Human Sacrifice... right or wrong?
TheWingsOfWisdom

San Antonio, TX

#107 Mar 30, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Im not going to waste my time. Well, that is till you prove yourself in that thread Im speaking of. If not just go troll other users and wait for my occasional jab at you here and there lol
I am not responsible for what you do or do not do. You are. If you do not want to prove our present your proof, and our debate, that is your problem, not mine. I sure am glad that God can read.
TheWingsOfWisdom

San Antonio, TX

#108 Mar 30, 2013
The less you prove of what you say, the better it is for me. So I rejoice, when you do not present proof to prove anything you say. It makes it easier for me to defeat you.
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#109 Mar 30, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I do eat meat, but there’s quite a difference between killing an animal for food and killing animal to appease a vindictive god. You don’t get to eat the meat of an animal that is sacrificed as a burnt offering. The principle behind animal sacrifice and human sacrifice is exactly the same; the intent of both is the propitiation of a god, the difference merely being that a human is a higher order of animal.
Do you think Abraham's "God" was just jacking him around because he had nothing better to do that day?
Deuteronomy 18:1
The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.

What were you saying again?

And why is there a difference? Im sure you know of the VARIETY of INHUMANE ways the animal your meat comes from is treated/killed right? Why the hypocrisy in this situation?
Thinking

Barnsley, UK

#110 Mar 30, 2013
Yes to the first, no to the second.
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
A murder can be "premeditated" within seconds dont you think?
So any murder done on purpose was pretty much "premeditated"
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#111 Mar 30, 2013
Big Al wrote:
Do you think Abraham's "God" was just jacking him around because he had nothing better to do that day?
And an no I do not think any "jacking" was going around. Abraham lived a LONG life and has MANY descendants that to this DAY know who he is and know his story. While you and me are stuck on an internet forum arguing while our government takes more and more of our rights lol Who won?
Flygerian

Oklahoma City, OK

#112 Mar 30, 2013
TheWingsOfWisdom wrote:
<quoted text>I am not responsible for what you do or do not do. You are. If you do not want to prove our present your proof, and our debate, that is your problem, not mine. I sure am glad that God can read.
Blah blah blah. The man that has NEVER provided proof and just pushes the burden of proof off and calls it "proving lol. I see right thru ya
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#113 Mar 30, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
Deuteronomy 18:1
The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.
What were you saying again?
And why is there a difference? Im sure you know of the VARIETY of INHUMANE ways the animal your meat comes from is treated/killed right? Why the hypocrisy in this situation?
I stand partially corrected.

“…the best-known class of offerings is the burnt offering. It was the oldest and commonest sacrifice, and represented submission to G-d's will. The Hebrew word for burnt offering is olah...An olah is completely burnt on the outer altar; no part of it is eaten by anyone. Because the offering represents complete submission to G-d's will, the entire offering is given to G-d (i.e., it cannot be used after it is burnt).”- Tracey R Rich, Judaism 101

“A sin offering is an offering to atone for and purge a sin.... The Hebrew term for this type of offering is chatat... A few special chatatot could not be eaten, but for the most part, for the average person's personal sin, the chatat was eaten by the kohanim [Priest a descendant of Aaron].”- Tracey R Rich, Judaism 101

"A guilt offering is an offering to atone for sins of stealing things from the altar…The Hebrew word for a guilt offering is asham....An asham was eaten by the kohanim [Priest a descendant of Aaron]." - Tracey R Rich, Judaism 101

“A peace offering is an offering expressing thanks or gratitude to G-d for His bounties and mercies. The Hebrew term for this type of offering is zebach sh'lamim… A representative portion of the offering is burnt on the altar, a portion is given to the kohanim [Priest a descendant of Aaron], and the rest is eaten by the offerer and his family…”- Tracey R Rich, Judaism 101
Flygerian

