Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.

[sharon45]

1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth.
2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.
1 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake.
2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore.
3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed.
4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up.
5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow.
6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.
7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9He who has ears, let him hear."Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.
18 "Listen then to what the parable of the sower means:
19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.
20 The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy.
21 But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.
22 The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.
23 But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

24 Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.
25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28 " 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

29 " 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.
1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying:
2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.
3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4 "Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'

5 "But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them.
7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come.
9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.'
10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes.
12 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.

13 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen."Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.
12 He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.
13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14 "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15 "He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 "The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17 " 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18 "The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19 "His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20 "Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth.
21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22 "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?
23 Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24 "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25 " 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.
27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.


49 "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!
50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!
51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.
1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known,
7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other),
8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.
10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.

[Berthold]

Isn't it too much to expect from the writers that they should imagine a God thoroughly unlike themselves? :devil3:

[Selsaral]

That first one is a real gem.

[angela2]

Gee, you're cherry picking proves what I keep saying: it isn't easy to be a Christian. :D

[cgordon]

Gee, you're cherry picking proves what I keep saying: it isn't easy to be a Christian. :D

Oh crap, I hurt myself laughing.

You're frakking funny! You ought to take your act (Acts?) on the road.

You think it ain't easy being an Xian?

Try being an outted atheist in today's society.

Then again, it probably won't make sense to you, it's a rational thing. You wouldn't understand.

[Berthold]

Try being an outted atheist in today's society.
Oh, do you happen to live at Altötting or Marktl?

[No Robots]

That first one is a real gem.

Yeah, far better we stick to blaming deformities on the sins of the afflicted individuals and their parents.:rolleyes:

[gregor]

How about 2 Thess 2:

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth

So, God is affirmatively keeping people away from Heaven? Nothing personal, no hard feelings?

[Selsaral]

Yeah, far better we stick to blaming deformities on the sins of the afflicted individuals and their parents.:rolleyes:

What a great dichotomy you have there: either deformities are the fault of the person and their parents, or they exist to show the glory of God. There can't possibly be another option. :rolleyes:

[No Robots]

What a great dichotomy you have there: either deformities are the fault of the person and their parents, or they exist to show the glory of God. There can't possibly be another option. :rolleyes:

What is really at play here? You've got the bumpkins blaming sickness on sin, and you've got the Master, 2000 years ago, trying to get them off that jag. What does he do? He says, "Forget about blaming, let's actually do something for this guy in the name of the Father, who is Love; and let love grow in the hearts of men through our acts of love."

[Godless Raven]

Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.

Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings.

Your god is as real as Santa Claus (but far less kind), no hard feelings. You couldn't understand any of the languages those texts were written in with 10 years of education. Nothing personal. If you spent more time looking at yourself as a person and actually thinking for yourself you'd probably be a better person, or at least an independant one. No offense.

The only hell that exists is the one you've chosen to create in your mind, and by living according to the "laws" of annonymous texts written thousands of years ago and ignoring thousands of years of advancement and learning you are the one in hell. Not us.

p.s. - Nothing personal. :D

[Selsaral]

What is really at play here? You've got the bumpkins blaming sickness on sin, and you've got the Master, 2000 years ago, trying to get them off that jag. What does he do? He says, "Forget about blaming, let's actually do something for this guy in the name of the Father, who is Love; and let love grow in the hearts of men through our acts of love."

It would have been impossible for God to say 'hey, nature isn't perfect, sometime shit happens...get working on science and you might one day find a cure'?

Nope, instead it's: 'I intentionally inflicted this guy with suffering so you all might somehow think that it glorifies me...somehow'.

And where did the bumpkins get the idea that you should blame people's ancestors for their problems? Genesis.

[No Robots]

It would have been impossible for God to say 'hey, nature isn't perfect, sometime shit happens...get working on science and you might one day find a cure'?

Ummm, ya, it would be impossible for God to do that because...THERE IS NO GOD.

Nope, instead it's: 'I intentionally inflicted this guy with suffering so you all might somehow think that it glorifies me...somehow'.

The message is that love is fundamental to healing, and all healing done in love glorifies love. As Hippocrates puts it:

Where there is love of man, there is also love of the art [of medicine].

And where did the bumpkins get the idea that you should blame people's ancestors for their problems? Genesis.

