Human sacrifice

[Zzyzx]

.
Christians often condemn human sacrifice and use it as justification for slaughtering competing religious groups and societies.

However, Christians glorify the sacrifice (called "martyrdom") of their namesake and other religious notables. Supposedly the "martyrdom" was often done willingly "to serve god."

How is that different from "pagan" sacrifices to their "gods?"

[Divine Insight]

My objection to Christianity is that it has God demanding that we condone the horrible crucifixion of a supposedly perfectly innocent sinless man (or demigod) to pay for our sins, or our atonement, or our opportunity to obtain "Grace".

Christ came to die for our sins so we could be saved from the judgment and our addiction to evil.

I see no reason to believe that I am "addicted to evil". I see absolutely no evidence for this in my life. This charge is absolute nonsense.

Moreover, even if there were any truth to it I could not be held responsible for being in this hopeless situation.

And finally, even if this charge were true, and it had anything at all to do with free will choice and moral responsibility, then where is there any need to crucify an innocent demigod to make possible our free will choice to no longer chose evil over good?

This religion makes absolutely no sense.

If we are being held responsible for choosing evil over good, then we should be able to change our minds without having to nail any innocent demigod to a pole.

In fact, if men refused to change their mind for the Old Testament God, then why should they change their minds for Jesus? What's changed? Why would you chose good over evil for Jesus but refuse to choose good over evil for the original Father God?

Christianity makes absolutely no sense at all.

This continual denigration of His work on our behalf marks out the anti-Christ, trying to destroy our faith in His work.

So now everyone who debates against Christianity is the "anti-Christ".

That is nothing more than old medieval brainwashing trick of this religion. If anyone argues against this religion and actually starts making some sense, just accuse them of being possessed by Satan or of being the anti-Christ.

If you truly believe that why do you even bother coming to a debate forum and arguing with all the anti-Christs here?

Our interpretation of His death on our behalf to save us is not just what we believe but is what is clearly written while your interpretation of the doctrine misses the mark of what is written to delve into anti-Christian fantasy.

I understand what Christianity is trying to claim.

Christianity is trying to claim that all humans have chosen to reject God, and choose evil over good.

Fine, I get that. I just don't buy into it.

Christianity demands that everyone has done this and is fully responsible for having made this supposedly "Free Will Choice" except that Christianity refuses to even allow anyone to make up their own mind about this. Christianity rapes everyone of their free will choice and makes the decision for them that they have already rejected God and have chosen evil over good.

Fine, I get that. I just don't buy into it.

Christianity demands that we still have a "Free Will Choice" to choose God and all that is good over evil, IF AND ONLY IF we join and support the Christian Cult as being the "Only way to God", and don't forget to send a check showing your support as well.

Fine, I get that. I just don't buy into it.

So can we just simply change our mind? Do we have the "Free Will Choice" to change our mind and choose to good over evil?

No we don't! Christianity has raped us of this "Free Will Choice".

According to Christianity to simply choose good over evil is no longer an option. Now we must confess that Jesus is the Christ and the only way to get to God and that the crucifixion of the Christ is what made possible our "Free Will Choice" to choose good over evil. And God will not forgive us unless we show our support fo this and get behind Christianity 100% supporting that only the demigod of Christianity is valid, and that all other religions are FALSE.

Fine, I get that. I just don't buy into it.

There are far too many problems with this. Why should it be necessary to crucified an innocent demigod in order for us to change our "Free Will Choice" to chose good over evil?

There is no justification for this.

If we have a "Free Will Choice" and this is what we are being judged upon then there is no need to crucified any innocent demigods.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we shouldn't be able to say to the original Father God directly, "I've made a mistake. For some stupid reasons that I obviously can't explain and through no fault of my own I had chosen evil over good and now I would like to change my mind and choose good over evil."

That alone right there would be more than sufficient to show God that you have changed your "Free Will Choice".

The idea that it would require having an innocent demigod crucified to make it possible for you to change your "Free Will Choice" is nothing short of absurd.

Christianity does this because Christianity owns the patent rights on Jesus and they want you to worship Jesus as the only true demigod.

