Since 667joe has taken to quoting Robert Ingersoll of late, I thought I'd look into him a bit and came across the following quote:
"What man, who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God? And yet, our entire system of religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and according to the Christian system, the blood of Jesus softened the heart of God a little, and rendered possible the salvation of a fortunate few. It is hard to conceive how the human mind can give assent to such terrible ideas, or how any sane man can read the Bible and still believe in the doctrine of inspiration."
The entire conception of a god being appeased by blood is barbaric and borne of superstition. One can see how man in various primitive cultures drew such a conclusion, but it is absurd that a variation of this concept is still so prevalent even today. A while back someone started a thread which basically asserted something to the effect that since Christianity is so ingrained in western culture, its absurdities are much too readily accepted by Christians and non-Christians alike. Here we have a presumably omnipotent god (that abhors sin) that had to go to the lengths of impregnating a woman so that the child could be killed and, by virtue of the child's blood being spilled, his worshippers could be reconciled to him. No blood, no reconciliation. It's difficult to come up with something more ridiculous. If it weren't so ingrained in western culture, very few would give such a concept much more than a chuckle. How can so many be so enslaved by their fear of the unknown that they feel compelled to embrace such a concept even in this day and age?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneRight, the "doctrine of the scapegoat" (as I have seen it informally referred to) is idiotic. There are surely no good reasons to endorse it; but, at the same time, I am sure there are many anthropologic reasons why it is still endorsed.
Since 667joe has taken to quoting Robert Ingersoll of late, I thought I'd look into him a bit and came across the following quote:
"What man, who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God? And yet, our entire system of religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and according to the Christian system, ...[text shortened]... f the unknown that they feel compelled to embrace such a concept even in this day and age?
I do not know what to tell you here on how best to proceed. I have tried to get endorsers of the doctrine to place the doctrine under healthy scrutiny. One way that I have tried is to simply challenge them to give me some plausible reasons for it. But, even when they admittedly failed to uncover any (even to their own satisfaction), they would just tell me that they still have faith in it as one of the great mysteries. In fact, jaywill is one such example. He basically told me that I should assent to it, even though I can have no reasonable expectation of understanding why it makes any actual sense (which is something, he claimed, only God comprehends).
Here are some words of Sam Harris on the topic:
Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice. In fact, it has been by no means uncommon for a child to be born into this world only to be patiently and lovingly reared by religious maniacs, who believe that the best way to keep the sun on its course or to ensure a rich harvest is to lead him by tender hand into a field or to a mountaintop and bury, butcher, or burn him alive as offering to an invisible God. Countless children have been unlucky enough to born in so dark an age, when ignorance and fantasy were indistinguishable from knowledge and where the drumbeat of religious fanaticism kept perfect time with every human heart. In fact, almost no culture has been exempt from this evil: the Sumerians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Canaanites, Maya, Inca, Aztecs, Olmecs, Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, Teutons, Celts, Druids, Vikings, Gauls, Hindus, Thais, Chinese, Japanese, Scandinavians, Maoris, Melanesias, Tahitians, Hawaiians, Balinese, Australian aborigines, Iroquois, Huron, Cherokee, and innumerable other societies ritually murdered their fellow human beings because they believed that invisible gods and goddesses, having an appetite for human flesh, could be so propitiated. Many of their victims were of the same opinion, in fact, and went willingly to slaughter, fully convinced that their deaths would transform the weather, or cure the king of his venereal disease, or in some other way spare their fellows the wrath of the Unseen.
In many societies, whenever a new building was constructed, it was thought only prudent to pacify the local deities by burying children alive beneath its foundations (this is how faith sometimes operates in a world without structural engineers). Many societies regularly sacrificed virgins to ward off floods. Others killed their first-born children, and even ate them, as a way of ensuring a mother’s ongoing fertility. In India, living infants were ritually fed to sharks at the mouth of the Ganges for the same purpose. Indians also burned widows alive so that they could follow their husbands into the next world. Leaving nothing to chance, Indians also sowed their fields with the flesh of a certain caste of men, raised especially for this purpose and dismembered while alive, to ensure that every crop of tumeric would be appropriately crimson. The British were actually hard pressed to put an end to these pious atrocities.
