Without the Shedding of Blood There is No Remission of Sin

[Mystical]

Stuff

Okay Drich man thanks for the response! I'll get to it a little later.. I really would like to know SteveII and Lek's input on whether you are all on the same page regarding this question before I respond. If they've got the tenacity to reply, that is.

Tell me guys, if your self professed god irrefutably came and told you personally, without any doubt of his validity or your perception of reality-- to rip a baby out of its mothers womb and smash its head across the rocks, would you do it???

[SteveII]

Stuff

Okay Drich man thanks for the response! I'll get to it a little later.. I really would like to know SteveII and Lek's input on whether you are all on the same page regarding this question before I respond. If they've got the tenacity to reply, that is.

Tell me guys, if your self professed god irrefutably came and told you personally, without any doubt of his validity or your perception of reality-- to rip a baby out of its mothers womb and smash its head across the rocks, would you do it???

Your hypothetical is impossible, so an answer is just nonsense.

[Mystical]

Okay Drich man thanks for the response! I'll get to it a little later.. I really would like to know SteveII and Lek's input on whether you are all on the same page regarding this question before I respond. If they've got the tenacity to reply, that is.

Your hypothetical is impossible, so an answer is just nonsense.

It wasn't impossible in the OT, when they were doing it, so why isnt a practice in your religious beliefs as a hypothetical, irrelevant? I hear Christians ask all the time, "would you have done this.. or that.. if you were in X situation in the OT" and quite often it's something that reflects well upon the Christian. "I wouldn't have sold Jesus out! How could Judas have done that having seen the miracles of God?!" , or, famously "I probably could have made it through the tests of Job."


Why is answering my question nonsense then?

---

Drich you are getting a response. I'm just waiting for Steve and Lek to weigh in.

[SteveII]

Your hypothetical is impossible, so an answer is just nonsense.

It wasn't impossible in the OT, when they were doing it, so why isnt a practice in your religious beliefs as a hypothetical, irrelevant? I hear Christians ask all the time, "would you have done this.. or that.. if you were in X situation in the OT" and quite often it's something that reflects well upon the Christian. "I wouldn't have sold Jesus out! How could Judas have done that having seen the miracles of God?!" , or, famously "I probably could have made it through the tests of Job."


Why is answering my question nonsense then?

---

Drich you are getting a response. I'm just waiting for Steve and Lek to weigh in.

I'm a Christian, not an OT Jew who is a citizen of a Theocracy in a story that was written down centuries after the fact. If you have read the NT, then I don't need to point out the hundreds of passages that instruct peacefully living with everyone, turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor as yourself. That is the covenant we find ourselves under and not the theocracy that ended 3100 years ago and so, it is impossible that such a command be issued under the current covenant so therefore an answer would be nonsense.

[Mystical]

I'm a Christian, not an OT Jew who is a citizen of a Theocracy in a story that was written down centuries after the fact. If you have read the NT, then I don't need to point out the hundreds of passages that instruct peacefully living with everyone, turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor as yourself. That is the covenant we find ourselves under and not the theocracy that ended 3100 years ago and so, it is impossible that such a command be issued under the current covenant so therefore an answer would be nonsense.

Yes, actually, you do need to explain why you disregard Jesus' edict per his own words. Why do "all the hundreds of passages" supercede what he himself said word for word? 

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."  (Luke 16:17 NAB)

Luke 12:51-52
51 "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division." 52 "For from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three" 


 “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
 “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)

I don't really know why it matters if you're a Mayan Warrior, an Orthodox Jew 3200 yrs ago, a soldier from WW2, or just some guy named Steve. Why can't you say irrefutably that you would not absolutely rip someone's child from their stomach, and smash its head over the rocks like this Servant of your god sings about in the OT?

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

This is what the Lord of  hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt.  Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban.  Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

By the Rivers of Babylon Psalm 137:9

…8O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you With the recompense with which you have repaid us. 9How blessedwill be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Againstthe rock.

• In the end.. does context even matter when it comes to such atrocious behavior?
  

[Drich]

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. 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?

---

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.

1.Take all the stories out of the bible, what's left rule and promises. take out the rules and now you have something testable. If God promises to ABC if you 123 then you have a valid way of authenticating the bible.

2.and if you are man? Jesus was man empowered by the Holy Spirit at his baptism.

3.what does? God sending people to Hell? Maybe you do not understand the term self righteous. It means to find a system of morality other than God's and adopt it as your own. A righteousness of self.. Agreeing that God send people to Hell, that is God's righteousness my friend.

4, and so how do you go about to vet the answers you get? or all simply wrong?