It had absolutely nothing at all to do with moral responsibility or anything remotely like that.

Christianity is an underhanded religious scam that is the shame of humanity.

And then Islam came along and basically tried to pull the same stunt using Muhammad as the "Last True Profit of God".

These religions were created by cultures that were having "Holy Wars" against each other in the name of their Gods. The cultures that could convince the most people that their religion is the "One True Religion" could gain the most support.

And that is how these religions evolved.

The idea that we have chosen evil over good and we must acknowledge that a particular demigod is "The Christ" before we can officially be given "Grace" by God is precisely what these kinds of religions were originally designed to do.

If they can convince you of this they have strengthened their religious power and they have one more supporter to keep the scam going.

This is how this religion began. Today it's just coasting along on pure momentum. The victims of these brainwashing schemes are just keeping them going out of fear that they might be true. This is how powerful these brainwashing schemes were. Although, in truth, many people who are in high positions of power in these religions may not be so innocent. They are no doubt aware of the political power these religions still have to this very day.

~~~~

In the meantime, on a personal level all we need to do is ask ourselves, "Have I really chosen evil over good?" ;-K

If our answer is, "No". Then we can clearly see that these religions are fakes.

If our answer is "Yes". Then clearly we are in trouble. Also if a person answers "yes" to this question then why have they now decided to change that answer back to "no"?

In other words, any religious person who supports Christianity must necessarily be saying, "Yes I did chose to evil over good in the past, but now I want to start choosing good over evil".

But again, why should it be necessary to nail an innocent demigod to a pole to make that free will choice possible?

If it's a free will choice we should be able to make this choice without having to nail an innocent demigod to a pole.

[dianaiad]

.

The divine Christ sacrificed Himself

According to the tale Jesus, who is one-third of God, sacrificed himself to the rest of himself and the "sacrifice" was three days of inconvenience(?) that was known to be reversed soon.

That doesn't sound like much of a "sacrifice."

Y'know, I've done some studies in mythology and cultures which actually practiced human sacrifice. All of them that I learned about figured that the folks sacrificed would 'have it made' in the afterlife; given special places there, special consideration, etc.,

That is, those who weren't sacrificed in order to be servants of the king whose funeral they were sent to. They just stayed servants.

If you are going to criticize Jesus' death because He was actually resurrected, then you are criticizing it from within the context of the faith...and you need to then compare that with the sacrifices made in those 'other' systems. Well, it seems that, if you use the same standards, those 'other' sacrifices weren't all that big a deal, either, since those sacrificial victims got a better deal in the after life than the ones who did the sacrificing.

At least, according to the mythology.

<snip to here>

Doesn't the whole tale seem much more likely to be a myth or legend than to be a truthful and accurate account of events and motivations?

It can. But then...someone once told me a wild tale of a magical force in the universe that made 80% of it absolutely invisible to the eye, undetectable through any other means, but which had to be there because...erhmnn...the math doesn't work unless it is?

I guess it's a matter of what one is willing to open one's mind to. However, I'm just a little tired of the 'that wasn't much of a sacrifice' bit.

Jesus was beaten, tortured, hung upon a cross and spent quite a bit of time in pain that, by all accounts, is extreme. Then He died, physically.

So He was resurrected. That did not mean He did not die. So His suffering ended; that didn't mean He didn't suffer.

So His sacrifice did what it was supposed to do; that doesn't mean it wasn't, after all, a sacrifice.

.....and we do not know what it is He DID sacrifice, besides His physical life. Who did He leave behind? A wife? Children? Any further chances to teach and be human?

Yes. I am very tired of the 'he was only dead for three days...that's not much of a sacrifice' argument.

[Zzyzx]

.

I guess it's a matter of what one is willing to open one's mind to. However, I'm just a little tired of the 'that wasn't much of a sacrifice' bit.

Jesus was beaten, tortured, hung upon a cross and spent quite a bit of time in pain that, by all accounts, is extreme. Then He died, physically.

