Omnibenevolent (all loving)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2015, 07:33 AM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
(27-08-2015 06:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 06:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  How does that answer the question? Consider

To quote the response to morondog:

"I answered it, without justifying the strawman concept of atonement. In which the crucifixion, along with everything else in the Gospels is deemed as a superfluous, in which someone could have just drawn out a vial of Jesus magical blood with a needle, and it would have done the trick.

That's the analogy isn't it? The question is asking if I demand a pint of literal blood, in order to ask for forgiveness, (or in order to forgive someone). If so, it's a false one."

The discussion is about vicarious atonement and, in particular, the concept of atonement requiring the shedding of blood. This concept is ubiquitous in the Old Testament and is echoed in the New Testament.

Why is the shedding of blood required for atonement?

Extra credit:
How is vicarious atonement even a coherent concept?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-08-2015, 08:14 AM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
.
(27-08-2015 07:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  The discussion is about vicarious atonement and, in particular, the concept of atonement requiring the shedding of blood. This concept is ubiquitous in the Old Testament and is echoed in the New Testament.

Why is the shedding of blood required for atonement?

It's not.

The blood part is not the crucial part of atonement, like a wedding ring is not the crucial part of a marriage. The blood and the ring, acquire meanings beyond their physical properties. The crucial part of atonement is the changing of one's heart, a concept ubiquitous in the OT and the NT. The writer of Isaiah sheds light on the vanity of empty sacrifices : "The multitude of your sacrifices-- what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats."

Other verses to consider:

Quote:Psalm 50:9-13:
"I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it. Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?”

Hosea 6:6: "For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; Obedience to God, rather than burnt offerings."

Psalms 51: 16-7: "You would not be pleased with sacrifices, or I would bring them. If I brought you burnt a offering, you would not accept it. The sacrifice you want is a broken spirit. A broken and repentant heart, O God, you will not despise."

Mark 7:6: He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

Without the crucial part the rest is meaningless. To speak of the physical act of sacrifice, or the physical properties of blood, is sort of like asking question about the properties of a wedding ring, to resolve a failed marriage. The question here is not what does blood have to do with it, but what does Jesus death and suffering have to do with changing of one’s heart?

But that’s a question more analogous as to what does the suffering, and brutality inflicted on the Selma marchers, have to do with changing the hearts of white Americans, rather than celestial vampire analogies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 12:13 PM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
(27-08-2015 08:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  .
(27-08-2015 07:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  The discussion is about vicarious atonement and, in particular, the concept of atonement requiring the shedding of blood. This concept is ubiquitous in the Old Testament and is echoed in the New Testament.

Why is the shedding of blood required for atonement?

It's not.

The blood part is not the crucial part of atonement, like a wedding ring is not the crucial part of a marriage. The blood and the ring, acquire meanings beyond their physical properties. The crucial part of atonement is the changing of one's heart, a concept ubiquitous in the OT and the NT. The writer of Isaiah sheds light on the vanity of empty sacrifices : "The multitude of your sacrifices-- what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats."

I note that you didn't identify that verse. Consider

Why? Because you took it entirely out of context to alter its meaning?

Isaiah 1:7 Your land is desolate, Your cities are burned with fire, Your fields-- strangers are devouring them in your presence; It is desolation, as overthrown by strangers.
8 The daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard, Like a watchman's hut in a cucumber field, like a besieged city.
9 Unless the LORD of hosts Had left us a few survivors, We would be like Sodom, We would be like Gomorrah.10 Hear the word of the LORD, You rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the instruction of our God, You people of Gomorrah.
11 "What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.
12 "When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?…

He's speaking to the people of Judah who are in rebellion and telling them that their sacrifices and offerings are therefore worthless.

Quote:Other verses to consider:

Quote:Psalm 50:9-13:
"I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it. Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?”

Hosea 6:6: "For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; Obedience to God, rather than burnt offerings."

Psalms 51: 16-7: "You would not be pleased with sacrifices, or I would bring them. If I brought you burnt a offering, you would not accept it. The sacrifice you want is a broken spirit. A broken and repentant heart, O God, you will not despise."

Mark 7:6: He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

Without the crucial part the rest is meaningless. To speak of the physical act of sacrifice, or the physical properties of blood, is sort of like asking question about the properties of a wedding ring, to resolve a failed marriage. The question here is not what does blood have to do with it, but what does Jesus death and suffering have to do with changing of one’s heart?

But that’s a question more analogous as to what does the suffering, and brutality inflicted on the Selma marchers, have to do with changing the hearts of white Americans, rather than celestial vampire analogies.

Without the correct inner spiritual attitude, the sacrifices are meaningless. And the context of those verses clearly indicates that.
That does not mean the sacrifices are unnecessary. It means they are not sufficient.

So God still wants his blood sacrifices, but only if you mean it and are not just going through the motions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
27-08-2015, 01:07 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2015 01:15 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
(27-08-2015 12:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  [quote]Why? Because you took it entirely out of context to alter its meaning?

No, I didn’t alter it’s meaning. If the verses lead you to conclude that “without the correct inner spiritual attitude, the sacrifices are meaningless.” indicates we’re somewhat on the same page here.

The remaining passages, also highlight God’s desire as well:

“Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
    remove the evil of your doings
    from before my eyes;
cease to do evil, 
    learn to do good;
seek justice,
    rescue the oppressed,
defend the orphan,
    plead for the widow.”

The point I’ll further highlight is this. While there are numerous passages in scripture that indicates “without an inner spiritual attitude”, the sacrifice is meaningless. There is none that render “an inner spiritual attitude, a authentic change of heart, repentance", meaningless without sacrifice.

