Sacrifice your children to God!

Originally posted by LunaKat
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Hi WarminIndy, I think what really gets on everyones nerves is that this sacrifice was asked for by what is paraded around as a loving God. Earlier religions --Pagan and others-- did ask for human sacrifices. Religion keeps evolving --with the exception of Christianity. In Christianity we are told that God the Father is loving. It doesn't matter that the earlier religions had sacrifice and he was trying to make a point. If you expect people to believe you are loving, you don't do that.

Now here is where it gets really crazy. God's word is never to be changed and no law is supposed to be changed either (which is a big reason why Jewish people reject Jesus as Messiah cause he changed those things) --but that means Christianity does not and will not evolve. There is so much in that Bible that is not loving and its for all time. It is not going to change and when Christians whitewash it today its because they know there is no changing it --best come up with some kind of explanation that justifies it and so it goes. Thats what happens when you're stuck with something. The explanations given today don't match the explanations given for much of the Bible 20 years ago. That is the only part that changes. But the actual words --which is all anyone really needs to see-- those will never change. What was bad when it was written is still bad today.

What they thought of women back then and children is gonna be the rules forever.

At least the Pagan beliefs have evolved. There is no shame in changing things that are harmful. The shame is in keeping them.

edit on 29-12-2011 by LunaKat because: (no reason given)

There are many Jewish scholars who did teach this was to be a purely symbolic act,

The early rabbinic midrash Genesis Rabbah imagines God as saying "I never considered telling Abraham to slaughter Isaac (using the Hebrew root letters for "slaughter", not "sacrifice")". Rabbi Yona Ibn Janach (Spain, 11th century) wrote that God demanded only a symbolic sacrifice. Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi (Spain, early 14th century) wrote that Abraham's "imagination" led him astray, making him believe that he had been commanded to sacrifice his son. Ibn Caspi writes "How could God command such a revolting thing?" But according to Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire), child sacrifice was actually "rife among the Semitic peoples," and suggests that "in that age, it was astounding that Abraham's God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it." Hertz interprets the Akedah as demonstrating to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent. "Unlike the cruel heathen deities, it was the spiritual surrender alone that God required." In Jeremiah 32:35, God states that the later Israelite practice of child sacrifice to the deity Molech "had [never] entered My mind that they should do this abomination."

And listen to all of what Abraham said before the event

In The Binding of Isaac, Religious Murders & Kabbalah, Lippman Bodoff argues that Abraham never intended to actually sacrifice his son, and that he had faith that God had no intention that he do so. Others suggest[who?] that Abraham's apparent complicity with the sacrifice was actually his way of testing God. Abraham had previously argued with God to save lives in Sodom and Gomorrah. By silently complying with God's instructions to kill Isaac, Abraham was putting pressure on God to act in a moral way to preserve life. More evidence that Abraham thought that he won't actually sacrifice Isaac comes from Genesis 22:5, where Abraham said to his servants, "You stay here with the ass. The boy and I will go up there; we will worship and we will return to you." By saying that we (as opposed to I), he meant that both he and Isaac will return. Thus, he didn't believe that Isaac would be sacrificed in the end[5]

Even Maimonedes addressed this in his book The Guide For the Perplexed

I think what happens for most Christians is that they take it without thinking, but we should always think about what we read, we should not just take it at face value because of tradition. Abraham never intended on killing Isaac, he intended on walking back down the mountain with Isaac.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Abraham never intended on killing Isaac, he intended on walking back down the mountain with Isaac.

Nice that you accept the authority of ancient Jewish scholars over the Bible.
The angel of The Lord said (in the biblical version) that it now knew that Abraham fully intended to kill his son.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Abraham never intended on killing Isaac, he intended on walking back down the mountain with Isaac.

Nice that you accept the authority of ancient Jewish scholars over the Bible.
The angel of The Lord said (in the biblical version) that it now knew that Abraham fully intended to kill his son.

