neitheronthismountain

[neitheronthismountain]

Why A Blood Sacrifice?

Regarding the blood sacrifices required in the Old Testament:

"What was the reason for sacrifices to begin with? Just because God commanded Abraham to do it?"

----------------------------------------------

The idea of the blood sacrifice actually goes back to Adam and Eve, not just Abraham and Isaac. Cain offered grains as a sacrifice to God, and Abel offered a blood sacrifice. God accepted Abel's sacrifice, but rejected Cain's. Cain then got jealous and killed Abel.

So the idea of a blood sacrifice goes all the way back to the beginning. But why? Well, the Bible says that Jesus is the "Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world." I.e., before anything happened, before man ever sinned, God planned for Jesus to die for our sins. It shows that someone has to pay the price for sin; that sins can't just be wiped away.

(Side note: sin is akin to moral debt. And what happens when a government tries to just "wipe away" its debt by printing more money? Devaluation of all money, and ultimate collapse of the economy. Same with morality. God doesn't just "devalue" morality by "printing more forgiveness.")

A price has to be paid, and his plan was for Jesus to pay that price -- as both an example and as an actual bearer of sins. Almost everything in the Bible related to sin somehow foreshadows Jesus's sacrifice. On the Day of Atonement there were two goats -- one had the sins of the people placed on its head by the High Priest and was then sent into the wilderness, and the other was sacrificed at the altar.

The goat that had the sins of the people placed on its head and then escaped into the wilderness (the "scapegoat") symbolizes Jesus carrying our sins down to hell; and the goat that was sacrificed at the altar symbolizes Jesus dying on the cross.

Also, when the Israelites in the desert had no water, Moses struck the rock at God's command and water gushed forth, it represented Jesus being killed (struck) and the "water of life" then flowing out of him due to his sacrifice (not to mention that water flowed from his side when he was pierced with a spear).

But then, at the end of the journey, when the people complained again about water, Moses struck the rock again, and the water flowed again. God honored Moses by having the water flow. But it wasn't God's will for him to strike the rock again. God hadn't commanded it; Moses did it of himself.

As a result, Moses couldn't enter the promised land. Apart from the fact that he messed up God's metaphor (the rock only needed to be struck once; Jesus only needed to die once for all time), it also shows that you can't enter the promised land (eternal life) of your own will. Only by faith in God can you enter, not by strength of will.

So Moses, who represented the Law (man's efforts to please God) couldn't enter the Promised Land. But Joshua, his successor, did bring the people into the Promised Land. Joshua represents faith. Remember how he was one of the only ones who were arguing to go into the land, though there were giants there, when most others wanted to run away and go back to Egypt? So Joshua is faith, and he entered the land. Plus, Joshua and Jesus are the same name in Hebrew. So his name was LITERALLY Jesus. LOL

So, one could argue that the whole of the Old Testament was pointing to Christ and his sacrifice. That's why the blood sacrifice was important -- because it represented Christ's sacrifice, which was the only way of salvation. Plus, there's Leviticus 17:11:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul."

And Hebrews 9:22:

"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

[neitheronthismountain]

Evolution

Someone posted a meme which said:

“I don’t believe in evolution. Rather, I accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution.”

This was my response.

Evolution is predicated upon genetic mutations accumulating over millions of years. Darwin said that when the fossil record is more complete, it would demonstrate a spectrum of changes with intermediate forms from one species to another. Over 150 years later, the fossil record is far more complete, and we still don't have the intermediate forms. We have one species, and we have another species that has similarities, and we proclaim: "This became that!" But evolution requires intermediate forms between the two to exist. And they don't exist.

According to Dr. David M. Raup, former Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time."

Darwin himself said:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

There has been much rejection of evolution in academic circles, even by secular biologists. But we are told from childhood that evolution is a "fact." And so, if anyone questions it, they are mocked and ridiculed because "everyone knows it's a fact!" But it's not. It's never been established as a fact. Not even close. It's the emperor without clothes, but everyone says they see his clothes, so he must have clothes!

So, yes, evolution relies on "faith." It's a system of belief that is taken as true without any evidence; just conjecture.

