Does God demand equality?
- Thread starter French Patriot
- Start date
I am still here, FP. The Scapegoat is God's prescription for fellowship with Him:
"The Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they approached the Lord. The Lord said to Moses: 'Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. For I will appear in the cloud over the atonement cover. This is how Aaron is to enter the Most Holy Place: He must first bring a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. He is to put on the sacred linen tunic, with linen undergarments next to his body; he is to tie the linen sash around him and put on the linen turban. These are sacred garments; so he must bathe himself with water before he puts them on. From the Israelite community he is to take two male goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. Aaron is to offer the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household. Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting. He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat. Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the Lord and sacrifice it for a sin offering. But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat." (Leviticus 16:1-10 NIV)
The spirit of fear departed from me when guilt did, FP. You can live without fear, as well.
Last edited:
Not at all.
I just thought that most here knew how to use a dictionary for common terms.
Regards
DL
You can live without your adult fairy tale as well. Jews do.
RaceandHistory.com - Doubting the Story of Exodus
Regards
DL
Within the definition of "live", FP, there's "survive" and then there's "thrive" : )
Speaking of scapegoats,
"Azazel' or 'the scapegoat' is mentioned in Leviticus 16 as part of God’s instructions to the Israelites regarding the Day of Atonement. On this day, the high priest would first offer a sacrifice for his sins and those of his household; then he would perform sacrifices for the nation. “From the Israelite community [the high priest was instructed] to take two male goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering” (v. 5). The priest brought the animals before the Lord and cast lots between the two goats – one to be a sacrifice and the other to be the scapegoat. The first goat was slaughtered for the sins of the people and its blood used to cleanse the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar (v. 20). After the cleansing, the live goat was brought to the high priest. Laying his hands on the scapegoat, the high priest was to “confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites – all their sins – and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness” (vv. 21-22). Symbolically, the scapegoat took on the sins of the Israelites and removed them (v. 10).
For Christians, this is a foreshadowing of Christ." What is the meaning of Azazel / the scapegoat?
The Jewish messiah was to live and rule. Not die and not return. That is why most Jews rejected Jesus.
Regards
DL
Here are three more Jewish men, FP who along with Moses embraced God's scapegoat.
Israel's son Joseph embodied the Scapegoat when sold into slavery in Egypt by his brothers: "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." (Genesis 50:20 NIV)
The high priest Caiaphas unwittingly hailed the Scapegoat when he declared: "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." (John 11:49-50 NIV)
The apostle Paul espoused the Scapegoat when he wrote: "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21 NIV)
The rejection of the Scapegoat by Jews as well as Gentiles, FP is about faulty appreciation, not flawed revelation.
Sometimes when I see these nutbars discussing religious theology.....I'm almost ready to become an Atheist or at least an Agnostic .......
More likely it was for moral reasons.
Come and debate those if you have what it takes.
Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil.
You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.
Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.
Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?
In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.
Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?
For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.
Regards
DL
Perhaps there is a morality that is higher than the one you have known, FP.
"You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:6-8 NIV)
You need more feminist friends, I guess. The wife is to respect the husband, but equally as important is that "husbands re to love the wife as Christ loves the church."
As far as women being rulers, there were women rulers in the Bible, some were approved of by God (eg. Deborah) and some where not (eg. Jezebel, who we all know wore the pants in the family).
equality has to be figured out between all peoples of the earth, depending on some makebelief
entity is just an excuse to be unfair to others, because they have a different makebelief entity.
look to each other, lose your arrogance for yourself, see others as equal to yourself, by yourself.
its easy.
entity is just an excuse to be unfair to others, because they have a different makebelief entity.
look to each other, lose your arrogance for yourself, see others as equal to yourself, by yourself.
its easy.
A fungus which grows on the sides of some trees, and are delicious fried.............with eggs.