Is creating false guilt for profit by religions a good moral tenet?

[David Handeye]

What are people paying for when they put money into the basket if not the forgiveness of their sins?

the forgiveness of their sins? but where do you live?
just read

2. PARTE SACRIFICALE


a) L’Offertorio

Il Sacrificio è un’oblazione di immolazione: cioè l’offerta (oblazione) fatta a Dio di una cosa che si distrugge (immolazione). Durante la Messa, che è il Sacrificio della Croce, l’offerta del Corpo e del Sangue di Gesù e la loro mistica immolazione, avvengono insieme al momento della Consacrazione. È tuttavia necessario che il Sacerdote e i fedeli uniscano l’offerta di se stessi all’unica offerta gradita a Dio, quella di Gesù. Perciò nel rito della Messa esiste un momento nel quale si esprime l’offerta di Gesù al Padre e quella dei cristiani con lui. Diciamo: “si esprime” perché si realizza solo alla Consacrazione: ma poiché l’uomo ha bisogno di tempo per porre i suoi atti, si è creato un momento specifico di oblazione. Quindi si capisca bene che nell’Offertorio quello che viene offerto è il Corpo e Sangue di Gesù, e NON il Pane e il Vino; è un’anticipazione per dare modo a tutti di unirsi all’Offerta di Gesù.


gnostic christian

[Greatest I am]

What a guy.

Can't even add 2 + 2.

Regards
DL

[David Handeye]

a) The Offertory

Sacrifice is an oblation of immolation: that is, the offering (oblation) made to God for a thing that is destroyed (immolation). During the Mass, which is the Sacrifice of the Cross, the offering of the Body and Blood of Jesus and their mystical immolation, they occur together at the moment of the Consecration. However, it is necessary that the priest and the faithful join the offering of themselves to the only acceptable offerings to God, to Jesus. So in the rite of the Mass, there is a moment that expresses the offering of Jesus to the Father and that of Christians with him. We say, "it expresses" because it takes place only at the consecration: but because man needs time to put his acts, has created a specific time of sacrifice. So you understand very well that what is offered in the Offertory is the Body and Blood of Jesus, and NOT the bread and wine; it is an anticipation to give way to all to join the Offer of Jesus.

----------------

the forgiveness of their sins.... but WHEN do you live??

[ReliStuPhD]

But look up the story of King David and see that scenario played out. The same conditions of torture and killing would apply at the great flood and also the first born of Egypt.

Regards
DL

Before responding, try to keep your responses in line with mine. Rather than tossing out a bunch of red herrings or strawmen, show me where I've made a mistake. As such, let's both avoid that sort of point-by-point response, where we respond in length to each paragraph with three of our own. Just boil what I've said down to the points where you think there's a mistake being made and we can see if we can get to some sort of proposition or experiment we could test. All that so say, Appeals to Emotion are not rebuttals, so let's both avoid them.

OK. You're referring to the narrative in 2 Samuel 12. Now, in order to demonstrate that God was following a Satanic morality, you would have to show that God could have no morally sufficient reason to do what he did, right?. That is to say, you need to show that a God with a full view of human history (perhaps you disagree on this point) could in no way have done what was done to bring about a better future rather a worse one. We certainly all agree that killing a baby is a terrible thing. But let's assume, for example, that I told you that if you killed a baby in its crib by giving it poison, you would save the tens of millions of life and spare decades of hardship and suffering. Would you then poison Adolf Hitler? I would, and I'd then declare I'd done the right thing.

This is the problem here. We don't know that God's killing the baby (more on that in a second) was not to save pain, suffering, and death elsewhere. To demonstrate that such was a Satanic act, you'd have to show that there was no way in which it led to less pain and suffering (impossible to do, right?).

Now, you may say that the God of the Bible is a fiction. OK, fine. Then we can't really parse this out without settling on what is meant by "God." I take it you to be referring to the traditional God of Christianity. So that's what I've defended. If we're talking about who I believe God to be, my answer is much simpler: God did none of those things. David's baby simply fell sick and died, and then the author of 2 Samuel mistakenly attributed that to God. But the point is that if you're talking about the Christian God, you have an uphill battle here, because while these things shock our conscience, they do so because we don't know the full scope of history.

