The Blood Of Jesus

[Snakefoot]

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?

 

And a damn good epiphany it was, too.

[NotBlinded]

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?

 

And a damn good epiphany it was, too.

[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)....

 

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.

 

 

As far as it all being a set up, it depends on how you look at it. Some people would say that in order to maintain personal freedom God had to allow for the possibility of evil. In that case, God did not cause evil to happen but allowed it in order for humans to not be automatons. Personally, that isn’t my view (although it does make sense).

I understand the difficulty with original sin, but what specifically do you find immoral about it? Even though we are born sinful, we all choose quite freely to do things that are wrong. And sin hardly ever thought about in the way that it should be. To willfully commit a crime against God deserves eternal punishment.

In my opinion (and this is not a hard and fast conviction), animal sacrifices were meant to communicate rather than clear the guilty of their sins. What I mean is that sacrifices were instituted, not because God is a blood-thirsty deity like the Mayan gods, but because the act of killing the animals communicated the seriousness of sin. Sin is deadly…and it will ultimately cost you your soul. So to me, sacrifices were not so much to placate God’s desire for blood as much as to illustrate the ugliness and seriousness of sin.

As for the Jews, I imagine that if the Temple had not been destroyed, they would still be offering sacrifices. Since they reject Jesus as the ultimate and final sacrifice, they still seek to gain salvation through the Old Testament Laws.

[Deva]

As far as it all being a set up, it depends on how you look at it. Some people would say that in order to maintain personal freedom God had to allow for the possibility of evil.

 

I reject that whole approach because I do not believe in "personal freedom". We may be free to make limited choices, but we are all products of our conditioned past. The word "freedom" is very dicey. Generally speaking we only have the illusion of freedom. In reality we are not free to act as we would like. Look back at the events of your own life -- how many things were done because they were necessary?

 

Personally, that isn’t my view (although it does make sense).

 

It really does not make much sense if you think about it, and I believe that on some level you realize that, since you don't really believe it yourself.

 

I understand the difficulty with original sin, but what specifically do you find immoral about it? Even though we are born sinful, we all choose quite freely to do things that are wrong. And sin hardly ever thought about in the way that it should be. To willfully commit a crime against God deserves eternal punishment.

 

I have a problem with eternal anything, much less eternal punishment. There is no basis in the experience of our lives for such a condition. Nothing in nature is eternal, not even the universe. It is absurd to me that if there were a God who designed this temporary universe, he would be so offended as to cause us to suffer eternally. I feel it is more absurd than immoral, although do you really think a life of 100 years max is equitably punished by an eternity of suffering, no matter how offensive the person might be? Why is God so offended? Wasn't Satan himself in his presence in the Bible? I honestly do think it is immoral. Even Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer doesn't deserve an eternity of suffering. What purpose would it serve? A demonstration of God's holiness? Do you think that is satisfactory? It is nothing but retribution and that is not a salutory state of mind to me. Please think about this.

 

In my opinion (and this is not a hard and fast conviction), animal sacrifices were meant to communicate rather than clear the guilty of their sins. What I mean is that sacrifices were instituted, not because God is a blood-thirsty deity like the Mayan gods, but because the act of killing the animals communicated the seriousness of sin. Sin is deadly…and it will ultimately cost you your soul. So to me, sacrifices were not so much to placate God’s desire for blood as much as to illustrate the ugliness and seriousness of sin.

 

This notion of animal sacrifice is repellent on many levels, one of which is that the animal is considered a lesser life form and completely expendable. I don't think there is any basis in reality for such a belief.

 

I simply don't accept or understand this emphasis on "sin". As I said above and I repeat, Why is God so offended? Didn't he know?

 

Anyway, despite our differences, thanks for responding to my post. Lately I am feeling invisible.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

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?

 

You know, this is a very interesting point.

 

I wonder if something like this is at the root of some Universalist beliefs. (I'm not talking about the UUs here, I'm talking about those rare Christian groups which are pretty darn conservative in many ways, yet believe in universal salvation.)

[Shyone]

Even Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer doesn't deserve an eternity of suffering. What purpose would it serve?

 

Purpose! That's the key!

 

We humans "punish" for different reasons than we once did.

 

A biblical view of punishment is "anchored in the principle of retribution: punishment is deserved in proportion to the seriousness of an offence." "The principle of retribution in the Old Testament is derived from the natural phenomenon of blood-vengeance."

 

A modern view of punishment is:

 

That moral order emphasises the connections between justice, right relationships and seeking after community well-being. For this reason, punishment should normally aim both at making reparation to victims and at restoring offenders into the community.

 

I just read a lengthy paper on punishment which included biblical strategies for punishment (focusing on the OT). You can find any strategy there, so unless you are pushing for one way or another via the bible, it's best to just leave the bible out of it.

 

In the end, eternal punishment accomplishes nothing. It is useless since there is no goal to be achieved. There is no "ultimate satisfaction", no attempt to "straighten out the guilty", no attempt to "restore" the individual.

 

As a deterrent, it only serves if one believes it exists, and that seems to be the whole point of telling living people about this terrible place.

 

OTOH, if it were used to keep those "people" in heaven in line, it might be very effective. Imagine spending eternity worrying about being sent to hell for all eternity. That would be hell.

[Snakefoot]

 

I have a problem with eternal anything, much less eternal punishment. There is no basis in the experience of our lives for such a condition. Nothing in nature is eternal, not even the universe. It is absurd to me that if there were a God who designed this temporary universe, he would be so offended as to cause us to suffer eternally. I feel it is more absurd than immoral, although do you really think a life of 100 years max is equitably punished by an eternity of suffering, no matter how offensive the person might be? Why is God so offended? Wasn't Satan himself in his presence in the Bible? I honestly do think it is immoral. Even Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer doesn't deserve an eternity of suffering. What purpose would it serve? A demonstration of God's holiness? Do you think that is satisfactory? It is nothing but retribution and that is not a salutory state of mind to me. Please think about this.

 

 

Okay, here's another bit of Snakefoot Theology/Apology in thumbnail:

 

- Man is the only creature into which gawd personally breathed "the breath of life." In both Hebrew and Greek the word for "breath" and "spirit" are the same. Ergo, gawd breathed a portion of his spirit into Man, so Man at his essence is literally part of gawd. (This is what sets Man apart from other animals.)

 

- Believers in aggregate are described as "the bride of Christ" (Jeebus). The babble further declares that bride and groom at marriage become "one flesh" or an inseparable union.

 

- Since Jeebus is gawd, at the "wedding supper of the Lamb" we will become one with gawd--he will take back unto himself that portion of his spirit that he breathed into Man.

 

- Were gawd to take back as part of himself an unredeemed spirit of Man, he himself would become corrupted by sin, much as a blood donor could not "take back" his own blood after it was transfused into a person infected with an incurable disease. That's why the unsaved/unredeemed are excluded.

 

- Since gawd is eternal, Man's spirit is eternal and cannot be killed or destroyed. Gawd has to do something with unredeemed spirits, else they might pool their powers and become sufficiently gawd-like to pose a threat. So, hell is the repository for the unredeemed spirits.

 

Cute, huh?

[Guest TRHood]

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.

 

 

Most people believe that although Jesus died, it takes faith to “appropriate” that sacrifice to each individual person. Other people (Calvinists) think that God has chosen to save some people and to allow others to remain in sin. To me, this is makes the most sense out of the Bible.

[Shyone]

 

- Since gawd is eternal, Man's spirit is eternal and cannot be killed or destroyed. Gawd has to do something with unredeemed spirits, else they might pool their powers and become sufficiently gawd-like to pose a threat. So, hell is the repository for the unredeemed spirits.

 

Cute, huh?

Something. Hmmm. What to do with those "unredeemded" spirits. Let me play god, just for a moment.

 

Nice people, not perfect, didn't believe, but I didn't exactly give a lot of clues...

 

I'll set them up in the finest Hotel with Gold fixtures, green golf courses, fancy new bodies, all the sex they want and whatever they want to eat, and they'll never get fat.

 

Heck, I'm God. Why not? You gonna argue with me?

[Snakefoot]

 

- Since gawd is eternal, Man's spirit is eternal and cannot be killed or destroyed. Gawd has to do something with unredeemed spirits, else they might pool their powers and become sufficiently gawd-like to pose a threat. So, hell is the repository for the unredeemed spirits.

 

Cute, huh?

Something. Hmmm. What to do with those "unredeemded" spirits. Let me play god, just for a moment.

 

Nice people, not perfect, didn't believe, but I didn't exactly give a lot of clues...

 

I'll set them up in the finest Hotel with Gold fixtures, green golf courses, fancy new bodies, all the sex they want and whatever they want to eat, and they'll never get fat.

 

Heck, I'm God. Why not? You gonna argue with me?

 

Well, I didn't present it as logical or reasonable on its own merits, just consistent with the babble and xtian theology--which is mutually exclusive with real-world logic and reason.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

In my opinion (and this is not a hard and fast conviction), animal sacrifices were meant to communicate rather than clear the guilty of their sins. What I mean is that sacrifices were instituted, not because God is a blood-thirsty deity like the Mayan gods, but because the act of killing the animals communicated the seriousness of sin. Sin is deadly…and it will ultimately cost you your soul. So to me, sacrifices were not so much to placate God’s desire for blood as much as to illustrate the ugliness and seriousness of sin.

 

In cultures which sacrifice animals today, it's my understanding that different sacrifices can mean different things. In most of the descriptions I've read, they are regarded as a way to share a meal with God or the Gods, and the people who do the sacrificing make a meal of the animal. It's very much like having a BBQ at the temple. It does not seem that different from roasting a whole pig in the backyard, but perhaps without the alcohol (depending on the faith) and with religious overtones.

