blood sacrifice

[bluetuesday]

it just doesn't make any sense.

 

i was thinking about jesus (again) and i was thinking about his teachings about god being all love and forgiveness and patience and understanding and kindness. in him there is no darkness at all, sort of thing.

 

then i was thinking about the christian claim that jesus had to die, had to spill his blood, so that god would start letting people into heaven again. so what we're talking about is a blood sacrifice to appease god, without which humans will remain lost eternally.

 

if we think logically about god, we must reason that god doesn't need anything. god is god, and a definition of god is self-sufficiency.

 

so it's a fundamental contradiction that god could be god and need something. and it's a fundamental contradiction that a god who is all love and forgiveness and patience and understanding would only be appeased by a blood sacrifice. sacrifice is an ancient idea that killing innocent things appeases angry gods and wins favour. but since anger, unforgiveness and bloodlust are not facets of the god of love jesus came to tell us about, there is a clear contradiction in what jesus taught and in what christians believe.

 

the god jesus talked about and the god christians talk about seem therefore to be different gods. jesus never said god was angry or needed anything. yet christians must think god WAS angry (or at least not wholly forgiving) or he wouldn't have needed jesus to die.

 

it seems so illogical to me that christians say there is nothing we can do to make god love us any less while at the same time saying that if jesus hadn't suffered god wouldn't forgive us our sins.

 

yet jesus taught turning the other cheek every time someone hurt you. he taught perpetual forgiveness. why on earth would christians think that these things applied to THEM and not to god? how could jesus have taught love and peace and perpetual forgiveness while at the same time having to die because god had reached a point where he could no longer forgive??

 

my conclusion has to be that either jesus lied when he said god was love, or that his crucifiction WASN'T necessary to appease a god who could no longer forgive us our transgressions. i vote for the second one.

 

anyone else see this?

[InsanityImpaired]

so it's a fundamental contradiction that god could be god and need something.

Not necessarily . Because self-sufficiency already implies that god has needs - but he can cater to them himself.

 

and it's a fundamental contradiction that a god who is all love and forgiveness and patience and understanding would only be appeased by a blood sacrifice. sacrifice is an ancient idea that killing innocent things appeases angry gods and wins favour. but since anger, unforgiveness and bloodlust are not facets of the god of love jesus came to tell us about, there is a clear contradiction in what jesus taught and in what christians believe.

I agree with you there, if we are talking about Christians who see Jesus' death as a sacrifice.

 

it seems so illogical to me that christians say there is nothing we can do to make god love us any less while at the same time saying that if jesus hadn't suffered god wouldn't forgive us our sins.

It is illogical to me that christians say that God does not love us, in the first place. Else it would be a form of conditional love, and that would clash with your earlier given definition of god as self-sufficiency.

 

my conclusion has to be that either jesus lied when he said god was love, or that his crucifiction WASN'T necessary to appease a god who could no longer forgive us our transgressions. i vote for the second one.

 

I agree with you. Sad to say, perhaps the crucifiction was more needed for his followers than for Jesus and god. And has given rise to the interpretations you mention.

[Guestola]

perhaps the crucifiction was more needed for his followers than for Jesus and god.

 

You have to understand the Bible in the context of its times. 'Blood sacrifice' was a way of life. It was how you sealed the deal in any number of situations. So people understood the significance of a person making himself the ultimate blood sacrifice.

 

As for divine motivations, who says that people got it right? Maybe the whole plan was 'well, we invented these critters and they screwed up BAD. The protocol for this experiment is to give them an event which should be significant enough to change their ways and see what happens. If they smarten up, we'll continue the experiment indefinitely. If not, we'll wipe the whole lot of them out after a millennium or three'.

 

So JC came as our second chance to fly straight. Or maybe not We humans keep thinking we are smart enough to out-think the Divine; to figure out what's up. It's funny, really. It's like your two-year-old thinking she's outsmarted you because she's got a towel over her head and thinks you can't see her.

 

All you do when you try to fathom the unfathomable is think yourself into unpleasant places, as our friend BlueTuesday has done.

 

If you have experienced the Divine, that is all you need to know. Trying to engage our amusingly weak brains to interpret the matter is just an exercise in futility.

[westernxer]

You should ask Mel Gibson about this... he loves bloody sacrifices.

 

Just watch the films he directed, including his latest, Apocalypto.

