|
Post by gwen on Feb 12, 2007 2:56:48 GMT -4
Not to mention that I find it distasteful to have the presumptuousness to accuse literally thousands of people of faking their lives' works. Yet some people who shall remain nameless have no problem doing that. To put it mildly. Anyway, I don't think Mr Butler would be happy about his photo and first name being used to identify the writer of those posts. I find that wholly misleading and, truth be told, way distasteful. As an alternative, I'd suggest providing a citation from a published and reliable source that Mr Butler thought JC's body was eaten by the disciples or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 12, 2007 3:42:03 GMT -4
Well, you know, you're slurring thousands of people, too, by saying the entirety of the US government and at least 80% of all politicians are corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by gwen on Feb 12, 2007 4:52:23 GMT -4
Well, you know, you're slurring thousands of people, too, by saying the entirety of the US government and at least 80% of all politicians are corrupt. I didn't say that. You have wholly misquoted me. Are you trying to start a flame war? I originally said all politicians are gangsters. I later qualified it by saying about 80% are and the rest are either headed that way or soon to get out of politics. Meanwhile millions of good people, non-politicians, work for the US government. How could you conflate what I said about politicians with all those millions of people who are either trying to feed their families by working for a living or doing what they think is right by serving their country? Were you skimming?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 12, 2007 12:02:33 GMT -4
If you feel the need for literal payment for sins in literal flesh and blood, then why does the flesh and blood need to be figurative? The sacrifice of flesh and blood was not figurative. Under the Law of Moses sacrifices were real flesh-and-blood animals. They were also "prototypes" of the sacrifice of God's son. Sacrifices had to be the firstlings of the flocks, and without blemish. The sacrifice also could not have any broken bones - both conditions fulfilled in Christ. Jesus Christ was the final sacrifice, and was quite real. Because His was a perfect sacrifice no further blood sacrifices were required from that point forward. The sacrament instituted by Jesus is an ordinance in memory of His perfect sacrifice, it is not itself a sacrifice. Therefore no actual flesh and blood needs to be involved. In fact, according to LDS theology it doesn't matter what substances are used in the sacrament, as long as one is liquid and one is solid. You could theoretically use Pepsi and pizza if you had nothing else available.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 12, 2007 12:05:39 GMT -4
Come now. I've had my ancestors accused of being accomplices to mass beheadings and castrations on this forum and I didn't start a flame war over it.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 12, 2007 14:37:07 GMT -4
Not to mention that I find it distasteful to have the presumptuousness to accuse literally thousands of people of faking their lives' works. Yet some people who shall remain nameless have no problem doing that. To put it mildly. Anyway, I don't think Mr Butler would be happy about his photo and first name being used to identify the writer of those posts. I find that wholly misleading and, truth be told, way distasteful. As an alternative, I'd suggest providing a citation from a published and reliable source that Mr Butler thought JC's body was eaten by the disciples or whatever. I'll accept the criticism about this gracefully and switch to a more topical avitar. I understand that this thread is treading on sensitive ground, and I'll pick my battles carefully. It's just another in a long series of brief-lived hotlinked avatars I've used. The only arguement I would present in favor of keeping it is "screw him, he's dead." I put smedley's picture up in reference to Rocky/david's challenge to read what smedley wrote - and as a reminder to myself to come back to that topic. Also, I like his hair.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 12, 2007 14:41:44 GMT -4
I preferred your low-res Cthulhu icon myself.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Feb 12, 2007 15:50:51 GMT -4
Put yourself in that place and time. If there was any slight hint that perhaps Christ wanted you to have eaten him after he died, would you have eaten him?
He might have been speaking symbolically at The Last Supper. But, why take that chance?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 12, 2007 15:59:30 GMT -4
I really can't see myself commiting cannibalism in a non-survival situation regardless of reasoning. Then again, I don't think it's truly possible to put yourself in a time and place not your own, because of the implicit assumptions you bring with you.
