It Bears Repeating...

by AGuest 75 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tec

  The reality is that god required his bloody death in the same way he required Israel to offer the blood of thousands of animals to appease his wrath at sin.

  You take no delight in sacrifices or offerings. Now that you have made me listen, I finally understand--you don't require burnt offerings or sin offerings. Psalm 40:6

  I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings Hosea 6:6

  You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. Psalm 61:6

  But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. 1st Samuel 15:22

  Just some perspective on what God required or demanded :)

  Tammy
• 

  cofty

  How do you reconcile these texts with the reality of daily temple life and god's explicit demands under the law? To obey may indeed be better than sacrifice but the prophets were just as quick to condemn the people for failing to slaughter their animals for god or for bringing second rate sacrifices.

  It also doesn't answer the multiple descriptions of Jesus' death as a sacrifice.

  Dilemma - God hates sin - god forgives sinners - god must judge sin in order to be righteous

  Solution- Make a public spectacle of punishing sinless Jesus as a vicarious punishment.

  This is the heart of the "gospel" its not unique to Paul although it is stated unequivocally in Romans 3. It pervades the NT and has been consistently taught by every christian teacher since - apart from Rutherford that is.
• 

  tec

  How do you reconcile these texts with the reality of daily temple life and god's explicit demands under the law?

  That the law has been handled falsely by the lying pen of the scribes. That man has misunderstood and/or often exploited the law and their 'power' for personal gain. I look through Christ and what He taught/did.

  May I ask how you reconcile the demands for sacrifice with these texts?

  To obey may indeed be better than sacrifice but the prophets were just as quick to condemn the people for failing to slaughter their animals for god or for bringing second rate sacrifices.

  For attempting to 'cheat' or 'fool' God out of greed, I think... in light of the above quotes. The whole sacrifice of animals, etc, was something that the people understood, I think... but not something that God actually required, again... in light of the above quotes.

  It also doesn't answer the multiple descriptions of Jesus' death as a sacrifice.

  I think the apparent contradictions are enough to know that most people don't or didn't understand the meaning of Christ's sacrifice, or possibly that they don't understand what others tried to relate it to.

  Not as an exacting sort of punishment. But I showed what I think and believe about Christ's sacrifice above, so I personally have to leave it at that I think, at least for now. But I don't think that every Christian teacher has taught that God punished Jesus for our sins. (I could be wrong... I don't really know what other Christian teachers teach, since there really is only ONE teacher - Christ... and unless I hear it from Him, then how do I know that its not just something that man thinks he knows?)

  Tammy
• 

  Murray Smith

  I am somewhat immodestly quoting myself from an earlier thread but perhaps this too bears repeating . . . ?

  1. Because of our reliance on language we feel a need to 'label' things . . . often with a single word. And yet that label will often hold a huge variety of meaning depending on the preconceptions, biases, life experience, knowledge etc of the interpreter. When we use a 'label', we use it only within the confines of our own variables and these can only be limiting to our understanding of others who use the same label . . . others who may have a very different interpretation.

  2. Humans tend to come to "conclusions" based on current knowledge, yet often making little room for the yet "unknown". We can't stand a 'hung jury' but a definitive stance on a matter tends to close us off to the unknown, if and when it becomes knowable, simply because it is contrary to our definitive stance. This can be very limiting . . .

  Many believe they are completely receptive to new knowledge, but are in reality "barrow-pushers" of thier definitive position and receptive only to that which reinforces it . . . committed JW's are a perfect example. Beware of labels . . . and be generous in allowing for the unknown . . . we don't always have to take an intransient definitive position in order to believe . . . nor is it weak or shameful to change what you believe.

  May I also add that it appears to me that Morpheus was speaking in the context of the limiting nature of these factors i.e. fear, doubt, disbelief . . . not the freedom that critical thinking allows. This type of doubt is the one where the individual does not feel "free" to act on what he believes and this too is limiting.

  It's not enough to simply be free of doubts and disbeliefs. A mind that clings to belief is still a mind that is not free; that is a mind that is bound to a set of thoughts because it identifies with those thoughts - that is not freedom. Freedom is freedom from everything, including beliefs.

  Poppers . . . I believe my 'label' for this kind of freedom is 'Death'
• 

  cofty

  Wow Tammy it appears you have no basis whatsoever to make any truth claim about Jesus since you reject the reliability of both the OT and the NT.

