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

[ding]

But I have to say yours is the shallowest, saddest and most sterile religion possible.

What do you base that on and how do you figure that a perpetual seeking creed is sterile as compared to the mainstream religions that have not changed since their inception, where they had to grow by inquisitions and jihads due to not having good moral tenets to convert with?

I think you know nearly nothing of Gnostic Christianity and are talking out of your ass, but I am willing to give you a chance to prove your ridiculous assumptions.

In your great wealth of knowledge, do you even know what we call our God?

Regards
DL

You aren’t a Gnostic. Gnostics believed in the existence of two Gods. You don’t in the existence of any god.

When all you have is lies, you should shut up.

Regards
DL

Everything about you is fake.

 

[DOTR]

But I have to say yours is the shallowest, saddest and most sterile religion possible.

What do you base that on and how do you figure that a perpetual seeking creed is sterile as compared to the mainstream religions that have not changed since their inception, where they had to grow by inquisitions and jihads due to not having good moral tenets to convert with?

I think you know nearly nothing of Gnostic Christianity and are talking out of your ass, but I am willing to give you a chance to prove your ridiculous assumptions.

In your great wealth of knowledge, do you even know what we call our God?

Regards
DL

You aren’t a Gnostic. Gnostics believed in the existence of two Gods. You don’t in the existence of any god.

Chat room gnostics only believe Christianity is wrong. That is the extent of their existence. Sad and miserable.

 

[DOTR]

Seriously. How is someone supposed to not chew that one up and then spit it out and laugh?

Ding has a belief. You dont. And you envy him.

 

[DOTR]

But I have to say yours is the shallowest, saddest and most sterile religion possible.

What do you base that on and how do you figure that a perpetual seeking creed is sterile as compared to the mainstream religions that have not changed since their inception, where they had to grow by inquisitions and jihads due to not having good moral tenets to convert with?

I think you know nearly nothing of Gnostic Christianity and are talking out of your ass, but I am willing to give you a chance to prove your ridiculous assumptions.

In your great wealth of knowledge, do you even know what we call our God?

Regards
DL

We arent talking about "early gnostics". At east I wasnt. They died off long ago from sterility. Paganism died as well but it was rich and vital at least. Just wrong.

Philosophically you cant get past a basic, and unoriginal, anti-Christian creed. There is nothing you produce yourself preferring simply to stand in opposition to what another has proclaimed. That doesnt lend itself to anything very deep or intriguing.

And you cant even point to any non-creedal benefit to mankind. You espouse a sterile anti-religion that produces no art...builds no hospitals...makes no scientific discoveries...creates no literature or culture. No benefits to mankind whatsoever..spiritual or secular.

This last is true, as it is hard to do so when Christians inquisitions tried to make us extinct by murder.

You seem to like murderers and you should wonder why.

Your answer will be quite intriguing to yourself as you see how your morals have been corrupted by your beliefs.

Let us all know your answer. Please.

Regards
DL

Sure. Except nobody is trying to murder you. You are free to do as you please. Christians built a vibrant and open society of immense wealth for you to play in. But it is of no use to something that is sterile by nature. There will never be a "Gnostic" orphanage or hospital or library or even a "gnostic" Sistine Chapel or Pieta.

And as far as murder...Christianity went from despised slave religion to sweeping the world WHILE pagans tried to murder them. Christianity was born into and thrived under persecution. Thats because it is a living faith..not a sterile anti-faith.

 

[DOTR]

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.

There is no truth in a church that teaches that the spirit of God is present in a lifeless matzo made by human hands. There is no truth in a church that teaches that a human being is God. There is no truth in a church that teaches people to set aside the divine commands and practice idolatry as the way to eternal life. There is no church started by Jesus that desecrates his teachings daily and celebrates his death as their most sacred and important ritual and then, of all things, eats him. Even if only symbolically it's a sick and perverted demonstration of how much you don't love Jesus or give a shit about God.

Your sin is as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field. You have confused faith with obstinate stupidity and so your guilt remains. The proof is that you can't see what is obvious to even the least intelligent person out there.

Your religion has become the haunt of every foul and loathsome beast and bird.and creepy thing that creeps.

