What Is The Point Of A Sacrifice?

[Guest end3]

So there you have it. There is no point to the sacrifice in the Bible. The apologists have given their best effort and the results are laughable.

 

Bible answers were dreamed up by Iron Age barbarians. It's a glimpse into the mind of our ancestors, back when we imagined every shadow and every event had some invisible spirit creature working in the background. Blood sacrifice is common to pagan religions in order to appease these imaginary spirit beings. Obviously it is in the Bible as a holdover from even older religions.

 

I thought I asked you to please leave me alone. You sir, I abhore and you bring out the very worst in me. I see through your pretend quiet exterior to your utter disdain. Scary huh.

 

There is absolutely nothing provocative in mymistake's post. You have failed to make your case, end. Just accept that you have no idea what you're talking about with some maturity, and move on.

 

Since when does End get to decide what threads I get to participate in? I didn't even quote him. Really End what have I done to you?

 

I can't name anything specific MM. I just don't like you. You seem to opt for some new found thinking instead of letting what you really think out. I think I would rather you spout the latter. But, if you must adhere to your new self....good for you....just please don't include me in the facade. Love always.

[Ouroboros]

I gotta go run some analyses Hans. Maybe tomorrow. I appreciate the conversation.

Thank you too.

 

Just an FYI, I haven't studied these things for so many years, so if I'm wrong about some of this stuff, it's most likely that I've forgotten it (or just pushed it out of my head).

[Kaiser01]

Why do you come here End?

Some friends, the conversations, the topics, philosophy....and to smite the arrogance of the dismally blind. How's that.

 

Well i appreciate you being here, good to get an actual credible opposing view point every once in a while, keeps us sharp.

[mymistake]

I can't name anything specific MM. I just don't like you. You seem to opt for some new found thinking instead of letting what you really think out. I think I would rather you spout the latter. But, if you must adhere to your new self....good for you....just please don't include me in the facade. Love always.

 

Of course nothing like that is happening. There is no facade. I always write what I think. Now, would you kindly stop acting like you are being harrassed when nothing like that is happening. I have responded to a few of your topics but there is no signifigant difference between my comments and the type of comments made by the dozen or so other ex-Christians who responded. You are not being persecuted. If you hate me you are welcome to put me on ignore. I won't mind at all. However I am a member of this forum so I am going to continue to participate in the public discussions. You don't have to read my posts. You don't have to participate in a public forum. Nobody makes you post your strange questions. Pointing out the flaws in a religion is not a personal attack on you.

[mwc]

And? Does it say Abel was sinless?

Does it say he wasn't? You can't turn this around. You would have to demonstrate that there was a need for this system to be setup and the sacrifice to take place under the conditions you laid out.

 

Already perpitrated sins???? Hello, McFly?

So when did this system get setup and when do you show us this? Apparently the flood is a punishment held in addition to the sacrificial system and had no power to wipe out the debt incurred prior to the flood. The only reason Noah was kept alive was to perform the sacrifice and pay the debt. Otherwise, had all humans perished, there would have been an eternal imbalance. "We" would have "gotten away" with sinning and not paying the required price. So apparently if "god" kills anything it does not count towards this "debt." Otherwise it seems that the destruction of the entire earth, by said god, should have been more than enough to make "payment," instead of all life plus just a little more once the boat ride was finished.

 

yes, priests make no sense in the context.

The Levites make all the sense. They're doing the work on behalf of the people.

 

It seems unlikely for most people to actually go to the temple anyhow making the priests all that much more important.

 

Looks like we agree here.

Okay. Not sure what it was we agreed to exactly.

 

Rocky, The Natural, you name it.....wax on, wax off Karate Kid. It's all the same......Star Wars...the evil is defeated....David comes to mind. This is reality. The truth of reality. The good guy wins.

These are fictional stories. Not real life. Are we dealing with fictional stories or with real life? You seem to have problems differentiating the two.

 

i really respect your knowlegde mwc, but you damn sure have been cranky here in the last few months. Hope all is well.

I get cranky when people blow smoke up my ass.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Incoherent nonsense. What does it even mean for the law to be fulfilled? Actually, forget I asked.

I used to have a link to a nice article but it's just a 404 error now.

 

It only makes sense it rabbinic Judaism (post-Temple). The best I can do is the following that I had saved:

 

In rabbinic argumentation "destroy" means "misinterpret" while "fulfill" means "correctly interpret." The intention is not to weaken the Law by misinterpreting it. By properly interpreting it, Jesus would make it more lasting. Heaven and earth would be destroyed before He would cause anything to disappear from the Law.

 

I should probably search for the rest and see if I can find the original archived somewhere (but it's not that important to me at the moment).

 

Anyhow, you can see it doesn't mean "ending the law" or any such thing (which is at odds with the other statements having to do with not changing the law in any way) but it has to do with explaining the law so that it can be properly understood and practiced. This would mean it never changed. It a type of "originalist" statement. The law, as practiced, was corrupted and he was going to get back to basics (as it were) by making sure everyone understood what the law really meant without actually altering the law. The law is effect still today although xian theology says otherwise.

 

mwc

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Honestly gentlemen, does this really make you feel better. If it does, then you all have more of a problem than I do. At least I admit to reveling in hatred, but I don't think it the best idea. Please, if you feel you understand me, the add something to the converation. But if you don't, then please say poitely, out of request and respect for me, I don't understand....could you please restate or be more specific. I could call you a bunch of worthless broken down pricks, but that would be not in line with my faith. So, just because I have a dissenting opinion...and marvelously valid at that, doesn't mean you all have to jump in with your vitriol (sp?). There are some pretty sharp individuals on this site that don't have a problem seeing my concepts....you get my point?

Quit it with the persecution complex you perpetual victim. We got harder on you yeah, because you keep posting nonsense and insulting us, and you ask us to be polite? Take a look at yourself. Debates get tough. Don't like it? Don't debate. You're wasting our time. Off topic still too. So I don't care anymore what you said, I did know what you said.

 

Incoherent nonsense. What does it even mean for the law to be fulfilled? Actually, forget I asked.

I used to have a link to a nice article but it's just a 404 error now.

 

It only makes sense it rabbinic Judaism (post-Temple). The best I can do is the following that I had saved:

 

In rabbinic argumentation "destroy" means "misinterpret" while "fulfill" means "correctly interpret." The intention is not to weaken the Law by misinterpreting it. By properly interpreting it, Jesus would make it more lasting. Heaven and earth would be destroyed before He would cause anything to disappear from the Law.

 

I should probably search for the rest and see if I can find the original archived somewhere (but it's not that important to me at the moment).

 

Anyhow, you can see it doesn't mean "ending the law" or any such thing (which is at odds with the other statements having to do with not changing the law in any way) but it has to do with explaining the law so that it can be properly understood and practiced. This would mean it never changed. It a type of "originalist" statement. The law, as practiced, was corrupted and he was going to get back to basics (as it were) by making sure everyone understood what the law really meant without actually altering the law. The law is effect still today although xian theology says otherwise.

 

mwc

Right you are. I was asking because I know that not one of them knows what that means. It doesn't even make sense the way they use and interpret that statement from Jesus today.

[Ouroboros]

Cain's sacrifice was only grains, vegetables, roots, etc, not blood. Not acceptable to God.

 

Abel's sacrifice was slaughtered animals, i.e. blood. A-okay to God.

 

The story shows the change of type of sacrifice in those old pagan days. It's a socio-political/cultural shift that's described in the story, and the story was most likely made up to scare people away from green sacrifice to blood sacrifice.

 

The idea from Hebrews that it was faith that separated them is bull-winkle. I don't think Cain sacrificed his crops because he had nothing better todo. He must've believed that what he did was right, i.e. "faith". It was his faith. It just wasn't the right faith according to the new religious practices. It's a politico-religious story.

[Rachelmum]

.....you just argue for sport.

Come on Merry, let's debate Hebrews 10.....I see you down there.

 

Are you serious? I asked an honest question and have received about 6 answers out of 150 because you hijacked the thread for your sport.

 

While it isn't my hypothesis, my hypothesis is that the Bible came from even smaller fragments, look up "The Documentary Hypothesis", its one of the theories on the composition of the Old Testament and how it came about. It's safe to say that you're right without a doubt. its a cobbled mess. Much of the old testament might not even come from the same religions. One of the Psalms came from a Canaanite Psalm, Joseph's story seems an aweful lot like the Egyptian story Anubis and Bata, and the first few chapters seems to have come from the Enuma Elish, Eridu Genesis, and the story of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. There are also hints at the David Story of David and Goliath, being influenced by the greek Heracles or another greek hero (being that Goliath's armor and shield were interestingly greek, and not philistine).

 

Thank you for this. I will look this up.

 

 

At least I admit to reveling in hatred, but I don't think it the best idea.

