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.

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.

[SteveII]

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.

[Fake Messiah]

If there is a God who created everything--and he very much expects his creation to behave, what part of that leads you to believe that he does not have the right to judge someone and take their life? You seem to be saying that God did not have the right to judge them and take their life because the right thing to do was wait for someone to die of some other cause and then judge them? What would make the former less 'right' than the latter? Do you understand how insignificant a human lifetime is to an eternal God? It does not even register.

Really I'm just astounded how someone can write something so psychopathic. Do you not have any sense of compassion? Try putting yourself in their shoes. I mean imagine if you had a son and he got some severe disease and died in most excruciating pain. Are you telling me you would be happy because he is now with Jesus?

Or let's say you have a mother and some soldiers one day came into the house and brutally raped her and killed her (like YHWH usually ordered Jews in OT). Again are you telling me you would be happy because she is with Jesus and this life is insignificant?

[SteveII]

If there is a God who created everything--and he very much expects his creation to behave, what part of that leads you to believe that he does not have the right to judge someone and take their life? You seem to be saying that God did not have the right to judge them and take their life because the right thing to do was wait for someone to die of some other cause and then judge them? What would make the former less 'right' than the latter? Do you understand how insignificant a human lifetime is to an eternal God? It does not even register.

Really I'm just astounded how someone can write something so psychopathic. Do you not have any sense of compassion? Try putting yourself in their shoes. I mean imagine if you had a son and he got some severe disease and died in most excruciating pain. Are you telling me you would be happy because he is now with Jesus?

Or let's say you have a mother and some soldiers one day came into the house and brutally raped her and killed her (like YHWH usually ordered Jews in OT). Again are you telling me you would be happy because she is with Jesus and this life is insignificant?

You are applying my answer to one question to another. 

My answer above was to the post that said God solved his problems by killing. In context, I took this to mean the age old objection to God's actions in a few instances in the OT.

I don't believe God causes disease--so your conclusion does not follow from what I believe. 

You invented your last objection so I don't feel the need to address it.

[Fake Messiah]

Well in any case if life is so insignificant, as you say, and death is so good, since you're with Jesus, then why are you so alive? I mean sure suicide is not an option for a christian but there are many dangerous jobs out there and you could be with Jesus in just few days. So why prolong the agony and this "insignificant time" any more then you have to? Is it because when it comes to you personally it's not so insignificant? It may not be Jesus out there waiting for you?

[SteveII]

Well in any case if life is so insignificant, as you say, and death is so good, since you're with Jesus, then why are you so alive? I mean sure suicide is not an option for a christian but there are many dangerous jobs out there and you could be with Jesus in just few days. So why prolong the agony and this "insignificant time" any more then you have to? Is it because when it comes to you personally it's not so insignificant? It may not be Jesus out there waiting for you?

Do you think your point compelling or insightful? You are setting up a dilemma that does not exists. I can experience both. Why? How about, I want to see my children grow up, spend time with my grandchildren--and any number of activities I enjoy.

[Chad32]

The bible makes claims that he's a good guy, but then shows his favorite means of trying to solve a problem is by killing people. Which doesn't actually work, given how many people supposedly died, and in the present day we still have a lot of problems.  If his ways are so alien to us, and some christians clai we need a god to fill some vague void in our lives, then we need a different god. This one is defective.

If there is a God who created everything--and he very much expects his creation to behave, what part of that leads you to believe that he does not have the right to judge someone and take their life? You seem to be saying that God did not have the right to judge them and take their life because the right thing to do was wait for someone to die of some other cause and then judge them? What would make the former less 'right' than the latter? Do you understand how insignificant a human lifetime is to an eternal God? It does not even register.

I don't believe someone has the right to kill someone else, just because person A is person B's creator. That's why we have child protection services. As for judgments, this is the guy who had a man stoned to death for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. Killed children for things their parents did. Told people that slavery, mass murder, and rape is ok, within certain boundaries, but two men having consensual sex is worthy of death. The morality of the bible is skewed. What does he do to try to improve society, besides kill people, or put minor restrictions on things that most people in modern society have abolished after the enlightenment? 

His judgments and actions don't make sense in a world where the more developed nations no longer have kings and emporers that can do as they please, with no checks and balances. Supposedly he created the world, and our ancestors. It's said he can count the hairs on our heads, yet he doesn't know we can't control our thoughts, and that a healthy sexual relationship is important for our mental and physical wellbeing, instead of just being a way to make more of us. Why should he have the right to kill us, or judge us? What makes him better than us, aside from just being more powerful? If I can kick your ass, does it make me more moral? I bet I can make you say yes if I beat you badly enough, but it won't make me right.

[SteveII]

If there is a God who created everything--and he very much expects his creation to behave, what part of that leads you to believe that he does not have the right to judge someone and take their life? You seem to be saying that God did not have the right to judge them and take their life because the right thing to do was wait for someone to die of some other cause and then judge them? What would make the former less 'right' than the latter? Do you understand how insignificant a human lifetime is to an eternal God? It does not even register.

I don't believe someone has the right to kill someone else, just because person A is person B's creator. That's why we have child protection services. As for judgments, this is the guy who had a man stoned to death for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. Killed children for things their parents did. Told people that slavery, mass murder, and rape is ok, within certain boundaries, but two men having consensual sex is worthy of death. The morality of the bible is skewed. What does he do to try to improve society, besides kill people, or put minor restrictions on things that most people in modern society have abolished after the enlightenment? 

