Philosophy Discussion Forums

Londoner wrote:You might say that the arrival of God's son on earth was 'fortunate' for mankind, but his crucifixion was not the equivalent of mankind finding a winning lottery ticket.

Clearly the benefits of the sacrifice fell upon some more than others. Spiritually it covered all, but materialistically it heaped it's rewards on the Catholic Church with more physical wealth than all the lottery wins combined.

Londoner wrote:Jesus was not killed by the disciples, nor was there the expectation that killing Jesus would please God.

No, but it was a self sacrifice and as Jesus thought he was the son of God and forgave us all our sins I'm guessing he had a pretty good idea it would please God.

enegue wrote:If you are somehow trying to draw a connection to the sacrifice of Jesus', can you tell me who slit Jesus' throat, who cut his body in pieces, who burned those pieces and who sprinkled his blood on the horns of the altar in Jerusalem?

Well that would have ruined the resurrection party trick and made the point of faking the crucifixion somewhat mute.

Mysterio448 - I agree totally. Don't let enegue throw you off with his claims that the parasite scum needed feeding because their continued existence was essential to the nation. Just remember that there will have been starving children who died at the same time as the priests were tucking into their sacrificial lamb.

Pastabake wrote:Just remember that there will have been starving children who died at the same time as the priests were tucking into their sacrificial lamb.

Well, if you take the time to look, you will see that God through his Law, made providion for the poor as well.

Cheers,
enegue

I'm more interested in reality than excuses. Historically priests and especially the Popes sole interest in the poor has been in their ability to provide the sacrifices necessary to affording them their indolent lifestyles.

Pastabake wrote:I'm more interested in reality than excuses. Historically priests and especially the Popes sole interest in the poor has been in their ability to provide the sacrifices necessary to affording them their indolent lifestyles.

You are bringing irrelevant, personal prejudices into the discussion, Pastabake. Please try to keep to the topic.

Cheers,
enegue

Unlike -

This bit of off topic irrelevance-

enegue wrote:Do you understand that the sacrificial system in Israel was the principle means by which the lives of the priests and all of their families, was sustained? If the people didn't bring the sacrifices then the priests would have to leave their duties to provide sustenance for the families, which would mean the whole system would fall in a heap.

followed by this attempt to manipulate the focus of the topic-

enegue wrote:I agree with your current position because it allows for a discussion of the importance of sacrifice as the means of sustaining the priesthood, and hence sustaining the nation.

So please lets keep on topic, which in case you've forgotten was:-

Mysterio448 wrote:My question is this: if you are a Christian, do you agree with the basic logic of sacrifice? The way I understand it, the very core of the Christian faith rests on this logic. If you do not agree with the logic of sacrifice, then how do you reconcile that with your Christian faith?

Your [enegue] argument is of course self serving and circular based as it is on some undefined assumption that the system and nation was inherently worth preserving. Something which I'm sure most people wouldn't say of the Aztec or Phoenician nations/culture.

Thanks for you thoughts Pastabake. I think I'll wait for Mysterio448 to speak for himself before I comment further. I don't want to his topic to be filled with irrelevant bickering.

Cheers,
enegue

enegue wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Do you understand that the sacrificial system in Israel was the principle means by which the lives of the priests and all of their families, was sustained? If the people didn't bring the sacrifices then the priests would have to leave their duties to provide sustenance for the families, which would mean the whole system would fall in a heap.

Are you suggesting other systems of sacrifice operated in this way?

Cheers,
enegue

I'm not really sure what your point is here. What does the economic mechanics of the rite of sacrifice have to do with anything?

Mysterio448 wrote:enegue said:
Do you understand that the sacrificial system in Israel was the principle means by which the lives of the priests and all of their families, was sustained? If the people didn't bring the sacrifices then the priests would have to leave their duties to provide sustenance for the families, which would mean the whole system would fall in a heap.

Are you suggesting other systems of sacrifice operated in this way?

I'm not really sure what your point is here. What does the economic mechanics of the rite of sacrifice have to do with anything?

It has to do with the need to broaden your understanding of sacrifice.

If it is valid for you to claim that the system that operated in Israel was no different from the ancient Phoenicians who burnt their children alive to appease the god Moloch, then it is valid for me to claim that YOU are incapable of discerning any difference between the life of an animal and the life of a child.

