Why would god require human sacrifice?

[viole]

Don't listen to the people condemning you, who haven't condemned themselves.

You can rest assured that I don't

Ciao

- viole

 

[Curious_Cat]

Christianity isn't the only religion; it doesn't make much sense to go from considering Christianity, to considering nothing at all.

Christianity made me lose the little faith I had. I find all religions to be man made. Have been studying Judaism but the double standard puts me off, will give Islam a go next. But I dont have high expectations from either :sorry1:

And Im not going to believe in something just for the sake of believing.:no:

 

[Sleeppy]

Christianity made me lose the little faith I had. I find all religions to be man made. Have been studying Judaism but the double standard puts me off, will give Islam a go next. But I dont have high expectations from either :sorry1:

And Im not going to believe in something just for the sake of believing.:no:

Anything believed, written, spoken, or taught, in human language is manmade, according to human perception. Anything created by human hands is manmade, according to our 5(+) senses. Mankind itself is manmade according to childbirth; but before anything else there was an immense (understatement) source of power, from which everything else derived. Don't expect to find God, because God determined everything, and is the sole source of everything already.

 

[paarsurrey]

Christianity made me lose the little faith I had. I find all religions to be man made. Have been studying Judaism but the double standard puts me off, will give Islam a go next. But I dont have high expectations from either :sorry1:

And Im not going to believe in something just for the sake of believing.:no:

If one is a Christian then one should follow the core teachings of Jesus and other teachings that Jesus spoke aligned with the core teachings.

In Judaism one should follow the core/prime teachings of Moses and other teachings that Moses spoke aligned with the core/prime teachings.

One would be treading in the right direction.

Regards

 

[Robert.Evans]

Cool, if that means I will just stay dead a bit longer than the others.

Ciao

- viole

I would say if you are atheist, you stay dead.

Having said that, all energy is reused, even in a physical way through atoms. It might be like saying that the tree does not exist anymore, but the woodchip does, or the table etc. You as a conscious-energy will not though. Recycled. Even the memory of you forgotten. It is wise to learn while you can I think. Alive without knowing you are alive is dead, is it not?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Anything believed, written, spoken, or taught, in human language is manmade, according to human perception. Anything created by human hands is manmade, according to our 5(+) senses. Mankind itself is manmade according to childbirth; but before anything else there was an immense (understatement) source of power, from which everything else derived. Don't expect to find God, because God determined everything, and is the sole source of everything already.

frubal if I could.. yes I would

 

[Robert.Evans]

Christianity made me lose the little faith I had. I find all religions to be man made. Have been studying Judaism but the double standard puts me off, will give Islam a go next. But I dont have high expectations from either :sorry1:

And Im not going to believe in something just for the sake of believing.:no:

I don't understand. You think that all religions are manmade but you will give Islam a go next!?

Why do you not try to work it out for yourself? It is the Holy Spirit that will guide you, if indeed you seek God with all your heart.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't understand. You think that all religions are manmade but you will give Islam a go next!?

Why do you not try to work it out for yourself? It is the Holy Spirit that will guide you, if indeed you seek God with all your heart.

Holy spirit is no god; Jesus never worshiped it.

Regards

 

[ChristineES]

So, Abraham had just a lucid dream when ordered to sacrifice Isaac?

Ciao

- viole

If you read the story, God had no intention of having Abraham sacrificing Isaac. A sheep was caught in a bush and Abraham was ordered to sacrifice that, instead. It was a test to see if Abraham would hold back.

 

[ScuzManiac]

We do, we keep sacrificing human beings in order to keep our civilization and power structures going.

He did come down and say "no no no", then we promptly nailed him to a cross and sacrificed him to the idols of our own selfish desires. I don't think he needs to repeat the experience.

Pretty sure we didn't nail God to a cross.

 

[idav]

Personally, when I evaluate an Atonement theory, I look for two things:

First, that it factors in the whole of Christ's life in His saving work and doesn't obsess over the crucifixion to the point where everything else is glossed over or placed in the backdrop. After all, Christianity has always understood Easter to be the centerpiece of the liturgical calender, not Good Friday. Unfortunately, Western Christianity makes it a habit of focusing on the crucifixion to the point of nearly ignoring the Resurrection. This is not good. Our Eastern brothers and sisters don't do this and we would do much good to be like them in this matter. Eastern Christianity is much more optimistic and hopeful than Western Christianity tends to be and that is how it was in the early Church. I think it's past time to return to our ancient roots on this matter.

