Sacrifices - Derail from Christians: can you talk...

[abaddon]

A question for theists if they want to answer:

How does a sacrifice atone for sin? Can you provide the reasoning of how it works?

 

[Ford]

A question for theists if they want to answer:

How does a sacrifice atone for sin? Can you provide the reasoning of how it works?

Follow up question: How does a sacrifice that's not actually a sacrifice do this?

God "sacrificed" his "only son" to atone for mankind's sins, but Jesus was actually god, did not die, and if we're being honest didn't actually atone for any sin because there was a condition attached.

Jesus/God suffered a bit of discomfort, spent a relatively brief time in Hell (which he created), then went to Heaven to sit at the feet of...himself...and then didn't really absolve anyone of their sins, because unless you accept all the above without question, you're still eternally fucked.

 

[Politesse]

A question for theists if they want to answer:

How does a sacrifice atone for sin? Can you provide the reasoning of how it works?

What else could? If you wrong someone, mending the rupture between you and they will almost certainly require a sacrifice on your part. Burnt bridges cannot be repaired by any other means.

 

[Ford]

If you wrong someone, mending the rupture between you and they will almost certainly require a sacrifice on your part. Burnt bridges cannot be repaired by any other means.

Not really, no.

I'm gonna go with anecdotal evidence here, but I think it applies. Ten years ago I got a phone call from my ex wife. She called to apologize. Why? Because her at the time fiance' had cheated on her in almost the exact same way that she had cheated on me almost another decade earlier. He gave her the same excuses she gave me. The time of year was even the same. She felt guilty because she was experiencing the exact same pain she put me through, and she finally understood.

Did she have to be crucified? Did she have to suffer for a weekend and then be resurrected? No. The simple act of her calling me to apologize was enough. That's all I was looking for. Then I thanked her for being honest, forgave her, and talked her through it. We're fine now. It's all water under that burnt bridge, and her contrition repaired the rupture.

If we can do that...two flawed humans who fix a wrong with apologies and forgiveness...then what's god's problem?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A question for theists if they want to answer:

How does a sacrifice atone for sin? Can you provide the reasoning of how it works?

Follow up question: How does a sacrifice that's not actually a sacrifice do this?

God "sacrificed" his "only son" to atone for mankind's sins, but Jesus was actually god, did not die, and if we're being honest didn't actually atone for any sin because there was a condition attached.

Jesus/God suffered a bit of discomfort, spent a relatively brief time in Hell (which he created), then went to Heaven to sit at the feet of...himself...and then didn't really absolve anyone of their sins, because unless you accept all the above without question, you're still eternally fucked.

Worse yet, according to Paul's theology God from the beginning decided who is to be of the elect and saved, and who is not elect and not saved, and not because of any acts they will do, all of which is predetermined by God anyway. According to Christian theologians, nobody really can know if they are of the elect or not. Life is a crap shoot, with God or not.

 

[Politesse]

If you wrong someone, mending the rupture between you and they will almost certainly require a sacrifice on your part. Burnt bridges cannot be repaired by any other means.

Not really, no.

I'm gonna go with anecdotal evidence here, but I think it applies. Ten years ago I got a phone call from my ex wife. She called to apologize. Why? Because her at the time fiance' had cheated on her in almost the exact same way that she had cheated on me almost another decade earlier. He gave her the same excuses she gave me. The time of year was even the same. She felt guilty because she was experiencing the exact same pain she put me through, and she finally understood.

Did she have to be crucified? Did she have to suffer for a weekend and then be resurrected? No. The simple act of her calling me to apologize was enough. That's all I was looking for. Then I thanked her for being honest, forgave her, and talked her through it. We're fine now. It's all water under that burnt bridge, and her contrition repaired the rupture.

If we can do that...two flawed humans who fix a wrong with apologies and forgiveness...then what's god's problem?

I was answering the question asked, not making a defense of substitutionary atonement en totale, whatever nasty version of it was taught to you.

Torture would have been irrelevant to your situation. The sacrifice you demanded was an admission of guilt: an injury to her pride, not her body. And you got it.

 

[remez]

Then I thanked her for being honest, forgave her, and talked her through it. We're fine now. It's all water under that burnt bridge, and her contrition repaired the rupture.

Well done.

 

[Rhea]

Torture would have been irrelevant to your situation. The sacrifice you demanded was an admission of guilt: an injury to her pride, not her body. And you got it.