Yeah, those morons. Nowadays, we have Genetics (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm) to account for how much better we are than the afflicted.

[orac]

According to many christians, the suffering of others is something to celebrate, because they get a benefit from the suffering of others.

Christian compassion - ain't it beautiful?

[angela2]

Oh crap, I hurt myself laughing.

You're frakking funny! You ought to take your act (Acts?) on the road.

You think it ain't easy being an Xian?

Try being an outted atheist in today's society.

Then again, it probably won't make sense to you, it's a rational thing. You wouldn't understand.
Never said that being an atheist was easy, outted or otherwise. I was an atheist.

[angela2]

According to many christians, the suffering of others is something to celebrate, because they get a benefit from the suffering of others.

Christian compassion - ain't it beautiful?
So do we need a thread explaining the crucifixion or are you only pretending to misunderstand?

[steamer]

Never said that being an atheist was easy, outted or otherwise. I was an atheist.

Really? Were you atheist because you defined your reality by things that actually exist in reality or were you just a normal pre-indoctrinated individual?

[orac]

So do we need a thread explaining the crucifixion or are you only pretending to misunderstand?
I'm pretending nothing.

I'm fully aware that christians believe in scapegoats, and benefitting from the suffering of others.

I'm aware that few christians realise that there's a duifference between "sacrifice" and "temporary inconvinence."

I'm aware that a great many christians have repeatedly asserted that they support child abuse based on the theory that without suffering we wouldn't know that joy is better.

I'm aware that crucifixion is really cruel and brutal and evil, I'm aware that very few christians would volunteer to be cricified, and I'm aware that most christians are really pleased that they get the benefit from someone else's suffering.

I'm aware that given a choice between "go to hell myself" and "prevent Jesus's cricifixion which would send myself to hell but at least prevent the suffering of an innocent person" most christians would be cheering for Judas. (Curiously, some christians have worked out that Judas did a good thing and not an evil thing because his action was necessary for the ressurection to be possible, but not many christians are honest about that.)

And, of course, I suspect that you probably don't see a problem with any of this.

And I'm definately aware that you refused to defend a single passage quoted in the original post here, and instead whined that it "isn't easy" to be a christian.

Funny, that, really.

[angela2]

Really? Were you atheist because you defined your reality by things that actually exist in reality or were you just a normal pre-indoctrinated individual?
Is creating forced choices a characteristic of contemporary atheists?

I became an atheist when I left Roman Catholicism. There were lots of theological reasons for my leaving. The last straw was knowing that RC would not allow birth control for the mother of three children under the age of two. I was that mother, and my doctor had said another pregnancy would endanger my life.

[orac]

Really? Were you atheist because you defined your reality by things that actually exist in reality or were you just a normal pre-indoctrinated individual?
To be fair, an "atheist" is a person without belief in god. There's no requirement for rational reasons to disbelieve, or to posess the ability to apply logic to the task of determining whether Allah or Jesus or Zeus is the real deity. Some atheists are rational and intelligent, some are pathetic losers who'll latch on to anything that comes their way and believe in space aliens and magic pixies. Some find something else to latch onto, and rarely have the ability to provide any scrap of evidence to justify their new opinion.

Hell, some people become atheists because they put their own will ahead of the will of god. And then later on they babble about how important god is and that everyone should believe their theories about the will of god.

[Donkeykong]

Is creating forced choices a characteristic of contemporary atheists?

I became an atheist when I left Roman Catholicism. There were lots of theological reasons for my leaving. The last straw was knowing that RC would not allow birth control for the mother of three children under the age of two. I was that mother, and my doctor had said another pregnancy would endanger my life.

If I was you I would have kicked your priest in his nuts:devil1:

[steamer]

Is creating forced choices a characteristic of contemporary atheists?

It is after all a question of supremacy. Which is supreme with you, things you know to be true or things you imagine to be true. It defines the basic difference between theists and atheists.


I became an atheist when I left Roman Catholicism. There were lots of theological reasons for my leaving. The last straw was knowing that RC would not allow birth control for the mother of three children under the age of two. I was that mother, and my doctor had said another pregnancy would endanger my life.

You left a pissed-off theist who didn't like the rules and went church shopping for better rules. Somewhere in that time span you decided there was no god? What additional knowledge of an actual god did you acquire before you became theist again?

