The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice. Is Christianity a moral creed?

You read what is not there then chastise pertaining to your own wrong opinion.

Go away fool, or learn how to read and comprehend.

Regards
DL

So, you have no retort worth debating, just what I thought.

You gave nothing worth debating as you are all alone in your own little world where you cannot read what is written. Learn how to debate and then I will engage.

Regards
DL
 
You gave nothing worth debating as you are all alone in your own little world where you cannot read what is written. Learn how to debate and then I will engage.

Regards
DL

You lost the debate, I have no further interest in debating an issue you lost already.
 
Thanks for your stock answer.

You do my side so much good I have to encourage you when I can.

Regards
DL

Your welcome, glad to give Satan a hard time. Stay away from the Holy water. :lol:

Stay away from the Holy shit. Oh wait. I see you can't.

Regards
DL


m05hDnS.jpg
 
The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice. Is Christianity a moral creed?

I find Christianity immoral for substitutionary atonement as well as many others of their moral tenets.

Without the blood sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity fails as a salvific religion.

We could thump all day with passages that both support blood sacrifice as well as quote the many passages against it as shown with both types of quotes in this link.



Recognizing that there are many contradictory passages in scriptures, let’s ignore them all and just look at the morality of substitutionary atonement.

Scriptures tell us that to perfect our wisdom, we must get out of the Christian theology. I think that those passages are asking us to confirm our thinking with analogies that do not include Christian dogma.

With that in mind, I offer an analogy for discussion.

Scriptures say we are all children of God.

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?

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.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL


"I find Christianity immoral" ? lol. And so what is the punishment now that you have passed sentence?
 
The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice. Is Christianity a moral creed?

I find Christianity immoral for substitutionary atonement as well as many others of their moral tenets.

Without the blood sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity fails as a salvific religion.

We could thump all day with passages that both support blood sacrifice as well as quote the many passages against it as shown with both types of quotes in this link.



Recognizing that there are many contradictory passages in scriptures, let’s ignore them all and just look at the morality of substitutionary atonement.

Scriptures tell us that to perfect our wisdom, we must get out of the Christian theology. I think that those passages are asking us to confirm our thinking with analogies that do not include Christian dogma.

With that in mind, I offer an analogy for discussion.

Scriptures say we are all children of God.

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?

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.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL


"I find Christianity immoral" ? lol. And so what is the punishment now that you have passed sentence?


You have to go to church, apologize to God for being a sinner, then defy the law of God and then get down on your knees to worship a three in one mangod that never existed to show God just how sorry you are for your sins.

You must do this every Sunday and every other high holiday till kingdom come. During the week, every week for the rest of your life, you are free to lie, cheat, steal, screw your neighbor and act like a jerk in the name of the Lord..all you have to do is admit that you are fucked up, believe that you are saved, do the exact opposite of what God commands, and then presto alakazam! Nothing changes.
 
Last edited:
The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice. Is Christianity a moral creed?

I find Christianity immoral for substitutionary atonement as well as many others of their moral tenets.

Without the blood sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity fails as a salvific religion.

We could thump all day with passages that both support blood sacrifice as well as quote the many passages against it as shown with both types of quotes in this link.



Recognizing that there are many contradictory passages in scriptures, let’s ignore them all and just look at the morality of substitutionary atonement.

Scriptures tell us that to perfect our wisdom, we must get out of the Christian theology. I think that those passages are asking us to confirm our thinking with analogies that do not include Christian dogma.

With that in mind, I offer an analogy for discussion.

Scriptures say we are all children of God.

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?

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.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

Christ sacrificed for my sins and yours? Not for the church?

Read Acts 20:28 and Eph 5:25.
 
The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice. Is Christianity a moral creed?

I find Christianity immoral for substitutionary atonement as well as many others of their moral tenets.

Without the blood sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity fails as a salvific religion.

We could thump all day with passages that both support blood sacrifice as well as quote the many passages against it as shown with both types of quotes in this link.



Recognizing that there are many contradictory passages in scriptures, let’s ignore them all and just look at the morality of substitutionary atonement.

Scriptures tell us that to perfect our wisdom, we must get out of the Christian theology. I think that those passages are asking us to confirm our thinking with analogies that do not include Christian dogma.

With that in mind, I offer an analogy for discussion.

Scriptures say we are all children of God.

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?

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.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL


"I find Christianity immoral" ? lol. And so what is the punishment now that you have passed sentence?


It is as follows.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

The Theft of Our Values - Top Documentary Films



Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.

Regards
DL
 
The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice. Is Christianity a moral creed?

I find Christianity immoral for substitutionary atonement as well as many others of their moral tenets.

Without the blood sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity fails as a salvific religion.

We could thump all day with passages that both support blood sacrifice as well as quote the many passages against it as shown with both types of quotes in this link.



Recognizing that there are many contradictory passages in scriptures, let’s ignore them all and just look at the morality of substitutionary atonement.

Scriptures tell us that to perfect our wisdom, we must get out of the Christian theology. I think that those passages are asking us to confirm our thinking with analogies that do not include Christian dogma.

With that in mind, I offer an analogy for discussion.

Scriptures say we are all children of God.

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?

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.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

Christ sacrificed for my sins and yours? Not for the church?

Read Acts 20:28 and Eph 5:25.


Get off your scapegoat and then we can chat eye to eye.

Answer this and we can chat.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

You fear to be honest and cowards can never be moral.

Regards
DL
 
The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice. Is Christianity a moral creed?

I find Christianity immoral for substitutionary atonement as well as many others of their moral tenets.

Without the blood sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity fails as a salvific religion.

We could thump all day with passages that both support blood sacrifice as well as quote the many passages against it as shown with both types of quotes in this link.



Recognizing that there are many contradictory passages in scriptures, let’s ignore them all and just look at the morality of substitutionary atonement.

Scriptures tell us that to perfect our wisdom, we must get out of the Christian theology. I think that those passages are asking us to confirm our thinking with analogies that do not include Christian dogma.

With that in mind, I offer an analogy for discussion.

Scriptures say we are all children of God.

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?

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.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

Christ sacrificed for my sins and yours? Not for the church?

Read Acts 20:28 and Eph 5:25.


Get off your scapegoat and then we can chat eye to eye.

Answer this and we can chat.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

You fear to be honest and cowards can never be moral.

Regards
DL

Christians abdicate responsibility when they blame Satan for their wrongdoings. Satan is the scapegoat.

Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven. And delivered it. He died for it, in fact. Not for me or you; we are not ancient Israel.
 
Interesting that someone who thinks there is human sacrifice in Christianity all of a sudden understands dogma.

Interesting that Jesus is not a sacrifice anymore when the whole salvific nature of Christianity is based on it.

Regards
DL

Your OP suggestion is sacrifice continues with humans and that a human alone was sacrificed in Christ. Christ is also the Holy Spirit and God. Since that time no one like that has died for the forgiveness of sins. Just because you attempt to mock a religion does not make your word truth.

You read what is not there then chastise pertaining to your own wrong opinion.

Go away fool, or learn how to read and comprehend.

Regards
DL
Your understanding of Christ's offering is flawed. Intentionally, no doubt.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Jesus Died Crucified

Thanks for your stock answer.

You do my side so much good I have to encourage you when I can.

Regards
DL
It’s called the catechism. I wish you had one so I could read it.
 
The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice. Is Christianity a moral creed?

I find Christianity immoral for substitutionary atonement as well as many others of their moral tenets.

Without the blood sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity fails as a salvific religion.

We could thump all day with passages that both support blood sacrifice as well as quote the many passages against it as shown with both types of quotes in this link.



Recognizing that there are many contradictory passages in scriptures, let’s ignore them all and just look at the morality of substitutionary atonement.

Scriptures tell us that to perfect our wisdom, we must get out of the Christian theology. I think that those passages are asking us to confirm our thinking with analogies that do not include Christian dogma.

With that in mind, I offer an analogy for discussion.

Scriptures say we are all children of God.

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?

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.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

Christ sacrificed for my sins and yours? Not for the church?

Read Acts 20:28 and Eph 5:25.


Get off your scapegoat and then we can chat eye to eye.

Answer this and we can chat.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

You fear to be honest and cowards can never be moral.

Regards
DL

Christians abdicate responsibility when they blame Satan for their wrongdoings. Satan is the scapegoat.

Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven. And delivered it. He died for it, in fact. Not for me or you; we are not ancient Israel.


So you have no free will. Thanks for sharing while trying to make Satan the scapegoat that Christians are ridding instead of Jesus.

You are right if you think that most Christians will end in hell for ridding any scapegoat. In fact, scriptures are clear that hell is their destination.

Regards
DL
 
The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice. Is Christianity a moral creed?

I find Christianity immoral for substitutionary atonement as well as many others of their moral tenets.

Without the blood sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity fails as a salvific religion.

We could thump all day with passages that both support blood sacrifice as well as quote the many passages against it as shown with both types of quotes in this link.



Recognizing that there are many contradictory passages in scriptures, let’s ignore them all and just look at the morality of substitutionary atonement.

Scriptures tell us that to perfect our wisdom, we must get out of the Christian theology. I think that those passages are asking us to confirm our thinking with analogies that do not include Christian dogma.

With that in mind, I offer an analogy for discussion.

