Salvation by the Shedding of Blood Part 2

In Part 1 we went over some of the Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices of blood sacrifice. If we understand the symbolic nature of blood, we will understand the nature of blood sacrifice. If we understand the nature of blood sacrifice, we will understand the repentance and atonement with God and our path to the East will be better illuminated thereby.

Blood is the perfect symbol for our mortal, corruptible state. Leviticus 17:11 reads, "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul." Note that it says "the life of flesh" because before we existed here, on this earth, in our frail, mortal forms, we existed. What we lacked was bodies, what we lacked was mortality and a temporary separation from God; all of which are necessary prerequisites to atonement.

Blood is peculiar to the condition of mortality and a symbol of corruptibility. When a body is embalmed, it is drained of blood, which is replaced with a preservative. In a similar vein, (sorry, couldn't resist) Brother Joseph Smith recorded from his vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ that they had bodies of flesh and bones (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) and that in their veins was a clear substance he called "spirit". Thus, the embalming process mirrors ascension.

We should also take into consideration the traditions about being ritually unclean. According to the Law, contact with blood or dead bodies or menstruating women etc. made one ritually unclean and unable to pray or worship. (Islam takes it a step further, contact with ANY woman makes a man unclean) This can be confusing when we talk about "being washed in the Blood" but I hope to clear things up.

Blood is the simplest, most distilled symbol for the mortal condition. Life is full of stuff-possessions, distractions, vices, hobbies, vocations, ideas etc. that while appealing to our eyes, are trivial and selfish. In order to come unto God we must set aside those things. It's tricky, because living in the world means we can't entirely forsake them either. What we need is a willingness to give up whatsoever is corruptible to gain the incorruptible, to gain atonement with God.

It takes faith, real faith, to sacrifice the things of this world in hope of a better one ruled by a merciful God. It is the faith made manifest unto God and ourselves through obeying the commandments and sacrifice which qualifies us for The Atonement. Jesus said "Not every man who saith unto me "Lord, Lord" shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father." James 2:17-18 says that faith without works (sacrifice?) is dead and that faith is shown by works (sacrifice).

The final point I wish to hit before ending part 2 is the necessity of mortality in the Great Plan to bring souls to atonement with God. Theologians have lamented the Fall of Adam for millennia but I firmly believe that being cast out of the Garden, away from God and into this corrupt state was essential so that we could gain atonement with God. Otherwise there would be no way to show faith, no need to show faith and even no way to have faith. Without the Fall, there would be no need of reliance on Him.

Thank God for Eve.

Salvation by the Shedding of Blood Part 1

How is mankind to be saved? What is the path back to God?-these are questions put forth, and answers returned, in every religion. Ultimately, these are questions that every man and woman must wrestle with for themselves. The idea of blood sacrifice is infused in many ancient cultures and religions. The Chaldeans of Ur sacrificed virgins, Mayan kings blood-let from their phallus and Christians, not to be out done, declare that the blood sacrifice of one man was so powerful as to redeem the world. In my own personal ponderings I have tried to put the pieces together and I wish to share some thoughts with you, in the hope the reader finds something of value in their quest to the East.

The Jews of ancient Israel were famous for two things, strict adherence to the Law of Moses and the sacrifice of lambs. (also Idolatry) The Law of Moses had a couple hundred commandments and as long as you didn't break any of them, you were saved and returned to God. More knowledgeable scholars on Jewish ritual abound but, pretty much, once a year each family sacrificed one unblemished lamb (there were lots of requirements not important at the moment) to make up for that year's transgressions of the Law of that family. Similarly, once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the High Priest would bring forth two goats and cast lots. One, representing the Messiah, was killed so the other (representing the Israelites) could be set free.

Now by the time we get around to the New Testament, Judaism is a religion of rules and strict adherence to the rules. In order to makes sure the rules were followed new rules were made to provide a buffer zone around the "real" rules and then another layer was added around those. This is the problem with the Law, or a rule-based theology, one violation and you are toast (in more ways than one). Many look at this kind of system and reject it because they think there is more to God than rules. They are right.

If we really look at the Law of Moses, and how it was first practiced, it is clear there is a lot more going on there than a list of rules. How was the shedding of the blood of an animal making up for disobedience?

