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]

But that does not seem to matter to you, because you have set up a Literalist Paper Tiger of innerrancy and Straw Man of Fundamentalism and burned them to the ground. But once again, you ignore the fact that this is not the only way, nor is it even the MAIN way to approach Christianity.

But can you not see why none of this matters at all?

If I need to make up my own version of Christianity then why even bother with it at all?

And besides no matter how much you reject the religion from a literal point of view, the bottom line still remains. Christianity is demanding that you accept on faith that you are in an adversarial relationship with your creator and you are in dire need of correcting this situation which Christianity holds can only be corrected through Jesus as the Christ.

Why would I want to bother with such a negative religion?

I'm not at war with any God who need to be appeased.

Why would I want to bother with a religion that demands that I am?

[HammerofGrace]

[Replying to post 106 by Divine Insight]

It is very easy to throw out verses that appear to contradict each other as you could in ANY book if you took them out of context. Undoubtedly the law seems harsh by our standards and Jesus teachings do appear to contradict the law when we don't look at the whole of the Bible. To say that you "only need ONE counter example to prove the point" might be true in some circumstances but certainly not here when we are comparing just a sample of what Jesus said to a sample of what the OT says.

I have proven that the Bible contains gross errors.

You have asserted that the Bible contains gross errors, you have not proven anything.

Either Jesus lied about the jots and tittles, or Matthew lied about the jots and tittles, or the Old Testament is itself a lie.

We need to look at what the law was and why it was established before we can confirm or deny this accusation. After Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt God intended to set them apart from all other nations of the world. God is holy, absolutely righteous - he cannot stand sin and the law clearly shows this. Our warped modern morals cannot absorb this concept; we have been conditioned to believe all sorts of wrongs are now OK. Many of these morals we can see rapidly declining in our own country today and we wonder why the United States has fallen so far... but I digress. The law is a reflection of His holiness whether one agrees with the punishment or not - would you presume to say that God who knows the end from the beginning does not know that His punishment is just and serves a greater good? More importantly the law was not intended to be kept but to show that no human could, that we all sin and are in need of redemption. This is not a concept foreign to the OT, multiple OT prophets spoke of it. Perhaps this is the root of your objection? Jesus did not contradict the law He fulfilled the law perfectly for once and for all time as he was the only one without sin. He rebuked the Pharisees for trying to adhere to the law without love for God and others in their heart; fulfillment of the law without love has no meaning. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, the principles of the law still stand as guideposts for what is right and wrong and Jesus shows that over and over in his many teachings. The OT punishments, however, are no longer valid as Jesus' death paid the penalty for sin for all time. No one has ever been saved by maintaining the law; salvation has always been by faith. Remember Abraham who lived well before the establishment of the law had faith in God and it was credited to him as righteousness which is synonymous with salvation. OT saints looked forward to a coming redeemer or Messiah just as NT believers look forward to Christ's return after the cross.

After looking at the law and Jesus’ teaching as a whole (albeit briefly as time and space permit) we see clearly that there are no lies. Indeed, only Truth. The God of the OT testament is the same God of the NT, we are not asked nor do we have a need to choose between the two.

[HammerofGrace]

.
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?"

Which "Christians" slaughter competing religious groups and societies? If you are referring to the Crusades well that was the Catholic Church and they were wrong in doing so. I am not condemning Catholicism but some of their teachings are outside of the Bible and NOT accepted by many Christians, ie. purgatory.

I'm not sure I would use the word "glorify" to describe how Christians view martyrdom but I see your point. Christian martyrs have historically been persecuted and killed for their beliefs which they were not willing to denounce even in the face of death. Human sacrifice as I understand it is an act of appeasement often involving a sacrificee who may not even believe in the god they are being sacrificed to, perhaps not even a willing subject. Christian martyrdom has always been an absolute willful act of faith not done as a requirement or appeasement to God. One of the greatest proofs of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the fact that all of His 12 disciples were willing to die rather than denounce what they saw! Not only were they willing to die, they were willing to die horrible deaths by clubbing, crucifixion and beheading rather they deny what they saw. These are not biblical stories they are known through individual secular histories and accounts. Of the 12 disciples and Paul only John did not die at the hands of his persecutors, he was poisoned but lived and was exiled on the island of Patmos and left to die.

[Divine Insight]

Undoubtedly the law seems harsh by our standards

Well, I'm certainly glad to hear agreement on that point.

and Jesus teachings do appear to contradict the law when we don't look at the whole of the Bible.

It actually when you look at the whole of the Bible when the problems stand out the most.

To say that you "only need ONE counter example to prove the point" might be true in some circumstances but certainly not here when we are comparing just a sample of what Jesus said to a sample of what the OT says.