---

Your hypothetical is impossible, so an answer is just nonsense.

It wasn't impossible in the OT, when they were doing it, so why isnt a practice in your religious beliefs as a hypothetical, irrelevant? I hear Christians ask all the time, "would you have done this.. or that.. if you were in X situation in the OT" and quite often it's something that reflects well upon the Christian. "I wouldn't have sold Jesus out! How could Judas have done that having seen the miracles of God?!" , or, famously "I probably could have made it through the tests of Job."


Why is answering my question nonsense then?

---

Drich you are getting a response. I'm just waiting for Steve and Lek to weigh in.

I gave you my response. God doesn't need me to do this kinda thing anymore. we as a culture do this willingly to our unborn. (rip babies peice by peice out of their mother's womb, or they force them to give birth  and then insert an instrument to scramble and suck out the baby's brain.)

This is the "moral" way to have it done now adays isn't it?

So then who am I to break those laws, if God's will get done AND man's Morality is met with a "proceedure."

---

I'm a Christian, not an OT Jew who is a citizen of a Theocracy in a story that was written down centuries after the fact. If you have read the NT, then I don't need to point out the hundreds of passages that instruct peacefully living with everyone, turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor as yourself. That is the covenant we find ourselves under and not the theocracy that ended 3100 years ago and so, it is impossible that such a command be issued under the current covenant so therefore an answer would be nonsense.

Yes, actually, you do need to explain why you disregard Jesus' edict per his own words. Why do "all the hundreds of passages" supercede what he himself said word for word? 

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."  (Luke 16:17 NAB)

Luke 12:51-52
51 "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division." 52 "For from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three" 


 “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
 “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)

I don't really know why it matters if you're a Mayan Warrior, an Orthodox Jew 3200 yrs ago, a soldier from WW2, or just some guy named Steve. Why can't you say irrefutably that you would not absolutely rip someone's child from their stomach, and smash its head over the rocks like this Servant of your god sings about in the OT?

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

This is what the Lord of  hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt.  Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban.  Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

By the Rivers of Babylon Psalm 137:9

…8O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you With the recompense with which you have repaid us. 9How blessedwill be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Againstthe rock.

• In the end.. does context even matter when it comes to such atrocious behavior?
  

Ask steve would he do it if he were in that army who first got those orders from God as an OT Jew.

I would.

Why? because I am wise enough to know that not all children are innocent, and not every creature (man or otherwise) belongs to God/is of the seed of God.

We are told by Christ the Evil one has sown his seed (children) in amoung us.

[Mystical]

So two wrongs make a right, is that your position? 

Also, show me where it says that about the devils seedling children. Might wanna tell these guys they're doin it wrong! 

I don't recall him saying, the kingdom of heaven belongs to Jewish, non devil seed children such as these..

---

Where's Lek? Did Steve run off? 

Typical.

This is why I like dealing with Drich. He doesn't run off from the tough questions. Even if his answers induce full on secular terror!

[SteveII]

I'm a Christian, not an OT Jew who is a citizen of a Theocracy in a story that was written down centuries after the fact. If you have read the NT, then I don't need to point out the hundreds of passages that instruct peacefully living with everyone, turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor as yourself. That is the covenant we find ourselves under and not the theocracy that ended 3100 years ago and so, it is impossible that such a command be issued under the current covenant so therefore an answer would be nonsense.

Yes, actually, you do need to explain why you disregard Jesus' edict per his own words. Why do "all the hundreds of passages" supercede what he himself said word for word? 

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."  (Luke 16:17 NAB)

Luke 12:51-52
51 "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division." 52 "For from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three" 


 “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
 “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)

I don't really know why it matters if you're a Mayan Warrior, an Orthodox Jew 3200 yrs ago, a soldier from WW2, or just some guy named Steve. Why can't you say irrefutably that you would not absolutely rip someone's child from their stomach, and smash its head over the rocks like this Servant of your god sings about in the OT?

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

This is what the Lord of  hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt.  Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban.  Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

By the Rivers of Babylon Psalm 137:9

…8O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you With the recompense with which you have repaid us. 9How blessedwill be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Againstthe rock.

• In the end.. does context even matter when it comes to such atrocious behavior?
  

First, Jesus' words have nothing to do with what you are implying. The verse is about the Law--which is the commandments written down by Moses--and clearly NOT the whole OT as you seem to think.

Most of the verses have nothing to do with God commanding anything. They clearly point out the ancient world was a very hard place. 

So all you have done is restate your question and I will simply restate my answer: it is IMPOSSIBLE for such a command to be given under the new covenant. The reason I don't give an answer is because an answer to an impossible question is meaningless.

