Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

I know I have done well in an O. P. when Christians run from a discussion.

I wrote these two posts and got almost no response. Not a usual thing for my posts. This tells me that I hit the nail right on the head and Christians have no apologetics to refute my claim.

==========================

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

blog.ted.com...

God does not follow the first rule at all.

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

=============================

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

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.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

blog.ted.com...

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

==============================

This lack of opposition to the premise given tells me that Christians may actually be more moral than what I give them credit for. They do not walk their talk in these cases and that is a plus.

Seems Christians actually recognize good morals even if they do not preach them.
I thank Christians for confirming my view that they are just following tradition, dogma and culture while not really following their God. Thank God for that. Any sane man would reject the bible God.

Regards
DL

So....the purpose of this thread is to congratulate yourself on winning a non existent debate, or merely an attempt to bait Christians?

And no, I'm not Christian....just curious as to your motives.

I like the part where you pick and choose whatever verses float your boat today.

Smaug was a rich sleepy dragon that rhymed and riddled with a hobbit.

Therefore Smaug was a good guy.

I think that there may be a misunderstanding about the nature of God and Jesus from the Christian point of view.

God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. They are distinct entities when addressing them individually, but they are the same one God when addressing the whole.

In the case of Jesus dying for people's sins, it is God himself entering our reality to take our place for our punishment for our sins. That is from the love aspect. We are all sinful and deserve to be punished. That is from the view of justice. Justice requires punishment. We require someone who can take our place in punishment so that we can be able to approach the presence of God. Otherwise, we would all be lost.

In order for someone to take our place, that person cannot also be guilty and in need of punishment. That's where Jesus comes in and takes our place because he was the only one able to live a life and not sin.

So, it's not so much a parent sending a child to death to fix things that went bad, but rather God himself coming in a form (as one of us humans) to fix things that we messed up because he loves us and wants to provide the opportunity for us to avoid the punishment that is demanded by our shortcomings.

Maybe this helps to clarify things.

I'm a Christian, and I could care less about your attempt to gloat.

I am always amazed at how hard some people try to convince a Christian that their religion is wrong. I mean... Why do you care so much what they believe in?

It just seems to me that any debate started from either perspective is coming from a person who is just trying to convince themselves.

I assume your Opening Posts are both represented in this OP. I think I can suggest why you had no response. Your basic point in both was that God is immoral. This is roughly equivalent to maintaining that there is no moisture in water.

What is there to discuss? I would just back away slowly saying "Sure, buddy, anything you say." There's no room for discussion, don't expect much.

Originally posted by LittleVoice731
I am always amazed at how hard some people try to convince a Christian that their religion is wrong. I mean... Why do you care so much what they believe in?

It just seems to me that any debate started from either perspective is coming from a person who is just trying to convince themselves.

Although I disagree with the OP and do agree with you to a point, due to other threads that are going on in a hope to bring some understanding on that other issue to those who are being attacked in this one...(I know, confusing and stuff)...

It's the same as some of the extremist Christians who try to attack homosexuals and preach to them about how "wrong and sinfull" they are. Just as people shouldn't be attacking Christians telling them their beliefs are wrong even though they aren't, the extremist Christians shouldn't be attacking homosexuals telling them they're sinfull and evil even though they aren't.

We all must learn to accept the right of others to believe as they see fit as long as it doens't infringe upon our own rights and beliefs at a personal level.

If someone is Christian, they have a right to be Christian, that's their choice. If someone is Muslim, they have a right to be Muslim, that's their choice. If someone is Buddhist, they have a right to be Buddhist, that's their choice.
.... If someone is left handed, they have a right to be left handed, they're born that way. If someone is redheaded, they have a right to be redheaded, they're born that way. If someone is homosexual, they have a right to be homosexual, they're born that way.

I just needed to interject that line of reasoning in hopes it may hit home with some and help them to see that nobody likes to be attacked and every group that exists does things like this to some other group in the world and it's wrong regardless of what group is attacking.

