Blood sacrifice...

Inkfingers said:

A concept of injustice informed by God who has his prophets rail against injustice.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Everyone who been unjustly treated already knows it without any teaching at all. Small children understand unfair. No one teaches them this concept.

Prophets teach people to consider the other person, not just themselves.

Tell me, how do you know whether you have the right interpretation without using your own reason?

Click to expand...

There is a difference between that which must be interpreted because the meaning is not obvious and that which must be accepted if not understood fully. God demanded animal sacrifice. No interpretation allowed. It is not an unclear point. Ones reason or mind shows this to one. The conscious aids in keeping the mind honest to oneself if we encourage a love of truth.

Dorothy Mae said:

You’re not reading what I wrote.

Click to expand...

I've read what you've written - a few times, actually (but it's not making any sense). It seems there's some sort of language difficulty between us, so I will leave it at that.

Dorothy Mae said:

I have no idea what PSA is.

Click to expand...

Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory.

Inkfingers said:

Scripture says he does not want sacrifice and takes no pleasure in it.

Click to expand...

One verse says that at one point in time to one people. There are many that say sacrifices pleased Him. To believe as you do requires white out. I, however, don’t have to edit out anything.

mkgal1 said:

Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory.

Click to expand...

I have no use for labels.

mkgal1 said:

I've read what you've written - a few times, actually (but it's not making any sense). It seems there's some sort of language difficulty between us, so I will leave it at that.

Click to expand...

I am sorry you don't want to iron this out. We both might learn something valuable.

Dorothy Mae said:

I have no use for labels.

Click to expand...

They're sort of necessary for communication....and maybe that explains some of our difficulty.

mkgal1 said:

They're sort of necessary for communication....and maybe that explains some of our difficulty.

Click to expand...

Well, they define a person as having the same opinion as everyone else under that label. This is why I don't like them. They also block real communication as the individual cannot express their views to the other with any kind of openness. "Oh, you're a XYY and that means you believe ABC" and the discussion is blocked. Individual thoughts are eliminated to save effort at listening.

Now, I have never actually given much thought to how the blood of Jesus works to cleanse sinners in the mind of God. None of those who knew God ever explained it. They just knew it was so. They did not seem to have to have a detailed explanation as to why. So I never asked.

My motivation is a deep love for God Himself and a love for the truth. The truth is that God required animal sacrifice. He did not explain why. Those who believed did as requested. None of them questioned the kindness or cruelty of God because of the request. This is the accusation made by those who insist animal sacrifice for sins is cruel

They don't seem to mind animal sacrifice for their dinner. Haven't found out if animal sacrifice for the fun of killing animals is acceptable yet. But clearly there is something personal against God Himself, not that anyone who objects to animal sacrifice cares one iota about animals. No love for animmals. So why is this accusation aimed at God? Whatever the answer is, it is not good and it is not purely rational. It is certainly not because they care about animals. If they did, meat would be off the table for good.

mkgal1 said:

Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory.

Quoting Re/Knew:
"If asked what Jesus came to do and how he did it, most contemporary Western Christians would automatically say something like, “Jesus took the punishment from God that I deserved.” This is what’s usually called the “Penal Substitution” view of the atonement, for it emphasizes that Jesus was punished by God in our place. His sacrifice appeased the Father’s wrath towards us and thus allows us to be saved." ~ http://reknew.org/2015/12/10-problems-with-the-penal-substitution-view-of-the-atonement/​

Click to expand...

Theologians make up stuff when they have no relationship with God that allows them to ask Him questions and hear His answers. When I found full forgiveness of sins, this never came up. But I was lucky. No man explained the Gospel to me. God touched me on HIs own. Didn't think it so special at the time but I guess it was. I missed all those man theories and went straight to repentance and forgiveness and being cleansed without explanations as to how.

Chinchilla said:

Why didn't God make clothes from plants for Adam and Eve but from skin ?

Click to expand...

I guess dealing with cotton would have taken a long time. Too bad. It is a very comfortable fabric.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Why does God do anything??

Click to expand...

Those who know Him can ask Him. His explanations are so far and away so superior to theology it is not funny.

Dorothy Mae said:

I guess dealing with cotton would have taken a long time. Too bad. It is a very comfortable fabric.

Click to expand...

How long did it take to change water into wine ?

Chinchilla said:

How long did it take to change water into wine ?

Click to expand...

Depends on the starting point.
From Creation to the wedding feast was a few thousand years....

From the wedding feast to today another couple thousand years.... (if it happens again) .....

Chinchilla said:

How long did it take to change water into wine ?

Click to expand...

Water actually becomes wine with time and the right living forms within. Cotton never becomes a t-shirt with time. Requires equipment.

miamited said:

Hi 1213
Well you could always read all that God commanded of Israel in the desert for the atonement of their sin.

Click to expand...

Firstly, if atonements would be what God wants, it would mean that God wants that people sin. If people don’t sin, there is no reason for atonement. And I believe God doesn’t want us to sin. Therefore, atonement is also not really wanted. Secondly, you could say that God wants it after person has sin. I think that is also not really true. I believe God wants that people repent and reject sin. Sacrifice could be sign of that person repents and then it can be accepted, but in that case, it is only sign of the thing that is wanted, repentance.

miamited said:

You could also read God's commands to Israel to purify the priests and the temple and its utensils. You could read of God's commands to the Israelites in Egypt for the passover of the death angel. There are at least a half dozen places throughout the old covenant that God commanded that His children slaughter animals and use their blood for purification from uncleanness and sin. Even for male children, unless you were very, very poor, an animal sacrifice was required to redeem the child.

Click to expand...

It is true, God gave rules how to do those things. But it seems to me, He gave the rules, because people wanted to sacrifice, not because God needs sacrifices.

1213 said:

Firstly, if atonements would be what God wants, it would mean that God wants that people sin. If people don’t sin, there is no reason for atonement. And I believe God doesn’t want us to sin. Therefore, atonement is also not really wanted. Secondly, you could say that God wants it after person has sin. I think that is also not really true. I believe God wants that people repent and reject sin. Sacrifice could be sign of that person repents and then it can be accepted, but in that case, it is only sign of the thing that is wanted, repentance.

Click to expand...

I would be more careful in being so certain as to what God wants. God wanted Adam and Eve not to sin. His will was not done and is not done. So He is not rigid but provides an answer. One cannot say He did not want his will done and the solution because it was not done. God provided atonement for us, not for him. Atonement was not what God originally wanted. He wanted righteousness. Atonement was second choice. He is not rigid and unable to change direction.


It is true, God gave rules how to do those things. But it seems to me, He gave the rules, because people wanted to sacrifice, not because God needs sacrifices.

Click to expand...

People don't and didn't want to sacrifice. That is the nature of sacrifice. If they want to do it it is no longer a sacrifice. He also didn't want that but men sin.

Atonement by the BLOOD OF THE LAMB was PLANNED BEFORE the world was created ,
as also PLANNED CRUCIFIXION, all planned perfectly BEFORE anything was created.....

Many people did and do want to sacrifice. It is still a sacrifice.

God demanded sacrifice -
He PERFECTLY PLANNED every sacrifice BEFORE creating the world or anything in it.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Atonement by the BLOOD OF THE LAMB was PLANNED BEFORE the world was created ,
as also PLANNED CRUCIFIXION, all planned perfectly BEFORE anything was created.....

Many people did and do want to sacrifice. It is still a sacrifice.

Click to expand...

If it is a pleasure, it is no longer a sacrifice. That is what a sacrifice is. It needs to feel like it costs something.

God demanded sacrifice -
He PERFECTLY PLANNED every sacrifice BEFORE creating the world or anything in it.

Click to expand...

You must be a Calvinist. They think God is extremely rigid and hates surprises and is never pleased since He plans and executes everything everyone does all the time.

Dorothy Mae said:

If it is a pleasure, it is no longer a sacrifice. That is what a sacrifice is. It needs to feel like it costs something.
You must be a Calvinist. They think God is extremely rigid and hates surprises and is never pleased since He plans and executes everything everyone does all the time.

Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts.
The reason you think any sacrifice must not be a pleasure
is because of your beliefs,
NOT because of what is written in Scripture. Thus the difference.

For you to ever think I could ever agree with Calvinism is beyond imagination, and must come from some so far unknown definitions you hold.
Some of the things a so-called Calvinist may say believe might be by itself (stand alone apart from their main trust)
right, but that's about as far as we can agree.