Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Love Fountain · 01-06-2004, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lanakila
But, why would an omniscient, all-powerful God have to set up the system? The thing is he wouldn't. The only answer to this is, its a made up, manmade system, that causes people to be dependent upon the church to teach them how, to be right with this God.

As a parent I don't have others who talk to my children for me to teach them about life.

I think God wants to talk to His children directly too.

Life is personal, why people don't take it personal, I'm not sure?

Yet perhaps they like to be told what to do and when to do it as well as how?

Does this somehow nullify accountability in the minds of these thoughts?

Yet just another thought.

Sincerely,
Love Fountain

Love Fountain · 01-06-2004, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkpeter
To go along with the analogy though I don't think any guilty feelings would have me allow an innocent man to stand in my place for my own actions. And if i did let that person stand in for me I'd certainly feel like I'd gotten away with something if the person who sat on death row ended up coming back to life.

I agree with Leftcoast's, "...the permanent forfeiture of some thing of value for some greater good or to achieve some end."

I'm still trying to find out what was forfeited and by whom.

I started to read through the link provided by Judge. It is pretty heavy going, not unlike just about all the Biblical literature I try to read. Why does the Bible need a intermediary for me to understand it?

Understanding the words in the Bible are about the heart, have you ever read Matthew 13 in the Bible?

As for what was forfeited,

IMO, there is love and no love.

Sincerely,
Love Fountain

Doctor X · 01-06-2004, 04:35 PM

Quote:

The sacrificial system was at the core of Judaism.

While this refers to Greek concepts, the similar problem of continuous contamination requiring purification held in Jewish thought as well.

Quote:

The answer involves the complex classical Greek concepts of "sacred," "holy," "pure," "profane," and "just," which may seem confusing to modern readers (Von Staden, 1996). "Most sacred laws defined being 'pure' as being uncontaminated . . . by death, birth, sexual intercourse, or menstruation and other largely physical--indeed, mostly naturally occurring--events." (Von Staden, 1996) Men could not avoid loss of purity and required formal repurification. "Sacred" refers to something of divine origin or ownership whereas, ". . . 'holy' . . . is divinely sanctioned but profane and can be used freely and with impunity, . . ." (Von Staden, 1996) While ". . . 'just' tends to denote that which it is permissible, lawful, and right to do in relation to other human beings, . . 'holy' refers to that which it is allowable to do in relation to divinities." (Von Staden, 1996) Von Staden concludes that a person who, ". . . acts "'in a holy way' accordingly does not give offense to the gods, thereby pleasing them and thus being 'pious' or 'devout,' even as he or she deals with the profane and the secular, whether in private life or in professional activity."

[Copywrited Material: permission for use given by author and author's identity held by request of author.--Ed.]

--J.D.

Reference from Paper

Von Staden, H. "'In a pure and holy way': Personal and Professional Conduct in the Hippocratic Oath?" Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 51: 404-437, 1996.

Mageth · 01-06-2004, 04:43 PM

From the link judge posted:

Was Methusaleth really 969 years old when he died? Did the patriarchs live for centuries as the Bible says? Even records of antiquity speak of extraordinary long life. Are they not more myth than truth?

Why, yes, they are myth.

The question now being asked in biology is, Why do we die at all?

Well, that's one question being asked in biology, perhaps.

It seems that death is not natural, that living things must be 'killed', as it were. . . .

Well, no it doesn't seem that way. Death, being found in nature, is natural. Even our cells, in replicating multiple times, run down. Our bodies run down, our organs run down, and we die (if something doesn't kill us first).

Information is now known about why we "die so soon". The implication is that man was created physically immortal � we could have lived forever!

Well, no, the implication is not that we were created physically immortal. This assertion is completely unsupported. Death is as natural as birth.

This guy's way off in left field right from the start.

offa · 01-06-2004, 05:35 PM

Jesus was mortal. He was crucified and survived. His death was spiritual. A ransome was paid to say the body was stolen. He was crucified with Simon Magus and Judas Iscariot. When he got stabbed and bled it meant he was alive. He revived and walked on his own power from the tomb. Jesus lived another forty-some years. Saint Paul turned the mortal Jesus into a puka (like harvey the rabbit and Jimmy Stewart).

mike_decock · 01-06-2004, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LeftCoast
Thus, giving ones life for some cause is always referred to as "making the ultimate sacrifice".

If you think of it interms of the shedding of blood rather than the loss of life, it begins to make sense why divine blood has redemptive value. In terms of "life" there was no sacrifice rather than the "temporary inconvenience".

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh
It doesn't explain why a blood sacrifice would forgive sin, but it goes a long way to explaining how the myth of Jesus could have gotten started.

The power of blood goes far back into the consciousness of man. Before they knew what the heart, brains or any organs did, they understood that shedding the blood of an animal was what caused it to die. Blood was considered the life-force, the essence of living. Blood was understood to animate an animal.

Many religions in different cultures around the world shared this practice of blood sacrifices: Incans, Jews, Egyptions, etc., etc., etc. We can still see the remnants of these early beliefs in our Vampire mythologies.

If the source of life is blood and the wages of sin is death, then it is easy to see how the logical leap was taken that the redemption for sin is blood.

-Mike...