The OP doesn't understand Christianity and therefore attacks it. Many extremist evangelicals don't understand Islam and attack it or don't understand homosexuality and attack it. We all need to stop attacking.

reply to post by Greatest I am


The fact we don't come running to your threads to argue doctrine with you is because you are only out to abase and ridicule a Christian . Yu have no interest in learning of God , you just want to hurt the feelings of other people with different beliefs . Your very immature and to start this thread to bait someone while patting yourself on the back shows how egotistical you are , grow up .

you probably got no reply because no one knew what to even do with it.

it would be the equivalent of running up to someone and handing them a popcicle stick and a booger, then running away.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
So....the purpose of this thread is to congratulate yourself on winning a non existent debate, or merely an attempt to bait Christians?

And no, I'm not Christian....just curious as to your motives.

Just pointing out how Christians will run from moral discussions and how they likely know that their God lacks any. I need no ego boost. If I did, I would not gain it from challenging adults who think like children.
I do not kick those who are already down.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by rbnhd76
I like the part where you pick and choose whatever verses float your boat today.

Smaug was a rich sleepy dragon that rhymed and riddled with a hobbit.

Therefore Smaug was a good guy.

I was trained by preachers who really know how to cherry pick.

Have you ever heard a preacher quote these verses and stories?

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

Originally posted by davidchin
I think that there may be a misunderstanding about the nature of God and Jesus from the Christian point of view.

God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. They are distinct entities when addressing them individually, but they are the same one God when addressing the whole.

I was trained by preachers who really know how to cherry pick.

Have you ever heard a preacher quote these verses and stories?

Show scriptures that say that God can die?

If all three heads of the trinity are to the same God, then why can I curse two of the heads and be forgiven while if I insult the third I cannot be forgiven?

======================

Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.


Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

home.pacific.net.au...


Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

www.youtube.com...

As to you trying to profit from the murder of an innocent man.


Thomas Paine, in Age of Reason, wrote:
If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge.

This single reflection will show that the doctrine of redemption is founded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which another person might pay; and as this pecuniary idea corresponds again with the system of second redemptions, obtained through the means of money given to the church for pardons, the probability is that the same persons fabricated both the one and the other of those theories; and that, in truth, there is no such thing as redemption; that it is fabulous; and that man stands in the same relative condition with his Maker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatest consolation to think so.
Emphasis mine.

So not only is the killing of an innocent man immoral, but it shows that the redemption allegory being used is that of a financial debt. Which is an interesting parallel to the practice of purchasing 'pardons'.



[It is] not good that the man should be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him. (Gen. 2:18) KJV Story book

Free will to me is the ability to make a choice without coercion.
A choice made while under coercion, (especially under threat of pain and suffering), is not a freely made choice, ergo it is not free will. In fact there is a name for it; it's called extortion and it is a criminal offense precisely for the reason that it is not a free choice but a forced one.

"Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense." Wikipedia


"Test all things"
1 Thessalonians. 5:21


No noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence.

Originally posted by GmoS719
I'm a Christian, and I could care less about your attempt to gloat.

That was a complaint more than a gloat.
As a follower of a genocidal son murder, I do not value anything that you have to say.
You are not as moral person.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by LittleVoice731
I am always amazed at how hard some people try to convince a Christian that their religion is wrong. I mean... Why do you care so much what they believe in?

It just seems to me that any debate started from either perspective is coming from a person who is just trying to convince themselves.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

www.youtube.com...

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
www.youtube.com...

Jesus Camp 1of 9
www.youtube.com...

Promoting death to Gays.
www.youtube.com...

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by charles1952
I assume your Opening Posts are both represented in this OP. I think I can suggest why you had no response. Your basic point in both was that God is immoral. This is roughly equivalent to maintaining that there is no moisture in water.

What is there to discuss? I would just back away slowly saying "Sure, buddy, anything you say." There's no room for discussion, don't expect much.

There is for those who believe that God having Jesus murdered is moral.
They are wrong but there is room for debate.