Second, the theory can't imagine God to be like some bloodthirsty, wrathful pagan god. That is obscene and offensive and an affront to the New Testament God of mercy and compassion, the God Who loves us so much that He would die to show us the depths of His love.

So, that in mind, the Satisfaction theories and the Penal Substitution theories are out the window. Both take a legalistic view of God as demanding a blood sacrifice of His Son. Both pretty much ignore the Resurrection and the teachings of Christ's life. Both make salvation into just being a legal transaction or even a financial transaction. So those two theories should be dismissed out of hand. All the criticism about it making it seem like God is demanding a human sacrifice is true. Even Benedict XVI made the same criticism of the Satisfaction theory.

To be honest, I don't recall ever being taught Anselm's Satisfaction theory or the Penal Substitution theory. (I never would've been taught the Penal theory as that is a Calvinist invention that is rejected by the Church.) How I always understood it is that Christ's sacrifice was one of limitless love to the Father, Who found this more pleasing than the imperfect animal sacrifices given. He did not have the sins of humanity laid upon Him, but rather became one with our sinful nature in a mysterious way while remaining sinless Himself. This ties into Christ being the New Adam Who succeeded where Adam failed (Mary is the New Eve who succeeded where Eve failed.) So already, my position is closer to the Recapitulation theory. There's nothing about a legalistic idea of God's wrath (such as in the Penal theory) or God's honor being offended (Satisfaction theory). 3 days after that, He triumphed over death, thus destroying the power of evil in the world. In this too, He reveals Himself as the New Adam Who makes humanity anew. So there's elements of the Christus Victor theory in my belief. As for Moral Influence, His life is one of perfect moral example to us that causes inner change when we meditate upon it and follow Christ.

I agree it is the life which is of importance, not so much the death. One thing that gets me about the catholic Church and some other denominations is the emphasis on the cross, the very device that killed the savior. I grew up Catholic and a lot of emphasis on the suffering aspect of it as well. Without the life none of it would matter.

One of the most important aspect also is that jesus asked for forgiveness because he is appeasing a wrathful god. Jesus changed it and god somehow did a 180. I do appreciate the nicer god aspect being a focus, forgiveness rather than wrath yet christains believe this wrath is still around the corner, as if the sacrifice still wasn't enough for complete appeasement because there are more conditions for gods love.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Holy spirit is no god; Jesus never worshiped it.

Regards

Never said he was. Though now you bring it up, it is part of him, as he part of it

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I agree it is the life which is of importance, not so much the death. One thing that gets me about the catholic Church and some other denominations is the emphasis on the cross, the very device that killed the savior. I grew up Catholic and a lot of emphasis on the suffering aspect of it as well. Without the life none of it would matter.

Catholicism has a focus on the transformative aspect of suffering because, let's face it, much of life is suffering. Also it is to show just how screwed up humanity is, that we did that to Christ. But the central message is Christ's never-failing love for us, even in that state.

One of the most important aspect also is that jesus asked for forgiveness because he is appeasing a wrathful god. Jesus changed it and god somehow did a 180. I do appreciate the nicer god aspect being a focus, forgiveness rather than wrath yet christains believe this wrath is still around the corner, as if the sacrifice still wasn't enough for complete appeasement because there are more conditions for gods love.

Jesus wasn't asking for forgiveness for Himself. He was asking forgiveness for us. He was sinless and the idea He had our sinfulness laid Him on us is an erroneous view. Rather, He took our sins on Himself in a mysterious form of empathy, you could say, and nailed them to the cross. He was one with our sinful nature in all ways in terms of feeling the suffering and despair it causes, but He always remained sinless and the Father never poured out His wrath upon Christ or punished Him in our place. The crucifixion was a work of Divine mercy and love. The Father never for a moment stopped feeling perfect love for His Son.

Wrath isn't coming around the corner. What you're saying is probably coming from a misunderstanding of Revelation. We we're waiting for is the Second Coming of Christ to put things right (ooh, that rhymes).