 

There is a nice explanation of the specifics regarding Jewish animal sacrifices, including which could be eaten and by whom, here. The Peace Offering in particular sounds a bit like the temple BBQ/sacrifice I've read about happening in other religious contexts.

 

As for the Jews, I imagine that if the Temple had not been destroyed, they would still be offering sacrifices. Since they reject Jesus as the ultimate and final sacrifice, they still seek to gain salvation through the Old Testament Laws.

 

I agree, they probably would. And there are groups that are working to restore the temple and its sacrifices now. More info on this topic can be found here.

[Shyone]

 

Well, I didn't present it as logical or reasonable on its own merits, just consistent with the babble and xtian theology--which is mutually exclusive with real-world logic and reason.

I was just playing around, but it does give me an idea. Why should hell be such a horrible place? Eternally?

 

I can see why so many theologians are trying to get rid of Hell. It stinks. But instead of universalism, annihilationism, or temporary hell, why not just say, this is it. Pick your passion and enjoy no matter what. I wouldn't mind having a special place just for us atheists. Board games, tennis courts, golf, swimming, flying (with our new wings), or sun diving (literally).

 

Eternal anything just strikes me as absurd. As long as we're making stuff up, let's make up nice stuff.

 

I may have a new religion..

[Snakefoot]

 

Well, I didn't present it as logical or reasonable on its own merits, just consistent with the babble and xtian theology--which is mutually exclusive with real-world logic and reason.

I was just playing around, but it does give me an idea. Why should hell be such a horrible place? Eternally?

 

I can see why so many theologians are trying to get rid of Hell. It stinks. But instead of universalism, annihilationism, or temporary hell, why not just say, this is it. Pick your passion and enjoy no matter what. I wouldn't mind having a special place just for us atheists. Board games, tennis courts, golf, swimming, flying (with our new wings), or sun diving (literally).

 

Eternal anything just strikes me as absurd. As long as we're making stuff up, let's make up nice stuff.

 

I may have a new religion..

 

Well, my theory of the eternal-part-of-gawd's-spirit-in-Man is consistent with the liberalized view that hell is eternal separation from gawd.

 

Your theory of a heaven-like hell for unbelievers in general and atheists in particular works for me--but doesn't fit well with the rabid fundy desire to really stick it to anybody who disagrees with them.

[NotBlinded]

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?

 

You know, this is a very interesting point.

 

I wonder if something like this is at the root of some Universalist beliefs. (I'm not talking about the UUs here, I'm talking about those rare Christian groups which are pretty darn conservative in many ways, yet believe in universal salvation.)

I wish more of them believed in the "Happy God" concept. Why does God have to be angry, stern and unhappy all the time in the fundamentalist's beliefs? They take the whole God concept as damn serious. What if God (if at all) is one of play, like the Hindus believe? Even in the bible, it was Sofia's joy to play before God. They need to lighten up if you ask me...

[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.

 

 

Most people believe that although Jesus died, it takes faith to “appropriate” that sacrifice to each individual person. Other people (Calvinists) think that God has chosen to save some people and to allow others to remain in sin. To me, this is makes the most sense out of the Bible.

There is a sooooo much more deeper meaning than the superfical understanding that is being put forth by this.

 

What I was asking though is for you to think about the logic of original sin and salvation from a literal standpoint. If it is something that exists and happens outside of oneself, then it is inconsistent to claim that original sin is automatic but salvation isn't. Now, we can take this to a deeper level to where it does make sense.

[Snakefoot]

I wish more of them believed in the "Happy God" concept. Why does God have to be angry, stern and unhappy all the time in the fundamentalist's beliefs? They take the whole God concept as damn serious. What if God (if at all) is one of play, like the Hindus believe? Even in the bible, it was Sofia's joy to play before God. They need to lighten up if you ask me...

 

That was one of the things that first drove me from church, and later from xtianity itself--the constant haranguing about how I was failing gawd no matter how hard I tried. Your goodness is never good enough. You must have Jeebus--but you must be good, too. But you are never good enough.

 

What a goddamned racket.

 

How I wish I could get back all those wasted years.

[Dagan]

Other people (Calvinists) think that God has chosen to save some people and to allow others to remain in sin. To me, this is makes the most sense out of the Bible.

 

Before you go any further into Calvinism, please read this book. Calvinism is the source of nothing but fear, misery, arrogance, self-loathing and despair.

[Antlerman]

Other people (Calvinists) think that God has chosen to save some people and to allow others to remain in sin. To me, this is makes the most sense out of the Bible.

This makes sense to you?? Where is your head, really? If that is what you think it means in the Bible, you should seriously reconsider your thoughts! What does your heart tell you? Have you let your love of affiliation with with religious doctrines for the sake of social connection, so overcome your heart that you no longer listen to it?

 

 

Think about it...