Page 4 of 6 [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Apr 2016, 9:26 pm

GnosticBishop wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
This says you are incorrect and even if you were correct, that fact would not effect the outcome of the policy that it is immoral for any judge to knowingly punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

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

If you still think otherwise, give your argument and not a one liner that can be proven to be false.

Before you attempt one, you might read what your bible has to say.

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.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Regards
DL


Again, is the innocent you're talking about Christ?


For the quote I put, yes.

Jesus or not is still irrelevant to such a vile and immoral policy.

The bible also shows God punishing innocent people, children and babies instead of the guilty but it seems that you are so fearful of your afterlife that you will not give up what you think is your scapegoat Jesus.

Morals do not seem to be your focus at all and that is what religions are supposed to be all about.

Regards
DL


My faith isn't based on fear of the next life; rather it's all about Christ's self sacrificing love that I find so appealing. Again, Christian theology is about Christ voluntarily choosing punishment and death in place of a flawed humankind, not about him being forced against his will to die.
And where did I ever defend the killing of innocent children?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Eisbaer
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 50
Location: NY, USA

10 Apr 2016, 9:30 pm

GnosticBishop wrote:
Eisbaer wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Eisbaer wrote:
It seems that, over time, the excitement your average man surely felt when first given the freedom to interpret holy texts and debate the spiritual has not waned. What better way to control masses of people who believe themselves enslaved by spiritual dictatorship than to relinquish that control to them? They'd be so busy obsessing over their individual beliefs and killing each other for praying incorrectly they might never notice their rights in the physical world quietly being locked away.


If one interprets that he can kill for beliefs, then his spiritual interpretations are obviously wrong.

Christianity already showed how foolish that thinking is when helping to usher in the Dark Ages against free thought and Inquisition.

An average moral man will remember that and not go there so your view of an average man is not correct.

I hope.

Regards
DL


My view of the average man (regardless of spiritual belief, time period, racial composition or political leaning) is that he tends to get curious and even excited about doors opening that were previously nailed shut. Curiosity may have killed the cat but aided man in building airplanes and automobiles.

In the case of diverse spiritual belief, there seems to exist a need by some (but not all) to be on the "right" side of god(s) or to be "right" in general. The point I'm arguing is that debate is not "constructive" unless you're actually building something, i.e. a relationship, a network of aqueducts, a system of law and so on. Destructive debate is the specialty of those seeking either to break down and assimilate the opposition or to further oneself socially and therefore superficially.

Any man may calmly declare or shout angrily about the purity and truth of his position until achieving a smug shade of blue and/or pale white though none of it will ever be universally true.

Perhaps we need a new manuscript. Something of a "mode d'emploi". Something that will insist "thou shalt not suffer a different to post" :o


I see nothing wrong with debates that are designed to break down an opponents position if it is the wrong position.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Imagine the crap world we would be living in if no one bothered to correct poor thinking. We would likely till be living in caves and trees.

I agree that a new manuscript is required. I saw Gnostic Christianity as mine and am quite pleased with my choice to date.

I doubt that it will pan out to it's potential before all religions are basically scrapped because of the immorality of the mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam.

Regards
DL


To declare that debate (paying close attention to the definition of debate) is justified per an opponents "wrong position" after alluding to his closed mind that can not be swayed is as misleading as quoting the scripture of a faith you consider primitive and immoral is pedantic. This is not debate. It is argument. I don't recall the OP insisting what he'd accepted as truth to be universally true for every man, woman and child in the first place. Nor do I recall him asking us for a debate or for us to accept his truth as our own. You have every right to arrogantly declare your viewpoint as universally correct, but you do yourself a disservice to try and pass that off as debate. Quoting Christian scripture to show Christians how wrong and hypocritical you feel they are achieves nothing tangible. Maybe it makes you feel good?



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

11 Apr 2016, 5:12 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
This says you are incorrect and even if you were correct, that fact would not effect the outcome of the policy that it is immoral for any judge to knowingly punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

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

If you still think otherwise, give your argument and not a one liner that can be proven to be false.

Before you attempt one, you might read what your bible has to say.

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.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Regards
DL


Again, is the innocent you're talking about Christ?


For the quote I put, yes.

Jesus or not is still irrelevant to such a vile and immoral policy.