To return to Adolf Hitler: if you went and killed him and WWII never happened, I would absolutely seek to have you tried and executed for infanticide. Nothing you said ("But you don't understand, I just saved tens of millions of lives") would matter because, to my now-altered history, these things never happened and you're just a horrible person. This is the "problem" the Christian God runs into in knowing all the possible outcomes of a decision. If God acts in such a way that the worst outcome is avoided, you might still accuse God of being Satanic because you don't know what was prevented from happening.

It's an interesting quandary, and it admittedly means someone can always say to you "but you don't know that this act wasn't meant to avoid a worse future." You could respond that that's a cheap move, but it is at least logically possible that what they've said is true. And this is why I maintain you can't demonstrate God follows satanic morals (though you can certainly hold it as a personal belief. And I would agree somewhat!).

[Greatest I am]

a) The Offertory

Sacrifice is an oblation of immolation: that is, the offering (oblation) made to God for a thing that is destroyed (immolation). During the Mass, which is the Sacrifice of the Cross, the offering of the Body and Blood of Jesus and their mystical immolation, they occur together at the moment of the Consecration. However, it is necessary that the priest and the faithful join the offering of themselves to the only acceptable offerings to God, to Jesus. So in the rite of the Mass, there is a moment that expresses the offering of Jesus to the Father and that of Christians with him. We say, "it expresses" because it takes place only at the consecration: but because man needs time to put his acts, has created a specific time of sacrifice. So you understand very well that what is offered in the Offertory is the Body and Blood of Jesus, and NOT the bread and wine; it is an anticipation to give way to all to join the Offer of Jesus.

----------------

the forgiveness of their sins.... but WHEN do you live??

Any God who need or wants a human sacrifice is not worthy of his title.

Your own bible says God wants obedience and not sacrifice.

As to a sacrifice on the cross, your kidding. Right?

You think Jesus is God. Right?

God cannot die. And for Jesus to sacrifice himself to himself shows there is no gain or loss of anything of value so to call Jesus rejoining a Godhead he somehow never left is too stupid to contemplate.

--------------------------------------------

You are following an immoral creed. Consider.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

But look up the story of King David and see that scenario played out. The same conditions of torture and killing would apply at the great flood and also the first born of Egypt.

Regards
DL

Before responding, try to keep your responses in line with mine. Rather than tossing out a bunch of red herrings or strawmen, show me where I've made a mistake. As such, let's both avoid that sort of point-by-point response, where we respond in length to each paragraph with three of our own. Just boil what I've said down to the points where you think there's a mistake being made and we can see if we can get to some sort of proposition or experiment we could test. All that so say, Appeals to Emotion are not rebuttals, so let's both avoid them.

OK. You're referring to the narrative in 2 Samuel 12. Now, in order to demonstrate that God was following a Satanic morality, you would have to show that God could have no morally sufficient reason to do what he did, right?. That is to say, you need to show that a God with a full view of human history (perhaps you disagree on this point) could in no way have done what was done to bring about a better future rather a worse one. We certainly all agree that killing a baby is a terrible thing. But let's assume, for example, that I told you that if you killed a baby in its crib by giving it poison, you would save the tens of millions of life and spare decades of hardship and suffering. Would you then poison Adolf Hitler? I would, and I'd then declare I'd done the right thing.

This is the problem here. We don't know that God's killing the baby (more on that in a second) was not to save pain, suffering, and death elsewhere. To demonstrate that such was a Satanic act, you'd have to show that there was no way in which it led to less pain and suffering (impossible to do, right?).

