Discussion:
Was human and animal sacrifice instituted by a good God, evil false god, or no god?
(too old to reply)
Andrew W
2019-06-15 05:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Was human and animal sacrifice instituted by a good God, evil false god, or
no god?

The idea that human sacrifice (like all forms of sacrifice) reinforced
social hierarchy has been recognized in sociology and religious studies for
over a century. In ancient times human sacrifice was instrumental in
transforming humanity from the small egalitarian groups of our ancestors, to
the large stratified societies we live in today.
Stratified means layered, which means division, whereas egalitarian means
believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve
equal rights and opportunities.

Division, suffering and death/bloodletting is what Christianity still
believes in, mostly in symbolic form, except where Jesus was concerned.
Jesus' sacrifice was for real. It was a barbaric human blood sacrifice,
which strangely goes against Christian values.
It's also rather strange that the much cherished symbol of Christianity, the
cross, is also the Roman form of torture used in Palestine. This all seems
quite sick.
It is widely believed by Christians (and only Christians) that God actually
wanted his son Jesus' bloody death to pay for God being offended by mere
human sin, which was based mostly just on ignorance. Does God, who knows,
sees and understands everything really have such fragile emotions, in fact
more fragile and unstable than most modern humans, that he'd get angry
enough to condemn the little creatures that he created and said were good,
but then brutally has his son killed instead to pay for it?
Something is very wrong with this religion and its god.


http://members.optusnet.com.au/ajwerner/

Anyone or anything that sets itself up to be worshipped must be considered a
false god.
Anyone who has a master is a slave.

http://www.rumormillnews.com -- The best alternative news site.
Gronk
2019-06-15 05:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew W
Was human and animal sacrifice instituted by a good God, evil false god,
or no god?
Andrew W
2019-06-15 05:46:15 UTC
Permalink
So Jesus saving us on the cross was just superstition. Thought so. That's
one religion out the window.
--
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ajwerner/

Anyone or anything that sets itself up to be worshipped must be considered a
false god.
Anyone who has a master is a slave.

http://www.rumormillnews.com -- The best alternative news site.
Gronk
2019-06-21 03:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew W
So Jesus saving us on the cross was just superstition. Thought so. That's
one religion out the window.
There is hope for you. You're waking up.

Robert Carnegie
2019-06-15 11:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew W
Was human and animal sacrifice instituted by a good God, evil false god, or
no god?
The idea that human sacrifice (like all forms of sacrifice) reinforced
social hierarchy has been recognized in sociology and religious studies for
over a century. In ancient times human sacrifice was instrumental in
transforming humanity from the small egalitarian groups of our ancestors, to
the large stratified societies we live in today.
Stratified means layered, which means division, whereas egalitarian means
believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve
equal rights and opportunities.
Division, suffering and death/bloodletting is what Christianity still
believes in, mostly in symbolic form, except where Jesus was concerned.
Jesus' sacrifice was for real. It was a barbaric human blood sacrifice,
which strangely goes against Christian values.
It's also rather strange that the much cherished symbol of Christianity, the
cross, is also the Roman form of torture used in Palestine. This all seems
quite sick.
It is widely believed by Christians (and only Christians) that God actually
wanted his son Jesus' bloody death to pay for God being offended by mere
human sin, which was based mostly just on ignorance. Does God, who knows,
sees and understands everything really have such fragile emotions, in fact
more fragile and unstable than most modern humans, that he'd get angry
enough to condemn the little creatures that he created and said were good,
but then brutally has his son killed instead to pay for it?
Something is very wrong with this religion and its god.
He got better. (Presuming that it happened, it was
still bloody awful.)

Other victims didn't.

"Apocryphal" books of scripture have Jesus fighting
his way out of hell and/or preaching down there -
I think the latter may be canonical but perhaps
pseudepigraphical (faked authorship).
Christopher A. Lee
2019-06-15 14:36:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 04:27:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
[..]
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Andrew W
Division, suffering and death/bloodletting is what Christianity still
believes in, mostly in symbolic form, except where Jesus was concerned.
Jesus' sacrifice was for real. It was a barbaric human blood sacrifice,
which strangely goes against Christian values.
It's a common theme in the pre-Christian pagan/fertility religions...

The god's representative on Earth (who was nominally the god and
called the god-king) was sacrificed every spring and ploughed into the
ground. A new one was chosen a few days later, who took on its
identity.

These were fertility religions, and his job was to make the
goddess-queen regent so she would bear a child nine months later,
around the winter solstice, nine months after the spring equinox.

Pretty well everything about the Easter story and the Easter tradition
are pagan. Easter eggs, fluffy little chicks and the Easter Bunny are
all fertility symbols - even if everybody has forgotten the origins.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Andrew W
It's also rather strange that the much cherished symbol of Christianity, the
cross, is also the Roman form of torture used in Palestine. This all seems
quite sick.
Seen in the light of what I wrote above, it's how he was sacrificed in
the story.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Andrew W
It is widely believed by Christians (and only Christians) that God actually
wanted his son Jesus' bloody death to pay for God being offended by mere
human sin, which was based mostly just on ignorance. Does God, who knows,
sees and understands everything really have such fragile emotions, in fact
more fragile and unstable than most modern humans, that he'd get angry
enough to condemn the little creatures that he created and said were good,
but then brutally has his son killed instead to pay for it?
Something is very wrong with this religion and its god.
That's their rationalisation when they inherited a practice going back
centuries or even millennia.
Post by Robert Carnegie
He got better. (Presuming that it happened, it was
still bloody awful.)
That's the Christian version of the new god-king being chosen a few
days later, who was nominally the same one.
Loading...