What you are proposing is that certain Christian scholars have more authority? Have Torah, JimDewey, have Torah. When you learn that having Torah means more than just having the Torah in your home, it means not only studying that Torah but understanding what it means to be able to apply it to your time and situation and help others by it, instead of hurting people.

Good Torah, Jim Dewey, get good Torah. BTW, the Torah is the Old Testament. Learn to help people instead of throwing a rope of bondage around them to keep them down until they agree with you.

I've been perusing the religion forums for a few days now, partipating in some of them, hoping to learn more than I've already studied.

The common theme I see among the Christians here on ATS, as well as many who have renounced their faith, is bickering over what the Bible says and all of its contradictions, wrathful, vengeful stories of a murderous deity who is jealous, bossy, and manipulative....compared to the message of kindness that was spread by Jesus.

Some say "the OT is older, so it is right", others say "the NT is right and none of that OT stuff is in there", ad nauseum.

It just occured to me this morning...if the Bible is the main source of all of this friction and condemnation and judgment and confusion, why doesn't someone in authority just get rid of it? Just say, "Okay, boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen, this is an ancient collection of heardsaid stories that were jotted down by some guys (all the authors were guys, right?) who didn't know each other, didn't know Jesus, and were "journaling". Let's make a new book, that is NOT contradictory and does NOT include sacrificnig one's children, and use that instead."

I would think that a merciful God would reject any such bunch of esoteric phrases and outright fearmongering once that God was aware of the chaos and hatred and misunderstandings that the Bible is DIRECTLY responsible for.

(And surely if there is an anthropomorphic Man sitting up there listening to all the prayers of his misguided loyalists, "he" IS aware of it. And is either bored with it, sorry he ever got involved, or is really an insensitve jerk to allow the "flocks" to batter one another incessantly in his name. Why does "he" not protest? Oh, wait, I know....he's coming back to judge, and just waiting until there are hoardes of people who he can order into his version of the Nazi "showers.")

But I am also pretty sure that even if someone in authority, say all of the Christian heads of church, got together (like governors get together with the president) and revised their "book" so that it made sense and the message was loud, clear, and hopeful.....there would be LOTS of angry zealots who would just refuse to pay them any attention. It would be impossible to destroy every copy of the Bible that circulates on this planet and causes so much brotherly hatred.

Treat others as you would like to be treated.
That's it. That's the WHOLE TEXT. Period. All the rest is just inserted for the purpose of causing confusion, arguments, and separation of people from their fellow humans, when they are all heading the same direction anyway, and will eventually end up in the grace of the Divine Universal Truth.

reply to post by WarminIndy

. . . Have Torah . . .

Glad to see you coming out of the closet and admitting that you are actually Jewish instead of misrepresenting yourself as Christian.

reply to post by wildtimes

Oh, wait, I know....he's coming back to judge . . .

Jesus came and judged Satan.
He came back (the second coming) and conferred the power of the spirit onto those who believed in him.
We judge ourselves by what we choose to follow, either the old satanic way, or the way of the spirit which originates from God, and when I say God, I mean the one represented by Jesus, meaning the good God.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

. . . Have Torah . . .

Glad to see you coming out of the closet and admitting that you are actually Jewish instead of misrepresenting yourself as Christian.

Have Torah is just a phrase Jim Dewey. The Torah is the Old Testament, and if you can't understand the Old Testament, then you won't understand the New Testament. And if you can't understand the New Testament, you won't understand how to speak life to others. The Old Testament was about death, the New Testament was about life. The Old Testament is the old man, the New Testament is...ok, what is it? The new man.

Jesus had good Torah, He lived it and spoke it...and get this, He helped people through His good Torah, which was just an understanding of it. Is there something wrong with having good understanding?

reply to post by WarminIndy


So this term 'good Torah' would be comparable to maybe me saying, 'Jesus had good Plato' ?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

So this term 'good Torah' would be comparable to maybe me saying, 'Jesus had good Plato' ?

