Blood sacrifice, i.e. animal sacrifice

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Whether it is "appease", "gain favor", "justify", etc. it amounts to the same underlying concept: A primitive substitutionary sacrifice. In the case of Christianity, a sacrifice of God that was initiated by God whether it was to "appease", "gain favor" or "justify".

I would reject the words 'appease' and 'gain favour'. 'Justify' is acceptable in hey come in history and are sensitive to that period and culture.[/b]

I would reject the words 'appease' and 'gain favour'. 'Justify' is acceptable in the sense of 'To make righteous' but not in the sense of 'to excuse' (which is close to 'appease' anyway). I would also take the idea of 'substitutionary sacrifice' with a grain of salt.

Maybe I could have made things clearer. I left the words 'appease' and 'gain favor' because depending on the culture and their concept of what a blood sacrifice was to accomplish any of those words as well as many more could apply. The point was that they share the same underlying primitive concept: A blood sacrifice is made to a god, gods or nature in an effort to make man more "worthy" to whatever they recognize as a higher power. So realistically, I don't see much difference regardless of what terminology any given culture might want to apply.

There are two points to consider about the significance of Christ's sacrifice (which you seemingly ignore):

1. It is exemplary and pedagogical. It teaches what Christian discipleship entails. Some Christians have gone to the extreme end that Christ's sacrifice was redemptive only in the sense that it was instructive about how people may be saved -- Christ said that to be disciple, one had to carry his cross and follow him. Consequently the crucifixion is interpreted as a divine lesson, the whole moral of discipleship brutally enacted. All Christians, I should think, would accept this analysis of the crucifixion to some extent.

2. It is healing and divinising. Early Christian theologians emphasised the role of the incarnation in the history of redemption. Since Jesus Christ is man and God, he can be a go-between, a mediator, between God and mankind. Thus, in the sacraments, in which we are joined to his body, each individual is healed and in a way made divine. Through Jesus Christ, man and God, man comes to God. St Augustine argued that Jesus Christ's redemption was efficacious because of this 'transitivity'. It was not a mere payment of a loan but an act of reconciliation and communion in the sense that human nature is fully united with divine nature.

No doubt Christians have attached any and all manner of "significance [to] Christ's sacrifice." My point wasn't to recognize all these, but rather point out that it shares in essence the same underlying concept as a myriad of other primitive cultures. Plus in the case of Christianity, point out the incongruousness of an OOO God having to initiate a sacrifice of Himself in order to accomplish the "worthiness" instead of simply deciding that it would be so.

No, of course not. But if you are going to criticise a Christian belief, you should acknowledge the plurality of theories. You have to recognise that beliefs are always mediated historically and culturally, that they come in history and are sensitive to that period and culture.

See above.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I would reject the words 'appease' and 'gain favour'. 'Justify' is acceptable in the sense of 'To make righteous' but not in the sense of 'to excuse' (which is close to 'appease' anyway). I would also take the idea of 'substitutionary sacrifice' with a grain of salt.

Maybe I could have made things clearer. I left the words 'appease' and 'gain fa ry and are sensitive to that period and culture.[/b]

See above.[/b]

Maybe I could have made things clearer. I left the words 'appease' and 'gain favor' because depending on the culture and their concept of what a blood sacrifice was to accomplish any of those words as well as many more could apply. The point was that they share the same underlying primitive concept: A blood sacrifice is made to a god, gods or nature in an effort to make man more "worthy" to whatever they recognize as a higher power. So realistically, I don't see much difference regardless of what terminology any given culture might want to apply.

Well, I reject both words. As St. Augustine explains, God already was appeased. Humanity already had His favour. The sacrifice was not intended to effect any change in God's will. I do not accept that understanding of the Redemption. It is not a matter of making worthy (I think you will find universal consensus among Christians that grace is never merited and God's work is always gratuitous, no one is worthy of anything.)

No doubt Christians have attached any and all manner of "significance [to] Christ's sacrifice." My point wasn't to recognize all these, but rather point out that it shares in essence the same underlying concept as a myriad of other primitive cultures.

I don't think that these are significances which have been attached. They have always existed. Christians have always understood that Jesus' sacrifice was didactic; Christians have always understood that through Jesus, man is united to God. There is a strong biblical precedent for both of these. For the former, Jesus clearly tells his disciples to carry their cross and to lose their life in order to gain it. For the latter, St Paul clearly says that each Christian dies and is reborn in Christ; that Christians form one body in him. This has always been the essence of the redemption.

Of course Christians would admit that Christianity derives its logic from earlier cultures. Christianity did not spring up out of no where. It had an obvious origin in the Jewish people. What I reject is the idea that Jesus' sacrifice was an appeasement, a magnificent attempt to win back God's love. It isn't.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What do you mean "re-read your posts" ?

I did re read and you did not quote what Jesus said on the very subject your thread is based on. Namely , his blood , his death and sin.

I was the first to quote him on this subject.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and break it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, ject if you have no answer to Matt26:26?

What are your thoughts on these words of Jesus?

It's always the same BS from you.

I'm not going to be put in the position of having to spoon feed you because you're too lazy to read my posts. You're always pulling this kind of stuff.

Look again. You have eyes but cannot see.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'll pass.

What's important is that it wasn't Jesus.

You pass on answering questions so you will not be able to defend your assertion.

You expect me to take your word for it.

I'll pass.

The Old Testament said that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

From man's point of view it may seem like "free" forgiveness. With God there is no such thing. Forgiveness is because judgment for the offense has taken place and death has occurred.

When John the Baptist said of Jesus "Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world" there is no correction of Christ regarding John.

Latter Jesus had detailed things to say about John's ministry. Nothing He said adjusted His forerunner's proclaiming that He, Jesus, was the human Lamb to be a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world.

In fact He confirmed it at the last supper.
Peter confirmed it in His gospel messages in the book of Acts.

None of this negates God's desire that man walk in righteousness, subjectively, daily.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Maybe I could have made things clearer. I left the words 'appease' and 'gain favor' because depending on the culture and their concept of what a blood sacrifice was to accomplish any of those words as well as many more could apply. The point was that they share the same underlying primitive concept: A blood sacrifice is made to a god, gods or nature in a ice was an appeasement, a magnificent attempt to win back God's love. It isn't.

[/b]Well, I reject both words. As St. Augustine explains, God already was appeased. Humanity already had His favour. The sacrifice was not intended to effect any change in God's will. I do not accept that understanding of the Redemption.

Let me try again. I was abstracting out of "Christianity" proper and was speaking of Christianity within the broader issue of "blood sacrifice" in general. I understand the Christian rhetoric that "grace is never merited", but if you can take a step back you'll understand that the reality is that it all amounts to the same thing. If it makes you feel better to think of it as "unmerited acceptance", it makes no difference. I'm sure there were plenty of other cultures who viewed their sacrifices couched in a false humility of "we are not worthy, but please accept this anyway." It's just another way to make themselves seem more deferential.

I don't think that these are significances which have been attached. They have always existed. Christians have always understood that Jesus' sacrifice was didactic; Christians have always understood that through Jesus, man is united to God. There is a strong biblical precedent for both of these. For the former, Jesus clearly tells his disciples to carry their cross and to lose their life in order to gain it. For the latter, St Paul clearly says that each Christian dies and is reborn in Christ; that Christians form one body in him. This has always been the essence of the redemption.

From what I've seen, it seems that there were plenty of early Christians who did not agree with the teachings of Paul. To say that "they have always existed" is ignoring their beliefs. Paul said a great many things that were outside and even contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

Of course Christians would admit that Christianity derives its logic from earlier cultures. Christianity did not spring up out of no where. It had an obvious origin in the Jewish people. What I reject is the idea that Jesus' sacrifice was an appeasement, a magnificent attempt to win back God's love. It isn't.

Hopefully your objections are dealt with above.

Also I think you've missed my edits where I've been adding this thought:
"Plus in the case of Christianity, point out the incongruousness of an OOO God having to initiate a sacrifice of Himself in order to accomplish the "worthiness" instead of simply deciding that it would be so."

Originally posted by knightmeister
He's quite entitled to ask you whether you will answer anyone's questions. Your track record in this area is ....shall we say.......not exemplary.

Sometimes I wonder what you would do or what you would say if everyone just ignored you. You obviously have no intention of debating on a level playing field or arguing in a way that holds you to any res for ignoring this guy - since it seems he obviously won't answer a straight question?)

Ummm...I'm not sure whether to ignore him or not yet...

I'm leaning toward you , at the moment, knightmeister, but I wonder what posts I've missed in the past?

He says your a stalker. I'm not going for that, but you do show up str8 after his posts...but it is a public forum...hmmm...
Anyway , its all entertaining and alls fare in love and war. Or is it?
edit:feel free to ignore this post. Its very childish...

Originally posted by jaywill
The Old Testament said that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

From man's point of view it may seem like "free" forgiveness. With God there is no such thing. Forgiveness is because judgment for the offense has taken place and death has occurred.

When John the Baptist said of Jesus [b]"Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of this negates God's desire that man [b]walk in righteousness, subjectively, daily.[/b]

[/b]The Old Testament said that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness

This is not true. Read my response to josephw on page 1. Did you skip it the first time? You quoted from the bottom of it earlier. Also read my response to KM also on the first page.

When John the Baptist said of Jesus "Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world"there is no correction of Christ regarding John.