The bible also shows God punishing innocent people, children and babies instead of the guilty but it seems that you are so fearful of your afterlife that you will not give up what you think is your scapegoat Jesus.

Morals do not seem to be your focus at all and that is what religions are supposed to be all about.

Regards
DL


My faith isn't based on fear of the next life; rather it's all about Christ's self sacrificing love that I find so appealing. Again, Christian theology is about Christ voluntarily choosing punishment and death in place of a flawed humankind, not about him being forced against his will to die.
And where did I ever defend the killing of innocent children?



If you support the bible God, you support the killing of innocent children.

Strange that you like the fact that God condemns you then turns around and has his son murdered for you.

You go ahead and think that twisted immoral scenario to be appealing. I will pass.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

11 Apr 2016, 5:18 am

Eisbaer wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Eisbaer wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Eisbaer wrote:
It seems that, over time, the excitement your average man surely felt when first given the freedom to interpret holy texts and debate the spiritual has not waned. What better way to control masses of people who believe themselves enslaved by spiritual dictatorship than to relinquish that control to them? They'd be so busy obsessing over their individual beliefs and killing each other for praying incorrectly they might never notice their rights in the physical world quietly being locked away.


If one interprets that he can kill for beliefs, then his spiritual interpretations are obviously wrong.

Christianity already showed how foolish that thinking is when helping to usher in the Dark Ages against free thought and Inquisition.

An average moral man will remember that and not go there so your view of an average man is not correct.

I hope.

Regards
DL


My view of the average man (regardless of spiritual belief, time period, racial composition or political leaning) is that he tends to get curious and even excited about doors opening that were previously nailed shut. Curiosity may have killed the cat but aided man in building airplanes and automobiles.

In the case of diverse spiritual belief, there seems to exist a need by some (but not all) to be on the "right" side of god(s) or to be "right" in general. The point I'm arguing is that debate is not "constructive" unless you're actually building something, i.e. a relationship, a network of aqueducts, a system of law and so on. Destructive debate is the specialty of those seeking either to break down and assimilate the opposition or to further oneself socially and therefore superficially.

Any man may calmly declare or shout angrily about the purity and truth of his position until achieving a smug shade of blue and/or pale white though none of it will ever be universally true.

Perhaps we need a new manuscript. Something of a "mode d'emploi". Something that will insist "thou shalt not suffer a different to post" :o


I see nothing wrong with debates that are designed to break down an opponents position if it is the wrong position.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Imagine the crap world we would be living in if no one bothered to correct poor thinking. We would likely till be living in caves and trees.

I agree that a new manuscript is required. I saw Gnostic Christianity as mine and am quite pleased with my choice to date.

I doubt that it will pan out to it's potential before all religions are basically scrapped because of the immorality of the mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam.

Regards
DL


To declare that debate (paying close attention to the definition of debate) is justified per an opponents "wrong position" after alluding to his closed mind that can not be swayed is as misleading as quoting the scripture of a faith you consider primitive and immoral is pedantic. This is not debate. It is argument. I don't recall the OP insisting what he'd accepted as truth to be universally true for every man, woman and child in the first place. Nor do I recall him asking us for a debate or for us to accept his truth as our own. You have every right to arrogantly declare your viewpoint as universally correct, but you do yourself a disservice to try and pass that off as debate. Quoting Christian scripture to show Christians how wrong and hypocritical you feel they are achieves nothing tangible. Maybe it makes you feel good?


Attempting to correct poor thinking is more of a chore than a feel good activity. I do not particularly like poor thinking.

I do not think my viewpoints to be universally correct but do not fear putting them out there for correction either.

Reciprocity is fair play and usually the other side thinks that they have some kin of universal truth.

Mental cowards will not engage or do their duty to others by trying to correct them.

Regards
DL



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Apr 2016, 6:10 am

GnosticBishop wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
This says you are incorrect and even if you were correct, that fact would not effect the outcome of the policy that it is immoral for any judge to knowingly punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

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

If you still think otherwise, give your argument and not a one liner that can be proven to be false.

Before you attempt one, you might read what your bible has to say.

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.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Regards
DL


Again, is the innocent you're talking about Christ?


For the quote I put, yes.

Jesus or not is still irrelevant to such a vile and immoral policy.

