Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
There's no hell.
Sacrifice is a big topic. It makes sense that Jesus' death was painted in those terms because it would have been very familiar to the people at the time. Not just the Jews but the Greeks and Romans and all the other cultures as well. They all sacrificed animals to the gods. It was to say "thankyou for everything we have," or "sorry for what I've done," and afterwards there would have been an emotional sense of relief because they knew they were forgiven or accepted or whatever. It's difficult to put ourselves in their shoes on this one, but it was something that pretty much everyone in the world at the time understood. Pretty simplistic way of looking at the world. We arrogantly look back at them in horror, but forget that we still sacrifice lots of animals - way more than they did back then - but today it's just because of our greed. We like big macs and chicken nuggets.
Jesus' death and resurrection - among other things - was a message to the Jews that "You don't have to do that ever again. It's all finished." Even way before that there were messages from God to his people along the lines of "I don't care about all the sacrifices. I'd much rather you just looked after the poor and widows, helped the sick and treated people with equality and fairness."
Jesus' life, death and resurrection draws together quite a few important strands from the story of God and his people through the Old Testament, and channels them through Jesus to a new future and a new hope, not just for the Jews but for the whole world.
"It makes sense that Jesus' death was painted in those terms because it would have been very familiar to the people at the time."
Was the message universal or not? You implied that the message is "not just for the Jews but for the whole world," yet it is revulsive to many of us. It seems to me if a deity had a message intended for every human at every time on the planet, such a god would have avoided using colloquialisms, knowing those would be misunderstood by the vast majority of humanity outside that particular culture.
If I must interpret a message through the lens of a foreign culture, then it's obviously not universal, which implies that the message wasn't really intended for me. People to whom biblical messages were supposedly revealed had very little actual knowledge of how the world works. Their perspective was quite limited. How could any message they convey transcend those limitations? Of course it couldn't, which is why we have to jump through theological hoops in the hope of figuring out what the message really is. This is but one issue with second-hand revelation.
The so-called "Old Testament" declares that women are ceremonially "unclean" for twice as long when they give birth to a girl as they would be if they gave birth to boy. People with "flat noses" are barred from entry to the temple. Could it be more obvious that those people mistook their own primitive prejudices for instructions from god? Any reasonably bright deity would be able to anticipate that and communicate accordingly.
Let's face it: "Some guy said god told him to tell you..." is just about the worst basis upon which to build an authoritative, coherent message. Your attempts to re-culturalize the message only reinforce the point.
Yes, the message was for all time. But it was communicated at a certain point in history, at a certain time and a certain place and to a specific group of people. So we have to go into that culture and figure out what the messages are (eg. "love your neighbour") and what is just cultural (eg. cleanliness laws), then translate it and communicate it differently for our own culture and time. I myself don't talk about the sacrificial system unless people ask, because it's completely foreign to people these days. But at the time, in the first century, yes pretty much all the cultures were familiar with sacrifices to the gods (but there were various ways of thinking about it).
The perspective in the new testament is that the message is Jesus. Jesus shows us what God is like. That's even higher than the scriptures, so it means that if something in the scriptures seems to contradict what Jesus was on about, we go with Jesus. The reason being because the scriptures were written by people.
I'm not claiming that any of the Bible is bullshit. I'm claiming that there are many different types of literature in there. I've heard this so many times before, from Christians as well: The whole Bible is either literally true or the whole thing is false. Like the writers couldn't possibly have used any poetry, imagery or metaphor. When the psalmist wrote about God riding above the clouds in a chariot of fire, it doesn't literally mean that God rides in a chariot of fire. When Jesus says to cut off your hand it's hyperbole. When he tells parables, they're made-up stories that convey truth. When John writes about fiery lakes, it's apocalyptic language. We're actually used to this because we do the same thing in our own communcation.
"Wow, look at that guy run! He's flying!" (What?! He can fly?)
"It was an earth-shattering revelation." (Whoa, is everyone ok?)
"I was so mesmerized by the performance that time stood still." (Crikey that's amazing!)
"Michael Johnson was magic." (Surely that's not allowed in professional basketball)
"That's bullshit." (Eww)
"Go to hell." (Oh ok, is that downwards?)
"Try this Lindt chocolate. It's heaven."
It's only tricky because people use different metaphors in different cultures and languages. There's a lot of imagery in the bible that we miss as soon as we translate it out of the original language. There's a lot of Aussie slang that no-one else in the world would understand, and that's with people living at the same time. That's why we have to do research into the original culture. So if it's literal and Jesus really is talking about an eternal burning fire, then fair enough. But we've done a lot of research into the culture and viewpoints of the people of the time, and we know Jesus wasn't talking literally. He was well-versed in apocalyptic language, as were all his listeners. NT Wright has done decades of work on this stuff.