In some cultures whenever a nobleman died, other men and women allowed themselves to be buried alive so as to serve as his retainers in the next world. In ancient Rome, children were occasionally slaughtered so that the future could be read in their entrails. Some Fijian prodigy devised a powerful sacrament called “Vakatoga” which required that a victim’s limbs be cut off and eaten while he watched. Among the Iroquois, prisoners taken captive in war were often permitted to live among the tribe for many years, and even to marry, all the while being doomed to be flayed alive as an oblation to the God of War; whatever children they produced while in captivity were disposed of in the same ritual. Certain African tribes have a long history of murdering people to send as couriers in a one-way dialogue with their ancestors or to convert their body parts into magical charms. Ritual murders of this sort continue in many African societies to this day.
It is essential to realize that such obscene misuses of human life have always been explicitly religious. They are the product of what people think they know about invisible gods and goddesses, and of what they manifestly do not know about biology, meteorology, medicine, physics, and a dozen other specific sciences that have more than a little to say about the events in the world that concern them. And it is astride this contemptible history of religious atrocity and scientific ignorance that Christianity now stands as an absurdly unselfconscious apotheosis. The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a “loving” God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the superstitious bloodletting that has plagued bewildered people throughout history....
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThere is authentic religion and false religion, and false religion will present much error.
Since 667joe has taken to quoting Robert Ingersoll of late, I thought I'd look into him a bit and came across the following quote:
"What man, who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God? And yet, our entire system of religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and according to the Christian system, ...[text shortened]... f the unknown that they feel compelled to embrace such a concept even in this day and age?
Theses religions that endorse blood sacrifices are false and in error, and are the cause of the violence that we see in the world.
Why do persons subscribe to false religion.....because they are insincere and bewildered.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat is 'sanity' and who is sane or insane? Most people readily hold some irrational beliefs, but are most people accurately described as insane?
"....... or how any sane man can read the Bible and still believe in the doctrine of inspiration."
It seems to me that the issue is not this particular issue in a particular religion, but rather the more general question of why humans readily hold irrational beliefs.
If it weren't so ingrained in western culture, very few would give such a concept much more than a chuckle.
I think you would understand it better if you realized that most theists do not understand or have rational explanations for most of the concepts in their religion but rather take it on faith that they are valid. What is important to them is not whether or not they understand it, but other aspects such as what comfort they derive from the religion, or the social aspects etc.
Most theists are uncomfortable with the above and try to hide their ignorance or lack of rationality by trying to give explanations, by either trying to find a rational explanation, simply making something up (whether rational or not), or by convincing themselves or others that it 'feels right' or that they understand it on a subconscious level but can't really explain it to others.
I must also point out that the concept in question in this instance is quite widespread and does have validity in society, is is only irrational in this instance because of special circumstances. A related concept is punishment for wrong doing, which makes sense in a justice system, but looses its rationality when applied to the heaven/hell system of religion.
Originally posted by LemonJelloJust a note on the Australian Aboriginies. There were essentially over 300 nations in the loose definition of the term. They were mysteriously linked by their "dreamtime" philosophy, which, among other things , linked/mapped out the land that was referred to as animalistic type mythology.
Right, the "doctrine of the scapegoat" (as I have seen it informally referred to) is idiotic. There are surely no good reasons to endorse it; but, at the same time, I am sure there are many anthropologic reasons why it is still endorsed.
I do not know what to tell you here on how best to proceed. I have tried to get endorsers of the doctrine to pla ...[text shortened]... f the superstitious bloodletting that has plagued bewildered people throughout history....[/i]
One such "country" had a spiritual male group that stayed away from the rest of the tribe. One day a young man wanted to become a part of this group. They were mainly elder men. The head of the group said that to join the group the young male must chop his member off!.
Obviously he was so drawn to the energy of this spiritual group, (or you may say he was totally nuts), that he went through with it.
Point of this story: none really, except that the secrets of the ancients, ufo's, shamans,etc. are all slowly coming out. The Earth is slowly unveiling Her secrets and I find there is much to learn.
(This story was told to me by a member of that tribe. I had no reason to disbelieve it.)