Torture is ENTIRELY relevant, because Ford didn’t demand anything, and he certainly did not torture her for not giving an apology, either in the first ten years or if she never had apologized. Nor was her apology a “sacrifice,” he explained that it was a heartfelt empathy gained after similar experience, she didn’t suffer or give anything up in apologizing.

 

[Atheos]

What skeptics often fail to take into consideration in this discussion is the concept of justice. Yes, God is good and loving, but he is also just (which is an inseparable component of being good.) The bible is quite clear that the "Wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23). If we can but accept this principle as the same sort of brute fact that skeptics often are willing to accept the existence of an uncreated universe as a brute fact, we can move on to the fact that since sin was committed justice would not be served without death.

Human beings have the ability to allow, accept, sometimes even embrace injustice. The scriptures teach that God is perfect and just in all of his ways. Not just some of his ways, all of them. Accepting injustice would taint that perfection. What often seems trivial to us (accepting an apology in lieu of restitution) would be impossible for us if we weren't so easily satisfied with injustice.

The scriptures also teach the role of animal sacrifice as a temporary atonement for sin. The book of Hebrews covers this over several chapters, but a key verse is Hebrews 10:4 - "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." The writer makes a point that sin is "remembered" every year. The deaths of these animals in sacrifice was not a solution. They only forestalled the consequences.

But this does teach that it is possible for someone else to pay the debt owed in behalf of the guilty party. The problem is that all had sinned (Romans 6:23) and therefore nobody was in a position to pay for someone else's debt.

And so it came to pass that God took it upon himself to take on the flesh of mortal men, to be tempted with sin in all points like we are, yet live without sin and then pay the price for all of us. This was an act of love, in which he purchased salvation for all mankind and made it possible for all people to have eternal life. Justice was satisfied, the scales were balanced. God then set forth the terms by which one comes to accept this gift of salvation, and the terms are not grievous.

"Sacrifice" is only difficult when one mocks it and refuses to accept what the bible actually teaches about it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A question for theists if they want to answer:

How does a sacrifice atone for sin? Can you provide the reasoning of how it works?

What else could? If you wrong someone, mending the rupture between you and they will almost certainly require a sacrifice on your part. Burnt bridges cannot be repaired by any other means.

But the question is, how?
What's the link berween me spilling something's/someone's blood and a or all sin being wiped from my slate?

I mean, i know why milk requires a commercial transaction. Someone labors to produce X gallons of milk, someone else values his labor at Z/hour, or Z/gallon. And someone ELSE values my labor at Y/lesson, and we trade Y for Z and i get milk.

But the being Who owns every single Thing in His universe won't forgive me until i slaughter one of His other things, because....?

 

[Politesse]

A question for theists if they want to answer:

How does a sacrifice atone for sin? Can you provide the reasoning of how it works?

What else could? If you wrong someone, mending the rupture between you and they will almost certainly require a sacrifice on your part. Burnt bridges cannot be repaired by any other means.

But the question is, how?
What's the link berween me spilling something's/someone's blood and a or all sin being wiped from my slate?

I mean, i know why milk requires a commercial transaction. Someone labors to produce X gallons of milk, someone else values his labor at Z/hour, or Z/gallon. And someone ELSE values my labor at Y/lesson, and we trade Y for Z and i get milk.

But the being Who owns every single Thing in His universe won't forgive me until i slaughter one of His other things, because....?

Spilling blood? I said nothing about spilling blood. I agree with you, transactions ought to be proportional.

 

[OLDMAN]

What skeptics often fail to take into consideration in this discussion is the concept of justice. Yes, God is good and loving, but he is also just (which is an inseparable component of being good.) The bible is quite clear that the "Wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23). If we can but accept this principle as the same sort of brute fact that skeptics often are willing to accept the existence of an uncreated universe as a brute fact, we can move on to the fact that since sin was committed justice would not be served without death.

Human beings have the ability to allow, accept, sometimes even embrace injustice. The scriptures teach that God is perfect and just in all of his ways. Not just some of his ways, all of them. Accepting injustice would taint that perfection. What often seems trivial to us (accepting an apology in lieu of restitution) would be impossible for us if we weren't so easily satisfied with injustice.

The scriptures also teach the role of animal sacrifice as a temporary atonement for sin. The book of Hebrews covers this over several chapters, but a key verse is Hebrews 10:4 - "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." The writer makes a point that sin is "remembered" every year. The deaths of these animals in sacrifice was not a solution. They only forestalled the consequences.

