Author Topic: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?  (Read 19761 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6029
  • Darwins +652/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #116 on: October 16, 2013, 01:58:42 AM »
I already explained all that stuff. God gave people warning after warning after warning of His judgment and the people didn't care.

What should God have done?


Ummm, made better people...
Never trust an atom. They make up everything!

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2219
  • Darwins +34/-391
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #117 on: October 16, 2013, 02:01:22 AM »
Things will change tomorrow. We'll know more. Scientists are adding to our knowledge base on a daily basis. Building on the work of their predecessors or on the work they did last year, they are discovering more and more, and everything the discover buries religion a bit deeper every day. I know you don't want to believe that, because it would be frickin' inconvenient to have to deal with facts and stuff, but it remains true, no matter how confused you wish to stay.

I believe the Bible is the truth and it's inconvenient for some people to accept it, so they have to come up with a godless explanation to get around it.

Nobody wants to be told that they have rules to follow. People want to be their own God, their own boss, their own judge, own jury, own executioner. It's much easier to just accept that you have no responsibilities.

You know, if you are going to over-generalize, the least you can do be wrong right. And you are wrong wrong here. Your "own god" statement is so irrelevant to the discussion that you should have had google translate it into Mongolian  to emphasize that point. You are skipping around science by dissing it automatically and wondering why we don't do the same.

I have responsibilities. Tons of them. I accept them. I do my best to meet them. I don't use my atheism as an excuse to be a fool or an ass. I daresay I am far more moral in thought and action than many of the religious people I have known. My morals come from social constructs though, not religious ones, and you find that offensive. So, without even knowing a single thing about where I stand on relevant issues, you go to all the trouble of assuming I am irresponsible and my desire to be irresponsible drives my atheism, and in the process, you ignore any discussion about science because you don't know enough about it to make stuff up in that department.

We're not having a discussion, you are having an excuse-fest, and you think you're coming out on top.

Delusions will do that to a guy, I guess.

Quote
I guess we have to agree to disagree with the bold.

You can agree to disagree, but I'm not going to. Which means that there is no agreement. Which is fine with you because you don't intend to agree with anything anyway. But you're willing to relabel it for your own convenience. Because you don't mind participating poorly in discourse with others. Apparently.

I agree about that. I don't care if you do or not.

P.S. I've never read any books  by Dawkins, Hitchens or any other prominent atheist. Which means you have to come up with some other assumptions about me. I apologize about that. Maybe you could attack my height, or the color of my skin, or my liberal education, or my propensity to be a wise ass when confronting gross ignorance.

You should probably leave that last one alone though. You've already got me going in that department.

I am just trying to explain my views. I'm not making excuses or anything. I was not trying to attack you. if you are not one of those atheists who attacks others for their beliefs and makes fun of them for believing in God, then my post was not relevant to you.

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12189
  • Darwins +262/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #118 on: October 16, 2013, 02:03:17 AM »
If there is no God, why is promoting human well-being a good thing?

If there is a god, why is promoting human well-being a good thing?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2219
  • Darwins +34/-391
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #119 on: October 16, 2013, 02:04:01 AM »
Ummm, made better people...

With free will? Because people will just choose to sin again. You can't just force them to only do good either. That would be meaningless. No spiritual growth could occur.

Nobody wants to go out with a man/woman if they were forced to go out with you. You want somebody who freely chose you.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12189
  • Darwins +262/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #120 on: October 16, 2013, 02:06:01 AM »
With free will? Because people will just choose to sin again. You can't just force them to only do good either. That would be meaningless. No spiritual growth could occur.

You say that free will makes sin inevitable.

"God" is supposedly all-knowing.

"God" supposedly gave us free will.

Therefore, "God" knew that we would sin from the start.  It was a part of the plan.

According to you, anyway.  I won't be surprised if you go and disagree with yourself now.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2219
  • Darwins +34/-391
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #121 on: October 16, 2013, 02:07:08 AM »
If there is no God, why is promoting human well-being a good thing?

