“D.Castles” wrote: >

> Rowland Croucher wrote:

>

> > Sean McHugh <> wrote in message

> > .

> > >

> > >

> > > Richard Kerr wrote:

> > >

> > > > David Castles wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Rowland Croucher wrote:

> > > > [snip]

> > > > > > The London Telegraph reports that Christians in

> > > > > > some villages have been forced to take part in pagan rituals

such as > > animal

> > > > > > sacrifice, drinking blood, and speaking to spirits.

> > > > [snip]

> > > > > Well I guess they would feel pretty comfortable about this

wouldn’t > > they?

> > > > > Animal Sacrifice……….Exactly what Jesus would have done many

> > times at the

> > > > > Temple.

> > > > > Drinking blood…………Exactly what Jesus suggested the

disciples > > were doing

> > > > > at the last supper and what all good church going Christians

emulate > > at the

> > > > > Eucharist

> > > > > Speaking to Spirits……… goodness me! Shock!

Horror!………What > > is praying

> > > > > then?

> > > >

> > > > Let me get this straight, you spend a lot of energy here denouncing

> > > > Christianity claiming that you have carefully considered and

rejected > > > > it, yet you can’t see why we would be horrified by animal sacrifice,

> > > > drinking blood and speaing to spirits?

> > > >

> > > > I don’t think you understand the gospel at all.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Well he certainly presented points that can be easily verified. You,

on > > the other

> > > hand, could only try to pull rank. I think that there are some people

on > > this

> > > newsgroup who need to get it out of their head that the mortals can’t

> > understand

> > > things. It seems to be a Christian thing.

I wasn’t trying to pull rank. I suspected that David was using a straw man argument to denounce Christianity (since I didn’t think anyone who knows very much about Christianity could possibly think what he appears to) and I was trying to shock him into admitting it. I should have been much more straightforward in my approach and addressed the issues directly, as I do here, below.

I didn’t assume that he can’t understand things, I assumed he already does and that he was using a rhetorical argument to make a point. I still half hope that this is the case, ’cause otherwise he doesn’t know anywhere near as much as I was assuming he did. These points are pretty basic as far as the gospel goes.

> >

> > Can’t or maybe won’t or perhaps don’t want to

> >

> > However, I have the sneaky feeling that these mortals are here ‘cos

they – > > deep down – do want to, despite the occasional belligerance from several

> > directions

>

> Your right there Rowland but we would have to define the term “understand”

used > here to determine where we are coming from respectively. I have a feeling

that > by “understand” Richard means “believe”

> and here is the nub of the problem. I read the Gospels and see one thing

and > Richard reads the gospels and sees something else.

> Richard, judging by this reaction, fails to see Christianity in any kind

of > historical context.

I’ll let other people judge the relative depths of our historical knowledge.

> Early Christians did and still do emulate blood drinking,

The post of yours that started this says, of Christians who were reportedly forced to drink blood: “I guess they would feel pretty comfortable about this wouldn’t they?”

I think that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel, I had hoped it was a straw-man, but I’m not sure now. You seem to be saying that you think your position is actually justifiable and in some sense with historical precedent. You are trivially wrong (see below).

> sorry to put it so crudely but we all know this is a.fact (I have done

this > dozens of times and Rowland, you have probably done it hundreds of times)

> I don’t know if the early Christians actually drank real blood but I’m

convinced > by my research that the practice derived from some “sacrificial blood”

ceremony > that pre-dated Christianity.

Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, is a ritual inspired by the accounts of the last supper, which was in fact a passover meal (e.g. Matt 26). The cup of wine to which you refer was, and is still, present in the Passover ritual, but was merely a cup of wine as a reminder of the last meal of the Isrealites before the exodus. Jesus loaded the symbol, which would have been well known to the disciples, with the idea of his death as the sacrifice of the passover lamb(*).

When he first suggested the idea (John 6) this offended the disciples, who would _never_ have drunk blood since it is prohibited by Levitical law. Nevertheless he persisted with it, not as a descendant of a blood-drinking ceremony, as you suggest, but as the direct descendant of the passover meal with the added impact, for Christians, of the commemoration of the “passing of our Lord”, and the value of his death for us.

To suggest that we ought, by virtue of this, to “be comfortable with” actually drinking blood betrays a significant misunderstanding of one of the central events of the gospel acounts, the ritual itself, and the history its modern application.

If you are still tempted to maintain the idea that drinking blood plays some central role in the christian religion, actually ask a Christian to do it. Once you get over their reaction, ask yourself did they react that way because _they_ misunderstand their religion, or because _you_ misunderstand it?

> Christians accept Jesus as their Lord, Saviour and God, but if Jesus was

in fact > a pious Jew (as is claimed in the Gospels) then he would have undoubtably

> sacrificed animals. This was required by the Judaism of his

time……..surely > undeniable fact. (why were there money changers at the temple?, why did

one need > money at the temple anyway?)

Jesus was a Jew and did offer animals for sacrifice (despite your suggestion he would have undoubtedly sacrificed them, only priests did that). On the other hand Christians understand animal sacrifice to be a symbolic act that is now superceded by Jesus’ death. In fact, to continue sacrificing makes a mockery of his death, as if it was somehow inadequate. That is, forcing Christians to sacrifice animals would be equivalent to forcing them to recant. This is very clear in Paul’s writings, but is equally clear in the most Jewish of NT books, Hebrews, where you might expect a little more sympathy for temple practice. Read Hebrews 10.

I’m hoping that your original comment was a cheap shot, and that you really do understand this.

> Christains pray to a spirit, one of the Christian god’s manifestations is

as a > spirit is it not? (that Trinity thing again)

> Richard, in denying this, is denying history, denying scripture and just

plain > kidding himself.

Christians pray to God, or perhaps the Spirit. There’s a big diference between that and praying to “spirits” (using any appropriate interpretation of that word). You may wish to bat it around for a while to amuse yourself, but if you honestly can’t see the difference, or at least admit that Christians legitimately see a difference based on their history and scripture, I’m not sure that there’s a lot more we can say to each other.

> Christianity is a cult that concerns itself with death, blood, flesh, sin,

> sacrifice and a lot of other unpleasant things.

You’re right that Christianity concerns itself with these things, but it does so in contexts that you appear to (deliberately, I hope)

misunderstand. The spin you put on it in this case is nothing short of propaganda (Christians feel comfortable drinking blood? Really? We are preoccupied with death? Really?).

> This was the way of the 1st

> century, they were completely normal and acceptable facets of religious

belief. > Why does it irritate him so much when I point these facts out?

It doesn’t irritate me when people point out facts. I’m not a literalist. It irritates me when people use shifty debating tactics. I thought you were doing that. I apologise if I’m wrong.

> He claims I am denouncing Christianity. This is rubbish, I am describing

it.

You were describing a bizarre charicature of Christianity. A strawman. At least that’s what I thought you were doing.

(*) In much of this post I am unsure of how much detail to include. There is clearly much more I could say about the communion and the passover, and the other questions I address, especially since you appear to doubt my historical knowledge, but this post is long enough as it is. I’d be happy to fill in any details, with reference to primary sources, you think I should have supplied, though.

– Regards,

Richard

Related Articles:

• Syria February 2012: Two Perspectives
• EGYPT: THE GROSS INSECURITY OF THE DHIMMI
• Female Circumcision in the Maldives, the Islamic Movement and Islamophobia
• Australia Day message
• Republicans/Democrats: Is there a Christian Alternative?

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.