But this does teach that it is possible for someone else to pay the debt owed in behalf of the guilty party. The problem is that all had sinned (Romans 6:23) and therefore nobody was in a position to pay for someone else's debt.

And so it came to pass that God took it upon himself to take on the flesh of mortal men, to be tempted with sin in all points like we are, yet live without sin and then pay the price for all of us. This was an act of love, in which he purchased salvation for all mankind and made it possible for all people to have eternal life. Justice was satisfied, the scales were balanced. God then set forth the terms by which one comes to accept this gift of salvation, and the terms are not grievous.

"Sacrifice" is only difficult when one mocks it and refuses to accept what the bible actually teaches about it.

I'm not going to go into all the things about this that are false. Just two glaring errors. First, we are born in to sin. So when Jesus is born he is guilty of sin. Nothing after that can make him live a perfect life. Second, just because you accept Jesus into your life and think your sins are washed away doesn't bring any type of justice to the victim of your crimes. No one can forgive someone for something they did to someone else. Third, God is not perfect. He commands us not to be jealous, yet states that he is a vain and jealous god....not to mention a hypocrite.

 

[steve_bank]

The idea of putting group sins on a sacrificial animal was not un common. Providng sacrificial animals for the temple in Jerusalem was big business.

The image of JC as the sacrificial lamb has antecedents in the OT.

How does it work? I believe the psychological term may be transference. Putting a feeling of guilt on somebody else. No supernatural required. Just call ne Captain Obvious.

 

[abaddon]

The idea of putting group sins on a sacrificial animal was not un common. Providng sacrificial animals for the temple in Jerusalem was big business.

The image of JC as the sacrificial lamb has antecedents in the OT.

How does it work? I believe the psychological term may be transference. Putting a feeling of guilt on somebody else. No supernatural required. Just call ne Captain Obvious.

Scapegoating, or projection. Transference is more the shift of expectations to have needs fulfilled from the appropriate person to another person. Someone starts serving as a father-figure in place of the actual and ineffectual father, for example.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But the question is, how?
What's the link berween me spilling something's/someone's blood and a or all sin being wiped from my slate?

I mean, i know why milk requires a commercial transaction. Someone labors to produce X gallons of milk, someone else values his labor at Z/hour, or Z/gallon. And someone ELSE values my labor at Y/lesson, and we trade Y for Z and i get milk.

But the being Who owns every single Thing in His universe won't forgive me until i slaughter one of His other things, because....?

Spilling blood? I said nothing about spilling blood. I agree with you, transactions ought to be proportional.

But God said blood. Lots of times.

But anyway, hiw does my giving something up to a being who already lacks nothing connect to my transgressions?

 

[Politesse]

But the question is, how?
What's the link berween me spilling something's/someone's blood and a or all sin being wiped from my slate?

I mean, i know why milk requires a commercial transaction. Someone labors to produce X gallons of milk, someone else values his labor at Z/hour, or Z/gallon. And someone ELSE values my labor at Y/lesson, and we trade Y for Z and i get milk.

But the being Who owns every single Thing in His universe won't forgive me until i slaughter one of His other things, because....?

Spilling blood? I said nothing about spilling blood. I agree with you, transactions ought to be proportional.

But God said blood. Lots of times.

But anyway, how does my giving something up to a being who already lacks nothing connect to my transgressions?

I don't see that it would.

Keep in mind the source of information, when it comes to the things "God says". Empires have always made blood their principal business.

 

[Rhea]

What skeptics often fail to take into consideration in this discussion is the concept of justice. Yes, God is good and loving, but he is also just (which is an inseparable component of being good.) The bible is quite clear that the "Wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23). If we can but accept this principle as the same sort of brute fact that skeptics often are willing to accept the existence of an uncreated universe as a brute fact, we can move on to the fact that since sin was committed justice would not be served without death.

Human beings have the ability to allow, accept, sometimes even embrace injustice. The scriptures teach that God is perfect and just in all of his ways. Not just some of his ways, all of them. Accepting injustice would taint that perfection. What often seems trivial to us (accepting an apology in lieu of restitution) would be impossible for us if we weren't so easily satisfied with injustice.

An interesting difference between the theology of your former faith as described here and my reality is that “justice” in my world and life NEVER involves causing pain or suffering.

It seems to be a big deal in Christianity. Punishment. You’re supposed to HURT them the way they hurt you. Jesus agrees most of the time with punishment, although the one time he agrees with no punishment, but then goes all wacky about giving cloaks and turning cheeks.

