deleted

Post Reply New Topic

No, the sacrifice is not REQUIRED. God doesn't even require sacrifices if the sacrifices aren't done with sincerity of heart. A sacrifice that is given that is not done in the spirit of humility and repentance is not a real sacrifice at all. And if a sacrifice is done because that's what the Law says, not what God says, and the heart of the giver is not in the act of giving as an act of love towards God, then the sacrifice is not a real sacrifice and the person giving is in no better standing with God afterwards. God is within His rights to punish that person for disobedience just as much as He is someone who doesn't give at all.

Look at Cain and Abel as just ONE example. Why did God honor Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's? The Bible doesn't really go into details here. One guess could be that God preferred blood sacrifices (Abel raised livestock) over grain sacrifices (Cain was a farmer). OK, that's an easy remedy, except it would put Cain at some dependence upon his brother. Well, to do a proper sacrifice, that really shouldn't be that big a deal, should it? Or simply learn how to raise a small number of animals for the purpose of sacrifice. Or set traps. Animals are natural pests when it comes to raising crops, especially grain. Cain was a big boy. He didn't really have a valid excuse NOT to perform a proper blood sacrifice.

We know that grain sacrifices are ALSO acceptable however, from reading the Law. So it is POSSIBLE that blood sacrifices/grain sacrifices really had nothing to do with it.

What about the attitude of Cain towards God and his brother? We know that Cain was a very angry person, to the end he eventually killed his brother. I think it's MORE likely, whether bread or blood, that the state of Cain's heart and mind was the real question. Cain gave, but not in the correct spirit or attitude of giving. He did it because Abel did it, and in so doing Abel seemed to get something out of it himself. Cain wanted what Abel had, rather than giving as a sign of thankfulness towards God.

And that is what a sacrifice IS. You can't manipulate God. And, for example, you can't satisfy the "Angry Beast" by taking the town virgin and throwing her into the nearby active volcano. Once Vulcan has been appeased, is there a need to find the next virgin to throw into the crater? Of course not! You take her home and, well... You sacrifice her to a completely different god, but that's beside the point! No, God doesn't want sacrifices because you want Him to do something for you. You do it as a sign of gratitude, as a show of love towards God and submission to His commands, a part of which involves sacrifices. If you can't give a sacrifice in the real spirit of giving, don't even bother.

We're the ones required to make the blood sacrifices as atonement for sin, not God, which makes God's own sacrifice on our behalf that much more profound. God didn't sacrifice Himself because He was required to. He sacrificed Himself because He WANTED to. The idea of God killing God, of course, is a paradox. By dying, a being ceases to exist. But God, being omnipotent, doesn't HAVE to cease existing. And it is the perfect sacrifice of God, not being required to die, but dying willingly at the hands of those He seeks to forgive from all sin, that the plan of salvation is complete. An all-powerful God CAN (and did) raise Himself from the dead to show that physical death is not the end of humanity, but rather just a new beginning. And all who believe will be saved from being eternally separated from God.

Guilted faith topic

AngelRho, your faith is based on guilt. when animal sacrifice was no longer necessary in monotheism, a sense of guilt took over. Equally vicious and stupid. But if this is your choice, then so be it. Enjoy your life as best you can. I am not buying into it.

How is the cause not great? No human would have a chance to escape Hell if the sacrifice was not made.

Because the only reason why the sacrifice was necessary was some ridiculous rule imposed by the God who made the sacrifice, now one can keep on talking about how God is so "holy" and "perfect" that he couldn't void a rule that had lost its meaning, I don't see the point, and I don't see the perfection. If God is so perfect, then he is flexible to take reality as it is. If he is so "holy he cannot bear the presence of sin", then how can he really be so good as to be capable of forgiveness? It is absurd posturing.

We're the ones required to make the blood sacrifices as atonement for sin, not God, which makes God's own sacrifice on our behalf that much more profound. God didn't sacrifice Himself because He was required to. He sacrificed Himself because He WANTED to. The idea of God killing God, of course, is a paradox. By dying, a being ceases to exist. But God, being omnipotent, doesn't HAVE to cease existing. And it is the perfect sacrifice of God, not being required to die, but dying willingly at the hands of those He seeks to forgive from all sin, that the plan of salvation is complete. An all-powerful God CAN (and did) raise Himself from the dead to show that physical death is not the end of humanity, but rather just a new beginning. And all who believe will be saved from being eternally separated from God.

And once again, the blood sacrifices sound more like a barbaric rule than a holy God. How many blood sacrifices have you wanted? How about any modern ruler of a first world country? Do they want sacrifices? No, and if you asked, they would consider the matter rather ridiculous. So, God has a rule that seems by its nature ridiculous and the product of a primitive mind.

Now, then to sate this rule, which is just silly, he has himself killed. Do I feel the profundity? No, instead I think that this being should not have taken this kind of extreme step. It just ends up being ridiculous, and it violates all notions people tend to have of justice, in which we can't have a third party pay for the criminal wrong of the first party. I mean, this isn't just in any sense, it is at best a legal loophole invented by a psychotic fiend.

That being said, if "dying means a being ceases to exist" then if God dies, which you admitted, then God cannot rise from the dead, because dead beings do not exist. If non-existent entities can do great things, then I would love to use this ontological argument.

1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

Now, I think your definition of death is wrong, but whatever, that's another issue.

Well, again, the problem is assuming that what you believe is superior to God's will.

But that also brings up the problem of love, which is NOT a part of your argument. Human beings are ALWAYS acting seemingly irrationally for those they feel attachment to. It is not unheard of that people will willingly face certain death for those they love. It defies any pure logic or reason. It breaks all the "rules."

So why WOULDN'T God want to free His people from the shackles of Law they'd committed themselves to, to work in vein to satisfy someone who couldn't ultimately be satisfied by any number of sacrifices?

We still possess human laws for the sake of order. But those laws exist as a means of accomplishing justice when a human being feels that injustice has been done by another person. Those laws in no way govern our relationship with God, which becomes a personal relationship rather than a impersonal relationship broached only by priests and prophets. If God loves us, then it only makes sense that He'd be willing to do such things that WE'D see, because we do not fully understand the mind of God, as nonsense.

If he is so "holy he cannot bear the presence of sin", then how can he really be so good as to be capable of forgiveness? It is absurd posturing.

I don't think God exists, so God wills nothing. That being said, the issue is credibility. God is clearly not believable to exist, so, that's the problem.

He is capable of forgiving because the punishment for our sins had to be put on someone. And Jesus is the perfect sacrifice. All the punishment for human's sins were put on Jesus. Now, there is a debate on whether it is all of humanity's sins or only those who will eventually believe in him.

<snip>

That's the whole point though. It isn't really forgiveness if somebody still has to be punished. It is just insane.

Its supposed to be insane.

Well, great, but I kind of see insanity as being in opposition to perfection.