What Is The Point Of A Sacrifice?

[Guest end3]

Science is like a number line. We think we have some idea about +/- infinity by understanding the relationship betweeen 7 and 8.

[Ouroboros]

Science is like a number line. We think we have some idea about +/- infinity by understanding the relationship betweeen 7 and 8.

Didn't you study calculus? You never used L'Hopital's rule or learned about converged/divergence rules? Hmm...

[mymistake]

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.

 

See? You have not given a valid dissenting opinion. You've yet to answer her question as to why we need a sacrifice. You just type out random nonsense like you did here. Two puppies in a box? That is why God wanted innocnet animalls killed until the day that God was born so that God could sacrifice himself to himself to apease himself but not really since God just brought himself back to life again?

[mymistake]

pwned

 

No dumbass, even if the mechanisms are understood...which they are not, this doesn't rule out God in the least....the effect of poor choices(sin) on genetics.

 

Idiot.

 

You move the goal post. You asked that anybody show you what Hans showed you. Then you change the subject and claim it doesn't show something else. It's dishonest and a fallacy. (Fallacy means your line of thinking has failed. It is kaput. It proves nothing at all.)

[mymistake]

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.

 

Can anybody visualize what you were trying to say? It sounded to me like you were trying to say that humans could kill God by not perforiming blood sacrifice. Somehow I doubt you meant to say humans could kill God. Your other analogy used glory but humans have never hogged glory from God. God just chose to not show up and leave us to fend for ourselves.

 

Okay it's a good thing God temporarily killed himself as a sacfifce to himself because otherwise humans would have made God starve to death when we stoped killing cute animals in burnt offerings.

[Guest end3]

Science is like a number line. We think we have some idea about +/- infinity by understanding the relationship betweeen 7 and 8.

Didn't you study calculus? You never used L'Hopital's rule or learned about converged/divergence rules? Hmm...

 

Pretty sure this is my point.

[mcdaddy]

This is all moot anyways, as gawd doesn't desire sacrifices of any sort ( Hosea 6:6)

[Ouroboros]

Science is like a number line. We think we have some idea about +/- infinity by understanding the relationship betweeen 7 and 8.

Didn't you study calculus? You never used L'Hopital's rule or learned about converged/divergence rules? Hmm...

 

Pretty sure this is my point.

Oh. I see what you mean.

 

Well... I can understand your point of setting the oppositions of finite v infinite, or micro v macro, etc.

 

But no, science is not jus about the number line. Math is not just about the numbers, it's also about the infinite and understanding the infinite. Just as science actually today do include other areas than the feared "reductionistic" view. BSP includes both cultural, psychological, AND biological aspects. Just like Math includes algebra AND calculus.

 

I did give you a link (or two) to real, actual scientific studies (research) in the field. I'm sorry that you won't trust me and click the links even. And I'm sorry that you refuse to see that humanities is a scientific study. You did ask about that earlier, but you didn't even respond to my comment about it. What a shame. You want me to listen. You want everyone else on this website to listen to you. But do you ever listen yourself to anything here tells you?

 

---

 

Does chemistry ever talk about smell, like any compound smelling a certain way?

[Guest end3]

Does chemistry ever talk about smell, like any compound smelling a certain way?

 

Yeah, some of the say "stench" on the bottle.....they smell like death.

[Ouroboros]

Does chemistry ever talk about smell, like any compound smelling a certain way?

 

Yeah, some of the say "stench" on the bottle.....they smell like death.

That's a "soft" fact and not a reductionist fact about those compunds. So are they wrong or not part of chemistry then?

 

My point is that every science have non-reductionist parts to them.

 

And another point, soft sciences are also sciences, and they don't fall under your charge.

 

And also, epigenetics is part of genetics.

 

Some things for you to think about.

[stryper]

INCOMING DERAIL.

 

I think the purpose of a burnt offering was just an excuse to have a BBQ.

[Ouroboros]

INCOMING DERAIL.

 

I think the purpose of a burnt offering was just an excuse to have a BBQ.

Huh. Maybe BBQ is our modern way of burnt offerings... Cool.

 

I will actually start calling it that. The kids will get a kick out of it.

[mcdaddy]

Ive read that the original context of a burnt offering was throwing someone in the volcano, or some such thing, since yahweh was probably originally a volcano god (have to worship him on a mountain, lots of fire metaphors, pillar of cloud in day/fire at night, etc). maybe way off, but its intriguing.

