The Blood Of Jesus

[The Seeker]

Hi everyone!

 

So this is one of the things that, even in my christian-most years, I could never really grasp. How exactly is it that the blood of Jesus wipes away the sins of mankind and reconciles us with God the Father?

 

I understand that this may be based on the Jew belief that killing a non human animal (by definition incapable of committing sins) , specifically sheep, and spilling its blood would atone their sins and bring them closer to God. But being, you must agree, perhaps the ultimate core belief in christianity, it's difficult to believe that I never really got a full explanation of the intricacies of this magical process. Neither do most christians, I think, except perhaps those who are instructed in biblical institutes. Did it magically break the curse? Was there supposed to be a written contract between God and the Devil regarding our souls with the small letter clause: "Human-form God's blood spill makes all previous agreements invalid" ? Which brings me to the point.

 

I would love to hear the best, most powerful response to this question or maybe the most logical so I can know how to debunk it. I know it shouldn't be too hard, but being that I am not a theological expert, this is particularly one point I would like to bring up to christians and have the power to defend it.

 

Anyone?

[Shyone]

Hi everyone!

 

So this is one of the things that, even in my christian-most years, I could never really grasp. How exactly is it that the blood of Jesus wipes away the sins of mankind and reconciles us with God the Father?

 

I understand that this may be based on the Jew belief that killing a non human animal (by definition incapable of committing sins) , specifically sheep, and spilling its blood would atone their sins and bring them closer to God. But being, you must agree, perhaps the ultimate core belief in christianity, it's difficult to believe that I never really got a full explanation of the intricacies of this magical process. Neither do most christians, I think, except perhaps those who are instructed in biblical institutes. Did it magically break the curse? Was there supposed to be a written contract between God and the Devil regarding our souls with the small letter clause: "Human-form God's blood spill makes all previous agreements invalid" ? Which brings me to the point.

 

I would love to hear the best, most powerful response to this question or maybe the most logical so I can know how to debunk it. I know it shouldn't be too hard, but being that I am not a theological expert, this is particularly one point I would like to bring up to christians and have the power to defend it.

 

Anyone?

This isn't "theological" perhaps, but I was struck by several things that the early church decided would make up their theology.

 

First, the need for a sacrifice. This is human sacrifice - to God - by God - and it's supposed to help someone besides God? Is that "legal"? If I am to be executed, can I take someone willing to give his life for me and let him take my place? If "legal" it would still be immoral.

 

Second, What sacrifice? Jesus last prayer, "I'll see you in a couple of days!" Was there some question that Jesus would never come back from the dead? I wouldn't think so. So what exactly was sacrificed?

 

Third, What changed? God didn't (presumeably). Belief in God was never a problem in the ancient world. So Why have Jesus? Why not communicate with God instead of "through" Jesus, who is supposed to be God? "I'll pass that message to myself when I get the time." Why is it so important to believe in Jesus if one already believes in God?

 

Well, enough for now. I'm tired.

[The Seeker]

This isn't "theological" perhaps, but I was struck by several things that the early church decided would make up their theology.

 

First, the need for a sacrifice. This is human sacrifice - to God - by God - and it's supposed to help someone besides God? Is that "legal"? If I am to be executed, can I take someone willing to give his life for me and let him take my place? If "legal" it would still be immoral.

 

Second, What sacrifice? Jesus last prayer, "I'll see you in a couple of days!" Was there some question that Jesus would never come back from the dead? I wouldn't think so. So what exactly was sacrificed?

 

Third, What changed? God didn't (presumeably). Belief in God was never a problem in the ancient world. So Why have Jesus? Why not communicate with God instead of "through" Jesus, who is supposed to be God? "I'll pass that message to myself when I get the time." Why is it so important to believe in Jesus if one already believes in God?

 

Well, enough for now. I'm tired.

 

I believe, if any, the sacrifice would lie in the suffering more than the death itself. Of course suffering is only a sacrifice to the person who experiences it. But the emphasis in salvation, at least where I grew up was always in the blood spilled during "the passion" or whatever you wanna call it.

 

But exactly, WHY is satan supposed to give up our souls because of the Jesus massacre? I mean if I was him, I would feel quite ripped off to say the least.

[Shyone]

This isn't "theological" perhaps, but I was struck by several things that the early church decided would make up their theology.

 

First, the need for a sacrifice. This is human sacrifice - to God - by God - and it's supposed to help someone besides God? Is that "legal"? If I am to be executed, can I take someone willing to give his life for me and let him take my place? If "legal" it would still be immoral.

 

Second, What sacrifice? Jesus last prayer, "I'll see you in a couple of days!" Was there some question that Jesus would never come back from the dead? I wouldn't think so. So what exactly was sacrificed?

 

Third, What changed? God didn't (presumeably). Belief in God was never a problem in the ancient world. So Why have Jesus? Why not communicate with God instead of "through" Jesus, who is supposed to be God? "I'll pass that message to myself when I get the time." Why is it so important to believe in Jesus if one already believes in God?

 

Well, enough for now. I'm tired.

 

I believe, if any, the sacrifice would lie in the suffering more than the death itself. Of course suffering is only a sacrifice to the person who experiences it. But the emphasis in salvation, at least where I grew up was always in the blood spilled during "the passion" or whatever you wanna call it.

 

But exactly, WHY is satan supposed to give up our souls because of the Jesus massacre? I mean if I was him, I would feel quite ripped off to say the least.

Well, Jesus died, then went to hell, then rose.

 

He beat the living crap out of De Debil, and that was it!

 

Or there is no devil, heaven, God, etc., and Jesus is as dead as a doornail. That's my theory.

[The Seeker]

lol that's right I forgot about the going to hell part.

 

Well I still don't get through which explainable process is the blood of Jesus supposed to cure diseases. That's for any active christians out there.

[mwc]

So this is one of the things that, even in my christian-most years, I could never really grasp. How exactly is it that the blood of Jesus wipes away the sins of mankind and reconciles us with God the Father?

It doesn't. The bible doesn't say this. What does the voodoo magic is belief. Your belief is what does all the work. If you believe that this atones for you then it will. If you do not then it does not.

 

But, without getting really specific, on the larger level it simply takes the place of the yearly atonement. It's out of place at the Passover, but the story is sort of a conflation of the several Jewish festivals. For a large part of the story the "jesus" in the story functions as the scapegoat from the Pentecost ritual. One is for YHWH and the other is released. And so on until the sacrifice is offered which allows for the people to be forgiven their sins until next time. The only thing is there is to be no next time. But the problem is that "jesus" is the wrong goat. "Jesus" is the scapegoat. The one NOT for YHWH. He gets the sins set upon him and is really for Azazel (the wilderness). He is destroyed. The reason this happens is so Azazel will not interfere with the ritual process and YHWH can forgive the sins of the people. It's an appeasement to the demon in the wilderness (check the OT...scapegoat comes from Azazel). Anyhow, the whole purpose of "jesus" is simply to distract the forces of evil so that the forgiveness and renewal process can take place. That's the point of the scapegoat. If he were the other goat then he'd be offered to YHWH and the sins of the people would NOT be upon him. That's not who we're talking about and that person wouldn't be important to the narrative.

 

EDIT: I said the scapegoat was for pentecost but I believe that should be for Yom Kippur (the day of atonement) instead.

 

mwc

[mwc]

As I said:

Leviticus 16

 

7 Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 8 He is to cast lots for the two goats--one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat. 9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement21 by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.

 

21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites--all their sins--and put them on the goat's head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. 22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert.

 

34 "This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites." And it was done, as the LORD commanded Moses.

In reality they led the goat away and shoved it over a cliff so it would die and not come back since this would indicate to the people that their atonement had possibly failed. So both goats always died.

 

The problem is doing this when there's no more temple and so no more alter (required for the rest of the ceremony). If you BELIEVED that a substitution had been made some time before then you're in good shape otherwise your sins aren't being taken care of on their usually yearly schedule and you're in trouble.

