Jesus who? Your fairy's advice is worthless to me, I don't look to legends for a procedural manual on life. How many other words would you like to use in place of scapegoating, take your pick, call it what you like. It remains scapegoating.

Yes, I do find jesus "wrong in principle", and I call bullshit on your assessment of his platform. Deceit by omission. You forgot to mention elitism, thought crimes, condescension, totalitarianism, and ah yes...scapegoating. A couple of the ones you did mention as though they formed some high moral standard are actually complete garbage. While we're at it, you do realize that these things you credit your magic man with constitute cultural plagiarism yes? Unoriginal words spoken by a fictional character. I remain unimpressed. We aren't even discussing the same thing. I'm actually sick at the thought of your moral standards, which you have expressed here in this thread. You're trying to pass along some info about a giant and a beanstalk.............

(April 6, 2012 at 8:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Jesus who? Your fairy's advice is worthless to me, I don't look to legends for a procedural manual on life. How many other words would you like to use in place of scapegoating, take your pick, call it what you like. It remains scapegoating.

Yes, I do find jesus "wrong in principle", and I call bullshit on your assessment of his platform. Deceit by omission. You forgot to mention elitism, thought crimes, condescension, totalitarianism, and ah yes...scapegoating. A couple of the ones you did mention as though they formed some high moral standard are actually complete garbage. While we're at it, you do realize that these things you credit your magic man with constitute cultural plagiarism yes? Unoriginal words spoken by a fictional character. I remain unimpressed. We aren't even discussing the same thing. I'm actually sick at the thought of your moral standards, which you have expressed here in this thread. You're trying to pass along some info about a giant and a beanstalk.............

Then i have nothing else to say. "We aren't even discussing the same thing."

You didn't have anything to say in the first place. That's why you invoked fantasy from the word go, about scapegoating, god, and myself.

(April 6, 2012 at 8:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You didn't have anything to say in the first place. That's why you invoked fantasy from the word go, about scapegoating, god, and myself.

In a thread for theist. Boost your ego all you want, its utterly pointless. You shouldn't even reply to anything to begin with, just ignore it if its all nonsense or fruitless.

Feel free to let words fall from your lips in service of magic all day long. But don't be surprised that I find it less than impressive, and completely unconvincing as a justification for bullshit that has a demonstrable counterpart here in the real world. Don't be surprised when I gently point out that your favorite fairy tale won't receive special consideration on any point, any issue. Lastly, don't be surprised if I tell you when I find something you've said to be completely disgusting, or absolute bullshit (especially when it comes to reading my fucking mind, or describing the specifics of my emotional experience here in this life along lines that correspond to whatever ghost story you're peddling).

"This is wrong everywhere else, but here, where it matters to me, and because my myth says so, it's okay. Not only is it okay, it is perhaps the greatest good simply because it is a part of my myth. A myth that I maintain is the absolute standard for what is or is not good (though I am incapable of demonstrating that this is the case). But only in this special case, anywhere else this is ridiculous, and so I would like to begin by defining my way out of it entirely" doesn't cut it for me. I don't think that it shouldn't cut it for you either, but opinions are like assholes. That's not even fuzzy thinking, that's willfully mindfucking yourself.

Put yourself into the shoes of a god, forget everything you've ever heard about other gods. I don't want to hear what any other god than CRod would do. Do you figure that you would set this system up to achieve the stated end? Is this the best solution that you could come up with? I don't want to hear about my pride, I don't want to hear about my ego, I don't give a shit whether or not you like me or how many things you can find to be condescending about. This is my gripe with christianity specifically. This single issue would prevent me from being a christian even if god himself showed up on my front doorstep and provided a convincing demonstration of his divinity. The idea of vicarious salvation, to me, is one of the shittiest ideas we've ever had. It strikes at the very core of what I consider to be the foundation of common decency. A willingness to accept responsibility for your actions and then take steps to redress grievances caused by those actions without relying on a proxy to accomplish this for you. A willingness to accept responsibility for your actions without even considering the thought of shifting the blame or burden onto another. Not in some other-world, not in some after-life, in this world and this life, no magic required. Now let's say you've thought about it, and figure that yeah, you would, seems like a good idea. Presumably some sort of miracle would be required to accomplish this, but if we're invoking miracles...abracadabra and a hand gesture, then why the theatrics of blood atonement? Why a living effigy? Why not just set fire to a wicker man? Why set fire to anything at all, it's the hand gesture and the magic words that do the heavy lifting anyway. While we're at it....why go through any of this at all? What, precisely, is being accomplished? Are you so desperate for company, or so blinded by love for your "children" that you cannot realize and accept that some of them may have done something completely unforgivable, that nothing can take this away? That perhaps, if you wish to fill a paradise with good people, you're going to have to exclude at least a few people. Not because they don't accept your "gifts", not because the proper thoughts and reverence weren't floating around in their heads, but for their actions, for what they had done and failed to rectify. Maybe, and this is just my opinion, for sitting around waiting for another to make it right, or even accepting that another could (or should). If there are acts which you cannot remedy, then maybe you just shouldn't do them, and perhaps we shouldn't be so willing to propose that even these things will be forgiven. I've seen quite a few peaceful faces headed to the execution chamber on the afternoon news. God had forgiven them, they'd found jesus. Well, if every eleventh hour plea will bear fruit then what's stopping us from doing these things in the first place? The whole bullshit narrative completely destroys the very concept it is attempting to establish. Atonement.

