100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Do you think that.... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
i think being a good person is really all that matters,
whether you beleive in god or not, i consider myself a good guy and i will be the first to admit ive done alot of bad things and probably will again, i beleive in god with all my heart and i beleive he forgives, now that doesnt mean go out and do whatever just cuz you know god will forgive you, i simply mean we are not perfect and we will make a lifetime of mistakes, just learn from them and try not to make the same ones again. god bless |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. If Christianity were about life, reward would not come after death, sweetestgirl wrote: many rewards are evident in the corporeal life - rewards come everyday in small miracles that happen everyday. but dragoness, many Christians, myself included, are weak in our knowledge of doctrine that is needed to really address your questions academically but to me the knowledge of doctrine is not as important as the behavioral aspects -to lead a life based on Jesus' teaching in the NEW Testament- the call to love- to forgiveness because we are men not divine- the call to seek peace with one's neighbor and follow the golden rule - I don't really much care about the rest of it What you say here Sweet is exceedingly true. I would personally venture to say that the overwhelming majority of people who claim to be "Christians" approach the religion very much in the same way that you describe here. They don't even question the Old Testament as being the "word of God". They are even told that it's not their place to question the "word of God". After all, "How arrogant is that?", they often suggest. They really push hard for everyone to just accept the assumption that the Bible is indeed the "word of God", and they try to focus on the things that you've just mentioned: In other words, don't worry about the details, just accept Jesus Christ as your savior, try to live the best life you can, support the church and the religion, and don't ask a lot of questions! To renounce the religion, is to renounce Jesus as "Lord", etc. And that's a big no-no! But the truth is that if a person really examines these biblical stories in any sincere depth they are going to find major problems with it. The very idea that Jesus was the "sacrificial lamb of God" sent to be crucified to pay for our sins as a "perfect sacrificial lamb", itself stands upon the shoulders of a very acceptance that "God" is somehow appeased by blood sacrifices in the first place. The Bible is actually quite contradictory in this if you study it well. There are places in the Bible where these scriptures are clearly stating that God is "appeased by" or accepts as "atonement for son" the blood sacrificing of highly pure animals. However, there are also places in the biblical scriptures where God is actually questioning where people ever got that idea from in the first place. So truly, if you are worshiping a religion and you aren't even familiar with the doctrine upon which it stands, then truly all you are doing is going along with social conventions. You're just accepting that it's "must be true" or all these preaches and churches wouldn't be preaching it so much. But in truth even the clergy of churches often disagree with each other on what these stories have to say, etc. In fact, like you, I had originally accepted this religion with open arms. After all my very own parents told me that it was true. All the adults at our church and the preachers, all acted like it was serious stuff, and it's the non-believers who are "In the dark". I believed them! Yet at the same time I noticed that even the preachers themselves would have disagreements about various things. Moreover, when I asked sincere questions I was often met with answers like, "We just need to have faith that God knows the answer". Because clearly the preacher had no good answer himself. Well, fortunately for me, I was also taught that the bible contains all the answers. So I went looking for them myself within the bible. I was not looking to renounce the bible. On the contrary, I sincerely believed that it did indeed contain all the answer, just like I was taught to believe. So I expected to find the answers and be able to help the preachers and others better understand the Bible since they obviously appear to be confused and concerned about various things themselves. Well what I discovered is that the bible does not contain answers. On the contrary, the more I studied it the more contradictions and questions I had. And trying to find answers was like a dog chasing its own tail. What I soon realized is that the biblical picture as it is being held up by the Christian religion simply cannot possibly be true as is. I also realized that it is extremely unlikely that Jesus was a "sacrificial lamb of any god" sent to pay for the sins of mankind. At best he was a very wise man, probably educated in the moral and spiritual values of Mahayana Buddhism. Jesus actually renounced many things that are in the Torah or Old Testament, and he was indeed crucified for blaspheme. I don't think he ever expected to be "officially" crucified. In fact, he wasn't according to the legend. Pilate himself exonerated Jesus of blaspheme and said, "I find no fault with this man". It was an unruly crowd (probably incited by angry Pharisees whom Jesus had publicly renounced as hypocrites) who had Jesus crucified. It was a freak thing, and I'm sure Jesus never expected such a thing. Left to the officials Jesus was capable of exonerating himself of charges of blaspheme because he was most likely a pantheist, and not claiming to be the son of the God of Abraham like the scriptures claim. In fact, keep in mind also, that nary a word from Jesus is contained in the Bible. Jesus never wrote down anything. The entire New Testament is nothing more than hearsay rumors about a man who lived and died actually several decades before those "New Testament Rumors" were even written. So, truly, you should question this religion before you just accept it on totally 'blind faith'. Especially if you're going to support the "organized religion" (i.e. the very label of "Christianity") Because in truth "Christianity" doesn't represent Jesus. Christianity represents the myth that Jesus was the "only begotten son of the God of the Old Testament who was sent to be the sacrificial lamb of God to pay for the sins of man". That's what Christianity represents, and that demands that the entire Old Testament be accepted as the "Word of God" right along with Jesus. But that's a fallacy. Jesus was not the son of the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham was a myth no different from Zeus.  