Why won't a loving god forgive without seeing a bloody sacrifice first?

[BaalServant]

I've been asking this question about the bible god lately. 

If this god is a loving god, why does it refuse to forgive someone before it sees a bloody sacrifice happen?

The replies from every christian I've talked to have been dismally devoid of any coherent thought on the subject.  Some try claiming that this isn't what their religion says.  Some try avoiding the question by changing the subject.  I've had a few actually give a stab of an answer, but when the contradictions are pointed out, they avoid any furtherance of the discussion.

Would any theists care to explain why it wouldn't be godlike of me to expect someone to twist the head off of a puppy for me to forgive them of something?

Would any theists care to explain how this idea of a god can be considered to be a loving and just god?

Of course, any non-theists are always welcome to weigh in as well.  : )

[rev45]

Your question goes along with my signature. 
"Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?   Ron Patterson"

Doing a quick reading of the first few chapters of Genesis I'm seeing that the first sacrifice of animals are from the Cain and Abel story.  But the reason for the sacrifice is an offering to their god not for a forgiveness of sins.  I'm not seeing why god wouldn't accept Cain's offering along with Abel's.  I'm also not seeing where god told anyone to offer live animals and not fruits and vegetables.  Maybe god is just a big meat lover. 

[screwtape]

"the life is in the blood"

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30342&forum=35&5

[Nick]

You can't make the volcano stop without a blood sacrifice.

[velkyn]

primitive god created by primitive humans.  I like that link, screwtape.  The arguments there are priceless.  Uh, god needs blood because god is just   

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.   oh and you seem to think the bible says things it doesn't, oh little Christians.

Blood for the Blood God! 

[BaalServant]

Your question goes along with my signature. 
"Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?   Ron Patterson"

Doing a quick reading of the first few chapters of Genesis I'm seeing that the first sacrifice of animals are from the Cain and Abel story.  But the reason for the sacrifice is an offering to their god not for a forgiveness of sins.  I'm not seeing why god wouldn't accept Cain's offering along with Abel's.  I'm also not seeing where god told anyone to offer live animals and not fruits and vegetables.  Maybe god is just a big meat lover.

Your signature always did remind me of the premise of what I'd been asking lately.  : )

I remember the Sunday school explanation about the Cain and Abel offering was Cain wasn't really sacrificing anything - he wasn't cutting down his prized pea species that he had been cultivating for generations, while Abel was going full bore, cuttin' that throat of the awesome breed of racing goat he was working on for so long. 

Well, those weren't the exact details, but you get the gist. 

Yeah, god didn't bother laying out his bloodthirsty requirements until Leviticus, I believe.  Maybe Exodus, but c'mon, hebrew god!  How long does it take you to realize that the humans you supposedly made aren't mind readers, let alone god-mind readers?

[stuffin]

re: screwtape's link
"the life is in the blood"

Guess it ain't worth a damn unless it bleeds.

and

Though it may offend some that there are somethings that God cannot do. God cannot not be God...

What The Fudge!

[Historicity]

while Abel was going full , cuttin' that throat of the awesome breed of racing goat he was working on for so long. 

4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

It was a lamb.  That's an important detail.  It was a lamb offered unto God because it is a prophecy that the Lamb of God would be offered unto God.

Isn't that obvious?  Isn't that inspiring?

What do you mean, No???  Those were rhetorical questions.  You weren't supposed to answer.

[BaalServant]

"the life is in the blood"

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30342&forum=35&5

Wow.  As bad as they were, at least some of those responses didn't completely dodge the question.

The first tries to say god must require blood because it is just to do so.

     How is it just for me to demand you twist the head off of a puppy before I will forgive you?

They also try to 'explain' it by stating that 'life is in the blood.'  If this god made the universe, why can't it simply give life like it's supposedly been doing all along every time something's born?

They further demonstrate their religion's contradictory nature by saying, 'eye for an eye,' when this god supposedly expects us to turn the other cheek.  If we are capable of turning the other cheek, why wouldn't this god be?


The second says jesus' sacrifice was unique because he'd never sinned.  However, I wasn't aware that animals could sin.  Did Adam and Eve quickly feed every animal some bites from the tree?

They then pull the old, 'read god's word and he will speak to you' gambit, followed by a 'this napkin is true' verse.

The next anonymous and the following, "jimp," add nothing to the discussion, the next answer asks what the meaning of David's pleas were, but this is a moot question, as they are ignoring the new new edict of, "no one comes to the father except through me." 

