God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

[Greatest I am]

Meh - the god of the bible does whatever he wants and then tells everyone all actions from a deity are just.

Of course I don't think his decision to sacrifice his son is moral ... but than again, damn few of his decisions have ever had any moral or ethical value. We're talking about Yahweh the Horrible here.

You see 20/20.

Regards
DL

---

Sending your son to die for your mistake and the crimes of others when theres an infinite amount of alternatives available to you because you're an all-powerful, all-knowing being?
Is that immoral?
Is that the question?

Yep. And I think I have your answer and agree beforehand.

Regards
DL

---

It's really very simple:

Good vid. Thanks.

Regards
DL

---

Wait, isn't god the same as jesus? *scratches head* you know, the trinity? Or are those not true christians™?

They are trying to be but you can see what it does to logic and reason.

Martin Luther was quite right.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Regards
DL

[Drich]

"Morality" is a variable and not an absolute standard. In essecne morality is whatever you want it to be. To judge this moral or immoral means nothing aside from taking a survey of the popular moral standard of your peers on this board. Morality is not the standard of righteousness you believe it to be.

To make this assertion based from the bible, one would have to ignore the rest of the bible that calls for the death/blood sacerfice of Christ.

I thought God was supposed to be the absoloute standard of morality yet he is in violation of his own commandments. Either he isn't as moral as he claims in which case why follow him or the commandments aren't a real standard of his morality in which case hes a liar and we can't trust his word for anything... in which case why follow him.

No God is the Standard of Absolute righteousness.

Morality is man's own personal version of righteousness, that allows for the sin he is willing to accept into that standard.
(See my thread on definations)

So that makes any version of morality a self righteous attempt at The Righteous standard of God. That is why it can be said that morality is whatever you want it to be. Look at Oscar Shiendler, was he not considered a moral man for saving as many jews from the death camps as he did? Yet he was still a war profiteer and supporter/member of the Nazi party. Who exploited the slave labor of the jews to supply the germany with everything from pots and pans to 88mm shells. Yet we considered him to be a moral man (and rightfully so.) However that does not make him a Truly Righteous one.

Morality is Man's standard, Absolute Righteousness belongs to God.

[Greatest I am]

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral

"Morality" is a variable and not an absolute standard. In essecne morality is whatever you want it to be. To judge this moral or immoral means nothing aside from taking a survey of the popular moral standard of your peers on this board. Morality is not the standard of righteousness you believe it to be.

and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

To make this assertion based from the bible, one would have to ignore the rest of the bible that calls for the death/blood sacerfice of Christ.

Or admit that it is all a myth.

I assume you chose your God and did not just inherit him from daddy and granddaddy.

If so it would have been on his morals.

If his first moral edict is not harm/care for children then what is it?

Regards
DL

---

As this post seems to be about death, I would like to run a few ideas past you.

Thank for trying to dance away from the issue of the O P.

It has little to do with death.

It has to do with the morality of God having his son needlessly murderered to fill a condition that he himself set.

Was it moral for him to do so.

The secondary issue is, --- is it moral to punish the innocent for someone else's sin or crime?

Regards
DL

[Minimalist]

[Angrboda]

As this post seems to be about death, I would like to run a few ideas past you. Ain't death weird, the two types of physical death, destruction of the body by disease or injury and built in obsolescence. The first understandable, the second an evolved attribute picked up around our jelly fish stage, without which evolution wouldn't work, or rather work as well. We can look at a person and guess to within a few years there age, yet other than our hearts neurons and the lens of our eyes there is no part of us older than ten years.

Then there is what we are, energy, OK there is some argument as to whether mass being composed of energy has been proved, but mass or energy both are eternal have no beginning or end. So the intellect, consciousness, soul what ever you call the essential you, that hides behind the eyes is the same. It changes is it absorbed, diffused, or could it be saved like we do on our various media. I say if you want to see ghosts just watch an old movie.

I think this points to an aspect of the nature of life that is often overlooked. And questions such as, would it be immoral to turn off the power to a self aware computer or not, put it in some relief. I think any concept of life, getting away from fixation on such things as DNA, being systems, and substrates such as carbon and silicon, has to include sustainability in the mix. An animal, or a plant, is considered alive because its basic form will continue, failing some sort of trauma or other defect. A sunflower today will be manufacturing sugars to continue building its structure, tomorrow, the next day, and so on. Same with an animal. This leaves some questions unanswered, such as the self-aware computer, or is the earth itself a life form, but I think it brings us closer to a workable demarcation between life and non-life.

