Jeremiah 7:22-23
22"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
23"But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.'

Psalm 40:6
6Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired;
My ears You have opened;
Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.

Psalm 51:15-17
15 O Lord, open my lips,
That my mouth may declare Your praise.
16 For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

Hebrews 10:8
8After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law),


According to the Bible, in multiple places, God never desired animal sacrifices and burnt offerings? So why did they do this? Why is it even a part of the Law?

Was it, perhaps, purely for the benefit of the priest’s stomach? Hmmm… It certainly would be a great little way to get the choicest most delicious meat in the land for you and your family, in perpetuity, without ever having to pay for it or raise it yourself.

Hmmm… Excuse me just a second…It is time for lunch… Munch, Munch…Chew, Chew…

What a great little racket…Chew, Chew! Provide me with your finest food or burn in hell forever! Something has to burn one way or the other! Step right up folks… Munch, Munch… who will it be? Your sorry, guilty, self, in hell, for all eternity, or your innocent animal right now? Perhaps this is where they got the idea for the television show, “Fear Factor”! God will love you… Pardon me once again… Chew, Chew… Gulp… Sorry… only if you cook me some dinner! Does this seem like cruel bondage to anyone else?


There is another curios little passage regarding this topic in the Book of Acts, in the Bible.

Acts 21:26
26Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

Now what exactly might Paul be up to here, being a Christian? Why did he need any sacrifice offered for his sin according to the Law? Was not the sacrifice of Jesus sufficient for Paul? And even according to the scriptures quoted above clearly God never even wanted sacrifices, so again why is Paul subjecting himself to this practice himself? Anybody have a good answer?

It just blows my mind (what’s left of it) that they never seem to teach these simple truths in Sunday school anymore! What has become of the faith? Why are they hiding the truth from their own people?

What do you all think?

Considering sacrifices are usually to the "enemy" for the benefit of said group, this itself should immediately raise a red flag! Why would an all-knowing, all powerful CREATOR need a sacrifice??? Maybe christians are worshipping the wolf in sheep's clothing. Excuse me, the jerk who killed the real god and is pretending to be it. But then, either way I'm sure christians deep down know that. They worship the one who lays down their life for them, how sweet and profound. They are such angels and above it all, I'm sure the sacrificee appreciates their sincere devotion!! I wonder if straws were drawn or did they just pick on the unselfish and innocent? Oh yes, they did. His name was Jesus Christ, symbolizing virtue, innocence, compassion, and without sin or blemish. Great contrived story though, he wanted to save all the assholes and worthless morons and GOD let him, hmm??? How convenient. Are christians good or actually EVIL??? The real truth is sometimes buried under layers of bullsh*t! hehehe

According to the Bible, in multiple places, God never desired animal sacrifices and burnt offerings? So why did they do this? Why is it even a part of the Law?


They did this because in the bible, in multiple places, god did demand animal sacrifices and burnt offerings.

The people that existed before acts/hebrews/psalms etc wouldn't have known that god was going to change his mind, would they? No sir, they would have had to have gone along with his earlier demands - which included animal sacrifice.

It begins with Noah when he sacrifices animals to god. It was only due to the nice 'aroma' of the burning meat that god decides never to flood the earth again, (in fact it actually begins with Cain and Abel - Abel's dead animal offering pleases god but Cains fruit offering displeases god.. He's obviously not into his 5 a day). It continues in leviticus where god tells Moses and his people to offer burnt food to him. Bizarrely enough it's not only meat, but cereal, wine, bread etc. He goes on to state that; "This is a perpetual law for all your descendants wherever you live".

From a biblical perspective, god has always needed something to be sacrificed to him, including himself - which is seen as the final sacrifice. Until he was prepared to sacrifice himself to himself animals were required.

Something has to burn one way or the other! Step right up folks… Munch, Munch… who will it be? Your sorry, guilty, self, in hell, for all eternity, or your innocent animal right now?

There was no "hell" or threat of eternal burning in the OT. When god got pissed off he just destroyed his people on the spot. They got instantly whacked for daring to ask for some food, plagued, drowned yada yada yada.

It would be more likely to state that by the time of the NT people had realised how much of a jerkoff their god was. They couldn't now afford to go round chopping up a gazillion goats for the sake of a sky being, nope. It's like everything god ever says - eventually it gets ignored. Circumcision, working on the sabbath etc etc.. Nobody gives a shit about gods laws. The more man moves forwards, the more god vanishes into the void.

God apparently sacrifices Christ. Does this make Christ nothing more than a burnt offering or dead animal?

God apparently sacrifices Christ. Does this make Christ nothing more than a burnt offering or dead animal?

Dead animal, yes... but I don't think they cooked it.

Dead animal, yes... but I don't think they cooked it.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

How can God enjoy smelling the burning flesh of an animal when He has no physical nose?

Why would the killing of an innocent animal turn away God's wrath?

Why would the killing of an innocent Son turn away God's wrath?

Why must the innocent die for the guilty in God's economy?

How is this "justice"?

How is this even mercy?

They did this because in the bible, in multiple places, god did demand animal sacrifices and burnt offerings.

Yes, this is just one more among many Bible contradictions!

Thank you for your additional comments!

Why would the killing of an innocent animal turn away God's wrath?

Why would the killing of an innocent Son turn away God's wrath?

Why must the innocent die for the guilty in God's economy?

How is this "justice"?

How is this even mercy?

You said it, its not god its people. Just as when a person says "you can't judge me, only god can" in translation really means "I=god" and actually communicating dishonestly that they don't think your opinions, rights, or life is of value and should be subject even to exploitation for their benefit if you are not like them or cowtow to their own weaknesses, just self-centeredness. It's so easy to see through people and bs IF you are honest with yourself or you don't automatically employ such tactics. The only reason it propagates is because their are so man people who are dishonest and support eachother. Where it becomes dangerous is when "we=god".

Take another look at the above and you'll see that is the way base people operate, even "criminals" operate. Then take a look at the world minus the window dressing. The ones with real integrity are rare. Christians are the majority pretending to be something they are not. They'll be nice as long as someone hidden takes the heat, as long as someone hidden satiated their anger, as long as someone hidden pays for their own sins, as long as someone hidden has taken up the slack for their own moral weakness or unwillingness to take FULL responsiblity. They refuse to take a good, hard look at themselves. The ones they sacrifice are the ones who are actually 'virtuous' and they turn around and wear the label themselves after they sucked the life out of their victim. Cheaters

Perhaps some of the following are stupid questions but...

What are the pre-Biblical origins of this practice of appeasing God through animal sacrifice? How did this practice begin and how far back does it go before the Bible? Did any of the civilizations that predate the nation of Israel practice animal sacrifice? Are there any known civilizations or documents that predate all of the Biblical events, or is the Bible the oldest written document we have?

Can anyone help me out with some answers? I am really interested in learning more!

Thank You!

Perhaps some of the following are stupid questions but...

What are the pre-Biblical origins of this practice of appeasing God through animal sacrifice? How did this practice begin and how far back does it go before the Bible? Did any of the civilizations that predate the nation of Israel practice animal sacrifice? Are there any known civilizations or documents that predate all of the Biblical events, or is the Bible the oldest written document we have?

Can anyone help me out with some answers? I am really interested in learning more!

Thank You!

*************
M*W: I'll take a stab at it. When ancients humans looked into the night sky and saw certain animals outlined by the stars. They may have believed that these animals they saw in the heavens were good and offered to their sky god, so they wanted to replicate these sacrifices on Earth by offering up Earthly animals to their sky gods to bring rain to their crops and such.

The legends about the good which could come from the Creator God through convenant sacrifice came initially from Adam and Eve, and then through Noah and his family.

The Creator God sacrificed an animal so that Adam and Eve could be covered, just as He would later sacrifice his Son, the Lamb of God, the "last Adam."

Noah and his family brought the knowledge through the Deluge, to be seen in the animal sacrifices which occur in various tribes from disparate parts of the world.

One thing that dumbfounds me is why Noah saved blood sucking insect from the flood? I mean we still have the royal family.

No, but seriously there are countless billion species on this planet. How did they come about from about one hundred species that Noah saved from this flood 2000 years go?

The Deluge was circa 2400 B.C.

Noah gathered syngameons of animals, which usually falls at the genus level, and sometimes at the family level, so only about 20,000 syngameons of animals need have been on the Ark.

Many insects and plants survived in the Floodwater and sediments, so the logistics for Noah's Ark are not a problem.

The Deluge was circa 2400 B.C.Well that makes all the difference.:rolleyes:

Noah gathered syngameons of animals, which usually falls at the genus level, and sometimes at the family level, so only about 20,000 syngameons of animals need have been on the Ark.
No! The animals being in reproductive pairs makes no difference!
Also you cant fit 20,000 species on an ark, but OK. More importantly, even 20,000 species cant possibly subdivide into (n)billion in 4400 years.



Many insects and plants survived in the Floodwater and sediments, so the logistics for Noah's Ark are not a problem.
What insects(skin breathing arthropods) survived in slurry?

Don't forget they ATE the animal!
It was a typical Aussie BBQ.

Jeremiah 7:22-23
22"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
23"But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.'

Psalm 40:6
6Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired;
My ears You have opened;
Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.

Psalm 51:15-17
15 O Lord, open my lips,
That my mouth may declare Your praise.
16 For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

Hebrews 10:8
8After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law),


According to the Bible, in multiple places, God never desired animal sacrifices and burnt offerings? So why did they do this? Why is it even a part of the Law?

