Human Sacrifice Rationalization in 7th Grade Curriculum

Thanks. I was quoting from a previous post. Still its an amazing number.

Hmm...interesting take.
I was always taught that it was a picture foreshadowing G*d sacrificing his own son (Christ).

I was always taught that it was a picture foreshadowing G*d sacrificing his own son (Christ).

It is.

When does the word love first appear in the Scriptures?

Genesis 22:

2: And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

When the anti-religionists quote the story of Isaac and Abraham as showing the unloving nature of God I always have to laugh.

Gid did not make Abraham sacrifice his son. Yes, what a price that would be.

It is, however, the price He paid himself.

7: And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
8: And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:

Lets also remember that from Adam and Eve on, each generation looked for the true sacrificial lamb to come forward. Eve thought that Seth would be the imaculate sacrifice. Could we blame Abraham for thinking that his son might be the one?

The anti-religionists bring blasphemy to new heighths with their ridicule of "G"od in "H"is omnipotence. But the sad thing is these people totally miss the significance of Abrham's willingness to obey God.

Abraham and Sarah waited many many years to have a child. Even they doubted God. Who could blame them? But God did bless them with a son. My how they must have loved that child.

Then God requested Abraham to sacrifice the boy. Abraham was torn by his own love of the child. He was also torn Sarah's love of the boy and how that might have affected her feelings for himself, and even God. Then there was the love for the boy and seeming betrayel of that boy. What a serious devistating position Abraham was put in. For all of his faults, Abraham saw it through.

Contrary to some people's comments on this tread, Abraham was blessed for his adherance to God's commands, not cursed for not rejecting them. God rewarded Abraham by telling him that his offspring would sire many tribes and nations.

There are many lessons in Abraham. Perhaps the most telling is that he was falible. Abraham was like us in that he suffered the human failties of character that we do. Despite this he was truly beloved of God, and blessed. Surely we can be too if our hearts desire it.

But as Anna has stated, Abraham and the near sacrifice of his son brought home to all who truly seek to understand God, that His sacrifice must have been so very painful. But beyond that there are aspects of Jesus' sacrifice that should be considered.

Jesus gave up His heavenly body to become one with us. Although concieved through immaculate conception, Jesus genes were mixed with the human race. For the sacrifice to take hold and the object lessions to have significance, it had to be.

Therefore Jesus gave up His heavenly perfect body in exchange for one that suffed all the negative effects of four thousand years of sin. Life spans had shrunk from nearly 1000 years to around fifty. I think we're kidding ourselves if we think that man's mental capacity hadn't suffered as well. The fact that Jesus in the human state of deminished capacities was able to devote Himself to perfection through His life and then yield up His life for us, is the seminole event of the ages.

Jesus carries the scars from his sacrifice. He always will. Throughout the ages He will inhabit the body that he was born into on this earth. His heavenly body will never be returned to Him. Jesus and the inhabitants of this earth who devoted their lives to Him will live forever as testaments to the effects of evil.

It is sad that some people are so easily confused. They think that evil comes from God. They feel that Abraham was no different than the Aztecs. What they fail to see is that without the account of Abraham and his devotion to God, our experience would be deminished. How easy it would be for us to reason that with our human frailties, we could never find the strength to follow God. But after reading about Abraham, we can see that errors are consistent with those who strive to follow God. It is only through faith in Him that we gain redemption. We do the best we can, and we fail constantly as Paul tells us. And yet because we strive to live the best life possible and ask Jesus to interceed on our behalf and forgive us our frailties, and because we accept his sacrifice and promises to reclaim us unto Him, we can be certain of our salvation.

then the early judeo culture was not different* from the Aztecs that the original poster loathes

It was kind of widespread in the old days. Is there any ancient culture that didn't have the practice in some form? But Abraham came first, then the Tribe of Judah, if I read it right, so neither the Tribe of Judah nor the other Tribes of Jacob ever had the practice of human sacrifice.

In what follows -- and I apologize for it being so long -- I try to connect this item on multiculturalism, and several of the responses, to a major shift in public policy that few talk about, but about which this item provides a glaring example and warning.
Do you agree with our Elite that limiting world population growth is the paramount issue of the Twenty-first Century?
And if you do, does that make you Anti-God?
Note: I considered making this a question in its own thread, but feared it would attract too many disrupters that way. I thought the many thoughtful respondents found here might be able to handle the question better than the whole forum for now.

question by mvpel: Do you know who's running your schools?

Entrenched bureaucrats imbued with elitist thinking of course. How can you expect something else of increasingly remotely controlled contemporary government schools? Is it not consistent with the moral code switch into which we are incrementally being indoctrinated? So, our children are understandably a target.

Can you recall when our society's paradigm officially shifted from preserving the greatest quantity of innocent human life to ensuring the quality of human life?
Answer: It never was announced; but the current approach ought to be plain as day by now.