"Sacrifice is a big topic. It makes sense that Jesus' death was painted in those terms because it would have been very familiar to the people at the time."
No, it does not, you have been brain washed to believe that somehow it made sens.
I have studied the history of that period and the least thing the Jews expected was a TRUE messiah that would die.
Those that died were considered false messiahs(as they were)
The Jews idea of a messiah was militaristic, a messiah like David, who had the power of god.
With the power of god, David could overcome the Romans.
They wanted a messiah that would give them their promised land. God promised and didn't keep his promise.
There was no idea of sin before Christianity.
Especially no idea of original sin.
Sin for what? You cannot say the apple now, since you said earlier that this was just a story.
Can you see that this was all created to make you feel guilty and miserable and needy of salvation.
Original sin is an other horrible idea Christianity introduced into you head when you were kid. Brain washing.
How could you possibly think that any half decent god would punish an innocent child for the sins of the father?
Your god is pure evil just on this note alone.
Btw they didn't do human sacrifices in that horrible way in those times, Crucifixion was a roman thing for punishing people.
Not a Jewish or any other culture would use Crucifixion as a human sacrifice in those times.
Go do your homework before claiming things like this.
You are insulting those people without knowing, your research in these cultures is as good as hearing it from the local priest.
You failed to reply to most of my questions in your last replies too. Why?
Why do you claim things that contradict what Jesus said?
Jesus said there is hell, why do you said their is no hell? Brian washing?
why does god have to kill people for 100 000 years without salvation, before sending his son to be sacrificed so he would be able to forgive?.
And a ot of more questions I asked and you ignored, go back and re read my posts, since you are constantly changing subject in every post you make.
The funny part is that on every note you are constantly faced with contradictions you cannot explain, thus you keep ignoring the questions.
"your research in these cultures is as good as hearing it from the local priest." Dude, I am the local priest :)
Sorry I'm missing some of your questions. You put so much in your posts that I can't reply to it all. I've been trying to prioritise and just answer one or two topics at a time to keep the conversation simple for anyone reading, but if you want me to specifically reply to particular ones just let me know.
"the least thing the Jews expected was a TRUE messiah that would die. Those that died were considered false messiahs." Yep that's right. If a "Messiah" died then it proved they weren't the Messiah. You can see this even in the reactions of Jesus' followers following his death. Scared and depressed, and then shocked when Jesus rose from the dead. Not what they were expecting, but that's because they were thinking way too small. They wanted vindication for Israel, God wanted to restore the whole world.
"There was no idea of sin before Christianity." Not true. The "sin offering" was one of their rituals from the start. "Sin" meant doing the wrong thing, mostly relationally (eg. cheating or mistreating others).
"Original sin" is not a Biblical idea. It's a reformation idea from a couple centuries ago. There's a point in the Old Testament (Ezekiel?) where God says he will treat people on their own merit, not on their kids' or parents' actions. Jesus and the NT writers reiterate this.
I didn't say the Jews were doing human sacrifices. That was something that God outlawed very early on, directly to Abraham himself. But they were doing animal sacrifices.
"why does god have to kill people for 100 000 years without salvation, before sending his son to be sacrificed so he would be able to forgive?" You're talking about basically two different systems here. Kind of like legal systems. When we update a system it doesn't cancel out everything that was done under the old one. There's no sense that people weren't "saved" before that (not my preferred term). They were alright with God if they lived his way (eg caring for the poor, treating other people with respect, working with integrity, looking out for their neighbour, welcoming foreigners etc.). When Jesus came along it was just much simpler: just follow Jesus.
Edit:
The Jews stopped sacrificing their first born to god(he ordered it as a punishment) long before Jesus came.(when god left).
So according to you:
"Jesus' death and resurrection - among other things - was a message to the Jews that "You don't have to do that ever again."
God was just late on the message, since they arrived at that conclusion before him.
Although this is entirly your idea(BS) since jesus story depicts the jews as the bad people, the ones that cannot recognise their messiah, the ones that were allways in the wrong.
The bible does not say what you are thinking it says.
It is not meant for the Jews, it is a religion for the rest except for the Jews.
"not just for the Jews but for the whole world."
neary the only thing you got right if you remove the JUST.
"not for the Jews but for the whole world'
The gospels survived history because they were pro roman, thus the Romans liked them.
The jews were at war with Rome and those text were ridiculing their religion and practically saying to the slaves and poor people to not listen to the Jews since they crucified their own messiah.
Instead be a nice slave and give the other cheek.
Pay your taxes and love your enemy(roman bullies that enslaved them).
You need to be brainwashed in this religion to not see the truth shouting in your face.
http://vimeo.com/69145519
Do yourself a favor and watch it for real this time.