Was it, perhaps, purely for the benefit of the priest’s stomach? Hmmm… It certainly would be a great little way to get the choicest most delicious meat in the land for you and your family, in perpetuity, without ever having to pay for it or raise it yourself.

Hmmm… Excuse me just a second…It is time for lunch… Munch, Munch…Chew, Chew…

What a great little racket…Chew, Chew! Provide me with your finest food or burn in hell forever! Something has to burn one way or the other! Step right up folks… Munch, Munch… who will it be? Your sorry, guilty, self, in hell, for all eternity, or your innocent animal right now? Perhaps this is where they got the idea for the television show, “Fear Factor”! God will love you… Pardon me once again… Chew, Chew… Gulp… Sorry… only if you cook me some dinner! Does this seem like cruel bondage to anyone else?


There is another curios little passage regarding this topic in the Book of Acts, in the Bible.

Acts 21:26
26Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

Now what exactly might Paul be up to here, being a Christian? Why did he need any sacrifice offered for his sin according to the Law? Was not the sacrifice of Jesus sufficient for Paul? And even according to the scriptures quoted above clearly God never even wanted sacrifices, so again why is Paul subjecting himself to this practice himself? Anybody have a good answer?

It just blows my mind (what’s left of it) that they never seem to teach these simple truths in Sunday school anymore! What has become of the faith? Why are they hiding the truth from their own people?

What do you all think?

Verse 23 answers the question.
23"But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.'

Notice the "but." Did God ask for burnt offerings? Yes. He asked for a lot of things but what was the point? God is addressing the heart. Sacrifice was just a representation of the future Messiah known as Christ. It was a symbol. It was a reminder. God's purpose was not for them to do that and that it, it started with the heart and intent. Actually Noah is not the first. What about Cain an Abel. Abel brought the best while Cain brought some. The point of the story was their view on God. Abel saw God as King and He deserved the best while Cain saw himself greater than God. Which one was God pleased with? These are not contradictions just showing the point of sacrifice and what God wants. The assumtion about the priests eating? They were provided with food. First choice the priests would have had no possible way of eating all the food, plus if that is a reason for offerings then that falls apart because neither Abel, Noah, Isaac, Abraham, Adam nor a bunch of others were priests so obviously it had other motives. To answer about Paul I will get back to you on that because right now I have no answer, however that takes nothing away from the Christ or the cross.

Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

The legends about the good which could come from the Creator God through convenant sacrifice came initially from Adam and Eve, and then through Noah and his family.

The Creator God sacrificed an animal so that Adam and Eve could be covered, just as He would later sacrifice his Son, the Lamb of God, the "last Adam."

Noah and his family brought the knowledge through the Deluge, to be seen in the animal sacrifices which occur in various tribes from disparate parts of the world.

What scripture did you get this from?

Why would the killing of an innocent animal turn away God's wrath?

Why would the killing of an innocent Son turn away God's wrath?

Why must the innocent die for the guilty in God's economy?

How is this "justice"?

How is this even mercy?

Innocent Son = Perfect offering. Notice the sacrifices required are not to have any blemish. The best. If Jesus was sinful it He would not have been a perfect offering. A sacrifice animal did nothing but carry out a fullfilment of obedience and a reminder. An animal was never good enough. The innocent must die for the guilty because the guilty are not worthy enough, only the innocent. Only Jesus could bear the weight of the cross. How is this justice? The punishment was carried out but instead on us it was passed on to Jesus. He took our punishment. Mercy? For who. Jesus or sinners?

God apparently sacrifices Christ. Does this make Christ nothing more than a burnt offering or dead animal?

Want to stick with the thread? Jesus is not an animal just as no human is an animal. Yes I do take great offense to that but the fact that we have a soul seperates us from animals. Stick with the thread.

Considering sacrifices are usually to the "enemy" for the benefit of said group, this itself should immediately raise a red flag! Why would an all-knowing, all powerful CREATOR need a sacrifice??? ...

Yep, God didn't need it. Humans needed it because Adam and Eve couldn't understand the consequences of their actions. The animal sacrifice was a symbolic picture of what God would do someday to begin the process of restoring humans to himself.

Want to stick with the thread? Jesus is not an animal just as no human is an animal. Yes I do take great offense to that but the fact that we have a soul seperates us from animals. Stick with the thread.

A human is not an animal?? Really?? And animals do not have souls but somehow humans do?? uhuh.

Who says? the bible?

Yep, God didn't need it. Humans needed it because Adam and Eve couldn't understand the consequences of their actions. The animal sacrifice was a symbolic picture of what God would do someday to begin the process of restoring humans to himself.


More twisted mumbo jumbo. The whole thing is ridiculously crazy, it's hard to know even what to say. Wow. No wonder you people get away with it. How can you argue with hot air.

Can animals adopt a faith regarding eternity?

I think this has its roots in the practices of hunter-gatherer societies...where the act of spearing was analogous to penetration with the penis...respect was later paid to the spirit of the dead animal.

A human is not an animal?? Really?? And animals do not have souls but somehow humans do?? uhuh.

Who says? the bible?

What separates us then? Obviously something to provoke different names. More over how many conversations have you carried on with an animal. Excuse me I mean where the animal has responded with a sentence. Am I saying the ability to speak language is evidence of a soul? Essentially. The ability to develop language, speak, and communicate is an example of conciousness. Again the topic is on sacrifices and I believe the understanding of the difference between and animal and Jesus Christ are obvious.

Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

Can animals adopt a faith regarding eternity?

What does that have to do with a soul??

See, me even asking this question means nothing when your conversing with devious minds in the first place.

Does a retarded "human" have a soul?? How about those who are born mute, blind, crippled?? How about a baby?? Does the baby go to heaven if it dies before it develops the mental ability to comprehend it?

Don't answer because I've heard the shpiel countless times.

Soul or energy has nothing to do with your mental ability to comprehend.

Well I guess you told me! Your last sentence is deeeeeeeeep.

What separates us then? Obviously something to provoke different names. More over how many conversations have you carried on with an animal. Excuse me I mean where the animal has responded with a sentence. Am I saying the ability to speak language is evidence of a soul? Essentially. The ability to develop language, speak, and communicate is an example of conciousness. Again the topic is on sacrifices and I believe the understanding of the difference between and animal and Jesus Christ are obvious.

Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

Not only are you religious but you also have idiotic reasoning and comprehension besides being deslusional. Should I believe you are without a soul??? LOL! You are an idiot but more importantly self-deceptive if you believe animals do not have consciousness. Of course they do.

"Of course they do," proof?

What does an animal think about eternity, where does he think he will go when his physical body dies?

"Of course they do," proof?

What does an animal think about eternity, where does he think he will go when his physical body dies?


You are a pompous idiot. Just because you can think of a concept does not negate the existence of those that can't. Did you not realize that??

Yes, animals exist, so what's your point?

Not only are you religious but you also have idiotic reasoning and comprehension besides being deslusional. Should I believe you are without a soul??? LOL! You are an idiot but more importantly self-deceptive if you believe animals do not have consciousness. Of course they do.

You call me an idiot and you can not even answer the question. What separates a human from an animal.

The Creator God sacrificed an animal so that Adam and Eve could be covered, just as He would later sacrifice his Son, the Lamb of God, the "last Adam."

How does killing anything cover anything? I mean what is it exactly about whacking an animal, a person or a god that forgives man for anything? Who made it so and why? It seems a tad uhh.. worthless. I just don't get it.

If a human did the same thing you'd all call him a weirdo.. Imagine everytime some guys son was naughty the man went out and battered a hedgehog to death. What exact mechanism has turned the beating to death of the hedgehog into forgiveness for the son? Can the father not find a better way with which to forgive his son than to squidge a harmless animal? It's simply ludicrous.. It's almost as bad as demanding that your children snip a bit of their penis off.. Why on earth would you ask such a thing? I mean surely if he didn't want that bit of skin to be there he just wouldn't have created humans with it? This god of the jews/christians is a right fucknut.

What about Cain an Abel. Abel brought the best while Cain brought some. The point of the story was their view on God. Abel saw God as King and He deserved the best while Cain saw himself greater than God.

Your claim is not corroborated by the bible. If you actually read it you'll see that the only "crime" was that Cain offered fruit. In either case, why would an all-loving god get pissed off because an offering, (of which he has no need of), isn't quite good enough for him? He's like a spoilt child at christmas. Word of advice for god: Be happy with what people give you and say "thank you". It's the 'nice' way of doing things.

Jesus is not an animal just as no human is an animal. Yes I do take great offense to that but the fact that we have a soul seperates us from animals.

Humans are part of the animal kingdom. That's the way it goes - absolutely bloody regardless to your personal protests. The only way to escape that is to kill yourself and then it wont matter, (doing so is not advisable).

I would also point out the importance of not using the word "fact", because you will be called on it. Now, you claim that it's a "fact" that we have a soul. While there is actually no evidence to suggest we do, you state it's a fact and therefore clearly have those facts to show. Show them.

Can animals adopt a faith regarding eternity?

Have any ever told you they can't?

Meow.

Not only are you religious but you also have idiotic reasoning and comprehension besides being deslusional. Should I believe you are without a soul??? LOL! You are an idiot but more importantly self-deceptive if you believe animals do not have consciousness. Of course they do.

You are breaking the forum rules!

The Jesus myth is just a more modern form of sacrifice, either animal as with ancient Hebrews, or human, as with the Aztecs. It is a sucessful mutation of the sacrifice meme which requires much less economic sacrifice.

It is also the antithesis of Jesus' teaching. Christianity is a pagan death cult.

How does killing anything cover anything? I mean what is it exactly about whacking an animal, a person or a god that forgives man for anything? Who made it so and why? It seems a tad uhh.. worthless. I just don't get it.

If a human did the same thing you'd all call him a weirdo.. Imagine everytime some guys son was naughty the man went out and battered a hedgehog to death. What exact mechanism has turned the beating to death of the hedgehog into forgiveness for the son? Can the father not find a better way with which to forgive his son than to squidge a harmless animal? It's simply ludicrous.. It's almost as bad as demanding that your children snip a bit of their penis off.. Why on earth would you ask such a thing? I mean surely if he didn't want that bit of skin to be there he just wouldn't have created humans with it? This god of the jews/christians is a right fucknut.



Your claim is not corroborated by the bible. If you actually read it you'll see that the only "crime" was that Cain offered fruit. In either case, why would an all-loving god get pissed off because an offering, (of which he has no need of), isn't quite good enough for him? He's like a spoilt child at christmas. Word of advice for god: Be happy with what people give you and say "thank you". It's the 'nice' way of doing things.



Humans are part of the animal kingdom. That's the way it goes - absolutely bloody regardless to your personal protests. The only way to escape that is to kill yourself and then it wont matter, (doing so is not advisable).

I would also point out the importance of not using the word "fact", because you will be called on it. Now, you claim that it's a "fact" that we have a soul. While there is actually no evidence to suggest we do, you state it's a fact and therefore clearly have those facts to show. Show them.



Have any ever told you they can't?

The idea of sacrifice is justice. If Jesus would not have died then there would have been no punishment making God unfair. Hence the need for a sacrifice. To address Cain and Abel good point but if you look at it again it describes Abel's sacrifice and refers to Abel's as "some." One put thought into it while one put little. It appears as though Cain was just doing it to get by does it not? So again it all goes back to the intent. Also why would God settle for whatever He gets. If your idea of God is King then you believe He deserves the best. The animal kingdom comes from a classification system developed by humans. To simply start showing evidence for a soul what classification has any other species developed? So I pose the question to you. What is the difference between us and animals? Suicide is not the only way by the way, if you would have put some thought into it I could just kill everything else. What evidence do you have to say we do not have a soul?

Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

You are a pompous idiot. Just because you can think of a concept does not negate the existence of those that can't. Did you not realize that??

You are breaking the forum rules! Please leave my thread!

The classification system that placed humans as something separate from the animal kingdom is long outdated. It is now well known that we are a kind of ape. We are animals, just very special ones.

The classification system that placed humans as something separate from the animal kingdom is long outdated. It is now well known that we are a kind of ape. We are animals, just very special ones.

What makes us special? Again what separates us. Maybe someone will answer that.

What makes us special? Again what separates us. Maybe someone will answer that.

Our ability to rationalise?

Jan.

Our ability to rationalise?

Jan.

So animals can't rationalize?

So animals can't rationalize?

rationalize;

1. transitive and intransitive verb offer reasonable explanation for something: to attempt to justify behavior normally considered irrational or unacceptable by offering an apparently reasonable explanation

I don't see how they can.

Jan.

Verse 23 answers the question.
23"But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.'

Notice the "but." Did God ask for burnt offerings? Yes. He asked for a lot of things but what was the point? God is addressing the heart. Sacrifice was just a representation of the future Messiah known as Christ. It was a symbol. It was a reminder. God's purpose was not for them to do that and that it, it started with the heart and intent. Actually Noah is not the first. What about Cain an Abel. Abel brought the best while Cain brought some. The point of the story was their view on God. Abel saw God as King and He deserved the best while Cain saw himself greater than God. Which one was God pleased with? These are not contradictions just showing the point of sacrifice and what God wants. The assumtion about the priests eating? They were provided with food. First choice the priests would have had no possible way of eating all the food, plus if that is a reason for offerings then that falls apart because neither Abel, Noah, Isaac, Abraham, Adam nor a bunch of others were priests so obviously it had other motives. To answer about Paul I will get back to you on that because right now I have no answer, however that takes nothing away from the Christ or the cross.

Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><


I appreciate your response, and I know you are a little busy right now, but…

The priests and “all the tribe of Levi” filled their stomachs through the practice of animal sacrifices.

Deuteronomy 18:1-3
1 “The priests, the Levites—all the tribe of Levi—shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and His portion. 2 Therefore they shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the LORD is their inheritance, as He said to them.3 “And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, whether it is bull or sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach.

In Leviticus the people were told that their sacrifices were actually an atonement for sin. But then in Hebrews, Paul teaches that these sacrifices were never an atonement for sin, not a single one of them, and that this is why we need Jesus. Was Paul lying or was God? This looks like a clear contradiction to me.

Leviticus 1:2-4
2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When any one of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of the livestock—of the herd and of the flock.3 ‘If his offering is a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own free will at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the LORD. 4 Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.

Leviticus 4:13-35
13 ‘Now if the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally, and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done something against any of the commandments of the LORD in anything which should not be done, and are guilty; 14 when the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a young bull for the sin, and bring it before the tabernacle of meeting. 15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the LORD. Then the bull shall be killed before the LORD. 16 The anointed priest shall bring some of the bull’s blood to the tabernacle of meeting. 17 Then the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil. 18 And he shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar which is before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of meeting; and he shall pour the remaining blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. 19 He shall take all the fat from it and burn it on the altar. 20 And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. 21 Then he shall carry the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull. It is a sin offering for the assembly. 22 ‘When a ruler has sinned, and done something unintentionally against any of the commandments of the LORD his God in anything which should not be done, and is guilty, 23 or if his sin which he has committed comes to his knowledge, he shall bring as his offering a kid of the goats, a male without blemish. 24 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the goat, and kill it at the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD. It is a sin offering. 25 The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour its blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering. 26 And he shall burn all its fat on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of the peace offering. So the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him. 27 ‘If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally by doing something against any of the commandments of the LORD in anything which ought not to be done, and is guilty, 28 or if his sin which he has committed comes to his knowledge, then he shall bring as his offering a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed. 29 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering. 30 Then the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour all the remaining blood at the base of the altar. 31 He shall remove all its fat, as fat is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offering; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet aroma to the LORD. So the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. 32 ‘If he brings a lamb as his sin offering, he shall bring a female without blemish. 33 Then he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill it as a sin offering at the place where they kill the burnt offering. 34 The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour all the remaining blood at the base of the altar. 35 He shall remove all its fat, as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offering. Then the priest shall burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire to the LORD. So the priest shall make atonement for his sin that he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

In Direct Contrast To…

Hebrews 10:4
4…it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Hebrews 10:11
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

Here is another contradiction. God clearly commanded the nation of Israel to perform the animal sacrifice, and even loved the smell of the sacrifice. Yet according to other passages He has not desired that they do this at all. In the scriptures I have already provided, even David proclaims that God has not required this. And that is the very reason that David gives for not giving God sacrifices himself. Was David then breaking the Law of Moses here or not? David did not say anything like, God does not desire sacrifice but I will give it anyway. Please read the verse again. Please explain this one to me, my friend.

Leviticus 8:20-22
20 And he cut the ram into pieces; and Moses burned the head, the pieces, and the fat. 21 Then he washed the entrails and the legs in water. And Moses burned the whole ram on the altar. It was a burnt sacrifice for a sweet aroma, an offering made by fire to the LORD, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Thank You!

rationalize;

1. transitive and intransitive verb offer reasonable explanation for something: to attempt to justify behavior normally considered irrational or unacceptable by offering an apparently reasonable explanation

I don't see how they can.

Jan.

So why do we have that ability and they don't?

So why do we have that ability and they don't?

Because we are 'human'? Would be the first answer. As to why humans have that ability, depends on your world view, but the enquiry in and of itself, seems exclusive to humans, which could suggest the seeds of a reason.

Jan.

Because we are 'human'? Would be the first answer. As to why humans have that ability, depends on your world view, but the enquiry in and of itself, seems exclusive to humans, which could suggest the seeds of a reason.

Jan.

The question was to you. What is your answer?

We have large brains, culture, language.

We have large brains, culture, language.

Why though?

Because we supposedly morphed from a tree shrew ancestor?

We have large brains, culture, language.


I think it is becuase humans can use symbols and animals can not. Although animals can be trained to mimick human behavior, I don't think they would die for a country or belief.

Meow.

I expected nothing more from you. I shall take that as a no.


The idea of sacrifice is justice.

Why? How does killing a harmless goat equate to justice?

If Jesus would not have died then there would have been no punishment making God unfair.

The rebuttal to this is dependant upon how you view jesus. Was jesus god? If you say yes please take into account that no death occured, (unless you are willing to state that for 3 whole days there was no such thing as god). In either case there was still no death given that after 3 days jesus was up and walking. If you knew in 3 days time you would be fine, how much of a sacrifice, (other than none), is dying right now? Man I'd do it as a party trick on weekends. If I knew I'd be up and walking 3 days later, my death right now becomes utterly meaningless. It's not a "sacrifice", it's a joke, a bar-room trick.

The only way it is a sacrifice is if, (like your claim concerning animals), there is nothing that lives after, there is nothing that comes back to life.

Please, I'm begging.. try to refute that.

In this instance the sacrifice of a goat is more meanigful. In line with your way of thinking a goat never comes back to life again, never revives or never finds its way to a heaven. In saying, the sacrifice of a goat is a real sacrifice. No such thing can be said of a being that came back to life 3 days later.

