Ritualistic animal sacrifice for god, in Christianity

Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Ritualistic animal sacrifice for god, in Christianity

I live in a culture, where there are virtually no fundie Christians

And I am curious does this Ritualistic animal sacrifice. happen in a fundie Christian culture. as this is a commandment from God himself / Leviticus 14

"The Lord spoke to Moses. He told him to say to the people,

“To make the house pure, the priest must get two birds. He must also get some cedar wood, bright red yarn and branches of a hyssop plant. He must kill one of the birds over fresh water in a clay pot.

“Then he must take the cedar wood, the hyssop plant, the bright red yarn and the live bird. He must dip all of them into the blood of the dead bird. He must also dip them into the fresh water. He must sprinkle the house seven times"

? has anybody witnessed this practice

? do christians protest outside chemical company's headquarters.for producing cleaning products that go against the very word of God in mold removal products

 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
leviticus as a whole is all

leviticus as a whole is all awesomely crazy and denied by the church generally speaking =P


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
But the rest of it isn't?

But the rest of it isn't?


JHenson
Theist
Posts: 112
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
The covenant of the Old

The covenant of the Old Testament was closed with Jesus Christ's new covenant.  "Covenant" means a sacred deal, not unlike a contract.  The human end of the Mosaic covenant was the Law - like what you quoted from Leviticus.  The purpose of the Law was to give humans an opportunity for salvation - and was less than God's true wishes, but an offered compromise.

Humans weren't able to uphold even that, so God made a new covenant.  We are to have faith in Jesus Christ to redeem us, and be guided by the Holy Spirit working within us.  Essentially, God knew we could not take even the first step towards our own salvation, so out of mercy and love he took it for us, and continues to take each next step through us.

"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote: The

JHenson wrote:

The covenant of the Old Testament was closed with Jesus Christ's new covenant.  "Covenant" means a sacred deal, not unlike a contract.  The human end of the Mosaic covenant was the Law - like what you quoted from Leviticus.  The purpose of the Law was to give humans an opportunity for salvation - and was less than God's true wishes, but an offered compromise.

Humans weren't able to uphold even that, so God made a new covenant.  We are to have faith in Jesus Christ to redeem us, and be guided by the Holy Spirit working within us.  Essentially, God knew we could not take even the first step towards our own salvation, so out of mercy and love he took it for us, and continues to take each next step through us.

That's a nice little story. Sorry, I still prefer Lord of the Rings.


PonkeyDon
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
Lord Of The Rings

Yes me too, even though it is a very Catholic book.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote: The

JHenson wrote:

The covenant of the Old Testament was closed with Jesus Christ's new covenant. "Covenant" means a sacred deal, not unlike a contract. The human end of the Mosaic covenant was the Law - like what you quoted from Leviticus. The purpose of the Law was to give humans an opportunity for salvation - and was less than God's true wishes, but an offered compromise.

Humans weren't able to uphold even that, so God made a new covenant. We are to have faith in Jesus Christ to redeem us, and be guided by the Holy Spirit working within us. Essentially, God knew we could not take even the first step towards our own salvation, so out of mercy and love he took it for us, and continues to take each next step through us.

Out of curiosity, where does it say that in the NT?  Is it implied or is there a chapter/verse that states that?  I know that this is a commonly held idea with Christians and I was just wondering if the bible clearly states this somewhere.  (My bible knowledge is not as strong as it should be - LOL) 


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
PonkeyDon wrote: Yes me

PonkeyDon wrote:
Yes me too, even though it is a very Catholic book.

Yeah but Tolkien was the greatest Catholic to ever live. We can forgive him one mishap. He was indoctrinated.


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote: The

JHenson wrote:

The covenant of the Old Testament was closed with Jesus Christ's new covenant. "Covenant" means a sacred deal, not unlike a contract. The human end of the Mosaic covenant was the Law - like what you quoted from Leviticus. The purpose of the Law was to give humans an opportunity for salvation - and was less than God's true wishes, but an offered compromise.

Humans weren't able to uphold even that, so God made a new covenant. We are to have faith in Jesus Christ to redeem us, and be guided by the Holy Spirit working within us. Essentially, God knew we could not take even the first step towards our own salvation, so out of mercy and love he took it for us, and continues to take each next step through us.

I bet the omniscient deity didn't see that one coming.


