Well the evidence is to the contrary to your opinion. You have nothing to base your claims on other than your own imagination.
No it is not. Jst, have you read Leviticus? You can't escape a paragraph without detailed instructions on how to properly sacrifice. Can you backup your claim of there being evidence that points to the Bible and Judeo-Christian faith NOT being centered around sacrifice?
I'll go ahead and provide evidence of the contrary:
Within the Torah you'll find countless examples. The first sacrifice in the Bible was Abel's offering of plumb dead sheep
, which got God's rocks off, but some argue the first sacrifice was in early Genesis where God killed and skinned animals to cloth Adam and Eve. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the sacrifice was for the sin they committed, but we're drifting off point. The next sacrifice in Genesis involves God enjoying taking whiffs of the smoldered animal carcasses that were stacked on an altar after the flood
. You know what, this could take forever. I'll just list off the verses where he demands burnt sacrifices, gives a step-by-step how to, or just craves an animal blood splattered altar:
•1 Kings 3:4
•2 Kings 2:10-25
•2 Chronicles 7:1
•2 Chronicles 43:18-25
•2 Chronicles 46:2-7
...and those are just the animal sacrifices. If you would like, you can attempt to address why Yahweh dabbles in and accepts human sacrifice as well. To name a few:
•1 Kings 13:1-2
•2 Kings 23:20-25
•Deuteronomy 13:13-19 <- my personal favorite: sacrificing non-believers!
And then there's Jesus. His entire existence was to be a means to an end and his sole purpose was to have his blood spilled and to be sacrificed. Clearly, the ancient Hebrew tradition is layered with a sacrificial tone. And there is simply no denying the main theme of Christianity is a perfect sacrifice for sin. Or is this all my imagination like you said?
This is an incorrect analogy. The sacrifice of his son had no effect on the animals personally. Furthermore, the sacrifice of a human for a dog is not a corresponding sacrifice. The human has too much value.
It's a proper analogy, and sacrifice serves no purpose whether the sacrifice is for a pack of canines or a group of apes- it's pure superstition.
No, the father does not throw the grenade. You just state inacurracy after inaccuracy.
Yes he does*. I'll explain why my version of your analogy is accurate. This is what you presented me with:
"Let's say father and son are on a battlefield together and they see a grenade land among a group of soldiers. Let's say the father is not physically able to get to the grenade and he instructs his son to throw himself on the grenade to save those other men. Let's say the son agrees with his father and throws himself on the grenade and it explodes, killing him. All the other men are safe because of this.
The characters in your analogy represent the following:
= Humanity*God created sin
. We can argue all day about freewill and if he created it directly or indirectly, but that makes no difference in our analogy. Nothing can exist without the Christian god's knowledge or action. Therefore, he created it and allows it to exist. Which is the main reason your analogy falls apart. If God is the creator of sin and allows it in the world, then the grenade in your story comes from the father's own belt, and he is the one that lobs it into their foxhole. Another flaw in your analogy is that the father is somehow crippled. God has no such limitations and there is absolutely no reason why he wouldn't be able to jump on the grenade himself, or, at the very least, toss it where it won't hurt anyone. But back to the story. You say the son jumped on the grenade and saved the soldiers but this isn't exactly true either. The explosion of the grenade killed the son and caused shrapnel to bury itself in all of the men. The men won't die immediately, but they are bleeding out; just as sin still exists in the world and is continuously claiming souls. Oh, and don't forget the part where the son that jumped on that 'nade comes back from the dead- shrapnel free, no less.
Are you beginning to see just how poor this analogy is?
Remember I am the theist. I think that makes me a bit more qualified.
I was a Christian for nearly two decades, then I read and studied the Bible. Where do I stand?