Another Response to the "Bloodthirsty God" Theory
Well, I’m back. I’m hoping to be able to post more often, and I apologize for the lay-off to anyone out there who may enjoy reading my posts. As excuse, my college-age ministry has been taking quite a bit of time. But anyway...
I’m reading through the Bible-In-A-Year again, and decided to use a chronological plan this time. It takes you through God’s Word as it happened, instead of as it is laid out in the Bible. It’s a pretty cool way to do it, as it gives it a different feel (especially if you add in some New Testament reading as you make your way through Exodus and Leviticus; read the Law in the morning and its fulfillment in the evening.).
Anyway, I’m reading Leviticus, and it naturally brings me back to e-dogg and his questions that I and others (thanks watchman) tried to answer—why all the blood and death in God’s sacrificial system? Isn’t God pretty bloodthirsty? On one hand, I think we succeeded in offering some theology on the subject, but on the other, I think we failed miserably to get someone on the outside of Christianity to understand why it needed to be that way. I think it boils down to the fact that we gave the attention to the sacrifice (blood) and not the one giving the sacrifice.
As noted earlier, there is no remission of sin without blood, because the life is in the blood Lev 17:11. Why? It just is. The wages of sin is death Romans 6:23, and a just God MUST judge sin. God, being both just and gracious/merciful, chose to allow a sacrificial system involving animals as scapegoats for our sins. Ever since God replaced fig leaves with animal hides in the Garden of Eden, animal sacrifices were instituted.
Now, with all of that said, imagine that sacrifice from Adam and Eve’s point of view. They had a special relationship with animals, much different than ours. Adam was made their “master”, their overseer. It was his job to tend them. He named each as God brought them before him. And then, because of his sin, he had to watch one of them die as his covering. He had to wear its hide as a daily reminder that he had cost it its life, that he had been ransomed, and that his works (symbolized by the fig leaves) could not make remedy. Adam was forced into a confrontation with his own guilt, and his own helplessness to that guilt.
In a nutshell, that’s what we shouldn’t miss in the sacrificial system that God instituted. The sacrifice is three-fold. It reminds us that we are sinners, and deserve death. It allows God to be just in judging sin. Yet it also reminds us that God is merciful, and has provided a way for us to enter life and a relationship with Him.
In my next post, I’ll carry this thought along and look at the specifics of the atonement sacrifices as set forth in Leviticus. For now, I invite you to examine yourself before the one true God. He’s not bloodthirsty at all. As a matter of fact, He gave His own blood that you could experience the living waters and never thirst again.
Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” John 4:13, 14
Technorati Tags: - ‹ previous
- 46 of 56
- next ›
Syndicate
An athiest man has suggested
An athiest man has suggested I read "Discworld" by Prachett. As a Christian woman - I wondered if I should not knowing anything of the author and his work. A few pages into the book it was evident that I should not read it. I am wondering if I should seriously curtail writing this man, who I know by "our families" but he is in Ireland and not the USA. We write about q3 days, he has a very nice side to him but he does certainly not know Christ as personal savior. What I am going to do today is send him the big full page listing of GOD as he sees Prachett - the listing on the web pages...in God's name I send it and His will be done. I hope this man will choose to be a Christ-follower, knowing personally and fully the power of the saving blood of Christ. I hope someone will comment. Thank you.
Read the book, if your
Read the book, if your beliefs are truly valid, then reading the book will only serve to reinforce your views. I have allways wondered why Christians are so scared to study opposing views, I constantly study opposing views in order to remind myself why I believe what I believe. In fact, I am surrounded by opposing views, considering im an agnostic with Fundamentilist Christian parents who make me go to church. Yet even under the constant assault of the pastor and Steven Curtis Chapman, I remain adamant in my beliefs. So why, if Christian's faith is so strong and so correct, must they constantly reinforce it with Christian music and weekly church? I read the Bible, why cant you read Discworld? Are you that weak? Or are you perhaps afraid that the Bible isn't true, and that you will become convinced of this? Time for some "soul-searching"
Thanks for the input, GoodKat.
I'm glad you found the blog.
"I have allways wondered why Christians are so scared to study opposing views, "
I'm a Christian, and you may have noticed that I'm quite well studied up on opposing views. Would you be willing to admit that you're painting with far too broad a brush? Most would call that stereotyping and bigoted. As a matter of fact, I started a blog to rationally dialog on the subjects in question. I think I disprove your point.
"So why, if Christian's faith is so strong and so correct, must they constantly reinforce it with Christian music and weekly church? I read the Bible, why cant you read Discworld?"