Now, you may say that the God of the Bible is a fiction. OK, fine. Then we can't really parse this out without settling on what is meant by "God." I take it you to be referring to the traditional God of Christianity. So that's what I've defended. If we're talking about who I believe God to be, my answer is much simpler: God did none of those things. David's baby simply fell sick and died, and then the author of 2 Samuel mistakenly attributed that to God. But the point is that if you're talking about the Christian God, you have an uphill battle here, because while these things shock our conscience, they do so because we don't know the full scope of history.

To return to Adolf Hitler: if you went and killed him and WWII never happened, I would absolutely seek to have you tried and executed for infanticide. Nothing you said ("But you don't understand, I just saved tens of millions of lives") would matter because, to my now-altered history, these things never happened and you're just a horrible person. This is the "problem" the Christian God runs into in knowing all the possible outcomes of a decision. If God acts in such a way that the worst outcome is avoided, you might still accuse God of being Satanic because you don't know what was prevented from happening.

It's an interesting quandary, and it admittedly means someone can always say to you "but you don't know that this act wasn't meant to avoid a worse future." You could respond that that's a cheap move, but it is at least logically possible that what they've said is true. And this is why I maintain you can't demonstrate God follows satanic morals (though you can certainly hold it as a personal belief. And I would agree somewhat!).

So wordy when answering a simple question show you are trying to hide something. Or trying hard to win.

Not quite fair as I keep things short and try to gain the pleasure of losing the argument.

"But let's assume, for example, that I told you that if you killed a baby in its crib by giving it poison, you would save the tens of millions of life and spare decades of hardship and suffering."

You also speak of God knowing everything and that the killing is bad but well worth it to prevent evil.

You will note that my original question included man or God. So far so good. You spoke to both.

To your quote. Entropy says that just taking that baby and moving it elsewhere will re-write history completely. I need not kill it.

You also have God killing to prevent evil when all he also had to do was move the baby. That or since he knew ahead of time that he would have to do such a horrible thing, all he would have had to do was make sure that particular sperm did not reach the egg.

So back to the question.

Is it moral for a God or a man to torture a man's baby for 6 days, and then kill it, all because of anger at the man?

I think I have refuted what you have given so far.

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

So wordy when answering a simple question show you are trying to hide something. Or trying hard to win.

Not quite fair as I keep things short and try to gain the pleasure of losing the argument.

"But let's assume, for example, that I told you that if you killed a baby in its crib by giving it poison, you would save the tens of millions of life and spare decades of hardship and suffering."

You also speak of God knowing everything and that the killing is bad but well worth it to prevent evil.

You will note that my original question included man or God. So far so good. You spoke to both.

To your quote. Entropy says that just taking that baby and moving it elsewhere will re-write history completely. I need not kill it.

You also have God killing to prevent evil when all he also had to do was move the baby. That or since he knew ahead of time that he would have to do such a horrible thing, all he would have had to do was make sure that particular sperm did not reach the egg.

So back to the question.

Is it moral for a God or a man to torture a man's baby for 6 days, and then kill it, all because of anger at the man?

I think I have refuted what you have given so far.

Rather than attributing a long answer to trying to hide something, perhaps take it as trying to show that the situation is not simple? (As for trying win, of course! lol)

As for moving the baby, it's an interesting response, but the only way to be sure you prevent the Holocaust (at the very least, his part it in it) is to kill baby Hitler, no? After all, the movement is no guarantee that things get better, is it? By moving Hitler, you could make things worse, no? What's more, this theory of moving the baby altering all of history is just a theory, right? Not something demonstrable.

IF the reason God killed the baby was simply because God was mad, I think your point would hold (some would argue another point that I'm holding in reserve, but I don't think it's necessary just yet). The problem with 2 Samuel 12 is that it doesn't say why God killed the child. It just mentions that it was tied to David's having commanded Uriah's death. So at a minimum, it is not simply because God was mad. In fact, God may not have been mad at all and was, instead, enforcing divine law or some such. Or maybe mad and x, y or z.