I believe it unofficially began around 1965 with a publication by the Club of Rome. Subject: Too many people on the planet.

Which brings me to the next two responses:

passage by IceCreamSocialist: 22:8: And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering

This set the new standard, the lesson and the test of faith for one and every man: we should sacrifice no innocents for our own sins. and

passage by weegee and Forgiven_Sinner: [22:13] And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns

In other words, as Abraham had promised Isaac, God did provide. (Note: you can find biblical scholars saying Satan snared the ram's horns in that thicket, preventing the ram from being Johnny-on-the-spot, just as our troubles and uncertainty often stymie us.)

comment by AnnaZ When the anti-religionists quote the story of Isaac and Abraham as showing the unloving nature of God I always have to laugh

Yes, laugh due to your own faith in God AnnaZ. But please not for the snare the scoffers set for those you love but have not yet reached.

Believers in God have faith that God will always provide them the means to measure up to His expectations. God said "be fruitful and multiply." He did not he say "but don't go crazy." We are simply told to have faith: "God will provide."

To avoid this question, which is arguable but nowhere near definitive enough for social planners, the intelligentsia introduced "God is Dead." And that was followed with the "enlightened" belief that God never even existed.

Well, this clearly places believers squarely at odds with those who doubt, and more fatally, puts them in enmity with those who are convinced He doesn't exist. If He doesn't exist, He cannot provide.

"Listen to us" our greatest minds, the new gods, will say when they dare. You must stop producing children because the planet already has 10 times too many people. "We have replaced God. Stop being fruitful. It's now okay and normal to adopt lifestyles which reduce the chances of pregnancy. It has become public policy to promote homosexuality like we once did heterosexuality. It is now almost time to make heterosexuality what homosexuality once was. We must do it for the children! Their "quality" of life must not suffer. (Well, for what children remain anyway.)

So take careful note of the spewings of the most virulent environmentalists. Their talk about how the world really should have no more than one half billion people should be viewed with more than a little suspicion. Given all the bloodletting of the Twentieth century, one can see that the "intelligentsia" has only been warming up to the task at hand. Their lack of protest when they could stop much of that bloodletting should be a warning to us all.

If the extent of such misanthropic thinking in the powerful is not the very essence of what it could mean to be Anti-God, how can one conceive what Anti-God really means? Whether or not one believes in God, there can be no doubt that such leaders, left unfettered, will make the Aztecs look like rank amateurs.

Oh, and by all means stop protecting the innocent! Since we have too many people, any exra who exist CANNOT be innocent. Every extra human being on the planet is a threat to our "quality of life." To the elitist, the ones who plan to remain on the planet, this is logical and just. It's just because they say it is.

It certainly looks like C. S. Lewis was right. We appear to be at the threshold that "The Abolition of Man" predicted. Those in power, those above it all, the superhumans, view those below as subjects somehow no longer human. Man, as we know him, is about to cease to exist.

We mere mortals, we who are no longer human, are therefore no longer vested with "certain inalienable rights" grante to us by a creator who -- how convenient -- also no longer exists.

Once the thinkers closest to the higher levels of our government began to fear unchecked world population growth, a conflict with the religious community was inevitable.

This all helps explain the gradual introduction of multiculturalism, even of cultures long dead -- like the Aztecs -- that found human destruction favorable.

And how about the media propagated buzz of "who are we to say which culture is better." And barely a peep out of the highest religious leaders! It appears that too many religious leaders were co-opted to this way of thinking. How many have become the new Pharisees? How else to explain their silence?

If the majority of us have begun to believe that cultures which worship death are on an equal moral footing with the Judeo-Christian ethic which helped establish the justice system of our great constitutional republic, we may be too far into decline to recover. Who will give up without a fight?

Thus the religious need to understand what is at stake. What has been an unspeakable thought for the last 35 years needs to be discussed openly. Especially if the religious think it is their duty to try and prevent the onslaught of Armageddon. But if we are to believe that God will provide, how can we remain passive?

Does God wish the Godly to prevent Armageddon or to give in? If they give in, are they really Godly? If the Godly uncritically permit man to forcibly limit procreation, to go against his explict wishes, does this make them and the country Anti-God? Are they God's soldiers or are they not?

In summary:
A fundamental disparity appears to set up the battleground, the reason, the cause celebre, for the confrontation predicted in Revelations known as Armageddon.

