sooda
Veteran Member
Its blood sacrifice...……..
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus sacrifice, why?
- Thread starter Nimos
- Start date
Its blood sacrifice...……..
Hang on there.....one law was all that was necessary in the beginning.....God designated one tree as his own property and the humans had no right to take the fruit. They had every other tree of the garden, so there was no case of deprivation there. If they had respected their Creator as their Sovereign, then none of those other laws would ever have been written. They had to be introduced because sin took over and cause humans to behave badly towards one another, abusing their free will in ways that have affected everyone down to this day.
Oh, but he did have to place the tree there. Because of free will, it had to be a choice.....all God could do was add a very severe penalty for breaking his command, to try and dissuade them from partaking, which they would easily have obeyed if the devil had not made it seem so attractive. Appealing to self-interest he suggested to the woman that God was withholding something beneficial to them....HE LIED. No one ever benefited from eating that fruit.
There is no point in discussing these things if you just don't get it....laws are always made for a reason....God doesn't make laws that make no sense....its more a case of humans having a very limited understanding of the way God operates....he has long term benefits in mind, not just short term fixes. We need to elevate our thinking.
Just as well I am not asking you then....
Adult Christians with 2,000 years of Christian scripture to guide them are not children. They should be mature adults who can comprehend scripture just the way it was written...and obey Jesus. They never have.....they were too busy doing things 'their' way. I do not believe in blind faith....I believe that a relationship with God is one that is built up over time. The more you get to know God and the more you understand his word, the more you love and respect him in everything he has done and is doing right now.
In allowing humans to experience the full consequences of independence from God, we can never say that God did not allow us to try every means to prove that we don't need him. This whole object lesson will affect all time to come by setting precedents so that rebellion and abuse of free will can never happen again. I personally think that God's way of handling the rebellion in Eden was brilliant.....but that is because I completely understand it.
No 'miracles' performed today are from God. They were to cease and God identified satan as the one tricking people with 'miracles' or "powerful works". (2 Thessalonians 2:9)
Read the excuses offered by the false Christians when Jesus comes to judge the world....
Matthew 7:21-23...
“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’"
You see what these "workers of lawlessness" were doing?...claiming Jesus as their "Lord" and claiming to "prophesy", "expel demons", and "perform powerful works" in his name......but they are rejected outright.
Nothing God has done or is doing now, was unnecessary. God always has his reasons and they are not always fully revealed to us. It is a test of our trust, our love and our loyalty to remain faithful even if we don't fully understand something. We will in due time.
Who told you that God resurrects people only to punish them? There are many who have lived and died without ever knowing about God and his Christ. These will be given an opportunity to do that and to make their own decisions about God. It is the tested quality of our faith that God rewards. It requires endurance on our part. (Matthew 24:13)
If you know the penalty before you commit the breach of the law, can you complain when it is administered?
Lot and his family barely escaped with their lives from the immoral city of Sodom. They were told NOT to look back but to keep going no matter what. Lot's wife disobeyed and lost her life. Obedience is all God has ever asked of us. It means life or death. We choose. (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)
That is where I believe that you are wrong. God does not want us to serve him out of fear, but out of love. If we serve him out of fear of punishment we have already lost the battle. If we do not love what God loves and hate what he hates, then we have no relationship with him. His people love his laws and do not find any of them to be unfair or unreasonable at all. God makes no demands on us that we don't voluntarily want to submit to. Its not forced. We see the value in all that God asks of us. Submission is entirely voluntary. There is nothing to fear.
And its because of that very reason that I will not bother to respond to you. It would be a complete waste of time. (John 6:65)
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Well to be fair, you're not actually responding to me anyway.
All you do is write down your assertions and when being asked questions, you're just repeating your assertions.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I see what you are saying, but I think the way you approach it, is somewhat backwards. God wanted us, not the other way around, he created us because he thought it were good. And I can follow you as far as God telling them not to eat from the tree, but them doing so, did benefit them as they were now like God, able to know good from evil, so Satan didn't lie, God also confirms it, as he becomes scared that they might also want to eat from the tree of life, which he also planted in the garden for whatever reason. That is why he throws them out and put some creatures to guard it.