In either case, how would the death of god equate to forgiveness? What does the death of anything accomplish and how?

Let's look at the only supportable way: god decided that the only way to forgive people for being the way that he created them to be is to kill things. I'm sorry, someone thinks that's sane?

To address Cain and Abel good point but if you look at it again it describes Abel's sacrifice and refers to Abel's as "some." One put thought into it while one put little.

I hate to be the one to point it out, but "some", "none", or "everything" would be entirely inconsequential to an all-loving, omnipotent being. It would want for nothing and wouldn't frankly give two droplets of rat piss whether you offered it one apple or a gazillion. You need to ask yourself right now what kind of a god would have a go at you for offering less than it wanted. How many apples must you offer? Think about it for a minute.. Are a million apples enough? How do you know? Maybe Cain offered 1 million apples.. you just can't say. So what then? Your entire life is at the mercy of a beings wants? Where is the value in that? If you don't offer enough would you honestly consider yourself as having done wrong? Think about it for a moment.. Think about what your god demands and whether you can perceive any value in it. But, you say to yourself, I am a humble burger cooker on £3 an hour.. can I afford to give it all to the sky being? No... and then you get rebuked for it? Why my friend, a human acted like that I'd beat the ever living shit out of him. You're not a god, you're a human.. who is going to fault you for being human? And if they made you human, who are they to rebuke you?

It appears as though Cain was just doing it to get by does it not?

If god was all loving it wouldnt make the slightest bit of difference. Cain could have offered god a half eaten cookie or king kongs first dump of the day and god would still have a smile on his face. You dare try and rebuke humans for "doing it to get by"? Please..

Also why would God settle for whatever He gets

The scary question is: why wouldn't he? Think about it...

If your idea of God is King then you believe He deserves the best.

What is he, a fucking woman? My wife "deserves the best", as do my kids.. An all loving being must come second to that... He has no "want" for anything, no "need" for anything..

My wife and kids on the other hand need and want a lot. I was "created" to serve need more than anything else. As a result of that, the "needs" of my family outweigh that of a god that "needs" nothing. It has no need for anything, including love or worship or dead animals or fruit, or a weekends prayer... It has no need whatsoever. There is no viable reason that it does anything.. the same cannot be said of humans. We "need" food, we "need" water, we "need" etc etc etc, god does not. If you dispute this, you turn your god nothing more than a human and therefore not worthy of attention.

Now, I don't need my child to kill an animal, (or human/or god), to be forgiven and thus neither does an all loving, omnipotent entity. If it does then I am better than it, I am above and beyond it.

Please, try to dispute this..

The animal kingdom comes from a classification system developed by humans

And, in accordance with my knowledge, we are all humans here, the only plausible answer is that jesus was an animal.

To simply start showing evidence for a soul what classification has any other species developed?

Apologies, I don't understand your question. First you would have to define and show evidence for a soul before asking if animals show evidence of a soul. Duh.

So I pose the question to you. What is the difference between us and animals?

Not many, and it depends on which.

Do take into account that your god wanted you to remain an animal instead of being like [one of them]. Until tempted by the snake you didn't even know you were naked and no, you didn't have any morals, (which is what I'm quite sure is the key in your question). Think about that for a while..

Suicide is not the only way by the way, if you would have put some thought into it I could just kill everything else.

There are animals that commit suicide. There are also animals that kill, or try to, kill everything. But while we're on the subject, I bet you couldn't. You'd die to something you can't even see before making good on that bet. Oh you'd beg others to make a gun for you, ah yes, we, like apes, otters etc are a species that use tools. Without them you are weaker than pretty much everything else.

What evidence do you have to say we do not have a soul?

You made the claim, and even stated it was a fact.. The onus is on you son, not me.

We have large brains because early pre humans happened to live in conditions that favored them. They gave a survival advantage to our species. We were able to take advantage of increased reasoning power due to an upright walking position that allowed us to make use of our very flexible and nimble hands and arms.

While our abilities are largely unmatched in nature, some animals do come close. Gorillas can actually learn human sign language.



The Christian death cult emerged from a tradition of sacrifice, but also the scape goat. This was a ritual in Jewish (perhaps pre-Jewish) society where an animal symbolically took on all the sins and misfortune of the village. Then it was driven out or killed. It's a ritual cleansing, not unlike the baptism.

No, it's a life cult, eternal life with the Creator.

I call it that because you are disproportionally obsessed with Jesus' death, as opposed to his teachings.

His physical death is a major issue here, His teachings are not under fire, very interesting.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

Yo, please offer something of value or just don't say anything at all.

For the second time though.. Are you claiming that god died? Yes or no?

Almost no one questions the beauty of His teachings, and yet, they question that He ever existed on Earth, very strange.

He physically died, no big deal for the Creator to resurrect, don't you agree?

Almost no one questions the beauty of His teachings, and yet, they question that He ever existed on Earth, very strange.

I don't think the same people that question his existence are very much appreciative of his teaching. I also think that Christianity, with it's perversion of the teachings is not representative of the true spirit of Jesus.

He physically died, no big deal for the Creator to resurrect, don't you agree?

He can resurrect himself.

Almost no one questions the beauty of His teachings,

His 'teachings' are questioned a lot actually, and his 'teachings' as instructed by his apostles;

For instance - that he permits no woman to teach or have authority over men - something that has been protested and fought over for millennia, only being granted against god recently. There are many examples and I shall do the right thing and point them out if you so choose.

I would ask in the meantime that you refrain from making bold statements that mean nothing, and have zero support.

Of course you're right in saying that very few question whether a man should kill another - they felt the same long before jesus, the jews or the jewish god existed - and thus very few would have issue with them. That is in itself rather meaningless.

Bizarrely enough it's not only meat, but cereal, wine, bread etc.

It just hit me, perhaps this is not really that bizarre at all. I mean, if I were a priest I would want or even need a well rounded complete diet. I would want and need other things to eat besides just the finest meat in the land, wouldn't you? I mean, why quit with just one item, when you have such a magnificent self serving system of fear already set up and working perfectly to bring you the best of virtually everything, even virgins? (Yes they really did do this!) Sky's the limit baby!

(P.S. I could never really treat people this way myself.)

Just my crazy thoughts! But who knows?

I got the first part about women's authority (or lack thereof), but the rest made no sense.

He physically died, no big deal for the Creator to resurrect, don't you agree?

A common theme among ancient religions (Osiris).

It just hit me, perhaps this is not really that bizarre at all. I mean, if I were a priest I would want or even need a well rounded complete diet. I would want and need other things to eat besides just the finest meat in the land, wouldn't you? I mean, why quit with just one item, when you have such a magnificent self serving system of fear already set up and working perfectly to bring you the best of virtually everything, even virgins? (Yes they really did do this!) Sky's the limit baby!

Absolutely, but we're not talking priests here - we're talking god. The very second the religious denigrate the bible as written by greedy men the very second every single mention of god becomes worthless. god inspired, god written - or written by a bunch of greedy mofo's out for their own personal gain? They simply cannot have it both ways, (although they try when caught out). They make a mockery of the text, a mockery of their own god - who seemingly does a good enough job all by itself to not need human intervention.

What bothers me most is that anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see exactly who the bible is written by. Who do you think the food, the gold, the gems, the laws serve? You have rightly pointed out the answer already, and yet the religious lower the very value of their own god by claiming it is him. You point out the fundamental flaws with such a notion and they soon forget the discussion ever existed - unwavering in their daft belief that a god that seeks sacrifice, seeks gold, worship and for you to chop a bit of your willy off is worth caring about in the first place.

So these poor old bastards living life in the desert only to face a god that gives them: the burnt offering, the cereal offering, the sin offering, the reparation opffering, and the communion offering. Fuck, these people barely had time to sleep with all the damn animals they were killing to appease a god that people nowadays claim would want for and need nothing. And we're not even talking your average normal animal but the best of the best.. They weren't even allowed to have bruised testicles.. How over the top is that? "It's a pair of testicles god, get the fuck over it". No siree, these poor buggers annihilating perfectly testicled animals and for what? There is no arguable reason why a god would give two shits about a dead cow and it's bollocks. The religious support it.. it's idiocy.

*end rant* :D

I got the first part about women's authority (or lack thereof), but the rest made no sense

And by the end of tomorrow's English lesson you'll understand the rest.. 0_o

I thought they ended up consuming these animals themselves, kind of a BBQ party for God. In this sense it would be more like the Native American potlatch, that served the function of re-distributing excess wealth.

Leviticus 10:12 goes into the portions given to the priests. Just before that it states that to avoid death nobody, (including all descendants - which would surely mean everyone), are allowed to drink wine. I just had a bottle.. should I be worried?

Why? How does killing a harmless goat equate to justice?

It doesn't. Again intent.



The rebuttal to this is dependant upon how you view jesus. Was jesus god? If you say yes please take into account that no death occured, (unless you are willing to state that for 3 whole days there was no such thing as god). In either case there was still no death given that after 3 days jesus was up and walking. If you knew in 3 days time you would be fine, how much of a sacrifice, (other than none), is dying right now? Man I'd do it as a party trick on weekends. If I knew I'd be up and walking 3 days later, my death right now becomes utterly meaningless. It's not a "sacrifice", it's a joke, a bar-room trick.

Who says He had to stay dead to make it a sacrifice. If I could raise from the dead on command I would do that too. I would also be a one man army.

