Blood can appease God?

Originally posted by RBHILL
I agree with ChessPraxis that it is your opinion.

Man is to dumb to chance the meaning and to dumb to make up a story that is in the bible, that is why it was writein by the help of the Holy Spirit.

But i guess you are not a simple man that is way you do not understand it.


Psalm 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.

The law of the Lord is perfect, but the Bible does not have the law of the Lord, but the law of unauthorized men, who fabricate from their minds.

Originally posted by RBHILL
I agree with ChessPraxis that it is your opinion.

Man is to dumb to chance the meaning and to dumb to make up a story that is in the bible, that is why it was writein by the help of the Holy Spirit.

But i guess you are not a simple man that is way you do not understand it.


Psalm 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.

1 Corinthians: 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Originally posted by Doward
1 Corinthians: 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:18

Perfect application here!

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The law of the Lord is perfect, but the Bible does not have the law of the Lord, but the law of unauthorized men, who fabricate from their minds.

Opinion and ubsubstantiated conjecture.

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
Serious question, and please forgive my ignorance, but how does one atone for sins, say in your belief system?

Are you really willing to engage in a "serious" discussion? Nothing I've seen in your posting history has shown such willingness. Although this question isn't relevant to the OP, I'll answer it providing that you make a meaningful post addressing the salient points of the OP.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Here's a real specific and basic principle for you to mull over. Setting aside the more complex details of the OT's system of sacrifice, consider the orthodox Christian doctrine of atonement obtained via the Cross. As this doctrine is considered, ask yourself this one question: when was the work (of atonement) finished?

If you correctly answer that it on to its far greater failure: that which replaces spiritual reality with transient matter.

Is that all you were getting at? Given the context it seems reasonable to assume that Ingersoll's reference to "blood" is to the concept of "blood sacrifice" which requires the sacrificial death of a living being. Such a concept is barbaric and borne of superstition. The concept is more about a sacrificial death than about blood per se. If primitive cultures believed that the foundation was strictly about blood then bloodletting would have sufficed.

Originally posted by Doward
incorrect. while atonement is an important aspect of the overall Christian view, The ressurection takes presecedent. If Christ sheds his blood and dies, then he simply is a martyr and nothing more. Without the ressurection there is no Christianity...period.

C'mon, you made the following assertion:
"Critics of Christianity innacurately portray our faith based soley on blood appeasement, when it is really one of victory over sin and death."

As I said:
"Whether you want to recognize it or not, it seems clear that the concept of appeasement by blood is foundational to the "victory over sin and death".

This is just a fact whether you want to recognize it or not.

What's more your assertion is a straw man. The OP did not portray Christianity based solely on blood appeasement. It portays it as having blood appeasement as foundational to the belief system which it is.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Is that all you were getting at? Given the context it seems reasonable to assume that Ingersoll's reference to "blood" is to the concept of "blood sacrifice" which requires the sacrificial [b]death of a living being. Such a concept is barbaric and borne of superstition. The concept is more about a sacrificial death than about blood per se. If primitiv ...[text shortened]... elieved that the foundation was strictly about blood then bloodletting would have sufficed.[/b]

Is that all you were getting at?
While the point isn't huge, it was tough enough for you to comprehend during the first go around.

Given the context it seems reasonable to assume that Ingersoll's reference to "blood" is to the concept of "blood sacrifice" which requires the sacrificial [b]death of a living being.[/b]
Nowhere did I state my defense of Ingersoll's statements. Without clarification on the actual topic, I would hold his views to be wrong; all the more so given his stated position overall.

Such a concept is barbaric and borne of superstition.
QED.

If, by "barbaric" you mean savagely cruel, you are correct. The cost of sin is savagely cruel, indeed.

However, your use of the term "superstition" is ill-placed, as connection to reality requires knowledge, not ignorance.

That being said, you have failed to respond to my post in earnest, instead opting to remain on the periphery of the subject. Your insistence of some magical scapegoat motif conjured up as a result of fear-infested ignorants sitting around a campfire dreaming of nightmarish no-escape mazes just doesn't add up. The 'scapegoat' in the real world is the Desired One. It was God Himself who took upon Himself the sins of the world. Cruelly, savagely and with full knowledge.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Are you really willing to engage in a "serious" discussion? Nothing I've seen in your posting history has shown such willingness. Although this question isn't relevant to the OP, I'll answer it providing that you make a meaningful post addressing the salient points of the OP.

