Is Lucifer really evil?

[Akatsuki_Fighter]

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi

Oh about the think in the ordeal there is this video you should watch. BAsicly all these Hebingers show us repeting history like them. Any way lol off topic...
How has God assured him that? YOu are going my people. The bible is written by humans. We can not be sure what is real and not. Because things were taken out and proven that too. YOu realise during the renissance and the middle ages. (Both diffrent times) The CHurch (Cathlic side) or the Pope changed things to make it so that no one would understand and the church could rule. For all we know they could have done the same when the bible was reporduced by a german man that made the printing press. The only true way is to read the scrolls but they are in Latin a dead language no one can translate anymore. It was used during that time then old english whish you can not read then modern english. So to trust the modern bibles is not a smart idea.

So say Lucifer can not change is also wrong because he has the free will. He could win ever. We also do not know what happened that he hated God. For all we know he forsaw something and told God don't make humans. He can tempt us but we making the choice are the ones doing the sinning.

A video... you mean Isiah 9:10 Judgement? Saw that. Usually not so quick to believe that kinda stuff, but the dude made some valid points and plenty of evidence. But the evidence that man presented was all from Scripture. Sure, he had written and visual proof of recently repeated history, but you said the Bible was written by people, not God, so how can you trust that this Biblical passage is truth while others are not? You see, the only way is to believe the Bible is God's infallible Word: written through man, yes, but inspired perfectly by the Holy Spirit. By no means am I suggesting to blindly believe, in fact I would say not to. I believe that blind belief in anything, even the truth, is dangerous. But you can back-check the Scriptures. Yes, there are many translations of the Bible. I've leafed through a few of them, and all of them are very similar. They may have different wording here and there but it easy to see they all mean the same thing. In fact, most differences are so small, it would be stupid to argue that it's wrong because of "multiple translations".

And I'm aware of the Catholic church's plots back then (and no doubt now with their political influence, though that doesn't mean all Catholic believers are fakers or money-grubbers). At my Great Aunt's funeral a few years back, I heard an excerpt from the book of Wisdom at her service and was first exposed to the fact that the Catholic Bible was different from the rest, at least in that it has an extra book. Now that kind of difference may be good enough to put up some alarms, but here's another thing: you can refer all the way back to the original Hebrew manuscripts, because there are scholars who know the language and check the current translations to the original to validate them. And these same scholars argue that the Bible has maintained it's original meaning, and better yet, they're historians, so they'll show proof in their studies. Now I've been meaning to look into this for myself for quite a while, because like you said, there are also scholars who would disagree, but something tells me that if both sides are observed, the truth will be plainly obvious.

But why all the paranoia over the translations? Brought over from the printing press? Yeah, well how else would they be able to make a whole lotta books for a whole lotta people? Plus, do you not trust God to be able to accurately inspire his message for his people into the original writing? Or that he wouldn't also have his hand over the translations? It's his Word we're talking about here! Without it we're helpless to be able to accurately know and love God! I mean, how can you even believe in the God of the Bible if you pick and choose what to believe about him? Can it even be called faith anymore? Is it even the God of the Bible anymore? The Bible was meant as a testimony about God, by God, for people, and if the Bible has any truth, he can make sure that people don't screw up his authorship.

My New Living Translation 2nd Ed. has a note on the translation, so I'll post part of that sometime today or tomorrow. Til, then.

[Akatsuki_Fighter]

Here's some stuff from my Student's Life Application Bible, New Living Translation 2nd Ed. (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois). It may be long, but it's worth it and has useful info. And I personally find it interesting, anyway.