Jesus was probably a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva, which would have been quite reasonable in those day. Many "Jews" were mystics at that time period. So the bottom line is that although you'd like to support the moral philosophy of "Jesus", by supporting "Christianity" you're actually supporting the anti-thesis of Jesus. This is what sincere Christians truly need to understand. But the truth is that if a person really examines these biblical stories in any sincere depth they are going to find major problems with it. The very idea that Jesus was the "sacrificial lamb of God" sent to be crucified to pay for our sins as a "perfect sacrificial lamb", itself stands upon the shoulders of a very acceptance that "God" is somehow appeased by blood sacrifices in the first place. The Bible is actually quite contradictory in this if you study it well. There are places in the Bible where these scriptures are clearly stating that God is "appeased by" or accepts as "atonement for son" the blood sacrificing of highly pure animals. However, there are also places in the biblical scriptures where God is actually questioning where people ever got that idea from in the first place. No problem or contradiction here. God didn't want them sacrificing animals for forgiveness, he wanted them just not to do what they were asking forgiveness for. He would accept these sacrifices though because that was the only way for a person(s) to show their sincerity of asking. It kept people from saying vein words just in hopes to butter him up to get their way. It put action into what they were asking and saying. As the saying goes, actions speak louder then words. The reason "blood" sacrifices were to be done is because blood is the life line, without blood NO being besides plants could live/survive. That includes eating of the blood eg., meats or the blood in your body. So again it showed much more sincerity into what they were asking, they were willing to give up something so important it had to have been true or else they wouldn't sacrifice their best mule, bull, ect. Well, clearly you're happy with that view. Personally I'm not. To begin with I don't see where it holds an drop of water. It makes no sense, IMHO, to claim that these blood sacrifices are a "demonstration of sincerity". To begin that flies in the face of the idea that this God supposedly knows what's in the hearts of men. Such a God would have no need for any "demonstrations of sincerity". Your explanation suggests that God can't tell whether a person is sincere or not other than through their actions. Moreover, an insincere person would easily sacrifice an animal to pay for their sins. No skin off their nose! So how would this be a demonstration of sincerity anyway? Anybody could do it, even the most insincere at heart. As far as I'm concerned a truly wise God would have people do something that requires far more dedication and doesn't involve the needless slaughtering of an animal. He could have had them meditate and pray for a solid week to gain repentance. Or, better yet, have them do some sort of community service for a specified period of time. Helping out other people in the tribe at the same time. Now that would truly be positive and constructive, and demonstrate a far higher degree of sincerity than merely sacrificing an animal. So I don't buy into your personal theories and interpretations. As far as I can see they are nothing more than feeble attempts to make excuses for something that's truly inexcusable in the first place. You have no choice but to support the things of the Bible because that's your goal. So your hands are tied. You're stuck with having to defend the indefensible. But the truth is that your "explanations" are not satisfying, they fall far short of justifying these biblical notions, IMHO. To begin that flies in the face of the idea that this God supposedly knows what's in the hearts of men. Such a God would have no need for any "demonstrations of sincerity". Your explanation suggests that God can't tell whether a person is sincere or not other than through their actions. What is in your heart and what you truly desire can be two totally different things. Take a couple for example. The man may love his woman with all his heart. But yet he cheats on her. Why would the man cheat on his wife if he totally and sincerely loved her with all his heart? Why do men by their woman a box of chocolates on valentines day? Why does a woman make the man coffee in the morning? Why does the woman keep the house clean? Why does the man take long walks in the park with his woman? ect ect? You may know your woman loves you, but it put it on a totally different level when she does something for you out of love. Same with God. He knows weather you love him or not, but doing things for him puts it on a much higher level. Moreover, an insincere person would easily sacrifice an animal to pay for their sins. No skin off their nose! So how would this be a demonstration of sincerity anyway? Anybody could do it, even the most insincere at heart. First off an insincere person wouldn't do as such. You also have to keep in mind how scarce food was in those days. It wasn't like it is today, where you can just walk down to the store and buy something to eat. They raised their animals the best they could to have the best use of that animal. So it was exactly as the word means, a SACRIFICE. Look the word up, a sacrifice is where someone does without in order to give someone else what they need/want. So where would the insincerity be if they were sacrificing their strongest mule? He could have had them meditate and pray for a solid week to gain repentance. We are already to do these things, how would that then be something on a higher level to show they are sorry? And if you mean literally meditate and pray for a solid week, would they not starve? Would they not loose their jobs? Would they not miss out on important money that would usually be used to supply the family with food, water, and the things they need? Your way of doing it would kill people, would hurt their family's tremendously, and would not be productive at all. Or, better yet, have them do some sort of community service for a specified period of time. Helping out other people in the tribe at the same time. We are already suppose to help the ones in need, again would not be a "punishment" since we are already to do those things in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i think being a good person is really all that matters, whether you beleive in god or not, i consider myself a good guy and i will be the first to admit ive done alot of bad things and probably will again, i beleive in god with all my heart and i beleive he forgives, now that doesnt mean go out and do whatever just cuz you know god will forgive you, i simply mean we are not perfect and we will make a lifetime of mistakes, just learn from them and try not to make the same ones again. god bless amen!! Life is a learning process, a growing period to make us stronger. You fall down here and there sinning, you get up brush the dirt off your knees and continue on. You learn from your mistakes and don't do them again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: We are already suppose to help the ones in need, again would not be a "punishment" since we are already to do those things in the first place. Well, there you go. You've just shown the oxymoronic nature of your own hypothesis. You originally argued that the blood sacrifices were a "Show of Sincerity", and now you're changing your argument to suggest that the blood sacrifice is a form of "punishment". There's no consistency in your reasoning. You're all over the place with whatever appears to best fit your argument in the moment. Besides, this also flies in the face of what you always preach, "The only reward for sin is death". Now we have, "One possible reward for sin is a simple punishment of having to slaughter an animal to atone your sin."  So your whole fable falls apart once again. Your inconsistencies and contradictions just grow exponentially with every "excuse" you offer for these indefensible fables. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please leave the sarcasm, insults and attacks off of the forums. If this continues, warnings will be sent.
