20 arguments for the existence of God

[hamashiachagape]

I'm watching a movie right now about Yeshua having 42 writers talk about him in the 1st 150 years during his life and after.

Only 10 writers about Tiberius Caesar.

And there is no problem accepting the 2nd as a historical figure.

 

[hamashiachagape]

It contradicts in part, since God no longer wants people to sacrifice animals,but was fine sacrificing its own son for one final sacrifice, going from animal to human barbarism.

Yeshua is our permanent sacrifice. God only commands sacrifice in Leviticus 17:11. The renewing of the covenant did not do away with the sacrifices at all. Instead, Yeshua becomes the red heffer sacrifice, among the others.

Secondly when the high priest returns in Ezekiel 40-48 it describes another temple that comes back, and we will resume the animal sacrifices when this occurs. That alleviates the problem in that, since the temple has been destroyed, those particular sacrifices may not be given, but the Torah and God's nature has not changed.

 

[hamashiachagape]

The sacrifices were given to the high priest.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Now we have seen the purpose of this thread thus far has been concentrated on looking at why Atheists can not make a judgment for these 20 arguments for the existence of God within a consistent structure of their own understanding. I anticipated two responses for this thread, one being the Atheist being antagonistic towards these arguments, and the other being an appreciation from those who believed in God.

Alright now that we've dismantled the Atheists arguments and main presuppositions, and have seen why they do not have a real ability to critique these arguments in the first place, lets take a look at the critiques themselves. We'll start with the first one here.

These have been dismatled every which way, and since I'm already familiar with these arguments, I don't think it's necessary for me to read the entire post. However, just giving a "TLDR" is being lazy, so here you go...

I anticipated that you would think this, but its simply not true, as we shall see. Also as I've pointed out, your own starting assumptions need examining before you can make these claims (i.e. from here on out this is ad hoc).

The fact things change is only evidence that time is a major component to the existence of the universe. An acorn turning into a tree is impossible with time. When broken down to it's basic elements, the tree is not even technically created -- it's atoms are gathered and rearranged through various chemical processes. The nutrients and other compounds it gathers from the soil and water are chemically reorganized into the cells that ultimately add up to an entire tree.

This assumption doesn't take into account that the effect needs a cause. Thus your critique is against a strawman. As Kreeft and Tacilli rightfully point out "Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being."

This argument nearly always ends up on the subject of the Big Bang. Since I've seen you claim to have an amount of scientific knowledge, then you probably already know that the Big Bang is a model that illustrates an expansion of space and time. Since time is a part of this expansion, there is no "before", and also without time, there is no causality. Cause and effect requires a time line of some sort. Now, what might have started the Big Bang outside the realm of our known space-time is still speculation, but this in no way means that it HAD to have been a God that did it. Even if it were a God, how would it even begin to prove that it was specifically the God of your beliefs? Again, this argument proves nothing.

I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang, but people often forget that that is also in and of itself an effect. Thus you are once again evaluating a strawman argument.

The reply completely disregards what subjectivity actually is. It's the judgments places on things as related to individual opinions and observations. Quite bluntly, everyone's life is their own subjection. Each one of us "lives" our subjectivity.

That said, even when you look at it scientifically, as opposed to philisophically... One person might say the absolute star just gives off perfect white light. Problem with this is, there's no limit to the amount of luminosity a star could have -- just like there's no highest absolute number in mathematics -- you can count upward forever. The lack of light would be zero energy, and thus, darkness is the only possible absolute. Similarly, 'coldness' is merely the lack of heat, and 0 kelvin would be 0 molecular movement and absolute 0 heat.

Science is contingent upon Philosophy though. That is ignored (Science contingent upon A Posteriori knowledge).

Already, the fallacy here is claiming that chance and divine creation are the only two possible reasons for existence. Why make this staggering assumption? Not only does science actually explain the chemistry, mechanics and physics of the universe in far greater detail than a guess or a holy book, but it shows that in order for things to exists, they must abide by these laws, and as such, they simply do. Assuming the universe has to have a reason only shows that one is of the kind that is just not satisfied with not having a reason given to them. In short: everything just is.

This is a repeat argument of 2 and 3. I've already covered how cause and effect requires the dimension of time.

[/list]This one is always the easiest to debunk:

1. Assuming there is a God
2. No there aren't. Show me one thing that couldn't have a natural explanation or that is a statistical impossibility (not improbability, but impossibility -- that would be a miracle)

This doesn't define a miracle properly through mathematical understanding. Thought does not have a naturalistic explanation, nor language. There are no set understandings within the Science community at large for either of these being explained via naturalistic causes.

Can't even move on to 3 and 4 at that point. This argument also overlooks the fact that many people do not believe in miracles in the first place.

Not a vast majority of the population, and this is an argumentum ad populem.

Prove that you have a consciousness. Now prove that a slug has a consciousness. Where would you draw the line as far as a living thing's ability to retain and utilize knowledge to determine whether it has a consciousness. A slug can perceive it's surroundings quite well, thanks to it's sensory organs. Did Terry Shaivo have a consciousness? Does a robot have a consciousness? Why? Why not?

I think therefore I am. Animal behaviorism has been able to show no self awareness, so thus needs no proof of a consciousness.

Wow. This one is a stretch, isn't it. So many fallacies with this one, too.
1. Our 'limited minds' can only contain limited information on a possibly limitless universe.
2. Truth is not our perception, it's the observed reality of our collective objectivity. Up is up, down is down. Someone might believe that up is down, and claim that to be truth, but that doesn't make it so.
3. It's not eternal -- that's why we can only retain a finite portion of knowledge.
4. This leaps to the assumption that a mind has to be present for anything to exist. Despite the old eastern riddle, a falling tree does, in fact, make a noise, regardless of whether anyone is there to witness it. An audience doesn't make the noise happen. The matter of the tree interacting with the ground and surrounding air, causing waves, is the sound.

What does it sound like? Categories of the mind must correspond to reality, otherwise your position is unstateable. And the violations of the principles of logic are what you're taking into account, not the ones that are actually set into place.

The idea for the automobile wasn't proof of the automobile. It took someone to make the first automobile for there to be proof of the automobile. God, in this respect is similar (inventions of man), however, unlike God, the automobile is a tangible thing you can physically interact with that is empirically demonstrable.

Unlike a car, thought, which is needed to make this claim, is an immaterial thing.

Yikes, these are getting worse and worse.
1 - "Greater" how? The mind in no way influences whether or not something exists. (Tree falling in forest still making a sound)
2 - To some, this might be the case. "Infinity", "universe", "everything", and "nothing" can also be defined this way. The pantheist side of me even says that in order for something to be God, it can't even be completely understood -- so in a sense my definition of God makes your definition of God merely a Lego brick of my God. (This destroys #4 in this arguemnt as well)
3 - It does.

The universe has a beginning. Infinite is the ultimate attribute of what we call God. You are relying on this complete understanding as well being a Pantheist. Everything from a Philosophical stance is self refuting by itself, just as nothing is. Thus they can be seen as the destruction of thought, not the greatest thing regarding what thought can be had.

This argument is meant to confuse more than illustrate anything. It relies on one subjective definition of what a God is, that you'll find most people in the world probably don't even agree with.

Actually this is not true, and the subjectivity is within your understanding.

If we had no morals, we wouldn't be here. We get our morals from empathy. We get hurt and we know it's bad, so we don't want to see others get hurt. If you ask me, I find the notion frightening that the only thing keeping a person from killing another is that their God says it's wrong, and that they would otherwise be serial rapist murderers. I think it says something about that individual that we should all be concerned about.

Wasn't this also #10? *scrolls up* Yes. Yes it was.

Yet, naturalistically, there is no explanation for the origins of this taking place, which is overlooked by your critique. Again, another strawman.

 

[hamashiachagape]

This only explains why one might believe in a God, not that one actually exists. It basically says, "You want one to exists, so you believe it does".

Actually, this only serves to explain the existential qualities necessary for a God to exist. See the end here which is key "This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

Also, if you can have an argument from "truth" and an argument from "desire" and call that evidence. What about those who do not desire there to be a God, and the truth to them is that there isn't one? Let me guess, it doesn't apply to just anyone?

I'd like to know someone who really believes that with a true understanding of what God is. Atheists tend not to understand, which is why their arguments are strawmen.

Ahh, yes. The "Look! a cute baby!... GOD" argument... also "Look! a flower is pretty... GOD!" argument. Music illiciting an emotional reaction merely proves that we have emotional reactions to music.

Also, I think the mere existence of Justin Beiber automatically negates Bach lol.

I thought this argument was kind of irrelevant. But from a language perspective and maybe creative capacity it has merit.

None of these actually prove divine influence. Only that because some people lacked the understanding or knowledge of the reasons something might have happened, that they attributed the events to a God.

This is exactly the same as 16, only now you're saying that because many of people share the same desire for there to be a God, one exists. Well, most people wish they were rich, but still only a few people are.

I think this overlooks this - Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced. Its meant to prove an effect which leads to God.

This has always been my absolute favorite of them all.

What if you're wrong, and Islam is right? So in addition to your soul burning in hell for all eternity, snakes come and endlessly gnaw at your dead body. Why specifically do you think YOUR God is the right one? With the thousands upon thousands of Gods to believe in, don't you think you have a very slim chance of having chosen the right one to believe in?

Because I've honestly investigated Islam and many other religions thoroughly. Including Atheism. Thats why I know.

As an agnostic, i can relate to the atheists on this one. You see, Pascal's Wager goes both ways:

If you're right, you get to go to heaven, where you spend eternity praying and worshiping the same God that you did while you were here on earth, only now without your freewill to do so -- as this is what you naturally do once you get to heaven. After all, all the time spent dedicating yourself to scripture on earth, contradictory to your desires (like the killing you said you would do if there were no God, for example), and you still won't be able to fulfill these desires in heaven. You're life, and eternity in the afterlife, would have been devoid of doing what you desired. I, on the other hand, will be burned forever and ever, in endless pain. To me, neither of these seems beneficial over the other.

If you're wrong, I would have lived my life to it's fullest. I would have been a good, charitable person whenever possible, with nothing restricting my actions as a decent human being. My whole existence being everything up to my last moment. My life would be my eternity. You, on the other hand, would have lived your entire life, concerned with what a being that didn't even exists actually thought of you. You lived in an unjustified fear of eternal suffering -- a fear of an infinite torture for a finite period on earth. However, since death was the end, this was your eternity. Serving, suffering, fear, and simply not having the chance to appreciate the beauty of the universe for what it actually is -- only ever knowing what a 2000 year old book told you it was.

By what standard would you have had to do this though? Who defines good? Who defines charitable? These are things that one must take into consideration. The difference also is this. Since God has eternal implications and one can live a good life, it is thought to be more beneficial than living a finite existence, and then just dying. Thats what Pascal's Wager is taking into account.

All 20 arguments, and none of these were proof, but simply a collection of fallacious arguments. I did contribute in the thread that asked what it would take for me to believe, so if you are curious as to what I might consider evidence, please refer to it.[/

I honestly don't think you're evaluating them fairly. You are overstating their claims, where this doesn't need to take place in many respects.

 

[hamashiachagape]

They must show that the first premise is true for the rest of the argument to follow.

William Lane Craig has already done this.

The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything either way about the Universe beginning to exist. It only focuses on the change to the state of the Universe. Science doesn't support the second premise. Lets move onto the philosophical argument.
Thomas Aquinas himself, whose arguments these Catholic apologists used prior, refutes such a claim. Read Summa Theologica I Q. 46 article 2 objection 6.

General relativity does. Big Bang is just mentioned as the cause.

So here's the same argument, offerred some 600 years ago:

And here is Aquinas refuting that same argument 600 years ago:

This is like some demented version of Zeno's paradox, and Aquinas doesn't play that game. If you reach this point in time from some point in the past, Aquinas says that the amount of time in between that starting point and this present moment is finite. There may be an infinite amount of numbers, but there is a finite amount between any two numbers. Likewise for time.

I don't agree with all of Aquinas's work, but the fact that you seem to harp on him for everything appears problematic to me. I also read your quotes and do not think you have a good grasp on what Aquinas was attempting to state. Basically that the universe is finite, but there is an infinite that needs to be taken into consideration because of this.

You are not passing through an infinite amount of time to reach the present. You are going through finite portions of time, that successively add up onto each other to constitute an infinite past.[/

Your mind is finite and could not truly comprehend or know this without a greater factor.
quote]

 

[hamashiachagape]

Yes, change has an external source. However, this argument does not demonstrate that this source must be God. The claim that change must be caused by something that does not change does not logically follow, as it assumes that infinite regression is impossible, which has not been proven.

Infinite regression refutes itself.

Again, same problem as above. You assume that there is no infinite regression, and you assume that a first cause must be God. Neither of these claims are necessarily true, unless you have evidence that demonstrates otherwise.

The fact you take an infinite regression lends problems to the rest of your understanding.

So far, all the arguments have been essentially the same. There is no reason to assume that #12 is true, because the argument supplies no evidence or logical support. The other problem with this argument is that time is not infinite, because it started, and will continuously become longer. You cannot count to infinity.

Yet we still know it exists.

I haven't seen this argument outside of Religious Education. Mainly because it doesn't work. 'Perfection' is subjective. The God outlined in the Bible is far from perfect in my eyes.

No its a standard with objective merit. Otherwise its unstateable. Its just not something that nonreligious people like to take into consideration.

Based entirely on an assumption that everything has to be designed, which is not intrinsically true. Also, this is a particularly poor version of the argument. Just saying "not chance" does not make it true. The authors could have at least tried to support the argument.

Chance is impossible which has been refuted via mathematical calculations.

This is exactly the same argument as argument #2, just worded differently. The section beginning 'question 1' tries to make argument based upon the personal beliefs of Christians, so that fails at the first step. Question 2 is entirely illogical - why must a creation be part of the creator? Last time I checked, watchmakers are not part of the watch. Question 3 seems to work, provided you are not trying to establish it as fact. You can't start an argument with 'suppose' and then assume it can be establish as fact. I could say "Suppose God doesn't exist. Therefore God doesn't exist," but that wouldn't apply to reality in any way.

This is a strawman. The argument is not made that the watch is a part of teh watchmaker. Just that the watch was created by the watchmaker.

Also, the issues with argument #2 apply here too.

Since they are easily resolvable...

This is exactly the same argument, again. Are you sure this is 20 arguments and not just 1 argument told in 20 different ways. So, you've got the issues from argument #2 and argument #8.

Not an issue.

The issue with the wording of this particular argument is that it basically says that God could be anything. So I should go and pray to Zeus, right? I'm going to have to guess which God we're talking about, after all.

Thats fine. Its only meant to prove Theism.

Point #2 is not necessarily true. The logic doesn't follow. Why must a cosmic-wide orderer be a mind? Nature orders itself pretty well without any external help.

Because of the Final Anthropic Principle.

There is no evidence of miracles ever happening, because in order to demonstrate that something is a miracle, you must prove that it is beyond the laws of the universe. Considering that we don't know everything about the universe, this claim cannot be made. This argument does not work at all.

Thats very similar to the circular reasoning of David Hume.

Demonstrate that point #2 and #3 are true, and then you might have an argument. This argument has the same problem as argument #5.

Facts and truths don't physically exist, they are both qualities that have been created by humans and are attached to various things. 2+2=4 is not true in itself, it's true because we say it is true. Therefore, there is no reason for 'truth' to exist anywhere outside of the human mind.

They dont' need to physically exist. There is more to the world than the external world of affairs.

Point #4 is basically nonsense. For one thing, 'greater' is subjective. Secondly, if this argument is true and ideas are greater than their creators, then everything everyone has ever thought of must be true, and no one is capable of having ideas that are not true and do not exist. The argument makes no attempt to distiguish between the idea of God and any other idea (keep in mind that 'perfection' is subjective, so that doesn't prove it) so until then, either this argument is false or every idea is true.

No, its an objective standard. We have also pointed out with some of your understanding that you are applying objective standards to subjective terms...thus you have things backwards on many levels.

Let's rephrase this argument, but replace the idea of God with a killer.

1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
2. "The most perfect killer" means a killer of which no greater killer can be thought
3. Suppose that this killer cannot kill everybody and anybody at once instantly.
4. Then a more perfect killer can be thought of (i.e. a killer who is better at killing) so this killer must be able to kill everybody and anybody at once.
5. Also suppose that this killer has never killed.
6. Then they are not a killer, so this killer must have killed.
7. Also suppose that they have not acted to the best of their ability.
8. Then something better can again be concieved of.

Therefore, this perfect killer must exist, must be able to kill everyone at once, must have actually killed and must have done it to the best of their ability. Therefore this killer has killed everyone. Therefore we are all dead.

This proves that the killer is not the highest thought able to be conceived. Secondly, a killer is not conceptual, and need not apply here. It exists in the physical world.

See the issue? Existence is not intrisically better than non-existence, because 'better' is subjective.

Everything seems to be subjective to your understanding.

I would debate that premise #1 is actually true. The attempt to support it does not work. I think that murder is wrong, but that doesn't make murder objectively wrong, it just means that I think that murder is wrong.

You have no standard to judge that by off of your presupps.

Totally ignores the possibility that the conscience could be a product of evolution, at which point you get two possible answers, not one.

And evolution is the product of what?

No logic here either. Just because we want something, that does not make it true. The arguments makes plenty of effort to support premise #1 and #2, but does not support premise #3 at all. Until this can be supported, the argument cannot work.

The argument isn't being stated this way, and its not trying to prove what you think it is likely.

I don't even need to explain how ridiculous this argument is. Instead, I will offer my own:
1. There are helmets and skin tight one-piece suits.
2. Therefore the Power Rangers are real.
3. You either see this or you don't.

This fails to make a necessary dichotomy between information.

Just because you can't concieve that something is false, that doesn't make it true. Lots of people used to think that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Different circumstances, and for political reasons, not thought based.

And of course, the argument cannot conclude anything other than 'something that people have given the quality of 'divine' exists', not that God exists.

Divine could be thought of as God, but again this is more existential in quality.

My comments on argument #18 apply here too - they're exactly the same argument.

This video best explains why Pascal's Wager is one of the most awful arguments ever used.

YouTube - Betting on infinity[/

quote]

I'll look at this, but these arguments against Pascal's Wager seem to be redundant after a while. Pascal's WAger does not prove, or attempt to prove God, just that its more beneficial to believe in infinite than not.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Infinite regression refutes itself.

In what way?

The fact you take an infinite regression lends problems to the rest of your understanding.

OK, if we assume that infinite regression is impossible (which I'll be quite interested to see the evidence for), how do you know the first cause was God?

Yet we still know it exists.

What? Time? We know that time exists. We also know that it is not infinite.

No its a standard with objective merit. Otherwise its unstateable. Its just not something that nonreligious people like to take into consideration.

Is 'tasty' an objective standard? What about 'pretty'? If you asked a group of people on the street what their perfect holiday destination would be, you'd get many different answers, because 'perfect' is a subjective idea. Subjective ideas are perfectly stateable; I can state that a particular painting is the prettiest painting I've seen, but it won't be an objective statement, just a statement of my personal viewpoint.

