Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

[GreatestIam]

Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speak of is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, --- instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen to sacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yet to create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- he had yet to create.

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completely needless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most call justice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, God chose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usual policy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could have shown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgive us.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to accept and embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the best form of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocent party.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if God punished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

 

[Meriweather]

Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speak of is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, --- instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen to sacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yet to create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- he had yet to create.

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completely needless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most call justice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, God chose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usual policy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could have shown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgive us.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to accept and embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the best form of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocent party.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if God punished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

Most of your premises here about most Christian denominations are either wrong or incomplete. Because of this I see strange conclusions in your post.

The Father did not punish the Son.

 

[Darlene]

There is so much wrong with Christianity.
This is just an example:
America and other Christian countries are freaking out about what ISIS is doing to Christians. What they don't realize is Christians have been doing that to other religions and people for thousands of years. Hypocrites.
There is so much secrecy and hypocrisy surrounding Christianity, it makes me sick.
I'm not condoning any act of violence, because quite frankly, violence won't solve anything. It just adds fuel to the fire.
We are all people. We all bleed red. The color of our skin or our faith/religious beliefs does not make any difference.
Its time for all nations to wake up and accept each other for who we are. The more blood we shed and the more we hurt the innocent, the more your God or Allah (or whatever you call Him or Her) looks down upon you with shame. Going to war, bombing whole cities, decapitating others, etc. will only bring more judgment on you believers.

 

[Freewill]

There is so much wrong with Christianity.
This is just an example:
America and other Christian countries are freaking out about what ISIS is doing to Christians. What they don't realize is Christians have been doing that to other religions and people for thousands of years. Hypocrites.
There is so much secrecy and hypocrisy surrounding Christianity, it makes me sick.
I'm not condoning any act of violence, because quite frankly, violence won't solve anything. It just adds fuel to the fire.
We are all people. We all bleed red. The color of our skin or our faith/religious beliefs does not make any difference.
Its time for all nations to wake up and accept each other for who we are. The more blood we shed and the more we hurt the innocent, the more your God or Allah (or whatever you call Him or Her) looks down upon you with shame. Going to war, bombing whole cities, decapitating others, etc. will only bring more judgment on you believers.

Could you enlighten us to where you see Christians doing as you say? Where are the Crusades these days? Where are the Christians, sponsored by their religious sects not just lone wolves, flying planes into tall buildings?

What "secrecy" do you refer? I see nothing hidden.

 

[Freewill]

Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speak of is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, --- instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen to sacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yet to create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- he had yet to create.

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completely needless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most call justice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, God chose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usual policy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could have shown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgive us.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to accept and embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the best form of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocent party.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if God punished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

Man do you have a twisted idea of things. If you don't want to believe or be a Christian so be it, that is your freewill choice. But what I don't understand is why you feel the need to attack that which you obviously know so little about. Why are you not attacking Islam which is directly involved in so many conflicts today?

My suggestion is for you to review the definitions of Justice and Grace. Until you understand the difference you will NEVER understand Christianity.

 

[GreatestIam]

Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speak of is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, --- instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen to sacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yet to create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- he had yet to create.

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completely needless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most call justice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, God chose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usual policy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could have shown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgive us.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to accept and embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the best form of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocent party.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if God punished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

Most of your premises here about most Christian denominations are either wrong or incomplete.

You are a liar who wishes to stay in your immoral mind set.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

There is so much wrong with Christianity.
This is just an example:
America and other Christian countries are freaking out about what ISIS is doing to Christians. What they don't realize is Christians have been doing that to other religions and people for thousands of years. Hypocrites.
There is so much secrecy and hypocrisy surrounding Christianity, it makes me sick.
I'm not condoning any act of violence, because quite frankly, violence won't solve anything. It just adds fuel to the fire.
We are all people. We all bleed red. The color of our skin or our faith/religious beliefs does not make any difference.
Its time for all nations to wake up and accept each other for who we are. The more blood we shed and the more we hurt the innocent, the more your God or Allah (or whatever you call Him or Her) looks down upon you with shame. Going to war, bombing whole cities, decapitating others, etc. will only bring more judgment on you believers.

Wise.

Those like you are why Christians bid women shut the fuck up in church.

You create thoughts and say truths that misogynistic men do not want to hear.

Keep it up.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speak of is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, --- instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen to sacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yet to create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- he had yet to create.

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completely needless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most call justice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, God chose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usual policy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could have shown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgive us.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to accept and embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the best form of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocent party.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if God punished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

Man do you have a twisted idea of things. If you don't want to believe or be a Christian so be it, that is your freewill choice. But what I don't understand is why you feel the need to attack that which you obviously know so little about. Why are you not attacking Islam which is directly involved in so many conflicts today?

My suggestion is for you to review the definitions of Justice and Grace. Until you understand the difference you will NEVER understand Christianity.

I am here to do that but you are rejecting my efforts to understand the morality of this issue by not giving us an apology to justify punishing the innocent instead of the guilty.

