Philosophy Discussion Forums

Oh I see anything that discredits your interpretation of things is a distraction ... well I can see how that works.

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

Can you answer a question for me: If the Hebrew practice of animal sacrifice was so special, then why is it that virtually every people and civilization in ancient times practiced animal sacrifice? Why couldn't the Hebrews invent a more original kind of symbolism for sin-atonement to accompany their lofty theological reasonings?

Mysterio448 wrote:Can you answer a question for me: If the Hebrew practice of animal sacrifice was so special, then why is it that virtually every people and civilization in ancient times practiced animal sacrifice? Why couldn't the Hebrews invent a more original kind of symbolism for sin-atonement to accompany their lofty theological reasonings?

I could suggest it's much like how a pagan day of celebration could be transformed into a Christian Holy Day. I could suggest that God originally introduced the principle of the sacrifice immediately after man was ejected from the Garden, but it had since been corrupted so badly that it needed a rebirth, which it got when the practice was formally codified by Moses.

The sustenance and maintenance of the priesthood is the principle feature of the sacrifice as it was given to Moses and as it has come to Christians in the sacrifice of Jesus. The ordinances regarding the priesthood established a protocol between Israel and God that put the maintenance of the relationship in the hands of the nation. If the nation wanted to remain connected to God, then they would do what was required, otherwise they wouldn't. The OT is filled with case studies of Israel's on and off relationship with God and in the middle of it all is the maintenance or the neglect of the sacrifice.

Jesus instituted the rite of the last supper, which fulfils the same purpose as the sacrificial system in Israel. Jesus' body sustains the priesthood and his blood makes the sacrifice acceptable. The spirit of every believer is a priest who takes the lamb at the door of the tabernacle as an offering of his mind as an atonement for the sins of his mind and body. The mind places its hand, as it were, upon its head of this lamb, and accepts reponsibility for the flaying of its flesh and the shedding of its blood as the necessary protocol that will maintain the life of the believer and his relationship with God. The maintenance of this relationship is always in the hands of the believer.

Can you see how special it is, now?

Cheers,
enegue

enegue wrote:
The sustenance and maintenance of the priesthood is the principle feature of the sacrifice as it was given to Moses and as it has come to Christians in the sacrifice of Jesus. The ordinances regarding the priesthood established a protocol between Israel and God that put the maintenance of the relationship in the hands of the nation. If the nation wanted to remain connected to God, then they would do what was required, otherwise they wouldn't. The OT is filled with case studies of Israel's on and off relationship with God and in the middle of it all is the maintenance or the neglect of the sacrifice.

Jesus instituted the rite of the last supper, which fulfils the same purpose as the sacrificial system in Israel. Jesus' body sustains the priesthood and his blood makes the sacrifice acceptable. The spirit of every believer is a priest who takes the lamb at the door of the tabernacle as an offering of his mind as an atonement for the sins of his mind and body. The mind places its hand, as it were, upon its head of this lamb, and accepts reponsibility for the flaying of its flesh and the shedding of its blood as the necessary protocol that will maintain the life of the believer and his relationship with God. The maintenance of this relationship is always in the hands of the believer.

Can you see how special it is, now?

Cheers,
enegue

So the priesthood existed to perform sacrifices and sacrifice existed to sustain the priesthood. So basically the whole system was one big, pointless cycle to perform the exact same ritual that every other ancient people performed, only with a fancy interpretation. I think I see how it's special.

Mysterio448 wrote:So the priesthood existed to perform sacrifices and sacrifice existed to sustain the priesthood.

No. You are over simplifying by taking what I said in my last post as if that was all I said. I guess you have your reasons for wanting to do that.

Nevertheless, I said back here, prior to what you have quoted above:
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.

