Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

[GreatestIam]

Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

I know I have done well in an O. P. when Christians run from a discussion.

I wrote these two posts and got almost no response. Not a usual thing for my posts. This tells me that I hit the nail right on the head and Christians have no apologetics to refute my claim.

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

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

TED Blog | The real difference between liberals and conservatives: Jonathan Haidt on TED.com

God does not follow the first rule at all.

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

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

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

Nothing but the blood? - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott1...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_f...eature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

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.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

TED Blog | The real difference between liberals and conservatives: Jonathan Haidt on TED.com

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

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

This lack of opposition to the premise given tells me that Christians may actually be more moral than what I give them credit for. They do not walk their talk in these cases and that is a plus.

Seems Christians actually recognize good morals even if they do not preach them.
I thank Christians for confirming my view that they are just following tradition, dogma and culture while not really following their God. Thank God for that. Any sane man would reject the bible God.

Regards
DL

Didn't you already post this, and get thrashed left and right?

I admitted so in this O P.

Posted, yes. Get thrashed, no.

Do you think that a religion based on human sacrifice and a God who has his son murdered to be a moral one?

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Do you really expect to have a discussion with such a condescending attitude?

I never expect an honest discussions with Christians.

I have yet to have one where they do not hide behind fantasy, miracles, magic and a genocidal son murderer who can do whatever he likes, moral or not, because Christians think he is an all powerful God.
Fear guides you.

Regards
DL

Here's one. No fear. No need to hide from anything Satan fills your head with.

God didn't ask. Jesus volunteered.

Read your bible.

Jesus said --my father who sent me.

As to volunteering. That does not make human sacrifice to a God moral

Thomas Paine, in Age of Reason, wrote:
If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge.

This single reflection will show that the doctrine of redemption is founded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which another person might pay; and as this pecuniary idea corresponds again with the system of second redemptions, obtained through the means of money given to the church for pardons, the probability is that the same persons fabricated both the one and the other of those theories; and that, in truth, there is no such thing as redemption; that it is fabulous; and that man stands in the same relative condition with his Maker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatest consolation to think so.
Emphasis mine.

So not only is the killing of an innocent man immoral, but it shows that the redemption allegory being used is that of a financial debt. Which is an interesting parallel to the practice of purchasing 'pardons'.



[It is] not good that the man should be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him. (Gen. 2:18) KJV Story book

Free will to me is the ability to make a choice without coercion.
A choice made while under coercion, (especially under threat of pain and suffering), is not a freely made choice, ergo it is not free will. In fact there is a name for it; it's called extortion and it is a criminal offense precisely for the reason that it is not a free choice but a forced one.

"Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense." Wikipedia

"Test all things"
1 Thessalonians. 5:21

No noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence.

Regards
DL

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

I know I have done well in an O. P. when Christians run from a discussion.

I wrote these two posts and got almost no response. Not a usual thing for my posts. This tells me that I hit the nail right on the head and Christians have no apologetics to refute my claim.

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

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

TED Blog | The real difference between liberals and conservatives: Jonathan Haidt on TED.com

God does not follow the first rule at all.

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

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

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

Nothing but the blood? - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott1...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_f...eature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

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.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

TED Blog | The real difference between liberals and conservatives: Jonathan Haidt on TED.com

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

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

This lack of opposition to the premise given tells me that Christians may actually be more moral than what I give them credit for. They do not walk their talk in these cases and that is a plus.

Seems Christians actually recognize good morals even if they do not preach them.
I thank Christians for confirming my view that they are just following tradition, dogma and culture while not really following their God. Thank God for that. Any sane man would reject the bible God.

Regards
DL

Didn't you already post this, and get thrashed left and right?

I admitted so in this O P.

Posted, yes. Get thrashed, no.

Do you think that a religion based on human sacrifice and a God who has his son murdered to be a moral one?

Regards
DL

Let me see if I understand you.

You arbitrarily ignore anything that challenges your position, and use the fact that you don't answer me as proof you won the argument.

My suggestion, go back and actually answer my post in your first thread.

 

[GreatestIam]

Do you really expect to have a discussion with such a condescending attitude?

I never expect an honest discussions with Christians.

I have yet to have one where they do not hide behind fantasy, miracles, magic and a genocidal son murderer who can do whatever he likes, moral or not, because Christians think he is an all powerful God.
Fear guides you.

Regards
DL

Fear and Faith are incompatible my friend.

And it's impossible for you to have an honest discussion with any Christian if you aren't honest. They can be as honest as they can be, but as long as you aren't you will never be in an honest discussion. It's just a fact of life.

It is not my honesty in question but all the dogma that Christians hide behind.
They call what any thinking person knows is a myth, fact.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Didn't you already post this, and get thrashed left and right?

I admitted so in this O P.

Posted, yes. Get thrashed, no.

Do you think that a religion based on human sacrifice and a God who has his son murdered to be a moral one?

Regards
DL

Let me see if I understand you.

You arbitrarily ignore anything that challenges your position, and use the fact that you don't answer me as proof you won the argument.