[sharon45]

How about 2 Thess 2:

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth

So, God is affirmatively keeping people away from Heaven? Nothing personal, no hard feelings?Yes, another prime example of god's vast and mysterious wisdom we as mere humans can not hope to comprehend.

[sharon45]

What is really at play here? You've got the bumpkins blaming sickness on sin, and you've got the Master, 2000 years ago...[quote]Oh, I like this one. The 'bumpkins' and the 'Master'.[quote=Matthew 22:41-46]
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 "What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied.
43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
44 " 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." '
45 If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?"
46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.You mean like these 'bumpkins' and this 'Master'?

I'm certain this was created with nothing personal against the "bumpkins" of course....trying to get them off that jag. What does he do? He says, "Forget about blaming, let's actually do something for this guy in the name of the Father, who is Love; and let love grow in the hearts of men through our acts of love."Yes, this god of love was merely using a man's suffering for a prop in which to do magic tricks.
Without doubt this is another example of people being used with nothing really personal against them at all. On the contrary, it is instead a great honor.

[sharon45]

Your god is as real as Santa Claus (but far less kind), no hard feelings. You couldn't understand any of the languages those texts were written in with 10 years of education. Nothing personal. If you spent more time looking at yourself as a person and actually thinking for yourself you'd probably be a better person, or at least an independant one. No offense.

The only hell that exists is the one you've chosen to create in your mind, and by living according to the "laws" of annonymous texts written thousands of years ago and ignoring thousands of years of advancement and learning you are the one in hell. Not us.

p.s. - Nothing personal. :DNo offense taken because no offense was given. Quite informative and humorous, thank you.

[steamer]

To be fair, an "atheist" is a person without belief in god. There's no requirement for rational reasons to disbelieve, or to posess the ability to apply logic to the task of determining whether Allah or Jesus or Zeus is the real deity. Some atheists are rational and intelligent, some are pathetic losers who'll latch on to anything that comes their way and believe in space aliens and magic pixies. Some find something else to latch onto, and rarely have the ability to provide any scrap of evidence to justify their new opinion.

It is a pity that what you say is true. If these were Wiccans they'd be fluff-bunny Wiccans. I wouldn't have accused Angela of being a fluff-bunny atheist although as you point out that might have been the case.

[sharon45]

According to many christians, the suffering of others is something to celebrate, because they get a benefit from the suffering of others.

Christian compassion - ain't it beautiful?Indeed. It apparently gives one considerable glory to be able to rule over rag dolls.

[sharon45]

So do we need a thread explaining the crucifixion or are you only pretending to misunderstand?No need. The quote from Deuteronomy already answers that one.

[Ubercat]

So do we need a thread explaining the crucifixion or are you only pretending to misunderstand?

No. I think we understand the crucifiction just fine, thanks. biblegod had to sacrifice himself to himself so that he could forgive us for the bad things that he made us do. That's as logical as the trinity.

-Ubercat

[Ubercat]

Never said that being an atheist was easy, outted or otherwise. I was an atheist.

When was that? When you were being brainwashed in church at 5 years old?

-Ubercat

[blkgayatheist]

Gee, you're cherry picking proves what I keep saying: it isn't easy to be a Christian. :D

cherry picking? whatever

Im sorry...enlighten us on how these have been "taken out of context"

[gregor]

[QUOTE=orac;3870607] FROM Orac: To be fair, an "atheist" is a person without belief in god. QUOTE]

Well, an agnostic can be someone without a belief in god who has concluded that there is no current evidence for a god as defined by any particular religion. This can be altered based upon new evidence.

An atheist would be without belief in god and would not alter the belief. This can be a strong athiest (e.g. "there is no god") or a weak athiest (e.g. "the arguments for god are not logically consistent").

Sorry for being pedantic.

[DBT]

Gee, you're cherry picking proves what I keep saying: it isn't easy to be a Christian. :D

Cherrypicking works both ways, and it ultimately proves the absurdity of the bible.

[angela2]

Cherrypicking works both ways, and it ultimately proves the absurdity of the bible.
Do you want to try and prove either assumption or should I just take your word for it?

[angela2]

cherry picking? whatever

Im sorry...enlighten us on how these have been "taken out of context"
They have been specifically chosen to make a supposed point, which is not faithful to the message of the bible as a whole.