So, the purpose of the sacrificial system in Israel, was to keep the cost of sin in the forefront of the nation's thinking, in order that they would choose to live according to God's principles. Every deviation from God's principles sets in motion a chain of discontent that eventually manifests itself in the lives of subsequent generations. For the system to work, the people of each generation must be willing to own the cost of THEIR sin, which they do by participating in the sacrificial system.

Central to this is the priesthood, which is sustained by the sacrifices. As soon as the people stop owning their sin, they opt out of the system and cease bringing their sacrifices. The priesthood then have to leave their duties to attend to providing for their families. The Temple is no longer maintained and falls into disrepair. This signals the surrounding nations that God is no longer "alive" in Israel, which emboldens them to want to overthrow the nation and destroy the things of God, or take them away as trophies and spoils. This scenario is played out a number times in the OT narrative.

Mysterio448 wrote:So basically the whole system was one big, pointless cycle to perform the exact same ritual that every other ancient people performed, only with a fancy interpretation. I think I see how it's special.

No. I guess you probably don't see it, but you now have no excuse for believing your OP is a reasonable proposition.

My guess is that you are a child of a Christian family and your mind is not presenting the Sacrifice to your spirit at the door of the Temple. Maybe you did this at one time, but you have since decided it's too costly and you have opted out of the system. Your spirit wanting for sustenance has left the duties of the Temple, which is currently in a state of disrepair. Foreign philosophies have pillaged the things of God and have taken them as trophies and spoils.

I pray that your eyes will be opened to your current state, so you will see what has happened and want to return to God.

Cheers,
enegue

A state law says that if the ants trying to hurt, they shall be removed/killed. Yet another state law says that if a human would like to make a self-sacrifice, say make a cut in his own leg, he can legitimately save the ants from being killed. That's a close analogy.

God's self-sacrifice can save man, legitimately and by God's Law.

Hawkins wrote: God's self-sacrifice can save man, legitimately and by God's Law.

How did God's self-sacrifice save man? Save man from what? If the kind of "sacrifice" you're talking about is sacrifice in the sense of self-deprivation for the sake of directly effecting someone's well-being, you will have to be more specific as to how God achieved this. After all, it's not like God literally took a bullet for you, or anything that concrete. On the other hand, if you mean "sacrifice" in the sense of a ritual sacrifice, then you should explain why the almighty God would succumb to performing such a savage and irrational ritual, apparently rendering him no more sophisticated than the most backwards primitive tribes of man.

The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was a voluntary sacrifice, and since Jesus is the son of God this meant that it was a personal sacrifice for God Himself. So it was an act which brought man and God closer together thru shared suffering and grief.

Also, it was a way for God to bear the punishment for sin on our behalf. Sin must be punished. Thru the crucifixion, God bears the load for us.

Mysterio448 wrote: How did God's self-sacrifice save man? Save man from what?

From death!! 'So that you might have life eternal'.

I am not saying that you have to believe this but those who do believe, believe that this is what is at stake.

Quotidian wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


From death!! 'So that you might have life eternal'.

I am not saying that you have to believe this but those who do believe, believe that this is what is at stake. I suppose from your viewpoint it's like a game, because you don't actually consider that those whom you are talking about really do believe this.

I'm curious as to why I haven't heard any Christians on this thread give me a straight answer as to whether they believe in the logic of ritual sacrifice. I'm also waiting for an explanation to why God's chosen people were commanded to atone for their sins by performing what was essentially the same savage ritual that everyone else practiced at the time.

Quotidian wrote:From death!! 'So that you might have life eternal'.

I am not saying that you have to believe this but those who do believe, believe that this is what is at stake.

But much more than that, to save man from captivity to his flesh. The Gospel message is about freedom here and now from man's natural inclination to unruly and destructive behaviour that causes death. Eternal life is a peripheral benefit.

How did Jesus answer the rich young man's question about eternal life?

