How do you feel

[Godscreated]

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.

I've done that same thing so many times I feel stupid, so I know how it is to recreate the answers to questions.

---

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.

I'm not sure God ever said that, I know He said He did not accept the sacrifices from Israel because they were callous in their attitude. Any time God said He didn't care about the sacrifice was in reference to Israel's unrepentant heart, they were just going through the motions. Christians do the same and I believe this is why the church has lost some of it's integrity.

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?

Actually God's the one who said Jesus was the only way to redeem a lost world. The reason God required blood as an atonement for sin is because He had to kill animals and shed their blood to cloth Adam and Eve. So in actuality God made the first and last sacrifices because man couldn't obey one simple commandment. That one act caused God his perfect creation and his Son's life. Let's not get into the Jesus was resurrected at this time, I think we already have enough on the plate, let's not stretch things out and lose sight of the present discussions.
The sacrifices were important, God told the Israelites only blood could atone for their sins. God was so tired of them bring the gods of other religions into their lives and still making sacrifices to atone for their constant sins with no remorse. It's why they suffered through being made slaves to other empires.

---

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

I forgot about that one, it happened early in His ministry and I think you are making more out of His actions ( as far as violence goes) than is really there. Jesus hurting people doesn't fit with the rest of His ministry and teachings, and sense the story says nothing about anyone being hurt, I would stand on the side no one was hurt because of His ministry.

---

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.

God allows good and bad into our lives, it's not necessarily that He caused either, He just did not stop them. So God needs no pass on anything, He actually promises to walk with those who choose his Son, and get them through the tough times of our lives. I do not deny God gets credit for the good thing and why shouldn't He, He could have keep them out of a persons life. There are also times when God is blamed for the bad things, though He did not make them. There are those times that God will use the bad times as a teaching moment to get our attention and remind us that we should stick to the better path. Also, there are those things which are a mystery, things which do not make sense, things we may never understand in this life.

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.

Not if you carefully read the NT, we are promised understanding when we ask, though we are told we want understand everything, it's beyond our capacity. The NT teaches that we can actually know without a doubt that God exists, Paul's letters especially teach this.

---

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.

Sorry, I didn't intend it to be an equal comparison, it was meant to show that God has rights just as man does, even more so because He is the creator and author of life. God knows this is a temporary life, His concern is about our eternal life, the one we will deal with forever and ever.

---

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

No, God can't be malevolent toward man, God hates no man, it is the action ie. sin, God hates. God does take action against sinful man, that man sometimes sees as malicious, when it's a promised punishment. There is and always will be consequences to sin, the Bible make this very clear.

---

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.

Okay, that's your right, but I believe you're wrong in what you think by what you say below.

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.

Just because other verses might and, I emphasize might, include women without mentioning them does not mean my explanation of this is wrong. With God women are just as important as men, men actually made women of lower status, not God. All people are equally important to God and, Jesus is the answer to that.

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.

God actually forbid marriage of Israelites outside the nation, He knew the men would fall to the temptations of the women, a good example, Adam. The Israelite men did this, they sanctioned this, if they had listened to God and obeyed Him there would not have been any foreign women to marry in the promise land.

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).

Once a child becomes a man or woman, they are much less likely to be persuaded into completely changing, their opinions of who they are most difficult to change. This is why so many believe that the Israelites were polytheist, they would accept to an extent other gods into their lives.

GC