Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I have always found this idea rather puzzling, that the death of Jesus is represented as a human sacrifice.

To me it never made much sense to me.

I had exactly the same opinion until many years after God made itself aware to me, akes more sense for me than it did when i was a mere believer.
ps. Its been confirmed i didnt kill a soul...fortherecord.

CUKOO, CUKOO.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: CUKOO, CUKOO.

Yes atheists that are attempting to understand the reasoning behind the life & death of Christ usually are, in particular the ones that dont pay attention to one who claims to KNOW God.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:What I find strange is the number of Christians who believe that substitutionary atonement is somehow moral.

What I find strange is that you appear not to understand this most basic of concepts: If God exists, God is, by definition, the ultimate standard for morality. If substitutionary atonement is that which is determined by God to be the best path, it cannot be anything other than moral. Christians believe in God, ergo...

But without an argument showing that punishing the innocent is somehow better than punishing the guilty, only the delusional will accept it.

Real Christians, if I can use that term, will follow their scriptures and reject that notion.

1 Thesalonian 5;21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

An intelligent and moral Christian will see that there is no possible argument to prove substitutionary atonement to be good and will not hold fast to such an evil concept.

Regards
DL

Blaggard wrote:It was a very simple message at the time, it said that Jesus came to free us from the sin that had enslaved us. Of course very simple messages don't really last in an ever more sophisticated world, so since The Bible can never change, the message remains open to ridicule in a more modern era. Which of course any source of information should be, be it a science paper, a book on philosophy or whatever. Religion has a get out of jail free card only on one thing, that is that The Bible is perfect, but as historians have shown not just the history is lacking and the evidence is lacking but everything it says is now subject to what we like to call in philosophy an honest reasonable ability to explain it. Hence The Bible does not by magic as an ancient and classical tomb get to just be true because someone says so: some council decides what is included in it or not, or indeed such inequitable means have ever made history more apt, because they said so.

The Bible is a book like any other book, it has its truths and it has questionable things in it filtered through the minds of weak and mortal and fragile and fickle men, subject in the same way to any falsehood and weakness men are subject to. The Bible is no more true, even The Gospels, than any other book is true just because fallible men say so.

I will report this post ---- for intelligent thinking.

Regards
DL

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Of course it makes no sense, because it's a load of shit.

Interesting, but not helpful.

I was trying to unpack the understanding that the believer has, to find out what sense it makes to them.

Christians tasked with the job of teaching me when I was young were forever making the same stock statements about 'salvation' and 'redemption' and NONE of it made any sense. I was not a stupid child, but I found myself resisting their teaching, because it appeared to be a "load of shit".

But I'm not interested in repeating my opinion; I was trying ti illicit the 'logic' of the believer and how they manage to make sense of this nonsense.

I agree to the un-helpful nature of our friends post.

Perhaps he never argues morals.

The way most Christians try to sell me on this immoral issue is their ---- God loved us so much that he gave up his son etc.

My reply that never gets an answer is, --- why did he not love his son enough to step up himself, as a human would do, or just not condemn man in the first place for being exactly what he created.

That is when their free will garbage comes out and I reply with the following and they usually fade into the ether.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Regards
DL

attofishpi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: CUKOO, CUKOO.

Yes atheists that are attempting to understand the reasoning behind the life & death of Christ usually are, in particular the ones that dont pay attention to one who claims to KNOW God.

If you knew God, you would know that this is so.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect:

You would also know that God would not condemn his perfect works for being exactly how he created them to be.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:But without an argument showing that punishing the innocent is somehow better than punishing the guilty, only the delusional will accept it.

Real Christians, if I can use that term, will follow their scriptures and reject that notion.

1 Thesalonian 5;21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

An intelligent and moral Christian will see that there is no possible argument to prove substitutionary atonement to be good and will not hold fast to such an evil concept.

No True Scotsman, eh? Why make good arguments when fallacies will do, right?

Anyway, you still don't understand that, on the Xian understanding,Jesus' death on the Cross was voluntary. He chose this path of his own free will. Also, that he was God is a significant piece.

Your "intelligent and moral" Christian understands that God-as-Jesus' death on the Cross was akin to a U.S. soldier taking a bullet meant for an Iraqi child and, in so doing, sacrificing his life to save the child's (there's obviously more to unpack, but since we're talking about "sacrificing innocents," might as well work with that). This "intelligent and moral" Xian can certainly see through your facile attempts to tear down a straw man. You're obviously welcome to believe what you will about Jesus' death, but until you take the time to explain it in the same terms the Christian does, you'll never be able to refute it.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:But without an argument showing that punishing the innocent is somehow better than punishing the guilty, only the delusional will accept it.

Real Christians, if I can use that term, will follow their scriptures and reject that notion.

1 Thesalonian 5;21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

An intelligent and moral Christian will see that there is no possible argument to prove substitutionary atonement to be good and will not hold fast to such an evil concept.

No True Scotsman, eh? Why make good arguments when fallacies will do, right?