This isn't simply a problem of whether or not this happened. It's a problem at every level. Did this happen? Why did this happen? Who allowed this? Why would they consider this? Should we become accomplices in this? Can this be reversed? What sort of lesson is to be drawn from this? How should we think of a being that is capable and willing to do this? Is there a less magical explanation for this narrative? Are there better points to be made by this mundane explanation? I'd call that a dilemma for theists, but only if you're willing to address it. You could just evade it entirely......maybe tell me more about some part of myself you've imagined and find distasteful?

I try to end the argument and you proceed with writing the largest post i ever seen you write.lol
2nd para: Word salad
Now as for blood, I ask what science says about blood, what have we as the ones with the blood concluded about the blood?
Do we not have a prison or suffer the consequences on earth? I have never heard of someone getting away with a crime because they believed in Jesus. For dust you are and dust you will return. We will all die that is our consequence. Acceptance of Jesus doesn't take away all the wrong you ever did, its not suppose to. Your acceptance is your admittance you do sin. Its forgiveness not whitewash. We admit this not for our church or for our neighbor or for little Suzie Q down the street, we do it to better ourselves with this chance of forgiveness. This acceptance does not crush us, what kind of love would that be? It isn't that simple either, you haven't accepted it.

I also think the second paragraph is word salad, and since those would be the cliffnotes of our conversation from your end thusfar.....

You tell me what scientists have said about blood, and how this makes scapegoating a worthwhile endeavor. Or are we hoping to bicker about something else entirely now?

Sure do, prisons aplenty, one of which being faith of the sort you espouse. I can't point to anyone who got away with murder by being a christian either (except all of those who got away with murder by being a christian, you shouldn't have to think about that one very long), but I'm not sure what this has to do with our conversation (or my statement, which you are either incapable of processing or willfully sidestepping by inserting your own little point to comment upon. This is becoming a habit). Death is a "consequence" of life, nothing to do with any ghost stories. So what does acceptance of Jesus do? Oh forgiveness, I see. Undeserved forgiveness is a whitewash. You do it because human beings require a release from guilt and anxiety. Show me how you've bettered yourself by believing? This acceptance does crush you, if this acceptance involves scapegoating.

That's correct, I haven't and I won't, because its hideous bullshit and it makes my skin crawl to know that people swallow it hook line and sinker. Even worse, I'm related to all of them (however distantly).

You asked why it has to be blood atonement.
Undeserved forgiveness is merciful. It is because of love. He doesn't hold all our wrongs you want to fix and methodically and obsessively note. I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. Some wish not to hold everyone to their sin, in bondage and slaves to their mistakes. He wishes to free us and have the ability to free ourselves through admittance. What's wrong with that? It seems to take some reason, some notion to accept this clause. Do you think that notion is not enough?

(April 9, 2012 at 10:13 pm)C Rod Wrote: You asked why it has to be blood atonement.
Undeserved forgiveness is merciful. It is because of love. He doesn't hold all our wrongs you want to fix and methodically and obsessively note. I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. Some wish not to hold everyone to their sin, in bondage and slaves to their mistakes. He wishes to free us and have the ability to free ourselves through admittance. What's wrong with that? It seems to take some reason, some notion to accept this clause. Do you think that notion is not enough?

Consider this principle applied in real world.

The judge's son is up on manslaughter charges for drunk driving that killed three people. The judge loves his son. He does not want to hold him to every sin and every wrong, but wishes to be merciful and give undeserved forgiveness. He does not want his son to live in bondage (prison) for his mistake. So the judge does whatever he can to make sure that the son walks free. What's wrong with this? Isn't this notion not enough?

What does any of that have to do with blood CRod, and where were the scientists you mentioned? Enough for what? Enough to satisfy my sense of morality, goodness, or justice? No, it is not, not by a long shot. Quite the opposite, for reasons very adeptly summarized by Genk. Again, this is a hideous parody of atonement, redemption, or forgiveness.