[angela2]

When was that? When you were being brainwashed in church at 5 years old?

-Ubercat
Do you really want to know? Because if you do, I would think you would ask politely.

[angela2]

No need. The quote from Deuteronomy already answers that one.
Well, now that's an interesting way to interpret scripture. :D

[DBT]

Do you want to try and prove either assumption or should I just take your word for it?

If you need to cherrypick in order to support your own particular beliefs on God - and as you say, your opposition is cherrypicking in order to refute those beliefs... doesn't that tell you something about the contradictory nature of scripture?
You only need to look at the sheer number of contradictory interpretations of scripture just within the christian faith to prove my 'assumption'

[angela2]

No. I think we understand the crucifiction just fine, thanks. biblegod had to sacrifice himself to himself so that he could forgive us for the bad things that he made us do. That's as logical as the trinity.

-Ubercat
There's a phrase for that, but I'm having a senior moment. Incorrigible ignorance? Obdurate ignorance? Somebody help me. I can't find the right adjective. :D

[DBT]

Ubercat's logic is sound.

[angela2]

I'm pretending nothing.

I'm fully aware that christians believe in scapegoats, and benefitting from the suffering of others.

I'm aware that few christians realise that there's a duifference between "sacrifice" and "temporary inconvinence."

I'm aware that a great many christians have repeatedly asserted that they support child abuse based on the theory that without suffering we wouldn't know that joy is better.

I'm aware that crucifixion is really cruel and brutal and evil, I'm aware that very few christians would volunteer to be cricified, and I'm aware that most christians are really pleased that they get the benefit from someone else's suffering.

I'm aware that given a choice between "go to hell myself" and "prevent Jesus's cricifixion which would send myself to hell but at least prevent the suffering of an innocent person" most christians would be cheering for Judas. (Curiously, some christians have worked out that Judas did a good thing and not an evil thing because his action was necessary for the ressurection to be possible, but not many christians are honest about that.)

And, of course, I suspect that you probably don't see a problem with any of this.
All of the above is entire bullshit.

Looks like we do need a better understanding of Christian beliefs.

[angela2]

Ubercat's logic is sound.
Ah, definitive proof.

[angela2]

If you need to cherrypick in order to support your own particular beliefs on God - and as you say, your opposition is cherrypicking in order to refute those beliefs... doesn't that tell you something about the contradictory nature of scripture?
You only need to look at the sheer number of contradictory interpretations of scripture just within the christian faith to prove my 'assumption'
If you mean the list on this board, it's a joke. I read it, and I just can't believe it is a serious attempt at anything. Perhaps the misrepresentations can be understood by an inability to make a dispassionate critique.

[DBT]

Ah, definitive proof.

God's required an atonement for sin if human beings were to be 'saved' from damnation.
The concept of sacrifice is central to Christianity it began in OT times with the sacrifice of animals and captives, and culminated in the sacrifice of the unblemished 'lamb' god Himself.
So yes, As the buck stops with God, God had to sacrifice himself to himself so that he could forgive us for the bad things that he made us do.

[angela2]

God's required an atonement for sin if human beings were to be 'saved' from damnation.
The concept of sacrifice is central to Christianity it began in OT times with the sacrifice of animals and captives, and culminated in the sacrifice of the unblemished 'lamb' god Himself.
So yes, As the buck stops with God, God had to sacrifice himself to himself so that he could forgive us for the bad things that he made us do.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, an official Christian doctrine of the atonement.

However, there have been and continue to be new and interesting interpretation. Somebody mentioned scapegoat. Check out Rene Girard's Christian writing on this.

[MadPhatCat]

If you mean the list on this board, it's a joke. I read it, and I just can't believe it is a serious attempt at anything. Perhaps the misrepresentations can be understood by an inability to make a dispassionate critique.

Hmm, you reply to a quote that is only two sentences long and yet you fail to say anything about "cherry picking" which was the topic of the first sentence. You also fail to say anything about contradictory interpretations of scripture, which is odd, as you damn well know that different Christians have different and often contradictory interpretations of the same scripture.

Were you having another "senior moment" or do you give irrelevent responses just for fun? :huh:

[DBT]

There is not now, nor has there ever been, an official Christian doctrine of the atonement.

