CrispingPin's great post and answers to temple recommend interview questions brought up the question about atonement...

And that reminded me of a conversation I had with some missionaries about a year ago.

I wanted to see if they had any good answers for the following questions:


Why can't god just forgive directly, without requiring the sacrifice of an innocent life?

How does the sacrifice of an innocent life make guilty people any less guilty or easier to forgive?

Why does god need to see an animal slaughtered to feel better about the people doing the slaughtering?

Why would the unjust murder of his only begotten son at the hands of evil people make god more willing, rather than less willing, to forgive those evil people? The message from god is something like: "I cannot forgive you for you are too evil, unless... UNLESS...you murder my favorite and best, my most innocent and perfect son. If you do that, well, then I can forgive you." Huh? Am I missing something? Isn't God basically putting out a murder contract to whack Jesus?

If Jesus died for our sins, but really didn't die or stay dead, how does it count as a sacrifice? Wasn't he just LARPing as an "ultimate sacrifice savior guy"?

The rest of us, when we begin our dirt naps, seem to be in a permanent state of not being alive for the duration. But wasn't Jesus back after just three days, in better condition than ever?

Is it really a sacrifice if you have a bad week, but a few days later, you get a perfect, disease-free, teletransportation-able body...PLUS...you are the most powerful being in the universe?

These are some of the questions that I asked the missionaries.

There was no answer for any of them. They mumbled something about owing god some money, like a debt, and not being able to pay it. But Jesus stepped up and paid the money instead of us, so it was all okay, so long as we realized that we now owed a debt to Jesus instead of to God the father.

I said the atonement has no connection whatsoever to payment of a monetary obligation. That's a silly analogy that answers nothing about the atonement.

After that they just shrugged. "C'mon, man! It's the atonement. Just be cool with it, okay."

If Jesus is a debt collector who bought all of our debts from God for pennies on the dollar, why isn’t he hounding me?

Great questions Wally. Will print them out and keep them at hand. You sure don't mind stepping on toes. Keep em coming.

Stop trying to make sense of idiocy.

I’m embarrassed at how much time I spent trying to make sense of this particular idiocy.

My go-to chapter in the scriptures to try to make sense of it all was Alma 42. That chapter explains how the atonement reconciles the demands of both justice and mercy. As a TBM, I just accepted that explanation until the next time it bothered me, but one problem was always in the back of my mind: What (or who) was demanding both justice and mercy? Does God have a God above him? Does God’s god have a God (and on and on)? I guess that God isn’t all powerful, and not the giver of all laws.

A very common theme is Christianity is that this life is the one chance to determine our eternal fate. Some denominations require ordinances, some require obedience, and some say that you merely need to accept Christ’s sacrifice, but in all cases finite action (or inaction) will determine eternal fate.

Any “god” that rewards or punishes eternally for what happens in this life is not only not loving, just or fair, that god is an immoral, evil, hideous monster.

CrispingPin Wrote: What (or who) was demanding both justice and
> mercy? Does God have a God above him? Does God’s
> god have a God (and on and on)? I guess that God
> isn’t all powerful, and not the giver of all
> laws.
> In the Book of Enki (sumerian cuneiform history translatd from stone tablets) While speaking of lesser gods it repeatedly refers to "THE CREATOR OF ALL" This leads me to believe that there are gods above gods.
>

It's turtles all the way up.

Hahaha, Lot's Wife--you are so clever--every one of your post. Lot must be proud.

CrispingPin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does God have a God above him? Does God’s
> god have a God (and on and on)? I guess that God
> isn’t all powerful, and not the giver of all
> laws.

Back in the 60s, when Mormons were certain of way more things than they are now, this is what I was taught in seminary. We could become gods via perfect obedience to eternal laws, just like Elohim did, and just like the god above him did, and so on back through eternity that the beginning of it all is too distant to comprehend.

Yeah, me too.

Christianity is a good bargain. You get THREE .... THREE .... THREE gods in one !
NOW how much would you pay ?

But wait, there's more! If you repent in the next 15 minutes, we'll double your grace! (Just pay a separate "handling" fee).

And you have God sacrificing himself to himself.

to appease himself.

Who says you can’t thumb wrestle yourself?

The sacred Correlation program doesn't teach us to ask questions. It teaches us to obey :)

I don't know from a Mormon attitude, but I could tell you the view of one Southern Baptist (me, doesn't apply to other Southern Baptists who might believe the same or different).

Jesus is God. He is the one who makes any judgment. We (the human race) disobeyed him. We refused to listen to him. We (the human race) killed him. He can make any judgment on our race he wants.

He wants to save all of us. He extends his grace to all of us. We need to accept him and be saved. The only ones he does not save are those who do not accept his grace.

So....if someone chooses to not accept his grace, they won't be saved, and will suffer for all eternity?

Asking for a friend. ;)

Good Questions from a Baptist point of view...or at least my own...

Everyone has a choice. If they choose not to accept their Lord and Savior, that's their choice. He offers them heaven, if they refuse to accept it, than he isn't going to try to force them to go where they don't want to go.

That's the beauty of our free agency (aka...I'm not a Calvinist).

That means they probably go to Hell.

For those who have not had the chance to hear him an opinion depends on whether one is an inclusivist or an exclusivst. Most are agnostic on this point, but some have various opinions.

An exclusivist would say that everyone has, at some point in life, the chance to know and accept the Lord. This may only be when they lie on their deathbed and right before they die they have angels come and ask. However, if they do not accept their Lord and Savior, they go to Hell.

An inclusivist says that there are those in the world that have not heard about Jesus Christ. The grace of Jesus is great enough to save those as he knows our hearts and knows what we would have done if given the choice.

CS Lewis (who Mormons love to quote, but who was DEFINATELY NOT pro-Mormon) had his own ideas on how inclusivity worked. If you read his book the Last Battle he has an example.

I do NOT agree with that example, but I do not limit the Grace of Jesus Christ. I lean more towards an exclusivist belief, but have some inclusivist leanings (such as perhaps those in deep China or other areas that truly could never have heard about Jesus could be saved by Grace somehow).

Betty G Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone has a choice. If they choose not to
> accept their Lord and Savior, that's their choice.
> He offers them heaven, if they refuse to accept
> it, than he isn't going to try to force them to go
> where they don't want to go.

> That means they probably go to Hell.

What if they don't want to go to Hell, are they forced to go there?
And if so, doesn't that contradict the above where Jesus isn't going to force them to go where they don't want to go?

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Betty G Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Everyone has a choice. If they choose not to
> > accept their Lord and Savior, that's their
> choice.
> > He offers them heaven, if they refuse to
> accept
> > it, than he isn't going to try to force them to
> go
> > where they don't want to go.
>
> > That means they probably go to Hell.
>
> What if they don't want to go to Hell, are they
> forced to go there?
> And if so, doesn't that contradict the above where
> Jesus isn't going to force them to go where they
> don't want to go?


Not really. He isn't forcing you to go where he could take you. Since you don't want his help, he isn't going to help.

Unfortunately, there is someone else around who doesn't care what you want or don't want. That guy will force you to Hell whether you want to or not.

The BIGGER questions some have posed in relation to this is what Hell is really like?

Southern Baptists believe it is a place of burning and fire, but some have thought (I think Mormons think this?) that it is just a place where Jesus isn't. Hence, it may be anything...who knows?

The other question that people ask that is probably more what one would ask is why?

If God created everything that means he also had to have created a place like Hell and it's master.

He may not be the one forcing you personally, but he is the one who created the one who is going to drag you to Hell if you don't accept his help.

I don't have a good answer for that. I'm not a theologian. I'm just a simple Southern Baptist living in Mormonland.

I think some feel that he did it so that he could let us have the freedom to choose. We could choose to accept his grace and be saved, or we could reject it.

If we reject it we go to Hell. It's a binary choice instead of multiple choice.

A parallel some Baptist preachers have used is that of Moses and the snakes (sorry, I'm a Bad Baptist, haven't actually read the story in the Bible...I find the bible kind of boring to read). If bitten by a snake (sin) one could simply look at a staff (grace) and be saved, but if they didn't, they would die (hell). Very binary, but it gave one a choice.

Betty G Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If God created everything that means he also had
> to have created a place like Hell and it's
> master.
>
> He may not be the one forcing you personally, but
> he is the one who created the one who is going to
> drag you to Hell if you don't accept his help.

So he IS still forcing you, through an intermediary that he created and by the rules he set up. He's just not taking the blame, even though he created the whole setup. Sounds pretty irresponsible.

> If we reject it we go to Hell. It's a binary
> choice instead of multiple choice.

