Without the Shedding of Blood There is No Remission of Sin

[Rhondazvous]

If god’s definition of words like justice and love is so different from ours, then what was the purpose of writing a book that never means what it says or says what it means? The church offers no consensus of meaning since Christians adjust the meaning according to secular moral standards. [1]

Case in point: because it makes god look like a draconian psychopath to the secular mind, the church has now toned down its preaching of hellfire and brimstone, and now teaches that hell is just eternal separation from god. By disagreeing with this, you only betray the lack of consensus in the church, so be my guest. [2]

1. Where is the Bible inconsistent with the meaning of those two words? 
2. I don't believe the verses on Hell in the NT have been changed recently. Your logic is that if some Christians are wrong in their doctrine that proves then all Christians are wrong--and that's just nonsense.

1. I said the Church is inconsistent in its chameleon shifting from definition to definition depending on what is currently socially acceptable. The behavior of the biblical god offers no example of love and justice that resonates true to me.
2. Here is your logic: God is just, therefore everything the bible claims god did is just. None of the actions the bible attributes to god can make him unjust because everything god does is just. And around and round and round we go.
2b. The bible itself is inconsistent in its definition of what hell is. In fact, there is no place of eternal torment in the O.T. Hell is a N.T. concept that sprang out of apocalyptic Judaism during the last centuries of B.C.E. The term occasionally translate as hell in the O.T. is the Hebrew word “Lish·'O·Vl”, (sheol or hades) which means the underworld or place of the dead.

Steve, understand you are not talking to people who are ignorant of what the bible says or of Church history, so before you twist things around, remember that we will always catch you.