The animal sacrifice in this regard, is in essence analogous to a ritual, like water baptism, or the Lords Supper, while these rituals are given a considerable degree of importance by the religious, they are rituals nonetheless. And void of certain “inner spiritual attitude” they become empty ones. It might be important to embody these “inner spiritual attitude” in these ritualistic displays, but you can’t say anything meaningful about the rituals absent of the aspect that renders it meaningful.

In the same way you can’t pose a question about the blood of Jesus, without the“inner spiritual attitude” that makes it meaningful. It also important to know the meaning of Jesus sacrifice, acquire a variety of different dimensions not evident in other sacrifice rituals. One being, that it’s not a ritual at all, but a lynching, a murder at the hands of the Roman Authorities. Jesus wasn’t Issac taken to the mountain to be killed by his father, but an innocent victim of humiliating defeat. While the New Testament embodies the death of Jesus in the language of early sacrifices, the ritual religious act, on the face of it, it’s not that at all.

All this is to say, that to talk or ask questions regarding the death of Jesus, the meaning of the cross, removed from this context, is to speak of something else all together.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
(27-08-2015 12:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  So God still wants his blood sacrifices, but only if you mean it and are not just going through the motions.


God still wants repentance but only if you mean it and are not just going through the motions.

Christianity done away with blood sacrifices, Judaism has done away with it as well, but not repentance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
(27-08-2015 01:31 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 12:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  So God still wants his blood sacrifices, but only if you mean it and are not just going through the motions.
God still wants repentance but only if you mean it and are not just going through the motions.

There is nowhere where God says that sacrifice is unnecessary - only that it is unwanted if it is only going through the motions.

Quote:Christianity done away with blood sacrifices, Judaism has done away with it as well, but not repentance.

Except that it is based on vicarious atonement by blood sacrifice.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 05:13 PM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
(23-08-2015 04:20 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yes. We communed for a decade or so.
OK,
I wonder: who is the Holy Ghost according to GirlryMan?
(you don't have to answer this question) I am not trying to convince you.
(23-08-2015 04:20 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 03:45 PM)Alla Wrote:  Wrong. I have another definition.
Give it to me, Alla.
Another and true definition: when after God appeared to you and revealed to you many things, you deny that there is God, you deny that those things that were revealed to you is the truth, if you start to persecute God's Church, then you sin against the Holy Ghost. Because when God appears to you and reveals to you things you BELIEVE Him. What convince you? What makes you to BELIEVE God? Answer: influence of the Holy Ghost. By the power of the Holy Ghost you KNOW that God doesn't lie to you.
So, if God didn't appear to you personally with revelations, you can not sin against the Holy Ghost. It is not possible.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 05:18 PM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
(27-08-2015 05:13 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 04:20 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yes. We communed for a decade or so.
OK,
I wonder: who is the Holy Ghost according to GirlryMan?
(you don't have to answer this question) I am not trying to convince you.
(23-08-2015 04:20 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Give it to me, Alla.
Another and true definition: when after God appeared to you and revealed to you many things, you deny that there is God, you deny that those things that were revealed to you is the truth, if you start to persecute God's Church, then you sin against the Holy Ghost. Because when God appears to you and reveals to you things you BELIEVE Him. What convince you? What makes you to BELIEVE God? Answer: influence of the Holy Ghost. By the power of the Holy Ghost you KNOW that God doesn't lie to you.
So, if God didn't appear to you personally with revelations, you can not sin against the Holy Ghost. It is not possible.
So given that those things don't happen (before you even get started bitch prove that they do) and the Holy Goat is not real does that make sinning against the Holy Goat is double impossible? Is that like a double negative where EVERYTHING we do is a sin against the Holy Goat?

Questions for a later age maybe.....

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 05:20 PM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
Quote:There is nowhere where God says that sacrifice is unnecessary - only that it is unwanted if it is only going through the motions.

I didn’t use the word unnecessary. It wouldn’t be approbate to claim that The Lord Supper, Water Baptism is unnecessary, even though they are rituals. There’s a variety of non-religious rituals that we couldn’t dismiss as unnecessary, which are rituals nonetheless, like the ones involved in funeral ceremonies, weddings, etc… The point being emphasized is that the ritual is meaningless in and of itself, and only derives it’s meaning by it’s representations. Hence why we can say a sacrifice is meaningless void of an “inner spiritual attitude”, but we can’t say than an “inner spiritual attitude” is meaningless without a sacrifice.

By the 2nd Century, with the destruction of the temple, the Jews were no longer sacrificing animal's either. Yet repentance, “the inner spiritual attitude” continued without this practice.

Quote:Except that it is based on vicarious atonement by blood sacrifice.

You can’t have it both ways can you? You can’t concede that sacrifice without “inner spiritual attitude” is meaningless, than imply that atonement requires blood. You can’t say that flowers are meaningless without an apology, and than claim forgiveness is based on the offering of flowers.

While there are Christian groups that subscribe to some vicarious view of atonement, it’s primarily certain fundie evangelical groups. The Eastern Orthodox clearly don’t, the Catholics don’t either, and considered it to be a distorted view, one highlighting the point made my flower analogy:

“The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction.

This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustin). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.

The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

Even so, I doubt even among believers who do subscribe to some form of vicarious atonement theology, any description you have of these views, is likely to be rejected even by them. Seen more as a strawman, than an accurate interpretation of their views.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 06:19 PM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
(27-08-2015 05:18 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  So given that those things don't happen (before you even get started bitch prove that they do) and the Holy Goat is not real does that make sinning against the Holy Goat is double impossible? Is that like a double negative where EVERYTHING we do is a sin against the Holy Goat?

Questions for a later age maybe.....

Big Grin

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: