What Is The Point Of A Sacrifice?

[Ouroboros]

Fair enough, I equate "our time, our bodies, our knowledge, our pride" to our lives (life). My mind puts them all together. To be honest, I think this is still valid in terms of "sacrifice". We make ourselves the victim to losing our time, etc. for love rather than self.

Sure. I understand that view. I just didn't feel that was the intent of the original question.

 

We all sacrifice things in life. Sometimes, those sacrifices lead to something better. Sometimes they don't.

 

One of our friends grew up in a home where the dad sacrificed his time, life (and family) for his work. He made a ridiculous amount of money, but his kids hate him. So sacrifices aren't always a good thing. It depends on what and how.

[mwc]

MWC,

 

I guess you could make a case that the OP was asking if alternatives were ok, but I'm fairly sure she was asking about blood and dying animals. Nonetheless, sacrifice implies "vicitm" in this case. Hard to make flour a victim. But hey, you are the Bible guru.

The OP has:

"Serious question I've been afraid to ask:

 

What is the point of a sacrifice? If a god, any god is willing to overlook something in exchange for the life of the sacrifice, why could they not by that same choice of substitution choose to just forgive without the sacrifice?"

The "choice of substitution" is exactly what I've addressed.

 

Flour can be literally, not figuratively, be substituted in place of an animal sacrifice in this sin offering.

 

I've discussed the point of varies types of sacrifices as well as substitutions. I have addressed all points by the OP.

 

I have even managed to do this in the face of your digressions.

 

To simply refer to the passage I already posted:

 

13 And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.

 

Once the priest makes the atonement the offense is forgiven. It's (supposed to be) automatic. This is why the priests were, and are, vital in the temple system. The Law requires them to make the atonement for forgiveness to take place. This is echoed throughout Leviticus as well as the rest of the Pentateuch. Is a blood sacrifice required in all cases? No. You do have to read the Law to know, or go to a legal expert, just like any other set of laws. These would typically be the priests in a theocracy. Especially when most people were illiterate and the texts just weren't in handy book form in everyone's house or on the internet.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

SO, blood is NOT necessary. it must be something of value. Sorta like..........

'For the LIFE of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul', Lev. 17. 11.

 

But MWC has a point. Under the Jewish law, they had some exceptions for poor people. But I don't think that was the original intention. It's an interesting idea though. Perhaps Jesus could have gotten away with just sacrificed a bit of flour on the cross instead?

 

how pagans also offered up food and drink to the gods, to feed them and keep them strong.

They did. But then someone started to think...

 

If the gods are spiritual and do not have a body, then how can they receive physical items like food and drinks? A better gift would be to give the spirits something that is of the spiritual world. Bread doesn't have a spirit or soul... but... oh, look, animals have a soul (anima). So why not give an animal soul to the gods? And where is that soul located? Well, if you drain the blood from an animal, the soul will leave them, so perhaps the soul is in the blood? So take the blood, take the soul.

 

But then, what is even better than an animal soul? A human soul, of course. Give a human soul to the spirits/gods and they'll be happy. Give the human soul to them as slaves and make them work for the gods. Perfect gift.

 

But wait, we're not done yet. What would be even a better gift than a human soul? The soul of a god-human of course! If you have a human who is both human and god, you sacrifice him/her, and ta-da!... You have the absolute greatest gift to the spirits/gods.

 

Im noticing a pattern here.

There is a pattern. And not totally illogical... except for the fallacy of believing that the soul is something external to this world and connected to the blood. The logic makes sense. The facts underlying the logic do not.

[bornagainathiest]

"Dushara is a good god and does not drink wine."

 

An inscription to be found here... http://www.flickr.co...N00/3708066934/ ...in the ancient city of Petra, which is less than a day's walk from the border of Israel. Dushara preferred the blood of young boys to any offerings of alcohol - following exactly the thinking you've described, Ouroboros. The blood of a living thing has much more 'power' than that of a mere plant... so what about the blood of a God? That must be the best sacrifice of all, right?

 

Q.

How do I know about Dushara?

 

A.

I went there and saw Petra for myself.

 

I've walked up the steps to the High Place where the Edomites fashioned this altar - as close to the sky as they could get. This is just the kind of High Place that Yahweh commanded the Israelites to destroy. Which is more than a little ironic - seeing as Yahweh was a Canaanite deity who was worshipped by the descendants of Esau, in... Edom.

 

Interesting, don't you think?

 

Christianity regards one kind of blood sacrifice (Jesus) as pleasing to God, but when it's practiced in one of Israel's neighboring kingdoms, by a people who are directly related to the Israelites - it's an abomination and must be destroyed.

 

Go figure!

 

BAA.

 

 

 

p.s.

 

Will you be responding any further to this thread, End?

 

http://www.ex-christ...hard-to-attain/

 

It would be nice to know. Thanks.

[Ouroboros]

That's awesome BAA.

 

Ancient history is fascinating. If I could live a couple of hundred years, and in good health and good sight, I'd probably read more (or travel more) for just that reason.

[bornagainathiest]

That's awesome BAA.