If you cannot with your great understanding of Christian thinking, how do you expect me to come up with one?

Chastisement without correction is just you showing the evil in your heart and that is quite cruel. Can you nor follow your bible on this?

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth

Show your Christian love and correct us.

Regards
DL

 

[Meriweather]

Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speak of is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, --- instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen to sacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yet to create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- he had yet to create.

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completely needless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most call justice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, God chose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usual policy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could have shown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgive us.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to accept and embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the best form of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocent party.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if God punished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

Most of your premises here about most Christian denominations are either wrong or incomplete.

You are a liar who wishes to stay in your immoral mind set.

Regards
DL

Once again you begin with erroneous premises and reach strange conclusions. Have you any interest in learning what most Christians believe and understand?

 

[Friends]

In order to understand Christian beliefs about Jesus, one should understand how the concept of the Messiah developed in the Old Testament. As part of the coronation ceremony of Israelite kings olive oil was poured on the head of the man being coronated. Thus the king who sat on the throne in Jerusalem was the "anointed one." In Hebrew this is pronounced "Mašíaḥ."

King Saul was the first Mašíaḥ. King David was the second. During his reign David conquered Syria, and three nations in what is now Jordan. These were from north to south, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Edomites.

King Solomon was the third Mašíaḥ. However, during the reign of Solomon Syria became independent. During the reign of Solomon's son Rehoboam, ten Israelite tribes seceded from the rule of Rehoboam, and became the Northern Kingdom, henceforth called "Israel." What remained was the Southern Kingdom, henceforth called "Judah."

The three nations in what is now Jordan also became independent. While this was happening, Israel and Judah were threatened by the growing power of Assyria. Assyria was a large Semitic nation in what is now northern Iraq. Assyria eventually destroyed Israel, deported the Israelites who lived there to various parts of the Assyrian Empire, and subjugated Judah.

The concept of the Mašíaḥ began to change. Jews began to want a king who would restore the empire of King David. King Hezekiah tried, and failed, although II Chronicles tries to spin things to make the failure of the Assyrian Army to take Jerusalem seem like a victory.

Finally the Babylonians revolted against Assyria, defeated Assyria, and conquered the same nations that had been part of the Assyrian Empire. Thus began the Babylonian Captivity, and the end of the dynasty established by David.

But the hope for a Mašíaḥ lived on. The Mašíaḥ would be a descendant of King David who would restore his empire.

During his ministry most of Jesus' followers probably hoped that he would liberate them from Roman rule. Instead, Jesus was executed.

Doctrines like the substitutionary atonement are ways to make sense out of the Crucifixion, but they are not reasons for the appeal of Christianity. The appeal of Christianity is the doctrine that Jesus rose from the dead, and that those who believe in him will live with him eternally in Heaven.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You are a liar who wishes to stay in your immoral mind set.

Regards
DL

have you ever stopped to consider the fact that all your arguments about what the Bible says are contingent upon disregarding what the Bible says?......

 

[GreatestIam]

Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speak of is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, --- instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen to sacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yet to create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- he had yet to create.

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completely needless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most call justice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, God chose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usual policy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could have shown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgive us.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to accept and embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the best form of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocent party.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if God punished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

Most of your premises here about most Christian denominations are either wrong or incomplete.

You are a liar who wishes to stay in your immoral mind set.

Regards
DL

Once again you begin with erroneous premises and reach strange conclusions. Have you any interest in learning what most Christians believe and understand?

Not when your version starts with saying that deciding to make a human sacrifice of a son is not harming a son.

Come to speak truth fully and I will listen but you already began with a lie and should retract if you wish credibility.

Regards
DL

 

[Meriweather]

Not when your version starts with saying that deciding to make a human sacrifice of a son is not harming a son.

Come to speak truth fully and I will listen but you already began with a lie and should retract if you wish credibility.

Where we differ is the part the Father sent the Son into the world to become a sacrifice. The Father sent the Son not to condemn the world, but so that we may have life and have it more abundantly. Jesus taught us that it is disobedience that enslaves, and obedience that frees. How far do we take obedience? Jesus showed that we could take it all the way to death, and that we would still live. Jesus flat out said that he had the power to lay down his life...and take it up again.

It was man, not God, who elected to put Jesus to a horrible death.

 

[GreatestIam]

In order to understand Christian beliefs about Jesus, one should understand how the concept of the Messiah developed in the Old Testament. As part of the coronation ceremony of Israelite kings olive oil was poured on the head of the man being coronated. Thus the king who sat on the throne in Jerusalem was the "anointed one." In Hebrew this is pronounced "Mašíaḥ."

King Saul was the first Mašíaḥ. King David was the second. During his reign David conquered Syria, and three nations in what is now Jordan. These were from north to south, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Edomites.

