Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[ShaMan]

Any bets on what they will say?

[fr0d0]

Thanks for the invite whateverist.

Sacrifice is an ancient practice people devised to make up for their inherant failings. The Christian tradition follows in that ideology of humans being naturally imperfect. Removing the barbarism and replacing it with a fully complete version that no longer required any blood.

I think to try to materialise that to the exclusion of Gods influence would render it meaningless. Vacarious is the opposite of what it is.

I think Rhythm completely misunderstands the idea.

[Whateverist]

Thanks Fr0d0. But I think Rhythm has a point that salvation is vicarious if in fact the sacrifice is outside oneself. If it is essential to Christianity that believers stand outside of the sacrifice and just give thanks for the blood of Christ, then it really is vicarious in a way.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not actually the one who coined the term, or the one that made the argument that's christs sacrifice is -and that such a sacrifice must be- vicarious Frodo. That'd be your spiritual predecessors. Salvation does not come from within, but from god -or so it is said. I'm sure that Drich could clear this up for you.....

(also, "removing the barbarism" no requirement of blood............. is that what you see when you're perusing the crucifixion narrative?)

[fr0d0]

Methinks you play obvious games rhythm

Ah sorry fail again. "External". Indeed. It's not though, skipping responsibility in any way possible to be taken personally. The only way that debt could be paid is externally. The choice is salvation or nothing. Hence our puny earthly efforts are meaningless in this context. We have no pennies in this ferry man's currency.

[The Grand Nudger]

The only way that debt could be paid is externally.

Hence, salvation is

We have no pennies in this ferry man's currency.

-and must be......

...vicarious. I'm not sure what you think you're arguing with me over?

[Esquilax]

Methinks you play obvious games rhythm

Ah sorry fail again. "External". Indeed. It's not though, skipping responsibility in any way possible to be taken personally. The only way that debt could be paid is externally. The choice is salvation or nothing. Hence our puny earthly efforts are meaningless in this context. We have no pennies in this ferry man's currency.

Do you think the reason we find the concept of vicarious sacrifice immoral is that the price could be paid personally and just isn't, and that if you remove the possibility of ever personally paying the debt, it suddenly becomes okay?

Because that's not it. If you can't pay your debt the moral action is not to throw someone else under the bus, even if there's no other option. The fact that you can escape the guilt you have incurred doesn't make that guilt vanish, it just means that you got away with whatever you've done. That's immoral.

That's discounting the esoteric, violent content of the redemption itself, mind.

[fr0d0]

Your debt is paid because you want to receive it. Not because you're worthy. It's a reward that you aren't naturally capable of earning. You think that it's immoral to withhold something only justly received. A contradiction in terms.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your debt is paid because you want to receive it. Not because you're worthy. It's a reward that you aren't naturally capable of earning.

Right, nothing to do with me, nothing that I am capable of, vicarious.

You think that it's immoral to withhold something only justly received. A contradiction in terms.

Um, no, nothing to do with my position. Try again - it's not as though I haven't made this clear many times over the course of years. Gasp and shock, you've managed -not- to notice anything I've ever expressed on the subject - and yet simultaneously you feel that I must be mistaken.......

[fr0d0]

Rhyth old mate, I've moved past vicarious, come on down.

2nd statement: was a reply to esq. I've had you in ignore for nearly all of your membership. If you want me to address your ideas your going to have to state it clearly. The above makes no sense to me.