Scriptures say we are all children of God.

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?

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.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

Christ sacrificed for my sins and yours? Not for the church?

Read Acts 20:28 and Eph 5:25.


Get off your scapegoat and then we can chat eye to eye.

Answer this and we can chat.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

You fear to be honest and cowards can never be moral.

Regards
DL

Christians abdicate responsibility when they blame Satan for their wrongdoings. Satan is the scapegoat.

Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven. And delivered it. He died for it, in fact. Not for me or you; we are not ancient Israel.


So you have no free will. Thanks for sharing while trying to make Satan the scapegoat that Christians are ridding instead of Jesus.

You are right if you think that most Christians will end in hell for ridding any scapegoat. In fact, scriptures are clear that hell is their destination.

Regards
DL

Actually, the Scriptures are not clear in that. The word hell is not in the Old Testament, and only under Hellenistic influence did any of the tribes begin referring to burning piles of trash as hell. That "destination" is for the enemies of God.
 
The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice. Is Christianity a moral creed?

I find Christianity immoral for substitutionary atonement as well as many others of their moral tenets.

Without the blood sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity fails as a salvific religion.

We could thump all day with passages that both support blood sacrifice as well as quote the many passages against it as shown with both types of quotes in this link.



Recognizing that there are many contradictory passages in scriptures, let’s ignore them all and just look at the morality of substitutionary atonement.

Scriptures tell us that to perfect our wisdom, we must get out of the Christian theology. I think that those passages are asking us to confirm our thinking with analogies that do not include Christian dogma.

With that in mind, I offer an analogy for discussion.

Scriptures say we are all children of God.

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?

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.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

Christ sacrificed for my sins and yours? Not for the church?

Read Acts 20:28 and Eph 5:25.


Get off your scapegoat and then we can chat eye to eye.

Answer this and we can chat.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

You fear to be honest and cowards can never be moral.

Regards
DL

Christians abdicate responsibility when they blame Satan for their wrongdoings. Satan is the scapegoat.

Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven. And delivered it. He died for it, in fact. Not for me or you; we are not ancient Israel.


So you have no free will. Thanks for sharing while trying to make Satan the scapegoat that Christians are ridding instead of Jesus.

You are right if you think that most Christians will end in hell for ridding any scapegoat. In fact, scriptures are clear that hell is their destination.

Regards
DL

Actually, the Scriptures are not clear in that. The word hell is not in the Old Testament, and only under Hellenistic influence did any of the tribes begin referring to burning piles of trash as hell. That "destination" is for the enemies of God.


Scriptures may not be clear but this Bishop is.



Christians like to hate those not of their ilk so much that they will leave an honest preacher for a liar to maintain that hate.



Regards
DL
 
Christ sacrificed for my sins and yours? Not for the church?

Read Acts 20:28 and Eph 5:25.

Get off your scapegoat and then we can chat eye to eye.

Answer this and we can chat.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

You fear to be honest and cowards can never be moral.

Regards
DL
Christians abdicate responsibility when they blame Satan for their wrongdoings. Satan is the scapegoat.

Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven. And delivered it. He died for it, in fact. Not for me or you; we are not ancient Israel.

So you have no free will. Thanks for sharing while trying to make Satan the scapegoat that Christians are ridding instead of Jesus.

You are right if you think that most Christians will end in hell for ridding any scapegoat. In fact, scriptures are clear that hell is their destination.

Regards
DL
Actually, the Scriptures are not clear in that. The word hell is not in the Old Testament, and only under Hellenistic influence did any of the tribes begin referring to burning piles of trash as hell. That "destination" is for the enemies of God.

Scriptures may not be clear but this Bishop is.



Christians like to hate those not of their ilk so much that they will leave an honest preacher for a liar to maintain that hate.



Regards
DL

You follow Bishop SpongeBob. I pray some day you discover free will.
 
Get off your scapegoat and then we can chat eye to eye.

Answer this and we can chat.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

You fear to be honest and cowards can never be moral.

Regards
DL
Christians abdicate responsibility when they blame Satan for their wrongdoings. Satan is the scapegoat.

Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven. And delivered it. He died for it, in fact. Not for me or you; we are not ancient Israel.

So you have no free will. Thanks for sharing while trying to make Satan the scapegoat that Christians are ridding instead of Jesus.

You are right if you think that most Christians will end in hell for ridding any scapegoat. In fact, scriptures are clear that hell is their destination.

Regards
DL
Actually, the Scriptures are not clear in that. The word hell is not in the Old Testament, and only under Hellenistic influence did any of the tribes begin referring to burning piles of trash as hell. That "destination" is for the enemies of God.

Scriptures may not be clear but this Bishop is.