Taking into consideration the full context of the NT, please tell me what the point of Christ's sacrifice was supposed to be about.

[sharon45]

They have been specifically chosen to make a supposed point, which is not faithful to the message of the bible as a whole.Yes, it is a theme and of course it isn't about the message of the bible as whole because the whole bible can't even properly provide that.

The theme is the title "Nothing personal, hope there are no hard feelings." I only posted a few of the many that fit the theme, but I made sure the last two were positioned as they are. It reveals the NT's unintentional "live by the sword, die by the sword" approach.

[sharon45]

Well, now that's an interesting way to interpret scripture.On the contrary, this could instead be directed towards the creators of christianity and of christians themselves.

[sharon45]

Looks like we do need a better understanding of Christian beliefs.Of the thousands of different sects, which christian beliefs?

[sharon45]

Taking into consideration the full context of the NT, please tell me what the point of Christ's sacrifice was supposed to be about.One honestly can't answer that because of the NT's conflicting take and presentation.

Besides, human sacrifice was strictly forbidden and only distinct species of animals were permitted as blood sacrifices.

[DBT]

One honestly can't answer that because of the NT's conflicting take and presentation.

Without a doubt - but without the sacrifice there seems to be absolutely no point to the NT.

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22


"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." Ephesians 1:7



Besides, human sacrifice was strictly forbidden and only distinct species of animals were permitted as blood sacrifices.

There was Jephthah's daughter, given as a burnt offering to the Lord.

Plus quite a few references that do suggest human sacrifice....

They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. Joshua 6:21


You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day. Exodus 22:29-30


The persons were sixteen thousand, of which the LORD's tribute was thirty-two persons. So Moses gave the tribute which was the LORD's heave offering to Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses. - Numbers

Of course there are verses that condemn the practice. But I think it did happen in the earliest period of their history before certain reforms were introduced to outlaw human sacrifice.

[sharon45]

Without a doubt - but without the sacrifice there seems to be absolutely no point to the NT.

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22


"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." Ephesians 1:7As paul puts it though, the resurrection is christianity's true purpose, even though it was so-called witnessed by only supporters of the belief, so it relies only on faith.
There was Jephthah's daughter, given as a burnt offering to the Lord.Yes, but that was about a vow to god. I was speaking about the blood sacrifice that is one of the forms used for sin atonement. Christians like to see jesus as a supposed perfect sin offering, but that is completely not supported on many fronts, one being what I mentioned above.

You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day. Exodus 22:29-30I see this as a reference to circumcision since that is performed on the eighth day of a male child's life.

They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. Joshua 6:21

The persons were sixteen thousand, of which the LORD's tribute was thirty-two persons. So Moses gave the tribute which was the LORD's heave offering to Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses. - Numbers

Of course there are verses that condemn the practice. But I think it did happen in the earliest period of their history before certain reforms were introduced to outlaw human sacrifice.In the first one, while abhorrent, are only enemies killed. The second example I am not sure I would count them as a human sacrifice either though since details are absent about them even being killed or how this is to be done in what is normally a fairly thorough document.

Deuteronomy 13 goes into greater detail that involves an outright cleansing, but this is also not a form of human sacrifice.

[DBT]

As paul puts it though, the resurrection is christianity's true purpose, even though it was so-called witnessed by only supporters of the belief, so it relies only on faith.

Well yes, it is a minefield. But how do seperate the resurrection from the concept of Christ's sacrifice?
How do you seperate Christ's sacrifice from Gods requirement of blood sacrifice?

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22


Yes, but that was about a vow to god. I was speaking about the blood sacrifice that is one of the forms used for sin atonement. Christians like to see jesus as a supposed perfect sin offering, but that is completely not supported on many fronts, one being what I mentioned above.

There seems to be a shift in emphesis here, my response was directed at this statement...

"Besides, human sacrifice was strictly forbidden and only distinct species of animals were permitted as blood sacrifices." - sharon45

Yes it was a vow, but it also was a clear case of human sacrifice. Jephthah's perception was that God required the sacrifice He was promised and Jephthah completed his end of the deal. There is no implication of that being forbidden.
The Abraham and Isaac story also appears to bear out a certain willingness to do God's 'will' - however it was perceived to be.



I see this as a reference to circumcision since that is performed on the eighth day of a male child's life.

I think you're right...it was a hasty choice of verse.