Translation Philosophy and Methodology
"English Bible translations tend to be governed by one of two general translation theories. The first theory has been called 'formal-equivalence,' 'literal,' or 'word-for-word' translation. According to this theory, the translator attempts to render each word of the original language into English and seeks to preserve the original syntax and sentence structure as much as possible in translation. The second theory has been called 'dynamic-equivalence,' 'functional-equivalence,' or 'thought-for-thought' translation. The goal of this translation theory is to produce in English the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original-language text, both in meaning and in style.
"Both of these translation theories have their strengths. A formal-equivalence translation preserves aspects of the original text--including ancient idioms, term consistency, and original-language syntax--that are valuable for scholars and professional study. It allows a reader to trace formal elements of the original-language text through the English translation. A dynamic-equivalence translation, on the other hand, focuses on translating the message of the original-language text. It ensures that the meaning of the text is readily apparent to the contemporary reader. This allows the message to come through with immediacy, without requiring the reader to struggle with foreign idioms and awkward syntax. It also facilitates serious study of the text's message and clarity in both devotional and public reading.
"The pure application of either of these translation philosophies would create translations at opposite ends of the translation spectrum. But in reality, all translations contain a mixture of these two philosophies. A purely formal-equivalence translation would be unintelligible in English, and a purely dynamic-equivalence translation would risk being unfaithful to the original. That is why translations shaped by dynamic-equivalence theory are usually quite literal when the original text is relatively clear, and the translations shaped by formal-equivalence theory are sometimes quite dynamic when the original text is obscure.
"The translators of the New Living Translation set out to render the message of the original texts of Scripture into clear, contemporary English. As they did so, they kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind. On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear, and natural English text. Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient metaphors, and word choices that give structure to the text and provide echoes of meaning from one passage to the next.
"On the other hand, the translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarify difficult metaphors and terms to aid in the reader's understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English. Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable. The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful."

Translation Process and Team
"To produce an accurate translation of the Bible into contemporary English, the translation team needed the skills necessary to enter into the thought patterns of the ancient authors and then to render their ideas, connotations, and effects into clear, contemporary English. To begin this process, qualified Biblical scholars were needed to interpret the meaning of the original text and to check it against our base English translation. In order to guard against personal and theological biases, the scholars needed to represent a diverse group of Evangelicals who would employ the best exegetical tools. Then to work alongside the scholars, skilled English stylists were needed to shape the text into clear, contemporary English.
"With these concerns in mind, the Bible Translation Committee recruited teams of scholars that represented a broad spectrum of denominations, theological perspectives, and backgrounds within the worldwide Evangelical community. (These scholars are listed at the end of this introduction.) Each book of the Bible was assigned to three different scholars with proven expertise in the book or group of books to be reviewed. Each of these scholars made a thorough review of a base translation and submitted suggested revisions to the appropriate Senior Translator. The Senior Translator then reviewed and summarized these suggestions and proposed a first-draft revision of the base text. This draft served as the basis for several additional phases for exegetical and stylistic committee review. Then the Bible Translation Committee jointly reviewed and approved every verse of the final translation.
"Throughout the translation and editing process, the Senior Translators and their scholar teams were given a chance to review the editing done by the team of stylists. This ensured that exegetical errors would not be introduced late in the process and that the entire Bible Translation Committee was happy with the final result. By choosing a team of qualified scholars and skilled stylists and by setting up a process that allowed their interaction throughout the process, the New Living Translation has been refined to preserve the essential formal elements of the original biblical texts, while also creating a clear, understandable English text.
"The New Living Translation was first published in 1996. Shortly after its initial publication, the Bible Translation Committee began a process of further committee review and translation refinement. The purpose of this continued revision was to increase the level of precision without sacrificing the text's easy-to-understand quality. This second-edition text was completed in 2004, and this printing of the New Living Translation reflects the updated text."

The Texts Behind the New Living Translation
"The Old Testament translators used the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as represented in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977), with its extensive system of textual notes; this is an update of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica (Suttgart, 1937). The translators also further compared the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and other Greek manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and any other versions or manuscripts that shed light on the meaning of difficult passages.
"The New Testament translators used the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (UBS, fourth revised edition, 1993), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (NA, twenty-seventh edition, 1993). These two editons, which have the same text, but differ in punctuation and textual notes, represent, for the most part, the best in modern textual scholarship. However, in cases where strong textual or other scholarly evidence supported the decision, the translators sometimes chose to differ from the UBS and NA Greek texts and followed variant readings found in other ancient witnesses. Significant textual variants of this sort are always noted in the textual notes of the New Living Translation."

