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?"

[Baconsbud]

What makes a person a human sacrifice? Does being captured in a war and the executed make a person a sacrifice? Is a person killed by order of a god mean that person is a sacrifice? If a pregnant woman's stomach is cut open and the fetus smashed against a wall on the orders of a god consisted a sacrifice?

I do agree many religions have sacrificed their children to their god. Take this sacrifice that comes from a religion that many claim has no human sacrifices. Judges 11:29-39


Lets have a clear understanding what is and ins't a human sacrifice.

[dianaiad]

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.,

<snip rant against corporeal punishment, especially spanking for kids>

Actually, your comments to Vanguard here are missing the point. He just said that the "pinnacle of what he accomplished" was in the garden of Gethsemane; Jesus was neither tortured nor beaten there.

[Divine Insight]

<snip rant against corporeal punishment, especially spanking for kids>

You can snip it out as a "rant" all you want. But the truth is that this is basically what Christianity is asking us to believe.

Supposedly we all deserve a spanking of disobeying are "Fatherly God", and Jesus took are spanking for us.

Now I realize that the ultimate claims of Christianity is that Jesus "died" for our sins. But in truth his death wouldn't count anyway. He was resurrected three days later and then ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of God and become the King of Kings and Lord of Lords for all of eternity.

That's even better than what the Christians hope for.

Being resurrected and going to heaven is the prize of saints. In fact, according to the Bible many saints also climbed out of their graves at the same time Jesus did.

So the idea that Jesus paid the penalty of spiritual death for anyone doesn't add up. On the contrary Jesus clearly got the reward given only to saints.

So nothing truly adds up on this religion. There is nothing in Christianity that makes any sense at all. This is why many atheists are completely convinced that it can't be anything other than a man-made myth. It simply doesn't make any sense no matter how we try to twist it. It's hopeless.

Not that anyone should hope that it might be true anyway. Why would anyone want this picture of reality to be true? It would seem to me that even the most convinced Christian should still be extremely relieved to discover that Christianity is false.

I can't imagine why any Christian would be disappointed to find out that Christianity is false.

Talk about "Good News". Nothing could be better news than to learn the Christianity is false.

[dianaiad]

<snip rant against corporeal punishment, especially spanking for kids>

You can snip it out as a "rant" all you want. But the truth is that this is basically what Christianity is asking us to believe.

Not Vanguard, and not me, and Vanguard is the one to whom you were replying when you went off topic.

Doesn't it seem a little odd that you are responding to a Mormon's specific view of the Atonement, and then go off on what anybody ELSE believes?

..........and now you are attempting to justify that off topic rant by repeating it?

All I am asking is that, when you respond to a post, you actually read the post and respond to that post. You are making us feel a bit invisible here, y'know, as if what WE say and believe doesn't mean anything in your aim to debate.

Who are you debating against here?

I mean, really?

[Divine Insight]

Who are you debating against here?

I mean, really?

I'm not debating against any individual. This isn't a head-to-head thread is it?

I'm just bouncing off posts when I see something that I feel like commenting on.

Just like you are free to bounce off my posts and proclaim them to be a "rant" or whatever.

My comments concerning "corporal punishment" or Jesus having been "Spanked" for all of humanity are certainly in-line with the main topic of "Human Sacrifice".

What is being sacrificed and why?

I've already pointed out that Jesus clearly did not sacrifice his LIFE. He rose again from the grave within only 3 days. And then he ascended to heaven to have eternal life. Every Christian's dream! This is what every Christians hopes and prays will happen to them. So how could that have been a sacrifice?

So since Jesus' death could not have been the "Sacrifice" he made, then what did he sacrifice? Being beaten for the disobedience of mankind? If so, then basically Christianity is just claiming that all of humanity deserves a spanking, but Jesus supposedly took our spanking for us.

And then that brings up the question of whether spanking people does anything at all toward justifying the bad things they might have done?

How does beating the hell out of Jesus make up for human sins?

Instead of accusing me of ranting or debating with thin air, why not offer an answer to the question I pose?

How does beating an innocent son of God to a pulp make up for the bad things that humans might have done.

Since when do two wrongs make a right.

How does beating the hell out of Jesus "pay" for sins?

I think this is a legitimate question.

By the way, you ask:

Who are you debating against here?

I'm willing to debate with anyone who's willing to address the questions:

How does beating the hell out of Jesus "pay" for sins?

And how does this amount to a "Human Blood Sacrifice" when Jesus was resurrected and sent to heaven to have eternal life which is the reward of saints?

What was sacrificed?

[dianaiad]

Who are you debating against here?

I mean, really?

I'm not debating against any individual. This isn't a head-to-head thread is it?

I'm just bouncing off posts when I see something that I feel like commenting on.

Just like you are free to bounce off my posts and proclaim them to be a "rant" or whatever.

My comments concerning "corporal punishment" or Jesus having been "Spanked" for all of humanity are certainly in-line with the main topic of "Human Sacrifice".

What is being sacrificed and why?

I've already pointed out that Jesus clearly did not sacrifice his LIFE. He rose again from the grave within only 3 days. And then he ascended to heaven to have eternal life. Every Christian's dream! This is what every Christians hopes and prays will happen to them. So how could that have been a sacrifice?

So since Jesus' death could not have been the "Sacrifice" he made, then what did he sacrifice? Being beaten for the disobedience of mankind? If so, then basically Christianity is just claiming that all of humanity deserves a spanking, but Jesus supposedly took our spanking for us.

