sooda
Veteran Member
There are many reasons and one amazing thing is that Jesus died for enemies of God, sinners. It's a demonstration of love
50 Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die by John Piper- FREE Download
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There are many reasons and one amazing thing is that Jesus died for enemies of God, sinners. It's a demonstration of love
50 Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die by John Piper- FREE Download
But he didn't just make one law, he started out with one law, which then turned into loads. That either you do as God wants or you die, the bible is filled with laws and rules that end up in people dying, whenever God think they do something wrong.
But if God exist he is above these laws as it is claimed that he made everything, therefore he could have made things in whatever way he wanted them to be. Also he did not have to place the tree of knowledge in the Garden.
So its not really a matter of free will or not, but why God chose to add laws that made no sense in the first place, or said in another way, why did he plant the tree in the garden?. So I don't think its an excuse or even reasonable to compare humans laws with those of a God that can decide and change anything whenever he chooses to, even the physical laws.
That a child need or demand more than blind faith, hope and love is definitely a good thing. They are trying to understand the world they live in and in order to do that, they need or ought to understand what they have to deal with. Whether that is a God or a physical thing, expecting anyone to just blindly accept something based on faith is to encourage ignorance. So Paul is clearly mistaken, when it comes to common sense and rational thinking, if you ask me.
Why not just have faith and hope in everything, why spend a lot of energy trying to cure disease or understanding the universe, why not simply have faith and hope in God, that the reason people get sick and die is for the greater good since God made it that way?
Miracles is not the opposite of faith or a mean to remove faith, in fact there are lots of people that believe in miracles that claim that this is God or whatever, and turned them into believers. So if what you are saying is correct, these people ought to be atheist right?
So if I understand you correct, its a mixture of all the things I mentioned. From a moral stand point, these actions are ignored and the people had it coming because they didn't behave. And this you justify, with a verse that God will resurrect even the unrighteous.
Clearly based on the bible God want certain people dead, he clearly state several places that certain people that do not do his will, will be destroyed. So what might make most sense if we are to make these contradictions fit with each other, is that God resurrect them so he can punish them forever. Otherwise you would have to explain how God can want someone to be destroyed to then resurrect them and throw them into heaven afterwards. Otherwise Jesus were definitely lying when he said, that only those that do his fathers will will get into heaven.
For instant those that go into his tent and look at the Ark, I think, is destroyed, if I recall correct. That girl that turns and look at the city and is instantly killed. There is no logical reason for God having the Jews kill so many people in the way he ordered them to, especially if he is going to resurrect them and show them love afterwards anyway. It doesn't really fit very well together.
This has nothing to do with faith, hope or love. but rather submit, obedience and fear.
It's because I see through this nonsense that I am an atheist.
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)
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.
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.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.
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.... 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.
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?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.
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.No 'miracles' performed today are from God.
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!’"
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?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.
You wrote in the last post, that god would resurrect both the righteous and unrighteous?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)
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.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)
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.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.
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.Don't you constrain him, so he is no longer loving or all powerful, but rather quite incompetent as he have been trapped by himself as he has to destroy us against his own will? And his way of dealing with this issue and showing us his love, is to sacrifice a human being?
I mean how on earth is that proof of true love? Why not just remove the sin, simply by being the bigger man and say "I forgive you"?
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?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.
Which leaves little question that the origins go all the way back to tribal primordial fears that leads to the practice of appeasement.Its blood sacrifice...……..
Which leaves little question that the origins go all the way back to tribal primordial fears that leads to the practice of appeasement.
The quality of the sacrifice is not dependent on the outcome, or results.Jesus sacrifice for human sins is often seen as something amazing. But why is that, if he rose 3 days later perfectly fine? If doesn't really seem like that a huge thing, if you know that its only temporarily and you end up with God.
If you believe in the trinity, how is this even seen as a sacrifice in the first place, as God is eternal?
Can anyone clarify why the sacrifice is seen as something amazing in the first place?
Not personally. I've heard plenty of stories about appeasing the volcano gods however.Yep.. creepy and pagan.. You know the stories of Azazel the scapegoat?
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.But we don't really have free will according to the bible, God will blessed and save those that does his will and punish those that don't. That is not really a good way to encourage free will?
For one thing, a relationship with God.I still don't get what exactly we got out of Jesus sacrifice or what it was suppose to solve?, because nothing seems to really have changed. People still kill each other, do cruel things to kids etc. So it doesn't really seem like sin went away.
I think things make sense to us only when we haven't closed ourselves off in a worldview.1. how does killing a scapegoat "redeem" any kind of guilt of anyone else?
2. he didn't give his life, since he resurected 3 days later and became (or rather: returned to) being the immortal dictator of the universe
3. a payment to whom? himself? to save us from himself?
Literally nothing in this story makes any sense.
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.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?
Yes and that is not really what one would call free will or free choice, but rather being forced.So we do have free will or choice, but the consequences come with it.
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.
The cop does not have to volunteer.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.