Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?

[GrandizerII]

Just to comment on this since I see atheists make a similar remark in their criticism of mainstream Christianity, and I feel it reveals a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Under Trinitarianism, the analogy of human fathers and sons isn't a good one. Reason why is that the Father and the Son (in the Trinity) are not separate beings with independent wills, but rather they're one and the same being (along with the Holy Spirit) with basically the same will.

Same being? It depends what passages from the Bible you take

Which is why various doctrines arose in an attempt to reconcile such difficulties. For example (within some Protestant circles at least) while the Father and the Son are one in being, the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in terms of roles.

These doctrines end up being absurd from our POVs, sure. But let's not pretend our counter is ever as easy as throwing a few Bible verses that we see, at first glance, contradict each other.

[Belacqua]

Where did you see me promote tribalism?

Christians are a huge and diverse group of people. They believe a large range of things. Many of them don't believe anything like the things you are ascribing to them.

You promote tribalism by reducing the wide range of Christians to an artificially narrow group, based on the cherry-picked beliefs of some of them. Then by announcing that they are wrong and you are right, you divide the world into tribes. The Christian tribe (bad) and your tribe (good). 

Every human being is born into a particular time, place, and social group. Everyone's values and beliefs are contingent on that group. To some extent we can grow beyond the tribe we are born in to, but not entirely. Your time and place and social group have determined what your beliefs and values are. 

The most dangerous tribal members are the ones who deny that their beliefs and values are contingent on their time, place, and social group. People who say that they are not members of tribes, because their own beliefs and values are not contingent but are JUST TRUE are showing they are unaware of their own contingencies. 

If you really want the world to do away with tribes by working toward some kind of world-wide government or belief system which homogenizes all thought, it just means that you want everyone everywhere to be a member of your own tribe.

[Greatest I am]

The Grand Nudger

Thanks for showing you have a crystal ball that tells you my history.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't need a crystal ball to know that you had a mother and a father anymore than I would need a crystal ball to know that neither of the abrahamic books is attempting to teach anyone any sort of maltheism. You and I both can read the stories and come to that conclusion, and we both do, but that conclusion follows from a source exterior to either magic book in past, and in present.

To make it perfectly clear, it's not your assertions about the nature of the abrahamic god as you see it in the text that I'm attempting to correct you on. It's the item of your own establishment myth, where you got those ideas from and how and when they came to be relative to their competitors. Who flipped what on who, and when.

We could notice, for example, that in old magic book the chosen race is identified as those who struggle with god, or against god. We can see the intentional or unintentional skill here. It's a candid admission, but not a statement of moral conviction. We can posit that there has always been some acknowledgement that the interests of man and the interests of god can be in opposition, or that we have human difficulties adhering to the divine interests - but if you ever lose sight of divine interest superceding human interest you've lost the pulse of what any part of this narrative was expressing. That doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, it's simply and certainly not what the authors were trying to convey. We can realize that as an item of their establishment myth, the operative bit is that they are claiming some sort of equality with god. They are descendants of peers in at least one respect. That centers their tribe, that centers their worldview, that centers their authority, bridging the gap between man and the divine and providing them with heavenly warrant, and heavenly origins. These are the sorts of things that people found useful at the time (and, hell, to this day) when making territorial claims or asserting the legitimacy of their regime. That's the primary function of both magic books, and it would be ludicrous to insist that, in that context, there would ever be any attempt to teach you, the reader, some lesson about how bad it all is.

[Greatest I am]

Where did you see me promote tribalism?

Christians are a huge and diverse group of people. They believe a large range of things. Many of them don't believe anything like the things you are ascribing to them.

You promote tribalism by reducing the wide range of Christians to an artificially narrow group, based on the cherry-picked beliefs of some of them. Then by announcing that they are wrong and you are right, you divide the world into tribes. The Christian tribe (bad) and your tribe (good). 

Every human being is born into a particular time, place, and social group. Everyone's values and beliefs are contingent on that group. To some extent we can grow beyond the tribe we are born in to, but not entirely. Your time and place and social group have determined what your beliefs and values are. 

The most dangerous tribal members are the ones who deny that their beliefs and values are contingent on their time, place, and social group. People who say that they are not members of tribes, because their own beliefs and values are not contingent but are JUST TRUE are showing they are unaware of their own contingencies. 

If you really want the world to do away with tribes by working toward some kind of world-wide government or belief system which homogenizes all thought, it just means that you want everyone everywhere to be a member of your own tribe.

So I am both promoting tribalism and denouncing it.

Thanks for your reply.

Regards
DL

[chimp3]

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!

[Belacqua]

So I am both promoting tribalism and denouncing it.

You SAY you're denouncing tribalism, but you think and pass judgment like any other tribalist. 

This is a problem also with the shallow-thinking media figure atheists like Hitchens and Harris. They talk as if the various tribes in the world distort people's thinking, and once the tribes are educated then they'll see what's Obviously True. But of course for them, what is Obviously True is some version of contemporary American liberalism. 

They fail to see that contemporary American liberalism is just another tribe. It is not something that becomes Obviously True to everyone once illusions are erased. And lots of people around the world reject the American liberal tribe for very good reasons.

[Silver]

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

[Belacqua]

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

Let's look at this idea, that it's better to think for oneself rather than be told what to think.

Is this an idea you came up with entirely on your own? Or did you hear it and agree that it's a good idea. 

When you agreed that it's a good idea, did you judge it according to certain standards and moral commitments? 

If you had standards that caused you to agree with the statement, where did they come from? Did you invent them entirely for yourself, or had you taken them in from your time, place, and social circles? 

Are the standards by which you judge such statements entirely different from other members of your time, place, and social circles? Or do they generally agree? (For example, do you think the majority of the posters here would agree with you?)

It's possible for a person to move away from the tribe he was born into, but not, I think, to invent new standards for himself. We hear new things, judge them against the old ones, and adapt. But no one starts from scratch, and everyone originates in a time, place, and social situation. We have to acknowledge that our own thinking comes from a particular tribe, and is not just How Things Are.

[Silver]

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.