Have you chosen salvation by scapegoat? Is that Moral?

[GreatestIam]

Have you chosen salvation by scapegoat? Is that Moral?

Who would say that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice? Satan or Yahweh?

Many Christians just want a get out of hell free card and will follow Satan and do the immoral thing of using Jesus as their scapegoat to get it.

Jesus taught the opposite with his, pick up your cross and follow me. He did not teach, get on and ride me into heaven.

Some would have Jesus break the law he said he came to fulfil.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

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.

I think that the bottom moral line to the whole notion of substitutionary punishment is as follows.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat --- is immoral.

If you do not agree, please offer an argument that shows where and how punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a moral thing to do.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

Have you chosen salvation by scapegoat? Is that Moral?

Who would say that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice? Satan or Yahweh?

Many Christians just want a get out of hell free card and will follow Satan and do the immoral thing of using Jesus as their scapegoat to get it.

Jesus taught the opposite with his, pick up your cross and follow me. He did not teach, get on and ride me into heaven.

Some would have Jesus break the law he said he came to fulfil.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

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.

I think that the bottom moral line to the whole notion of substitutionary punishment is as follows.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat --- is immoral.

If you do not agree, please offer an argument that shows where and how punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a moral thing to do.

Regards
DL

Who would you like to punish?

 

[Blackrook]

The Son is a volunteer to accept the Father's punishment for all of mankind's sins. We are redeemed through His sacrifice, which is celebrated every Sunday at Mass, when the priest transforms ordinary bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, which we then partake.

Your characterizing of the salvation process as "immoral" just looks like trolling to me.

 

[foggedinn]

Jesus was the Lamb who was slain; a sin offering. The scapegoat is also a spotless Lamb without blemish, but not a sin offering.
People demand a pound of flesh so our criminal justice system offers up scapegoats who are regularly found guilty by a jury of their peers and sent to prison. Think the apostle Paul.

 

[ding]

Have you chosen salvation by scapegoat? Is that Moral?

Who would say that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice? Satan or Yahweh?

Many Christians just want a get out of hell free card and will follow Satan and do the immoral thing of using Jesus as their scapegoat to get it.

Jesus taught the opposite with his, pick up your cross and follow me. He did not teach, get on and ride me into heaven.

Some would have Jesus break the law he said he came to fulfil.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

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.

I think that the bottom moral line to the whole notion of substitutionary punishment is as follows.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat --- is immoral.

If you do not agree, please offer an argument that shows where and how punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a moral thing to do.

Regards
DL

Actually what Jesus taught was to be honest with yourself and not rationalize your sins. He taught to acknowledge your sins. He taught that we have no need to rationalize our sins because he paid for our sins with his sacrifice. He taught that you can’t fix what is broke until you acknowledge what is broken. He taught that it is possible to transform yourself. He taught a very personal message.

 

[GreatestIam]

Have you chosen salvation by scapegoat? Is that Moral?

Who would say that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice? Satan or Yahweh?

Many Christians just want a get out of hell free card and will follow Satan and do the immoral thing of using Jesus as their scapegoat to get it.

Jesus taught the opposite with his, pick up your cross and follow me. He did not teach, get on and ride me into heaven.

Some would have Jesus break the law he said he came to fulfil.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

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.

I think that the bottom moral line to the whole notion of substitutionary punishment is as follows.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat --- is immoral.

If you do not agree, please offer an argument that shows where and how punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a moral thing to do.

Regards
DL

Who would you like to punish?

Not the innocent one who you plan to use as your scapegoat.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

The Son is a volunteer to accept the Father's punishment for all of mankind's sins. We are redeemed through His sacrifice, which is celebrated every Sunday at Mass, when the priest transforms ordinary bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, which we then partake.

Your characterizing of the salvation process as "immoral" just looks like trolling to me.

It does to those who have a vile moral sense.

Scriptures are full of where Jesus speaks of us stepping up to the consequences of our evil actions, and here you are saying that to profit from the punishment of the innocent in our stead is somehow moral.

We are all children of God. So believers tell me.

Make your case by showing how you would be correct in punishing your innocent son instead of your guilty son.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Jesus was the Lamb who was slain; a sin offering. The scapegoat is also a spotless Lamb without blemish, but not a sin offering.
People demand a pound of flesh so our criminal justice system offers up scapegoats who are regularly found guilty by a jury of their peers and sent to prison. Think the apostle Paul.

As my quotes indicate, Jesus rejected the notion of using him as our scapegoat.

Our justice system also tries hard to punish the guilty and not the innocent.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Have you chosen salvation by scapegoat? Is that Moral?

Who would say that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice? Satan or Yahweh?

