Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[fr0d0]

Yes pickup. Freely given. Jesus knew it was going to happen and willingly entered into it. Why? Because this was the point of his life. That's the point extra to the historical event.
You don't understand why making a once and for all way for humans to overcome their fallibility is a loving act? Giving someone else something though they didn't deserve it seems the very definition of loving to me. You're giving the homeless man the ability to feed himself.

The handicapped child? Really? I'm sorry but that's just disgusting and totally inappropriate. Nobody caused a third party to suffer. One person chose to sacrifice themselves for a greater good. So that no one had to suffer any longer. You could try just just a little to make an accurate example. Is the suffering depicted abhorrent? YES! That's the point! You can't make a sacrifice of nothing. Something has to be exchanged. Something valuable has to be offered in exchange.

You say I'm simply 'wrong', but don't even attempt to say why.

[Mudhammam]

Yes pickup. Freely given. Jesus knew it was going to happen and willingly entered into it. Why? Because this was the point of his life. That's the point extra to the historical event.
You don't understand why making a once and for all way for humans to overcome their fallibility is a loving act?

Lol. A "once and for all way for humans to overcome their fallibility," boy, that does sound nice! And you've got the discount on that!? Please tell us how that was accomplished by one of the billions of people who's life had to come to an untimely end (sad but you know, we all die). And no, it was not a loving act for you or for me any more so than the countless who have sacrificed themselves willingly for all sorts of causes. Nothing renders Jesus' death any more noble or special than the common soldier. Your attachment of grandiose metaphysical claims to it, without even an inkling of external or internal cogent, sufficient reasons to support them, doesn't make it loving and most definitely doesn't render it moral.

Giving someone else something though they didn't deserve it seems the very definition of loving to me. You're giving the homeless man the ability to feed himself.

Yes. That is an example of one cause directly having an effect through a process of meaningful concepts related in a given context. That's what I'm suggesting you try to apply to this horrible story you're postulating.

The handicapped child? Really? I'm sorry but that's just disgusting and totally inappropriate. Nobody caused a third party to suffer. One person chose to sacrifice themselves for a greater good. So that no one had to suffer any longer. You could try just just a little to make an accurate example. Is the suffering depicted abhorrent? YES! That's the point! You can't make a sacrifice of nothing. Something has to be exchanged. Something valuable has to be offered in exchange.

Not by your logic. The third parties would include us and God "the Father," as in the sins of the world that God (Jesus and not Jesus at the same time though--right!) demanded must be paid in blood. In fact, the father in my example was offering "a gift," a lesson and a means for the poor child to "overcome their fallibility" by causing them (or maybe an innocent sibling would satisfy the analogy better) "terrible suffering." See, something is getting exchanged, and something valuable is offered, since in your mind the only qualification for both (to the good Lord's satisfaction) is the gruesome shedding of blood.

You say I'm simply 'wrong', but don't even attempt to say why.

As you said, "I'm sorry but that's just disgusting and totally inappropriate."

[fr0d0]

A once and for all solution. Yes exactly. That's what it is. No less. It's not discounted if the offer is exactly the same to everyone. But is harder for some to accept than others. Why? Because of what they've made of themselves. If you're rich. If you pretty much have an easy life. Think 1st world problems, then you're going to find it harder to accept help. Another fact of life.

You have masses of cogent support for that. It remains undefeated and has done some 2000 years already. Not that that should matter. It's undefeated now. Unless you know different. I'd love to know your defeater.

The very fabric of the story rests on the immorality of the act. That's what gives it its potency. Who committed that immoral act? We do. Now.

So the homeless man is us, and the one giving food to us is God. To give humanity life, God had to take his own life to make it happen. He doesn't force you to take it/ take away your ability to choose. He gives you the choice to accept it. Accept it and life is yours. Reject it and you carry in as before.

No, not Jesus and not Jesus. Jesus and God. 2 persons.

God didn't demand the debt be paid in blood. We did. The traditional sacrifice of the era and preceding it was a blood sacrifice. We're using the language and cultural references of the time. Nothing else would make sense to them. Hence the bible story follows. Yes it's brutal. So is killing animals to eat them. Most 1st world people are shocked at animal slaughter. We gladly take the product though.

It wasn't a lesson for the child. No kind of rebuke or punishment. It was a freely offered gift. Your rejection of that gift causes you suffering. God isn't holding anything back. Only you are causing yourself any ill effect.