JHenson
Theist
Posts: 112
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote:Out of

jce wrote:
Out of curiosity, where does it say that in the NT?  Is it implied or is there a chapter/verse that states that?  I know that this is a commonly held idea with Christians and I was just wondering if the bible clearly states this somewhere.  (My bible knowledge is not as strong as it should be - LOL)

I'll go out on a limb and guess your Bible knowledge is about as strong as my Quran knowledge, for about the same reasons. Smiling

First some precedent in Jeremiah 31:31-43: "The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.  It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt - a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord.  But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other. 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more."

In the New Testament, the relevant passages are each gospel's telling of Jesus' last passover (aka, "the Last Supper&quotEye-wink.  Luke 22:20 is the most straightforward: "And he did the same [gave thanks] with the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

Edit: It occured to me after posting that this quote is somewhat lackluster.  If you'd like, I can elaborate in another post, but I don't want to over-edit this one.

Each "synoptic" gospel has its own account: Matthew 26:20-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20.  John does not, and I'm not really enough of a Biblical scholar to speak on why.  "Synoptic" is a term used to group Matthew, Mark, and Luke because they seem to draw on the same root sources, likely a "sayings" collection similar to the gospel of Thomas (available online if you want to Google it).

Kemono wrote:
I bet the omniscient deity didn't see that one coming.

See the Jeremiah passage quoted above.

"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote: I'll go out

JHenson wrote:
I'll go out on a limb and guess your Bible knowledge is about as strong as my Quran knowledge, for about the same reasons. Smiling

First some precedent in Jeremiah 31:31-43: "The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt - a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other. 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more."

In the New Testament, the relevant passages are each gospel's telling of Jesus' last passover (aka, "the Last Supper&quotEye-wink. Luke 22:20 is the most straightforward: "And he did the same [gave thanks] with the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

Edit: It occured to me after posting that this quote is somewhat lackluster. If you'd like, I can elaborate in another post, but I don't want to over-edit this one.

Each "synoptic" gospel has its own account: Matthew 26:20-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20. John does not, and I'm not really enough of a Biblical scholar to speak on why. "Synoptic" is a term used to group Matthew, Mark, and Luke because they seem to draw on the same root sources, likely a "sayings" collection similar to the gospel of Thomas (available online if you want to Google it).

Thank you!  This is very helpful.  One more curiosity question - (just because I don't want to totally derail this thread) does the NT state anywhere exactly what this new covenant is or is it supposed to be the promise of salvation through accepting Christ as the savior (duh)?

Most of my biblical knowledge comes through reading it and years of parochial school.  Neither has left me with much understanding of it.


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote: Kemono

JHenson wrote:

Kemono wrote:
I bet the omniscient deity didn't see that one coming.

See the Jeremiah passage quoted above.

Okay, remind me to never resort to irony with you again. Smile

My intention was to point out the absurdity of any fairy tale in which an omniscient deity first adopts a compromise policy for salvation and then abandons it when it fails.


JHenson
Theist
Posts: 112
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Kemono wrote: Okay, remind

Kemono wrote:

Okay, remind me to never resort to irony with you again. Smile

My intention was to point out the absurdity of any fairy tale in which an omniscient deity first adopts a compromise policy for salvation and then abandons it when it fails.

Oh, I got it.  Just presenting counter-evidence.  There's more, if you need.  Didn't mean to sound rude, if I did. Smiling

"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote: Oh, I got

JHenson wrote:

Oh, I got it. Just presenting counter-evidence.

OK. I don't see how the passage addresses the problem, but if you do, that's fine.

Any problem in any theory can be explained away. I can conjure up a rationalization for this or any other theological problem myself and I am not even religious. The reason why such rationalizations fail to impress me is that they cannot be checked against reality.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15933
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote: The

JHenson wrote:

The covenant of the Old Testament was closed with Jesus Christ's new covenant. "Covenant" means a sacred deal, not unlike a contract. The human end of the Mosaic covenant was the Law - like what you quoted from Leviticus. The purpose of the Law was to give humans an opportunity for salvation - and was less than God's true wishes, but an offered compromise.

Humans weren't able to uphold even that, so God made a new covenant. We are to have faith in Jesus Christ to redeem us, and be guided by the Holy Spirit working within us. Essentially, God knew we could not take even the first step towards our own salvation, so out of mercy and love he took it for us, and continues to take each next step through us.

If "God's plan" was perfect, why the change? Are we just gueni pigs he experiments with? The old laws didnt work? I thought there was a verse in the NT that said Jesus came to uphold the old laws?

