Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 14, 2015 at 12:45 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Not accurate.
Jesus' death was a cure for sin (the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world), Not just for sins that had been committed, for there were future generations to benefit that didn't yet exist to commit sin.
I don't really care? It's your story, and your contention doesn't even discuss the actual objection I had. It doesn't matter whether the sins were those of the current day or all future ones, the issue is that the Jesus scenario concerns someone taking on the atonement of people who should, morally and personally, be doing the atonement themselves. This is an issue that medicine does not have, since sickness is not something one is guilty of and needs to atone for, it's something one is afflicted with. The actual problem with scapegoating atonement isn't present in the other part of your comparison.
Quote:Jesus made the choice to sacrifice his life, he didn't have to do it, yet you guys seem to think that to be immoral.
If I arranged it so that I took the punishment and allowed a serial killer to walk free, would that be immoral? What you're describing is justice being averted; yes, someone stood to gain something from Jesus' sacrifice, but not all gain is deserved. The whole point of justice is to punish those who do evil in order to make evil less palatable as an option, the whole point of atonement is to have the person grow through self-sacrifice so they hopefully avoid the need for it in future, it's an expression of sincere guilt and a need for redress, something Jesus' crucifixion robs us of.
That is, of course, ignoring the fact that the entire thing was completely unnecessary, a charge I've laid out before to which your response was little more than "that's the way it is!"
Quote:Now compare that to the earlier example of syphilis I gave. syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease, so wouldn't you say that if a person contracts it, it's their own fault?
Not necessarily. Making huge blanket generalizations just leaves you wrong more times than not, Huggy. But that's beside the point, because one is never "guilty" of syphilis. They made a choice that had as an unforeseen consequence- and it is an unforeseen consequence because nobody who fully knows that the consequence of a given sexual encounter will be syphilis will actually go through with it- a serious disease. There is nobody to atone to in that scenario, no harm to another person. There's nothing to be redeemed for, and hence no vicarious redemption.
Quote:Yet you can be cured of syphilis thanks to the 40 years of African-American men being (unbeknownst to them) infected with the disease in the name of scientific progress..
And you know what? I'm against that, I think that's an obscene violation of ethics, that those experiments took place. I feel the need to say that, since you apparently just assume that everyone advocates for every single atrocity unless they voice otherwise.
Quote:These men died to provide a cure for a disease of people that were sexually irresponsible.....vicarious redemption.
Except without the redemption part, so you're still a goddamn idiot.
Quote:Again, how are they not comparable?
The things that we are objecting to in the Jesus narrative are not present in the medicine one. They are not comparable in the way that actually matters, if you want to start calling people hypocrites over this.
Not that it's going to stop you, since you're incapable of admitting- possibly even seeing?- your own wrongdoing at any point.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(July 14, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The mistake you make is separating Jesus from God, they are one and the same.
A child is born into this world through blood, and pain, do you consider that to be sadistic?
Huggy74,
Forgive me if someone has asked you this before;
I am new and I find the prospect of digging through all past threads, a bit daunting,
so if you'll allow me to ask:
Your profile says that you "believe in God, not Religion";
This is a view I have no problem with, whatsoever
(and one that I wish more people would adopt).
However, in this post you espouse Christian dogma....that Jesus IS God.
To me, that IS Religion....which your profile claims to eschew.
This seems incongruous to me.
If you are interested in elucidating, I'm interested to hear what you have to say on it.
July 14, 2015 at 1:27 pm (This post was last modified: July 14, 2015 at 1:31 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(July 14, 2015 at 1:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
(July 14, 2015 at 12:45 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Not accurate.
Jesus' death was a cure for sin (the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world), Not just for sins that had been committed, for there were future generations to benefit that didn't yet exist to commit sin.
I don't really care? It's your story, and your contention doesn't even discuss the actual objection I had. It doesn't matter whether the sins were those of the current day or all future ones, the issue is that the Jesus scenario concerns someone taking on the atonement of people who should, morally and personally, be doing the atonement themselves. This is an issue that medicine does not have, since sickness is not something one is guilty of and needs to atone for, it's something one is afflicted with. The actual problem with scapegoating atonement isn't present in the other part of your comparison.
Quote:Jesus made the choice to sacrifice his life, he didn't have to do it, yet you guys seem to think that to be immoral.
If I arranged it so that I took the punishment and allowed a serial killer to walk free, would that be immoral? What you're describing is justice being averted; yes, someone stood to gain something from Jesus' sacrifice, but not all gain is deserved. The whole point of justice is to punish those who do evil in order to make evil less palatable as an option, the whole point of atonement is to have the person grow through self-sacrifice so they hopefully avoid the need for it in future, it's an expression of sincere guilt and a need for redress, something Jesus' crucifixion robs us of.
