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

[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.)

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.

There may be a lifetime of discussion dealing with each of the objections you raised. Rather than create a wall of text I'm going to take the approach of dealing with the objections one at a time.

It would seem to me that a good place to start would be to remove the offending "but" at which you seem to take such offense.

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

Is it not possible for god to be perfectly loving and perfectly just at the same time? If it is then the use of the word "but" doesn't taint the use of the word "love" in any way. This would seem to be a semantic argument, which is rarely productive. The word "but" is merely a conjunction that can be used to imply inclusion of something else, something possibly previously not considered. It does not necessarily degrade the quantity or quality of whatever proceeds it.

It would seem to me that you're jumping way ahead at this point in the discussion, challenging the word "just" before we've had an opportunity to consider what it means. Nowhere in the post to which you are responding did I ever mention "cruelty" or even "suffering." The bible doesn't teach that the wages of sin is "suffering." Or that the wages of sin is "cruelty." The bible does clearly teach that the wages of sin is "death." (Romans 6:23). A discussion of cruelty and suffering is a completely separate topic and would only serve as a red herring if we are attempting to treat the question of "What is the purpose of sacrifice."

To my way of understanding, "true justice" is when complete restitution is made for whatever infraction has been committed. If (as in this case) restitution involves death then restitution has not been made until death has occurred. If we can't agree or find a compromise we can both accept on this basic point I don't see the discussion getting much further.

 

[Politesse]

There may be a lifetime of discussion dealing with each of the objections you raised. Rather than create a wall of text I'm going to take the approach of dealing with the objections one at a time.

It would seem to me that a good place to start would be to remove the offending "but" at which you seem to take such offense.

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

Is it not possible for god to be perfectly loving and perfectly just at the same time? If it is then the use of the word "but" doesn't taint the use of the word "love" in any way. This would seem to be a semantic argument, which is rarely productive. The word "but" is merely a conjunction that can be used to imply inclusion of something else, something possibly previously not considered. It does not necessarily degrade the quantity or quality of whatever proceeds it.

It would seem to me that you're jumping way ahead at this point in the discussion, challenging the word "just" before we've had an opportunity to consider what it means. Nowhere in the post to which you are responding did I ever mention "cruelty" or even "suffering." The bible doesn't teach that the wages of sin is "suffering." Or that the wages of sin is "cruelty." The bible does clearly teach that the wages of sin is "death." (Romans 6:23). A discussion of cruelty and suffering is a completely separate topic and would only serve as a red herring if we are attempting to treat the question of "What is the purpose of sacrifice."

To my way of understanding, "true justice" is when complete restitution is made for whatever infraction has been committed.

I don't agree with that at all, no. The ultimate goal of a system of justice should be restoration of the broken relationship, not equalizing suffering between offender and offended. That pernicious Protestant doctrine of an eye for an eye has contributed greatly to the malfunction of civil society in my home country, where nearly 3% of the population is jailed in any given year, recidivism is high, and none of the social problems. I call it justice when there is peace between the offender and the offended. Punishment is only just if it leads toward that goal. Else, it is only vengeance putting on airs, and violence will always beget more violence. I think it is, to answer your second section, quite possible for God to be both loving and just, because I do not think the levying of pain is the path toward true justice, not the kind of final justice promised in Christ. He taught us not to seek out vengeance or redress for wrongs, in fact, even grievous wrongs, much though Christians of a certain sort like to hand-wave this away. If we are not meant to raise up a hand against those who strike us, even if they scoop out an eye, what makes you think God is so bloodthirsty as to demand an injury for every injury?

We are most like God when we correct injustices by showing compassion and mercy to those who have been denied it. “Learn to do good!" said the prophet, " Seek out justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, and please the widow's cause.” And again: "The Lord longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!". And Zechariah the prophet, later: “This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another’". Indeed, all the prophets saw this truth.