Kim |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Thu 01/20/11 08:33 PM
|
|
Cowboy wrote: We are already suppose to help the ones in need, again would not be a "punishment" since we are already to do those things in the first place. Well, there you go. You've just shown the oxymoronic nature of your own hypothesis. You originally argued that the blood sacrifices were a "Show of Sincerity", and now you're changing your argument to suggest that the blood sacrifice is a form of "punishment". There's no consistency in your reasoning. You're all over the place with whatever appears to best fit your argument in the moment. Besides, this also flies in the face of what you always preach, "The only reward for sin is death". Now we have, "One possible reward for sin is a simple punishment of having to slaughter an animal to atone your sin." So your whole fable falls apart once again. Your inconsistencies and contradictions just grow exponentially with every "excuse" you offer for these indefensible fables. Or, better yet, have them do some sort of community service for a specified period of time. Helping out other people in the tribe at the same time. Now you're just rambling and twisting things around. My response in your quote had NOTHING to do with forgiveness. We are already suppose to do community service if you wish to call it that. We are to help those in need. So if we are suppose to do it already, how is it something special to show our sincere apologies for being disobedient? Thus where the sacrificing comes in. Besides, this also flies in the face of what you always preach, "The only reward for sin is death". Now we have, "One possible reward for sin is a simple punishment of having to slaughter an animal to atone your sin." Abra lol, the sacrificing an animal for the remission of sins isn't a "punishment". It's just a way God had given us to show our sincerity in our apology. And AGAIN, actions speak louder then words. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Abra lol, the sacrificing an animal for the remission of sins isn't a "punishment". It's just a way God had given us to show our sincerity in our apology."
Beg to differ... slaughtering an animal to 'remit' your sins is simply passing the punishment on. The animal would feel 'punished' for darn sure. So then you would punish another for your sins? do you really think god wants someone or something that is totally innocent of your sin to 'pay' for that sin? I don't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Abra lol, the sacrificing an animal for the remission of sins isn't a "punishment". It's just a way God had given us to show our sincerity in our apology." Beg to differ... slaughtering an animal to 'remit' your sins is simply passing the punishment on. The animal would feel 'punished' for darn sure. So then you would punish another for your sins? do you really think god wants someone or something that is totally innocent of your sin to 'pay' for that sin? I don't. LoL, now your personifying animals? The animals on this planet were put here for US. To help us, to feed us, ect. They have no soul, no spirit. And in those days food was more scarce then it is now. They didn't have machines to do the moving of heavy objects, thus they needed the strong animals. And is why it was a sacrifice on our own part to give up our strongest bull, which could be used for many productive things. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Thu 01/20/11 09:19 PM
|
|
"Abra lol, the sacrificing an animal for the remission of sins isn't a "punishment". It's just a way God had given us to show our sincerity in our apology." Beg to differ... slaughtering an animal to 'remit' your sins is simply passing the punishment on. The animal would feel 'punished' for darn sure. So then you would punish another for your sins? do you really think god wants someone or something that is totally innocent of your sin to 'pay' for that sin? I don't. LoL, now your personifying animals? The animals on this planet were put here for US. To help us, to feed us, ect. They have no soul, no spirit. And in those days food was more scarce then it is now. They didn't have machines to do the moving of heavy objects, thus they needed the strong animals. And is why it was a sacrifice on our own part to give up our strongest bull, which could be used for many productive things. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+7&version=KJV Jeremiah 7:21-27 (King James Version) 21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. 24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. 25 Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them: 26 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers. 27 Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+40&version=KJV Psalm 40:5-7 (King James Version) 5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered. 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Abra lol, the sacrificing an animal for the remission of sins isn't a "punishment". It's just a way God had given us to show our sincerity in our apology." Beg to differ... slaughtering an animal to 'remit' your sins is simply passing the punishment on. The animal would feel 'punished' for darn sure. So then you would punish another for your sins? do you really think god wants someone or something that is totally innocent of your sin to 'pay' for that sin? I don't. LoL, now your personifying animals? The animals on this planet were put here for US. To help us, to feed us, ect. They have no soul, no spirit. And in those days food was more scarce then it is now. They didn't have machines to do the moving of heavy objects, thus they needed the strong animals. And is why it was a sacrifice on our own part to give up our strongest bull, which could be used for many productive things. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+7&version=KJV Jeremiah 7:21-27 (King James Version) 21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. 24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. 25 Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them: 26 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers. 27 Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+40&version=KJV Psalm 40:5-7 (King James Version) 5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered. 