And I don't feel guilty for saying so at all. I don't even feel bad for you. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to set aside the law of God and get down on your knees to worship an abomination that causes desolation and mislead others to do the same while praying that they have the faith to hold out to the end marching obliviously, like sheep to the slaughter, to their inevitable destruction .

So you have lots and lots of faith. And you even have lots of books of other religions!
.
All I can really say is, what a guy!

I dont think you need t repeat yourself...you dont like Christianity. I'm only saying attacking it will not, in the end, make you feel any less miserable. It will just frustrate you. And the Church continues to grow. As it has for two millennia.
You would do better to just pretend you dont care or find a religion that exists without simply being anti-Christian.

Now you resort to lies as all the stats show religions dying out.

And those stats don't even include all the religious hypocrites who lie when they say they are following their religions.

Our young and better educated adults have no need of imaginary genocidal son murdering God that immoral fools see as good.

Regards
DL

Those must be the same stats showed Hillary winning.

 

[ding]

But I have to say yours is the shallowest, saddest and most sterile religion possible.

What do you base that on and how do you figure that a perpetual seeking creed is sterile as compared to the mainstream religions that have not changed since their inception, where they had to grow by inquisitions and jihads due to not having good moral tenets to convert with?

I think you know nearly nothing of Gnostic Christianity and are talking out of your ass, but I am willing to give you a chance to prove your ridiculous assumptions.

In your great wealth of knowledge, do you even know what we call our God?

Regards
DL

You aren’t a Gnostic. Gnostics believed in the existence of two Gods. You don’t in the existence of any god.

Chat room gnostics only believe Christianity is wrong. That is the extent of their existence. Sad and miserable.

He’s not a gnostic. He’s an atheist. And probably a she.

 

[DOTR]

But I have to say yours is the shallowest, saddest and most sterile religion possible.

What do you base that on and how do you figure that a perpetual seeking creed is sterile as compared to the mainstream religions that have not changed since their inception, where they had to grow by inquisitions and jihads due to not having good moral tenets to convert with?

I think you know nearly nothing of Gnostic Christianity and are talking out of your ass, but I am willing to give you a chance to prove your ridiculous assumptions.

In your great wealth of knowledge, do you even know what we call our God?

Regards
DL

You aren’t a Gnostic. Gnostics believed in the existence of two Gods. You don’t in the existence of any god.

Chat room gnostics only believe Christianity is wrong. That is the extent of their existence. Sad and miserable.

He’s not a gnostic. He’s an atheist. And probably a she.

I am sure you are right. Like I said...a sterile pholosophy of attacking Christianity. Maybe it just seems a little more respectable to couch it as “gnosticim” since there are none left and who will object.
But it is atheism no doubt. A rejection of God and a seething rage against the Church. In chat rooms they try and make it seem like something else by co-opting some dead religion that can’t object.

 

[GreatestIam]

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

The sacrifice does not mean to take away the human life. It never has unless you have a twisted mind. That sacrificial Lamb is one within the human/adam. It is the portion that each must determine to give up within themselves when they are called forth by the holy spirit. To eat the flesh of Jesus is to consume the holy words that are spoken/written by the spirit. These words feed the mind where the spirit resides.

Their is no escape in the flesh as once joined to the Body of Christ but we are assured that our souls our saved; one also accepts that they will take up their own cross and follow in the footsteps of Jesus.

The law still exist and judgment takes place right here in the flesh of this world. The chosen of the God know that they are and will be subjected right along with those whom they desire that their souls should be saved from certain death and they agree to this before being sent into this world where the enemies of God also reside in the flesh of the world. The really cool part if it all is that the people in this world can reject those evil and wicked things and will have a great deal of help (spiritually speaking) in doing so when they accept the call for the 'anointing of Jehovah's salvation with them' aka 'Jesus Christ'.

I agree that all that occurs in scriptures are to be thought of as happening in our own minds.

Remember please that I wrote the O.P. for the less enlightened than you and I.

You almost sound like you believe in the supernatural. You might want to write somewhat differently so as to dispel that notion.

Regards
DL

You might want to write somewhat differently so as to dispel that notion.

