The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[YoursTrue]

That's not what atonement theology is.

"Christ died for our sins." Agree or disagree?

I agree. Thank you for your response.
I really did not learn the term "atonement theology" so I don't know what it is. But I do know and believe that Christ died and God accepted his sacrifice.
Nevertheless, my point is also that there is no burning hellfire in which God OR the devil would torture anyone in conscious torment forever and ever. That can be discussed in depth later perhaps because there is much to show that God would never allow or do such a thing.
Insofar as atonement goes, I will say this: In the Hebrew Scriptures, atonement was connected with sacrifices that were made to allow people to approach God and worship him. Leviticus 5:10 explains more, "And he shall offer the second for a burnt-offering, according to the ordinance; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin which he hath sinned, and he shall be forgiven." Of course, this provision was set before Jesus came to the earth.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I agree. Thank you for your response.
I really did not learn the term "atonement theology" so I don't know what it is. But I do know and believe that Christ died and God accepted his sacrifice.

And here's the million-dollar question: Sacrifice for what?

Nevertheless, my point is also that there is no burning hellfire in which God OR the devil would torture anyone in conscious torment forever and ever. That can be discussed in depth later perhaps because there is much to show that God would never allow or do such a thing.

Except that Jesus himself spoke of burning hellfire - in fact, he spoke of it more than anyone else in the Bible.

Insofar as atonement goes, I will say this: In the Hebrew Scriptures, atonement was connected with sacrifices that were made to allow people to approach God and worship him.

This is connected to the aforementioned million-dollar question: Why are we not allowed to approach God and worship Him without a sacrifice?

Leviticus 5:10 explains more, "And he shall offer the second for a burnt-offering, according to the ordinance; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin which he hath sinned, and he shall be forgiven." Of course, this provision was set before Jesus came to the earth.

So... what sins are being referred to here - and why are we assuming that everyone's a sinner?

 

[TLK Valentine]

okay...

It's always worth remembering that Jesus was an observant Jew, and Judaism, as a religion, was a political relationship between the nation of Israel and YHVH.

Jesus would come to redefine that relationship as a personal one, one in which the priestly class was no longer needed - but that didn't mean he was going to let the priests off the hook for letting themselves be bought off.

 

[YoursTrue]

And here's the million-dollar question: Sacrifice for what?

You have already agreed, haven't you, that Jesus was born as a Jew, right? And the Law required sacrificial offerings for sin. Jesus Christ is called the "last Adam." He was born into an assembly of sinners, but he needed no priest because he had a virgin birth through Mary and his life was direct from God. He could offer a perfect sacrifice to God.

1 Peter 2:21-25
For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His footsteps:
He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth. When they heaped abuse on Him, He did not retaliate;
when He suffered, He made no threats, but entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly. He Himself bore our sins
in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.
By His stripes you are healed.” For “you were like sheep going astray,” but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

1 Corinthians 15:45 provides us with an interesting scripture and translation as well (King James Bible)
King James Bible
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

But we are centering on the perfect sacrificial offering Jesus made. That of himself.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's always worth remembering that Jesus was an observant Jew, and Judaism, as a religion, was a political relationship between the nation of Israel and YHVH.

Jesus would come to redefine that relationship as a personal one, one in which the priestly class was no longer needed - but that didn't mean he was going to let the priests off the hook for letting themselves be bought off.

(How do you figure it was a political relationship between the nation and YHVH (or YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah..)?) So how do you figure it was a political relationship between God Almighty (YHWH) and the nation of Israel? It is true that they voted for the Law at Sinai, but -- after that -- it was a done deal for their descendants as well, interesting that Jehovah upheld his part of the bargain, or relationship. I mean that was that, they were in a covenant relationship with God Almighty.
Also, Jesus is known as the last Adam. He was perfect. Thus he could sacrifice himself.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You have already agreed, haven't you, that Jesus was born as a Jew, right? And the Law required sacrificial offerings for sin. Jesus Christ is called the "last Adam." He was born into an assembly of sinners, but he needed no priest because he had a virgin birth through Mary and his life was direct from God. He could offer a perfect sacrifice to God.