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, On the Jeremiah verse, notice it says brought your FATHERS out of Egypt and did not speak to them and did not tell them to do sacrifices. It doesn't say that the people he was speaking to wasn't to sacrifice for remission of sins, only saying he didn't tell their fathers. And telling them that they are to do this regardless if he told their father's to do it or not, that is mute. The fact remains that they are he is telling them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Abra lol, the sacrificing an animal for the remission of sins isn't a "punishment". It's just a way God had given us to show our sincerity in our apology." Beg to differ... slaughtering an animal to 'remit' your sins is simply passing the punishment on. The animal would feel 'punished' for darn sure. So then you would punish another for your sins? do you really think god wants someone or something that is totally innocent of your sin to 'pay' for that sin? I don't. LoL, now your personifying animals? The animals on this planet were put here for US. To help us, to feed us, ect. They have no soul, no spirit. And in those days food was more scarce then it is now. They didn't have machines to do the moving of heavy objects, thus they needed the strong animals. And is why it was a sacrifice on our own part to give up our strongest bull, which could be used for many productive things. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+7&version=KJV Jeremiah 7:21-27 (King James Version) 21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. 24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. 25 Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them: 26 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers. 27 Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+40&version=KJV Psalm 40:5-7 (King James Version) 5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered. 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, On the Jeremiah verse, notice it says brought your FATHERS out of Egypt and did not speak to them and did not tell them to do sacrifices. It doesn't say that the people he was speaking to wasn't to sacrifice for remission of sins, only saying he didn't tell their fathers. And telling them that they are to do this regardless if he told their father's to do it or not, that is mute. The fact remains that they are he is telling them. the psalms verse. No God didn't WANT the sacrifices, he didn't want us to sin in the first place. But nevertheless he gave us a way to retain our sins. This particular verse is someone talking to the lord, it's not instructions for us/them. Notice verse 6, the sacrifices weren't "required". They aren't required to make our father happy, they are merely something special from us. They are a gift, something outside of the ordinary to show our sincerity in what we are asking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Abra lol, the sacrificing an animal for the remission of sins isn't a "punishment". It's just a way God had given us to show our sincerity in our apology." Beg to differ... slaughtering an animal to 'remit' your sins is simply passing the punishment on. The animal would feel 'punished' for darn sure. So then you would punish another for your sins? do you really think god wants someone or something that is totally innocent of your sin to 'pay' for that sin? I don't. LoL, now your personifying animals? The animals on this planet were put here for US. To help us, to feed us, ect. They have no soul, no spirit. And in those days food was more scarce then it is now. They didn't have machines to do the moving of heavy objects, thus they needed the strong animals. And is why it was a sacrifice on our own part to give up our strongest bull, which could be used for many productive things. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+7&version=KJV Jeremiah 7:21-27 (King James Version) 21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. 24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. 25 Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them: 26 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers. 27 Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+40&version=KJV Psalm 40:5-7 (King James Version) 5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered. 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, On the Jeremiah verse, notice it says brought your FATHERS out of Egypt and did not speak to them and did not tell them to do sacrifices. It doesn't say that the people he was speaking to wasn't to sacrifice for remission of sins, only saying he didn't tell their fathers. And telling them that they are to do this regardless if he told their father's to do it or not, that is mute. The fact remains that they are he is telling them. the psalms verse. No God didn't WANT the sacrifices, he didn't want us to sin in the first place. But nevertheless he gave us a way to retain our sins. This particular verse is someone talking to the lord, it's not instructions for us/them. Notice verse 6, the sacrifices weren't "required". They aren't required to make our father happy, they are merely something special from us. They are a gift, something outside of the ordinary to show our sincerity in what we are asking. That is why Jesus came to earth and sacrifice himself for all of us, to feel the pain of death for YOU so you would not have to. To do away with the needlessly sacrificing of animals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Abra lol, the sacrificing an animal for the remission of sins isn't a "punishment". It's just a way God had given us to show our sincerity in our apology. And AGAIN, actions speak louder then words. I understand how you are attempting to make sense of these fables. I truly do. I'm just trying to explain to you why your explanations are not impressive to me. You're the one who started speaking in terms of "punishments" not me. Moreover, none of your explanations suffice when it comes to Jesus and the idea that he is the ultimately "unblemished" sacrificial lamb of God. If Jesus died to "PAY" for our sins, then by your explanations either Jesus was showing our "sincerity" for us and thus we no longer need to show our sincerity. Or he took the place of us having to give up something valuable like a Bull or whatever. In either case, it makes no sense. The only way that these fables can be made to make sense is if a blood sacrifice is required to "pay" for the atonement of sin. This is something that people never question. And the main reason that it is never questioned is because people always took it for granted that Gods could be "appeased". This has been a mainstay of religions from that geographical region since religion began. Zeus was also appeased by blood sacrifices, as were many of the Gods. It was the superstition in those days that Gods were appeased by making blood sacrifices to them. And since people accepted that notion, it was easy to get people to see Jesus