viaro:


That quote appears in Paul's epistle to the Galatians: 'Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap' - Galatians 6:7; and we should not snatch it out of its context. Reading the subsequent verses explain easily the type of 'sowing' that was meant - it was a 'sowing' of either to the flesh or to the Spirit, and a believer reaps accordingly: thus verse 8 - 'For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting'.

So what are you saying in essence here? Are you saying it's not what you sow that matters but where you sow it? So if you sow evil to the spirit you will reap life everlasting and even if you sow goodness to the flesh you'll reap corruption?

I think it's you that has taken Paul's words not just out of context but out of concept. If I were to say 1 + 1 = 2 and go further to explain that 1 mango + 1 mango = 2 mangoes, does that now mean that that simple law of addition is applicable only to mangoes?

In case you think the inferences I drew from your post is not correct, could you kindly expatiate by letting us know what sowing to the flesh and sowing to the spirit entail?

Funny how the tide has turned! Back in the days when Ancient Greece was a world power, people like Beyonce, Michael Jackson and other notable stars would have been globally hailed as heroes and the religion of the day would have come out with 'proofs' showing that they were children of one of their gods. They would have been ready to prove that Beyonce, for example, is actually the daughter of Zeus (King of the gods in the Greek pantheon), that Zeus came down from Mount Olympus to sleep with Beyonce's human mother, hence her extraordinary talent. 

Today, America is world power. The religion of the day is out with 'proof' that extraordinary talents are satanically influenced!

Can't say I know which is worse (as far as defamation of character go) but the whole thing seems kind of funny to me.

nuclearboy:

What was the crime of Achan's children and wife? Please note the items were intact so its not like they'd gorged themselves on the spoils. Using your allegory above of Sodom and sparing a whole town if a few good men were found in it, why didn't He spare the family who had nothing to do with the crime?

You claim that is Love and Justice working hand in hand and that one without the other falls short of the Perfect standard of the Almighty! Turn the searchlight of this, your expressed judgement, on the Almighty in light of Achan's family.

So Achan and his family hadn't 'gorged themselves on the spoils', so that made them innocent of the crime of stealing and disobedience? As for his wife and children being innocent, what proof have you? Although their culpability was not EXPLICITLY stated, it can easily be inferred: The 'spoils', as you called it, was in the tent which the whole family was using.  Is there any mention of the family not being aware of the crime? Did the wife or children at any time advise him to return the 'spoils'? 'Accomplice'. Did that word ring a bell?

nuclearboy:


Why not just accept that God does as He wished and that is why He is God.

If you have a ruler/leader or even a manager who acts arbitrarily and does whatever pleases him just because he can, will you rever him on account of that? I definitely won't. In my eyes, he is not a ruler/leader/manager because anyone with that same power can do exactly what he is doing. In the same way, any being whose 'godness' lies in his arbitrariness is and will continue to be a strange god to me. You are welcome to continue in your reverence of such a being.

The Lord Almighty whom I have the privilege to Worship is The Very Essence of Perfection from eternity to eternity. I have yet to come across any of His acts that is devoid of the twin attributes of Love and Justice. In fact, the true measure of any His actions is that it must not be devoid of EITHER of these attributes. Where any is missing, I immediately know He has no hand in it!

Nezan:

You made just one point from your post, i.e. not all biblical sacrifices involved blood. Can you quote me that verse/chapter in the bible?

Go through the book of Leviticus from Chapter 1 to as far as you care to go. Before you get to chapter 3, you would have come across 'non-blood sacrifices'; but I'd advise you go through the entire book. Infact, go through the entire Bible once again if you have done so before. As you go through it, humour me by taking note of the details of the entire process of animal sacrifices. There is the laying of the right hand on the head of the animal and some other details. All that, taken together, is what makes it a sacrifice. You are certainly not going to tell me that the Roman soldiers who performed the grisly act at Golgotha lay their right hands on behalf of entire mankind. Also, note that what is actually sacrificed is the burning carcass. The blood hardly suffices for much after it has been spilt and poured away or sprinkled on the altar, as the case may be.

While you are at it you may also want to recall that The Lord was ready to spare a whole town (Sodom) if a few good men could be found in it. That is a God of Justice. He would rather spare the guilty for the sake of the innocent rather than kill the innocent to spare the guilty. Recall also that Lot had to be called out of Sodom because he chose to be upright. Because he was innocent, he was spared. Achan and his family had to die because they were guilty of a crime. Others who were innocent of the crime were spared. That's Love and Justice working hand in hand. One without the other fall short of the Perfect standard of The Lord Almighty!

