Fanman wrote:Mysterio448,
(Nested quote removed.)
Hmm okay, let us review what I stated:
(Nested quote removed.)
I don't think that it is possible for me to have an objective standard or point of reference to judge a sacrifice by, because the basis of my opinions and standards is subjectivity, but if I attempted to do as you ask, I would insist that no human beings were sacrificed, and upon certain animals to be sacrificed, which were not exotic, easily obtainable, not at risk of becoming an endangered species and easy to kill. The quality of the animal would depend upon what it was fed, its age (that it had the chance to experience some life), that it was physically clean and unblemished. In regards to your comparison of one sacrifice to another, you can gather the answer to this question from what I've stated above, in that a poor quality or wrong (morally and actually) sacrifice, so to speak, would be the opposite of everything that I stated. As to your final premise, it is difficult, because it assumes that God exists and that gods exist also. However, according to the Bible, only one God exists, you are arguing from a Biblical perspective, therefore you cannot bring other gods into the equation without your argument becoming nonsensical and breaking-down. You might not feel that specifics / preparations are relevant, but do you not see the fundamental difference between sacrificing human-beings and sacrificing certain types of animals?
You mentioned that an objective standard of quality for a sacrifice is the usage of animals that are not exotic, easily attainable, not an endangered species, and easy to kill. While these factors may be meaningful in an environmental sense, I still don't understand how these factors are related to the overall logic of the act of sacrifice. Say I owe a debtor some money and I can't come up with the money. Instead of paying money, I decide to sacrifice my dog. My dog is a common breed so is not exotic, it is easily attainable, not endangered and is relatively easy to kill. Furthermore, my dog is very dear to me and sacrificing it will not be an easy thing to do (much like God's sacrificing Jesus). So I take my dog upon the altar, slit its throat so that the blood gushes out, I smear the blood upon the horns of the altar and pour the rest of my dog's blood at the bottom of the altar, then I remove all the fat from my dog's body and burn it on the altar, then I burn the rest of my dog's flesh. Would you say that my debtor should accept my sacrifice? Should my debt be absolved? Does this logic make sense to you? If not, then why did it make sense when the Jews did it?
You said that you didn't claim the Jewish animal sacrifice was superior to the Gentile sacrifice, but isn't that kind of a self-contradiction? I mean, if the Jewish sacrifices were not superior to others then what's the point of you praising them the way you do? Isn't that kind of the whole point of this thread? Jesus' crucifixion was significant only inasmuch as the Jewish sacrifice ritual was significant. Otherwise Jesus' crucifixion was no more special than any of the other thousands of unfortunate souls who were crucified by the Romans. It seems to me that if you cannot propose an objective means to prove the superiority of Jewish animal sacrifice, then the fundamental logic of Christianity is suspect.
You say that these are spiritual matters, and I as a godless atheist cannot understand spiritual matters. What do you mean by that? What does "spiritual" mean? Can you provide a meaningful, unambiguous definition of that term? If you cannot, then I would suggest that you leave that term out of this discussion since it only confuses the issue. After reading your comments so far, I interpret the word, as you use it, to just be a clever euphemism for "pointless." To see what I mean, try reading through the following quote while replacing each instance of the word "spiritual" or "celestial" with the word "pointless":
Well you're entitled to you opinions, but you are again superimposing a terrestrial event upon a celestial one, by means of analogy, which does in my opinion, demonstrate a lack of spiritual understanding. If I can perform the mundane task you stipulate, it does not, to my knowledge, have any spiritual implications; whereas sacrificing an innocent life, in order for it to absorb the consequences of one's sins, is huge spiritually. I don't observe any mysteries in the ritual of sacrifice, it is a spiritual transaction. Again, if you don't believe that the ritual has any intrinsic and practical value that's up to you. However, being of a religious ilk, I would argue that the sacrificial protocols are important, because they constitute the nature of the sacrifice, therefore comparison is not pointless.
I can't help but see a certain circular-ness about all this sacrifice business. Jesus' sacrifice did not save you from any kind of imminent danger outside of the wrath of God himself. Mankind is essentially only in danger from God's unshakeable sense of justice; we are born in sin and "the wages of sin is death." But the perfect jurisprudence of God is called into question when you realize that he is basically angry with us because two people ate a piece of fruit thousands of years before we were even born. Does that sound fair to you? Should I demand that you be locked up in prison for all the rapes that Genghis Khan committed against innocent women? The way I see it, your salvation as a Christian is a symbolic consequence of Jesus' sacrifice which was a symbolic imitation of a symbolic ritual that symbolically atones for a symbolic guilt. Am I wrong in this assessment?
- By Sy Borg
- By Good_Egg