as the "ultimate blood sacrifice". But no one really questioned how that would work. They just took it for granted that Gods are appeased by blood sacrifices, and so it was easy for them to accept the notion of an 'Ultimate blood sacrifice'. Now you're trying to turn it around and try to make out like blood sacrifices were for something other than appeasing an angry God. You're trying to rationalize the idea of blood sacrifices in terms of "proving sincenity", for example. But that makes no sense in term of Jesus being the ultimate blood sacrifice, because what would he have done but lift from us the burden of proving that we are sincere. So that can't work. In terms of a 'punishment' it might make a bit more sense, since Jesus would then be taking our 'punishment' for us. But again, thinking of having to sacrifice an animal as being a 'punishment' isn't very rational either really. So the whole religion it truly based on a superstition, the superstition being that offering a blood sacrifice to the gods will somehow appease the gods and they will cease being angry with us. In that sense then it would make sense that Jesus could be the ultimate sacrificial lamb to appease God on behalf of all mankind. But then that brings us to a major problem with a God sending his own son to appease himself so that he can forgive mankind their sins. This becomes extremely problematic, IMHO. And the bottom line is that all of these problems instantly vanish, once a person accepts that these fables were indeed sparked by superstitous rumors. Recognize that all of the superstitious fables of the Old Testament have no more merit than the fables of Zeus, and that Jesus (if he actually existed at all), was mostly likely a Jewish Buddhist who renounced the nasty things from the Torah and tried to get people to start acting a bit more sane. Unfortunately he ended up in a bad situation, was crucified by the angry Pharisees, and then the superstitious rumors started that became what we call today the "New Testament". Now we have a story that actually makes sense. It needs no further explanation. The whole thing is just nothing more than superstitious rumors that got out of hand. Why bother continuing to defend an outrageously absurd religion that can be explained away so easily and in such a rational way. I mean, I'm sorry to have to refer to is as being "absurd", but let's face it, there are no rational explanations that can justify it. It makes no sense if we try to 'preserve it' as the behavior of some supposedly rational sane God. So why even bother? Why not just recognize that it's just another superstitious tale, no different from all the other superstitious myths that were popular in those days? Why bend over backwards trying to hard to make it work? It's not even a nice story. I've asked you on many occasions before but you always ignore this following question: Would you be disappointed if you discovered that the biblical stories are false? Would you be disappointed to discover that you are not at odds with your creator, you are not in dire need of repentance, and no God had to have his innocent son crucified to pay for you sins? Would you be disappointed to discover this? It not, then why push so hard to try justify these tales? If so, then please explain why you are so attracted to this picture? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Abra lol, the sacrificing an animal for the remission of sins isn't a "punishment". It's just a way God had given us to show our sincerity in our apology. And AGAIN, actions speak louder then words. I understand how you are attempting to make sense of these fables. I truly do. I'm just trying to explain to you why your explanations are not impressive to me. You're the one who started speaking in terms of "punishments" not me. Moreover, none of your explanations suffice when it comes to Jesus and the idea that he is the ultimately "unblemished" sacrificial lamb of God. If Jesus died to "PAY" for our sins, then by your explanations either Jesus was showing our "sincerity" for us and thus we no longer need to show our sincerity. Or he took the place of us having to give up something valuable like a Bull or whatever. In either case, it makes no sense. The only way that these fables can be made to make sense is if a blood sacrifice is required to "pay" for the atonement of sin. This is something that people never question. And the main reason that it is never questioned is because people always took it for granted that Gods could be "appeased". This has been a mainstay of religions from that geographical region since religion began. Zeus was also appeased by blood sacrifices, as were many of the Gods. It was the superstition in those days that Gods were appeased by making blood sacrifices to them. And since people accepted that notion, it was easy to get people to see Jesus as the "ultimate blood sacrifice". But no one really questioned how that would work. They just took it for granted that Gods are appeased by blood sacrifices, and so it was easy for them to accept the notion of an 'Ultimate blood sacrifice'. Now you're trying to turn it around and try to make out like blood sacrifices were for something other than appeasing an angry God. You're trying to rationalize the idea of blood sacrifices in terms of "proving sincenity", for example. But that makes no sense in term of Jesus being the ultimate blood sacrifice, because what would he have done but lift from us the burden of proving that we are sincere. So that can't work. In terms of a 'punishment' it might make a bit more sense, since Jesus would then be taking our 'punishment' for us. But again, thinking of having to sacrifice an animal as being a 'punishment' isn't very rational either really. So the whole religion it truly based on a superstition, the superstition being that offering a blood sacrifice to the gods will somehow appease the gods and they will cease being angry with us. In that sense then it would make sense that Jesus could be the ultimate sacrificial lamb to appease God on behalf of all mankind. But then that brings us to a major problem with a God sending his own son to appease himself so that he can forgive mankind their sins. This becomes extremely problematic, IMHO. And the bottom line is that all of these problems instantly vanish, once a person accepts that these fables were indeed sparked by superstitous rumors. Recognize that all of the superstitious fables of the Old Testament have no more merit than the fables of Zeus, and that Jesus (if he actually existed at all), was mostly likely a Jewish Buddhist who renounced the nasty things from the Torah and tried to get people