Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Alethea
The question that matters is not whether we can approve of this teaching, but whether it is true.
You can remove your sins by rubbing them onto head of a goat. True or false?
Animals are innocent because (man suspects) that beasts have no conscience. True or false?
By touching the goats head, you transfer all your evil sins onto the animal. (Like when you played "cooties" as a child.) True or false?
Now, the goat must be punished instead of you. True or false?
The punishment for sin is death. True or false?
(Actually, it's a spiritual death, but man has made it literal instead by his lack of understanding.)
So now the goat must be killed instead of you. True or false?
To make slaughter more palatable and sanctioned in culture, it is accompanied by high ritual and mysterious mumbo jumbo. True or false?
If you answered "true" to all of these questions, then yes, I suppose you can approve these teachings.
Personally, I find it all untruthful and unfounded on logic or reason and morally corrupt.
Jesus, "the lamb" was used the same way. Jesus was the whipping boy. Jesus did not "give up his life as a sacrificial offering". He was arrested,
incarcerated, and murdered. His followers were hunted down and killed. The victors re-wrote the story to make it fit with their ideas of animal
sacrifice. To equate Jesus with a beast of the field is to degrade him. If a goat or lamb would have sufficed, then a human is no more than either of
Even after the crucifixion, Paul continued to condone animal sacrifices at the temple,even purchasing the animals for sacrifice for his special
visitors, and thus showing that he did not consider the murder of Jesus to be an sort of final nor ultimate sacrifice.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
If the Atonement really was the method chosen by God, then then it's not our place to pass judgement on it. What do we know?
Whatever this "god" is, it is not your Creator. To be so destructive and blood thirsty would be a conflict of personality to one who creates such
beauty and wonderment as the earth holds. "God" is either a Creator or Destroyer. To be both would be double-minded. The old testament god is a
compilation of many gods which has been rolled into into one named YHWH. As you read from chapter to chapter if you really study it, Disraeli, you
would see that the characteristics and personalities of these god-forces are inconsistent.
To accept that this god required atonement in the way of animal sacrifice is to believe the voice of man. "It's not our place to pass judgment on
it" you say? Your Creator admonishes you to be discerning and to use reason: to be as wise as a serpent. This does not mean blind obedience to
someone who claims to be "closer to god than you are" and wears the fancy ceremonial robes of a wizard.
The God of Genesis gave MAN dominion over the earth. God gave it all to man. He did not set up any rituals or temples for man to worship him. Religion
is based on oracles which are used to manipulate and control people through fear and superstition.
But back to the subject.
To accept Jesus as a blood sacrifice, to demean his life to be equal with that of a beast like a lamb, is erroneous. The importance of Jesus was how
he lived and what he tried to teach people when he was alive. His life was of more importance than his death. Blood sacrifice is a twisted evil thing.