A couple more completely dodge the issue again, and the last is yet another restatement of the premise of the question.  They continue to profess amazement that every time this god offers forgiveness in their preferred religious text, it wants to see something bleed to death first, and fall to pieces over this 'revelation' and procklame their rellijun there4 vallud.



I seriously don't get it with these people.  They can think well enough to operate a computer.  Why is it that they can't steer a train of thought?  They understand how to pay their bills and get up in the morning, and make all kinds of temperments of kids, but when it comes to honestly analyzing what it is they base their life on, they put on the brakes to any thought of considering any contradictions or fallacies that are presented.



 

[BaalServant]

What The Fudge!

Yeah, right?  Explain how a god that made a universe can't do what it likes with leeeeetle tiny bits of it. 

But the conversation actually has moved to where you were joking about sometimes.  They'll invariably bring up something about atonement, but there's never a response when I ask, "who is it that this god is having to pay for the right to forgive people?"

[BaalServant]

It was a lamb.  That's an important detail.  It was a lamb offered unto God because the Lamb of God would be offered unto God.

Isn't that obvious?  Isn't that inspiring?

What do you mean, No???  Those were rhetorical questions.  You weren't supposed to answer.

My question to those sorts of responses are, "if this god is so into tying themes together, what about the blood theme?  If blood's so important, why didn't this god simply take a drop of adam's blood, rather than his rib?" 

**Side story**

I crap you not, when I was in grade school, they taught us that boys had one less rib than girls.  I learned otherwise from Gray's Anatomy.  Another true thing - my wife was taught the same thing, yet wasn't made aware of the fallacy until about a month ago. 

Thing is, I was in a private school (not that that's any excuse, in any way, for misinforming kids).  My wife, however, learned this tidbit in a public school.

[BaalServant]

You can't make the volcano stop without a blood sacrifice.

I've always wondered if there were something you could dump on a volcano and seal it, maybe just massive amounts of sand from the ocean bottom, suspended from fleets of fleets of fleets of helicopters.

Of course, make sure there are lots of virgin pilots, just to spite the stupid volcano god. 

[jeremy0]

By sacrificing puppies, you are giving God the blood he needs for the upcoming operation.. in order to become the Great Dog-Demon!  "See Inuyasha cartoon for scientific proof"

[freakygin]

(Please let me play the theist role again  , Since my friends are mostly christian, i can guess their responses, and by doing this, i can practice how to bash them if needed)

You all missed the point!
When God want a sacrifice, He's actually want to see our devotion. See? Lamb doesn't come cheap you know.
God want to see, are we willing to sacrifice what's important to us. Are we willing to let go our most valuable possession.
It's nothing compared to what God will give us in heaven.

[ILOVEYOU]

GOD desires mercy not sacrifice. It is Jesus who declared this. And it is through Jesus Christ that GOD has announced and put a stop to it. Once and for all.

The idea of sacrifice " I think" was to transfer the punishment of a persons transgressions to something else. It couldn't be just anything. Spotless or pure. Innocent. No deformities. It had to be prepared a certain way as well.

The wages of sin are death. All sin leads to death in some way. Things that we know not to do. Things we are aware of but still do. We are all guilty in some way or another and we can no longer say we didn't know or blame someone else for. We all have participated and have fallen short.

But GOD still loves us anyways. Even though we neither deserved it nor earned it. And has chosen to reconcile to Himself, All things. Through The Lord Jesus Christ.

I fully trust in The Lord and His plan for Salvation. The Lord Jesus Christ.

I was going to say "I don't know why so many people are angry." But I know that it isn't always easy.


Take care...

[Astreja]

The idea of sacrifice " I think" was to transfer the punishment of a persons transgressions to something else. It couldn't be just anything. Spotless or pure. Innocent. No deformities. It had to be prepared a certain way as well.

That is, IMO, a completely nonsensical and primitive way of dealing with things.  Furthermore, the idea of transferring a punishment is grossly, despicably immoral.  Why should the recipient have to suffer for what someone else did?  Why?  All this does is add a new wrong to the ones that were allegedly transferred.

The wages of sin are death. All sin leads to death in some way.

Life leads to death.  Deal with it.

1But GOD still loves us anyways. Even though we neither deserved it nor earned it.

A god that puts such conditions on its "love" does not love in any way that I find meaningful.

I fully trust in The Lord and His plan for Salvation. The Lord Jesus Christ.