The only way it is a sacrifice is if, (like your claim concerning animals), there is nothing that lives after, there is nothing that comes back to life.

Negative.

In this instance the sacrifice of a goat is more meanigful. In line with your way of thinking a goat never comes back to life again, never revives or never finds its way to a heaven. In saying, the sacrifice of a goat is a real sacrifice. No such thing can be said of a being that came back to life 3 days later.

Jesus' body was dead. Again the whole soul thing.

In either case, how would the death of god equate to forgiveness? What does the death of anything accomplish and how?

PUNISHMENT HAD TO BE CARRIED OUT. Else God would be unjust and a liar.

Let's look at the only supportable way: god decided that the only way to forgive people for being the way that he created them to be is to kill things. I'm sorry, someone thinks that's sane?

God did not create us to be evil. Again your view on God.

I hate to be the one to point it out, but "some", "none", or "everything" would be entirely inconsequential to an all-loving, omnipotent being. It would want for nothing and wouldn't frankly give two droplets of rat piss whether you offered it one apple or a gazillion. You need to ask yourself right now what kind of a god would have a go at you for offering less than it wanted. How many apples must you offer? Think about it for a minute.. Are a million apples enough? How do you know? Maybe Cain offered 1 million apples.. you just can't say. So what then? Your entire life is at the mercy of a beings wants? Where is the value in that? If you don't offer enough would you honestly consider yourself as having done wrong? Think about it for a moment.. Think about what your god demands and whether you can perceive any value in it. But, you say to yourself, I am a humble burger cooker on £3 an hour.. can I afford to give it all to the sky being? No... and then you get rebuked for it? Why my friend, a human acted like that I'd beat the ever living shit out of him. You're not a god, you're a human.. who is going to fault you for being human? And if they made you human, who are they to rebuke you?

"Some" indicated quality. Again you said the only crime was fruit. I responded sacrifice is based on intent and obedience.

If god was all loving it wouldnt make the slightest bit of difference. Cain could have offered god a half eaten cookie or king kongs first dump of the day and god would still have a smile on his face. You dare try and rebuke humans for "doing it to get by"? Please..

Your view on God. Well hopefully your wife does not give you dump for a present. Rebuke humans, no, just Cain in this case.

What is he, a fucking woman? My wife "deserves the best", as do my kids.. An all loving being must come second to that... He has no "want" for anything, no "need" for anything..

Again your view on God changes that.

My wife and kids on the other hand need and want a lot. I was "created" to serve need more than anything else. As a result of that, the "needs" of my family outweigh that of a god that "needs" nothing. It has no need for anything, including love or worship or dead animals or fruit, or a weekends prayer... It has no need whatsoever. There is no viable reason that it does anything.. the same cannot be said of humans. We "need" food, we "need" water, we "need" etc etc etc, god does not. If you dispute this, you turn your god nothing more than a human and therefore not worthy of attention.

God does not need anything from us. He wants some things though. Again your view on God.

Now, I don't need my child to kill an animal, (or human/or god), to be forgiven and thus neither does an all loving, omnipotent entity. If it does then I am better than it, I am above and beyond it.

Well atleast you have some moral obligation.

Apologies, I don't understand your question. First you would have to define and show evidence for a soul before asking if animals show evidence of a soul. Duh.

What classification system have animals come up with?

Do take into account that your god wanted you to remain an animal instead of being like [one of them]. Until tempted by the snake you didn't even know you were naked and no, you didn't have any morals, (which is what I'm quite sure is the key in your question). Think about that for a while..

No morals? How so?

There are animals that commit suicide. There are also animals that kill, or try to, kill everything. But while we're on the subject, I bet you couldn't. You'd die to something you can't even see before making good on that bet. Oh you'd beg others to make a gun for you, ah yes, we, like apes, otters etc are a species that use tools. Without them you are weaker than pretty much everything else.

That was sarcasm from a misunderstanding. You would bet? Would you actually risk that, I mean wouldnt you rather have some scientific proof first?

[QUOTE}You made the claim, and even stated it was a fact.. The onus is on you son, not me.[/QUOTE]

Oh ok I figured you would understand that if no evidence is given AGAINST something then that becomes evidence FOR something. One proof is you can not disprove it. Rather than asking me to prove it you would have already disproven it. Unless you want to lead me a certain train of thought.

Warrior61:

Please respond to Post #46 when you have a few minutes.

Sorry to hear about your mono!

Take care of yourself, and get plenty of rest!

Who says He had to stay dead to make it a sacrifice. If I could raise from the dead on command I would do that too. I would also be a one man army.

If I offered to kill myself so that you could live, (having set those rules), while then being god - and thus, (as no theist would dispute), can never ever ever die - not for one nanosecond, the gesture is an empty one. Nothing has been sacrificed, he might as well have just said "you're all forgiven" and be done with it. The farce of pretend suicide is pointless and worthless.

Negative.

Giving a pointless one word response is not an argument to anything. Try harder.

Jesus' body was dead.

In this instance 'was' would be the operative word. Three days after this supposed sacrifice, that very same dead body was up and walking around. No 'sacrifice' was actually made - the farce of the three day pretend god death was a complete and utter waste of godly effort. Again, better to just say "you're all forgiven" and done with it.. However, here is the problem with that:

People are generally stupid. Humans 'need' to see something in order to believe it - (yes, even then people required evidence). As such some hippy jew saying "you're all forgiven" could never be sufficient. It required a staged sacrifice so humans could accept it. god would have no choice but to put on a show for the people - and that came in the form of a suicide. Had any of these people any reasoning ability they would come to the conclusion that god cannot die and thus the sacrifice must be staged in order to please them and their needs, and isn't a "real" sacrifice of anything. Three days of pretend death should be adequate before god is back up in his home sniffing burning cow flesh.

In either case it comes right back to the conclusion that the sacrifice was not a sacrifice and god never ever ever died.. not for a millionth of a nanosecond.

PUNISHMENT HAD TO BE CARRIED OUT

Punishment for what? Being human? Further to which, how is god pretending to kill himself or the death of cows a punishment?

God did not create us to be evil. Again your view on God.

That's your view on god. We can keep that up all year long if you like, it's pointless. At the end of the day it always comes down to personal views. How about telling me something I don't know?

Everything has a 'nature'. People often talk about god's nature, a tigers nature etc.. This includes humans.. It is in our nature to be what we are etc. We did not create those things within ourselves. The very nature of satan is, according to christians, to be evil, to possess people etc.. It cannot be said that satan created his own nature, but that the god that created him created his nature.

"Some" indicated quality. Again you said the only crime was fruit.

He could have offered a rotten banana or nothing at all.. There is no crime in not giving presents to a sky fairy that has no need of them. What is god going to do with a banana whether it's the tastiest in the world or the most rotten? Bugger all. What value does this banana provide? What is god lacking in his life where he'd even care that mere humans bother with such mundane activity as to give him worldly goods? "Here's £10 god".. What's he gonna do with it? Go on a shopping spree at poundbusters?

Your view on God.

Duh.

Well hopefully your wife does not give you dump for a present.

What my wife has to do with this I'll never know, but suffice it to say it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if she got me nothing at all, ever. She loves me, I love her.. That's all there is to it. You theists of all people should understand that - how often you talk about material possessions being evil or bad etc etc and that love is where it's at - and yet here you are trying to justify your gods need for material possessions from humans even though he spent all that time bad mouthing material possessions.

I am seemingly one step closer than you are and god is. My wife and I have a bond.. we need for nothing material, just our love for each other. Your god wants a bowl of apples and they best be DAMN good apples or he'll have a go at you. It's pathetic.

Rebuke humans, no, just Cain in this case.

Aww, poor little goddy-woddy, his present wasn't good enough :(

God does not need anything from us. He wants some things though.

To 'want' is to lack. Try to dispute it.

Well atleast you have some moral obligation.

Is this where we thank the snake for tempting man to eat the fruit that gave us those morals?

What classification system have animals come up with?

Of what relevance is that?

No morals? How so?

Read your bible. Until they had eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they had no knowledge of good or evil - and thus can do anything without moral consequence. Adam could have dropped his pants and piddled in god's face without batting an eyelid - because he had no understanding of good and evil. He also would have no way of knowing whether to listen to the snake or to god - it would be meaningless because he wouldn't be able to understand that one is good and one is evil. Without knowing good and evil there can be no morals.

You would bet? Would you actually risk that, I mean wouldnt you rather have some scientific proof first?

There is ample evidence to suggest that a large majority of animals would kill you before you managed to kill them. I'm trying to earn some money in the meantime, is that ok with you?

Oh ok I figured you would understand that if no evidence is given AGAINST something then that becomes evidence FOR something.

Stop being silly. If you came up to me and claimed that leprechauns existed I would naturally ask you to provide evidence. You can't turn round and ask me to provide evidence that they don't, that's blithering idiocy. My lack of evidence against the existence of leprechauns does not even begin to become evidence for their existence. Stop being so bloody naive.

One proof is you can not disprove it.

Again, stop being so bloody naive.

Now.. YOU made a claim, YOU claimed it was a fact. Back up YOUR claims.

If I offered to kill myself so that you could live, (having set those rules), while then being god - and thus, (as no theist would dispute), can never ever ever die - not for one nanosecond, the gesture is an empty one. Nothing has been sacrificed, he might as well have just said "you're all forgiven" and be done with it. The farce of pretend suicide is pointless and worthless.

The body of Jesus(God) was dead. Remember I believe in the incarnation. I believe if no "punishment" then we would have never learned our lesson.