Hypothetical say the government banned religious organisations from earning money they would pay resonable costs salaries and provide resonable accomadations (say bye to their million dollar homes) how long do you think it would be before there was no more organised religion. If you think more than ten years your wrong.
hmm I think you are underestimating heavily how powerful the church is.
They own the place.
They have their own banks, their own land, their own country, their own army, their own companies, their own mindless followers freshly recruited from the poor countries.
To put a picture of how wrong you are;
If they sell just 1 item from 1 wall, from 1 room, from 1 villa, from their vast lands on the black market, they would earn easy around 200 million euros.
These guys are filthy rich in ways you don't imagine my friend.
Last year, one of the cardinals wanted to make some minor changes in his villa and just out of his butler's pocket change he was gonna pay 32 000 for it.
The pope jumped off his seat at the carelessness of this cardinal and cancelled the order.
These guys are begging for money is the fact the cardinal forgot.
These guys have so much money they could literally swim in it like Paperon De Paperoni.
(and I wouldn't be surprised that they actually tried it once for fun).
10 years? maybe 10 000 years would be a more probable amount.
Ok i was not clear sorry i meant to take away all the money.
sry my mistake, it was 32 million not 32 000, I might have offended them when i said 32 000. :)
Lol bit of a difference there
Beneames;
"Sacrifice is a big topic. It makes sense that Jesus' death was painted in those terms because it would have been very familiar to the people at the time."
Jeff:
"the least thing the Jews expected was a TRUE messiah that would die. Those that died were considered false messiahs."
Beneames;
"and then shocked when Jesus rose from the dead. Not what they were expecting, but that's because they were thinking way too small."
So you agree with me that they were shocked and disagree with yourself that it was: "very familiar to the people at the time."
The only reason I made that sentence was to point out that mistake.
Beneames;
""There was no idea of sin before Christianity." Not true. The "sin offering" was one of their rituals from the start. "Sin" meant doing the wrong thing, mostly relationally (eg. cheating or mistreating others)."
As far as I know, it was not considered sin against god before the abrihamic religions. Yea maybe the old testament has it too, too lazy to go and verify this but it does not matter. Sin in the old testament meant a completely different thing as you seem to hint.
Making the statement more clear to what I meant:
So the same idea of spiritual sin did not exists before Christianity. A sin that sticks after you die.
Beneames;
""Original sin" is not a Biblical idea. It's a reformation idea from a couple centuries ago."
Agree, so you are saying that God did not have a reason to sacrifice himself to himself because he doesn't need to forgive anything?
Why didn't he just spread his message about his theology in a peaceful way(more fit though your idea of a god), why a human sacrifice then?
Why does he like so much a human sacrifice, where the rest of the world did not?
Don't you agree that if you want people to not do human sacrifices, then you just DON'T show them a filthy human sacrifice.
Showing them a roman hybrid type of one does not fit the context you are portraying.
"Old Testament (Ezekiel?) where God says he will treat people on their own merit, not on their kids' or parents' actions. Jesus and the NT writers reiterate this."
You are excluding the possibility of a physical god(which is clear in the old testament) and assuming he is spiritual and assume that "treat" is something to happen after they die.
This is the type of brainwashing I was talking about.
They take a sentence and manipulate it in a way to mean things it did not actually mean.
It just means that god will not punish people anymore on what their fathers did in their lives there.
Since they were constantly disobeying and betraying him(earlier on), one of his punishments was that they had to give to him their first born. They had to sacrifice them so that god could smell them. They burned some parts of their inner organs and mix it with some herbs then burn them so that god could smell this type of smoke.(animal inner organs too)
It is described like ecstasy of the gods in the old testament. It says that it made them relaxed and calm.
Apart from that, it also contradicts this:
I didn't say the Jews were doing human sacrifices. That was something that God outlawed very early on, directly to Abraham himself. But they were doing animal sacrifices.
They were doing animal sacrifices before and after they stopped sacrificing their first born to god, well after Abraham.
The Moses god reinstated human sacrifice as a punishment and to break their will.
Ezekiel describes this in his conversation with god.(the part where god says to him that he made harsh laws to his people)
Go and check it out please:
"20And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your harlotries so small a matter
21that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?" (Ezek. 16:20-21)
God purposively gave bad laws which discouraged life and made them offer gifts of their first born by fire. All this was to horrify them and show them he is the Lord. We can presume that God gave these bad laws to Moses too.
"25Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life;
26and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD." (Ezek. 20:25-26)
"When Jesus came along it was just much simpler: just follow Jesus."
So you are saying that god just thought that most people could not follow the right path on their own and needed a simpler way out?
I disagree that it is "simpler" but still it does not answer my question at all, but is an other of your "change of subject".