I fully trust that your your "lord" and its salvation are 100% mythical, and that you will eventually join the rest of us in the silent unknowing of the grave.

I was going to say "I don't know why so many people are angry." But I know that it isn't always easy.

ILY, I shall tell you why I'm angry so that you will wonder no longer.

I find it absolutely reprehensible that you are defending an alleged god that would resort to human sacrifice in order to show mercy to other sentient beings... But only those individuals who agree that this human sacrifice is good, rather than an atrocity against reason and common sense.

When I hear preaching such as yours, what I envision is a scared little man running around a hamster wheel, trapped in a cage of delusions with the lock and the key on the inside, so that only you can free yourself.  I do not envy you for your faith; I pity you.

[Zankuu]

GOD desires mercy not sacrifice. It is Jesus who declared this. And it is through Jesus Christ that GOD has announced and put a stop to it. Once and for all.

The problem is Yahweh once had a thing for blood sacrifices. He used to be a barbaric deity that was obsessed with death and blood.

Honestly, ILY- how is this not a problem for you? Would you give a free pass to a mass murderer just because he's changed his mind and said, "You know what, I was wrong for butchering that family and wearing their skin. I think I'll start an orphanage and help the kids from now on"? Would you say, "Oh you've become a sweetheart? Don't worry about it! You seem like a great guy now!" Of course you wouldn't. So why do you give an ancient middle eastern god a free pass?

The idea of sacrifice " I think" was to transfer the punishment of a persons transgressions to something else. It couldn't be just anything. Spotless or pure. Innocent. No deformities. It had to be prepared a certain way as well.

The idea of not owning up to ones wrongdoings and shifting it on an innocent being is moral how? Seriously, ILY- how is the concept of a scapegoat the least bit moral? It's not. It's disgusting. Does accountability mean nothing to you or your god? I'm not exaggerating when I say that I think it is absolutely sick and deranged to place "sin" on an innocent being. That's one of the least moral things I could think of and your god should be ashamed to have that idea attributed to himself.

The wages of sin are death. All sin leads to death in some way. Things that we know not to do. Things we are aware of but still do. We are all guilty in some way or another and we can no longer say we didn't know or blame someone else for. We all have participated and have fallen short.

No, the wages of sin is not death. Death is a natural part of life. What you mean to say is the wages of unforgiven sin is eternal damnation. Natural death and concept of eternal torture are two very different things.

But GOD still loves us anyways.

Awesome. I'm glad he still loves me but will cast me into an eternal lake of hellfire just because I find no evidence for him. Now that's what I consider fair and moral. Nah, I'm kidding. Your god has no sense of justice.

I was going to say "I don't know why so many people are angry." But I know that it isn't always easy.

As for myself, I'm angry because people like you keep making sorry excuses for a short tempered, malevolently genocidal, blood lusting bronze age misogynist of a god. You should be embarrassed that you proudly proclaim to worship a crude god that once enjoyed burnt animal carcasses. Don't worry, I'll be embarrassed for you in the meantime.

[Historicity]

By sacrificing puppies, you are giving God the blood he needs for the upcoming operation.. in order to become the Great Dog-Demon!  "See Inuyasha cartoon for scientific proof"

From the Tao Te Ching:

    Heaven/Earth is not good.
    It regards the Ten Thousand Things as straw dogs.
    The wise man is not good.
    He regards the Hundred Families as straw dogs.
    Better keep middle.

In the west the Tao is issued as-is and the reader is to zone out onto another plane, perhaps while chemically enhanced.  In China itself the Tao was printed with wide margins full of theological commentary on what it was supposed to mean.

Heaven/Earth means the universe.
The Ten Thousand Things is a standard idiom for all the contents of the universe.
The Hundred Families means all the ethnic groups, hence, any part of the human race.
Middle can mean heart.  Classical Chinese did not write small words such as prepositions since how do you make a pictograph for such a thing?  Demotic Chinese added symbols for these words.  So the last line can mean "It is better to keep to  middle path" or "It is better to keep these things in your heart."  I think the author meant both simultaneously and it comes out "It is better to appear moderate and keep these things in mind as a private demurrer because anyone who goes around saying, 'You're all gonna die' will be hated."

And the Straw Dogs?  At an early point the Chinese sacrificed puppies at some periodic ceremony.  The sacrifice was done by stomping them.  Later on as the Chinese became more civilized (it is not an overnight matter) they substituted dolls of straw.  So a "straw dog" meant something fit and destined to be destroyed.

[One Above All]

You could've just shortened it to "Why won't a loving god forgive?", you know. Gods never forgive; they just have more tolerance for the stuff you do depending on how much you kiss their asses.

[BaalServant]

You all missed the point!
When God want a sacrifice, He's actually want to see our devotion. See? Lamb doesn't come cheap you know.
God want to see, are we willing to sacrifice what's important to us. Are we willing to let go our most valuable possession.
It's nothing compared to what God will give us in heaven.

You missed the point!  : )
 
If this god knew our thoughts, it would be able to discern which claims of devotion were sincere and which were for show. 

Beside the point, how would accepting the event of a proposed 2000 year old sacrifice be doing anything in the way of letting go of our most valuable possession?

[BaalServant]

GOD desires mercy not sacrifice. It is Jesus who declared this. And it is through Jesus Christ that GOD has announced and put a stop to it. Once and for all.

The question is, why won't your god forgive in the first place?  Why would it need to jump through hoops just to forgive?

The idea of sacrifice " I think" was to transfer the punishment of a persons transgressions to something else. It couldn't be just anything. Spotless or pure. Innocent. No deformities. It had to be prepared a certain way as well.

You're not really explaining how a loving god would require such a barbaric custom, yet still be able to be considered loving.  If you forgive someone, do you need to punish something else in order to forgive them?

The wages of sin are death. All sin leads to death in some way. Things that we know not to do. Things we are aware of but still do. We are all guilty in some way or another and we can no longer say we didn't know or blame someone else for. We all have participated and have fallen short.

Is this why dogs die, as well?  Is this why earthworms die? 

Who are these wages being paid to?

But GOD still loves us anyways. Even though we neither deserved it nor earned it. And has chosen to reconcile to Himself, All things. Through The Lord Jesus Christ.

Up to this point, you've only been reiterating minor points of the initial premise of the question.  Now you've gone and restated the entire thing.

This claim of yours that I'm quoting - how can this god be considered to be loving if it's not going to reconcile himself to all things before he gets to see something get smashed first?

Would it be loving of you to refuse to forgive someone unless you put your fist through a wall first, in order for something to at least be 'punished' for the wrong that someone did to you?

I fully trust in The Lord and His plan for Salvation. The Lord Jesus Christ.

Go figure.  You believe the religion you believe in. 

I was going to say "I don't know why so many people are angry." But I know that it isn't always easy.

Why you would introduce such a sentiment into a discussion, I cannot say for sure.  This does indicate, though, that you think I'm asking this question because I'm angry.

All this demonstrates is that you're likely to read things into something that aren't there, which gives an indication that you may also read things into a religious text that aren't there either. 

I'm asking this question because it doesn't make sense to me how someone will ignore whatever aspects of reality that they need to ignore in order to pretend that there's nothing to worry about, because the world is being presided over by a loving armageddon fairy. 

I'm hoping you can either explain how demanding that something innocent be destroyed is loving, or accept that the premises of your religion contradict themselves.

Take care...

Leave care.  Why would I want to take it away from anyone?  : )

[BaalServant]

You could've just shortened it to "Why won't a loving god forgive?", you know.

'Without seeing a bloody sacrifice first' is there to make the question more illustrative of the contradiction of something that's loving putting barbaric conditions on the love. 

It also helps skip the step of having to answer the possibly dishonest question about, 'what do you mean my god won't forgive?'

Of course there's still ILY's method of getting around the no preaching rule - just restate all the premises of the original post, and presto, you have an incognito sermon. 

Gods never forgive; they just have more tolerance for the stuff you do depending on how much you kiss their asses.

Some gods are fully tolerant no matter how much you do or don't kiss their asses. 

[jeremy0]

The idea of sacrifice " I think" was to transfer the punishment of a persons transgressions to something else. It couldn't be just anything. Spotless or pure. Innocent. No deformities. It had to be prepared a certain way as well.

That is, IMO, a completely nonsensical and primitive way of dealing with things. Furthermore, the idea of transferring a punishment is grossly, despicably immoral.  Why should the recipient have to suffer for what someone else did?  Why?  All this does is add a new wrong to the ones that were allegedly transferred.

