Blood Sacrifice?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Since you don't actually believe in God or believe that the living God was Jesus's Father ( as he clearly taught) NOR subscribe to what Jesus taught about the Holy Spirit , doesn't all this talk about "being one with God" seem a bit strange to anyone?
I mean , how exactly do you know anything about this if you don't actually believe in God?

How do ...[text shortened]... ant to consider that you're the only one who stalks me because they aren't nutters.

You seem to spend half the time complaining that you don't know my position on much of the above.

You seem to spend the other half making accusations as if you know my position.

Only one conclusion can be drawn: You are a liar.
-----------ToOne--------------------

A curious logic. You obviously have a poor understanding of people and few social skills. There are plenty of other conclusions.

One of them could be that sometimes people talk rhetorically or symbolically and at others they say more what they really mean.

Sometimes people say things in a cautious way because they are qualifying their statements and at other times they express their opinions in certain terms because they are convinced of something.

Not to mention the complexities of language whereby one word can mean many things to many people.

Human beings are not computer programmes. To take small discrepancies between statements and turn them into "lies" is childlike behaviour , it's what my kids do.

To set the record straight - I don't know what you really believe - but I am strongly convinced that you do not believe in God (as described by Jesus). I also don't know for sure that I am not part of a computer program but I am strongly convinced that I do actually exist.

So if I say that I know I do exist am I a liar? Or am I just being a bit clumsy with my language?

What I do know is that one of us is not being transparent - and it's not me.

Like all game players and nebulus deceivers , you thrive on uncertainty. Your power comes from cloaking yourself in mystery but it does not come from truth or logic.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[So, you think the suffering and "blood sacrifice" of an innocent lends itself to cosmic justice. Same thing holds: I think that is a bizarre take on justice.[/b]

No. For example, I don't think that sacrificing an "innocent" human being of any value. In fact, I view it to be sinful in and of itself. Biblically the only sacrifice was with animals. In fact, not just any animal.

The only "human" blood that can be used is that of the Son of God himself. One reason is that Christ was without sin. In fact, he is the ONLY one that can make such a claim thus when death took him, it had no right for him. In effect, a spiritual law was broken and their needed to be a recompense for this wrongful act. Hell, death, and the grave now have a debt to repay and that is where our salvation comes into play.

Originally posted by whodey
So you want to give yourself a pat on the back every time you treat others the way you would want to be treated? Ok then, how many good deeds have you done for the week and we will all sing your praises.

Another persective would be to be humbled by the notion that our "goodness" comes from a higher power, not from ourselves. In fact, everything comes fro ...[text shortened]... id the delimma of not wanting to destroy the sinner but, at the same time, destroying the sin.

No, what I want is to be able to objectively recognize my moral strengths and weaknesses. To find the areas I'm doing well in and affirm that behavior and keep doing it, and find the areas I'm not doing so well in and try to work on improving. It does me no good to blatantly throw objectivity out the window and attribute every good work I do to some invisible man in the sky. You see this as humility; I see this as lack of affirmation that may lead some of us to abandon good works, since they were never ours to begin with.

In fact, everything comes from this higher power except for unrighteousness.

God created Satan and humans - the ones who do evil. Without his creation, there would be no evildoers. Hence, evil comes from God.

Isn't sin a wrong act? If so, it can't be destroyed. As I recall from the Bible, God does want to destroy the sinner - that's why we have verses like, "the wages of sin is death". That's why we have hell, to destroy the soul of the sinner.

Originally posted by jaywill
You should not think that there are many many "blood sacrifices" in the world. There is only ONE sacrifice that counts for all eternity.

Do not think "O, Jesus was a blood sacrifice among many many thousands of such blood sacrifices. Those practiced by the Aztecs, those practiced by Israel, those done by the other nations. Jesus is just one of many thous ...[text shortened]... e Divine Judgment against sins has been exhausted for whoever would receive the Son of God.

Yes, thank you for eloquently relaying the doctrine of the scapegoat. Now, I see what you didn't do is provide any explanation for how it makes even a shred of sense.

Of course, it doesn't make even a shred of sense. This is something you seem to somewhat acknowledge:

The price for the paying up is only known to God. Its value, its preciousness, its costliness can only be comprehended by God. We cannot know how much it meant to God. We do know that a paying up has been accomplished in the blood of the Son of God which is effective enough to cover all the sins of all mankind throughout all time.

This procedure was established by God. Perhaps He could have chosen some other way. He did not. He neither consulted with me or with you to be advized. God established a plan that matches His dignity, His righteous nature, His glory.

