That’s what the bible says. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. To show you how indoctrinated I was, I believed this for 25 years and never asked why. I guess it was one of those questions that are so dangerous that my programmed mind wouldn’t even consider it.

But why? If god is sovereign and omnipotent, how can there be a requirement for salvation that he has to comply to? It’s as if god is this low level regional manager who has to follow regulations set up by a power higher up on the divine hierarchy than he.

Yet, according to the bible, god can forgive sins without shedding blood. Jesus disciples asked him why he spoke in parables. In Mark 5 he told them he spoke in parables so that the people would not understand him and repent and be forgiven. So they could have been forgiven without Jesus dying, but he decided not to do it that way.

Was it Shakespeare who said all the world’s a stage? The sin of Adam, the passion of Christ, it’s all part of a Divine Comedy being played out on planet Earth. God is the playwright and nothing has to be, but he decides what is. He is the blood-thirsty draconian psychopath who decided there’d be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. There’s no one above him. No one whose requirements he has to comply to. He set the price for sin and might makes right.

End of story.

Amen , Sister!

(April 19, 2017 at 6:45 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: That’s what the bible says. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. To show you how indoctrinated I was, I believed this for 25 years and never asked why. I guess it was one of those questions that are so dangerous that my programmed mind wouldn’t even consider it.

But why? If god is sovereign and omnipotent, how can there be a requirement for salvation that he has to comply to? It’s as if god is this low level regional manager who has to follow regulations set up by a power higher up on the divine hierarchy than he.

Yet, according to the bible, god can forgive sins without shedding blood. Jesus disciples asked him why he spoke in parables. In Mark 5 he told them he spoke in parables so that the people would not understand him and repent and be forgiven. So they could have been forgiven without Jesus dying, but he decided not to do it that way.

Was it Shakespeare who said all the world’s a stage? The sin of Adam, the passion of Christ, it’s all part of a Divine Comedy being played out on planet Earth. God is the playwright and nothing has to be, but he decides what is.  He is the blood-thirsty draconian psychopath who decided there’d be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. There’s no one above him. No one whose requirements he has to comply to. He set the price for sin and might makes right.

End of story.

Are you saying that Jesus was following rules imposed upon him that he really didn't want to follow?

It is a bit odd. Not just the spilling of blood, but the spilling of innocent blood. Meaning you have to murder something so you can be forgiven for your wrongdoings. Talk about two wrongs making a right, somehow. What absolves you of the sin of murder, then? It makes no sense, except within a culture where blood sacrifice and scapegoating is the norm.

And yes, Jesus was following a rule imposed on him that he didn't want to follow. There's even a verse explicitely saying this, where Jesus asked Yahweh/Jehova to let this cup pass from him. Matthew 26:36.

(April 20, 2017 at 1:10 pm)Chad32 Wrote: It is a bit odd. Not just the spilling of blood, but the spilling of innocent blood. Meaning you have to murder something so you can be forgiven for your wrongdoings. Talk about two wrongs making a right, somehow. What absolves you of the sin of murder, then? It makes no sense, except within a culture where blood sacrifice and scapegoating is the norm.

And yes, Jesus was following a rule imposed on him that he didn't want to follow. There's even a verse explicitely saying this, where Jesus asked Yahweh/Jehova to let this cup pass from him. Matthew 26:36.

Jesus was afraid as any human would be. That was part of the suffering he would endure. But......

John 10:18New Living Translation (NLT)
18 No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded.”

Jesus and the Father are in total agreement.

John 10:30New Living Translation (NLT)
30 The Father and I are one.”

They're in agreement that he is to be a martyr, sure..allah hu akbar...but....who cares if they are in agreement?  You just conceded that this was imposed upon him, he was scared and didn't want to do it, but ultimately accepted his fate while simultaneously failing to respond to any of the actual issues raised to you in the quoted comment, such as how..fundamentally, the blood sacrifice of one atones for the inequity of another?

(April 20, 2017 at 1:23 pm)Lek Wrote:

(April 20, 2017 at 1:10 pm)Chad32 Wrote: It is a bit odd. Not just the spilling of blood, but the spilling of innocent blood. Meaning you have to murder something so you can be forgiven for your wrongdoings. Talk about two wrongs making a right, somehow. What absolves you of the sin of murder, then? It makes no sense, except within a culture where blood sacrifice and scapegoating is the norm.

And yes, Jesus was following a rule imposed on him that he didn't want to follow. There's even a verse explicitely saying this, where Jesus asked Yahweh/Jehova to let this cup pass from him. Matthew 26:36.

Jesus was afraid as any human would be.  That was part of the suffering he would endure.  But......

John 10:18New Living Translation (NLT)
18 No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded.”

Jesus and the Father are in total agreement.                                                                                                    

John 10:30New Living Translation (NLT)
30 The Father and I are one.”

But when he decided, at that moment, that he didn't want to go through with it, then suddenly he couldn't say no. They were not in agreement then, and he didn't want to die, but was unable to refuse. Jesus and the Father are not always of one mind.

Still waiting for the explanation of how murder absolves you of evil deeds, including the murder you commit to absolve yourself of past deeds.

(April 19, 2017 at 6:45 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: That’s what the bible says. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. To show you how indoctrinated I was, I believed this for 25 years and never asked why. I guess it was one of those questions that are so dangerous that my programmed mind wouldn’t even consider it.

seriously?!?!?
1Thess 5:21 Question all things and hold on to what is Good.
That i believe was my first question ever.

No one ever gave me a good answer. Then I stumbled upon one after a boy's dog killed mine. I wanted his dog put down, and he could not understand why.

To him it was his dog, and all the things I loved about my dog he had loved in his, and because my dog did not kill his he could not understand the loss or anger I felt. He though it ok to just beat the dog, chain it outside and not give it dinner, fit the crime, because that is what he had done when the murderous dog killed other things (cats birds coons ect..)

This story if you understand it or not is about perspective. Or rather Having understanding that maybe another person or in this case being, is so hurt by your action that it demands death, That is what the bible tells us God feels about all sin.

Now because we have falsely introduce a narrative that says we are all 'good people' that means/allows us the "moral latitude" to judge God's sin list and trivialize the sins we can help but do (this is the kids punishment of no food and sleeping out side for his dog) Because the boy like we believe we are basically good, and we judge God's list of horrendous death penality acts on a sliding scale rather than looks at the sin as He looks at them. We want to filter those sins though our morality rather than respect the one who has been offended.

Quote:But why? If god is sovereign and omnipotent, how can there be a requirement for salvation that he has to comply to? It’s as if god is this low level regional manager who has to follow regulations set up by a power higher up on the divine hierarchy than he.

Because Spiritually speaking unless we are connected to God we are small and lack very basic understanding. We seldom can understand things outside of our experiences. Most of us know the crack of the whip. Most of us know the loss of Death. having experienced the seperate things we can imagine what it would be like to be beaten to death.

That physical pain we would endure, is what we asked God to endure when we simply asked to be forgiven. In order for us to understand and respect what God is made to endure, He gave his son to live out this experience before us so that we may have some idea and understanding. So that when God asks us to simply respect his son for this demnstration of Love we simply do so. Realizing the cost paid so we may understand without having to endure.

For most this seem like too much to ask.

Quote:Yet, according to the bible, god can forgive sins without shedding blood. Jesus disciples asked him why he spoke in parables. In Mark 5 he told them he spoke in parables so that the people would not understand him and repent and be forgiven. So they could have been forgiven without Jesus dying, but he decided not to do it that way.

No Jesus was going to die anyway. Jesus was not calling anyone to repent in mark 5 r telling parables he was healing people.

Quote:Was it Shakespeare who said all the world’s a stage? The sin of Adam, the passion of Christ, it’s all part of a Divine Comedy being played out on planet Earth. God is the playwright and nothing has to be, but he decides what is.  He is the blood-thirsty draconian psychopath who decided there’d be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. There’s no one above him. No one whose requirements he has to comply to. He set the price for sin and might makes right.

End of story.

if you've already made up your mind, then why ask the questions?

Is it a dare or do you think all are blind as you are blind?

Has God allowed anyone to see? or are all like me?

Now my turn. What if it was just you? what if you fell through the cracks and you for what ever reason you and your buddies here just dont get it?

It is then God's fault?

What if he sends someone to answer those question (whether you like the answers or not)? Still God's fault?

(April 20, 2017 at 1:28 pm)Khemikal Wrote: They're in agreement that he is to be a martyr, sure..allah hu akbar...but....who cares if they are in agreement?  You just conceded that this was imposed upon him, he was scared and didn't want to do it, but ultimately accepted his fate while simultaneously failing to respond to any of the actual issues raised to you in the quoted comment, such as how..fundamentally, the blood sacrifice of one atones for the inequity of another?

What does the word "voluntarily" mean to you?

(April 19, 2017 at 6:45 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: That’s what the bible says. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. To show you how indoctrinated I was, I believed this for 25 years and never asked why. I guess it was one of those questions that are so dangerous that my programmed mind wouldn’t even consider it.

But why? If god is sovereign and omnipotent, how can there be a requirement for salvation that he has to comply to? It’s as if god is this low level regional manager who has to follow regulations set up by a power higher up on the divine hierarchy than he. [1]

Yet, according to the bible, god can forgive sins without shedding blood. [2] Jesus disciples asked him why he spoke in parables. In Mark 5 he told them he spoke in parables so that the people would not understand him and repent and be forgiven. So they could have been forgiven without Jesus dying, but he decided not to do it that way. [3]

Was it Shakespeare who said all the world’s a stage? The sin of Adam, the passion of Christ, it’s all part of a Divine Comedy being played out on planet Earth. God is the playwright and nothing has to be, but he decides what is.  He is the blood-thirsty draconian psychopath who decided there’d be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. There’s no one above him. No one whose requirements he has to comply to. He set the price for sin and might makes right. [4]

End of story.

1. Part of being God is being holy and just (essential attributes). His justice demands that there be an atonement for anything short of holy. 
2. The animal sacrifice did not take away sin (see Hebrews 10 - especially verse 4). It was a temporary device to show the seriousness of the gulf between sin and being holy until such time as a lasting atonement could be made. Nothing created could satisfy the justice attribute of an eternal God and bridge the gap to holy so God humbled himself in the person of Jesus and made a sacrifice of eternal substance with eternal significance for all time (past, present and future). 
3. I don't know to what you are referring to in Mark 5. However, God could always forgive sins. They were not paid for (slate wiped clean as if they never existed) until the the Cross. Just like you can forgive someone that wrongs you--but forgiving does not remove the consequences of the action. The Cross removed the consequences (at least the eternal ones--i.e. the gulf between God's justice and holiness) of sin to those who freely accept it. 
4. You (and many atheists) think that these issues have not been discussed for millennium and all of the sudden you stumbled upon something, think you have all the data to arrive at a conclusion about a particular doctrine (when it is clear you don't) and then wonder why you/your parents/Christians in general could be so stupid. The result of this lack of knowledge is to erect straw man after straw man and point/laugh/mock.  However, unless you understand the doctrine, you are wasting your time dreaming up arguments against it. 

Take the whole post above. If you had phrased it like a question instead of a conclusion (blood-thirsty draconian psychopath), you would be engaging in productive dialog. Instead you wanted to make what turned out to be an invalid point to...what end? Make yourself feel superior? Approval of your atheist peers? Reassure yourself you made the right decision?