Why would god require human sacrifice?

[Mycroft]

And didn't God the Father see this coming? Really? Couldn't he foresee that a religious rebel who questioned Rome's authority and their gods could be executed? Hasn't he been paying attention to human affairs over the millennia?

And couldn't he have prevented it if he wanted? Make Jesus immortal or give him the ability to become invisible to escape such situations? Sure the omnipotent Father could do that if he could give Jesus powers to walk on water and feed thousands with a couple of fish?

But no, God must have foreseen that Jesus would be killed, and he took no action to prevent it. He saw it coming, and Jesus saw it coming. Then Jesus asks for forgiveness, while God the Father acts all surprised and gets furious?

Like I said. God isn't omnipotent because he is a creation of Men's imaginations. As Men have changed the narritive of the Bible to suit their purposes over the ages, so God's attitudes change with it. But his actions are always very human actions.

 

[chinu]

@ Why would god require human sacrifice?

Because everything other than Sacrifice is created by God.
God is the owner of everything.
Thus, if Human has anything to give to God, it's just Sacrifice.

 

[ruffen]

Because everything other than Sacrifice is created by God.
God is the owner of everything.
Thus, if Human has anything to give to God, it's just Sacrifice.

Ugh. So the only thing we can give God and that God wants from us, is death?

 

[chinu]

Ugh. So the only thing we can give God and that God wants from us, is death?

Depends on what do you want in return.

 

[ruffen]

Depends on what do you want in return.

Whatever pays with the death of a human, is not worth having.

 

[Sleeppy]

Whatever pays with the death of a human, is not worth having.

Are you a pacifist?

 

[chinu]

Whatever pays with the death of a human, is not worth having.

If someone wish to see him/her self without body, than of course it needs death.

 

[McBell]

You might have noticed that the Tanach is full of stories of people doing things that are forbidden. Because people did them doesn't make them not forbidden, or make them things that God wants and approves of. It just makes them things that people did, which we should know about so that we can do better than they did.

You might have noticed that he was not punished for his human sacrifice.

I understand that you grasp onto the lack of mention of punishment as though said punishment simply was not included in the scripture.

However, if human sacrifice is as "forbidden" as you would have everyone believe, why is there no mention at all of a punishment?

So yes, it does kinda fly in the face of your "forbidden" claim.

 

[McBell]

Even I know that this isn't correct, and that's saying a lot, trust me, as I've learned about Christianity mostly from RF and recent reading. You are really incorrect.

Then you should be out telling those who believe Jesus to be the ultimate sacrifice that they do not believe it.

Let us know how that goes...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the bible god says not to in the OT but the founder is said to have been asked to sacrifice his first son Isaac. God said just kidding.

Another great example of deep thinking …

 

[idav]

A human and divine sacrifice but to whom? Surely not God. God sacrificed his divinity upon that cross, he sacrificed it to us, he gave it to us so we are enabled to become divine.

This was was the whole aspect of sacrifice and needing blood atonement, that we would be cleansed, in this case made divine, so that the Father is appeased. Else the fathers wrath would be upon us to the end of days cause, not being divine, wouldn't allow him to love us imperfect sinful creatures.

 

[idav]

He wouldn't. Human sacrifice is forbidden.

Which I noted, which makes the sacrifice of gods son not a very good fit. The NT does also allow some sort of blood atonement as well before Jesus dying. Not sure why that wouldn't be enough but christian theology choose to take it much further. As if the blood atonement isn't archaic enough, the Jews had stopped with it.

 

[idav]

Sure, there is a great deal of diversity in Christianity. It is however a common notion to many Christians that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and that his sacrifice was for the forgiveness of original sin.

Yes I would say that is mainstream, at least here in the US.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

This was was the whole aspect of sacrifice and needing blood atonement, that we would be cleansed, in this case made divine, so that the Father is appeased. Else the fathers wrath would be upon us to the end of days cause, not being divine, wouldn't allow him to love us imperfect sinful creatures.

