Can't get my head round this kind of stuff.

[styley]

I read this passage tonight when looking up a website with bible quotes in it and I just can't get my head round the way that if this was to happen today then I'd say you'd definitely be locked up. Like if God came along and told someone to do this, they would probably be institutionalised. And I don't think I'd accept someone saying it was different times cos God's been around for millions of years so I don't think another 2000 would make much difference to his state of mind about these sorts of matters. Here's the quote "Then the LORD summoned Moses (A) and spoke to him from the tent of meeting: (B) 2 "Speak to the Israelites and tell them: When any of you brings an offering to the LORD from the livestock, you [a] may bring your offering from the herd or the flock. If his gift is a burnt offering (C) from the herd, he is to bring an unblemished male. (D) He must bring it to the entrance to the tent of meeting so that he [b] may be accepted by the LORD. (E) 4 He is to lay his hand on (F) the head of the burnt offering so it can be accepted (G) on his behalf to make atonement for him. (H) 5 He is to slaughter the bull before the LORD; Aaron's sons the priests (I) are to present the blood (J) and sprinkle it (K) on all sides of the altar that is at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 6 Then he must skin the burnt offering (L) and cut it into pieces. [c] 7 The sons of Aaron the priest will prepare a fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 Aaron's sons the priests are to arrange the pieces, the head, and the suet (M) on top of the burning wood on the altar. 9 The offerer must wash its entrails (N) and shanks (O) with water. Then the priest will burn all of it on the altar as a burnt offering, a fire offering (P) of a pleasing aroma (Q) to the LORD." Anyone got any opinions on this?

[nellypope]

I'll give it a go. Originally before Jesus, in Old Test, people had to sacrifice animals, to pay for sins. Levitcus, lists sins, and the 'payments' for them. God sent Jesus to die so that all sin and future sin would be wiped out, so Jesus' blood, pays for mankind's sin, instead of having to sacrifice a dove, or your best lamb!

[nellypope]

Thus why Jesus is known as the Lamb, and you hear priests referring to the blood of the lamb. ;-)

[naomi24]

What a freak this god is - or did he just like barbecue? (Sorry, but what nonsense).

Nelly, hello again. If all sin was wiped out with the 'sacrifice' of Jesus, why do Christians still live in fear eternal damnation?

[Theland]

Gods' perfect justice demands blood for sin. As nelly says, the blood of the animal atoned somewhat for the sin. Jesus ended all of this with His sacrifice for our sins for all time.

[Llamatron]

'God sent Jesus to die so that all sin and future sin would be wiped out'

Could you explain how that works please.

First we had to sacrifice stuff to pay for sins (sounds like a great way to get away with anything) but then God sacrificed Jesus instead. Only he didn't because he came back again a few days later.

[Theland]

Llamatron - Take your tongue out of your cheek!
The penalty for sin is death. Only a man with no sin of his own to pay for, could take the punishment for us in our place. Jesus did this through love. But, being without sin Himself, the death had no hold on Him, and so god was able, legitimately, to raise Him up from death to life.

[naomi24]

Hello dear Theland, but why should god demand blood for sin? Where's the rationale in that - what's the point? Here we have an almighty god who knows everything, can do whatever he wants to do and knows the secrets of all hearts so will automatically know if someone is truly repentant of his sins, and yet he appears to possess an intellect from the dark ages. Even we imperfect human beings have deemed it civilised to abolish capital punishment, so god's mentality makes no sense at all.

I hope you're keeping well.

[Theland]

Very well thank you Naomi. And you too I hope.
Yes, well, God is perfect, as is His attributes, such as His justice. When He says death for sin, He means it. No liberal clap trap there!
When Adam and Eve sinned, they clothed themselves with fig leaves, to cover their sin. It didn't work. God Himself clothed them with animal skins - blood was shed, and so the sin was covered. But, only covered, not paid for, that would only happen when Jesus paid the ultimate penalty for us all.

By the way. I wonder who invented Do It Yourself? Now whoever that was is guilty of the most grievous sin! I am suffering as Mrs T invents new ways to keep me occupied at this purgatorial decorating caper!

[WaldoMcFroog]

I often feel that when Christians, as Theland has above, describe God as 'perfect' they are taking liberties with the dictionary definitions.

In fact, they're like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass; "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'"

Rather than looking to see whether God's nature and actions are in accordance with the definition of perfect, they are simply declared to be perfect, even when they're blatantly contradictory.

[jno]

to go further back than nellypope, older gods demanded human sacrifice. The Israelites' god, by demanding only that an animal be sacrificed, was showing a good deal more kindness. The turning point was when Abraham was about to sacrifice his son at God's request, when God changes his mind and says a ram will do. This is all pretty much metaphorical, testing how much you would give up for your beliefs; nowadays, a few turnips for harvest festivals will do.

[Theland]

Gods' nature and actions are perfect. He means what He says, and does what He says. That is perfect justice. No ASBO's or time off because the prisons are full!

[The Sherman]

so let me get this straight theland when god orders the destruction of entire cities (look up the old testament) and does not leave even children alive, who cant even dcide what a sin is that is justice?
that is ok in society to ransack entire cities because god says so?
where on earth (literally) do you get your moral code from?

[Theland]

Moral code? From the Bible. Where do you get yours from? What is the absolute moral authority for you? Or is it all relative?

[The Sherman]

my moral code comes from myself and i have a sense of what is right and what is wrong.

why do animals have a moral code? they cant possibly fathom religion yet several species work in packs for survival and reproduction but also work to gather social status in a group. They will help, clean and care for each other.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Except, as Theland knows very well, his moral code is of the 'pick and choose' variety. All the bits he chooses are from the Bible, but he certainly doesn't follow all of the Bible's moral teachings.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Ah - good - so 'perfect' when applied to God doesn't mean what the dictionary means, then.

[The Sherman]

except how can you get a 'god example' moral code when you get to pick and choose the bits you want anyway?

if someone had never been touched by religion does that mean they would be automatically a mass murderer??

i doubt it, i think we have realised as animals have that you get on a lot better if you work together!!!

[naomi24]

Theland, you seem to be a very gentle and caring man, so how can you take your moral code from the bible when the god of the bible is a psychopathic, murdering control freak? Clearly, whichever dictionary definition you use, he is far from perfect.

[Theland]

Naomi - The essence of the Bible message is "Love God, love neighbour." That is a conscious decision, not an instinct, as in packs of animals, referring to a post above.
Then there's Waldo, my judge and jury, who never misses an opportunity to take a crack at me for not living up to what he perceives I believe in. That's O.K. - I don't! It's called sin. That's why, hard as I try, I often, too often fail, and that is why I need a saviour. Maybe I wear my heart on my sleeve, so all can see my failings, but I'll admit to them.

[WaldoMcFroog]

No, Theland, I'm not having a crack at you for failing to live up to what you believe in, and never have.

I take pops at book and beliefs that are the basis of what you believe in. It's not you, it's them.

I ask you to explain what you believe in and yes, I sometimes find it irritating when you repeat your point of view yet fail to address reasonable logical criticisms of the basis on which you form that view but go 'la la la la la, I can't hear you,' instead.

Look, if you say 'The bible says it's impossible to talk to the dead, and it's a sin' and I know that there's a story in which this happens, is it really unreasonable to post it, as I did yesterday?

If you say the bible doesn't say that women are considered less than men, yet I know of a whole bunch of verses that say precisely that, is it really unreasonable to post it, as I did yesterday?

But it's not because you said it. It's because anyone said it.