 

The synoptics are all about belief. People would be healed simply for believing that the claims about healing were true. Belief is the key to atonement as well. It's not about believing in another god named "Jesus" when you already believed in one named YHWH but did you believe that the god named YHWH sent Jesus as this atonement thereby nullifying the yearly scapegoat requirement? If so, then you are all set (though some sects clearly add the baptism requirement for purification purposes as well but that's beside the point I think).

 

mwc

[The Seeker]

As I said:

Leviticus 16

 

7 Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 8 He is to cast lots for the two goats--one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat. 9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement21 by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.

 

21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites--all their sins--and put them on the goat's head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. 22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert.

 

34 "This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites." And it was done, as the LORD commanded Moses.

In reality they led the goat away and shoved it over a cliff so it would die and not come back since this would indicate to the people that their atonement had possibly failed. So both goats always died.

 

The problem is doing this when there's no more temple and so no more alter (required for the rest of the ceremony). If you BELIEVED that a substitution had been made some time before then you're in good shape otherwise your sins aren't being taken care of on their usually yearly schedule and you're in trouble.

 

The synoptics are all about belief. People would be healed simply for believing that the claims about healing were true. Belief is the key to atonement as well. It's not about believing in another god named "Jesus" when you already believed in one named YHWH but did you believe that the god named YHWH sent Jesus as this atonement thereby nullifying the yearly scapegoat requirement? If so, then you are all set (though some sects clearly add the baptism requirement for purification purposes as well but that's beside the point I think).

 

mwc

 

 

Well I guess as I suspected there really isn't much to it anyway. I still wish I could discuss this with a christian since this would be the only place for me to (in real life, I'm still sort of undercover) and ask how he/she can take so many crucial decisions in their life based on such an empty argument.

[The Seeker]

How can I edit my posts? I can't find a button for it.

[Ouroboros]

You'll get Edit after 25 posts.

 

Good observation about the blood thing. I thought about that in the past too.

 

Isn't it strange that blood would be somehow connected to forgiveness in Christianity, when it is obvious that pagan religions have something similar? In some old pagan religions, you even sacrificed slaves to appease the gods. So why is it that the "True" God (i.e not pagan) is pointed out through astrological events (the magi and the star) and also needs to be sacrificed and spill blood like the pagans?

[The Seeker]

You'll get Edit after 25 posts.

 

Good observation about the blood thing. I thought about that in the past too.

 

Isn't it strange that blood would be somehow connected to forgiveness in Christianity, when it is obvious that pagan religions have something similar? In some old pagan religions, you even sacrificed slaves to appease the gods. So why is it that the "True" God (i.e not pagan) is pointed out through astrological events (the magi and the star) and also needs to be sacrificed and spill blood like the pagans?

 

 

Oh, thanks for the info.

 

Yeah that's a good point, when first deconverting I was shocked at the amount of stuff christianity borrows from previous religious beliefs, and it seems the deeper you sink in, the more you realize how so much of history has been repeating itself with the obvious small variations for a very long time now, it's like in general, not only with religion, we are in a historical loop.

[FiddlingAround]

Well I guess as I suspected there really isn't much to it anyway. I still wish I could discuss this with a christian since this would be the only place for me to (in real life, I'm still sort of undercover) and ask how he/she can take so many crucial decisions in their life based on such an empty argument.

 

Try posting about this in the Lion's Den or the Colisseum. Christians are more likely to see it there.

[Antlerman]

Well I guess as I suspected there really isn't much to it anyway. I still wish I could discuss this with a christian since this would be the only place for me to (in real life, I'm still sort of undercover) and ask how he/she can take so many crucial decisions in their life based on such an empty argument.

 

Try posting about this in the Lion's Den or the Colisseum. Christians are more likely to see it there.

Agreed. I've moved it to the Colosseum to get better responses.

 

My two cents on this are more about general conceptions about God. I'm imagining the shock and horror and revulsion of people today if they were to see any priest in any religion whatsover leading a willing human up the stairs of a great altar, then beating him, whipping him, spitting on him, then cutting his throat open and spilling his blood on an altar to their deity. After which they raise a cup of his spilled blood to this god, invoke a blessing upon it, drink it, and pass it around to each other. After which they then tear apart and consume the dead man's flesh in a ceremonial dinner, with a thankful prayer to the God for providing and accepting this human death as appeasement of his wrath.

