Substitutionary sacrifical atonement: Is it moral?

reply to post by Hydroman


Practical example:


You agree to live with a tribe for 1 month that was cannibalistic for $10,000. When they decide to barbecue and eat you is that immoral or not? Yes or no?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Practical example:

You agree to live with a tribe for 1 month that was cannibalistic for $10,000. When they decide to barbecue and eat you is that immoral or not? Yes or no?

In my opinion, yes. In there's maybe not.

Is it immoral for me to walk the beach nude or not?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
That's absurd. Harry Potter wasn't a real person who fulfilled things written down hundreds or thousands of years before he "lived", (he didn't).

Coincidentally, that's what the Jews say about Jesus more or less.

When they do remind them the Septuagint was written in black and white by their best 70 Hebrew scholars 300 years before Christ was born.

Usually shuts them up pretty fast.

reply to post by Hydroman


Why is that moral?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
When they do remind them the Septuagint was written in black and white by their best 70 Hebrew scholars 300 years before Christ was born.

Usually shuts them up pretty fast.

They don't think Jesus was the Messiah since he didn't fulfill the prophecies.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Why is that moral?

Because they are feeding themselves and their families? Who knows what they are thinking when they do that? Wait, you are talking about the cannibalism thing right? I mean, to me, it's the same as fighting a battle and then killing all the babies that belonged to your enemy. That's just as bad as eating someone, imo.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Practical example:

You agree to live with a tribe for 1 month that was cannibalistic for $10,000. When they decide to barbecue and eat you is that immoral or not? Yes or no?

In my opinion, yes. In there's maybe not.

Thank you, that proves the self-refuting nature of Moral Relativism.

Your murder cannot be both moral and immoral simultaneously.

The Law of non-contradiction is one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. For example, the chair in my living room, right now, cannot be made of wood and not made of wood at the same time.

www.carm.org

Either your murder is moral or not moral and the determining factor is not how you taste with barbecue sauce. For morality to apply to all man it must appeal to an authority higher than man.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Thank you, that proves the self-refuting nature of Moral Relativism.

Your murder cannot be both moral and immoral simultaneously.

Yes it can. It is immoral in my view and moral in theirs. How is that hard to understand?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Either your murder is moral or not moral and the determining factor is not how you taste with barbecue sauce. For morality to apply to all man it must appeal to an authority higher than man.

Again, IT IS RELATIVE. It is moral to one but not the other. It may apply to all men differently, depending on the culture.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


That is a rigged question...

It only gets deeper as the answer comes...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Is it moral to walk a public beach nude?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
When they do remind them the Septuagint was written in black and white by their best 70 Hebrew scholars 300 years before Christ was born.

Usually shuts them up pretty fast.

They don't think Jesus was the Messiah since he didn't fulfill the prophecies.

They rely on the Messoretic Text that is the product of the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD. It was de-jesused and changed to Talmudic Judaism instead of Mosaic Judaism. They no longer had a temple to do sacrifices at to fulfill Mosaic Judaism. They changed terms like "virgin' (Septuagint) to "young maiden" (Messoretic).

That's why if you point them to the (LXX) the have no argument. They hate the (LXX) for that reason, yet the best 70 Hebrew scholars in the land translated it and it was finished 300 years before Christ.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Well, considering that YHWH taught Abraham and his decendants how to sacrifice the animals he created to pay for their blood debt, yes it was once moral because it was the only way men could pay their sin debts.

In regards to the jewish rituals, basically you take an innocent clean animal like a lamb, ram or goat and sacrifice it and the shedding of it's blood covers your sins for the day from you, and it takes your sins onto itself and it takes your place in sheol, also called a scape goat sacrifice and this ritual was a prophetic action prophecying Christ taking our sins onto himself, but unlike the sacrificial lamb, goat or ram God didn't stay dead. His body died and he resurrected himself because death couldn't keep him.

Thanks for your thoughts. But, imo, might does not make right.

Right, like you wouldn't do it if it kept you from dying, you'd be the first one scrambling for the knife. The people who decry it the most would be the first people waiting in line for their turn fighting over who was going to get to do it first.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Why is that moral?

Because they are feeding themselves and their families? Who knows what they are thinking when they do that? Wait, you are talking about the cannibalism thing right? I mean, to me, it's the same as fighting a battle and then killing all the babies that belonged to your enemy. That's just as bad as eating someone, imo.

edit on 12-4-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

I still don't see where the morality comes in here...

They're feeding their families... are we to assume theres no better way?

Is this canibalism ritualistic?

Originally posted by Hydroman
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Is it moral to walk a public beach nude?

No, we are born nude.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Right, like you wouldn't do it if it kept you from dying, you'd be the first one scrambling for the knife. The people who decry it the most would be the first people waiting in line for their turn fighting over who was going to get to do it first.

Glad you think you know me.

Originally posted by Akragon
I still don't see where the morality comes in here...

They're feeding their families... are we to assume theres no better way?

Is this canibalism ritualistic?

They have a food shortage. Who knows the reasons? Why did god's people slaughter babies, but keep virgins?

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Why is that moral?

Because they are feeding themselves and their families? Who knows what they are thinking when they do that? Wait, you are talking about the cannibalism thing right? I mean, to me, it's the same as fighting a battle and then killing all the babies that belonged to your enemy. That's just as bad as eating someone, imo.

edit on 12-4-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

I still don't see where the morality comes in here...

They're feeding their families... are we to assume theres no better way?

Is this canibalism ritualistic?

Bro, it was a practice in reductio ad absurdum to show the self-refuting nature of Moral Relativism. Something cannot both be true and false in the same contextual application.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, we are born nude.

It's not moral to walk the beach nude?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Akragon
I still don't see where the morality comes in here...

They're feeding their families... are we to assume theres no better way?

Is this canibalism ritualistic?

They have a food shortage. Who knows the reasons? Why did god's people slaughter babies, but keep virgins?

Because "Gods people" didn't get that commandment from God...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That is a rigged question...

It only gets deeper as the answer comes...

It's not rigged. It shows the self-refuting nature of Moral Relativism.