My suggestion, go back and actually answer my post in your first thread.

Thanks for the accusation without a quote.
I am here to answer any question you have. Pose it here or there.

Regards
DL

 

[Buford]

I admitted so in this O P.

Posted, yes. Get thrashed, no.

Do you think that a religion based on human sacrifice and a God who has his son murdered to be a moral one?

Regards
DL

Let me see if I understand you.

You arbitrarily ignore anything that challenges your position, and use the fact that you don't answer me as proof you won the argument.

My suggestion, go back and actually answer my post in your first thread.

Thanks for the accusation without a quote.
I am here to answer any question you have. Pose it here or there.

Regards
DL

Christianity isn't based on human sacrifice. Jesus was a unique individual, God and man. Your argument is based on ignorance of the Scriptures.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I admitted so in this O P.

Posted, yes. Get thrashed, no.

Do you think that a religion based on human sacrifice and a God who has his son murdered to be a moral one?

Regards
DL

Let me see if I understand you.

You arbitrarily ignore anything that challenges your position, and use the fact that you don't answer me as proof you won the argument.

My suggestion, go back and actually answer my post in your first thread.

Thanks for the accusation without a quote.
I am here to answer any question you have. Pose it here or there.

Regards
DL

Your entire thread an accusation without a quote.

Go back and answer my question there, or answer it here. Or you could continue to ignore it.

 

[GreatestIam]

Let me see if I understand you.

You arbitrarily ignore anything that challenges your position, and use the fact that you don't answer me as proof you won the argument.

My suggestion, go back and actually answer my post in your first thread.

Thanks for the accusation without a quote.
I am here to answer any question you have. Pose it here or there.

Regards
DL

Christianity isn't based on human sacrifice. Jesus was a unique individual, God and man. Your argument is based on ignorance of the Scriptures.

Really. You mean I could take Jesus out of scriptures and you would still believe?

Then why does every church have a cross with his sacrifice as their main icon and idol?

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Let me see if I understand you.

You arbitrarily ignore anything that challenges your position, and use the fact that you don't answer me as proof you won the argument.

My suggestion, go back and actually answer my post in your first thread.

Thanks for the accusation without a quote.
I am here to answer any question you have. Pose it here or there.

Regards
DL

Your entire thread an accusation without a quote.

Go back and answer my question there, or answer it here. Or you could continue to ignore it.

Put your question or go away.
I cannot read your mind.

Regards
DL

 

[Buford]

Thanks for the accusation without a quote.
I am here to answer any question you have. Pose it here or there.

Regards
DL

Christianity isn't based on human sacrifice. Jesus was a unique individual, God and man. Your argument is based on ignorance of the Scriptures.

Really. You mean I could take Jesus out of scriptures and you would still believe?

Then why does every church have a cross with his sacrifice as their main icon and idol?

Regards
DL

I mean Jesus is a unique individual, God and man. If human sacrifice is what God required then anyone would have been enough to fulfill the job. You're ignorant of the Scriptures.

 

[Intense]

Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

I know I have done well in an O. P. when Christians run from a discussion.

I wrote these two posts and got almost no response. Not a usual thing for my posts. This tells me that I hit the nail right on the head and Christians have no apologetics to refute my claim.

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

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

TED Blog | The real difference between liberals and conservatives: Jonathan Haidt on TED.com

God does not follow the first rule at all.

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

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

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

Nothing but the blood? - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott1...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_f...eature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

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.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

TED Blog | The real difference between liberals and conservatives: Jonathan Haidt on TED.com

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

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

This lack of opposition to the premise given tells me that Christians may actually be more moral than what I give them credit for. They do not walk their talk in these cases and that is a plus.

Seems Christians actually recognize good morals even if they do not preach them.
I thank Christians for confirming my view that they are just following tradition, dogma and culture while not really following their God. Thank God for that. Any sane man would reject the bible God.

Regards
DL

Either that, or you over rate your importance and significance. You think you show a sincere interest in matters of Spirituality and Morality? Show it. So maybe the Crucifixion thing was a matter between Father and Son. A Bonding, a Sealing. Who are you or I to lay claims to things beyond our limited comprehension? Were you there? Do you have some inside knowledge that you profess to know that we don't? You refer to Scripture, do you even believe anything in the Bible? Try making your arguments without reference to something you have no belief in, in the first place. At least that limits the perception of you mocking it.

Let's distinguish between God, and the claims man has made in His name? Even Biblical. The Bible is a Book with many hidden meanings. Some Verses have multiple meanings. Some Prophesies yet to be revealed. Some by design, meant to protect the truth from those that would use it wrongly, or untimely. Why not just argue reasonably about what specifically is troubling you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks for the accusation without a quote.
I am here to answer any question you have. Pose it here or there.

Regards
DL

Your entire thread an accusation without a quote.

Go back and answer my question there, or answer it here. Or you could continue to ignore it.

Put your question or go away.
I cannot read your mind.

Regards
DL

I did put my question, and you are still ignoring it, and claiming that makes you smarter.

