Blood sacrifice. Are they divine or satanic?
ascensionglossary.com/index.php/Blood_Sacrifice
Psa 49 7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
Repeat after me.
Satan would accept a blood sacrifice/ransom. God would not.
Thanks for repeating this to all the Christians you are unfortunate enough to bump into who think otherwise.
Regards
DL
I’ll go with satanic… the Aztecs and other such tribes massacred 10s of 1000s a year… now that’s a lot of lives, and an excuse to get rid of the competition and rivals.
Neither. They are simply inhuman, bloodthirsty barbarism.
Yours is the right conclusion.
I have my doubts as to the numbers sacrificed because no mass graves in those numbers have even been found that I know of.
Regards
DL
I agree.
I call that satanic.
Language is a chienne sometimes.
Regards
DL
It’s the easiest way to get rid of your competitors… using the help from the mass coercion of others, by calling it necessary religious sacrifice in the name of the appeasement of gods.
The smaller the communities, the harder coercion for selfish reasons becomes, so hence the lure of big cities were needed, to put such plans in place.
„
Special occasions demanded more blood – when a new temple to Huitzilopochtli was dedicated in 1487, an estimated 80,400 people were sacrificed.”
The internet gives some evidence of mass graves throughout South America, but it also mentions claims of the Spanish invaders exaggerating numbers, so as the indigenous people’s appear much more savage barbaric and intimidating than they really were… the same was done to indigenous Caribbean islanders, and other such groups the world over, I’m sure.
Even today, these stereotypes still hold, and are used against these peoples, either for personal or national gain.
No argument from me again, other than restating than no mass graves with the numbers you quote have ever been discovered.
Regards
DL
During the Roman Empire, and up until around 800 AD, blood sacrifices were common, accepted, morally good, and not seen as taboo. Today, cow sacrifices are still given in some cultures (Mexico, Catholic areas, Spain, etc). There are also Modern forms of sacrifice. Abortion can be identified as a “Modern” form of child-sacrifice (which I believe it is).
Before the rise of the Christian Era (1000AD–to present), and coming into the Post-Christian Era (2000AD beyond), sacrifice was seen as offerings to the Pagan Gods. Satan can be considered a “pagan god”, or a symbol for “all pagan gods before the Abrahamic takeover”. The Abrahamic “God”, of Christians and Jews, attempts to outlaw all animal and human sacrifices, because “Christ died for our sins”. Thus all forms of sacrifice were ended, once “God sacrificed His Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, in the flesh”.
Thus sacrifice was converted, from animal and human, to Christ, and all previous forms were outlawed, made “morally bad”, while the Perfect Sacrifice (Christ) was morally good.
So you see god saying something like, let’s outlaw all forms of sacrifice right after we give one great one for the Gipper.
Good grief. Did you even read what you put?
You say it was morally good.
Shall we see if you have what it takes to argue your position?
If you are willing, read and respond to the following that I give to Christians to ponder. They tend to tuck tail and run but perhaps you have the balls to try to argue your position.
On Jesus dying for you.
It takes quite an ego to think a god would actually die for you, after condemning you unjustly in the first place.
You have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil you make Jesus to keep your feel good get out of hell free card.
It is a lie, first and foremost because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, — so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, — is immoral. To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.
You also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
There is no way that you would teach your children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are doing just that.
Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fibre as Yahweh.
Regards
DL
It seems to me that the history of Western Civilization and religion (Judæo-Christian Abrahamic ideology and morality) revolves around sacrifice and scapegoating as the core of morality and ethics. A sacrifice is necessary to absolve sin/evil. This became abstracted further and further and further, until it “became necessary” for a greatest form of sacrifice. What can be more of a sacrifice than God giving his Only Begotten Son? Regardless of the various interpretations, the offering is meaningful. What is a higher form of sacrifice than of father of son?