We should just believe and be submitted to Him in this. God says that in the cross of Jesus and in the shedding of His blood the Divine Judgment against sins has been exhausted for whoever would receive the Son of God.

Well, go ahead and resolve to "just believe" it despite its blatant lack of any actual credibility (supposing you can do so). But you'll just have to excuse me for continuing to think your doctrine quite bizarre, especially given that you have not even really pretended to actually explain how it makes any sense.

Originally posted by whodey
No. For example, I don't think that sacrificing an "innocent" human being of any value. In fact, I view it to be sinful in and of itself. Biblically the only sacrifice was with animals. In fact, not just any animal.

The only "human" blood that can be used is that of the Son of God himself. One reason is that Christ was without sin. In fact, he is t ...[text shortened]... th, and the grave now have a debt to repay and that is where our salvation comes into play.

Well, duh, I know you don't think that just any old blood sacrifice carries the cosmic justice. It's only the suffering and bloodshed of the mysteriously magic and uniquely innocent scapegoat that can somehow bring moral equilibrium to the cosmos. Like I keep telling you: it's all painfully bizarre.

You and jaywill seem to be good at just repeating the doctrine of the scapegoat. I leave it open to you two to actually set about explaining why I should think it makes any sense.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, thank you for eloquently relaying the doctrine of the scapegoat. Now, I see what you didn't do is provide any explanation for how it makes even a shred of sense.

Of course, it doesn't make even a shred of sense. This is something you seem to somewhat acknowledge:

[b]The price for the paying up is only known to God. Its value, its preciousne y given that you have not even really pretended to actually explain how it makes any sense.

[/b] I don't blame you or anyone else for being bewildered.

My post explicitly said that this was a weighty subject that I could not hope to explain in one post. Didn't I say that ? Didn't I warn you?

You apparently paid no attention to that. You were only interested in gloating in my searching for words to help you understand.

I am still contemplating redemption as many of us are these 2,000 some years. Minds far smarter than mine have contemplated the matter. You don't impress me with a cavalier brush off as though in a few Internet sentences one could make so clear such a matter.

But this I think I understand - the loss of our sins has been borne by God Himself. To drive the point home as much as it is possible He has wrapped up this truth by specifying that the price is the blood of the Son of God. The life is in the blood.

God in Christ has incurred the loss within Himself of our sins. And the redeeming blood of God incarnate must be a emphatic way God drives this point home to His creation.

Now you go ahead and brush this aside with a casual "Oh, you did not explain. Too bad."

Go ahead. That does nothing to dislodge this most profound truth.

There are many things that your life is dependent on which you do not fully understand. You were born and you understood nothing about it. You benefitted from it. And you still don't fully understand it.

So the redemption in Christ, who can completely and adaquately explain ? I can't.

By the way, we can be redeemed without being able to explain it. When we receive Christ we receive redemption.

Originally posted by whodey
Wrong. I recognize the message of repenatance. In fact, as Galations indicates, we should see the evidence of such a conversion through the fruts of the spirit. The main difference between you and I is that you believe that this evidence is what saves us as where I believe it does not save us, rather, it is merely evidence for our salvation.

Just what do you mean by "wrong"?

The main difference between you and I is that you believe that this evidence is what saves us as where I believe it does not save us, rather, it is merely evidence for our salvation.

Try reading my post again. I believe that Jesus taught that to set things right with God one must become one with God (as He was one with God). It is not about "evidence". It is about transformation.

You, however, believe in the making of an inexplicable gesture towards God that was not taught by Jesus.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You seem to spend half the time complaining that you don't know my position on much of the above.

You seem to spend the other half making accusations as if you know my position.

Only one conclusion can be drawn: You are a liar.
-----------ToOne--------------------

A curious logic. You obviously have a poor understanding of people and few s r power comes from cloaking yourself in mystery but it does not come from truth or logic.

You intentionally took that which you don't know is true and presented it as if it were fact. You then used this as a foundation for making accusations.

People who do this are liars. This is what liars do. This is what you do. You are a liar. What part of this concept can you still not grasp?

You have been doing this for months now.

End of story.

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't blame you or anyone else for being bewildered.

My post explicitly said that this was a weighty subject that I could not hope to explain in one post. Didn't I say that ? Didn't I warn you?

You apparently paid no attention to that. You were only interested in gloating in my searching for words to help you understand.