======================================
One way that I have tried is to simply challenge them to give me some plausible reasons for it. But, even when they admittedly failed to uncover any (even to their own satisfaction), they would just tell me that they still have faith in it as one of the great mysteries. In fact, jaywill is one such example. He basically told me that I should assent to it, even though I can have no reasonable expectation of understanding why it makes any actual sense (which is something, he claimed, only God comprehends).
==================================
Since I don't know what post you are refering to, I think what I probably said was that only God knows the full worth of the blood of Jesus. Only God Himself knows how valuable and costly the redemptive death of Christ means.
Look out at the ultra deep space photograph from the Hubble Telescope. We cannot comprehend the vastness of the universe. Only the Creator knows what lies beyond the beyond. Only God can know the full scope of the creation.
What I think I probably said was that only God knows the worth and value of the redemptive act of the Son of God. We can enjoy His cleansing power. We can experience the peace that it established between us and God and between one another.
But that redemptive act, that shed blood's eternal value and significance is probably only known to God.
The dimensions of the love of Christ are discribed by Paul as the dimensions of the universe:
"That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith, that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be full of strength to apprehend with all the saints what the breadth and length and height and depth are and to know the knowledge surpassing love of Christ, that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God" (Eph. 3:17-19)
How broad is "the breadth" ?
How long is "the length" ?
How high is "the height" ?
How deep is "the depth" ?
These are the seemingly infinite dimensions of the universe itself. The love of Christ, and that loving act of His shedding His blood to redeem man, is as expansive as the universe.
Because of that redemptive act of Christ Paul is persuaded that "nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus" -
"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38,39)
The value, the worth of Christ's love and that expression of His love in the crucifixion, can only be fully comprehended by God.
The worth of His vicarious death for the world will take the redeemed unto eternity to appreciate.
I would like to think that that is what I probably told you somewhere. This love brings man to become God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead. From the guttermost to the uttermost, Christ's redemption brings man.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWithout a doubt, there are many, many believers who are totally confused on the topic of blood and atonement. It's not as though the Bible is unclear on the topic of sacrifice, or what each particular aspect of the system meant; actually, quite the opposite. The Bible is achingly concise and specific regarding all aspects of the sacrificial system.
Since 667joe has taken to quoting Robert Ingersoll of late, I thought I'd look into him a bit and came across the following quote:
"What man, who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God? And yet, our entire system of religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and according to the Christian system, ...[text shortened]... f the unknown that they feel compelled to embrace such a concept even in this day and age?
Clarity (and attendant maturity and profitable living) prevails where the Bible is allowed to lead. Confusion reigns when the Bible is abandoned.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBlood sacrifice is blood sacrifice, and you cannot say its simply symbolic or something, because some poor animal has had its head decapitated, so I dont think the animal would say it is symbolic.
Without a doubt, there are many, many believers who are totally confused on the topic of blood and atonement. It's not as though the Bible is unclear on the topic of sacrifice, or what each particular aspect of the system meant; actually, quite the opposite. The Bible is achingly concise and specific regarding all aspects of the sacrificial system.
Cl ...[text shortened]... ng) prevails where the Bible is allowed to lead. Confusion reigns when the Bible is abandoned.
Also what did they do with the sacrificed animal?
Did they leave it on the alter for their blood lust God to devour?
or did they eat it themselves?
They ate it themselves, so we can see that all this killing is really to satisfy the tongue in the name of sacrifice........*this is anti spiritual and definitely not religious behavior.
Originally posted by vishvahetuThe animal cant say anything as it cant talk (sparky)
Blood sacrifice is blood sacrifice, and you cannot say its simply symbolic or something, because some poor animal has had its head decapitated, so I dont think the animal would say it is symbolic.
Also what did they do with the sacrificed animal?
Did they leave it on the alter for their blood lust God to devour?
or did they eat it themselves?
...[text shortened]... e in the name of sacrifice........*this is anti spiritual and definitely not religious behavior.
Originally posted by LemonJelloInteresting that he said that you should assent to it even though you (and everyone else) are unable to make sense of it. I imagine such advice was dispensed for those who balked at embracing any of the many examples cited in the Harris quote you provided. Ultimately such beliefs are about appeasing ones fear of the unknown rather than about appeasing God.
Right, the "doctrine of the scapegoat" (as I have seen it informally referred to) is idiotic. There are surely no good reasons to endorse it; but, at the same time, I am sure there are many anthropologic reasons why it is still endorsed.
