Religious

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If you wanted to cozy up to and get really intimate and personal with your god in heat (no pun intended) by hugging the licking flames of a fiery furnace, do you think the flames would kill you, too? Would the flames be too strong for your god, also?

Boxcar

[YT=""]e-LHKvuujaQ[/YT]

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, from the very beginning, the lesson God taught Adam and Eve immediately after the Fall was that there is no other way to obtain remission of sins or forgiveness of sins except through the substitutionary death of an innocent animal -- all of which were pictures or copies of Christ's vicarious death on the cross for His Father's people.

To say that God did not require these animal sacrifices is a gross insult both to the Father and the Son;

I'm glad you couldn't let it pass and offered up this commentary. I get to further see how ridiculous this all is.

A righteous, loving, compassionate all-knowing God who just happens to require the slaughter of innocent creatures.

Makes total sense.

[phattty]

Amen to that PA

[hcap]

Many Jewish sources discuss the deeper meaning behind korbanot. For example, Sefer Hachinuch explains that an individual bringing an animal sacrifice for a sin understands that he personally should have been sacrificed as punishment for the rebellion against God inherent in his sin, but God mercifully accepts the sacrifice in his or her place. Furthermore, it is considered fitting that an animal is used as a sacrifice because at the moment of sin, the individual in question disregarded his elevated human soul, effectively acting as an animal.

Once again what remains today of a more complex belief system is a bastardization of the symbolic and mythological. Overcoming the lower "animal" like nature of man is the goal, and initially parts of many cultures and religions were well aware of this elemental truth, but as usual literal minded believers distorted the concept of giving up ones' lower nature (sacrificing) and turning the meaning into what god desires. Why would God desire anything of man?

The problem as usual is the externalization of God into an anthropomorphic "God" unfortunately with our own projected and limited values and understandings.




.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How about heat? Heat is energy, too. Your god is in heat, right? If you wanted to cozy up to and get really intimate and personal with your god in heat (no pun intended) by hugging the licking flames of a fiery furnace, do you think the flames would kill you, too? Would the flames be too strong for your god, also?

"A young spiritual seeker was walking to see his guru when an elephant and its rider came his way. The elephant was moving surprisingly quickly and, instead of jumping out of the creature’s way, the spiritual seeker remained still. He stood in the elephant’s path. The spiritual seeker said to himself, “My guru says god is everywhere and in everything. I am god and so is this elephant, so it will not trample me.”

Meanwhile, the elephant rider yelled “Get out of the way! Get off the road!” but the seeker remained still. At the last moment, his guru dragged him out of the way.

"Guruji," the seeker said angrily, "You said god is in everything but that elephant almost killed me!"

"Well god was in the elephant driver too, you idiot, and he was telling you to get out of the way," the guru replied calmly."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I'm glad you couldn't let it pass and offered up this commentary. I get to further see how ridiculous this all is.

A righteous, loving, compassionate all-knowing God who just happens to require the slaughter of innocent creatures.

Makes total sense.

Well...look at it this way:

1. All souls and all things upon the earth belong to God. So, we have the Divine Prerogative thing going here.

2. Then there is hierarchy in creation: Man was created a little lower than the angels, and animals were created lower than Man.

3. Significant spiritual lessons were being taught by the death of the innocent animals, as pointed out previously (see again Lev 17:11).

And, yes, it does all make sense to those who are able to think thoughts after their Creator. Something you obviously cannot do.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

"A young spiritual seeker was walking to see his guru when an elephant and its rider came his way. The elephant was moving surprisingly quickly and, instead of jumping out of the creature’s way, the spiritual seeker remained still. He stood in the elephant’s path. The spiritual seeker said to himself, “My guru says god is everywhere and in everything. I am god and so is this elephant, so it will not trample me.”

Meanwhile, the elephant rider yelled “Get out of the way! Get off the road!” but the seeker remained still. At the last moment, his guru dragged him out of the way.

"Guruji," the seeker said angrily, "You said god is in everything but that elephant almost killed me!"

"Well god was in the elephant driver too, you idiot, and he was telling you to get out of the way," the guru replied calmly."

Didn't you say that you put me on "iggy" AGAIN?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I am not being self righteous. God is not only within me but within everyone.

So, then, are you saying you're perfect? Have you attained to perfection, as Jesus commanded?

And by claiming that everyone has God within, doesn't change your self-righteous attitude. You just make everyone else as self-righteous as you are.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Both.


I don't hang around electricity or radiation.



No, but as I said, the energy I am talking about is love.





Again irrelevant to my relationship to God.

No my questions are not irrelevant. If your god is in all, then surely your god in electricity, heat or radiation would not harm you. How loving would that be? Also, your god would be bringing harm to himself if allowed energy to harm you.

Plus your god would be divided against himself, since you are no better or more valuable than the energy in which he also dwells.