King Solomon was the third Mašíaḥ. However, during the reign of Solomon Syria became independent. During the reign of Solomon's son Rehoboam, ten Israelite tribes seceded from the rule of Rehoboam, and became the Northern Kingdom, henceforth called "Israel." What remained was the Southern Kingdom, henceforth called "Judah."

The three nations in what is now Jordan also became independent. While this was happening, Israel and Judah were threatened by the growing power of Assyria. Assyria was a large Semitic nation in what is now northern Iraq. Assyria eventually destroyed Israel, deported the Israelites who lived there to various parts of the Assyrian Empire, and subjugated Judah.

The concept of the Mašíaḥ began to change. Jews began to want a king who would restore the empire of King David. King Hezekiah tried, and failed, although II Chronicles tries to spin things to make the failure of the Assyrian Army to take Jerusalem seem like a victory.

Finally the Babylonians revolted against Assyria, defeated Assyria, and conquered the same nations that had been part of the Assyrian Empire. Thus began the Babylonian Captivity, and the end of the dynasty established by David.

But the hope for a Mašíaḥ lived on. The Mašíaḥ would be a descendant of King David who would restore his empire.

During his ministry most of Jesus' followers probably hoped that he would liberate them from Roman rule. Instead, Jesus was executed.

Doctrines like the substitutionary atonement are ways to make sense out of the Crucifixion, but they are not reasons for the appeal of Christianity. The appeal of Christianity is the doctrine that Jesus rose from the dead, and that those who believe in him will live with him eternally in Heaven.

Yes and we all know that dead men do not walk.

That is how you make men accept morals that they would usually shun. You lie to them and let their selfishness do the rest.

Your Church has learned to lie quite well.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

You are a liar who wishes to stay in your immoral mind set.

Regards
DL

have you ever stopped to consider the fact that all your arguments about what the Bible says are contingent upon disregarding what the Bible says?......

No. It is from regarding what it says and recognizing the immorality that you have embraced.

Get into talking morals or get lost with your trying to hide from your own doctrine.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Not when your version starts with saying that deciding to make a human sacrifice of a son is not harming a son.

Come to speak truth fully and I will listen but you already began with a lie and should retract if you wish credibility.

Where we differ is the part the Father sent the Son into the world to become a sacrifice. The Father sent the Son not to condemn the world, but so that we may have life and have it more abundantly. Jesus taught us that it is disobedience that enslaves, and obedience that frees. How far do we take obedience? Jesus showed that we could take it all the way to death, and that we would still live. Jesus flat out said that he had the power to lay down his life...and take it up again.

It was man, not God, who elected to put Jesus to a horrible death.

Again you lie. Is that all you have?

Who decided Jesus was to be a sacrifice when God chose him even before creating men?

You can't even make any logical statements because you have denied your own God's master plan.

Pathetic apologetics friend.



When you predestine one thing, you have to pre-destine everything.

Regards
DL

 

[Meriweather]

Who decided Jesus was to be a sacrifice when God chose him even before creating men?

You can't even make any logical statements because you have denied your own God's master plan.

Pathetic apologetics friend.



When you predestine one thing, you have to pre-destine everything.

Catholic theology does not teach predestination, but Divine Providence, a state of journeying that God guides toward an ultimate perfection. The sins of mankind are what killed Jesus; the power of God is what raised him up. Note how God is using Christ's obedience unto death in the continuing journey to the state of ultimate perfection.

 

[GreatestIam]

Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speak of is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, --- instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen to sacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yet to create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- he had yet to create.

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completely needless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most call justice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, God chose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usual policy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could have shown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgive us.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to accept and embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the best form of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocent party.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if God punished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

Most of your premises here about most Christian denominations are either wrong or incomplete.

You are a liar who wishes to stay in your immoral mind set.

Regards
DL

Once again you begin with erroneous premises and reach strange conclusions. Have you any interest in learning what most Christians believe and understand?

You keep making the same statement without showing either of what you are talking about. Is that all you have Christian?

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Who decided Jesus was to be a sacrifice when God chose him even before creating men?

You can't even make any logical statements because you have denied your own God's master plan.

Pathetic apologetics friend.



When you predestine one thing, you have to pre-destine everything.

Catholic theology does not teach predestination, but Divine Providence, a state of journeying that God guides toward an ultimate perfection. The sins of mankind are what killed Jesus; the power of God is what raised him up. Note how God is using Christ's obedience unto death in the continuing journey to the state of ultimate perfection.

No predestination then. Good.

That makes this a lie then. Right?

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Regards
DL

 

[sealybobo]

Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speak of is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, --- instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen to sacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yet to create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- he had yet to create.

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completely needless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most call justice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, God chose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usual policy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could have shown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgive us.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to accept and embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the best form of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocent party.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if God punished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

Most of your premises here about most Christian denominations are either wrong or incomplete. Because of this I see strange conclusions in your post.

The Father did not punish the Son.

Still a bunch of holes in your story. Doesn't make any sense. Christianity makes as much sense as every other religion that came before or after it.