So as you can see, they put a lot of hard, meticulous, careful, and unbiased work into these translations, and they use qualified scholars and reliable methods. I quoted the parts I thought were most important for now, but if you want, Shishi, I will post the list of the translation team (as the second section mentioned them listing) as well as a list of mentioned translation issues, textual footnotes, ect. In my personal testimony, I've been reading the Bible for a while (though I still have much to learn), and I find absolute consistency and relevant teachings within it, both within itself and relating to the real world. I have come across things that I didn't understand, believed to be in error or inconsistent, or just didn't sit right with me, but I continued to search and ask God for the answers, and I have yet to be given a reason to believe the Bible is wrong or has been sabotaged. I am a free thinker and have an open mind, and that is what allows me to question what I don't understand and to seek the answers I need to determine the truth. I have found nothing wrong with my Bible and continuously find it to be an excellent study tool with historical timelines, maps, an introduction to each of the 66 books with stats and key points, study points, an index, and plenty of footnotes that highlight alternate word or verse translations, translation issues, Hebrew terms, ect. I hope this helps, and let me know if you want those other lists

[Bazk]

He is the nicest guy, he keeps all the bad guys in hell so heaven can be pleasent

[Muffintop]

By the bible's standards, sure he was bad, but so was a wife who wasn't a virgin. The woman would be put to death. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) I have not found anything that says that Satan has actually killed anyone; however, the same cannot be said of God. The Old Testament is full of brutality and an authoritarian God, killing thousands, if not millions, of people--men, women, children, and infants alike. God has expressed his hate many, many times.

Hell wasn't even in the equation until the New Testament came along. The Hebrew word for hell, sheol, is commonly translated as grave, not hell.

[Bacon]

I remember seeing a comic of hell being a place where "sinners" drank,smoke and -mongered

It was like an extreme version of a las vegas stripclub and casino combined,but on fire

[Akatsuki_Fighter]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

By the bible's standards, sure he was bad, but so was a wife who wasn't a virgin. The woman would be put to death. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) I have not found anything that says that Satan has actually killed anyone; however, the same cannot be said of God. The Old Testament is full of brutality and an authoritarian God, killing thousands, if not millions, of people--men, women, children, and infants alike. God has expressed his hate many, many times.

Hell wasn't even in the equation until the New Testament came along. The Hebrew word for hell, sheol, is commonly translated as grave, not hell.

Yeah, sex before marriage is a sin, and I don't like the way it was handled back then either, but there's no comparison to Lucifer. And God had killed sinful people. I've already talked about this in other posts on this same thread, and I don't wanna repeat it again. I'll just say I don't like those happenings, but there's a reason behind it. Wanna know more, just check a few pages back.

And before anybody challenges me on this: I'm still not quite content with my understanding of God's "level of harshness" between the Old and New Testaments. I won't pretend I'm ok with it. All in due time; I'll let you know when I settle on something.

And of course Satan was in the OT. First of all, he's a major player mentioned by name in the book of Job (and I'm sure in other books). And yep, you're right that Hebrew for "hell" can also be translated as "grave," but it's made clear that these terms are meant to be as such. It's another poetic and quite literal mechanic of the Bible. To be in hell is to be in the grave, the "true grave; truly dead," while simply being dead in temporary. Not the first Hebrew word to have multiple translations in the Bible. The trick is to look at the context of the passage.

[Muffintop]

Originally Posted by Akatsuki_Fighter

Yeah, sex before marriage is a sin, and I don't like the way it was handled back then either, but there's no comparison to Lucifer. And God had killed sinful people. I've already talked about this in other posts on this same thread, and I don't wanna repeat it again. I'll just say I don't like those happenings, but there's a reason behind it. Wanna know more, just check a few pages back.

And before anybody challenges me on this: I'm still not quite content with my understanding of God's "level of harshness" between the Old and New Testaments. I won't pretend I'm ok with it. All in due time; I'll let you know when I settle on something.

