A letter to God

[Godless]

mustafhakofi;

Good explanation of what a troll is, I hope that he may understand.
I try to never give up, there's a human behind that keyboard, though there's only so much I can tolerate.

Godless.

 

[philocrazy]

Philo, were in my post have you read I want you banned?.
You don't only speak non-sense, you don't even comprehend what is written.
You are a troll, and have no defenition of what a troll is in cyberspace.
godless:
http://badtux.net/bob-faq.html

Now look at your posts, and see the resemblance.
Troll.

Godless.
-------------------------------------------------------
I look at you idiot and see the resemblence
who made who, i made you, look at your last posts
tell me more im interested now,ok,no more ass,just pussycat,miahou ban philocrazy

Philosopher Philocrazy

 

[786]

Philo you really are crazy. After you read this post you are probably going to write something about me (I am going to be a star ). If you do read your post, then you will notice that they are senseless (no offense, just an observation). I am not saying that you crazy in a "mental" way but just that you look like if you are mocking people for their ideas, this is pretty crazy. Anyways I hope you won't be crazy anymore.

Here is a piece of Philosophy (more of a poem) I just came up with.

Philocrazy you may have a good mind,
but your ideas so far, worth less than a dime.
I ask you to stop these senseless posts,
They seem like a stupid joke.
What use, is a great mind?
If being stupid for all of this time.
May you live a happy life.
I recommend you don't waste your time.
By posting these senseless posts,
'cuz they really do seem like a stupid joke.
Again I repeat, Philocrazy you may have a good mind,
but your ideas so far, worth less than a dime.

Philosopher 786

Peace be unto you

 

[philocrazy]

mustafhakofi:
philo: I know this wont make a difference to you.
An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.

why does it matter

Some people — particularly those who have been online for years — are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants."

It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved.

Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.

Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.

The Internet is a wonderful resource which is breaking down barriers and stripping away prejudice. Trolls threaten our continued enjoyment of this beautiful forum for ideas.

What Can be Done about Trolls?

When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down.

However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.

Timothy Campbell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mustafhakofi <--- this guy is an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
long post idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i have no time for long trolls only short ones
mustafhakofi your name i like it says to me dont bother

Philosopher Philocrazy

 

[philocrazy]

come here 786 dont i have the right to reply to you
is that what you want
ok here have some dots .........................................

Philosopher Philocrazy

 

[786]

come here 786 dont i have the right to reply to you
is that what you want
ok here have some dots .........................................

Philosopher Philocrazy

Go ahead reply me with some of your philosophy. I'm just saying that you can be smarter than what you have shown the people so far.

Peace be unto you

 

[Cyperium]

Pavlosmarcos
how old are you little greek ass
are you providing any evidence that god doesnt exist
all youre saying is "i dont believe in god", big deal
let me ask you this ,do you believe in your fathers ass,has he ever shown it to you
covered it doesnt count, go close to it,inspect it, lick it,see is it real shit
you never know it could be a greek myth
you have all the answears mr myth

Philosopher Philocrazy

Philocrazy, hold your breath.

Evil is allways trying to make you say (write) things like this. To your own disaster.

But by all means, I understand you, it can be very frustrating. It knows it is wrong, but continue anyway because it knows you can't explain why it's wrong. (but we can, just not yet).

 

[philocrazy]

Come here you two
what does philocrazy mean
you comment on something you say is nonsense, makes no sense
then please explain to me
why you idiots(excuse me) think you are better than me
you are what ive produced,youve commented on nonsense
thus you are a bigger nonsense
because logic/common sense doesnt comment on nonsense
or does it NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
thus
i am logic that have prompted you (idiots) to reply with nonsense
and that my friend is where you lose
because philocrazy is timeless in philosophy

if you want to be good,play fair,THEN philocrazy wont pick on you
i am the philocrazy,remember that

have a nice day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and remember i give you the right to reply to me
dont think i am what i am,i am what i am
be sure of that(asses)EXCUSE ME

