[Serious] Christians what would change your mind?

[GrandizerII]

vicarious redemption is practiced in any selfless act. You sacrifice yourself for other's wants/needs. It's also practiced in societies that sacrifice the one for the many ie. the death penalty. Just because someone practices the sacrifice for the many does not necessarily absolve personal accountability. I believe this part is where we differ the most. To restate your position for my clarity, I believe you claim that no society practices exemption from accountability based on vicarious sacrifice. ??

I have to agree with MA here. I don't think the best way to argue for vicarious redemption is by comparing it to the death penalty. The thing is it is believed in mainstream Christianity that all people are bound by the chains of sin and thus the only way to salvation is via vicarious redemption. Atheists generally don't agree with the whole idea of us being slaves to sin (or the ternal consequences of such) and thus no need for some Son of God to come along and save us.

That said, I don't see vicarious redemption as immoral in the context of the Trinity God. God offers his Son (not to be compared to a human father offering their human son btw) to redeem the world. Sounds like a noble thing to me.

[Anomalocaris]

vicarious redemption is practiced in any selfless act. You sacrifice yourself for other's wants/needs. It's also practiced in societies that sacrifice the one for the many ie. the death penalty.  Just because someone practices the sacrifice for the many does not necessarily absolve personal accountability. I believe this part is where we differ the most. To restate your position for my clarity, I believe you claim that no society practices exemption from accountability based on vicarious sacrifice. ??

I have to agree with MA here. I don't think the best way to argue for vicarious redemption is by comparing it to the death penalty. The thing is it is believed in mainstream Christianity that all people are bound by the chains of sin and thus the only way to salvation is via vicarious redemption. Atheists generally don't agree with the whole idea of us being slaves to sin (or the ternal consequences of such) and thus no need for some Son of God to come along and save us.

That said, I don't see vicarious redemption as immoral in the context of the Trinity God. God offers his Son (not to be compared to a human father offering their human son btw) to redeem the world. Sounds like a noble thing to me.

How so? In the same manner as every tyrant and his sycophants regarding each of the tyrant’s caprices as the most noble of all things?

An omnipotent god would have been nobler to offer nothing, and instead remove the stupid and immoral insistAnce of redemption of others for what is ultimately his own oversight.

[GrandizerII]

I have to agree with MA here. I don't think the best way to argue for vicarious redemption is by comparing it to the death penalty. The thing is it is believed in mainstream Christianity that all people are bound by the chains of sin and thus the only way to salvation is via vicarious redemption. Atheists generally don't agree with the whole idea of us being slaves to sin (or the ternal consequences of such) and thus no need for some Son of God to come along and save us.

That said, I don't see vicarious redemption as immoral in the context of the Trinity God. God offers his Son (not to be compared to a human father offering their human son btw) to redeem the world. Sounds like a noble thing to me.

How so? In the same manner as every tyrant and his sycophants regarding each of the tyrant’s caprices as the most noble of all things?

An omnipotent god would have been nobler to offer nothing, and instead remove the stupid and immoral insistAnce of redemption of others for what is ultimately his own oversight.

Yeah, but that's a slightly different debate. Yours is a more general critique of the system set in place by the Christian God. I'm not considering that in my previous post.

[Belacqua]

every tyrant and his sycophants regarding each of the tyrant’s caprices as the most noble of all things

Although an atheist is someone who lacks belief in ALL gods, the god that gets talked about on this forum is almost invariably one particular type. The sky-tyrant dictator that Blake (a Christian) called Nobodaddy.

There is another, very long-standing way of seeing the monotheistic God which doesn't involve tyranny. This goes back to the Greeks, and will be recognizable to people who know Plato and Aristotle's various ethical views. It is also the view of the major Christian theologians.

In this view, God is the Good. God is goodness itself, fully actualized. It is the ultimate aim of everyone.

The idea is that no one would willingly choose to do what is bad for himself. We all want what is good for us, we all want to be happy.

If someone chooses to do something bad, it is out of a misguided desire to get a good result. You might think that robbing a bank is a good idea, because you'll be happy to have the money. So you're aiming at what you think is good. The trouble is that, due to ignorance or pride, you're forgetting that you'll probably wind up in prison and be less happy in the long run. But the intended aim is always the good.

Some people do cos-play of badness, acting like bikers or outlaws with guns. This is because they think such "bad" appearances are good for them. They are aiming at the good, also.

The choice of bad things always results from non-freedom. The model here is the drug addict, who knows that what he's doing is harmful to himself, but is out of control. He is a slave to chemical dependence. Freedom from that dependence would mean getting healthy. Likewise, we may be slaves to psychological obsessions, irrational desires, the influence of advertising propaganda, etc. etc. If we were free of these enslavements we would choose what is good for us.

A free person is free of those obsessions or distractions that lead to bad ends. A free person aims to the good. Christians think that the good is God. Thus, aiming toward God is the definition of freedom. Doing good is the opposite of tyranny.

[The Grand Nudger]

Where does stringing up palestinians for the sins of murricans fit into that?

@tackattack

Remember just a few posts back, when said that this belief would have you tying yourself into knots? Well, here we are, can't really add anything past what MA offered except to say that if you can't let it be what it is, and instead need to try some good thing to equate it with, that's a pretty clear indicator that you have a problem with it.

If I kept calling murder sweet happy funtimes, you'd worry about me.... but we don't worry about christians, who call this a good thing.