Virgins as Lords share?

[miknik5]

Oh, you're making fun of me. That's pretty funny. But not as funny as the look on your face on judgement day when you're next to someone from the first century who had their eyes gouged out or their face peeled off and still managed to bless their enemies. Meanwhile you resort to petty insults when you butt into a conversation and are then told you're confused.

If I were Christ, I'd probably cut my losses with you. He has said things about that, you know, with vines not bearing fruit and such. Do you bear fruit?




Yes, you certainly are confused. I think you don't yet understand the very first, most basic, most fundamental principle upon which Christianity was founded.

This is a discussion forum...anyone is allowed to offer their input...
I already noted condescension, sarcasm and insincerity in your post to me...I answered in the same manner...

 

[miknik5]

That's not what I was implying. It's what you are inferring. I stated a fact: Christianity is a religion of human sacrifice.

That is not a fact sir...


that is 1 Corinthians 2 coming into play...

 

[Ed1wolf]

That's not what I was implying. It's what you are inferring. I stated a fact: Christianity is a religion of human sacrifice.

Ok but not like the Aztecs, which is what you appeared to be trying to claim.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok but not like the Aztecs, which is what you appeared to be trying to claim.

Again, that is your own inference. But since you keep bringing that up over and over, could you explain why it is ok to sacrifice a God-man but not ok to sacrifice a mortal man?

 

[Tolworth John]

Again, that is your own inference. But since you keep bringing that up over and over, could you explain why it is ok to sacrifice a God-man but not ok to sacrifice a mortal man?

Christianity is not a religion of human sacrifice as only one human sacrifice was made and even that had special conditions.

You rightly ask why was it permissible for Jesus to be sacrificed?

Jesus was not just a man he is also God so the sacrifice was God offering himself to himself.
God set a price a penalty and God paid it.


We all have to account for our behaviour before God, failure to meet God's standard incurs a penalty, it is up to you whether you pay that penalty or accept God paying it for you.
Of course that also implies being willing to follow the conditions.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Bible says
The plunder remaining from everything the fighting men had taken totaled 675,000 sheep and goats, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys, and 32,000 virgin girls. Half of the plunder was given to the fighting men. It totaled 337,500 sheep and goats, of which 675 were the Lord ’s share; 36,000 cattle, of which 72 were the Lord ’s share; 30,500 donkeys, of which 61 were the Lord ’s share; and 16,000 virgin girls, of whom 32 were the Lord ’s share.
Numbers 31:32‭-‬40

Why does lord want a share of Virgins?

They were likely made servants in the temple. Like a nun.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Christianity is not a religion of human sacrifice as only one human sacrifice was made and even that had special conditions.

This sentence contradicts itself.

You rightly ask why was it permissible for Jesus to be sacrificed?

Jesus was not just a man he is also God so the sacrifice was God offering himself to himself.
God set a price a penalty and God paid it.

That's not the correct model. God is simply above the law. He can do whatever he wants. He can break his own rules. Why then punish himself instead of just forgiving us all as an act of will?

We all have to account for our behaviour before God, failure to meet God's standard incurs a penalty, it is up to you whether you pay that penalty or accept God paying it for you.
Of course that also implies being willing to follow the conditions.

But not even God lives up to God's standards.

"Sons shall not be put to death for the sins of the father and vice versa."

And then God proceeds to torture and execute David's son due to David's sins.

The only consistent interpretation is that God can just do whatever he wants. So why die for our sins?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This sentence contradicts itself.



That's not the correct model. God is simply above the law. He can do whatever he wants. He can break his own rules. Why then punish himself instead of just forgiving us all as an act of will?



But not even God lives up to God's standards.

"Sons shall not be put to death for the sins of the father and vice versa."

And then God proceeds to torture and execute David's son due to David's sins.

The only consistent interpretation is that God can just do whatever he wants. So why die for our sins?

That depends on 'who' the Law was 'made for.'

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That depends on 'who' the Law was 'made for.'

Right. I'm saying that the law is for humans, not for God. So God is not beholden to the law. So there was no reason for Jesus to die.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right. I'm saying that the law is for humans, not for God. So God is not beholden to the law. So there was no reason for Jesus to die.