That is basically the whole reason atheist and Christians don't agree, because what you are saying here is just that God work in mysteries ways and we just have to accept it, but atheist or people of other religions don't buy this kind of argument, for the same reason you wouldn't accept someone with another religion saying the same thing to you, that you simply don't understand their God, but you just have to accept what they are saying, because it is actually true.
And I agree laws are always made for a reason, I don't deny or disagree with you on that. But as I tried to explain in the last post, we add laws, because we live in societies under natural laws. God doesn't!!, No one, regardless of who they are can hurt or tell God what to do, he can make whatever law he want, which only make sense to him, because he is God. That is why I say that his first law make no sense, because he wanted us, not the other way around. So it doesn't make sense for him to make something that he doesn't like and try to "trick" them or make it possible for them to do something that clearly upset him. There is nothing in the story that indicate that Adam and Eve weren't happy being there living with God. And if you have any hope of a new garden of Eden, what makes you think that people getting there is better suited than they were, when God couldn't even make sure two people and satan behaved?
So free will is not a logical demand or desire that God need humans or anyone else to have, if he punish them every time we don't do what he says. Then he could just as well have made us without free will, wouldn't you agree?
Also God doesn't punish Satan, he punish the damn serpent, who got possessed by Satan or what exactly happens, because Satan doesn't look like a serpent according to the bible.
So I perfectly get what you are saying, but I disagree with your conclusions, nothing wrong in that, we don't have to agree on everything, its why people share and discuss these issues on a forum, I guess
But wouldn't you agree that children need to ask questions about everything, so they can learn and not just believe adults because they are older, if what they are saying makes no sense?Just as well I am not asking you then....
And people have been trying to get to know or understand God for 2000+ years and still no one can figure out what to believe, there are lots of different religious views on how to understand scriptures, you don't believe in the trinity while others do, so if the scriptures are so well written, why are all the other wrong then?
Just looking through these forums of people saying they are Christians and hardly anyone agrees on what God is capable of. So clearly everyone believes or think they know God in one or the other way and basically from what I can understand you are saying, is that all of them are wrong or partly wrong, because someone that believes in the trinity, must obviously have no clue what God is all about, if they can't even figure that one out?
Im sorry, but you make God sound like a little child sitting in a corner being angry that we won't play with him. No one want to prove that we can do things without him, if he exist. If God came to earth and there were no doubt that it were God, everyone with a working brain would worship him, he is the CREATOR!!
. I don't get all this "we have or need to defy God" just to do it. There wouldn't be any atheists or any other religions if God came to Earth. The reason there are other religious views and atheists, is because there is no evidence that the Christian God is to be found anywhere and therefore people jump to other religions, which have the exact same issues and is why you don't believe in Odin or Allah either. Because you see no evidence that they exist, clearly you have to agree with that?I agree with you, except I don't believe any divine miracles have ever happened. Miracles to me is purely an expression of luck. But what you are saying is that every person that believe in God, because of something they have experience, which they might perceive as a miracle is basing their faith on something wrong. A huge amount of preachers express this as why they believe, that either God spoke to them or they had an experience that they can't explain. And I would agree with you, I don't believe these are miracles, but also I don't think they are lying, but rather that there is a natural explanation for it.
What Jesus is saying here as far as I understand it, have nothing to do with miracles. But simply that people that think they will get into heaven by following Jesus and claiming that he is the son of God, and share his teachings, have misunderstood what he is trying to tell them. Which is, that the only way to get into heaven is to do God will, which is the text you should have highlighted:
“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.