 

Seriously, who on earth wouldn't find that shocking and disgusting and revolting beyond the pale and condemn it without a second's hesitation?? Yet isn't that precisely the sanctioned re-enactment of the core view of coming to God that brings about man's salvation that serves as the foundation of the Christian religion?

 

The concept of God needing blood in order to function in His ability to forgive puts him on the same level of a heathen deity like Moloch. Even if that god needed animal blood to work, like putting gas in your car in order for it to start, it would still reduce it to that of a primitive god that operated by magic coins put into it. It is nothing short of Magic - the the natural world is affected by making a dance to get the gods to make it rain. But to see that Supreme Deity, the Universal God of all Creation as only being able to "forgive" us our social and cultural infractions as men, by a pure human being killed for him, defies all reason or belief in any sort of harmonious sense of morality and truth.

 

If God is meant to be something for man to aspire to, how in the hell does this fit into any Character that we would desire to aspire to? Do we require blood to forgive??? And if we do, what in the hell is wrong with us psychologically?

 

Moreover, regarding suffering... If God is omnipotent, an omniscient, there is no way that any 'pain' or suffering would ever be outside that God's experience of being. It would always be there in Him, and there would be no need to become a human to understand that sort of eternal suffering. If God didn't understand that, that is existed outside him, then He is limited - a god like Hercules, certainly not an Omniscient Omnipresent God.

 

Here's an expert of a poem by Edna St. Vincent Millay I think capture what I mean:

I saw and heard and knew at last

The How and Why of all things, past,

And present, and forevermore.

The Universe, cleft to the core,

Lay open to my probing sense

That, sick’ning, I would fain pluck thence

But could not,—nay! But needs must suck

At the great wound, and could not pluck

My lips away till I had drawn

All venom out.—Ah, fearful pawn!

For my omniscience paid I toll

In infinite remorse of soul.

All sin was of my sinning, all

Atoning mine, and mine the gall

Of all regret. Mine was the weight

Of every brooded wrong, the hate

That stood behind each envious thrust,

Mine every greed, mine every lust.

And all the while for every grief,

Each suffering, I craved relief

With individual desire,—

Craved all in vain! And felt fierce fire

About a thousand people crawl;

Perished with each,—then mourned for all!

 

By the way, that's my favorite poem.

[Guest end3]

Hi everyone!

 

So this is one of the things that, even in my christian-most years, I could never really grasp. How exactly is it that the blood of Jesus wipes away the sins of mankind and reconciles us with God the Father?

 

I understand that this may be based on the Jew belief that killing a non human animal (by definition incapable of committing sins) , specifically sheep, and spilling its blood would atone their sins and bring them closer to God. But being, you must agree, perhaps the ultimate core belief in christianity, it's difficult to believe that I never really got a full explanation of the intricacies of this magical process. Neither do most christians, I think, except perhaps those who are instructed in biblical institutes. Did it magically break the curse? Was there supposed to be a written contract between God and the Devil regarding our souls with the small letter clause: "Human-form God's blood spill makes all previous agreements invalid" ? Which brings me to the point.

 

I would love to hear the best, most powerful response to this question or maybe the most logical so I can know how to debunk it. I know it shouldn't be too hard, but being that I am not a theological expert, this is particularly one point I would like to bring up to christians and have the power to defend it.

 

Anyone?

 

Just a take on it all Seeker. I believe the blood and water shed by Christ are for the formation of the new Spiritual entity, the new children, "sons" if you will, of God's kingdom. I never have seen it as a washing other than if you compare it to the "washing" in the birth canal when we are born.

[Antlerman]

I never have seen it as a washing other than if you compare it to the "washing" in the birth canal when we are born.

eeewwwww!

[Snakefoot]

Okay, I used to be a babble apologist, so here goes:

 

Blood is a big deal because of Levitical laws regarding sacrifices. You find it in Leviticus 17.

 

Verse 11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.

 

That's why gawd had to become flesh, so his life force would be constituted in his blood and thus "compatible" with humans made "a little lower than the angels."

