Skip to main content

The Christian God's Obsession with...Blood?

By Ben Love ~

The Christian God is, allegedly, a spirit. As such, he has no physical body. He therefore should have no physical needs. And yet, this God, who ostensibly created the entire Universe, requires the blood of goats from one of the tinier planets in the vast cosmos for which he is responsible (see Leviticus, chapter 16). Why does he need this blood, you ask? Well, the Bible does specifically state that without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness (see Hebrews 9:22). In other words, when part of his creation (us, the humans) commits a sin, he needs innocent blood to pay for it; otherwise, he is honor-bound to punish us (which apparently does not want to do[see footnote]). So, by means of a proxy, he is willing to accept the innocent blood of another part of his creation (goats, in the Old Testament) to reconcile the rupture the sin has produced.

Where to begin! The problems here are so many. First of all, how does a just God reason that the killing of an innocent lifeform and using its blood as some kind of offering is a suitable act for the atonement of another lifeform’s sin? Isn’t this an example of committing one sin to atone for another? “It’s not like that,” you might say. “After all, a goat is not a human being. Goats don’t have rights.” Perhaps they have no legal rights, but shouldn’t they at least have humane rights? Shouldn’t they at least be afforded the courtesy of not having to stand in to pay for the sins of a differing lifeform? Moreover, in what way does the Christian God deem this as a suitable transfer? God’s reasoning here seems to be as follows:

  • Lifeform A is guilty of sin

  • Lifeform B is not

  • In order to absolve Lifeform A, I will order the slaughter Lifeform B

  • Once the innocent lifeform has been killed, and its blood has been offered to pay the crime of the other lifeform, my wrath is satisfied

  • This is justice.

This is not justice. This is madness. A truly wise, all-knowing being would not and could not endorse such a fallacy. No, this has mankind written all over it, a conspicuous point when we observe that it is more than a mere coincidence that blood sacrifices were prevalent in many of the ancient religions. What can be concluded other than that this commonality is indicative of a shared origin? In other words, the driving force behind these ideas was the mind of man, not the mind of a God. If Christianity traces its origins to Judaism, which in turn shares parallels with similar ancient religions, then the thinking person must conclude that either all of these religions are legitimate (which is unlikely) or that none of them are (which is highly likely). After all, if the God of the Bible is the only “real” God and all the other ancient gods are man-made and therefore false, then would this real God bare such striking similarities to all these other frauds? And if this God does bare similarities to these other man-made gods, doesn’t this make it highly likely that he too is man-made?

Are we being overly litigious to wonder how and why this perfect God, this all-powerful creator of the Universe, could be mollified by the slaughter and shed blood of a helpless, innocent animal? What possible relevance could the blood of a mere goat have on the personal inner tranquilities of a perfect spirit being? Doesn’t this seem somewhat petty? In another sense, doesn’t it seem somewhat barbaric? Why should the creator need the shed blood of its creations? Isn’t this the definition of “bloodthirsty?” Moreover, aren’t we justified in concluding that if the Christian God is real and he really does require blood to soothe his otherwise rampant anger over the sins of humans, then his answer for his own problem has its roots in violence and abuse? Yes, I said abuse. What else would you call it when you murder one being for the crimes of another? What else would you call it when the “official policy” is that without the shedding of the blood, there can be no forgiveness?

Christianity exceeds Judaism, however, by asserting that at some point God grew weary of the tiresome blood of goats and required true human blood. Actually, if we are going to be technical, we must observe that God apparently had this planned out from the very beginning but nevertheless saw fit to use goats for a while before the appointed time arrived for the incarnation of his final solution: Jesus Christ (see 1 Peter 1:20). According to Christian doctrine, Jesus Christ was the incarnate son of God (and the third part of the Trinity, making the son and the father essentially the same person). As such, he was incapable of sinning. Thus, having lived a sinless life, he was the perfect stand-in for the sins of humanity, the ultimate “innocent goat,” if you will, and his death on the cross once and for all paid the blood price that God required.

Therefore, what we have here is actually quite straightforward. Someone had to die. Why? Because sin apparently demands death. Never mind the fact that the Christian God knew ahead of time that his creations would sin. Never mind the fact that, knowing this, he went ahead and created them anyway. Never mind the fact that while this God had an entire planet upon which to place Adam and Eve, he elected to put them within walking distance of the one tree from which he specifically did not want them to eat. Never mind the fact that God also allowed the serpent to occupy this general geographic area. Never mind that all of this practically shouts that God willingly and purposefully placed his creation in the pathway of sin. And never mind the fact that his purposeful willingness makes him complicit in the resulting sin. No, someone had to die for the sins of humanity. At first, God was content with goats. Eventually, though, he needed true human blood. And whose blood would be better than his own son’s? This the Christian calls love. “God was willing to sacrifice his own son!” they will say. “That is how much he loves you!” I would argue that a truly loving response to an offense is to write it off completely, not transfer it to someone else’s account. Furthermore, how many of my readers would be willing to have their daughter sent to jail for the rest of her life in exchange for the release of the convict who raped her? Where is the love there? Is that justice? In any case, perhaps the Christian God resolved to pay the blood price with his own blood because he knew he was complicit in our sin. But that just opens up a whole new avenue of ridiculous questions. Were we to purse that line of thought, the illogic would mount exponentially and we’d be deep in the land of the absurd.

[footnote]: If God is honor-bound to punish sin, then isn’t he following a code that is greater than himself? If so, whose code is it? Does God have a God? Christians would say, "No, it's not that he is honor-bound, is that he must be true to himself." This is the semantical splitting of hairs because it all amounts to the same thing: God is compelled to act in such and such a way. Honor-bound. Same thing.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two