First, the entire notion of a god requiring a blood sacrifice in the first place should be abhorrent to any moral person.
Second, his "needing no priest" is irrelevant because it's not as though the priests sacrificed themselves to appease God.

Our sins were such that God demanded someone be killed in order to balance the books, as it were. Our sins were such that the usually lamb or goat wasn't going to cut it.
None of us would be acceptable sacrifices, because our sins made us flawed - only a perfect, sinless human would fit the bill.

So, really, as long as Jesus was born sinless ("immaculate conception" refers to Mary being born without Original Sin, not to Jesus' virgin birth), then nothing he said or did while he was alive mattered - his sole function was to be sacrificed.

That doesn't come off as just a little barbaric?

 

[TLK Valentine]

(How do you figure it was a political relationship between the nation and YHVH (or YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah..)?) So how do you figure it was a political relationship between God Almighty (YHWH) and the nation of Israel?

Isn't it obvious? God blessed and cursed the Israelites collectively - He blessed them with a land of milk and honey, prosperity as a nation, and victory in battle.
When the nation strayed, he cursed them collectively: allowing them to be conquered, plagues, famines, etc...

It is true that they voted for the Law at Sinai, but -- after that -- it was a done deal for their descendants as well, interesting that Jehovah upheld his part of the bargain, or relationship. I mean that was that, they were in a covenant relationship with God Almighty.

Right - because Judaism is a tribal religion. The Covenant was always between YHVH and Abraham, that He would bless and watch over his descendants, who would become the twelve tribes of Israel.

Also, Jesus is known as the last Adam. He was perfect. Thus he could sacrifice himself.

That's Paul talking - a Jew who, like everyone else at the time, considered Christianity to be a sect of Judaism, not a separate religion.
The Schism between Jews and Christians (who were known simply as followers of "The Way,") wouldn't happen until about 50 years after Jesus' death.
Not coincidentally, this coincided with the Jews leading the Great Revolt against Rome, and Rome responded by stomping Jerusalem flat and scattering the twelve tribes to the four winds.

 

[YoursTrue]

First, the entire notion of a god requiring a blood sacrifice in the first place should be abhorrent to any moral person.
Second, his "needing no priest" is irrelevant because it's not as though the priests sacrificed themselves to appease God.

Our sins were such that God demanded someone be killed in order to balance the books, as it were. Our sins were such that the usually lamb or goat wasn't going to cut it.
None of us would be acceptable sacrifices, because our sins made us flawed - only a perfect, sinless human would fit the bill.

So, really, as long as Jesus was born sinless ("immaculate conception" refers to Mary being born without Original Sin, not to Jesus' virgin birth), then nothing he said or did while he was alive mattered - his sole function was to be sacrificed.

That doesn't come off as just a little barbaric?

Are you a vegan, by the way, for moral reasons?

 

[YoursTrue]

And here's the million-dollar question: Sacrifice for what?





Except that Jesus himself spoke of burning hellfire - in fact, he spoke of it more than anyone else in the Bible.




This is connected to the aforementioned million-dollar question: Why are we not allowed to approach God and worship Him without a sacrifice?




So... what sins are being referred to here - and why are we assuming that everyone's a sinner?

Hi again. Just so I can set the compass straight, do you agree that Christ died for our sins? And secondary, do you believe we sin?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are you a vegan, by the way, for moral reasons?

No.

Is this where you accuse me of hypocrisy, because my unnecessary consumption of meat is somehow comparable to God's demand that animals and people be put to death to satisfy His whims?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hi again. Just so I can set the compass straight, do you agree that Christ died for our sins? And secondary, do you believe we sin?

That would be a "no" on both questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

No.

Is this where you accuse me of hypocrisy, because my unnecessary consumption of meat is somehow comparable to God's demand that animals and people be put to death to satisfy His whims?