You've failed to make a rational argument. Perhaps it's because people tend to hang around with like-minded people? Or perhaps it's because our belief system is that we are all parts of the body of Christ, and a body must function as a whole to be healthy?
And... I've read Discworld. Remember? I posted the quote. And I'm a Christian. So, I still don't see your point.
"Are you that weak? Or are you perhaps afraid that the Bible isn't true, and that you will become convinced of this? Time for some "soul-searching""
I'm afraid that I don't quite see how you've arrived at these points. Could you please explain your rationale?
Be blessed.
I hope you just misunderstood GoodKat
...otherwise your response is a bit puzzling. GoodKat was responding to Anonymous' post concerning the athiest friend.
I'm a Christian, and you may have noticed that I'm quite well studied up on opposing views. Would you be willing to admit that you're painting with far too broad a brush? Most would call that stereotyping and bigoted. As a matter of fact, I started a blog to rationally dialog on the subjects in question. I think I disprove your point.
GoodKat was making a generalization, one supported by Anonymous' statements. A single contrary example does not disprove the generalization. The fact that your willingness to study opposing views is even worth mentioning implies that you are in the minority of Christians which tends to confirm the generalization.
Webster's defines bigotry as, "obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them." That hardly describes GoodKat's assertion. In fact, that appears to decribe what GoodKat is arguing against. Your accusation is a bit inflamatory.
You've failed to make a rational argument.
The quotation you gave contained two questions from GoodKat, not an argument. The overall argument is for honest intellectual inquiry. If anything in this exchange lacks rationality, I'd point to Anonymous' original post.
And... I've read Discworld. Remember? I posted the quote. And I'm a Christian. So, I still don't see your point.
GoodKat's reply was clearly directed to Anonymous, not you. It was an encouragement to read the book, despite the apparent offense to Anonymous' Christian beliefs. As one who routinely confronts alternate viewpoints, why would you have a problem with GoodKat promoting the same intellectual pursuit? Why wouldn't you provide the same encouragement, especially for someone who obviously is looking for direction?
Welcome back Dogg
...and I was responding to the statement:
"I have allways wondered why Christians are so scared to study opposing views,"
As a Christian, I disprove her statement that Christians are always scared... Knowing you, I'm actually quite surprised that you would defend a generalization such as this toward any group, but that's neither here nor there.
And I realize that her response was to Anonymous, and it was something much more than an encouragement. It was a response to a particular that painted the whole. You can't really do that unless your point defines the whole by definition, say... Like claiming that all bachelors are unwed. As a part of the whole that disproves her generalization, I showed myself as an example-- not as a minority within the group.
It was a very "inflammatory" description of an entire population of people not based in fact. If you're OK with that and choose to defend it, then that's your prerogative.
Take care.
As a Christian, I disprove
As a Christian, I disprove her statement that Christians are always scared.
GoodKat's statement did NOT say Christians are *always* scared. It also didn't say all Christians exhibit this trait. It was a bit like saying, "I've always wondered why NASCAR fans drink beer." Now, no reasonable interpretation of that statment would take it as "ALL NASCAR fans drink beer." Your singular example does not disprove the generalization any more than a single example of a tee-totaling NASCAR fan invalidates the above statement.
It was a very "inflammatory" description of an entire population of people not based in fact.
It was a description based on the experiences of GoodKat and further demonstrated by Anonymous. GoodKat obviously offended you, but the post was mostly questions (that weren't necessarily directed at you). I'll grant that the questions were somewhat antagonistic, but I don't think they warrant a response of "bigot" and dismissed with a simple, "I don't see your point." The whole point was that true faith requires no shelter. It should withstand these questions and other challenges, no?
I think "offended" is a bit
I think "offended" is a bit strong of a word.
E-dogg, go back and reread GoodKat's 2 posts, and you'll hopefully see my point. If not, that's cool with me too.
You can try to rationalize this all you want. GoodKat painted all of Christianity by his/her narrow view and that's wrong. I pointed that out. It becomes fairly obvious that he/she is being, at best, stereotypical and at worse (with comments such as "assaulted"), bigoted.
Again, rationalize this all you want, but stereotypes are wrong, and an incredibly lazy way to think. You can defend them all you want by using examples against those groups that appear to be open targets like Christians, NASCAR fans, etc... But it's just as wrong here as it is when the stupid racist posits that black people like watermelons, eat chicken, are afraid to swim and deal drugs.