If there is a god, why is promoting human well-being a good thing?

To preach the Gospel peacefully and give people as much time as they need to repent and accept Jesus.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12189
  • Darwins +262/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #122 on: October 16, 2013, 02:08:04 AM »
If there is no God, why is promoting human well-being a good thing?

If there is a god, why is promoting human well-being a good thing?

To preach the Gospel peacefully and give people as much time as they need to repent and accept Jesus.

Did you mean to answer a different post?  I asked why promoting human well-being is a good thing, if a god exists.  Your answer had nothing to do with that question.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2219
  • Darwins +34/-391
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #123 on: October 16, 2013, 02:14:59 AM »
You say that free will makes sin inevitable.

"God" is supposedly all-knowing.

"God" supposedly gave us free will.

Therefore, "God" knew that we would sin from the start.  It was a part of the plan.

According to you, anyway.  I won't be surprised if you go and disagree with yourself now.

You have it backwards.

It wasn't part of the Plan. God made the Plan because of sin.

He made the Plan before we sinned though because He knew we were going to sin.

People confuse omniscience causes our choices. But, this is backwards.
Our choices cause God's omniscience.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2219
  • Darwins +34/-391
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #124 on: October 16, 2013, 02:17:42 AM »
If there is no God, why is promoting human well-being a good thing?

If there is a god, why is promoting human well-being a good thing?

To preach the Gospel peacefully and give people as much time as they need to repent and accept Jesus.

Did you mean to answer a different post?  I asked why promoting human well-being is a good thing, if a god exists.  Your answer had nothing to do with that question.

That is the answer. It is important to promote well-being because if we just went around killing each other, we might kill someone who will end up in Hell. A peaceful existence ensures that people have as long a life as they can to accept Jesus.

What is the incentive to promote well-being if there is no god? Nobody promotes the well-being of cockroaches.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12189
  • Darwins +262/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #125 on: October 16, 2013, 02:20:57 AM »
You have it backwards.

It wasn't part of the Plan. God made the Plan because of sin.

...which he supposedly knew about.  That makes it a part of the plan.  Something taken into account.

He made the Plan before we sinned though because He knew we were going to sin.

He knew that, because he knew how free will would work, and he went ahead and enacted this plan anyway.  That means that sin was a part of the plan.

You have agreed with me, while stating that you disagree with me.  As I expected, you disagreed with yourself.

People confuse omniscience causes our choices. But, this is backwards.
Our choices cause God's omniscience.

This is off-topic.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12189
  • Darwins +262/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #126 on: October 16, 2013, 02:23:37 AM »
That is the answer. It is important to promote well-being because if we just went around killing each other, we might kill someone who will end up in Hell. A peaceful existence ensures that people have as long a life as they can to accept Jesus.

But "Hell" is basically an ultimate form of unwell-being[1], right?  So that's a circular answer.  You're saying that we should promote human well-being because it will help promote human well-being.  Why is human well-being a good thing in the first place, with or without a god?

What is the incentive to promote well-being if there is no god? Nobody promotes the well-being of cockroaches.

The incentive stems from our personal values.  Except for when it doesn't.  This is true with or without any gods.  It's how people actually operate.
 1. Ultimate lack of well being, ultimate poor-being, however you want to word it.  The negation of well-being.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2219
  • Darwins +34/-391
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #127 on: October 16, 2013, 02:24:58 AM »
He knew that, because he knew how free will would work, and he went ahead and enacted this plan anyway.  That means that sin was a part of the plan.

I am confused.

Are you asking me why God did something that He knew He would do?