[Guest end3]

Does chemistry ever talk about smell, like any compound smelling a certain way?

 

Yeah, some of the say "stench" on the bottle.....they smell like death.

That's a "soft" fact and not a reductionist fact about those compunds. So are they wrong or not part of chemistry then?

 

My point is that every science have non-reductionist parts to them.

 

And another point, soft sciences are also sciences, and they don't fall under your charge.

 

And also, epigenetics is part of genetics.

 

Some things for you to think about.

 

You know, all I am saying is I see scientific relationships as described by science and then see similarities to accounts in the Bible.....that's all. Then I get response after response of how this doesn't make sense or is invalid or blah blah....ad hominem garbage. I am perfectly capable of describing relationships via science in that particular venacular/nomenclature to the best of my limitations, but these people won't even specifiy what "language" they are looking for.....under the pretense of "nonsensical". And you and many others can jump in to one of my conversations and have no trouble understanding what I am describing. No big deal....just frustrating at times.

 

They say I haven't answered the question. Yes I did.

 

Per the story I understand God requires sacrifice, i.e. payment for sin.

The relationship I see is: If I sin against another, then I am using part of their life unequally....selfishness let's say.

So to pay some "life" back, "life" is required.

And per Leviticus, life is in the blood.

Hence, blood is a part of the sacrifice.

Again, I think God used "perfect" animals in place of imperfect humans because human life is more valuble...IMO.

Then he used perfect man(Jesus) later for man in the new covenant.

 

Are they looking for the science version of this or the math version....or the genetic version....hell, I don't know, but I can assure you it's there.

 

I appreciate your patience.

[Ouroboros]

Per the story I understand God requires sacrifice, i.e. payment for sin.

The relationship I see is: If I sin against another, then I am using part of their life unequally....selfishness let's say.

So to pay some "life" back, "life" is required.

And per Leviticus, life is in the blood.

Hence, blood is a part of the sacrifice.

Again, I think God used "perfect" animals in place of imperfect humans because human life is more valuble...IMO.

Then he used perfect man(Jesus) later for man in the new covenant.

Yes. That's the Christian answer for what the point is for sacrifice. You got it.

 

And my point was that blood/life sacrifice for sin is a concept that predates Judaism and Christianity. It exists in other religions and especially in pagan religions. Sin, in many of those religions, has to do with a person upsetting (angering) their god/gods, and only by giving them a gift of life will the god/gods forgive them. This is not unique for Christianity. Christianity is just the most successfully popularized version of the pagan beliefs. That's my point. You might not like that truth or not. Perhaps you do like it. I don't care. But that's how it is.

[mcdaddy]

"so say you"

 

[Guest end3]

Per the story I understand God requires sacrifice, i.e. payment for sin.

The relationship I see is: If I sin against another, then I am using part of their life unequally....selfishness let's say.

So to pay some "life" back, "life" is required.

And per Leviticus, life is in the blood.

Hence, blood is a part of the sacrifice.

Again, I think God used "perfect" animals in place of imperfect humans because human life is more valuble...IMO.

Then he used perfect man(Jesus) later for man in the new covenant.

Yes. That's the Christian answer for what the point is for sacrifice. You got it.

 

And my point was that blood/life sacrifice for sin is a concept that predates Judaism and Christianity. It exists in other religions and especially in pagan religions. Sin, in many of those religions, has to do with a person upsetting (angering) their god/gods, and only by giving them a gift of life will the god/gods forgive them. This is not unique for Christianity. Christianity is just the most successfully popularized version of the pagan beliefs. That's my point. You might not like that truth or not. Perhaps you do like it. I don't care. But that's how it is.

 

Yeah, so how is my explanation nonsense...it's just the story, right? How did I not answer the question "What is the point of a sacrifice? Obviously you have the "ears to hear".

[mwc]

Per the story I understand God requires sacrifice, i.e. payment for sin.

Per what story in particular? We've talked about Cain and Abel, Noah, Moses and his Law, and Jesus. What kind of "sin" are we talking about?

 

The relationship I see is: If I sin against another, then I am using part of their life unequally....selfishness let's say.

"Selfishness." Is this the sin? Is this being intentionally selfish or not? It matters.

