This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DudeistPriest · M
To provide temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ, if you believe in that sort of thing.
DudeistPriest · M
@Pikachu He wouldn't. That's another logical sequitur reason to discard the belief system surrounding the traditional God of the Bible. For example, He says in the Ten Commandments thou shall not kill, but in the next breath has us kill in His name (i.e. Jericho) or sacrifice something. Contradiction in terms inadvertently revealing it was men who wrote the Bible.
But I believe what is meant here is basically a tit for tat erasure of sin in His name. Or something like that. I no longer ascribe to the minutia of such things.
But I believe what is meant here is basically a tit for tat erasure of sin in His name. Or something like that. I no longer ascribe to the minutia of such things.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@Pikachu If you ever get a chance to meet Him [which seems unlikely], you can ask.
But, may take is that God could not allow sin to go - it had to be dealt with. Rather than sacrificing His own people, He found a way they could atone for their sins.
It's pretty dramatic, that's for sure.
Not by accident I'm pretty sure.
It kind of puts a spotlight on the significance of sin.
In the same way you try to take a spotlight off of sin and try to blame God.
But, may take is that God could not allow sin to go - it had to be dealt with. Rather than sacrificing His own people, He found a way they could atone for their sins.
It's pretty dramatic, that's for sure.
Not by accident I'm pretty sure.
It kind of puts a spotlight on the significance of sin.
In the same way you try to take a spotlight off of sin and try to blame God.