Without the Shedding of Blood There is No Remission of Sin

[Harry Nevis]

If you can't make it coherent without someone grovelling to your higher knowledge, you're egotistical and self-righteous, things that are so apparant in your posts.  A typical american christian.

and if I can then what? does that make me more typical Korean-American Christian? cause that I what I Gotz to Repo Zent sun!!

---

I dunno. Try it and we'll see what it looks like.

---

I love it when you guys try to trivialize hell by using the bible to try and build a case. either you are trying to 'win souls' or yur still steeped in religion. That means if I can show you that you are wrong using the bible, you'll be wondering about this before you doze off!

So despite what your quoted guys thinks... the only thing that truly changed between the OT and NT decription of Hell was in the NT Jesus describes How the soul in destroyed in sheol.

That's the thing...You CAN'T show us that we're wrong using the bible.  Because you'd have to prove the veracity of the bible.  Which you can't.

---

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.

1. Then good thing we have the Bible to reign in the 'shifting' church. And that being the case, we have something objective to talk about rather than hiding behind "changing times". The example of redemption found in the NT resonates with most people (where love and justice are both present). 

It would be a better thing if christians could agree on what the bible says.  The bible may be the least objective text in history, as everyone reads whatever they want into it.

2a. No, I think God is just because that is where the very definition must come from. Two reasons I say that: i) because without an objective measure of justice to compare something to, it becomes a matter of opinion as to what is just

So, you NEED and objective source of justice, so you invent one.

and ii) the definition of God is that for which no greater being can be conceived and I think that just is objectively better than unjust and therefore this attribute of God must be the highest form of justice.

And, by making up your own definition of god, you got one!  How convenient!

2b. No, you are pointing out that the NT expounded on the concept--just as the NT expounds on hundreds of other concepts. 

I am talking to a group of people who very very often can't or don't care to accurately describe the things they object to in Christianity. In the context of a post, I don't care if you don't find Christian doctrine compelling or evidenced--I do care when people mischaracterize it or I see a chance to discuss a topic that I think I can explain why the proffered objection is not valid.

And, of course, other christians who disagree with your interpretations are mischaracterizing it, right?

---

Personally I rejected the existence of a god, based on stories that are far from original or unique. [1] I also reject the core idea of an innocent person being murdered in the place of the guilty, [2] and eternal punishment for finite crimes [3]. I can't say that my church got things totally right, mainly because no one can say that. I see little reason to continue this faith exercise, though.[4]

1. Are you sure this is actually true? It smacks of a bullet list on an atheist blog that when you actually look in to it, is so thin as to only be believable if you presuppose the stories are wrong (which would be question begging).
2. Are you talking about Jesus? If so, see a note below from a post in another thread. 
3. I believe that the Bible teaches that we go to hell ultimately for rejecting God. Why do you think that reason is a finite crime? It seems that rejecting an eternal God and then experiencing eternal separating from him is a reasonable result. 
4. Perhaps God will use circumstances in your life to get you to reevaluate the Christian message and seek out people who can answer harder questions that your family or church were able to. 

NOTE: 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).

1. You're presupposing the stories are true.  Which one is looking for truth and which is looking for confirmation?
2. Not much of a sacrifice if you're god. 
3.  I'm sure you do believe this. It shows the self-righteous nature of christians.
4. The christian message is clear.  It's whatever someone who declares, "I'm a christian" decides it is.