You may have notice that I deliberately did not refer you to any particular chapter and verse of The Bible. I have my reasons which I don't care to share now.

@Nezan

Nezan:

If it was just the act of repentance that was of importance, then why give elaborate rules for the sacrifices? Why is it that blood had to be spilled? Why not just ask them to sacrifice just about anything? Why not sacrifice land, other assets etc in view of repentance? Have you stopped to ask yourself why blood of those animals had to be spilled?

You seem to have arrived at your conclusions by spurious speculations rather than deep logical reasoning. Instead of regarding the 'elaborate rules' as a confirmation of blood being the object of the sacrifice, why didn't you stop to check if these 'elaborate rules' were followed at Golgotha before you jumped to the conclusion that it was a sacrifice? The Israelites DID sacrifice other assets too. One that didn't involve blood.  May be you need to pick up your bible again. Back in those days, land wasn't as valuable as it is now.

Nezan:

If it was the value placed on livestock, that equally explained why God placed so much value on the life of His Son that He had to pay the supreme sacrifice for mankind with His life. If it was just the livestock and not they blood, why didn’t God instruct for live livestock to be sacrificed? Why is it that the livestock had to be killed, hence spilling blood?

Again, I think you need to pick up your Bible. Not all the sacrifices involved blood. And nowhere was it mentioned, as far as I remember, that blood sacrifice was the most potent and can therefore stand in for all other.

Nezan:

If He didn’t need it, He wouldn’t have given such elaborate rules to be followed in sacrificing the animals.

Here, I must admit, you made me catch my breath in shock. But seriously, do you give these things any serious thought before you write your posts or you write just because you want to win an argument? Are you really of the opinion that an All-Sufficient, omnipotent CREATOR needs the blood of his creature(s)?  It's becoming apparent by the day that a strange god has somehow been introduced in place of the True One, howbeit, subtly. May be you also need to pick a dictionary and get a good grasp of the word 'need' (seriously, no offense meant).

While you are at it, remember that we have not resolved how the killing of animals for sacrifice is equivalent to the killing of a human being, much less a divine being, for sacrifice.

Pastor AIO:


I don't know about God drinking blood, I thought he just loved the smell of burning carcasses.  "A pleasing odour to the lord" is what I believe the OT calls it. 

Thank you pastor AIO for drawing my attention to this. There are so many overwhelming evidencessssss that what happened at Golgotha is currently being grossly misrepresented by 'christians' that one can't begin to mention them all. The 'pleasing odour of burning carcass' was conspicuously absent so also were officiating priests and Golgotha was not a even a shrine, talkless of a place of worship and definitely not a temple, these were like sine qua non to the proper offer of sacrifice to The Lord as spelt out by Him in the book of Leviticus. People like Nezan are quick to point out the similarity between the shedding of animal blood for sacrifice and that of a divine being but chose to deliberately ignore that there are several other ceremonies that went with the killing of the animals.

If there had been anything like lightning instead of darkness and earthquake after that dreadful deed at Golgotha, I'm almost certain Nezan and cohorts would have explained it away as the final proof that The Lord Almighty has accepted the sacrifice. That the lightning was an attempt to set the sacrifice on fire so that he can enjoy the smell of the burning carcass!

It is also worthy of note that the sacrifices came in different forms: Grain Offering, for example, does not involve blood. May be another divine being will come and represent that one sometime in the future. Apart from lambs, bullocks were also offered as sacrifice, may be sometime too we will be 'blessed' with 'a bullock that was slain to save us from iniquity'.

Nezan:

@ Vortex;

I am waiting for your answers to my questions.

Sorry for the delay. Was reading for my exams. Haven't visited NL in a long while.

Nezan:

@ Vortex;

You now got me thinking and I am going to question your beliefs.

1. How can you say a sacrificed animal has changed into you, hence took responsibility for your actions?

2. What was the object of atonement? was it not the sacrifice of the animal? cant you see that blood was spilled before the atonement? because God specifically instructed that an animal that just died from other complications should not be sacrificed to Him except the one that was killed, hence spilling blood?

If God didnt want blood to be spilled, He should have instructed that another object be sacrificed to Him rather than animals that were killed.

