What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Jenny A]

Beg all you like, it won't help.  What you would have to do is -demonstrate-.  Would you accept such a response from me, would you find it persuasive?  I doubt it.

I'm Christian. I follow the teaching of Christ. What parts of the NT bother you so much?

The biggest problem I have, the reason that I couldn't be a catholic, the reason that I have a moral objection to christianity -even if it were all true-?  Vicarious redemption.  Hell and thoughtcrimes swiftly on the heels, but mostly the vicarious redemption.

^This^

Though there are all kinds of factual problems with the NT I certainly prefer it to the OT.  But while it's message as to how people should treat one another is much better than the OT (though by no means perfect), it's central premise that one innocent person (or god for that matter) can pay for other people's crimes is morally insane.   If I killed your brother (assuming you have one) would you feel better if my brother agreed to be hung?  But wait, there's another moral premise in the NT that is to my mind equally bad.  That is that the penalty for all infractions major or minor is eternal hellfire.  Moral punishment is proportional to the crime.  The NT is devoid of proportion.  Finally, it appears that the sacrifice of the innocent Jesus (odd though that premise is) isn't actually enough, there's an arbitrary addition that you have to believe in his resurrection despite the lack of evidence of it in order to reap the benefits of his sacrifice.  Let's go back to my self sacrificing brother, I get off Scott free but only if I (not you apparently) believe my brother died for me.   It's an insane proposition.  The whole thing turns morality as we know it on it's head.