When Jesus of Nazareth knelt in the garden at Gethsemane to repent for the sins of the world scripture tells us he sweat great drops of blood. This scene played out again on the Cross, as his life blood was drained away. Part God and part man, he led an innocent life. He alone among all of mankind had no need of repentance, of atonement-for He was a God. Yet somehow, this ultimate act, this supreme blood sacrifice, gave him power over death and the power to wash away the sins of all mankind through His blood.

The point I wish to highlight is that sin, breaking the rules, is made ok by blood sacrifice. Atonement, becoming one with God, is accomplished by the sacrificial shedding of blood. Why?

Idolatry

In the classic sense, Idolatry is praying, sacrificing or worshiping statues. Scripture makes it clear that idolatry is highly offensive. I have been pondering what idolatry really is, what is it about worshiping idols that angers God so much? I have tried to look beyond the act, or outward manifestations to look at what is going on at the core of idolatry. If we can understand the why of the sin of idolatry, we can examine our own lives and actions better. My intent at the end is not to come out with a list of "idolatrous" practices in the modern day, but rather that I might better equip my reader in their own spirituality.

First, we should look to elements of idolatry, why is it so enticing? Why has this such a major stumbling block? The first thing that comes to mind is peer pressure, everyone else is doing it, what's wrong with us? Creating the excess to create an idol, more especially a good one, was huge. If we take into account that most of their economy was subsistence based and many lived hand to mouth then just making an idol was an enormous sacrifice. Any nation worth it's salt would have one as a symbol of how rich they were that they could waste that much on something useless. Any nation without an idol was considered very poor.

Now another interesting thing about idolatry was the "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" attitude anciently. There was nothing wrong with worshiping one idol when you are at home and another when you are traveling. It is interesting in 2 Kings 17 that after the northern kingdom of Israel is carried and Assyrian settlers are brought in and start having problems they decide to bring back some Jews to teach them how to worship the local god. This mixture of Jews and Assyrian idolatry is the foundation and the Samaritans, who I should really do a blog on.

Now when foreigners, traders, sailors etc came to Israel (it sits on top of some extremely valuable trade routes) wanting to honor the local gods to ensure safe passage home they would have been told that there were no idols and would either thought the Jews were to poor-or would have judged them to be greedy and immoral for not sacrificing some of their wealth to honor the gods. Now when they learned of sacrifice at the Temple they might have wanted to go there but then would have been told that they were excluded from worshiping there. The Jews would have come off and intolerant and racist for not allowing all nations to worship with them and denying others the blessings of their God.

Now the gods of the polytheists are an interesting thing to study. I am unsure how much they were thought of as actual beings verses aspects of nature. Greek spirituality, with which I am most familiar, made the gods to be exactly like themselves. When they worshiped one god on another they were trying to improve an aspect of themselves. Apollo, considered the most Greek of the gods, represented music, medicine and learning, things highly valued by the Greeks. Women, wanting to improve as lovers could meditate on improving themselves while worshiping and vowing to follow Aphrodite; if on becoming a better respected wife, worship Hera.

Next, is moral relativism. The True God is cheapened with a "yeah, everyone worships their own idol, you got yours and I got mine." attitude. When you are dumb enough to worship some hunk of medal, that will do you no good, your belief in the efficacy of God will wane. Every man looks for his own god, according to his own strength and intellect.

Thus, Idolatry is worshiping yourself and the workings of man and the fine things of the world. You are setting aside the councils of God because you think you know better. When I think of Idolatry, as well as most sins, this is the thing I think of most. God has told us what to do to be happy and choosing to do different because we think we know better is a manifestation of a lack of faith. I think it is the galling lack of faith, not the actual praying to a golden calf, that is so offensive to God.

Evil and Wrong Too

In post-9/11/01 America, (as well as post-3/11/04 Spain and post-7/7/05 Britain) there is quite a bit of fear and resentment floating around towards Islam, for some odd reason I can't think of at the moment. In the US there have been those who have tried to bring a little humor and a little reason to the situation. A few years ago a show built around social commentary brought up the effect of attempts to depict Mohammad. After a decent commentary they asked, (dared) their network to allow them freedom of speech in their next episode. The network backed out and censored it.

