I just worked a 12 hour shift. I read it, and can't get the contradiction. But I do believe you. I had people say it before. So I will just refer you to a site that has some good resources. Then you can make your own decision, independent of anything I try to tell you.


http://www.pleasec...istian_Apologetics

Posted by White Rabbit Again, nowhere in the Bible does he say that he was God or that he wanted anybody to worship him instead of (or in addition to) God.

There are many things Christians believe that are not specifically state in the Bible. This is called "Tradition" with a capital "T". Sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God. The apostles left bishops as their successors giving them the authority to interpret Scripture and pass on Sacred Tradition through the direction of the Holy Spirit. They are know as the Magisterium.

"There is a great difference between the person who falls into error after having used all the means at his or her disposal in the search for truth, and the situation of one who, either through simple acquiescence of the majority opinion, often deliberately created by the powers of the world, or through negligence, takes little pains to discover the truth." - Pope John Paul II

Posted by Oryx I find it interesting how God seems to be pretty big on animal sacrifices (even human in exodus)...

Erm, the only story about God and human sacrifices is a "Gotcha! Just kidding", and it's in Genesis, not Exodus...

Posted by Yehoshua Erm, the only story about God and human sacrifices is a "Gotcha! Just kidding", and it's in Genesis, not Exodus...

Erm, yeah, do you not know what "burnt offering" means?

The burnt offering was the highest order of sacrifice in the Old Testament ritual.


These were wholly animal, and the victims were wholly consumed. They might be from the herd or the flock, or in cases of poverty birds might be substituted. The offerings acceptable were: (a) young bullocks; (b) rams or goats of the first year; (c) turtle-doves or young pigeons. These animals were to be free from all disease or blemish. They were to be brought to the door of the tabernacle, and the offerer was to kill them on the north side of the altar (if a burnt offering), except in the public sacrifices, when the priest put the victims to death, being assisted on occasion by the Levites (II Chron. xxix. 34). The blood was then sprinkled around the altar. The victim, if a large animal, was flayed and divided; the pieces being placed above the wood on the altar, the skin only being left to the priest. If the offering was a bird a similar operation was performed, except that the victim was not entirely divided. The fire which consumed the offerings was never allowed to go out, since they were slowly consumed; and the several kinds of sacrifice furnished constant material for the flames. Every morning the ashes were conveyed by the priest to a clean place outside the camp (Ex. xxix. 38-42; Lev. i., vi. 8-13, ix. 12-14; Num. xv.)

Read more: http://www.jewishe...1612#ixzz0SYWbQrQy




EDIT: Dammit. I just realized that you were only pointing out that there was a single reference to human sacrifice. My bad.

Nonetheless, this source also refers to "offering of human victims (Judges xi. 31; II Kings iii. 27; Jer. xix. 5).J. Jr. J. F. McC."

Read more: http://www.jewishe...1612#ixzz0SYXaoKoV

Posted by Trixi There are many things Christians believe that are not specifically state in the Bible. This is called "Tradition" with a capital "T". Sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God. The apostles left bishops as their successors giving them the authority to interpret Scripture and pass on Sacred Tradition through the direction of the Holy Spirit. They are know as the Magisterium. "There is a great difference between the person who falls into error after having used all the means at his or her disposal in the search for truth, and the situation of one who, either through simple acquiescence of the majority opinion, often deliberately created by the powers of the world, or through negligence, takes little pains to discover the truth." - Pope John Paul II

That's a great quote, Trixi. I'll keep that in mind when I need to refute Pascal's wager.

I think there were a few more references to human sacrifice:

Genesis 22:2
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Exodus 22:29
Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

Leviticus 27:28-29
No devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast ... shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.

Numbers 31:25-29
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation: And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.

Judges 11:29-40
Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah.... And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.... And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child.... And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth.... And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed.

2 Samuel 21:1, 8-9, 14
Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.... The king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul ... And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD....And after that God was intreated for the land.

1 Kings 13:2
And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

2 Kings 23:20
And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them.

2 Chronicles 34:1-5
Josiah ... did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord ... And he burnt the bones of the priests upon their altars.


This should hardly be surprising from a cult that wears a symbol of torture around their necks and claims to eat flesh and drink blood...

Posted by tekriter This should hardly be surprising from a cult that wears a symbol of torture around their necks and claims to eat flesh and drink blood...

These are the types of derogatory comments that really get under my skin. All of your biblical references to human sacrifice were from the Old Testament and all concern the Hebrew nation's relationship with God prior to Jesus coming into the picture. Jews don't wear crosses as a symbol of their faith and I am pretty sure they are not cannibals.

FYI:
The cross, as worn by Christians, is not considered a representation of torture but of the triumph of life over death through Jesus' resurrection.

and

Transubstantiation is the term for the time during mass when the host (or bread) and the wine, through the actions and words of the officiating priest, become the body, soul and divinity of Christ in such a way that only the appearances of bread and wine remain. More here: http://www.newadve.../cathen/05573a.htm

Posted by Trixi Transubstantiation is the term for the time during mass when the host (or bread) and the wine, through the actions and words of the officiating priest, become the body, soul and divinity of Christ in such a way that only the appearances of bread and wine remain. More here: http://www.newadve.../cathen/05573a.htm

Right. That's what he said...

Posted by tekriter claims to eat flesh and drink blood...

I prefer cannibalistic followers of a zombie god.

Posted by Trixi Transubstantiation is the term for the time during mass when the host (or bread) and the wine, through the actions and words of the officiating priest, become the body, soul and divinity of Christ in such a way that only the appearances of bread and wine remain. More here: http://www.newadve.../cathen/05573a.htm

I'm sorry. It does seem perfectly reasonable that you can say a few words over some crackers and wine and make them into the blood and flesh of some guy who may or may not have lived 2,000 years ago. If he did exist he must have been some dude, because since he stalked around the Levant people have been killing each other in his name ever since. It's even more reasonable to eat crackers after you pretend that they are flesh.

The fact that it gets under your skin offends me. It offends me that differing points of view of different peoples that believe their god wrote a magic book offend each other to the point where they kill and maim each other over them, let alone get all hot and bothered on the inter-web thingy.

You can consider the cross from whatever point of view you want, but the fact remains that some folks used to nail other folks to them for believing different things than them. I have seen more than a few churches with great statues of crosses with a bearded dude nailed to them not looking very triumphing.

To southern folks the rebel flag is a symbol of a greater culture, and a better time, but not so much to some black folks.

The swastika was a symbol of triumph to nazis, but not so much for Jews, Gypsies, gays or pretty much anyone that wasn't a nazi too.

I'm not sure why I'm even discussing this with you. Silence, woman!

Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. (that's in the NEW testament)

Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (also NEWtestament)

Posted by tekriter The fact that it gets under your skin offends me.

Tek, you are funny.

The thing most irritates me about this board is the lack of respect. I happen to enjoy thoughtful and open religious discussion and don't feel it necessary to mock others while disagreeing or making a point. Regardless of how certain I may be of the validity of my own religious preference and experiences, I never assume that I am so enlightened that I cannot learn from others with alternate opinions. It would be nice to see some of my fellow forum members take a similar stance.

Posted by Trixi Tek, you are funny. The thing most irritates me about this board is the lack of respect. I happen to enjoy thoughtful and open religious discussion and don't feel it necessary to mock others while disagreeing or making a point. Regardless of how certain I may be of the validity of my own religious preference and experiences, I never assume that I am so enlightened that I cannot learn from others with alternate opinions. It would be nice to see some of my fellow forum members take a similar stance.

click to view

That's a cute cartoon but you missed my point entirely. I am not asking you to respect my beliefs, just show some respect for me as an individual with an expressed opinion by not resorting to ridicule and condescension during conversation. I highly doubt most people would have the "nads" to say some of the stuff to my face that they do in their posts, although I think if you said "Silence, woman" I'd probably crack up before I kicked your ass People may disagree strongly with each other but this does not mean we cannot be civil in our dealings with one another.

I have a great deal of respect for anyone who questions their own faith, or lack thereof in God. In fact, if you don't bother to question, study or learn about the faith you profess then you would be very foolish indeed. That being said, doing your research into Christianity requires a bit more effort than just reading a handful of Chick Tracts or a few Bible verses. There are 2000 years of history to wade through and it can be difficult to flesh out (pardon the pun) what is fact from fiction. It's taken me 28 years thus far...still working on it.

Posted by Trixi In fact, if you don't bother to question, study or learn about the faith you profess then you would be very foolish indeed.

Faith is the shallowest of human experience. It is wrong to attach words like study or learn to an idea that means to suspend one's disbelief - even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The only time the faithful ask why they are willing to invent the answer.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

If she was healed, it would be a "miracle". Since she died, it was god's will.

Posted by Trixi There are 2000 years of history to wade through...

"Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of the earth, more than half of our neighbors believe that the entire cosmos was created six thousand years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue." Sam Harris

Just because lots of people believe it does not make it true. The bible is proof of nothing. It is a badly written collection of second hand accounts. But you seem to claim that it is the true word of god - at least the new testament.

Now, I clearly don't believe that women are subservient or should be silent - and it seems you don't either. Is that part of the bible wrong? What other parts are wrong? What parts are right? Who decides?

For example:
Deuteronomy 24:16:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

So, what dis jesus die for?

The corollary to religious freedom is the freedom to question religious idealogy. If your beliefs were just beliefs - like believing a lava lamp makes your room look cool - then I would have a much easier time respecting your beliefs.

But your beliefs are more than that.

Consider this from current Massachusetts law:

PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy
Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

The age of religious persecution has not ended.

Please try to understand my tone is often lighthearted, but I will in no way be bound to respect ridiculous beliefs. With any other label than "religion" these ideas would be considered mental illness. Come on, rising from the dead? Virgin births? Creationism? Saying words over crackers to make them flesh? An ark that could hold earth's biodiversity? I digress...

Beyond basic human respect, deeper respect for the individual is earned. Please don't misinterpret that. I have deep respect for all persons and would likely risk my life to save yours. I have just spent the last year of my life risking my life so that people like you are free to believe whatever ridiculous things you want without persecution. That respect is definitely not extended to foolish notions about reality. Persecution does not include making light of foolish ideas about the nature of the universe.

And you have yet to give me any respectable reasons to believe the things you do - apart from wishful thinking.

I find it odd that christians demand respect for thier beliefs.

"It’s only natural that those who believe (or play act at believing) that they have a direct line to the Almighty would feel superior to others. This is so obvious that it needs little elaboration. A brief look at religious terminology confirms it. Christians have often called themselves "God’s people," "the chosen people," "the elect," "the righteous," etc., while nonbelievers have been labeled "heathens," "infidels," and "atheistic Communists" (as if atheism and Communism are intimately connected). This sets up a two-tiered division of humanity, in which "God’s people" feel superior to those who are not "God’s people." " anonymous


You also talked earlier about belief and tradition. Those two things combined are called dogma. Reliance on dogma can create a false morality, which is divorced from the reality of human suffering and the efforts to alleviate it. The ideas and traditions of the christian church are all stolen from other earlier superstitions and have evolved. Consider the monkey parable: http://stardustglo...ink-like-a-monkey/

At some point all of your beliefs and reality become incompatible. The fact that you are so sensitive and easily offended reflects, I think, a knowledge on some level, that your belief system is a house of cards.

Posted by Trixi There are 2000 years of history to wade through and it can be difficult to flesh out (pardon the pun) what is fact from fiction.

See, that's part of the problem right there. Those 2000 years did not add any facts, only fictions. People who never met Jesus dominated the church and spread their own ideas. Things like the Trinity and the concept of the virgin birth were created and argued about and debated and eventually voted on. Where did those things come from? Misunderstandings and confusion caused by lots of contradictory and erroneous stories.

Posted by tekriter And you have yet to give me any respectable reasons to believe the things you do - apart from wishful thinking...

I didn't realize I was supposed to be doing that or I might have actually tried. Since you have also failed to convince me that I should abandon my belief in God, I guess we're even.

The fact that you are so sensitive and easily offended reflects, I think, a knowledge on some level, that your belief system is a house of cards.

I think you are wrong. If I was as easily offended as you suggest, I wouldn't keep posting here. My "sensitivity" on this board comes into play when I feel that people are being rude and disrespectful to each other, which has nothing at all to do with the sturdiness of my belief system, just annoyance at a lack of common decency.

Posted by tekriter Now, I clearly don't believe that women are subservient or should be silent - and it seems you don't either. Is that part of the bible wrong? What other parts are wrong? What parts are right? Who decides?

