If God is so merciful, then why did Jesus have to be sacrificed?

[attofishpi]

...only if I believe that a crucified Jew who hated Gentiles was going to save my soul and grant me eternal life for having believed in him for approximately the span of a human life.

There is no mention of this in the Bible, so it is a fiction of your twisted interpretation of Christianity. Just making an unsupported claim does not make it so.

(I dont think he means the crucified Jew bit)

[Immanuel Can]

...only if I believe that a crucified Jew who hated Gentiles was going to save my soul and grant me eternal life for having believed in him for approximately the span of a human life.

There is no mention of this in the Bible, so it is a fiction of your twisted interpretation of Christianity. Just making an unsupported claim does not make it so.

Actually, what he says is repeatedly, flatly contradicted by both Christ and the rest of the Bible, as it's painfully easy to show. But I think he won't care.

[Dubious]

...only if I believe that a crucified Jew who hated Gentiles was going to save my soul and grant me eternal life for having believed in him for approximately the span of a human life.

There is no mention of this in the Bible, so it is a fiction of your twisted interpretation of Christianity. Just making an unsupported claim does not make it so.

Actually, what he says is repeatedly, flatly contradicted by both Christ and the rest of the Bible, as it's painfully easy to show. But I think he won't care.

Make yourself specific. There is no mention of what in the Bible.

...that he hated Gentiles or that he was going to save you and grant you eternal life in exchange for having believed in him for an infinitesimal period of living and breathing? What other reason would you have for believing all this nonsense if you didn't expect one terrific premium on the ROI.

[Harbal]

Actually, what he says is repeatedly, flatly contradicted by both Christ and the rest of the Bible, as it's painfully easy to show.

What is easy is not normally painful but the Bible is an incredibly tedious book to read so I know what you mean.

[Greta]

Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't misrepresent and lie. Do not treat people like things. Do you need more?

You haven't given one yet. Where or how does Secularism itself require you not to kill? Where does Secularism say, "Thou shalt not steal"? Where does it say it's wrong to misrepresent and lie? What Secular rationale proves it's "wrong" to treat people any way you like at all?

Much of it is codfied in the legal system: http://www.worldlii.org/us/

It's true that secularism does not codify, say, dishonesty. However, theists simply ignore it. You and other theists routinely lie and misrepresent secularists' positions - to the point of cliché. As far as I can tell, aside from the Commandments demanded by secular law, theists routinely ignore the others.

Exhibit A (not yet acknowledged):
16 Antigay Leaders Exposed as Gay or Bi http://www.advocate.com/politics/politi ... -gay-or-bi

George Rekers
This antigay activist and cofounder of the Family Research Council shocked the world in 2010 when he was caught returning from a European vacation with a male escort he found on Rentboy.com. He initially claimed he hired the man to carry his luggage because he had just had surgery and wasn’t able to lift anything. Rekers also tried to explain himself with a Facebook post: “I deliberately spend time with sinners with the loving goal to try to help them.”

Other Exhibits are lined up after this one is glossed over

[Immanuel Can]

Other Exhibits are lined up after this one is glossed over

Better bring them out. This one has no evidence of being deduced from Secularism at all. Nada.

When you pick a claimed source of "secular" morality, it would probably be nice if it even contains your key term once.

[uwot]

When you pick a claimed source of "secular" morality, it would probably be nice if it even contains your key term once.

I see you are still making things up to knock them down, Mr Can. There is no Church of Secularism, and no holy book in which the law is set out. Secularism is simply the separation of church and state.

[Greta]

Other Exhibits are lined up after this one is glossed over

Better bring them out. This one has no evidence of being deduced from Secularism at all. Nada.

When you pick a claimed source of "secular" morality, it would probably be nice if it even contains your key term once.

Strange response. You appear to be entirely mechanistic in your thinking - programmed to believe the Bible and dismiss everything else. You disregard biology, sociology, evolution, Greek philosophers and seemingly have no sense of the human condition and what it means to be human. This is what we do - we are social beings that aggregate and we have no choice but to develop ethical frameworks. That is what intelligent social beings must do to thrive in the short term and survive in the long term.