Blood and death is part of life. We are born, we bleed we die, so what.
Nevermind answering my question, as I'm sure my comment was not satisfactory to you.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

What's more your assertion is a straw man. The OP did not portray Christianity based solely on blood appeasement. It portays it as having blood appeasement as foundational to the belief system which it is.[/b]

Here we have a presumably omnipotent god (that abhors sin) that had to go to the lengths of impregnating a woman so that the child could be killed and, by virtue of the child's blood being spilled, his worshippers could be reconciled to him. No blood, no reconciliation.


Foundational implies that it is one of the underpinings of the faith, which may be true, but to argue that without offering the other important aspects like the ressurection is completely dishonest and not representative of the Christian faith. Mine was no straw-man argument as you say, but a solid refutaion of a dishonest argument.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Since 667joe has taken to quoting Robert Ingersoll of late, I thought I'd look into him a bit and came across the following quote:
"What man, who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God? And yet, our entire system of religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and according to the Christian system, ...[text shortened]... f the unknown that they feel compelled to embrace such a concept even in this day and age?

I'd say you don't grasp the scripture if that is how you view it, and I also imagine
you have not spent any time yourself studying it either, but instead have gathered
you knowledge on the subject 2nd hand.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Is that all you were getting at?
While the point isn't huge, it was tough enough for you to comprehend during the first go around.

Given the context it seems reasonable to assume that Ingersoll's reference to "blood" is to the concept of "blood sacrifice" which requires the sacrificial [b]death of a living being.[/b]
Nowhere did I state ...[text shortened]... ok upon Himself the sins of the world. Cruelly, savagely and with full knowledge.[/b]

While the point isn't huge, it was tough enough for you to comprehend during the first go around.

No wonder you were so vague the "first go around". With such an insubstantial point, what was there for you to do but try to hide it?

Nowhere did I state my defense of Ingersoll's statements. Without clarification on the actual topic, I would hold his views to be wrong; all the more so given his stated position overall.

Never said you did. Either you are babbling incoherently or you need to make another pass at my post.

However, your use of the term "superstition" is ill-placed, as connection to reality requires knowledge, not ignorance.

That being said, you have failed to respond to my post in earnest, instead opting to remain on the periphery of the subject. Your insistence of some magical scapegoat motif conjured up as a result of fear-infested ignorants sitting around a campfire dreaming of nightmarish no-escape mazes just doesn't add up. The 'scapegoat' in the real world is the Desired One. It was God Himself who took upon Himself the sins of the world. Cruelly, savagely and with full knowledge.

lol. In order to cope with his fear of the unknown, primitive man envisions larger and larger sacrifices in order try to sustain the belief that it reconciles him to God. Not sure of the efficacy of a small sacrifice? Envision a larger one. From small animals, to larger and larger animals, to more and more perfect larger animals, to humans, to purer humans in the form of virgins and/or children, to the ultimately pure sacrifice of a "divine" human made by God Himself. The last is just the culmination of the line of primitive thinking that is blood sacrifice. Once again, how can so many be so enslaved by their fear of the unknown that they feel compelled to embrace such a concept even in this day and age?

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
Blood and death is part of life. We are born, we bleed we die, so what.
Nevermind answering my question, as I'm sure my comment was not satisfactory to you.

Well, seeing as you didn't even attempt to make a meaning full post addressing the salient points of the OP, there's no reason that it would be.

Originally posted by Doward
[b]Here we have a presumably omnipotent god (that abhors sin) that had to go to the lengths of impregnating a woman so that the child could be killed and, by virtue of the child's blood being spilled, his worshippers could be reconciled to him. No blood, no reconciliation.


Foundational implies that it is one of the underpinings of the faith, w ...[text shortened]... aith. Mine was no straw-man argument as you say, but a solid refutaion of a dishonest argument.[/b]

C'mon. Are you seriously trying to defend a straw man argument with a similar straw man? The OP did not portray Christianity based solely on blood appeasement. There was no attempt in the OP to be " representative of the Christian faith." What it does is point out the absurdity of a foundational belief.

At least you were finally able to wrap your mind around the fact that "the concept of appeasement by blood is foundational to the 'victory over sin and death'". I suppose that's progress.

With your absurd accusation of "dishonesty", you sound remarkably like Vishva. If anyone is being dishonest it is you with your denials of fact and the making of straw man arguments.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd say you don't grasp the scripture if that is how you view it, and I also imagine
you have not spent any time yourself studying it either, but instead have gathered
you knowledge on the subject 2nd hand.
Kelly

I imagine that if you were able to make a substantive argument you would. Instead, like a child you've chosen to hide behind making a vague and unsubstantiated accusation.