The God-fearing belief they must be allowed to procreate, to obey what they see as God's wishes, that the choice to have children ought be left solely to the couple and providence. They note that no matter how many people on the planet, God has provided when man is free to worship freely. The overwhelming success of this country is testament to that.
Those without faith in God have a different belief: the unshakable, Malthusian driven fear that believers in God must be neutralized in order to save the planet from the inevitable geometric growth of humanity if the wishes of "the great unwashed" are left unchecked. They fear the planet cannot stand further human growth, and are therefore dead-set against any who promote it. So they have aided, abetted and employed the God-scoffers to indoctrinate our children against God and belief in Him. Our children are being indoctrinated to not have this faith in God, to believe man must limit himself. Our children will be warned not to believe that God said be "fruitful and multiply." Our children will think it patriotic to not have children of their own. Our children are being taught to believe that those who "breed" are traitors.

Even non-believers ought be able to see how this conflict sets the God scoffers against the God believers. If Armageddon is inevitable -- and many believe it is, as if we really don't have free choice -- then few will rise to protest. And that in and of itself appears to be unforgiveable sin.

Yes indeed DoughtyOne, "the sad thing is these people totally miss the significance of Abraham's willingness to obey God."

Limiting population growth is not the paramount issue of the 21st or 20th century. It is a straw dog, a stalking horse for people seeking to promote sexual licentiousness and/or abortion.

I recall the Club of Rome pronouncements in the 60's when I was in elementary school. I remember my first computer program, a population program to project the size of the world population in 30 years, in 2000. Since then, food production has greatly increased, with the population and the doomsters have been discredited. The issue is not population, but production and distribution. The major cause of starvation seems to be despotic governments. The major solution seems to be a capitalistic farm economy.

hmmm what I notice is that the kids were asked to write about one side or the OTHER. I think we need to drop both the choices and work on reading comprehension.

Because..since parents have nothing do to do with what their kids' schoolwork is, and would never be able to help them choose which side to take.

bump.
Sorry. Your name truncated off my original addressee line (at number 48)

I was just going to say that you as a Jew might be interested in knowing that Joseph Campbell of PBS and academia fame tried this against the Jews too (and Christians). I watched him once on PBS (I've since repented) as he said that the Jews and Christians could claim no moral high ground for their God because of Abraham and Isaac, but IceCreamSocialist already made my point anyway.

Abraham already knew the ending of the story.

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. Hebrews 11:17-19.

It is a straw dog, a stalking horse for people seeking to promote sexual licentiousness and/or abortion.
Please don't limit your agreement with me to this. That is but one element to a larger purpose, What of the larger issue, the paradigm shift aimed at redefining morality and of the meaning of justice? I recall the Club of Rome pronouncements in the 60's when I was in elementary school. I remember my first computer program, a population program to project the size of the world population in 30 years, in 2000.
Good, I knew there had to be some who remembered. Do you know if there has been a thread here on the subject that has aged off to the archives?

Since then, food production has greatly increased, with the population and the doomsters have been discredited.

You are correct.

In your own experience, what percentage of the time did a liberal quit arguing long after being discredited? :)

As liberal thinking predominates in social planning, and as social planners tend to be aloof and convinced of their own good intentions no matter how discredited their assumptions, are we not taking a big risk in placing too much faith that this one time logic alone will convince liberal adversaries? Self-satisfied adversaries in positions of power?

I have been making the case that we need to do more than that. We need our Judeo-Christian paradigm to be restored as our nation's social cornerstone more than most realize. We need to be arguing for its rightful placement before this threatening new paradigm (quality of life) supplants it completely. Comments?

Well done:

What also needs to be said, is while the Spaniards thought of conversion to Christianity for these new visitors, the Aztecs were thinking of castrating these men and making them eunuchs for the harem of women servicing the God-King.

But then again, why bother w/ petty facts when the purpose is to bash Western Civilisation.

It is a straw dog, a stalking horse for people seeking to promote sexual licentiousness and/or abortion.

Please don't limit your agreement with me to this. That is but one element to a larger purpose, What of the larger issue, the paradigm shift aimed at redefining morality and of the meaning of justice?

The only ones who really had such an agenda were the communists. The socialists that run our universities probably picked up this attitude from them. More generally, Satan has this agenda, and communism is but one method he uses to achieve it.

Since then, food production has greatly increased, with the population and the doomsters have been discredited.

You are correct. In your own experience, what percentage of the time did a liberal quit arguing long after being discredited? :)

I don't know. I stop listening and arguing after I win the point. ;)

As liberal thinking predominates in social planning, and as social planners tend to be aloof and convinced of their own good intentions no matter how discredited their assumptions, are we not taking a big risk in placing too much faith that this one time logic alone will convince liberal adversaries? Self-satisfied adversaries in positions of power?

I have been making the case that we need to do more than that. We need our Judeo-Christian paradigm to be restored as our nation's social cornerstone more than most realize. We need to be arguing for its rightful placement before this threatening new paradigm (quality of life) supplants it completely. Comments?

We need more than mere Judeo-Christian ethics in our country. The right laws did not prevent ancient Israel from collapsing into immorality and going into slavery. We need people to actually be converted to Christianity and being guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus I am not sanguine concerning political action to reform this country. Rather, I think the only hope of this country is evangelism to Christianity. I do not consider this country a Christian nation, except in name only.