If you do not believe that the King of kings cannot step out of what we mere mortals consider thin air you may wish to rethink your position. Tell me if He was standing in front of you would you actually know that he manifested in the flesh to speak to you?

If that man could not prove himself, then I would think him insane for making statements about the supernatural that he cannot back up. I would also question him as to the really poor moral tenets that were put into his mouth. A deity cannot be immoral and Jesus is shown to be.

I especially dislike his no divorce policy as well as his substitutional punishment policies.

This clip speak of other poor moral tenets.

I think all these points valid and given the number of Christians who will not engage in moral discussions of any kind, I think they know that the morals put into Jesus' mouth are garbage and that they cannot justify them.



Care to engage in a moral discussion?

Regards
DL

.

 

[GreatestIam]

Seriously. How is someone supposed to not chew that one up and then spit it out and laugh?

I’ve been laughed at before it’s not so bad.

You know who else got laughed at and ridiculed by people who lacked faith like you? Jesus Christ.

The really interesting thing about your behaviors is that you think that being laughed at is supposed to make me angry or upset. All you are really doing is showing everyone your fears.

I read the commandments. You read the commandments. I read that setting aside the law of God results in death, you read that setting aside the law of God results in death. I hear the church say out loud that God is present in a cracker, You hear the church say out loud that God is present in a cracker. I hear the church openly teach that idolatry is the way to eternal life. You hear the church openly teach that idolatry is the way to eternal life.

You think that believing this ridiculous and irrational assertion that contradicts what was written in the entire bible takes faith. I think that denouncing this ridiculous and irrational assertion that contradicts what was written in the entire bible is what takes faith.


You think I'm going to hell when I die for lack of faith. I see that you are already dead and in hell for lack of faith.

Capisce?

Do you believe that God is good?

A genocidal God will be as good as Hitler was.

Regards
DL

 

[Meriweather]

I especially dislike his no divorce policy as well as his substitutional punishment policies.

There is no "substitutional" punishment policies. That is a misunderstanding on your part. As far as divorce: it shows a great deal of thoughtful reflection on his part of a marriage covenant and how that reflects God's covenants with mankind. Divorce also reflects mankind's disinclination to observe a covenant of any kind. Is that who we want to be?

 

[RodISHI]

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

The sacrifice does not mean to take away the human life. It never has unless you have a twisted mind. That sacrificial Lamb is one within the human/adam. It is the portion that each must determine to give up within themselves when they are called forth by the holy spirit. To eat the flesh of Jesus is to consume the holy words that are spoken/written by the spirit. These words feed the mind where the spirit resides.

Their is no escape in the flesh as once joined to the Body of Christ but we are assured that our souls our saved; one also accepts that they will take up their own cross and follow in the footsteps of Jesus.

The law still exist and judgment takes place right here in the flesh of this world. The chosen of the God know that they are and will be subjected right along with those whom they desire that their souls should be saved from certain death and they agree to this before being sent into this world where the enemies of God also reside in the flesh of the world. The really cool part if it all is that the people in this world can reject those evil and wicked things and will have a great deal of help (spiritually speaking) in doing so when they accept the call for the 'anointing of Jehovah's salvation with them' aka 'Jesus Christ'.

I agree that all that occurs in scriptures are to be thought of as happening in our own minds.

Remember please that I wrote the O.P. for the less enlightened than you and I.

You almost sound like you believe in the supernatural. You might want to write somewhat differently so as to dispel that notion.

Regards
DL

You might want to write somewhat differently so as to dispel that notion.

If you do not believe that the King of kings cannot step out of what we mere mortals consider thin air you may wish to rethink your position. Tell me if He was standing in front of you would you actually know that he manifested in the flesh to speak to you?

If that man could not prove himself, then I would think him insane for making statements about the supernatural that he cannot back up. I would also question him as to the really poor moral tenets that were put into his mouth. A deity cannot be immoral and Jesus is shown to be.

I especially dislike his no divorce policy as well as his substitutional punishment policies.

This clip speak of other poor moral tenets.

I think all these points valid and given the number of Christians who will not engage in moral discussions of any kind, I think they know that the morals put into Jesus' mouth are garbage and that they cannot justify them.



