I hear a lot of people say that the Judeo Christian god does not ask or condone human sacrifices like many other ancient gods of the middle east and roman empire.
I think it is kinda odd b/c the bases of christianity is just that, a contractual obligation of one man to be sacrificed for forgiveness for everybody elses sin. In ancient times it was done with not just animals but humans, it is where we get the term scapegoating shifting the blame to one thing/individual....
funny enough some ppl will justify this with, " well, human's did it and Jesus is god so it doesnt count. but, the thing is god accepted a human sacrifices and whether Jesus is god or not which is a church doctrine and not something Jesus taught, god still did it ."
The even funnier part is that god has actually commanded and explained who and how sacrifices should be made to him in the old testament from animals to humans in Exodus
I am not just talking about Abraham and his son Isaac which again some ppl will justify them with god was just testing them and didnt actually do it.
sadly, Abraham was going to do it b/c it was the norm thing to do in his time b/c ppl did sacrifice humans to the judeo god. it doesnt matter that Abraham didnt go through it.
the bible further clarifies itself tells u if u are going to sacrifice a human to god it is suppose to be your 1st child and its suppose to be precious to u and the fire must completely consume them..
there are verses in Leviticus which state how much a person, animal farms cost so u can exchange them so u dont have to sacrifice them to god and his priest. >_>
but, i guess ppl dont read the bible and still like to pretend god never said that in the bible..
Jesus sacrificed himself, he had magic powers, he could have escaped if he wanted to. More to the point Christians didn't sacrifice him and the guy who got him killed now has a name synonymous with betrayal. (Actually I find the whole hating Judas thing to be strange but that's a different discussion)
"New covenant sealed in my blood . . ." yadda yadda yadda
How exactly were people sacrificing to the judeochristian god before Abraham? Judaism is supposed to have started with him.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
u are aware that jesus was made to fulfill his mission and jesus didnt want to die but did it b/c it was god's will as he said in the garden.
the judeo god set everything in motion for it to happen and knew exactly the outcome. by your logic no god asks or commands sacrifices b/c its the followers doing it.
the new covenant are all church doctrine not based on early scriptural teachings. basically i dont care. god commanded and accepted human sacrifices in the old and new testament.
not playing semantics with u. god had his followers kill in the bible in his name. whether they were known as isrealites or not.
Christianity traditionally interprets Jesus's death as ultimately voluntary.
Also he comes back.
No, by my logic the Roman citizens who demanded Jesus be executed were not Christians.
You haven't really given a satisfying example of the judeochristian god accepting human sacrifices in the new testament. Are there example you can think of that don't involve Jesus? The "new covenant" thing makes the old testament much less important to a discussion of Christianity.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Uhhh, no. The suffering that Jesus did not want to go through was the infinite amount of pain and anguish he had to endure by taking the sins of the world upon himself.
The death part was the easy part.
You mean "human sacrifices", of course. And, no, the closest we got was a troll request to test Abraham.
Nah. I think you're muddying up definitions specifically to demonize a specific religion for teh lulz. There's no enough Christians on this board that would care to even entertain this type of trolling.
i did give an example in the new testament with Jesus. the is a human sacrifice b/c Jesus is the son of man his divinity is a theological argument that does not change anything about his sacrifice.
God sacrificing Jesus unto himself is the bases of Christianity, a human sacrifice to forgive everyone else.
I dont know how u think a sacrifice to the judeo god is suppose to be enacted without human's doing it.
especially when the judeo christian god has a history of human sacrifices to his name by his direct admission, laws and offerings by his followers.
by the new testament god accepted jesus death as a sacrifice to him by the mere fact that man had bn forgiven and allowed into heaven per the christian theology.
kinda funny that many christian denominations view Jesus as a man and the whole argument is that god came in human form..
Ezekiel 20:25-26 :
“Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.”
that is theological argument, it is an unsupportive personal opinion without doctrine support. u are simply asserting it. the fact is Jesus did not want to go through it whatever the fear was.. I doubt many ppl would be willing to be sacrificed and undergo any pain.
I am not muddying anything but i am demonizing a religion that is immoral which ppl refuse to believe.
Ezekiel 20:25-26 :
“Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.”
You mean you don't like it that someone pointed out your ignorance of Christian Theology, right? Cool.
But you'd rather believe that a demi-God, who could raise people from the dead including Himself, was referring to being scared of dying?
Good job.
No, you're trolling because you saw some atheists do it and want to be cool and "smart" like they are.
Says quite clearly, to me, that Israel polluted and perverted God's laws and did bad things in the name of God.
I guess you'd know that if you knew the background of this chapter. Instead, ignorant theist-haters pull scripture out of context to fit a religion hating agenda.
Here's the background: the Jews had perverted the mosaic law into an amalgamation of polytheism and the mosaic law. They were doing all sorts of sh*tty things in the name of "God" such as human sacrifice to multiple gods. They were in a state of apostasy. God is not saying he delivered those laws to them: he is saying that people twisted His words into such a state.