Is that a reasonable claim?

Cheers,
enegue

I understand that among other things, Christ's sacrifice put an end to the need for any further sacrifice. In fact you could make the argument that it put an end to 'religion' as it was formerly understood. Now of course we are so far in time from the cultures that practiced sacrifice we don't even understand it and have to have it explained, but I'm sure that was the significance in earlier times in history.

That's an interesting point Quotidian.

Do you think though that as it worked out what we ended up with was just a broadening of the franchise and a change in form?

From the personal act of the priest doing the killing to getting others to sacrifice themselves. You could make a long list of likely candidates from the Christians fed to the lions, to the Heretics and Gnostics slaughtered for refusing to recant their beliefs. To the Protestants and the Catholics during the English reformation (counter) period. Even the modern day suicide bombers are very much sacrifices.

Sacrifice was an absolutely universal feature of ancient societies. It is still practiced by Hindus, Muslims, and I think even some Jewish rituals involve sacrifice. It seems like, and may well be, something from another age of man, but that doesn't really say a lot. The needs that called it forth in the first place are deeply part of the human condition, I would say.

Anyway, my point was that Jesus' sacrifice was in some sense, the end of that whole phase of mankind. That's one reason, perhaps, why there are no sacrifices in Christianity (nor Buddhism, for different reasons).

But I don't go along with the idea that the sacrifice of Jesus is somehow on the same level as other instances of sacrifices.

The other thing that should be mentioned is that even though you might assume 'the Doctrine of Atonement' is normative for all Christians, it actually is much less part of Orthodox Christianity. I'm not an expert in that, but they do interpret it differently.

enegue wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

It has to do with the need to broaden your understanding of sacrifice.

If it is valid for you to claim that the system that operated in Israel was no different from the ancient Phoenicians who burnt their children alive to appease the god Moloch, then it is valid for me to claim that YOU are incapable of discerning any difference between the life of an animal and the life of a child.

Is that a reasonable claim?

Cheers,
enegue

It seems some poeple on this thread insist on skewing my words in order to dismiss the point I am trying to make. Yes, there is a manner in which the Israelite sacrifices and the other sacrifices are different. But there is also a manner in which they are the same thing: They both involve a non-rational link between cause and effect. Can you logically explain to me how burning one's own child to death will lead to a plentiful harvest or withhold the wrath of plague? Can you explain to me how removing a living person's heart affects the movements of the Earth with respect to the Sun? Can you explain how slaughtering an animal on an altar can undo the mistakes you've made in your life? This same non-rational cause-and-effect relationship is at the core of the Christian faith. With respect to Christianity and the other religions, I am not saying that the sacrifices are the same; I am saying that the logic underlying those sacrifaces is the same.

Mysterio448 wrote:It seems some poeple on this thread insist on skewing my words in order to dismiss the point I am trying to make.

I'm not skewing your words. I'm showing you an implication of your words that you haven't considered.

Mysterio448 wrote:Can you logically explain to me how burning one's own child to death will lead to a plentiful harvest or withhold the wrath of plague? Can you explain to me how removing a living person's heart affects the movements of the Earth with respect to the Sun?

No, I can't. However, such things were never ordained by the God of Israel.

Mysterio448 wrote:Can you explain how slaughtering an animal on an altar can undo the mistakes you've made in your life?

Well, no-one would even attempt to argue that the sacrifice of an animal could UNDO mistakes. That wasn't the purpose of the sacrificial system in Israel. Its purpose was to emphasise the COST of sin. The people in Israel were to offer costly things, like the BEST ox or the BEST sheep or an innocent creature like a dove. Why? So, the consequences of sin would be IN THE FACES OF THE SINNERS. So, THEY would choose to behave according to the principles of life they'd been given instead of sweeping their behaviour under the carpet and leaving future generations to deal with the consequences. It's about the SINNER paying the COST of his SIN.

Cheers,
enegue

"It's about the SINNER'S ABILITY TO pay the COST of his SIN."

There corrected it for you.

Pastabake wrote:"It's about the SINNER'S ABILITY TO pay the COST of his SIN."

There corrected it for you.

Sorry, Pasta. If you wish to start another topic to discuss this, by all means do. It is just a distraction in the current context, though.

Cheers,
enegue