Suffering for suffering, while the victims still languish - that is a human empire's version of justice. Universal love- that is God's justice.

If (as in this case) restitution involves death then restitution has not been made until death has occurred. If we can't agree or find a compromise we can both accept on this basic point I don't see the discussion getting much further.

Even assuming that the old (Babylonian!) law applies and an eye is demanded for an eye, then the only crimes worthy of death would be murder or manslaughter. Do you agree?

 

[Atheos]

I don't agree with that at all, no. The ultimate goal of a system of justice should be restoration of the broken relationship, not equalizing suffering between offender and offended. That pernicious Protestant doctrine of an eye for an eye has contributed greatly to the malfunction of civil society in my home country, where nearly 3% of the population is jailed in any given year, recidivism is high, and none of the social problems. I call it justice when there is peace between the offender and the offended. Punishment is only just if it leads toward that goal. Else, it is only vengeance putting on airs, and violence will always beget more violence. I think it is, to answer your second section, quite possible for God to be both loving and just, because I do not think the levying of pain is the path toward true justice, not the kind of final justice promised in Christ. He taught us not to seek out vengeance or redress for wrongs, in fact, even grievous wrongs, much though Christians of a certain sort like to hand-wave this away. If we are not meant to raise up a hand against those who strike us, even if they scoop out an eye, what makes you think God is so bloodthirsty as to demand an injury for every injury?

We are most like God when we correct injustices by showing compassion and mercy to those who have been denied it. “Learn to do good!" said the prophet, " Seek out justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, and please the widow's cause.” And again: "The Lord longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!". And Zechariah the prophet, later: “This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another’". Indeed, all the prophets saw this truth.

Suffering for suffering, while the victims still languish - that is a human empire's version of justice. Universal love- that is God's justice.

If (as in this case) restitution involves death then restitution has not been made until death has occurred. If we can't agree or find a compromise we can both accept on this basic point I don't see the discussion getting much further.

Even assuming that the old (Babylonian!) law applies and an eye is demanded for an eye, then the only crimes worthy of death would be murder or manslaughter. Do you agree?

What you are describing to me is "atonement," not justice. We already have a word for the other thing.

I have a pocketknife that was given to me by my deceased father. Let's say someone whom I never met before sees it in my car, smashes the window and steals it.

Justice would be (at a minimum) him giving me back my knife and paying to have my car window fixed.

I had no relationship with this anonymous person before the crime occurred, so there is no relationship to restore. There is simply the violation of my property rights. I do not seek atonement, I just want my shit back.

Meanwhile I have a conflict of my own to deal with. The 2001 version of myself would have chided you for abandoning God's word the moment it became inconvenient for you. I would have extolled the virtues of humbly accepting God's sovereignty even when you don't personally like what he says. I would have reminded you of Abraham, who no doubt thought it was wrong for him to kill his son on the altar, but was willing to do so because it was what God demanded.

But the today version of me is way past that. I'm somewhat skeptical there ever was an actual Abraham and dead certain there wasn't one who sired his firstborn son when he and his wife were around 100 years old.

So the question is whether you want to continue talking to the cult-minded preacher of yesteryear about sacrifice and put up with his tiresome and repetitive inability to think for himself and constant tossing of nothing but the bible in your face. Modern Atheos isn't going to put up much of a fight with you about the savage bronze-age values that characterized the tribal wargod Yahweh as presented in the bible. It's a monstrous caricature unworthy of the veneration of civilized people.

Your call.

 

[Politesse]

I don't agree with that at all, no. The ultimate goal of a system of justice should be restoration of the broken relationship, not equalizing suffering between offender and offended. That pernicious Protestant doctrine of an eye for an eye has contributed greatly to the malfunction of civil society in my home country, where nearly 3% of the population is jailed in any given year, recidivism is high, and none of the social problems. I call it justice when there is peace between the offender and the offended. Punishment is only just if it leads toward that goal. Else, it is only vengeance putting on airs, and violence will always beget more violence. I think it is, to answer your second section, quite possible for God to be both loving and just, because I do not think the levying of pain is the path toward true justice, not the kind of final justice promised in Christ. He taught us not to seek out vengeance or redress for wrongs, in fact, even grievous wrongs, much though Christians of a certain sort like to hand-wave this away. If we are not meant to raise up a hand against those who strike us, even if they scoop out an eye, what makes you think God is so bloodthirsty as to demand an injury for every injury?