So, here's the deal: You should test your theory that God is in all and therefore, loves all equally. Stick your finger in a light socket while that beloved energy is flowing through the wires, and while standing in water. (After all, the water won't bring any harm to you either since your god is it it, also.) Let us know how that works out for you. If you survive, you will have won numerous converts to pantheism. But if we don't hear back from you, we will have to assume that your pantheism bit the dust along with you.

Another huge problem with pantheism is that your god's house is very divided. And divided houses cannot stand, as Jesus also taught. Mr. Smith murders Mr. Brown. How loving was Brown's god to allow Smith's god (same god mind you!) to murder him? And if Smith's god is a god of love, then why would Smith want to murder Brown in the first place? It appears that your god of love is quite impotent. His love simply doesn't work in the real world, given all the misery and suffering and sorrow that we see and experience. Heck...you have even admitted as much with the theory of reincarnation. Your god of love can't seem to get it right the first time, can he? And this is why I'd bet my last dollar that your god would not be there for you during the juice test either.

Also, Love is not an energy. Look up the definition. Love is an emotion. To love means to feel affection or experience desire. To hold dear. To cherish.

Now, look up the definition of "energy".

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The life of the flesh comes from the breath of God. Your whole post just further illustrates your lack of understanding. Refute me by citing the verse or verses of Scripture which state God commanded animal blood sacrifice prior to the worship of the golden calf an Egyptian idol.

What part of Lev 17;11 didn't you get? God is not talking in that verse about how he made man a living soul. Instead, he is talking about what is necessary to sustain physical life, i.e. by the blood that courses through our veins. Life, therefore, is in the blood in that sense. And this is why the shedding of blood symbolizes the loss of life -- and the loss of life (death!) is precisely the penalty for sin!

I did! But you're too lazy to look up the passages in Exodus. Numerous animal sacrifices were commanded by God to the Hebrews in Egypt when God instituted the Feasts of the Passover and Unleavened Bread. And you talk about me not having any understanding?

And no, I will not address your so called "proof texts" until YOU give me your unauthorized, non-credentialed interpretation of those passages. But evidently you think God never ordained sacrifices, except in the wilderness. So, you need to give us your interpretation of those passages and explain to us how God slew animals in the garden to clothe Adam and Eve, how he could order the deaths of thousands of innocent animals during the Passover in Egypt and how he could institute the ritual of animal sacrifices in the Law of Moses. You need to address those apparent contradictions, since you're the one.

You also need to address this pre-Law, pre-wildernesss passage, which is yet another another testimony to your ignorance of God's word and again demolishes your ill-conceived golden calf/wilderness theory:

Job 42:7-9
7 And it came about after the Lord had spoken these words to Job, that the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has.

8 "Now therefore, take for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams, and go to My servant Job, and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves, and My servant Job will pray for you. For I will accept him so that I may not do with you according to your folly, because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has." 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did as the Lord told them; and the Lord accepted Job.
NASB

Also, see Job 1:5. And I haven't even gotten to Abraham yet! So, where or how did you come up with this garbage about animal sacrifices only being commanded after the golden calf incident in the wilderness?

And if God did not slaughter innocent animals in the Garden to forgive Eve's sin, then we have another contradiction in the bible since Gen 3:15 tells us that God reconciled Eve to himself by decreeing enmity between her and Satan. Yet, in Heb 9:22, scripture clearly teaches that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness". So...if your theory is true, then both our first parents were either condemned or we have a very serious theological contradiction in scripture. Either God did not reconcile Eve to himself, or Paul lied in Hebrews 9 or God used a separate standard of forgiveness with Eve.

Further, your theory that Abel offered up the better sacrifices because God "cursed the ground" doesn't hold water either. God was not pleased with our first parents' self-made covering for guilt and shame prior to God cursing the ground.

Additionally, the purpose for God cursing the earth (ground) was to make labor and life, in general, hard for man. It had nothing to do with sacrifices.
The purpose of the cursed ground was to become a perpetual memorial for all generations of mankind, so that Man would recall to mind why life can be so difficult and hard. In toil you shall eat of it. Both thorns and thistles (unwanted pest-like vegetation). By the sweat of your face. Yet, at the same time, God promised the Israelites that he would bless the labor of their hands and the the fruit and harvest of the land if they remained obedient to him and kept covenant with Him. So, the "cursed ground' had nothing to do with sacrifices, especially since the sacrificed animals ate vegetation from the cursed ground.

So, then..."BY FAITH", Paul tells us in Hebrews 11, "Abel offered up a BETTER sacrifice". So you need to tells us Faith in what!? What did Abel believe? Are you going to tell us that his parents told their sons about the cursed ground, yet they didn't tell them about how God was displeased with their own self-made sin coverings of sewn leaves? And God was so displeased their vain attempts to cover their own guilt that he replaced their coverings with His own!?