The bible also shows God punishing innocent people, children and babies instead of the guilty but it seems that you are so fearful of your afterlife that you will not give up what you think is your scapegoat Jesus.

Morals do not seem to be your focus at all and that is what religions are supposed to be all about.

Regards
DL


My faith isn't based on fear of the next life; rather it's all about Christ's self sacrificing love that I find so appealing. Again, Christian theology is about Christ voluntarily choosing punishment and death in place of a flawed humankind, not about him being forced against his will to die.
And where did I ever defend the killing of innocent children?



If you support the bible God, you support the killing of innocent children.

Strange that you like the fact that God condemns you then turns around and has his son murdered for you.

You go ahead and think that twisted immoral scenario to be appealing. I will pass.

Regards
DL


You believe what you want to believe, and I'll believe what I want to believe.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


marcb0t
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: Washington

17 Apr 2016, 3:00 am

GnosticBishop wrote:
This says you are incorrect and even if you were correct, that fact would not effect the outcome of the policy that it is immoral for any judge to knowingly punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

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

If you still think otherwise, give your argument and not a one liner that can be proven to be false.

Before you attempt one, you might read what your bible has to say.

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.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Regards
DL


Actually, Jesus always had His own choice in the matter:

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
John 10:18


Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
Matthew 26:53 NIV


Now with that said, are you saying you would not sacrifice your life to save your families life? Would you sacrifice your own son to save the life of a city? Would that be immoral to sacrifice your son's life? Or would it be immoral to save your son's life and let the city die?

Now what if your son decided on his own accord to sacrifice his own life to save the city? Would you so him, or encourage him?

Which is immoral here?

Furthermore, Jesus and the Father already knew that His death would not be permanent, but that the Son would be raised from the dead and reunited with the Father.

Furthermore, who says babies and children are innocent? That idea does not come from Scripture. Let's take a look at one of my favorite Palms:

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51:5 NIV


_________________
The cutest most lovable little rob0t on Earth! (^.^)


marcb0t
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: Washington

17 Apr 2016, 3:14 am

Also, GnosticBishop, you may indeed be a "gnostic" but there is nothing remotely Christian about your set of beliefs. At best, it is anti Christian... and most literally at that. The rejection of the notion of a Christ figure altogether.

Ergo, anti-christian.

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:22 NIV


Also consider this Scripture carefully:

Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
James 1:21 NIV


Notice it does not say "immoral filth". The verse actually says "moral filth". Your own standard and opinion of morality is filth and needs to be thrown out. It is we who are flawed, not God or His salvation plan.


_________________
The cutest most lovable little rob0t on Earth! (^.^)


marcb0t
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: Washington

17 Apr 2016, 3:34 am

KagamineLen wrote:
People who use the name of Christ for financial gain or for the exploitation of other humans are the ones who are truly using his name in vain.

I can only speak for myself. God accepts me when I cannot. Without Him, I am nothing. Without Him, I am a mere addict. This all may be mental masturbation, as I do have doubts about the existence of a higher power. But I have to believe that there is a father out there who loves everybody, who grants everybody a chance at dignity. Otherwise, the insanity of my past will eat me alive.
KagamineLen, I'm glad that my prayers for you have not been wasted. I remember reading your past struggles months ago.

What you call "mental masturbation" is actually what Scripture and most people call faith and hope. When combined with love, it is completed.

For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet.
1 Thessalonians 5:7-8 NIV


Meditate prayerfully on that Scripture and also, be thankful:

So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
Colossians 2:6-7


If you need a brother to talk to, you can always PM me.


_________________
The cutest most lovable little rob0t on Earth! (^.^)


GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

17 Apr 2016, 3:24 pm

marcb0t wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
This says you are incorrect and even if you were correct, that fact would not effect the outcome of the policy that it is immoral for any judge to knowingly punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

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

If you still think otherwise, give your argument and not a one liner that can be proven to be false.

Before you attempt one, you might read what your bible has to say.

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.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Regards
DL


Actually, Jesus always had His own choice in the matter:

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
John 10:18


Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
Matthew 26:53 NIV


Now with that said, are you saying you would not sacrifice your life to save your families life? Would you sacrifice your own son to save the life of a city? Would that be immoral to sacrifice your son's life? Or would it be immoral to save your son's life and let the city die?