to start acting a bit more sane. Unfortunately he ended up in a bad situation, was crucified by the angry Pharisees, and then the superstitious rumors started that became what we call today the "New Testament". Now we have a story that actually makes sense. It needs no further explanation. The whole thing is just nothing more than superstitious rumors that got out of hand. Why bother continuing to defend an outrageously absurd religion that can be explained away so easily and in such a rational way. I mean, I'm sorry to have to refer to is as being "absurd", but let's face it, there are no rational explanations that can justify it. It makes no sense if we try to 'preserve it' as the behavior of some supposedly rational sane God. So why even bother? Why not just recognize that it's just another superstitious tale, no different from all the other superstitious myths that were popular in those days? Why bend over backwards trying to hard to make it work? It's not even a nice story. I've asked you on many occasions before but you always ignore this following question: Would you be disappointed if you discovered that the biblical stories are false? Would you be disappointed to discover that you are not at odds with your creator, you are not in dire need of repentance, and no God had to have his innocent son crucified to pay for you sins? Would you be disappointed to discover this? It not, then why push so hard to try justify these tales? If so, then please explain why you are so attracted to this picture? If Jesus died to "PAY" for our sins, then by your explanations either Jesus was showing our "sincerity" for us and thus we no longer need to show our sincerity. Or he took the place of us having to give up something valuable like a Bull or whatever. If you accept Jesus as lord and savior, you then accept the sacrifice he made for us all. If you accept Jesus as lord and savior you then will obey him and follow as he said. For Jesus to give us the new covenant between man and God he had to pay the ultimate cost. Atonement for sins doesn't mean you can go around doing this sin and that sin. God offers forgiveness for MISTAKES and or moments one gets weak in their fight against sin. I'll make you a list on how this works with Jesus. 1. Jesus sacrificed his entire life giving us the new covenant, carried on with this mission knowing the outcome, thus his sacrifice. 2. You accept Jesus as lord and savior. And his sacrifice for the atonement of your sin(s) 3. You obey your lord and follow his laws he laid out before you. Thus is how he is the ultimate sacrifice and the only path to our father which art in heaven. *side note* And your continuous attempts to make God look gory with your reference of blood sacrificing ect. Jesus' sacrifice wasn't just on Calvery. He sacrificed his ENTIRE life for YOU giving YOU the path to heaven. And of course in the end had to suffer the pain of death for YOU. In the sacrifices it wasn't specifically the blood that appeased God. It was the giving up of something very important, needed, necessary that appeased God. And that is why it is said multiple times in the bible that God wasn't appeased by the blood and burnt offerings. But at that time the world had no other way to show God their sincerity in their apology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Abra lol, the sacrificing an animal for the remission of sins isn't a "punishment". It's just a way God had given us to show our sincerity in our apology. And AGAIN, actions speak louder then words. I understand how you are attempting to make sense of these fables. I truly do. I'm just trying to explain to you why your explanations are not impressive to me. You're the one who started speaking in terms of "punishments" not me. Moreover, none of your explanations suffice when it comes to Jesus and the idea that he is the ultimately "unblemished" sacrificial lamb of God. If Jesus died to "PAY" for our sins, then by your explanations either Jesus was showing our "sincerity" for us and thus we no longer need to show our sincerity. Or he took the place of us having to give up something valuable like a Bull or whatever. In either case, it makes no sense. The only way that these fables can be made to make sense is if a blood sacrifice is required to "pay" for the atonement of sin. This is something that people never question. And the main reason that it is never questioned is because people always took it for granted that Gods could be "appeased". This has been a mainstay of religions from that geographical region since religion began. Zeus was also appeased by blood sacrifices, as were many of the Gods. It was the superstition in those days that Gods were appeased by making blood sacrifices to them. And since people accepted that notion, it was easy to get people to see Jesus as the "ultimate blood sacrifice". But no one really questioned how that would work. They just took it for granted that Gods are appeased by blood sacrifices, and so it was easy for them to accept the notion of an 'Ultimate blood sacrifice'. Now you're trying to turn it around and try to make out like blood sacrifices were for something other than appeasing an angry God. You're trying to rationalize the idea of blood sacrifices in terms of "proving sincenity", for example. But that makes no sense in term of Jesus being the ultimate blood sacrifice, because what would he have done but lift from us the burden of proving that we are sincere. So that can't work. In terms of a 'punishment' it might make a bit more sense, since Jesus would then be taking our 'punishment' for us. But again, thinking of having to sacrifice an animal as being a 'punishment' isn't very rational either really. So the whole religion it truly based on a superstition, the superstition being that offering a blood sacrifice to the gods will somehow appease the gods and they will cease being angry with us. In that sense then it would make sense that Jesus could be the ultimate sacrificial lamb to appease God on behalf of all mankind. But then that brings us to a major problem with a God sending his own son to appease himself so that he can forgive mankind their sins. This becomes extremely problematic, IMHO. And the bottom line is that all of these problems instantly vanish, once a person accepts that these fables were indeed sparked by superstitous rumors. Recognize that all of the superstitious fables of the Old Testament have no more merit than the fables of Zeus, and that Jesus (if he actually existed at all), was mostly likely a Jewish Buddhist who renounced the nasty things from the Torah and tried to get people to start acting a bit more sane. Unfortunately he