[bluetuesday]

All you do when you try to fathom the unfathomable is think yourself into unpleasant places, as our friend BlueTuesday has done.

 

unpleasant places!? i assure you, seeking to understand something you do not understand is not an unpleasant experience at all, nor does it lead to an unpleasant place. in fact it's the very opposite. i am asking christians to truly think about this issue and explain it to me. the belief that we cannot know and therefore shouldn't ask is what the church wants of you, not what god wants of you. you cannot serve both.

 

Trying to engage our amusingly weak brains to interpret the matter is just an exercise in futility.

 

this is so, so sad. acceptance that because we can't know everything we shouldn't try to know anything is to admit that you can't be a thinking person and be a godly person. which malevolent soul got you to believe that lie? for your own sake, don't believe anyone who tells you that since god cannot be fully understood by the human mind, god cannot be understood at all by the human mind.

[Guest]

the belief that we cannot know and therefore shouldn't ask is what the church wants of you, not what god wants of you. you cannot serve both.

 

Um. No. You just posted a post challenging people to explain God. I'm saying that we are too small to put God in our nice, neat boxes and to produce a lovely schematic that explains His mind. And that it's pointless to try. It doesn't take a church to figure that out.

 

this is so, so sad. acceptance that because we can't know everything we shouldn't try to know anything

 

Hey, you're welcome to think yourself blue, Tuesday (heh) if you like. All I'm saying is you do violence to something great to try to contain it with the puny human brain.

 

don't believe anyone who tells you that since god cannot be fully understood by the human mind, god cannot be understood at all by the human mind.

 

Did I say 'at all'? Please reread. I said

If you have experienced the Divine, that is all you need to know.

 

Ever heard of 'Shantih' (the peace which passeth understanding)? There is seeing with the heart/soul/spirit that trumps the attempt to grasp God by logic and intellect.

[InsanityImpaired]

You have to understand the Bible in the context of its times. 'Blood sacrifice' was a way of life. It was how you sealed the deal in any number of situations. So people understood the significance of a person making himself the ultimate blood sacrifice.

But then we are applying logic to understand the Divine and Divine acts. Which is a pointless exercise according to you.

 

If they smarten up, we'll continue the experiment indefinitely. If not, we'll wipe the whole lot of them out after a millennium or three'.

But according to most Christian interpretations God is not allowed to do that anymore. Unless we must assume that the Bible itself is lying on that score ... Which is a major point of contention, in this debate. If the Bible is lying on that score, why should Christians believe it tells the truth?

 

All you do when you try to fathom the unfathomable is think yourself into unpleasant places, as our friend BlueTuesday has done.

You only have to think of reality to the fullest extent to be in an unpleasant

place. And one you cannot escape.

[burning 4 revenge]

Back in the days when God crucified Jesus blood sacrifice was all the rage. I don't think he'd do it these days.

[pureinheart]

It's not so much about "blood" sacrifice, as it is "perfect" sacrifice. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for all sin for all time. God being perfect is unable to look at imperfection....we are imperfect...at the point that we accept Jesus as our Lord and savior God sees us through Jesus (Yahweh) (please forgive my spelling)....

 

The blood sacrifice ocurred in the O/T and I believe it started with Abraham....the sacrificing of a lamb is symbolic for Jesus....from the first sacrifice a portion of the ashes was saved for the next and so on....the Ark of the Covenant contains the original ashes from the time of Abraham.

 

The suffering and dying on the cross was not the issue for Jesus, it was the separation from God when Jesus bore the sins past/present/future....sin separates us from God.....Jesus stands in the gap.

[bluetuesday]

It's not so much about "blood" sacrifice, as it is "perfect" sacrifice. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for all sin for all time. God being perfect is unable to look at imperfection....we are imperfect...at the point that we accept Jesus as our Lord and savior God sees us through Jesus (Yahweh) (please forgive my spelling)....

 

it was actually the 'sacrifice' bit of blood sacrifice i was questioning. i suppose the bigger point would be, blood sacrifice may have been all the rage, but since when did jesus reinforce a false way of thinking (that sacrifice appeases an angry god) by taking part in it? the answer is never.

 

that's the very opposite of what jesus did. he spoke out against things that were wrong, which is why he was nailed to the cross. so either the sacrifice (bloody or perfect, it doesn't matter) was necessary, meaning god NEEDED it in order to be reconciled to man, or he didn't need it and we have misinterpreted its meaning.