Now what if your son decided on his own accord to sacrifice his own life to save the city? Would you so him, or encourage him?

Which is immoral here?

Furthermore, Jesus and the Father already knew that His death would not be permanent, but that the Son would be raised from the dead and reunited with the Father.

Furthermore, who says babies and children are innocent? That idea does not come from Scripture. Let's take a look at one of my favorite Palms:

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51:5 NIV


Does this sound like Jesus volunteered?

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

Further, Jesus also says that he his was doing his fathers will and not his own.

"Jesus and the Father already knew that His death would not be permanent, but that the Son would be raised from the dead and reunited with the Father."

No loss or gain means that there was no sacrifice. 3 days or R&R in hell for an eternal God would have been a welcomed relief from boredom.

"Now with that said, are you saying you would not sacrifice your life to save your families life?"

Mine, for sure, but not my son's and that is in part why your view is so immoral. Your God chose the immoral route.

Who would die if you had to choose? You or your child?

Now. We can thump at each other or we can discuss the morality of substitutionary atonement. Your choice.

I offer the words of this Bishop first and them my argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9g ... gest-vrecs

Human sacrifice is evil and God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

Those trying to profit from that evil are evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

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? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

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.

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?
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



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

17 Apr 2016, 3:28 pm

marcb0t wrote:
Also, GnosticBishop, you may indeed be a "gnostic" but there is nothing remotely Christian about your set of beliefs. At best, it is anti Christian... and most literally at that. The rejection of the notion of a Christ figure altogether.

Ergo, anti-christian.

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:22 NIV


Also consider this Scripture carefully:

Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
James 1:21 NIV


Notice it does not say "immoral filth". The verse actually says "moral filth". Your own standard and opinion of morality is filth and needs to be thrown out. It is we who are flawed, not God or His salvation plan.


Then make your case with an apology against the one I put above.

As to your view of my being anti-Christianity, you are right as we have always seen Yahweh as a vile and immoral demiurge.

That is why your ancestors killed us and burned our scriptures to shut us up.

They could not argue against us. I will see if you can or not.

Regards
DL



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Apr 2016, 6:33 pm

GnosticBishop wrote:
marcb0t wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
This says you are incorrect and even if you were correct, that fact would not effect the outcome of the policy that it is immoral for any judge to knowingly punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

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

If you still think otherwise, give your argument and not a one liner that can be proven to be false.

Before you attempt one, you might read what your bible has to say.

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.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Regards
DL


Actually, Jesus always had His own choice in the matter:

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
John 10:18


Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
Matthew 26:53 NIV


Now with that said, are you saying you would not sacrifice your life to save your families life? Would you sacrifice your own son to save the life of a city? Would that be immoral to sacrifice your son's life? Or would it be immoral to save your son's life and let the city die?

Now what if your son decided on his own accord to sacrifice his own life to save the city? Would you so him, or encourage him?

Which is immoral here?

Furthermore, Jesus and the Father already knew that His death would not be permanent, but that the Son would be raised from the dead and reunited with the Father.

Furthermore, who says babies and children are innocent? That idea does not come from Scripture. Let's take a look at one of my favorite Palms:

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51:5 NIV


Does this sound like Jesus volunteered?

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

Further, Jesus also says that he his was doing his fathers will and not his own.

"Jesus and the Father already knew that His death would not be permanent, but that the Son would be raised from the dead and reunited with the Father."

No loss or gain means that there was no sacrifice. 3 days or R&R in hell for an eternal God would have been a welcomed relief from boredom.

"Now with that said, are you saying you would not sacrifice your life to save your families life?"

Mine, for sure, but not my son's and that is in part why your view is so immoral. Your God chose the immoral route.

Who would die if you had to choose? You or your child?

Now. We can thump at each other or we can discuss the morality of substitutionary atonement. Your choice.

I offer the words of this Bishop first and them my argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9g ... gest-vrecs

Human sacrifice is evil and God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

Those trying to profit from that evil are evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

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? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

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.

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?
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


So your beef is actually not just with Christian theology, but with actual scripture? Well, do you have an alternative to the Bible as the Christian holy book?
Incidentally, Bishop Spong is no more part of mainstream Christianity than are evangelicals - they just happen to be on the opposite extremes of fringe Christianity.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

17 Apr 2016, 6:40 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
marcb0t wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
This says you are incorrect and even if you were correct, that fact would not effect the outcome of the policy that it is immoral for any judge to knowingly punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

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

If you still think otherwise, give your argument and not a one liner that can be proven to be false.

