The ways of sacrifice; Claiming the firstborn

a reply to: Nechash
When I'm ready to write threads on the various themes you bring up, I will do so.
I only intend to tackle one issue at a time.
(For example, I spent more than a dozen threads earlier this year looking at various aspects of the Old Testament "social" laws)

a reply to: Bleeeeep
I don't want to attempt answers without proper preparation, and I haven't got proper preparation.
One clue; I'm finding in this series that the real essence of sacrifice is self-offering. Everything else is a token of that. And of course Jesus is a case of self-offering. Paul says "Make yourselves a living sacrifice"- that is, self-offering to God.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well, I can agree with you from experience that this is what your god is getting at, and he is subtle and relentless in his pursuit of that. Everything comes back to it. Just when you think you've finally discovered something new, here it is again another overture to the virtues of self-sacrifice and ego-annihilation. What is wrong with all of you people?

In First Born, FIRST BORN then, If when we start to unfold our confusion, we realize that we are the flame within the fire, that maybe will not burn, in offering ourselves to………… heal, reveal, ourselves when sought within the flame of expansion, (holy spirit) to become that, that was first imaged, then without pain or separated confusion, we can be born again (however you wish to interpret) without the entrapment of the original sin?

a reply to: Nechash
If there really is one who brings us into existence, then acknowledging dependence is no more than a recognition of realities, and claiming independence would be absurd.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well, since the Epic of Gilgamesh and the flood mythology was most probably a carry over story taken from when the Hebrews lived under Babylonian captivity, I would suspect that many a Hebrew bride was inseminated by their "Lord" during their captivity.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The world certainly seems objective and outside of myself at times and yet sometimes there is an expansion in consciousness which encapsulates all things. At times I wonder if you and I are even separate beings or if we are some type of lunatic engaging in a war against himself?!

I think the problem is that we get these small tastes of the reality that is beyond our smallness and we allow these monologues to overwhelm our minds in order to try to make sense out of that which cannot be comprehended. It is like trying to paint a four-dimensional picture on a canvas. You might be able to get one sliver of one frame of the entire object, but you'll never capture its totality.

Trying to diminish this universe back into a state of literal nonduality is not a virtue. We already have unity. This idea of separation is an illusion as far as I can tell. We don't need to annihilate ourselves to achieve it. It is the de facto state of the universe.

Our independence; however, our free will is no illusion. It is a paradox, but both axioms are entirely true. We are all sharing one universal experience as one self-deterministic being and we all have our own independence too.

If "god" created me to have dominion over my person, was that action a mistake or was my independence part of some grander vision of beauty that is beyond human understanding? I do not see how exhausting your individuality, the only aspect of ourselves that most of us have in this world is a virtue when it seems as if this is the very thing we were designed to become. What if the purpose of life isn't self-sacrifice, but self-discovery? What if "god" accepts those marching headlong into oblivion back into his authority because these are aspects of himself, but his true purpose was for us to discover what it means to be a unique and decisive individual, deterministic and self-reflexive in our inherent natures?

originally posted by: windword
I would suspect that many a Hebrew bride was inseminated by their "Lord" during their captivity.

That doesn't explain why there is no vestige of the idea in the texts.
Nor do you explain what all this has to do with claiming the first-born of animals.
You really are clutching at straws here.

a reply to: windword

Those practices were referenced with the practices of sending the firstborn to Moloch. Generally, God told His followers to have nothing to do with those who practiced such.

a reply to: Nechash

No, God allowed us all to have freewill. What you make of it is your choice. What He will make of you at the end of your life is judgment. Choose wisely. That is all any of us can hope to do.

a reply to: Nechash

claiming back duality maybe the retrieval of the sum of our parts everything returns to its original state

his true purpose was for us to discover what it means to be a unique and decisive individual, deterministic and self-reflexive in our inherent natures?

a reply to: Nechash
I'm engaged in an exercise of Biblical theology, which involves looking in the Bible for guidance and information.
You want to engage in philosophy, so I'm not going to get involved.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You can be as large or as small as you like. Your scope can go from the universal to the minute, from the master to the slave. I'd never disabuse you of this right of choice. I just wish you chose to spread your wings and fly. Maybe that is an evil in me, a desire to induce change in you, and if it is, I apologize, but I see a brother in you, a redeemable being of pure illumination and I hope someday we can stand as equals and bear our talents into reality to the betterment of all and to the glorification of this world.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Faith is in no way separate from philosophy. Even atheists operate from a foundation of faith. Evolutionary philosophers base their ideas upon faith in the principles of gradual geologic and biological change and may also reject any possibility of outside intervention in the course of human evolution. They haven't lived long enough to directly witness the billions of years of evolution that they believe has happened in just the way science currently understands it. Scientific theories are based on data collected by scientists endeavoring to prove hypotheses (usually their own). While their theories may be supported by evidence, there is hardly a theory more than a few hundred years old that has not been challenged by later evidence. New scientific theories rely heavily on previously "proved" theories, but unless you have have witnessed the collection of all of the data directly, you must have faith in whoever collected the evidence that supports the older theory upon which you are building. Even if you can reproduce the old experiment and get the same result, you still have to trust that both yours and their interpretation of the data is correct. Science is a discipline built heavily on faith.
open.salon.com...

