Come clean..

So that you would have to ask this very question.

That’s what christianity worships. The torture of a god/man, who had to die (in apparently an extremely graphic way.), to fix the sin that god created.

A better question is…

Is the only way to redeem sin, to have a blood sacrifice? If so how can christianity with any right sense criticize the mayan, and aztec cultures where they did exactly that?

LOL which one has the more evil thoughts and writings, Mick or Hellspawn?

You don’t exactly excpect him to say his master will lose do you, if there is this showdown. What is so evil about that? Tell you what Ucci why don’t we ask him a specific question and it should find out how evil he really is. We will ask him: Hellspawn, If your master wants you to prove your loyalty to him by slaughtering your children, will you do it?

Wait; that won’t work though, because God does that test too. He has demanded his followers to slaughter their kids as a test of loyalty and faith. hmmmmm so I guess if hellspawn is willing to do that, it can’t exactly be considered and evil test because, we all know God is not evil and would not do an evil test. hmmmmm. Now if Hellspawn actually does it then in this day and age he would be evil by all accounts right, But, if he were christian and claimed God required it then what? Is it evil or holy?

HMM have to think of another question why don’t you come up with a question mine are all too debatable.

C’mon Ucc, splain it to 'em. Nevermind, I’ll do it.

The whole point of Christianity is the final " blood sacrifice" of God’s only son. Redemption of sin by blood sacrifice ended with Christ’s death and resurrection. “He who believeth in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” The rest is commentary.

but… it was a blood sacrifice nonetheless… first or last does it matter?

MB,

Does it matter? How could it not? Without the finality of the sacrifice of God’s only son,there would be no Christianity…

And this would be a bad thing right? One religion more or less not going to make a difference. Except in aproach.

Well, for one thing, it sure would re-write history… But no, as far as the constancy of change, it would make no difference. A religion by any other name is still a religion.

But Cristianity is also a method of salvation for those who believe man needs to be saved. A revealed religion.

And Scythekain, I agree there are elements of Aztec religion similar to (especailly Spanish) Catholicism. Only in Catholicism there is a mediator between God and man, so the religious need for blood sacrifice is performed as a mass and not by the continual ripping out persons’ physical hearts and eating their limbs.

mrn

actually ripping out someones heart quickly would cause you to die quicker than nailing your body on a cross to die over a long period of time. Which is more humane? Neither. They are both disgusting, horrifying and gross.

you write the “continual” ripping … etc etc. Actually there is a widespread belief that the Aztec where crazy cannibalistic. But anthropologists actually believe its occurance is extremely overexagerated. It was probably a very rare practice. If you want an overview check this out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

I think my point was missed… It was rhetorical in that the fact that it’s a blood sacrifice should be seen as primitive and revolting.

Unless of course you think god caused us to be born into a state of sin, that required a complex virgin/god birth tortured god to save us all from the hell god created.

Maybe god is really Rube Goldberg?

Christians perform the symbology every sunday, when they eat the bread and drink the water.

“this bread represents my body, this water represents my blood.”

You still have the priest tearing the heart out of an innocent man, he’s just doing it in a symbolical way, and not a literal way.

And so is life throughout most of history. It’s part of the human experience.
Maybe the key to life is not to eliminate all the horrifying, but to respond to it with courage.

1. I don’t know what Christians drink water for the sacrament – I don’t consider Mormons to be a Christian sect.

2. Is that the Mormon translation: “represents”? Why then does Jesus insist on eating his body and drinking his blood? (John 6)

3. Well, the tearing out of his heart would be literal, but it would symbolise something about giving the sacrifice (probably of the unwilling) to their gods. Aquinas talks about there being “natural sacraments”, but I’m not sure those of the Aztecs went up to God.

mrn

water or wine… does it matter?

your missing the point… Every time you have the eucharist you ARE doing John 6. Devouring the representation of your sacrificed man/god for your “sins”.

the symbology of the blood sacrifice is what I was talking about. Human sacrifice for sin…

Incorrect. Only Catholics believe it to be a literal sacrifice. Most other denominations believe it to be a symbolic representation. Some Lutherans believe that it is both.

The official name of mormonism is “the church of JESUS CHRIST of latter day saints.” Isn’t that one fucken weird name for a church who isn’t christian? Just because their ideas are more radical than many other christian sects does not make them not christian.

I disagree. All religions believe in the literal sacrifice. It’s what all christian denominations (I agree with Sirmike on this point) believe in.

It’s what they all hold the most powerful event of their life. It wasn’t the catholics that boosted the passion of the christ… a movie that not only focuses on the crucifixion, but also the brutal torture of… to 400 million dollars worldwide.

I find this interesting as well… as an ex-mormon, it was always interesting that christians don’t consider mormons christian. They can hardly agree upon themselves when they dont’ have the extreme beliefs of JW’s or mormons… Do the baptists believe in god/christ exactly the same as catholics or lutherans or protestants?

They are all different, but all the same in regards to their worship of christ.

1. Yes, water or wine matters to the symbology.

2. In the words of one terse Catholic author: “If all the Eucharist is is a symbol, then ta hell with it.”

3. I was talking about the symbology also. But as Athanasius points out, you need a subject who is both man (descendant of Adam) and God (capable of forgiving sin).

So do you mean any start-up group with any doctrine can claim to be Christian, even if it does not trace its lineage back to Christ nor believe in a Christian notion of God? As I understand it, LDS is a cult invented by a self-styled prophet, not a Christian religion.

You said "Every time you have the eucharist you ARE doing John 6. Devouring the representation of your sacrificed man/god for your “sins”.

Of course most Christians believe that Jesus actually died. But what you claimed above was that Christians see the Eucharist as an actual sacrifice. Catholics do. Most others do not. Therefore your statement was and is INCORRECT, whether you disagree or not. I presume that your background is Catholic and you don’t have much knowledge about protestantism. You cannot always extrapolate from Catholicism to the rest of Christianity. Catholics have quite a few beliefs not shared by other Christians.