PHILOSOPHER PHILOCRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS
CYPERIUM:EVIL is what you see as evil,what i see is cyperium saying
my ass is not evil,ok,mr

 

[Cyperium]

Come here you two
what does philocrazy mean
you comment on something you say is nonsense, makes no sense
then please explain to me
why you idiots(excuse me) think you are better than me
you are what ive produced,youve commented on nonsense
thus you are a bigger nonsense
because logic/common sense doesnt comment on nonsense
or does it NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
thus
i am logic that have prompted you (idiots) to reply with nonsense
and that my friend is where you lose
because philocrazy is timeless in philosophy

if you want to be good,play fair,THEN philocrazy wont pick on you
i am the philocrazy,remember that

have a nice day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and remember i give you the right to reply to me
dont think i am what i am,i am what i am
be sure of that(asses)EXCUSE ME

PHILOSOPHER PHILOCRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS
CYPERIUM:EVIL is what you see as evil,what i see is cyperium saying
my ass is not evil,ok,mr

What I saw I saw, I've seen enough to know what evil looks like.

Doesn't really matter if you meant it jokingly. Enough is enough. From what it looked like it was a outrage of frustration. Shouldn't I tell you this? I'm sure you understand it yourself don't you?

 

[funmatrix]

Excellent post pavlosmarcos

You are a true spiritual person who questions. You are innocent like a kid and I see the spark of life in you. Every "iinocent" kid has a spark of life in his or her actions and in the eyes. Unfortunately people who questions relgious dogmas are branded as "satans".

One has to understand the fact that without satan, there is no God and without God there is no satan. Both are required to each other to know their inner strength. If jesus was not tempted by satan how would he know his inner courage. If jesus was not cruicified and tortured in the cross how could he and also we know of your inner strength. He lived what he taught...to love our enemeies. He took life sportive because he took life as a game to know his "Self". All the problems (sufferings, depression, financial and relationship) in our life is the feild in which we test our inner strength.

How can a sportsman hate the game?. He loves the participation because he knows that is where he can experience his strength and weakness. That is why a real sportsman is not angry on another sportsman and is not unhappy of the failure. he sees failures as the means to guage his inner strength. This is why jesus was partying the night before he was crucified. he had no fear, no hatred becasue for him it is the feild of life for him to test his own life principles. He was not a christian, he was just a human being who lived exploring, experiencing and expressing divinty. This is what our life is meant for.

see my other posts

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40127
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40136
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40137


more later.......

 

[JustARide]

The Bible only asks that you pay attention to what is said. You shouldn't interpret all of it as a unit either literally or figuratively, but wisely.

Great, great. Interpret it wisely. Wonderful. Now when I'm finished will I be literally or figuratively wise?

Neither does God need approval or sacrifice - those were substitutes and compensations for the distance we intuitively felt from God.

Then why does the Bible say that <i>God</i> himself asked for them?

Hell is not a threat, it is a warning.

This might be true if God were not responsible for its creation and perpetuation.


"Theologians don't know nothing about my soul." - Jeff Tweedy

 

[Jenyar]

Great, great. Interpret it wisely. Wonderful. Now when I'm finished will I be literally or figuratively wise?

When you're finished it won't matter. Did Kahlil Gibran speak literally or figuratively?

They seem to be neat categories you use to sort everything under so that you won't have to deal with the content.

Then why does the Bible say that God himself asked for them?

Sacrifice was a necessary concept that needed to be understood in very real temporal-sensory terms (hence the 'sweet aromas' you read about). It was a very real act of atonement, requiring a very real sacrifice from the wealth they had acquired because of God's care over them. Sort of like showing you're sorry, grateful, devoted, aware, all at the same time, instead of just saying it. But there is a place and time for everything. It seems that many people practicing sacrifice also stared themselves blind against the 'literal or figurative' of it.