Personally, I find the thought abhorrent, and I think most people do too. It is the absolute height of “necessary evil”, or at least, a very “unnecessary evil”. But the repulsion is the point. People are supposed to feel disgust and wrongness at the idea. It’s significant. What can be a greater offering? And should sacrifice continue to exist, anyway?
I’m not for Judæo-Christian, Abrahamic ideology, by any means. I consider myself Pagan/Heathen to a great extent. But I’m answering on behalf of all the (mainly Christian) opposition that I’ve encountered over the years. And there are some solid moral/ethical points to make.
Before the outlawing of Sacrifice, humanity offered sacrifices to (pagan) gods. The inverse of this, is the Jewish-Christian God, offering “sacrifice”, in a manner, back to Humanity. At least, this was the very (moral) point of Christ. That’s why Jesus Christ is portrayed as such. The means to a “greater” end, a sacrifice to end all further sacrifices.
So what is your thinking regarding this… lack of physical evidence, that there was never that amount of people sacrificed in the first place?
Did these Nations even have such large populations, to sustain such high sacrificial amounts?
“What is a higher form of sacrifice than of father of son?”
God is the receiver of the sacrifice, and here you have him doing the giving.
You see god saying, let’s stop barbaric and immoral blood sacrifices by having one really good one for the Gipper.
Ridiculous.
Any father or god who demands a sacrifice and does not have the balls to step up himself and sends is son to die is more like Satan than a god.
Regards
DL
This is too far off topic for me to go research anything other than looking for the largest mass grave ever found.
The majority of ancient warfare that I know of was not for the mass extinction of a people. It was more to take slaves and worthy property and land so as to replace the many of the winning side that died in the conquest as well as enrich the winners.
Slaves had value while the dead did not. Their behavior was assured when their wives and children were held in as ransom.
But yes, I will not believe your numbers without some evidence.
Regards
DL
No, according to Western history, Christ died on behalf of humanity. It wasn’t for God.
So Fathers whose sons go to war, and die, a form of sacrifice, are Satanic?
Sounds like you’re ridiculous here. Pretty much everybody considers it honorable and holy, for sons to honor their fathers, and go to war for them. So why should religious piety be any different?
Sometimes there are things in life worth dying for. Perhaps you are unaware?
Let’s say there’s a father with 4 sons. And there’s a brutal war going on. 3 of those sons go and fight. The father knows that their chance of survival is very low, since the casualties of this war is very high. He loses 3 sons, of 4. Almost everybody, apart from you Greatest, callous and wretched as you are, would see this as a noble-sacrifice. It’s selfless. The father and sons are honoring themselves and their country, fighting for their livelihoods.
But he is left with a single son, in the end, and so not all is lost for him.
Now compare to a father with only one begotten son. Wouldn’t it be much more of a sacrifice to lose all begotten sons, or if the father with 4 sons had lost them all to war?
Surely the weight of the sacrifice, is significant, and if you can’t figure that out, then what sense do you have?
Urwrongx1000
What does holy have to do with it? How about the father honoring the son by allowing him to live the life that he, the son, chooses to live? What if the son only goes to war because it is his father’s wish to be So honored? Is that enough reason to sacrifice the son and to send him to his death? This is about the father’s ego, not about real honor. What kind of a relationship is that between father and son?
Religious piety is no better than drugs, sex and liquor - it is simply about having that gooooooddddddddddd
feeling.
“It wasn’t for God.”
I can’t believe you would make such a ridiculous statement.
Who else can forgive sins?
Your last idiocy is not an equivalent analogy since god started the war, so I will ignore it.
Regards
DL
More inanity from you, further proving you’re incapable of reasoning or having any rational conversation.
Men start wars, not God. Well, maybe sometimes…
When are you going to pull your head out your ass and figure it out?
Cowardice.
A nation full of men who do not or will not fight, are cowardly and weak, and will be conquered sooner than later.
We are talking about a war god started and that fact is what you are ignoring.
You are comparing man to god and are just sounding stupid.
Regards
DL