That is, of course, ignoring the fact that the entire thing was completely unnecessary, a charge I've laid out before to which your response was little more than "that's the way it is!"
Quote:Now compare that to the earlier example of syphilis I gave. syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease, so wouldn't you say that if a person contracts it, it's their own fault?
Not necessarily. Making huge blanket generalizations just leaves you wrong more times than not, Huggy. But that's beside the point, because one is never "guilty" of syphilis. They made a choice that had as an unforeseen consequence- and it is an unforeseen consequence because nobody who fully knows that the consequence of a given sexual encounter will be syphilis will actually go through with it- a serious disease. There is nobody to atone to in that scenario, no harm to another person. There's nothing to be redeemed for, and hence no vicarious redemption.
Quote:Yet you can be cured of syphilis thanks to the 40 years of African-American men being (unbeknownst to them) infected with the disease in the name of scientific progress..
And you know what? I'm against that, I think that's an obscene violation of ethics, that those experiments took place. I feel the need to say that, since you apparently just assume that everyone advocates for every single atrocity unless they voice otherwise.
Quote:These men died to provide a cure for a disease of people that were sexually irresponsible.....vicarious redemption.
Except without the redemption part, so you're still a goddamn idiot.
Quote:Again, how are they not comparable?
The things that we are objecting to in the Jesus narrative are not present in the medicine one. They are not comparable in the way that actually matters, if you want to start calling people hypocrites over this.
Not that it's going to stop you, since you're incapable of admitting- possibly even seeing?- your own wrongdoing at any point.
Quote:redeem
1 a : to buy back : repurchase
b : to get or win back 2 : to free from what distresses or harms: as
a : to free from captivity by payment of ransom b : to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental
c : to release from blame or debt : clear d : to free from the consequences of sin
3 : to change for the better : reform
4 : repair, restore
5 a : to free from a lien by payment of an amount secured thereby
b (1) : to remove the obligation of by payment <the United States Treasury redeems savings bonds on demand> (2) : to exchange for something of value <redeem trading stamps>
c : to make good : fulfill
6 a : to atone for : expiate <redeem an error> b (1) : to offset the bad effect of (2) : to make worthwhile : retrieve
Are you saying a cure doesn't free from what distresses or harms?
Are you saying a cure doesn't extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental?
Are you saying a cure doesn't offset the bad effect of?
A cure is indeed redemption because it is meant to restore you back to health. Just as Jesus' sacrifice was to restore man back to what he originally was in the beginning.
(July 14, 2015 at 1:18 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Let's use one of y'all favorite images. Suppose a person who believed in unicorns showed up in the forum like I did, and started posting arguments for the existence of unicorns. Do you think that person would be the recipient of the vile memes, videos, language and blasphemy that were and are thrown at me on a daily basis?
Yes! Of course yes! Are you really that deep in your fucking persecution complex that you seriously believe we would not ridicule any ideas other than yours?
Jesud fuck, get over yourself Randy. Maybe you'd have more respectful responses if you stopped being so insufferable all the time.
No, Nemo. I'm pretty secure in every area of my life. I don't have a persecution complex - I just notice double-standards.
July 14, 2015 at 1:57 pm (This post was last modified: July 14, 2015 at 2:11 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(July 14, 2015 at 1:20 pm)MTL Wrote:
(July 14, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The mistake you make is separating Jesus from God, they are one and the same.
A child is born into this world through blood, and pain, do you consider that to be sadistic?
Huggy74,
Forgive me if someone has asked you this before;
I am new and I find the prospect of digging through all past threads, a bit daunting,
so if you'll allow me to ask:
Your profile says that you "believe in God, not Religion";
This is a view I have no problem with, whatsoever
(and one that I wish more people would adopt).
However, in this post you espouse Christian dogma....that Jesus IS God.
To me, that IS Religion....which your profile claims to eschew.
This seems incongruous to me.
If you are interested in elucidating, I'm interested to hear what you have to say on it.
I believe there is one supreme being which in and of itself is not a religion, a religion is man made and consists of a set of beliefs and traditions instructing you on what you can and can't do. A christian is free to do whatever he wants to do, there are no rules, but if you call yourself a christian and willfully commit sin, then it shows that the spirit of God isn't in you. A person with the spirit of God, would have no desire to sin, and therefore need no "religion"
I'll use this analogy, say two people are in love and decide to get married. Religion would be like having a list of do's and don'ts that you had to follow during the course of the marriage.