***EDIT***
There are helper words out there, dogg. Like, some, few, many... Especially when referencing entire groups and describing them from the particular, it is appropriate to use them. When you leave them out, it paints the stereotypical picture, as my racism example above showed. As such, with the wide and shallow statement:
"I have allways wondered why Christians are so scared to study opposing views"
The difference between this and the morally dispicable racist stereotype is that of "target group". The stereotype structure would be, describe a group as a whole based on limited observation or predefined ideal, usually in a negative Let's give it a try...
"I have allways wondered why Christians [group] are so scared to study opposing views [negative particular which defines the group -- i.e. Christians]"
"I have always wondered why women are such bad drivers."
"I have always wondered why non-Christians are so stupid."
"I have always wondered why black people are criminals."
and yes...
"I have always wondered why NASCAR fans drink beer."
(*Note that none of the above are my actual beliefs, but are used to state that such statements are inherently BAD!)
Now, imagine the second statement being made as a comment on a feminist website, or the third on an atheist website, or the fourth on a black muslim homepage (or NAACP, etc...).
I think that my response was even-handed, and I even got to offer GoodKat THE message of love, that God loves him/her and wants a close personal relationship with him/her.
So, with all of that said... Exactly what is your beef with my response?
***/EDIT***
Agree or disagree, that's fine by me. But I'm a bit too busy to spend too much time trying to convince you of the obvious, that stereotypes are bad.
Take care...
If "offended" is too strong, what word would you use?
I did read GoodKat's other two posts. Your reference to them as backing up your point leaves me with nothing to say but: Huh? One made some generalizations about creationists, but nothing unreasonable or too outlandish. The second was just a philosophical dive into sin and hell, something you basically asked for in the poll.
It becomes fairly obvious that he/she is being, at best, stereotypical and at worse (with comments such as "assaulted"), bigoted.
The "assualted" comment was a description of GoodKat's personal experience with actual people. It was not stated that ALL Christians are doing the assault.
stereotypes are wrong, and an incredibly lazy way to think.
I agree, but I'm not sure you are applying the word fairly here. GK was speaking directly to Anonymous, and using generalizations to make a point. GK did not use those generalizations to make a judgement about you or any other Christian. GK was saying, in effect, that Anonymous' statements line up with GK's experiences with other Christians, then GK implores Anonymous to consider an alternative.
I'm not saying the generalization is right or wrong, just that your single example fails to produce the intended result. Indeed, your blog introduction page has the quote, "Christianity is often criticized for what appears to be blind faith, and sometimes this criticism is well deserved." Granted, you use the "sometimes" qualifier, but is that statement really that far removed from GK's?
Your racist and sexist examples are well taken, if a bit over the top. Those have distinct malicious content. I don't think GK intended malice, though the choice of "scared" might have been replaced with "reluctant" to remove the assumption of motive. Maybe GK stated it that way on purpose, hoping Anonymous would think, "Hey, I'm not *scared* of any book! I can read it even if I don't agree with it!"
I think that my response was even-handed
You called GK an irrational bigot...
I even got to offer GoodKat THE message of love, that God loves him/her and wants a close personal relationship with him/her.
You *got* to? You make it sound like GK should thank you for that, or that you deserve a gold star. I'm pretty sure GK has heard that message before, and found it insufficient. I'm also pretty sure you know that. So what was the point?
So, with all of that said... Exactly what is your beef with my response?
When you boil it down, GK was advocating to Anonymous the very same thing that you advocate here--don't rest on blind faith--and yet you ignore the message and take issue with the worldview and semantics of the messenger. I see Anonymous' post as a cry for direction ("I am wondering", "I hope someone will comment"). You didn't answer that call, but instead jumped on GK for doing so. Your application of that opinion to yourself seems a bit, um, well, for lack of a better word, self-centered.
I apologize if I come across as conceited or smug in my responses. To be honest, I feel a bit strange defending GK on the basis of three short posts. I doubt either GK or Anonymous will ever see this exchange, so the whole thing is a bit out of proportion at this point.
I agree that it's out of proportion at this point.
And, as alluded to, due to a serious time constraint, I will leave it right here after this reply. (Also, I'm trying more and more to filter everything in my life through the question of whether my actions are bringing glory to God, and I'm feeling more and more that these tedious conversations don't.) But I'll answer some of your questions and respond to some of your points, at which time I'll leave this with you to respond to your heart's content, uninterrupted.
The "assualted" comment was a description of GoodKat's personal experience with actual people. It was not stated that ALL Christians are doing the assault.
Actually, it's closer to stating this than you initially think, if you take into account that Stephen Curtis Chapman is a Christian recording artist/song writer that I'm figuring GoodKat has never met or had a "personal experience" with. At the very least, it appears that GoodKat thinks that Christians he/she has never met are "assaulting" him/her. That is the first indication that the viewpoint against Christianity is bigoted and vastly stereotypical.
