Almost no one questions the beauty of His teachings, and yet, they question that He ever existed on Earth, very strange.
Animal Sacrifices in the Bible?
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
He physically died, no big deal for the Creator to resurrect, don't you agree?
I don't think the same people that question his existence are very much appreciative of his teaching. I also think that Christianity, with it's perversion of the teachings is not representative of the true spirit of Jesus.
He can resurrect himself.
His 'teachings' are questioned a lot actually, and his 'teachings' as instructed by his apostles;
For instance - that he permits no woman to teach or have authority over men - something that has been protested and fought over for millennia, only being granted against god recently. There are many examples and I shall do the right thing and point them out if you so choose.
I would ask in the meantime that you refrain from making bold statements that mean nothing, and have zero support.
Of course you're right in saying that very few question whether a man should kill another - they felt the same long before jesus, the jews or the jewish god existed - and thus very few would have issue with them. That is in itself rather meaningless.
It just hit me, perhaps this is not really that bizarre at all. I mean, if I were a priest I would want or even need a well rounded complete diet. I would want and need other things to eat besides just the finest meat in the land, wouldn't you? I mean, why quit with just one item, when you have such a magnificent self serving system of fear already set up and working perfectly to bring you the best of virtually everything, even virgins? (Yes they really did do this!) Sky's the limit baby!
(P.S. I could never really treat people this way myself.)
Just my crazy thoughts! But who knows?
I got the first part about women's authority (or lack thereof), but the rest made no sense.
A common theme among ancient religions (Osiris).
Absolutely, but we're not talking priests here - we're talking god. The very second the religious denigrate the bible as written by greedy men the very second every single mention of god becomes worthless. god inspired, god written - or written by a bunch of greedy mofo's out for their own personal gain? They simply cannot have it both ways, (although they try when caught out). They make a mockery of the text, a mockery of their own god - who seemingly does a good enough job all by itself to not need human intervention.
What bothers me most is that anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see exactly who the bible is written by. Who do you think the food, the gold, the gems, the laws serve? You have rightly pointed out the answer already, and yet the religious lower the very value of their own god by claiming it is him. You point out the fundamental flaws with such a notion and they soon forget the discussion ever existed - unwavering in their daft belief that a god that seeks sacrifice, seeks gold, worship and for you to chop a bit of your willy off is worth caring about in the first place.
So these poor old bastards living life in the desert only to face a god that gives them: the burnt offering, the cereal offering, the sin offering, the reparation opffering, and the communion offering. Fuck, these people barely had time to sleep with all the damn animals they were killing to appease a god that people nowadays claim would want for and need nothing. And we're not even talking your average normal animal but the best of the best.. They weren't even allowed to have bruised testicles.. How over the top is that? "It's a pair of testicles god, get the fuck over it". No siree, these poor buggers annihilating perfectly testicled animals and for what? There is no arguable reason why a god would give two shits about a dead cow and it's bollocks. The religious support it.. it's idiocy.
*end rant*
And by the end of tomorrow's English lesson you'll understand the rest.. 0_o
I thought they ended up consuming these animals themselves, kind of a BBQ party for God. In this sense it would be more like the Native American potlatch, that served the function of re-distributing excess wealth.
Leviticus 10:12 goes into the portions given to the priests. Just before that it states that to avoid death nobody, (including all descendants - which would surely mean everyone), are allowed to drink wine. I just had a bottle.. should I be worried?
It doesn't. Again intent.
Who says He had to stay dead to make it a sacrifice. If I could raise from the dead on command I would do that too. I would also be a one man army.
Negative.
Jesus' body was dead. Again the whole soul thing.
PUNISHMENT HAD TO BE CARRIED OUT. Else God would be unjust and a liar.
God did not create us to be evil. Again your view on God.
"Some" indicated quality. Again you said the only crime was fruit. I responded sacrifice is based on intent and obedience.
Your view on God. Well hopefully your wife does not give you dump for a present. Rebuke humans, no, just Cain in this case.
Again your view on God changes that.
God does not need anything from us. He wants some things though. Again your view on God.
Well atleast you have some moral obligation.
What classification system have animals come up with?
No morals? How so?
That was sarcasm from a misunderstanding. You would bet? Would you actually risk that, I mean wouldnt you rather have some scientific proof first?
[QUOTE}You made the claim, and even stated it was a fact.. The onus is on you son, not me.[/QUOTE]
Oh ok I figured you would understand that if no evidence is given AGAINST something then that becomes evidence FOR something. One proof is you can not disprove it. Rather than asking me to prove it you would have already disproven it. Unless you want to lead me a certain train of thought.
Last edited:
Warrior61:
Please respond to Post #46 when you have a few minutes.
Sorry to hear about your mono!
Take care of yourself, and get plenty of rest!
Please respond to Post #46 when you have a few minutes.
Sorry to hear about your mono!
Take care of yourself, and get plenty of rest!
