why is it that god requires blood sacrifices? including his son................?
927452
i believe it was aztec who sacraficed because they were the 9th sun (i believe tht's the correct number) in which their god sacraficed himself to give us life, so he expects sacrafice in return.\n\ni will back you up here. there will be many nay-sayers here sayin god doesnt want human sacrafice, but here's your proof from your own precious book:\n\nAt the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice.  Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar!  This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David.  On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you."   (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT) \n\n\n\n\nAnd this became a hidden trap for mankind, because men, in bondage to misfortune or to royal authority, bestowed on objects of stone or wood the name that ought not to be shared.  Afterward it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but they live in great strife due to ignorance, and they call such great evils peace.  \n\n \n\n    For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange customs, they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure, but they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one another by adultery, and all is a raging riot of blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury, confusion over what is good, forgetfulness of favors, pollution of souls, sex perversion, disorder in marriage, adultery, and debauchery.  For the worship of idols not to be named is the beginning and cause and end of every evil.  For their worshipers either rave in exultation, or prophesy lies, or live unrighteously, or readily commit perjury; for because they trust in lifeless idols they swear wicked oaths and expect to suffer no harm.  But just penalties will overtake them on two counts: because they thought wickedly of God in devoting themselves to idols, and because in deceit they swore unrighteously through contempt for holiness.  For it is not the power of the things by which men swear, but the just penalty for those who sin, that always pursues the transgression of the unrighteous.   (Wisdom 14:21-31 RSV)
638529
The myth goes that Jesus gave his life to assume the burden of our sins. The myth is, of course, a load of codswallup. \n\nHow does the crucifixion count as an appropriate sacrifice? Quite simply answered, the correct response is; "It doesn't."\n\nJesus spent a few hours, maybe a day, in agonizing pain; but it was no greater pain than millions of others have suffered. In fact many people have suffered greater agony for more extended periods of time virtually every day since the dawn of Man. \n\nIf Jesus really is God (or the son thereof), then He knew exactly what was happening, and exactly how long it would last. There was nothing about the event for which he was unprepared to deal with on a physical, psychological, or emotional level. If there WAS something he was unprepared for, then he could clearly not be God, or the son of God.\n\nWhen it was done, He supposedly ascended to heaven and became the all-powerful ruler of the universe. This is infinitely greater compensation than even the faithful will receive, and infinitely less torture that the damned will receive.\n\n-SD-
606151
God is the way the truth and the life, he sent his only son to die, so that you can have eternal life if you accept him into your heart. Pray to Him and ask Him to come into your heart
360392
I assume the sacred sacrifice is Jesus since He shed his blood and died for "this earth".  I know that was obvious but I don't really how to decipher the rest of it, sorry.
138569
Christians are commanded to ‘abstain from blood’\n\nActs 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)\n\nAnimal flesh may be eaten, but not the blood\n\nGen. 9:3, 4: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”\n\nAny animal used for food should be properly bled. One that is strangled or that dies in a trap or that is found after it has died is not suitable for food. (Acts 15:19, 20; compare Leviticus 17:13-16.) Similarly, any food to which whole blood or even some blood fraction has been added should not be eaten.\n\nOnly sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by God\n\nLev. 17:11, 12: “The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: ‘No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood.’” (All those animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law foreshadowed the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ.)\nEph. 1:7: “By means of him [Jesus Christ] 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.”\n\nHow did those who claimed to be Christians in early centuries C.E. understand the Bible’s commands regarding blood?\n\nTertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.): “Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you [pagan Romans] offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”—Tertullian, \n\nBlood Transfusions\n\nDoes the Bible’s prohibition include human blood?\n\nYes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating “any sort of blood.”) Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.\n\nIs a transfusion really the same as eating blood?\n\nIn a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?\n\nIn the case of a patient that refuses blood, are there any alternative treatments?\n\nOften simple saline solution, Ringer’s solution, and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders, and these are available in nearly all modern hospitals. Actually, the risks that go with use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances.  \n\nAll ty
1029983
