I think things make sense to us only when we haven't closed ourselves off in a worldview.
I think things makes sense when they make sense.
That is to say, follow a logical progression which can be underpinned by some kind of objective evidence.
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.
Isn't it ironic....
So I think a lot depends on where we start. Some start with a closed mind, and that's what they will end with.
Some start without dogmatic religious assumptions.
I recall the scriptures saying, unless blood is poured out, no forgiveness takes place.
And the scriptures are right, because they / you say so?
This would be one of those religious assumptions.
I don't care what "the scriptures" say, nore do I care what Einstein says or Captain Kirk.
If it's wrong it's wrong. If it's illogical, it is illogical.
So, the statement "
unless blood is poured out, no forgiveness takes place" needs to be explained, supported. It's not simply accepted "because the scriptures" say it.
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.
Sense, in what way?
Sense, in context of what? Your particular religion?
Today, life is treated as nothing, even a person's own life.
Is it? I don't know where you live, but that is not my experience at all.
So who's treating life "as nothing"?
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.
So, when you think about this "with an open mind", do you also consider the option that your religion is just wrong?
Because it seems to me that it's rather obvious that you are taking everything your religion has to say about "blood" as authorative and unquestionable fact...
After all, even scientist admit that the more the learn, the more they realize, the less they know...
Random and irrelevant off topic statement that seems to only be here to give the impression that scientists somewhat agree with you?
He didn't. Jesus, according to the religious story, is the immortal ruler and creator of the universe. He didn't give up anything at all. At best, he let the body die where he was hiding in. But he could make a trillion more if he wanted too.
, and was given it back by the life giver
Here's the point where christianity becomes partly virtually polytheistic for a moment.
Either Jesus is god or he isn't. Even if you wish to go for trinitarian ideas where your god can "manifest" in multiple forms... god is still god. Jesus either is God or he isn't.
What you said there, I think should cause any open minded person who is skeptical, to realize the unreasonableness of their arguments.
You have yet to address any of the arguments given.
If you think they are unreasonable, then show how they are unreasonable.
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?
What about them?
What does that have to do with this Jesus charachter?
My point is about that Jesus charachter and the idea of his "sacrifice". I'm saying there was no sacrifice... A sacrifice entails loosing something permanently (or at least believing that you'll loose it permanently). Having yourself killed
while knowingly being the immortal creator of the universe, is not a sacrifice. That's, at best, a show off.
Would the same not apply? When they are given their life back, is it not as though they never died?
You're so far off the point, you can't even see it anymore.
I was addressing the idea of Jesus "sacrificing" his life.
There was no sacrifice.
So to argue that God is cruel because he let people die, is really a defeated argument, and shows an unwillingness to be reasonable.
I didn't argue that at all in the post you are replying too.
Please read it again with a bit more attention.
The ransom was paid to God, not Christ... according to the scriptures.
And christ is god. So he "sacrificed" himself to himself to save us from himself.
Like I said: it makes no sense.
Please, if you reply, reply again to the 3 points and this time actually address what is written.
I can confidently say that you have addressed a single point that was raised.... Not one.