If Jesus died to forgive us, then why is there a Hell?

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
. . . What's more, by referencing this god's sacrifice of his own son you merely reinforced the contention that this god is a cowardly, violent god. . .

You use the term 'cowardly'. Why?

Cicerone imposter used the term cowardly, here, in regard to the violence of human sacrifice.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

Where did I say animal sacrifices covered sins?

Right here when we had this exchange:

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"You keep insisting that the value to God is the animal"

Glennn replied:
And why wouldn't I? It was the god that insisted that the physical animal has value as a bargaining chip. You've forgotten that the sacrifice of animals was for the purpose of covering up sin, and not to show appreciation, didn't you?

And now you have committed the unpardonable sin of boring me. Your head really isn't in the conversation since you can't even remember what you said earlier the Same day.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

And why wouldn't I? It was the god that insisted that the physical animal has value as a bargaining chip. You've forgotten that the sacrifice of animals was for the purpose of covering up sin, and not to show appreciation, didn't you?

Here is the context in which I said the above:

Leadfoot: I assume at this point you are just playing endless word games.

Glennn: I'm showing you what your beliefs about the god actually look like up close and personal. How is that a word game?

Leadfoot: You keep insisting that the value to God is the animal

Glennn: And why wouldn't I? It was the god that insisted that the physical animal has value as a bargaining chip. You've forgotten that the sacrifice of animals was for the purpose of covering up sin, and not to show appreciation, didn't you?
________________________________________

You knew full well that the reason I said what you quoted me saying was to show you what your beliefs look like. The evidence is right there for all to read. What this means is that you have decided to employ dishonesty in an attempt to misrepresent me. Was it worth it?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I wouldn't want your transgression to serve as a free ride out of an uncomfortable discussion. That wouldn't be fair, now would it? So, where were we? Oh yes, I remember. I remember it well.

Whether the blood of animals washed away transgressions against the god, or only served as a down payment, that doesn't change the fact that you are claiming to have arrived at such a knowledge before reading about it.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

that doesn't change the fact that you are claiming to have arrived at such a knowledge before reading about it.

Your memory must be failing. I already answered that. I said - no it doesn't.

And it doesn't alter the fact that you can't remember what you said earlier. You're obviously just cut 'n pasting stuff and not really involved. That's just boring.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Your memory must be failing. I already answered that. I said - no it doesn't.

Do you realize that you are claiming that you came to knowledge that blood covers sin before you learned it from the Bible?

Quote:

And it doesn't alter the fact that you can't remember what you said earlier.

That you would say such a thing after I've just provided the proper context by including what you dishonestly chose to omit is not doing anything for your credibility. You know that, right?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

Abraham, etc, showed their loved one (God) their appreciation by sacrificing some of their treasure to him as well as other ways. You show your appreciation for your loved one in exactly the same way.

And then I told you: No. You have it backwards. The god required, and asked for, the sacrifice. It was the god's idea. I also told you that, in no way do I show my appreciation for my loved one by sacrificing other lifeforms.

And when I aptly compared the god's system of forgiving transgressions via blood sacrifices to voodoo, you said you doubted that the two had much in common.

I responded with, "You've got to be kidding. Killing animals and burning them to cover transgressions? You are not allowing yourself to think any of this through. This is what happens when you deify a book."

And then you responded with, "Still, the value to God is not the animal."

I replied, "Yes it was. The god required sacrificial blood, along with the burnt corpse. Where else would the blood come from?

It was at that point that you conveniently decided that ". . . we've beat that dead horse bloody so we'll just have to disagree."

Does any of that jog your memory?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I believe you are correct:

Quote:

Question: "Why did God require animal sacrifices in the Old Testament?"

Answer: God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). Animal sacrifice is an important theme found throughout Scripture because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). When Adam and Eve sinned, animals were killed by God to provide clothing for them (Genesis 3:21). Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to the Lord. Cain's was unacceptable because he brought fruit, while Abel's was acceptable because it was the “firstborn of his flock” (Genesis 4:4-5). After the flood receded, Noah sacrificed animals to God (Genesis 8:20-21).

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Thanks cicerone.