This is a debate forum. Right?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Azadok2day
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

The fact we don't come running to your threads to argue doctrine with you is because you are only out to abase and ridicule a Christian . Yu have no interest in learning of God , you just want to hurt the feelings of other people with different beliefs . Your very immature and to start this thread to bait someone while patting yourself on the back shows how egotistical you are , grow up .

Grow up to be a Christian and embrace human sacrifice from a genocidal God?

No thanks. This child knows that it is wrong to have your son murdered.

Are you adult enough to step up to conditions you set or like God, would you send your own son to die in your rightful place?

Regards
DL

Interesting post.... but I think the lack of replies comes from the fact that posts are kinda hard to understand.

This is a thought..... You might think you're right. You might feel as if his way isn't the right way and it doesn't make much sense to you.

But it's like this.... does a pot say to the potter.. "why did you make me like this?" or "Why is your work shop set up this way, I don't understand why you build us this way or why you built this work shop, or how it works?" Or "why don't you do your workshop more like this or that??".

The only explaination I can give is this....

You got pure water. You use some of that water to make a lemonade. But then something happens and a poisonous frog jumps into the pitcher of leamonade. It's poisoned so you can no longer drink it's contents. So you have to come up with a way to clean it up. so you do and you put into action that way of cleaning each glass. You impliment you plan. You now serve the lemonade. You say "look this is contaminated but if you add this packet of salt to your glass then it will (somehow it will) clean out the poison. So you tell people this before they drink it. But if they go ahead and drink it without following your instructions then they've been warned that they could die because that poisonous frog (satan n sin) had jumped into the glass. Some don't believe you and drink as is, dont' follow the instructions and die. Others heed the warning and use the salt packet (salvation) and drink it and live and enjoy every drop of it as it's been cleaned.

I don't really know how else to explain it. But I do know this. Those who have knowledge of the truth and don't follow will face more scrutiny than those who don't have and don't. You've read the bible, so you've already been warned to add the salt and what to do. Pride comes before the fall

Originally posted by stupid girl
you probably got no reply because no one knew what to even do with it.

it would be the equivalent of running up to someone and handing them a popcicle stick and a booger, then running away.

But they love their popcicle stick and a booger.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am

I was trained by preachers who really know how to cherry pick.

Have you ever heard a preacher quote these verses and stories?

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

I don't think your true issue is with Christians or Christianity at all. It's with those who CLAIM they are Christian but don't understand their own beliefs. They just accept what they're told instead of learning about it and understanding it, then they're unable to have a conversation about it because ....well....they're idiots.

I do consider myself to be a Christian but in no way do I know everything there is to know about Christianity. Some of it I take on faith and feel that, at some point, I will understand. Due to that, I do not have the right or the ability to judge someone else and tell them they're wrong or right.

There's a big difference in faith and knowledge. We should seek out knowledge to support our faith, not use our faith to ignore knowledge. That's the pitfall that many people who only CLAIM to be Christian fall in.In order to have a debate, you need to know all sides of the story and they don't bother learning the other sides.

I used to have a bumper sticker that said "Lord, please protect me from your "followers" ". As far as my understanding of Chrsitianity, it was right on target. If you want to discuss something, I'll be happy to discuss it with you, but I don't have all the answers. I can tell you what I believe and why I believe it, but there is no absolute, concrete proof of anything.

The Bible itself can't be taken word for word because if it is, it contradicts itself in thousands of places, so it has to be metaphorical. There are many who don't understand that either

I don't claim that God is absolutely perfect in every possible way... he's just a heck of a lot closer than I'll ever be. There's a verse about God being a jealous God. There are clear stories and examples where he changed his mind. There are curses as well as blessings. There are many "human" attributes... which makes sense since we were created in his image.

People put too many conditions on God which makes it impossible for him to exist in the form that they claim he does. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it just means they are wrong about who he is. I don't have all the answers, but I look forward to learning what the answers are at some point and my belief is that at some point, we'll do just that. My belief mind you, not my absolute knowledge.