And of course Satan was in the OT. First of all, he's a major player mentioned by name in the book of Job (and I'm sure in other books). And yep, you're right that Hebrew for "hell" can also be translated as "grave," but it's made clear that these terms are meant to be as such. It's another poetic and quite literal mechanic of the Bible. To be in hell is to be in the grave, the "true grave; truly dead," while simply being dead in temporary. Not the first Hebrew word to have multiple translations in the Bible. The trick is to look at the context of the passage.

So why isn't it still handled the same way? Was it not God's will?

It's often debated that Satan and Lucifer are not one in the same. Lucifer is said to not be about a fallen angel, but about the fallen King of Babylon. "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" And to quote someone else -

"Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court."

Satan is often translated as the adversary. It's like saying robber or thief; it's a common name for those who wrong.

[Akatsuki_Fighter]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

So why isn't it still handled the same way? Was it not God's will?

It's often debated that Satan and Lucifer are not one in the same. Lucifer is said to not be about a fallen angel, but about the fallen King of Babylon. "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" And to quote someone else -

"Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court."

Satan is often translated as the adversary. It's like saying robber or thief; it's a common name for those who wrong.

Well, I at least know this: none of us are innocent. Back then Jesus still had not come, and so it was necessary to offer sacrifices to be forgiven of sin. Jesus was a sacrifice for our sins; he paid for our deaths with his undeserved death, thus paying the requirement for sin for all eternity and also making us righteous in God's sight. So the sacrifice bit lines up with how things were done for the beginning. As for being killed for our sin in the past, sometimes (like Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's Flood) it was to prevent large amounts of evil to further devastate the world (these entire populations were deeply steeped in evil). As for the more "personal" cases, it was also because sin was and still is very dangerous. It's very much a disease: the longer and more intensely people are exposed to it, the more it corrupts and infects the people. I'm not gonna pretend I like death for any reason, but something we all have to remember is that nobody is truly innocent or a "good person." Everyone falls short. Still we like to look at ourselves, and as long as we don't consistently do wrong or heinous crimes like rape or murder, we consider ourselves worthy of forgiveness or take the liberty of removing the consequences of our wrongs from our own minds. That's still something I need to be constantly reminded of: I haven't deserved anything; I should be dead, and I have no argument otherwise.

But don't get the wrong idea, just because we deserve death, doesn't mean God'll do just that. All we've done is spit in his face, but he loved us enough to send his son and forgive us. He didn't require sacrifices or the death of people to be a jerk, he did it because it was the price of sin and he is a just God. And that's why he sent his son: to meet the requirements. But if he was really a horrible tyrant, then why would he do that? Why wouldn't he just keep offin' us? Simple, because he never wanted us to die, and he loved us enough to put a stop to it himself. So in review, things really are done the same way: back then, sacrifice and death were required, and with Christ his sacrifice and death were required to save us for eternity by giving payment with a life that had never been tainted by sin, and therefore did not deserve the punishment. The danger and price of sin has not changed, it's just that the requirements of reconciliation have been forever completed. We were never "worthy," but God loved us enough to make us so anyway. You guys gettin' this? God died for humanity to save them from a fate we deserved. That... is the greatest demonstration of love I've ever seen.

And interesting thing about Lucifer there. Either way, they may be talking about the Babylonian king there or not, but he (Satan) is still named Lucifer and is mentioned throughout the Old and New Testaments. It's not the first time there's been more than one person called by the same name, especially in the Bible. And no wonder God would have named Lucifer as such! Just look at your entire second paragraph! What a befitting name for the angel that was once the most beautiful in all of God's heaven!

And I suppose I'd say the same about the name "Satan": befitting of the description. Names have meaning, even common ones like David. I see no problem in this. Whether you'd say "Satan," "thief," or "robber," it gets the point across. And that's the point. The Bible constantly has characters, good or bad, that are named after some kind of defining feature or event near the time of their birth.

And I guess I've settled on my belief about the OT and NT. God has not changed: he was no less loving and no more "harsh" back then than he is now. I simply needed to take time and reflect upon the issue, and I have been reminded about this truth. Thank you for your patience.