Not much of a choice: do as I tell you, or go to Hell. Sounds like forcing to me.

I think I'd rather create my own third choice and just go out and explore the universe ... multiverse ... or whatever it is. Gawhd can keep his Heaven and Hell.

If someone handed you a bowling ball and told you not to drop it on your foot, would that also be an unfair choice?

All of this could be a metaphor for keeping a positive attitude because negative ones will run you into the ground.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2018 05:25PM by babyloncansuckit.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If someone handed you a bowling ball and told you
> not to drop it on your foot, would that also be an
> unfair choice?

Only if the person handing you the ball invented gravity.

This is my point exactly. There may be a being powerful enough to mete out eternal punishment for finite action or inaction, but such a god is nothing more than a horrible monster.

I studied the New Testament after leaving the LDS church. I anticipated that I'd eventually accept Jesus as my savior. I wanted to believe, but I couldn't do that and still be honest with myself. After many hours of study, prayer, and meditation,I discovered that the concept of salvation by grace felt wrong to me intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.

Let's assume that I came to the wrong conclusion after I made a very sincere, honest effort. I certainly had the chance to accept grace, and I didn't. Do I deserve to be sent to hell for eternity?

CrispingPin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is my point exactly. There may be a being
> powerful enough to mete out eternal punishment for
> finite action or inaction, but such a god is
> nothing more than a horrible monster.
>
> I studied the New Testament after leaving the LDS
> church. I anticipated that I'd eventually accept
> Jesus as my savior. I wanted to believe, but I
> couldn't do that and still be honest with myself.
> After many hours of study, prayer, and
> meditation,I discovered that the concept of
> salvation by grace felt wrong to me
> intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.
>
> Let's assume that I came to the wrong conclusion
> after I made a very sincere, honest effort. I
> certainly had the chance to accept grace, and I
> didn't. Do I deserve to be sent to hell for
> eternity?


I don't make those decisions. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one making a decision on someone else like that!

I think it boils down to whether you choose to accept him in this life or not. If you do, you are saved. If you reject him, you aren't. It's just that simple.

It can be as easy as saying outloud...

Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and I do not deserve eternal life. But, I believe You died and rose from the grave to make me a new creation and to prepare me to dwell in your presence forever. Jesus, come into my life, take control of my life, forgive my sins and save me. I am now placing my trust in You alone for my salvation and I accept your free gift of eternal life."

If you accept it, than who am I to say you are not saved?

I am not the one who decides who is saved or not. I can only speak for myself being saved. It is a personal thing for everyone.

In my belief.

Based on what you know of your church, Betty, what happens to those souls who have lived and died, never having heard of Jesus or his message of salvation?

What happens to individuals whose mental capacity is insufficient to allow them to understand the concept of Jesus, religion and salvation?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Based on what you know of your church, Betty, what
> happens to those souls who have lived and died,
> never having heard of Jesus or his message of
> salvation?
>
> What happens to individuals whose mental capacity
> is insufficient to allow them to understand the
> concept of Jesus, religion and salvation?

I am not sure if all Southern Baptist believe this. We were taught that someone who cannot understand enough to accept (such as a mentally disabled individual or a child) were saved under the Grace of God automatically.

I'm going to try to write this without sarcasm and as I used to believe.

All who haven't:

1. Acknowledged that they are sinners (original sin), and
2. Acknowledged that Jesus is the Son of God who took human form to become the perfect sacrifice for our sins, thus obviating the Old Testament need for burnt and other offerings that were failing to please God the Father, and
3. Requested to be saved and be filled with The Holy Spirit/Ghost

Are. Going. To. Hell. Period. End of Story. Fin.

I was also taught the Calvinist belief of predestination - before the world was created, God the Father knew who was going to heaven and who was going to hell. EVERYBODY. Babies, those who don't understand the concept of salvation, and those who never heard about being saved EXACTLY like we did, are going to hell. So, some of those other Baptists might be going straight down the chute to hell because their beliefs varied. (We don't have anything *close* to correlation.)

I was taught that Hell can be the fire and brimstone thing or the absence of the presence of God. (It was confusing to me that while we claimed to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, it was a human interpretation and not a literal one that we used.) When Jesus was dying on the cross (don't say "killed on the cross" because it was His choice to die for us), at one point He said something along the lines of "My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" That question has been interpreted (see what I mean about the "literal" thing?) to mean that at that precise moment, Jesus had all the world's sins heaped on Him, and God the Father cannot not look upon sin. IOW, Jesus was no longer in the presence of God the Father, despite being the human embodiment of God, all of which confused me as well.