Why the hell did he need to wait 100 000 years to give us the simple way out?
Why does he hate so much the people that lived through those 100 000 years?
If he was omniscient and loved everybody the same then he would have done it from start, don't you agree?
See the flaws in your argument?
It constantly contradicts everything you say because the theology is flawed from it's core.
Any type of explanation you can come up with is self contradicting something since you are not thinking deeply enough.
You are thinking with what it should be(according to you) and not what the truth was likely to be.
You are trying to fit the evidence to your idea and not make up the idea from the current evidence.
You are pushed to the wall because I am asking the right questions.
I wish that you realize that there are questions you were thought to ignore or not think about by who thought(brainwashed) you this theology.
"your research in these cultures is as good as hearing it from the local priest." Dude, I am the local priest :)
See, I can read your source well :P
I was thought by priests in a church school once every week, I know what they were thought and what they were not thought.
Whoa. Slow down!
Animal sacrifice was familiar to them all. Human sacrifice was outlawed early on for God's people (I'll come back to that). A messiah who would die and then rise again was definitely not expected, but AFTERWARDS was explained sometimes using the terms of animal sacrifice.
No, Jesus' death is not God sacrificing himself to appease himself. It's not substitutionary atonement - Jesus sacrificing himself to save us all from God's wrath and the fires of eternal hell. Yes that is the gospel that is preached pretty much everywhere these days, but it wasn't the gospel of Jesus and his disciples. The "good news" they preached was in a nutshell: Jesus is Lord (adapted from the Roman "Caesar is Lord" - this is why they were persecuted). Why is Jesus Lord? Because he, who could have being living it up with all the riches of heaven, chose to humbly give up his life out of absolute love for the world, and that amazing act of pure love was more powerful than all the forces of evil and death. God could have obliterated the world to fix the problem of evil, but instead he showed us a completely different way - selfless love. You can never beat violence with more violence, only love. So Jesus beat death, and all authority and power in heaven and earth is now Jesus' - and that's ok because he's a totally loving, selfless and wise king. Exactly the kind of guy you'd want to rule.
I get that you don't believe that at all, but I'm just trying to explain what the gospel actually was for them.
Now, child sacrifice. In the laws of Israel: Leviticus 18:21 - "Do not permit any of your children to be offered as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not bring shame on the name of your God. I am the Lord." Sacrificing children was something that the surrounding nations did, but for this Israelites it was outlawed from the start, in very passionate words. Don't ever do that, said God. I hate that practice. Jeremiah 32:35 - "They have built pagan shrines to Baal in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, and there they sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech. I have never commanded such a horrible deed; it never even crossed my mind to command such a thing. What an incredible evil, causing Judah to sin so greatly!" This is repeated quite a few times throughout their history, and whenever this god Molech is mentioned it's usually "Molech, the detestable god of the Ammonites."
The Ezekiel passages you quoted express God's anger and frustration that even after all of these commands and warnings, the Israelites still carried on the detestable practices of the surrounding nations at certain places in their lands (generally on "high places" or hilltops). Read the whole story in Ezekiel 20 and you can see God's frustration. "I told you and told you and warned you and warned you, and I even tried threatening you and it didn't work. But you wouldn't listen, even after a thousand years, so I had to keep my promise and you suffered the consequences." Meaning, they lost their land and were taken into exile. But even after that outburst it still finishes with a message of hope and forgiveness. "One day I'll restore you again, and you'll see that my way [of life and love and nonviolence] really is the right way." That's where Jesus comes in.
"Why the hell did he need to wait 100 000 years to give us the simple way out? Why does he hate so much the people that lived through those 100 000 years? If he was omniscient and loved everybody the same then he would have done it from start, don't you agree?" I thought I answered this? Maybe it was somewhere else.
"but AFTERWARDS was explained sometimes using the terms of animal sacrifice."
You mean christian apologetic try to explain it using animal sacrifice as an example right?
No you are not making sens at all. if god didn't want human sacrifice, he just wouldn't use that method to show himself or spread his message.
He used it not because it was expected(you agree) or he wanted people to stop animal/human sacrifice(your original claim) but because there was a more logical meaning behind it.
Which I did explain already and you chose to ignore.
"You can never beat violence with more violence"
yea precisely what the Romans wanted people like you to think in that period, give the other cheek.
You would make a perfect slave Beneames :)
"God could have obliterated the world to fix the problem of evil, but instead he showed us a completely different way"
Do you really believe that the omnipotent god could not find any better way of solving the problem of evil?
I, a mere human, can find 1000's of other better ways of how to solve it rather then sending my own son to be crucified in a remote place that there are still people today(2000 years later) that haven't yet heard of him.
eg: reducing the evil in every person's hearth by 50% would do the trick.
geez , to see god as so pathetic to be that extremist?Like the flood?
