Ahh, the Blood Sacrifice. A necessary component of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Old Testament there was a demand on the part of their god to smell burning flesh if they wanted to atone for their sins, so animal sacrifice was a foundational belief. The New Testament teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus' blood on the cross was necessary in order to atone for all sins for all time, and that this sacrifice supersedes the Old Testament requirement for animal sacrifice.
It is obvious that there is either some constraint on their god about what actions it can take, a conclusion they vehemently deny, or their god has made a decision that certain actions and thoughts will be labeled as "sin" and that those actions and thoughts will be considered to be punishable by any number of calamity, up to and including eternal torture after death, and that the shedding of blood would be the only way to atone for these sins. In other words, either the god they worship had no choice in the nature of sin and atonement, or this nature is the result of the choices made by their god. There is a third possibility that the nature of sin and atonement is not a total constraint on their god, that there are choices that their god can make within boundaries, but I feel that this contingency is adequately covered within the second option of sin and atonement being the result of choice by their god.
Of course I am aware that not all sins required blood to be spilled, but
every person will commit a sin, or already has, that is considered by the Abrahamic religions to be severe enough
to require blood sacrifice. If you believe the Christians, that sin is
the sin of being born.
Here's the problem with this as I see it.
Jesus forgave sinners of their sins.
I'm not talking about the Christian contention that belief in Jesus' divinity is the only path to atonement, I'm talking about Jesus walking around and forgiving people of their sins while he still walked the Earth. The Bible is full of examples of Jesus doing just that. If you must, Matthew 9 is the usual citation from Christians demonstrating not only the "authority" to forgive sin but several actions of actually forgiving sin!
So how is this a problem? Glad I asked. If we accept the premise that this god exists, that sin exists and that atonement is necessary to avoid devastating consequences, then the act of forgiveness by Jesus demonstrates that blood sacrifice is not a necessary component of atonement. Not for the Old Testament and not for the New Testament.
You see, for Christians it is the sacrifice and shedding of Jesus' blood that provided the atonement. The crucifixion of Jesus is necessary in order to fulfill the need for blood sacrifice to atone for sin. Without it the whole Christian theology breaks down. Jesus, however, was very much alive when he forgave these sins. They believe he had the authority to forgive these sins and no blood was shed. The only requirement was faith, and not even an explicit belief in the divinity of Jesus, just that he has the power to do something miraculous for you. If you believed he could do it then he could do it, if you didn't believe he could do it then he wouldn't.
So, if the period of history when Jesus walked the Earth was a period when their god had no requirement for blood sacrifice to atone for sin, then blood sacrifice can NOT be necessary. Remember, Jesus specifically is quoted as saying that the sins committed by these individuals were forgiven, not that if they believe in his divinity when he is crucified THEN they will be forgiven of their sins, those sins were forgiven effective immediately. Further evidence is that the conditions that these sinners were seeking relief from were completely cured immediately as well. If they were still in a state of sin then there wouldn't have been miraculous cures.
The Bible itself contains many examples of the severing of blood sacrifice and atonement. So, if blood sacrifice is not necessary for atonement, each and every act of blood sacrifice, up to and including the crucifixion, was demanded by their god not for the stated reason and the blood sacrifice of Jesus was meaningless as far as atonement is concerned.
I'm curious what problem there is with this analysis, but as I see it the Bible explicitly states that Jesus forgave sin before his blood was shed, and that the miracles provided by his forgiving their sins is evidence of his authority and ability to do so. This is explicitly atonement without blood sacrifice. The only constraint on this form of atonement seems to be the faith requirement, but certainly not the need for blood to be shed. These demonstrations of forgiveness, far from showing the benevolence of their god, shines a bright light on the true nature of the god they worship, a god that makes the choice to grant atonement at whim, not according to the conditions they claim their god has made clear.
The effect this has on Jewish theology is not damaging at all since they have no belief that the shedding of Jesus' blood replaced the need for ritual blood sacrifice. For them, the rules in the New Testament don't supersede the rules in the Old Testament, but ritual sacrifice for atonement of sin for Jews mostly ended after the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem (the fact that the rules hadn't changed didn't seem to bother them - they had no place to go and kill things anymore and they didn't seem to care what their god thought about it).
For Christian theology, however, the shedding of Jesus' blood as necessary for the atonement is a defining tenet. If Jesus demonstrated that the shedding of blood was divorced from atonement then Jesus demonstrated that the demand for blood was for no known reason, and indeed also demonstrated that pronouncements from their god are not to be trusted OR, since their god demanded death on a whim, especially not to be worshiped.
I have no illusions that the logic and "evidence" provided here would affect a Christian in any significant way, but it certainly seems to me that the removal of the requirement for a blood sacrifice undermines their whole ideology (yes yes, add it to the list). Blood sacrifice isn't needed for forgiveness so the whole Passion was choreographed stage art. I await the next time a Christian tells me that he shed his blood for me...