Anyway, you still don't understand that, on the Xian understanding,Jesus' death on the Cross was voluntary. He chose this path of his own free will. Also, that he was God is a significant piece.

Your "intelligent and moral" Christian understands that God-as-Jesus' death on the Cross was akin to a U.S. soldier taking a bullet meant for an Iraqi child and, in so doing, sacrificing his life to save the child's (there's obviously more to unpack, but since we're talking about "sacrificing innocents," might as well work with that). This "intelligent and moral" Xian can certainly see through your facile attempts to tear down a straw man. You're obviously welcome to believe what you will about Jesus' death, but until you take the time to explain it in the same terms the Christian does, you'll never be able to refute it.

If all you are going to do is use clichés and lies, it will be tough to discuss this issue.
I do not know any Scotsmen or straw men so try sticking to English.

When one is chosen, he is not volunteering and Jesus often said he was here to do his fathers will and not his own.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

I now repeat.
An intelligent and moral Christian will see that there is no possible argument to prove substitutionary atonement to be good and will not hold fast to such an evil concept.

Give your argument showing how it is somehow just to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. We do not need any of your analogies that are not complete or accurate.

To help you formulate your apology, and so you will not waste your time or mine, let me give you this bit.

==================

You will note that we are all to be saved through repentance and not the murder of an innocent man.

-----------------------
The following 2 quotes are why I call what God did murder. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see all are saved without a sacrifice.

================

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. That immorality does not change even if Jesus would have volunteered, which he did not do.

Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him but I see that you have taken the line that someone else should pay your dues. Quite manly and moral that. Not.

Do you really think someone else can pay your dues and allow you to shirk your just reward?

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

As above so below.

If you had God's power, would you not be able to find a way that does not go against the wisdom of Jesus and the bible?

Perhaps like being man enough to step up to your own demands for a worthy sacrifice?

That is what a good God would do.
=====================

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:I do not know any Scotsmen or straw men

All evidence to the contrary.

Greatest I am wrote:An intelligent and moral Christian...

See? No True Scotsman.

Greatest I am wrote:The following 2 quotes are why I call what God did murder. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see all are saved without a sacrifice.

There is no mention of sacrifice in those verses, but whatever.

Greatest I am wrote:Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. That immorality does not change even if Jesus would have volunteered, which he did not do.

You don't even understand what constitutes morality. If I decide to suffer to pay your debts, it would certainly be "right behavior" for you to accept my sacrifice. If not, then I need to apologize for my immoral behavior in accepting my parents' offer to pay for my college tuition so I didn't have to incur any debt (though I sure showed them in grad school!).

Greatest I am wrote:Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him but I see that you have taken the line that someone else should pay your dues. Quite manly and moral that. Not.

I have certainly not said that, nor have any Christians I know.

Greatest I am wrote:Do you really think someone else can pay your dues and allow you to shirk your just reward?

Certainly. Especially if the person paying the debt is the one would otherwise enforce my just rewards. That you can't see how that works is mind-boggling.

Greatest I am wrote:Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

"You have heard it said ... But I tell, you..."
"I bring you a new law..."
-Jesus

Greatest I am wrote:If you had God's power, would you not be able to find a way that does not go against the wisdom of Jesus and the bible?

Perhaps like being man enough to step up to your own demands for a worthy sacrifice?

That is what a good God would do.

Did you really just say that? Honestly? Surely you understand that that is precisely what the Christian says is happening. I'm flabbergasted that you have effectively said "A good God would do what Christians says God has done" and you don't realize it. You understand that you've just completely refuted yourself? I have to add this as a signature line given how stunning it is as an accidental admission that Christianity is coherent and moral. (EDIT: No signature lines. Drat.)

Bold text aside, you'll never understand the Christian position until you take some time to actually learn it. That you can decontextualize passages is not particularly impressive. Go read any Christian author (except maybe those Prosperity Gospel folks) to see what they say on these points. I'd keep trying to convince you that you completely misunderstand the Christian message but (1) it's increasingly clear that's futile and (2) I don't particularly enjoy defending Christianity. I really just want its opponents to get it right and then show how it doesn't hold up. That you can't (or won't) see that your arguments have reached the same conclusion Christian arguments reach—a good God would take the responsibility for sacrificial atonement upon "Him"self—boggles the mind.

It might be useful to point out here that Andrew Lloyd Weber and Cecil B DeMille did not write the Bible, but they did make some entertaining movies and plays that were very loosely based on the Bible.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:I do not know any Scotsmen or straw men

All evidence to the contrary.

Greatest I am wrote:An intelligent and moral Christian...

See? No True Scotsman.

Greatest I am wrote:The following 2 quotes are why I call what God did murder. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see all are saved without a sacrifice.

There is no mention of sacrifice in those verses, but whatever.

Greatest I am wrote:Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. That immorality does not change even if Jesus would have volunteered, which he did not do.

You don't even understand what constitutes morality. If I decide to suffer to pay your debts, it would certainly be "right behavior" for you to accept my sacrifice. If not, then I need to apologize for my immoral behavior in accepting my parents' offer to pay for my college tuition so I didn't have to incur any debt (though I sure showed them in grad school!).