BTW you had your chance to answer Thasks' objection about the worthiness of a God that commanded animal sacrifice and his most recent questions. Why didn't you?

Don't concern yourself with what chances I had or why I did or did not do something. Get busy yourself and address the numerous problems your theory about animal sacrifices presents with scripture itself.

Why don't you answer the questions I posed to you? I asked you about the other people mentioned in Genesis. I am still waiting for your insight, since you can infer.

I can "infer" things from posts that are logical and coherent, which yours often aren't.

I'll address your "proof texts" after you address every problem I have presented herein. So, first address the problems and then give us your unauthorized, non-credentialed interpretation. I'm on to your devious schemes. All you want to do is toss scripture up against the wall to see what will stick. But you don't want to commit to any interpretation. You don't to put any of your skin in the game. You want to leave yourself an "out" by saying, "I never said that". In the final analysis, you don't want to put yourself at risk by me exposing the depth to your ignorance of scripture.

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Preacher man:

FYI Job chronologically takes place after the Exodus, some Bible scholar you are.

Your post once again exhibits your strategy to fling as much brown substance at the wall to see what sticks. As usual none of it does. You cannot cite any passages, to refute because they are no-existent like your non-Biblical statement that men belong to satan lock stock and barrel, once they are born into the world.

I am happy to see you finally corrected your misconception about satan's ownership of men in your above post to PA.

Don't concern yourself with what chances I had or why I did or did not do something. Get busy yourself and address the numerous problems your theory about animal sacrifices presents with scripture itself.

I'm not. My post was to thask not you.

I can "infer" things from posts that are logical and coherent, which yours often aren't.

The problem is your inferences are only logical and coherent in your mind, as Actor has demonstrated over and over again to ad nauseam.

[Show Me the Wire]

29 for our God is a consuming fire.

Hebrews 12:29

24 For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, ....

Deuteronomy 4:24

You may want to consider what the Bible says about God, before you make fun about flames and fire in relation to God.

Fire is energy. So what part do you not get? Have your powers of inference failed you again?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Preacher man:

FYI Job chronologically takes place after the Exodus, some Bible scholar you are.

Your post once again exhibits your strategy to fling as much brown substance at the wall to see what sticks. As usual none of it does. You cannot cite any passages, to refute because they are no-existent like your non-Biblical statement that men belong to satan lock stock and barrel, once they are born into the world.

I am happy to see you finally corrected your misconception about satan's ownership of men in your above post to PA.



I'm not. My post was to thask not you.



The problem is your inferences are only logical and coherent in your mind, as Actor has demonstrated over and over again to ad nauseam.

In your pipe dreams it does! Job was either contemporary with Abraham or lived slightly before Abraham. Also, the Passover in Egypt pre-dates the wilderness experience.

Also, you do have the Abraham problem! Abraham offered sacrifices to God as well. I suppose next, you'll be telling us that Abraham came after the Exodus, as well?

Or better yet...what about Noah? Did he come after the Exodus too?

Gen 8:20-21
20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the Lord smelled the soothing aroma;
NASB

So, get busy and address the serious theological problems your inane theory presents and then I will really show you how much you don't know.
Scripture warns Christians about being aware of the wily schemes of the evil one -- and dealing with you, I can see why.

And I have presented plenty of passages to refute whatever it is you think your "proof texts" prove. It was precisely those passages that present you with very thorny theological problems and contradictions. There cannot be any remission or forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. And this theological, fundamentally important biblical truth was established immediately after the Fall. As stated previous, the "scarlet thread of Redemption" runs from Genesis to Revelation.


Boxcar
P.S. And I didn't correct any misconceptions with PA. What I told him does not preclude the theological fact that God decreed that Satan be the under lord (ruler) of this world.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Hebrews 12:29

Deuteronomy 4:24

You may want to consider what the Bible says about God, before you make fun about flames and fire in relation to God.

Fire is energy. So what part do you not get? Have your powers of inference failed you again?

So, God is literally fire? What is your point? God is in fire? And then you wonder why I cannot infer things from your insanities.
So, when someone's house burns down, we can blame the god in the flames that devoured the house?


Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

And I have presented plenty of passages to refute whatever it is you think your "proof texts" prove. It was precisely those passages that present you with very thorny theological problems and contradictions. There cannot be any remission or forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. And this theological, fundamentally important biblical truth was established immediately after the Fall. As stated previous, the "scarlet thread of Redemption" runs from Genesis to Revelation.

You have refuted nothing. Do you even understand what refutes means? Apparently not, your personal statements and interpretations do not qualify as refuting.

I said God did not command man to sacrifice animals until Israel broke the covenant by worshiping the golden calf. Until you cite a passage(s) that states God

commanded

such acts, prior to the specified event, you have refuted nothing. Your inferences based on your human understanding and biases means zilch.