 

[GreatestIam]

Christianity isn't based on human sacrifice. Jesus was a unique individual, God and man. Your argument is based on ignorance of the Scriptures.

Really. You mean I could take Jesus out of scriptures and you would still believe?

Then why does every church have a cross with his sacrifice as their main icon and idol?

Regards
DL

I mean Jesus is a unique individual, God and man. If human sacrifice is what God required then anyone would have been enough to fulfill the job. You're ignorant of the Scriptures.

And you have now added another head to the trinity.
It now has 4.

Your scriptures are ignorant and regardless of how many heads you put on your God, he is still immoral.

We cannot prove God or not. Come back and chat on the morals the bible gives him or not at all.

Regards
DL

 

[Avatar4321]

I never expect an honest discussions with Christians.

I have yet to have one where they do not hide behind fantasy, miracles, magic and a genocidal son murderer who can do whatever he likes, moral or not, because Christians think he is an all powerful God.
Fear guides you.

Regards
DL

Here's one. No fear. No need to hide from anything Satan fills your head with.

God didn't ask. Jesus volunteered.

Read your bible.

Jesus said --my father who sent me.

As to volunteering. That does not make human sacrifice to a God moral

Thomas Paine, in Age of Reason, wrote:
If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge.

This single reflection will show that the doctrine of redemption is founded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which another person might pay; and as this pecuniary idea corresponds again with the system of second redemptions, obtained through the means of money given to the church for pardons, the probability is that the same persons fabricated both the one and the other of those theories; and that, in truth, there is no such thing as redemption; that it is fabulous; and that man stands in the same relative condition with his Maker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatest consolation to think so.
Emphasis mine.

So not only is the killing of an innocent man immoral, but it shows that the redemption allegory being used is that of a financial debt. Which is an interesting parallel to the practice of purchasing 'pardons'.



[It is] not good that the man should be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him. (Gen. 2:18) KJV Story book

Free will to me is the ability to make a choice without coercion.
A choice made while under coercion, (especially under threat of pain and suffering), is not a freely made choice, ergo it is not free will. In fact there is a name for it; it's called extortion and it is a criminal offense precisely for the reason that it is not a free choice but a forced one.

"Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense." Wikipedia

"Test all things"
1 Thessalonians. 5:21

No noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence.

Regards
DL

Sacrificing one's life for another is one of the most sacred things someone can do.

A religion that cannot demand the sacrifice of all things is not capable of producing the faith necessary for salvation and exaltation.

 

[Avatar4321]

I never expect an honest discussions with Christians.

I have yet to have one where they do not hide behind fantasy, miracles, magic and a genocidal son murderer who can do whatever he likes, moral or not, because Christians think he is an all powerful God.
Fear guides you.

Regards
DL

Fear and Faith are incompatible my friend.

And it's impossible for you to have an honest discussion with any Christian if you aren't honest. They can be as honest as they can be, but as long as you aren't you will never be in an honest discussion. It's just a fact of life.

It is not my honesty in question but all the dogma that Christians hide behind.
They call what any thinking person knows is a myth, fact.

Regards
DL

It's easy to recognize facts when you have the Spirit teaching you. It's easy to confuse delusion with fact when you are unwilling to let the Lord teach you.

 

[Avatar4321]

Thanks for the accusation without a quote.
I am here to answer any question you have. Pose it here or there.

Regards
DL

Christianity isn't based on human sacrifice. Jesus was a unique individual, God and man. Your argument is based on ignorance of the Scriptures.

Really. You mean I could take Jesus out of scriptures and you would still believe?

Then why does every church have a cross with his sacrifice as their main icon and idol?

Regards
DL

Every Church doesn't have a cross on them or icons. And they certainly don't have idols.

People remember what those who give everything they have for them.

 

[Avatar4321]

Really. You mean I could take Jesus out of scriptures and you would still believe?

Then why does every church have a cross with his sacrifice as their main icon and idol?

Regards
DL

I mean Jesus is a unique individual, God and man. If human sacrifice is what God required then anyone would have been enough to fulfill the job. You're ignorant of the Scriptures.

And you have now added another head to the trinity.
It now has 4.

Your scriptures are ignorant and regardless of how many heads you put on your God, he is still immoral.

We cannot prove God or not. Come back and chat on the morals the bible gives him or not at all.

Regards
DL

God has already proven Himself to me. Why should I disbelieve it? Because you say so? Because you are unwilling to walk the path God has set forth to learn?

 

[GreatestIam]

[q

Sacrificing one's life for another is one of the most sacred things someone can do.

A religion that cannot demand the sacrifice of all things is not capable of producing the faith necessary for salvation and exaltation.

So you have a God who can be bribed. How droll.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

[qu

It's easy to recognize facts when you have the Spirit teaching you. It's easy to confuse delusion with fact when you are unwilling to let the Lord teach you.

I have nothing to learn from your genocidal son murderer except what not to do to remain a moral entity.

Regards
DL

 

[hortysir]

"DL" stands for Dick Licker, doesn't it?