I felt I had to say this, apologies for going of topic briefly, but is this not what it’s all about, provoking opinion and through that understanding? excellent thread OP, this comments intent, is what people should take on board in the heat of a debate, whatever the opinion, no one is right or wrong, only broadening insight.

You can be as large or as small as you like. Your scope can go from the universal to the minute, from the master to the slave. I'd never disabuse you of this right of choice. I just wish you chose to spread your wings and fly. Maybe that is an evil in me, a desire to induce change in you, and if it is, I apologize, but I see a brother in you, a redeemable being of pure illumination and I hope someday we can stand as equals and bear our talents into reality to the betterment of all and to the glorification of this world.

This is why I love ATS keep up the good work.

a reply to: ketsuko

Those practices were referenced with the practices of sending the firstborn to Moloch.

No. That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about "First Night Rights", Droit du seigneur, sexual hegemony, which was first recorded in the Epic of Gilgamesh and was practiced throughout the Middle East, as well as Asia, Europe, etc. It's what literalists Rabbis claimed the Nephilim were doing, usurping their divine rights to sire offspring with other men's women.

For a tribal people to consecrate their first born children and animals to their god it's a symbol of tribute to their god's virility. The fact that the biblical god supposedly sired an offspring through the "virgin" Mary is just another sign of the continuing theme of the Hebrew god's supposed virility; the divine right of Lords to claim ownership of the first born, through subordinate woman.

a reply to: windword

There is no evidence, however, that the alleged rights ever actually existed in medieval Europe, much less that they were ever exercised,[2] although there is evidence of the practice in certain other regions and time periods.

en.wikipedia.org...

history.stackexchange.com...

www.fibri.de...

www.petalk.com...
?

a reply to: Fingle

Well, boys will be boys, and men will act like animals. The first record of sexual hegemony is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Sexual hegemony is littered throughout the Bible in one form or another. Do you have any doubt that it was practiced under circumstances of captivity and slavery?

Didn't Abraham practice his divine right over Hagar? Didn't the Hebrew God practice his divine right over Mary? Wasn't sexual hegemony the reason William Wallace went to war with England?

a reply to: windword

Point taken

www.jesuswalk.com...

In Christianity, it is God the Father who sacrifices his Son; Mary the mother is not consulted; while revered, she is not imagined as co-creator. Father and Son are one, but mother and Son are not.

Again, these central theological concepts are suffused with gender definitions that emerge from a particular outdated theory of procreation. Not surprisingly, ethical issues regarding gender, sexuality, and procreation—for example, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriages, marriage of priests, women as priests, etc.—are issues of central concern today as the three religions struggle to keep their power and authority.

It should be clear that my answers to the questions "Was Abraham ethical?" and "Should we admire his willingness to sacrifice his son?" are a resounding "No." However, it also should be clear that they cannot be answered in an Either/Or fashion. There are too many presuppositions that typically have not been addressed. My analysis has tried to understand the network of assumptions that made the story possible, rather than proceeding from the story as given.

www.scu.edu...

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: MGaddafi
No, I'm familiar with that poster.
He sees two Gods in the Old Testament, whereas I only see one.

I see God and the Son of God. There can only be one God the Father. His image is both male and female, as Genesis 1 states clearly. The Father is Love and keeps no records of wrongs. He does not desire sacrifice, but mercy. The conflict we have with sin is not a symptom of our own fall, but the error of the one that desires sacrifice.

Put this into perspective. God's will is give and receive only. The thief comes to steal, kill and destroy. He is the accuser of mankind and the adversary of our own way of life. The enemy of mankind is the same lower nature that we all possess from free will. We are all thieves in a state of sin and death. Death is a debt to be paid. As long as we stay in debt, we are servant to the lender.

Giving and receiving develop surplus. Debt is the mark of a thief. When sacrifice is required, it is a payment we are making for a forgiveness of debt. We give the best to Yahweh, but God the Father gave us the best already, free of charge. The true heart of the Father is to forgive, or give in advance. He desires mercy. We owe because we fail to realize the truth by rightly dividing the word of God. We are servant to the lender, failing to realize that we are not in debt. Like a bank loaning us our own money, it's a perceived system of value.

Adam was deceived when he was empty of knowledge. Once he was divided male to female, the division gave control to the one who originally divided what was already whole. Division is the key to control, and the pattern continues today. We are servant to our lenders.

Why? The entire system is based on taking rather than giving. Christ came to flip us over, but first, he had to be flipped by God to the truth. God is raising His Son. By this, we are raised. Mercy and Grace. No sacrifice needed if we follow the law of love. Law is a guardian until faith comes. Faith is here.

Love creates surplus and unites instead of divides. It's the whole message of the Bible to us at the end of our toil on Earth.