LISTEN, CHRISTIANS!

[MTL]

Actually no, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that fairly meted out justice is an important response to immoral acts. However, contracting syphilis is an amoral act, in that there's no repercussions beyond the personal through which to give it a moral dimension on its own. Before you start blustering about how the bible says sex is immoral, I'd remind you that I don't place any stock in fiat command, and instead formulate my morals based on a consideration of effects and intent, within a framework of what can be reasonably predicted at any given time.

All that is, of course, beside the point, because you keep wanting to make this about medicine when the actual problem is with Jesus. The reason I object to the Jesus story is because, by taking punishment for the sins of others he has committed an immoral, counterproductive act. Justice and atonement, the punishment for crimes and selfless redress for harmful action, serves a number of easily justifiable pragmatic purposes that are at the core of both concepts: personal accountability for harmful acts is a deterrent to further harm to the community, and it removes people who could be a danger from society. Atonement is a means of personal growth, where one sincerely goes to the person they have wronged to make amends, which is important in itself. By taking the punishment for these acts, Jesus has robbed justice of its purpose, and stunted the growth of others by removing the need for atonement. His "sacrifice" is either directly harmful, where it concerns real crimes, or it's unnecessary, where it concerns the magical thinking supernatural "crimes" that only exist because god sez so.

It's so obvious, if you were a normal person and not a blowhard I'd have a hard time believing you weren't getting it: if a man beats his wife and another man goes to jail in his stead, has the first man improved? Has he been rendered not dangerous to his wife? No: he's just learned that he can get away with it. At the very best, he's still a violent person in close quarters with a helpless woman that, if we take the bible seriously, can't divorce him. Nothing improves because of this vicarious redemption, it doesn't do any of the things that punishment is supposed to do, and no I don't think "making the guilty party suffer" is a part of that, which removes your syphilis example from the running right away.

Here's the problem with your analogy It is required that you first repent of your sins before you can benefit from the atonement, that means to turn away from sin, do a 180 and go the other direction. If the man truly repented then he is granted the holy spirit and will not beat his wife again, and since his punishment has already been served there is no need for jail time. Now if he goes back to beating his wife, then it shows that there was no repentance and until he sincerely repents he will die in his sins and be held accountable.

Regarding medicine, nobody is "guilty" of being sick, sickness is not a crime that people commit, and there's no need to atone because there's nobody to atone to. Within the context of how I view morality, there is no need for redemption there, for one, and even if there was that redemption does not come with the problematic aspects of the biblical narrative because there's nothing in the use of medicine that subverts the purpose of medicine.

The ethics of the medical experiments in question aren't contested; obviously they were bad. But they happened, and it is in keeping with the purview of medicine to use the knowledge gained through them to prevent further sickness; in this case, the sacrifice works as intended, prevents suffering, and effects good. In the case of Jesus, the sacrifice does not work as a force for good, and ends up causing suffering by giving its adherents a mindset where the price has already been paid, so they have no accountability themselves. The Jesus example subverts the cause of justice and atonement that it claims to champion, whereas the medical example is consistent with the principles of healing and the prevention of harm that it champions, and therein lies the important difference. You can't just go "but they're both redemption!" here, Huggy.

... Not that it'll stop you, of course.

Sin is not an immoral act or crime that people commit, sin is UNBELIEF. Unbelief is what causes people to do immoral acts, and unbelief entered in through Adam and Eve. The bible states we are born into sin (what immoral act did a baby commit?), through no fault of our own. No different than being born with a disease.

Yep. You got me. That's exactly what I'm advocating for.  

Could it be that perhaps I find the concept of sin entirely arbitrary and unnecessary? Something that god could have gotten rid of with no great effort, because "offending god" is not some instant immoral act?  So that what I'm advocating is not "everyone pay the price for their own sins," but "god should grow up and remove the whole pointless concept in favor of a realistic system devoid of the frothing exaggeration at the heart of sin"?  

You remember that scripture about "in the beginning was the Word and that Word was God and the Word was with god And the Word was made flesh" ect.?

God IS his Word... If God can't change neither can his word, because he IS the word. If God does change his mind, then that means he's not infinite, because he figured out a better way to achieve something when he should of had it perfect from the beginning.  God decreed that the wages of sin was death, that decree can never change, But what God CAN do is pay the penalty himself.

I don't wish to be rude....I am new here and not terribly well acquainted with forum etiquette....

....may I join in, or would that be considered obnoxious?  I feel like I'm horning-in on your convo,

but on the other hand, I think that is the whole point of a forum for discussion?  Anyone can join in, no?