Originally posted by chinking58So he did choose blood, and all the previous criticisms still apply. He could have made bananas a metaphor. Shoot most 6th grade students these days have more versitility with language than God apparently does. He has a blood lust plain and simple. As Creator, he made up the scene; he placed the agents; he wrote the rules; he designed the crimes; he prescribed the penalty; and he demanded blood. I don't know why you xtians always prattle on and on about how amazing God is in every way, and then let him off the hook so easily.
Not at all bud.
With God, as one might expect, symbolism is raised to a whole new level. Like an allegory is a metaphor expanded, I think that God uses real physical things like lambs and blood, His own Son born as a real man, and trees shaped into a cross, to demonstrate spiritual truisms.
By the way, a quick reading by everyone of Hebrews 9 should settle this argument between chin and I.
Originally posted by chinking58If not, then why can't God simply use blood as a symbol of the seriousness of our need?
Holds water?
Why whatever could you mean? What does water have to do with 'sense', or with 'mentality'? Or are you just using an idiom; a word picture that carries an idea to your listener? Must you use visual aids and symbolism to communicate? Can't we simply [b]know what you are thinking without your using letters, words, paragraphs and ...[text shortened]... unds.
I can't imagine a more telling and drastically imperative symbol for God to have used.[/b]
God is supposedly omnipotent. This means he can communicate anything he wants with any amount of emphasis without hurting anyone. However, Christians believe he chose to hurt Jesus as well as all the animals used in blood sacrifice before that in order to make his point.
By contrast, humans cannot communicate with omnipotence. We have limits and so symbols become useful to us in communication. In addition, buckky did not have to hurt any living being in order to use his symbolic phrase.
Originally posted by telerion??
So he did choose blood, and all the previous criticisms still apply. He could have made bananas a metaphor. Shoot most 6th grade students these days have more versitility with language than God apparently does. He has a blood lust plain and simple. As Creator, he made up the scene; he placed the agents; he wrote the rules; he designed the crimes; he pre ...[text shortened]... e way, a quick reading by everyone of Hebrews 9 should settle this argument between chin and I.
What is the big problem with blood? Do we faint at the sight of blood?
Are we grossed out because it is so....bloody?
This seems like some kind of minor quibble that I don't get. If you want to communicate some universal truth you would use something universal as a touchpoint. And what is more common, personal and vital to every person who ever lived anywhere than blood?
Blood lust? God used the blood of animals as a type; a tool to define and emphasize the desperate need that sin requires to be cleansed. When it came time for God to reveal His ultimate plan, He provided the 'bloodletter'! This is better called a sacrifice, not a lust.
Thanks for the Hebrews 9 reference Tel. I'm not sure how it settles anything. It seems to make my point very well, but I know you don't accept its authority. I like this verse in particular.
But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Hebrews 9:26b
As far as letting God off the hook...I don't think He cares if I would rathert be redeemed with bananas. He is God, and it's a pointless (and losing) battle to bother judging Him over 6th grader details.
For any who want to see it, here is Hebrews 9
1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.[a] But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
The Blood of Christ
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCommunication is dependent on both the encoder and the decoder. I agree, that God is able. It is mankind that needed the compelling nature of animal sacrifices before they could 'get it'.
[b]If not, then why can't God simply use blood as a symbol of the seriousness of our need?
God is supposedly omnipotent. This means he can communicate anything he wants with any amount of emphasis without hurting anyone. However, Christians believe he chose to hurt Jesus as well as all the animals used in blood sacrifice before that in order ...[text shortened]... In addition, buckky did not have to hurt any living being in order to use his symbolic phrase.[/b]
It seems that you have the idea that Jesus was hurt, unwillingly, by God. I disagree. Jesus did not 'like' the idea, but was looking forward to the results! More from Hebrews.........
Hebrews 12:2
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Yes, it is our limited nature that requires God to use symbols and types to communicate with us.
Of course Buckky didn't have to hurt anyone to make his point. There never was such a point as the one that God had to make.
Originally posted by chinking58😴😴😴
Communication is dependent on both the encoder and the decoder. I agree, that God is able. It is mankind that needed the compelling nature of animal sacrifices before they could 'get it'.
It seems that you have the idea that Jesus was hurt, unwillingly, by God. I disagree. Jesus did not 'like' the idea, but was looking forward to the results! ...[text shortened]... urt anyone to make his point. There never was such a point as the one that God had to make.