I'm with you on the first half of that, but you lost me on how the 2nd part necessarily follows the 1st, with all things epistemologically and hermeneutically considered. And I could be wrong, but I don't think that either you or I have considered "all things."

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm with you on the first half of that, but you lost me on how the 2nd part necessarily follows the 1st, with all things epistemologically and hermeneutically considered. And I could be wrong, but I don't think that either you or I have considered "all things."

I'm aware that substitutional atonement is one of many atonement theories. But I've yet to be presented with a theory of atonement that actually makes sense. Christ as victor over death makes no sense because an all-powerful God has already conquered death. Got anything else?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Again, that is your own inference. But since you keep bringing that up over and over, could you explain why it is ok to sacrifice a God-man but not ok to sacrifice a mortal man?

Because that was the only way humans could be reconciled to God. Of course, as an atheist you dont have any objectively rational basis for condemning what the Aztecs did.

 

[Tolworth John]

This sentence contradicts itself.



That's not the correct model. God is simply above the law. He can do whatever he wants. He can break his own rules. Why then punish himself instead of just forgiving us all as an act of will?



But not even God lives up to God's standards.

"Sons shall not be put to death for the sins of the father and vice versa."

And then God proceeds to torture and execute David's son due to David's sins.

The only consistent interpretation is that God can just do whatever he wants. So why die for our sins?

Here is no contradiction. You are implying that Christianity regularly sacrificed humans.
That is not true. So my statement is correct.
There was only one human sacrifice and that happened for special reasons.

God does not act contrary to his character.
He requires justice for the breaking of his laws and he offers to pay that penalty himself, that is both justice and mercy.

You are not prepared to accept that there are consequence to how we live now or that God has made arrangements that will help us.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Because that was the only way humans could be reconciled to God.

Why?

Of course, as an atheist you dont have any objectively rational basis for condemning what the Aztecs did.

How absurd. I don't believe that killing a human being will ever have any kind of spiritual, cosmic, or otherwise otherworldly effect. You do. You're the one with no rational basis for condemning what the Aztecs did because you agree that there is a scenario where human sacrifice is good. I do not hold such an irrational belief.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Here is no contradiction.

Yeah there is. Read it again.

You are implying that Christianity regularly sacrificed humans.

Where do I say that? Also, why does the number of human sacrifices matter? I say the correct number is zero. You say the correct number is more than zero. So did the Aztecs.

That is not true. So my statement is correct.
There was only one human sacrifice and that happened for special reasons.

Everyone who sacrificed a human being did so for what they believed to be special reasons. You're basically saying, "Nuh uh, mine is like super-duper special though!"

God does not act contrary to his character.
He requires justice for the breaking of his laws and he offers to pay that penalty himself, that is both justice and mercy.

You are not prepared to accept that there are consequence to how we live now or that God has made arrangements that will help us.

You seem to have missed this part. Here, let me copy/paste it for you.


But not even God lives up to God's standards.

"Sons shall not be put to death for the sins of the father and vice versa."

And then God proceeds to torture and execute David's son due to David's sins.

The only consistent interpretation is that God can just do whatever he wants. So why die for our sins?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm aware that substitutional atonement is one of many atonement theories. But I've yet to be presented with a theory of atonement that actually makes sense. Christ as victor over death makes no sense because an all-powerful God has already conquered death. Got anything else?

Oh, I guess you missed the part (over the past several years) where I never said I was strictly an advocate for the 'Christ as victor' atonement theory.

But regardless, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that ANY atonement theory, even one only pertaining to the sacrifices of the Old Testament that were in action before Jesus ever came on the scene, doesn't make sense to you either. But, I think we've already talked about this in the past, so it's kind of a moot point at this present juncture, don't you think?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Why?

We dont know exactly though due to Him being the only being with that dual nature, it seems reasonable that He would be the only one who would qualify.

NV: How absurd. I don't believe that killing a human being will ever have any kind of spiritual, cosmic, or otherwise otherworldly effect. You do. You're the one with no rational basis for condemning what the Aztecs did because you agree that there is a scenario where human sacrifice is good. I do not hold such an irrational belief.

I am not saying you believe that, but you do not have any objectively rational basis for condemning what they did. At best you can just say it repulses you, ie it is just a subjective condemnation based only on preference or feelings. As a Christian I believe all humans have infinite objective value since they are made in the image of the infinite Creator. Therefore, killing an innocent human being is a objective deadly serious crime against the King of the Universe.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Oh, I guess you missed the part (over the past several years) where I never said I was strictly an advocate for the 'Christ as victor' atonement theory.

But regardless, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that ANY atonement theory, even one only pertaining to the sacrifices of the Old Testament that were in action before Jesus ever came on the scene, doesn't make sense to you either. But, I think we've already talked about this in the past, so it's kind of a moot point at this present juncture, don't you think?

To believe by faith in something that is self-consistent and plausible is far as I could possibly stretch my limits. Belief by faith in something that is inconsistent and/or implausible is simply a bridge too far.

There are certain facts that could help establish your religion but the theology aspect requires no facts. It just requires consistency and plausibility within the religion itself. Do you have anything remotely close to that?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

We dont know exactly though due to Him being the only being with that dual nature, it seems reasonable that He would be the only one who would qualify.

Why? How is it reasonable? Why not an angel? Angels haven't sinned.

You just leap to conclusions and blow everything off.

I am not saying you believe that, but you do not have any objectively rational basis for condemning what they did.

You're right. A society in which people are killed for no reason sounds like a totally reasonable idea. I see absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.

Seriously? Is that what you think I believe? My goodness.

Ok. Let's take it from the start here.

APE NO KILL APE.

Check back in with me when you've wrapped your mind around that one and then we can get back to building a better society.

Oh wait, that's it. *Why do atheists want society to be good?*

There is no objectivity to that desire, but there is an objective way to go about making it a reality.

Do you... want society to be bad or something? Do you need me to explain why I prefer a good society? How deep do we have to dig with the shovel of stupidity before we hit rock bottom? Are we there yet?

Conversely, you cannot give a rational argument why Amazons were in the wrong. After all, they hadn't heard about Jesus. Would it be reasonable for them to believe that the creator of the cosmos is planning to send himself down in human form to be a human sacrifice? If so, the most reasonable course of action is to kill everyone to ensure that the messiah is sacrificed. Otherwise you risk him dying of old age or something and the eternal fate of all mankind could be doomed. Logically, under Christian expectations, they should have committed more human sacrifices.

At best you can just say it repulses you, ie it is just a subjective condemnation based only on preference or feelings.

Yeah. Are you not repulsed by murder? If so, you may be a psychopath. If you are a psychopath, then yes, please, adopt any religion that grounds you in the notion that is obvious to the rest of us - APE NO KILL APE.

As a Christian I believe all humans have infinite objective value

This is an oxymoron. Value requires a subject to be doing the valuing. Value is subjective by definition.

since they are made in the image of the infinite Creator.

Objective value could not be contingent upon being made in the image of an infinite creator. That contingency makes it subjective.

Therefore, killing an innocent human being is a objective deadly serious crime against the King of the Universe.

And yet the creator of the universe apparently killed more human beings than Hitler did.

 

[Tolworth John]

Yeah there is. Read it again.



Where do I say that? Also, why does the number of human sacrifices matter? I say the correct number is zero. You say the correct number is more than zero. So did the Aztecs.



Everyone who sacrificed a human being did so for what they believed to be special reasons. You're basically saying, "Nuh uh, mine is like super-duper special though!"



You seem to have missed this part. Here, let me copy/paste it for you.


But not even God lives up to God's standards.

"Sons shall not be put to death for the sins of the father and vice versa."

And then God proceeds to torture and execute David's son due to David's sins.

The only consistent interpretation is that God can just do whatever he wants. So why die for our sins?

You are the one saying Christianity is a religion of human sacrifices..
That is something that has neve been part of either Judaism or Christianity.

That God made a sacrifice to resolve the penalty required for sin is a one off act done by God for God.


The death of Bathsheba's son was not a judgement on the child.
The deut 24 command about sons not paying for there Father's crimes was an instruction to the Isralite kingdom, not an instruction imposed on God.