If I offered to kill myself so that you could live, (having set those rules), while then being god - and thus, (as no theist would dispute), can never ever ever die - not for one nanosecond, the gesture is an empty one. Nothing has been sacrificed, he might as well have just said "you're all forgiven" and be done with it. The farce of pretend suicide is pointless and worthless.
Giving a pointless one word response is not an argument to anything. Try harder.
In this instance 'was' would be the operative word. Three days after this supposed sacrifice, that very same dead body was up and walking around. No 'sacrifice' was actually made - the farce of the three day pretend god death was a complete and utter waste of godly effort. Again, better to just say "you're all forgiven" and done with it.. However, here is the problem with that:
People are generally stupid. Humans 'need' to see something in order to believe it - (yes, even then people required evidence). As such some hippy jew saying "you're all forgiven" could never be sufficient. It required a staged sacrifice so humans could accept it. god would have no choice but to put on a show for the people - and that came in the form of a suicide. Had any of these people any reasoning ability they would come to the conclusion that god cannot die and thus the sacrifice must be staged in order to please them and their needs, and isn't a "real" sacrifice of anything. Three days of pretend death should be adequate before god is back up in his home sniffing burning cow flesh.
In either case it comes right back to the conclusion that the sacrifice was not a sacrifice and god never ever ever died.. not for a millionth of a nanosecond.
Punishment for what? Being human? Further to which, how is god pretending to kill himself or the death of cows a punishment?
That's your view on god. We can keep that up all year long if you like, it's pointless. At the end of the day it always comes down to personal views. How about telling me something I don't know?
Everything has a 'nature'. People often talk about god's nature, a tigers nature etc.. This includes humans.. It is in our nature to be what we are etc. We did not create those things within ourselves. The very nature of satan is, according to christians, to be evil, to possess people etc.. It cannot be said that satan created his own nature, but that the god that created him created his nature.
He could have offered a rotten banana or nothing at all.. There is no crime in not giving presents to a sky fairy that has no need of them. What is god going to do with a banana whether it's the tastiest in the world or the most rotten? Bugger all. What value does this banana provide? What is god lacking in his life where he'd even care that mere humans bother with such mundane activity as to give him worldly goods? "Here's £10 god".. What's he gonna do with it? Go on a shopping spree at poundbusters?
Duh.
What my wife has to do with this I'll never know, but suffice it to say it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if she got me nothing at all, ever. She loves me, I love her.. That's all there is to it. You theists of all people should understand that - how often you talk about material possessions being evil or bad etc etc and that love is where it's at - and yet here you are trying to justify your gods need for material possessions from humans even though he spent all that time bad mouthing material possessions.
I am seemingly one step closer than you are and god is. My wife and I have a bond.. we need for nothing material, just our love for each other. Your god wants a bowl of apples and they best be DAMN good apples or he'll have a go at you. It's pathetic.
Aww, poor little goddy-woddy, his present wasn't good enough
To 'want' is to lack. Try to dispute it.
Is this where we thank the snake for tempting man to eat the fruit that gave us those morals?
Of what relevance is that?
Read your bible. Until they had eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they had no knowledge of good or evil - and thus can do anything without moral consequence. Adam could have dropped his pants and piddled in god's face without batting an eyelid - because he had no understanding of good and evil. He also would have no way of knowing whether to listen to the snake or to god - it would be meaningless because he wouldn't be able to understand that one is good and one is evil. Without knowing good and evil there can be no morals.
There is ample evidence to suggest that a large majority of animals would kill you before you managed to kill them. I'm trying to earn some money in the meantime, is that ok with you?
Stop being silly. If you came up to me and claimed that leprechauns existed I would naturally ask you to provide evidence. You can't turn round and ask me to provide evidence that they don't, that's blithering idiocy. My lack of evidence against the existence of leprechauns does not even begin to become evidence for their existence. Stop being so bloody naive.
Again, stop being so bloody naive.
Now.. YOU made a claim, YOU claimed it was a fact. Back up YOUR claims.
The body of Jesus(God) was dead. Remember I believe in the incarnation. I believe if no "punishment" then we would have never learned our lesson.
My purpose in this debate is to explain. I can not help that you do not understand. I am trying and I understand what you are saying.
How did He not die?
For disobeying God. He created us with "moral choice."
I see God as Saviour and King so of course I am going to obey Him. My view on God makes my actions make sense.
Satan chooses to sin. We choose to sin. God's nature doesnt allow Him to sin.
You brought it up I just explained. Obviously something was wrong with the offering. It is symbolic. It is how we show our love, or how they did any way.
Giving a pointless one word response is not an argument to anything. Try harder.
You brought her up. How do you know she loves you?
Need and want are different. It was obedience. I am trying to explain.
Aww, poor little goddy-woddy, his present wasn't good enough
Finally you see. It wasn't, hence the unacceptance.
No need to dispute I agree. God doesn't need anything from us. He does want us to love Him.
No this is where we stop and wonder why we would even want to do good.
You said.
I restated my question. I asked why doesn't an animal come up with a classification system? Showing a difference between humans and animals.