We are most like God when we correct injustices by showing compassion and mercy to those who have been denied it. “Learn to do good!" said the prophet, " Seek out justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, and please the widow's cause.” And again: "The Lord longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!". And Zechariah the prophet, later: “This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another’". Indeed, all the prophets saw this truth.

Suffering for suffering, while the victims still languish - that is a human empire's version of justice. Universal love- that is God's justice.

If (as in this case) restitution involves death then restitution has not been made until death has occurred. If we can't agree or find a compromise we can both accept on this basic point I don't see the discussion getting much further.

Even assuming that the old (Babylonian!) law applies and an eye is demanded for an eye, then the only crimes worthy of death would be murder or manslaughter. Do you agree?

What you are describing to me is "atonement," not justice. We already have a word for the other thing.

I have a pocketknife that was given to me by my deceased father. Let's say someone whom I never met before sees it in my car, smashes the window and steals it.

Justice would be (at a minimum) him giving me back my knife and paying to have my car window fixed.

I had no relationship with this anonymous person before the crime occurred, so there is no relationship to restore. There is simply the violation of my property rights. I do not seek atonement, I just want my shit back.

Meanwhile I have a conflict of my own to deal with. The 2001 version of myself would have chided you for abandoning God's word the moment it became inconvenient for you. I would have extolled the virtues of humbly accepting God's sovereignty even when you don't personally like what he says. I would have reminded you of Abraham, who no doubt thought it was wrong for him to kill his son on the altar, but was willing to do so because it was what God demanded.

But the today version of me is way past that. I'm somewhat skeptical there ever was an actual Abraham and dead certain there wasn't one who sired his firstborn son when he and his wife were around 100 years old.

So the question is whether you want to continue talking to the cult-minded preacher of yesteryear about sacrifice and put up with his tiresome and repetitive inability to think for himself and constant tossing of nothing but the bible in your face. Modern Atheos isn't going to put up much of a fight with you about the savage bronze-age values that characterized the tribal wargod Yahweh as presented in the bible. It's a monstrous caricature unworthy of the veneration of civilized people.

Your call.

Wait... are you saying that at that point in your life, you would have been willing to murder your own son, if the Bible had said to do so as per Abraham's story? So as not to be inconsistent in your literalist hermeneutic? I don't see such decisions as "conveniences", they seem quite important to me. To more than just me, in fact. And if you earnestly believed that living a decent and moral life took second fiddle to divine obedience to a book, I feel sort of relieved that you deconverted.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It would seem to me that you're jumping way ahead at this point in the discussion, challenging the word "just" before we've had an opportunity to consider what it means. Nowhere in the post to which you are responding did I ever mention "cruelty" or even "suffering." The bible doesn't teach that the wages of sin is "suffering." Or that the wages of sin is "cruelty." The bible does clearly teach that the wages of sin is "death." (Romans 6:23). A discussion of cruelty and suffering is a completely separate topic and would only serve as a red herring if we are attempting to treat the question of "What is the purpose of sacrifice."

To my way of understanding, "true justice" is when complete restitution is made for whatever infraction has been committed. If (as in this case) restitution involves death then restitution has not been made until death has occurred. If we can't agree or find a compromise we can both accept on this basic point I don't see the discussion getting much further.

But that doesn't make any sense in the context of the story because nobody actually died. God put on a meat suit and then FAKED his death for a few days. He was always perfectly fine ... you know ... with him being God and all. Not to mention that this was all just a dog-and-pony show where he did something in order to get himself to take an action, making the entire circus completely pointless.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think the key is to keep in mind that "sin" has nothing to do with wronging another person and is entirely about disobedience to God's authority. Within monotheism, obedience is the definition of what is morally right, and disobedience is sinful and immoral.

A sacrifice means one is giving up something of value to themselves to demonstrate submission to God. It is a way of showing God that you care more about serving him than about your own (or anyone else's) well being. Pathetically, that is what the Abrahamic God care mot about, submission, so he wipes away your sins if you give him that submission. Or more accurately, he creates rules that inherently make everyone a sinner and punishes them for being a sinner, unless the submit to him, with sacrifice being an act of submission.

 

[Atheos]

Wait... are you saying that at that point in your life, you would have been willing to murder your own son, if the Bible had said to do so as per Abraham's story? So as not to be inconsistent in your literalist hermeneutic? I don't see such decisions as "conveniences", they seem quite important to me. To more than just me, in fact. And if you earnestly believed that living a decent and moral life took second fiddle to divine obedience to a book, I feel sort of relieved that you deconverted.

Well that makes two of us who are relieved that I deconverted.

And no, I don't think I would have had the conviction to murder my own son. But I was quite the literalist. "When the literal sense makes good sense, be careful not to make nonsense."

But I earnestly believed that living a decent and moral life required obedience to a divine book. Big difference IMO.

 

[Politesse]

I think the key is to keep in mind that "sin" has nothing to do with wronging another person and is entirely about disobedience to God's authority. Within monotheism, obedience is the definition of what is morally right, and disobedience is sinful and immoral.

That philosophy is monstrous, and medieval in its attitudes. God is not a baron.

A sacrifice means one is giving up something of value to themselves to demonstrate submission to God. It is a way of showing God that you care more about serving him than about your own (or anyone else's) well being. Pathetically, that is what the Abrahamic God care mot about, submission, so he wipes away your sins if you give him that submission. Or more accurately, he creates rules that inherently make everyone a sinner and punishes them for being a sinner, unless the submit to him, with sacrifice being an act of submission.

Your "Abrahamic" God doesn't actually clock with what the children of Abraham in the modern world generally say about him. Believe it or not, no one actually voted Protestant fundies into the office of "Lords of the Abrahamics".

 

[Politesse]

Wait... are you saying that at that point in your life, you would have been willing to murder your own son, if the Bible had said to do so as per Abraham's story? So as not to be inconsistent in your literalist hermeneutic? I don't see such decisions as "conveniences", they seem quite important to me. To more than just me, in fact. And if you earnestly believed that living a decent and moral life took second fiddle to divine obedience to a book, I feel sort of relieved that you deconverted.

Well that makes two of us who are relieved that I deconverted.

And no, I don't think I would have had the conviction to murder my own son. But I was quite the literalist. "When the literal sense makes good sense, be careful not to make nonsense."

But I earnestly believed that living a decent and moral life required obedience to a divine book. Big difference IMO.

Well, that's why bibliolatry is horrifying to me. It's not any objection to the Bible, which I think is a fine anthology... as an anthology of ancient religious and cultural texts. I love it, even. But as a proxy deity, nothing made with human hands is trustworthy as a sole guide to the moral or the rational. Yes, I know literalists do not believe that it was written by human hands, but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

 

[Atheos]

That's why the god of my understanding was so easy to defeat once I got my head out of my ass just a little bit. And it's why from a religious perspective you and I might as well be two people trying to converse when one only speaks Klingon and the other only speaks Bocce.

 

[Politesse]

That's why the god of my understanding was so easy to defeat once I got my head out of my ass just a little bit. And it's why from a religious perspective you and I might as well be two people trying to converse when one only speaks Klingon and the other only speaks Bocce.

Cheers!

I do know a bit of Bocce, but only enough to order power converters (and haggle the price of course).