If not, then why are Christians insistant on upholding the 10 commandments which is OT law?

Seems to me that you want it both ways so that you dont have to give an answer.

Why all the drama of killing to prove a point?  An all powefull being needed blood to be spilled to show love? I guess that is the same type of love he showed allowing people to choke to death on water?

Not a nice guy if you ask me. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Hmph.  Hebrews gives a

Hmph.  Hebrews gives a pretty good apologetic explanation of the New Covenant when it shamelessly quote mines from Jeremiah, Psalms and Genesis.

The Jewish position is different though.  They see Jeremiah's 'new' covenant as simply a renewal of the old one when the nation of Israel is re-established after one of the Babylonian captivities.  He is interested in returning the Jewish people to the Lord after they have turned away from Moses' teachings.

It has nothing at all to do with a Christian covenant. 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


IzzyPop
IzzyPop's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote: The

JHenson wrote:

The covenant of the Old Testament was closed with Jesus Christ's new covenant. "Covenant" means a sacred deal, not unlike a contract. The human end of the Mosaic covenant was the Law - like what you quoted from Leviticus. The purpose of the Law was to give humans an opportunity for salvation - and was less than God's true wishes, but an offered compromise.

Humans weren't able to uphold even that, so God made a new covenant. We are to have faith in Jesus Christ to redeem us, and be guided by the Holy Spirit working within us. Essentially, God knew we could not take even the first step towards our own salvation, so out of mercy and love he took it for us, and continues to take each next step through us.

But even in this new covenant, God still apparently wants all the old laws kept: 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.               

Mark 5:17-18

From the way I read this, good ol' Levitcus and Deuteronomy are still expected to be followed.

"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett


JHenson
Theist
Posts: 112
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: If "God's

Brian37 wrote:
If "God's plan" was perfect, why the change? Are we just gueni pigs he experiments with? The old laws didnt work? I thought there was a verse in the NT that said Jesus came to uphold the old laws?

That's what the Jeremiah quote points out.  God planned the change.  The law includes its prophecies, so it includes a new covenant with the entire world, not just Israel.

Brian37 wrote:
If not, then why are Christians insistant on upholding the 10 commandments which is OT law?

The Mosaic law is still good, but it will not merit salvation.  We should embody the law, not perform it like a ritual.  This is of particular concern to the OP, I expect.  Animal sacrifice was a means of atonement, but atonement is meaningless if it merits nothing.  Our sins are already imputed to Jesus Christ.

Patrician wrote:
The Jewish position is different though.  They see Jeremiah's 'new' covenant as simply a renewal of the old one when the nation of Israel is re-established after one of the Babylonian captivities.  He is interested in returning the Jewish people to the Lord after they have turned away from Moses' teachings.

Well sure the Jewish position is different. Tongue out

Seriously though, saying the new covenant has been fulfilled outside of Christ ignores prophecy of God creating his covenant with all people instead of just Israel, and ignores prophecy of the messiah.  The Jewish interpretation I know of is that non-Israelites can only be ger toshav, which doesn't fit the inclusive language God uses.  The story of Jonah is a terrific illustration of the idea.

IzzyPop, I think I addressed your comment along with the others.

"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote: The Mosaic

JHenson wrote:
The Mosaic law is still good, but it will not merit salvation.  We should embody the law, not perform it like a ritual.  This is of particular concern to the OP, I expect.  Animal sacrifice was a means of atonement, but atonement is meaningless if it merits nothing.  Our sins are already imputed to Jesus Christ..

Ohh I see. it has moved from ritualistic animal sacrifice to ritualistic deity sacrifice. the body and blood of Christ. make sense

And ritualistic animal sacrifice to remove mold. under gods original instructions has become amended. but it still holds true

? JHenson do you believe that even low you do not practice this ritual. it still holds true. that you can remove mold.with ritualistic animal sacrifice


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
JHenson wrote:

JHenson wrote:
Well sure the Jewish position is different. Tongue out

Seriously though, saying the new covenant has been fulfilled outside of Christ ignores prophecy of God creating his covenant with all people instead of just Israel, and ignores prophecy of the messiah. The Jewish interpretation I know of is that non-Israelites can only be ger toshav, which doesn't fit the inclusive language God uses. The story of Jonah is a terrific illustration of the idea.

Sorry, but I think that's specualtion. Jeremiah seems clearly to be referring to the fact that the Israelites have fallen away from God's covenant and that this needs revived.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.