Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sacrifice can mean one of two things.

The sacrifice that promotes or tries to promote the greater good is exemplified by the sacrifice of Jesus . However, one can view this sort of sacrifice every day in the lives of ordinary people.

The sacrifice that attempts to force fate to recompense for loss is superstition . This self-seeking also can be seen in the lives of ordinary people.

The key is the greater good, i.e. God

Mysterio448 wrote:Jesus' sacrifice did not save you from any kind of imminent danger outside of the wrath of God himself.

Well, other things have been mentioned, but you are not taking any of them in. Jesus, as the sacrifice that a believer offers up to God, focusses the attention of the believer on the cost of his sin. What sin? Actions contrary to God's principles of life. Each of those actions, if not addressed in the prescribed way, will set in motion a chain of increasing discontent that will impact on successive generations.

What do I mean by the prescribed way?
And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.

It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly trespassed against the LORD.
-- Leviticus 5:17-19

Herein lies the mystery of God. In the economy of God, the SINNER must bear the COST of his SIN. The sacrifice doesn't undo the sin, but it signals to God that the sinner wants Him to intervene in such a way as to prevent the chain of consequence that would otherwise be set in motion by the sin.

If we look at the life of St Paul: even though he believed he was doing the work of God by chasing down and imprisoning the followers of Jesus, he discovered to his horror that he was in fact working against Him. HE had to pay the price of his sin in order to prevent it from setting in motion a chain of consequence that would be felt for generations after him. His sin was great, as he admitted
And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

What did God require of St Paul in order to prevent the chain of consequence that would have otherwise been set in motion by his sin?
Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool ) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.

The SINNER will bear the cost of his SIN.

The sacrifice of Jesus as the Lamb that is offered up, doesn't undo sin or excuse sin, it simply indicates to God a willingness to allow Him to guide the believer towards the necessary acts that will prevent the chain of consequence his sin from being set in motion.

Future generations are SAVED from the consequences of MY sin by this process. This is what the sacrifice of Jesus achieved.

Cheers,
enegue

-- Updated Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:16 pm to add the following --

Belinda wrote:Sacrifice can mean one of two things.

The sacrifice that promotes or tries to promote the greater good is exemplified by the sacrifice of Jesus . However, one can view this sort of sacrifice every day in the lives of ordinary people.

The sacrifice that attempts to force fate to recompense for loss is superstition . This self-seeking also can be seen in the lives of ordinary people.

The key is the greater good, i.e. God

Thanks, Belinda. As always, your observation of significant things is greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
enegue

Mysterio448 wrote:The idea that Jesus died for our sins is at the core of the Christian faith. However, it seems that many people don't think much about what the phrase really means. In the Bible, Jesus is sometimes referred to as "the Lamb," referring to the Old Testament practice of sacrificing a lamb for the atonement of sin. The idea is that Jesus himself was essentially the ultimate sacrifice, whose suffering and death atoned for the sins of all mankind. For anyone remotely familiar with Christian theology, this idea is so familiar that we fail to acknowledge one very simple implication of it: the significance of Jesus' crucifixion emanates from the presupposition of the validity of sacrifice. In other words, in order to be a true Christian you must believe in the idea that the destruction of one being can directly precipitate good fortune upon another being. Therefore, if you are a Christian, when you hear about how the ancient Phoenicians would have their children burnt alive to appease the god Moloch or how the Aztecs would carve out the hearts of living victims so that the sun could rise, while being disgusted at these acts and their inherent cruelty, you must still at least be able to sympathize with the fundamental logic of them.

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?

Well I think the basic engine that runs Christianity is the concept that if you do something wrong you must die. I think this idea came about by people killing each other when something bad happened.

But I think you're right pretty much.

The reason it get's confusing and Christians don't agree that they accept this is because while they accept it by precept they are unable to make it a personal reality.

The concept that young Children are covered by grace or have not reached the age of accountability (when the bible doesn't teach this directly) is a product of them not being able to make it personally real. The reason they witness and try to prevent these deaths is another by product of them not being able to make it personally real. They accept that it's in the rules but their witnessing and faith that god saves them is a means of not having to really believe it, that it's true or that it happens. That it will never be real, for them. They say god used these sacrifices and destroys people but everything they do says he can't and that he shouldn't and so he won't, so it won't ever be real in their lives.

OntheHorizon wrote:Well I think the basic engine that runs Christianity is the concept that if you do something wrong you must die.

Not at all, OTH. If you are truly convinced you've done something wrong, you will look for a way to fix it. God has given us a way to fix the wrong things we do, so their impact on future generations can be averted. But the cost of doing so will be required of the person who perpetrated the wrong.