I don't blame you for not being able to remove your bias in a serious discussion like this one.
"Read the whole story in Ezekiel 20 and you can see God's frustration."
Did you read the part where Yahweh ordered them to give him his first born so that he would smell their smoke?
Man seriously stop cherry picking.
You are quoting parts where clearly Yahweh had already left them and thus the leaders started inserting passages of hope in the old testament.
This is where they even started to cut parts of the Old testament(like the book: wars of Yahweh)
Those parts were added later, Yahweh was an asshole to be be remembered, he never forgave anything.
This is the right time to apply your idea of fiction in the bible.
Do you really believe that the asshole that had the death sentence as penalty for the commandments really had any type of mercy.
Or the asshole that didn't even want deformed or gay people near him but wanted them killed or exiled had any shame?
Or the asshole that ordered the Canaanite completely wiped out(including children) except of a few virgins has any kind of decency?
“Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God”(Deuteronomy 20:16–18, NASB).1
Man I am really tired of constantly have to point out your cherry picking parts that you like and claim fiction on the parts that you don't like.
"I thought I answered this?"
no you didn't you dodged it and changed the argument.
You either have a completely different Bible to me or you didn't read that Ezekiel 20 chapter.
"Do you really believe that the omnipotent god could not find any better way of solving the problem of evil? I, a mere human, can find 1000's of other better ways of how to solve it." Alright then, here's your chance. How would you bring peace to the middle east? That's only a tiny part of the world. Remember you can't change people's hearts without tampering with free will.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying about fiction. It's true fiction. It's important. I'm not getting rid of it. I didn't write the thing, I'm just trying to do my interpretation work with integrity. If it's fiction then you have to read it as fiction. You can't call it fact and then say it's dumb.
I did not say it was a fact, ever.
The new testament is a fraud that use the old testament to establish its authenticity.
The old testament is an unreliable history book that has been edited more then the new testament.
I have the right bible, you just didn't read or ignored the parts you don't like.
Yahweh did order the jew to give him their first born so he could smell their burnt internals.
Get that into your head please and don't say something like; "Yahweh did not like human sacrifice".
"How would you bring peace to the middle east?"
If I was the omnipotent god that can make a car with wheels and without wheels at the same point in time because he can do everything.
Well nothing more easy.
Remove their evil religion from their memories, Remove the evil part of their hearts while still let them keep their character and free will.
Thus they would understand one an other better and be more analytic to each other feelings.
Raise their intelligence if needed to understand the bigger picture and the common good.
I would do the same to Christians btw.
Abrahamic religion is evil in nature because it teaches to believe without doubt.(except for fiction parts)
Which is an evil way of thinking.
Changing people's minds or hearts without them being aware of it is not free will. That reeks of Nazism.
Nowhere in the Bible does God order the Jews to sacrifice their children. That was a practice of the OTHER surrounding nations. Over and over again the message from God is "Don't ever do that. I would never ask you to do that."
"Changing people's minds or hearts without them being aware of it is not free will."
Religion does it everyday man.
It makes perfectly sane people do incredibly evil things "without them being aware of it".
But since they think it is a good thing then they do not realize that it "reeks of Nazism."
Free will is an illusion in Christianity. it is a lie, it does not exist. They are chained like dogs to a pole in-front of the house they call the church.
They are defenders of those people that reap the money/fame of their investment. It is all about control and power.
Christianity is the first organised weapon of mass destruction we today call Mind Control Machine.
Hitler used it against the Jews, the Church supported him.(check history)
The emperor Constantine Flavius used it to control his empire under 1 banner.
The emperor Charlemagne copied Constantine and used it to control his empire under 1 banner.
"Nowhere in the Bible does God order the Jews to sacrifice their children."
Man I am starting to think that you cannot handle the truth at all.
“Consecrate every firstborn for me [Yahweh]. The first birth of every womb of the children of Israel, of a human and of an animal, is mine!” (Ex 13:2)
"And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying: “And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel in place of every firstborn, the first birth of the womb from the children of Israel. And the Levites shall be mine, because every firstborn is mine! In the day that I struck every firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated every firstborn in Israel to me, from human to animal. They shall be mine. I am Yahweh! (Num 3:11-13)."
15The first issue of the womb of all creatures, human and animal, which is offered to the LORD, shall be yours; but the firstborn of human beings you shall redeem, and the firstborn of unclean animals you shall redeem.
16Their redemption price, reckoned from one month of age, you shall fix at five shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary (that is, twenty gerahs).
