Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alright, let's examine the first, original sacrifice and see if it makes sense to you.
God mandated ritual sacrifices when He spoke to Moses on the mount. But, He had already performed the first sacrifice Himself in the Garden after Adam's fall when He slew innocent animals to provide a covering for Adam and Eve's nakedness. Blood was shed to hide their sin. (Gen. 3:21) When their eyes were opened and they recognized their physical and spiritual nakedness, they crafted clothing for themselves out of fig leaves (Gen. 3:7), but God recognized that was insufficient, so He made them clothing out of animal hides.
The point is that something innocent had to die because of their rebellion. Rebellion always has consequences for others and this is the first example of it. The pattern of sacrifice to cover sin was established right there as an act of love by the Father, who could have left them to suffer with inadequate clothing, but loved them enough not to.
Later, when He instituted ritual sacrifices for forgiveness of rebellion (sin), it was both a pointing back to that first sacrifice, which cost the life of innocent animals, and a pointing forward to the coming, final sacrifice of an innocent Christ.
What else could a loving Father have done with His disobedient children? Simply forgiven them for their deliberate rebellion and pretend everything was alright? Would you do that for your rebellious children, or would you enforce the standards you set for them, would you discipline them in love, would you let them bear the consequences of their actions? That's what God did with Adam and Eve and one of those consequences was that some sort of blood sacrifice was made necessary by their disobedience.
With your plethora of words, you have yet to answer the question: WHY would God require a blood sacrifice to appease his wrath in order to be able to forgive.
You say:
Quote:
What else could a loving Father have done with His disobedient children? Simply forgiven them for their deliberate rebellion and pretend everything was alright?
It's quite a leap to think the only two possible options are forgive and stick his head in the sand pretending their are no consequences for actions born out of non-love OR demand a blood sacrifice to appease his wrath.
How about this option: A loving father would forgive and out of love for his children, equip them to learn and overcome that which is causing them harm. Where does the blood sacrifice become necessary in that scenario?
Spiritually speaking: Laugh, love, and learn; and let the nature of others take its own course.
Friends are great, although they come and go much like a lover who was never your friend. Neither can be compared to an intimate relationship; where your lover is your ultimate, best friend.
Stupid arrogant questions do not deserve an answer.
There was nothing stupid or arrogant about the question. Your response seems to confirm waht I said a few posts upthread: Or what seems even more likesly is that you just have no good answers for difficult questions and so it's easier to mock the people asking them.
There was nothing stupid or arrogant about the question. Your response seems to confirm waht I said a few posts upthread: Or what seems even more likesly is that you just have no good answers for difficult questions and so it's easier to mock the people asking them.
Matthew 7:6
It is a waste of time to explain holy concepts to people who disrespect the Words of God and will only tear apart what we say.
It is a waste of time to explain holy concepts to people who disrespect the Words of God and will only tear apart what we say.
So you can spend time explaining your accusations and making excuses for not answering, but you can't spend time answering the question to at least present the evidence that you have an answer.
Perhaps if an answer can be picked apart so easily then maybe it is not the right one.
Seems to me, if what you say is true, then you would not respond at all and keep silent rather than open the door to a greater implication that you are simply wanting to insult someone out of the frustration of not actually being able to answer the question.
It is a waste of time to explain holy concepts to people who disrespect the Words of God and will only tear apart what we say.
I can understand why you might feel that way ... I remember thinking the same sorts of things. But that does not make the question (or the questioner) stupid or arrogant. The question was thoughtful and could be thought-provoking, if you allowed it to be. If one's beliefs about the "Words of God" can't stand up to a simple question, what might that say about one's beliefs?
Do you believe Jesus would ever have commanded the evil things attributed to God by the OT? Why is that such a hard question for you to answer?
From Jesus Himself. He has been giving messages to our mediums since the early 1900's although He has tried before that to continue what He taught on earth but most of His messages have been distorted until James Padgett. Padgett was a bible reader as you are and an attorney. As you know, attorneys like facts. It took him quite a while to realize that it was truely Jesus of the bible. Since that time, Jesus' Truths have been living in the members of our church. The truths He taught to the apostles while on earth.
Why do you believe the "automatic writings," (see: divinely inspired) of one man, verses the divinely inspired writings of 44 different men over a 1500 year period who all agree with each other on the essentials?
Why is Jesus speaking truth through Padgett, and not through the authors of the Bible?
It is an easy cover, because the phrase and your responce here suggests that your different from those sinners you are immersed in and you're not no matter what you believe.
You are covering yourself right now in an easy combination of words.
You tend to read things which were not written, don't you?
The key difference between Christian's and every other sinner is that we are saved by the blood of Christ. OUR sins have been paid for and we've accepted that payment.
How about this option: A loving father would forgive and out of love for his children, equip them to learn and overcome that which is causing them harm. Where does the blood sacrifice become necessary in that scenario?
As a loving father, have you fully equipped YOUR children to never make mistakes? Of course not. Not unless you deny them the free will right to make mistakes. Should God treat us any differently? If so, why?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