It sure does look like the blood of animals was the important thing to the god, and that without it, there was no forgiveness. How that can be seen as anything other than voodoo is a mystery to me. The scenario put forth by others is that the god loves us and wants to forgive us, but not until it sees some blood up front. If the Bible was put out by the devil as a tool to cause humans to commit blasphemy, it was an ingenious ploy.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"Your memory must be failing. I already answered that. I said - no it doesn't."

Do you realize that you are claiming that you came to knowledge that blood covers sin before you learned it from the Bible?

The knowledge I came to before reading the bible was what was important to God. The animal's blood was not it, nor is any material offering we can give. I didn't say that God didn't want or ask for it, just as your wife wants gifts from you. But what she primarily wants is an expression of your love and appreciation for her.

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"And it doesn't alter the fact that you can't remember what you said earlier."

That you would say such a thing after I've just provided the proper context by including what you dishonestly chose to omit is not doing anything for your credibility. You know that, right?

I'm sincerely not sure what context you see as significant. All I really meant is that your initial denial of saying those words led me to think that you were just cutting and pasting arguments from Google (as CI did). I'm only interested in your personal understandings, reasoning, etc,

So far you have not shown me anything that makes me think what I was shown prior to reading the bible is wrong.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

The knowledge I came to before reading the bible was what was important to God. The animal's blood was not it, nor is any material offering we can give. I didn't say that God didn't want or ask for it, just as your wife wants gifts from you. But what she primarily wants is an expression of your love and appreciation for her.

I believe that cicerone provided biblical reference to the fact that, without blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. So it is quite apparent that, contrary to what you have said or believed, the blood of animals was the key, just like in voodoo. And I'm not going to say anything about the comparison you made between me doing something to show my wife my appreciation for her presence in my life, and Abraham's and others' show of appreciation to the god by way of killing an animal and burning its corpse.

Quote:

I'm sincerely not sure what context you see as significant. All I really meant is that your initial denial of saying those words led me to think that you were just cutting and pasting arguments from Google (as CI did). I'm only interested in your personal understandings, reasoning, etc,

So far you have not shown me anything that makes me think what I was shown prior to reading the bible is wrong.

Also contrary to what you seem to believe, I have not copy and pasted arguments from Google. What you've been reading are my arguments.

When I said that you've forgotten that the sacrifice of animals was for the purpose of covering up sin, and not to show appreciation, I said that because up until that point, you had been pushing the idea that Abraham, etc. performed burnt offering blood sacrifice as an expression of appreciation to the god. I corrected your misunderstanding concerning that issue by pointing out that it was the god that insisted that the physical animal has value as a bargaining chip since there was no other source from which to acquire the blood that was necessary to forgiveness.

I also expressed my doubt that you had understood the necessity for blood to cover sin before you had read about. I asked point blank whether or not in your heart, you've always known that it takes blood to wash away your evil deeds? And your response was: "I agreed with you when you previously said that animal sacrifices only "covered" sins, not washed them away." That really didn't answer the question of whether or not you came to the knowledge that blood covers sin before ever reading it in the Bible. You did say that the knowledge you came to before reading the Bible was what was important to the god. And then you said that the animal's blood was not it. Are you overruling the biblical point about their being no forgiveness without blood?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

I believe that cicerone provided biblical reference to the fact that, without blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.

I've already said what I understood prior to reading bible references about it. In light of that, here is the significance of blood as spoken of in the bible.

In the bible, blood is the symbol of life, specifically, the life of our body. The willingness of man to place God and our love of him above our very lives here is what God wants from us. So yes, without that willingness to place God above our earthly life, there is no forgiveness of sin. That is what the blood represents - that willingness.

I could give you dozens of scripture verses supporting that but it sounds like you've read it enough know them yourself.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

There's a contradiction there.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Well don't keep us hang'n, - spill...

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

It's a contradiction for all the others to see. You'll have great difficulty 'seeing it.'

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Well, if you fold now, we'll never know if you've just been bluffing all this time.

I call.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

OK, show your hand.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Mine are on on the table, you're the one claiming to hold that contradiction card.

Lay it down.

0 Replies

@Caesar,

good question !
You will find answer in "Holy Qur'an".

0 Replies

@Caesar,

But you say 'I don't need forgiveness, Jesus is wrong, it is evil of Him to call me a sinner" -- and there you have it. Why? OF NECESSITY

0 Replies

If Jesus died to forgive us, then why is there a Hell?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know