Cheers,
enegue

-- Updated Sat Nov 02, 2013 7:29 am to add the following --

Mysterio448 wrote:I'm curious as to why I haven't heard any Christians on this thread give me a straight answer as to whether they believe in the logic of ritual sacrifice. I'm also waiting for an explanation to why God's chosen people were commanded to atone for their sins by performing what was essentially the same savage ritual that everyone else practiced at the time.

If YOU believe the sacrifice of animals in the system that operated in Israel is the same as the sacrifice of children that operated in the Phonetician system, then you are giving cause for people to believe that YOU can't discern any difference between the life of an animal and the life of a child.

Why doesn't that appear to you as a straight answer?

Cheers,
enegue

Mysterio448,

How did God's self-sacrifice save man? Save man from what? If the kind of "sacrifice" you're talking about is sacrifice in the sense of self-deprivation for the sake of directly effecting someone's well-being, you will have to be more specific as to how God achieved this. After all, it's not like God literally took a bullet for you, or anything that concrete. On the other hand, if you mean "sacrifice" in the sense of a ritual sacrifice, then you should explain why the almighty God would succumb to performing such a savage and irrational ritual, apparently rendering him no more sophisticated than the most backwards primitive tribes of man.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

John 3:16 clearly states the reason for Jesus' (the son's) self-sacrifice. What he saved man kind from, was the debt of sin owed to his father (God), of which the justified punishment by God's law was death. Jesus' sacrifice, also opened a path for mankind to be reconciled to God, by believing and trusting (having faith) that he was the son of God, and behaving according to that trust and belief. His death acted both as a punishment and dispensation for sin. Thus, he did take “take a bullet” for us, the wrath of his father and condemnation of people, when he himself was innocent, hence the moniker of him being a sacrificial lamb. According to God's judgement, being a God of justice, the penalty for mankind's sin was death, therefore, the punishment that had to be metered out was death, so Jesus, paid the price of death, instead of mankind paying the price of death. It is not such a ritual, more a celestial legal system, which was put in place for mankind's benefit. The suffering and gruesome death of Jesus was directly carried out by people, and demonstrates two things: 1. how barbaric mankind can be to do what they did to Jesus, who was an innocent man, because the powerful and influential religious order of that time were sore jealous of him. 2. How merciful God is to allow his son to be tortured and killed in such a heinous way, by mankind, so that we could not only be forgiven of our sins, but also have a path to him. If we don't believe in Jesus, we are judged on the basis of our own sins, because we do not have the atonement which belief in him provides.

You don't appear to have a spiritual / celestial education, therefore you don't have a spiritual / celestial understanding. There is great sophistication in the sacrifice of Christ, not only in what I have already explained here, but you have to think that at the time when Jesus was on earth, only the Jews had the Old Testament law of God, the rest of the world had no such luxury of knowing how to obey God, in order to receive celestial rewards and benefits. What Jesus' sacrifice did, was to make God accessible to the gentiles or the rest of the world, in a way that could be easily understood, intoned and verified, by the teachings, experiences and miracles which his apostles wrought. Hence the concepts of Christianity and faith grew, developed and caused people of all races to be reconciled to God, and brought out of the net of sin. Also, the method of salvation through Christ, is not only horizontal in terms of spreading to different races of people, it works vertically as well because it has gone through time. 2000 years later, and people are still being reconciled to God through faith in Jesus Christ, and who knows how much longer it will continue? If you don't see any sophisticated thought, methodology or foresight in that, then I don't know where you will? I don't think that the primitive tribes of men could of conceived of such a complex system.

I'm curious as to why I haven't heard any Christians on this thread give me a straight answer as to whether they believe in the logic of ritual sacrifice. I'm also waiting for an explanation to why God's chosen people were commanded to atone for their sins by performing what was essentially the same savage ritual that everyone else practiced at the time.