But we are not here to discuss that issue. We are here to discuss the valiant efforts of Muzzammil Hassan to change negative public perceptions about Muslims. In 2004, they launched Bridges TV in Orchard Park, N.Y., which featured a mix of religious, cultural and news programming from a Muslim perspective, as well as non-Muslim programming. The station, operated by a multi-religious group.

In February 2009 his wife had the gall to file for divorce. He didn't take it well. Not wanting to propagate negative stereotypes of Muslims he did the civilized thing and.....no, wait, actually, he cut her head off in the TV station's office. Turns out that sort of thing is illegal in America and he got convicted. But you know what? Maybe he is the victim in all this......at least he thinks so.........because I don't see how a headless body could be seen as more of a victim than a convicted killer.

Boy, wouldn't it be terrible if Islam was unfairly portrayed as misogynistic?

The Return of the King

I have been busy of late with finals and other writing projects but will start writing on here again, I have returned to take my rightful place as King of this flowerpot.

Evil and Wrong

Another sad story of abuse of women in Islam has come to us out of Yemen. A 12 year old girl died from internal bleeding caused by intercourse three days after being married to an older man. I quote from the article, "Child brides are common in Yemen, where the United Nations estimates that one in three girls are married before age 18. Most are married off to older men with more than one wife, according to a study by Sanaa University." Certainly, Arab Islamic culture is not unique in having sex crazed men seeking ever more, and younger, women; if anything that's a global trend. What is unique is the degree to which it is entrenched, institutionalized, encouraged and even justified by the Koran.

It is known that Mohammad had four wives and widely accepted that he married he favorite wife, Aisha, at the age of six but held off consummating until she was nine. In Sura 2:223 (the Cow) Mohammad tells husbands that their wife is their "tilth" or field, to be entered and "plowed" as they please. Sura 65:4 (Divorce) outlines the procedures for divorcing your wife, with special instructions in case she has not yet reached puberty. There seems to be a doctrine that a Muslim man can do anything Mohammad did, hence why most Muslim countries allow up to four wives and taking young girls to wife is allowed and even encouraged, but you are not to consummate until "later" (wink) when they are grown up, like twelve. In addition, several verses refer to women as property. The degree to which the Koran dehumanizes women is truly appalling. Verses like 4:11 and 2:282 plainly say that a woman is worth half a man. 4:11 is where inheritance rules are laid down and women can only inherit half as much as a man. In 2:282 rules for witnesses are explained and also explained is that it takes two women to equal the mental faculties of a man.

Not wanting all of its misogynist credentials to come from sexual exploitation, Islam also threw in spousal abuse. Highlights from those six clips include in the second to last one at about 1:30 the cleric praying for spousal abuse, other juicy tidbits include viewing it as "therapeutic", not more than ten times, no causing bleeding, only a small stick, not in the face, not in front of children etc. Now the obvious counter-argument is that I found the six worst clerics and posted them, ignoring all of the moderates. To speak to that, I would like someone to come up with "moderate" clerics speaking differently on the issue. I actually kind think those were the moderates, given that they were advocating limits on wife beating not backed up by the Koran. Sura 4:34 (Women), a major verse on wife beating, has six main translations, five of the six say beat or scourge and the sixth dubiously inserts words to change the meaning to "beat them (lightly)"

While you can find strange inconsistencies in the lives of early leaders of other faiths, (Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's multiple wives come to mind) where this becomes salient is when trying to examine the status of women in Islam today. I can't conclusively prove the Koran is the cause of Muslim women's sad state today I think it's a good window. It could be a chicken and egg case, cultural attitudes bleeding over into the texts. What is clear is that the attitudes and practices in the Koran are a big part of the culture.

Now where this starts to get really interesting is when we take into account Islam's condemnation of the West as being decadent and morally corrupt. I agree, we are, For crying out loud, we defend the proliferation of Pornography in the West. Not only is pornography incredibly morally repugnant but its' highly caustic and destructive effect on society is almost impossible to overstate. I won't go into the whole terrorism vs. taking a moral stand in seeking change, we all have our preferred methods of changing the world for the better. In the West we have our fair share of sexual predators, the difference is we don't use scripture to legally protect it.

To Bruce, at PETA

On Friday the VP of PETA came to BYU to debate about whether Vegetarianism should be a tenant of the LDS faith. I was questioned afterward as to how I would have responded. I am not going to take the time to outline PETA's case, I should be able to get to video of it soon and then I'll edit that in.

1. Vegetarianism not best nutritionally.
(U) PETA claims that Vegetarianism is by far the healthiest diet.
(L) If it isn't then a major tenant of PETA is invalidated.
(IL) If vegetarianism was then professional nutritionists wouldn't advise people to eat meat. I used to not eat meat for personal reasons but stopped because every nutritionist I have seen (quite a few) told me I should and I was suffering ill effects from it.
(!) PETA's position that no one should eat any meat is actually counter-nutritional.

2. Our bodies not meant to be Vegetarian.
(U) Following any human origin theory (Creationism, Evolution or genetically grown by aliens etc.) our bodies were designed to optimise survival. We have all purpose hands to make and use technology rather than claws and talons like animals do. We have enormous brain power to help us make shelter, tools, weapons etc. We have all kinds of natural instincts to help us, (procreation, fight or flight, security seeking) as well as ones that make us human (Love, altruism, guilt, compassion)
(L) Under Creationism our bodies were made this way by God and under Evolution by trial and error. On this Evolution theory, in the distant past, one branch of humans went for all meat, one for Vegetarianism and one for a hybrid. Under Alien Astronaut theory the SOB Anunnaki from the wandering planet Nibiru genetically made us this way so we would have miserable lives. (I am not making that up)
(IL) We have the teeth of omnivores, made for a diet of both meat and non-meat.
(!) If you believe in either of the two mainstream theories then forces far greater and wiser than us (God or Natural selection) want us to eat meat and vegetables. If you believe the third, don’t look now, but your tin foil hat is slipping.

3. Animal Cruelty.
(U) Lots of sad stuff needlessly happens to the animals we eat. Tons of bad stuff also needlessly happens to people. We need to decide how to spend our limited philanthropic resources.
(L) Human suffering is far more damaging to society than animal suffering as we see it and wonder if we will be next. Those living in the middle of it (pretty much anywhere in Africa) lose faith in humanity and lose their own humanity as they try to just survive.
(IL) While we should do something about the animals it is far more important to help other humans first. An animal just does not have the same worth as a human.
(!) Mass death, dehumanization and social decay.

4. Distribution, not food shortages the problem.
(U) PETA blamed world wide hunger on the meat industry, saying that there was not enough food production for meat eaters and the rest of the world. World hunger is wholly a distribution issue. Man-made famines are the norm in Africa and a lot of the time when there is a food supply problem men make it worse. Even in the Irish Potato Famine things would have been ok had not selfish distribution issues arisen. The most classic example of a man-made famine is Somalia in the early '90s. PETA even had the gall to blame this on the meat industry.
(L) Cross-apply my last argument about the destructiveness of human suffering and need to tackle human problems first.
(IL) As long as we refuse to acknowledge what the problem is we won't find a solution. All the food in the world is useless unless distributed.
(!) PETA's claim that food shortages are the problem when it's distribution prolongs the problem and delays the solution.

5. Even if the problem is shortages, US Agriculture policy the problem, not production capability.
(U) US agricultural polices have a great effect on production in the rest of the world.
(L) We can have a large impact by changing US policy.
(IL) We are hurting farming industry in developing countries. World wide food production is not at it's peak. With a policy change we could make more food.
(!) We should change farm policy if it really is a food shortage problem. A policy change could take effect overnight while slow conversion to Vegetarianism will take several years.

6. Even if mass Vegetarianism does increase food production eventually without policy changes the gains will be obliterated by governments keeping the prices up for their economies.
(U) We are not at production capacity now because of farm policies.
(L) If we free up more capability by vegetarianism the forces that keep us short of full production now will simply adjust.
(IL) We will have spent years wasting our efforts all while more needless deaths have occurred because we didn't look at what the real problem.
(!) Death, Famine, Dehumanization, disillusion with vegetarianism.

In closing, given a choice between telling people that world hunger is caused by a lack of production capability and leading them to think Vegetarianism will fix the problem when it won't and discussing the real problems to find real solutions that would save lives which is more ethical?