I think the idea is, shall we say, less than valid.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 12, 2007 16:00:19 GMT -4
Put yourself in that place and time. If there was any slight hint that perhaps Christ wanted you to have eaten him after he died, would you have eaten him? No. I would need much more than a slight hint to engage in cannibalism.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 12, 2007 23:20:11 GMT -4
But you're not being objective, are you? The historical record in scripture has never been intelligently refuted. Those who caused Jesus to be put to death would certainly have produced His body if they could. "Jhn 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you. Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." Alive and uneaten 8 days later. Sacrifices were always substitutionary, but you don't know that because you haven't read the Bible and don't know what you're talking about. Read the Bible. If you don't like it, read it anyways.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 13, 2007 2:48:38 GMT -4
Sacrifices were always substitutionary, but you don't know that because you haven't read the Bible and don't know what you're talking about. First off, if you're saying what I think you're saying, you're wrong. There were actual animal sacrifices done in the actual Temple. How do I know? Because it says so in the Bible. Yeah? That's an arrogant attitude. I mean, my faith doesn't have a base text, but I think you should read, oh, the Baghvad Gita. Don't like it? Read it anyway.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 13, 2007 11:40:13 GMT -4
Hoosiers is right in that under Mosaic law you substituted an animal for yourself in a sacrifice. That makes the sacrifice substitutionary (or vicarious). Christ's own sacrifice follows this pattern - He acted as a substitute for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 13, 2007 12:32:13 GMT -4
But you're not being objective, are you? The historical record in scripture has never been intelligently refuted. Those who caused Jesus to be put to death would certainly have produced His body if they could. "Jhn 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you. Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." Alive and uneaten 8 days later. Sacrifices were always substitutionary, but you don't know that because you haven't read the Bible and don't know what you're talking about. Read the Bible. If you don't like it, read it anyways. Thanks for joining in, DeadHoosiers. I was hoping you'd turn up soon. You bring a very necessary viewpoint to this discussion, and I appreciate your input. First, though, I'm going to ask you to check your attitude and assumptions at the door. I have read the Bible, I just don't believe it to be absolute fact, and I don't have it memorized. I've read lots of books. As I've mentioned here elsewhere, I'm now in the National Guard serving as a Chaplain's Assistant, so I'm rereading it, but I have a lot of reading to do. This last weekend I was sent home with the "Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks," both volumes. That's a three inch stack of scintillating Army writing . I also am reading an obsolete (1990) version of the Chaplain's Assistant manual, which is fine, since most of the information in it is already a couple of thousand years old . . . I'll spare everyone the STP and FM numbers for everything. On top of that I have to do most of my reading at work between interruptions (I've been working off-and-on on this post for 20 minutes now, for instance) or after work with all the other things that distract a person. Funny thing about my Army job - I'm not required to be christian to do it. Nobody ever asked me, until this weekend. Chaplain asked us (the other CA's and I) in circle what our faith backgrounds are. He's been moved to another unit and he was feeling us out to find out who he would like to go with him. I told him I've been studying Buddhism for ten years, and saved myself a longer drive, but now I'm in charge of the Unit Ministry Team at redacted . But I'm not required to be christian to serve the soldiers. I need to understand their beliefs in order to help them, but I'm not a Chaplain. I'll also need to learn more about PTSD and suicide prevention, and drug and alcohol abuse as well. Faith of one flavor is only a part of it. But I am using this as an opportunity to read the Bible again. edit - unit name redacted for OPSEC
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 13, 2007 12:45:11 GMT -4
My recollection of long ago reading on ancient Jewish customs is that Temple sacrifices were substitutionary in the since that the animals life was substituted for that of the man making the sacrifice, and they were only men. This practice was set in the story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. With the ram being substituted at the last minute. This theme is carried on in scripture and served as the model for all sacrifices, or the giving of the best of ones treasure to God, from whom it came and to whom it truly belongs. No eating of the sacrifice is allowed, except IIRC in certain cases by the temple staff. A sacrifice that is then consumed by the giver, is not really a sacrifice.
While there were different opinions among Jews about observing ritual vs daily cleanliness and dietary laws, cannibalism was anathema to them. The original followers of Jesus believed that they were to be a reformatory group among Jewish society and after the crucifixion were in fear of their lives. It makes no since to take a step, such as cannibalism, that would permanently separate them from Jewish society and undermine any popular support they might have, even among there own families. One does not have to accept the resurrection of Christ of even the existence of God to see that cannibalism makes little since put into the contest of the time.
It seems to me that this cannibalism hypothesis is a story to fill in a void of verifiable information and biblical narrative. While some theology holds a similar underpinning, that does not support the hypothesis. If one rejects the resurrection, why accept the Gospels as containing any factual content on which to base an hypothesis? Can they realistically be parsed into factual and embellished that easily?
|
|