I wouldn't call myself an orthodox Christian, as there are religious aspects, ideas and ideologies of Christianity that I disagree with, but I am certainly a theist, who believes in the God of the Bible. I hope that I have given you a straight-answer pertaining to the logic of Jesus' sacrifice. I tend to think that you're looking at sacrifice in an archaic way. It was a ritual (Jesus' sacrifice being the last), but it was also judicial system of placing your sins, upon something innocent, in order to be forgiven for your sins and not face punishment. The death of the innocent animal or Jesus, is a transferral of the consequences of the sin committed by the person; to the animal or Jesus, so that the person who committed the sin and / or those who the sin would have effected, are no longer subject the consequences that sin. I think that this explanation, also explains why God's chosen people were instructed by God to sacrifice animals. What does your point about “everyone else” performing ritual sacrifice of animals pertain to?

Exactly what was God's self sacrifice?

God being omnipotent knew exactly what was going to happen. Hardly what one can call a legitimate sacrifice ... more like part of his plan.

By being negligent he allowed the snake into the garden ... so everything that follows is Gods fault. The sacrifice of Jesus should be seen more as an attempt by God to atone for his earlier failure and the subsequent mess ups ... like the Genocide of the flood etc.

enegue wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

But much more than that, to save man from captivity to his flesh. The Gospel message is about freedom here and now from man's natural inclination to unruly and destructive behaviour that causes death. Eternal life is a peripheral benefit.

How did Jesus answer the rich young man's question about eternal life?

Cheers,
enegue

-- Updated Sat Nov 02, 2013 7:29 am to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)

If YOU believe the sacrifice of animals in the system that operated in Israel is the same as the sacrifice of children that operated in the Phonetician system, then you are giving cause for people to believe that YOU can't discern any difference between the life of an animal and the life of a child.

Why doesn't that appear to you as a straight answer?

Cheers,
enegue

After reading the comments, it's my understanding that you Christians admit that the act of ritual sacrifice is superficially similar to other heathen examples of animal sacrifice, but there is a theological basis to the Jewish sacrifice that, despite all appearances, sets it apart as uniquely rational. I hope I'm understanding you correctly.

Now, asking me whether I can discern between the life of an animal and child is an attempt to confuse the issue. The topic of this thread is not "Christianity and the ethics of sacrifice"; the topic of this thread is "Christianity and the logic of sacrifice." From that standpoint the answer is in fact yes, Jewish animal sacrifice and Phoenician child sacrifice are one and the same. Let's take ethics out of the equation for a moment; if you applaud God's decision to perform a ritual sacrifice on his son, why do you not applaud the Phoenician parents for likewise sacrificing their sons and daughters? Are they not praiseworthy for making such a choice in their service of their god? Aren't they at least as faithful as Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, whereafter God blessed him for it? If you find any sacrifice of one's child to be deplorable, I think God's sacrifice of Jesus is worst of all, since God is the one who makes all the rules -- he is the one who refused to forgive us freely; he is the one who demanded blood sacrifice in the first place. God himself created the circumstances that led to him sacrificing his son -- therefore his murder of Jesus is far worse than that of the Phoenician parents.

Furthermore, I think there is one simple point that we are neglecting to consider here. It is my understanding that a ritual sacrifice involves three parties: the person(s) performing the sacrifice, the victim of the sacrifice and the recipient of the sacrifice. In the case of Jewish animal sacrifice, the performer of the sacrifice was the worshipper, the victim of the sacrifice was the animal the worshipper had chosen, and the recipient of the sacrifice was God. Now lets turn to God's sacrifice: God himself was the performer, Jesus was the victim, but who was the recipient? Whom exactly was God sacrificing Jesus to? Himself? That's kind of odd, isn't it? -- a deity making a sacrifice to himself. Does God pray to himself also?

When man sins against God, it is like we owe him a debt. To give an analogy, say you owe me $1,000 but you are unable to pay the debt. Since I'm so generous I decide to completely, gratuitously forgive you of the debt. But I can't just simply forgive. First, I have to go to my bank and withdraw $1,000 from my account, and then I take the $1,000 and deposit it back into my account. Thus I, in my infinite mercy, have forgiven you. That is essentially the same thing God did. Does that sound sensible to you?