I was ALSO taught that you cannot lose your salvation, AND

You are saved by grace and not by works, but do those good works anyway and try to live a good life like Jesus did. ETA: I think the living a good life had something to do with not only being moral but also with stars in your crown in heaven, but my memory or understanding is shaky on the crown thing. It seemed like there will be some sort of hierarchy in heaven. Again, I'm not clear on this doctrine.

None of this, NONE OF THIS, made sense to me.

You either won the eternal salvation lottery (Calvinism), or you didn't. If you did win the eternal salvation lottery, you will never lose it no matter what you do in the future.

When I told my mother that I don't like this god very much, and I don't believe in him, she (of course) went full-on nuts. For YEARS.

Finally I was like, "Look - there are two failsafes: 1. Once saved, always saved, and 2. Predestination. I don't *really* have free will. I can't deal with all of these contradictions because they do not make sense. They make zero sense to me. So don't worry about me. I'm either always saved or I was never saved because all of this was predestined."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2018 03:11PM by Beth.

I thought NASCAR was God.

I didn't kill him! Honest! I wasn't even there when it happened and I think that's a pretty good alibi. I can even produce a birth certificate that shows that I wasn't even born until about 2,000 years after the murder occurred.

Plus, I know in my heart of hearts that I wouldn't want to Kill a superpower-equipped deity who can't be killed. You don't want to get on the bad side of a person like that. ;o)

But you touched your winkie.

lets see, brainstorm here;

Elowin or Elohem or Elohim , Jehovah, Jesus, Lord, God, God the FAther, Holy Ghost, the Spirit I think that's all of them then there's sub catagories like Angels, Mormoni, Gabriel, he was mentioned somewhere, my brother __ No no not really I think of him that way, but no, its like you're related to God. Because of the temple you know you never know whose being god on another planet already or in another dimension if this ones too crowded now. But some of them are real. uh probably. Except which ones of those its sort of like uh chosing on a checker board which players little round dots are , yeah. um, then the Eve, mother god, god the mother (forgot her almost.)
Mother in heaven is god. and so I guess Mary counts she's god too. Yeah and all the other heavenly mothers because god is a polygamist they get prayers too. Which one is yours it really doesn't matter, because the one that hears loves the most right. It'll be ok. Some one hears your prayers. probably. you know,

being schooled Mormon is confusing. Don't get me started and they were speaking English which is my native language teaching me this. Imagine how confused I would be if I understood ITalian when my grandma was explaining saints. lol But basically, it'll be ok. THat's I think, what they meant. unless its not.

When I went to youth for Christ the nice ash blond feathered bangs girl leader explained that if you were saved you could commit murder and still go to heaven. (---- hs 1980) I'm thinking having completed my homestudy seminary that weekend, church history, it sounds like Brother Brigham he became a prophet pre god status leader of the church and he had avengers so what's the difference between gods's Mormon prophet and a don in the mob/ the sound the same, they both represent god to their people, stand in as god, decides whose living and dying (pioneer prophets sent folks to die in the dessert opening new communities, bequeathed land, houses, wives, women, life or death to their people) just like a god father in the mob. But according to their god /rules,they're all going to heaven sounds the same. (the guy in the mob was baptized people prayed for him so>) So. Saints and angels, huh?
that is why the name latter day saints always made so much sense to me (you'd need a saint to pray you in you'd committed so many sins.)

so lets see, God, God the Father,Father in HEaven, Elohim elowin elohem someone, Jehovah, Lord, Spirit, holy ghost, Mothers in heaven, Heavenly Mother, yeah, I think that's everyone. And unaanounced ancestors starting on own planet that's another world. uh Did I leave anyone out?

Remember: God created us in his image, But 'the natural man is an enemy to god'.

Yeah, of course that makes sense!

/ sarcasm, cynicism

Wally Prince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why can't god just forgive directly, without
> requiring the sacrifice of an innocent life?

Elohim is only god at the will and whim of his creation. This is indicated in Mormon scriptures. Essentially those "intelligences" that were not chosen as children of god are sorta pissed. But they love Jesus sooooooo much they are willing to forgive Elohim for not choosing them.


