Substitutionary sacrifical atonement: Is it moral?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Not true, it's also immoral for them, they do not have to eat humans. Many other people get along just fine without eating humans.

Again, do you understand their culture? It is immoral to you, doesn't mean it is to them. So simple a cannibal could understand it.

Same thing with the nude example. Just because it is moral for you to go around nude, doesn't mean it is for other people.

And that PROVES the absurdity of Moral Relativism.

Thank you very much.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by darkbake
Ancient cultures used sacrifices in order to bring good seasons of crops in the spring more than they sacrificed someone else to atone for their sins. Sometimes it got a little more hardcore, like the Mayans, they sacrificed someone to keep their God from killing them all.

How'd that work out for them?

Not very well. But they didn't have the knowledge to know any better, and there was no one around to tell them any differently. Oh, and the Mayans disappeared, so that didn't work out, either.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And that PROVES the absurdity of Moral Relativism.

Thank you very much.

Which part was that?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And that PROVES the absurdity of Moral Relativism.

Thank you very much.

Being that morality isn't relative, as you stated, you said being nude is moral. Again, get with your christian friends, ask them to get naked with you and hang out with them. There should be no problems as you all know it is moral to be nude together. Right? Come hang with me, we'll chill naked with some cannibals.

Am I making sense only to myself?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And that PROVES the absurdity of Moral Relativism.

Thank you very much.

Which part was that?

BOTH!

I'm officially out, intelligence left the building with Elvis.

Good luck with your Noble Prize presentation refuting E=mc^2.

Sorry, I can't take it anymore.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
BOTH!

I'm officially out, intelligence left the building with Elvis.

Good luck with your Noble Prize presentation refuting E=mc^2.

Sorry, I can't take it anymore.

Ah, just when I thought we'd get to hang nude together....

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
Interesting. Before I get roped into this; Am I to assume that when I say "No, it's not moral to sacrifice something in your place." your next question is going to be.... "So, then is it acceptable to accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins?"

Well, Jesus chose to sacrifice himself so that we could accept his sacrifice for our sins. That is similar to a hero situation, where the hero chooses to sacrifice himself in battle to save his country.

Originally posted by darkbake
Well, Jesus chose to sacrifice himself so that we could accept his sacrifice for our sins. That is similar to a hero situation, where the hero chooses to sacrifice himself in battle to save his country.

As someone else already pointed out, Jesus did NOT want to do it, but went through with it. Now, he sits beside himself in heaven. The hero who sacrificed himself to save his country didn't get to come back alive and sit beside himself in heaven...

But, we're talking about two different kinds of sacrifice here. The hero soldier didn't sacrifice himself for someone else's wrong doings. The sacrifice I'm talking about is substitutionary atonement. Where you substitute an innocent creature in your place for your wrong doings.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And that PROVES the absurdity of Moral Relativism.

Thank you very much.

You still don't understand cultural differences when dealing with morality.

The example given in your link is true. A wooden chair can't be both wooden and not wooden. But we're dealing with something entirely different here. Cultural morality.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, I usually go to Blue Letter Bible, search for all the instances that word appears, post it, then you never respond.

Because it was something you brought up on your own and was your attempt at a comeback from your other failed argument.

Wow, I can't believe there are people that would seriously try to argue the morality of slavery because it was written in a ancient book that they believe is true.

And you wonder why people dislike religious people. It doesn't allow you to think freely.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Physics isn't required in a discussion of morality and philosophy.

It does when you get into the nature of time and the "free will" vs "predestination" argument, it's the foundation before the discussion can proceed. And I disagree about Philosophy.

It may be that your revelation of the answer to the argument can only be explained by using physics, but I am actually capable of abstract thought, and I disagree with you. God is not omniscient or omnipresent. There may a deity that is "so tall" that it can see for miles and miles ahead of the road I'm traveling, but he maybe surprised if I change directions. Because, "my" god experiences present time through me.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Physics isn't required in a discussion of morality and philosophy.

It does when you get into the nature of time and the "free will" vs "predestination" argument, it's the foundation before the discussion can proceed. And I disagree about Philosophy.

It may be that your revelation of the answer to the argument can only be explained by using physics, but I am actually capable of abstract thought, and I disagree with you. God is not omniscient or omnipresent. There may a deity that is "so tall" that it can see for miles and miles ahead of the road I'm traveling, but he maybe surprised if I change directions. Because, "my" god experiences present time through me.

edit on 13-4-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

Ah...

but what if the "road" you're traveling IS God?

That would make him omnipresent and possibly capable of being omniscient

reply to post by wearewatchingyouman


Superstition aside, no, it's not moral to sacrifice a life for selfish gain.

As far as god and Jesus go, considering the amount of hypocrisy I see within the actions and beliefs of religious people, I'd say it doesn't matter how they interpret their god's actions; they are a shame to whatever god they follow.

Okay Hydroman. By your logic, if someone pulled a gun on me and my girlfriend, and I willingly stood in front of her to take the bullet so that she may live, does that make me immoral, or moral?

Your call.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Wow, I can't believe there are people that would seriously try to argue the morality of slavery because it was written in a ancient book that they believe is true.

And you wonder why people dislike religious people. It doesn't allow you to think freely.

Basic mathematical skills tell me 2+2 in base 10 = 4. Sorry I'm not a "free thinker" and assume 2 + 2 can = infinity. There's only one universal truth, that's just something you'll have to learn to deal with.

reply to post by Lionhearte


universal truth = slavery is immoral

reply to post by RealSpoke


I agree, and so does my Bible.

reply to post by Lionhearte


You might need to re-read that.

Plus Christians are a slave to their God anyway but they don't tend to notice. They actually think they have free will... I guess Judas was special, his fate was set in stone.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Okay Hydroman. By your logic, if someone pulled a gun on me and my girlfriend, and I willingly stood in front of her to take the bullet so that she may live, does that make me immoral, or moral?

Your call.

How does this compare to sacrifice for your girlfriend's wrong doings? If this was an execution of your girlfriend because she murdered someone else, and you volunteered to take her place, you would have done something brave, imo. But, since your girlfriend was in the wrong, she should be responsible and accept the punishment for her crime.

Now, if you two are just walking down the street and someone pulls a gun on you out of nowhere, and you step in front of her and save her life, you are a hero and she was saved....unless the guy had more bullets.

Again, your example is not related to substitutional sacrificial atonement.