All of this to say, you present the situation the way you see it (and I'm perfectly fine with that),but if your interpretation doesn't accord with reality, you've demonstrated nothing (and it's the reality piece that you're hard-pressed to show). If I can make a suggestion, the simple move here is just to back off the "demonstrably" part and acknowledge this is a belief of yours. Demonstration is a terribly difficult thing to do in these cases. And yes, I know you think you've refuted my points so far and, if we're honest, they're not really even points I much enjoy defending. Still, in all of this, my point is to show your claim is not demonstrably true. There are too many foils that leave God enough, shall we say, "wiggle room." So no, I don't think you've demonstrated your point. I just think you've got some good arguments for why the God of the Old Testament is a Grade A asshole.

[thedoc]

As for moving the baby, it's an interesting response, but the only way to be sure you prevent the Holocaust (at the very least, his part it in it) is to kill baby Hitler, no? After all, the movement is no guarantee that things get better, is it? By moving Hitler, you could make things worse, no? What's more, this theory of moving the baby altering all of history is just a theory, right? Not something demonstrable.

The problem here is the assumption that eliminating Hitler would have prevented the Holocaust, that is in no way definite, it may well be that some other leader would have come to power in Germany and history would have followed the same course that it did under Hitler's leadership.

"I believe that both the Universe and human stupidity are infinite, but I'm not so sure about the first." - Einstein

[ReliStuPhD]

The problem here is the assumption that eliminating Hitler would have prevented the Holocaust, that is in no way definite, it may well be that some other leader would have come to power in Germany and history would have followed the same course that it did under Hitler's leadership.

Very true. This adds an even greater wrinkle, doesn't it? Perhaps killing Hitler leads to an even worse Holocaust, maybe the actual extinction of Jewry worldwide. Still, what I realize I failed to make clear in my example, was that I would still have morally sufficient reason to kill Hitler based on my knowledge. This is what I think GIA ultimately has to deal with. If he can't show that God did not had a morally sufficient reason to kill David's baby, he can't demonstrate that God is following satanic morals (insofar as, I assume, we all agree that Satan's does not have sufficiently moral reasons to do what he does).

"I believe that both the Universe and human stupidity are infinite, but I'm not so sure about the first." - Einstein

One of my favorites,* but perhaps incorrectly attributed to Einstein.

*Another: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

[thedoc]

"I believe that both the Universe and human stupidity are infinite, but I'm not so sure about the first." - Einstein

One of my favorites,* but perhaps incorrectly attributed to Einstein.

*Another: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Don't know, don't care, Just as so many jokes were attributed to Lincoln because he was a well known story teller. Famous people always get blamed for the good stuff.

[thedoc]

The problem here is the assumption that eliminating Hitler would have prevented the Holocaust, that is in no way definite, it may well be that some other leader would have come to power in Germany and history would have followed the same course that it did under Hitler's leadership.

Very true. This adds an even greater wrinkle, doesn't it? Perhaps killing Hitler leads to an even worse Holocaust, maybe the actual extinction of Jewry worldwide. Still, what I realize I failed to make clear in my example, was that I would still have morally sufficient reason to kill Hitler based on my knowledge. This is what I think GIA ultimately has to deal with. If he can't show that God did not had a morally sufficient reason to kill David's baby, he can't demonstrate that God is following satanic morals (insofar as, I assume, we all agree that Satan's does not have sufficiently moral reasons to do what he does).

Please excuse me for using a movie to illustrate a point, but in the movie the "Dirty Dozen" the sniper was told to shoot the general rather than Hitler because the generals death would have a greater effect on the war than killing Hitler. So how do you make a valid decision on who to eliminate to change history, and do you really want to change history, because the good guys (so we assume) eventually won, or would you prefer to be speaking German now? It's the same with Gods motives, what is the real motivation behind the actions that humans can't always understand. Isaiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkgGPvClF4

[ReliStuPhD]

Please excuse me for using a movie to illustrate a point, but in the movie the "Dirty Dozen" the sniper was told to shoot the general rather than Hitler because the generals death would have a greater effect on the war than killing Hitler. So how do you make a valid decision on who to eliminate to change history, and do you really want to change history, because the good guys (so we assume) eventually won, or would you prefer to be speaking German now? It's the same with Gods motives, what is the real motivation behind the actions that humans can't always understand. Isaiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.