It's especially true in Christianity because Jesus is said to have claimed that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass.

Therefore if it can be shown where Jesus himself has rebuked any jots and tittles of the Old Testament then, by his own claims he has been shown to be wrong.

And so ONE counter example is all that is required here, and I've shown it clearly. There are actually other examples as well, but only ONE is required and I've pointed one out so I don't need to go any further than this to prove that Jesus violated his own words.

I have proven that the Bible contains gross errors.

You have asserted that the Bible contains gross errors, you have not proven anything.

You can deny the proof but it's right there in black and white. Jesus renounces "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" directly. You can't get much more proof than a direct contradiction.

If you don't accept that as proof then you clearly won't accept anything as proof.

Either Jesus lied about the jots and tittles, or Matthew lied about the jots and tittles, or the Old Testament is itself a lie.

We need to look at what the law was and why it was established before we can confirm or deny this accusation. After Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt God intended to set them apart from all other nations of the world. God is holy, absolutely righteous - he cannot stand sin and the law clearly shows this. Our warped modern morals cannot absorb this concept; we have been conditioned to believe all sorts of wrongs are now OK. Many of these morals we can see rapidly declining in our own country today and we wonder why the United States has fallen so far... but I digress. The law is a reflection of His holiness whether one agrees with the punishment or not - would you presume to say that God who knows the end from the beginning does not know that His punishment is just and serves a greater good? More importantly the law was not intended to be kept but to show that no human could, that we all sin and are in need of redemption. This is not a concept foreign to the OT, multiple OT prophets spoke of it. Perhaps this is the root of your objection? Jesus did not contradict the law He fulfilled the law perfectly for once and for all time as he was the only one without sin. He rebuked the Pharisees for trying to adhere to the law without love for God and others in their heart; fulfillment of the law without love has no meaning. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, the principles of the law still stand as guideposts for what is right and wrong and Jesus shows that over and over in his many teachings. The OT punishments, however, are no longer valid as Jesus' death paid the penalty for sin for all time. No one has ever been saved by maintaining the law; salvation has always been by faith. Remember Abraham who lived well before the establishment of the law had faith in God and it was credited to him as righteousness which is synonymous with salvation. OT saints looked forward to a coming redeemer or Messiah just as NT believers look forward to Christ's return after the cross.

This appears to be your personal opinion which I see no reason to even remotely accept or support.

After looking at the law and Jesus’ teaching as a whole (albeit briefly as time and space permit) we see clearly that there are no lies. Indeed, only Truth. The God of the OT testament is the same God of the NT, we are not asked nor do we have a need to choose between the two.

Jesus himself is a proven liar, if we accept everything the Gospel rumors claim he said. Jesus said that God feeds the birds, we know that's a lie. Jesus said both that it's unimportant to believe in him or in his words, but then he also said that the only way to the Father is through him. They can't both be true. Jesus promised that anyone that is asked for in his name he will do so that the father will be glorified in the son. Mother Teresa is prove positive that he lied big time on that one. Of course, Mother Teresa isn't the only proof of this by far.

I don't know if we can actually attribute to Jesus the claim that to not believe in him a person is condemned already, but when Jesus was being crucified by unbelievers he cried out "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

So which is it? Are unbelievers condemned or forgiven? That's a blatant contradiction where only ONE can be true. And don't forget those unbelievers had beaten him, mocked him, and nailed him to a pole. If he's prepared to forgive them then surely modern day unbelievers who wouldn't dream of crucifying anyone are surely "forgiven".

This religion is an oxymoron of the greatest magnitude. One thing for certain, if there is any truth to this religion at all it cannot be important to believe in Jesus or in this religion. A person can easily reject both Jesus and Christianity out of hand with no fear of condemnation because Jesus would necessarily be a liar if he condemned anyone on those grounds.

Jesus also preached that anyone who believes in him will be able to heal the sick, drink poison and it won't harm them, and do all manner of miracles that will be greater than his own works.

Therefore based upon these proclamations of Jesus I can simply ask you, "Can you miraculously heal the sick? Can you drink poison without being harmed? And can you do all manner of miracles even greater than Jesus?"

If your answer to any of these questions is "No", then by Jesus' own words you necessarily must not believe in him.

On the other hand if your answer is "Yes", then why aren't you going around healing everyone in all the hospitals and sending them home? You should be on the news. We should see these miracles happening all around us by all the "believers in Jesus". The only conclusion we can have is that, even if Jesus were real, there is nary a soul living today who actually believes in him.

So unless you can heal the sick, don't tell me that you believe in Jesus because by his own words if you believe in him you should easily be able to do that.