Meaning those that follow the law. Which is also why Jesus earlier in the speech makes it very clear that he have not come to remove the law but to fulfill it. Because as he also say is, that if people are not able to follow the law much better than the pharisees are, as they changed it for their own benefit, then they will not be welcome in heaven, or as he say be the least in heaven. Which is probably just a nice way of saying it. Jesus also say, that if people don't believe in Moses who got the law from God, then they can't believe in him either.
Jesus tried to teach people to follow the law, if they wanted to get into heaven. At least that is how I understand it. Also Jesus uses the example of a child that rebel against their parents, and that this should be handled as written in the law, meaning that the child should be killed. So Jesus weren't against the law, but above it.
Last edited:
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Had to split it in two, apparently you can't post more than 12000 words
So I assume that were what you meant, when God told the Jews to go kill everything living in one of the cities, and that it were not really a problem as he would just resurrect them. If that weren't what you meant, then I still don't get why God didn't just instantly kill them, rather than having the Jews slaughter everything, and that I would say that such action is rather immoral from a God, who claims he is all good.
Otherwise I think I misunderstood what you meant.
The reason, I personally disagree with it, is obviously because I think God is wrong in to many places. For instant telling people that they have to kill witches, can basically only lead to innocent getting killed. That gays should be killed if they are together as man and women, yet God didn't think of making it impossible to even be gay in the first place, which would probably have been a wise move I think.
But fair enough if the way to get a relationship with God is to hate and love the same things he does, I can accept it as an explanation. But I find it rather worrying for a lot of people that do not believe in God and the amount of unjustified hate that surely comes with such a view.
But from your current understand of morality until God reveals his plan, wouldn't you agree that God seem to do some rather immoral things?
You wrote in the last post, that god would resurrect both the righteous and unrighteous?
So I assume that were what you meant, when God told the Jews to go kill everything living in one of the cities, and that it were not really a problem as he would just resurrect them. If that weren't what you meant, then I still don't get why God didn't just instantly kill them, rather than having the Jews slaughter everything, and that I would say that such action is rather immoral from a God, who claims he is all good.
Otherwise I think I misunderstood what you meant.
This is related to the last one, what I mean here, is that God could just instantly kill them, which would be a more humane way of getting rid of them, rather than children and other defenseless people having to experience the slaughter that God demanded. Clearly God wanted them dead, its the way he chooses to do it, I question here. When taking into account that we are talking about a God that is considered all good.
Ok that makes a lot more sense. I would still disagree with it strongly, due to my own moral standing. But in regards to God, the bible and believing it.
The reason, I personally disagree with it, is obviously because I think God is wrong in to many places. For instant telling people that they have to kill witches, can basically only lead to innocent getting killed. That gays should be killed if they are together as man and women, yet God didn't think of making it impossible to even be gay in the first place, which would probably have been a wise move I think.
But fair enough if the way to get a relationship with God is to hate and love the same things he does, I can accept it as an explanation. But I find it rather worrying for a lot of people that do not believe in God and the amount of unjustified hate that surely comes with such a view.
Last edited:
sooda
Veteran Member
32 Bible verses about Fear Of God, Results Of
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Fear-Of-God,-Results-Of
Behold, for thus shall the man be blessed Who fears the LORD. The fear of the LORD prolongs life, But the years of the wicked will be shortened. The fear of the LORD leads to life, So that one may sleep satisfied, untouched by evil. The reward of humility and the fear of the LORD Are riches, honor and life.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Fear-Of-God,-Results-Of
Behold, for thus shall the man be blessed Who fears the LORD. The fear of the LORD prolongs life, But the years of the wicked will be shortened. The fear of the LORD leads to life, So that one may sleep satisfied, untouched by evil. The reward of humility and the fear of the LORD Are riches, honor and life.
74x12
Well-Known Member
He's not unstable. Rather He is more unalterable than the laws of physics. He does care about people, but we must submit to His will or else our blood is on our own head. After all, He cannot help Himself. Going against God is like sticking your hand in the fire and complaining that you're burned. Fire is good because it keeps people warm and it cooks their food. But fire is also dangerous if not respected.I see what you are saying, you paint a more accurate picture of God according to the bible, I think.