>
> How does the sacrifice of an innocent life make
> guilty people any less guilty or easier to
> forgive?

Because those effen intelligences require damnation as punishment for sin and they were so swayed by Jesus sacrifice that they are willing forgo that punishment. Anything less that the brutal torture and murder of their favorite person wouldn't have swayed them.

> Why does god need to see an animal slaughtered to
> feel better about the people doing the
> slaughtering?

Because those damn intelligences needed to be prepared.


> Why would the unjust murder of his only begotten
> son at the hands of evil people make god more
> willing, rather than less willing, to forgive
> those evil people? The message from god is
> something like: "I cannot forgive you for you are
> too evil, unless... UNLESS...you murder my
> favorite and best, my most innocent and perfect
> son. If you do that, well, then I can forgive
> you." Huh? Am I missing something? Isn't God
> basically putting out a murder contract to whack
> Jesus?

Because it is Jesus who forgives us for sins not Elohim because the intelligences are pissed at god not Jesus.


> If Jesus died for our sins, but really didn't die
> or stay dead, how does it count as a sacrifice?
> Wasn't he just LARPing as an "ultimate sacrifice
> savior guy"?

Jesus sacrifice was ultimate in that Elohim was incapable of saving him. It was the bastard intelligences that allowed for his salvation.


> The rest of us, when we begin our dirt naps, seem
> to be in a permanent state of not being alive for
> the duration. But wasn't Jesus back after just
> three days, in better condition than ever?

In Mormonism no one dies.


> Is it really a sacrifice if you have a bad week,
> but a few days later, you get a perfect,
> disease-free, teletransportation-able
> body...PLUS...you are the most powerful being in
> the universe?

Even Jesus is god at the will and whim of the intelligences, it's just that since Jesus gave them a reach around when he organized them they really really love him.


> These are some of the questions that I asked the
> missionaries.
>
> There was no answer for any of them. They mumbled
> something about owing god some money, like a debt,
> and not being able to pay it. But Jesus stepped
> up and paid the money instead of us, so it was all
> okay, so long as we realized that we now owed a
> debt to Jesus instead of to God the father.
>
> I said the atonement has no connection whatsoever
> to payment of a monetary obligation. That's a
> silly analogy that answers nothing about the
> atonement.
>
> After that they just shrugged. "C'mon, man! It's
> the atonement. Just be cool with it, okay."


You got the wrong missionary. I would have clued you in that Mormon god isn't even god, he's just an asshole alien who plays around with his food.

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).

God commanded the nation of Israel to perform numerous sacrifices according to certain procedures prescribed by God. First, the animal had to be spotless. Second, the person offering the sacrifice had to identify with the animal. Third, the person offering the animal had to inflict death upon it. When done in faith, this sacrifice provided a temporary covering of sins. Another sacrifice called for on the Day of Atonement, described in Leviticus 16, demonstrates forgiveness and the removal of sin. The high priest was to take two male goats for a sin offering. One of the goats was sacrificed as a sin offering for the people of Israel (Leviticus 16:15), while the other goat was released into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:20-22). The sin offering provided forgiveness, while the other goat provided the removal of sin.

Why, then, do we no longer offer animal sacrifices today? Animal sacrifices have ended because Jesus Christ was the ultimate and perfect sacrifice. John the Baptist recognized this when he saw Jesus coming to be baptized and said, “Look, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). You may be asking yourself, why animals? What did they do wrong? That is the point—since the animals did no wrong, they died in place of the one performing the sacrifice. Jesus Christ also did no wrong but willingly gave Himself to die for the sins of mankind (1 Timothy 2:6). Jesus Christ took our sin upon Himself and died in our place. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “God made him [Jesus] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Through faith in what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, we can receive forgiveness.

In summation, animal sacrifices were commanded by God so that the individual could experience forgiveness of sin. The animal served as a substitute—that is, the animal died in place of the sinner, but only temporarily, which is why the sacrifices needed to be offered over and over. Animal sacrifices have stopped with Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrificial substitute once for all time (Hebrews 7:27) and is now the only mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). Animal sacrifices foreshadowed Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. The only basis on which an animal sacrifice could provide forgiveness of sins is Christ who would sacrifice Himself for our sins, providing the forgiveness that animal sacrifices could only illustrate and foreshadow.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/animal-sacrifices.html

So the Old Testament is basically a Rorschach test. Moses knew of Christ in advance so he dropped obscure hints. The trouble with connecting dots is you get to pick the dots and the order to get any picture you want. The picture you have now is a picture from the Middle Ages.

