What good does religion offer the world today?

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Or maybe one of Glennn's simultaneous timelines of existence is more interesting than this one.

Perhaps it is best for some to keep things simple and to not stray from the pages of their deified book. If walking out of your self-constructed mind-cage is viewed as sin, then in the interest of staying true to your limited self, by all means laugh at those standing on the other side of the bars.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

The truth is that you do not know. And though you might invoke the concept of faith when it comes to dealing with what you do not know, you must also admit that faith is synonymous with belief. You believe in your faith in your belief. You have faith in your belief.

You seem to be the one laughing, which is fine, but you ought to know by now that the cage you're laughing at does not represent where I am.

No, I don't see that faith is synonymous with belief. And I would never let some 'deified book' become a cage for me.

Since you don't have even these very basics about me correct, it is very doubtful that you could know that 'I don't know'.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

And I would never let some 'deified book' become a cage for me.

It is the book from which you found and embraced a god that required the killing of animals, the use of their blood, and the burning of their corpses to satisfy its need for payment for human transgressions. And yet you believe yourself to be not only outside the cage, but also to have not deified a book. Only in a self-imposed mind-prison does such a god appear real and lovable. Ask anyone outside your cage.

Tell me the difference between faith and belief.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

You seem to be the one laughing, which is fine

What part of my post did you interpret as laughter?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"And I would never let some 'deified book' become a cage for me."

It is the book from which you found and embraced a god that required the killing of animals, the use of their blood, and the burning of their corpses to satisfy its need for payment for human transgressions. And yet you believe yourself to be not only outside the cage, but also to have not deified a book. Only in a self-imposed mind-prison does such a god appear real and lovable. Ask anyone outside your cage..

I have repeatedly said that I came by my knowledge and love of God long before I ever picked up a bible (or even discussed God with another person). Because you keep insisting the book is where I got these things from it's apparent that you either don't believe me or that because I am willing to discuss the book, it makes you forget that I told you it isn't where I got my knowledge of God.

When I finally did read the bible I was surprised by two things.
1. That it reflected the things about God that I learned on my own.
2. That it didn't say most of the things that people later told me it did.

I'm happy to discuss my perspective on the bible based on what I learned before, but you shouldn't assume the book is the only source of my perspective.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I have repeatedly said that I came by my knowledge and love of God long before I ever picked up a bible

So, to clarify, before you had read the Bible, you understood that killing animals, draining their blood, and burning their corpses was of value to the god?

1 Reply

It is not unusual for a person to come to the realization that killing, stealing, smiting, and lying are not right. And it is not unusual to come to that realization without any prompting from the book about the god.

However, it would be highly unusual for a person to come the the realization that blood must be spilled to atone for wrongdoing without any prompting from the book about the god.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"I have repeatedly said that I came by my knowledge and love of God long before I ever picked up a bible"

So, to clarify, before you had read the Bible, you understood that killing animals, draining their blood, and burning their corpses was of value to the god?

Either you do not read my replies or you are just playing games here.

I told you before - From what I knew about God before reading the bible, I knew that the blood itself was not the thing that God valued. If that is not enough to jog your memory, you'll have to go back and re-read that conversation.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I remember the conversation. You said that the blood of the animal was not important to the god. I pointed out scripture stating that there is no forgiveness without blood. You must have forgotten that. I also pointed out that, since the blood must come from animals, then the god indeed valued the animal. You then tried to explain that the offering of blood from a dead animal was no different from me taking my girlfriend to the movies, or buying her candy, after which I pointed out to you that the "gift" of blood was not an offering, but rather an obligation.

At any rate, since scripture points to the fact that there is no forgiveness without blood, how do you come away from that with the idea that the blood was not important to the god?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Here's support for your claim.
Hebrew 9:22.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Thanks. After reading it, there is no question that the blood is the important thing to the god since there is no forgiveness without it. How does one not see that?

0 Replies

If the god of the Bible exists, then its demand for blood to cover sin must have been a test. And the test was for the purpose of finding out which humans would blindly accept the notion that they are guilty of crimes against deity. The test went further in that the god found out which humans were willing to place an innocent animal between themselves and the consequences of their guilt--consequences which they thought they deserved. It was a test of character.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

And I explained to you what the symbology of blood was (that of life), that it represented the commitment of your life, even unto the death of your body if called for.

If you or CI had continued reading a bit further into Hebrews it is made clear.

Hebrews 10:1-12 KJV
[1] … For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. [2] For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. [3] But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. [4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. [5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: [6] In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. [7] Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. [8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein ; which are offered by the law; [9] Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. [10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all . [11] And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: [12] But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; …

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

So, now you're saying that the god did not require the destruction of animals in exchange for the forgiveness of sins? If that is the case, then explain the practice; especially in light of the fact that the god knew the thoughts of the humans who brought it its blood.

What you've posted is basically someone saying that if you don't mandate the sacrifice of innocent animals to the god, they'll forget that they are guilty of crimes against deity. So, in order to keep humans in a state of guilt, regular animal slaughter is required. Doesn't that just ring of something primitive and ugly? Or have you come to view such a thing as evidence of the god's love?
______________________________________

It's movie time. I'll be back?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Primitive, yes. Ugly? Not so sure.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You're right. Ugly doesn't quite cover it. Perhaps very ugly suffices.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

How about "despicable?"

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, it was a despicable practice indeed. I can almost excuse the unevolved humans of the past engaging in such things because they were superstitious and motivated by fear, and were absolutely convinced of their guilt. But people today . . .

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

So, now you're saying that the god did not require the destruction of animals in exchange for the forgiveness of sins? If that is the case, then explain the practice; especially in light of the fact that the god knew the thoughts of the humans who brought it its blood.

That time I just posted enough of the text to show that it was not as you were interpreting it.

We're going around in the same circles as before and I am not surprised that I was not able to give you understanding of how it all adds up. I couldnt get it from others or the book itself either. I think the only way you can get that understanding is to go directly to God as I did. Give it a try.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

The last sentence says it does. After the sacrifice, he sat on the right side of god.

0 Replies

What good does religion offer the world today?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know