I do not know what to tell you here on how best to proceed. I have tried to get endorsers of the doctrine to pla ...[text shortened]... f the superstitious bloodletting that has plagued bewildered people throughout history....[/i]
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneChristian faith is not a response to the atonement, but rather a response to the ressurection. Critics of Christianity innacurately portray our faith based soley on blood appeasement, when it is really one of victory over sin and death.
Since 667joe has taken to quoting Robert Ingersoll of late, I thought I'd look into him a bit and came across the following quote:
"What man, who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God? And yet, our entire system of religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and according to the Christian system, ...[text shortened]... f the unknown that they feel compelled to embrace such a concept even in this day and age?
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]The general topic of irrational beliefs might be interesting to discuss, but not on this thread and not in this forum. What makes this particular irrational belief interesting is its barbaric roots and the fact that it is so foundational to the holder's world view.
What is 'sanity' and who is sane or insane? Most people readily hold some irrational beliefs, but are most people accurately described as insane?
It seems to me that the issue is not this particular issue in a particular religion, but rather the more general question of why humans readily hold irrational beliefs.
[b]If it weren't so ingrained in weste ice system, but looses its rationality when applied to the heaven/hell system of religion.
I think you would understand it better if you realized that most theists do not understand or have rational explanations for most of the concepts in their religion but rather take it on faith that they are valid. What is important to them is not whether or not they understand it, but other aspects such as what comfort they derive from the religion, or the social aspects etc.
Not sure what would lead you to believe that I don't realize that "most theists do not understand or have rational explanations for most of the concepts in their religion".
I must also point out that the concept in question in this instance is quite widespread and does have validity in society, is is only irrational in this instance because of special circumstances.
What "validity" is that and of what "special circumstances" are you speaking?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo idea where you're trying to go with this. It's so vague so as to be meaningless.
Without a doubt, there are many, many believers who are totally confused on the topic of blood and atonement. It's not as though the Bible is unclear on the topic of sacrifice, or what each particular aspect of the system meant; actually, quite the opposite. The Bible is achingly concise and specific regarding all aspects of the sacrificial system.
Cl ...[text shortened]... ng) prevails where the Bible is allowed to lead. Confusion reigns when the Bible is abandoned.
Originally posted by DowardWhether you want to recognize it or not, it seems clear that the concept of appeasement by blood is foundational to the "victory over sin and death".
Christian faith is not a response to the atonement, but rather a response to the ressurection. Critics of Christianity innacurately portray our faith based soley on blood appeasement, when it is really one of victory over sin and death.
Originally posted by DowardThere is no victory over sin because the Bible presents error.....so anyone living by the Bible standards will be embracing error.
Christian faith is not a response to the atonement, but rather a response to the ressurection. Critics of Christianity innacurately portray our faith based soley on blood appeasement, when it is really one of victory over sin and death.
Error is sin....and sin is error.
When you give up the error, then and only then shall you have your Victory.
The first error to correct is to stop animal killing.
The second error to correct is to not embrace the man Jesus as God.
The third error is to reject the truth of re-incarnation of the soul, for without re-incarnation , no one shall come to the platform of pure love of God in one life, its impossible.
Fourth error to correct is to stop falsely teaching that the soul can be destroyed.
The fifth error to correct is to stop teaching that non Christians will be condemned to damnation in the your lake of fire.
The sixth error to correct is to stop falsely teaching that the soul is created at birth.
The seventh error to correct is the teaching that by being a Christian one can obtain eternality, because the soul is forever eternal by its very nature, so everyone is already eternal.
The eighth error to correct is to stop teaching falsely that all the dead Christians in the ground, will some day spring to life.
The ninth error to correct is stop teaching that Jesus brought dead people back to life.
The tenth error to correct is to stop teaching that God Creator was talking to Moses and giving him mundane instructions on table manners.
The eleventh error to correct is to stop teaching that Jesus cured blindness, lameness, leprosy etc.
The twelfth error to correct is to stop teaching that Christianity is the one true religion.
The thirteenth error to correct is to stop teaching Genesis as the process of creation.
And so on.......theres many more errors and they will misdirect people away from true spiritual life and the people will end up being cheated.