No. But since you charge God with cruelty to animals I just wonder if you do not eat animals. Thanks, and so I hope things go as well as can be expected for you as things unfold. Take care. Perhaps you can speak to others here who go to church, etc. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. But since you charge God with cruelty to animals I just wonder if you do not eat animals.

You're leaving out two crucial parts:
1. Unnecessary cruelty, as cruelty always is - and since nothing is "necessary" for God, any pain or death He commits, condones, or commands must be cruelty indeed.

2. Unnecessary cruelty to animals and humans, of which I am one - I have a vested interest in why a supposedly "higher" being wishes the death of me and mine for no good reason.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're leaving out two crucial parts:
1. Unnecessary cruelty, as cruelty always is - and since nothing is "necessary" for God, any pain or death He commits, condones, or commands must be cruelty indeed.

2. Unnecessary cruelty to animals and humans, of which I am one - I have a vested interest in why a supposedly "higher" being wishes the death of me and mine for no good reason.

Sorry, but ask anyone here familiar with Jewish laws of slaughter. Unlike the slaughterhouses in many places that do not observe the traditional Jewish way of killing an animal.
I suggest you start there.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're leaving out two crucial parts:
1. Unnecessary cruelty, as cruelty always is - and since nothing is "necessary" for God, any pain or death He commits, condones, or commands must be cruelty indeed.

2. Unnecessary cruelty to animals and humans, of which I am one - I have a vested interest in why a supposedly "higher" being wishes the death of me and mine for no good reason.

Yes, I really do encourage you to challenge or question those here (I don't have to give names) of those who profess to BELIEVE in God of sorts, and particularly the "Christian" God. Perhaps they can provide you with an answer about this.

 

[YoursTrue]

That would be a "no" on both questions.

oh, ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're leaving out two crucial parts:
1. Unnecessary cruelty, as cruelty always is - and since nothing is "necessary" for God, any pain or death He commits, condones, or commands must be cruelty indeed.

2. Unnecessary cruelty to animals and humans, of which I am one - I have a vested interest in why a supposedly "higher" being wishes the death of me and mine for no good reason.

I believe you probably believe in the theory of evolution. So then--why worry? According to that theory, insofar as evolution goes, that's the way it goes. Animals themselves are cruel by nature (evolution, you think?) to each other. So? What you should do is research how the priests were supposed to kill a sacrificial animal.
Oh and one more thing. Maybe you think you can change the course of evolution, is that it?

 

[YoursTrue]

You're leaving out two crucial parts:
1. Unnecessary cruelty, as cruelty always is - and since nothing is "necessary" for God, any pain or death He commits, condones, or commands must be cruelty indeed.

2. Unnecessary cruelty to animals and humans, of which I am one - I have a vested interest in why a supposedly "higher" being wishes the death of me and mine for no good reason.

You need to research and look at how slaughterhouses had been and are killing the animals. Most of the time, human-apes do not eat other human-apes under normal circumstances, like buying human=ape meat in the market and cooking it in a stew or something like that.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're leaving out two crucial parts:
1. Unnecessary cruelty, as cruelty always is - and since nothing is "necessary" for God, any pain or death He commits, condones, or commands must be cruelty indeed.

2. Unnecessary cruelty to animals and humans, of which I am one - I have a vested interest in why a supposedly "higher" being wishes the death of me and mine for no good reason.

Are you higher than the animals you eat? By the way, I eat animal flesh sometimes and have no big qualm about it. These animals have to be killed in order to be eaten. Some people are more fastidious about it than others, like they will buy food from markets that slaughter the animals more compassionately. And of course, don't forget that human=apes kill other human-apes in rather hurtful ways. As well as killing chickens, cows, pigs, and the like. So far I haven't heard much about eating gorilla and monkey=apes, but I can only figure it's done in some cultures. And of course, lions and other animals will rip apart other animals for food.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sorry, but ask anyone here familiar with Jewish laws of slaughter. Unlike the slaughterhouses in many places that do not observe the traditional Jewish way of killing an animal.
I suggest you start there.

The Jewish laws, to be sure - but not God's.

So right there we see that our knowledge of God is limited and flawed.