God - WTF!?

  • So many newbies lately! Here is a very important PSA about one of our most vital content policies! Read it even if you are an ancient member!
X

xmelesiox

Guest
Original poster
So - I'm beginning my indepth studies into religious articles for a book I'm looking to write. So - I've started with the bible and rather than just listening to what preachers have told me in the past (raised catholic) I'm reading each passage one by one. I don't think I've done it since the nuns directed me through the bible in my early days.

So I come across a passage I obviously have never ready before because it struck me dumbfounded and slightly horrified. Read it to my wife and it did the same to her. This might be more well known, but, it was a shock to me. Now - there are a lot of messed up things in Exodus. Like how we are all supposed to sacrifice our first born sons. But Exodus 29 was shocking so I had to share it.

I won't type out the entire passage, if you'd like to read it please grab your local bible or look it up. But apparently the old way to turn a man into a priest used a bull and two goats. Plus several plates of non yeast food. The bull would be sacrificed and his blood spread across the alter and over the priests. Same as the goats. I was blown away by this.

So - my take into other religions is limited to what Rabis or other religious leaders have dictated me towards. I'm just wondering if any of you can guide me to any eye popping shocking religious segments.

Also - I'm quite curious as to your guys comments on Exodus 29. Because as someone who spent his childhood in a church and at one point thought of becoming a priest I was so taken aback by this passage it blew my mind.
 
...So uh, I don't and nor will I ever, own a bible.
 
It's up to you how you interpret this...message. As I haven't read any of this passage I won't make up my mind based on what you shared.

PS. Rory and Asmo LOVE'S talking about the bible.
 
Well first off, all of the rituals God had the Israelites do were to abolish the sins they had committed and for every sin there was a different animal that needed to be sacrifice and so on and so forth. This was the only way the Israelites could remove their sins. We all know this.
Knowing this, is it really that strange, (don't get me wrong that would be weird in today's society) before Jesus died for our sins we would have to sacrifice animals for our sins everyday. However because Jesus did die we don't fall under the Old Testament rule as much, we are under the New Testament. Being that we don't have to sacrifice animals and that jazz.

Only some of the second goats blood touches Aaron and the other priests. It certainly isn't spread over them from what I can tell in this passage. If I am incorrect please inform me otherwise.

" 19 "Take the other ram, and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on its head. 20 Slaughter it, take some of its blood and put it on the lobes of the right ears of Aaron and his sons, on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the big toes of their right feet. Then splash blood against the sides of the altar. 21 And take some blood from the altar and some of the anointing oil and sprinkle it on Aaron and his garments and on his sons and their garments. Then he and his sons and their garments will be consecrated."

Just remember everything that we read in our English translations has been translated to make sense in English. To really understand what was written we need to go back to the Hebrew and Greek versions and check with those.
 
Nothing that shocking in the grand scheme of things. People often misunderstand the Tanakh because they look at it through either a modern or a Christian lens; instead of the Jewish POV.

If you are writing a book, I highly and I mean highly recommend that you do as much research into both the historical and religious understandings from all the Abrahamic faiths; i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam outside of just the Bible itself. TM is correct that it is alway better to read the Bible in its original languages versus translations; words can be very inaccurate. This is why Islam tradition only allows for the Qur'an to translated into other lingos, if the original Arabic is next to it.

Putting things in a historical context, the Israelites were influenced by the nations that surrounded them; the largest cultures being Egypt, Babylon, and Sumeria. These empires have many examples of human sacrifices in their history; while, the Israelites did not. Coming from bondage and being a mostly farmers or hunter gatherer peoples, they did not live in cities until 4th millennium BCE, they did not want to associate with the people of the cities.

If you re-look at the story of Cain and Abel, Abel is favored because he gives up parts of his flock to G-d. This sets the tradition going as far back as the earliest tales of the Israelites. As well, as the fact that Abel is a herder and Cain, being a farmer is most likely a member of the cities and therefore corrupted. Another tradition for animal sacrifices comes from when the spirit of G-d tells Abraham not to kill Issiah; again an allusion to the fact that the Israelite G-d did not need human sacrifices to appease Him. The other important thing to remember, blood was considered to be the holiest fluid in the world.

Most people over look is that the Bible was NOT written for the masses; it was meant for the Holy men of the Israelite religion to follow. There are over 613 commandments in the Hebrew Bible and most of these apply only to the Priests.

Going back into the historical context, the animal sacrifices had another purpose. It's what fed the priests since they spent their lives in the Temple versus being able to work in the fields or herding. Finally, the Israelites believed strongly in what we call now a days, "social justice" since these animals would also feed the poor.
 
Check out my avatar - the goat-headed god Baphomet, derived from the symbol of the scapegoat, a part of your flock which you sacrifice as a mark of humility and respect to the higher power.

This is also a symbol for Witchcraft and Goddess worship. Baphomet is associated with Azazel, the angel who fell from heaven in order to seduce human women and teach them the secrets of magic and science. He was known as the Scapegoat God and protects the Goddess, who is in exile from Heaven as a result of the Fall.

I believe that God himself sacrificed a part of his flock - the Fallen Angels, his own Son and even his beloved Goddess (the Shekinah or female part of God). This was the price He paid for his omnipotence and the reason why He is often angered, contradictory or mistaken. God himself is a tortured hero, haunted by the things he has had to sacrifice and cut off from his beloved. This fits with the oldest legends of the Hero's journeys and the Shaman myth of being ripped apart and rebuilt on the path of purification.

Therefore, the Scapegoat is a symbol of God himself - of the sacrifice we must all make on our journey, and the promise of love and reunion that awaits beyond our pain.
 
Though the information that Asmo just provided are more than likely coming from books that were not included in The Bible. Such as the books of Enoch and Dragon. These are not books that were inspired by God according to those learned. So whatever you choose to read of those books outside The Bible take with a grain of salt.
 
Tuxedo Mask said:
Though the information that Asmo just provided are more than likely coming from books that were not included in The Bible. Such as the books of Enoch and Dragon. These are not books that were inspired by God according to those learned. So whatever you choose to read of those books outside The Bible take with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Sorry, have to split hairs here. One could argue that the bible is written about God from a human perspective. God did not write the bible, man did. Half of the texts that are not included in the bible are because the catholic church deemed them unnecessary for their 'well, you're going to hell anyway' perspective. Just look at the books in the Tanakh - there are so many that aren't in the Christian bible, does that mean they're untrue? The Tanakh is the ORIGINAL bible.

One could then further argue that if this is correct, then would not be the book of Mormon considered Cannon too?
 
Let's not debate about what's "right" or "wrong" about religious beliefs. While it'll annoy many people, there is no definitive view on what the Bible is and what is not. When it comes down to world views such as that, you wind up entering fundamentalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back