19 Jan '11 23:24>2 edits
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?
"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?