Oh I am aware of that. They only knew good, because for a while there thats all they did. Me asking doesn't mean I don't know it just helps me in explaining. This whole typing thing loses the actual emphasis that speaking can give.
That was a good one.
Just because I say something doesn't mean I am obligated to explain. I see no need in explaining that now. Remember we are talking about sacrifice. I made a post to explain.
Make me.
Maybe I will, Maybe I won't.
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
Sorry for taking so long. Thanks. So here is my response.
I see where it appears to be condradiction. The sacrifices are symbolic of Jesus. The explanation is these were done out of obedience and faith with the understanding that God would reconcile them back to Him.
David didn't give a sacrifice?
This is God delighting in obedience. Lets be honest. We both agree that an animal can't take the weight of sin. This is all symbolic. Like we were debating on sticking to the argument and it was brought up how our minds wander off, well this helped keep their minds on God. Good question though. I really never hashed this out to this extent. Again sorry for the tardiness on responding. This whole mono thing is kicking my tail. Oh and the thing about Paul, I never really noticed that. Here is the explanation of that. Paul said to the Jew I am a Jew and to the Gentile I am a Gentile. It was a cultural thing. Again thanks for your comments and I appreciate your attitude towards my ignorance on some subjects. The others just think that degrading remarks help get their point across. I have to be honest though some of these guys can come up with some awesome comebacks. Sorry I am impressed with that.
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
The body was dead? From biblical accounts the 'body' was up and walking about 3 days later. Needless to say, up and walking about do not equal dead.
When god had it as part of his rules to sacrifice animals, did any of those animals get up and walk around 3 days later? It's unlikely..
A) You still haven't managed to show how the pretend sacrifice of god is a "punishment"
B) What lesson has man learnt from it exactly?
While your claim to my lack of understanding is cute, it's also unfounded. Of course it's impossible for you to see what I'm saying due to the blind belief and worship you have for the being we're currently discussing.
Are you saying that for three days there was no such thing as god?
Naughty naughty, you haven't been reading your bible. He didn't create us with moral choice, we had to get that from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
It's all about perspective.. You can choose to kill a man and then have a world of theists label it a sin. god can kill billions of men and theists try to justify it. They are both the same thing, (sin if you believe killing is a sin, and not sin if you believe killing isn't a sin), you just excuse one. god sinned constantly, you just label it as something else.
I love when theists can't argue a case that the "it's symbolic, not real" card pops up. However it's not going to make a difference.. To rebuke a person because he's not loving you enough is equally pathetic.
Indeed it isn't. "Duh" however was not an argument to begin with..
I brought my wife up? Not really, no. If you got confused and we're now talking about my daughter then fine. However, whether she loves me or not is her business - and hardly something I can rebuke her for. If I was to get what I 'want', she'd be showering me with kisses and hugs all day long - but the fact that she doesn't is not justification for me to tell her [symbolically] that her fruit offering sucks ass. Nor would I actually "punish" her by suiciding myself thinking that would somehow teach her a lesson. I had a friend that did kill himself because a girl would not reciprocate the love he felt for her. He did not kill himself due to want, but due to need. It is safe to say, given the biblical text, that god does not want, he needs - to an obsessive level, and that is never healthy.
They are different, as explained above. Killing yourself, rebuking those that don't show you love etc are signs of need, not want. I want my daughter to shower me with hugs and kisses all day long, I don't need her to and thus don't punish her when she doesn't.
Hence if it was unacceptable then it comes down to need not want. Try and dispute that.
Wrong, as explained above.
From a biblical perspective because god needs us to act as he tells us to or we burn.
From a realistic perspective being good helps yourself, (i.e if you went round telling everyone to drop dead and doing nothing but bad then you wont get very far with your own needs). Being 'good' is self-serving. If you're nice to your wife you get laid. If you're not nice you get the sofa. It's quite simple.
They are unable to write.
But it is of no consequence to anything. From a human classification jesus was an animal, as are we all.
A) This is not supported by biblical text.
B) If they only knew good then any action that was bad wouldn't be their fault, (you cannot argue that given your own statement above). They only know good, they have no idea what bad is - and thus anything they do that is bad isn't bad to them, because they don't even know what bad is - until they eat from the tree that gives them that knowledge by which time it's too late.
Aww, a convenient escape clause. How sweet.
Not true! Yahwehs' actions throughout the bible prove otherwise.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can read of the horrorific atrocities and actions of the god of the bible and actually believe this could be the nature of the god of the universe. Lessons of sin and clean living and righteousness coming from this dark depiction of god are a complete joke.
For so many christians to label other religions as "satanic" or evil is just plain ignorant considering the great majority don't even take the time to research other beliefs. When I heard Franklin Graham once mention in one of his TV crusades that the ancient egyptians had an evil religous system I almost fell off my chair in laughter. I'll bet he has never read any of their mythical stories. I have, and there is nowhere near the level of violence and evil of the bible.
I know, I know...all these actions committed by the god of the bible were for a good reason and because he is god we have no right to question these things...
Assuming the Bible is true, don't you think it's good that the Messiah will return to make the world a peaceful place again?