[Jinchiruuki]

I was going to type a response, then I decided to follow Stan's, Kenny's and Kyle's approach in the South Park episode of Krazy Kripple's. "Yeah let's just stay out of this one".

ALL HAIL LUCIFER.

[Muffintop]

Originally Posted by Akatsuki_Fighter

Well, I at least know this: none of us are innocent. Back then Jesus still had not come, and so it was necessary to offer sacrifices to be forgiven of sin. Jesus was a sacrifice for our sins; he paid for our deaths with his undeserved death, thus paying the requirement for sin for all eternity and also making us righteous in God's sight. So the sacrifice bit lines up with how things were done for the beginning. As for being killed for our sin in the past, sometimes (like Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's Flood) it was to prevent large amounts of evil to further devastate the world (these entire populations were deeply steeped in evil). As for the more "personal" cases, it was also because sin was and still is very dangerous. It's very much a disease: the longer and more intensely people are exposed to it, the more it corrupts and infects the people. I'm not gonna pretend I like death for any reason, but something we all have to remember is that nobody is truly innocent or a "good person." Everyone falls short. Still we like to look at ourselves, and as long as we don't consistently do wrong or heinous crimes like rape or murder, we consider ourselves worthy of forgiveness or take the liberty of removing the consequences of our wrongs from our own minds. That's still something I need to be constantly reminded of: I haven't deserved anything; I should be dead, and I have no argument otherwise.

But don't get the wrong idea, just because we deserve death, doesn't mean God'll do just that. All we've done is spit in his face, but he loved us enough to send his son and forgive us. He didn't require sacrifices or the death of people to be a jerk, he did it because it was the price of sin and he is a just God. And that's why he sent his son: to meet the requirements. But if he was really a horrible tyrant, then why would he do that? Why wouldn't he just keep offin' us? Simple, because he never wanted us to die, and he loved us enough to put a stop to it himself. So in review, things really are done the same way: back then, sacrifice and death were required, and with Christ his sacrifice and death were required to save us for eternity by giving payment with a life that had never been tainted by sin, and therefore did not deserve the punishment. The danger and price of sin has not changed, it's just that the requirements of reconciliation have been forever completed. We were never "worthy," but God loved us enough to make us so anyway. You guys gettin' this? God died for humanity to save them from a fate we deserved. That... is the greatest demonstration of love I've ever seen.

And interesting thing about Lucifer there. Either way, they may be talking about the Babylonian king there or not, but he (Satan) is still named Lucifer and is mentioned throughout the Old and New Testaments. It's not the first time there's been more than one person called by the same name, especially in the Bible. And no wonder God would have named Lucifer as such! Just look at your entire second paragraph! What a befitting name for the angel that was once the most beautiful in all of God's heaven!

And I suppose I'd say the same about the name "Satan": befitting of the description. Names have meaning, even common ones like David. I see no problem in this. Whether you'd say "Satan," "thief," or "robber," it gets the point across. And that's the point. The Bible constantly has characters, good or bad, that are named after some kind of defining feature or event near the time of their birth.

And I guess I've settled on my belief about the OT and NT. God has not changed: he was no less loving and no more "harsh" back then than he is now. I simply needed to take time and reflect upon the issue, and I have been reminded about this truth. Thank you for your patience.

Jesus died for our ancestors sins of the past, what about our sins of the present? Why not make sacrifices now to appease God?

A person's definition of sin varies. One person may think of one thing as sinful, while another may not think that in the slightest. Who's to say who's right and wrong?

How is God no different between the Old Testament and New? He did a complete about-face, going from being spiteful and vindictive to ''all-loving.'' He talked of slaves, was sexist, killed countless people, etc.

[The Second Pornkage]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

Jesus died for our ancestors sins of the past, what about our sins of the present? Why not make sacrifices now to appease God?

