Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[The Grand Nudger]

I said the opposite

I think you stopped reading what I wrote 2 posts ago. If you'd like to continue I'll wait for you to address my points. Enjoy urinating into the wind in the meantime.

No, Frodo, you didn't say the opposite. I quoted you then, I'll quote you again. If you meant to say the opposite, fine.

I didn't ask you about justice, I asked you about morality, so your points were (and remain) irrelevant. Nevertheless, I gave you the opportunity to develop them further - because I doubt that you'll be able to argue for vicarious redemption along those lines either. I doubt that you be able to argue for it along -any- lines, frankly.

My objections have nothing to do with an imbalance, balance is not a criteria that I find to be salient either for morality or justice. If balance were a factor....it would have nothing to do with my objection. I wouldn't be interested in balancing out the scales of my failings with another's life - even if it were possible to do so. This has been my position for the entirety of the thread. As I've said many times, if this is how the cosmos is arranged, then so be it - I'm uninterested, because it is immoral.

Is there such a point for you, whereby the life of another is both capable of "balancing" some weight created by your own inequity - and acceptable to you as payment for the same? Perhaps, if you had -a great many- parking tickets you would accept someone else's life as suitable payment? Is there some point at which such a trade becomes just or moral - in balance? Care to do a little math on that count, for the benefit of those who don't get it?

(I'm content to attack your positions day in and day out, if you insist upon redirecting the conversation that way, clearly - as I stated long ago, I think that christians have compartmentalized this jesus business. I'm going to insist that you apply a consistent standard to vicarious redemption and parking tickets)