 

Ergo, since Jeebus was gawd, his blood is gawd's blood, and hence eternal rather than annual or temporary atonement.

 

This is also why whoever wrote 1 John put in the bit about spirits that refuse to acknowledge Jeebus was christ come in the flesh are not of gawd and are actually the spirit of antichrist.

 

 

[Brakeman]

Well I'm a bit of a Pragmatist, I believe the whole "sacrifice" thingy was a ploy by witty primitive tribesmen to deceive the successful providers out of a little bit of their bounty. I imagine that one sly tribesman convinced his neighbor to slay one of his sheep and allow him to take the "sacrifice" up on the hill where the new "Priest" piled the sheep's skin and bones after a gorging meal in secret. This pretending priest would come down off of the hill and praise the donor and predict good things now for his future. (A good bet because the donor was already proven to be successful)

 

Eons later this con developed into christianity with the help of thousands of loopy theological twists for more goods and services in the light of a ever increasing level of skepticism.

[Shyone]

Well I'm a bit of a Pragmatist, I believe the whole "sacrifice" thingy was a ploy by witty primitive tribesmen to deceive the successful providers out of a little bit of their bounty. I imagine that one sly tribesman convinced his neighbor to slay one of his sheep and allow him to take the "sacrifice" up on the hill where the new "Priest" piled the sheep's skin and bones after a gorging meal in secret. This pretending priest would come down off of the hill and praise the donor and predict good things now for his future. (A good bet because the donor was already proven to be successful)

 

When he got back down from the hill, he was asked by his fellow tribesmen (who suspected he may have eaten the sacrifice), "What was that burning smell?"

 

He replied, "That was God in the form of a burning bush."

 

And they believed him.

[Brakeman]

SO True! ... Shyone

[Guest TRHood]

My understanding is that the blood wiping away sins is more of an image meant to illustrate than an actual process. The gospel is that because people rebel against God in sin, they deserve to be punished. However, because God did not create man so that he could cause them to suffer eternally, he sent Jesus to take the punishment in order for humans to be able to be reconciled to him. So it goes like this: Adam and Eve sin in the Garden of Eden by not trusting in God, and through that mankind “falls” into a default disposition towards sin (meaning that all people are born with a tendency towards sinning). So in order for mankind to not have to pay the penalty for sin (Hell), someone who is able to pay it for them must do so. So Jesus comes and lives on Earth without sinning (making him able to pay the fine so to speak). When he died, God emptied the wrath that he held toward sin out onto Jesus. Romans chapter 5 explains more thoroughly how it works, but the gist is that as one person (Adam) messed things up, so one person (Jesus) fixes it again. Now, anyone who trusts in God’s work on their behalf in Christ gains the benefit of their sin having been taken care of by Jesus on the cross. People who choose to continue to rebel against God in unbelief will pay their own fine in Hell for eternity. There is no contract between God and the Devil, all people have to understand is that when you break God’s law, you pay the penalty just like in human society.

[Deva]

My understanding is that the blood wiping away sins is more of an image meant to illustrate than an actual process. The gospel is that because people rebel against God in sin, they deserve to be punished. However, because God did not create man so that he could cause them to suffer eternally, he sent Jesus to take the punishment in order for humans to be able to be reconciled to him. So it goes like this: Adam and Eve sin in the Garden of Eden by not trusting in God, and through that mankind “falls” into a default disposition towards sin (meaning that all people are born with a tendency towards sinning)....

 

But didn't God know? Wasn't the Garden of Eden a set up? Does a person born with "falling into a default position towards sin with a tendency toward sinning" merit eternal punishment when said sinning occurs?

 

I have an amazing number of problems with this whole so-called plan of salvation, starting with the original sin bit. It seems immoral and it is based on a religion which required animal sacrifice to appease God's wrath.

 

In fact, if the Jewish Temple were not destroyed by the Romans, would they still be hip deep in sheep's blood over there? I just wonder.

 

Still TRHood you have done a good job of outlining the whole objectionable mess. At least you admit its an image.

[Brakeman]

TRHood,

Have you ever read this? What are your thoughts about it in light of what you just stated?