17But the firstborn of a cow, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy. You shall dash their blood on the altar, and shall turn their fat into smoke as an offering by fire for a pleasing ODOR to the LORD; (Num. 18:15-17)
All that first opens the womb is mine, all your male livestock, the firstborn of cow and sheep.
20The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem. No one shall appear before me empty-handed. (Ex. 34:19-20)
This is what is written in the not exact/wrong interpretation of the bible, I won't bore you with what is actually written in the Leningrad codex. Trust me it is much worse then this.
"Don't ever do that. I would never ask you to do that."
Yes, as I explain, this was written well after Yahweh left the Jews. This is shown from the sudden change of character Yahweh had(kinder).
It is logical to assume that Yahweh left and the leaders wanted to keep control over the people by instigating a message of hope while abolishing their first born sacrifice to Yahweh.(since he left and did not deliver their promised land)
Else we are left with a contradiction in the old testament, which is clear that one of these is a lie. The probability is by far that the last one added is the lie and the first one is the most probable since it is the most cruel and unexpected for the Jews.
Considering what they wanted(not sacrificing their children) it is obvious which one of them is the lie.
Oh I see where you're getting that now. No, consecrating the firstborn humans doesn't mean killing them. It means dedicating them to God, so they can serve God. Like a priest or minister today. One of your texts above talks about the Levites being accepted instead of every firstborn. The Levites were one of the twelve tribes, and they were the people who kept the temple system going, which was also the centre of power and authority in the land (politics, legal system etc). They weren't all killed. They were like the council members, ministers, teachers, doctors, judges etc for the nation.
The firstborns of the animals were the food for the Levites and priests to eat, practically. And spiritually, they were a thank you for God's generosity or an apology (and immediate forgiveness) for doing the wrong thing.
Child sacrifice was outlawed in Israel, and was one of the things God was most pissed about throughout their history. The surrounding nations still carried on the awful practice, and sometimes the Israelites copied them, so God communicated his hatred of it many times.
Unbelievable
Giving their first born to god means that they were given as sacrifice.
This was a common thing to do in those times, all gods demanded it.
Yahweh was no exception but he hated that they do it to other gods too, he wanted all the smoke for himself.
God told Moses to sacrifice the first born of humans and animals to him.
1The Lord said to Moses:
2Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the Israelites, of human beings and animals, is mine. (Gen. 13:1-2)
The association of humans with animals makes it clear that these firstborn humans are not being baptized or inducted into the priesthood.
"The firstborns of the animals were the food for the Levites and priests to eat, practically. And spiritually, they were a thank you for God's generosity or an apology (and immediate forgiveness) for doing the wrong thing."
Completely invented, there is nowhere in those lines that suggests "forgiveness" or "food for the Levites". You are simply lying here.
Apart from that, why the hell does he need all those firstborns in his temple as priests? There isn't even enough room for them all.
It is just ridiculous, did you even think about how many people would be priests if that was the case.
Considering that "601,730 Israelites are found to be fit for military service" then Yahweh should have had 603,550 priests in the temple at any generation according to your absurd and ridiculous claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Numbers (Summary second line) 601,730 after the desert losses. They were sully more firstborns after that period then this. (assuming a first born per man fit for military service, I'm being generous since it is surly more)
See how Christianity makes you claim really stupid things.
"Child sacrifice was outlawed in Israel, and was one of the things God was most pissed about throughout their history."
Just so you get it into your head:
15When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from human firstborn to the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD every male that first opens the womb, but every firstborn of my sons I redeem. (Ex. 13:12-15)
Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD every male that first opens the womb
Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD every male that first opens the womb
Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD every male that first opens the womb
Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD every male that first opens the womb
Got it now? Yahweh demanded it. What he hated was when they do it to other gods or in the wrong way.
Nope. According to those verses (and you conveniently left out half of them) the firstborn animals were sacrificed and the firstborn sons were not. Instead the Levite tribe was chosen to serve God ("dedicated to the Lord's service" etc). The firstborn were not sacrificed, but on the contrary were given the largest share of the family inheritance.
The early chapters of Leviticus describe various offerings, including guilt offerings, sin offerings, peace offerings of thanksgiving and so on. Each time it states that portions of the offerings are for the priests, and sometimes the offerings are eaten (like a thanksgiving feast) by the people who brought them. All of this is very ancient stuff.
Yes there were thousands of Levites, and yes they weren't all working in the temple all the time. They worked on a rotating system for temple duties. But as I said, the Levites also had many other jobs, like council workers do today. Count up all the doctors, teachers, council workers, scholars, police and everyone in legal work in your city and you'll see that the Levites would have had a lot to do. The Levites were living amongst all the other tribes, serving them and dependent on their generosity. Eg. Deut 14:27-29 "And do not neglect the Levites in your town, for they will receive no allotment of land among you. At the end of every third year, bring the entire tithe of that year’s harvest and store it in the nearest town. Give it to the Levites, who will receive no allotment of land among you, as well as to the foreigners living among you, the orphans, and the widows in your towns, so they can eat and be satisfied. Then the Lord your God will bless you in all your work." Also Deut 18:1-5
You need to actually read the material if you're going to make judgments instead of taking random verses out of context. Where did you get these ideas from?