Isaiah 1:11
"The multitude of your sacrifices - what are they to me?" says the LORD . "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

1 Samuel 15:22
But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

Hosea 6:6 (cf. Psalm 40)
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.​

On the topic of hell:

Matthew 12:7
If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.​

You won't go to hell if you are innocent of sin. The problem is that nobody can free or forgive himself from sin he had made himself guilty of it, because it is in the first place an offense against God and justice. Hell was created for devils and demons who know God but oppose His justice; those who believe their lies simply follow them there.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Quote Jenyar:
"You won't go to hell if you are innocent of sin. The problem is that nobody can free or forgive himself from sin he had made himself guilty of it, because it is in the first place an offense against God and justice. Hell was created for devils and demons who know God but oppose His justice; those who believe their lies simply follow them there."

What do you mean here Jenyar? How does one make oneself "guilty of sin?"

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Knowing something is wrong - whether by your conscience, in someone else's eyes or God's eyes - and still doing it; willfully causing or condoning damage (physical or psychological) to another human being. Following anything that doesn't give life or add to it. Anything that requires forgiveness to be forgotten. But that's just off the cuff.

What do you think? What do you understand by it?

*edit* Just had this thought: sin is the soul of wrongdoing, injustice and immorality. The thought behind the action, the principle behind the guilt. To make yourself guilty is to dip your ladle into that cauldron. Giving it form.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Yup, I agree with you essentially word for word. I would describe your clarification as a humanistic view. I was trying to understand whether you meant "original sin" as in the Garden of Eden. I absolutely reject the concept of original sin. I also have a problem with "hell" as a destination for sinners, literal or figurative. Described as:

“the place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mark 9:42-48)

So my question now would be. Does lack of faith in Christ fall into the catagory of "sin"? And would the penalty be "hell"?

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Yup, I agree with you essentially word for word. I would describe your clarification as a humanistic view. I was trying to understand whether you meant "original sin" as in the Garden of Eden. I absolutely reject the concept of original sin. I also have a problem with "hell" as a destination for sinners, literal or figurative. Described as:

“the place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mark 9:42-48)

So my question now would be. Does lack of faith in Christ fall into the catagory of "sin"? And would the penalty be "hell"?

I think "original sin" is a bit of a misnomer that has become a public toy rather than a religious doctrine. It sounds more like one particular sin (usually associated with the story of Eden) than of the "origin of sin", which is a mystery that the Bible (as we have it) doesn't really explain.

As I said before, sin is principally an offense against God. As such, it is something God must forgive. If Christ embodies God's forgiveness, what does rejecting mean? Like death, it's a penalty for some and the consequences for others. We judge each other by what standards we derive from "humanistic" principles, but we never wipe out the taint that brings it forth.

God's law is love, which is almost totally unenforcible. The pain of broken relationships is passed on to children and their children for generations. But who is "guilty"? Who first imagined injustice, hatred or rebellion? Who first conceived of it? And why does it persist even in the face of plain condemnation, common sense and humanity? Its origin lies deep in our hearts, somewhere accessible by each of us, from the moment we start thinking to the moment we die - not with Adam or Eve.

That source is the "original sin" in my opinion - and I have yet to meet anybody who can convince me they don't have it in them, no matter how much they wish it wasn't. And nobody can blame anybody but themselves for acting it out. There is no crime for which someone else is responsible. Now the difficult (and unanswerable) question is: what turns an innocent human being, whether an infant or adult, into a sinner? Peer pressure? What pressures their peers, their society, their race, their humanity?

Incidentally, Mark 9 doesn't refer to the 'weeping and gnashing of teeth', it is a quote from Isaiah 66:24 referring to the discarded bodies of dead people. Not one person being cremated, but body after body being added to the fire, which is alsways kept alive for that purpose. For as long as sin requires punishment and God can enforce it - i.e., eternally.

Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.​

Where Matthew and Luke mentions weeping and gnashing of teeth, they likewise refer to exile and rejection, thrown "outside into the darkness" or "into the furnace". It's significant because fire traditionally represented judgment (notably Nebuchadnezzar's judgement against Daniel and his friends), and darkness represents spiritual blindness, hopelessness, and death (cf. Lamentations 3:6 "He has made me dwell in darkness like those long dead"). In other words, hell is the execution of justice and the antithesis of eternal life. Hell is the "real" thing: nature, death, the general context - God's kingdom is the exception, the particular, the mercy and the consecutive protection of God's presence, from Noah's ark, Moses' ark, David's temple and Christ, all bearing God's promise of salvation and life.

God is the initiator of justice and its final Judge - every judgment necessarily goes through him. Jesus "became sin for us", and there is simply no other name given on earth that presents reconciliation with God in spite of sin, in our present context, who carries God's own guarantee.

 

[JustARide]

When you're finished it won't matter. Did Kahlil Gibran speak literally or figuratively?

They seem to be neat categories you use to sort everything under so that you won't have to deal with the content.

But you don't achieve some kind of ultimate answer by denying those labels altogether either. You merely eliminate a pesky but valid problem. The question of whether some verses are literal or figurative IS important.

Take any random quote from the Old Testament which advocates violence against you-name-it -- homosexuals, nonbelievers, etc. (there are plenty to choose from, as you know), and tell me it doesn't matter whether it's literal or not. Take any verse which relates some fantastic, physically-impossible event, and tell me it doesn't matter whether or not it was literal.

The Bible commands us to believe. And the penalties for not doing so are quite harsh. (Or is Hell perhaps not a "literal" thing either? According to your method, it doesn't really matter that much, huh?) In order to believe things, it's important to weight some kind of evidence. Do you think it's important to decide what's literal and figurative in novels? political speeches? day-to-day life?

The people who fail to separate literal statements from figurative ones are often the most ill-informed and dangerous members of our society.

Sacrifice was a necessary concept that needed to be understood in very real temporal-sensory terms (hence the 'sweet aromas' you read about). It was a very real act of atonement, requiring a very real sacrifice from the wealth they had acquired because of God's care over them. Sort of like showing you're sorry, grateful, devoted, aware, all at the same time, instead of just saying it. But there is a place and time for everything. It seems that many people practicing sacrifice also stared themselves blind against the 'literal or figurative' of it.

This does not answer my question. The Bible does not merely state that sacrifice was something humans needed, or just a valuable idea that flourished for a little while. It states the God ordered it. I'm not interested in whether the sacrifices were made honestly or how they helped those who made them. I want to know why, if sacrifices have never been truly necessary, that God asked for them.

If God did not request the sacrifices, then the Bible is flat out incorrect. And we have a prime example of people molding God into what they wanted him to be and not what he truly was.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Quote Jenyar:
"Where Matthew and Luke mentions weeping and gnashing of teeth, they likewise refer to exile and rejection, thrown "outside into the darkness" or "into the furnace". It's significant because fire traditionally represented judgment (notably Nebuchadnezzar's judgement against Daniel and his friends), and darkness represents spiritual blindness, hopelessness, and death (cf. Lamentations 3:6 "He has made me dwell in darkness like those long dead"). In other words, hell is the execution of justice and the antithesis of eternal life. Hell is the "real" thing: nature, death, the general context - God's kingdom is the exception, the particular, the mercy and the consecutive protection of God's presence, from Noah's ark, Moses' ark, David's temple and Christ, all bearing God's promise of salvation and life."

This is all quite simply, one possible interpretation.

In a broader sense:

Matthew 13:34
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Ps.78:2-3
13:35
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

13:36
Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

13:37
He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

13:38
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

13:39
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

13:40
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

13:41
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

13:42
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

O.K. question, why did Jesus speak in parables in the first place. Why the mystery. If he wanted to truly save mankind from evil and the furnaces of hell, would he not have spoken clearly and simply? What would you do when your son has a question? Speak in parables or spell out your wisdom clearly? Especially if the fate was a furnace. This whole scenario is extremely questionable, and to me, objectionable. No amount nof interpretation or apologetics can alter the facts. Jesus speaks in riddles, so that not everyone can understand him clearly. The outcome for those that do not hear and meet his criteria is the furnace of hell. (whatever the interpretation of hell)
Not acceptable.