ended up in a bad situation, was crucified by the angry Pharisees, and then the superstitious rumors started that became what we call today the "New Testament". Now we have a story that actually makes sense. It needs no further explanation. The whole thing is just nothing more than superstitious rumors that got out of hand. Why bother continuing to defend an outrageously absurd religion that can be explained away so easily and in such a rational way. I mean, I'm sorry to have to refer to is as being "absurd", but let's face it, there are no rational explanations that can justify it. It makes no sense if we try to 'preserve it' as the behavior of some supposedly rational sane God. So why even bother? Why not just recognize that it's just another superstitious tale, no different from all the other superstitious myths that were popular in those days? Why bend over backwards trying to hard to make it work? It's not even a nice story. I've asked you on many occasions before but you always ignore this following question: Would you be disappointed if you discovered that the biblical stories are false? Would you be disappointed to discover that you are not at odds with your creator, you are not in dire need of repentance, and no God had to have his innocent son crucified to pay for you sins? Would you be disappointed to discover this? It not, then why push so hard to try justify these tales? If so, then please explain why you are so attracted to this picture? If Jesus died to "PAY" for our sins, then by your explanations either Jesus was showing our "sincerity" for us and thus we no longer need to show our sincerity. Or he took the place of us having to give up something valuable like a Bull or whatever. If you accept Jesus as lord and savior, you then accept the sacrifice he made for us all. If you accept Jesus as lord and savior you then will obey him and follow as he said. For Jesus to give us the new covenant between man and God he had to pay the ultimate cost. Atonement for sins doesn't mean you can go around doing this sin and that sin. God offers forgiveness for MISTAKES and or moments one gets weak in their fight against sin. I'll make you a list on how this works with Jesus. 1. Jesus sacrificed his entire life giving us the new covenant, carried on with this mission knowing the outcome, thus his sacrifice. 2. You accept Jesus as lord and savior. And his sacrifice for the atonement of your sin(s) 3. You obey your lord and follow his laws he laid out before you. Thus is how he is the ultimate sacrifice and the only path to our father which art in heaven. *side note* And your continuous attempts to make God look gory with your reference of blood sacrificing ect. Jesus' sacrifice wasn't just on Calvery. He sacrificed his ENTIRE life for YOU giving YOU the path to heaven. And of course in the end had to suffer the pain of death for YOU. In the sacrifices it wasn't specifically the blood that appeased God. It was the giving up of something very important, needed, necessary that appeased God. And that is why it is said multiple times in the bible that God wasn't appeased by the blood and burnt offerings. But at that time the world had no other way to show God their sincerity in their apology. But then that brings us to a major problem with a God sending his own son to appease himself so that he can forgive mankind their sins. This becomes extremely problematic, IMHO. God didn't send Jesus to be crucified for us. God sent Jesus to give us the new covenant. And in the process the people of this world decided to crucify Jesus. Which Jesus followed through with it for YOU. Jesus' entire purpose was to give us the new covenant, because if one followed the laws set out before us there would be no need for forgiveness. That's all God wants, is for us to be obedient. And is why he wasn't appeased by the burnt offerings. He forgave of course, but nevertheless he just wanted us not to do it in the first place. That is what is appeasing to God, our obedience. Thus if we accept Jesus as lord and savior, we then will follow his instructions and be obedient to our father, and thus reach heaven. Quite simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: God didn't send Jesus to be crucified for us. God sent Jesus to give us the new covenant. And in the process the people of this world decided to crucify Jesus. Let me be sure I'm getting this right. You're saying that Jesus did not die to pay for our sins but instead he was just killed inadvertently whilst attempting to convey to us a new covenant with God. So in other words, you're suggesting that the whole "sacrificial lamb" thing is all wrong. That was never the purpose. You're denying that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb God sent to pay for our sins. That the whole crucifixion was just an unfortunate aside, and that Jesus' only true mission was to bring us a New Covenant with God. If that's the case then it would be wrong to say that Jesus died to "pay for our sins" since, according to you, that wasn't even the point of his mission, and the crucifixion was just an unfortunate aside. His only mission was to tell us that the laws of the Old Testament were being replaced by the moral values that he was bringing to us himself. Well, it certainly appears that you've created your own little version of Christianity. Have you found any Christian clergy who agree with your views? By they way I continue to notice that you always avoid my question of why it's so important to you to believe in these fables that have you at odds with your creator and in dire need of repentance and obedience. Why are these fables so important to you? And why would you be disappointed if you were to discover that they are indeed just fables? In what way would that be disappointing for you? Can you answer me these questions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: God didn't send Jesus to be crucified for us. God sent Jesus to give us the new covenant. And in the process the people of this world decided to crucify Jesus. Let me be sure I'm getting this right. You're saying that Jesus did not die to pay for our sins but instead he was just killed inadvertently whilst attempting to convey to us a new covenant with God. So in other words, you're suggesting that the whole "sacrificial lamb" thing is all wrong. That was never the purpose. You're denying that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb God sent to pay for our sins. That the whole crucifixion was just an unfortunate aside, and that Jesus' only true mission was to bring us a New Covenant with God. If that's the case then it would be wrong to say that Jesus died to "pay for