It's bizarre that we're getting picky about the Mosaic law because it's not the code I live by anyway. I follow Jesus, who changed everything.
You are making millions of claims and supporting none.
Where do the Levites mix with what Moses would sacrifice(the firstborns)?
Please quote not just claim things.
And yes we have many doctors, teachers etc.. but the firstborn were not given any of those position, they were not even made priests, Just quote where it says so and I will admit that you are right.
You just want it to be like that because you cannot accept the fact that they were sacrifices demanded by Yahweh.
I have supported my claims with quotes which you claim that they were out of context(like all Christians do), the problem is that you failed to provide the true context because you know that if you quote that paragraph or page you will be forced to conclude that none of your own context makes sens except mine.
There is no priests in that page, no first born becoming priest or anything. You just made that up and you know it.
So please stop insulting my inteligence, it is really frustrating to see a beutifull mind like yours be controled in such a way that it makes you support absurd claims.
Really, 1000's of priests is not 100's of 1000's, man come on.
You even try to make it sound less exaggerated, it won't work in a serious discussion.
Be mature and admit that no city-less group has 100's of 1000's of priests.
Levites were not the firstborn of the Jew. So you are completely wrong there, since I was just talking on the Jew's firstborn that Yahweh demanded and Moses obeyed.
"How would you bring peace to the middle east? That's only a tiny part of the world. Remember you can't change people's hearts without tampering with free will."
So you imply that this god character values free will. How about a little thought experiment? Suppose we set a value for each individual's free will. Let's say everyone's free will is has a value of 10 Will Points, and the total amount of human free can be derived by adding up Will Points for everybody on the planet. I don't know what Will Points are, but it doesn't matter. Maybe you can redeem them for cash prizes, small appliances, or elective surgery...
Anyway, scenario 1 is Jeff's proposal to "remove the evil part of their [evil people's] hearts" so that peace comes to the Middle East." If we assume that those who desire war and oppression in the Middle East are outnumbered by the everyday people who just want to live their lives in peace (and therefore have less evil to remove), then total Will Points lost would be mainly concentrated among the evil-doers, who are vastly outnumbered by their intended victims.
In scenario 2, Jeff's plan is not followed, so the free will of the evil-doers is preserved, but all the victims of their evil lose Will Points in the process of being oppressed, killed, mutilated, or otherwise impeded by having to live under the thumb of oppression.
Now add up the total Will Points in each scenario. If non-evil-doers are outnumbered, then the net total Will Points would be higher by removing the free will of evil-doers than it would have been without interference.
So, is free will really enhanced by non-interference? No, it is not. In fact, more people lose free will due to non-intervention than would lose free will under Jeff's plan. This suggests free will isn't valued as highly as you imply.
I understand that "Will Points" are fantasy provided only for explanatory value, but the point remains: If a small number of evil doers had their free will compromised, the number of people who would NOT have their free will removed by evil people would be far greater. Intervention would actually enhance free will for the greater number, which brings your premise into question.
Thanks for that philosophical journey S :)
I get what you're saying. People lose free will when they die. But in scenario 2 God keeps his promise (free will) and people get to decide what happens in the world - including sometimes deciding the fate of other people. Unfortunately this also includes evil-doers. This is scary, but it's a biblical idea. Genesis 1-2 communicate this message. God says "Here's the world, it's a gift, you're responsible for it. Please do a good job."
If we really do have the power to affect other people's lives (which we obviously do), it gives us a huge responsibility, and this is why we need to work hard for peace in the Middle East. And we need to create workable systems of justice, conflict resolution and peacekeeping. You would agree with this I think. Jesus said stuff like that too - "Blessed are the peacemakers" and so on.
How about this thought experiment:
I give my teenage son a BMX for Christmas. I give him instructions and tips on looking after it, and I hope he takes care of it well, but at the end of the day it's his bike, not mine. He might ride it, he might break it, he might leave it outside in the rain. Sure I'll be pissed if he stuffs it, but it's not really a gift if I don't let him have responsibility for it (eg. "You can use it, but only if I steer.").
God giving us the world is a massive display of his respect for humans. I don't think we've quite accepted that responsibility as a collective humanity yet.
I like the BMX comparison. Of course, all analogies are imperfect to some degree - otherwise, they'd just be descriptions.