You seem to think of those not hypnotised by Abrahamic religion as blank discs, just waiting for the Bible to program morals into them. I should leave you to it at this point since, whatever is said here or elsewhere, you will continue with your programming unabated. Let's quit this "debate" and leave room for others to

[Immanuel Can]

This is what we do - we are social beings that aggregate and we have no choice but to develop ethical frameworks.

You don't know what legitimation is. That's evident. You'll need to look that term up. It means to show WHY you say X or Y is genuinely "ethical."

Even worse for your case, Secularism has no ethical or moral premises. And saying, "well, people are social beings and...etc." just means that you are recognizing that people force each other to believe behaviour-constraining frameworks which they really cannot legitimize and thus exploit one another.

That's hardly moral or ethical.

Keep working on it. You're getting cold.

[Harbal]

Even worse for your case, Secularism has no ethical or moral premises.

NEITHER HAS RELIGION, YOU BONE HEAD. You are not comparing religion with secularism, you're comparing some specific religion (probably Christianity) with secularism. It isn't like for like, you're comparing something particular with something general.

And saying, "well, people are social beings and...etc." just means that you are recognizing that people force each other to believe behaviour-constraining frameworks

Well people are social animals, the capacity for altruism is programmed into us. And if you don't think having to adhere to how the Bible tells you to behave is forcing you into a behaviour constraining framework you're an idiot.

[Greta]

Well said, Harbs.

Even worse for your case, Secularism has no ethical or moral premises.

Religion's only moral foundation is "God said so", which in effect is because "some people said so".

[Immanuel Can]

Well said, Harbs.

Still waiting for just one secularism-premised "ethic." The crickets are chirping.

On the other hand, I'm not surprised if, as you now seem to insist, you don't believe in any morality, religious or secular. That's exactly what one should expect of a consistent secularist. Only inconsistent ones can continue to hold to any morality at all.

Thank God for inconsistent secularists.

[Dubious]

This is what we do - we are social beings that aggregate and we have no choice but to develop ethical frameworks.

You don't know what legitimation is. That's evident. You'll need to look that term up. It means to show WHY you say X or Y is genuinely "ethical."

Even worse for your case, Secularism has no ethical or moral premises. And saying, "well, people are social beings and...etc." just means that you are recognizing that people force each other to believe behaviour-constraining frameworks which they really cannot legitimize and thus exploit one another.

That's hardly moral or ethical.

Keep working on it. You're getting cold.

What makes any religious injunction moral since they too are mostly behavior constraining rules even more overtly restrictive than secular ones. Don't the ten commandments - most of which appear silly nowadays - begin with You shall, You shall not! By your logic had they been framed by a secular society instead of a biblical one they too would have been defined by you as neither moral or ethical.

Keep on working at it though I fear it may require more than one lifetime to figure out what most people already instinctively know and acknowledge including theists...at least the ones I know. In your case, almost without exception, total denial is the only response to be expected as if the bible were some hermetically sealed sacred text not to be infringed by anything external to it.

The bible is clearly not for everyone and possibly even dangerous for some like you. The complete repudiation of practically every counter argument ever made by anyone would infer that you suffer from some weird theistically tinged Bartleby complex.

[Immanuel Can]

[quote="Dubious"]

Still not gonna fight with you, Dube. Calm down, ask a question, and maybe we'll talk. But fight? Nah.

[Dubious]

Still not gonna fight with you, Dube. Calm down, ask a question, and maybe we'll talk. But fight? Nah.

...I did ask a question. I asked a few questions without response!

The question is...

What makes any religious injunction moral since they too are mostly behavior constraining rules even more overtly restrictive than secular ones. Don't the ten commandments - most of which appear silly nowadays - begin with You shall, You shall not! By your logic had they been framed by a secular society instead of a biblical one they too would have been defined by you as neither moral or ethical.

...this seems a quandry; how do you untie it??