 

[paarsurrey]

Catholicism has a focus on the transformative aspect of suffering because, let's face it, much of life is suffering. Also it is to show just how screwed up humanity is, that we did that to Christ. But the central message is Christ's never-failing love for us, even in that state.

Jesus wasn't asking for forgiveness for Himself. He was asking forgiveness for us. He was sinless and the idea He had our sinfulness laid Him on us is an erroneous view. Rather, He took our sins on Himself in a mysterious form of empathy, you could say, and nailed them to the cross. He was one with our sinful nature in all ways in terms of feeling the suffering and despair it causes, but He always remained sinless and the Father never poured out His wrath upon Christ or punished Him in our place. The crucifixion was a work of Divine mercy and love. The Father never for a moment stopped feeling perfect love for His Son.

Wrath isn't coming around the corner. What you're saying is probably coming from a misunderstanding of Revelation. We we're waiting for is the Second Coming of Christ to put things right (ooh, that rhymes).

Since modern Christianity misuse it; please tell us if Jesus ever claimed that he was sinless. Please quote his unequivocal words in this connection.

Jesus was a Jew; the Christian always try to convert him to Christianity while he was not there; a posthumous effort.

Regards

 

[Robert.Evans]

Since modern Christianity misuse it; please tell us if Jesus ever claimed that he was sinless. Please quote his unequivocal words in this connection.

Jesus was a Jew; the Christian always try to convert him to Christianity while he was not there; a posthumous effort.

Regards

Why does he personally have to claim it? Is scripture not sufficient when it tells you he was without sin?

 

[melk]

Then god finishes the task by sacrificing his own human son.

Why would such archaic barbaric means be necessary? Human sacrifice of a perfect innocent and blood is the real means. Is that some sort of satanic type worship or something with baby sacrifice, not to say satanists do that but sure makes sense to many christians.

Answering to your question, I think it is not God that requires Jesus's sacrifice, but ourselves, to help us feel God's love and mercy.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why does he personally have to claim it? Is scripture not sufficient when it tells you he was without sin?

The Christian scripture was never dictated to anyone by G-d; It was never written by Jesus. It was written by anonymous scribes without any authorization from Jesus. In that sense the stuff written in it is unauthorized one.

Regards

 

[Robert.Evans]

The Christian scripture was never dictated to anyone by G-d; It was never written by Jesus. It was written by anonymous scribes without any authorization from Jesus. In that sense the stuff written in it is unauthorized one.

Regards

Don't agree. It is authorised

 

[idav]

Catholicism has a focus on the transformative aspect of suffering because, let's face it, much of life is suffering. Also it is to show just how screwed up humanity is, that we did that to Christ. But the central message is Christ's never-failing love for us, even in that state.

Jesus wasn't asking for forgiveness for Himself. He was asking forgiveness for us. He was sinless and the idea He had our sinfulness laid Him on us is an erroneous view. Rather, He took our sins on Himself in a mysterious form of empathy, you could say, and nailed them to the cross. He was one with our sinful nature in all ways in terms of feeling the suffering and despair it causes, but He always remained sinless and the Father never poured out His wrath upon Christ or punished Him in our place. The crucifixion was a work of Divine mercy and love. The Father never for a moment stopped feeling perfect love for His Son.

Wrath isn't coming around the corner. What you're saying is probably coming from a misunderstanding of Revelation. We we're waiting for is the Second Coming of Christ to put things right (ooh, that rhymes).

Catholics have a focus on the cross the means of roman capital punishment.

I agree he said, forgive them, which says jesus had forgiven but his father needed to be asked. I think that is quite significant. Even with his view of tolerance and forgiveness even he had the idea of the wrathful god that needed to be appeased, so forgive them he asks. At that point wouldnt matter what they did to jesus, the appeasement comes from jesus forgiving us not the father. Did he have to spill blood to show the father, quite possibly, thats how jesus saw it.

Edit: another clue is him saying take this cup from me.

 

[sojourner]

What many forget is that the bible is a human story more than it is "God's message" to us. The texts are the collected stories and creative writings of the faith of God's people over an extremely long period of time, and across several cultures. The stories represent the hopes, dreams, desires, fears, and expectations of those people, within the framework of a particular theological imagination.

God (as Cynthia said) doesn't "command war." And, if you read it correctly, you'll find that the "eye for an eye" directive is mitigatory. And Jesus mitigates it further.