Well, I think the point still remains that I would have morally-sufficient reasons to kill Hitler. The problem is obviously that I don't have a view of history that allows me to know if it would make things better or worse. Ultimately, however, I don't think it undermines that point that to kill a baby is not always "of satanic morals." Certainly not something anyone of sound mind ever hopes to do, but not the objectively immoral act GIA needs it to be for his case.

[thedoc]

Please excuse me for using a movie to illustrate a point, but in the movie the "Dirty Dozen" the sniper was told to shoot the general rather than Hitler because the generals death would have a greater effect on the war than killing Hitler. So how do you make a valid decision on who to eliminate to change history, and do you really want to change history, because the good guys (so we assume) eventually won, or would you prefer to be speaking German now? It's the same with Gods motives, what is the real motivation behind the actions that humans can't always understand. Isaiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.

Well, I think the point still remains that I would have morally-sufficient reasons to kill Hitler. The problem is obviously that I don't have a view of history that allows me to know if it would make things better or worse. Ultimately, however, I don't think it undermines that point that to kill a baby is not always "of satanic morals." Certainly not something anyone of sound mind ever hopes to do, but not the objectively immoral act GIA needs it to be for his case.

I would agree that you had morally sufficient reasons to change history to prevent the slaughter that resulted from Hitlers rise to power and Japans aggression in the western Pacific. Just what those actions are remains the big question. Killing Hitler as a baby might not have achieved the ends you seem to desire.

If I may digress, scientists at first determined that the jellyfish was a very poor swimmer based on it's motion through the water. A later examination of that same motion determined that while it didn't seem to swim very well, it was a very efficient feeder with the motion passing water with a lot of eatable material over it's tentacles. Human understanding is not always accurate.

[David Handeye]

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Do you agree?
Regards
DL

That is not the question, I could agree or I could not agree. The question is that you wrote people put money into the basket for payments of indulgences or the forgiveness of their sins. This is bullshit, as you say in english. I have just reported you The Offertory according to the Cathechism of the Santa Madre Chiesa Cattolica Apostolica Romana.
Now if you wanna talk with cognition of cause that is the the reason of putting money in the basket.
Otherwise you can continue to write your fantasy. If you would say those reasons of yours here in Italy people would just smile and think of you to be a sort of poor simple-minded.

[thedoc]

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Do you agree?
Regards
DL

That is not the question, I could agree or I could not agree. The question is that you wrote people put money into the basket for payments of indulgences or the forgiveness of their sins. This is bullshit, as you say in english. I have just reported you The Offertory according to the Cathechism of the Santa Madre Chiesa Cattolica Apostolica Romana.
Now if you wanna talk with cognition of cause that is the the reason of putting money in the basket.
Otherwise you can continue to write your fantasy. If you would say those reasons of yours here in Italy people would just smile and think of you to be a sort of poor simple-minded.

I think what needs to be pointed out here is that there is a difference between an action and the meaning that drives that action. I have often stated that an outsider observing a religious service could easily conclude that religious people are all Idolaters because they bow down to graven images. From the outside this is exactly what is seen. But the difference is if the worshiper knows what the image represents, and is in fact worshiping the meaning behind the image and not the image itself. In a conversation with another Christian, he agreed that in spite of appearances it was what the image represented that was being worshiped and not the image. He then related a story of accompanying a Hindu to a Shrine and the Hindu first lay prostrate in front of the image in the Shrine, whereupon the Christian accused the Hindu of being an Idolater. I stopped him and asked, did the Hindu know what the image represented? there was an answer in the affirmative, then I questioned then how do you know that the Hindu is worshiping the image and not what it represents? at this point we both had to agree that it was likely that the Hindu knew and understood the difference and was not an Idolater. This same principle could be applied to the placing of an offering in the basket, that the offering is not to buy indulgences or forgiveness, but to provide for the physical needs of the congregation.