Sin = death
ReplyDeleteJesus died so that we can have eternal life.
John 3:16
Sin = death, therefore death = sin.
DeleteJesus died, therefore Jesus sinned?
I'm confused by your argument in that you seem to think you have one.
John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." There, now no one will have to look it up. If I'm not mistaken though, it is a central belief in Christianity that everyone will have eternal life, impossible as that is, but that select Christians will live a privileged eternal life while the rest of us languish in eternal torment. This statement, often quoted by Christians to prove the profit in their stated beliefs, is opposed to the positions of the Christian churches on this matter. This verse clearly revokes the whole notion of a "hell" as it presents a "believe in me or perish" ultimatum, not a "believe in me or spend eternity in hell" one.
Seriously. If you'd like to troll other people's blogs you may want to put more effort into it. This just doesn't seem like you meant it...
I realize this doesn't make sense to you but if you explained the theory of relativity to a 5 year old, it wouldn't make sense to them either. You will get it when the time is right. What I don't understand is why someone who does not believe in God spends so much thought on Him. I would spend my time trying to prove He is real but that would be like spending time trying to explain that the coffee mug you drink from is real. If you choose to deny the truth, it doesn't make it any less true. And I'm not trolling, I was just commenting on an old friends blog. Whether you believe in God or not Robert, He believes in you and I pray that He will pour out his blessings on you. Thank you for the difference you made in my life. You are in my thoughts and prayers :)
ReplyDeleteLove Amanda M
(aka glazed donut)
Well, at least you tried to respond. No wait, you didn't try to respond at all.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least you said you weren't trolling. No wait, you didn't add anything to the conversation and instead started evangelizing (again).
What you wrote indicates an unwillingness to think rationally and clearly. It also indicates that you have no intention of trying to examine your beliefs, or even defend them, which is unfortunate since you continue to espouse them to people who obviously disagree as though they need no explanation. If you have no interest in explaining or defending your assertions then why would you make them? Could it be because you're trolling?
As for your first line, either you are telling me that YOU understand it but I'm not intellectually capable of understanding it or that you don't understand it but that won't stop you from being certain about it. Since you made no attempt to explain anything to me so that you could claim that I'm unable to understand it, I will assume that it is the latter. If you believe you do understand it then please show me the courtesy of at least trying to explain it to me rather than to dismiss me as "unable" to understand.
If, like me, you have no rational understanding of the contradiction you brought up, then why would you then assert that either one of us will understand it someday? You couldn't possibly know this. If, as Christians like to point out, I need to be prepared in case your god comes to torture, kill and then torture me forever, how could you possibly make the statement "You will get it when the time is right"?
You feign concern for me but, when given the chance to actually do something like educate me about these issues you merely treat me much like a child, pat me on the head with much smugness and walk away. I assume that if you found out that I had died you would show as much concern as to whether or not I was saved before that happened, in other words - no concern at all.
BTW, if your god was as real as a coffee mug that I drink from we wouldn't be having this conversation. You wouldn't be relying on stories, written by people who showed no knowledge or insight beyond what others of their day had (and very much HUMAN) to tell me what your god is. Your god would be real to me, to you, to everyone else and everything else. It's sad that you don't recognize that your god ISN'T EVEN as real as a coffee mug, instead you claim that I recognized the reality of your god but I deny it, as virtually everyone else in the world does.
If your god would show itself then your analogy would be plausible, but by trying to assert that I am evil and immoral (no you didn't use those words, but if your god is as real and undeniable to me as a coffee mug then denying said god, according to the books you reference, could only be described as evil and immoral), that I'm just trying to lie to people by deceiving them when even they know the truth, you've actually shown the opposite. The reason that anyone even could be deceived by that kind of lie is if your god ISN'T like the coffee mug I drink out of. If people had the ability to actually engage with your god, the ability to actually touch your god, then there would be no plethora of religions, no horribly flawed book called a Bible, no churches, no priests, no disciples and no humanity. If we could actually access your god, if your god actually existed, then your analogy would not only be correct, it would be obviously correct. Instead, you have shown yourself to be deluded as to the evidence for your god and have made a good argument as to it's non-existence outside of the mental construct you've created.
I will agree with you that denying the truth doesn't make anything less true, but you don't seem to have any way to discern the truth. You seem to have been informed as to what the truth is, accepted that the truth doesn't make sense and is logically contradictory and that you therefore have no way to understand or know the truth, but then you claim to have certain understanding that it IS the truth. The only evidence one could possibly have for that is the ubiquitous "personal experience", a claim made for all religions and one that gives no reason to prefer your claim over anyone else's.
ReplyDeleteI don't find your claims to be credible and you show no understanding of things you claim to know to be true.