Hawkpeter · 01-07-2004, 02:06 AM

I'm starting to see some clarity in regards to the reasons drawn for why a divine blood sacrifice has meaning.

It would seem to me however that there is more to life than blood-letting. It makes me think of my own blood donations at the local blood bank wagon. 48 visits and still going!

Not only do I find it hard to believe in the accuracy of the crucifixion story I'm equally unimpressed with the weight of its meaning either. In the race to save a person's life faith healers and blood letters are still at the start line while doctors are way out in front. I realise that the race for life in eternity is what counts here, its just that what good is blood sacrifice to anyone in the after-life? Blood means something to an Earthly body but is hardly important once we're dead.

Blood is hardly the sort of symbol that I would have chosen to represent payment for the sins of the mortal world to gain entry to the after life. Not that I can imagine what would have. I can see how sin can transcend life and death but how does blood sacrifice do the same?

This maybe a whole other subject but what happened to all the people who died before the crucifixion? What was wrong with the system that decided who went to heaven that required a change and for a sacrifice to be made?

Boro Nut · 01-07-2004, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eidal
God conceptualized the system in which sins must be washed away by blood...

and

God knew in advance that He would sacrifice Himself to Himself for doing things that He knew we would do already and that He made us capable of doing in the first place...

It also appears that the only actual "loss" involving said sacrifice is the pain and annoyance involved in having to ressurect oneself.

And now you have arrived at the point of true understanding. Remember how God chose some people especially so he could watch them in bondage? Forget those revisionary paintings of God as a bearded man in bedclothes. God created the universe to satisfy his own sado-masochisitic fetishes. He wears stilletos, fishnet stockings, and a studded rubber mask, and puts bulldog clips on his nipples whilst watching small children being tortured in third world conflicts. And why not? It works for me.

Boro Nut

mike_decock · 01-07-2004, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkpeter
Blood is hardly the sort of symbol that I would have chosen to represent payment for the sins of the mortal world to gain entry to the after life. Not that I can imagine what would have. I can see how sin can transcend life and death but how does blood sacrifice do the same?

Blood is a morbid symbol but Christians ritually drink it and sing about being washed in it. I guess it's as good as any other symbol, they just chose a very ancient one.

Quote:

What was wrong with the system that decided who went to heaven that required a change and for a sacrifice to be made?

Their temple (where all the sacrifices were performed) was destroyed.

-Mike...

Doctor X · 01-07-2004, 12:34 PM

Boro_Nut:

Quote:

God created the universe to satisfy his own sado-masochisitic fetishes. He wears stilletos, fishnet stockings, and a studded rubber mask, and puts bulldog clips on his nipples whilst watching small children being tortured in third world conflicts. And why not? It works for me.

Look . . . just because your "Master" makes you call him "God" does not mean everyone else has to bow down and worship him.

Does he . . . er . . . is he . . . um . . . available for Bar Mitsvahs? Weddings? Funerals? [Stop that!--Ed.]

--J.D.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2004, 04:43 PM	#14
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	From the link judge posted: Was Methusaleth really 969 years old when he died? Did the patriarchs live for centuries as the Bible says? Even records of antiquity speak of extraordinary long life. Are they not more myth than truth? Why, yes, they are myth. The question now being asked in biology is, Why do we die at all? Well, that's one question being asked in biology, perhaps. It seems that death is not natural, that living things must be 'killed', as it were. . . . Well, no it doesn't seem that way. Death, being found in nature, is natural. Even our cells, in replicating multiple times, run down. Our bodies run down, our organs run down, and we die (if something doesn't kill us first). Information is now known about why we "die so soon". The implication is that man was created physically immortal � we could have lived forever! Well, no, the implication is not that we were created physically immortal. This assertion is completely unsupported. Death is as natural as birth. This guy's way off in left field right from the start.

01-06-2004, 05:35 PM	#15
offa Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Monroeville, Ohio, USA Posts: 440	Jesus was mortal. He was crucified and survived. His death was spiritual. A ransome was paid to say the body was stolen. He was crucified with Simon Magus and Judas Iscariot. When he got stabbed and bled it meant he was alive. He revived and walked on his own power from the tomb. Jesus lived another forty-some years. Saint Paul turned the mortal Jesus into a puka (like harvey the rabbit and Jimmy Stewart).

01-07-2004, 02:06 AM	#17
Hawkpeter Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 43	I'm starting to see some clarity in regards to the reasons drawn for why a divine blood sacrifice has meaning. It would seem to me however that there is more to life than blood-letting. It makes me think of my own blood donations at the local blood bank wagon. 48 visits and still going! Not only do I find it hard to believe in the accuracy of the crucifixion story I'm equally unimpressed with the weight of its meaning either. In the race to save a person's life faith healers and blood letters are still at the start line while doctors are way out in front. I realise that the race for life in eternity is what counts here, its just that what good is blood sacrifice to anyone in the after-life? Blood means something to an Earthly body but is hardly important once we're dead. Blood is hardly the sort of symbol that I would have chosen to represent payment for the sins of the mortal world to gain entry to the after life. Not that I can imagine what would have. I can see how sin can transcend life and death but how does blood sacrifice do the same? This maybe a whole other subject but what happened to all the people who died before the crucifixion? What was wrong with the system that decided who went to heaven that required a change and for a sacrifice to be made?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.