  How do you know he lived or did or said anything in particular?
• 

  tec

  I am somewhat immodestly quoting myself from an earlier thread but perhaps this too bears repeating . . . ?

  Cute :)

  But I do agree with what you say about labels. Sometimes we can actually believe the same thing, but misunderstand and argue over our positions because of our differing definitions of certain labels.

  Tammy
• 

  bohm

  tammy:

  Bohm, not sure I fully understand what special pleading is defined as being. Is it meaning that someone is using a different 'qualification' for one thing than for all others?

  well, im pretty much going by the first 3 lines of wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

  you wrote:

  However, in matters of faith in Christ and God (not men) - doubt is contradictory and limiting, because faith is being sure of something not yet beheld.

  the special pleading comes in when you say (for no argued reason) it is somehow limiting to doubt when it comes to God and jesus. you can see it more easily if i wrote it like this:

  However, in matters of atheism -- doubt is contradictory and limiting [WHY?], because a true atheist does not doubt; it is part of the atheist experience to be certain there is no god [WHY IS THAT OKAY?]

  you would properly be all WTF and just think i was fooling myself.

  I would say that the above Morpheus quote mostly applies to those who believe, and yet still have doubt and fear which limit them in their belief.

  just so we are straight, if i as an atheist have doubt and fear i am not right, should i then just push those doubts aside, or investigate them? is this not special pleading again?

  Aguest:

  im not that sure i follow you. you mean it is not rational to begin with an a-priori doubt about the validity of any hypothesis?.

  also i want to respond to this:

  Now, see, here is where the limitation comes in. There is more than just the world that you can try to learn about. It is doubt/disbelief... and perhaps even fear... that prevents one from even considering that there IS more.

  i have considered that option, and i found there was very little evidence; hence i believe it is very unlikely it is so. if you have any evidence, by all means, start a thread about it.
• 

  tec

  Cofty - I reject the OT and NT as infallible/inerrant, yes. I also reject them as the source of faith... (which is only common sense to me, because before the bible there was still faith/God/Christ)... though I do not reject them as many different witness accounts to things that happened. I find it impossible to believe that the whole thing is a hoax, or that those who began the hoax would somehow have been willing to die for something that they knew was completely false, because they are the ones who made it up.

  I also believe in Christ, in the things He is recorded to have taught and said and did. I believe in the Truth of them; more than that, I feel the truth of them in spirit. I have felt Christ, I have also been granted fruits of the Spirit when I asked for them... and I am a more loving person for knowing and following Him. I don't expect you to accept these things for yourself, coming from me, which is why I asked how YOU accept some texts as fact, and others you ignore, since you are basing your faith (or lack) on the OT/NT and teachers of Christianity.

  (even though calling themselves teachers or fathers is contradicting the book they teach from, and Christ's saying that they are NOT to be called teachers, and not to call anyone else father, lol. Perhaps that is too literal though, but many have positioned themselves as authority between men and Christ.)

  How do you know he lived or did or said anything in particular?

  I can think, through reason and evidence. I can only know, through faith. I don't KNOW very many things... except Christ, in whom my faith and trust lie.

  Tammy
• 

  cofty

  But if you wish to go so far as to eradicate all the hundreds of references to god's demands for blood sacrifice in the OT and all the references to the sacrificial nature of Jesus' death in the NT you have cut so deep into the text there is very little left.

  I also believe in Christ, in the things He is recorded to have taught and said and did.

  Did Jesus' actually say "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." - Matt 20:28

  Did John call Jesus "The lamb of god" and what did he mean if not that Jesus was a sacrifice for sin?

  How can you assert a single word is original if you reject the central theme of the book?
• 

  trevor

  That the law has been handled falsely by the lying pen of the scribes.

  Tammy - if this is true, then alas, the bible is a hoax and Jesus may never have existed. We all have the capacity to invent a person in our minds and believe that he speaks to us. It's called delusional thinking.

  If god is has not proven capable of producing a single book in the history of the world, that accurately portrays his message to humans and explains the sacrifice that, according to the Bible his son made; then he is knows less about communication than the average 10 year old with a basic computer. Can people like me really be blamed for being sceptical about a supreme intelligence called God?