Sentences with phrase «many animals you sacrifice»

Sure... and the Dome of the Rock will become the new Jewish temple, complete with animal sacrifices.

The reason for the animal sacrifice in the old covenant was for the remission of sins.

More significantly, the partial foreshadowing of Christ's oblation in animal sacrifice set up the void in which his sacrifice could exist by revealing the distance between the earlier attempts at sacrifice and their fulfillment at Calvary.

For instance, in a colorful case involving a city ordinance restricting the practice of animal sacrifice, the Court severely criticized officials for acting out of animosity towards the Santeria religion, which engages in the ritualistic slaughter of pigeons, goats, and turtles (among other animals) and at least sometimes leaves the carcasses along roadsides and in other public places.

As for Justice Stevens himself, it is an arresting fact that in the animal sacrifice case he joined the opinion announcing the constitutional requirement that public officials disassociate themselves from antireligious measures.

, «mercy and grace» like demands for cruel animal sacrifice and burning that your bible demands?

We can assume that all the Justices sitting on the Court today, like other humans, have their own preferences and biases about religion, but the judicial opinions of one of them, Justice John Paul Stevens, raise more than a slight suspicion that some of his actions on the bench stem from animosity, if not to animal sacrifice, at least to certain less exotic religious beliefs and practices.

After all, as the rather grisly specifics of the practice of animal sacrifice suggest, it would require a rather unnatural detachment for the members of the Court not to disapprove of any of the variety of religious beliefs or practices that they encounter in the cases they must decide.

So in the (not so distant) future look for him to do animal sacrifices in his yard, beat / kill his kids when they mouth off, torch his neighborhood when he realizes he lives next to people that don't believe as he does, own and beat his slaves, and we won't even discuss how he'll treat his wives.

jesus died for your sins so there is no need for animal sacrifice, eating kosher, avoiding a woman when she has her period, etc etc. god suddenly became much more of a sweet and loving god, where before he was jealous and prone to killing people that defied him.

In the «Dispensation of Law,» animal sacrifice was a temporal requirement for the remission of sins until the coming of Christ Whose «Ultimate Sacrifice» is «Sufficient.»

We do not have to give animal sacrifices any longer for the mistakes and sins that we make and commit.

Given that God's preference for animal sacrifices caused the first murder to be committed, I'd say that He was rather partial to them.

They could sure use some help from the Christians on how to barbeque, what with the Christian recipes for animal sacrifice and all.

Animal sacrifices now gone.

Doesn't the God of the Old Testament (who is exactly the same as the God of the New Testament) demand animal sacrifices and commits mass murder (the Flood)?

That those animal sacrifices were to learn of what was to happen when God would make that sacrifice and that that is why there is communion today as a means to remember the sacrifice God's beloved son had made.

why animal sacrifice?

There were animal sacrifices and things such as burnt offerings, grain offerings.

It doesn't look like an animal sacrifice is a slam dunk in the first chapters of Gen. And it's a bad hermenutic to say that's a blood sacrifice for sin is what is happening in Gen. 3.

Did God really practice the first animal sacrifice?

I think you would be on shakey ground theologically to not assume some sort of animal sacrifice here, surely?!? And certainly if you though anything else but animal skins were used — shakey.

But when you also add to that the fact that Cain's offering was not acceptable, being of vegetables from tilling the ground, while Abel's was acceptable (being an animal sacrifice), then there is very strong evidence to support what God considered «right» back then in relation to the offering.

I question the old testament where they made animal sacrifices.

The festival which comes after the conclusion of the annual pilgrimage is accompanied by animal sacrifice.

Recently there has been great agitation in Pakistan about the enormous wastage involved in animal sacrifice and suggestions have been made that the money spent on slaughtering animals should be spent on social and philanthropic activities, but the conservative groups remain unconvinced.

I'm not sure how agreeing with the initial theory that God provided an animal sacrifice Himself would be to our «theological peril» considering He also provided the animal sacrifice for Abraham and then again with the Lamb of God at Calvary.

So long as animal sacrifice, interpreted in such terms, was the major method of approaching deity, it is clear that worshipers could not conceive an approach so simple and spiritual as solitary praying to the «Father who seeth in secret.»

The Law from the Old Testament was fulfilled when Christ came, from that time forward we have the Gospel of Christ, thus you read of no animal sacrifices in the New Testament, for example, just to give you an idea.

But it is not just animal sacrifice that is mentioned.

Interpenetrating the negative factors already mentioned was the practice of animal sacrifice as the characteristic way of approaching God.

Such a gift might spring from varied motives — gratitude, homage, or the desire to curry favor — but obviously in the background of the practice of animal sacrifice was the idea that God liked this form of gift and profited by it.

(Exodus 24:4 - 8) And always in the hinterland of animal sacrifice lurked age - old ideas of the magical potency of blood as a powerful agency of deliverance if rightly used (E.g., Exodus 12:12 - 13) and a supernatural peril if wrongly handled.

Animal sacrifice among the Hebrews was, of course, rooted far down in the primitive customs out of which their later faith emerged.

Animal sacrifice, therefore, deeply rooted in traditional custom and congenial with contemporaneous Semitism, was the central act of Hebrew worship.

And beyond moral indignation at liturgical substitutes for goodness, the scorn which some prophetic passages pour on animal sacrifices suggests intellectual contempt as well.

A large area of historic Christian theology would have been completely altered if ideas of atonement, especially as related to the blood of Christ, had not been carried over from primitive concepts associated with animal sacrifice.

In the end, animal sacrifice was altogether substituted for human sacrifice, and this provision, represented as a merciful evidence of Yahweh's grace, was made picturesque in the legendary story of Abraham and Isaac.

Or consider followers of Santeria who practice animal sacrifice.

I mean that was kind of the whole idea, one «perfect» sacrfice to take the place of all the animal sacrifices of the past... odd that in light of the quote you produced.

The animal sacrifices «covered» their sins.

Ever wondered why he stopped killing rival tribes, just as we did, stopped demanding animal sacrifices just as we did, stopped wanting the death penalty for many trivial things just as we did and started accepting gays and other minorities just as we did?

The difference now is that He provided a method that we can absolve ourselves of sin without going through the animal sacrifices.

You said — «God accepts human nature is because we are the only species that can give him what he wants — which, in the view of Genesis, is bloody, burned animal sacrifices.»

In fact, according to the Bible, the reason that God accepts human nature is because we are the only species that can give him what he wants — which, in the view of Genesis, is bloody, burned animal sacrifices.

With the ultimate sacrifice of the Christ there was no further need for animal sacrifice

Their sins were covered by the OT animal sacrifices, but not taken away until Jesus» work on the cross.

Study of Scripture through the filter of man's biases results in the type of man - centered ideas proferred by Baden, like «God learns to accept their inherently evil nature», and humans «are the only species that can give him what he wants — which, in the view of Genesis, is bloody, burned animal sacrifices», and «it is, rather, our job to make ourselves uncomfortable that he might be appeased.»

What God is looking for is repentence and a turning to him rather than a turning away from him.God instituted the animal sacrifices to show just how bad sin was so we would be sorry that we greived him.For us to be made right there has to be a choice to turn from sin and follow him and out of that decision there should be a desire to walk in his ways.Under the old law part of that obedience was to make offerings however it was by faith in God that made the person righteous and not the blood of animals.

Now regarding that animal sacrifice: posting the details doesn't help your case.