Care to engage in a moral discussion?

Regards
DL

.

Your video is flawed from the get go as Jesus did not claim to be God.

Your desiring to play devil's advocate some more?

If so set the ground rules and I may be willing to discuss 'morals' with you if (that is if it doesn't get to wild).

 

[ding]

Seriously. How is someone supposed to not chew that one up and then spit it out and laugh?

I’ve been laughed at before it’s not so bad.

You know who else got laughed at and ridiculed by people who lacked faith like you? Jesus Christ.

The really interesting thing about your behaviors is that you think that being laughed at is supposed to make me angry or upset. All you are really doing is showing everyone your fears.

I read the commandments. You read the commandments. I read that setting aside the law of God results in death, you read that setting aside the law of God results in death. I hear the church say out loud that God is present in a cracker, You hear the church say out loud that God is present in a cracker. I hear the church openly teach that idolatry is the way to eternal life. You hear the church openly teach that idolatry is the way to eternal life.

You think that believing this ridiculous and irrational assertion that contradicts what was written in the entire bible takes faith. I think that denouncing this ridiculous and irrational assertion that contradicts what was written in the entire bible is what takes faith.


You think I'm going to hell when I die for lack of faith. I see that you are already dead and in hell for lack of faith.

Capisce?

Do you believe that God is good?

A genocidal God will be as good as Hitler was.

Regards
DL

You are an atheist. You don't believe in God.

 

[GreatestIam]

I especially dislike his no divorce policy as well as his substitutional punishment policies.

There is no "substitutional" punishment policies. That is a misunderstanding on your part. As far as divorce: it shows a great deal of thoughtful reflection on his part of a marriage covenant and how that reflects God's covenants with mankind. Divorce also reflects mankind's disinclination to observe a covenant of any kind. Is that who we want to be?

A covenant that is breached by an abusive spouse and prevents the abused from seeking a loving relationship is evil and if you do not recognize the so called sacrifice of Jesus as substitutional punishment then you know nothing of Christianity.

This Bishop says that the policy you do not see will kill Christianity.



Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

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

The sacrifice does not mean to take away the human life. It never has unless you have a twisted mind. That sacrificial Lamb is one within the human/adam. It is the portion that each must determine to give up within themselves when they are called forth by the holy spirit. To eat the flesh of Jesus is to consume the holy words that are spoken/written by the spirit. These words feed the mind where the spirit resides.

Their is no escape in the flesh as once joined to the Body of Christ but we are assured that our souls our saved; one also accepts that they will take up their own cross and follow in the footsteps of Jesus.

The law still exist and judgment takes place right here in the flesh of this world. The chosen of the God know that they are and will be subjected right along with those whom they desire that their souls should be saved from certain death and they agree to this before being sent into this world where the enemies of God also reside in the flesh of the world. The really cool part if it all is that the people in this world can reject those evil and wicked things and will have a great deal of help (spiritually speaking) in doing so when they accept the call for the 'anointing of Jehovah's salvation with them' aka 'Jesus Christ'.

I agree that all that occurs in scriptures are to be thought of as happening in our own minds.

Remember please that I wrote the O.P. for the less enlightened than you and I.

You almost sound like you believe in the supernatural. You might want to write somewhat differently so as to dispel that notion.

Regards
DL

You might want to write somewhat differently so as to dispel that notion.

If you do not believe that the King of kings cannot step out of what we mere mortals consider thin air you may wish to rethink your position. Tell me if He was standing in front of you would you actually know that he manifested in the flesh to speak to you?

If that man could not prove himself, then I would think him insane for making statements about the supernatural that he cannot back up. I would also question him as to the really poor moral tenets that were put into his mouth. A deity cannot be immoral and Jesus is shown to be.

I especially dislike his no divorce policy as well as his substitutional punishment policies.

This clip speak of other poor moral tenets.

I think all these points valid and given the number of Christians who will not engage in moral discussions of any kind, I think they know that the morals put into Jesus' mouth are garbage and that they cannot justify them.



Care to engage in a moral discussion?

Regards
DL

.