But if I understand you correct, this is a vengeful and "unstable" God, that is really not caring about anything, but himself and those that submit to his will. Which I agree with, but im pretty sure that it is not what you mean?
No, He can't be constrained because all things are directed according to His will. However, what I mean that He still loves people even if they have gone against what is right. So I say He destroys them against His own will because He desires our reconciliation.
So by requiring a blood sacrifice; God retains His holiness and yet proves His love. This way He is not self-contradictory at all.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I don't understand what you mean with him being constrained? If all things are directed according to his will, then surely he can't be constrained, then he must want things to be like that. Therefore it makes little sense that he have to destroy anything against his will. Ain't these contradictions?
All things are according to his will <-> He destroys them against His own will
Surely both of these statements can't be true or did I misunderstand what you meant?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Which leaves little question that the origins go all the way back to tribal primordial fears that leads to the practice of appeasement.
sooda
Veteran Member
Yep.. creepy and pagan.. You know the stories of Azazel the scapegoat?
nPeace
Veteran Member
The quality of the sacrifice is not dependent on the outcome, or results.
Take for example, this situation...
A cop, a family man, with two children, and a wife, expecting (pregnant).
A hostage situation, with a maniac, not interested in reason, holding several people - men, women, and children - hostage.
They want to send in an officer (undercover) to 'even the odds', and gain a bit of leverage. Perhaps a way for the swat team to have an advantage.
This cop, the family man, volunteers.
Is he making a sacrifice?
Certainty.
What's involved, is what makes it a sacrifice - his life, his family's emotional, and financial state, the lives of the hostages, and... if he fails.
Perhaps he may need to wear a hidden camera in a smart watch, or glasses, or button. The stakes are high.
One may say, Well if he dies, and the mission fails, it was a sacrifice, but is it not true, that even if he comes out alive, he still made a sacrifice - an important one?
So it was with Jesus' sacrifice. A lot rested on his giving his life - the present condition and future life of mankind, and the issues involved in his keeping faithful throughout.
There is so much that was involved in the ransom sacrifice of Christ's blood.
The outcome does not in any way diminish the quality of the sacrifice.
His regaining life, can be viewed as his being honored, in the same way the cop would have been honored for his bravery - dead or alive.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Not personally. I've heard plenty of stories about appeasing the volcano gods however.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Free will, or free choice, is not the same as ultimate freedom. In other words, it does not mean, we can jump from the edge of space (without any equipment), and land safely. We expect the consequences will be detrimental - our life would end.
So we do have free will or choice, but the consequences come with it.
If we choose to live outside of God's barriers, then the consequences will be whatever results to those outside those barriers.
Think of a train station. We don't step off the concrete pavement, and go on the train track, declaring that we are free to do what we like.
We are... but when they have to scrape our remains off the tracks, no one is going to say we could not do what we want.
The consequences do not nullify our free will, or choice.
For one thing, a relationship with God.
For another, the opportunity to gain forgiveness for wrong when we are repentant, and not have to merit deserved wrath. For God is holy - pure to the highest degree.
There is more, but these are prime. One we look forward to, is everlasting life, which would not be possible without the two above mentioned.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
I think things make sense to us only when we haven't closed ourselves off in a worldview.
For example, if I ask a question about something, but I am not willing to step out of my worldview to consider the answers given, or give thought to the possibilities or probabilities, nothing will make sense except what's in my worldview.
So I think a lot depends on where we start. Some start with a closed mind, and that's what they will end with.
I recall the scriptures saying, unless blood is poured out, no forgiveness takes place. There was also an account that said, a whole city was bloodguilty if someone was murdered, but no one owned up to it.
That impresses on me how valuable - sacred - blood is, and it does make a lot of sense to me, especially when I consider other passages on blood.
Today, life is treated as nothing, even a person's own life.