In a true marriage the husband or wife is free to do what they want, but loves each other so much that they would never do anything to hurt the other. But IF one so happened to mess up and have an affair and was truly repentant, then the other loves them enough to forgive them.
Willfully having affairs shows that they never truly love their spouse to begin with.
Short answer.. I don't belong to a denomination or any organization.
(July 14, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The mistake you make is separating Jesus from God, they are one and the same.
A child is born into this world through blood, and pain, do you consider that to be sadistic?
No, I consider that to be part of the suffering that is inherent in the natural course of life. If it were a punishment that your god had inflicted on women, I would consider it sadistic, and I would consider your god sadistic for doing it.
Fuck your semantics-mongering trinity bullshit. Jesus may have been god, but he was also the son of god, which means god the father decided to sacrifice god the son, even if he was also sacrificing himself. The trinity is nothing but an argumentative convenience that allows you to treat god as either one thing or many things, and to switch back and forth at will to keep dodging arguments. It's the device by which a clearly polytheistic religion touts the claim of being a monotheistic religion. It is sneaky, underhanded, and dishonest; in other words, it's very christian of you.
In any case, Jesus/Jehovah knew what he was doing, what was being done to him, and why it was all happening, and he still did it on purpose. The men in your story (who, by the way, actually fucking existed, unlike anyone else we're talking about), had no such knowledge and made no such choices. People just did that to them. The mistake YOU make is that you have no understanding of the concept of informed consent, or at least your response doesn't indicate that. It only indicates you're willing to throw up more obfuscation when someone is pinning you to the floor with a sack of your own bullshit.
Verbatim from the mouth of Jesus (retranslated from a retranslation of a copy of a copy):
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you too will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. How can you see your brother's head up his ass when your own vision is darkened by your head being even further up your ass? How can you say to your brother, 'Get your head out of your ass,' when all the time your head is up your own ass? You hypocrite! First take your head out of your own ass, and then you will see clearly who has his head up his ass and who doesn't." Matthew 7:1-5 (also Luke 6: 41-42)
July 14, 2015 at 2:38 pm (This post was last modified: July 14, 2015 at 2:44 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(July 14, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: No, I consider that to be part of the suffering that is inherent in the natural course of life. If it were a punishment that your god had inflicted on women, I would consider it sadistic, and I would consider your god sadistic for doing it.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;- Genesis 3:16
Quote:Fuck your semantics-mongering trinity bullshit. Jesus may have been god, but he was also the son of god, which means god the father decided to sacrifice god the son, even if he was also sacrificing himself. The trinity is nothing but an argumentative convenience that allows you to treat god as either one thing or many things, and to switch back and forth at will to keep dodging arguments. It's the device by which a clearly polytheistic religion touts the claim of being a monotheistic religion. It is sneaky, underhanded, and dishonest; in other words, it's very christian of you.
I have never claimed God existed in a trinity, he has only ever been One God..
Are you married? do you have kids? If so then you a husband, father, and son.... does that make you three different people?
Quote:In any case, Jesus/Jehovah knew what he was doing, what was being done to him, and why it was all happening, and he still did it on purpose. The men in your story (who, by the way, actually fucking existed, unlike anyone else we're talking about), had no such knowledge and made no such choices. People just did that to them. The mistake YOU make is that you have no understanding of the concept of informed consent, or at least your response doesn't indicate that. It only indicates you're willing to throw up more obfuscation when someone is pinning you to the floor with a sack of your own bullshit.
you realize that makes it worse right?
So you admit that science has committed that atrocity and that you don't believe "vicarious redemption" ever actually happened anyway. It seems you should make better use of your time and protest science.
(July 14, 2015 at 1:27 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Are you saying a cure doesn't free from what distresses or harms?
Are you saying a cure doesn't extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental?
Are you saying a cure doesn't offset the bad effect of?
A cure is indeed redemption because it is meant to restore you back to health. Just as Jesus' sacrifice was to restore man back to what he originally was in the beginning.
Are you just not reading my posts before you disagree with them? Come back when you actually understand why we object to the Jesus narrative's vicarious redemption, because I don't have the time for someone who refuses to know what he's talking about, but still thinks he has some informed position from which to disagree. The objection to the Jesus redemption is not present in the medical one; if you're intent on just playing definition games to attempt to win points then I'll just use your terminology. It doesn't get you any closer to being right, anyway.
"Driving," is not the objectionable part of "drunk driving," and "redemption" is not at issue in this discussion, if we're to go along with your definitions.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
