What is it about blood that the God in the Christian religion needs to forgive ? It sure seems a little bit wacky to me. Maybe in Voodoo blood might be a part of the action, but in a so called "sane religion" I can't understand the need for the blood. Without Jesus being nailed on the cross in the form of a blood sacrifice all would go straight to Hell. God somehow needed the Blood to forgive mankind for the outrage in the Garden of Eden. What a primitive concept that is.
Originally posted by buckkyYes, I've asked that a couple times within threads here myself. Two things that puzzle me:
What is it about blood that the God in the Christian religion needs to forgive ? It sure seems a little bit wacky to me. Maybe in Voodoo blood might be a part of the action, but in a so called "sane religion" I can't understand the need for the blood. Without Jesus being nailed on the cross in the form of a blood sacrifice all would go straight to Hell. Go ...[text shortened]... lood to forgive mankind for the outrage in the Garden of Eden. What a primitive concept that is.
First, if he is The Creator, then he can have all the damn blood that he wants.
Second, if there is a rule that something innocent must die to make up for the mistakes of others, then this god is the one who came up with the rule. Can't he just choose a different rule?
Originally posted by telerionIt obviously makes no sense at all. Only in a savage mentality would something like this make any sense. It 's one of those stone age beliefs no longer holds water.
Yes, I've asked that a couple times within threads here myself. Two things that puzzle me:
First, if he is The Creator, then he can have all the damn blood that he wants.
Second, if there is a rule that something innocent must die to make up for the mistakes of others, then this god is the one who came up with the rule. Can't he just choose a different rule?
1 edit
Originally posted by buckkyWho are you to say what is savage and what is Godly. God rules because God rules. Unless you can justify some other rule for God, your reasoning has no basis. What makes it "savage"? What is the basis for your assertion?
It obviously makes no sense at all. Only in a savage mentality would something like this make any sense. It 's one of those stone age beliefs no longer holds water.
1 edit
Originally posted by buckkyI believe this is correct.
It obviously makes no sense at all. Only in a savage mentality would something like this make any sense. It 's one of those stone age beliefs no longer holds water.
Let's get rid of stoning adulterers too.
EDIT: Oh wait, we have, mostly anyways.
Originally posted by ColettiTwo plus two is four. God must be sane to be God. The Blood thing is nuts. God must be good to be God. The blood thing is not good. It's savage. The angry God concept is a very primitive idea of what God is. The God that gets ticked off so easily is a screwball God. The God that needs Blood to forgive is from the Sci Fi end of life.
OK. What is common sense? Is there any sense that is common to everyone? No? Then is it majority sense? Is majority sense a good basis for reason truth?
Originally posted by buckkyThat is because you are a lost soul and do not understand.
What is it about blood that the God in the Christian religion needs to forgive ? It sure seems a little bit wacky to me. Maybe in Voodoo blood might be a part of the action, but in a so called "sane religion" I can't understand the need for the blood. Without Jesus being nailed on the cross in the form of a blood sacrifice all would go straight to Hell. Go ...[text shortened]... lood to forgive mankind for the outrage in the Garden of Eden. What a primitive concept that is.
Originally posted by RBHILLThat is the lame argument that all narrow minded Christians give. The KKK loves people like you. If you are not White you must an animal. If you are not a Christian you must be blinded by Satan, and headed for the Lake of Fire. What a beautiful religion Christianity is. Wake up and come out of your tortured mind set. God is much bigger than you give Him credit for.
That is because you are a lost soul and do not understand.
Originally posted by buckkyGod does not "need" blood - He demands it. There is a difference. But you have not given a basis for disputing his requirement. You have merely asserted it is "savage" or not good. How do you know this? You can not infer it from mathematics - and common sense is unreliable. You are making judgments without basis. Your assertions are not justified.
Two plus two is four. God must be sane to be God. The Blood thing is nuts. God must be good to be God. The blood thing is not good. It's savage. The angry God concept is a very primitive idea of what God is. The God that gets ticked off so easily is a screwball God. The God that needs Blood to forgive is from the Sci Fi end of life.
Originally posted by ColettiI dispute it. Even humans now have enough moral sense to realize that blood and death for every tiny transgression is heinous. If we humans can figure that much out, then an omniscient god should be able to also. According to you, even the slightest deviation from perfect conduct warrants slaughter.
God does not "need" blood - He demands it. There is a difference. But you have not given a basis for disputing his requirement. You have merely asserted it is "savage" or not good. How do you know this? You can not infer it from mathematics - and common sense is unreliable. You are making judgments without basis. Your assertions are not justified.
You say God rules because God rules, but this says nothing about whether or not the rules he makes up are good. It just says that nobody is in a position to usurp his authority.
Under your view, when one says, "God is good," one makes a useless statement because whatever God decides is good because decides it. So all one has really said by "God is good" is "God does what he does."
I say our moral sense cries out that such cruel punishments are reprehensible. You're just making excuses for you idol to spare him our judgement.
Originally posted by ColettiI judge God, if he exists, as not fully good because I define good as that which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. Since God is supposedly unlimited in capability, he could do anything without making people or animals bleed that he could do with animals and people bleeding (painfully).
God does not "need" blood - He demands it. There is a difference. But you have not given a basis for disputing his requirement. You have merely asserted it is "savage" or not good. How do you know this? You can not infer it from mathematics - and common sense is unreliable. You are making judgments without basis. Your assertions are not justified.
Originally posted by telerionTelerion: " ....... You're just making excuses for your idol to spare him our judgement."
I dispute it. Even humans now have enough moral sense to realize that blood and death for every tiny transgression is heinous. If we humans can figure that much out, then an omniscient god should be able to also. According to you, even the slightest deviation from perfect conduct warrants slaughter.
You say God rules because God rules, but this says n ...[text shortened]... ments are reprehensible. You're just making excuses for you idol to spare him our judgement.
Matthew
Chapter 26
Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
4
and they consulted together to arrest Jesus by treachery and put him to death.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew26.htm