How do you feel

[JonDarbyXIII]

Note: I posted this earlier but then accidentally deleted it as I was screwing with another post. (go figure) I tried to recreate it as best as possible.

You're correct, but the OT covenants were all for the purpose of exposing sin and the need to bring the Messiah into the world to remedy the sin problem through redemption through Christ. One finial sacrifice, this one from God, to cover the sins of those who desired forgiveness and salvation. The OT is a massive statement about the need of Christ and, God chose a people and made a nation of them to bring this to light to redeem the world. God said many times in the OT He cared not for the sacrifices of the animals, because it was only a ritual to the Israelites, not an action of remorse for their sins.

That's actually another thing I have found peculiar. God repeatedly says that it's not the sacrifices that are important to him; yet Jesus was the sacrifice. Christians say that he was necessary as a blood sacrifice because he was going to be the sacrifice to end all sacrifices (hence all the references to him as the lamb). If sacrifices weren't the important thing to begin with, then why all the focus on Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice?

I do not remember Jesus using any thing in the temple except His hands and voice, none of the accounts in the Gospels say He did.

It didn't have that in Matthew but it did in John 2:14-14

All I can say is God's plan is solely His and when He decides to end a thing it is for a greater purpose, I can't see being burdened with trying to figure out the complete mind of an infinite, omniscient being. Once a person comes into a personal relationship with God he will give us understanding that could only come from Him.

This is the exact problem for many atheists. Any time life is wonderful, it is attributed to the magnificence of God; yet, and time something horrible happens or there are things that don't make sense, God gets a total pass with the "mysterious ways" or the "God's ways are greater than ours" defenses. Also if understanding comes as a result of the relationship, and the relationship requires belief, then this means that we have to start out by blindly believing with the hopes that, at some time we might actually gain understanding.

First thing, God has no blood on His hands, it is His creation to do with as pleases Him. If you paint a picture that everyone considers a master piece, it's still your privilege to destroy it.

Yes, but considering the large focus on God and the sanctity of life, it seems rather fallacious to equate human life to a painting that can be destroyed on a whim.

Also the scriptures never refer to God as omnibenevolent, I have no idea where that term comes from, I know I've never heard it used in church.

If God is not omnibenevolent, are you saying that you think he is (at least at times) malicious--malevolence being the counterpart of benevolence

Then why were the daughters not mentioned in this verse, it's rather simple when you apply the times and how life was lived then. We must remember that people then on average lived much shorter lives. This is why the daughters were never mention, they could only bring money to the family through a marriage, they were married as soon as 13, but by comparison with life expectancy they had to marry early to have children and raise a family. The sons on the other hand went to work and supplied money for the family and the sons married at an older age than the daughters, yet by the time the sons were 15 they were considered men. That's why the verse says things like lazy and drunkards, families wouldn't allow their young ones to be drunkards nor lazy, life was way to hard for such nonsense. So you see it does specify an older child, I'm my father's child and I'm 60. Common sense and a little history makes for some good logic.

OK, now I get what you were asking about the daughters. I didn't see where you were going with that, and I see why you thought I was evading that point. I actually have never heard that argument before, but I'm not sure I agree with it. There are many places in the Bible where females weren't mentioned, not because they had no part in the story or because the point was not applicable to them, but rather because they were considered to be of such less value than men. Also, the belief of the women would not have been as important than that of the men. This can be seen in that men could marry foreign wives (though it was often looked down upon, and it often had bad consequences). The theory was that men, as heads of the households controled the religion. Foreign wives were ok (sort of) because they would convert to Judaism. Hebrew daughters, however, were never married out to foreign husbands since they would logically be converted to heathen religions in the process. Therefore it would have been much more important to control the belief of the sons (child or adult).