I'll answer this much. According to Catholic belief, Jesus' sacrifice was the ultimate sacrifice, atoning for all sins past, present, AND future. His Resurrection signified the salvation of mankind, allowing us to enter heaven and be with him and his Father. He is the one true priest and sacrifice of the present-day, according to Catholicism

[Muffintop]

Originally Posted by The Second Pornkage

I'll answer this much. According to Catholic belief, Jesus' sacrifice was the ultimate sacrifice, atoning for all sins past, present, AND future. His Resurrection signified the salvation of mankind, allowing us to enter heaven and be with him and his Father. He is the one true priest and sacrifice of the present-day, according to Catholicism

Okay, so why is it we're all still considered sinners then? By definition, we are, correct? Are we automatically exempted?

[The Second Pornkage]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

Okay, so why is it we're all still considered sinners then? By definition, we are, correct? Are we automatically exempted?

Excellent point. I'm no theology teacher, but I know I heard the answer to that a couple months ago in class. The Original Sin carried by humanity supposedly brought evil into the world, evil that tempted mankind and won over good several times. Jesus' death and resurrection reversed that, giving humanity a chance to defeat evil and sin in the world. It didn't necessarily forgive everyone instantly, but it ENABLED them to be forgiven and enter heaven. The actual forgiveness comes from contrition and repentance, and reconciliation. Thanks to Jesus' sacrifice, sin can be cleansed and defeated, but we still have to choose forgiveness and steer clear of sin. It went something like that, I believe

[Muffintop]

Originally Posted by The Second Pornkage

Excellent point. I'm no theology teacher, but I know I heard the answer to that a couple months ago in class. The Original Sin carried by humanity supposedly brought evil into the world, evil that tempted mankind and won over good several times. Jesus' death and resurrection reversed that, giving humanity a chance to defeat evil and sin in the world. It didn't necessarily forgive everyone instantly, but it ENABLED them to be forgiven and enter heaven. The actual forgiveness comes from contrition and repentance, and reconciliation. Thanks to Jesus' sacrifice, sin can be cleansed and defeated, but we still have to choose forgiveness and steer clear of sin. It went something like that, I believe

So it wasn't atoning for all of our sins? If we're able to pray for forgiveness now, why not before? Why would God need to go through all the trouble of letting his only son be sacrificed in such an excruciating way?

Lot's of questions coming to mind, sorry. xD

[The Second Pornkage]

It's good, and it's a pretty dang confusing thing for me too. The way I interpret it is as follows: the sin Jesus atones for is our Original Sin, passed down since the dawn of man. People could pray for forgiveness in the past (at least, I think...not too well-versed on Old Testament stuff), but their Original Sin could not be washed away. But God loved humanity so much that he sent his own son to die as the ultimate sacrifice so that the original sin mankind brought upon itself could be erased by him. Now, people can was away original sin simply by accepting Jesus into their lives and being baptized. As for ALL our sins, God is forgiving, and will cleanse those as long as we are truly sorry and reconcile.

All this religious talk coming from Pornkage must seem kinda weird, no?

[Muffintop]

Originally Posted by The Second Pornkage

It's good, and it's a pretty dang confusing thing for me too. The way I interpret it is as follows: the sin Jesus atones for is our Original Sin, passed down since the dawn of man. People could pray for forgiveness in the past (at least, I think...not too well-versed on Old Testament stuff), but their Original Sin could not be washed away. But God loved humanity so much that he sent his own son to die as the ultimate sacrifice so that the original sin mankind brought upon itself could be erased by him. Now, people can was away original sin simply by accepting Jesus into their lives and being baptized. As for ALL our sins, God is forgiving, and will cleanse those as long as we are truly sorry and reconcile.

All this religious talk coming from Pornkage must seem kinda weird, no?

Ah, I was mainly talking about the Old Testament prior (excluding the Jesus talk). Multiple sacrifices were made to appease God. I just didn't really get why he would call for 'em one minute, then completely change his mind and tell everyone it was cool. Kinda like he was just having a bad day or something of the sort.

Actually, I find it very avant-garde.

[The Second Pornkage]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

Ah, I was mainly talking about the Old Testament prior (excluding the Jesus talk). Multiple sacrifices were made to appease God. I just didn't really get why he would call for 'em one minute, then completely change his mind and tell everyone it was cool. Kinda like he was just having a bad day or something of the sort.

Actually, I find it very avant-garde.