I don't know everything, nor do I claim to know everything, but when I think things through with an open mind, it seems to me, I may well fail to understand the significance of blood and its connection to the life giver, to the degree it is known by the life giver.
After all, even scientist admit that the more the learn, the more they realize, the less they know... and who am I.
Jesus gave up his life, and was given it back by the life giver, who gives generously to loyal ones. He is loyal to those who are loyal. He is merciful to those whom he will.
What you said there, I think should cause any open minded person who is skeptical, to realize the unreasonableness of their arguments.
If Jesus died, and regained his life three days after, therefore it is as if he did not die, what about all the 'innocent' people that died?
Would the same not apply? When they are given their life back, is it not as though they never died?
The only difference is, they will have a life free from the ailments they previously had.
So to argue that God is cruel because he let people die, is really a defeated argument, and shows an unwillingness to be reasonable.
The ransom was paid to God, not Christ... according to the scriptures.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I don't think I would call this a sacrifice, compared to doing his duty (since he is trained for it) or being brave. You wouldn't refer to all soldiers that are going to war as them making a sacrifice either, you honor them for their bravery. Only in the case that they end up giving their life for a subjective greater cause we refer to them as doing a sacrifice. By subjective greater cause, I mean only those that win the war are considered to really do a sacrifice as they are the good guys.
So many allied soldiers sacrificed a lot for in winning WW2, some even their life, but you rarely talk the same way about all the Germans or Japanese soldiers as having sacrificed them self, because they were the bad guys.
Sacrificed requires that you both loose something that you value and a subjective greater cause.
Jesus/God could have removed the sin at any point he wanted or simply not have punished man kind. So it can be discussed whether he is the cause of the sin or not. Depending on what you believe God is capable of or not. If he is all powerful and the creator of all, then he must also have created the sin, or we can say that human through their action created it, and God unable to remove it, which is a bit weird, but at least an explanation. But regards of who created it, God decided the punishment. So at least partly or fully to blame for the cause in the first place. Which doesn't really make this a greater subjective cause, except maybe for God.
Secondly, again depending on what God is, he put his own son through the pain of crucifixion rather than himself or he did it himself through a human body. But regardless of which of these are the case, he knew that this were only temporarily.and that he would rise again three days later. So he didn't loose anything.
So to me at least he doesn't really seem to fulfill any of the criteria required for it to be called a sacrifice.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Yes and that is not really what one would call free will or free choice, but rather being forced.
You can decide to leave the island and live a happy and free life, but if your do, we will kill your child.
That is the logic of free will in the bible.
sooda
Veteran Member
Consider how blood transfusions save lives.
"Today, life is treated as nothing, even a person's own life."
Compared to when????
God Himself can't have free will since He's incorruptible. I guess the only way for anyone to have free will is for them to be imperfect/corruptible but if God created humans imperfect/corruptible then we can't be held responsible for sinning against Him since we were created with a corruptible nature. I don't understand why freedom or free will is such a good thing anyway given the evil we see in the world. I'd rather I was an all-good robot than a corruptible being capable of evil... I don't see free will as a good thing at all.
nPeace
Veteran Member
The cop does not have to volunteer.
They could deem the situation too risky, and try a less riskier tactic, which does not involve the potential loss of a valuable officer.
No cop is ever forced to risk his life, and I can think of numerous situations where cops make sacrifices they don't need to.
As the saying goes... there is more than one way to skin a cat.
I think the scenario is a good demonstration of a sacrifice.
You say, Christ could have "removed the sin at any point he wanted or simply not have punished man kind".
From the scriptures, that is the way man would think, but it is not in line with truth.
Can you show me that scripturally?
As I said before, sacrifice is not determined by results.
Perhaps you might want to consider the meaning of sacrifice. I think you are thinking of it, only in one sense of the word.
If you are referring to sacrifice as mentioned in the Bible, then you are apparently making the wrong application.
That may well explain why you don't see how the scenario is a good fit.