So He was resurrected. That did not mean He did not die. So His suffering ended; that didn't mean He didn't suffer.

So His sacrifice did what it was supposed to do; that doesn't mean it wasn't, after all, a sacrifice.

.....and we do not know what it is He DID sacrifice, besides His physical life. Who did He leave behind? A wife? Children? Any further chances to teach and be human?

Yes. I am very tired of the 'he was only dead for three days...that's not much of a sacrifice' argument.

Diana,

I am willing to endure torture and to "die" temporarily for three days if that will free the world of superstition, ignorance, greed, gluttony, sloth, and stupidity. In fact, I might be willing to die permanently if convinced that doing so would accomplish my objectives.

Did I just trump Jesus?

Doesn't the whole tale seem much more likely to be a myth or legend than to be a truthful and accurate account of events and motivations?

It can. But then...someone once told me a wild tale of a magical force in the universe that made 80% of it absolutely invisible to the eye, undetectable through any other means, but which had to be there because...erhmnn...the math doesn't work unless it is?

You would be quite rational to reject the wild idea. I would (do) too. The support for the claim (usually not presented as TRUTH), is tenuous at best.

At least I can claim to be an "equal opportunity rejecter" by rejecting both proposals rather than rejecting one claim that has minimal / shaky / unverifiable / unfalsifiable "evidence" in order to accept another theory that has "evidence" that is no better or possibly worse.

[dianaiad]

.

I guess it's a matter of what one is willing to open one's mind to. However, I'm just a little tired of the 'that wasn't much of a sacrifice' bit.

Jesus was beaten, tortured, hung upon a cross and spent quite a bit of time in pain that, by all accounts, is extreme. Then He died, physically.

So He was resurrected. That did not mean He did not die. So His suffering ended; that didn't mean He didn't suffer.

So His sacrifice did what it was supposed to do; that doesn't mean it wasn't, after all, a sacrifice.

.....and we do not know what it is He DID sacrifice, besides His physical life. Who did He leave behind? A wife? Children? Any further chances to teach and be human?

Yes. I am very tired of the 'he was only dead for three days...that's not much of a sacrifice' argument.

Diana,

I am willing to endure torture and to "die" temporarily for three days if that will free the world of superstition, ignorance, greed, gluttony, sloth, and stupidity. In fact, I might be willing to die permanently if convinced that doing so would accomplish my objectives.

Did I just trump Jesus?

No, because according to the account, He wasn't simply willing. He actually did it. Anybody can SAY he is willing.

Doesn't the whole tale seem much more likely to be a myth or legend than to be a truthful and accurate account of events and motivations?

It can. But then...someone once told me a wild tale of a magical force in the universe that made 80% of it absolutely invisible to the eye, undetectable through any other means, but which had to be there because...erhmnn...the math doesn't work unless it is?

You would be quite rational to reject the wild idea. I would (do) too. The support for the claim (usually not presented as TRUTH), is tenuous at best.

At least I can claim to be an "equal opportunity rejecter" by rejecting both proposals rather than rejecting one claim that has minimal / shaky / unverifiable / unfalsifiable "evidence" in order to accept another theory that has "evidence" that is no better or possibly worse.

....and so I do not.

Or rather, I'm willing to hold judgment (at least on the 'dark matter' thing, anyway). However, as I have written many times now, I have my own confirmation and evidence upon which I place my trust that my religious beliefs are 'true.'

Not scientific, but then I don't for an instant pretend that they are.

[Vanguard]

Greetings, Z.

I am willing to endure torture and to "die" temporarily for three days if that will free the world of superstition, ignorance, greed, gluttony, sloth, and stupidity. In fact, I might be willing to die permanently if convinced that doing so would accomplish my objectives.

Did I just trump Jesus?

That's why his torture and crucifixion, IMO, are not the pinnacle of what he accomplished. His "marquee" sacrifice was in the Garden where he bore the brunt of the world's sins. This was a sacrifice that no one else has endured nor could they. The brute facts of his crucifixion, as horrific in my eyes as they were, did not distinguish him nearly as much. There have been many horrific physical deaths in the history of the world and some worse than his. As important as his death was in the plan, Christians should keep their eye on the ball - it's more about what happened in the Garden.

[Zzyzx]

.

