(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.