Does all of Christianity operate under a shared delusion?

[sojourner]

You can continue to wrestle with this; that is on you. In doing so, ask yourself this question: IF JESUS WAS NOT CRUCIFIED ON THE CROSS (or "sacrificed" in any other way), WOULD IT CHANGE YOUR VIEWS?

To what end? What views do you think should change? I don't espouse substitutionary atonement (apparently the "delusion" we're discussing here). For me, that particular topic is a non-issue. I have no need to "wrestle" with it.

 

[sojourner]

You wrote that "most Christians" (throughout the entire world) do not espouse "substitutionary atonement" (i.e. human sacrifice).

"Most" ...."MOST Christians"? Here is a statistical breakdown of demonations, branches and sects of Christianity....

Excerpt from http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Christianity

Christianity: David B. Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia (1994 update) gives an oft-cited figure of 1.9 billion Christians (or about 33% of the world population), and projected that by the year 2000 there will be 2.1 billion Christians in the world. The 2001 edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia stated there were 2.1 billion Christians in the world, or 33% of the total population. Regardless of the degree of accuracy of this figure, Christianity, if taken as a whole, is unarguably the largest world religion - the largest religion in the world. (Keep in mind that although Christianity is the world's largest religion, it is an umbrella term that comprises many different branches and denominations.)

.....
For statistical purposes: Groups which self-identify as part of Christianity include (but are not limited to): African Independent Churches (AICs), the Aglipayan Church, Amish, Anglicans, Armenian Apostolic, Assemblies of God; Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Catholics, Christadelphians, Christian Science, the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons"), Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox churches, Ethiopian Orthodox, Evangelicals, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Local Church, Lutherans, Methodists, Monophysites, Nestorians, the New Apostolic Church, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, the Salvation Army, Seventh-Day Adventists, Shakers, Stone-Campbell churches (Disciples of Christ; Churches of Christ; the "Christian Church and Churches of Christ"; the International Church of Christ); Uniate churches, United Church of Christ/Congregationalists, the Unity Church, Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Vineyard churches and others. These groups exhibit varying degrees of similarity, cooporation, communion, etc. with other groups. None are known to consider all other Chrisian sub-groups to be equally valid. David Barrett, an Evangelical Christian who is the compiler of religion statistics for the Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Christian Encyclopedia, includes all of the groups listed above in the worldwide statistics for Christianity.


​

The Catholic Church makes up about half of the percentage of Christians on the entire planet. http://www.adherents.com/adh_rb.html#International

Catholic Church 1,100,000,000
​

The Catholic Church definitely believes in the "substitutionary atonement" (i.e. human sacrifice). And, that is only the half of Christians on the entire world...not counting the Protestant demonations, which also believe the same thing.

"MOST" Christians DO believe in "substitutionary atonement" (i.e. human sacrifice).
​

First of all, let's get some RC imput here. What is the official stance of the Church on the notion that God demanded the blood sacrifice of a human being to ameliorate our sins?

Second, we know that the Eastern Church doesn't believe in substitutionary atonement, and neither does the Anglican communion.

Third, which protestant denominations are you referring to? Mine certainly doesn't.

 

[yuvgotmel]

First of all, let's get some RC imput here. What is the official stance of the Church on the notion that God demanded the blood sacrifice of a human being to ameliorate our sins?

Second, we know that the Eastern Church doesn't believe in substitutionary atonement, and neither does the Anglican communion.

Third, which protestant denominations are you referring to? Mine certainly doesn't.

You keep side-stepping. If it is necessary to prove my point, I can start posting quotes from the "new testament."

 

[LogDog]

You keep side-stepping. If it is necessary to prove my point, I can start posting quotes from the "new testament."

Bust it out yuvgotmel. And keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Ozzie]

Kill themselves (he was a little angry)

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave you hanging.

