Is a religion based on human sacrifice moral and ethical?

[CityGirl]

Interesting video Nothing but the Blood, I'll have to look in to how the apologists reconcile those contradictions.

 

[doombug]

Interesting video Nothing but the Blood, I'll have to look in to how the apologists reconcile those contradictions.

Those "contradictions" are an invention. That is quite a stretch to come up with the idea. If anyone cares to lay it out it would probably show to be false.

 

[CityGirl]

How are those contradictions "inventions'? The videos present several Biblical verses that indicate not only forgiveness without sacrifice but verses that state God doesn't require one. Maybe you should care to lay it out and prove it otherwise since there are several of us who are in peril of eternal damnation and you have an opportunity to steer us toward the path of righteousness. Wouldn't want you to have our eternal damnation added to your burden of sin.

GIA answers your question, DB, via the videos especially the 2nd one with Christopher Hitchens in which (I'll summarize) Hitchens indicates blood sacrifice is an immoral doctrine because it abolishes the concept of personal responsibility on which all ethics and morality must depend. Also, the fact that we are told we have to have a share in this human sacrifice even though it took place long before we were born. We had no say in it's happening, we weren't consulted, had we been present we would have been bound to do our best to stop the public torture and execution of an eccentric preacher. But we are implicated as though we ourselves drove in the nails, as though we were present at calvary...it confirms the original filthy sin in which we are conceived and born into as a result of Adam and Eve. It's here that we find something very sinister about monotheism and religious practices, in general. It is incipiently, at least and explicitly totalitarian..we have no say in this, we are born under a celestial dictatorship which we have had no hand in choosing, we didn't put ourselves under it's govt, we are told we are watched while we sleep, that we could be convicted and condemned by thought crime, if we commit a right action it is to evade this punisment, and if we commit a wrong action we will be caught up not just in punishment in this life but after we are dead. In the OT, gruesome as it is, recommending genocide, tribalism, racism, slavery, the displacement and destruction of others, terrible as the OT God is, there is no mention of punishment of the dead...only when gentle Jesus meek and mild makes his appearance are those who won't accept the message are told they will depart into eternal fire. Is this morality? Is this ethics? Hitchens submits that this undermines our most essential integrity dissolving out responsibility to live and witness in truth.

I can remember as a child hearing about the torture and crucifixion of Christ and crying because I just knew if I had been one of the people in the crowd, I would have been calling for Jesus to be spared and Barabus to be executed. I remember asking my mom why God let that happen and insisting to her that I could be good and wondering why Jesus/God thought he had to die to make people behave. Believe what you will. It is of no consequence to me. As Thomas Jefferson said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

 

[doombug]

How are those contradictions "inventions'? The videos present several Biblical verses that indicate not only forgiveness without sacrifice but verses that state God doesn't require one. Maybe you should care to lay it out and prove it otherwise since there are several of us who are in peril of eternal damnation and you have an opportunity to steer us toward the path of righteousness. Wouldn't want you to have our eternal damnation added to your burden of sin.

GIA answers your question, DB, via the videos especially the 2nd one with Christopher Hitchens in which (I'll summarize) Hitchens indicates blood sacrifice is an immoral doctrine because it abolishes the concept of personal responsibility on which all ethics and morality must depend. Also, the fact that we are told we have to have a share in this human sacrifice even though it took place long before we were born. We had no say in it's happening, we weren't consulted, had we been present we would have been bound to do our best to stop the public torture and execution of an eccentric preacher. But we are implicated as though we ourselves drove in the nails, as though we were present at calvary...it confirms the original filthy sin in which we are conceived and born into as a result of Adam and Eve. It's here that we find something very sinister about monotheism and religious practices, in general. It is incipiently, at least and explicitly totalitarian..we have no say in this, we are born under a celestial dictatorship which we have had no hand in choosing, we didn't put ourselves under it's govt, we are told we are watched while we sleep, that we could be convicted and condemned by thought crime, if we commit a right action it is to evade this punisment, and if we commit a wrong action we will be caught up not just in punishment in this life but after we are dead. In the OT, gruesome as it is, recommending genocide, tribalism, racism, slavery, the displacement and destruction of others, terrible as the OT God is, there is no mention of punishment of the dead...only when gentle Jesus meek and mild makes his appearance are those who won't accept the message are told they will depart into eternal fire. Is this morality? Is this ethics? Hitchens submits that this undermines our most essential integrity dissolving out responsibility to live and witness in truth.

I can remember as a child hearing about the torture and crucifixion of Christ and crying because I just knew if I had been one of the people in the crowd, I would have been calling for Jesus to be spared and Barabus to be executed. I remember asking my mom why God let that happen and insisting to her that I could be good and wondering why Jesus/God thought he had to die to make people behave. Believe what you will. It is of no consequence to me. As Thomas Jefferson said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

First off the death of Jesus wasn't a sacrifice in the sense of human sacrifice as in on an alter. He was put to death by the Romans like criminals were back in the day. So this "sacrifice" is no comparison to say the sacrifice Aztec tribes used to do.

Second, God requires no sacrifice to Him. Jesus's death was a "sacrifice" for mankind. It wasn't to God. So this is only a comparison of apples to oranges and therefore is false.

Playing the semantics game with word "sacrifice" proves nothing.