What is necessary from a person, do you think, to acknowlege that they have done something wrong?

Cheers,
enegue

enegue wrote: Not at all, OTH. If you are truly convinced you've done something wrong, you will look for a way to fix it. God has given us a way to fix the wrong things we do, so their impact on future generations can be averted. But the cost of doing so will be required of the person who perpetrated the wrong.

What is necessary from a person, do you think, to acknowlege that they have done something wrong?

Cheers,
enegue

Enegue, people die all the time while in the process of doing something wrong, how do they fix their wrong doing? Just like one who is murdered cannot forgive their murderer, not all wrong doing can be fixed by the wrongdoer. How does a rapist or murderer fix their crime? They cannot undo it.

enegue wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Not at all, OTH. If you are truly convinced you've done something wrong, you will look for a way to fix it. God has given us a way to fix the wrong things we do, so their impact on future generations can be averted. But the cost of doing so will be required of the person who perpetrated the wrong.

What is necessary from a person, do you think, to acknowlege that they have done something wrong?

Cheers,
enegue

You haven't provided anything that disagrees with what I said, you haven't even tried to disagree with what I said. What you did is respond negatively to my not liking the bible, in a completely non-relevant manner.

What you have provided is that yes something must be done. While it is the clear that in the bible, god's decision was death, then in the NT he goes and tries to keep himself from doing it, though failing almost entirely to keep himself from following his own rule.

You are asking me tell why the bible's position is unreasonable, not arguing that it doesn't posit that if you do something wrong you must die.

"The wages of sin is death" Paul

To respond to you - what Jesus does to people who have sinned/done wrong, does not have any influence on the situations those wrongs caused.

-- Updated November 11th, 2013, 3:41 am to add the following --

enegue

You also need to remember that the bible god killed people for things like trying to keep his box from falling over, he killed children for laughing at old men, he had homosexuals murdered, witches murdered, people who wouldn't kill them murdered, etc... death was his solution to everything. It had nothing to do with righting wrongs or correcting bad situations. If the nation sinned he'd send snakes to bite them and they'd die, if the nation sinned he'd open up the ground and crush them under tons of rocks, if a man in the camp sinned lots of them would die in their next battle. It goes on and one day the angels will gather everyone up and the people who aren't born again will cast into a furnace where they will cry and scream forever. If the Pharaoh didn't let his nation go he'd kill countless children in one night, unless you killed* animals and rubbed blood* across your door. Jesus has to die, his blood* was the solution to everything, but god's rules still ensured that most people would still die and the blood would never stop flowing. God still get's his valleys filled with blood in the battle of Armageddon.

He's a death god.

enegue wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Not at all, OTH. If you are truly convinced you've done something wrong, you will look for a way to fix it. God has given us a way to fix the wrong things we do, so their impact on future generations can be averted. But the cost of doing so will be required of the person who perpetrated the wrong.

What is necessary from a person, do you think, to acknowlege that they have done something wrong?

Cheers,
enegue

What if one lacks the ability to understand what they have done as being "wrong"? Can a person who spends the totality of their life in a desert, for instance, alone away from all human contact from birth to death, find God by himself/herself? Why or why not? God has given us a way to fix the wrong things we do? Why and how do humans do wrong things if we are created by God? Why does God sometimes allow those individuals whom lack the ability to empathize and sympathize with others to manifest into existence?

What is necessary from a person to acknowledge that they have done something wrong? To me, it is the (negative) meaning that humans attach to certain words that the said humans then use to label the actions of adolescents and small children with in a recurrent fashion while the children are growing up and are most susceptible to fallacy. The small children and adolescents then associate the actions as being indicative of something "negative," which results in the children's sense of "shame," which then results in their sense of "guilt." It's all in their head; also keep in mind that this all assumes that the child is born with the God-given ability to "acknowledge that they have done something wrong."

I certainly do not think God is necessary to acknowledge one has done something wrong. To me, I should not have to communicate with OTHER people to find God... Otherwise, it merely leads me to concluding that God NEEDS to work through people to communicate with me and "save my soul."

OntheHorizon wrote:You haven't provided anything that disagrees with what I said, you haven't even tried to disagree with what I said. What you did is respond negatively to my not liking the bible, in a completely non-relevant manner.

You said:
the basic engine that runs Christianity is the concept that if you do something wrong you must die

I said:
If you are truly convinced you've done something wrong, you will look for a way to fix it.

That is a disagreement, OTH. You have people dying because they do something wrong, and I have people looking for ways to fix things because they realise they have done something wrong.

Can you see now that we disagree?

What sort of wrong things were you referring to?