[Hoptoad]

Fair enough, I accept your admonition for wandering away from the op and will refrain from doing so again.

Still unable to view the vid due to connection, so must go on what is written.

I don't get on here that often and I had a few ideas buzzing round, that I wanted to see if any one could shoot holes in.

Ok, concentrating on the morality, recently a stranger to the land risked his life to rescue two children from drowning, he died. If he had known he would die, A, would he have done it, B, would it have been morally responsible for him to kill himself to save others.

Christ knew, where the consequences of his action would lead him. He also knew how important it was. He could have let the cup fall, but he didn't, hell of a burden when you think about it, the knowledge and certainty of God with the frailty doubts and uncertainties of a human . He could have allowed the human frailties to defeat him but he didn't. The number of connections, strands of history that interconnect at that point of time are incredible, not just the completion of the covenants of Abraham and Moses and establishment of the new covenant or that it took place within the Roman Empire the biases and template for civilisation as we know it, or that it mirrored the original Abraham covenant, or that, or that, or that I could bore you for a while yet.

So could he have walked away, yes he had plenty of warning, Paul did the same and he was warned.

If you think of God as a dictator and us as slaves to his will, you negate free will. Throughout the guide the Bible, Right from Adam he has made deals with us, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon deal after deal. Dictators don't do deals, Dictators make you, do what they want.
There is a world of difference between being lead and being driven.

Same today, your choice, I can tell you don't eat that mushroom it's poisonous. It's your choice if you take any notice of me or eat it any way.


My answers to your questions, First, consider the world as a chess board, if you want to play chess you must obey the rules of chess. You set up the game, a pawn takes your knight, that is a tragedy for you but is it a tragedy to the knight, who will be back on the board the next game.

Second, Under normal conditions no but these where far from normal. Who set up the conditions God, who was punished, God.

[Greatest I am]

Fair enough, I accept your admonition for wandering away from the op and will refrain from doing so again.

Still unable to view the vid due to connection, so must go on what is written.

I don't get on here that often and I had a few ideas buzzing round, that I wanted to see if any one could shoot holes in.

Ok, concentrating on the morality, recently a stranger to the land risked his life to rescue two children from drowning, he died. If he had known he would die, A, would he have done it, B, would it have been morally responsible for him to kill himself to save others.

Christ knew, where the consequences of his action would lead him. He also knew how important it was. He could have let the cup fall, but he didn't, hell of a burden when you think about it, the knowledge and certainty of God with the frailty doubts and uncertainties of a human . He could have allowed the human frailties to defeat him but he didn't. The number of connections, strands of history that interconnect at that point of time are incredible, not just the completion of the covenants of Abraham and Moses and establishment of the new covenant or that it took place within the Roman Empire the biases and template for civilisation as we know it, or that it mirrored the original Abraham covenant, or that, or that, or that I could bore you for a while yet.

So could he have walked away, yes he had plenty of warning, Paul did the same and he was warned.

If you think of God as a dictator and us as slaves to his will, you negate free will. Throughout the guide the Bible, Right from Adam he has made deals with us, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon deal after deal. Dictators don't do deals, Dictators make you, do what they want.
There is a world of difference between being lead and being driven.

Same today, your choice, I can tell you don't eat that mushroom it's poisonous. It's your choice if you take any notice of me or eat it any way.


My answers to your questions, First, consider the world as a chess board, if you want to play chess you must obey the rules of chess. You set up the game, a pawn takes your knight, that is a tragedy for you but is it a tragedy to the knight, who will be back on the board the next game.

Second, Under normal conditions no but these where far from normal. Who set up the conditions God, who was punished, God.

I like when you say Christ knew this and that.

How? Mind reading or the words in a book of myth?

I like the idea of God punishing himself. Scriptures do show him screwing up quite a bit. He deserved punishment but if so, why make men guilty of his death?

He could have just committed suicide on his own. Right?

By the way, where is it written that God can die?

Regards
DL

[Minimalist]

Christ knew, where the consequences of his action would lead him.

Before you can assert that your godboy did anything you must first demonstrate that such a person existed.

Kindly begin on Step #1.

[Cyberman]

It's the social structure of the Yeti all over again. We could go into incredible detail about the feeding habits, mating rituals, territorial boundaries etc of the Yeti, but it's all absolutely dependent on the unspoken assumption that such creatures exist in the first place.

[Minimalist]

The Yeti - remote as the possibility might be - is still far more likely than fucking jesus.