That is not what many Christians believe, many Christians reject the whole notion that Jesus was sacrificed to appease divine wrath. Many reject the Penal Substitution Theory. We keep telling you guys that but you re not getting it.

 

[idav]

That is not what many Christians believe, many Christians reject the whole notion that Jesus was sacrificed to appease divine wrath. Many reject the Penal Substitution Theory. We keep telling you guys that but you re not getting it.

You said it in your own words, to become more divine. Meaning gods own handiwork wasnt good enough for himself. Why become more divine then, what are the repercussions for not?

 

[Amechania]

Even I know that this isn't correct, and that's saying a lot, trust me, as I've learned about Christianity mostly from RF and recent reading. You are really incorrect.

The sacrifice of Christ to atone for original sin is the doctrine in every mainstream Christian denomination including Catholicism. The Paschal Lamb of God and all that.

 

[Levite]

You might have noticed that he was not punished for his human sacrifice.

I understand that you grasp onto the lack of mention of punishment as though said punishment simply was not included in the scripture.

However, if human sacrifice is as "forbidden" as you would have everyone believe, why is there no mention at all of a punishment?

So yes, it does kinda fly in the face of your "forbidden" claim.

The tone of the text does not present the story in a positive light. There are numerous mentions throughout the Tanach of idolatry involving human sacrifice as an evil. There is nothing either in the text of the Yiftach story or elsewhere to suggest that what he did was viewed positively or even neutrally. And his story is a single one amongst many other more explicitly contrary statements.

Since the texts in the Tanach are the products of an evolutionary tradition of selection and redaction (perhaps, ideally, guided by revelatory inspiration), it is not reasonable to assume that every text will address everything in the same way, much less with exacting explicitness.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I thought the Father and the Son were two aspects of the same deity? Don't they speak to each other?

How can one aspect of God get sacrificed out of love for humanity, yet another aspect gets furious about it? And what was God the Father's plan with Jesus then?

They're two Persons of the Trinity. They don't experience the same things in the same way. Why wouldn't God be angry at humanity for killing His Son? That makes no sense.

Besides the whole idea that the entire humanity is responsible for what Adam and Eve did, and the entire humanity is responsible for the Romans killing Jesus, and the entire humanity should be thankful for the forgivness of Jesus, is an immoral and silly one. I didn't put Jesus up on that cross. Why would Jesus ask his Father to forgive us for something somebody else did? Because God the Father is a hateful monster deity who condemns the entire human kind based on what some individuals did?

Let's keep the ranting to a minimum, please.

 

[ChristineES]

According to millions of Christians, a human sacrifice is the very key to their belief and to the salvation of the world. I agree that it is still an ancient primitive culture, but people in 2014 do actually believe that such an offering (Jesus) pleased God in some way that it was necessary for saving the world from God's wrath.

What lesson in morality would this be?

With all due respect, we don't view Jesus' death as "human sacrifice" but as symbolic of an unblemished lamb. Zola Levitt (a Messianic Jew) compared Jesus' death as a "Passover Lamb". I don't 100% understand the Jewish side of these things, however, because although I have Jewish ancestry, I was never a practicing Jew.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And didn't God the Father see this coming? Really? Couldn't he foresee that a religious rebel who questioned Rome's authority and their gods could be executed? Hasn't he been paying attention to human affairs over the millennia?

And couldn't he have prevented it if he wanted? Make Jesus immortal or give him the ability to become invisible to escape such situations? Sure the omnipotent Father could do that if he could give Jesus powers to walk on water and feed thousands with a couple of fish?

But no, God must have foreseen that Jesus would be killed, and he took no action to prevent it. He saw it coming, and Jesus saw it coming. Then Jesus asks for forgiveness, while God the Father acts all surprised and gets furious?

Of course They knew it was His destiny. It happened to fulfill certain prophecies. Done asking dumb questions now?