Misty wrote:Enegue, people die all the time while in the process of doing something wrong, how do they fix their wrong doing? Just like one who is murdered cannot forgive their murderer, not all wrong doing can be fixed by the wrongdoer. How does a rapist or murderer fix their crime? They cannot undo it.

Clearly, Misty, I could only have been referring to people who are alive. You can make the necessary assumptions about the context. I know you can.

As to your other point. If you read my words again, you will see I said:
God has given us a way to fix the wrong things we do, so their impact on future generations can be averted.

This means for a rapist or a murderer, firstly they will have to endure whatever punishment the state metes out, and secondly, if they turn to God in the prescribed way, then He can guide them towards the necessary things they must do to prevent the butterfly effect chain of consequence that would otherwise impact on future generations - family of rape victim/family of rapist, etc.

Please don't ask what that might entail, Misty. I'm not God. The best I can do is give you an illustration of what I mean, which I have already done, using the life of St Paul.

Cheers,
enegue

Enegue

I didn't say we didn't disagree... I said you didn't disagree with what I said. I made a claim about what the bible teaches, you responded with "not at all" and you did not present any argument that what I said the bible teaches is not what it teaches. You simply tried to say what it teaches is true or reasonable.

You did not disagree with what I said.

OntheHorizon wrote:Enegue

I didn't say we didn't disagree... I said you didn't disagree with what I said. I made a claim about what the bible teaches, you responded with "not at all" and you did not present any argument that what I said the bible teaches is not what it teaches. You simply tried to say what it teaches is true or reasonable.

You did not disagree with what I said.

If you say too many things at once, then discussion becomes difficult, particularly if other things you say are based on the first thing you say. Your post said too many things, so I took the first thing you said and addressed it.

We disagree about "the basic engine that runs Christianity". How are we going to resolve this problem before we move on to the next? There is no point in moving on, if we can't achieve this.

Cheers,
enegue

That is exactly what you did not do.

You specifically choose the part of my statement to quote, you quoted just one statement and you did not begin to show that it was not true and you still have not, you did not even try. You said "oh thats not true" and your following discourse was on a completely different matter. Maybe you can't comprehend that.

You have not began to address the topic to which you responded, that the bible teaches that if you do something wrong you must die.

OntheHorizon wrote:You have not began to address the topic to which you responded, that the bible teaches that if you do something wrong you must die.

We're speaking different languages, OTH. If we can't find some common ideas as a foundation for discussion, what's the point of pursuing it any further.

Do you understand that the Bible was written by people who esteemed God? Their whole purpose was to show God as the source of light and love and good, and that is what their words convey for those who are of the same spirit as the authors. However, If YOU approach the Bible with your foreign spirit, you are going to misunderstand what is being said. You will pick bits out of context and attribute things to the words that are inconsistent with the vibe of the text.

Cheers,
enegue

No we aren't speaking different languages, you simply haven't done what you started out to do. There is nothing complex about what you've said. You simply did not try to show that the bible does not teach that if you do something wrong you must die.

and you still have not, you have not even attempted to.

What you have said so far is that

1. God had to do something about sin 2. That it's possible to misunderstand the bible.

However, If YOU approach the Bible with your foreign spirit, you are going to misunderstand what is being said. You will pick bits out of context and attribute things to the words that are inconsistent with the vibe of the text.

This is simply saying that if you disagree with the bible, you will inevitably disagree with the bible.

OntheHorizon wrote:

Well I think the basic engine that runs Christianity is the concept that if you do something wrong you must die.

Yes and this is basic to all the great religions. All the great religions are vehicles for ethics, and theistic religions add the authority of a supposed monogod Who proclaims those ethics as if from on high.

Ethics are formalised statements of how people should behave and think. All societies have moral codes some of which is not enshrined in religious or civil law but is implicit. When people do wrong according to the prevalent moral code they fear they might die, because people who transgress prevalent moral codes risk becoming social outcasts.

OntheHorizon wrote:You simply did not try to show that the bible does not teach that if you do something wrong you must die.

But the Bible doesn't teach this.

It teaches that God is the source of life and being disconnected from Him leads to death.

It teaches that living in this world in accordance with God's principles, leads to blessing and abundant life for our children and our children's children, and not doing so will lead to suffering and death for the same.

It teaches that if you make an error of judgement and act counter to God's principles, then the chain of discontent that will inevitably lead to suffering and death for your children and your children's children, can be averted if you choose to take the prescribed action.

It teaches that if a person wants to dwell with God, and be a citizen in a realm in which Jesus rules as sovereign, according to the principles of God, then they will never die.

Are you beginning to see how mediocre is your understanding of what the Bible teaches?

Cheers,
enegue