John the Baptist and Jesus both taught repentance as the method for atonement. Repentance literally takes away the sin of the world rather than just slapping lipstick on it like with a "propitiatory sacrifice".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, I reject both words. As St. Augustine explains, God already was appeased. Humanity already had His favour. The sacrifice was not intended to effect any change in God's will. I do not accept that understanding of the Redemption.

Let me try again. I was abstracting out of "Christianity" proper and was speaking of Christianity within the sh the "worthiness" instead of simply deciding that it would be so."[/b]

Let me try again. I was abstracting out of "Christianity" proper and was speaking of Christianity within the broader issue of "blood sacrifice" in general. I understand the Christian rhetoric that "grace is never merited", but if you can take a step back you'll understand that the reality is that it all amounts to the same thing. If it makes you feel better to think of it as "unmerited acceptance", it makes no difference. I'm sure there were plenty of other cultures who viewed their sacrifices couched in a false humility of "we are not worthy, but please accept this anyway." It's just another way to make themselves seem more deferential.

Go back to the start of the discussion. What I am disagreeing with is your assertion that Jesus' sacrifice was an act of appeasement. God was already appeased. Humanity was already loved. The sacrifice was not an appeasement.

From what I've seen, it seems that there were plenty of early Christians who did not agree with the teachings of Paul. To say that "they have always existed" is ignoring their beliefs. Paul said a great many things that were outside and even contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

I don't want to get into the whole Paul vs Christ debate. All I am saying is that there are a variety of perspectives on the redemption. Some view the sacrifice as purely instructive, others as conciliatory.

Also I think you've missed my edits where I've been adding this thought:
"Plus in the case of Christianity, point out the incongruousness of an OOO God having to initiate a sacrifice of Himself in order to accomplish the "worthiness" instead of simply deciding that it would be so."

Umm....exactly my point. It is quite ridiculous to imagine that God sent Himself to the world to appease Himself. It is ridiculous to imagine that the only way He could forgive humanity is by His own humiliation if He really is omnipotent. That is why I think there needs to be consideration of other formulas of the doctrine of the Redemption.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Ummm...I'm not sure whether to ignore him or not yet...

I'm leaning toward you , at the moment, knightmeister, but I wonder what posts I've missed in the past?

He says your a stalker. I'm not going for that, but you do show up str8 after his posts...but it is a public forum...hmmm...
Anyway , its all entertaining and alls fare in love and war. Or is it?
edit:feel free to ignore this post. Its very childish...

For whatever reason, those guys like to ask questions like "What do you consider to be sin" when it's irrelevant as Jesus teaches that He will judge. What I think may or may not be sin doesn't matter. Jesus will judge. For whatever reason KM and JW have trouble wrapping their minds around concepts such as this. I suspect that they only ask so that they can complain that I don't answer their questions.

You might want to consider that most "stalking" takes place in public areas. It's still stalking. Just for grins, look at how many of his posts are directed at me or are about me. It's insane. This despite my repeated requests for him to stop. At it's worst he made a thread devoted to an effort to get everyone to gang up on me. What's interesting is that a number of atheists (and one Christian) came to my defense and told him he was seriously out of line. I don't think the Christians are "allowed" to break rank, but I give big props to the one guy who did. Of course KM kept forging ahead anyway.

You add to that the fact that he's in the habit telling half-truths and outright lies about me and it's not a good thing. I think in his mind anything he says to discredit me is a good thing even if it's not true. A couple of years ago he made a vow to "discredit" me and the nutter is still at it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Let me try again. I was abstracting out of "Christianity" proper and was speaking of Christianity within the broader issue of "blood sacrifice" in general. I understand the Christian rhetoric that "grace is never merited", but if you can take a step back you'll understand that the reality is that it all amounts to the same thing. If it makes you feel bet e that the only way He could forgive humanity is by His own humiliation.

[/b]Well, I can't seem to get my point across that if you take exception to the word "appease" that's fine. It doesn't change the underlying point. If you prefer to think of it as "justify" or "reconcile" it makes no real difference.

Earlier jaywill mentioned "propiatory sacrifice". Do you take exception to that also?

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propitiating:

Main Entry: pro·pi·ti·ate
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pro·pi·ti·at·ed; pro·pi·ti·at·ing
Etymology: Latin propitiatus, past participle of propitiare, from propitius propitious
Date: 1583

: to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of : appease
synonyms see pacify

I mean, realistically what can I do here? It seems to be pretty firmly entrenched in at least parts of Christianity.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, I can't seem to get my point across that if you take exception to the word "appease" that's fine. It doesn't change the underlying point. If you prefer to think of it as "justify" or "reconcile" it makes no real difference.

Earlier jaywill mentioned "propiatory sacrifice". Do you take exception to that also?