That is a very good question and one that I addressed in an earlier post on this thread. If you are a Christian,"the task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him" by Jesus himself in Matthew 16:13-20:

"When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah."

In this respect, all other opinions, interpretations and "personal revelations" like yours, mine or even someone as highly esteemed as, say, Billy Graham, regarding the Bible and what we think it really teaches are subject to error.

The bible is proof of nothing but it's own shortcomings. "The bible is the word of god because it says so right here in the bible"...Come on.

1. No one has any first hand accounts of anything jesus may have said, or for that matter if he even existed. The earliest accounts in the bible were recorded at least 70-110 years after the supposed death of jesus. No one has ever found any earlier texts.

2. It was written by dudes - and therefore subject to error itself. Also some other dudes voted on what parts to put in and what parts to leave out. Not to mention that whatever you call the bible is a collection of translations of translations of early jewish oral traditions - most likely allegorical to begin with.

3. It is wrong all over the place. It is filled with unfulfilled prophecies, textual inconsistencies, incorrect geographical, scientific and medical information (Isaiah 17:1, "Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins", but in fact Damascus is considered to be among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world, the synoptic problem, Leviticus 14:1-32 does not cure leprosy, there is no such place as Nazereth first century, pi is not three - and so on ad nauseum).

4. The "good" book is an ethical nightmare promoting violence, subjugation of women, slavery, incest, genocide etc.

5. Why didn't your imaginary friend just say what he means? Why is there no proof that there is a god and why is there nothing helpful to humanity in the bible -like advanced mathematics or cures for cancer? But most of all - why doesn't it just say what it means?

Posted by tekriter The bible is proof of nothing but it's own shortcomings. "The bible is the word of god because it says so right here in the bible"...Come on.

For a history of the Bible: http://www.newadve.../cathen/02543a.htm

1. No one has any first hand accounts of anything jesus may have said, or for that matter if he even existed. The earliest accounts in the bible were recorded at least 70-110 years after the supposed death of jesus. No one has ever found any earlier texts.

Archaeology is ongoing and new texts are being found in dusty basement museums and deserts all the time. What makes you think every potential item has already been discovered?

2. It was written by dudes - and therefore subject to error itself. Also some other dudes voted on what parts to put in and what parts to leave out. Not to mention that whatever you call the bible is a collection of translations of translations of early jewish oral traditions - most likely allegorical to begin with.

See the link above for more info.

3. It is wrong all over the place. It is filled with unfulfilled prophecies, textual inconsistencies, incorrect geographical, scientific and medical information (Isaiah 17:1, "Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins", but in fact Damascus is considered to be among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world, the synoptic problem, Leviticus 14:1-32 does not cure leprosy, there is no such place as Nazereth first century, pi is not three - and so on ad nauseum).

Again, see link above.

4. The "good" book is an ethical nightmare promoting violence, subjugation of women, slavery, incest, genocide etc.

I don't see the Bible (I assume you are referring to OT) as promoting these things, just recording the history of the area and how the Jews perceived God's interaction with them. You will find that the Israelite's were just as much a victim of slavery, incest, genocide etc. as they were adept at dishing it out. These were violent times all the way around.

5. Why didn't your imaginary friend just say what he means? Why is there no proof that there is a god and why is there nothing helpful to humanity in the bible -like advanced mathematics or cures for cancer? But most of all - why doesn't it just say what it means?

I find it amazing that you cannot find anything helpful to humanity in the entire Bible. I guess helpful is in the eye of the beholder. I doubt that the authors of each book included in the Bible expected their works to be compiled into a comprehensive text, much less one which you seem to think is supposed to supply all answers to the problems and mysteries of life.

As far as proof of God...If I were a blind man, how could you prove to me that the sky was blue when all I see is black. If God has not revealed Himself to you personally, He has either chosen not to at this point or you have chosen to close your eyes to the reality of Him. I see it as that simple.

Posted by Trixi ...I see it as that simple.

I see this as not going anywhere. People will argue about this whole thing untill their throats bleed, but nothing is going to change. Some people believe, some people don't. Trying to rationalize belief is a useless endeavor.

Posted by Oryx I see this as not going anywhere. People will argue about this whole thing untill their throats bleed, but nothing is going to change. Some people believe, some people don't. Trying to rationalize belief is a useless endeavor.

That what you think.