Good question, but everyone will not go to Heaven.\nDo you think for one minute a loving, almighty God would allow His only Son to go thru such misery if there were not a choice?\nDon't you think He would have chosen another way if there had been another way to redeem mankind?\nYahshua HAD to be the lamb that was slain.  Blood had to be shed.\nWithout the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
715199
Well, that's a big question and I'm bad for long answers so as to be thorough but simply put; the first man Adam sinned which brought sin to the human race and physical death. The first sacrifice made it to where that blood, wherein is the issues of LIFE, substituted for their own immediate life because God could not fellowship with man unless their was an atonement for sin. The first sacrifice made them some decent clothes of skins which God Himself designed and tailored to cover their nakedness so they would know what pleased Him and that is He cannot fellowship with sin and uncleanness or look at nakedness because He is 100% pure and holy.  Long story short, the solution for the sacrifice of animals needed to be done by those who had sinned and wanted their sins covered, redeemed, atoned for, and basically forgiven by God. Jesus became that sacrificial Lamb because it was foreordained from the beginning of time for Him to give His perfect pure life's blood for the atonement of all man-kind.  You must ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins before you are washed and clean and then you must obey His commandments.  You needn't be babtized except after you really know without a doubt that you have peace, joy, and no longer a desire to sin but to please God and then it is only symbolic that the old man, the fleshly sinful nature, has been killed.  He died because He loves us so much, like a Shepherd loves His sheep and because He wants us to be with Him in heaven as His bride.  Do you think you would want to lay your life down for the most hideous criminal on death row today?? Jesus did.  Could you forgive the person who committed horrible crimes against you or yours? He did. He wants to live in our hearts and he took our punishment for us but if we don't accept his atonement, He cannot be our High Priest (between us and God) and be our Lawyer on judment day when everyone will give account for the deeds done in this body.  He truly wants us to live for and love Him but it's our choice and he made the way so we could approach God's presence through the blood of His son so that God only sees the pure, the clean, the holy, the righteous.  Does that help? Get a New Testament or read the Bible on-line at Studylight.org.
525911
Because he was supposed to be set aside for sacrifice! Had he taken a mortal wife, he would've been communing with sin through the fact that as a mortal, His "wife" would've borne Him offspring with the sin curse placed upon them by the Fall of Man at the Garden of Eden. A Scripture says, " For what communion hath light with darkness and what concord hath Christ with Belial?" These things have people angered because they were taught to understand that Jesus had to be pure so that His sacrifice would be powerful enough to overcome ALL sin for ALL time! The reason it is permissible for pastors to marry is simple; they're human like everyone else and are apt to sin and temptation like everyone else! Another Scripture says, "For if they cannot contain, let them marry for it is better to marry than to burn." The Church, comprised of all believers is meant to be the Bride of Christ because through His cleansing blood shed on the Cross, we were made perfect enough to commune with Him. People are mad because the secular world is suggesting that the most perfect Man in history could possibly give in to the lust of the flesh, which is impossible because He had encounters with Satan himself and overcame him! Satan took Him to the top of a high mountain and tried to tell Him that if He would bow down and worship, he'd give Him all the kingdoms of the world. After this and many other temptations of Christ's flesh and spirit, He told Satan, "Get thee hence!" Or basically, "Get away from me!" Which is of course the same authority all Christians have over sin and temptation if they grasp the concept of salvation and their rightful place in God's kingdom as heirs to Heaven.
963264
That has been the pagan practices of a very Old Tradition when man was still grappling for an answer for what is a better offer to their God.. a young blood, an enemy's blood, a basket of fruits, an animal blood, a virgin's blood, a hunter's kill, a stranger, a sinner, a witch, criminal or yourself as a sacrifice? Is it really okay to kill in the name of God.\nIn Ezekiel 18: 32 God declared that "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord. Repent and live.'\nMeaning even He is oppose to killing. All He wanted is for you to go back to being good so that you could live.\nIsrael at that time of Ezekiel had even blamed God for being unjust and so God then told them "Is it not your ways that are unjust?" a simple question that proved man got the wrong interpretations on the words of God and they did what God did not tell them to do.\nBut that killing part was even seen by Jesus when he spoke to his disciples. John 16:1-3 "All this I have told you so that you will not go astray. They will put you out of the synagogue; IN FACT, A TIME IS COMING WHEN ANYONE WHO KILLS YOU WILL THINK HE IS OFFERING A SERVICE TO GOD. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you. I did not tell you this at first because I was with you.\nThat kind of killing is being done by one major religion who thinks they are offering service to God and they really think they know God so much which they dont.