And to jump on JustaRides ride,

Quote Jenyar:
"Sacrifice was a necessary concept that needed to be understood in very real temporal-sensory terms (hence the 'sweet aromas' you read about). It was a very real act of atonement, requiring a very real sacrifice from the wealth they had acquired because of God's care over them. Sort of like showing you're sorry, grateful, devoted, aware, all at the same time, instead of just saying it. But there is a place and time for everything. It seems that many people practicing sacrifice also stared themselves blind against the 'literal or figurative' of it."

Please help me to understand why the omnipotent creator of the Universe (from neutrinos to a beating heart) would want a piece of meat burnt in a show of gratitude?
There is no way I can get my head around that, other than a primitive pagan act to a god unknown. Thus equating the Christian god of mercy to the Aztec sun god. And this to me is a reasonable comparison.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

But you don't achieve some kind of ultimate answer by denying those labels altogether either. You merely eliminate a pesky but valid problem. The question of whether some verses are literal or figurative IS important.

Take any random quote from the Old Testament which advocates violence against you-name-it -- homosexuals, nonbelievers, etc. (there are plenty to choose from, as you know), and tell me it doesn't matter whether it's literal or not. Take any verse which relates some fantastic, physically-impossible event, and tell me it doesn't matter whether or not it was literal.

It helps to actually read these things. A symbolic column of fire at night or a figurative cloud overhead during the day would hardly lead the Israelites anywhere. A law is only a law if it is literal with symbolic implications, or symbolic with literal implications. Are the lines in the middle of the road to be taken literally or figuratively? Sure, they're symbolic of some kind of law that says "don't cross this line", but it seems you think there is a world of difference in how you should heed them.

The best advice is to see what kind of literature you're reading. A song will be different than a poem, and a poem will be different than an epistle, or a law, or a prophecy or an apocalyptic vision. Or did you think the literature of the Bible was all of a kind?

The Bible commands us to believe. And the penalties for not doing so are quite harsh. (Or is Hell perhaps not a "literal" thing either? According to your method, it doesn't really matter that much, huh?) In order to believe things, it's important to weight some kind of evidence. Do you think it's important to decide what's literal and figurative in novels? political speeches? day-to-day life?

Oh, I see you do know the difference. Yes it's important. But is hell less real or fearsome if it's symbolic of spiritual judgment rather than physical death, in contrast to eternal life? And is the promise of eternal life still a significant promise if it's anything other than life?

"The Bible" does not command people to believe, that's a purely atheist view. In many cases the people God valued most weren't even considered "believers". It commands people to be faithful to the living God who called them to follow Him - the One who did all those things in their memory, which they wrote down to be remembered. It tells us what God did and commanded them, who they were and who they thought God were, and how they were corrected and forgiven, but also judged and condemned. But that's just the control group - the real test is in your own life. You'll see in your own life where sin brings you, and decide for yourself whether guilt is real or not. When God reads the story of your life, will He have to take it literally or figuratively? On what evidence will He judge you?

The people who fail to separate literal statements from figurative ones are often the most ill-informed and dangerous members of our society.

They're certainly worth educating, but there are people who do worse things with less reason. I doubt bin Laden or Hussein worried much about the literal or figurative interpretation of their statements.

This does not answer my question. The Bible does not merely state that sacrifice was something humans needed, or just a valuable idea that flourished for a little while. It states the God ordered it. I'm not interested in whether the sacrifices were made honestly or how they helped those who made them. I want to know why, if sacrifices have never been truly necessary, that God asked for them.

A sacrifice was always necessary, since it atoned for sin. But maybe I should explain it by means of Hebrews (I'll just use the frame of the argument):

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come...?
... because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7)

Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary.

The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. (Hebrews 9)

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Hebrews 10)​

If God did not request the sacrifices, then the Bible is flat out incorrect. And we have a prime example of people molding God into what they wanted him to be and not what he truly was.