 

 

 

The Parable of the Insane Dog Breeder

 

 

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

 

There once lived a man who bred dogs. Over the years he worked to produce a breed of strong, intelligent and loyal animals. At last he developed a unique breed which, he liked to think, reflected the best of his own nature. And for awhile all was good. Then the animals began fighting. They fought among themselves and with other breeds. They fought and injured and killed, often for trivial reasons, sometimes for no reason at all. Worst of all in the breeder's eyes, the dogs became disobedient, sometimes not even recognizing him as their master. Because he could not bear their savagery, nor endure their arrogant disobedience, the breeder decided he must destroy them. He planned to kill them all.

 

Then he had another idea. He loved his dogs so much, in spite of their unremitting savagery, that he decided to put his young son in the dog pen as a model of innocence and virtue, to save the dogs from themselves. Surely, in the presence of such an obvious example, a teacher sent by their master, the dogs would be humbled and would learn to reject their monstrous ways. But in his heart the breeder knew this would not happen. He knew the dogs would kill his son. And they did. The dogs ripped away the young man's clothing and tore him to bloody pieces.

 

The insane breeder continued to love his dogs, and he told them, "Any of you who will believe this was my son, whom I allowed to be killed for your sakes, I will not punish, but I will bring you to live with me in my house."

 

Any human being who would do such a thing to his own son would rightly be condemned as insane, immoral and evil. In every human society, a person who abets the murder of an innocent for the sake of the unworthy, and calls it "love", is rightly regarded as insane, immoral and evil. If we would hold this opinion of a humble dog breeder, what then can we say of an omnipotent and omniscient Deity who does the same thing? How much more insane, immoral and evil must a Deity be, to commit a morally equivalent act? This is the plain and obvious moral abomination at the core of Christianity: the Christian God has the morals of an insane dog breeder who feeds his child to monsters. To deny this conclusion we must abandon not only reason, but simple human decency as well.

 

Anonymous

[NotBlinded]

Romans chapter 5 explains more thoroughly how it works, but the gist is that as one person (Adam) messed things up, so one person (Jesus) fixes it again. Now, anyone who trusts in God’s work on their behalf in Christ gains the benefit of their sin having been taken care of by Jesus on the cross. People who choose to continue to rebel against God in unbelief will pay their own fine in Hell for eternity.

I had an epiphany the other day while rambling on here and I tell you what it is:

 

Why does one sin curse all of humanity while one sacrafice doesn't save all of humanity? We didn't choose to be born into sin, why do we have to choose to get out of it? Shouldn't salvation be as automatic as original sin was?

 

I don't believe any of this in the literal sense because it is so absurd. Now, when you take it as meaning that people recognized that they were capable of doing bad things, there must be something wrong, I can understand that. Then salvation becomes a way to get out of this. Salvation means nothing more than understanding where our intents come from. If any motivation comes from the ego, we are destined to do bad things with it. You can take it from there. I don't want to preach on the ego.

[Shyone]

My understanding is that the blood wiping away sins is more of an image meant to illustrate than an actual process. The gospel is that because people rebel against God in sin, they deserve to be punished. However, because God did not create man so that he could cause them to suffer eternally, he sent Jesus to take the punishment in order for humans to be able to be reconciled to him. So it goes like this: Adam and Eve sin in the Garden of Eden by not trusting in God, and through that mankind “falls” into a default disposition towards sin (meaning that all people are born with a tendency towards sinning). So in order for mankind to not have to pay the penalty for sin (Hell), someone who is able to pay it for them must do so. So Jesus comes and lives on Earth without sinning (making him able to pay the fine so to speak). When he died, God emptied the wrath that he held toward sin out onto Jesus. Romans chapter 5 explains more thoroughly how it works, but the gist is that as one person (Adam) messed things up, so one person (Jesus) fixes it again. Now, anyone who trusts in God’s work on their behalf in Christ gains the benefit of their sin having been taken care of by Jesus on the cross. People who choose to continue to rebel against God in unbelief will pay their own fine in Hell for eternity. There is no contract between God and the Devil, all people have to understand is that when you break God’s law, you pay the penalty just like in human society.