From http://www.merriam-webster ...[text shortened]... I do here? It seems to be pretty firmly entrenched in at least parts of Christianity.[/b]

Well, I can't seem to get my point across that if you take exception to the word "appease" that's fine. It doesn't change the underlying point. If you prefer to think of it as "justify" or "reconcile" it makes no real difference.

I think there is a huge difference. It is clear that Christians over history have perceived an important difference. I don't find dictionaries particularly authoritative on this point (Christianity is not and has never been primarily English and therefore linguistic generalisations cannot be trusted.)

Let us suppose, however, that I am a Christian who believes that the only value of Jesus' sacrifice was as a moral lesson in discipleship. I believe that it is conciliatory because it shows how I am reconciled with God. I believe it is justifying because it has restored original justice (that is, it has overthrown the unjust moral order left after original sin and shown the true moral order.) Surely you can see however that it is not appeasing.

Earlier jaywill mentioned "propiatory sacrifice". Do you take exception to that also?

Yes. A distinction needs to be recognised. There is the atonement and redemption which is when man is made righteous and when he is remitted from sin; then there is propitiation and appeasement which are the means by which this is accomplished. I do not believe that the Redemption required propitiation or appeasement.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Well, I can't seem to get my point across that if you take exception to the word "appease" that's fine. It doesn't change the underlying point. If you prefer to think of it as "justify" or "reconcile" it makes no real difference.

I think there is a huge difference. It is clear that Christians over history have perceived an important difference. I plished. I do not believe that the Redemption required propitiation or appeasement.[/b]

Well, looking at what you posted here, it seemed like your points may require me to understand what you might mean in your terminology. I thought I'd see what I could find on Catholicism and "salvation".

I came across this and now I'm really confused:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm

We need not dwell upon the possibility of the salvation of mankind or upon its appropriateness. Nor need we remind the reader that after God had freely determined to save the human race, He might have done so by pardoning man's sins without having recourse to the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Still, the Incarnation of the Word was the most fitting means for the salvation of man, and was even necessary, in case God claimed full satisfaction for the injury done to him by sin (see INCARNATION). Though the office of Saviour is really one, it is virtually multiple: there must be an atonement for sin and damnation, an establishment of the truth so as to overcome human ignorance and error, a perennial source of spiritual strength aiding man in his struggle against darkness and concupiscence. There can be no doubt that Jesus Christ really fulfilled these three functions, that He therefore really saved mankind from sin and its consequences. As teacher He established the reign of truth; as king He supplied strength to His subjects; as priest He stood between heaven and earth, reconciling sinful man with his angry God.

This is the same site that you lifted the Augustine quote from isn't it?

At first I tried the dictionary and came up with this in trying to figure out what the following meant:
"I believe that it is conciliatory because it shows how I am reconciled with God. "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conciliatory

Main Entry: con·cil·i·ate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·cil·i·at·ed; con·cil·i·at·ing
Etymology: Latin conciliatus, past participle of conciliare to assemble, unite, win over, from concilium assembly, council — more at council
Date: 1545

transitive verb
1 : to gain (as goodwill) by pleasing acts
2 : to make compatible : reconcile
3 : appease
intransitive verb : to become friendly or agreeable
synonyms see pacify

Here we once again come across "appease". So I went to that Catholic site and well, you know how that turned out.

Are you sure that "appease" is so inappropriate? If it isn't appropriate, then what word fits?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, looking at what you posted here, it seemed like your points may require me to understand what you might mean in your terminology. I thought I'd see what I could find on Catholicism and "salvation".

I came across this and now I'm really confused:
[quote]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm

We need not dwell upon the possibility of the sa e that "appease" is so inappropriate? If it isn't appropriate, then what word fits?

ThinkOfOne,

Firstly, the Catholic Church rejects the doctrine of appeasement and propitiation. Atonement and reconciliation are something else (I don't care what any dictionary says. A dictionary is not a theological textbook but a record of what words mean.) Appeasement generally means something like "God was angry but now that Jesus has died, God is content with people". The Church condemns that.

Secondly, I was positing a hypothetical case: suppose that I believe that the redemption was purely didactic and that it is conciliatory because it shows how to reconcile with God and it is justifying because it restores original justice -- my formula would have no place for appeasement.

For the record, this is not the Catholic position; it is not even my position. It has however been put forward by some Catholic theologians such as Karl Rahner. So when you criticise the doctrine of the Redemption, you have to specify which formulas in particular.

Originally posted by Conrau K
ThinkOfOne,

Firstly, the Catholic Church rejects the doctrine of appeasement and propitiation. Atonement and reconciliation are something else (I don't care what any dictionary says. A dictionary is not a theological textbook but a record of what words mean.) Appeasement generally means something like "God was angry but now that Jesus has died, God is c ...[text shortened]... cise the doctrine of the Redemption, you have to specify which formulas in particular.

Hold on, first things first, isn't this the site you took the Augustine quote from?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm