Does all of Christianity operate under a shared delusion?

[sojourner]

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

Problem is, Jesus is, at the same time, fully human. Sorry. But that still does not constitute human sacrifice.

 

[lunamoth]

Fascinating that critics outside of Christianity seem to be so much more literalist than Christians in general. Can you say "strawman?"

Yup, that's my assessment too Soj. He's pretty much stuck at the level of a six-year-old. Actually my six-year-old has a much firmer grasp of the idea of God is love and self-sacrifice than is typcially displayed by critics of Christianity here.

And willa, I hear your *pssst!*

 

[logician]

I think in many demonations blood sacrifice is part and parcel of Xianity.
"Washed in the blood of the lamb" is a well known phrase of hymns. John 3:16 directly talks about god sacrificing his only son. Human sacrifice as part of a worship ritual is not practiced, however.

 

[lunamoth]

I think in many demonations blood sacrifice is part and parcel of Xianity.
"Washed in the blood of the lamb" is a well known phrase of hymns. John 3:16 directly talks about god sacrificing his only son. Human sacrifice as part of a worship ritual is not practiced, however.

Actually you are right. Our church regularly holds blood drives for the red cross and I personally sacrifice as much blood as allowed! I'm O-, universal donor.

 

[sojourner]

I think in many demonations blood sacrifice is part and parcel of Xianity.
"Washed in the blood of the lamb" is a well known phrase of hymns. John 3:16 directly talks about god sacrificing his only son. Human sacrifice as part of a worship ritual is not practiced, however.

Once again, just because it turned out to be a "blood sacrifice" (as you say -- although the crucifixion did not carry the same ritual, religious or theological implications as what we normally think of as a "blood sacrifice"), it did not have to be a "blood sacrifice." Jesus could have been bludgeoned upside the head with a two-by-four, killed, and not bled at all. Just because there's a hymn that talks about being washed in the blood, it's not the blood that we are washed in -- it's the grace that the blood has come to symbolize. (Besides, "Are you washed in the Blood?" makes for much better meter than, "Are you washed in the subdural hematoma?")

The crucifixion was unneccessary. The apostles understood themselves to be standing in right relationship before Jesus' death. Jesus didn't teach us righteousness through the spilling of blood. He taught us righteousness through following -- through our relationship with Jesus. sheesh.

 

[yuvgotmel]

Once again, just because it turned out to be a "blood sacrifice" (as you say -- although the crucifixion did not carry the same ritual, religious or theological implications as what we normally think of as a "blood sacrifice"), it did not have to be a "blood sacrifice." Jesus could have been bludgeoned upside the head with a two-by-four, killed, and not bled at all. Just because there's a hymn that talks about being washed in the blood, it's not the blood that we are washed in -- it's the grace that the blood has come to symbolize. (Besides, "Are you washed in the Blood?" makes for much better meter than, "Are you washed in the subdural hematoma?")

The crucifixion was unneccessary. The apostles understood themselves to be standing in right relationship before Jesus' death. Jesus didn't teach us righteousness through the spilling of blood. He taught us righteousness through following -- through our relationship with Jesus. sheesh.

That's just too creepy.

You can continue to consider others infantile if you wish. But they have researched and given extensive thought to this subject of human sacrifice in Christianity.

As for you and me, personally, please do not respond to any more of my posts; as I do not plan to respond to any of yours either.

Thank you.

 

[yuvgotmel]

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,.....

You made some excellent points wizanda. Thank you. You said it so eloquently too.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya 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.

In order to determine what is true, I use my experience and I use reason. How are you using "the Divine" in this sentence and in what sense is this seperate from "experience"? How do you come to understand "the Divine" whilst lacking perception of it?

Humans can only determine what is true from a human perspective. Humans are in no position to make a determination for the Divine.

What does it mean to "make a determination for the Divine"? Are you talking about what the Divine determines to be true or are you talking about human perception of the Divine?

That is why "belief" is belief and "proof" is proof.

Those are two terms which need a great deal more explanation. I use "belief" to refer to any thought that is held to be true by the thinker. I use "proof" to refer to an argument that results in a certainty (and thus I know of no proof).

We don't seek to prove God.

I don't seek to prove or disprove God either nor do I seek that for anything. I am concerned with what is plausible and implausible.

We seek to have faith that what we hope for...is (or will be.)

Okay I can understand that. I am not arguing that is not what is happening, merely that this will result in holding a false belief since even if what you hope for turns out to be true then you will lack any justification for believing it prior to that event.

In other words, faith in God is only delusional from an empirical POV.

Absolutely. Faith would not be delusional from the POV of the true believer. I am not for a moment arguing that anything could be delusional from any POV since clearly the POV that accepts it as truth would be the exception.

I am simply arguing that naturalism is the most rational and plausible POV to hold to and that under that POV, faith is delusional.

However, faith does not operate from the dynamic of empiricism.

If faith seeks to assert what is true then asking the question "how does it go about determining the truth?" and "how do its methods compare to other methods?" are entirely valid questions to ask.

Why is it unreasonable to hold faith to the standards of empiricism regardless of the fact that it does not operate to such standards? If that argument were applied equally then empiricism could not function since all false belief is evidently not operating within empiricism.

 

[sojourner]

That's just too creepy.

You can continue to consider others infantile if you wish. But they have researched and given extensive thought to this subject of human sacrifice in Christianity.

As for you and me, personally, please do not respond to any more of my posts; as I do not plan to respond to any of yours either.

Thank you.

And crucifixion isn't creepy?

Just because they've given it extensive thought, doesn't mean that they're right. I've not only given Christian theology a lot of thought, I've lived it for many years. I know what it is and what it is not.

Don't hold your parade in my street and I won't rain on it. I'm probably going to take issue with anyone who insists that my faith is delusional. This is a public forum. If you don't like the heat, perhaps you shouldn't have begun cooking. If you don't like what I have to say, I invite you to make good use of the "ignore" button.

 

[sojourner]

I am simply arguing that naturalism is the most rational and plausible POV to hold to and that under that POV, faith is delusional.

My position is that naturalism doesn't include the realm of the spiritual. It's like trying to find out how to cook potatoes by reading a Chilton's manual for a '73 Vega. If we're going to evaluate the spiritual, we have to use some kind of "scale" that actually includes the spiritual. Otherwise, our measurements will be "off." We can't measure radiation, for instance, with a volt meter.

If faith seeks to assert what is true then asking the question "how does it go about determining the truth?" and "how do its methods compare to other methods?" are entirely valid questions to ask.

Faith doesn't seek to assert what is true. It seeks what is.

 

[Mister Emu]

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?

It is not our policy to ban members for disagreeing with a Moderator's view. I wonder how that would work anyway, seeing as we have moderators of almost all faiths? Guess we would all get banned

As for speaking freely, we do have rules, that all members must abide by
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item

Now for replies:

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.

I would argue that while there may be no reason or evidence for you to believe in God, that there is not any reason to believe for anyone.

In fact, going by your definition, the belief that no one has evidence or reason for believing in God is delusional, since there is no reason to have this belief, and a good reason(multitude of Christians who will tell you there reasons) to not hold it.

 

[logician]

Faith doesn't seek to assert what is true. It seeks what is.

PLease explain.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya sojourner,
It is often claimed that naturalism doesn't include the realm of the spiritual. Naturalism actually includes everything that is observable. This means that if the spiritual is observable, then it is included in naturalism. The reason why spiritual study is not currently conducted by naturalists is because there is no evidence to support the existence of anything spiritual. The spiritual is most definitely on the naturalist scale but it is currently under the category of "Those things lacking evidence".

What is the difference between "what is true" and "what is"? Surely the theists feels that he is asserting truth when he claims that God exists? I am sure the point of faith is other than the assertion of truth but nevertheless, in achieving its aims, it still does just that.

Heya Mister Emu,
I realise I worded that response badly. When I said "reason" I did not mean motivation but justification. Now whether there is evidence or justification to believe in God is either true or false. There is no such thing as evidence and justification that only work for certain people.

So there are indeed many Christians who have motivation to believe in God. If they have justification for doing so then I am very open to being convinced but if they are unable to produce justification that is convincing to another then it is more plausible that they actually lack justification and are believing due to faith.

I agree with you entirely that it would be deluded to state that there is no reason to believe in God and hopefully, due to the clarification of my poor wording, I can clear that one up. However, I do not feel it is deluded to state that there is no evidence for God. There might be some in the future but if there is some then the questions "what" and "where" need to be fulfilled.

 

[sojourner]

Naturalism actually includes everything that is observable.

The spiritual is not observable by any empirical method we now know. How, therefore, can the spiritual be included within naturalism?

The reason why spiritual study is not currently conducted by naturalists is because there is no evidence to support the existence of anything spiritual.

The reason why spiritual study is not conducted by naturalists is because naturalists cannot study the spiritual using their current "technology" of study.

What is the difference between "what is true" and "what is"?

To find out "what is true," one must utilize some kind of proof. "What is" is a little more subjective than that. What is seeks no proof. It just...is. Those aspects of ourselves and nature that lie outside our ability to quantify or qualify: beauty, eternity, affinity. How can we measure these things? Whatever it is that lies above the realm of human reasoning, to which we look for our "standard" of being -- that is Divine.

 

[Mister Emu]

Justify: to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded
www.dictionary.com

Any qualms with that definition of justify?

 

[James the Persian]

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.

Indeed. It's been going on since the earliest days of the Church. Outsiders with no idea what they are talking of pick up on a few things that appear to them as X, expound upon it to all their peers as though X is the only thing it can possibly be and never stop to ask us what we actually think, and find therefore, that it's Y. That, after all, is what St. Justin Martyr was trying to combat in his Apologies. I wonder if anyone would like to argue that we're cannibals or atheists, though? I doubt it will ever end mainly because there are always some people who would rather believe an evil lie than the honest truth. Yuvgotmel appears to fall in this bracket, unfortunately.

Yuvgotmel,

Are you honestly trying to tell me that you see self sacrifice and human sacrifice as the same thing? Who then, is it, that sacrificed those posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross, and to whom were they sacrificed? The idea is so patently absurd that I can't help but feel that your ignorance must be willful .

As for being a Mod, I post as an ordinary member unless clearly stating otherwise. Not only would I never ban you for arguing, actually I could not. No moderators are able to make any decision here unilaterally (everything is done as a team) and so any personal issues like that cannot become an issue. Believe me, if I acted in the way you accused me of, I'd have been banning a lot of people here and I've actually banned nobody at all.

Anyway, where would the fun be in banning you? I'm confident I can rather effortlessly wipe the floor with your arguments as they hold considerably less water than a sieve and appear to rely on the misinformation and ignorant views of non-Christians. Given that when I do expound what it is that we actually believe you are unable to come up with a reply but rather run to your secular and anti-Christian 'authorities' on Christianity, I'm fairly convinced that I can deal adequately with any rebuttal you might make in future.

You're still missing at least 250+ million from your tally of Christians.

James

 

[yuvgotmel]

So far, in this thread:

I have posted a bit about "martyrs" (self-sacrifice) and how Jesus could not have been his own martyr.

I have posted quotes directly from the "new testament."

I have posted my account of what I experienced in Christianity.

....And now, James, are you trying to tell me that "orthodoxy" is so different from the rest of Christianity, that it does not adhere to the "new testament", practice rituals such as communion and teach the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus??????

....By the way, it's nice to know that people don't get banned for disagreeing with moderators.

 

[yuvgotmel]

Sojourner...

Since you have trolled my posts on other threads, for whatever reason, even after I have asked you to stop, I shall have to prove you wrong with your own words. I hope this does suffice once and for all.

You wrote:

"My" church does not espouse any official doctrine. We believe that Jesus is the Christ, and claim him as Lord and Savior. We celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly, and we baptize newcomers, unless they've been baptized before. The rest is fluff.

and...

Jesus is not "non-human." Jesus is fully human, as I stated before. Jesus is also fully divine. To be fully divine does not indicate that one is "non-human."

That proves that you admit Jesus was human.

and you wrote...

If Christ is not truly present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, then what's the point of our participation in it? It seems to me that the compelling argument for the real presence is the central importance of the Meal to the Church throughout the ages. If Christ were not truly present, that would make the Eucharist no more holy than eating a meal at McDonald's.

and....

No, finally, in order for even a mere symbol to have any significant power or influence within the context of worship, that symbol must carry more than mere remembrance.
It must convey the true presence of what it symbolizes. Even if the bread and wine are only symbols of Christ (and I believe they are more than that), they must be symbols in some powerful and significant way that sets them apart from other symbols of Christ -- say, for example, an icon or a statue.

That being said, I believe there is something far more powerful than simple remembrance going on in the context of the Eucharist. There is a partaking of the body and blood of Christ.

In order for us to do that, the body and blood must be present -- otherwise, we're just "going through the motions" -- and I don't thind that worship entails "going through the motions." Our acts of worship must carry significant meaning, or there's no point. We worship in spirit and in truth -- not in symbol and in remembrance.

and...

In this way, when we eat and drink, we (as scripture says) are eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus.

You said somewhere else that God does not create new blood to be spilled. That is true -- and we do not see it as a new creation of blood, but a re-creation of the blood that poured out of Jesus. And, it is poured out! It is poured from a large vessel into a chalice, again, a re-creation of its being poured out when Jesus was crucified. It is God's way of bringing us into the sacrificial event itself -- not a new, or different, or re-sacrifice, but a re-creation of the one sacrifice -- transcending time.

...that last quote is the same as I have said before in this thread. That Jesus is viewed as a cosmic human sacrifice.

....hummm..... Did I miss anything? I don't think so. This is clearly a case of the practice of and belief in human sacrifice.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner...

Since you have trolled my posts on other threads, for whatever reason, even after I have asked you to stop, I shall have to prove you wrong with your own words. I hope this does suffice once and for all.

You wrote:



and...



That proves that you admit Jesus was human.

and you wrote...



and....



and...



...that last quote is the same as I have said before in this thread. That Jesus is viewed as a cosmic human sacrifice.

....hummm..... Did I miss anything? I don't think so. This is clearly a case of the practice of and belief in human sacrifice.

You weren't talking about a "cosmic human sacrifice." Your comment implied that Christianity participated in the kind of blood sacrifice, as practiced by several ancient religions -- sacrifices that required the blood of the victim to be spilt, in order to appease the gods. And you found several authors who said as much.

You further asserted that Christianity touts a "blood atonement."

But that's just not what Christianity is. James and I both said that at least 250 million Christians say otherwise.

I stand by what you quoted me as saying above. And none of it -- none of it -- has anything whatsoever to do with God requiring human blood in order to be appeased and find us worthy of salvation. Because it happened, it does not follow that it had to have happened. And because it happened, of course we're going find meaning in it. That doesn't mean that Christ could not have died of smallpox, and we would have subsequently found meaning in little red pustules.

You can't trap me with my words, because my words reflect orthodox Christian Eucharistic theology -- none of which has the slightest thing to do with blood being "necessary" in order for Christ to complete his salvific work here.

Of course Christ was fully human. God becoming one of us is precisely how God reconciles humanity to God's self. Christ was also fully divine -- God. "Cosmically" speaking, God poured God's abundance out for us, because God loves us. In that act of God becoming one of us and destroying the hold of death on humanity, we are reconciled to God. Was God's abundance poured out in the form of human blood? Yes, it was! But, again, it's not the blood, itself that is either necessary or makes the atonement. Rather, it's God's willingness to pour God's self out for us that is efficacious.

What suffices once and for all here is God's great love for us in Christ Jesus.

 

[yuvgotmel]

You weren't talking about a "cosmic human sacrifice." Your comment implied that Christianity participated in the kind of blood sacrifice, as practiced by several ancient religions -- sacrifices that required the blood of the victim to be spilt, in order to appease the gods. And you found several authors who said as much.

You further asserted that Christianity touts a "blood atonement."

I'll repost it for you. Since you missed it the first time.

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.

…..
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.
​

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.​