See bolded.  Best answer - primitive and nonsensical.  Every primitive civilisation did bloody, grotesque sacrifices to their gods to 'appease the gods'.  Be it for rain, a good harvest, to celebrate life and death, or to forgive sins - it's all from primitive civilisation appeasing their gods.  Nothing further.  Let me ask you this: Abraham was supposed to 'sacrifice his own son'.  Now, if God were to suddenly announce that he wanted bloody sacrifices again, would you sacrifice your own children?  Or a goat, for that matter?  Are goats rare in heaven or something?  Are lambs a rarity that it becomes a 'tasty, delicious offering to appease yourself from sins?  I seriously doubt that the people at the time thought Jesus was the last offering.  These people, in offerings, did burnt offerings, which means if Jesus was really the last offering, according to the correct bible, he would have had to be burned as well.

Brings me to another point - even though this act is barbaric at best, how about the burning of countless individuals, according to Jesus?  Is that considered a burnt offering to appease God?  Does that make the sins of the followers magically dissipate?

I think you need to re-evaluate your statements that have been tastefully^[1] refuted here..
^{[1] This is a pun..}

[learnin]

Christianity would make sense to me if the following were true:

God screwed up by creating the world.  Thus, God is guilty of all the suffering we see in the world.  Although God never actually sinned, God was guilty of every sin and bad thing that ever happened, in the world, because God started it all in motion. 

Therefore.  God came into the world in order to suffer because God is guilty of having created this mess.  In other words, God came into this world in order to get a taste of his own medicine.  When it is said that Jesus took the sins of the world upon his shoulders, it is because he is responsible for all the bad things in the world for having created it.  This would be the reason that Jesus remained silent when accused and sentenced to death.  He was guilty.

In this scenario, God is not all perfect and powerful.  To make a long story short.  God phucked up.  And, in the face of rampant evil and suffering, the remedy is mercy.  God never struck back and took the sentence that every living thing has taken and that is death.

Now.  I realize there are many difficulties, posed in Scripture, to this scenario I just laid out.   The Bible speaks of Jesus sending the majority to eternal torture, etc.  But, if I were to preach Christianity, it would be from the position I presented.

[jeremy0]

Good case - if preachers are going to preach about things, why not the good things?  Why do I flip the channels and hear preachers drone on and on about Satan and Revelation?

However, if you refer to this form of teaching, you are ignoring the 'rest of the picture in the bible', which points to contrary argument.  Therefore, the bible should be thrown outright, since it is no longer valid.  Come up with a more valid religion, and stop the BS.  If they can't come up with a better religion, like 'the egg theory', that doesn't solve all of their religious problems without a 'damnation factor' or 'killing factor', then they have no business referring to themselves as 'the chosen ones', 'righteous', or even 'the good guys' = Religious.

[Cadillac]

GOD desires mercy not sacrifice...

But GOD still loves us anyways.

Question: What does the abbreviation GOD stand for? I hope you are not trying to advertise a Hong Kong-based online store:

http://www.god.com.hk/

[Add Homonym]

GOD desires mercy not sacrifice. It is Jesus who declared this. And it is through Jesus Christ that GOD has announced and put a stop to it. Once and for all.

Where does the NT actually say this? Matthew says that we are supposed to follow the whole law. Where does Jesus actually tell us in his words that we are supposed to stop twisting the heads off puppies?

The idea of sacrifice " I think" was to transfer the punishment of a persons transgressions to something else. It couldn't be just anything. Spotless or pure. Innocent. No deformities. It had to be prepared a certain way as well.

I think the rules are the same in all sacrificial religions. The Mayans sacrificed thousands to young boys to build one pyramid. Virgin sacrifice is always popular. All gods are very fussy about needing lots of death, because that is the dumbest serious thing we can think of.

Sacrifice - a human invention. You can tell, because it's cross-cultural.

The wages of sin are death. All sin leads to death in some way.

This must mean that turtles and Galapagos tortoises sin the least.  Just maybe, death has nothing to do with sin, even though the intellectual masters (Paul and Jews) said so, without any evidence.

But GOD still loves us anyways.

That's a cheery thought. It's a pity that his love amounts to nothing.

I fully trust in The Lord and His plan for Salvation. The Lord Jesus Christ.

That's nice. You have to say that, or you will burn in hell.

[Add Homonym]

  Now, if God were to suddenly announce that he wanted bloody sacrifices again, would you sacrifice your own children?

God wouldn't, because man decides what God says. Sacrifice has been generally frowned upon in democratic civilisation, because the sacrifice either gets a vote, or because God is such a loser that we don't believe he exists.

[Samuelxcs]

Maybe god just loves blood, after all, it is beautiful.