 

The suffering and dying on the cross was not the issue for Jesus, it was the separation from God when Jesus bore the sins past/present/future....sin separates us from God.....Jesus stands in the gap.

 

do you think that jesus would demonstrate, by dying on the cross, the very thing he had spoken out against during his entire ministry?

 

i mean that jesus rebuked the jewish leaders for following the outer law perfectly and thereby thinking that they were doing everything necessary for god to let them into heaven. they thought they didn't have to change their hearts. they thought outer observance was enough and jesus told them straight that it wasn't.

 

so why would jesus effectively say 'when jews follow the outer law and don't change their hearts, it's bad. but when christians follow the outer law and don't change their hearts, they're guaranteed a place in heaven'. it's nonsense.

 

accepting jesus as your lord and saviour is an outer law. it doesn't mean you have changed your heart. it doesn't mean you are kinder or more loving. it is a man-made rule. jesus spent three years teaching people how to love and finally it cost him his earthly life. he spent no time whatsoever teaching people that if they claim he's god they're saved - and i include the statement 'i am the way the truth and the life'. if all that was needed was recognition of jesus' divinity, why would he have bothered spending so much energy and time teaching people how to love one another?

 

the mindset that we don't need to change ourselves is testament to how far we've got to go yet before we remove the beam from our own eye. the idea that something external, some outer observance or saviour, will save us is the very thing jesus spoke out against.

[Guest]

since when did jesus reinforce a false way of thinking (that sacrifice appeases an angry god)

 

He didn't. You are assuming that sacrifice was a bad thing. That's because our 21stC understanding of 33AD customs and culture is minimal. Sacrifice wasn't an appeasement. It was, instead, a very important Jewish ritual involving concepts like purity.

 

In Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism by Jonathan Klawans, it's explained that there's

 

a symbolic meaning in sacrifice that clarifies why the practice was religiously relevant in ancient Judaism and in the thinking of Jewish and Christian communities after the destruction of the temple. This superb study goes far beyond previous studies in providing a comprehensive look at the interlocking phenomena of temple, sacrifice, and purity

 

Which is why you can't just take the Bible at face value and critique what went on there. You need to understand the context in which the events occurred.

[bluetuesday]

according to your claim, sacrifice is not an appeasement and it was not done to win favour with god.

 

in that case the sacrifice of jesus was not an appeasement and was not done to win favour with god - nor would it have been seen as such by the people who witnessed it.

 

so either the message of jesus' death on the cross has been misinterpreted by a religion which claims that jesus WAS sacrificed to take upon himself the sins of the world and thereby reunite man and god, or sacrifice DOES contain within it the element of appeasement.

 

which brings me back to my original point that you cannot have it both ways. either jesus' death didn't do what religion claims it does, or god was in a position of anger and unforgiveness against mankind - a viewpoint totally against the teachings of jesus.

 

i too found that quote on amazon. it doesn't mean i read the book either.

[quankanne]

so it's a fundamental contradiction that god could be god and need something. and it's a fundamental contradiction that a god who is all love and forgiveness and patience and understanding would only be appeased by a blood sacrifice

 

you've got to remember that Jesus was as human as he was divine ... that in the Garden of Gethsemane he experienced some very human thoughts in not wanting to die ("let this cup pass from my lips"), but in the end, he chose freely to offer himself – his spiritually pure self*– as a sacrifice to ensure that man could live forever if he embraced Christ.

 

the blood and the gore is just a by-product, in my thinking, because the flesh isn't important – the soul is. However, because we are human, we don't fully grasp this unless we are given an "in your face" instance of selflessness like Jesus gave by accepting that humiliating physical death.

 

accepting jesus as your lord and saviour is an outer law. it doesn't mean you have changed your heart. it doesn't mean you are kinder or more loving. it is a man-made rule.

 

actually, no. I think people don't grasp the full equation of salvation. It's "repent, and turn away from sin." Meaning, don't just say you accept Jesus as your savior so you can merit heaven, but you walk the walk of salvation. There are a lot of Christians who profess with their mouths that they are saved, but they choose not to turn away from their lives of sin.

[bluetuesday]

you've got to remember that Jesus was as human as he was divine ... that in the Garden of Gethsemane he experienced some very human thoughts in not wanting to die ("let this cup pass from my lips"), but in the end, he chose freely to offer himself – his spiritually pure self*– as a sacrifice to ensure that man could live forever if he embraced Christ.

