Is a religion based on human sacrifice moral and ethical?

[doombug]

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.

So you use the word "confused" but you really think a group of people are borderline insane....?

 

[BornReady]

So you use the word "confused" but you really think a group of people are borderline insane....?

I think people who believe the earth is flat or only 6000 years old are confused at best. I changed it to confused because I took your admonishment to give them the benefit of the doubt. See? There is hope for me.

 

[doombug]

I think people who believe the earth is flat or only 6000 years old are confused at best. I changed it to confused because I took your admonishment to give them the benefit of the doubt. See? There is hope for me.

Well BR if you think these folks are borderline insane then you should say so. That's how I see it. I think you have a right to your opinion just as I have a right to mine. Claiming prejudice against atheists sets up a double standard if you don't say the same about the Christian bashers here. Why not drop the prejudice claims and have an honest exchange or just accept each other and live with the differences.

 

[BornReady]

Claiming prejudice against atheists sets up a double standard if you don't say the same about the Christian bashers here.

To me there is a difference between bashing people and bashing beliefs. The first is prejudice. The second is not. I am only interested in bashing the belief that the earth is flat or only 6000 years old. I unintentionally directed the comment at people and you correctly called me on it.

 

[Minor Axis]

Everyone remember, the bug is not a Christian nor a theist, but an expert on Bible content. He's just here to defend that poor picked on religion. And look, he's using Bible quotes to make his "proof-like", "truth-like" points... lol.

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....

Well BR if you think these folks are borderline insane then you should say so. That's how I see it. I think you have a right to your opinion just as I have a right to mine. Claiming prejudice against atheists sets up a double standard if you don't say the same about the Christian bashers here. Why not drop the prejudice claims and have an honest exchange or just accept each other and live with the differences.

ALL people are prejudiced. What's your definition of "bashing"? Bashing is not disagreeing with a point of view, but that's what you want it to be cause then you can try to claim those mean people over at OTZ are picking on YOUR religion.

 

[doombug]

To me there is a difference between bashing people and bashing beliefs. The first is prejudice. The second is not. I am only interested in bashing the belief that the earth is flat or only 6000 years old. I unintentionally directed the comment at people and you correctly called me on it.

That's cool BR. I'm with you on the 6000 year old earth idea. I don't believe that either.

 

[doombug]

Everyone remember, the bug is not a Christian nor a theist, but an expert on Bible content. He's just here to defend that poor picked on religion. And look, he's using Bible quotes to make his "proof-like", "truth-like" points... lol.





ALL people are prejudiced. What's your definition of "bashing"? Bashing is not disagreeing with a point of view, but that's what you want it to be cause then you can try to claim those mean people over at OTZ are picking on YOUR religion.

Ahhh, gotta love those fans....

 

[BornReady]

That's cool BR. I'm with you on the 6000 year old earth idea. I don't believe that either.

Yeah, I knew you didn't. In fact, I don't think there is anyone on this site who does. I'm sure no one on this site thinks the earth is flat. The fundamentalists who believe that today wouldn't have internet access.

 

[Minor Axis]

Ahhh, gotta love those fans....

Instead of an attempt at wit, why not answer the question. It's not that hard.

 

[doombug]

Instead of an attempt at wit, why not answer the question. It's not that hard.

You mean "what is the definition of bashing?" You mean you were serious? hahaha! I guess you don't have access to a dictionary and think "fancy book learnin'" is the debil(devil) hahaha!

Here you go: bash·ing /baSHiNG/Noun: Severe criticism.

 

[Greatest I am]

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.

Who destroyed the world?

Would you really sit back and have someone else take your punishment?

Perhaps if you though more of what you say instead of wasting your time looking for abusive language to apply to people, you would be better at thinking.

Regards
DL

 

[doombug]

Who destroyed the world?

Would you really sit back and have someone else take your punishment?

Perhaps if you though more of what you say instead of wasting your time looking for abusive language to apply to people, you would be better at thinking.

Regards
DL

Abusive language? Ahh but GIA, reciprocity is fair play.

 

[Minor Axis]

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.

You believe that or just arguing for fun (Mr. Theist)? Lol.

 

[doombug]

You believe that or just arguing for fun (Mr. Theist)? Lol.

hahaha! what's the obsession with me MA? You see I can argue a point based on whether I practice it or not. You on the other hand can't seem to present any point unless it concerns me or what I believe. Ad hominem attacks are all you can do.