Your video is flawed from the get go as Jesus did not claim to be God.

Your desiring to play devil's advocate some more?

If so set the ground rules and I may be willing to discuss 'morals' with you if (that is if it doesn't get to wild).

I am well aware that Jesus never claimed to be God, but Christians have made him God with their stupid Trinity concept.

If you wish to discuss morals, look at the post just above where I replied to a question on divorce and substitutional punishment that Christians have to buy into to be saved.

Regards
DL.

 

[ding]

The sacrifice does not mean to take away the human life. It never has unless you have a twisted mind. That sacrificial Lamb is one within the human/adam. It is the portion that each must determine to give up within themselves when they are called forth by the holy spirit. To eat the flesh of Jesus is to consume the holy words that are spoken/written by the spirit. These words feed the mind where the spirit resides.

Their is no escape in the flesh as once joined to the Body of Christ but we are assured that our souls our saved; one also accepts that they will take up their own cross and follow in the footsteps of Jesus.

The law still exist and judgment takes place right here in the flesh of this world. The chosen of the God know that they are and will be subjected right along with those whom they desire that their souls should be saved from certain death and they agree to this before being sent into this world where the enemies of God also reside in the flesh of the world. The really cool part if it all is that the people in this world can reject those evil and wicked things and will have a great deal of help (spiritually speaking) in doing so when they accept the call for the 'anointing of Jehovah's salvation with them' aka 'Jesus Christ'.

I agree that all that occurs in scriptures are to be thought of as happening in our own minds.

Remember please that I wrote the O.P. for the less enlightened than you and I.

You almost sound like you believe in the supernatural. You might want to write somewhat differently so as to dispel that notion.

Regards
DL

You might want to write somewhat differently so as to dispel that notion.

If you do not believe that the King of kings cannot step out of what we mere mortals consider thin air you may wish to rethink your position. Tell me if He was standing in front of you would you actually know that he manifested in the flesh to speak to you?

If that man could not prove himself, then I would think him insane for making statements about the supernatural that he cannot back up. I would also question him as to the really poor moral tenets that were put into his mouth. A deity cannot be immoral and Jesus is shown to be.

I especially dislike his no divorce policy as well as his substitutional punishment policies.

This clip speak of other poor moral tenets.

I think all these points valid and given the number of Christians who will not engage in moral discussions of any kind, I think they know that the morals put into Jesus' mouth are garbage and that they cannot justify them.



Care to engage in a moral discussion?

Regards
DL

.

Your video is flawed from the get go as Jesus did not claim to be God.

Your desiring to play devil's advocate some more?

If so set the ground rules and I may be willing to discuss 'morals' with you if (that is if it doesn't get to wild).

I am well aware that Jesus never claimed to be God, but Christians have made him God with their stupid Trinity concept.

If you wish to discuss morals, look at the post just above where I replied to a question on divorce and substitutional punishment that Christians have to buy into to be saved.

Regards
DL.

Gnostics believe the God of the OT is evil and the God of the NT is good.

 

[GreatestIam]

I agree that all that occurs in scriptures are to be thought of as happening in our own minds.

Remember please that I wrote the O.P. for the less enlightened than you and I.

You almost sound like you believe in the supernatural. You might want to write somewhat differently so as to dispel that notion.

Regards
DL

You might want to write somewhat differently so as to dispel that notion.

If you do not believe that the King of kings cannot step out of what we mere mortals consider thin air you may wish to rethink your position. Tell me if He was standing in front of you would you actually know that he manifested in the flesh to speak to you?

If that man could not prove himself, then I would think him insane for making statements about the supernatural that he cannot back up. I would also question him as to the really poor moral tenets that were put into his mouth. A deity cannot be immoral and Jesus is shown to be.

I especially dislike his no divorce policy as well as his substitutional punishment policies.

This clip speak of other poor moral tenets.

I think all these points valid and given the number of Christians who will not engage in moral discussions of any kind, I think they know that the morals put into Jesus' mouth are garbage and that they cannot justify them.



Care to engage in a moral discussion?

Regards
DL

.

Your video is flawed from the get go as Jesus did not claim to be God.