Ah, I gotcha. Christians just see Jesus as the last sacrifice, meaning, well, we've already made the sacrifice to forgive all of our sins now. Of course, the sacrifice isn't the ONLY part of being forgiven. Still, we don't need no stinkin' sacrifices anymore

[Akatsuki_Fighter]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

Jesus died for our ancestors sins of the past, what about our sins of the present? Why not make sacrifices now to appease God?

A person's definition of sin varies. One person may think of one thing as sinful, while another may not think that in the slightest. Who's to say who's right and wrong?

How is God no different between the Old Testament and New? He did a complete about-face, going from being spiteful and vindictive to ''all-loving.'' He talked of slaves, was sexist, killed countless people, etc.

No, it's stated very clearly that Jesus' death provided ultimate forgiveness to all peoples all the way from the first sin to the last (whenever that'll be). Even if it could be argued, at the very least it'd have been fulfillment for all sins of that time through the future, but Jesus' sacrifice was an innocent one, and God has deemed it eternally saving. That's why we don't need to sacrifice anymore.

And yes, a person's idea of sin varies, but God's doesn't. If he's perfect and just, then he has the final say, no argument. And he hasn't shied away from telling us what he considers sin: the 10 Commandments. And while he asks us to do our best to keep it, we are bound by Jesus, not the Law, and are therefore forgiven. We were forgiven before, but even more so with Jesus because it's impossible for us to completely keep the Commandments.

Also, even if a person doesn't worry about their mistakes, it's still there. I'm no fire-and-brimstone kook. I don't like people going around trying to guilt-trip people into believing (that's just rude and scummy), but I do say "Hey, God loves ya and he wants ya." People also need to know that even if they're not upset about their mistakes, they're still counted against them, but God wants to clean the slate. It's fine if people have come to terms with their wrongs, heck it's a good thing, but they're still there until they are forgiven.

And God hasn't made a 180, he's been the same. He was never spiteful and vindictive. He is a good, just God who has been observing a sinful creation. Then and now he has been keeping sin from infecting the world too much. Death was always the penalty (and forgiving quality with sacrifice) of sin: no surprise it's such a heavy burden! And with Jesus, it was finished with a sacrifice forever and ever. The whole sacrifice shtick hasn't changed!

Neither has his love. He has shown his love countless times even in the big bad OT, and especially when he chose to die for us with Jesus! That's what makes his sacrifice so amazing and loving, because it has allowed God to be more lenient with us! Do you guys get this? Before Jesus, the immediate consequences of sin were much more harsh, but it was justice being brought over evil deeds. It needed to be dealt with, and with Jesus it's finally been dealt with once and for all.

As for slaves? Yeah, God talked about them. He talked about alotta things, but it doesn't mean he was ok with all of it. I talk about the cost of sin being death and the OT being descriptive of it, but it doesn't mean I like it. Who would like death? When it came to slaves, God was lenient with humans. There were quite a few things he was lenient on, even in OT. (One example was simply leaving a notice of divorce if you wanted to end a marriage, but when Jesus came he said it was in leniency and that he no longer would accept it.) God would say, "If you have slaves... do this." You're probably thinking of the horrific subjugation of African Americans when you say slavery, right? Or something to that effect. But if you look, God commanded slave owners to treat their slaves well and like family. Not everybody listened (and not everybody refrains from murder either), but many characters in the Bible with slaves obeyed.