[Mudhammam]

I have no idea what you're reckoning on about. "We demanded the debt to be paid in blood." No, I did not. "We're using culture references of the time." What's that got to do anything you're saying?! "Hamburgers!" WHAT?!
Please stop babbling nonsense and return to reality, sir!

[The Grand Nudger]

It's freely given by God. To accept the gift involves acknowledging the sacrifice. If we don't accept the free offer, there is no other way to be forgiven. We don't deserve the gift, we cannot. But God loves us so much, he did this for us.

Which is understandable, but just because we love someone so much we would "x" for them - that won't automatically make "x", and whether or not they would accept "x" - right. I doubt that I'm going to have to explain this to you any more than you might have to explain it to me. Love can make a person do...or at least consider, terrible things. Agreed? Can I excuse anything on the grounds of love? No, I cannot -even if I can understand the motivation.

That's not what I think, no.

Then it's pointless to go off on that tangent, isn't it? Neither you nor I believe that a gift is immune to moral judgement by virtue of it being a gift.

A generous act by God, causing his human incarnation terrible suffering, is somehow immoral because... WHY???

Bolded where it starts to go off the rails into the territory of immorality for you.

We've just cleared up one point... If the gift was given freely then it wasn't immoral.

I could freely give you the proceeds of an assault. Would it be immoral for me to do so - would it be immoral for you to accept this gift?

You can't do it, btw, can you... You absolutely can't say that you wouldn't string someone up for your parking tickets (even though we both know that you wouldn't)...you've obviously realized that all I'm going to do is exchange parking tickets for "sin" and then ask you the question again. There's christianity, eroding humanity. :claps:

On the upshot of this thread...thusfar, I've been given the notion to start calling the crucifixion god's "Final Solution" - so thanks for that.

[fr0d0]

just because we love someone so much we would "x" for them - that won't automatically make "x", and whether or not they would accept "x" - right. I doubt that I'm going to have to explain this to you any more than you might have to explain it to me. Love can make a person do...or at least consider, terrible things. Agreed? Can I excuse anything on the grounds of love? No, I cannot -even if I can understand the motivation.

Yes, I'd agree. I'd kill to protect my family I'm sure. I certainly have that feeling. If that's love. Possibly a misplaced expression of love. Because love doesn't cause harm. I've experience of love making you do foolish things. Harmless I think. How is Jesus sacrificing himself harmful to anyone but himself though?
I wouldn't expect anyone to accept my killing of those threatening my family. I would think that just.

A generous act by God, causing his human incarnation terrible suffering, is somehow immoral because... WHY???

Bolded where it starts to go off the rails into the territory of immorality for you.

It does? How?

We've just cleared up one point... If the gift was given freely then it wasn't immoral.

I could freely give you the proceeds of an assault. Would it be immoral for me to do so - would it be immoral for you to accept this gift?

That would be immoral based upon the Ill gotten gain. You have no ill gotten gain here.

You can't do it, btw, can you... You absolutely can't say that you wouldn't string someone up for your parking tickets (even though we both know that you wouldn't)...you've obviously realized that all I'm going to do is exchange parking tickets for "sin" and then ask you the question again. There's christianity, eroding humanity. :claps:

I'm not stringing someone up though. You're putting the cart before the horse. In all of this, none would want such a sacrifice made on their behalf. It is an abhorrent suggestion. We would rather no sacrifice had to be made. But it's our nature, the severity of our failings that demands the strongest sacrifice. Personally I'm glad that we don't have the lesser sacrifices of varying sizes of animals substituting for the gravity of our misdemeanor or our ability to pay. This one small act, in the grand scheme of things, actually finished the need for actual sacrifice of any sort. The beginning of civilisation as we know it.

So just like you, I and all of the Christians I know wouldn't be happy with any sacrifice that would cause anyone, even God in human form, pain.

Isn't that charity? I go without the rewards of my toil so that someone less fortunate may gain? Are you saying that that person would be acting immorally to accept the reward of my efforts? I guess you draw the line.

So what sacrifice would you need to make to pay my parking ticket? You'd have to give up some of the reward of your toil. A sacrifice.

Do you see that it's a matter of degree? Small needs can be met by small sacrifice. Large needs need matching sacrifice. We're talking about the liberation of the entirety of mankind. What would you think to be fitting reparation?

On the upshot of this thread...thusfar, I've been given the notion to start calling the crucifixion god's "Final Solution" - so thanks for that.

Good call lol

---

I have no idea what you're reckoning on about. "We demanded the debt to be paid in blood." No, I did not. "We're using culture references of the time." What's that got to do anything you're saying?! "Hamburgers!" WHAT?!
Please stop babbling nonsense and return to reality, sir!