Did I just trump Jesus?

No, because according to the account, He wasn't simply willing. He actually did it. Anybody can SAY he is willing.

Rather than attempting to cast doubt upon anyone's willingness, put it to the test meet the conditions and observe the results. Until / unless you do so, all is speculation on your part.

Or rather, I'm willing to hold judgment (at least on the 'dark matter' thing, anyway).

Are you equally willing to withhold judgment on the religious thing that has no more solid evidence? Or do you accept one "thing" and withhold judgment on the other?

However, as I have written many times now, I have my own confirmation and evidence upon which I place my trust that my religious beliefs are 'true.'

Not scientific, but then I don't for an instant pretend that they are.

Are your confirmations and evidences (and trust) debatable matters?

[dianaiad]

Greetings, Z.

I am willing to endure torture and to "die" temporarily for three days if that will free the world of superstition, ignorance, greed, gluttony, sloth, and stupidity. In fact, I might be willing to die permanently if convinced that doing so would accomplish my objectives.

Did I just trump Jesus?

That's why his torture and crucifixion, IMO, are not the pinnacle of what he accomplished. His "marquee" sacrifice was in the Garden where he bore the brunt of the world's sins. This was a sacrifice that no one else has endured nor could they. The brute facts of his crucifixion, as horrific in my eyes as they were, did not distinguish him nearly as much. There have been many horrific physical deaths in the history of the world and some worse than his. As important as his death was in the plan, Christians should keep their eye on the ball - it's more about what happened in the Garden.

Vanguard?

Welcome BACK, my friend! And thank you for adding this to the thread. Of course, His suffering in the garden seems to be a uniquely LDS view of His sacrifice and atonement, so you might get some argument here, but it certainly does negate the 'sacrifice wasn't really a sacrifice' argument being made here.

[dianaiad]

.

Did I just trump Jesus?

No, because according to the account, He wasn't simply willing. He actually did it. Anybody can SAY he is willing.

Rather than attempting to cast doubt upon anyone's willingness, put it to the test meet the conditions and observe the results. Until / unless you do so, all is speculation on your part.

Indeed, I think that's what 'anybody can say he is willing' was all about. You were the one who claimed that you would do this; I'm the one who would 'wait and see if you would."

That's not speculation on my part, at all. If anything, it would be speculation on yours. You speculate that you would be willing, but would you? You don't really know until you actually are faced with the choice, and make it.

Now I'm not saying you won't, or that you will, I was simply saying that, well, you can say it all you want to, but we don't know whether you actually will until you actually do. If it helps any, I think that the odds are that you would.

Or rather, I'm willing to hold judgment (at least on the 'dark matter' thing, anyway).

Are you equally willing to withhold judgment on the religious thing that has no more solid evidence? Or do you accept one "thing" and withhold judgment on the other?

However, as I have written many times now, I have my own confirmation and evidence upon which I place my trust that my religious beliefs are 'true.'

Not scientific, but then I don't for an instant pretend that they are.

Are your confirmations and evidences (and trust) debatable matters?

I believe that we have done so, m'friend.

I have read, investigated, thought about what I read, applied the principles taught in my life, and prayed about all of it. I have received what I believe to be a confirmation of those beliefs, doctrines and principles, which all seem to continue to work well for me in my life.

I can tell you all about it until forever happens, but all that gets you is a third party testimony, 'hear say,' etc. You have to go do this for yourself.

It's not science. It isn't intended to BE science...and I don't have a problem with that.

[Divine Insight]

That's why his torture and crucifixion, IMO, are not the pinnacle of what he accomplished. His "marquee" sacrifice was in the Garden where he bore the brunt of the world's sins. This was a sacrifice that no one else has endured nor could they.

The very idea that someone needs to be tortured or beaten to "pay for sins" is an insane idea to begin with.

Why should torturing or beating someone make right or pay for a sin?

This mentality is already absurd. It's based on the idea that giving a child a spanking somehow makes up for the fact that they had supposedly done something wrong.