GIA does not answer my questions. He only makes weak attempts. If you can do better then do it.

 

[CityGirl]

Oh, puhlease! The death of Jesus was a sacrifice to God for mankind. Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

 

[doombug]

Oh, puhlease! The death of Jesus was a sacrifice to God for mankind. Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Oh puhlease! so you are saying Jesus threw himself into a volcano? Jesus wasn't offered up by a tribe of Christians on an alter. You are comparing two different things to prove a point....your point is invalid.

 

[Minor Axis]

Human sacrifice is definitely immoral by today's standards. But to the ancient mind it wasn't. If someone threw a virgin into a volcano today then we would recognize that as murder. But when ancient people did so, they didn't see her as dying. She was just going to live with the volcano god. This was good for the god, good for her and good for them.

So as we evolve, shouldn't the basis of our religious views evolve too? Except we have people who don't want to change, who want to rely on the teachings of ancient texts, who don't want to consider any alternatives? It reveals the power and danger, the impedance of religion over our ability to evolve. Why do you think the term "evolution" is the source of such ire to devote theists?

 

[doombug]

So as we evolve, shouldn't the basis of our religious views evolve too? Except we have people who don't want to change, who want to rely on the teachings of ancient texts, who don't want to consider any alternatives? It reveals the power and danger, the impedance of religion over our ability to evolve. Why do you think the term "evolution" is the source of such ire to devote theists?

When the result of "evolution" is world leaders like Joseph Stalin one should question it. Maybe you see such mass killings as progress. You must have a warped mind.

 

[Minor Axis]

When the result of "evolution" is world leaders like Joseph Stalin one should question it. Maybe you see such mass killings as progress. You must have a warped mind.

Hey are you stalking me? Another of your double standards, lol. Now go away.

 

[doombug]

Hey are you stalking me? Another of your double standards, lol. Now go away.

Nah, I was participating in this thread. You are the one that suddenly popped up.

 

[Panacea]

Oh, puhlease! The death of Jesus was a sacrifice to God for mankind. Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

It's so good of you to provide clear biblical proof for your points. How could anyone take issue?
Oh right...

 

[Panacea]

So as we evolve, shouldn't the basis of our religious views evolve too? Except we have people who don't want to change, who want to rely on the teachings of ancient texts, who don't want to consider any alternatives? It reveals the power and danger, the impedance of religion over our ability to evolve. Why do you think the term "evolution" is the source of such ire to devote theists?

I've always found it incredibly peculiar humans have so few collective and common ideas for god characters beyond the common theme of testy old men with personality disorders. What a dull imagination! Surely more options are worth exploring, but I never see that done in these bitchslaps.

I think it's because humans are so bad at innovation and we can only really build on past ideas to form new ones. Certainly there are individuals who have been innovative, remarkably so, but for the most part, religion is like one bad "movie remake" release after another. Shitty, insulting to our intelligence, and steals our money

 

[Minor Axis]

It's so good of you to provide clear biblical proof for your points. How could anyone take issue?
Oh right...

Except you made your quote (post#31) look like City Girl said it. What an insult (to City Girl)!

I've always found it incredibly peculiar humans have so few collective and common ideas for god characters beyond the common theme of testy old men with personality disorders. What a dull imagination! Surely more options are worth exploring, but I never see that done in these bitchslaps.

I think it's because humans are so bad at innovation and we can only really build on past ideas to form new ones. Certainly there are individuals who have been innovative, remarkably so, but for the most part, religion is like one bad "movie remake" release after another. Shitty, insulting to our intelligence, and steals our money

You've summed up the basis of religion nicely.

 

[doombug]

Except you made your quote (post#31) look like City Girl said it. What an insult (to City Girl)!



You've summed up the basis of religion nicely.

There is no real debating among those who have been on this forum for a while so that kind of dishonesty is par for the course.

 

[Greatest I am]

Interesting video Nothing but the Blood, I'll have to look in to how the apologists reconcile those contradictions.

You will likely get something like what dumbbug said just above.
Translation of his words.

Duh, I don't understand. Duh. Explain explain.
You never explain.

Hopefully, some will not be as dumb as dumbbug.

Regards
DL

 

[Minor Axis]

There is no real debating among those who have been on this forum for a while so that kind of dishonesty is par for the course.

It's obvious to the smart ones, you excluded, it was an accident. Panacea would not purposefully direct that kind of insult at an innocent forum member.

 

[doombug]

You will likely get something like what dumbbug said just above.
Translation of his words.

Duh, I don't understand. Duh. Explain explain.
You never explain.

Hopefully, some will not be as dumb as dumbbug.

Regards
DL

Nah, I don't need someone to explain. I am just asking you to back up your premise. You can't because it is false. I bet you would like to follow in the footsteps of Jim Jones....nice.

 

[Panacea]

It's obvious to the smart ones, you excluded, it was an accident. Panacea would not purposefully resort to that kind of insult.

It's not obvious it was a joke?? Lol

 

[doombug]

It's obvious to the smart ones, you excluded, it was an accident. Panacea would not purposefully direct that kind of insult at an innocent forum member.

She doesn't seem to resort to dishonest tactics as much. She just runs away.

 

[Minor Axis]

It's not obvious it was a joke?? Lol

O-M-G, a cruel cruel joke. Have you no standards woman?