Christians like to hate those not of their ilk so much that they will leave an honest preacher for a liar to maintain that hate.



Regards
DL

You follow Bishop SpongeBob. I pray some day you discover free will.


Your bible says there is no free will as your God controls who will believe and who will not.

Did your God respect the free will to live in all the millions he murdered?

Regards
DL
 
Christians abdicate responsibility when they blame Satan for their wrongdoings. Satan is the scapegoat.

Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven. And delivered it. He died for it, in fact. Not for me or you; we are not ancient Israel.

So you have no free will. Thanks for sharing while trying to make Satan the scapegoat that Christians are ridding instead of Jesus.

You are right if you think that most Christians will end in hell for ridding any scapegoat. In fact, scriptures are clear that hell is their destination.

Regards
DL
Actually, the Scriptures are not clear in that. The word hell is not in the Old Testament, and only under Hellenistic influence did any of the tribes begin referring to burning piles of trash as hell. That "destination" is for the enemies of God.

Scriptures may not be clear but this Bishop is.



Christians like to hate those not of their ilk so much that they will leave an honest preacher for a liar to maintain that hate.



Regards
DL

You follow Bishop SpongeBob. I pray some day you discover free will.


Your bible says there is no free will as your God controls who will believe and who will not.

Did your God respect the free will to live in all the millions he murdered?

Regards
DL

Do you even logic?
 
You have to go to church, apologize to God for being a sinner, then defy the law of God and then get down on your knees to worship a three in one mangod that never existed to show God just how sorry you are for your sins.

You must do this every Sunday and every other high holiday till kingdom come. During the week, every week for the rest of your life, you are free to lie, cheat, steal, screw your neighbor and act like a jerk in the name of the Lord..all you have to do is admit that you are fucked up, believe that you are saved, do the exact opposite of what God commands, and then presto alakazam! Nothing changes.

Does every anti-christian on this board use the same ridiculous double-proposition attack? Something Freud described as no more than desperate "rationalization".

"Christianity is wrong and nothing it says is true"
"Anyhow you are violating the holy truths of real Christianity."

If your tired, banal, overused complaint was being described in legal terms I think the correct charge would be "consciousness of guilt". Deep down you know you are guilty and you know it by virtue of the Church's proclamations of truth...and so the rationalization of your hatred is that the people who are Christians arent as perfect as you.

Face it. So long as the Church proclaims truth then you will feel guilty. And you apparently can't ignore it. So why dont you work on your own sin rather than trying to eliminate the recognition of your sin? Because you have lost that battle already.
 
By the way we see the above technique used across the left politically as well. Leftists tacitly admit the truth when they try and co-opt the position of those they have been trying to destroy. Such as "lifelong republicans say" and "real christians support abortion" and "X is *really* what the conservative position is...".

Go ahead..make an appeal to "real" Christianity or "real" conservatism. You are simply admitting to what you know deep down is true. You are on the wrong side and risk exposure so long as the side of decency has a voice.
 
The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice. Is Christianity a moral creed?

I find Christianity immoral for substitutionary atonement as well as many others of their moral tenets.

Without the blood sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity fails as a salvific religion.

We could thump all day with passages that both support blood sacrifice as well as quote the many passages against it as shown with both types of quotes in this link.



Recognizing that there are many contradictory passages in scriptures, let’s ignore them all and just look at the morality of substitutionary atonement.

Scriptures tell us that to perfect our wisdom, we must get out of the Christian theology. I think that those passages are asking us to confirm our thinking with analogies that do not include Christian dogma.

With that in mind, I offer an analogy for discussion.

Scriptures say we are all children of God.

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?

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.

Do you agree that 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 that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL


"I find Christianity immoral" ? lol. And so what is the punishment now that you have passed sentence?


It is as follows.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

The Theft of Our Values - Top Documentary Films



Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.

Regards
DL



Yeah but who cares if you recognize Christians? Thats the question I am asking.

There are lots of competing religions. You puritans are no different than Muslims or Hindus or Shintoists in that they are competition. Except for one thing. You really dont have the comfort of a philosophy or belief system to explain life or the world to fall back on yourself. Your religion consists of anti-Christianity. And that is pretty limited.

I find other religions interesting. They all have something to say in their attempt at discerning truth. I just finished reading about the beautiful Padmanabhaswamy Temple. I would love to see it. My bookshelf if full of works on Eastern religions, Judaism, Islam and so on..in addition to the books on Christianity I own.

But I have to say yours is the shallowest, saddest and most sterile religion possible. It offers nothing but yapping at the heels of Christianity. Chat room attacks on relgion will never contribute to man's efforts to understand the divine much less create great works of art or literature or architecture or anything that would be balm to the soul of mankind.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top