But in my opinion, punishment is never valuable. Proclaiming that it is okay to hurt people - when you are justified - is exactly what abusers, murderers and psychopaths think. They all feel justified in what they do. And when we engage in punishment for atonement, we validate their crimes and support fresh crimes.

I would prefer that crimes, or sins, are met with either rehabilitation, or isolation without punishment. No more, no less.

“Justice” always seems to be defined as exacting pain in response to pain. That is not “just” to me, but the word currently means what it means, and so I eschew it because I eschew “punishment”.

 

[Politesse]

What skeptics often fail to take into consideration in this discussion is the concept of justice. Yes, God is good and loving, but he is also just (which is an inseparable component of being good.)

Just that first sentence seems severely cross-eyed to me. If God is "loving, but...." then the love of God is not a perfect love. Whatever you then adulterate it with, if it needs a "but", is not love. And if it does not proceed from love, than how is it true justice? Humans are often cruel to one another in pursuit of "justice" but why should God, who sees and knows all, ever need result to cruelty to bring about justice? If not believing nonsense like that is the wages of skepticism, bring on the skeptics please.

The bible is quite clear that the "Wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23).

I can agree with that, but who says that God is the one doing the paying, or that she intends for any of this to play out as it does. If death is "wages" and God is the payer of those wages, does that mean we are in the employment of God when we are sinning? Just what is this metaphor, when interpreted as proof that God desires "just" violence? Rather, I think those who sin are paid in sadness and suffering because that is what sin itself attracts into your life. Not because God gets his jollies off hurting people who have offended him.

If we can but accept this principle as the same sort of brute fact that skeptics often are willing to accept the existence of an uncreated universe as a brute fact, we can move on to the fact that since sin was committed justice would not be served without death.

Who made up that rule? Isn't God theoretically the conductor of this train? You seem to be suggesting that God approves of suffering and death, despite the fact that the entirety of the New Testament is meant to be the story of overcoming suffering and death. The last enemy that shall be destroyed, that is what it is named. It's not God's tool. It's God's bane.

Accepting injustice would taint that perfection.

So when, for instance, Jesus dined with tax collectors and prostitutes, who had exploited others unjustly, you would argue that his perfection was at that point "tainted"?

The scriptures also teach the role of animal sacrifice as a temporary atonement for sin.

There was nothing in the original Torah about atonement being temporary in character. If the writer of Hebrews says otherwise, the writer of Hebrews is a pious liar.

The problem is that all had sinned (Romans 6:23) and therefore nobody was in a position to pay for someone else's debt.

That makes no sense whatever. I am up to my ears in student loan debts, but if I were to offer to pay someone else's payment for a month, the bank would happily take my money instead of theirs. Since when has there ever been a rule that only perfect people can show compassion? If I take a bullet for you, I've still saved your life, even if I killed two other people first.

And so it came to pass that God took it upon himself to take on the flesh of mortal men, to be tempted with sin in all points like we are, yet live without sin and then pay the price for all of us. This was an act of love, in which he purchased salvation for all mankind and made it possible for all people to have eternal life. Justice was satisfied, the scales were balanced.

With you so far...

God then set forth the terms by which one comes to accept this gift of salvation, and the terms are not grievous.

And then what the fuck? Liberating someone from a heavy burden by means that were entirely just and fair, but then laying conditions on it that you know perfectly well most people will not accept is not even in the same ballpark as "just". If it was right to liberate his children from death, then it is wrong to subject them to it again, however you try to justify it.

 

[steve_bank]

The idea of putting group sins on a sacrificial animal was not un common. Providng sacrificial animals for the temple in Jerusalem was big business.

The image of JC as the sacrificial lamb has antecedents in the OT.

How does it work? I believe the psychological term may be transference. Putting a feeling of guilt on somebody else. No supernatural required. Just call ne Captain Obvious.

Scapegoating, or projection. Transference is more the shift of expectations to have needs fulfilled from the appropriate person to another person. Someone starts serving as a father-figure in place of the actual and ineffectual father, for example.

So then of course the Christian reference is god the father. Catholics call the priest father and a nun mother. Every time I think I get a good handle on religion it just gets deeper.

It uis so deeply woven into American culture it is never going away.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But anyway, how does my giving something up to a being who already lacks nothing connect to my transgressions?

I don't see that it would.

Ah. So you're playing 'Keep Away.'
Sorry, thought you were trying to provide an answer.