Dear Atheists

[robvalue]

Not sure whether to do a separate topic on this, but we'll see:

We all have a code of behaviour. I'd broadly separate it into pragmatism and morality. Most people will have both, although some people will lack the latter.

Pragmatism is simply behaving in a way which gets you the results you want. Morality is where you alter this behaviour so as to take into account other people/animals.

For example, it's pragmatic for me not to punch a guy in the street for no reason. I don't want to get into a fight. I have nothing to gain and a lot to lose. I also don't want to punch him for moral reasons, but in this case it overlaps so it's not a clear distinction.

As another example, some stranger asks me for directions. I have nothing to gain by telling them, and nothing to lose by not telling them. Yet I take the time to do so anyway. My morality has affected my code of conduct and overridden pure pragmatism.

[GOĐ]

IKR, even Drich can see why that excerpt fails to explain anything to me, lol.  Neverthless, even if I believed that any of it was more than a fairy tale..which I don't...and even if the account presented in that excerpt was accurate with regards to the narrative...which it isn't. (by error of convenient omission)....how would it address the seemingly inexplicable reference to yourself as being a believer in something you -don't- believe in?

So -what- if he was a scapegoat....we don't disagree on that, though I don't think that has anything to do with "dying for his friends".... lol....and again, if it wasn't substitutionary with respect to sin and atonement then in what way is he christ, and...flowing from that, in what way are you christian?  In what way is he even sacrificial?  Did this death please god somehow?  You're describing a story in which a guy got axed because society can be real shitty.....and he decided he'd push them until they did it.  That's a fairly common narrative.  Again, a principled stand...impressive social protest...but why did he -have- to die, again?

I think that you'll find that the author of that book subscribes to vicarious redemption.....the author was an anglican bishop....he repackages or rebrands substitution, he doesn't challenge or deny it, not even in that passage you quoted.  That explicitly lays out how he absorbs into himself the charges made against all of humanity.  That is the very definition of the notion of vicarious redemption, of substitution.  Let me ask you a question.  What happens nxt, after he stands in for all of us, after he absorbs all of our charges?  He's executed...yes?  What did that do, why is it "for us"?

Nice talking to you Rhythm, I'll try to address it later God willing! You have many good questions.

I feel Rhythm had several direct and valid arguments that, I for one, would like a follow up to Paragon.

Paragon are you there? 
It's now significantly "later" and has your god "willed" you to address his points?

I feel that if you truly wanted this rag-tag group of non-believers to understand your so-called faith, you should at least stick around long enough to defend this bizarre brand of "christianity" you have going.

Yes?