The ashes are functional, not only symbolic. They have nothing to do with sin. The usual usage is ash dissolved in water for antiseptic purposes. The other is for awakening the third eye, the same as what’s done in India with crematory ashes (vibhuti). It seems to me that was left out of the Torah because they didn’t want any old schmuck enhancing their third eye.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2018 10:40PM by babyloncansuckit.

The problem is that they essentially constitute only the classic "because God said so" response to questions. They don't really answer any of the questions set out in my original post above, which seek to go beyond the "because God said so" wall.

These scriptural passages provide answers for the following line of questions:

Q: Why do people think that the animal sacrifice or the sacrifice of Jesus is necessary?

A: Because God said that it's necessary.

Q: How do you know that God said that it was necessary?

A: Because it says so right here in the Bible (see referenced scriptures).

Q: How do we know that the Bible is really from God?

A: Because God says so.

Q: How do you know that God says that the Bible is really from God?

A: Because it says so right here in the Bible.

Note that the questions in the original post do not ask whether or not the Bible contains instructions about sacrifice or whether assertions are made in the Bible to the effect that animal sacrifices and the killing of Jesus were necessary to make forgiveness of sin possible.

My questions go beyond that and ask what should be the obvious NEXT line of questions. Why would God seek to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the brutal killing of innocent lives as a prerequisite to forgiveness of guilty people. It doesn't make sense.

Other than "because God said so", there is no explanation in the Bible as to how or why the killing of animals makes a guilty person forgivable. The Bible only asserts that God says that it does.

There is no explanation as to why God (who ultimately owns everything and, more importantly, is actually ultimately responsible for all sin, can't forgive his children for their "sins" without first requiring the slaughtering of animals or the torture and death of Jesus (or torture and death of himself, if you go with the Jesus is the God to whom the sacrificial offering is made formulation).

There is no explanation as to how it really is a sacrifice if the entity being sacrificed is the entity to whom the sacrifice is offered and the sacrifice in question is not really a sacrifice because, ultimately, nothing is sacrificed. No superpowers are lost. The life of the entity is not lost at any point. The "sacrificed" entity continues to live and be the most powerful entity in the universe. So...not really a sacrifice.

The point of my questions is to go beyond the Bible's "because god said so" explanations in order to see if any real understanding is possible.

I don't want to see people start killing kittens because Uncle Larry decides to start his own religion and, according to revelation in the Book of Larry, it turns out that what God really needs is the sacrifice of calico kittens in order for people to be worthy of reconciliation with God.

And if I asked a calico kitten sacrificer why they did what they did, I wouldn't be satisfied by quotations of scriptures from the Book of Larry. ("Well...it's because Larry said that God said that it was necessary, and it says so right here in Book of Larry, Chapter 5, Verses 9-10.")

I know, I know... I ask too many questions and that's probably a sin somewhere in the Bible. But I'm not going to start sacrificing kittens to get forgiveness because it doesn't make any sense. Likewise with sheep, goats, birds, cattle and even superpower-equipped deity figures LARPing as ordinary humans and pretending to sacrifice themselves to...themselves...and then instantly going back to their throne in perfect health.

Ultimately, it has to make sense, or you can never know whether it's legitimate or just something some ancient priests pulled out of their backsides in order to get gullible people to give them more meat for weekend barbecues.

lisadee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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).

Great job of not answering the question.
The question isn't what can you wrangle out of the bible (by "interpretation"), but why does killing animals result in a "temporary covering of sins?"

Why does a supposed omnipotent/omniscient god require "the shedding of blood" to forgive his creations?

Of course, you don't have the answers to the actual questions. At least not ones that make any sense.

Stop and think about this for a second: the supposed all-powerful, all-knowing god of the universe declares that in order for you to be forgiven for normal human screw-ups, something has to die, blood has to be spilled. Either some innocent animal, or some god-thing-made-human-being.

That's ridiculous on its face, and disgusting if it were "true" (and there's no evidence it is).

how the atonement makes any sense considering that our species evolved over time just like the others?

And who atoned for the other species? Should hunters be crucifying animals instead of shooting them? Sounds pretty awful.