United States

#114 Mar 30, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I stand partially corrected.
“…the best-known class of offerings is the burnt offering. It was the oldest and commonest sacrifice, and represented submission to G-d's will. The Hebrew word for burnt offering is olah...An olah is completely burnt on the outer altar; no part of it is eaten by anyone. Because the offering represents complete submission to G-d's will, the entire offering is given to G-d (i.e., it cannot be used after it is burnt).”- Tracey R Rich, Judaism 101
“A sin offering is an offering to atone for and purge a sin.... The Hebrew term for this type of offering is chatat... A few special chatatot could not be eaten, but for the most part, for the average person's personal sin, the chatat was eaten by the kohanim [Priest a descendant of Aaron].”- Tracey R Rich, Judaism 101
"A guilt offering is an offering to atone for sins of stealing things from the altar…The Hebrew word for a guilt offering is asham....An asham was eaten by the kohanim [Priest a descendant of Aaron]." - Tracey R Rich, Judaism 101
“A peace offering is an offering expressing thanks or gratitude to G-d for His bounties and mercies. The Hebrew term for this type of offering is zebach sh'lamim… A representative portion of the offering is burnt on the altar, a portion is given to the kohanim [Priest a descendant of Aaron], and the rest is eaten by the offerer and his family…”- Tracey R Rich, Judaism 101
I understand. I just do not get the point you are trying to make?
Cisco Kid

Sonora, CA

#115 Mar 30, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when does a fetus have civil rights? Care to show that line in the Constitution?
It would benefit you greatly to take a course on Con.Law.

'Rights' as defined by the US foundational papers are described as endowed by natural law or the creator.

Given that a fetus is a living human, they are entitled to those same civil rights described in our Constitution and DoI as the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Why do you deny those rights to unborn humans?
What other group do you want to deny of those same civil rights? Blacks?

Where do you want to draw the line on 'the unworthy'?....That 'other class of humans'.

What kind of parched-morality, bigoted atheist are you anyway?
Cisco Kid

Sonora, CA

#116 Mar 30, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I do eat meat, but there’s quite a difference between killing an animal for food and killing animal to appease a vindictive god.

You don’t get to eat the meat of an animal that is sacrificed as a burnt offering......
Ever consider that a burnt offering was an archaic term for a Bar-B-Q devoted to God?
God won't knock you for a eating roasted joint or two.
Enjoy.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#117 Mar 31, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand. I just do not get the point you are trying to make?
The point is that animal sacrifice and human sacrifice are both “blood sacrifice” and are based on the same premise, that the killing a living creature will somehow appease the anger of a god. As the quote I provided from Sam Harris pointed out...

"Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice.” and that...

“The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation [appeasement] of a ‘loving’ God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the superstitious bloodletting that has plagued bewildered people throughout history."
Flygerian

United States

#118 Mar 31, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is that animal sacrifice and human sacrifice are both “blood sacrifice” and are based on the same premise, that the killing a living creature will somehow appease the anger of a god. As the quote I provided from Sam Harris pointed out...
"Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice.” and that...
“The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation [appeasement] of a ‘loving’ God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the superstitious bloodletting that has plagued bewildered people throughout history."
The difference is that the sacrifice was eaten of. You know the same way your meat is slaughtered mercilessly before it reaches your mouth?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#119 Mar 31, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is that the sacrifice was eaten of. You know the same way your meat is slaughtered mercilessly before it reaches your mouth?
You don’t seem to be able to grasp the idea that the purpose of each is different. The purpose of a sacrifice is to appease a god; the purpose of slaughtering animals for food is to provide nourishment.

Slaughtering animals for nourishment in no way relates to the Christian concept that the “blood sacrifice” of Jesus was an appeasement to an offended god.