In the first one, while abhorrent, are only enemies killed. The second example I am not sure I would count them as a human sacrifice either though since details are absent about them even being killed or how this is to be done in what is normally a fairly thorough document.

So what do you think happened to the tribute of thirty-two persons to the Lord?
Quote; (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2000/1/001front.html)
"Although some biblical writers and prophets condemned human sacrifices, the Bible was not at all consistent in its view of this religious practice. Psalm 106 condemned the Israelites who had "sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons" and had "poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan" (vs:36-37), and kings like Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6) were denounced for having made their sons "pass through fire," an expression that denoted the sacrifice of children as burnt offerings. One of the reasons that the writer of 2 Kings gave for Yahweh's having allowed Assyria to take the northern kingdom of Israel into captivity was that the people had "made their sons and their daughters pass through fire" (17:17). Human sacrifices, then, were condemned by some biblical writers and prophets but were nevertheless practiced."

[Godless Dave]

There's a phrase for that, but I'm having a senior moment. Incorrigible ignorance? Obdurate ignorance? Somebody help me. I can't find the right adjective. :D

The adjective is "accurate".

[BigJim]

Yeah, far better we stick to blaming deformities on the sins of the afflicted individuals and their parents.:rolleyes:

I have in-laws who did just that. Apparently, God gave my daughter Tuberous Sclerosis so that I would turn to Jesus, then He could cure her.

[No Robots]

Apparently, God gave my daughter Tuberous Sclerosis so that I would turn to Jesus, then He could cure her.


Horrible! Do you see how the ancient superstition of blaming affliction on the afflicted is maintained by giving it a "Christian" veneer, and the true message of Christ about healing through loving action is completely lost? I just saw a movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048452/) about this very topic.

[sharon45]

Well yes, it is a minefield. But how do seperate the resurrection from the concept of Christ's sacrifice?
How do you seperate Christ's sacrifice from Gods requirement of blood sacrifice?
1. Animals that were used had to have no marks on them.

2. The killing is done as fast and as painless for the animal as possible.

Jesus first of all taught against and tried to mock much of Jewish Law and didn't follow some either which makes him a candidate for death under the laws described in Deuteronomy 13. This would clearly rule out the assumption of him being an innocent victim. His beaten and bloodied body hung on a cross until he eventually died would hardly count him also as being an unblemished subject for sacrifice or as to having a quick humane death.

3. The blood was sprinkled over an altar.

Now, if christians want to take the blood as literal, they must also take the altar literally as well so a very common foreign device used for torturous killings is far from a blessed altar."And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22Furthermore, hebrews is once again wrong because there were three methods used for atonement just one being the blood sacrifice. The others were prayer and charity. Also as Leviticus 5:11 points out, flour could be used as a substitute in the blood sacrifice if one could not afford the animal.

Yes it was a vow, but it also was a clear case of human sacrifice. Jephthah's perception was that God required the sacrifice He was promised and Jephthah completed his end of the deal. There is no implication of that being forbidden.
The Abraham and Isaac story also appears to bear out a certain willingness to do God's 'will' - however it was perceived to be.I understand, but as I said before, vows are a different matter.

As Numbers 30 shows:
1 Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: "This is what the LORD commands:
2 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.

So yes, a man can vow anything and the vow has to be carried out or he will be held responsible and helpless to god's punishment.

God is not asking for human sacrifice, but it seems anything in a vow is allowed so that could also be considered. The man doesn't have to comply and his fate will be in god's hands, yet I do see this easily as another contradiction in the OT. Murder is a punishment by death and it seems one could get away with performing a murder just as long as he makes it into a vow to god first. It should be obvious that having vows concerning serious or only objectionable acts should not be allowed at all and with keeping things more consistent, the one attempting such a vow should be punished.

So what do you think happened to the tribute of thirty-two persons to the Lord?As I've said, without details, I really wouldn't know. I could guess they could have been killed, but maybe they were used as slaves by the Levites since god's tax was presented and delt with by them only.

[wiccan windwalker]

I am well fed. highly educated, have a comfortable home, a big screen TV, plenty of beer and money for hobbies and travel and I am quite smug and content.

and as far as those starving street children in Brazil.........





I would just as soon be sitting here in my cushioned chair and air conditioned room typing on the internet.......




nothing personal......