He believed the promise which took faith and walking with God and obedience. He had already failed once. It's easier said than done. Scoffers are a dime a dozen.

The only ones who really had such an agenda were the communists. The socialists that run our universities probably picked up this attitude from them.
Communism? :) Surely you've been quicker to pick up on other things. How come not this too? The untouchable fools tenured at many universities are so far behind the times, many times even in technical knowhow, it's mostly their showy mutual backslapping that insulates each other from the failure of their unliberal liberal arts, biases and bigotry.

It is Statism that is the face of today's ever more bold threat. It practically struts out in the open because

so many have little conception to how threatening it is; every detail of your means to a livelihood will be used to rule you
its incremental advance is documented daily, a sort of conditioning, that allows it to blend in. The observations I've listed so far are disturbing enough to the Godly; imagine what it appears to those whom you've failed to reach yet.
Few know what to do except give in because the system's demands appear only a little greater since only yesterday (or was it 20 years ago?).

Statism's ostensible purpose is to better the life of humanity. It suckers many intelligent people to do its bidding on that illusion. But the terms of who gets to thrive today (to exist tomorrow) are set by an ever more remote elite.

Like Bilbo Baggins, they vary from soft spoken and kindly to frightening direct when they glimpse their own power. But, unlike him, their facade is more like Sauron's -- ruthless and without remorse. Many here saw it in the Clintons, and it changed their lives and understanding of evil forever.

Oh, yes, Communism (and its cousin Nazism) had a purpose. It provided an ostensible excuse to install Statist type of control for social experimentation in the East, while it served a purpose in the West as a phantom/boogeyman for engaging simple minds, as most of us with any sense always knew. It was effective at one thing though: testing on both willing and umwilling subjects, on a large scale, what works and what doesn't.

The irrationality of what we're witnessing, what is passed-off as public policy today, is an outgrowth of that. Irrationality works when you care not to explain your actions, and your subjects have no real means to compel you to explain. "The poor fools haven't the sense to engage their own minds to a common purpose, so we'll do the engaging for them, feed them what we want them to 'know,' nothing more" is the mien of those in control. Such masterful power leads to hubris and excess as surely as any metaphorical ring.

More generally, Satan has this agenda, and communism is but one method he uses to achieve it.

Well I guess it's something that you allowed that communism "is but one method." Satan too has moved on. Gain an understanding of his new masquerade and you'll see that communism was red-herring child's play. It killed 10s of millions. The new boss is after much larger numbers while keeping his cadre safe -- for awhile.

Wouldn't you think that to intelligent men "playing with fire" would seem much more tenuous to the players when Satan is in the picture? That's why character is even more important than intelligence. But how many of us brag about how much integrity our kids have when others brag about their kids material achievements? Talk about not instilling Godly values! Well, don't fret over sending the wrong message, send the right one while you still have the chance!

Ah yes, The Great Deceiver has our supermen convinced they can pull off his plan and not burn themselves. Look at the fools who've put love of anything first except their fellow men and you can see they how self satisfied, careless, antimoral and antiGod they've become. Environmentalism is Its new plaything, a "moral" reason to kill. Casuistry run rampant.

Thus you better listen to the wardrums you hear beating today. Intolerance of anything or anyone God-centered is going to incrementalize like everything else, but for a more deadly purpose. Both Christians and Jews will be targetted. Why? Those who wish to diminish the earth's population 10-20 fold don't want to believe there is any Being above them to tell them what they do is wrong, nor their targets to find a source of strength. (They the Morlocks, we are the Eloi? -- nah they wouldn't think themselves Morlock). And God aids those they target by stiffening their resistance to the men-gods, these supermen C. S. Lewis forewarned, who do this reluctantly, for the good of man."

Yes, it's pretty much along the lines of Revelations by plan. Are these supermen trying to warn us, taunt us, or taunt their Maker? All three. The first in order tell themselves you deserved it because you were warned; the second to increase your dread; the last to increase their sense of self. What a piece of work is superman.

Still, the really sad thing is the number of people who you think are on your side but who are actually welcoming Armageddon. Why? Because it makes them feel their faith is vindicated. You sorry children. Why are you putting more stead in proofing your beliefs, sustaining your foolish pride, than having enough faith in Him to join the fight for the souls of your siblings? That's some faith you have.

Just how forgiven a sinner are you? Do you only need to call out His name? Aren't you obligated to follow His lead too? You too must struggle to reach your siblings so they may help you save the world in His name, and He them. You've gotta look around at what is surrounding you and take notice more thoroughly to that properly.

Satan has this agenda

What is Satan's agenda? Trying to stop people from understanding the Gospel so they can't be saved?

Do you know what your kids are learning in school?