Ok that could be used as an ultimate test for a shared delusion hypothesis but we can take it one step back from that. If you see someone who is willing to take suicidal risks on the belief that God will save them are they acting in a deluded fashion or not. They certainly act as if they believe in God. If they are not deluded, why aren't all Christians prepared to take the same suicidal risks. Personally I would say such a person is deluded and the fact all Christians do not act in this way demonstrates they cannot be operating under a shared delusion, the point of the OP.

Also the fact that all Christians do not act in this way cannot be used as evidence they do not in fact believe in God. God may or may not be a delusion. But it certainly isn't shared.

 

[sojourner]

You keep side-stepping. If it is necessary to prove my point, I can start posting quotes from the "new testament."

How am I sidestepping? You've cabbaged onto substitutionary atonement as the "delusion du jour." In order for you to say that all Christians are delusional based upon their belief in this theological issue, it must be a stance held by the Church in general. I've already shown that the Eastern Church does not espouse this stance, as well as the Anglican Communion. Additionally, my own denomination does not. This shows that the Church in general does not espouse substitutionary atonement. Therefore, all Christians are not delusional (assuming that substitutary atonement even is delusional).

The scholar you quoted does not understand the wide variety of viewpoints held by the Church in general and, therefore, his conclusions are faulty.

Again, what views of mine should change, if Jesus had not been crucified? Why should they change, do you think?

 

[yuvgotmel]

How am I sidestepping? You've cabbaged onto substitutionary atonement as the "delusion du jour." In order for you to say that all Christians are delusional based upon their belief in this theological issue, it must be a stance held by the Church in general. I've already shown that the Eastern Church does not espouse this stance, as well as the Anglican Communion. Additionally, my own denomination does not. This shows that the Church in general does not espouse substitutionary atonement. Therefore, all Christians are not delusional (assuming that substitutary atonement even is delusional).

The scholar you quoted does not understand the wide variety of viewpoints held by the Church in general and, therefore, his conclusions are faulty.

Is this more "faulty" evidence? It comes straight from YOUR "new testament"...

1 Peter 2:4~8: As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:

‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’
Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.’
and,
‘A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.’
​

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_stone

In ancient buildings, the foundation stone was placed at the north-east corner of the structure. This was thought to be an auspicious position. Often, the ceremony involved the placing of offerings of grain, wine and oil on or under the stone. These were symbolic of the produce and the people of the land and the means of their subsistence. This in turn derived from the practice in still more ancient times of making an animal or human sacrifice that was laid in the foundations.
​

Excerpt from “The Highest Altar: Unveiling the Mystery of Human Sacrifice” by Patrick Tierney, p. 372

The story of ritual infanticide as the foundation stone of a culture has many parallels, including the mundane foundation sacrifice for buildings and houses, a nearly universal custom.
​

Galatians 3:13: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’

Excerpt from “The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt” by Hyam Maccoby, p.98~106

Crucifixion itself began as a sacrificial rite and only gradually became a form of civil execution, and probably never quite lost its religious overtones.
​

1 Corinthians 11: 29: For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Excerpt from “The Highest Altar: Unveiling the Mystery of Human Sacrifice” by Patrick Tierney, p. 374

But Satan and God are sometimes interchangeable terms in the human-sacrifice debate. Curiously, on the last day of the annual Mecca pilgrimage—the spiritual experience of a lifetime for devout believers in Islam—Muslims stone a pillar where they believe Satan tempted Abraham not to sacrifice Ishmael. This strange role reversal, where Satan is stoned for tempting Abraham to spare his child, seems to say, “Anyone who stands in the way of this horrible but necessary action is, by definition, Satan.”
​

Excerpt from “The Highest Altar: Unveiling the Mystery of Human Sacrifice” by Patrick Tierney, pp. 366~369

What seems peculiar, and un-Christian about the sacrifice at Vista Hermosa was the belief that they could save the grandfather’s life by murdering a child. But on closer inspection this isn’t so peculiar or un-Christian. The core of human-sacrifice idealogy is that a surrogate victim in one way or another saves others by his or her death. Christians believe they are saved by the blood of sacrificed Jesus. If God the Father sacrificed His own Son by allowing nails to be driven through him, to save humanity from the power of Satan, a simple person like Maria del Carmen Salamanca might not see any difference in driving a stake through her own son to save her father and vanquish the demonic powers threatening the community that constituted her whole world.