our sins" since, according to you, that wasn't even the point of his mission, and the crucifixion was just an unfortunate aside. His only mission was to tell us that the laws of the Old Testament were being replaced by the moral values that he was bringing to us himself. Well, it certainly appears that you've created your own little version of Christianity. Have you found any Christian clergy who agree with your views? By they way I continue to notice that you always avoid my question of why it's so important to you to believe in these fables that have you at odds with your creator and in dire need of repentance and obedience. Why are these fables so important to you? And why would you be disappointed if you were to discover that they are indeed just fables? In what way would that be disappointing for you? Can you answer me these questions? Well first off, no you're not getting it right. Jesus' purpose of being sent to earth was not to specifically be crucified for us. He was bringing the new covenant. He sacrificed his ENTIRE life for us in everything he did. He did not live for himself, he lived for God spending his entire life giving us the new covenant. And in the end he gave his life for us, feeling the tremendous pain of crucifixion. He gave his life both while living and death in the end so you would not have to die. By they way I continue to notice that you always avoid my question of why it's so important to you to believe in these fables that have you at odds with your creator and in dire need of repentance and obedience. I've answered this many of time. We're only at odds with God if we wish to be. We are at odds with God if we are disobedient and sin. It's not important to believe i'm at odds with God. God is the most important being that has ever existed, he is more important then ANYTHING else, that's what is important right there. Making our father which art in heaven happy. Being obedient out of love for God not being obedient for our own part seeking a reward. God shows his love for us with giving us the food we need, the clothing we need, the liquids, and everything else we could need in life. So in return to show our love for him, we are to be obedient. Well, it certainly appears that you've created your own little version of Christianity. Have you found any Christian clergy who agree with your views? I've created nothing. I'm merely a servant of the lord spreading the gospel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: God didn't send Jesus to be crucified for us. God sent Jesus to give us the new covenant. And in the process the people of this world decided to crucify Jesus. Let me be sure I'm getting this right. You're saying that Jesus did not die to pay for our sins but instead he was just killed inadvertently whilst attempting to convey to us a new covenant with God. So in other words, you're suggesting that the whole "sacrificial lamb" thing is all wrong. That was never the purpose. You're denying that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb God sent to pay for our sins. That the whole crucifixion was just an unfortunate aside, and that Jesus' only true mission was to bring us a New Covenant with God. If that's the case then it would be wrong to say that Jesus died to "pay for our sins" since, according to you, that wasn't even the point of his mission, and the crucifixion was just an unfortunate aside. His only mission was to tell us that the laws of the Old Testament were being replaced by the moral values that he was bringing to us himself. Well, it certainly appears that you've created your own little version of Christianity. Have you found any Christian clergy who agree with your views? By they way I continue to notice that you always avoid my question of why it's so important to you to believe in these fables that have you at odds with your creator and in dire need of repentance and obedience. Why are these fables so important to you? And why would you be disappointed if you were to discover that they are indeed just fables? In what way would that be disappointing for you? Can you answer me these questions? Well first off, no you're not getting it right. Jesus' purpose of being sent to earth was not to specifically be crucified for us. He was bringing the new covenant. He sacrificed his ENTIRE life for us in everything he did. He did not live for himself, he lived for God spending his entire life giving us the new covenant. And in the end he gave his life for us, feeling the tremendous pain of crucifixion. He gave his life both while living and death in the end so you would not have to die. By they way I continue to notice that you always avoid my question of why it's so important to you to believe in these fables that have you at odds with your creator and in dire need of repentance and obedience. I've answered this many of time. We're only at odds with God if we wish to be. We are at odds with God if we are disobedient and sin. It's not important to believe i'm at odds with God. God is the most important being that has ever existed, he is more important then ANYTHING else, that's what is important right there. Making our father which art in heaven happy. Being obedient out of love for God not being obedient for our own part seeking a reward. God shows his love for us with giving us the food we need, the clothing we need, the liquids, and everything else we could need in life. So in return to show our love for him, we are to be obedient. Well, it certainly appears that you've created your own little version of Christianity. Have you found any Christian clergy who agree with your views? I've created nothing. I'm merely a servant of the lord spreading the gospel. Why are these fables so important to you? And why would you be disappointed if you were to discover that they are indeed just fables? In what way would that be disappointing for you? 1. God is important because of the love he shows everything. When you fall on your face he is there to help you back up if you go to him for the help. God is important because if it wasn't for God no one would be here in the first place. 2. Guess if I died and found out they were fables, I wouldn't be disappointed. Because I would be dead lol, have no more existence. Would be hard to be disappointed that way. But EVEN if they ended up to be just fables, I know that I lead a loving life towards others. That I didn't treat others badly. That I had brought some more love into this world even if it was for a mere 60 years or so. 3. Wouldn't be disappointed if indeed it did end up being just fables. But I know for a fact they are true, so there's no need to converse on this matter. |
|
|
|
|