567180
I am sorry, I looked Exodus Chapter 4 verse 26 up in my bible and it didn't mention God wanting to kill Moses. It talks about Zipporah calling her husband (Moses) a bloody husband because she circumcised their (her's and Moses') son. But in Ex. 4:24-25 God wanted to kill him b/c his son was not circumcised
552246
Blood sacrifice/vegetable sacrifice  God rejected the one and accepted the other.  You come to God on his terms or not at all.  The commandment was a blood sacrafice. \nHeb 9:22  And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission of sin.
512759
What you seem to have missed is the greater point - you're not your own to begin with - He created you, all he asks now is that you recognize that by accepting him and worshipping him - it is not his desire that any should perish - but being good is not what he designed us to do - he designed us to worship - good deeds are results of our worship - not our means of worship.  You are in the midst of spiritual battle and I'm praying that God will give you spiritual rest and a mentor to lead you personally as opposed to this forum. As a parent I raised my son with certain values.  I have entrusted them to him.  It is now up to him to choose to use them.  If he doesn't then there are consequences he will suffer.  Does that take away his ability to choose for himself?  No.  It just means he didn't heed a more learned and wiser, experienced person.  It is a poor analogy, but it was the best I could come up with.
877009
It was the fruits and vegetables that he had grown. \n\nIt displeased the god of the bible because it was not a sacrifice of blood.
1003811
To redeem the world or buy it back with His blood. Blood covenants started in the Garden of Eden continued in Jewish temples and concluded with Christs life, death and resurrection.\nhttp://www.carm.org/doctrine/100truths.htm
530444
Because how can God sacrifice Himself to Himself to appease Himself? Then knowing full well there is no death involved because Jesus is going to wake up in a few days. That's not a sacrifice. Besides human sacrifice is forbidden in Judaism and Deuteronomy 24:16 says no one can die for someone else's sins. Since Jesus hadn't died and risen again allegedly doing away with the Mosaic law at that point, it would have been impossible for him to be a sacrifice for others, let alone mankind.
613613
My thoughts go back to the book of Genesis right before Kane killed Abel. Kane and Abel both brought sacrifices to God. Kane brought a beautiful basket of delicious fruit and Abel brought bloody portions of a raw chopped up lamb. As a man I would be much more grateful to receive a cool looking fruit basket than some bloody raw meat.\n\nBut God said that Kane's offering was unacceptable while Abel's was pleasing to Him. We now know that even back then God was using the sacrifice of a lamb to point to the ultimate sacrifice Jesus, the Lamb of God, made to pay our sin debt.\n\nIt's the same way with this "many paths, one destination" doctrine. People are trying to set the conditions for entrance into Heaven based upon what "makes sense to them". But God says his thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are not our ways. He is the Creator of all things and He is the final arbitrator of who enters Heaven and who gets cast into the Lake of Fire.\n\nWhen people say that they think that since God is love, He should see things their way and give them a break because they try to live a good life, what they are really saying is "I don't need your Son to get into Heaven. He should have just stayed where He was and saved himself all of the trouble. I'm a good person God. So you need to forget all about that Jesus stuff and just be cool and loving like I imagine you are and let me in, OK?"\n\nWhat an insult to God and Christ Jesus! I feel very sorry for people who have deceived themselves in such a manner. I can only imagine the shock they will experience when their entire life is unrolled before their eyes along with their innermost thoughts and all of their illusions about how "good" they were will be shattered in a million pieces as incident after incident is unveiled where they treated someone else in a shabby manner, where they looked at a member of the opposite sex and wanted to use them like an object, when they did all manner of things that they have conveniently forgotten about or justified by saying "Well, overall I lived a good life. Those were just the exceptions."\n\nThat's like a 50 year old man who "only" killed 5 people saying "Hey, 9 out of every ten years of my life I was good. Give me a break OK?"
973834
under the mosaic law, jews were required to sacrifice animals and the blood was to atone for their sins (leviticus 4:4-7, 13-18, 22-30,   16:11-16) \nhowever, the blood of animals only covered sins for a short while and sacrifices had to be made frequently. when Jesus came to earth, he was perfect. his blood could cover all sins once for all time (hebrews 9:11,12). this is for all people who will accept the truth about Him. those who do not accept Jesus as the only salvation, or those who sin unrepentantly will not receive the blessings of Jesus's shed blood. \nwithout a perfect human dying, there could be no salvation. in the garden of eden, adam sinned and thus every man, woman and child decended from him will inherit sin (romans 5:12). using the biblical principle of an eye for an eye etc(deuteronomy 19:21), a perfect life must be given for a perfect life. therefore, the perfection adam lost for mankind, Jesus bought back with his life.