 

i've bolded this bit because it says 'as a sacrifice to ensure' which is my whole point. jesus didn't freely sacrifice himself for no good reason. he had to do it, that's what the whole sweating blood thing in gethsemane was all about, because sacrificing himself was the will of the father.

 

in other words, the father demanded it because without it there would be no reconciliation. and the fact jesus was required to be the sacrificial lamb, according to christian teaching, is because man was separated from god and god couldn't take our sinful selves back into heaven. if that is true, it means that jesus is an OUTER factor that is necessary to ensure personal salvation. in other words, it's against the teachings of jesus who taught that there is NO outer doctrine or set of rules that you can follow that will lead you to salvation, because the kingdom of god is within you.

 

i am asking this question sincerely, because if i have missed something i want to know. but the contradiction remains because if you look at this issue with no preconception that something is sacred and mustn't be questioned, the issue of vicarious atonement is blatantly at odds with jesus' own teachings. and it's like a magic eye picture. once you can see it, you can always see it.

[Guest]

which brings me back to my original point that you cannot have it both ways. either jesus' death didn't do what religion claims it does, or god was in a position of anger and unforgiveness against mankind - a viewpoint totally against the teachings of jesus.

 

Reductionism makes for poor discussion. You can't boil down the complexity of the issue into a simple either/or proposition and misstate both sides. But nice straw man you got, there.

 

Point is, this can't be properly apprehended without knowing a great deal more about both the theology and the history. If you badly want the answer to your question, I suggest you read that book. Then maybe you'll begin on the road to understanding.

[bluetuesday]

If you badly want the answer to your question, I suggest you read that book. Then maybe you'll begin on the road to understanding.

 

erm, thank you for your condescension.

 

i have been badly wanting an answer to this question for years because i sensed something was wrong in church teaching. so i prayed about it with an open heart until i received an answer. the substance of that answer, i've written in this post. that christian teaching on vicarious atonement is a perversion of jesus' actual message.

 

i doubt one man's take on the study of ancient jewish customs and the meaning of sacrifice to ancient jews is going to tell me why the christian church applies warped logic and manages to get people to believe it. clearly you can't tell me that either. it's not a dig. i once believed as you did.

 

peace to you.

[Guest]

erm, thank you for your condescension.

 

Not condescension at all. I'm just saying if you insist on delving into the 'logic' of all this, then do the work and study.

 

so i prayed about it with an open heart until i received an answer. the substance of that answer, i've written in this post. that christian teaching on vicarious atonement is a perversion of jesus' actual message.

 

With all due respect, both the holiest and the nuttiest people on earth believed they received answers. I dont' distrust God; I do distrust human brains. But clearly you wanted an answer that allowed you to denigrate 'christian teaching' as inadequate and that's what you got. Amazing how that happens. What if I told you that my spiritual experience validated christian teaching? Do we have duelling spiritual experiences? LOL

 

I put it to you that any 'answer from God' that boils down to 'the whole rest of the world is wrong and you are right' should be suspect. That way lies madness. Literally.

 

i doubt one man's take on the study of ancient jewish customs and the meaning of sacrifice to ancient jews is going to tell me why the christian church applies warped logic and manages to get people to believe it.

 

You appear to be one person who thinks she has an answer and in fact, rather than continuing to quest and to seek out answers found by others, reject them in favour of your own. Not really the way one pursues growth, that.

 

clearly you can't tell me that either. it's not a dig. i once believed as you did.

 

Oh yes, so ever-more-than-everyone-else-enlightened one.

Ever think that perhaps your quest has led you to someone who was meant to tell you that thinking you (and ONLY you) have received The Truth is leading you away from the Divine rather than towards it?

[bluetuesday]

what makes you think only i have any answers? i neither said that nor implied it. i'm not the only non-christian in the world, you know.

 

i was a church-going catholic for 30 years. i think i know a little about the christian faith. it doesn't require logic to be a believer and they don't make you sit a test before allowing you to partake. yet you think YOU are logical and i can't possibly know anything about this situation until i read a book you've never read either? curious.

 

it IS funny how we get the answers we want to hear, isn't it? the thing is, i didn't want the answer i got, i wanted the truth, whatever it was. what i got is what i got. i'm not asking you to accept what i got. unlike you, i don't only think there is only one truth and i don't exclude the likelihood that there is more than one genuine spiritual path.