Also, I have to admit to finding your attempt to elevate yourself above the criticisms you made by "I pray that He will pour out his blessings on you" and "You are in my thoughts and prayers :)" is more than a little insulting. If your god is omniscient then your prayers are meaningless, what will happen is already determined and there's nothing you, myself nor anyone can do to even influence it in any way. If your god isn't omniscient then your prayers are meaningless because you aren't worshiping what you think you're worshiping. The only point to making those "I'm praying for you" statements is to show how "big" a person you are for even wanting the best for someone like me, something that I suspect is supposed to contrast with me not expressing the same thing towards you.
BTW, you may not realize this because you don't seem to understand that I honestly have found no evidence for the existence of any god or gods, but I spend my thoughts on examining the evidence for claims of the existence of a god or gods. If you can't perceive the difference between that and spending "so much thought on Him", then why would you comment? As a direct analogy, since you believe that your god is as real to me as a coffee mug and you obviously have no interest in convincing me or saving me, why do you spend so much time reading my post and commenting?
Reference to your last question, because I do care about you Robert. I know I can't convince you, prove to you or make a good enough argument for you. I also can't save you. That's God's department and it's up to you whether you open your heart to Him or not. Have you ever dared to let go of the intellectual side and just tried sincerely opening your heart to Him and let Him in?
ReplyDeleteAmanda, you don't know me or care about me beyond what little correspondence there is between us here. I have never seen any evidence that you care about me - you've never asked how my life is, how my health is, how my employment or social situation is, you've never offered to help me in any way and the only advice you've ever given me is to shut off my brain until I can convince myself that you're right. That doesn't sound caring in the slightest, and instead sounds very self-centered.
DeleteLet's look at what you're proposing. "I know I can't convince you, prove to you or make a good enough argument for you." Why is that? I know you blame me because you've already tried to equate your god with a coffee mug and that somehow was an attempt to prove that I was/am knowingly lying about the existence of your god (like the vast majority of people on this planet) for reasons you left unexplained.
So what is it? Am I lying about knowing that your god exists just as surely as any other physical object that I can examine, or is it that there is no way to prove to me that your god exists? Since you've proposed both so far perhaps you should turn your brain back on and possibly examine your own certainty about the proposition.
I also enjoy the way that you admit that, according to your theology, you can't save me and neither can I save myself.
Any theology that demands that I not examine it intellectually isn't worth any of my, or your, time. The only reason to turn the brain off is because the proposition doesn't make sense and the person proposing it doesn't want you to notice. Once you get to the point where you can, in all sincerity, say that truth comes from wanting something as opposed to the truth being independent of our wants then you have truly been co-opted.
How could you ever respond to that sort of proposition? At what point did "turn off your brain and think with your heart" become appealing? Is that how you approach your life? Could that be why the monster that is depicted in the Bible is something you consider worthy of worship?
BTW, if there is no God, what is the point of life? What does it matter what happens in your life or what you do in it? What is the point of caring for those kids the way you do if we are all just going to cease to exist when we die? Why not just let these kids kill themselves and end their pain? If there is no point to life, is there a point in living?
ReplyDeleteYou're asking a nonsensical question. What is the point of your god? What is the point of empty space?
DeleteLet's turn it around for a moment, although that will require you turning your brain back on as the only answers your "heart" will give you will be easy to show to be flawed. So, here goes:
What's the point of YOUR life? How do you know? If the majority of people who have ever existed were created to be sent to hell, is that the point of their lives? The problem with your question beyond being nonsensical is that it creates problems for your theology that you haven't perhaps considered. If the point in life is to do your god's bidding then you don't have a life, your god does. You also wouldn't have a "point", your god would. If you're happy to say that the point of your life is the point of something else, and that you can happily live your life with no other reason then you shouldn't have a problem with the idea of the "point" of life being nonsensical. You didn't need a point to stay alive and you don't need a lack of a point to commit suicide. You apparently have sacrificed nothing for your god (you have no point without it, remember?) and in return have received nothing (the point of your life is now the living for something else, something that doesn't need you).
It doesn't take much to destroy this argument, but you should also be aware of what making this argument says about yourself. YOU have no "point" in life. Even in your view the only point of your life is not yours. If this thought leads you to consider that there's no point in living (there isn't, although there certainly can be meaning) then this indicates the fragile nature of your psyche, that you feel that your life is empty and valueless.
Anyway, I shouldn't feel the troll. You don't respond to things, you just keep making assertions of truth that are obviously not supported and when challenged you just try another tactic. The whole post was about the lack of need for "blood sacrifice" and you want to just evangelize from your heart without engaging your brain. Since you've made no argument against what I posted then I'll assume that you agree, or at least can't find fault with it, and we'll just move on.
Hey Robert!!!!!! Remember me?? We used to work together at Hull several years ago! How you been? I can see you're still going on about religion... LOL!!! Was hoping you were on Facebook but I can't imagine you would ;)
ReplyDeleteAlison :)