Absolutely not Jim Dewey. Good Torah (Old Testament), means understanding line upon line and precept upon precept. Do you understand line upon line and precept upon precept? When you understand line upon line and precept upon precept, to know that you are to bring life to others through your words and deeds, then you can say you understand.

Otherwise, you are just the letter killing and not the spirit bringing to life. Good Torah means good understanding of the Bible, and can you say that you do? Are you rejecting good Torah because you don't like the Torah even though Jesus preached the Torah? So, to understand the good Torah of Jesus through the words of the Torah, you are going to have to understand it. Good Torah will lead you to good understanding of the words Jesus preached. Jesus is the Torah, I hope you understand that.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Do you understand line upon line and precept upon precept?

I made a post on this very thread, earlier on this same thing.

. . . precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little . . .
Isaiah 28 is using that as a way to explain how government works and it is something complex that the rulers and Judges need to be sharp and have their wits about them to keep it straight, it has nothing to do with how to read the Bible to formulate doctrines.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jesus is the Torah

This is a tenet of Messianic Judaism but is of course false and anti-christ from Satan.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Do you understand line upon line and precept upon precept?

I made a post on this very thread, earlier on this same thing.

. . . precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little . . .
Isaiah 28 is using that as a way to explain how government works and it is something complex that the rulers and Judges need to be sharp and have their wits about them to keep it straight, it has nothing to do with how to read the Bible to formulate doctrines.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jesus is the Torah

This is a tenet of Messianic Judaism but is of course false and anti-christ from Satan.

edit on 30-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

The Word of God made flesh and dwelt among men. Are you saying Jesus is not the Word of God made flesh and that He does not dwell among us?

God is All-Knowing.

He does not need to "test" you in order for him to KNOW if you would do it. He already knows that. The test, if it were to happen (as in case of Abraham, and his FIRSTBORN son) is actually a test for you yourself, not for God.

And in any case - he would not allow it to happen, because:

Whoever kills a person unless for murder or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. - Qur'an, 5:32

Originally posted by CharonIncarnate
God is all loving right?

Wrong! (Not having a go at you, I know you were being sarcastic).

Psalm 79:5
How long, LORD? Will you be angry forever? How long will your jealousy burn like fire?

The "god" presented in the Bible is a very dark entity. It doesn't suprise me at all he wants "sacrifices".

Here's another alternative:

The people decide they want to live in peace without fear and tell "god" where to go...

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

God is All-Knowing.

Not according to the Old Testament.

What He does do, according to the OT is say He is going to do something and then does things to make it come about, which is a way of knowing something ahead of time but is really based on a certain degree of self-confidence.

reply to post by WarminIndy

The Word of God made flesh and dwelt among men. Are you saying Jesus is not the Word of God made flesh and that He does not dwell among us?

Yes.

Even if that was what was meant in John 1, it would still be metaphorical and not literal.
Jesus is the name of God, not the word of God, he is the I Am, the new YHWH, if you will.

Even if the request was symbolic, with God not actually wanting Abraham to sacrifice his child, it is still an extremely distastful and cruel test, which any truly wise individual would never consider.

Sacrifice time, needs, food or even a body part if you will, but the life of a child?

There are times where parents in desperate situations have sacrificed the lives of their children, but should someone or something demand that of them for the pathetic reason using this as a test of their loyalty, I have to question the wisdom of that individual.

Of course, should that individual turn out to be a monster, it would be typical behaviour expected of it, but not that of an entity that claims to be wise, loving or benevolent.

If Gandi or Mother Teresa, ever tried anything like this, I would lose all respect for them.

reply to post by ixiy

Or it is a fictional story based on what people thought the gods were like at that time and it was adapted for a later time and they substituted in the current god name from whatever the Canaanite god name was in the original story.
People are paralyzed with this mystical spirit of name worship where they question nothing and believe that somehow this current name thy get all giddy over has existed forever, so they idolize bronze age cruelty which is the equivelant of what we would call Satan today, and so revert culture into a living hell that Christianity came to get us out of.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

. . . Have Torah . . .