Remember the subject of the thread Human Sacrifice,“blood sacrifice”.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#120 Mar 31, 2013
JJJ wrote:
Who instigated the ritualistic killing of a human to appease god(s)?
Was it god or man? An important question when we acknowledge that human sacrifice is murder. Even the ransom sacrifice was an act of murder.
So was it man or god that instigated the act?
Surely we would not contend that it was god who instigated this evil ritualistic act of murder that was practiced in ignorant times.
Then again the bible tells us that god asked Abraham to commit the act and what's more we read about it and accept it as a positive act, we praise Abe's willingness to murder his own son just to prove his love and loyalty toward god (strange when the psalms tells us that god knows us before we are even embryos don't you think)..
The point is if we read about and accept that it was a righteous thing that god requested and that Abe was willing to do... then no doubt Abraham's contemporaries could have begun to emulate Abraham.. after all is this not what god wants?
On the other hand if you say that it was man that first committed murder calling it 'sacrifice' then I'm left trying to reconcile why god would adopt such a wicked evil ritual as the means to forgive our so called 'sins'.
Sure you can tell me life was lost when Adam sinned and only another life paid as a ransom can redeem sinful man...... but paid to who? Who demanded the ransom?
Is not the ransom paid to god? And if that is so then I have to accept that it was indeed god that has demanded that a human life be sacrificed, that he demanded that an act of murder had to be committed before he will consent to forgive sinful man...
You cannot reconcile this. I know I will be presented with all sorts of technical and scriptural reasoning why I am wrong.....
But be honest, if the above was discussing another faith, the Hindu, Buddhist, Islam or any faith so long as it is notChristianity...
Everyone would agree hands down that murdering a human and calling it a 'ransom sacrifice' to appease a god....... is just wrong...
Scum sacrifice their own unborn babies to their god everyday in America. Innocent blood is the tastiest you know?(Pr 29:10) It's always been man who sought to kill the blameless. The followers of Ba'al fed their own children to the flames of their god. The innocent and blameless are always the ones to pay for the bloodlust of evil people.
Flygerian

United States

#121 Mar 31, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
You don’t seem to be able to grasp the idea that the purpose of each is different. The purpose of a sacrifice is to appease a god; the purpose of slaughtering animals for food is to provide nourishment.
Slaughtering animals for nourishment in no way relates to the Christian concept that the “blood sacrifice” of Jesus was an appeasement to an offended god.
Remember the subject of the thread Human Sacrifice,“blood sacrifice”.
And I asked, where did the God of Abraham institute sacrifice or say that He (or Jesus) would be sacrificed for sin?

And yes its the exact same. Except one is being slaughters to APPEASE A HUMAN while the other is God Almighty. Whats difference besides the one being appeased?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#122 Mar 31, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
It would benefit you greatly to take a course on Con.Law.
'Rights' as defined by the US foundational papers are described as endowed by natural law or the creator.
Given that a fetus is a living human, they are entitled to those same civil rights described in our Constitution and DoI as the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Why do you deny those rights to unborn humans?
What other group do you want to deny of those same civil rights? Blacks?
Where do you want to draw the line on 'the unworthy'?....That 'other class of humans'.
What kind of parched-morality, bigoted atheist are you anyway?
His kind are the worst of cowards, lusting after the blood of those who have no voice to protest.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#123 Mar 31, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
....
Where do you want to draw the line on 'the unworthy'?....That 'other class of humans'.
What kind of parched-morality, bigoted atheist are you anyway?
The kind who worships these scumbags...

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism" ;

...as their gods.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#124 Mar 31, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Why are you just trying to argue? Theres nothing wrong with me callin the figure in Job 1 "Satan" because thats exactly what the text call the figure.
2. He obviously proved one thing to Satan. THat Job wouldnt curse him no matter what Satan did. On the otherhand Job's story is an example of life. Bad things may happen, but we are not to curse the God that brought us good and evil. And by us I mean those that believe in the God of Israel. The text provides NO RESEMBLANCE of doubt coming from ANYONE other than Satan. He's the one that kept upping the ante saying "well Job has this, that is why he doesnt curse You" or something of the sort 2-3 times. What was the Eternal's answer each time? That Job was an upright man who escheweth evil? How is that doubt?
1. Not in the original. That's my whole point. You're relying on a purely Xtian reading of the stories that they altered much later to suit their later agendas. If you are not a Xtian, you should not be so attached to their POV re; this and other themes.