 

i asked a difficult question here about vicarious atonement, hoping that someone could offer me an answer that actually made sense in light of jesus' teachings. not only have you not answered the question, you've mocked and inferred i'm delusional for thinking differently than you.

 

i think i'll leave it at that, thanks.

[Moose]

Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fullfill it.

 

Did you know the day that man fell the first, "blood sacrifice", was made?

 

It's true, the first animals were killed, (by God), to clothe man.

 

The next sacrifice we hear about were fruit by Cain and the first of Ables flock. I've always wondered why God turned down Cain's and accepted Ables, but when you consider what God had done for man......well, fruit woudn't cut it if you get my meaning.....

 

God made the commandment(s) that the nation of Israel make a variety of sacrifices with a lot of stipulations. For instance, the animal had to be spotless, it had to be identified with the person who owns it, and the person who is making the sacrifice actually is the one who kills it.

 

Keep in mind that these were laws made by God in order for Him to forgive us of our sins and have a relationship with Him once again. (I think this is what you mean about God wanting something from us.)

 

Jesus was the, "perfect" and, "ultimate", sacrifice. Thus, the law has no point anymore. Once you've slain the perfect sacrifice, what on Earth could be worthy afterwards?

 

The animals died in place of the sinners in the OT, Jesus died for the remainder who believe in Him now and in the future......

[quankanne]

jesus was required to be the sacrificial lamb,

 

he chose freely to offer himself up as the sacrificial lamb. He had the option to say no, even as he sweated blood at Gethsemane, as you point out.

 

this is a poor analogy, but compare it to what sacrifices a parent makes for his or her child. He or she doesn't have to, but in order to provide the best possible for that kid, that parent will go without new clothes, will make sure the child eats first, will give up something desperately desired if it means the rugrat can go to college.

 

because he loved us so much, he gave himself to keep us from spiritual death.

[Moose]

Quank,

 

Thanks.....I should've made that point ESPECIALLY clear!!!

[Guest]

i asked a difficult question here about vicarious atonement, hoping that someone could offer me an answer that actually made sense in light of jesus' teachings.

 

And I am saying that you are asking a question which boils down to the meaning of 'sacrifice' to the people of the New Testament. What Jesus did was done to make sense to THEM. We don't do sacrifice. If He came now, He'd go about it differently. But since you ask, and since the answer has to do with the nature of sacrifice, then I recommended a book by a man who has studied the issue and writes authoritatively on it; something which I could not claim to do.

 

Now you can mock and balk or you could just read the book and find out how and why blood sacrifice held significance for THAT people in THAT era.

 

I don't have an answer because I don't need one. I don't demand logic of religion; that way is foolishness, as I've already mentioned. But if you INSIST on trying to make sense of it, then you must acquaint yourself with the context in which it will make perfect sense.

[quankanne]

I don't have an answer because I don't need one. I don't demand logic of religion; that way is foolishness, as I've already mentioned. But if you INSIST on trying to make sense of it, then you must acquaint yourself with the context in which it will make perfect sense.

 

I don't think it's a demand for logic, guest, but simply BT putting out a question in hopes that he can get an answer that "computes" for him. If you read Moose's comments in any of the spirituality threads, you'll see he's got a great knowledge of the Bible. Not everyone does, even if they understand the basics of it and know of the different readings. Some of us relate better to analogies, others to other "teaching" methods. Hopefully, these posts will generate enough replies so that everyone takes something away from them.

 

Moose, it's great to see your face again! I like to think that our responses complement each other

[Guest]

Quank, no disrespect but you and Moose are describing the sacrifice. BT (who is a gal, BTW) wants to know the WHY. She is indeed looking for the logic of it and has asked her question using a logical premise. It's pointless telling her Jesus was 'the perfect sacrifice'. She's questioning the point of sacrifice.

 

And no disrespect to Moose either but I disagree with much of his particular interpretation of Scripture.

[Moose]

Moose, it's great to see your face again! I like to think that our responses complement each other

Thanks!! Great to see you too!! And I agree with you on the comments you made.....

She's questioning the point of sacrifice.

Which I do believe I explained in plain English. I'm just guessing, but BT obviously got something out of it, or we probably would've heard something by now.

And no disrespect to Moose either but I disagree with much of his particular interpretation of Scripture.

And you have all the God given right to do so.