Does all of Christianity operate under a shared delusion?

[yuvgotmel]

I found these statements from other threads.

Hi, all!

I'm David. I'm a forty-something protestant pastor with a liberal-but-traditional background. I'm hoping to find some good across-the-board religious chat and debate. Most of the other forums I've found are way too conservative for me. I'm open to just about anything concerning religion, and I'll respect your viewpoint, even if we disagree theologically. See you in the threads!

"How can heaven be perfect when it is filled with imperfect people who resist God?"
Who's to say that human beings fall below the standards of heaven? Whose standards are we using? If Jesus died on the cross to expiate the sin of all the world, then, by his sacrifice, we are made acceptable, or good enough, for heaven. I would turn this question around: How can heaven be perfect when it is only filled with those who are "acceptable" by some arbitrary standard? I have a very dear friend who is atheist. I live halfway across the country from him. I miss him terribly. How would it be heaven, if I have to be separated from him for eternity?

Those are interesting quotes...especially in light of this thread....

Thank you again for proving my point!

 

[James the Persian]

I found these statements from other threads.



Those are interesting quotes...especially in light of this thread....

Thank you again for proving my point!

He hasn't proven your point for you at all. All you've shown is an inability to comprehend sojournor's second paragraph (which actually questions the view you're insinuating it supports) and you've made some incomprehensible point about his background in the first quote. If you'd actually been here long enough to get to know him you'd understand perfectly well what he means and find nothing risible in those words, not that I'm sure what the point you intend to make actually is.

You clearly appear to be unable to answer my points, which show that our soteriology is not based on a necessity for sacrifice and prefer to make an ad hominem attack on one of your opponents instead. I'd say that comes very close to demonstrating that we, in fact, are in the right and that your 'shared delusion' was nothing more than a sweeping generalisation based on common western interpretations and one which you are quite unable to demonstrate as being common to all Christians. You're still missing 250+ millions in your tally of all Christians.

James

 

[wizanda]

I feel what yuvgotmel is doing , is what any old testament reader will do, and saying well look here says you can’t have sacrifice, and here says God will not sacrifice his own son (Balaam teaching).
Then without reading the new testament for fear of corruption, is proceeding to explain it without Yeshua (Matthew, Mark, Luke) own testimony.

Now that is my point in all of this, that Yeshua own testimony of Matthew 23 mainly clearly relates that those who swear by the sacrifice are guilty of it, and those whom build temples for the dead prophets, just prove them self in their actions, guilty as their forefather were, being all of Christianity.
In the parable Yeshua said of the vine dresser son, he clearly relates that those who believe it is right the son should die, so they can steal the inheritance, will get nothing.

So when all of Christianity being Paul, John and Simon (Pharisees) relates that you must swear by the sacrifice to live and that you can get an inheritance through Yeshua’s death.

The two don’t match and so something is very wrong, to begin with I saw was Paul contradicts all over and was a fraud….. then noticing that and brought it up online, people refused to answer and answered with John….now for me I as many did expect John to be what Yeshua said….i now believe it isn’t!
There maybe odd parts that can be used as hearsay evidence, yet for the most part contains to many bits that are falsified, that can be proved that within the other gospels is enough to show why it doesn’t fit.
Which only leaves Simon and since Yeshua called him Satan, tells him he might get corrupted, yet Peter meaning stone does the opposite, As his testimony doesn’t match on this same point.
So when clearly the basis of this argument of sacrifice stems from these 3 and not Yeshua, then we have a question adding up all the other prophecy, which do match and tell people why not, to then use to tell the world clearly.

 

[yuvgotmel]

You clearly appear to be unable to answer my points

James

Actually I can, but you, being a "MOD" of this forum may kick me out for disagreeing with you. So what am I to do? Am I allowed to speak freely?

 

[sojourner]

Actually I can, but you, being a "MOD" of this forum may kick me out for disagreeing with you. So what am I to do? Am I allowed to speak freely?

This should be interesting.
**settles into chair with a bowl of popcorn to watch the proceedings**

 

[Fluffy]

Defining Delusion
Delusion is commonly used to refer to two separate concepts:
1) The medical condition
2) A false belief
Anybody who considers Christianity to be false must conclude that the Christian is deluded as long as no connotations beyond that contained within the second definition are applied.

I am unsure whether Dawkins is responsible for popularising the term when referring to theism but he is certainly a well known advocate of its usage. In the introduction to his book, "The God Delusion", he clearly indicates that he is using the word in its second definition and so not referring to the medical condition.

Defining Falsity
I feel that there are two ways in which a person can be false:
1) Believing something when the contrary is true
2) Believing something that is true but for the wrong reasons

An example of the first would be the person who holds the belief that the solar system is geocentric. An example of the second would be the person who believes that their lottery numbers are correct and then ends up winning the jackpot.

Some people disagree with the second scenario stating that the man who wins the jackpot clearly has a true belief. However, I assert that in order for a belief to be valid or true, it must cohere with the truth and their must be an established link between the believer and that truth. Clearly the second situation violates the second condition. The man simply holds a belief that happens to be true.

Back to the OP
So if the above arguments are accepted, the answers to the questions are as follows:

"Do all Christian sects have a shared delusion?"
Yes since there is no reason or evidence to believe in God, all Christian beliefs (and supernaturalist claims in general) are false and thus delusions. God might actually exist but we are not justified in believing him so.

"If, in your opinion, so, what is it(God exists? God interacts with humanity? etc.)"
Any belief that makes a claim that is less plausible than an alternative which will normally take the form of a belief unsupported by evidence and reason. The single overriding belief can probably be said to be the belief in God's existence.

"By what method can we ascertain whether a religion is deluded?"
By testing whether the claims made by that religion conform to the two requirements for truth. The first is obviously difficult to verify but since most supernatural claims seem to falter at the second, it is unnecessary to explore the first.

 

[sojourner]

Problem here, Fluffy, is the juxtaposition between the placing of human perception in a foremost position and the placing of the Divine in a foremost position in the determination of what is true.

Humans can only determine what is true from a human perspective. Humans are in no position to make a determination for the Divine. That is why "belief" is belief and "proof" is proof. We don't seek to prove God. We seek to have faith that what we hope for...is (or will be.)

The sticker is, you can't argue the existence or non-existence of God by holding faith to a dynamic that isn't realistic for faith to operate from.

In other words, faith in God is only delusional from an empirical POV. However, faith does not operate from the dynamic of empiricism. If we try to hold faith to the dynamic of empiricism...now that's delusional.

 

[yuvgotmel]

Because of the limitations of this forum, and from what I have observed in my short time here, I have been rather hesitate to really say what I would like. However, when put into a position that I have to make a statement, then I will have to do just that. The premise that all of Christianity is based on a collective delusion (of human sacrifice) as I have said before, is evidenced in the words of the “new testament” itself.

1 John 4:10: This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Hebrews 10:8~12: First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

1 Timothy 2:5~6: For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

​

How much clearer can that be? What persons should really be asking is “What is the purpose for human sacrifice in Christianity?” To understand the meaning of the sacrifice of Jesus in Christianity, it is imperative to study magical practices in primitive cultures. In Patrick Tierney’s book “The Highest Altar: Unveiling the Mystery of Human Sacrifice,” the author lived among some of the tribes of Chile and Peru, in order to better understand human sacrifice of the South American natives. What he discovered and wrote in his book is startlingly evidence into the reasoning and practices for human sacrifice (which still continue in parts of the world, without interruption from those governments).

pp. 278~280
“Of course,” Don Eduardo said. “Obviously. That’s what the guys who perform human sacrifice are trying to do with the souls of the victims. They want to control the disembodied soul and make it into a guardian spirit who will serve them.”

Don Eduardo maintains that such entities are “thought-forms” trapped by the minds of magicians, for good or evil. As an example of “positive thought-forms” Don Eduardo mentioned Jesus and Buddha. “A thought-form like Jesus or Buddha can go on for eternity. As long as people think of Jesus, it’s like continually charging a battery. But if people forget him, then, like others before and since, he’ll be dissolved. …”
​

The author continues to quote Don Eduardo, as Eduardo explains a particular human sacrifice in that local town, which was also publicized in their newspaper.

“…Now Clemente Limachi is a thought-form that people are charging up where you work. By praying to him, they are giving him greater potential. They believe he’s a saint which means they’ve made him a necessity. He’s been crystallized into a deity, a high power.”

….
Don Eduardo continued, “Now, what’s the purpose of a sacrifice? In an ultimate sense, it’s the sacrifice of man, the microcosm, to the universe, the macrocosm. A sacrifice is a channel between the microcosm and the macrocosm. The channel is always the same, yet between the past and the present there are many accidents, many uncertainties. So the disembodied soul of the sacrifice is a channel between the living present and the dead past. I believe that the soul of a sacrificial victim, if he is fully aware of this great honor, can become such a cosmic channel. In the case of the Moches, there is a beautiful painting of a warrior whose heart is being torn out. You can see from the look of peace on the warrior’s face that his mind has transcended the pain. ….”
​

 

[yuvgotmel]

From some of the comments in this particular thread concerning human sacrifice in Christianity, it seems that there are those who would rather avoid the issue of human sacrifice and rather put Jesus’s sacrifice into the category of martyrdom. However, even from the “new testament,” Jesus was clearly indicated as being a type of cosmic sacrifice; and not a martyr. Hyam Maccoby addresses this issue as well:

Excerpts from “The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt” by Hyam Maccoby, pp. 101~103

It may be objected that the above definition has left no room for a distinction between a human sacrifice and a martyr. The Christian religious history is full of martyrs, starting with Stephen, and it might be (and sometimes is) argued that Jesus was simply the first of this line of martyrs. But a martyr means a ‘witness’, and the reason for the death of martyrs is that they witness to some truth that they hold dearer than their lives. The truth for which the Christian martyrs died was the saving power of the Crucifixion of Jesus. It would be meaningless to say that this was the truth for which Jesus himself died. An act cannot witness to itself. Socrates can be called a martyr, for he died rather than renounce his philosophical beliefs. But, if he deliberately chose to die so that his death might shield the people of Athens from the consequences of their sins, this would be an act of sacrifice, not of martyrdom. Of course, there can be some overlapping between the functions of sacrifice and of martyrdom. Martyrdom is quite commonly venerated as also having some of the quality of a sacrifice. It is believed that the martyr’s suffering has a protective effect on believers, and (in Christianity) that he partakes in and renews the mystery of the Crucifixion. The one case, however, in which this overlap does not and cannot occur is that of the original sacrifice itself, for without it, there would be no Crucifixion for the subsequent martyrs to participate in.

…..
To substantiate this view from the Gospels, one would have to demonstrate that there were some beliefs which Jesus advocated in the face of dangerous opposition and which he was prepared to die for rather than renounce.

What were these beliefs for which Jesus was prepared to die? If we say that it was his belief in his own divinity, then we are back in the vicious circle of reasoning. For the belief in Jesus’s divinity, as expressed in the Gospels, is inextricably bound up with his sacrificial role. It was not simply as the Son of God that Jesus came into the world (imagine a Christianity in which Jesus declared himself to be the Son of God and lived on to a ripe old age!), but to enact the soteriological role of the Son of God who dies and is resurrected and acts as a ‘ransom for many’. We cannot say, then, that Jesus was a martyr who died for his belief in the necessity of his own martyrdom. Such a death would be entirely empty of content. To ‘give an example of how to die’ when there was no reason why he should die would not be a good example at all, but a pointless suicide. Good men may certainly choose to die, very often by violent deaths; but only when there is something to die for.

…..
All such facts or theories are irrelevant to our present task, which is to examine the Christian myth, a myth that is not about the death of a reformer or religious patriot, but about a cosmic sacrifice.
​

 

[sojourner]

I think that your idea of "human sacrifice" and the Christian idea of the "self-sacrifice" of Christ are two completely different things, with different working dynamics and whole differing sets of assumptions about the God who uses them as part of that God's plan.

The Christian perspective of Christ as self-sacrifice simply does not jive with the practice of human sacrifice, either in impetus or in efficacy.

I can't help it if your authors hope to find some sort of anthropological tie between the two. It just ain't there.

When the NT speaks of Christ's sacrifice, it's speaking out of the Christian understanding -- not out of the pagan understanding.

Your argument is moot, because the premise you give has no place in reality.

 

[yuvgotmel]

I think that your idea of "human sacrifice" and the Christian idea of the "self-sacrifice" of Christ are two completely different things, with different working dynamics and whole differing sets of assumptions about the God who uses them as part of that God's plan.

The Christian perspective of Christ as self-sacrifice simply does not jive with the practice of human sacrifice, either in impetus or in efficacy.

I can't help it if your authors hope to find some sort of anthropological tie between the two. It just ain't there.

When the NT speaks of Christ's sacrifice, it's speaking out of the Christian understanding -- not out of the pagan understanding.

Your argument is moot, because the premise you give has no place in reality.

Just because you want to distance yourself from the primitive core of Christianity, does not mean that the argument is moot. In fact, in the native peoples, in the parts of the world that still practice human sacrifice, they too, attempt to distance themselves from the obvious horror of human sacrifice. They blame the actual rituals on others (also known as the "sacred executioner"). And, just like many Christians, those natives change the wording to fit a better view of what would be acceptable. However, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

 

[sojourner]

Just because you want to distance yourself from the primitive core of Christianity, does not mean that the argument is moot. In fact, in the native peoples, in the parts of the world that still practice human sacrifice, they too, attempt to distance themselves from the obvious horror of human sacrifice. They blame the actual rituals on others (also known as the "sacred executioner"). And, just like many Christians, those natives change the wording to fit a better view of what would be acceptable. However, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

How many times must we say this?: The primitive core of Christianity is not human sacrifice. The primitive core of Christianity is not human sacrifice. The primitive core of Christianity is not human sacrifice. The primitive core of Christianity is not human sacrifice.

Christianity never practiced human sacrifice. You're the one who's not close enough to know what you're looking at. You're looking at it from too far away. It doesn't even look like a duck. It look like a goose...or a swan. But if you were close enough to the objective, you would see that it just doesn't look like a duck. The crucifixion definitely has not ever remotely looked like a human sacrifice.

I think there is something delusionary going on here, but I'm pretty sure that it's not on the part of Christianity...

 

[yuvgotmel]

How many times must we say this?: The primitive core of Christianity is not human sacrifice. The primitive core of Christianity is not human sacrifice. The primitive core of Christianity is not human sacrifice. The primitive core of Christianity is not human sacrifice.

Christianity never practiced human sacrifice. You're the one who's not close enough to know what you're looking at. You're looking at it from too far away. It doesn't even look like a duck. It look like a goose...or a swan. But if you were close enough to the objective, you would see that it just doesn't look like a duck. The crucifixion definitely has not ever remotely looked like a human sacrifice.

I think there is something delusionary going on here, but I'm pretty sure that it's not on the part of Christianity...

Not to be brushed off are also the following authors and their books, some of which I have reviewed, but not all:

“Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac” by Edward Kessler

“A personal narrative of thirteen years service amongst the wild tribes of Khondistan for the suppression of human sacrifice” by John Campbell (Author)

“The Journal of Psychohistory. Human Sacrifice: Yesterday and Today, Issue. Fall 1996, Volume 24, Number 2” by Various Authors

“Some inquiries concerning human sacrifices among the Romans” by Thatcher Thayer

“Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition” by Karin Finsterbusch

“The role of human sacrifice in the ancient Near East (Dissertation series)” by Alberto Ravinell Whitney


“Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization)” by Hyam Maccoby

“Etruscan Life and Afterlife: A Handbook of Etruscan Studies” Edited by Larissa Bonfante

“Oracles of the Dead: Ancient Techniques for Predicting the Future” by Robert Temple

“Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled” by Acharya S.

“Blood Secrets: The True Story of Demon Worship and Ceremonial Murder” by Former Juju High Priest Isaiah Oke

“There is no Messiah and you’re it: The Stunning Transformation of Judaism’s Most Provocative Idea” by Rabbi Robert N. Levine, D.D.


There are some others, but I think that list is sufficient now. I have some of those books in my library currently, along with the others which I have quoted throughout this thread, but are not mentioned in that list. As you can see, the authors that I have quoted and myself are not alone. Christianity's core of human sacrifice is quite evident.

 

[sojourner]

Not to be brushed off are also the following authors and their books, some of which I have reviewed, but not all:

“Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac” by Edward Kessler

“A personal narrative of thirteen years service amongst the wild tribes of Khondistan for the suppression of human sacrifice” by John Campbell (Author)

“The Journal of Psychohistory. Human Sacrifice: Yesterday and Today, Issue. Fall 1996, Volume 24, Number 2” by Various Authors

“Some inquiries concerning human sacrifices among the Romans” by Thatcher Thayer

“Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition” by Karin Finsterbusch

“The role of human sacrifice in the ancient Near East (Dissertation series)” by Alberto Ravinell Whitney


“Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization)” by Hyam Maccoby

“Etruscan Life and Afterlife: A Handbook of Etruscan Studies” Edited by Larissa Bonfante

“Oracles of the Dead: Ancient Techniques for Predicting the Future” by Robert Temple

“Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled” by Acharya S.

“Blood Secrets: The True Story of Demon Worship and Ceremonial Murder” by Former Juju High Priest Isaiah Oke

“There is no Messiah and you’re it: The Stunning Transformation of Judaism’s Most Provocative Idea” by Rabbi Robert N. Levine, D.D.


There are some others, but I think that list is sufficient now. I have some of those books in my library currently, along with the others which I have quoted throughout this thread, but are not mentioned in that list. As you can see, the authors that I have quoted and myself are not alone. Christianity's core of human sacrifice is quite evident.

According to whom???

I wonder what Dr. Seuss, J.K. Rowling and Stephen King have to say on the matter? They seem to be pretty widely-read and best-selling authors...

We Christians can't help what you non-Christians seem to think about who we are, what we do and what we believe. But just because someone wrote a book don't make it true.

Christian theologians have never included human sacrifice as part of the theology of the faith. Church authorities have never recognized human sacrifice as part of our modus operendi. Sure, Christ's replacing the Paschal Lamb can trace its roots to the ritual human sacrifice of ages past, but the theology simply is not now, nor has it ever, been the same. We have never believed that God needed to have human blood shed in order to be "appeased." We have never believed that the act of sacrifice could, in any way, reconcile us to God. Christ need not have been crucified in order for us to be reconciled to God.

These authors are all drawing anthropological parallels (and rightly so), but parallels do not constitute "the same thing." Ducks have feathers. Geese have feathers. Ducks have wings. Geese have wings. Ducks have bills. Geese have bills. Ducks have webbed feet. Geese have webbed feet. They share a common ancestry. But anyone who looks carefully will discover that ducks have never, are not now, will never be, geese, despite the parallels that can be drawn. No matter how many authors claim otherwise.

 

[yuvgotmel]

According to whom???

We have never believed that the act of sacrifice could, in any way, reconcile us to God. Christ need not have been crucified in order for us to be reconciled to God.

1 John 4:10: This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Hebrews 10:8~12: First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

1 Timothy 2:5~6: For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

 

[sojourner]

1 John 4:10: This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Hebrews 10:8~12: First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

1 Timothy 2:5~6: For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

Are you aware of the theology implicit in those passages? I can guarantee that it's not in the realm of human sacrifice, as you seem to think.

You need to get over your infantile ideas of Christian theology and learn to see it for what it is (It's not a "ducky").

 

[yuvgotmel]

Are you aware of the theology implicit in those passages? I can guarantee that it's not in the realm of human sacrifice, as you seem to think.

You need to get over your infantile ideas of Christian theology and learn to see it for what it is (It's not a "ducky").

At what point will I be allowed to insult other posters without reprimand like you do?

Is that what your Christian faith tells you to do? Is that how you as a pastor act towards others?

ADDITION: Are you also saying that the scholars, anthropologists and authors that I quoted are also "infantile"?

 

[Willamena]

1 John 4:10: This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Hebrews 10:8~12: First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

1 Timothy 2:5~6: For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

*psst* It's symbolic, dude (just like astrology).

 

[logician]

How many times must we say this?: The primitive core of Christianity is not human sacrifice. The primitive core of Christianity is not human sacrifice. ...

If Jesus is considered a god, you're right.

 

[sojourner]

At what point will I be allowed to insult other posters without reprimand like you do?

Is that what your Christian faith tells you to do? Is that how you as a pastor act towards others?

ADDITION: Are you also saying that the scholars, anthropologists and authors that I quoted are also "infantile"?

At what point? You already have begun!
You keep making some unsupportable claim that I, and most of the people who are dear to me, are delusional. How is that not insulting?

How did I insult you? By saying that this "theology" you keep trying to push on my religion is infantile? In this day and age, any theology that demands a human sacrifice in order to appease the deity is infantile in its basis. Not insulting you -- just insulting the theology you seem to think we espouse.

From your previous posts, you said that when you were six years old, you had a problem getting your mind around Eucharistic theology, understanding it to be something it was not. You appear to be stuck in the same place in your understanding. You really need to come to better grips with the scope of Christian theology before you begin to bash it with unsupportable claims.

Part of my job as a member of the clergy is to point out the theological errors of others and defend the faith. When you tell me that my religious beliefs are delusional, I'm going to defend it.

ADDITION: I'm saying that they have an infantile view of Christian theology if they seriously suggest that it has anything (other than a common root) to do with human sacrifice.

Both James and I have made several attempts to point out to you the difference between the soteriology of Christianity and that of ancient pagan religions. You refuse to hear us. That's not our fault.