Read it like this:
Moreover, their perversions made it like I gave them bad statutes and human-sacrifice ordinances; and they made it seem like I defiled them through their very gifts of first-born human sacrifice, so that they might paint me as trying to scare them into submission, and they claimed these actions in my name to make them fear me.
Basically, the verses are to show the Israel was libeling God. "OH LOOK! God said to do THIS! MWhahahaha."
Little has changed. People still pervert "holy writ" for their own endeavors. By the way, you're just as guilty as anyone else.
Edit - Here is a listing of an long apologetic to the atheists you are leeching and botching your arguments from:
I am far from ignorant on christianity since i actually studied it in school..
did u go to college and take any secular religious cultural mythology classes?
bro.. the verse i posted is referencing something god commanded and it doesnt say he stopped them from doing it.
sorry apologetics dont fly for me the same way truthology doesnt fly with me.
a sacrifice to god is a still a sacrifice an aside from atheist experience their are secular archeologist whose stance is ancient Israelites did preform human sacrifices to their god.
in exodus God said in the same sentences 1st born sons and animals are to sanctified to him and goes on to explain how sanctifying is to be preform by having them burn them utterly.
in leviticus like i said their verses that gives the price of how much ppl, animals, lands are worth so they arent given to god. aka keep them from being sacrificed.
I know what apologetics is. it is the theological interpretation of scripture and view.
it is how one person can read one verse and ppl get different views off of it without any support other than their own personal view opinion.
I am willing to listen to your specific view if u like. but, i prefer that u use historical evidence and specific text.
my stance is that ancient isrealites and followers of god killed and sacrifice ppl to him. it is a mainstream view by certain archeologist bye looking at certain regions and cultural customs of the area of that time.
ppl today look at a verse today and assume the ancient ppl had and shared the same view as us. some ppl will argue today that sanctifying a person to god is spiritual call through ceremony of a symbolic act of fire walking b/c modern ppl more than likely detest a literal translation of an actual sacrifice.
the think is u have to look at verses in the context of that time frame and within the story that it takes place and the ppl involved. a wrathful god who killed 1st borns of other nations, smited 100's of ppl for the actions of a handful of ppl.
i like how your response with the RPG.. nice way of white washing. i can actually post the verse from the bible itself.
if u like i will meet u half way.
the bible and god rejects human sacrifices in certain parts of the bible.
but, he also commands it be done in various different forms of how ppl should be killed in his name. some ceremoniously others not so much.
so god contradicts himself which is fine if u think the bible was written by man and isnt really gods book..
u linked to an apologetic site.
here i will give u a mainstream secular scholar quote who studies christianity.
secular view> christian apologetics
Consistent with the pattern in the Old Testament, the late biblical scholar Rousas John Rooshdoony, in his book The Institutes of Biblical Law stated: “The Bible does not condemn human sacrifice in principle.” He then quotes another scholar: “All Biblical sacrifice rests on the idea that the gift of life to God, either in consecration or in expiation, is necessary to the action or the restoration of religion.” Elsewhere, Rooshdoony says: “…the law required the extermination of the Canaanites.”
But you did not consider the IDGARA or the MFAU principles even in the slightest. Nor did you consider the MMORPG approach.
Bleh. So you've read the apologetics page to your entire arguments. Cool. Not worth my time, though.
No He doesn't.
At best, man contradicts himself.
Of course: any an all responses to anything you bring up would...instantly become an "apologetic". Why not beat around the bush and go straight to the counter-arguments to your position? Or are you afraid of being wrong?
Depends on the topic, context, and who is doing the arguing. Some Christian apologeticists can rip many people new ***holes in no time flat, depending on the topic. Some can be owned due to their ignorance.
Cool. So it's just simply moving the bar on what constitutes what "human sacrifice" means.
But does the old testement itself make a distinction between "destruction" and "sacrifice"?
It does!
1 Samuel 15:17-23 and 32-33
Now, keep in mind, you claimed to be an academic theologian. As a theologian at the academic level, why did you not know that there was a distinction between "those to be destroyed" and "that which is to be sacrificed"? You do know that it would have been considered horrendous blasphemy to sacrifice an "evil" human to God, right? Only that which was pure and clean could be sacrificed. There was one human worthy of that sacrifice and some people call him Jesus. So of all humans, only one was worth a sacrifice. Even then, the sacrifice was conditional and the sacrifice really came from Jesus, himself.
Check this out: I hold the bible is very errored and contains:
1. Some of the "wickedness" of man. (Like little things added or phrases changed to support the agenda of a person or group).
2. Government influence and direction (similar to 1).
3. A corruption of what God may or may not have intended (falls under 1 but also has some theosophical implications).
4. Incomplete portions.
5. Many many errors.
After reading what you think it is...
SC is right: you do not know what apologetics are.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Apr 6th, 2012 at 09:01 AM
KMC Community Forums
Apr 6th, 2012 01:08 AM
I play guitar, sing & write songs. Listen to my music 