 

Ancient history is fascinating. If I could live a couple of hundred years, and in good health and good sight, I'd probably read more (or travel more) for just that reason.

 

Ah yes!

So much to see and experience and so little time to do it in.

 

Even though I went to Israel for the wrong reason (to strengthen my Christian faith ) I would recommend going there to anyone. It's fascinating on so many other levels. Masada, the Dead Sea, ancient copper mines, weird desert geology, snorkelling in the Red Sea, etc.

 

 

Btw, if you're into ancient history, how about this?

http://news.discover...ins-sahara.html

 

Not on topic, but still interesting, eh?

 

BAA.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

MWC,

 

I guess you could make a case that the OP was asking if alternatives were ok, but I'm fairly sure she was asking about blood and dying animals. Nonetheless, sacrifice implies "vicitm" in this case. Hard to make flour a victim. But hey, you are the Bible guru.

He's no Bible guru, that would make him a believer/pastor. Though I will say he's knowledgeable. I've seen his posts. More knowledgeable than you seem to be on this topic though.

[Ouroboros]

 

Btw, if you're into ancient history, how about this?

http://news.discover...ins-sahara.html

 

Wow. That's very cool.

 

So it shouldn't be a problem to find all those who died in the desert during Exodus. I think the estimated based on the Biblical story is a couple of million people. If 50,000 can be found, then 1,000,000+ should be easier.

[mwc]

'For the LIFE of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul', Lev. 17. 11.

 

But MWC has a point. Under the Jewish law, they had some exceptions for poor people. But I don't think that was the original intention. It's an interesting idea though. Perhaps Jesus could have gotten away with just sacrificed a bit of flour on the cross instead?

Under Jewish Law none of this makes sense. There's no proper alter, priest, sacrifice, and so on. Ultimately no atonement takes place. All according to what I've already stated from Leviticus.

 

It's all symbolic. If it's symbolic then it's not necessary. It a substitution just like the flour. So there's no need to kill anyone. Anything would suffice on a symbolic level. A heavenly puppet show that no one knows about at all would be just as good. Remember it's the actions of the priest making the atonement that leads immediately to the forgiveness. God takes the role of the priest. Makes the atonement. Forgiveness is immediate. No one really needs to know.

 

The prophets introduce a caveat but the prophets are not the Law. But that is there may need to be a "change of heart" for the sacrifice to work properly. And this is how xianity tends to work. You have to have this belief that the sacrifice truly did <something> for it to actually do <anything> otherwise it has no effect at all. But, as I said, this is not in the Law proper. But if you believe the heavenly puppet show that no one knows about (except me for some reason) forgives all of your sins, then guess what? It does. How about that. So just believe the heavenly puppet show forgave all your sins because it's the same thing functionally speaking.

 

mwc

[bornagainathiest]

Btw, if you're into ancient history, how about this?

http://news.discover...ins-sahara.html

 

Wow. That's very cool.

 

So it shouldn't be a problem to find all those who died in the desert during Exodus. I think the estimated based on the Biblical story is a couple of million people. If 50,000 can be found, then 1,000,000+ should be easier.

 

My thinking too.

 

And what about Exodus 14?

 

⁵ When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, “What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!”

⁶ So he had his chariot made ready and took his army with him.

⁷ He took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them.

⁸ The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, so that he pursued the Israelites, who were marching out boldly.

⁹ The Egyptians—all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots, horsemen and troops—pursued the Israelites and overtook them as they camped by the sea near Pi Hahiroth, opposite Baal Zephon.

 

ALL of Pharaoh's horses, chariots, horsemen and troops?

 

That should amount to tens of thousands. If Moses did part the Red Sea (as the Fundamentalists maintain) and not the Reed Sea (Yam Suph) , then their remains are probably lost forever. But if the Israelites did go via this route... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_Suf ...then the Pharaoh's army could be buried under a few tens of feet of dirt, just waiting to be discovered.

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

Btw, if you're into ancient history, how about this?

http://news.discover...ins-sahara.html

 

Wow. That's very cool.

 

So it shouldn't be a problem to find all those who died in the desert during Exodus. I think the estimated based on the Biblical story is a couple of million people. If 50,000 can be found, then 1,000,000+ should be easier.

 

My thinking too.

 

And what about Exodus 14?

 

⁵ When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, “What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!”

⁶ So he had his chariot made ready and took his army with him.

⁷ He took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them.

⁸ The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, so that he pursued the Israelites, who were marching out boldly.

⁹ The Egyptians—all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots, horsemen and troops—pursued the Israelites and overtook them as they camped by the sea near Pi Hahiroth, opposite Baal Zephon.

 

ALL of Pharaoh's horses, chariots, horsemen and troops?

 

That should amount to tens of thousands. If Moses did part the Red Sea (as the Fundamentalists maintain) and not the Reed Sea (Yam Suph) , then their remains are probably lost forever. But if the Israelites did go via this route... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_Suf ...then the Pharaoh's army could be buried under a few tens of feet of dirt, just waiting to be discovered.

 

BAA.

