Misunderstanding versus intentionally not getting it
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2015, 01:12 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2015 01:21 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Misunderstanding versus intentionally not getting it
(27-08-2015 11:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:In the above example, we clearly understand the concept of how a blood-sacrifice religion became an "atonement by the sacrifice of a sinless substitute" religion, but in the end, it still demands an answer to the question of why the Almighty wanted anything killed on any altar for any purpose. Stop a moment to really consider that. Take all the time you need.

No you don’t, because there is no universally agreed upon atonement theology. The Catholic church leaves the question open, and they’ve had two thousand years to figure that out. And the Evangelical community, has been slowly making the same Catholic concession, that all atonement theologies are bound to be incomplete. That it’s easier to talk of the effect of the cross, rather than mechanics of it. It might be a surprise for some atheists to learn that none of the four Gospels formulated an atonement theology.

But if we’re talking about the prevalent myths of sacrificed divine figures or their stand ins, found in a variety of religions the world over, I don’t expect to find many atheists offering even a remotely competent account of this. There are no works on parallel with Rene Girard Violence and the Sacred.

While atheists might proudly boast of how they know a bit more than Kirk Cameron does, but they’d have to pardon me for not finding that impressive.

Well, I agree with you about Kirk Cameron. But then, I suspect my nine year old knows more than he does about most things.

I'm not really sure what you mean by, "there is no universally agreed upon atonement theology". I think one would be hard-pressed to find a Christian who did not believe that Jesus was sent in place of the original practice of washing sins away by blood of sheep (or various other sacrificial animals), as a permanent sacrificial lamb, his death paying for all. If there is some other element of "atonement theology" you refer to, I can't imagine how it would be relevant to this discussion.

The point remains that it doesn't matter how many versions of "Why It Was Necessary to Slaughter Sheep for Sin" theologists have proposed; it is patently ridiculous on its face, an obvious example of a transition from early animist ideas through the modern concept of the personal (and personified in the Lamb of God for purpose of the above-referenced final sacrifice) deity. Sneering that we might not know some random explanation offered for why killing meat-animals for the happiness of the deity doesn't escape the fact that the obvious explanation is that the priests came up with a way to use "thought-crime" and personal guilt theology to ensure they were well-fed, and it's laughable to even seriously consider that the creator of the universe was ever pleased or ever required ritual slaughter.

I have no respect for blood-gods, or their worshipers, so either the answer is "that was made up by priests and was never a requirement of God's" (with which I agree), or it is some version or combination of either "God moves in mysterious ways" (the non-answer) or saying the blood ritually invokes some kind of "the Deep Magic" (as C. S. Lewis put it) atonement spell. The answer seems clear to me and, I think, to most of us: it is a barbaric practice of a Bronze Age tribal sheepherder people in Canaan, like many other such/similar practices in that region, and deserves the same amount of contempt and scorn as the idiots of that era who sacrificed their children to Molech, the Fire-God.

My question remains: why would the almighty Creator Yahweh El Shaddai need humans to slaughter their sheep in a blood ritual, other than the obvious explanation? I'd venture to say that there is no "agreed upon" theological explanation for this barbarity because that's all it is.

It's not just a shock-and-awe tactic, though I suppose it could serve that way for someone who is deeply indoctrinated... and who, I think even you would agree (since you're using the word fundies) probably NEED to be shocked out of their intellectual complacency with tactics that force them to think about stuff they had only just blindly swallowed, before. As for non-fundie believers, none of us care because they tend not to reject science, tend not to get involved in politics for the purpose of imposing their faith on us by legislation, and tend in general to do all the things we Secular Humanists do... plus they pray. Big whoop.

In short, we mock religion because it deserves to be mocked in almost every incarnation we have encountered. We also mock stupid political ideologues/politicians and bad music and a few other things. If not for all the theists coming here to make assertions about religion, or the other ways in which religion invades our lives, we really wouldn't think about it much, and we definitely wouldn't care to try to shock people out of their idiotic fundamentalist fantasies.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
27-08-2015, 01:22 PM
RE: Misunderstanding versus intentionally not getting it
Some ideas positively merit mockery. The idea that an omnipotent god is constrained to one way of absolving his creations for sins he himself delineated is one of those ideas. The idea that a just god should prescribe such absolution is also worthy of mockery.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: