atheisthistorian

I didn't get to access this board again until today. I'm the one who posted the link to the Cain and Abel story a while back. Thanks to the people who commented. Also, it may not have been clear to everyone that the story, and the others on the site, are intended to be entertaining, and not to be taken too seriously... Although my purpose is also to show the absurdity of the biblical stories, the absurdity of the Christian interpretations of those stories, and the absurdity of religious beliefs in general.

Since English is my third language, I hope people will forgive me if my spelling and grammar are not 1st class.

Hope people will keep visiting, I'm adding more stuff, slowly but steadily.

atheist historian

Vinnie

You come up with a tired objections like this:

And then have the nerve to say this?

Seriously????

Come on, C.S. Lewis partially answered this objection!

C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity' page 61
"I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, "because it must have been so easy for him." Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus because He was God, but were possible only because He was God. But surely that is a very odd reason for not accepting them? The teacher is able to for the letters for the child because the teacher is grown-up and knows how to write. That, of course, makes it easier for the teacher; and only because it is easier for him can he help the child. If it rejected him because "it's easy for grown-ups" and waited to learn writing from another child who could not write itself (and so had no "unfair" advantage), it would not get on very quickly. If I am drowning in a rapid river, a man who still has one foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout back (between my gasps) "No, its not fair!" You have an advantage! You're keeping one foot on the bank"? That advantage--call it "unfair" if you like--is the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?"

Vinnie

Vinnie

Who said he needed to? Whoever did, well, I would tell them that they are wrong. See Mark 2:5. Jesus forgave before his death on the cross.

Vinnie

Old Man

That's a good point, which many Christians get wrong. Jesus was fully human, even though his origin was from heaven. Jesus lived by faith, just like all other believers. So the crucifixion was as much a trial to him, as it would be to any ordinary human.

Because without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness for sins against God.

Steven Carr

Somebody else who is too lazy to pick up a Bible before posting.

In Mark 2:5, Jesus declares that sins have been forgiven and there was no shedding of blood.

Old Man

Nice try. But the forgiveness of the man's sins was predicated on the continuing temple worship which was still in force in Jesus' day, which involved an annual sacrifice of atonement.

Lev 16:33 And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation.

Lev 16:34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.


Jesus' death opened up a new era in universal foregiveness for all men, not only Jews.

Hbr 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Vinnie

So you are saying that killing animals was a strict requirement for forgivenss on God's part? There would have been no forgiveness at all if people did not slaughter some animals once a year in a temple? No offense is intended by this, but do you realize truly how absurd that sounds?

What about before there was temple worship? Was there forgiveness without the shedding of blood? How does either verse that you cited from Leviticus demonstrate that there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood?

What do you make of Hosea 6:6? "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."

Vinnie

Vinnie

Why is it that a sinner like me can forgive someone if they wrong me and ask for my forgiveness me but God can't forgive without bloodshed? Is God not more merciful, loving and generous than a wretched sinner like me?

Vinnie

Psalm 51?

Kosh

I'm just so tired of hearing this crap. What in hell does the shedding of blood (a physical substance) have to do with the cleansing of sin (an ethical concept) and why would a supernatural being even give a hoot (I had a better word here,but decided to tone it down)?

This whole blood sacrifice thing is as absurdly ridiculous as the Ignorant Bronze Age Goat Herders (tm) that dreamed it up.

(Reality check here Old Man - it's probably derived from when a superstitious people thought they could apease the forces of nature by making offerings to them, still thinking they were some kind of physical beings. Since they were pastoral in nature, they would think that animal flesh and blood was as valuable to the "Gods" as it was to them. Then the whole thing got out of hand as the mythology grew and "priests" figured out how to manipulate people for their own gains).

Time to grow out of that crap.