JWs do believe that salvation comes through accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and seeking absolution through that redemptive act. Because they separate Yahweh and Jesus and focus their worship on Yahweh, the issue gets confused. I think that their view is that Yahweh sacrificing himself would have been too great a price to pay, that humanity didn't merit that level of sacrifice. A perfect human life for a perfect human life would suffice.

---

(September 26, 2014 at 9:55 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Responsibility is never skipped. You're convicted then, more than ever, to put right any debt you have that you can resolve. You can't be forgiven your misdeeds it you have outstanding debts. Your hypocrisy would prevent it.

I'm not sure I understand. We can achieve forgiveness for some of our debt on our own, but require that sacrifice for the rest? Or do you mean something else?

What I want to know is, how was it even a sacrifice? Jesus is god, and god didn't die. Jesus only died for 3 days, and then spent the rest of the time ruling from heaven. So where is the sacrifice? A bit of suffering, which he could have chosen to ignore cos he's like, god. He could just say he suffered and we wouldn't know any different. He is still ruling with himself, as alive as before, with a buddy who is also him. If he gave up omnipotence or something, now that would be a sacrifice.

It is the most ridiculous story I have ever heard.

Oh yeah, christians, and the bible, can't decide whether Jesus is actually god or not. Even if he's not, he still gets to rule forever, he's not done bad out of it.

(September 26, 2014 at 10:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: Empathy is the reason that vicarious redemption works for you......? I want you to put that statement under a microscope, give it the sort of thought you've clearly never given it before - because something is amiss.

JWs -are- christians Frodo.
http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/...hristians/

Y'ok waiting for your thoughts.

I'm not disputing that JWs are Christians R. They're just non trinitarian Christians. When I refer to mainstream Christians I don't include them or Mormons, to name the top two.

---

(September 26, 2014 at 10:11 am)Tonus Wrote: I'm not sure I understand. We can achieve forgiveness for some of our debt on our own, but require that sacrifice for the rest? Or do you mean something else?

That debt which is humanly resolvable

---

(September 26, 2014 at 10:18 am)robvalue Wrote: What I want to know is, how was it even a sacrifice?

Hence the finger analogy

It seems to me that Rhythm has done a lot of research on what the crucifixion means to the various xtian cults. It would be cool if a short punchy version of each one in R's inimical style as part of a catchy visual would be most excellent. Might go viral, leading to a mass awaking, the death of all religion and, yes, the rapture when God comes down to see what's happened to all His hosannahs.

(September 26, 2014 at 10:29 am)whateverist Wrote: Might go viral, leading to a mass awaking, the death of all religion and, yes, the rapture when God comes down to see what's happened to all His hosannahs.

Imagine if he found them all smiling and happy? He'd have to go from one to the next, begging "Oh, Hosannah, won't you cry for me?"

You already know my thoughts on the matter. Vicarious redemption is immoral. I've explained why I hold this position (multiple times). You can dispute my position anytime you like, using any of the examples I've given (or any of your own devising, which I will respond to...as I have to every example offered).

You've already stated that you would help me keep jesus off the cross, all that's left (for me, anyway) is to figure out why you've accepted the ill gotten gains of an act that you would prevent.

Are you in the habit of accepting stolen merchandise?
Are you the kind of person that would rummage through a dead mans wallet?
Would you accept an award for the work that another has done?
Would you let another serve a term for a crime you've committed?

(September 26, 2014 at 3:54 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 25, 2014 at 9:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think we all lose, by the dimunition of personal responsibility, and even more by the dilution of moral concepts. Are you really arguing that killing an innocent to expiate the sins he hasn't committed is just?

If it is just in your view, that means your morals are relative -- because that is no action you'd condone from any living human, presumably, meaning that there are at least two sets of morals depending on who is the actor.

If it is not just, that means your god has at least one imperfection on his account.

So, God went beyond generosity and you think that equals evil? That's some spin you got going.

It isn't generosity. Here's why:

God created our human nature.

God knew that that human nature would not be able to resist sin.

God created a Tempter whose powers far exceeded that of any human, whose flawed nature meant we couldn't resist temptation.

God strung a version of himself up on a cross and insisted that we accept it in order to expiate the sin that he built us to commit and tempted us with through his lackey, Satan.

To then say, "Accept this sacrifice or I will torture you forever through my lackey, Satan," is the act of holding my soul hostage. Now, you may argue that it's right because he can do it, which is "might makes right" -- but I wouldn't advise that.

No, this was no sacrifice at all -- especially considering that god's avatar died, but the being itself didn't, according to this tale. This was rather a transparent attempt to first establish guilt in humans so that our obeisance would be assured.

Or rather, it was an attempt by the collators of your religion to establish guilt in humans, in order to assure steady funding from the gullible.

(September 26, 2014 at 10:36 am)Rhythm Wrote: You already know my thoughts on the matter. Vicarious redemption is immoral. I've explained why I hold this position (multiple times). You can dispute my position anytime you like, using any of the examples I've given (or any of your own devising, which I will respond to...as I have to every example offered).

You've already stated that you would help me keep jesus off the cross, all that's left (for me, anyway) is to figure out why you've accepted the ill gotten gains of an act that you would prevent.

Are you in the habit of accepting stolen merchandise?
Are you the kind of person that would rummage through a dead mans wallet?
Would you accept an award for the work that another has done?
Would you let another serve a term for a crime you've committed?

All I know is that you find it immoral. I don't know why. So it's hollow reasoning to me.
Everyone would and did try to prevent it happening. Nothing revolutionary there. The act was a deliberate one. The point of that persons life.
Over and over again you make ridiculous comparisons, like the one above with stolen merchandise??? And rigging a dead man??? If that's supposed to be reasoning then I think you're all mouth and no trousers.

Then you should read the thread. It's not as though I haven't explained it many times over, mostly for your trollish benefit.

-Don't hurt people, don't share stolen cookies.

No, everyone -would not-. Michael made his position on the matter plain. You and I would prevent it (despite the gospels comments on the matter). Why? Even though you would prevent it, you are still satisfied with profiting -from it-. Why?

It should be easy for you to answer those "ridiculous comparisons" in a way that doesn't compromise your position...being ridiculous..I'd suppose. If you don't like those....read the thread....I've offered many, many more.

(September 26, 2014 at 2:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: All I know is that you find it immoral. I don't know why. So it's hollow reasoning to me.
Everyone would and did try to prevent it happening. Nothing revolutionary there. The act was a deliberate one. The point of that persons life.
Over and over again you make ridiculous comparisons, like the one above with stolen merchandise??? And rigging a dead man??? If that's supposed to be reasoning then I think you're all mouth and no trousers.

Have you ever watched "Kissing Hank's Ass"?

Only about 7 minutes long.

After watching this, let us know if you think the scenario depicted is moral or immoral.