Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?

[Belacqua]

What I comprehend is that being able to say no or be able to criticize someone in a position of power is a good freedom.

Did you determine this all on your own, or is it a common belief in your social group?

[Foxaèr]

I imagine when an individual is informed that others offering freedom are the enemy, it can be difficult to think for one’s self.

[Belacqua]

I imagine when an individual is informed that others offering freedom are the enemy, it can be difficult to think for one’s self.

I imagine that a lot of people in our tribe think that they are a lot more free than they are. It can be difficult to accept this when one's tribe constantly tells you to think for yourself, but also tells you what conclusion you ought to reach.

We suppose that we can examine the world and freely reach conclusions about what's true. In reality our tribe (white Anglophone late-20th/early 21st century) have to choose from a very limited multiple-choice range of options. There are outliers and oddballs, of course, but for the most part our beliefs are pre-arranged by our tribe.

This is why a lot of people in our tribe begin by selecting the option "the Bible is true," and then change over to tick the box "science is true." These are the main options. 

And if you define your tribe with more granularity -- say, white Anglophone late-20th/early 21st century college-educated -- the freedom of choice decreases. The "science is true" option becomes more and more the only belief that our tribe allows.

[Foxaèr]

From what I have logically deduced on my own, science has the upper hand in relation to understanding reality over what religion pretends it knows through faith.

[Greatest I am]

Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?
 
Christians seem to think that Jesus took the punishment for sinners with his sacrifice/suicide on the cross. IOW, Christians see Jesus as asking Christians to abdicate their responsibility for their own sins and punishments.
 
If humans asked that, it would be considered quite immoral and unjust. All courts try hard to punish the guilty and not the innocent.
 
These quotes are what I think Jesus would have taught on this issue, him being a Jewish Rabbi.
 
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
 
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
 
Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
 
There is no way that Christians would teach their children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments, yet Christians are doing just that in trying to use Jesus as their scapegoat.
 
Regards
DL

Moot point. If Jesus actually existed then he turned up a worm farm a long time ago. What he "thinks" means shit!

That is why I was asking you and other posters.

Thanks for your kneejerk reaction

Regards
DL

---

So I am both promoting tribalism and denouncing it.

You SAY you're denouncing tribalism, 

No.

Get the quote.

Regards
DL

---

Isn’t it better to think for one’s self than to be told what to think?

That would depend on the skill and ability of the thinker.

Many make thinking mistakes, depending on whose thinking system they have been indoctrinated in.

Christians indoctrinates many into thinking a genocidal prick is somehow a good god.

We all learn what to think from others, as a starting point, and some of us are lucky enough to break conditioning and become free thinkers.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps human beings can already conceive of use cases for genocide, by that term or any other, and christianity simply manipulates those use cases.

It posits, in a very roundabout and idiosyncratic way, at least two types of people. The good and the bad. Conceptually, god is or will eliminate the bad ones. When we think of acceptable use cases for the extermination of an entire group of people, The Bad Ones™ immediately spring to mind as a potentially acceptable target. A bad man may commit genocide because it's tuesday, but a good man requires justifications, which magic book offers as a requirement of it's continued existence. If christianity failed to deliver desired goods, christianity would cease to exist.

[Greatest I am]

Perhaps human beings can already conceive of use cases for genocide, by that term or any other, and christianity simply manipulates those use cases.

It posits, in a very roundabout and idiosyncratic way, at least two types of people.  The good and the bad.  Conceptually, god is or will eliminate the bad ones.  When we think of acceptable use cases for the extermination of an entire group of people, The Bad Ones™ immediately spring to mind as a potentially acceptable target.  A bad man may commit genocide because it's tuesday, but a good man requires justifications, which magic book offers as a requirement of it's continued existence.  If christianity failed to deliver desired goods, christianity would cease to exist.

If good, Christians would follow Jesus' thinking and actions that resembles, I have not come to save the well but the sick. IOW, I have come to cure, not kill.

Yahweh, on the other hand, and those you named, would rather kill than cure, even when a cure is supposed to be in their hands and god.
  
Christianity, as a decent religion, ceased to exists the moment Constantine bought it and decided what their ideology would be.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's just one of the examples that they'd be following.

---

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

---

TLDR version. A subhuman asks jesus for help with her sick subhuman daughter. Jesus reminds her that she's subhuman, and when she makes a self deprecating joke funny enough to make jesus laugh about her being a subhuman, he agrees to help.

If they followed the example of that asshole......what again?

Christianity was never a decent religion. It is the belief that killing the other man, the better man (for some values of better, as above), will positively effect your moral value and future existential state. To be a christian, a person must believe in christ. It's their fundamental unit of identification, and, sadly, an irreparable mistake of their worldview. It began as garbage, it hasn't gotten worse, because it never could have in the first place.

-and I know, I know, I've heard it already "Well, I'm a christian/I know a christian and I/they don't believe that" - Then, as their own witchdoctors are always loudly telling them and anyone else who will listen.....they don't believe. They're just cultural christians. Christianity hasn't convinced those people of a thing, it can't even manage to convince them of christ.

[Greatest I am]

Here's just one of the examples that they'd be following.

---

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

---

TLDR version.  A subhuman asks jesus for help with her sick subhuman daughter.  Jesus reminds her that she's subhuman, and when she makes a self deprecating joke funny enough to make jesus laugh about her being a subhuman, he agrees to help.

If they followed the example of that asshole......what again?  

Christianity was never a decent religion.  It is the belief that killing the other man, the better man (for some values of better, as above), will positively effect your moral value and future existential state.  To be a christian, a person must believe in christ.  It's their fundamental unit of identification, and, sadly, an irreparable mistake of their worldview.  It began as garbage, it hasn't gotten worse, because it never could have in the first place.

-and I know, I know, I've heard it already  "Well, I'm a christian/I know a christian and I/they don't believe that"  - Then, as their own witchdoctors are always loudly telling them and anyone else who will listen.....they don't believe.  They're just cultural christians.

You do not seem to know that in the first century, there were about 80 different Christian sects already and most thought more like the Chrestians than what Christianity became after they usurped that view of god and incorporated those idea into Christianity. They were a man above god ideology before becoming literalist fools of the god above man variety.

Things were quite nice before that epoch. Even for atheists. I hope the following is not TLDR for you.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
 
https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
 
Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html
 
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
 
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
 
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
 
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
 
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cian...=PLCBF574D
 
Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

The ideas that pre christians and proto christians had, or at least the set that you are enamored with, didn't originate with christians of any kind. They existed before there were pre christians, or proto christians, and were stamped out as... essentially... backsliding pagan heresy. They exist today, wholly outside of christianity, as they always have. That's the power and value of syncretism.

I'm not sure in what way atheists had it better, but it's interesting to note that the proto christians were called atheists by their detractors - and it's unlikely that they meant that as a term of endearment. That's the second time you've quoted origen. You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that he said that, but also believed in a literal reading of genesis, as before. He could see no other way that christianity could be true, declaring it an essential christian belief.

Please listen to what your own example had to say on the subject. It simply isn't what you imagined it to be. If origen is an example of an ancient with wisdom, an intelligent archaic, but literalism and moderns are silly...you might have to split a baby in half...because origen was as silly as silly can be with biblical literalism taught out of fundie pulpits today- but he makes a compelling case in it's own right, I assume he might have been aware, lol.

How could christianity be true without that literal reading? The short and inarguable answer, is that it couldn't. The christ myth requires the creation and fall myth. It's premised on them, and must presuppose their truth to assert it's own. This, ultimately, was how gnostics were kicked out of the group. They very accurately weren't christian. They didn't believe in the self identifying myth - they had their own.