(February 23, 2018 at 6:40 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 6:25 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Also, lest we forget, he did not do it of his own choosing. When the day came for him to do it, he made it clear he didn't want to. "Let this cup pass from me", and all that. It happened anyway. If someone agrees to have sex with someone in the future, and then changes their mind when the agreed upon day comes, it's still rape if it happens anyway.

You forgot the whole "nevertheless, not my will but thine be done" and "no man take my life but I lay it down" part.

Right, we mustn't forget the words he spoke in the garden . . . faithfully captured for posterity by his sleeping buddies.

(February 23, 2018 at 6:40 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 6:25 pm)Chad32 Wrote: It wasn't. Even if you argue that it doesn't count as scapegoating, even though it's very similar, setting up something like that was cruel and wrong. No one should suffer for crimes they didn't commit. No one should be put in a position where they're going to suffer and die unless they beg someone else to spare them, and accept something gruesome and wrong as payment. That's a sadistic choice. It's something villains in media do, because it's so fundamentally wrong it shouldn't need explaining.

Ok so then by that logic, why does anything have to die on order for you to eat? Why is it their fault you're hungry? No creature should suffer and die for the sole reason of satiating your hunger...

Why is that not just as sadistic?

(February 23, 2018 at 6:25 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Also, lest we forget, he did not do it of his own choosing. When the day came for him to do it, he made it clear he didn't want to. "Let this cup pass from me", and all that. It happened anyway. If someone agrees to have sex with someone in the future, and then changes their mind when the agreed upon day comes, it's still rape if it happens anyway.

You forgot the whole "nevertheless, not my will but thine be done" and "no man take my life but I lay it down" part.

The former doesn't contradict what I said, since he's apparently obedient, even though he does not want to do it. The second is contradicted by the fact that he didn't want to be tortured to death, yet it happened anyway.

Eating to live is a fundamental part of life That's why they call it a cycle. Granted the individual being killed doesn't like it, but killing to eat isn't scapegoating. I'm not killing and eating it because I think it makes me a better person. I do it because that's the circle of life. It can't be considered a sin because nearly all life on the planet would die in a week or so if they decided unanimously to never kill anything ever again.

(February 23, 2018 at 6:42 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 6:40 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You forgot the whole "nevertheless, not my will but thine be done" and "no man take my life but I lay it down" part.

Right, we mustn't forget the words he spoke in the garden . . . faithfully captured for posterity by his sleeping buddies.

Actually only the first one was spoken in the garden...

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. - John 10:17-18

Well he tried and failed to take it again.

(February 23, 2018 at 6:45 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 6:40 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Ok so then by that logic, why does anything have to die on order for you to eat? Why is it their fault you're hungry? No creature should suffer and die for the sole reason of satiating your hunger...

Why is that not just as sadistic?


You forgot the whole "nevertheless, not my will but thine be done" and "no man take my life but I lay it down" part.

*emphasis mine*

The former doesn't contradict what I said, since he's apparently obedient, even though he does not want to do it. The second is contradicted by the fact that he didn't want to be tortured to death, yet it happened anyway.

Eating to live is a fundamental part of life That's why they call it a cycle. Granted the individual being killed doesn't like it, but killing to eat isn't scapegoating. I'm not killing and eating it because I think it makes me a better person. I do it because that's the circle of life. It can't be considered a sin because nearly all life on the planet would die in a week or so if they decided unanimously to never kill anything ever again.

*emphasis mine*
But it does make you a better person nutrition wise, there is a reason Jesus used analogies that compared himself to food and drink. Therefore according to your own statement Jesus giving his life to save the lives of all mankind cannot be considered evil, since the only other option is for the death of all mankind.

(February 23, 2018 at 7:01 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 6:45 pm)Chad32 Wrote: *emphasis mine*

The former doesn't contradict what I said, since he's apparently obedient, even though he does not want to do it. The second is contradicted by the fact that he didn't want to be tortured to death, yet it happened anyway.

Eating to live is a fundamental part of life That's why they call it a cycle. Granted the individual being killed doesn't like it, but killing to eat isn't scapegoating. I'm not killing and eating it because I think it makes me a better person. I do it because that's the circle of life. It can't be considered a sin because nearly all life on the planet would die in a week or so if they decided unanimously to never kill anything ever again.

*emphasis mine*
But it does make you a better person nutrition wise, there is a reason Jesus used analogies that compared himself to food and drink. Therefore according to your own statement Jesus giving his life to save the lives of all mankind cannot be considered evil, since the only other option is for the death of all mankind.

No, it doesn't. You can't just eat only fruits and leaves for the rest of your life. Certainly you can't only feed that to small children. What Jesus says can't be taken literally. You can't just live off of spirit energy.

It is evil. The death of an innocent, especially right after they plead with the person in power not to let them die, is evil.

(February 23, 2018 at 7:18 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 7:01 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*
But it does make you a better person nutrition wise, there is a reason Jesus used analogies that compared himself to food and drink. Therefore according to your own statement Jesus giving his life to save the lives of all mankind cannot be considered evil, since the only other option is for the death of all mankind.

No, it doesn't. You can't just eat only fruits and leaves for the rest of your life. Certainly you can't only feed that to small children. What Jesus says can't be taken literally. You can't just live off of spirit energy.

It is evil. The death of an innocent, especially right after they plead with the person in power not to let them die, is evil.

Fruits and leaves..what? Also man shall not live by bread alone....

You cannot sustain your natural life with spiritual food, or your spiritual life with natural food, you need both, but in terms of importance spiritual food is the greater need, since you are going to die regardless of what natural food you eat, but spiritual food grants eternal life.

(February 23, 2018 at 5:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: His death was needed in order for us to live, just like the food you eat needs to die in order for you to live.

I have no doubt that you believe that to be true.  Personally, I think that's utterly ridiculous.

I'm going to run with your analogy a bit.  Let's say that Jesus was the sole source of one particular molecule that was required to make food nourishing and life-sustaining.  Jesus dies.  Various foodstuffs are generated.  We eat the food.

Food is now gone.  What do we do for the next meal?

God claims to not be the author of confusion . . .

(drum roll please)

. . . and inspires a religion (Christianity) that on average has schismed and/or launched yet another independent, unregulated franchise affiliate every 10 days FOR 2000 YEARS. (Excepting the One True Faith, The Congregation of Jehovah's Presbytery of Zion, of course)

And 60,000 contradictions in the Holy tome don't help a whole bunch either.

(February 23, 2018 at 7:34 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 5:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: His death was needed in order for us to live, just like the food you eat needs to die in order for you to live.

I have no doubt that you believe that to be true.  Personally, I think that's utterly ridiculous.

I'm going to run with your analogy a bit.  Let's say that Jesus was the sole source of one particular molecule that was required to make food nourishing and life-sustaining.  Jesus dies.  Various foodstuffs are generated.  We eat the food.

Food is now gone.  What do we do for the next meal?

In keeping with the analogy the food that Jesus provides, to partake of that means one would never hunger or thirst again, so there's no need for a next meal...