[DBT]

God is not asking for human sacrifice.


In the case of Abraham and Isaac God does, directly and unequivocally, ask for a human sacrifice.

Can the God of the bible be considered to be benevolent if Abraham was terrorized enough to obey without complaining? An example of God's love?

12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” (Gen. 22:11-12)

27:28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.
27:29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.

Notwithstanding no devoted thingcherem (khay'-rem)
physical (as shutting in) a net (either literally or figuratively); usually a doomed object; abstr. Extermination


"The king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul ... And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD....And after that God was intreated for the land." 2 Samuel 21


"Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you." (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT)

[sharon45]

I am well fed. highly educated, have a comfortable home, a big screen TV, plenty of beer and money for hobbies and travel and I am quite smug and content.

and as far as those starving street children in Brazil.........





I would just as soon be sitting here in my cushioned chair and air conditioned room typing on the internet.......




nothing personal......Well, this would work in concert with all people being personally responsible for their own decisions, without that, it is all like building sand castles.

[sharon45]

In the case of Abraham and Isaac God does, directly and unequivocally, ask for a human sacrifice.

Can the God of the bible be considered to be benevolent if Abraham was terrorized enough to obey without complaining? An example of God's love?

12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” (Gen. 22:11-12)Yes, I do agree here, although this is considered a story about faith and devotion. It is implied that Abraham believes that somehow god is going to do what is always good and keep to his word even if it appears unlikely at the moment if one doesn't first catch it.

Genesis 22:6-8
6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together,
7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

Now one could also think Abraham is just comforting his son at this stage, but as Genesis 21:12 shows, god had already assured Abraham that his descendants were going to be passed down through Isaac.

12 But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.

I always thought that "fear" was a poor choice of words to be used. Instead Abraham had respect for and trust in god.

I made the case some months back that Abraham was acting inconsistent between his dealings with Sodom and the sacrifice of Isaac. He challenges god's behavior and pleads for Sodom, yet when his own innocent son is to be setup for sacrifice, he only obeys completely without an utterance of any disapproval. To me, in order to be consistent within these two circumstances, he needed to be either absolutely compliant, trusting that god is going to do always what is just, or challenge god's authority and reasoning in both instances.

27:28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.
27:29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.This from Leviticus does again show about the same rules as with the vow except these are for offerings that are unconditionally dedicated to god, but I still don't see god specifically asking for humans as a sacrifice.

Leviticus 27:2-8
2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate persons to the LORD by giving equivalent values,
3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel;
4 and if it is a female, set her value at thirty shekels.
5 If it is a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels.
6 If it is a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver.
7 If it is a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels and of a female at ten shekels.
8 If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, he is to present the person to the priest, who will set the value for him according to what the man making the vow can afford.

These show that one can pay an amount of money to free themselves from a vow of dedicating a human...

Leviticus 27:9-13
9 " 'If what he vowed is an animal that is acceptable as an offering to the LORD, such an animal given to the LORD becomes holy.
10 He must not exchange it or substitute a good one for a bad one, or a bad one for a good one; if he should substitute one animal for another, both it and the substitute become holy.
11 If what he vowed is a ceremonially unclean animal—one that is not acceptable as an offering to the LORD -the animal must be presented to the priest,
12 who will judge its quality as good or bad. Whatever value the priest then sets, that is what it will be.
13 If the owner wishes to redeem the animal, he must add a fifth to its value.

These OTOH show that anything that is ritually clean, is considered holy and nothing can free it from being sacificed. Although anything offered as ritually unclean can be bought back so I can easily see humans as being on the same level as unclean animals. Both can be accepted as sacrifices, but not specifically asked for by god as though they are ritually clean."The king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul ... And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD....And after that God was intreated for the land." 2 Samuel 21Again from here, god is not specifically asking for human sacrifice in this dealing between the Israelites and the people of Gibeon which were betrayed of a promise and they are the ones to ask for the killings, since they feel that is the only suitable payment. However, god did apparently approve of this as it does somewhat belong to the idea of an eye for an eye.
"Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you." (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT)This second one deals more with the cleansing aspect I mentioned from earlier out of Deuteronomy 13 except in this case it is specifically ordered by god through a prophet and that it isn't anywhere near as complete.

