Zone1 On Jesus dying for Christians, from a moral perspective.

[GreatestIam]

On Jesus dying for Christians, from a moral perspective.

It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

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

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

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

There is no way that Christians parents would teach their children to use a scapegoat.

Good morals and Jesus speak against the messianic concept and bids us pick up our crosses and follow him.

 

[Donald H]

On Jesus dying for Christians, from a moral perspective.

It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

It wasn't a certain and unqualified death and so it has some diminished impact on people at least.
And of course it offers possibilities to the believers of - if he can pull it off, why not me?

 

[Augustine_]

On Jesus dying for Christians, from a moral perspective.

It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

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

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

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

There is no way that Christians parents would teach their children to use a scapegoat.

Good morals and Jesus speak against the messianic concept and bids us pick up our crosses and follow him.

He suffered for a couple days so he could rule paradise for all of eternity. You'd be a fool not to take that deal.

 

[GreatestIam]

It wasn't a certain and unqualified death and so it has some diminished impact on people at least.
And of course it offers possibilities to the believers of - if he can pull it off, why not me?

How can one expect to prove or qualify the death of a God who by definition cannot die? Does immortal not mean immortal to Christians?

 

[Donald H]

How can one expect to prove or qualify the death of a God who by definition cannot die? Does immortal not mean immortal to Christians?

They've concocted a position with the jesus story that sort of works, on account of no certain death could have the impact of a 'temporary' death.

They can have him dying temporarily and coming back to life at least once a year.

 

[GreatestIam]

He suffered for a couple days so he could rule paradise for all of eternity. You'd be a fool not to take that deal.

Indeed. For a Christian.

Nothing like abdicating their own responsibility for a get out of jail free card. Screw the innocent instead of me, Christians say.

Jesus is God, well more of a half breed chimera, but that aside, he already ruled heaven for eternity. Yahweh never leaves his prison. Nice that given his evil nature.

 

[GreatestIam]

They've concocted a position with the jesus story that sort of works, on account of no certain death could have the impact of a 'temporary' death.

They can have him dying temporarily and coming back to life at least once a year.

Jesus admits blowing his suicide by cop attempt with his, why have your forsaken me etc. This is proven by his taking so long to return.

What's that song about being lost in the MTA

did he ever return videos - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[Donald H]

Jesus admits blowing his suicide by cop attempt with his, why have your forsaken me etc. This is proven by his taking so long to return.

What's that song about being lost in the MTA

did he ever return videos - Search Videos

www.bing.com

The MTA? Charlie?
One of the best!

Suicide by cop is a good twist to the story.

 

[GreatestIam]

The MTA? Charlie?
One of the best!

Suicide by cop is a good twist to the story.

If I recall correctly, you mentioned something about knowing the definition of the old wording. You may know the word sop that is passed to Judas at the last supper. It and the fact that Satan does not enter into Judas till after he is honored with the sop that Satan enters into him. That moment is when Judas accepts Jesus' suicide by King and cop ideas and goes to do Jesus' bidding to turn him in. Call his death what you will, but that is definitely a suicide by cop.

 

[Donald H]

If I recall correctly, you mentioned something about knowing the definition of the old wording. You may know the word sop that is passed to Judas at the last supper. It and the fact that Satan does not enter into Judas till after he is honored with the sop that Satan enters into him. That moment is when Judas accepts Jesus' suicide by King and cop ideas and goes to do Jesus' bidding to turn him in. Call his death what you will, but that is definitely a suicide by cop.

I really don't know what 'sop' means. My talking points are generally limited to what I do know about Christian's religion. That's mostly the obvious contradictions and nonsense tales in their bibles.

With that approach they can be encouraged to sugarcoat the stories in ways that they believe can make them credible.

And so for example, they're divided somewhere between the Genesis nonsense and partly accepting Darwin!

They're reading this you know!

 

[The Irish Ram]

They're reading this you know!

And laughing at the two of you...

 

[Cougarbear]

On Jesus dying for Christians, from a moral perspective.

It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

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

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

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

There is no way that Christians parents would teach their children to use a scapegoat.

Good morals and Jesus speak against the messianic concept and bids us pick up our crosses and follow him.

You obviously don’t have a clear understanding of what the purpose of the Atonement is. The act of the Savior works for those who accept that they have sinned, have made every attempt to make restitution for what they did wrong, repent and ask for forgiveness and then be Baptized and change their ways and strive to be a better person. Only then can the sun be washed away forever.

 

[Donald H]

And laughing at the two of you...

Maybe a nervous laugh?

But my objective was to get some of them in.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Maybe a nervous laugh?

But my objective was to get some of them in.

More like a smirk...

 

[GreatestIam]

I really don't know what 'sop' means. My talking points are generally limited to what I do know about Christian's religion. That's mostly the obvious contradictions and nonsense tales in their bibles.

With that approach they can be encouraged to sugarcoat the stories in ways that they believe can make them credible.

And so for example, they're divided somewhere between the Genesis nonsense and partly accepting Darwin!

They're reading this you know!

Not likely with any interest. The topic has moral implications and Christians do not do well in those so do not engage much.

The right and left of religions is at about the belief in the supernatural or not.

As a loyal heretic and Gnostic Christian, I have no problem reconciling the silly supernatural side with the intelligent naturalist side. I have a TLDR on that. --------------------

Eve was correct in eating of the tree of knowledge and rejecting God.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This indicates that Jesus had no choice.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane and immoral God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women. They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

------------------------

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.
That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature, then the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
ving said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.

First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.

Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Evolutionary theology.

 

[GreatestIam]

You obviously don’t have a clear understanding of what the purpose of the Atonement is. The act of the Savior works for those who accept that they have sinned, have made every attempt to make restitution for what they did wrong, repent and ask for forgiveness and then be Baptized and change their ways and strive to be a better person. Only then can the sun be washed away forever.

You ignore the immorality and issues I put to deflect atonement. Ok.

Why should you atone for your sins on the one side of your face, while singing that your sin is a happy fault and necessary to God on the other side of your face?

Show your real face, please.

 

[GreatestIam]

Maybe a nervous laugh?

But my objective was to get some of them in.

It is a moral issue so good luck with that.

I do not fell good about this, but my gift of making Christians run from discussion sites by pushing moral issues, has helped close down a few of them.

Christianity cannot stand up to moral scrutiny. They no longer have inquisitions so all they can do is run away.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I have my God, you have yours...

 

[White 6]

Greatestlam will not be rejoining the conversation in this Zone 1 Religion thread.

 

[Cougarbear]

You ignore the immorality and issues I put to deflect atonement. Ok.

Why should you atone for your sins on the one side of your face, while singing that your sin is a happy fault and necessary to God on the other side of your face?

Show your real face, please.

Your attempt of deflection concerning immorality failed. Failed horribly. I don’t see sin as a happy fault. You do. Nor is my sin necessary to God. Nor can I atone for my sins. Where did you get that false doctrine from?

Try actually reading. “You obviously don’t have a clear understanding of what the purpose of the Atonement is. The act of the Savior works for those who accept that they have sinned, have made every attempt to make restitution for what they did wrong, repent and ask for forgiveness and then be Baptized and change their ways and strive to be a better person. Only then can the sun be washed away forever.”