 

So to pay some "life" back, "life" is required.

And per Leviticus, life is in the blood.

Hence, blood is a part of the sacrifice.

Again, I think God used "perfect" animals in place of imperfect humans because human life is more valuble...IMO.

Then he used perfect man(Jesus) later for man in the new covenant.

You're making all of this up.

 

Read this section (Leviticus 5):

 

1 And if a soul sin , and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.

2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty .

3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty .

4 Or if a soul swear , pronouncing with his lips to do evil , or to do good , whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.

5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:

6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned , a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

7 And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed , two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.

8 And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder :

9 And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering.

10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned , and it shall be forgiven him.

11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.

12 Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering.

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.

 

You have a sin offering. A burnt offering. And substitutions from a lamb down to two turtledoves down to fine flower depending on the person and their financial situation. Obviously, then, flour could suffice which did not require any blood whatsoever. The priest gets to keep the leftovers. And that's really what it's about.

 

But as I have said before there are different laws that have different types of "fees" to pay them off. Just as in any society. This is just one example and it also shows a "sliding scale" based on ability to pay. The lamb is preferred but doves and even flour will do. Leftovers to the priests ("court costs"). It has nothing to do with blood *if* flour can suffice and, by Law, it can in this case. For this sin offering. This is different from another offering (ie. a guilt offering or a trespass offering or one of the other rituals).

 

mwc

[mymistake]

You know, all I am saying is I see scientific relationships as described by science and then see similarities to accounts in the Bible.....that's all. Then I get response after response of how this doesn't make sense or is invalid or blah blah....ad hominem garbage.

 

Pointing out that an idea does not make sense is not an ad hominem. If you want examples of ad hominem fallacies in action then read just about any thread from Thumby over in the Lion's Den. When she is asked the tough questions and she asserts that some ex-Christian is not qualified to ask and can't understand because they lack spirituality that is ad hominem garbage.

 

I am perfectly capable of describing relationships via science in that particular venacular/nomenclature to the best of my limitations, but these people won't even specifiy what "language" they are looking for.....under the pretense of "nonsensical". And you and many others can jump in to one of my conversations and have no trouble understanding what I am describing. No big deal....just frustrating at times.

 

They say I haven't answered the question. Yes I did.

 

Okay so you believe that God would die without sacrifice. That makes God mortal. That also means that God can feed himself by sending Jesus to the cross. In turn that would mean that Jesus didn't die for our sins but rather Jesus died to keep God alive.

 

I suppose your beliefs are no more strange than that of any other beliver.

 

Per the story I understand God requires sacrifice, i.e. payment for sin.

The relationship I see is: If I sin against another, then I am using part of their life unequally....selfishness let's say.

So to pay some "life" back, "life" is required.

And per Leviticus, life is in the blood.

Hence, blood is a part of the sacrifice.

Again, I think God used "perfect" animals in place of imperfect humans because human life is more valuble...IMO.

Then he used perfect man(Jesus) later for man in the new covenant.

 

Are they looking for the science version of this or the math version....or the genetic version....hell, I don't know, but I can assure you it's there.

 

I appreciate your patience.

 

Are you using life as a metaphor?

 

This doesn't make sense. I liked your other one where God is a puppy trapped in a box and God will die if we don't feed him sacrifice.

[mcdaddy]

Per the story I understand God requires sacrifice, i.e. payment for sin.

Per what story in particular? We've talked about Cain and Abel, Noah, Moses and his Law, and Jesus. What kind of "sin" are we talking about?

 

The relationship I see is: If I sin against another, then I am using part of their life unequally....selfishness let's say.

"Selfishness." Is this the sin? Is this being intentionally selfish or not? It matters.

 

So to pay some "life" back, "life" is required.

And per Leviticus, life is in the blood.

Hence, blood is a part of the sacrifice.

Again, I think God used "perfect" animals in place of imperfect humans because human life is more valuble...IMO.

Then he used perfect man(Jesus) later for man in the new covenant.

You're making all of this up.

 

Read this section (Leviticus 5):

 

1 And if a soul sin , and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.

2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty .

3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty .

4 Or if a soul swear , pronouncing with his lips to do evil , or to do good , whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.

5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:

6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned , a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

7 And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed , two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.

8 And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder :

9 And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering.

10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned , and it shall be forgiven him.