Giving a pointless one word response is not an argument to anything. Try harder.

My purpose in this debate is to explain. I can not help that you do not understand. I am trying and I understand what you are saying.


In this instance 'was' would be the operative word. Three days after this supposed sacrifice, that very same dead body was up and walking around. No 'sacrifice' was actually made - the farce of the three day pretend god death was a complete and utter waste of godly effort. Again, better to just say "you're all forgiven" and done with it.. However, here is the problem with that:

People are generally stupid. Humans 'need' to see something in order to believe it - (yes, even then people required evidence). As such some hippy jew saying "you're all forgiven" could never be sufficient. It required a staged sacrifice so humans could accept it. god would have no choice but to put on a show for the people - and that came in the form of a suicide. Had any of these people any reasoning ability they would come to the conclusion that god cannot die and thus the sacrifice must be staged in order to please them and their needs, and isn't a "real" sacrifice of anything. Three days of pretend death should be adequate before god is back up in his home sniffing burning cow flesh.

In either case it comes right back to the conclusion that the sacrifice was not a sacrifice and god never ever ever died.. not for a millionth of a nanosecond.

How did He not die?

Beng human? Further to which, how is god pretending to kill himself or the death of cows a punishment?

For disobeying God. He created us with "moral choice."

That's your view on god. We can keep that up all year long if you like, it's pointless. At the end of the day it always comes down to personal views. How about telling me something I don't know?

I see God as Saviour and King so of course I am going to obey Him. My view on God makes my actions make sense.

Everything has a 'nature'. People often talk about god's nature, a tigers nature etc.. This includes humans.. It is in our nature to be what we are etc. We did not create those things within ourselves. The very nature of satan is, according to christians, to be evil, to possess people etc.. It cannot be said that satan created his own nature, but that the god that created him created his nature.

Satan chooses to sin. We choose to sin. God's nature doesnt allow Him to sin.

He could have offered a rotten banana or nothing at all.. There is no crime in not giving presents to a sky fairy that has no need of them. What is god going to do with a banana whether it's the tastiest in the world or the most rotten? Bugger all. What value does this banana provide? What is god lacking in his life where he'd even care that mere humans bother with such mundane activity as to give him worldly goods? "Here's £10 god".. What's he gonna do with it? Go on a shopping spree at poundbusters?

You brought it up I just explained. Obviously something was wrong with the offering. It is symbolic. It is how we show our love, or how they did any way.

Duh.

Giving a pointless one word response is not an argument to anything. Try harder.

What my wife has to do with this I'll never know, but suffice it to say it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if she got me nothing at all, ever. She loves me, I love her.. That's all there is to it. You theists of all people should understand that - how often you talk about material possessions being evil or bad etc etc and that love is where it's at - and yet here you are trying to justify your gods need for material possessions from humans even though he spent all that time bad mouthing material possessions.

You brought her up. How do you know she loves you?

I am seemingly one step closer than you are and god is. My wife and I have a bond.. we need for nothing material, just our love for each other. Your god wants a bowl of apples and they best be DAMN good apples or he'll have a go at you. It's pathetic.

Need and want are different. It was obedience. I am trying to explain.

Aww, poor little goddy-woddy, his present wasn't good enough :(

Finally you see. It wasn't, hence the unacceptance.

To 'want' is to lack. Try to dispute it.

No need to dispute I agree. God doesn't need anything from us. He does want us to love Him.

Is this where we thank the snake for tempting man to eat the fruit that gave us those morals?

No this is where we stop and wonder why we would even want to do good.

Of what relevance is that?

You said.Apologies, I don't understand your question. First you would have to define and show evidence for a soul before asking if animals show evidence of a soul. Duh.

I restated my question. I asked why doesn't an animal come up with a classification system? Showing a difference between humans and animals.

Read your bible. Until they had eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they had no knowledge of good or evil - and thus can do anything without moral consequence. Adam could have dropped his pants and piddled in god's face without batting an eyelid - because he had no understanding of good and evil. He also would have no way of knowing whether to listen to the snake or to god - it would be meaningless because he wouldn't be able to understand that one is good and one is evil. Without knowing good and evil there can be no morals.

Oh I am aware of that. They only knew good, because for a while there thats all they did. Me asking doesn't mean I don't know it just helps me in explaining. This whole typing thing loses the actual emphasis that speaking can give.

There is ample evidence to suggest that a large majority of animals would kill you before you managed to kill them. I'm trying to earn some money in the meantime, is that ok with you?

That was a good one.:D

Stop being silly. If you came up to me and claimed that leprechauns existed I would naturally ask you to provide evidence. You can't turn round and ask me to provide evidence that they don't, that's blithering idiocy. My lack of evidence against the existence of leprechauns does not even begin to become evidence for their existence. Stop being so bloody naive.

Just because I say something doesn't mean I am obligated to explain. I see no need in explaining that now. Remember we are talking about sacrifice. I made a post to explain.

Again, stop being so bloody naive.

Make me.

Now.. YOU made a claim, YOU claimed it was a fact. Back up YOUR claims.

Maybe I will, Maybe I won't.

Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

Warrior61:

Please respond to Post #46 when you have a few minutes.

Sorry to hear about your mono!

Take care of yourself, and get plenty of rest!

Sorry for taking so long. Thanks. So here is my response.

I appreciate your response, and I know you are a little busy right now, but…

The priests and “all the tribe of Levi” filled their stomachs through the practice of animal sacrifices.

Deuteronomy 18:1-3
1 “The priests, the Levites—all the tribe of Levi—shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and His portion. 2 Therefore they shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the LORD is their inheritance, as He said to them.3 “And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, whether it is bull or sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach.

In Leviticus the people were told that their sacrifices were actually an atonement for sin. But then in Hebrews, Paul teaches that these sacrifices were never an atonement for sin, not a single one of them, and that this is why we need Jesus. Was Paul lying or was God? This looks like a clear contradiction to me.

Leviticus 1:2-4
2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When any one of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of the livestock—of the herd and of the flock.3 ‘If his offering is a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own free will at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the LORD. 4 Then he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.

Leviticus 4:13-35
13 ‘Now if the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally, and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done something against any of the commandments of the LORD in anything which should not be done, and are guilty; 14 when the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a young bull for the sin, and bring it before the tabernacle of meeting. 15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the LORD. Then the bull shall be killed before the LORD. 16 The anointed priest shall bring some of the bull’s blood to the tabernacle of meeting. 17 Then the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil. 18 And he shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar which is before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of meeting; and he shall pour the remaining blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. 19 He shall take all the fat from it and burn it on the altar. 20 And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. 21 Then he shall carry the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull. It is a sin offering for the assembly. 22 ‘When a ruler has sinned, and done something unintentionally against any of the commandments of the LORD his God in anything which should not be done, and is guilty, 23 or if his sin which he has committed comes to his knowledge, he shall bring as his offering a kid of the goats, a male without blemish. 24 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the goat, and kill it at the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD. It is a sin offering. 25 The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour its blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering. 26 And he shall burn all its fat on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of the peace offering. So the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him. 27 ‘If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally by doing something against any of the commandments of the LORD in anything which ought not to be done, and is guilty, 28 or if his sin which he has committed comes to his knowledge, then he shall bring as his offering a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed. 29 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering. 30 Then the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour all the remaining blood at the base of the altar. 31 He shall remove all its fat, as fat is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offering; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet aroma to the LORD. So the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. 32 ‘If he brings a lamb as his sin offering, he shall bring a female without blemish. 33 Then he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill it as a sin offering at the place where they kill the burnt offering. 34 The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour all the remaining blood at the base of the altar. 35 He shall remove all its fat, as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offering. Then the priest shall burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire to the LORD. So the priest shall make atonement for his sin that he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

In Direct Contrast To…

Hebrews 10:4
4…it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Hebrews 10:11
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

I see where it appears to be condradiction. The sacrifices are symbolic of Jesus. The explanation is these were done out of obedience and faith with the understanding that God would reconcile them back to Him.

Here is another contradiction. God clearly commanded the nation of Israel to perform the animal sacrifice, and even loved the smell of the sacrifice. Yet according to other passages He has not desired that they do this at all. In the scriptures I have already provided, even David proclaims that God has not required this. And that is the very reason that David gives for not giving God sacrifices himself. Was David then breaking the Law of Moses here or not? David did not say anything like, God does not desire sacrifice but I will give it anyway. Please read the verse again. Please explain this one to me, my friend.

David didn't give a sacrifice?

Leviticus 8:20-22
20 And he cut the ram into pieces; and Moses burned the head, the pieces, and the fat. 21 Then he washed the entrails and the legs in water. And Moses burned the whole ram on the altar. It was a burnt sacrifice for a sweet aroma, an offering made by fire to the LORD, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Thank You!

This is God delighting in obedience. Lets be honest. We both agree that an animal can't take the weight of sin. This is all symbolic. Like we were debating on sticking to the argument and it was brought up how our minds wander off, well this helped keep their minds on God. Good question though. I really never hashed this out to this extent. Again sorry for the tardiness on responding. This whole mono thing is kicking my tail. Oh and the thing about Paul, I never really noticed that. Here is the explanation of that. Paul said to the Jew I am a Jew and to the Gentile I am a Gentile. It was a cultural thing. Again thanks for your comments and I appreciate your attitude towards my ignorance on some subjects. The others just think that degrading remarks help get their point across. I have to be honest though some of these guys can come up with some awesome comebacks. Sorry I am impressed with that.

Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

The body of Jesus(God) was dead.

The body was dead? From biblical accounts the 'body' was up and walking about 3 days later. Needless to say, up and walking about do not equal dead.

When god had it as part of his rules to sacrifice animals, did any of those animals get up and walk around 3 days later? It's unlikely..

I believe if no "punishment" then we would have never learned our lesson.

A) You still haven't managed to show how the pretend sacrifice of god is a "punishment"

B) What lesson has man learnt from it exactly?

My purpose in this debate is to explain. I can not help that you do not understand.

While your claim to my lack of understanding is cute, it's also unfounded. Of course it's impossible for you to see what I'm saying due to the blind belief and worship you have for the being we're currently discussing.

How did He not die?

Are you saying that for three days there was no such thing as god?

For disobeying God. He created us with "moral choice."

Naughty naughty, you haven't been reading your bible. He didn't create us with moral choice, we had to get that from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Satan chooses to sin. We choose to sin. God's nature doesnt allow Him to sin.

It's all about perspective.. You can choose to kill a man and then have a world of theists label it a sin. god can kill billions of men and theists try to justify it. They are both the same thing, (sin if you believe killing is a sin, and not sin if you believe killing isn't a sin), you just excuse one. god sinned constantly, you just label it as something else.

Obviously something was wrong with the offering. It is symbolic. It is how we show our love, or how they did any way.

I love when theists can't argue a case that the "it's symbolic, not real" card pops up. However it's not going to make a difference.. To rebuke a person because he's not loving you enough is equally pathetic.

Giving a pointless one word response is not an argument to anything.

Indeed it isn't. "Duh" however was not an argument to begin with..

You brought her up. How do you know she loves you?

I brought my wife up? Not really, no. If you got confused and we're now talking about my daughter then fine. However, whether she loves me or not is her business - and hardly something I can rebuke her for. If I was to get what I 'want', she'd be showering me with kisses and hugs all day long - but the fact that she doesn't is not justification for me to tell her [symbolically] that her fruit offering sucks ass. Nor would I actually "punish" her by suiciding myself thinking that would somehow teach her a lesson. I had a friend that did kill himself because a girl would not reciprocate the love he felt for her. He did not kill himself due to want, but due to need. It is safe to say, given the biblical text, that god does not want, he needs - to an obsessive level, and that is never healthy.

Need and want are different. It was obedience. I am trying to explain.

They are different, as explained above. Killing yourself, rebuking those that don't show you love etc are signs of need, not want. I want my daughter to shower me with hugs and kisses all day long, I don't need her to and thus don't punish her when she doesn't.

Finally you see. It wasn't, hence the unacceptance.

Hence if it was unacceptable then it comes down to need not want. Try and dispute that.

God doesn't need anything from us. He does want us to love Him.

Wrong, as explained above.

No this is where we stop and wonder why we would even want to do good.

From a biblical perspective because god needs us to act as he tells us to or we burn.

From a realistic perspective being good helps yourself, (i.e if you went round telling everyone to drop dead and doing nothing but bad then you wont get very far with your own needs). Being 'good' is self-serving. If you're nice to your wife you get laid. If you're not nice you get the sofa. It's quite simple.

I asked why doesn't an animal come up with a classification system? Showing a difference between humans and animals.

They are unable to write.

But it is of no consequence to anything. From a human classification jesus was an animal, as are we all.

They only knew good

A) This is not supported by biblical text.

B) If they only knew good then any action that was bad wouldn't be their fault, (you cannot argue that given your own statement above). They only know good, they have no idea what bad is - and thus anything they do that is bad isn't bad to them, because they don't even know what bad is - until they eat from the tree that gives them that knowledge by which time it's too late.

Just because I say something doesn't mean I am obligated to explain.

Aww, a convenient escape clause. How sweet.

God's nature doesnt allow Him to sin.


Warrior61<><

Not true! Yahwehs' actions throughout the bible prove otherwise.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can read of the horrorific atrocities and actions of the god of the bible and actually believe this could be the nature of the god of the universe. Lessons of sin and clean living and righteousness coming from this dark depiction of god are a complete joke.

For so many christians to label other religions as "satanic" or evil is just plain ignorant considering the great majority don't even take the time to research other beliefs. When I heard Franklin Graham once mention in one of his TV crusades that the ancient egyptians had an evil religous system I almost fell off my chair in laughter. I'll bet he has never read any of their mythical stories. I have, and there is nowhere near the level of violence and evil of the bible.

I know, I know...all these actions committed by the god of the bible were for a good reason and because he is god we have no right to question these things...:eek:

Assuming the Bible is true, don't you think it's good that the Messiah will return to make the world a peaceful place again?

Assuming the Bible is true, don't you think it's good that the Messiah will return to make the world a peaceful place again?

Assuming the bible is true don't you think god happily letting satan loose to cause utter havoc upon mankind for 1000 years is a tad nasty? Do you not also think that sending angels and horsemen to destroy the universe is equally evil all because some people don't believe in him or acted in a manner typical of humans to have done since the day of their creation?

Assuming the bible is true wouldn't you consider the annihilation of every man, woman, child and animal as a tad.. mean?

Satan is released for a short time at the end of the thousand year rule of Christ on this Earth, based in Jerusalem, which begins after Armageddon, and ends with the creation of the new Heavens and Earth.

So you don't favor Christ's return to establish peace on Earth for a thousand years?

So you don't favor Christ's return to establish peace on Earth for a thousand years?

How is that going to be accomplished exactly?

For millennia you theists have waffled on about 'choice' and 'free will' but if jesus comes and forces people to be at peace then they no longer have free will.. And of course, as revelations shows, the only way to get to that peace you envision is for the death and annihilation of everyone that disagrees with you/doesn't believe in god etc. As they say; "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity".. and yet that's exactly what it comes down to.. Kill everyone that disagrees.

The question here is.. why bother in the first place? Why not create this jerusalem made out of gold and gems instead of camel poo and just have a bunch of subserviant peaceful people without wasting all this time making people that aren't peaceful just to annihilate them and end up with a place full of peaceful people? It seems.. well, plain bloody stupid.

The sacrifices are symbolic of Jesus. The explanation is these were done out of obedience and faith with the understanding that God would reconcile them back to Him.

Please show me where it states that they understood this idea in the Old Testament, according to the Old Testament Law.

David didn't give a sacrifice?

According to Psalm 51:16, no he did not. "For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it” So, was he breaking the Law of Moses here by not giving the sacrifice, or not?

Psalm 51:15-17
15 O Lord, open my lips,
That my mouth may declare Your praise.
16 For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

But then according to 1 Chronicles, yes he did give a sacrifice. Now, did he do this here because he thought that this would please God? But, I thought he just said above that it would not please God? This is just a little confusing!

1 Chronicles 21:27-29
27 Then the LORD spoke to the angel, and he put his sword back into its sheath. 28 At that time, when David saw that the LORD had answered him on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, he offered sacrifices there. 29 The tabernacle of the LORD, which Moses had made in the desert, and the altar of burnt offering were at that time on the high place at Gibeon.


Oh and the thing about Paul, I never really noticed that. Here is the explanation of that. Paul said to the Jew I am a Jew and to the Gentile I am a Gentile. It was a cultural thing.

What are you saying here exactly?

If Paul took part in this sacrifice then he was either doing it in agreement or in disagreement with it. If he did this in agreement, then he must have believed that he still needed the animal sacrifice for sin even though he already was covered by the sacrifice of Christ. This cannot be the case! Right?

But if he was in disagreement, then by participating in it Paul would have appeared to be giving his approval of it, at least, in all the minds of those who witnessed him. And, he would have thus been deliberately deceiving everyone around him. He would have been trying to fool the very people he was trying to save?

If I were to join a Mormon church and participate in their rituals, without really believing in them I would be lying to everyone who witnessed me. That would be false, deceitful, and immoral. How is Paul different?

Why is it moral for Paul to try and reach people for Jesus by deceit? Does this end justify lying?

Perhaps you have a third option?

Take Care!

The body was dead? From biblical accounts the 'body' was up and walking about 3 days later. Needless to say, up and walking about do not equal dead.

Death: The end of physical life. The point where your soul leaves your body. This thread was the explanation of the Bible and what it says on sacrifice so in this case I have the luxury of using scripture for authority for my argument. Again there is no where in the Bible that says the sacrifice had to stay dead. Plus I believe in the ressurection of the dead which wouldn't be possible without Christ ressurecting from the dead, or conquering the grave. The sacrifice was through when Jesus said "It is finished." Get it, finished.

When god had it as part of his rules to sacrifice animals, did any of those animals get up and walk around 3 days later? It's unlikely..

I don't understand where you are coming from on this one.

A) You still haven't managed to show how the pretend sacrifice of god is a "punishment"

B) What lesson has man learnt from it exactly?

A)If you sacrifice you take the place. Jesus on the cross is Him taking my place. "Sacrificing" Himself for me. This is Him taking my punishment. Pretend?

B) The lesson is until we actually have a concept of consequences for our actions we would never understand the severity.

Are you saying that for three days there was no such thing as god?

No I am saying the body of Jesus Christ was dead. Jesus was still spiritually alive.

Naughty naughty, you haven't been reading your bible. He didn't create us with moral choice, we had to get that from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Us having a disagreement of understanding is different from me reading unless you have psychic powers. No I say we have the ability to choose between GOOD and EVIL, to OBEY or DISOBEY God. All they did was Obey until they disobeyed so all they knew was Good. The Bible's definition of Good would be Obeying God. Guess what evil, or sin is. Yep you got it! Disobedience.

