Kilgore Trout

They were supposed to eat the lamb right AFTER it died. Not before, not symbolically, and as I said in my last post, eating a human is not kosher, so it is an abomination in the Hebrew god's eyes.

I love how the christians do these obvious pagan things, then pretend they follow the same god the Hebrews worship by saying it's "sybolic". I've got news for you: anybody can make claims that are "symbolic". You can start a cult that Charles Manson is the lamb of god and them sybolically eat his body. That would have about as much validity to the Hebrew god as christianity would.

Christianity is a completely different religion from Judaism. It follows a different god. Claims to the contrary are meaningless to the truth.

winstonjen

It's a sacrifice because her life is limited in length, and she lost some of her time in hospital. Jesus, on the other hand, is eternal, and life only has value if it is limited. Jesus could have chosen to live on earth forever, so his sacrifice is nil.

So god had to sacrifice himself to himself to stop his own anger problems. That's quite a deity you worship there.


No, the 'lamb' notion could be symbolised by walking to a slaughterhouse, symbolising the suicide of Jesus, and walking back home, because accepting the 'gift of forgiveness' is a cop-out - an evasion of responsibility.

paul30

Alas, poor Jesus.

Executed by the Romans, and treated even worse by the Christians.

The whole notion that God would demand a blood sacrifice for the heinous infraction of eating an apple has always struck me as one of the more amusing and appalling parts of Christianity.

And the fact that God was so DAMNED insistent on it that he took his own son's life is, to put it mildly, not a recommendation of God.

God's outlandiish, histrionic, megalomaniac wrath is a subject for doctors of mental disorders.

Invariably Gods lusts for punishment, and he is never finicky about punishing the wrong people, and punishing everyone--punishing everyone with fiendish cruelty--for the sin of one or a few.

Read the Book of Joshua. God explicitly commands genocide, and even the destruction of the animals.

God is simply out of control and needs serious therapy.

There is a theory that Henry VIII and Hitler both had third stage syphilis--which often causes obsessive and vinidictive and vastly overreactive behavior. This sounds like God. A little penicillin would have helped.

Spaz

I don't get how they say that the hebrew god and the christian god are the same anyhow. Somehow their god went from "damn those people aren't that good, I think I'll kill them all" to "damn those people aren't that good, I think I'll sacrifice my son to save them." What's up with that?

I ate Pascal's Wafer

As another poster mentioned, this is a sacrifice because the mother's life is finite. Jesus in an infinite entity, so this was not a sacrifice on his part.

Additionally, it was a sacrifice on the mother's part because it was necessary for her to risk her own life to save the child's. The child would have died if it weren't for the mother. However, the case with God is different. It is not necessary that Jesus be killed and brought back to life in order for God to forgive sins. A benevolent (and omnipotent) deity should be able to forgive sins without requiring the suffering of the innocent. It is not necessary that God sacrifices himself to himself, it is by his choice that he does so. The choice to do otherwise and achieve the same result means that the sacrifice is useless.

Catholics also believe (IIRC) that you don't have a get-out-of-hell-free pass. In effect, you have to confess your sins throughout your life in order to keep your forgiveness (from my understanding, at least). Protestants think that if you are saved once, then you are always saved.

As another poster mentioned, humans are not kosher according to Jewish law. The preparation was not done according to Jewish law for preparing sacrificial animals, so eating Jesus is not kosher under the law.

-Nick

Shake

Just correct the spelling of sacrifice, and I'd be in!

Rational BAC

I think that whatever committee tried to figure this whole thing out (Christ dying on the cross for a reason) many many years later after the fact -------screwed the whole thing up.

Jesus did not die to save people from their sins (original or otherwise)

Jesus died and rose again to show all of us that there really is an afterlife. If there is a resurrection and an afterlife for the "big guy", then there is a resurrection and an afterlife for everyone. And that is all there is to it.

All this nonsense about original sin was done to try to reconcile very implausibly Adam's "fall from grace" to Christ's dying on the cross. Bogus at best and seriously missed the true meaning of death and resurrection.

Jesus did die a very painful death. And that shows all of us that after the very painful death that many of us will endure ------there is something very wonderful beyond.

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

missus_gumby

I know it was naughty, but take a look at the title and OP of this thread.

Martin

winstonjen

The so-called 'sacrifice' has all the hallmarks of a loan - it was temporary, and the 'interest' can be viewed as all the worshippers and fundies throughout history.

Magus, still feel that he 'didn't gain anything he didn't already have'?

Carrie

Yeah it would only be a good sacrifice if Jesus went to hell for everyone, and stayed there. God's perfect innocent son burning forever. That would be big deal. But God would have had to tell Jesus to "go to hell." Har har!