GK was speaking directly to Anonymous, and using generalizations to make a point. GK did not use those generalizations to make a judgement about you or any other Christian. GK was saying, in effect, that Anonymous' statements line up with GK's experiences with other Christians, then GK implores Anonymous to consider an alternative.
This is not what he/she was saying. I've quoted it several times, and you can reread it for yourself. He/she said that Christians (a group defined) are scared to study opposing views (negative description). And, as mentioned earlier, he/she apparently feels that a Christian praising God on public airwaves is a personal assault to his/her freedom or person.
I'm not saying the generalization is right or wrong, just that your single example fails to produce the intended result. Indeed, your blog introduction page has the quote, "Christianity is often criticized for what appears to be blind faith, and sometimes this criticism is well deserved." Granted, you use the "sometimes" qualifier, but is that statement really that far removed from GK's?
You are repeatedly defending generalization, so much so that you've stated that a single exception can not disprove a generalization. As to the difference between the statements, the qualifier makes them hugely different.
Your racist and sexist examples are well taken, if a bit over the top. Those have distinct malicious content. I don't think GK intended malice, though the choice of "scared" might have been replaced with "reluctant" to remove the assumption of motive. Maybe GK stated it that way on purpose, hoping Anonymous would think, "Hey, I'm not *scared* of any book! I can read it even if I don't agree with it!"
And Christians this person never met personally assault them just by praising God on a radio station. The examples are not as over the top as you would indicate. Even in substance and form, I tried to make the examples as close to GoodKat's statement as possible. So, is it the group, or the motive that keeps GoodKat's comment from being stereotype? B/C form and insult (sacred assaulters) are similar.
You called GK an irrational bigot...
Bigotry by definition is irrational. Viewing the public expression of religious praise/views on the radio, by a person you have never met, as "assault"... You don't think that is a bigoted statement/viewpoint?
You *got* to? You make it sound like GK should thank you for that, or that you deserve a gold star. I'm pretty sure GK has heard that message before, and found it insufficient. I'm also pretty sure you know that. So what was the point?
Wow, you're scarping low to find something against what I do. Yes, I got to tell GoodKat that God loves him/her. I don't want a gold star or thanks. I got to share that message in the same way I would get to offer someone in the desert a drink of water. It's not a matter of thanks, or even the person realizing they need the water. It's a matter of doing what I feel the right thing is.
When you boil it down, GK was advocating to Anonymous the very same thing that you advocate here--don't rest on blind faith--and yet you ignore the message and take issue with the worldview and semantics of the messenger.
I've taken no issue with semantics. I've taken issue with bigoted stereotypes. Again, you accepted other statement examples as "well taken". Please list the other groups besides Christianity that you'll allow, when it comes to insulting stereotypical accusations of "head-in-the-sand-fear", and paranoid claims that songs on the radio are personal assaults. What other groups and worldviews are OK for this in your opinion?
I see Anonymous' post as a cry for direction ("I am wondering", "I hope someone will comment"). You didn't answer that call, but instead jumped on GK for doing so. Your application of that opinion to yourself seems a bit, um, well, for lack of a better word, self-centered.
And I was hesitant to give anonymous that direction, because it's not my call. It's sort of like Paul describing whether someone should eat meat sacrificed to idols (a NT era problem for Christians). If it offended one's conscience, one said, then it's a sin to do it. If not, then go ahead.
Anonymous said:
"A few pages into the book it was evident that I should not read it."
There you go. It's evident. Anonymous was actually asking about writing the author who they know and I do not. I will not make a recommendation on that. In response GoodKat got on and used it as an opportunity, not to give direction, but to make inflammatory comments against Anonymous personally and Christians as a group/in general.
I seriously think you need to keep looking for that better word, because self-centered couldn't be further from the truth.
Now, with all of that, I will NOT revisit this subject. Feel free to dissect my motives and/or how I've reacted all you want. I stand by the fact that I have taken stereotypical and bigoted statements to task while at the same time offering the "Living Water" that every person on this planet needs and GoodKat admitted he/she doesn't have.
If you continue to take issue with either action, then I guess you'll live. :^)
If you want me to revisit and comment in this thread, let's get on the subject of the "Bloodthirsty God Theory" and the foreshadowing of blood sacrifices pointing forward to the Work that God's only Son performed on your behalf. THAT, my friend, is the subject that I know brings glory to God, and the one that I'd love to spend time on.
So, where would you like to start?