The principle of atonement

[Checkpoint]

Or is it contrary to it?

A number of questions may be asked and answered on a thread like this.

For example:

What is the principle of atonement?

What part does atonement play in scripture, and in the old and new covenants?

How can we know what does and does not reflect the character [and ways] of God?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 40 by Justin108]

Couple of things. Reminder, the OP question is about the principle of atonement, what it says about the character of God.

I answered providing alternative verses which I embrace as painting a more benevolent picture of God, as opposed to a bloodthirsty one.(imo)

Now you seem to be asking for evidence for Divine influence of the Bible. I provided my reasons for believing them, giving examples as you asked.

They don't have to be your reasons, and I am not expecting them to be.

The reasons are more convincing to the Theist and those inclined to believe. You seem entrenched in your non-Theism, so I could ask you as well, "why is that"?

Different interpretations of the evidence. Or in this case, what is evidence to me, isn't even evidence for you.

So be it.

[Justin108]

Now you seem to be asking for evidence for Divine influence of the Bible. I provided my reasons for believing them, giving examples as you asked.

I understand that. But then I asked a follow up question. I asked why you believe the Bible to be inspired by God, and your answer (summarized) is that it contains unorthodox beliefs. Now my follow up question is why you do not believe that these unorthodox beliefs simply came from humans?

They don't have to be your reasons, and I am not expecting them to be.

I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm asking you to explain why you hold these beliefs. I am asking you to explain why you do not believe that things like the Golden Rule did not simply come from man?

The reasons are more convincing to the Theist and those inclined to believe.

Again, this is circular. "I believe these came from God because I'm a theist, and I'm a theist because I believe these things came from God"

You seem entrenched in your non-Theism, so I could ask you as well, "why is that"?

If you phrase the question more specifically, I would gladly answer you. My question to you is quite specific: "why do you believe these things did not simply come from man?". If you can ask me an equally specific question, I will gladly answer it.

Different interpretations of the evidence. Or in this case, what is evidence to me, isn't even evidence for you.

So be it.

Why do you seem so eager to end this discussion?

[Elijah John]

Why do you seem so eager to end this discussion?

Because it is off-topic. And because I don't believe I can convince non-Theists of God's existence.

But because I believe all that is good (and life itself) comes from God, I believe the good that is contained within the Bible comes from God as well. That every good impulse in humankind is from God. Including our ability to write and communicate.

I have intuitive reasons for believing in God's existence, and that is beyond the scope of debate.

I have rational (as well as intuitive) reasons for believing the Bible is a mixture of good (or God-inspired) and bad (or at least erroneous).

I also have rational reasons for believing that Jesus is not God, and rational reasons for believing that a good, just and all-wise God never needed blood-sacrifice of any kind.

I would rather focus on those things than debate the basic existence of God.

And this particular topic is about blood-atonement, which I oppose and don't believe in.

If you want to debate God's basic existence, or whether He had anything to do with the Bible, please do so on another thread.

This has already been a derailment.

[onewithhim]

I read that scripture about slave -beating, and the way I see it, it could just as well say "in case a man strikes his employee (man or woman) with a stick and that one actually dies under his hand, that one is to be avenged without fail." What is upsetting about that? God is being very just and merciful to say that such an incident should be avenged. You are upset that having a slave was tolerated? I think that back then a "slave" was the same as an employee. The word "slave" has a much different connotation today.

I don't agree. The verse says it's OK to beat the slave as long as they don't die right away. Is it ever OK to beat one's employees?

Then the verse goes on to say that the slave is "one's property"

Are human beings made in the image of God "property"? If so, why the Exodus? Is freedom for Jews only?

Again, don't you see the irony there? Would the God who liberated Jews from slavery in Egypt then go ahead and give the green light to keeping and beating slaves?

A final comment.....You said that the Jews have "outgrown the need" for blood atonement. Might I say that they have "outgrown" this need because the laws concerning animal sacrifices have been done away with because the "Lamb that takes away the sin of the world" has given his own life in place of goats and bulls, and the temple arrangement is no longer valid. The temple has been gone since 70 A.D., and it won't be back again. If the temple was still in place, I imagine the blood sacrifices would still be going on.

Big problem with that. Jews do not see the death of Jesus as an atonement for anything.

Yes, outgrowing Temple sacrifice was to a degree a matter of necessity, with the destruction of the Temple and all. But the prophets taught that God prefers other things, as referenced with the verses in post # 4. Things like simple thanksgiving, humility, mercy towards others, knowledge of God, praise and contrition.

And Moses Maimonides, (one of the greatest Jewish sages), taught that the sacrifices were only tolerated by YHVH for a time in order to wean YHVH's people away from a pagan practice.