I think it would be more realistic if you had included the part where you got your teenage son not just any BMX but the Zap-O-Matic 9000 model with a nifty "Rival BMX Remover Button" he can use to vaporize the BMX bikes of kids around the neighborhood.
It certainly is a massive display of respect for your son, but it's not respectful of the other kids.
If you pass out gifts, do you have a responsibility to consider the ability of the recipient to properly handle them? I can hand a second-grader a sub-machine gun and call it a respectful gift, but even a non-deity like me can figure out it's not a bright decision.
Unless god's really a prankster, and free will is a holy gag-gift, like an exploding cigar that comically takes your head clean off.
I liked your short analogy spewer, however I feel it was too kind and not so accurate to depict the real situation.
Though I grant, accuracy requires it to be more lengthy and maybe boring analogy.
The god that is taking care of us through our childhood and then gives us a toy, analogy, does not really represent what is going on here. We are dealing with a survival situation here.
My analogy would be more close to the truth, like this:
Max and Mary are the parents of 2 sons, Tom and Jessy
When Mary gives birth to Tom, Max decides to get rid of Tom and throws him in a skip.
Tom survives though his childhood without any parents though a natural selection process.(Tom saw a lot like him dying of hunger, etc..)
When Tom grew up to (20 years) though hard working and a lot of suffering, he got a job and his own rented apartment.
Then one day Max sends Tom's brother Jessy to greet Tom and orders him to dress like a vagabond during this meeting to appear as humble as possible and as a punishment to pay for Tom's current state.
This is their conversation:
Jessy: HI Tom, I am Your true brother and Max, your father, sent me as a display of his love to you.
Tom: WHAT!!!! I have a father? You are my brother?Where is Max? Can I see him?
Jessy: No, Max is currently enjoying himself in his own Private CONTINENT and does not deem you WORTHY of seeing his face, However he sent me to arrange an appointment.
Tom: What about Mum?
Jessy: Ahh yes Mom is a lovely person, you really need to meet her too, she is currently very happy living with dad in his private island in dad's continent.
Tom: WOW..... :s Appointment? BTW What happened, I was told that they found me in a SKIP!!
Jessy: Ahh, yes, MAX decided to give you the best gift of all that not even I(Jessy) was given.
Tom: Best Gift??
Jessy: Yes, he gave you the FREE WILL PACKAGE, which includes the ability to kill and be killed, to rape and be raped, etc...
Tom: why did he not give you this package?
Jessy: I wasn't so lucky, I am still doing his bidding right now. He also made me dress like a vagabond for 3 whole hours as punishment for your miserable state.
However don't be confused, I bring good news, here is a CONTRACT that you MUST agree with for the appointment that will happen in 50 years.
Tom: What? Contract? why should I fill a contract, for dad to meet with me?
Jessy: Yes, to be worthy to meet dad there are A FEW conditions;
You must think of MAX every Sunday and send him an email where you show your respect.
Also be respectful and expect no reply back.
Then with a smile give everything you own to the poor while also keep just 1 dollar so that you send that dollar to MAX by post every Sunday.
Max loves his children most (that were given the FREE WILL PACKAGE) when they give everything that they have and not from what they can spare.
Tom: I really don't think that meeting Max is a good thing for my future. What the?? I MUST accept this contract? Why?What about my FREE WILL PACKAGE?
Jessy: Ahh yes, it is written in very tiny letters in the contract (that you haven't singed yet) that if you don't sign it, Max will send your sister Lucy to torture you in Max's private dungeon for the rest of your life.
About your FREE WILL PACKAGE.... hmmm..... well you are free to choose to be tortured or sign the contract right?
Tom: OK..... :( you convinced me to sign the contract but... 50 years to meet Max? what if I die before that?
Jessy: Bother, HAVE FAITH!
Well,I need to be reborn in a nice spa pool as soon as possible and get those filthy clothes off me.
Sign here please since I have to catch my private Jet in 3 hrs for my private kingdom.
The end.
This is how I see the christian god except that the asshole(Max) didn't need to lie about being the actual father, even though he wasn't a real good father to Tom. In the story God is just lying about being anybody's father, even the way he treated his own claimed son Jesus shows this.
Hypocrisy is what drives Christians to defend such an evil being and unfortunately it makes them feel happy to favor evil over the truth.
"I feel it was too kind..."
Shhhh! They'll take away my Atheist card!
Thats brilliant.
Yep, that really was brilliant. You should tell more stories Jeff.
Not much of that was a rebuttal of what I believe though. You know I don't believe the Bible talks of eternal damnation, and the god in your story is a Deist one. But these are certainly things that many Christians believe, so I might steal your story to tell to them if that's ok. I think it shows the foolishness of those beliefs probably better than a lot of other stuff I've seen.
Pages