 

Just looking at 14:7 and 14:9 makes me think this story grew with the telling. Perhaps an editor saw just 600 and decided that wasn't glorious enough.

[mwc]

If the Pharaoh and his armies were all destroyed then that news would spread like wildfire and Egypt would be overrun by enemies (both internal and external).

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

Hi, I'm new here. You could say I'm searching. I was raised in church, went to BIble College, the whole bit and something has been bothering me for a while now that I cannot get a rational answer to.

 

What is the purpose of sacrifice? I asked this question on Facebook to my friends and family and got only two responses, both standard Christian answers I myself might have given a few years ago. Here was how I posed the question:

 

 

"Serious question I've been afraid to ask:

 

What is the point of a sacrifice? If a god, any god is willing to overlook something in exchange for the life of the sacrifice, why could they not by that same choice of substitution choose to just forgive without the sacrifice?"

 

 

 

Here were the responses:

 

"Because it also takes an act of obedience on our part."

 

 

"There is an aspect of justice to it. Of course god could chose to simply forgive the offence. However doing so would devalue the offence in the first place. It would say "this was not truly an offence". There would be no reason for the offender to not repeat the offence.

The offence is perpetuated and the offender never learns to not offend."

 

 

The thing about all this that really bothers me is that if a god really could substitute one punishment for another, then in reality it is all a choice inside the mind of that god. If the sacrifice is required because of some cosmic law that even the god cannot violate, then why are they a god? Does this make any sense at all?

 

And I'm not taking about consequences for bad behaviour in a child. I recently grounded my son from the Wii, his favourite thing ever because he hauled off and hit his sister while playing on it. That seemed reasonable and rational. But I would never require him to go flush his pet fish, kill it, because he hit his sister. The analogy breaks down too much for me. But the Bible verse that pops into my head is "The wages of sin is death" and then another, "Anyone who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't, sins." (Sorry, I don't know the exact citations.) What this implies to me is any sin, no matter how small, is worthy of death. But who seriously thinks that way, honestly? Okay I have known some people who treat every misbehaviour from their kids exactly the same way, with a spanking, to illustrate this very point. THAT also really bothered me.

 

This is where the huge cosmic/spiritual principle usually comes up. The second answer above makes sense if you are taking about shaping the behaviour of a child, but really doesn't make sense to me when applied to why a man would have to die for other people's sin. In such a case, then the god is choosing to see the death of the one instead of the other. Which means to me that either said god is simply capricious and mean, or else he/she is bound by rules that even they can't change, therefore aren't really a god at all.

 

Am I crazy, or does this all seem like a complicated explanation of barbaric, primitive people trying to explain why things got better after an animal died?

Before I wade through 12 pages of responses, I want to key in on your opening post. Wow. You are truly an insightful person. You do get it, even though I myself could fill 12 pages explaining why. Just wanted to say, you're on track. Kudos.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Fair enough, I equate "our time, our bodies, our knowledge, our pride" to our lives (life). My mind puts them all together. To be honest, I think this is still valid in terms of "sacrifice". We make ourselves the victim to losing our time, etc. for love rather than self.

No one cares what "you equate" because it doesn't make it any more valid. You confuse subjective reality with objective reality. Some things aren't a matter of subjective reality, some are. Things like what philosophy you like, what foods taste goods and which just taste awful are matters of subjective reality. What sacrifice the Bible demands in the old testament and whether its true aren't matters of subjective reality. The difference is that subjective reality deals with individuals tastes.

 

In my subjective reality, I really like Centaurs, they'd be cool creatures to exist. In objective reality, they're just mythological.

 

The thing is about Old Testament sacrifice, is that the gods ate the aroma, or in the case of the Bible, its the aroma that God would eat. That's how the offering went to him. The rest went to the temple priesthood. That's why a really big altar with alot of animals would've been necessary.

[Rachelmum]

I started watching "Out of Egypt" a Discovery Channel Documentary that is exploring the shape of pyramids and asks the question, why do humans worldwide build them? This is an anthropological question, but what caught my attention was when the host was exploring a Mayan temple they showed a carved relief that depicted the ritual auto-sacrifice of a noble. The person was dragging a thorn studded rope through a hole in their own tongue, and the blood from this was being caught in a bowl. The historian explained that this blood was soaked into bark, then the bark was burned as an offering to the gods. In this case no death was required, but the elements of burning the sacrifice of blood was there.

 

Beyond biblical reasons for sacrifice, I am wondering anthropologically, are there any scholarly explanations for this kind of belief and behaviour? Can anyone point me to a book or writings that deal with why ancient peoples did these things, not confined to Levitical law?

Thanks.

[Ouroboros]

I think I know the purpose of the burning of food, animals, or blood. I suspect that they thought burning converted the physical object into its essence. Essence is the metaphysical form of an object. The form that makes an object be what it is. Similar to Plato's forms. By burning it, you basically sent the object to the spiritual world. You want to give your favorite god a new pair of slippers? Buy a pair and throw them on the pit. Simple as that. Fire was a magical thing (works for cleansing too, Zoroastrians had that down), and seems to be alive.