 

No, revealing in hatred is not the best idea. To quote Paul,

 

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. ²

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1Cor 13:1-2

[MerryG]

Good for you, Rachelmum. I was really hoping that silly debate -- on your first post, yet! -- wouldn't drive you away. Love your spirit -- and I hope you do find lots of help and thoughtfulness here.

[Guest end3]

.....you just argue for sport.

Come on Merry, let's debate Hebrews 10.....I see you down there.

 

Are you serious? I asked an honest question and have received about 6 answers out of 150 because you hijacked the thread for your sport.

 

While it isn't my hypothesis, my hypothesis is that the Bible came from even smaller fragments, look up "The Documentary Hypothesis", its one of the theories on the composition of the Old Testament and how it came about. It's safe to say that you're right without a doubt. its a cobbled mess. Much of the old testament might not even come from the same religions. One of the Psalms came from a Canaanite Psalm, Joseph's story seems an aweful lot like the Egyptian story Anubis and Bata, and the first few chapters seems to have come from the Enuma Elish, Eridu Genesis, and the story of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. There are also hints at the David Story of David and Goliath, being influenced by the greek Heracles or another greek hero (being that Goliath's armor and shield were interestingly greek, and not philistine).

 

Thank you for this. I will look this up.

 

 

At least I admit to reveling in hatred, but I don't think it the best idea.

 

No, revealing in hatred is not the best idea. To quote Paul,

 

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.²

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1Cor 13:1-2

 

Where's the haranguing of the other members that played and active role in the discussion? As I am the only dissenting opinion, the focus shifted. There was no hijacking of your thread.......I was trying to legitimately explain my position and made a special effort to be nice and also welcome you. And ma'am, one of the main participants in this thread is the chief moderator of this site. I would suggest you take your complaints to him first.

 

Fwiw....once you hear these arguments enough.....the result ends in the same place........so yes, Hans and I sometimes argue for the "sport" of debate as we have been here awhile...he longer than I. Let me assure you, there was no intentional effort on my part to ruin your thread. But, if you want just agreement with skepticism of Christianity you will be successful and feel good about yourself because that's the forte here. No guarantees on truth though ma'am.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

The problem is End, you haven't given a dissenting opinion. You've yet to answer her question as to why we need a sacrifice!

[mwc]

Sexy Jesus on the cross is why.

 

mwc

[Guest end3]

The problem is End, you haven't given a dissenting opinion. You've yet to answer her question as to why we need a sacrifice!

 

Yes I have. In a relationship there are two entities. If one of the entities "hogs" all the glory, then it is hardly a relationship......the other one symbolically dies. I can't explain it any other way....well maybe. .....two puppies in a box with a given amount of food and water. If they don't sacrifice for each other, one dies......and eventually the dead one becomes food for the other one still living.

 

Nonsense again I am sure. I hesitate to call you and idiot, but I am very close.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

While it isn't my hypothesis, my hypothesis is that the Bible came from even smaller fragments, look up "The Documentary Hypothesis", its one of the theories on the composition of the Old Testament and how it came about. It's safe to say that you're right without a doubt. its a cobbled mess. Much of the old testament might not even come from the same religions. One of the Psalms came from a Canaanite Psalm, Joseph's story seems an aweful lot like the Egyptian story Anubis and Bata, and the first few chapters seems to have come from the Enuma Elish, Eridu Genesis, and the story of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. There are also hints at the David Story of David and Goliath, being influenced by the greek Heracles or another greek hero (being that Goliath's armor and shield were interestingly greek, and not philistine).

 

Thank you for this. I will look this up.

You're welcome! I'll help you.

 

Anpu and Bata:

 

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/anpu_and_bata.htm

 

Deir Alla inscription and the prophecy yahweh gave to Balaam the son of Beor about his city being about to be destroyed:

 

http://www.livius.org/de-dh/deir_alla/deir_alla_inscr.html

 

Ironically enough, it includes the Shaddai gods and Balaam the son of Beor, just not the way Numbers says it happened.

 

There's lots more. I've gotta look.

Good for you, Rachelmum. I was really hoping that silly debate -- on your first post, yet! -- wouldn't drive you away. Love your spirit -- and I hope you do find lots of help and thoughtfulness here.

I agree. She has alot of patience too.

 

The problem is End, you haven't given a dissenting opinion. You've yet to answer her question as to why we need a sacrifice!

 

Yes I have. In a relationship there are two entities. If one of the entities "hogs" all the glory, then it is hardly a relationship......the other one symbolically dies. I can't explain it any other way....well maybe. .....two puppies in a box with a given amount of food and water. If they don't sacrifice for each other, one dies......and eventually the dead one becomes food for the other one still living.