I am still co redeemed without being able to explain it. When we receive Christ we receive redemption.[/b]

Just to be more clear, I am not looking for a "complete" explanation, although that would be ideal. A good starting point or first pass would be some reasons that make it at least marginally plausible that bringing about the blood sacrifice of an innocent could be a path to restitutive justice or moral balance (or would have anything at all to do with circumstances that conduce to such things). Failing this, the doctrine of the scapegoat itself doesn't merit much attention. And here I mean to refer to substantive reasons, not vacuous sound bites like "The life is in the blood" or vacuous observations from within your doctrine's claim itself like "God in Christ has incurred the loss within Himself of our sins. And the redeeming blood of God incarnate must be a emphatic way God drives this point home to His creation." You keep saying things that boil down to the idea that, well you know, this just must be how God wanted it; or this just must be how it works. Yes, I already know the doctrine claims that this is how it works. What I am asking for are reasons that shed any sort of plausibility on a main assumption here -- that such a thing as the blood sacrifice of an innocent can conduce to justice.

I understand that even if we were to fail there in our search for those reasons; and even if the doctrine simply failed to be comprehensible to us (recall: you basically already conceded that you think these matters can only really be comprehended by God); you still take it to be that we have other good reasons to accept it because you take it to be part of God's word and you take the word to be authoritative and characteristically reliable. We'll have to just disagree there for now, I suppose. I have little doubt your faith is strong, given your willingness to humor such bizarro notions.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Just what do you mean by "wrong"?

[b]The main difference between you and I is that you believe that this evidence is what saves us as where I believe it does not save us, rather, it is merely evidence for our salvation.

Try reading my post again. I believe that Jesus taught that to set things right with God one must become one with God (as He wa ...[text shortened]... , believe in the making of an inexplicable gesture towards God that was not taught by Jesus.[/b]

No, I believe that this transformation is attainable through one Christ Jesus as he indicated by saying that no one comes to the Father except through me.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, duh, I know you don't think that just any old blood sacrifice carries the cosmic justice. It's only the suffering and bloodshed of the mysteriously magic and uniquely innocent scapegoat that can somehow bring moral equilibrium to the cosmos. Like I keep telling you: it's all painfully bizarre.

You and jaywill seem to be good at just repeating t ...[text shortened]... ve it open to you two to actually set about explaining why I should think it makes any sense.

It is just as bizzare as Jesus and his teaching of loving your enemies. It is counterintuitive.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]No, what I want is to be able to objectively recognize my moral strengths and weaknesses. To find the areas I'm doing well in and affirm that behavior and keep doing it, and find the areas I'm not doing so well in and try to work on improving. It does me no good to blatantly throw objectivity out the window and attribute every good work I do to some invi ...[text shortened]... irmation that may lead some of us to abandon good works, since they were never ours to begin with.

There may be things you can to do improve your moral position. However, do realize that the motivation for doing so comes from an innate sense of what is "right", thus, it ultimatly comes from God. Add to this fact that as Jesus taught sin has a tendency to hold you in bodage. In fact, I believe that with some sins that only Christ can set us free. I have literally seen peolpes lives change over night from their conversion. The inability to see that every "good" thing we have or do as attributable to God is a lack of humilty, assuming you believe in God.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
God created Satan and humans - the ones who do evil. Without his creation, there would be no evildoers. Hence, evil comes from God.

Isn't sin a wrong act? If so, it can't be destroyed. As I recall from the Bible, God does want to destroy the sinner - that's why we have verses like, "the wages of sin is death". That's why we have hell, to destroy the soul of the sinner.[/b]

God did not create Satan, he created Lucifer. The whole arguement as to whether God created evil comes down to the debate over free will, which we have debated at great length on these threads. Basically it is my position that free will is simply a property of love. The scriptures indicate that God is love, so what does that mean? It means that in order to have mutually loving relationships, both parties MUST have free will to love or reject the other, otherwise, there is no mutually love possible. If one does not give the other free will to love the other back, it is simply forcing another to love you back.

In conclusion, what it comes down to is that choosing not to love God back, for whatever reason, results in sin. Did God then create sin? It is my belief that sin does not really exist much like Darkness does not exist. Darkness is not measurable and, in itself, does not exist. Really it is a measurement of the lack of light that does exist. Likewise, I view sin to illustrate a lack of the love of God in our lives. In and of itself, it does not exist. I don't think it a coincidence that the scriptures use the term darkness to describe the realm of evil.

Originally posted by whodey
No, I believe that this transformation is attainable through one Christ Jesus as he indicated by saying that no one comes to the Father except through me.

lol. Well, whatever. It's evident that you are either responding just to respond or do not comprehend what I've been posting. It seems to be a common malady of Paulians.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Well, whatever. It's evident that you are either responding just to respond or do not comprehend what I've been posting. It seems to be a common malady of Paulians.

Right back at ya....excpet for the Pauline part. We all know how much you loath St Paul.

Speaking of Paul, where is he? Is he in heaven or hell?