In fact, if you stop and think about it this whole crucifixion thing of Jesus in Christianity is nothing other than an imagined gloried spanking that Jesus is supposedly taking on behalf of mankind because mankind supposedly had "disobeyed" a Father God.

Think about this for a moment. How does spanking someone make up for truly evil deeds. If someone rapes, tortures and kills your child, how does torturing and killing them make up for that?

It clearly doesn't. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Beating the hell out of Jesus solves nothing and pays for nothing.

The whole concept is based upon the idea that children deserve to be spanked if they fail to obey their parents. The crucifixion of Jesus could be nothing more than a glorified spanking in that context. But even then it doesn't make things right.

Does spanking a child make restitution for something they might have done that harmed another?

Of course it doesn't.

In fact, spanking children to teach them a lesson is actually not productive. Oh sure, it might serve as a deterrent to keeping them from thinking about doing the same thing again. But even that is not a good lesson.

A far better lesson would be to help the child understand why they wrong actions were wrong and how they should act to make restitution for those wrong actions.

Spanking children is a very poor means of teaching children anything, and having Jesus take a grand spanking for mankind is nothing sort of extremely absurd.

The idea that sins need to be "paid for" by beating someone and torturing them wasn't even fundamental to this religion before Christianity anyway. Where in the Old Testament does it claim that the wages of sin are to be given a brutal spanking or beating? It's simply not even part of the religion.

There is no justification for the crucifixion of Jesus. And therefore there is no justification for Christianity.

[Vanguard]

That's why his torture and crucifixion, IMO, are not the pinnacle of what he accomplished. His "marquee" sacrifice was in the Garden where he bore the brunt of the world's sins. This was a sacrifice that no one else has endured nor could they. The brute facts of his crucifixion, as horrific in my eyes as they were, did not distinguish him nearly as much. There have been many horrific physical deaths in the history of the world and some worse than his. As important as his death was in the plan, Christians should keep their eye on the ball - it's more about what happened in the Garden.

Vanguard?

Welcome BACK, my friend! And thank you for adding this to the thread. Of course, His suffering in the garden seems to be a uniquely LDS view of His sacrifice and atonement, so you might get some argument here, but it certainly does negate the 'sacrifice wasn't really a sacrifice' argument being made here.

Egads! Perhaps I've run afoul of the mainline Christian world yet again. Who knows, if you allow me to talk enough, the bulk of Mormondom would probably break ranks with me also! Except I can't go for that "Katie Kelly thing" - the patriarchal, authoritarian brute that I am...

I thought mainline Christianity believed the same about the Garden?! What part does it play for them except to serve as the backdrop for his ultimate "price"? Good grief! I thought that was a given... The resurrection was simply "the opening of the portal" for the universal resurrection of mankind and it needed to be done by Christ. Important? Yes - indispensably so. But that was something the rest of us had absolutely no partnership in. It was to take place on everyone's behalf regardless. The Atonement on the other hand includes us in a very important way. It is that very inclusion that raises his sacrifice in the Garden above that which he did on the Cross.

The very idea that someone needs to be tortured or beaten to "pay for sins" is an insane idea to begin with.

Why should torturing or beating someone make right or pay for a sin?

This mentality is already absurd. It's based on the idea that giving a child a spanking somehow makes up for the fact that they had supposedly done something wrong.

The mentality doesn't seem absurd to me. And I don't agree with the analogy of spanking a child. The child has no executive function in the exchange. The parent is upset with something the child has done and therefore takes the reigns regardless of what the child thinks should be done. For that matter, many times the child does not even understand why.

Christ's resurrection on the other hand included him in the decision making process - or at least that's the Mormon belief (I guess I'm not quite the expert on mainline Christianity as I thought I was...). Yes, for some reason (another one of those classic "because I said so" arguments) the decision was made in this way. Go figure. But when you accept the notion that Christ wanted it this way, it makes the whole sordid affair go down much easier.

He was anything but a "child" being beaten because he was "bad".