It's all about perspective.. You can choose to kill a man and then have a world of theists label it a sin. god can kill billions of men and theists try to justify it. They are both the same thing, (sin if you believe killing is a sin, and not sin if you believe killing isn't a sin), you just excuse one. god sinned constantly, you just label it as something else.

God has the right to end life. Remember from above Good would be doing what God wants. God killing people is carrying out His justice.

I love when theists can't argue a case that the "it's symbolic, not real" card pops up. However it's not going to make a difference.. To rebuke a person because he's not loving you enough is equally pathetic.

Where else have I brought up the it's symbolic card. In this case animal sacrifice is an action done out of obedience to show Faith in and Love for God. Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable. Period. That is what scripture says. So obviously their was more to the sacrifice.

Indeed it isn't. "Duh" however was not an argument to begin with..

Yea you got me with that one. Good shot. lol no remark.

I brought my wife up? Not really, no. If you got confused and we're now talking about my daughter then fine.

Pay attention to the first two words in one of your posts please.

My wife and kids on the other hand need and want a lot. I was "created" to serve need more than anything else. As a result of that, the "needs" of my family outweigh that of a god that "needs" nothing. It has no need for anything, including love or worship or dead animals or fruit, or a weekends prayer... It has no need whatsoever. There is no viable reason that it does anything.. the same cannot be said of humans. We "need" food, we "need" water, we "need" etc etc etc, god does not. If you dispute this, you turn your god nothing more than a human and therefore not worthy of attention.

No way you brought your wife up. "My wife" just means something else.

However, whether she loves me or not is her business - and hardly something I can rebuke her for. If I was to get what I 'want', she'd be showering me with kisses and hugs all day long - but the fact that she doesn't is not justification for me to tell her [symbolically] that her fruit offering sucks ass. Nor would I actually "punish" her by suiciding myself thinking that would somehow teach her a lesson. I had a friend that did kill himself because a girl would not reciprocate the love he felt for her. He did not kill himself due to want, but due to need. It is safe to say, given the biblical text, that god does not want, he needs - to an obsessive level, and that is never healthy.

Does she love you? If you answer yes then please tell me how you know if your answer is no then you have got something to sort out. I don't what you thought I was talking about but you will if you answer the question.


They are different, as explained above. Killing yourself, rebuking those that don't show you love etc are signs of need, not want. I want my daughter to shower me with hugs and kisses all day long, I don't need her to and thus don't punish her when she doesn't.

OK. I want a pool. I do not need a pool. I need food, coincidentally I also want food. See the difference. You want hugs and kisses but like you said you do not need them.

Hence if it was unacceptable then it comes down to need not want. Try and dispute that.

Where did you get that from. If you have the luxury to say that something is unacceptable then you obviously do not need it. Think about it. If you can turn something down then you obviously you do not need it.

Wrong, as explained above.
Negative, as explained above.

They are unable to write.

But it is of no consequence to anything. From a human classification jesus was an animal, as are we all.

They are unable to write why? They don't have hands our they don't have the capacity to actually write.



A) This is not supported by biblical text.

Did they do evil before they disobeyed? No, so all they knew was good. It only makes sense. What else would you call it.

B) If they only knew good then any action that was bad wouldn't be their fault, (you cannot argue that given your own statement above). They only know good, they have no idea what bad is - and thus anything they do that is bad isn't bad to them, because they don't even know what bad is - until they eat from the tree that gives them that knowledge by which time it's too late.

Just because all they knew was good doesn't exclude them from responsibility. I do not know what it is like to smoke, therefore I can't know what smoking really is however I have an idea. I also have the ability to smoke. So will this mean if I start smoking it is not my fault?

Aww, a convenient escape clause. How sweet.

I do not see the point in debating that issue right now. Remember the whole discussion we had on sticking to the topic. You replied the mind wanders so I am trying to help you. Next time a "Thank you" will do fine, or in your case "Bloody thank you." So your Bloody Welcome.

Please show me where it states that they understood this idea in the Old Testament, according to the Old Testament Law.

You have repeatedly. For instance the verse you gave about David. Obviously there is something deeper, something more. Here is the King of Israel saying this.

According to Psalm 51:16, no he did not. "For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it” So, was he breaking the Law of Moses here by not giving the sacrifice, or not?

Psalm 51:15-17
15 O Lord, open my lips,
That my mouth may declare Your praise.
16 For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

But then according to 1 Chronicles, yes he did give a sacrifice. Now, did he do this here because he thought that this would please God? But, I thought he just said above that it would not please God? This is just a little confusing!

1 Chronicles 21:27-29
27 Then the LORD spoke to the angel, and he put his sword back into its sheath. 28 At that time, when David saw that the LORD had answered him on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, he offered sacrifices there. 29 The tabernacle of the LORD, which Moses had made in the desert, and the altar of burnt offering were at that time on the high place at Gibeon.

Who knows He could have given one after that. I think you are missing the point, what is David trying to say.


What are you saying here exactly?

Paul said to the Jew I am a Jew to the Gentile I am a Gentile. He would changed his actions around people to gain favor or seem somewhat acceptable in their eyes. He was still truthful in his beliefs he is not saying to change your beliefs he is just saying change your manerisims.

If Paul took part in this sacrifice then he was either doing it in agreement or in disagreement with it. If he did this in agreement, then he must have believed that he still needed the animal sacrifice for sin even though he already was covered by the sacrifice of Christ. This cannot be the case! Right?

He did not do it for sin. This was a Jewish thing. Go back to Acts 21 and this time start with verse 17 and go to 26(the verse you brought up).

But if he was in disagreement, then by participating in it Paul would have appeared to be giving his approval of it, at least, in all the minds of those who witnessed him. And, he would have thus been deliberately deceiving everyone around him. He would have been trying to fool the very people he was trying to save?

If what he was doing was needed for sin you would have found a hole but it wasn't for sin. His offering was apart of a vow. He was Jewish and was just doing a custom. Now if a custom violates a belief then is in no way that acceptable.


If I were to join a Mormon church and participate in their rituals, without really believing in them I would be lying to everyone who witnessed me. That would be false, deceitful, and immoral. How is Paul different?

That is true. Paul is not following another religion he is following his simply doing a tradition done in his country.

Why is it moral for Paul to try and reach people for Jesus by deceit? Does this end justify lying?

Lying? No. Let's say you are a salesman and you sell computers. I am assuming you are American. Say you are trying to sale some computers to some Asians, well say they want to discuss it over drinks. So of course you say ok I mean according how bad you want to sell. Well it is custom for Asians to look away when they consume alcohol they look away and see it as disrespectful. Well would you participate? I would. To make some money. While looking at each other while drinking is not a problem in our countries in theirs it is a big deal. In this case Paul is just doing what he is used too. This would have been a normal thing in Paul's case. Remember not all sacrifices were for sin.

Death: The end of physical life.

Was god dead? No.

The point where your soul leaves your body.

So.. gods soul floated off somewhere? In the meantime this 'shell', created by that omnipotent being, lay down on a slab of rock doing bugger all, (what you would consider 'death'). And that in your opinion was worth anything?

This thread was the explanation of the Bible and what it says on sacrifice so in this case I have the luxury of using scripture for authority for my argument.

I would not dispute that, but you're not really doing what you state you can do. Several times now I have watched you make it up out of your head instead of using the bible, (i.e Adam and Eve could only do good - this is not supported by the bible at all.. what is supported you have conveniently ignored; that they had no knowledge of good or evil until they had eaten the fruit). I have no qualms with you using scripture, in fact I'd prefer it if you started doing so.

Again there is no where in the Bible that says the sacrifice had to stay dead

But then it is of no worth to anything. Like I said, he might aswell have just said "look folks, you're all assholes but I forgive you". Why faff about with temporary suicide?

I don't understand where you are coming from on this one.

It was a question. When people sacrificed animals do you think those animals got up and walked again a few days later, or indeed that their souls wafted off somewhere?

B) The lesson is until we actually have a concept of consequences for our actions we would never understand the severity.

Ok. So basically what you're telling me is that the "consequences of our actions" is that a god will come down and kill himself, (but then be up and peachy a couple of days later)? I wouldn't exactly call that severe.. amusing maybe.

Back in the day this god would strike down anyone that went against him. Plagues, firebombs, floods, you name it.. Now he kills himself, (without actually killing himself), instead and thinks anyone will learn anything from that?

No I am saying the body of Jesus Christ was dead. Jesus was still spiritually alive.

Ok we agree.. he was alive.

Tell me.. was the "body" ever alive? According to most theists it isn't, its just housing for you, the soul. If we now concur that the 'body' isn't alive to begin with, how can it ever die?

No I say we have the ability to choose between GOOD and EVIL, to OBEY or DISOBEY God.

Now we do, yeah.. because Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and got knowledge of good and evil.

All they did was Obey until they disobeyed so all they knew was Good. The Bible's definition of Good would be Obeying God. Guess what evil, or sin is. Yep you got it! Disobedience.

You're being silly. You have no knowledge of good or evil. You cannot make the distinction of what is or isn't good. You might do things that are good to those with knowledge of good and evil, but you wouldn't know they were good and frankly nor would you care. To then 'disobey' isn't something chosen with knowledge of that choice unless they have knowledge of good and evil and then the choice becomes and educated one.

God has the right to end life.

Says who and why?

God killing peopl