@Pikachu Okay, yes, by the law. Laws are made. The point is that justice wouldn't be served if there is no payment of some sort. Blood for blood. Soul for soul. Tooth for tooth. Eye for eye. Adam and all mankind were created to live forever. That was taken away. Adam's blood was perfect without sin before the crime. So only the blood of a perfect man without sin would be of equal, acceptable value. Jesus gave his.
Justice, in modern English, basically means equity, fairness. The Hebrew mishpat is translated as justice or judgement. A plan, custom, rule or proper procedure. (Exodus 26:30; Genesis 40:13; 2 Chronicles 4:20; Leviticus 5:10) If someone takes or destroys something that belongs to you they should be made to give it back. That's fair. The blood, i.e. soul/life of every living thing belongs to the creator, Jehovah God. Justice is very important to Jehovah because of his creation. Think of a judge who would dismiss the damage done to the atheist in my above illustration if he dismissed the value of the thing destroyed by insisting the offended simply "forgive" the offender.
[quote]It's not justice to punish someone else for your crimes.[/quote]
Well . . . we're talking about justice, not necessarily punishment, but I don't necessarily agree with that any way. If the offender in the illustration couldn't afford to pay the atheist for the damages but a family member volunteered to pay, that would be fair.
[quote]How is justice served by blood sacrifice of a third party?[/quote]
In the case of murder who does the soul/life/blood belong to? The creator. (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28)
"By means of him we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of [our] trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness." - Ephesians 1:7
So, what's going on there?
The creator created the angels, including Michael the archangel who would later come to earth as Jesus the man, and the spirit creature Satan who would first sin and deceive Eve. Spirit beings, like Michael and Satan are called sons of God, like mankind. (Job 38:7; Luke 3:38)
[quote]You're describing what is, not explaining why it should be that way. How do you get from is to ought?[/quote]
Jehovah his the offended/judge, Satan is the offender/challenger. Justice is very important the judge, of course, because if the judge corrupts justice (for the sake of his son, for example) then he can no longer officiate as a judge. If he compromises justice, as creator, he compromises everything that exists. His word is no good. His purpose invalid. His name besmirched. His sovereignty over his creation in question.
So, in effect, God is on trial. Satan challenged Jehovah by questioning his intent when he deceived Eve. Raising the question does mankind need God? A charge against Jehovah's sovereignty. Jehovah allowed the question to be answered. If mankind is clearly going to destroy themselves without God then Satan's charge is false.
[sep]
This is more fully explained in the two posts linked to below.
The Meaning Of The Bible https://similarworlds.com/atheism/dislike/4329678-The-Meaning-of-the-Bible-as-I-see-it
The Immortal Soul https://similarworlds.com/christianity/4581315-The-Immortal-Soul-The-immortal-soul-is-a-pagan
[quote]. Think of a judge who would dismiss the damage done to the atheist in my above illustration if he dismissed the value of the thing destroyed by insisting the offended simply "forgive" the offender.[/quote]
Think of a judge who would dismiss the damage done because someone else offered to be punished for the first person's crime. That's not justice. It's substitutional atonement. It's ritual, not logic, not justice.
[quote]If the offender in the illustration couldn't afford to pay the atheist for the damages but a family member volunteered to pay, that would be fair.[/quote]
That analogy falls apart immediately when we're talking about the offended party being the same party that ponies up the money. Again: ritual, not justice.
So what's the point of it? Why the need for blood to forgive someone you want to forgive and you give the blood yourself?
[quote]f he compromises justice, as creator, he compromises everything that exists.[/quote]
I don't think you've yet made a sufficient case that justice is served when the offended party who is also the judge who is also the person paying bail pays the bail.
@Pikachu [quote]Think of a judge who would dismiss the damage done because someone else offered to be punished for the first person's crime. That's not justice. It's substitutional atonement. It's ritual, not logic, not justice.[/quote]
Pikachu, what punishment?
[quote]That analogy falls apart immediately when we're talking about the offended party being the same party that ponies up the money. Again: ritual, not justice.[/quote]
The offended party didn't have the money.
[quote]So what's the point of it? Why the need for blood to forgive someone you want to forgive and you give the blood yourself?[/quote]
Going by each answer in your response I think you are confusing everything.
The point? Precedence. The point of it is blood for blood. Justice. Fairness. Addressing and understanding Satan's charge against Jehovah so the issue is settled and no longer questioned.
Blood isn't needed for forgiveness, blood is the soul/life. Did you read the two links?
From the first: "You may recall that sacred means belonging to God. According to the Bible our soul is our life, represented by our blood, so blood is sacred. To kill someone, or take their soul, requires the payment of the killer's own soul because it is taking something sacred to Jehovah. So, the blood sacrifices represented a respect for or acknowledgement of his created life granted to us. For example, if a person was found murdered and no one knew who did the killing then they had to sacrifice a bull and spill its blood on the ground as a symbolic acknowledgement of God's possession. Sacred life. A sort of gesture of justice. (Deuteronomy 21:1-9)"
And from the second: "New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, V:ol. XIII, p. 467): “Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”"
You're talking about the importance of recognizing the " value of the thing destroyed" but this substitutional atonement does nothing to that end. But for some reason Blood is a necessary price. It happens in the Old Testament too. An animal's blood for a human's sin.
