Quote:By most accounts, the idea of loving your enemies originated from the Bible.

This isn't true. The idea of loving your enemies was already present in many branches of Greek philosophy. Anyway, the Golden Rule is the same in all moral philosophies who accept it, the different is whether it's exposed in the negative form ("Don't do to others what you wouldn't want to be done to you") or in the positive form ("Do to others what you would want to be done to you").

Both the positive and the negative form pose big theorethical problems, by the way. What if you wouldn't want to be saved by death in a certain situation, but your neighbor would? And conversely, what if you're masochist who enjoys pain, but other people don't?

A better moral maxim is the negative form of the individual freedom rule:"Don't do to other people what they don't want you to do". The positive form of the freedom rule ("Do to others what they want you to do") can also be used as a moral maxim, even though it might be problematic as well.

The most neutral form of this maxim is also the most acceptable:"Treat others as they wish to be treated". It's not centered on the self, unlike the Golden Rule, and it's neither negative nor positive.

Quote:Or here's an analogy: Martha's son Tim jumps in a mud puddle. Martha tells him, "You cannot come back in the house until you spray yourself off with that hose." Tim refuses. She walks outside and turns the hose on. The boy runs away across the street. In doing so, he is hit by a car and dies, because it was dark and the driver couldn't see him with all that mud on. Now who's the logical character in this story? If you say the mother, the Bible checks out just fine.

I'm sorry, but this story isn't a good analogy with the Bible. To be more consistent with the actions of the Christian (and Jewish) god, Martha should have pushed Tim under the car, and also push George, Tim's friend who is prefectly clean, just because he was a friend of Tim's.

(November 28, 2012 at 4:56 am)catfish Wrote:

(November 28, 2012 at 4:25 am)Cinjin Wrote: Isn't the Bible pretty clear about Jesus dying for our sins?

Obviously I don't think so or else I wouldn't have written what I did...

What you think has no effect on what is written in the Bible regarding the sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of sin. You can ignore the idea, but it is plainly written in the Bible (Hebrews 10:10-12 is an example).

I am content ridiculing and chastising Christians for the patently immoral idea of vicarious atonement via human sacrifice; however, if you have some scriptural based argument that will turn 1800+ years of Christian theology on its head, I am all ears.

Simply saying you don't think so isn't a sufficient argument.

Kirbmarc Wrote:I'm sorry, but this story isn't a good analogy with the Bible. To be more consistent with the actions of the Christian (and Jewish) god, Martha should have pushed Tim under the car, and also push George, Tim's friend who is prefectly clean, just because he was a friend of Tim's.

I also like the fact that the analogy completely ignores god's omnisicience and omnipotence. How many mothers wouldn't let their kid come in the house covered in filth if they knew forcing them to stay outside would result in their kid's death, and how many mothers would sit by idly as a car they had the power to stop ran over their kid in the street?

(November 28, 2012 at 8:46 am)cato123 Wrote:

(November 28, 2012 at 4:56 am)catfish Wrote: Obviously I don't think so or else I wouldn't have written what I did...

What you think has no effect on what is written in the Bible regarding the sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of sin. You can ignore the idea, but it is plainly written in the Bible (Hebrews 10:10-12 is an example).

I am content ridiculing and chastising Christians for the patently immoral idea of vicarious atonement via human sacrifice; however, if you have some scriptural based argument that will turn 1800+ years of Christian theology on its head, I am all ears.

Simply saying you don't think so isn't a sufficient argument.

Read the thread I started on the subject. Meanwhile, I'll continue ridiculing the people who claimed to have read the Bible but obviously haven't...

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14172.html

(November 28, 2012 at 12:32 am)Rhythm Wrote: A god that loved me wouldn't offer such a horrid exchange

You're on death row, and the judge comes and tells you, "Someone has taken your place, you're free to go." Later, the man who died for you shows up on your doorstep alive, asking for friendship. What about that is horrid?

---

(November 28, 2012 at 7:45 am)Kirbmarc Wrote: The idea of loving your enemies was already present in many branches of Greek philosophy.

Citation?

(November 28, 2012 at 1:57 pm)Undeceived Wrote: You're on death row, and the judge comes and tells you, "Someone has taken your place, you're free to go." Later, the man who died for you shows up on your doorstep alive, asking for friendship. What about that is horrid?

That someone was executed for something I had done. That much should have been obvious. That you even needed to ask demonstrates the gaping chasm between our two positions on the subject of what is or is not horrid.

But since I already see you building your excuse, I'll pre-empt it.

Suppose, in our prison system, with our death row inmates..we allowed others to stand in for convicted murderers and be shot, in the heart, to kill them. Suppose we had a crack team of doctors on stand-by to "resurrect" this little lamb the moment they flatlined? Then we just let said death row inmate go. No harm, no foul. Whadda you think, should we start looking for someone to sponsor this bill? Let's call it "The Christian Values Act of 2012" or something, eh? make it sound friendly..because we already know that making it "sound friendly" works....don't we........

(November 28, 2012 at 1:39 pm)catfish Wrote: Read the thread I started on the subject. Meanwhile, I'll continue ridiculing the people who claimed to have read the Bible but obviously haven't...

The thread you linked does not provide support for your baseless assertion; namely, that the Bible is not specific regarding Jesus being sacrificed for the remission of everyone's sins. You may not like human sacrifices, but this doesn't change what the Bible says. If anything, this is grounds for concluding that you agree with the OP regarding Yahweh's immoral behavior.

Your religious views may be unique and personal, but I think it's ridiculous for anyone to claim that a central tenet of Christianity has no scriptural support. I don't believe this shit, but I'm not so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible doesn't say what it clearly does.

While you are busy ridiculing people for not reading the Bible, why don't you read the verses I pointed out.

Undeceived Wrote:You're on death row, and the judge comes and tells you, "Someone has taken your place, you're free to go." Later, the man who died for you shows up on your doorstep alive, asking for friendship. What about that is horrid?

Ask the relatives of the victim(s) of the crime that landed that person on death row, and you shall have your answer.

You think a scapegoater gives a shit about the pain of others? Much more generous in your estimations of people than I am Faith. Good man.

Maybe he/she isn't so much a scapegoater, but he/she has been convinced that a scapegoat is needed.

Or maybe I'm just naive.