Originally posted by chinking58Written by the admitted murderer of the Disciple Stephen and former oppressor of Christians for blasphemimg the OT god... yup that's a good guy to preach Christian doctrine.
For any who want to see it, here is Hebrews 9
1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golde ...[text shortened]... ear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Originally posted by chinking58I think you've totally missed the point. Blood isn't just an arbitrary symbolism as you first implied. Blood sacrifice in the Bible (and you should know this) is about taking innocent things and destroying them, and then offering up their blood to pacify God for your trangressions. The idea that God sacrificed his only Son in this same manner only reinforces my claim that he is a sadist with a blood fetish.
??
What is the big problem with blood? Do we faint at the sight of blood?
Are we grossed out because it is so....bloody?
This seems like some kind of minor quibble that I don't get. If you want to communicate some universal truth you would use something universal as a touchpoint. And what is more common, personal and vital to every person wh ...[text shortened]... is God, and it's a pointless (and losing) battle to bother judging Him over 6th grader details.
To really understand us, chin. You have to understand what it means for your god to be the author of everything. This means the he wrote the rules you use to justify his actions.
Originally posted by telerionYou still need to find a way to independently judge what God does as good and evil. In other words, you need a standard with the authority to let you judge God. And you must show it is not arbitrary. Otherwise, all your accusations have no basis - and may be disregarded.
First, I see no reason why immutability gives any reason to think that what God says is good is desirable in any way. At best, it is just the opinion of God, nothing more. Again if you give other reasons why something is good or bad, then you've expanded your position from "God has declared some things good and other things bad. It is arbitrary, but th ...[text shortened]... God is good is meaningless. It just says that God does what he does and opines what he opines..
Originally posted by chinking58You seem to be contradicting yourself. First, you agree that God can communicate anything to people without hurting animals, and then you say God cannot communicate certain things to people without hurting animals.
Communication is dependent on both the encoder and the decoder. I agree, that God is able. It is mankind that needed the compelling nature of animal sacrifices before they could 'get it'.
It seems that you have the idea that Jesus was hurt, unwillingly, by God. I disagree. Jesus did not 'like' the idea, but was looking forward to the results! ...[text shortened]... urt anyone to make his point. There never was such a point as the one that God had to make.
I do not have the idea that Jesus was unwilling. You are mistaken there. I am saying that if Jesus' death was a sacrifice, then there must have been something unpleasant involved. You seem to agree when you say that Jesus did not like the idea of being hurt but accepted it in order that certain results would occur. This implies God was unable to cause those results to occur without hurting Jesus in a way Jesus did not like. Likewise, there were certain results God could not cause to happen without inflicting pain upon animals. In those cases, the animals were not willing. Do you agree?
Originally posted by ColettiIt is impossible to judge actions as good or evil without being arbritrary, since definitions are arbritrary. Once 'good' and 'evil' are defined, then possibly judgement can occur without further arbritrariness.
You still need to find a way to independently judge what God does as good and evil. In other words, you need a standard with the authority to let you judge God. And you must show it is not arbitrary. Otherwise, all your accusations have no basis - and may be disregarded.
You judge God arbritrarily. You arbritrarily define good as what God wills, and then you apply that definition to God's actions.
Originally posted by chinking58I don't think the blood itself is the problem. However, in order to get the blood, you have to hurt some being which can suffer. A gentle cut using anesthetic is not what is involved - what is involved is killing an animal (or person) painfully, which is wrong and should be avoided if the same benefits can be obtained without killing the animal (or person) painfully. That is why taking blood is a big problem.
??
What is the big problem with blood? Do we faint at the sight of blood?
Are we grossed out because it is so....bloody?
This seems like some kind of minor quibble that I don't get. If you want to communicate some universal truth you would use something universal as a touchpoint. And what is more common, personal and vital to every person wh ...[text shortened]... is God, and it's a pointless (and losing) battle to bother judging Him over 6th grader details.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm not sure I understand your last sentense.
It is impossible to judge actions as good or evil without being arbritrary, since definitions are arbritrary. Once 'good' and 'evil' are defined, then possibly judgement can occur without further arbritrariness.
You judge God arbritrarily. You arbritrarily define good as what God wills, and then you apply that definition to God's actions.
I do not define "good and evil" as God's will - God defines "good" and "evil" by verbal revelation. He has told us what is good - to obey his commands - and what is evil - to disobey his commands.
So how do you define good and evil? How do you know?