O-M-G, a cruel cruel joke. Have you no standards woman?
I don't know about standards but she has no backbone....
Is a religion based on human sacrifice moral and ethical?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I don't know about standards but she has no backbone....
-
73Replies
-
978Views
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
O-M-G, a cruel cruel joke. Have you no standards woman?
I was just saying, when you do as the bug says you do not get rewarded with the "honest debate" the bug cries for. I was praising her and lamenting the futility of it all
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
So you like picking on women,hmm. After all it's woman who got us kicked out of the Garden. What makes them think they can be leaders in Jesus's Church anyway?? Damn uppity women.
I was just saying, when you do as the bug says you do not get rewarded with the "honest debate" the bug cries for. I was praising her and lamenting the futility of it all
LOL. We are all learning aren't we!
Greatest I am
Active Member
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
Actually, people like dumbbug may be genetically prone to be what he is.
Stuck in his thinking that is.
Check this out. It shows that only the few may be able to think out of the box.
Chimps are better at inovation than most humans it seems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIAoJsS9Ix8
Regards
DL
I was just saying, when you do as the bug says you do not get rewarded with the "honest debate" the bug cries for. I was praising her and lamenting the futility of it all
hahaha! I noticed "she" ran away as well. I guess trying to keep up delusions like you both do is quite futile.
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
..dealing with the bug is futile, time for the Raid...
What's wrong MA can't deal with the truth?
Picking on women? So you think women are so weak they can't defend themselves on a forum...what a sexist attitude. I show women equal treatment unlike you who think women are too ignorant to defend themselves. I don't make such generalizations. Panacea is not ignorant because she is a woman. She is ignorant for other reasons.
Absolutely, and that is happening in Christianity. Many churches have removed songs about Jesus' blood from their hymn books. They view Jesus' sacrifice as leaving heaven to come to earth and teaching us how to live. His death on the cross was incidental.
Now you may rightly object that fundamentalists don't see it that way. But I would point out that fundamentalists are borderline insane and it's unfair to judge all Christians by them.
Borderline insane? That sounds like a prejudice statement....
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
Now that IS interesting.
Lol. If you saw a pink dragon, you're insane, but if you see a big face in the sky, your religious...
Madalyn Murray O'Hair: Religion is Induced Insanity.
Minor Axis: Religion= Insanity (extreme foolishness or irrationality) brought about by fear of the death and the human desire to be comforted.
Last edited by a moderator:
....but if that "big face" in the sky is Richard Dawkins then you are an atheist(as long as you buy his books).
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
Your suedo-wit is unsurpassed.
....thanks for the suedo-compliment....
In the OP GIA quotes a bible verse which states:
Psalm 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother,nor give to God a ransom for him.
GIA is hinting that nothing can be given for redemption, for example, Christ.
But if you read more of this verse it takes on a different meaning:
Psalm 49:6 those who trust in their wealth and boast of their great riches? 7 No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them.
This verse clearly is talking about earthly wealth and how it means nothing to God. GIA clearly left out an integral part of the verse in order to distort the meaning.
Later someone posted this verse:
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.
This was in an effort to prove that the "sacrifice" made by Jesus was the same as a human sacrifice. But it isn't if you look further in the bible.
Here is Jesus's words on the matter in John 15.13:Greater love has no one than this,that he lay down his life for his friends.
Here again in Mark 10.45:For even the Son of Man did not come to be served,but to serve,and to give his life as a ransom for many."
In other words Jesus sacrificed Himself for mankind. Not the same as blood sacrifices held during those times because they were a regular ritual as shown here:
Hebrews 7.27: Unlike the other high priests,he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day,first for his own sins,and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
There are two passages in the Jewish intertestamental literature that illustrate how two martyrs were understood this way:
4 Macc 6:26-28: "When he was now burned to his very bones and about to expire,he lifted up his eyes to God and said,27 "You know,O God,that though I might have saved myself,I am dying in burning torments for the sake of the law. 28 Be merciful to your people,and let our punishment suffice for them. 29 Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs."
4 Macc 17.20-22: "These,then,who have been consecrated for the sake of God,are honored,not only with this honor,but also by the fact that because of them our enemies did not rule over our nation,21 the tyrant was punished,and the homeland purified-they having become,as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. 22 And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice,divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated."
So,the understanding developed above is in line with the Jewish thought patterns of the period. Sacrificing one's self is not the same as blood sacrifices and was not considered immoral. Self sacrifice still isn't considered immoral. If a soldier throws himself on a grenade in order to save his platoon he is considered a hero, not immoral.
The reason I have a problem with the premise of this thread is because I have visited ruins of ancient societies that actually had human sacrifices. I have seen where they were held. There is usually an alter and it is understood to be a regularly held ritual. My disagreement of GIA's premise isn't just based on Christian bible text but also Jewish text and my own experiences of things I have seen for myself. The death of Jesus was a sacrifice but not a human sacrifice in the way some try to portray it.
So how moral and ethical is it to mis-represent a text in order question a religion....
Psalm 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother,nor give to God a ransom for him.
GIA is hinting that nothing can be given for redemption, for example, Christ.
But if you read more of this verse it takes on a different meaning:
Psalm 49:6 those who trust in their wealth and boast of their great riches? 7 No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them.