So it is doubtful that the majority of Jews would opt for animal sacrifice, even IF the Temple was ever rebuilt.

Those that are calling for the re-institution of the practice are a distinct minority in modern day Judaism.

And no Jew in good standing sees any need to "turn to Jesus" for atonement. Those few who do are no longer considered Jews. If any Jew embraces Jesus death on the cross as an "atonement", they are not "completed Jews". They are instead considered converts to normative Christianity.

The verse about the slave doesn't at all say it's OK to own slaves the way we think of them now (as being treated like dogs); the slave was merely an employee. And it doesn't say that it's OK to beat someone as long as they don't die. You're reading alot into it. I see the verse as indicating that it's NOT alright to beat one's employees. The "slave" is the property of the "owner" because the employee has agreed to be such to the employer.....a certain job for a certain period of time, for a certain price.

I didn't say anything about any Jews turning to Jesus. I simply tried to make the point that the Jews didn't "outgrow" the sacrifice scenario. They didn't decide they didn't want it any more. They were forced out of it by the temple being destroyed. Little did they know that Jesus had fulfilled the Law.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 16 by Elijah John]

Again, you are ignoring the Bible references which support my position in post # 4. o

I will write a post on these later this week.

In the meantime I will answer your other postings as time permits.

Well, this week and in the meantime have gone and I have posted you nothing further.

Please accept my apology, EJ.

My problem is my eyesight is reduced, making it increasingly difficult to do anything other than the odd short post.

However, let's see what I can manage re your post #4 scriptures this coming week.

You deserve an answer, and so do readers.

I think I can do it over the next few days.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 45 by Checkpoint]

No rush. Hope you're doing OK.

[Justin108]

Why do you seem so eager to end this discussion?

Because it is off-topic

See you've used this excuse before. And then I opened a topic about it, and you refused to participate. So this is not about it being off topic. It's about you just refusing to justify your belief.

And because I don't believe I can convince non-Theists of God's existence.

Do you think anyone on this site is here to convince anyone of anything? I've been here long enough to assure you that's virtually impossible. All I aim to do is listen to your reasoning and critique it. Are you uncomfortable with that? Then I question your choice of coming to this site. Why do you question people for believing Jesus is God yet evade questions when they are directed at your beliefs? Why do you expect others to justify their beliefs yet you refuse to justify your own?

But because I believe all that is good (and life itself) comes from God

But why do you believe that? And why do only believe that about all that is good? What about all that is bad? Where does that come from?

That every good impulse in humankind is from God. Including our ability to write and communicate.

Where do our bad influences come from?

I have rational (as well as intuitive) reasons for believing the Bible is a mixture of good (or God-inspired) and bad (or at least erroneous).

Do these rational reasons rest on more than the assumption that all that is good comes from God? And just to make things clear, I am not asking if "God exists". We can assume for argument sake that he does. I am asking if all that is good necessarily comes from God as this, to me, seems like a baseless assumption.

If you want to debate God's basic existence, or whether He had anything to do with the Bible, please do so on another thread.

This has already been a derailment.

I would gladly debate your assumption that all that is good comes from God on another thread, but you would not participate, so what's the point?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 47 by Justin108

What does any of this have to do with the topic of blood-atonement and it's implications regarding God's character?

If the subject does not interest you, forum rules do not compel you to participate in any given topic.

I've given you my answers.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 47 by Justin108

What does any of this have to do with the topic of blood-atonement and it's implications regarding God's character?

If the subject does not interest you, forum rules do not compel you to participate in any given topic.

I've given you my answers.

You are a master at avoiding questions. Well done. By all means, keep questioning other people's beliefs while refusing to have yours questioned. Unfortunately, hiding behind forum rules makes it impossible for me to do a thing about it.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 47 by Justin108

What does any of this have to do with the topic of blood-atonement and it's implications regarding God's character?

If the subject does not interest you, forum rules do not compel you to participate in any given topic.

I've given you my answers.

You are a master at avoiding questions. Well done. By all means, keep questioning other people's beliefs while refusing to have yours questioned. Unfortunately, hiding behind forum rules makes it impossible for me to do a thing about it.

Have I questioned atheists (non) beliefs? No, and I don't debate the basic existence of God, nor do I claim that I can prove His existence.

The difference is that I admit I cannot prove God's existence or His influence on the Bible. Yes, I start with the assumption that there is a God and He is the source of all that is good, including whatever good is to be discovered within the pages of the Bible.

But we Theists have differing interpretations of Scripture, theology, doctrine and dogma.I would rather debate those things.