Relevant to our discussion about literal or figurative: in a very literal way, sacrifices were man's realization that they were in the wrong with God, and that something needed to be done. As you know, this realization was by no means confined to the Israelites. In fact, they had a rather simple (not to mention forgiving) sacrificial system compared to some cultures. They forbade human sarifice - which is the extent to which it was applied by almost every nation around them. They had faith that their could be a mediator, a scapegoat, that could carry their sins away and somehow restore their relationship with God. It was this intention that God encouraged, but also guided, with laws (which were also just a "shadow" of knowing what is required).

10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.​

None of these things are really useful - which I think is the position you hold. They are human expressions of the search for a relationship with God, a restored and healthy relationship with God.

 

[Jenyar]

O.K. question, why did Jesus speak in parables in the first place. Why the mystery. If he wanted to truly save mankind from evil and the furnaces of hell, would he not have spoken clearly and simply? What would you do when your son has a question? Speak in parables or spell out your wisdom clearly? Especially if the fate was a furnace. This whole scenario is extremely questionable, and to me, objectionable. No amount nof interpretation or apologetics can alter the facts. Jesus speaks in riddles, so that not everyone can understand him clearly. The outcome for those that do not hear and meet his criteria is the furnace of hell. (whatever the interpretation of hell)
Not acceptable.

Because parables were the most effective way of getting something new, unknown ("hidden"), and potentially difficult to understand across, using accepted common knowledge that is already in the minds of the audience (the word derives from that definition, meaning "alongside", using analogies). They were very popular among rabbi's (you just have to check the Talmud to realize this). In this way, what the audience had already accepted determines what they hear. (Matt.21:45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them.). That's why Jesus said those who were blind would remain blind - He himself was an integral part in each of them, and many would reject him.

But a parable is not a riddle. Jesus gave their "keys" to the disciples, who no doubt would have repeated and explained them often. Each parable emphasized a different aspect of the "mechanics" of God's kingdom, and they're easy enough to understand, although often much more complex than they appear. By the time Jesus began using parables, He was already almost halfway through his public ministry, and had already faced outright rejection of his miracles and claims. He would no longer speak openly, in detail, plainly, and directly, because they took offense at his open, plain, and blunt words.

The use of parables indicate a deepening of his ministry, they were glimpses into the mind of his Father, already believed by some and already rejected by some. They were intended to make people look again, for the first time. But for those who wouldn't see, they were a reason to stop looking.

After the parable of the net, and speaking of the fiery furnace again (Matt.13:15), Jesus asks:

"Have you understood all these things?"
"Yes," they replied.
He said to them, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old."​

Please help me to understand why the omnipotent creator of the Universe (from neutrinos to a beating heart) would want a piece of meat burnt in a show of gratitude?
There is no way I can get my head around that, other than a primitive pagan act to a god unknown. Thus equating the Christian god of mercy to the Aztec sun god. And this to me is a reasonable comparison.

I hope I've answered some of your question, and maybe shed some light on why Aztecs and almost every culture felt the need to offer sacrifices in the first place. There were of course different kinds of sacrifices, and only some were "in gratitude", usually tkaing the form of tithes (a tenth of your prosperity). The God of Israel was just another "primitive god" among many, an essentialyl unknown, before He chose a bloodline (or a "faith-line" of righteousness) that would truly lead to Him and no other. Even what we have of His history is as much "projection" backwards as it was forwards. But along with the specifics that were revealed, it's the tangent and direction of the faith that we should pay attention to... The literal and the figurative.

I think this prophecy is interesting, considering our subject of hell and parables:

Ezekiel 20:47 This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am about to set fire to you, and it will consume all your trees, both green and dry. The blazing flame will not be quenched, and every face from south to north will be scorched by it. Everyone will see that I the LORD have kindled it; it will not be quenched.' "
Then I said, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! They are saying of me, 'Isn't he just telling parables?'​