Greatest I am wrote:Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him but I see that you have taken the line that someone else should pay your dues. Quite manly and moral that. Not.

I have certainly not said that, nor have any Christians I know.

Greatest I am wrote:Do you really think someone else can pay your dues and allow you to shirk your just reward?

Certainly. Especially if the person paying the debt is the one would otherwise enforce my just rewards. That you can't see how that works is mind-boggling.

Greatest I am wrote:Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

"You have heard it said ... But I tell, you..."
"I bring you a new law..."
-Jesus

Greatest I am wrote:If you had God's power, would you not be able to find a way that does not go against the wisdom of Jesus and the bible?

Perhaps like being man enough to step up to your own demands for a worthy sacrifice?

That is what a good God would do.

Did you really just say that? Honestly? Surely you understand that that is precisely what the Christian says is happening. I'm flabbergasted that you have effectively said "A good God would do what Christians says God has done" and you don't realize it. You understand that you've just completely refuted yourself? I have to add this as a signature line given how stunning it is as an accidental admission that Christianity is coherent and moral. (EDIT: No signature lines. Drat.)

Bold text aside, you'll never understand the Christian position until you take some time to actually learn it. That you can decontextualize passages is not particularly impressive. Go read any Christian author (except maybe those Prosperity Gospel folks) to see what they say on these points. I'd keep trying to convince you that you completely misunderstand the Christian message but (1) it's increasingly clear that's futile and (2) I don't particularly enjoy defending Christianity. I really just want its opponents to get it right and then show how it doesn't hold up. That you can't (or won't) see that your arguments have reached the same conclusion Christian arguments reach—a good God would take the responsibility for sacrificial atonement upon "Him"self—boggles the mind.

The debt in question is a life and you have no clue as to what decent morals are.

If you are willing to let another die for you then, knowing reciprocity is fair play, are you willing to die and let a guilty man walk away?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:The debt in question is a life and you have no clue as to what decent morals are.

If you are willing to let another die for you then, knowing reciprocity is fair play, are you willing to die and let a guilty man walk away?

Yeah, it's now obvious you're not debating what Xians believe, but what you believe. If you're interested in interrogating actual Xian belief, I'm down to continue debating. But if we're just hashing out your own idiosyncratic version of it, I'm entirely uninterested. What you believe is your business. Just don't present it as what orthodox Xians believe. Your error != their belief. Neither they nor I find that at all impressive. It's sort of like saying "Gnostics believe that if you look inside your self, you'll find a giant fairy-man, so in no way should you be a Gnostic." "But that's not what Gnostics believe." "Sure it is, because I say so."

And I can promise you I know what decent morals are. But there's a difference between knowing what good morals are and knowing what constitutes morality. You appear woefully misinformed on the latter. Morality is not simply what you want it to be, your Gnostic beliefs notwithstanding.

Greatest I am wrote:If you knew God, you would know that this is so.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect:

What a ridiculous statement, i assure you one can KNOW God exists with knowing very little of the buy bull. I don't pay much attention to the entries of men of yore that have placed their own beliefs of God into a 'holy' scripture. So holey, it has more holes due to mans beliefs than a swiss cheese.

attofishpi wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:If you knew God, you would know that this is so.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect:

What a ridiculous statement, i assure you one can KNOW God exists with knowing very little of the buy bull. I don't pay much attention to the entries of men of yore that have placed their own beliefs of God into a 'holy' scripture. So holey, it has more holes due to mans beliefs than a swiss cheese.

I am a Gnostic Christian.

I am God.

The only God fit to rule men and women is a man or a woman. That is how it has always been and all we have ever had. Who but a man or woman can express the will of God?

There have always only been men and women of good hearts able to express God’s real will.

Like Jesus and his wife who preached to seek God perpetually even after finding a bit of him or her within the self. We are to perpetually raise the bar of excellence for ourselves and our God.

Regards
DL

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:The debt in question is a life and you have no clue as to what decent morals are.

If you are willing to let another die for you then, knowing reciprocity is fair play, are you willing to die and let a guilty man walk away?

Yeah, it's now obvious you're not debating what Xians believe, but what you believe. If you're interested in interrogating actual Xian belief, I'm down to continue debating. But if we're just hashing out your own idiosyncratic version of it, I'm entirely uninterested. What you believe is your business. Just don't present it as what orthodox Xians believe. Your error != their belief. Neither they nor I find that at all impressive. It's sort of like saying "Gnostics believe that if you look inside your self, you'll find a giant fairy-man, so in no way should you be a Gnostic." "But that's not what Gnostics believe." "Sure it is, because I say so."

And I can promise you I know what decent morals are. But there's a difference between knowing what good morals are and knowing what constitutes morality. You appear woefully misinformed on the latter. Morality is not simply what you want it to be, your Gnostic beliefs notwithstanding.

Perhaps when you finish your verbal masturbation we will be able to chat.

Regards
DL