[quote]The offended party didn't have the money.[/quote]
The offended party is god and also the judge is god and also the person paying is god. How is that justice? You've been using legal cases as analogy here but under what circumstances would you see a legal case where the plaintive, the the judge and the person paying the fine are all the same person and call it good justice?
[quote]. The point of it is blood for blood. Justice. Fairness[/quote]
So you continue to claim but have yet to justify.
[quote]A sort of gesture of justice.[/quote]
Exactly. A gesture. Ritualistic, reactive. Not justice. Do you see? This is not an explanation of why god should need to blood for forgiveness and it's not an explanation of why blood is so important that he'll kill his own son/aspect of himself to get it. You're explaining the blood magic, not justifying it.
@Pikachu [quote]You're talking about the importance of recognizing the " value of the thing destroyed" but this substitutional atonement does nothing to that end. But for some reason Blood is a necessary price. It happens in the Old Testament too. An animal's blood for a human's sin.[/quote]
You didn't answer the question. What punishment?
The thing destroyed was blood. The thing asked in return was blood. Eye for eye. Soul (blood/life) for soul.
Jesus's blood paid for Adam's blood. Jesus isn't Jehovah. Jehovah doesn't have blood. It had to be a man without sin as Adam was without sin before the event took place.
It happened in the so-called OT as a tutor or instruction to the Israelites. Read the article on the Bible I gave. God tested Abraham to see if he as representing his future family, would sacrifice his son. God wasn't going to sacrifice Jesus if it wasn't important enough to Abraham to do the same. Abraham's willingness was an indication that his offspring would be more likely to be instructed. God formed a nation of imperfect incomplete laws the Israelites couldn't follow. That's sin. It means to miss the mark. They would also be provided the escape. Jesus sacrifice. A messiah.
Galatians 3:13, 19, 24-25: "Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: 'Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.' Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor."
[quote]The offended party is god and also the judge is god and also the person paying is god.[/quote]
Yes, yes and no. As I said Jesus is not God. Christians think Jesus is God because they adopted the trinity 400 years or so after Christ. Jesus didn't claim to be God. He was a god like the judges of Israel had been gods. Like Moses was a god. Not Jehovah. Jehovah isn't the only god.
[quote]You've been using legal cases as analogy here but under what circumstances would you see a legal case where the plaintive, the the judge and the person paying the fine are all the same person and call it good justice?[/quote]
It doesn't matter. Are you missing the point?
[quote]So you continue to claim but have yet to justify.[/quote]
Ephesians 1:7, which I quoted earlier, didn't do it? What precisely about my claim are you objecting to?
[quote]Exactly. A gesture. Ritualistic, reactive. Not justice. Do you see?[/quote]
Call it whatever you want. Call it evolution if you like. How is paying a fine not justice?
[quote]This is not an explanation of why god should need to blood for forgiveness and it's not an explanation of why blood is so important that he'll kill his own son/aspect of himself to get it.[/quote]
[Shakes head. Sighs]
Blood is the soul. Life. It belongs to the creator. Satan killed everyone by taking Adam's blood. Jesus paid it back.
I've explained the basics. The two links give further detail. Your objections are irrelevant. Disconnected.
[quote]It doesn't matter. Are you missing the point?[/quote]
It does matter because we're using legal proceedings as a framework by which we understand the application of justice. I think it's rather telling that when we put this blood ritual of substitutional atonement in that framework we both seem to recognize that there are some serious problems calling the result justice.
[quote]What punishment?[/quote]
Whatever is waiting for us if we don't accept the blood sacrifice, i suppose.
[quote]The thing destroyed was blood. The thing asked in return was blood. Eye for eye. Soul (blood/life) for soul.[/quote]
Exactly! The thing asked for in return was blood. Why? I don't know how to get through to you. You're repeating the terms of the blood magic when i'm asking why blood magic is necessary at all. Same goes for Ephesians. You keep answering my question of [i]why[/i] does god need blood with "Blood pays for blood!". That's not an explanation, it's an identification of the rule under question.
[quote]Call it whatever you want. Call it evolution if you like. How is paying a fine not justice?[/quote]
Not sure why i'd call it evolution lol. Paying a fine is meant to punish and deter the perpetrator as well as compensate the offended party for losses. Well when someone else pays the fine its neither a punishment nor a deterrent and therefore not justice on those counts. That just leaves with compensation for the wronged party...which brings us back to the question why good needs to be compensated by the spilling of blood.
I feel like we're going in circles here so i'm fine if you want to end the conversation there. I'll give you a final word if you want it✌️