You're way too attached to Xtian POV's to not be one.

2. Answer my Q, what did it serve God to prove to the Hasatan that Job was upright/righteous, pure of faith, etc...? Why would this God, who is supposed to be above base human emotions - in this case pride and the overt display of same - need to prove to a court attendant that Job was pure..?

Why would it matter ???

Youre problem like most Xtians (you claim not to be) is you cant read below the surface of the story, as it was originally written.

Job is another OT story that runs into the wall of, "Why is this God of mercy and compassion being such a douche-bag?" Oh wait, for that to be fixed we need (Apology of) Theodicy to enter stage left and try and fix things. Poorly...

Why does this God care, or need to prove to a lesser Being that Job was upright? Whats the real lesson, behind the curtain Xtians have pulled across the story...?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#125 Mar 31, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
And I asked, where did the God of Abraham institute sacrifice or say that He (or Jesus) would be sacrificed for sin?
Are you simply obtuse or are you just messing with me?

Neither I nor Sam Harris suggested that the Old Testament says that Jesus would be sacrificed for sin; he was merely pointing out that the Christian concept of the crucifixion of Jesus as atonement for sin comes from the Old Testament (as well as other cultures) idea that “blood sacrifice” was necessary to appease god.
Flygerian wrote:
And yes its the exact same. Except one is being slaughters to APPEASE A HUMAN while the other is God Almighty. Whats difference besides the one being appeased?
I’m sorry but I can’t help but laugh at that one!

I can just picture an ancient Jewish priest saying I hope we have a lot of lambs to sacrifice today I think god is pretty hungry.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#126 Mar 31, 2013
Cisco Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
It would benefit you greatly to take a course on Con.Law.
'Rights' as defined by the US foundational papers are described as endowed by natural law or the creator.
Given that a fetus is a living human, they are entitled to those same civil rights described in our Constitution and DoI as the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Why do you deny those rights to unborn humans?
What other group do you want to deny of those same civil rights? Blacks?
Where do you want to draw the line on 'the unworthy'?....That 'other class of humans'.
What kind of parched-morality, bigoted atheist are you anyway?
My only point; no one has defined a first tri-fetus as deserving of the same rights as later ones, or a birthed one.

In fact, until any fetus is birthed they are not even counted as citizens...should we be counting the unborn in a census? What about all the embryos that are naturally aborted...should we be assigning them SS #'s and providing the "parents" SS bene's too..?

I prefer that civil rights be applied to all citizens (gays too!) who are living and breathing and a sustainable form of life on their own.

Plus I cant, nor should I/anyone make personal moral decisions for women in these matters.

That said, I do work to help the situations (economic, education, sexism, etc) that creates all these females need to seek an abortion. I help work on the real issues that cause the shockingly high numbers of abortions. Abortions are the consequences of a patently ignorant and wasteful system of inequality in this nation that Xtians for the most part ignore. Cure the situations that surround abortions and you will see a reduction of them...but most Xtians dont want to get on board with that idea and harder work - its easier to vilify and attack the last resort. Always been easier for most Xtians to muster up a hanging posse, than to do something to lessen these sorts of incidents. Attack the women...old xtian tactic.

But I temper that with the reality that the RCC does a lot of work to help pregnant females in need - than do the Protys sects. And I work alongside the RCC in several ways around here...not so much the Protys...in fact not at all...so you have a win on your side.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What Does God Hate? Fri Cujo 145
God has Granted Repentance that Leads to Life -... Fri Sheriff Joe 529 14
My Dream 1, part 1 and 2, the meaning? May 22 rickpilgrim 1
The People's Lounge (Mar '09) May 22 Roadie 4,441
Why should God bless America!? (Dec '15) May 22 RiccardoFire 199
According to the Bible, is anal sex between a m... (Oct '10) May 21 religiousnuts 191
News New figures show debt crises are growing across... May 19 nanoanomaly 1