I never at anytime stated or implied that a sacrificed animal changed into anyone. If you are late for a meeting and you are asked to pay a fine for the 'misdemeanor', when you pay the fine, does it mean the fine has somehow turned into you?

When the Israelites were asked to sacrificed ANIMALS, what was of importance (and still of importance till date and will be of importance till the end of the world) to the Lord is the ACT OF REPENTANCE that the sacrifice symbolise. Something like 'Lord, I'm sorry for my misdeed. As a symbol of a contrite heart, I sacrifice this ANIMAL'.

So you see, it is not the blood but the state of the heart that matters. A heart of true repentance.

The choice of animals for sacrifice stemmed from the value the Israelites of that time placed on their livestock. It was their means of livelihood. So if they had to sacrifice something precious every time they step out of line, it will help to caution and guide them into making the effort to do right all the time.

The question is not whether God wanted (ANIMAL) blood to be spilled but whether he NEEDS (animal or HUMAN/DIVINE) blood to forgive or wash away sins. Emphasis on 'NEED'

Analytical:

So Vortex, can you spell it out very simply who Jesus is, where he came from, where he is now, why he was born, backed with whatever source you want?  Remember, make it simple so a 5-year old can understand it.

I can't make it any simpler than Jesus Himself already did. Get a copy of The Bible and read The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. There, you'll find simple answers to your questions; so simple, a 5-year-old would understand, if only he would exert himself with the mental effort due that age!

@ Nezan,

Nezan:

@ Vortex;
Symbolic of what? To guide the Israelites to what? You see how you boxed yourself into a corner? Yes it was symbolic of a greater picture to come- the shedding of Jesus’ blood on the cross.

It was also symbolic in the sense that blood had to be spilled for atonement. What other blood that was fit to be spilled for the salvation of the entire mankind than the blood of an innocent Son of God?

It was also to guide the Israelites into this future truth- That God will sacrifice His Son for the salvation of mankind!

1. Symbolic of personal responsbilities for your actions.

2. To guide the Israelites into realising that they are personally responsible for their actions. If everytime they err, they atone, they get to gradually cultivate sound moral responsibility as well as other virtues.

Those are the simple explanations. That's the simple message I tried to pass across. Which corner have I boxed myself into?

Na wa o. LOL. Are you obssessed with this blood theory?

@ Nezan

Nezan:

I would have chosen to ignore you, but I sensed your ignorance hence this reply:

Reading through the book of exodus and other books in the old testament (or the Jewish torah) can be a very shocking experience: it is replete with stories of countless animals been killed and sacrificed to God. You may ask, why the need for the sobering and disturbing spilling of blood?

The bible says that ‘the wages of sin is death’ (Romans 6:23), and that ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23). Jesus also, shortly before His death, shared a cup of wine and declared: ‘This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sin’ (Matthew 26:28).

The sacrificing of animals was given to the Israelites as a lesson about the cost that God will pay in the person of His Son to redeem humanity to Himself. God also told Moses that blood represents life. The blood of the sacrificed, innocent animals represented the cost of redemption in the blood of God’s own Son.

What a shocking and blatant lie you told there. How can God’s attributes be below that of a man? You make hipped-up claims without backing them up with facts. The Christian God is love (which He demonstrated by sending His Son to die for man’s redemption), He is all-knowing, Omnipresent etc. etc., which attribute has made God less than man, liar?

Yeah, yeah, I'm the ignorant one. I must be really ignorant to assume that you will have the decency not to equate the spilling of human blood with that of animals.

Insteading of regarding the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament as a preparation for the future slaughtering of The Son of God, why didn't you regard it as a simple way to teach the simple people of Israel of that time to turn away from sin?

Why didn't it occur to you that the Israelites of that time of whatever status, will sooner or later see the need to desist from his evil ways if he had to make one atonement or the other for every trangression? He doesn't need constant admonition before he realises that he will, sooner than later, lose face before his fellow Israelites if he keeps atoning by way of one sacrifice or the other for one particualr trangression or the other.

Can you not see that those animal sacrifices were merely symbolic, the whole purpose of which was to guide the Israelites? You and others like you make it look like your god was feeding on those sacrifices and wasn't satisfied until he finally drank the blood of his own son! What a shame!

Have you seen that there is an alternative explanation to your disgusting tale of blood and violence?