Oh, where to begin.

 

"Just like in human society." That should tell you something. Gods, angels, judgement, thrones, special seating - it's all "just like in human society." That is, man made god to resemble human society.

 

There are a lot of details to accept in the passage above. God exists. He is capable of fathering a human. He did actually father one particular human. Adam existed. The Garden of eden existed. And... so on.

 

Just looking at the Garden of Eden and the plan, if Adam hadn't sinned, would he still be alive in the garden? Him and some animals and Eve? What if only Eve had sinned?

 

Is it right to punish humans "unto the umpteenth generation" for the sins of an ancestor? The Bible says no. And the bible says yes. Take your pick. I don't think it's right personally, so I agree with the Bible. Do you Agree with the Bible?

 

I don't understand the need for human sacrifice. It has never sat well with me, either in the old testament or the new, and I'm not that thrilled about the Aztecs or Mayan use of human sacrifice either. Why Jesus/God needed to be sacrificed to Jesus/God at the request of Jesus/God makes no sense to me. God may have just as well put a bullet to his "head" and pulled the trigger. "Thank's God, but I really didn't need that." The idea of the "perfect sacrifice" is an ancient one. The lamb without blemishes to be slaughtered and sacrificed to "God". Primative superstitions.

 

What changed after Jesus' suicide mission? Do you think that the dead before Jesus are in hell? Do you think that everyone is going to heaven, even if they are Muslim, hindu, buddhist, or pagan? Did Jesus "pay the priced" for everyone, or are there supposed to be strings attached?

 

You, of all people, should know how difficult it is to throw off the beliefs of our families and adopt a new faith. Just try to become a devout Muslim. Not a chance. "I don't beleive that stuff!"

 

They feel the same way.

 

As long as you don't feel the need to torture me into believing, kill children, or change my way of life, I don't care what you believe.

[NotBlinded]

TRHood,

Have you ever read this? What are your thoughts about it in light of what you just stated?

 

 

 

The Parable of the Insane Dog Breeder

 

 

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

 

There once lived a man who bred dogs. Over the years he worked to produce a breed of strong, intelligent and loyal animals. At last he developed a unique breed which, he liked to think, reflected the best of his own nature. And for awhile all was good. Then the animals began fighting. They fought among themselves and with other breeds. They fought and injured and killed, often for trivial reasons, sometimes for no reason at all. Worst of all in the breeder's eyes, the dogs became disobedient, sometimes not even recognizing him as their master. Because he could not bear their savagery, nor endure their arrogant disobedience, the breeder decided he must destroy them. He planned to kill them all.

 

Then he had another idea. He loved his dogs so much, in spite of their unremitting savagery, that he decided to put his young son in the dog pen as a model of innocence and virtue, to save the dogs from themselves. Surely, in the presence of such an obvious example, a teacher sent by their master, the dogs would be humbled and would learn to reject their monstrous ways. But in his heart the breeder knew this would not happen. He knew the dogs would kill his son. And they did. The dogs ripped away the young man's clothing and tore him to bloody pieces.

 

The insane breeder continued to love his dogs, and he told them, "Any of you who will believe this was my son, whom I allowed to be killed for your sakes, I will not punish, but I will bring you to live with me in my house."

 

Any human being who would do such a thing to his own son would rightly be condemned as insane, immoral and evil. In every human society, a person who abets the murder of an innocent for the sake of the unworthy, and calls it "love", is rightly regarded as insane, immoral and evil. If we would hold this opinion of a humble dog breeder, what then can we say of an omnipotent and omniscient Deity who does the same thing? How much more insane, immoral and evil must a Deity be, to commit a morally equivalent act? This is the plain and obvious moral abomination at the core of Christianity: the Christian God has the morals of an insane dog breeder who feeds his child to monsters. To deny this conclusion we must abandon not only reason, but simple human decency as well.

 

Anonymous

I like that, but they forgot that all the dogs were destroyed by water except a few chosen ones. Well, I guess he didn't choose very well, because, through incest, he bred an even more evil population. This is where the son comes in...