And God, sexist? No. But I see where you're coming from. It's a common argument like the slavery thing. I dunno what exactly you think is sexist, so I'll just talk about points I've heard before and hope I hit one: (1) "Eve came from Adam's rib. That means woman is a lesser creature to God." Yes, she was created from Adam, but it was not as a lesser. She was an equal and was a perfect PARTNER for Adam. Not slave. Not subordinate. PARTNER; and EQUAL. (2) "But what about God appointing man as the leader? That's pretty sexist; women can lead too!" Yes, women can lead very well. But it's not sexist. Think about it this way: if two people struggle for authority, what gets done? What kind of happiness can there be in that kind of relationship? God chose one so this could be immediately resolved. (3) "So it was random? That's bull." No, it wasn't random. I'm not saying that women don't have leadership qualities or a drive to be a leader, but overall men have a VERY strong urge to be strong, and protect, and lead. And that is what God intended. (4) "Still sounds sexist to me! Men given authority to lead while women do all the housework." You've got it all wrong. See, what you're thinking of here is an authoritarian "shut up, your say isn't worth crap. just do what I say" kind of leadership. God called man to lead, but he also NEEDED a partner, hence Eve and all women since. It once again points to women being of equal stature and worth to men, because they are to assist the man with things like decision-making, raising a family, and jobs he may not be able to do alone, as well as encourage him when he questions his husbandry or leadership. It is important and encouraged for the woman to be with the man ever step of the way and to help guide his decisions as an equal, but in the end God wants the man to make the final decision and put it into action (although not alone). You see, we need to think of this in the context of the kind of relationship God intended: one where there is mutual love and respect and trust, so both can work together. Sure, in this fallen world both will make mistakes, but in a Godly relationship, it can still work, rather than it being one where whoever calls the shots has you under their foot. The man will need to lean on his wife's strength. She can care for him like no other can, and can certainly fill in for him when need be. (5) "Still not convinced. Explain to me how assistance can be just as important as leadership." Well, a leader is nothing without his followers, for one thing. Without them, a leader collapses for he has lost his purpose. Also, God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same God and of equal power and stature. Yet, Jesus has willingly submitted to the Father's leadership, and the Holy Spirit to Jesus, to effectively bring about the plan of salvation. He was lead by the Father for his entire life all the way to the cross. He didn't complain that he should lead because he was God or of equal importance. Instead, they have all accepted different roles within their plan to complete their plan. By doing this, God also shows how a leadership role can be taken and executed responsibly even among equals, and that all roles are of equal importance. He also shows this through the Church: Paul writes to some people who believe that their spiritual gifts and calling are not as great as some others, but he assures them that all are important and necessary. He says something like "The body cannot only be an eye or an ear. Nor can the body do without them." (6) "Well what about the way women were (and still are) treated in the Bible and even today: having to be covered, only speaking when permitted, always being short-changed or degraded!" This'll be my shortest and last answer: it was the culture. I've already said before that just because something's in the Bible doesn't mean God likes it; there are alotta of things described in the Bible that God doesn't agree with. And so far I haven't seen anything in the Bible that suggests God is ok with treating women that way.

Hope that helped. Let me know if I missed a point

Edit: Oh, and don't think I mean women are for man and man alone. Yeah, we men need women, but of course women are there own people and own their own lives. Friendships, marriages... they should be mutual because all people are unique and have their own lives to live!

[Akatsuki_Fighter]

Originally Posted by Muffintop

Ah, I was mainly talking about the Old Testament prior (excluding the Jesus talk). Multiple sacrifices were made to appease God. I just didn't really get why he would call for 'em one minute, then completely change his mind and tell everyone it was cool. Kinda like he was just having a bad day or something of the sort.

Actually, I find it very avant-garde.

Wow, Pornkage! You go man! You've been spot-on!

I'm a little sad you're still asking this question (mainly because that means I probably didn't explain it that well). The sacrifices were because the penalty of sin is death. That requirement was met by sacrifice so that sin up to that point could be forgiven. Jesus, being the ultimate sacrifice by dying an undeserved death, as Pornkage said, paid that cost for all eternity, reconciling all sins past, present, and future. So God didn't "change his mind". OT called for sacrifices, and Jesus BECAME the sacrifice. The last sacrifice. God's requirements are consistent.

Edit: And yes, we're considered sinners until we are forgiven. We'll still sin afterward, we are by no means perfect, but we are forgiven of our sins and we start becoming more Christ-like so we may sin less and love more.

[The Second Pornkage]

Thanks a bunch, Akatsuki! As a Catholic who has questioned my faith a time or two, I had to look into some of the beliefs to figure out why this religion believes what it does. Religion classes have certainly helped out, too, so I'll offer my knowledge whenever I can help out