John 14:
[11] Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
[12] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
[13] And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
[14] If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

If the jots and tittles that Jesus spoke are true then if you believe in Jesus you should be able to greater works then he had done by his own proclamation.

And think about this biblical fairytale.

Look at the following verses:

Matt.10
[1] And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
[2] Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
[3] Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
[4] Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
[5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
[6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
[7] And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
[8] Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

Look especially at verse 8.

He is telling his disciples to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and raise the dead.

So why aren't there entire accounts of these disciples going around performing the same kind of miracles as Jesus?

Christianity plays this down. They can't have all these disciples running around performing the very same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed.

Clearly these aren't even well-written fairytales. They contain obvious absurdities.

And as I have already pointed out, John 14 demands that you too should be able to do all of these things if you genuinely believe in Jesus.

So until you can demonstrate to me that you can heal the sick, then why should I accept that you believe in Jesus?

According to Jesus himself if you believe in Jesus you should be able to heal the sick, and perform greater miracles than Jesus himself had done. Even raise the dead.

So as far as I'm concerned, anyone who expects me to accept that they believe in Jesus should be able to do all these things that Jesus proclaimed. If they can't do these things, then by Jesus' own words they must not believe in him

[1213]

Agreed. If you don't get a positive outcome you don't get a positive outcome.

If one doesn’t get positive outcome, because he don’t receive (accept) it, it means same as one got present at his door, but didn’t take it but left it there. I think in this case you can’t say that person “didn’t get it because present was not given�, because the reason for not getting it is that one didn’t accept it.

If an organization allows evil to happen (say pedophilia within its hierarchy) and does not take measures to prevent it from happening or continuing, would you regard the organization as responsible / liable / accountable?

In that case the organization is not guilty for the action. It is “guilty� for allowing it. If allowing the action is crime, then the organization is guilty and it could be judged by that law.

I think it is not crime that god allowed people to have free will.

Would you regard gravity as a belief? Rotation of the Earth as belief? Energy from Sun to Earth as belief? Volcanoes and earthquakes as belief?

It depends on how those are defined.

If for example gravity means that things fall certain way, I think it is belief, because I think there could be possibility that it don’t happen always. And actually one could claim that it happens only because people believe so.

How can any "god" be shown / known to be involved in those or any other earthly affairs?

I don’t know. I just believe that God has created all and set world work as we can see it.

[1213]

But the greatest law is to obey God. And in the OT God commands that you must judge and kill those who are evil and sin against you without pity. So that becomes the "law" if you are to obey this God.

And what if person doesn’t judge? Is there some punishment for it?

I disagree with that everyone who is able to read few scriptures have right to judge and I don’t think that judging is the law, for example because:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

But I don’t have problem if person thinks he has right to judge. If he does it wrongly, he will be judged the same way.

If you or someone else thinks that Bible gives you right to judge, I want to remind you of these before you go and do what you want.

"Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9
I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is living with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17
"You shall not spread a false report. Don't join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice; neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause.
Exodus 23:1-3
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17:6

I think I have right to judge and I think I have right to judge that the person’s wrong act is forgiven and he can go freely.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 106 by Divine Insight]
All you have done here is to prove that the statement about jots and tittles of the Law by Jesus or Matthew is untrue because of Jesus revisions to the Law, fair enough.

No, after Yeshua finished listing the blessings of Adonai, He asserted that those blessings do not negate HaTorah (vs. 17-19). He then says, "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed * the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (vs. 20) This is then followed by some six examples of how the scribes and Pharisees misinterpreted HaTorah, some referring to the commandment that is misinterpreted and others the rabbinic interpretation.

What DI is doing is pulling one of these examples out of context and foist it as a negation of HaTorah. As I have shown above, the context shows just the opposite, but a support of HaTorah via correction of the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees. I presented this explanation and was going through the six examples in a response to DI when the Error 500 hit. When I got back on, I saw your post and decided to respond to that, since I don't think DI is really interested in what the entire passage says anyway. It appears to me that he is just looking for an opportunity to make an accusation.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 106 by Divine Insight]

It is very easy to throw out verses that appear to contradict each other as you could in ANY book if you took them out of context. Undoubtedly the law seems harsh by our standards and Jesus teachings do appear to contradict the law when we don't look at the whole of the Bible. To say that you "only need ONE counter example to prove the point" might be true in some circumstances but certainly not here when we are comparing just a sample of what Jesus said to a sample of what the OT says.

I have proven that the Bible contains gross errors.

You have asserted that the Bible contains gross errors, you have not proven anything.

Either Jesus lied about the jots and tittles, or Matthew lied about the jots and tittles, or the Old Testament is itself a lie.