Before you attempt one, you might read what your bible has to say.

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.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Regards
DL


Actually, Jesus always had His own choice in the matter:

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
John 10:18


Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
Matthew 26:53 NIV


Now with that said, are you saying you would not sacrifice your life to save your families life? Would you sacrifice your own son to save the life of a city? Would that be immoral to sacrifice your son's life? Or would it be immoral to save your son's life and let the city die?

Now what if your son decided on his own accord to sacrifice his own life to save the city? Would you so him, or encourage him?

Which is immoral here?

Furthermore, Jesus and the Father already knew that His death would not be permanent, but that the Son would be raised from the dead and reunited with the Father.

Furthermore, who says babies and children are innocent? That idea does not come from Scripture. Let's take a look at one of my favorite Palms:

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51:5 NIV


Does this sound like Jesus volunteered?

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

Further, Jesus also says that he his was doing his fathers will and not his own.

"Jesus and the Father already knew that His death would not be permanent, but that the Son would be raised from the dead and reunited with the Father."

No loss or gain means that there was no sacrifice. 3 days or R&R in hell for an eternal God would have been a welcomed relief from boredom.

"Now with that said, are you saying you would not sacrifice your life to save your families life?"

Mine, for sure, but not my son's and that is in part why your view is so immoral. Your God chose the immoral route.

Who would die if you had to choose? You or your child?

Now. We can thump at each other or we can discuss the morality of substitutionary atonement. Your choice.

I offer the words of this Bishop first and them my argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9g ... gest-vrecs

Human sacrifice is evil and God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

Those trying to profit from that evil are evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

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? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

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.

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?
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


So your beef is actually not just with Christian theology, but with actual scripture? Well, do you have an alternative to the Bible as the Christian holy book?
Incidentally, Bishop Spong is no more part of mainstream Christianity than are evangelicals - they just happen to be on the opposite extremes of fringe Christianity.


My beef is Christian immorality.

The debate is on substitutionary atonement.

Are you in or out?

Regards
DL



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Apr 2016, 7:01 pm

^^^
The whole of Christian doctrine from the very beginning is based on Christ acting as mankind's substitute by living the law perfectly, but suffering under it's punishment. As I fancy myself a Christian, it's my belief system.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

18 Apr 2016, 6:55 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
^^^
The whole of Christian doctrine from the very beginning is based on Christ acting as mankind's substitute by living the law perfectly, but suffering under it's punishment. As I fancy myself a Christian, it's my belief system.


Perfectly, my ass.

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;


The immoral demand that we accept as justice the punishment of the innocent instead of he guilty is the issue.

Speak to it or go be a hypocrite elsewhere.

Regards
DL



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Apr 2016, 2:39 pm

GnosticBishop wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
^^^
The whole of Christian doctrine from the very beginning is based on Christ acting as mankind's substitute by living the law perfectly, but suffering under it's punishment. As I fancy myself a Christian, it's my belief system.


Perfectly, my ass.

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;


The immoral demand that we accept as justice the punishment of the innocent instead of he guilty is the issue.

Speak to it or go be a hypocrite elsewhere.

Regards
DL


(Sigh) My point is, despite what Spong says, there is no way to get around the central theology of Christianity, which is Christ's death and resurrection for the redemption of mankind. If Spong disagrees with it, he should start a whole new religion.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

18 Apr 2016, 2:54 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
^^^
The whole of Christian doctrine from the very beginning is based on Christ acting as mankind's substitute by living the law perfectly, but suffering under it's punishment. As I fancy myself a Christian, it's my belief system.


Perfectly, my ass.

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;


The immoral demand that we accept as justice the punishment of the innocent instead of he guilty is the issue.

Speak to it or go be a hypocrite elsewhere.

Regards
DL


(Sigh) My point is, despite what Spong says, there is no way to get around the central theology of Christianity, which is Christ's death and resurrection for the redemption of mankind. If Spong disagrees with it, he should start a whole new religion.


The point is that you agree with an immoral concept that you cannot even argue for.

We are done.

Regards
DL