Atonement makes no sense and the people who keep harping about about it, giving scripture and continuing to purport its perplexities seem to be missing the points of the OP.

If by some manner of chicanery I become a ghawd, I intend to forgive all my children, no matter what they do, even if it includes usurping me. If whatever ghawds I have to report to decide to send me to Outer Darkness, North Carolina, so be it.

Because I have faith that will all eternity to work with, I'll find a way to get even with those f--king bastards!

{Adam, a survivor of childhood abuse speaks about his relationship with his abusive dad and abusive older brother}

....

"Well, my earliest recollections of the abuse started when I was about 3 years old. I remember I had eaten a piece of cake that I wasn't supposed to eat and hit my infant brother on the head with a spoon and made him cry.

"My dad came into the room and started pointing his finger at me in a rage and yelled at me. He was saying things like he knew that I was always evil and that there had always been something wrong with me since my birth. He wanted to get rid of me, but didn't know for sure. He then said that he was going to beat me black and blue every day forever.

"Then my much older brother, who was always dad's favorite son came in and said to my dad that he completely understood my dad's anger and disappointment. But he said that maybe I could be fixed and forgiven if I felt bad enough about myself to beg for forgiveness.

"He then did the strangest thing. He put a gun in my hand and made me shoot him. My brother screamed in agony and then apparently died. I felt horrible. But, for some reason, my dad seemed to be pacified by it all. He then said to me that I should be really grateful to my dead brother and that if I begged for forgiveness every day, begging on my dead brother's name, then maybe I would be spared the beatings that had been previously threatened.

"I started doing that right away. Every morning and night I would ask my dad, on my brother's name, to forgive me for being so worthless and evil. I was so scared. I've never even been able to eat any cake since that day.

{Interviewer breaks in to ask a question}

"That must have been horrific. Your older brother obviously was mentally ill. So sad and tragic to die that way. Do you visit his grave often?"

{Adam responds.}

"Oh, that's where it gets really interesting. My older brother didn't die at all. It was just a gag that he and my dad had cooked up. The blood was tomato ketchup. The gun was a toy gun. I was just too young and ignorant to see what was really going on. I really believed it.

"Turns out my older brother was going to college the next day, so he went away without me ever knowing that he hadn't really died. I didn't find out until years later that he was still alive and talking with my dad every day by phone. He eventually took over the family business and is very wealthy and powerful now. I have to beg him sometimes for financial assistance because my early childhood trauma and thinking that I had killed my brother haunted me so badly that I've never been very good at keeping down a job."

{Interviewer concludes the interview.}

"Well, Adam, that's a very important story. The basic elements of the story remind me of another story...seems like a really well-known story...hmmmn...just can't put my finger on it right now. Anyway, best of luck to you in the future."

What always bugged me was that so far about 108 billion people have lived in this planet. How does hanging on a cross for a couple of days with a crown of thorns make up, pay for, and make right all the wrong those 108 billion people and counting may have done?

That is why you need to employ a fancy word like "atonement." It's the packaging that counts in religion.

Robes, red slippers, staphs, green aprons, white shirts, clever collars, fancy buildings, hats gold and pointy or baker-style, clever slogans, and on and on. This is how we know who are the ones who *must* be believed. This is how you spot God's chosen. Because, you would never guess otherwise.

Why does she one who never ate have to pay for everyone else's meals?

"Why can't god just forgive directly, without requiring the sacrifice of an innocent life?"


This is the "crux" isn't it?

Thinking like a Christian apologist I would say one thing and as a Mormon apologist another.

The Christian would say that God did do it directly through God's sacrifice of self. God forgives freely but grace is requisite for salvation. God doesn't hold a grudge but withholds grace because he suffered for all. No one knows who has God's grace or who doesn't. You will probably burn in Hell without God's grace.

The Mormon would say God had to send his mind-linked literal son down to earth to be his proxy only perfect person in human history to appease God for your imperfections to even allow you the opportunity to get His grace.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2018 06:08PM by Elder Berry.

Why accept at face value that god is in fact the “good guy” in all of this??? History being written by the victors and what not. And what about “informed consent”??? How can I “accept Jesus” or whatever, if I don’t actually KNOW what I’m getting into??

It’s all nonsense, all the way down.

As Jim Jefferies avers, "We haven't read the Devil's book, have we?"