Unless, of course, you can show that perfection is an objective standard.

Chance is impossible which has been refuted via mathematical calculations.

What calculations?

This is a strawman. The argument is not made that the watch is a part of teh watchmaker. Just that the watch was created by the watchmaker.

Good point, I must have misread that. What about my issue with question 3? You cannot base a logical argument on a supposition and then expect people to take it as fact. The entire argument becomes hypothetical, and cannot be used to say anything about reality.

Not an issue.

It is if you are going to claim that there are 20 arguments, when in fact the number is much less.

Thats fine. Its only meant to prove Theism.

OK then.

Because of the Final Anthropic Principle.

The Final Anthropic Principle is concerned with intelligent information processing within the universe, not outside of it. So unless God came after the Big Bang, the Principle does not apply.

Thats very similar to the circular reasoning of David Hume.

Well the claim that miracles exist is circular, so it would stand to reason that any refutation would also have to take that into account.

Also, you missed this. You posted it, but didn't quote it:

"Demonstrate that point #2 and #3 are true, and then you might have an argument. This argument has the same problem as argument #5."

Can you demonstrate that point #2 and #3 are true?

They dont' need to physically exist. There is more to the world than the external world of affairs.

I agree. However, that argument relies upon the claim that a truth must physically exist in a mind somewhere, which is nonsense. Reality is reality regardless of whether anyone actually knows about it or not.

No, its an objective standard. We have also pointed out with some of your understanding that you are applying objective standards to subjective terms...thus you have things backwards on many levels.

Again, I ask you to demonstrate that 'greater' is objective. I believe you are the one applying objectivity to subjective ideas like 'perfection' or 'greater'.

This proves that the killer is not the highest thought able to be conceived. Secondly, a killer is not conceptual, and need not apply here. It exists in the physical world.

God is not conceptual either, if you're attempting to prove he is real.

Everything seems to be subjective to your understanding.

Not everything. I've pointed this out to you several times, but you fail to pay attention every time. Some things are subjective, some are not. Conceptual ideas such as 'better' or 'greater' are subjective, because they rely upon a hierarchy that is entirely within each individual's mind. Facts, such as the distance from the Earth to the Sun, are objective. Things that exist physically are objective, while things that are entirely conceptual are subjective.

You have no standard to judge that by off of your presupps.

Here we go. This is the point where you start arguing against a strawman, claiming that I think everything is subjective and therefore that I can't make any claims, which is not only nonsensical (I can say things are 'tasty'), but also untrue. You're making a nice strawman here. Not only that, but it doesn't apply to my argument at all.

Morality is a personal thing, there is no evidence of a greater moral obligator. That's why some people support abortion, and some do not - if morality was objective, we would all agree. The fact(this is an objective thing) that we do not demonstrates that people have different morals, which shows that either:

1) There is no external source for morality.
2) There is an external source for morality, but it only gives morals to a select number of people.

Either way, the argument does not work because morals are demonstrably subjective.

And evolution is the product of what?

Mutation and Natural Selection.

The argument isn't being stated this way, and its not trying to prove what you think it is likely.

In a logical argument, all premises must be supported in order for the conclusion to have any chance of being accepted as true. The argument, to my understanding, is saying that we have desires that we cannot achieve, so therefore there must be something that can satisfy them. That does not logically follow. Not all desires require a way of achieving them.

This fails to make a necessary dichotomy between information.

I know. So did the argument in the OP.

Different circumstances, and for political reasons, not thought based.

What political reasons? This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to brush away an argument that you cannot address.

Divine could be thought of as God, but again this is more existential in quality.

The operative word there being 'could'. Until you can demonstrate that divine = God, the argument does not argue for the existence of God.

I'll look at this, but these arguments against Pascal's Wager seem to be redundant after a while. Pascal's WAger does not prove, or attempt to prove God, just that its more beneficial to believe in infinite than not.

Yes, and the video demonstrates that this fails as an argument, because you have to pick which God to follow (remember that many Gods will not give you paradise/heaven if you do not follow them and only them), and in the end you are making one choice out of an infinite number of possibilities. In other words, believing in a God doesn't actually improve your chances.

 

[Delphiki]

If we narrow down your excuses for dismissing all the debunks that have been posted, you're asking that the existence of God be refuted using only the bible itself...

See, what your basically saying is that since all the counterpoints regarding these 20 arguments are based in reality, we're wrong because we're using realistic arguments. Yes, I'm sure that if you live in the land of make-believe, God exists there. I'll give you that. -- However, so does the unicorn.

 

[razeontherock]

It contradicts in part

It contradicts in no part. You do show your lack of understanding the subject matter though.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

So God would still be fine with traditional Jews slitting an animal's throat to spill the blood on the ground, and then burn the meat, so that the scent will please God? Or am I still missing something in how God's being pleased by an animal's burning meat is barbaric and primitive?

 

[razeontherock]

So God would still be fine with traditional Jews slitting an animal's throat to spill the blood on the ground, and then burn the meat, so that the scent will please God?

From my understanding, the idea of the "scent pleasing G-d" was poetic to begin with, and the Temple will have to be re-built first. Under those conditions, yes.
But spilling the blood on the ground is not the objective; the blood must be handled the prescribed way or the offering isn't accepted.

(The whole idea of re-instituting the OT bloody sacrifices leaves me scratching my head, so I hope H will address this)

 

[JJWhite]

From my understanding, the idea of the "scent pleasing G-d" was poetic to begin with, and the Temple will have to be re-built first. Under those conditions, yes.
But spilling the blood on the ground is not the objective; the blood must be handled the prescribed way or the offering isn't accepted.

(The whole idea of re-instituting the OT bloody sacrifices leaves me scratching my head, so I hope H will address this)

They burned the meat?

We have the ritual of animal sacrifices in Islam, but the meat has to be used... part is cooked and eaten, while the rest is passed out to family, friends, and the poor/needy to cook and eat. I always assumed that when OT 'animal sacrifice' was discussed on here it was the same thing.

From Chapter 22 of the Qur'an:

[22:34] For each nation we have decreed rites whereby they commemorate the name of GOD for providing them with the livestock. Your god is one and the same god; you shall all submit to Him. Give good news to the obedient.
[22:35] They are the ones whose hearts tremble upon mentioning GOD, they steadfastly persevere during adversity, they observe the Prayers, and from our provisions to them, they give to charity.
[22:36] The animal offerings are among the rites decreed by GOD for your own good. You shall mention GOD's name on them while they are standing in line. Once they are offered for sacrifice, you shall eat therefrom and feed the poor and the needy. This is why we subdued them for you, that you may show your appreciation.
[22:37] Neither their meat, nor their blood reaches GOD. What reaches Him is your righteousness. He has subdued them for you, that you may show your appreciation by glorifying GOD for guiding you. Give good news to the charitable.

 

[Nooj]

They burned the meat?

Yup. The animal sacrifices were burnt on an altar in the Temple. Other sacrificing cultures did the same thing - the Greeks for example.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Yup. The animal sacrifices were burnt on an altar in the Temple. Other sacrificing cultures did the same thing - the Greeks for example.

Meh. Its not much different from having a steak in today's society. Our society does it in butcher houses. Our societies mistreat animals unlike the ancients, and there is clear evidence that the ancients had a different methodology for doing things. The Greeks had some very unusual customs within their Paganism as well, as they were also prone to drinking blood and other unsanitary things. This could be equated today with someone going to a restaurant and ordering a rare steak though too. Its not very healthy to do such a thing.

 

[hamashiachagape]

All backward people do it.

Including yourself. Unless you happen to be the spokesperson for PETA, but then we have different problems in themselves (I'd kind of label them backwards myself). The Jews were just very careful, and caring about the animals that they utilized, treating them with respect, and killing them in the least painful way they possibly could.

 

[hamashiachagape]

From my understanding, the idea of the "scent pleasing G-d" was poetic to begin with, and the Temple will have to be re-built first. Under those conditions, yes.
But spilling the blood on the ground is not the objective; the blood must be handled the prescribed way or the offering isn't accepted.

(The whole idea of re-instituting the OT bloody sacrifices leaves me scratching my head, so I hope H will address this)

It may have a different purpose, it may not. We're not sure. But read Ezekiel 40-48. Then read Revelation 11. Then see how it progresses to where heaven descends to Earth, and we have a temple in the new Jerusalem. If you follow that, you'll see what I mean. Some would term me Dispensational in my views on this point, which is fine. I also have some postmillenial views too. I just say, the Bible.

 

[hamashiachagape]

They burned the meat?

We have the ritual of animal sacrifices in Islam, but the meat has to be used... part is cooked and eaten, while the rest is passed out to family, friends, and the poor/needy to cook and eat. I always assumed that when OT 'animal sacrifice' was discussed on here it was the same thing.

From Chapter 22 of the Qur'an:

[22:34] For each nation we have decreed rites whereby they commemorate the name of GOD for providing them with the livestock. Your god is one and the same god; you shall all submit to Him. Give good news to the obedient.
[22:35] They are the ones whose hearts tremble upon mentioning GOD, they steadfastly persevere during adversity, they observe the Prayers, and from our provisions to them, they give to charity.
[22:36] The animal offerings are among the rites decreed by GOD for your own good. You shall mention GOD's name on them while they are standing in line. Once they are offered for sacrifice, you shall eat therefrom and feed the poor and the needy. This is why we subdued them for you, that you may show your appreciation.
[22:37] Neither their meat, nor their blood reaches GOD. What reaches Him is your righteousness. He has subdued them for you, that you may show your appreciation by glorifying GOD for guiding you. Give good news to the charitable.

Though a questionable and incomplete understanding of the origins of how it came about is presented (and rather unpreserved, given it was written in about 586 A.D.), it is pretty consistent somewhat with Judaism. See here - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/inmyplace.html

 

[hamashiachagape]

So God would still be fine with traditional Jews slitting an animal's throat to spill the blood on the ground, and then burn the meat, so that the scent will please God? Or am I still missing something in how God's being pleased by an animal's burning meat is barbaric and primitive?

This is often misunderstood. It is not about being traditional Jew or being a traditional Christian. Its about following the rules given to mankind by God.

I addressed God's "barbarism" for my friend a long time ago. The main thing is that God is not after animal extinction or mistreatment of animals. On the contrary. See a direct quote from an article I wrote here - "Nor is he out to destroy animals. Another question to address was whether God was cruel to animals or not. In Psalm 147:9, it says he provides food for animals. Also in Luke 12:6 - "Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God." Animals were also to be treated properly as well. They weren't to be overworked per Exodus 23:12, not to be underfed per Dt 25:4 and not to be hunted to extinction per Dt 22:6-7. There are actions we see in today's society where people mistreat and abuse animals prior to killing them, even in certain cases not allowing animals to walk on their own two feet. While this may be true of today's society in certain circumstances, it was and is not at all to be condoned by our mighty God. This sin is not to be put upon those eating of the food, however. It is to be put only onto those who are acting in the manner they do. The purpose for sacrificing animals was to harvest animals, not to destroy and kill them off. They were used by the Israelites as clothing and food. This is perfectly justified and does not contradict a nature of a loving God."

http://hamashiachagape.blogspot.com/2010/09/was-animal-sacrifice-cruel-invention-by.html

 

[ToHoldNothing]

So it's a case of the anthropologist's idea of cultural relativism, not saying that they are equal, but that they are culturally derived. I can respect that, like one would respect a cannibal who still sees terror in such things as war