His judgments and actions don't make sense in a world where the more developed nations no longer have kings and emporers that can do as they please, with no checks and balances. Supposedly he created the world, and our ancestors. It's said he can count the hairs on our heads, yet he doesn't know we can't control our thoughts, and that a healthy sexual relationship is important for our mental and physical wellbeing, instead of just being a way to make more of us. Why should he have the right to kill us, or judge us? What makes him better than us, aside from just being more powerful? If I can kick your ass, does it make me more moral? I bet I can make you say yes if I beat you badly enough, but it won't make me right.

You are making a category mistake. God and his creation are not in the same category and as such does not have the same obligations to each other say two humans have. 

While I could quibble about your exact examples of God's laws, it was a different time and a different system--a theocracy--coming out of a civilization where you lived and died each day according to your wits and the whims of those around you. God very much wanted his people to obey a certain set of guidelines.The structure was unlike anything ever implemented--and it had a purpose: to be set apart from the other people groups. 

You seem to be implying that we should be bound by the rules of the theocracy that only existed for 400 years (from the Exodus to the fist King)--where even during that time they didn't seem to follow it all that often (the time of the Judges). The Bible does not teach that. 

You are right about God's judgments not making sense in our modern times. That's why you have to study the conditions and the reasons of the time of the action to understand it. 

He understands our desires but still has rules that he thinks (as only an omniscient person could) are better for society in general (greater good) and for the individual's long-term internal welfare. 

While God certainly still has the right to 'kill' us (because the categories remain the same), do you think that Christians believe that he does kill people as judgement today? I certainly don't believe that and don't know anyone who does.

[Fake Messiah]

Well in any case if life is so insignificant, as you say, and death is so good, since you're with Jesus, then why are you so alive? I mean sure suicide is not an option for a christian but there are many dangerous jobs out there and you could be with Jesus in just few days. So why prolong the agony and this "insignificant time" any more then you have to? Is it because when it comes to you personally it's not so insignificant? It may not be Jesus out there waiting for you?

Do you think your point compelling or insightful? You are setting up a dilemma that does not exists. I can experience both. Why? How about, I want to see my children grow up, spend time with my grandchildren--and any number of activities I enjoy.

Hey you tell me, you're the one who said: "that God did not have the right to judge them and take their life because the right thing to do was wait for someone to die of some other cause and then judge them? What would make the former less 'right' than the latter? Do you understand how insignificant a human lifetime is to an eternal God? It does not even register."
So why wouldn't your god take your life now in your insignificant human lifetime? Oh yes you want to see your kids grow up. So time is not so insignificant. mmmm. What, you can't watch them from heaven?

Just like when you wrote "I don't believe God causes disease" but only few posts before you said "If there is a God who created everything" So god created diseases but he doesn't cause them, but does nothing to prevent them or cure them. And you fuss about compelling or insightful points. You wouldn't know compelling point if it slapped you over the face.

[Chad32]

I don't believe someone has the right to kill someone else, just because person A is person B's creator. That's why we have child protection services. As for judgments, this is the guy who had a man stoned to death for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. Killed children for things their parents did. Told people that slavery, mass murder, and rape is ok, within certain boundaries, but two men having consensual sex is worthy of death. The morality of the bible is skewed. What does he do to try to improve society, besides kill people, or put minor restrictions on things that most people in modern society have abolished after the enlightenment? 

His judgments and actions don't make sense in a world where the more developed nations no longer have kings and emporers that can do as they please, with no checks and balances. Supposedly he created the world, and our ancestors. It's said he can count the hairs on our heads, yet he doesn't know we can't control our thoughts, and that a healthy sexual relationship is important for our mental and physical wellbeing, instead of just being a way to make more of us. Why should he have the right to kill us, or judge us? What makes him better than us, aside from just being more powerful? If I can kick your ass, does it make me more moral? I bet I can make you say yes if I beat you badly enough, but it won't make me right.

You are making a category mistake. God and his creation are not in the same category and as such does not have the same obligations to each other say two humans have. 

While I could quibble about your exact examples of God's laws, it was a different time and a different system--a theocracy--coming out of a civilization where you lived and died each day according to your wits and the whims of those around you. God very much wanted his people to obey a certain set of guidelines.The structure was unlike anything ever implemented--and it had a purpose: to be set apart from the other people groups. 

You seem to be implying that we should be bound by the rules of the theocracy that only existed for 400 years (from the Exodus to the fist King)--where even during that time they didn't seem to follow it all that often (the time of the Judges). The Bible does not teach that. 

You are right about God's judgments not making sense in our modern times. That's why you have to study the conditions and the reasons of the time of the action to understand it. 

He understands our desires but still has rules that he thinks (as only an omniscient person could) are better for society in general (greater good) and for the individual's long-term internal welfare. 

While God certainly still has the right to 'kill' us (because the categories remain the same), do you think that Christians believe that he does kill people as judgement today? I certainly don't believe that and don't know anyone who does.

If he's in a different category, then what good is he to us? He doesn't show himself. He's so alien to us, as to be impossible to understand. The idea of it being a different time and place doesn't really hold water, when most christians say he's all knowing, never changes, and is perfect. So why did he do things that didn't work in the long run, and don't apply to today's time. What good is the bible when we can throw the majority of it out as irrelevant? Those rules that are supposed to help us are outdated, save for more vague rules like be nice to others, that you can learn from any other book from other cultures.

You've never heard of people saying some natural disaster was god's wrath upon a sinful people? People today kill in his name because of those rules that are supposedly supposed to help society.

He's incomprehensible, unrelatable, and the teachings of his book are either outdated, or can be learned just as easily from other books puportedly divinely inspired by other deities.