[Ubercat]

Horrible! Do you see how the ancient superstition of blaming affliction on the afflicted is maintained by giving it a "Christian" veneer, and the true message of Christ about healing through loving action is completely lost? I just saw a movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048452/) about this very topic.

The movie sounds interesting. I assume it's subtitled? As for that ancient superstition, why do you suppose it's in your own bible? Would you care to admit that the bible is superstition? If not, why are you criticising (even implicitly) your gods actions?

-Ubercat

[Jet Black]

What a great dichotomy you have there: either deformities are the fault of the person and their parents, or they exist to show the glory of God. There can't possibly be another option. :rolleyes:

well there is always the fall and the all pervasive effects of Sin.

[DBT]

This from Leviticus does again show about the same rules as with the vow except these are for offerings that are unconditionally dedicated to god, but I still don't see god specifically asking for humans as a sacrifice.

Both can be accepted as sacrifices, but not specifically asked for by god as though they are ritually clean.

But what is required? How many verses regarding sacrifice, human or animal, are needed for us to determine the character of this God - whatever else, what we do have doesn't paint a pretty picture.
God did specifically ask Abe to sacrifice his own son, that it was not carried out is almost irrelevant.
Jephthah's sacrifice was accepted without a murmur of condemnation. And other verses appear to suggest there were cases where human sacrifice was carried out, again without apparent condemnation.
What more do we need?

"All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death." Leviticus

[No Robots]

The movie sounds interesting. I assume it's subtitled?

Yup. But I'll warn you that it is pretty much pro-Christian.

As for that ancient superstition, why do you suppose it's in your own bible? Would you care to admit that the bible is superstition? If not, why are you criticising (even implicitly) your gods actions?

First off, I'm a Christian atheist. I believe that Jesus was just a man. I believe that the Father of whom he spoke corresponds to the general spiritual principle sometimes referred to as "The One" or "Beingness". I do not believe in miracles. So, what do we have in this story of healing of the blind man? It may well be an invention that has no correspondence with anything Jesus ever did. However, if we assume that there is a kernel of truth here, we can say that Jesus was making the point that good and bad are merely relative to each individual's experience and interests; and that if the disciples choose to look at an affliction as punishment, Jesus can just as easily say that it is an opportunity. I know that I try to approach the afflictions faced by myself and my family members from this perspective. Instead of viewing them as deserved punishments, I look upon them as challenges and opportunities to make manifest the principle of loving action.

[sharon45]

But what is required? How many verses regarding sacrifice, human or animal, are needed for us to determine the character of this God - whatever else, what we do have doesn't paint a pretty picture.
God did specifically ask Abe to sacrifice his own son, that it was not carried out is almost irrelevant.
Jephthah's sacrifice was accepted without a murmur of condemnation. And other verses appear to suggest there were cases where human sacrifice was carried out, again without apparent condemnation.
What more do we need?

"All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death." LeviticusWe should learn that the god of the OT is a thoroughly bloodthirsty child with mere playthings for his sick amusement, but the god from the NT is even much more perverted.

[DBT]

We should learn that the god of the OT is a thoroughly bloodthirsty child with mere playthings for his sick amusement, but the god from the NT is even much more perverted.

Yes - I'm not even sure what the point of our argument was about. We really don't have a lot to disagree on.
Perhaps it's just for the love of argument. :cool:

[sharon45]

Yes - I'm not even sure what the point of our argument was about. We really don't have a lot to disagree on.
Perhaps it's just for the love of argument. :cool:Did you really consider it like an argument? I found it a quite informative discussion and I thank you for bringing up those quotes.

I agree that it is obvious that god demands human sacrifice, (afterall, he certainly sold-out the Jews because he wanted to try out a new toy) but just not for the blood sacrifice in the forgiveness of sins

[DBT]

Did you really consider it like an argument?

It did feel like an argument with angela, and I think that feeling carried over when you came along. Not that it matters though, it was interesting.

Cheers,
DBT.

[sharon45]

I find it funny though that this thread went on for awhile and yet nobody really wanted to touch on its purpose: the hypocrisy of jesus.

[DBT]

I find it funny though that this thread went on for awhile and yet nobody really wanted to touch on its purpose: the hypocrisy of jesus.


It was a good OP.
As it's put, it is kind of hard to argue against. So I didn't really think you'd have any takers.