Although such beliefs seem bizarre from a modern Christian perspective, Andean peoples can be amazingly literal in interpreting, and reenacting, the Bible. Camilo Loza was sacrificed on Mount Kapia on Good Friday, in an imitation of Christ’s Passon so concrete as to appear blasphemous. Maximo Coa apologizes to his human-sacrifice victims by telling them, after they’re dead, “God also had to die to be resurrected.” The two killers at Vista Hermosa were the strongest adherents of a “letter of the law” interpretation of scriptures. “They went around talking about nothing but the Bible,” Esnelson Cofre, an uncle of the victim, told me. “They sounded fine. Everything was pure Bible.”

Some Andean natives feel they have a more “pure” understanding of the Bible than the missionaries who gave them the book in the first place. “I want to clarify this history,” Maximo Coa declared, almost defiantly, at the peak of Mount Azoguini, as he offered his own versions of Genesis and Christ’s Passion. Would viewing the Bible through the optic of Andean mountain worship really “clarify” our own sacred histories? Could these South American shamans know something about the Bible we don’t—or something that we’ve forgotten?
​

 

[Scuba Pete]

Guys... get a room. You are way off the OP here.

 

[yuvgotmel]

Guys... get a room. You are way off the OP here.

I respectfully disagree. The original question was asked by "Mister Emu"; I answered. And since then, it has been hotly debated.

 

[s2a]

Hmnnn... what declaration? Please, if you are going to defame me, use the truth. Why do you feel the need to run people off of RF? Do we all have to agree with you? Why do you feel the need to protect hate and bigotry? On a more salient point, why don't you stick with the OP?

I have not defamed you. Any disgrace or dishonor you feel you have injuriously endured is purely one of self-infliction, and of your own volition and accountable deeds.

I note: [in PM to me] on 12/19/06, you said:
"You win"
"Bye"

After which...your chosen pictured avatar suffered a mysterious diappearance, along with yourself, until nearly a month afterwards, when you reappeared on RF on 01/17/07.

Plurium Interrogationum-- (ie, the "loaded question") A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.

"Why do you feel the need to run people off of RF?"

Why would you alledge such? Without provided evidence, you appear as either a liar, or a fool.

"Do we all have to agree with you?"

No, but it would help...;-)

"Why do you feel the need to protect hate and bigotry?"

Please lend specified examples of my part in so doing. Put up, or apologize
profusely.

I'm serious.

Your lent innuendo is both offensive and utterly unfounded. I will not suffer any fool in their reckless proclivities...not even you.

"On a more salient point, why don't you stick with the OP?"

And lo...the beggar maligns the thief once again, tho' neither earns their own way...

As I have pointed out, the "the religion is delusional" card is based in arrogance and condescension. One could also ask if atheism was based on a delusion, but this bears the same implication and I refuse to accomodate the intolerance.

OK. I'll ask.

"Is atheism based upon a delusion?"

I may fairly "tolerate"--though question--your provided opinion in reply.

I allege that any refusal on your part [to answer] is based upon a lack of any resident capacity (again, on your part) to provide substantiated and premised argument as support...and not derived in some lofty estimations of inviolate moral authority or ethical superiority that you silently assert for yourself.

 

[James the Persian]

Are you saying that the Romanian Orthodox does not believe that Jesus was sacrificed on a cross? Are you saying that the Romanian Orthodox does not believe that the sacrifice on the cross (of Jesus) was for a specific purpose (other than murder and/or capital punishment)?

I'm saying that the Orthodox (the Romanian Church is one local church within the whole Orthodox Church - we're all, Russians, Greeks, Serbs etc. in communion, all have the same faith) do not believe that God sacrificed His Son in order to pay for our sins, which is the view you said all Christians adhered to. I'm saying that we see the entire Incarnation as reconciling man to God and through man the whole of creation and that we se the Resurrection in particular as defeating the power of death over man. As we sing in the paschal hymn, 'Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death'. That's not substitutionary atonement by a long chalk and, in fact, is by far the older understanding. As for the Crucifixion, we see it as Christ's self-sacrifice that would bring about the possibility of the Resurrection and, hence, salvation. The method of death, however, would be irrelevant. Is that what you wanted to know? Clearly as we do not hold to the doctrine you claimed we do, your group of all Christians is missing somewhere in the region of 250 million - at least.

James

 

[sojourner]

Is this more "faulty" evidence? It comes straight from YOUR "new testament"...

1 Peter 2:4~8: As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:

‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’
Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.’
and,
‘A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.’
​

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_stone

In ancient buildings, the foundation stone was placed at the north-east corner of the structure. This was thought to be an auspicious position. Often, the ceremony involved the placing of offerings of grain, wine and oil on or under the stone. These were symbolic of the produce and the people of the land and the means of their subsistence. This in turn derived from the practice in still more ancient times of making an animal or human sacrifice that was laid in the foundations.
​

Excerpt from “The Highest Altar: Unveiling the Mystery of Human Sacrifice” by Patrick Tierney, p. 372

The story of ritual infanticide as the foundation stone of a culture has many parallels, including the mundane foundation sacrifice for buildings and houses, a nearly universal custom.
​

Galatians 3:13: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’

Excerpt from “The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt” by Hyam Maccoby, p.98~106

Crucifixion itself began as a sacrificial rite and only gradually became a form of civil execution, and probably never quite lost its religious overtones.
​

1 Corinthians 11: 29: For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Excerpt from “The Highest Altar: Unveiling the Mystery of Human Sacrifice” by Patrick Tierney, p. 374

But Satan and God are sometimes interchangeable terms in the human-sacrifice debate. Curiously, on the last day of the annual Mecca pilgrimage—the spiritual experience of a lifetime for devout believers in Islam—Muslims stone a pillar where they believe Satan tempted Abraham not to sacrifice Ishmael. This strange role reversal, where Satan is stoned for tempting Abraham to spare his child, seems to say, “Anyone who stands in the way of this horrible but necessary action is, by definition, Satan.”
​

Excerpt from “The Highest Altar: Unveiling the Mystery of Human Sacrifice” by Patrick Tierney, pp. 366~369

What seems peculiar, and un-Christian about the sacrifice at Vista Hermosa was the belief that they could save the grandfather’s life by murdering a child. But on closer inspection this isn’t so peculiar or un-Christian. The core of human-sacrifice idealogy is that a surrogate victim in one way or another saves others by his or her death. Christians believe they are saved by the blood of sacrificed Jesus. If God the Father sacrificed His own Son by allowing nails to be driven through him, to save humanity from the power of Satan, a simple person like Maria del Carmen Salamanca might not see any difference in driving a stake through her own son to save her father and vanquish the demonic powers threatening the community that constituted her whole world.

Although such beliefs seem bizarre from a modern Christian perspective, Andean peoples can be amazingly literal in interpreting, and reenacting, the Bible. Camilo Loza was sacrificed on Mount Kapia on Good Friday, in an imitation of Christ’s Passon so concrete as to appear blasphemous. Maximo Coa apologizes to his human-sacrifice victims by telling them, after they’re dead, “God also had to die to be resurrected.” The two killers at Vista Hermosa were the strongest adherents of a “letter of the law” interpretation of scriptures. “They went around talking about nothing but the Bible,” Esnelson Cofre, an uncle of the victim, told me. “They sounded fine. Everything was pure Bible.”

Some Andean natives feel they have a more “pure” understanding of the Bible than the missionaries who gave them the book in the first place. “I want to clarify this history,” Maximo Coa declared, almost defiantly, at the peak of Mount Azoguini, as he offered his own versions of Genesis and Christ’s Passion. Would viewing the Bible through the optic of Andean mountain worship really “clarify” our own sacred histories? Could these South American shamans know something about the Bible we don’t—or something that we’ve forgotten?
​

Here's the straw that causes this whole edifice of meaningless tripe to crumble:

Christians believe they are saved by the blood of sacrificed Jesus.

Christians (many, many of us) do not believe this. It is not the blood that saves us. it is not the crucifixion that saves us. it's the self-sacrifice that makes possible our salvation. Our understanding is not remotely "blood atonement" as you've presented it here.

 

[lunamoth]

Christians (many, many of us) do not believe this. It is not the blood that saves us. it is not the crucifixion that saves us. it's the self-sacrifice that makes possible our salvation. Our understanding is not remotely "blood atonement" as you've presented it here.

Here, here! A perfect answer. Frubals!

 

[lunamoth]

I'm saying that the Orthodox (the Romanian Church is one local church within the whole Orthodox Church - we're all, Russians, Greeks, Serbs etc. in communion, all have the same faith) do not believe that God sacrificed His Son in order to pay for our sins, which is the view you said all Christians adhered to. I'm saying that we see the entire Incarnation as reconciling man to God and through man the whole of creation and that we se the Resurrection in particular as defeating the power of death over man. As we sing in the paschal hymn, 'Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death'. That's not substitutionary atonement by a long chalk and, in fact, is by far the older understanding. As for the Crucifixion, we see it as Christ's self-sacrifice that would bring about the possibility of the Resurrection and, hence, salvation. The method of death, however, would be irrelevant. Is that what you wanted to know? Clearly as we do not hold to the doctrine you claimed we do, your group of all Christians is missing somewhere in the region of 250 million - at least.

James

This just can't be said enough. Frubals!

 

[yuvgotmel]

Here's the straw that causes this whole edifice of meaningless tripe to crumble:

Christians (many, many of us) do not believe this. It is not the blood that saves us. it is not the crucifixion that saves us. it's the self-sacrifice that makes possible our salvation. Our understanding is not remotely "blood atonement" as you've presented it here.

You seriously need to study the history of human sacrifice, because you just described it perfectly. Thank you for your answer. You proved my point.

 

[yuvgotmel]

I'm saying that the Orthodox (the Romanian Church is one local church within the whole Orthodox Church - we're all, Russians, Greeks, Serbs etc. in communion, all have the same faith) do not believe that God sacrificed His Son in order to pay for our sins, which is the view you said all Christians adhered to. I'm saying that we see the entire Incarnation as reconciling man to God and through man the whole of creation and that we se the Resurrection in particular as defeating the power of death over man. As we sing in the paschal hymn, 'Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death'. That's not substitutionary atonement by a long chalk and, in fact, is by far the older understanding. As for the Crucifixion, we see it as Christ's self-sacrifice that would bring about the possibility of the Resurrection and, hence, salvation. The method of death, however, would be irrelevant. Is that what you wanted to know? Clearly as we do not hold to the doctrine you claimed we do, your group of all Christians is missing somewhere in the region of 250 million - at least.

James

**sigh** ..... **shaking my head** .....

The point is...which seems to allude the masses...is that no sacrifice, of any form, was needed at all. Each of you have the uniqueness of a godspark inside you. You do not need any man to sacrifice in any way for you. That line of thinking, where sacrifice is needed to aid you in reserrection and salvation, is a primitive belief where "panic requires sacrifice" as I posted before.

I notice that you have a cross in your avatar. And I noticed that you admit that your church partakes of communion. ..... Whether anyone would like to admit it or not, Christianity is based on human sacrifice, which is one of the glaring errors (i.e. "delusion") of the entire religion.

 

[logician]

Why does anyone need to be "saved" from anything?

I don't believe in the concept of sin or evil, or that we need to be saved from ourselves.

 

[James the Persian]

**sigh** ..... **shaking my head** .....

The point is...which seems to allude the masses...is that no sacrifice, of any form, was needed at all. Each of you have the uniqueness of a godspark inside you. You do not need any man to sacrifice in any way for you. That line of thinking, where sacrifice is needed to aid you in reserrection and salvation, is a primitive belief where "panic requires sacrifice" as I posted before.

I notice that you have a cross in your avatar. And I noticed that you admit that your church partakes of communion. ..... Whether anyone would like to admit it or not, Christianity is based on human sacrifice, which is one of the glaring errors (i.e. "delusion") of the entire religion.

You simply do not understand. Remember when Christ said no man has greater love than to lay down his life for his friends? That's what Christ did. It's not sacrifice, it's self-sacrifice and the two are not, by any means, the same thing. Unless Christ died, He could not be Resurrected. If He was not Resurrected then He could not destroy the hold of death over man. It's not the blood shed, the sacrifice of Christ, that saves, it's the Resurection. If Christ had died an old man and then been resurrected He would still have, being God Incarnate, made exactly the same self-sacrifice, which is why I say the method of death is irrelevant. The fact is that He died on the Cross, so it becomes a symbol. The fact is that He instituted the Eucharist (in which, incidentally, we enter communion with God - that is not a sacrifice as you understand it either) and so we do that, but you could not be more wrong in your interpretation of what this means.

Christ, as the Word, had already (as St. Paul quite clearly says) made His self-sacrifice long before the Crucifixion. He, as God, condescended to become Incarnate as a mortal creature and accept inevitable death as a result for our sakes so that in dying He could rise again and destroy the hold of death over us through His Resurrection. Now please tell me where, in this scheme, do you find any necessity for sacrifice?

James

 

[madcap]

One might just as well phrase the question as "Do all practitioners of any single religion operate under a shared delusion?" But without being able to pin down a single belief held by most every member of that group, it would be next to impossible to even begin answering the question. In any case, I don't know that it's instructive to focus on Christianity specifically, except that it's so ubiquitous in the world.

You could single out individual Christian beliefs that are commonly held, such as (for starters) that Jesus was resurrected three days after his execution. Do people that believe that operate under a shared delusion? But then you're just nitpicking at mythology, which can't really be proven or disproven.

When someone genuinely is delusional but not mentally ill ("All of my employees love me!"), the delusion is less important than why that person believes it. So if you take a belief some might believe is false -- there is a God or Jesus healed lepers or whatever -- it might take the discussion farther to focus on the reason behind those beliefs. Why do (some) Christians believe Jesus had healing powers? Why do many people believe in a single, ominpotent, omniscient deity? What's the purpose of believing that a life of poverty on earth could lead to a life of wealth and comfort in the afterlife?

 

[sojourner]

You simply do not understand. Remember when Christ said no man has greater love than to lay down his life for his friends? That's what Christ did. It's not sacrifice, it's self-sacrifice and the two are not, by any means, the same thing. Unless Christ died, He could not be Resurrected. If He was not Resurrected then He could not destroy the hold of death over man. It's not the blood shed, the sacrifice of Christ, that saves, it's the Resurection. If Christ had died an old man and then been resurrected He would still have, being God Incarnate, made exactly the same self-sacrifice, which is why I say the method of death is irrelevant. The fact is that He died on the Cross, so it becomes a symbol. The fact is that He instituted the Eucharist (in which, incidentally, we enter communion with God - that is not a sacrifice as you understand it either) and so we do that, but you could not be more wrong in your interpretation of what this means.

Christ, as the Word, had already (as St. Paul quite clearly says) made His self-sacrifice long before the Crucifixion. He, as God, condescended to become Incarnate as a mortal creature and accept inevitable death as a result for our sakes so that in dying He could rise again and destroy the hold of death over us through His Resurrection. Now please tell me where, in this scheme, do you find any necessity for sacrifice?

James

Thank you...Couldn't have said it better myself!