This verse clearly is talking about earthly wealth and how it means nothing to God. GIA clearly left out an integral part of the verse in order to distort the meaning.
Later someone posted this verse:
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.
This was in an effort to prove that the "sacrifice" made by Jesus was the same as a human sacrifice. But it isn't if you look further in the bible.
Here is Jesus's words on the matter in John 15.13:Greater love has no one than this,that he lay down his life for his friends.
Here again in Mark 10.45:For even the Son of Man did not come to be served,but to serve,and to give his life as a ransom for many."
In other words Jesus sacrificed Himself for mankind. Not the same as blood sacrifices held during those times because they were a regular ritual as shown here:
Hebrews 7.27: Unlike the other high priests,he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day,first for his own sins,and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
There are two passages in the Jewish intertestamental literature that illustrate how two martyrs were understood this way:
4 Macc 6:26-28: "When he was now burned to his very bones and about to expire,he lifted up his eyes to God and said,27 "You know,O God,that though I might have saved myself,I am dying in burning torments for the sake of the law. 28 Be merciful to your people,and let our punishment suffice for them. 29 Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs."
4 Macc 17.20-22: "These,then,who have been consecrated for the sake of God,are honored,not only with this honor,but also by the fact that because of them our enemies did not rule over our nation,21 the tyrant was punished,and the homeland purified-they having become,as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. 22 And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice,divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated."
So,the understanding developed above is in line with the Jewish thought patterns of the period. Sacrificing one's self is not the same as blood sacrifices and was not considered immoral. Self sacrifice still isn't considered immoral. If a soldier throws himself on a grenade in order to save his platoon he is considered a hero, not immoral.
The reason I have a problem with the premise of this thread is because I have visited ruins of ancient societies that actually had human sacrifices. I have seen where they were held. There is usually an alter and it is understood to be a regularly held ritual. My disagreement of GIA's premise isn't just based on Christian bible text but also Jewish text and my own experiences of things I have seen for myself. The death of Jesus was a sacrifice but not a human sacrifice in the way some try to portray it.
So how moral and ethical is it to mis-represent a text in order question a religion....
Last edited by a moderator:
Greatest I am
Active Member
Wow. You had your Wheaties today did you?
Or did you change your meds.
Firstly, do you believe your quotes to have more authority than the ones in this?
I could write it all since you do not like vids but time is precious to both of us I hope and this is faster for both of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U
Secondly, you quote Jewish works that few Jew's read literally.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm
Thirdly, you quote the N T when we both know that the bible can be used to say almost anything we want it to.
Should we believe that any of it was authentic when what you quote from Paul was written 60 odd years after Jesus was dead?
That plus this on the authenticity of his writings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xH93PSZ6fQ
Now to the meat and potatoes of my position in terms of justice.
Again, it will save us both time if you view these quick blurbs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYaQpRZJl18&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-91mSkxaXs
You did not try to refute this quote. I wonder why.
Perhaps it makes too much sense for you.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
My bottom line is that to punish the innocent and let the guilty walk is in no way justice.
Regards
DL
Or did you change your meds.
Firstly, do you believe your quotes to have more authority than the ones in this?
I could write it all since you do not like vids but time is precious to both of us I hope and this is faster for both of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U
Secondly, you quote Jewish works that few Jew's read literally.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm
Thirdly, you quote the N T when we both know that the bible can be used to say almost anything we want it to.
Should we believe that any of it was authentic when what you quote from Paul was written 60 odd years after Jesus was dead?
That plus this on the authenticity of his writings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xH93PSZ6fQ
Now to the meat and potatoes of my position in terms of justice.
Again, it will save us both time if you view these quick blurbs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYaQpRZJl18&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-91mSkxaXs
You did not try to refute this quote. I wonder why.
Perhaps it makes too much sense for you.
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
My bottom line is that to punish the innocent and let the guilty walk is in no way justice.
Regards
DL
Nah, I just had to deal with some pesky hyenas but they are gone now....
All I have done is show where you used a bible quote to try and say something else. You didn't show enough of the scripture to convey the true meaning and revealed yourself as making a false statement.
You can use all the anti-Christian propaganda you want and it doesn't change what you did. Thanks for the reveal.
Who is "the innocent" you are talking about here? Can you explain further.
All I have done is show where you used a bible quote to try and say something else. You didn't show enough of the scripture to convey the true meaning and revealed yourself as making a false statement.
You can use all the anti-Christian propaganda you want and it doesn't change what you did. Thanks for the reveal.
Who is "the innocent" you are talking about here? Can you explain further.
Greatest I am
Active Member
So you are saying Jesus was innocent? Because Jesus took on the sins of mankind: 1 Peter 2:24- Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.
You see that is the whole point. Jesus took the punishment. Perhaps you think destroying the world was the right thing to do. You must have a warped mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess it depends on your definition of a fundamentalist. I'm thinking of people who think the earth is flat or only 6000 years old when I use that term.
My point was not to slam fundamentalists. If I thought anyone on this site would be offended then I would have been more gentle. I have some fundamentalist friends and they are good people. They are just confused. And I want to distance fundamentalists from mainstream Christians because I think fundamentalist views make some nonreligious people view all Christians poorly. This is unfair to the majority of Christians.
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members