This is from the Introduction of "Origin of the Species," 1971 edition:

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."    --L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, "Introduction," Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, pp. x, xi.

Also:

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."    --Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London

"Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."    --Birch L. Charles, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University of Sydney, Australia & Ehrlich, Paul R., Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, USA, Evolutionary History and Population Biology, Nature, Vol. 214

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."    --Prof. Louis Bounoure, Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research

[neitheronthismountain]

A Country Without Religion

Someone posted on Facebook:

If you were given your own country, what would your first five rules be for the citizens?

Someone replied:

1. No religion. 2. Humans and environment over business. 3. No one succeeds unless all succeed. 4. All education is non-profit and free of charge. 5. No one ever gets a healthcare bill.

I replied to the person the following:

You've just described a tyrannical country, since you've removed some citizens' freedom to believe what they want by banning religion. This is what was done in Soviet Russia, in Pol Pot's Cambodia, and is currently done in North Korea. You've basically put yourself in a league with those people, even if you believe you're doing good (spoiler alert: so did they!)

We can rationalize our actions all we want, and say it's for the overall good. But when you say, "You're not allowed to believe this; or, if you do believe it, you're not allowed to express that belief; in my country," then you've basically made yourself into a tyrannical dictator.

Remember: Hitler did good things too. He had social projects; he promoted the arts; he promoted and constructed many beautiful buildings; and he even pushed the German car manufacturers to build a car that the average worker could afford, though they didn't want to do it and even pushed back against the idea. But he forced them to, and they called the car "the people's car" -- or "Volkswagen."

So doing good and helping people didn't take away from the fact that he was a tyrannical dictator. That's the thing about tyrannical dictators: they never seem bad until you're on the wrong side of the people they approve of!

And if you'll say that religion is the cause of war and suffering -- well, that's a very short-sighted view of reality. Evil people were the cause of war and suffering, and, since religion was the established norm in the past, they used religion as the guise to promote their evil actions (just as some religious people do today).

But let's look at Soviet Russia, for example. No religion. Atheism was the established philosophy, and the only allowed belief. Christians and Jews were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured -- all for following their beliefs. Because the rulers didn't allow religion. It's estimated that tens of millions of religious people were imprisoned and tortured in Soviet Russia.

Was atheism to blame? No, of course not. It was evil men, evil rulers, who USED atheism as the philosophy to promote their evil deeds and consolidate power -- just as those before them used religion to do the same.

In both cases, it's simply evil people using whatever philosophy or belief system they could to promote their evil deeds. And the evil done under atheistic Soviet Russia, or under atheistic Cambodia, is at least as great as or exceeds the evil done under the power-hungry church in the Middle Ages.

Under Pol Pot in Cambodia, it's estimated that 1/4 of the population was killed by his cruelty, as even hospitals were emptied and people were forced to work in the fields to promote some atheistic ideal of what a society should be. Again, this is 100% an evil person USING atheism as the philosophy through which he promoted his evil deeds, as some religious people have done. And in Soviet Russia it wasn't much better.

In fact, one account I read, of a Russian Jew who was tortured by the Nazis during World War II, and then imprisoned and tortured by the Russians for his religion afterwards, said that the Nazis were tame compared to what he endured under the Soviet Russians.

Is that how you would be? Imprisoning and torturing people who choose to practice religion, against the rules of your country? Or would you just expel them from your country, tearing them away from their friends, families, jobs, etc., for the crime of practicing religion? Otherwise, how would you enforce your "no religion" policy?

My point here is, when you start deciding what people are and aren't allowed to believe, even in a make-believe country casually described in a Facebook post, you make yourself, to whatever extent, a kin of those who tortured and killed those for their beliefs.

It's not without reason that the founders of this country included freedom of speech and freedom of religion as the first items in the Bill of Rights. They had experienced first-hand what living under a tyrannical dictator was like.

[neitheronthismountain]

Evolution says that intelligence comes from millions or billions of years of physical development -- that intelligence is a result of highly complex physical structures. But without an initial intelligence, there would be no evolution in the first place.

So intelligence is not the result of the physical, but the physical is the result of intelligence.

John 1:1

[neitheronthismountain]

The atheist says: “Allow me one miracle, and I’ll take it from there.”