 

Nonsense again I am sure. I hesitate to call you and idiot, but I am very close.

You're right, it is a bunch of pregargled nonsense. It still doesn't answer her question. Call me an idiot if you'd like, you're incoherent rants and raves followed by insults just shows how much you're confident in what you have to say.

[mcdaddy]

So.....god needing a sacrifice to forgive sin = puppies sharing water.

 

SO, ergo, if we dont sacrifice something, god dies?

[florduh]

I think that often when apologists try to address questions that have no answer, their investment in the faith/belief system is so great they really don't see that they have sidestepped the issue. Honestly confronting some of the theological problems with Christianity has been shown to eradicate faith in the nonsensical. Not everyone is prepared to take an honest look at reality, but must instead fit reality into their precious, though incorrect, beliefs.

[mcdaddy]

If God existed, one that had any reality or truth to him, he wouldnt need apologists going to bat for him.

[Thought2Much]

Yes I have. In a relationship there are two entities. If one of the entities "hogs" all the glory, then it is hardly a relationship......the other one symbolically dies. I can't explain it any other way....well maybe. .....two puppies in a box with a given amount of food and water. If they don't sacrifice for each other, one dies......and eventually the dead one becomes food for the other one still living.

 

Do you really think that anything in this argument you've provided makes any sense at all? Again, it's not only not the right answer, it's not even wrong. There is nothing in the post that has any bearing on the discussion at hand.

[Guest end3]

So.....god needing a sacrifice to forgive sin = puppies sharing water.

 

SO, ergo, if we dont sacrifice something, god dies?

 

No, God still lives, but we die, and in a sense, God dies with us through our manifestation of His creation.

[Guest end3]

Yes I have. In a relationship there are two entities. If one of the entities "hogs" all the glory, then it is hardly a relationship......the other one symbolically dies. I can't explain it any other way....well maybe. .....two puppies in a box with a given amount of food and water. If they don't sacrifice for each other, one dies......and eventually the dead one becomes food for the other one still living.

 

Do you really think that anything in this argument you've provided makes any sense at all? Again, it's not only not the right answer, it's not even wrong. There is nothing in the post that has any bearing on the discussion at hand.

 

Yes I do. The fact that you can't visualize what I am trying to say is independent of the content. I kind of feel sorry for you.

[Guest end3]

I think that often when apologists try to address questions that have no answer, their investment in the faith/belief system is so great they really don't see that they have sidestepped the issue. Honestly confronting some of the theological problems with Christianity has been shown to eradicate faith in the nonsensical. Not everyone is prepared to take an honest look at reality, but must instead fit reality into their precious, though incorrect, beliefs.

 

The point to all this is that for every apologetic "answer", there is some intellectual "answer" just as invalid.....instead of fundamental pot luck on top, there is a steaming pile of arrogance and condescension piled on.

[Thought2Much]

Yes I have. In a relationship there are two entities. If one of the entities "hogs" all the glory, then it is hardly a relationship......the other one symbolically dies. I can't explain it any other way....well maybe. .....two puppies in a box with a given amount of food and water. If they don't sacrifice for each other, one dies......and eventually the dead one becomes food for the other one still living.

 

Do you really think that anything in this argument you've provided makes any sense at all? Again, it's not only not the right answer, it's not even wrong. There is nothing in the post that has any bearing on the discussion at hand.

 

Yes I do. The fact that you can't visualize what I am trying to say is independent of the content. I kind of feel sorry for you.

 

No. What you have said simply doesn't make any sense. At all. None. Why do you believe you have made some sort of great point with that post? And then you insult me because you haven't a clue how to communicate ideas that make sense.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Yes I do. The fact that you can't visualize what I am trying to say is independent of the content. I kind of feel sorry for you.

We don't need your condescending fake sympathy. No, nobody gets it because its just incoherent rambling. And you call me and idiot......

[florduh]

...there is a steaming pile of arrogance and condescension piled on.

Ah, so be it then. Still, at least the arrogance and condescension here addresses the actual question at hand. To be arrogantly on topic is to be on topic. To ask a condescending question is still to be asking a question that warrants an answer if you want to be taken seriously. Dude, you're giving us some of your personal theology, but not coming close to the question posed, re-posed, restated, and asked again. Could it be that deliberately evading the question is itself arrogant? If not deliberate, refer to my previous post about being so vested in a belief system.