact. And the pact had to be fulfilled on the other end as well. Jephthah made a promise to God. The lesson here is to be careful what you are asking of God and why you are asking it of him. Also, be careful of the promises you make to God. It is serious business.
The non-biblical adage: "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteYou are missing the point of the story in the book of Judges.
Actually I am completely familiar with the ultimate meaning of this story. You are right regarding the traditionally accepted interpretation. But my point in this post is about the correlation between the biblical deity and those that preceded him.
Whether its animal or human sacrifice, the point is why require blood sacrifices at all? Our experience as humans is that in order to forgive an offense you have to make up your mind to do so and in many cases not to expect anything in return. God being perfect, and morally superior to us can't seem to be able to do this.
Our ability to forgive those that have wronged us in the past or the present in my opinion makes us morally superior to God.