Without the Shedding of Blood There is No Remission of Sin

[Rhondazvous]

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?

None of your points answers the question of why god has to require blood and torment in hell. He set the whole thing up. Put the tree of knowledge in the garden, confused the people’s language when they were working in harmony at the tower of Babel, let Satan run free on the Earth. None of these are the actions of a just god.

Christians sound like abused women when you defend the indefensible and then tell me I don’t understand.

There is more to understanding scripture than grasping isolated doctrines. I look at the whole picture and that’s where everything falls apart.

It is you who are wasting your time if you think I would love or worship a god who whose very nature requires a violent blood sacrifice of the innocent for the guilty. I cannot, by any stretch of the word, call that justice.