Many Christians just want a get out of hell free card and will follow Satan and do the immoral thing of using Jesus as their scapegoat to get it.

Jesus taught the opposite with his, pick up your cross and follow me. He did not teach, get on and ride me into heaven.

Some would have Jesus break the law he said he came to fulfil.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

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.

I think that the bottom moral line to the whole notion of substitutionary punishment is as follows.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat --- is immoral.

If you do not agree, please offer an argument that shows where and how punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a moral thing to do.

Regards
DL

Actually what Jesus taught was to be honest with yourself and not rationalize your sins. He taught to acknowledge your sins. He taught that we have no need to rationalize our sins because he paid for our sins with his sacrifice. He taught that you can’t fix what is broke until you acknowledge what is broken. He taught that it is possible to transform yourself. He taught a very personal message.

Indeed. Like using a scapegoat is immoral.

You immoral types miss it.

Not surprising given that you adore a genocidal son murdering prick of a God.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

Have you chosen salvation by scapegoat? Is that Moral?

Who would say that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice? Satan or Yahweh?

Many Christians just want a get out of hell free card and will follow Satan and do the immoral thing of using Jesus as their scapegoat to get it.

Jesus taught the opposite with his, pick up your cross and follow me. He did not teach, get on and ride me into heaven.

Some would have Jesus break the law he said he came to fulfil.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

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.

I think that the bottom moral line to the whole notion of substitutionary punishment is as follows.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat --- is immoral.

If you do not agree, please offer an argument that shows where and how punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a moral thing to do.

Regards
DL

Who would you like to punish?

Not the innocent one who you plan to use as your scapegoat.

Regards
DL

Who exactly would that be? Can you tell me?

 

[ding]

Have you chosen salvation by scapegoat? Is that Moral?

Who would say that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice? Satan or Yahweh?

Many Christians just want a get out of hell free card and will follow Satan and do the immoral thing of using Jesus as their scapegoat to get it.

Jesus taught the opposite with his, pick up your cross and follow me. He did not teach, get on and ride me into heaven.

Some would have Jesus break the law he said he came to fulfil.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

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.

I think that the bottom moral line to the whole notion of substitutionary punishment is as follows.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat --- is immoral.

If you do not agree, please offer an argument that shows where and how punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a moral thing to do.

Regards
DL

Actually what Jesus taught was to be honest with yourself and not rationalize your sins. He taught to acknowledge your sins. He taught that we have no need to rationalize our sins because he paid for our sins with his sacrifice. He taught that you can’t fix what is broke until you acknowledge what is broken. He taught that it is possible to transform yourself. He taught a very personal message.

Indeed. Like using a scapegoat is immoral.

You immoral types miss it.

Not surprising given that you adore a genocidal son murdering prick of a God.

Regards
DL

Which scapegoat would that be exactly?

 

[GreatestIam]

Have you chosen salvation by scapegoat? Is that Moral?

Who would say that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice? Satan or Yahweh?

Many Christians just want a get out of hell free card and will follow Satan and do the immoral thing of using Jesus as their scapegoat to get it.

Jesus taught the opposite with his, pick up your cross and follow me. He did not teach, get on and ride me into heaven.

Some would have Jesus break the law he said he came to fulfil.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

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.

I think that the bottom moral line to the whole notion of substitutionary punishment is as follows.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat --- is immoral.

If you do not agree, please offer an argument that shows where and how punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a moral thing to do.

Regards
DL

Who would you like to punish?

Not the innocent one who you plan to use as your scapegoat.

Regards
DL

Who exactly would that be? Can you tell me?

Go waste someone else's time.

I prefer to discuss with intelligent people and you just showed how dumb you are.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

^ dunning effect

 

[ding]

Have you chosen salvation by scapegoat? Is that Moral?

Who would say that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice? Satan or Yahweh?

Many Christians just want a get out of hell free card and will follow Satan and do the immoral thing of using Jesus as their scapegoat to get it.

Jesus taught the opposite with his, pick up your cross and follow me. He did not teach, get on and ride me into heaven.

Some would have Jesus break the law he said he came to fulfil.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

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.

I think that the bottom moral line to the whole notion of substitutionary punishment is as follows.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat --- is immoral.

If you do not agree, please offer an argument that shows where and how punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a moral thing to do.

Regards
DL

Who would you like to punish?

Not the innocent one who you plan to use as your scapegoat.

Regards
DL

Who exactly would that be? Can you tell me?

Go waste someone else's time.

I prefer to discuss with intelligent people and you just showed how dumb you are.

Regards
DL

You are literally arguing about the sacrifice Jesus made. You don't believe that spirit created the material world, so you can't believe that God would be born into this world to testify to the truth, right?