I include ourselves in humanity that demanded blood sacrifice. The cultural references are exactly the language that you're contending. You have to view that language in context. Crucifiction using nails isn't something I witness on my daily commute. I don't know what it's like where you live.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, I'd agree. I'd kill to protect my family I'm sure. I certainly have that feeling. If that's love. Possibly a misplaced expression of love. Because love doesn't cause harm. I've experience of love making you do foolish things. Harmless I think. How is Jesus sacrificing himself harmful to anyone but himself though?

It doesn't have to be, but I would call it a "misplaced expression of love". As I've already said, I can excuse one of you depending on which route you choose to explore.

It does? How?

Would you agree that much of morality is concerned with harm? As in, the reason that murder, for example, is "immoral" has to do with harming another person.

That would be immoral based upon the Ill gotten gain. You have no ill gotten gain here.

Is it acceptable to harm someone else, allow someone else to be harmed, or accept that someone else -has been- harmed...... -to clear your parking tickets?

I'm not stringing someone up though.

You're accepting it. Do you have to be the man holding the gun to be held accountable, is there no such thing as complicity?

We would rather no sacrifice had to be made. But it's our nature, the severity of our failings that demands the strongest sacrifice.

They may demand that, but whether or not you can accept that sacrifice and remain a morally "right" person is another issue entirely. As I've said many, many times...even though I think you're full of shit - it doesn't matter. I can accept your claim for the purposes of discussion. Saying "we need it" is -not- the same as saying "it's right". Agreed?

(this also...btw, makes jesus/god the dick......whereas when we began this thread we were trying to make him the good guy in all of this. I just don't know what to say, from where I sit you're both the villains based upon your first and last remarks...but you're going to have to decide one way or another or else this conversation will be necessarily disjointed, as I'll be arguing for the immorality of two separate parties based upon two -potentially different..if only marginally so - lines of reasoning. It's god...after all, making such "demands".)

[*Deidre*]

Yes pickup. Freely given. Jesus knew it was going to happen and willingly entered into it. Why? Because this was the point of his life. That's the point extra to the historical event.
You don't understand why making a once and for all way for humans to overcome their fallibility is a loving act? Giving someone else something though they didn't deserve it seems the very definition of loving to me. You're giving the homeless man the ability to feed himself.

The handicapped child? Really? I'm sorry but that's just disgusting and totally inappropriate. Nobody caused a third party to suffer. One person chose to sacrifice themselves for a greater good. So that no one had to suffer any longer. You could try just just a little to make an accurate example. Is the suffering depicted abhorrent? YES! That's the point! You can't make a sacrifice of nothing. Something has to be exchanged. Something valuable has to be offered in exchange.

You say I'm simply 'wrong', but don't even attempt to say why.

But to be simply human, with all of our frailties and such, why do I need someone to save me ...from that?

''Not deserving of something'' implies that I've done something wrong, and I need a savior to excuse me. That is the main problem I have with Christianity...this notion that being human is somehow...''sinful'' in and of itself.

[fr0d0]

Would you agree that much of morality is concerned with harm? As in, the reason that murder, for example, is "immoral" has to do with harming another person.

No never. Killing isn't immoral. Murder is immoral, because morality produces law. Injustice = imbalance. That's where my thoughts on degree come in. All of your objections seem to be based upon an imbalance between sacrifice and debt. You cite unjust examples which results in you missing the point, and concluding what you do. Incorrectly.

---

But to be simply human, with all of our frailties and such, why do I need someone to save me ...from that?

''Not deserving of something'' implies that I've done something wrong, and I need a savior to excuse me. That is the main problem I have with Christianity...this notion that being human is somehow...''sinful'' in and of itself.

You have the option of accepting 2nd best. Living with your flawed nature and making the best of it. Nobody said that you didn't deserve salvation. We're all offered it freely, so that would mean you must deserve it right? You're given the freedom to either accept it or reject it.

Christianity takes the populist view that humanity is flawed, yes. We're not perfect. Are you happy with your lot and live your life to the best of your ability? Then you're living with your flaws.

[Mudhammam]

I include ourselves in humanity that demanded blood sacrifice. The cultural references are exactly the language that you're contending. You have to view that language in context. Crucifiction using nails isn't something I witness on my daily commute. I don't know what it's like where you live.

It's currently sunny, weather in the 70s, some clouds in the sky. Is this usually the direction Christians take the conversation when it becomes evident how fruitless their attempts at rationalizing a patently absurd and inhumane faith is?