I think your question is an important one.

However, as is always the case, there are more ways than one to approach understanding of things--to one conclusion or another that makes the most sense to oneself.

While I have no final conclusion on the theory of sacrifice (and could not any justice to such a theory in an internet thread), I do find the following progression interesting:

Human beings are sacrificing their children to gods, which gods are frequently animalistic (i.e. head of a jackal, etc).

God (or 'God?') teaches these human beings to forebear sacrificing their children and adjust their paradigm a tich so that they sacrifice animals to one God (a somewhat anthropomorphic god). The kids are safe now!!

God (or 'God?') then adjusts the paradigm further to present the image of God himself (Jesus incarnate) as the only sacrifice (the only one having to suffer like that--i.e. I'll do it, if you people will just stop killing each other and all life), once and last time, and then PLEASE NO MORE SACRIFICES, PLEASE (cries the universe). (Whether or not the sacrifice of Lamb actually happened may not matter as long as we believe it does and can be satisfied with that last one!) Even the animals are safe now!

So I think it is not God who is in need of satisfaction and satiation--it is our need for murder as human beings that God has been appeasing and readjusting over the ages.

Anyway, I don't say these things as the final word or theory on the matter, and I'm sure it can be shot full of holes, but it is something I find compelling and continue to think through.

-- Updated November 2nd, 2013, 8:33 pm to add the following --

[quote="enegue"]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. [/i]


I like this. I shall think on this more. Coming to the knowledge of how precious the life is that we lose when we harm and deceive and oppress (=sins) other human beings that we are meant to live with in community and love.

-- Updated November 2nd, 2013, 8:53 pm to add the following --

Thinking on this more and what I hope I understood the OP to mean:

If you kill [fill in the blank], you will get [fill in the blank, some kind of good]. Either as an exchange, or some kind of mechanistic cause-and-effect.

Ok, this IS one way that people think about sacrifice. And I myself find it illogical as well.

It is not the only way to think about the image of sacrifice or of atonement.

For example, when I think of Christ, I don't think about Jesus, the individual. I think of this as a pattern or template or image to understanding ALL the innocent on this planet. All the innocent that DO get sacrificed every day. Thus sacrifice is no ritual--it's the actual life that people actually have to live. Girls that get sold by their fathers to older men in order to feed the rest of the family. Young men in countries, lost boys, who have no economic prospects in the third world consequences of the global capitalist machine. Children who are turned into soldiers in Africa. etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. These are the extreme cases. But it happens in everyone's life. For example, my son who is in third grade who can't really get more than a "C" on his spelling tests--he is at the mercy of a school system that does not allow for his real learning needs. Just C, C , C, stamped over and over on his psyche. He has been *sacrificed* in the name of some illusory human big pretend that we made up and say that is important and that we are all trapped in (school system). I just chose this example because I wanted a daily one, and we all have these subtle, invasive experiences of sacrifice.

We are the crucified (innocent); and we are the crucifiers (those who harm, pretend, deceive, forget, etc etc). We are both. This is our lives all of the time. It is no ritual. It is reality.

What the ritual (when done as a ritual) did and the image of Christ (replacing the kinetic ritual) can provide is SIGHT (understanding) into the REALITY. So the ritual cannot save and never would, not even the image of Christ, unless we understand it for what it is--it is US. The only way to be 'saved' is by withdrawing from the game of being crucifiers. It's possible, at least by degrees, although it can take a lifetime to learn to become a harmless human being who is unwilling to sacrifice the lives of others--because we are weak, and crucified, and by the time we are adults have been harmed many times over. It has to be a deliberate choice.

The value of a ritual is its revelation of reality and of our opportunity to do our human work in reality--the work is not in the ritual, it is in the reality.

The ritual is a way of learning and of being in kindergarten, spiritually speaking, until we are ready for PhD.