[vorlon13]

Tell me guys, if your self professed god irrefutably came and told you personally, without any doubt of his validity or your perception of reality-- to rip a baby out of its mothers womb and smash its head across the rocks, would you do it???

BTW:

The fetus is Amelekite, right ?

[Mystical]

---

Yes, actually, you do need to explain why you disregard Jesus' edict per his own words. Why do "all the hundreds of passages" supercede what he himself said word for word? 



I don't really know why it matters if you're a Mayan Warrior, an Orthodox Jew 3200 yrs ago, a soldier from WW2, or just some guy named Steve. Why can't you say irrefutably that you would not absolutely rip someone's child from their stomach, and smash its head over the rocks like this Servant of your god sings about in the OT?

• In the end.. does context even matter when it comes to such atrocious behavior?
  

First, Jesus' words have nothing to do with what you are implying. The verse is about the Law--which is the commandments written down by Moses--and clearly NOT the whole OT as you seem to think.

Most of the verses have nothing to do with God commanding anything. They clearly point out the ancient world was a very hard place. 

So all you have done is restate your question and I will simply restate my answer: it is IMPOSSIBLE for such a command to be given under the new covenant. The reason I don't give an answer is because an answer to an impossible question is meaningless.

---

see above

Your hypothetical is impossible, so an answer is just nonsense.

Steve, do you understand what a hypothetical question even is?
Because.. hypothetical questions are just that-- they're hypothetical.
The situation of --would you kill a baby if your god told you to-- does not need to align perfectly with reality (obviously) in order to have an answer at all, much less the fictional tales told in the bible. So your timey wimey flim flammy circles of deflection have zero bearing on the hypothetical question at hand.

You just don't want to answer, and you're doing so by insisting, for some outlandish reason, that hypothetical situations need to align perfectly with reality in order to have an answer at all! Which is just.. ridiculous. Just so you know, you're being ridiculous. Do you know what that means? I could ridicule you. But, I wont.

This whole you and Lek not being able to answer a simple hypothetical question (well I mean it's simple for me, I'd tell so and so god where to shove it!), is taking wayyyyy too much time and attention from the actual point I'm trying to impart upon you, and the subject of this thread. Blood sacrifice, as described in Old and New testament, and why it's even a requisite?

Don't confuse being 'raised Christian' as knowing anything about doctrine. If anything, your example of the atheists here prove that daily.

Tisk tisk, brother Steve, you seem to be unsure of your own doctrine. Best not go flaunting your superiority complex, hmm?

First, Jesus' words have nothing to do with what you are implying. The verse is about the Law--which is the commandments written down by Moses--and clearly NOT the whole OT as you seem to think.

Hmmm.. This makes me wonder, what do you think the law is, exactly? Let's ask your fellow indoctrined..

When “the law” is mentioned in the Bible, it harks back to the days of the Old Testament. There are hundreds of commands given to the Israelites, but the phrase “the law” refers specifically to the compilation of decrees found in the first five books of the Bible. This whole body of law was given the name Torah.

Obedience to this law was the awesome obligation of God’s people as they attempted to merit His favor and blessing. After all, Israel was His special people, and they were bound together in a solemn covenant with Him. So the laws are not just some rules laid down by the tribal chief, but they were the laws of the covenant community. When the law was transgressed, the covenant was broken, and so was the relationship with God! That’s why the law occupied such a huge place in the life of Israel.

If you didn't know already--which it really looks like ya don't--this thread is about those laws, including blood sacrifice, hence it's title.

Most of the verses have nothing to do with God commanding anything. They clearly point out the ancient world was a very hard place.

Was it?? Was it a really very a hard and difficult place to live in, far harsher than our own, so that all morality can just go right out the window???

I clearly see the beginning of those verses clearly stating, "god commands". And considering the Israelites supposedly had a direct line of communication with god.. I see no reason why not. Are you saying god didn't order the Amelekites to be killed, every. Last. One. Of them? For daring to tell the Jews no, you can't just walk up and have my land, farm, wife, or house???
Are you also saying god would never command the death of a baby, thus illigitimizing the OT and NT doctrine you supposedly subscribe to?

You're trying to avoid these questions entirely because there's no satisfactory answer, is there? Would you kill for your god? The fact that you can't outright say no, of course not, is what I believe the OP is pointing out to be ridiculous about your belief system, both pointing out the hypocrisy of the indoctrined while also illigitimizing your belief in such a god.

 (Feel free to correct me, Rhondezvous, if that was not the intent of this thread?)