And then that brings up the question of whether spanking people does anything at all toward justifying the bad things they might have done?

How does beating the hell out of Jesus make up for human sins?

Instead of accusing me of ranting or debating with thin air, why not offer an answer to the question I pose?

How does beating an innocent son of God to a pulp make up for the bad things that humans might have done.

Since when do two wrongs make a right.

How does beating the hell out of Jesus "pay" for sins?

I think this is a legitimate question.

By the way, you ask:

Who are you debating against here?

I'm willing to debate with anyone who's willing to address the questions:

How does beating the hell out of Jesus "pay" for sins?

And how does this amount to a "Human Blood Sacrifice" when Jesus was resurrected and sent to heaven to have eternal life which is the reward of saints?

What was sacrificed?

Well, that's the thing, DI. You responded to Vanguard. he is who you used to spark your diatribe against "spanking," and it is his post you answered when you demand that he (and I, now) answer the question you are asking...or rather, defend against the charge you are making.

In fact, you utterly ignored the point HE made in his post.

I repeat; if you aren't actually going to debate with those who show up in the threads, and ignore points that you don't want to address, but use those posts as placeholders...or simply a place to jump from...without so much as reading them, I have to ask:

Who are you debating against?

Not the folks who are actually showing up to talk, evidently.

...................I mean, really...talk about a strawman argument!

[Divine Insight]

In fact, you utterly ignored the point HE made in his post.

What "sacrifice" did Jesus make in the garden? He didn't elaborate on any details.

Besides who's truly going to pretend that the crucifixion of Jesus isn't the central focal point of Christianity? Both the crucifix and the Cross are the hallmark idol images of Christianity.

I would also argue that if something else Jesus did was more important than the crucifixion, then an all-wise God should have focused on that as being central to his religion instead of playing out the crucifixion drama to take away from what was supposed to be more important.

So I would argue that if the crucifixion of Jesus isn't the main focal point of Christianity then the God of Christianity wasn't a very good communicator. He would have been far better off just skipping the crucifixion altogether and just focusing on the heart of the matter.

That would be my rebuttal to that particular argument. A God could hardly blame the Christians for focusing on the crucifixion as being of utmost importance in Christianity.

So I'll gladly take on that debate if someone would like to debate otherwise. Why should God have even bothered having his own priests crucify Jesus if this wasn't the crux of the message?

Why put that dark cloud over our heads if it's so unimportant?

I repeat; if you aren't actually going to debate with those who show up in the threads, and ignore points that you don't want to address, but use those posts as placeholders...or simply a place to jump from...without so much as reading them, I have to ask:

Who are you debating against?

When not in a head-to-head debate I'll be glad to exchange ideas with anyone.

[dianaiad]

In fact, you utterly ignored the point HE made in his post.

What "sacrifice" did Jesus make in the garden? He didn't elaborate on any details.

NOW you ask?

Why didn't you ask Vanguard?

Why did you simply ignore this rather important point?

His post was this:

"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."

.....and you went haring off in an entirely different direction.

Besides who's truly going to pretend that the crucifixion of Jesus isn't the central focal point of Christianity? Both the crucifix and the Cross are the hallmark idol images of Christianity.

Perhaps, but y'know something? You were responding to Vanguard. Neither Vanguard nor I display crosses anywhere. Nor will you find one on the walls of the churches we attend on Sundays.

....and you were responding to Vanguard. That's important.


snip to here.....

When not in a head-to-head debate I'll be glad to exchange ideas with anyone.

But that's the point. You weren't exchanging ideas with anyone. Certainly not with Vanguard, whose ideas you completely and utterly ignored, even though it was his post you were responding to.

(shrug)

Indeed, it was surreal...like reading someone railing against the chastity of the Catholic priesthood in response to an Eastern Orthodox poster, expecting him to defend the idea.

I mean...sheesh, man. If you are going to attack an idea, you might begin by NOT expecting someone who doesn't believe in it to defend it, y'know?

[Divine Insight]

In fact, you utterly ignored the point HE made in his post.

What "sacrifice" did Jesus make in the garden? He didn't elaborate on any details.

NOW you ask?

Why didn't you ask Vanguard?

Why did you simply ignore this rather important point?

Because from my vantage point it wasn't important. It was trivial. I already gave you my argument against it. It doesn't matter what Jesus might have supposedly sacrificed in the garden the crucifixion would have clearly overshadowed it.

Why would an all-intelligent God bother overshadowing the main point of his sacrifice with the unnecessary drama of a gory crucifixion?

Did this God not realize that the drama of the crucifixion would become the focal point of Christianity?

I don't see how any arguments that the crucifixion is not the central theme of Christianity could hold water.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 10 by Zzyzx]

All sacrifice is, "is doing something you didn't have to for someone else's good."

God didn't have to become flesh.
It was clearly therefore a sacrifice.

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?

I feel (as I am sure you do though our conclusions are opposite), I feel that I have looked at the human condition and uselessness of it and whilst our morals can be noble are we forum users not now discussing and agreeing that killing some groups are good and others bad. Why can't we make it work? Why can't we build utopia? Why must I die?

The whole Christian tale more satisfies me than the other tale being told.

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Richard Dawkins

I see very few evolutionists ever arguing for what evolution really implies. Why don't evolutionists like their tale?