Glad to see you coming out of the closet and admitting that you are actually Jewish instead of misrepresenting yourself as Christian.

Sounds like your religion lacks compassion and understanding.

You should try to be less judgmental.

reply to post by vogon42

You should try to be less judgmental.

Towards ant-christ? Really?
How about Satan? Should I not judge him?
Actually I don't care what people believe and it is none of my business.
I just have an issue with openness and honesty.
I think people should like put a disclaimer in their signature that says something like, 'I may sound like a Christian in some of my posts but I want to make it clear that I am not but just use phraseology common to Christianity to lure people into my own cult.'

Personally I don't belong to or promote a cult and my beliefs change as I learn things and see things from a slightly different perspective. I grew up in a church with no creed or dogma and taught that there is a "present truth" for your own time and circumstance which you are to constantly seek and to not fail by sticking to things, which is what dogma is.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by vogon42

 

You should try to be less judgmental.

Towards ant-christ? Really?
How about Satan? Should I not judge him?
Actually I don't care what people believe and it is none of my business.
I just have an issue with openness and honesty.
I think people should like put a disclaimer in their signature that says something like, 'I may sound like a Christian in some of my posts but I want to make it clear that I am not but just use phraseology common to Christianity to lure people into my own cult.'

edit on 31-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

You apparently have never read my earlier posts in ATS or have conveniently forgotten what I have said. You have presented Replacement Theology that some of us caught you on, and then you hide hoping we forget what you post.

The reason you don't accept my statements of Christianity is because, as you say, your beliefs change. And if your beliefs change, how are proving they change for the better or even in the right direction? Let me explain again, for the benefit of those who do not know me and for you who has forgotten, I am a Trinitarian Pentecostal that embraced Christian mysticism because the classic definition of a mystic is one who believes in the direct communication with God. Pentecostalism does fall under that category. I believe in direct communication with God.

I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost and not only believe in them, but know that all people can also have direct communication with God. I also believe that an outward expression should be the reflection of an inward dwelling. Do I allow just anything to dwell in me? Absolutely not, and I apply standards to judge those spirits by. Does it reflect the nature and character of Jesus Christ? Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith, that means we go by what He teaches. If it cannot be verified to reflect Jesus, then I will not allow it in.

All that Jesus teaches should lead us to the Father. That Father outwardly expressed Himself to the Jews, even though they don't have any images of the Father. The Father was wise enough to know that those of us who are not Jewish, should have the ability to come to the Father, and how? Through direct communication, the indwelling of the Spirit of God.

If I go by what Jesus said, then I have to accept that He came to save the lost of the House of Israel and salvation is of the Jews. The words of Christ are plain, Jesus came outwardly to those people then, but comes inwardly for us today. And in all the prophecies, which Jesus referred to many times by saying "The Scripture has said.." means that we are to look into those scriptures. All scripture Jesus quoted was from the Old Testament, the Torah. And if Jesus thought it proper, we should as well.

What you have presented is a doctrine that denies the scriptures Jesus quoted and that Jesus only appears outwardly. I know Jesus inwardly, what does that make me? Does that make me a Jew inwardly?

What appears on the outside should be a reflection and result of what is on the inside. Circumcision is a matter of the heart, not because you should not circumcise the flesh only, but the reason you do it in the flesh is because your heart embraces the meaning of the circumcision.

I am not a traditional Christian because I do not look for outward signs to prove it, what happens inside will result in an inward change that causes outward manifestations. That is the order it is supposed to work. Jesus is alive and well, and is always reminding us that God was manifest outwardly to a nation of people and if God was manifest outwardly to those people, and those people only, then they must have accepted God inwardly.

Romans 3:19Now we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God. 20Therefore by the deeds of the law, no flesh shall be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all those who believe. For there is no difference, 23for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,

29Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30seeing it is one God who shall justify the Circumcision by faith, and Uncircumcision through faith. 31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the law.

God justified circumcision. God justified the Jews by the law.