Nezan:

@Vortex;

spilled blood of an innocent person is needed to redeem man and bring him back to God

Spilled blood was needed by whom, and to what purpose? What image of a god are you painting that would at one time say 'Thou shall not kill' as a law etched in stone but a short while later, (our 1000 years is as 1 day with Him, remember?) say, 'Though I said 'Thou shall not kill', but it's alright, you can kill my son, I need his blood to slake the thirst that your sins has awakened'.

Seen in its stark reality, that is the picture you are painting. Never mind all the mindbending dialectics you call into play to explain it.

God Almighty, as He should be known, is a standard of perfection. He is perfect from eternity to eternity. If you agree that He once said 'Thou shalt not kill', take that as a perfect standard. The very idea that He came again to change this standard, even once, questions His eternal perfection. Do you improve on perfection? Do you make the perfect more perfect?

Nezan:

@Vortex;

See the scenario you are creating here: an act was committed against a beast, the beast then gave up his life defending his younger one. That scenario is quite different from what happened to Jesus’ sacrifice. Look at the scenario: man sinned against God, spilled blood of an innocent person is needed to redeem man and bring him back to God (against your scenario where there is nothing like this), Jesus, been equal with God and free from sin, offered to spilled His blood to redeem mankind. In effect, Jesus (equivalent of the beast in the scenario you created), gave up His life to redeem man (His children).

No, it's the scenario YOU and others like you paint. I only cast light on it by using everyday terms so the full import can be driven home to you. By the way, you got the very simple scenario wrong. You are so lost in the mental maze of digging up convoluted theories of how to justify the unjustifiable that simple terms no longer have meanings to you.

In the scenario, your god is supposed to be the beast who gave up its child to
another being who offended it, so that when this other being killed its (your god's) child, the blood spilled will now somehow, mysteriously, appease the anger of your god. Read the write-up again and respond accordingly. Your present response is not in line with what I wrote.  

Nezan:

@Vortex;

Was God enjoying this scenario? NO, He could not behold it, that was why He turned away temporarily from the Son.

How temporal was the turning away. Knowing the time difference between God and Man, how temporal was this turning away that it will not translate to days or weeks in our own time frame. have you thought of what that portends for mankind if God was to turn away for one micro-nanosecond (excuse the word) of His own time?

Assuming your god did turn away at the high point of the sacrifice, what does that action imply? That he did not know what was in store for him when he ratified the 'sacrifice'? he turned away, then had an about-face to accept the sacrifice. If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is. He didn't enjoy it but he accepted it.  Have you started seeing the extent of your blasphemy now?

Before you hasten to reply to all this, sit down, think it through and then ask yourself if what you are going to write can be understood by a five-year old, before he/she is brainwashed into thinking that voluntary martyrdom is a virtue. If you can not honestly answer a 'yes' to the question, you need not bother to reply, for

The Greatness of God lies in His simplicity!

No wonder Jesus said 'except you become like a litlle child, you cannot see The Kingdom of God'.

davidylan:

The only problem here is that you purport to know what God should do.

Purpoting to know what God should do shouldn't be a problem and it's not. Everything that ever was, is and will ever be is subject to His Laws, laid down even before anything was created and so He will not bend them arbitrarily just to please any one. His Ways and Person is the very epitome of Love and Justice. Both go hand in hand. So, one sure-fire way to know what should be ascribed to God is to always look for these twin attributes.

Punishments, as I understand, are meant to teach lessons, not to delight a sane punisher. Your theory of God punishing another in place of several others, is not only devoid of justice to the one punished (being innocent of the crime) it also implies that God took delight in the shedding of human blood. How dare you ascribe such a thing to God Himself and not see a problem but you see a problem with the concept of God being Loving in conjunction with being Just!

davidylan:

I consider it the highest form of sacrifice . . . beasts do this all the time . . . sacrificing themselves for their young. Such a shame humans think this makes no sense.

Beast sacrifice themselves in defence of their young against an external agrressor, NOT give their young to be killed (so they can enjoy the grisly act vicariously) in atonement for an act that was perpetrated against them. That will be 'below the sense of better judgement' of the beast.

@ Modupe01/Analytical/Nezan

You proponents of the Redeeming Blood theory, have you ever stopped to ask yourselves why God would NEED the blood for whatever purpose? Have you ever stopped to ponder that tiresome phrase - 'there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood', instead of rattling it off like a programmed robot?