Your desiring to play devil's advocate some more?

If so set the ground rules and I may be willing to discuss 'morals' with you if (that is if it doesn't get to wild).

I am well aware that Jesus never claimed to be God, but Christians have made him God with their stupid Trinity concept.

If you wish to discuss morals, look at the post just above where I replied to a question on divorce and substitutional punishment that Christians have to buy into to be saved.

Regards
DL.

Gnostics believe the God of the OT is evil and the God of the NT is good.

When you start asking what we believe instead of putting lies out here of what we believe, we can chat. Till then, I will continue to ignore your pathetic attention seeking.

Regards
DL

 

[Meathead]

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

Bizarre and decidely untrue. All blood sacrifices ended throughout the Westeern world with the onset of Chrstianity.

 

[ding]

You might want to write somewhat differently so as to dispel that notion.

If you do not believe that the King of kings cannot step out of what we mere mortals consider thin air you may wish to rethink your position. Tell me if He was standing in front of you would you actually know that he manifested in the flesh to speak to you?

If that man could not prove himself, then I would think him insane for making statements about the supernatural that he cannot back up. I would also question him as to the really poor moral tenets that were put into his mouth. A deity cannot be immoral and Jesus is shown to be.

I especially dislike his no divorce policy as well as his substitutional punishment policies.

This clip speak of other poor moral tenets.

I think all these points valid and given the number of Christians who will not engage in moral discussions of any kind, I think they know that the morals put into Jesus' mouth are garbage and that they cannot justify them.



Care to engage in a moral discussion?

Regards
DL

.

Your video is flawed from the get go as Jesus did not claim to be God.

Your desiring to play devil's advocate some more?

If so set the ground rules and I may be willing to discuss 'morals' with you if (that is if it doesn't get to wild).

I am well aware that Jesus never claimed to be God, but Christians have made him God with their stupid Trinity concept.

If you wish to discuss morals, look at the post just above where I replied to a question on divorce and substitutional punishment that Christians have to buy into to be saved.

Regards
DL.

Gnostics believe the God of the OT is evil and the God of the NT is good.

When you start asking what we believe instead of putting lies out here of what we believe, we can chat. Till then, I will continue to ignore your pathetic attention seeking.

Regards
DL

Gnostics believe in two Gods. The evil god who is the God of the material world and the good god who is the God of the spiritual world.

 

[GreatestIam]

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

Bizarre and decidely untrue. All blood sacrifices ended throughout the Westeern world with the onset of Chrstianity.

Irrelevant to the issues at hand. Moral belief is the issue. Not the existence or non-existence of human sacrifice today.

This link speaks to the issues should you wish to chat of what the O.P. is all about.



Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

If that man could not prove himself, then I would think him insane for making statements about the supernatural that he cannot back up. I would also question him as to the really poor moral tenets that were put into his mouth. A deity cannot be immoral and Jesus is shown to be.

I especially dislike his no divorce policy as well as his substitutional punishment policies.

This clip speak of other poor moral tenets.

I think all these points valid and given the number of Christians who will not engage in moral discussions of any kind, I think they know that the morals put into Jesus' mouth are garbage and that they cannot justify them.



Care to engage in a moral discussion?

Regards
DL

.

Your video is flawed from the get go as Jesus did not claim to be God.

Your desiring to play devil's advocate some more?

If so set the ground rules and I may be willing to discuss 'morals' with you if (that is if it doesn't get to wild).

I am well aware that Jesus never claimed to be God, but Christians have made him God with their stupid Trinity concept.

If you wish to discuss morals, look at the post just above where I replied to a question on divorce and substitutional punishment that Christians have to buy into to be saved.

Regards
DL.

Gnostics believe the God of the OT is evil and the God of the NT is good.

When you start asking what we believe instead of putting lies out here of what we believe, we can chat. Till then, I will continue to ignore your pathetic attention seeking.

Regards
DL

Gnostics believe in two Gods. The evil god who is the God of the material world and the good god who is the God of the spiritual world.

When you start asking what we believe instead of putting lies out here of what we believe, we can chat. Till then, I will continue to ignore your pathetic attention seeking.

Regards
DL