We need to look at what the law was and why it was established before we can confirm or deny this accusation. After Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt God intended to set them apart from all other nations of the world. God is holy, absolutely righteous - he cannot stand sin and the law clearly shows this. Our warped modern morals cannot absorb this concept; we have been conditioned to believe all sorts of wrongs are now OK. Many of these morals we can see rapidly declining in our own country today and we wonder why the United States has fallen so far... but I digress. The law is a reflection of His holiness whether one agrees with the punishment or not - would you presume to say that God who knows the end from the beginning does not know that His punishment is just and serves a greater good? More importantly the law was not intended to be kept but to show that no human could, that we all sin and are in need of redemption. This is not a concept foreign to the OT, multiple OT prophets spoke of it. Perhaps this is the root of your objection? Jesus did not contradict the law He fulfilled the law perfectly for once and for all time as he was the only one without sin. He rebuked the Pharisees for trying to adhere to the law without love for God and others in their heart; fulfillment of the law without love has no meaning. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, the principles of the law still stand as guideposts for what is right and wrong and Jesus shows that over and over in his many teachings. The OT punishments, however, are no longer valid as Jesus' death paid the penalty for sin for all time. No one has ever been saved by maintaining the law; salvation has always been by faith. Remember Abraham who lived well before the establishment of the law had faith in God and it was credited to him as righteousness which is synonymous with salvation. OT saints looked forward to a coming redeemer or Messiah just as NT believers look forward to Christ's return after the cross.

After looking at the law and Jesus’ teaching as a whole (albeit briefly as time and space permit) we see clearly that there are no lies. Indeed, only Truth. The God of the OT testament is the same God of the NT, we are not asked nor do we have a need to choose between the two.

What is it that you have done that is so bad, if you don't mind me asking that would make you be OK with nailing someone to a pole over it?

I have literally never done anything that would justify torturing, and then nailing someone to a pole.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Christianity was a test by a god or gods just to determine who is accountable for their actions and who would be OK with having someone else suffer for them?

I sinned, let's go sacrifice a human to a god. That's what he would want. Go human sacrifice!

It just doesn't make sense, but to claim "humans sacrifice doesn't make sense" apparently means I'm rejecting a god. Can't I just not be OK with human sacrifice and be accountable for my own actions? I'm just not very comfortable making someone else suffer for what I have done.

[Divine Insight]

If you or someone else thinks that Bible gives you right to judge, I want to remind you of these before you go and do what you want.

I don't need to worry about any rights to judge anyone.

These are words attributed to Jesus:

Luke.6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

I don't judge anyone. I never have, and I therefore I am not concerned with any rights to judge others. I'm simply pointing out that according to Jesus I shall not be judged because I judge no one.

Obviously people who do judge others will be judged. But that's none of my concern.

Jesus also said, Condemn not and ye shall not be condemned. Well, I condemn no one. Therefore if there is any TRUTH to these words attributed to Jesus I will not be condemned, lest Jesus would become a liar. And that's not a judgment call on my behalf, it's just a necessarily consequence if the words he spoke are not TRUE.

Moreover even he these words are lies, I still pass no judgement on Jesus, nor to I condemn him. But my judgement or condemnation is not required for the truth to be what it is.

I also forgive all those who have trespassed against me. So if there is any truth to these words attributed to Jesus then I too will be forgiven of any trespasses I may have made inadvertently or intentionally.

In short, Jesus has guaranteed my entrance into life eternal, because by his very own words I cannot be condemned. Neither will I be judged.

When I die I will go straight to heaven, no questions asked. There will be no day of judgement for me because I have not judged others.

Of course all of this is contingent on Jesus having been for real and on the principle that he cannot tell a lie. If Jesus is real I am guaranteed life eternal by Jesus himself.

If Jesus is just a myth then there may not even be any such thing as life eternal. Who knows?

So either way I can't lose.

[HammerofGrace]

[Replying to post 113 by Divine Insight]

I don't have time to reply to your entire counterpoint but I see quickly one point that is just flat out wrong:

Look especially at verse 8.

He is telling his disciples to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and raise the dead.

So why aren't there entire accounts of these disciples going around performing the same kind of miracles as Jesus? Think

Christianity plays this down. They can't have all these disciples running around performing the very same kinds of miracles that Jesus performed.

From Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 3

(1)Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.
(2)And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;
(3)Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.
(4)And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us.
(5)And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them.
(6)Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
(7)And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.


And so there are accounts of miracles performed by the disciples after Jesus' death so I'm unsure what it is that Christians are playing down?

In any event I have shown proof that what you said is a lie so by your previous logic that means that everything you say is a lie, am I correct?