Are you implying that an omnipotent being who could easily have created any kind of blood of whatever composition to suit any kind of purpose, first has to come to earth, subject us to a gory sight of a violent death just so he can collect the blood of an innocent?

It is greatly disheartening to see that 'christians', who are supposed to be the direct recipient of the sublime message of love and justice brought by Jesus, from God The Father; are the ones who have managed to drag down and make a mess of Jesus' Work! They have managed to conjure an image of a god whose attribute is below that of man. Come to think of it, I can't immediately think of any beast that would do what 'christians' ascribe to God Himself!

[color=#770077][/color]
I have read every comment on this matter so far and I wish to contribute thus without joining issues with anybody.

1. A leader is a leader and on no account should we violate grand rules and insist on remaining in office be it religious, social or political office.
2. In Mathew 19:8b Jesus said "in the beginning it was not so" meaning that God did not create marriage for divorce.
3. In Mathew 19:9 King James Version and confirmed as exact translation the condition for putting away not divorce is fornication. Because Jews marry as virgin and a lady found not to be a virgin is guilty of death. The Husband can forgive the act and continue the marriage, give her up for death sentence or put her away with a note.
4. Jesus said expressly in Mathew 19:9 that the 2 separated spouses must remain single as any remarriage will amount to Adultery.
5. The parties involved are all matured believers who can hear GOD. Hence we should all be careful not to judge the intent or action of these men of God.
6. In Genesis 20:7, God rebuked Abimelech and punished his household for Abraham sake even though Abraham erred by lying. Please let us watch how we comment or slander the Men of God.

Christians worship on The First Day of the Week. That this day is called 'Sunday'  in The English Language is secondary. Any other day of the week can still be tied to one 'ancient' deity or the other :

Monday was derived from Moon's Day
Tuesday from Tiw's day (Tiw is the god of war in the 'ancient' Nordic pantheon of gods and goddesses)
Wednesday from Woden's day (Father of Tiw and dispenser of victory in the Nordic pantheon)
Thursday from Thor's day (Eldest son of Woden and god of thunder)
Friday from Freyja's day (Wife of Woden and goddess of love)
Saturday from Saturn's day (This god is believed to be ruler of the planet Saturn whose revolution round the sun is believed to influence events on earth. )

In a similar way, these months were dedicated as follows:

January - Janus (Roman god of beginnings)
February - Februa (A Roman ritual festival of purification)
March - Mars (Roman god of war)
May - Maia (Roman goddess of spring)
June - Juno (Roman goddess of marriage)
July and August were named after Roman emperors
September to December simply meant 'seventh', 'eighth', 'nineth' and 'tenth' month respectively.
Only April appears to be left out. It means 'to open' since it happens to be the first month of the calendar before it was rearranged to what we have today, where January is now the first month.

Do we now conclude on the basis of these that any activity, say, Wedding, conducted in, for example, January is being done in honour of Janus? I don't think so.

@ poster

How long do you intend to allow baseless fear dictate the direction of your life? People dream, wether asleep or awake. If you don't know the meaning of your dream(s), then you don't NEED to know. I sincerely hope you don't allow any one, under any guise, whether religion, tradition, etc. to lure you into any purposeless mission of 'rejecting' or 'claiming' your dream!

If you do decide not to heed this advise, by all means, go in search of 'spiritual help' but, WATCH YOUR POCKET! I assure you however, you'll end up more confused than you were at the beginning.

We ALL dream EVERY time we sleep. Upon waking up, some people REMEMBER their dreams Most of the time, others FORGET them Most of the time.

I don't think the problem is with her choosing to be celibate or not. It may have more to do with the level of determination to maintain it for 39 years! That alone is enough to scare a lot of guys.

Wouldn't put it past someone like that to draw up a timetable of when to 'do it' as well as  prepare a blueprint of 'appropriate style(s)' for 'it'.

So, the brothers may actually have respected her resolve but still chose to walk because they weren't quite impressed with how it was going to be 'after'.

Come to think of it, how many of us are ready to leave the rest of their lives with someone whose  'prim and proper' conduct is a constant reminder of your 'unworthiness'? Let her recheck her attitude and she just might clinch it before she gets to the big 4-0.

All that aside, I actually don't see what the big fuss is all about getting married. You can be unmarried and still live a fulfilled life!