11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.

12 Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering.

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.

 

You have a sin offering. A burnt offering. And substitutions from a lamb down to two turtledoves down to fine flower depending on the person and their financial situation. Obviously, then, flour could suffice which did not require any blood whatsoever. The priest gets to keep the leftovers. And that's really what it's about.

 

But as I have said before there are different laws that have different types of "fees" to pay them off. Just as in any society. This is just one example and it also shows a "sliding scale" based on ability to pay. The lamb is preferred but doves (pigeons here) and even wheat will do. Leftovers to the priests ("court costs"). It has nothing to do with blood *if* flour can suffice and, by Law, it can in this case. For this sin offering. This is different from another offering (ie. a guilt offering or a tresspass offering or one of the other rituals).

 

mwc

 

Well played, mwc. Well played.

 

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

 

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

 

Im noticing a pattern here.

[mwc]

Well played, mwc. Well played.

 

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

 

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

 

Im noticing a pattern here.

Zeus got tricked into accepting the crappy parts of the animal. Note the similarities to YHWH like the aroma of the sacrifices in the biblical texts:

The Pandora myth explains the origin of labor with the coming of the first woman. Hesiod connects it to Prometheus's theft of fire from Zeus, but the story begins earlier, with the story of Prometheus's sacrifice (told in the Theogony, but not in the excerpts in Reid). Prometheus ("foresight") wrapped the meat and intestines of the bull in skin, and the bones in the rich looking fat. He asked Zeus to choose his portion. Zeus chose the fat, not knowing that bones, not meat, were beneath it. This is an aetiological myth that explains why things are done the way they are: From this point on, humans would eat the meat of sacrifice, and the g-ds would get only the aroma of the sizzling fat.

From this overview (the actual stories are available with a quick search).

 

Here's Exodus 29:18:

And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt offering unto the LORD: it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

Leviticus 1:9:

9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

 

However, we needn't feel too bad for the gods because they consumed ambrosia. This appears to be what gave them immortality and was not for humans. It's related to doves. Anyhow, they had their own special food in addition to the sacrifices. But with this little "trick" humans get to keep the good bits and the gods get the "junk" but a nice odor. Not because humans are shortchanging them but by the gods' own doing (in Greece at least).

 

mwc

[mcdaddy]

thats nifty. thx

[Guest end3]

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.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, so how is my explanation nonsense...it's just the story, right? How did I not answer the question "What is the point of a sacrifice? Obviously you have the "ears to hear".

Because that's not at all what you discussed in the beginning. You went out on a tangent about "working hard" to be equivalent of "sacrifice". I told you it wasn't the same. Then I told you that the discussion for this thread was really about the blood sacrifice, not work sacrifice. Then you changed your tone. Now you agree with what I said earlier and you make the claim that you're the one who came up with it.

 

This is what you said in the beginning of the discussion:

"I gather the purpose of humanity is that we know God by knowing Christ. There are a myriad of answers. Personally, I think sacrifice is involved in the manifestation of God in that when we learn to sacrifice our time, our bodies, our knowledge, our pride, then we manifest God in others lives by them seeing and knowing that they are not alone in their struggles. Moderately simple."

 

That's not the same as what you proposed now. You even argued against it earlier when I was the one saying it was a blood sacrifice.

[Guest end3]

Yeah, so how is my explanation nonsense...it's just the story, right? How did I not answer the question "What is the point of a sacrifice? Obviously you have the "ears to hear".

Because that's not at all what you discussed in the beginning. You went out on a tangent about "working hard" to be equivalent of "sacrifice". I told you it wasn't the same. Then I told you that the discussion for this thread was really about the blood sacrifice, not work sacrifice. Then you changed your tone. Now you agree with what I said earlier and you make the claim that you're the one who came up with it.

 

This is what you said in the beginning of the discussion:

"I gather the purpose of humanity is that we know God by knowing Christ. There are a myriad of answers. Personally, I think sacrifice is involved in the manifestation of God in that when we learn to sacrifice our time, our bodies, our knowledge, our pride, then we manifest God in others lives by them seeing and knowing that they are not alone in their struggles. Moderately simple."

 

That's not the same as what you proposed now. You even argued against it earlier when I was the one saying it was a blood sacrifice.

 

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.