The ways of sacrifice; The shared meal

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
Why, Oh why, are we still following the archaic rules of a desert-dwelling tribe of ancient hebrews, in this day and age?.

And where, exactly, did I say anything about still following the detailed rules?
I might as well ask you when you stopped beating your wife.

Their actions were expressing a frame of mind, consisting of
A sense of dependence upon the God who gave them life
A sense of close contact with the God who gave them life.
I wasn't commending the actions, as an example to follow, I was commending this frame of mind.
If we were able to give ourselves life, then we don't need to be dependent upon anything else.
But if we get our life from somewhere else, it's appropriate to recognise the realities of the situation and acknowledge our dependence.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Nechash
Let me remind you once again of the topic of this thread, which is "the shared meal" as an aspect of Israelite sacrifice.

i do think there is something to be said for a god that spends more time giving to his children so that they might lead better lives than he does demanding their undying adoration.

thats what I see in prometheus.

a reply to: TzarChasm
That user did finally acknowledge that trying to take the thread off-topic was an inappropriate thing to do.
Please follow his good example rather than his bad example.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
Why, Oh why, are we still following the archaic rules of a desert-dwelling tribe of ancient hebrews, in this day and age?.

And where, exactly, did I say anything about still following the detailed rules?
I might as well ask you when you stopped beating your wife.

Their actions were expressing a frame of mind, consisting of
A sense of dependence upon the God who gave them life
A sense of close contact with the God who gave them life.
I wasn't commending the actions, as an example to follow, I was commending this frame of mind.
If we were able to give ourselves life, then we don't need to be dependent upon anything else.
But if we get our life from somewhere else, it's appropriate to recognise the realities of the situation and acknowledge our dependence.

Yet all this clap taps is actually in a holy book? Is it no wonder that things have gotten so warped? How on earth can anyone follow such ridiculousness?

Write a new damn bible - better than the stupid last one.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
Yet all this clap taps is actually in a holy book? ...Write a new damn bible - better than the stupid last one.

The word is "claptrap". The idea is that the jaws ("the trap") are "clapping" together. Hence "clap-trap".
The reading habit encourages literacy.

Writing a new Bible is not the function of this thread.

Those who do not have their hearts open to Mercy (Compassion), think that sacrifices (such as killing animals) is ok, but the only thing they are doing in reality is killing the innocent.

Jesus said:

"If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent." - Matthew 12:7

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
Yet all this clap taps is actually in a holy book? ...Write a new damn bible - better than the stupid last one.

The word is "claptrap". The idea is that the jaws ("the trap") are "clapping" together. Hence "clap-trap".
The reading habit encourages literacy.

Writing a new Bible is not the function of this thread.

So now you're attacking typos? That is how little of an argument you have? I put it to you that the bible and god you claim to follow is a completely insane egomaniac, megalomaniac, with grotesquely blind followers that actively try to turn other people away from belief in god.

Writing a new bible just became a "function of this thread", when you couldn't explain to me why the current one isn't a load of claptrap.

a reply to: arpgme
These were all animals bred for food.
As I deliberately pointed out in the last sentence of the OP, they would have been killed and eaten anyway.
Calling the act a sacrifice did not make their situation any worse.
No more so than when a family says grace over a meal of roast beef. That's all that's happening in this picture. People are giving thanks to God for the food that they're eating.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
I put it to you that the bible and god you claim to follow ...

I don't need to discuss that issue, and won't, because that is not the topic of this thread.
Why is it that the angry, frothing-at-the-mouth anti-religion crusaders find it so difficult to grasp the concept of "keeping to the topic"?
Let me try to explain; the title of the thread and the opening post, between them, define the subject of that particular thread. The posters who follow on will then be discssing that particular subject. This is called "being on-topic" If they want to talk about a dfferent subject, they go to a different thread.
Keeping on-topic is a big thing on ATS, so much so that off-topic posts will sometimes be deleted.
So it is worth taking this point on board.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I think you'll find that anything in the bible is on topic, when that's what your thread is about and I'm happy to keep asking relevant questions like, why on earth does anybody still bother to try to follow this stuff aside from a purely academic interest?

Must I really do the things that are mentioned in the OP in order to please the god that some people believe in?

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
Must I really do the things that are mentioned in the OP in order to please the god that some people believe in?

I never said so.
I was describing what people used to do and explaining why they did it.
Their reasons are more important than their actions.

And I repeat; the convention on ATS is that the topic of a thread is defined by the title and the opening post.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I think what I'm really curious about is why anyone would think it matters - aside from a purely academic standpoint. Is that how I should take your context?

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite
Their actions were expressing a frame of mind, consisting of
A sense of dependence upon the God who gave them life
A sense of close contact with the God who gave them life.
I don't suggest that we imitate their actions. I do suggest that we imitate their frame of mind.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well, hell - that makes so much sense. I hope you forgive my knee-jerk negative reaction to anything religious. I don't generally deal well with it. I got there in the end

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite
Thank you, I think that counts as another success for "civil discussion".

I thought about typing this all out myself but...

I'm lazy! I was interested in your opinion:


Thanks.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
I prefer to read things.
Getting information by listening to people talking is too time intensive (therefore it reduces the quantity and indeed the variety of information which people can take in, which has a dumbing-down effect).
In any case, the title does not seem to relate to the specific subject of this thread.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It's a short video and it would be no different then if I had type it out verbatim! The only reason I didn't type it out was because the video is faster.
Don't be stubborn my friend! This guy is pretty to the point with his views.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Summarise the message briefly in your own words, then. Don't be lazy, old son.
I will comment on it if it relates to the specific topic of this thread.

a reply to: DISRAELI

At the very least I could have given a summary so I will do so now. The author of the video makes the claim that Jesus didn't meet the requirements of a sacrifice. He has five bullet points for his stance. Some are better than others.