How could He not do it if He knew He would do it?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2219
  • Darwins +34/-391
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #128 on: October 16, 2013, 02:28:45 AM »
But "Hell" is basically an ultimate form of unwell-being[1], right?  So that's a circular answer.  You're saying that we should promote human well-being because it will help promote human well-being.  Why is human well-being a good thing in the first place, with or without a god?
 1. Ultimate lack of well being, ultimate poor-being, however you want to word it.  The negation of well-being.

God wants people in Heaven, not Hell. Why would He want us to kill people who may have not accepted the Gospel yet? That is against God's moral character.


The incentive stems from our personal values.
  Except for when it doesn't.  This is true with or without any gods.  It's how people actually operate.

Yikes! Hitler had personal values too: Jews no different from coackroaches.
Scary thought if that is where our morals come from.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12189
  • Darwins +262/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #129 on: October 16, 2013, 02:30:01 AM »
I am confused.

Disagreeing with yourself does that.

Are you asking me why God did something that He knew He would do?

Do you see a question mark at the end of the quote in question?

How could He not do it if He knew He would do it?

By also knowing how he could do something else, and doing that something else.  Or does he not know that sort of thing?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #130 on: October 16, 2013, 02:33:05 AM »
God wants people in Heaven, not Hell. Why would He want us to kill people who may have not accepted the Gospel yet? That is against God's moral character.

So god wants people in heaven...so he makes other religions, bad people and atheists?
The irony here.

Yikes! Hitler had personal values too: Jews no different from coackroaches.
Scary thought if that is where our morals come from.

It is sad that people have immoral personal values, yes.
But you see, most people actually like being nice, live and let live and what not.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12189
  • Darwins +262/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #131 on: October 16, 2013, 02:34:14 AM »
God wants people in Heaven, not Hell. Why would He want us to kill people who may have not accepted the Gospel yet? That is against God's moral character.

But that's not what we were talking about.  I was asking you why promoting human well-being was a good thing.  You've yet to answer that question, except to say that it's good because it promotes human well-being.  Okay...but why is that a worthy goal in the first place?  You're going off on irrelevant tangents.  Focus, man!

Yikes! Hitler had personal values too: Jews no different from coackroaches.
Scary thought if that is where our morals come from.

It is scary indeed.  But whether or not it's scary has no bearing on its truth.  Keep in mind that this is true whether or not your god exists.  It is how all people, including yourself, actually operate.  Your personal values apparently include a positive moral evaluation of your idea of your god.  I'd venture a guess that you and your idea of god are in agreement on all moral questions?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2219
  • Darwins +34/-391
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #132 on: October 16, 2013, 02:37:16 AM »
It is sad that people have immoral personal values, yes.
But you see, most people actually like being nice, live and let live and what not.

How can they be immoral personal values if personal values are the basis for atheistic morality?

Hitler's personal values were "destroy the Jews and make a super race."

Your personal values are "live and let live."

I'm not seeing an objective way to determine which one is moral or immoral. I am just hearing a personal opinion.

The best you can say is, "Everyone has their own opinion."
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12189
  • Darwins +262/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #133 on: October 16, 2013, 02:44:43 AM »
How can they be immoral personal values if personal values are the basis for atheistic morality?

They're the basis for theistic morality, too.  The agreement or disagreement with a particular god's values is personal.  The existence of a god does not change the personal nature of values.  This isn't an atheistic idea, it's a bare fact.

Hitler's personal values were "destroy the Jews and make a super race."

Your personal values are "live and let live."

I'm not seeing an objective way to determine which one is moral or immoral. I am just hearing a personal opinion.

The best you can say is, "Everyone has their own opinion."

A god does not change this.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +183/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #134 on: October 16, 2013, 02:54:38 AM »
God wanted sin out of the world. When it didn't work, He repented. But, God owes nothing to us. He was doing it out of kindness to eradicate sin. We didn't deserve it.
Huh? A supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing God wanted sin "out of the world" and yet his first plan (killing nearly everyone in genocide) "didn't work"? How does this make any sense at all? How can anything "not work" for an all-powerful God who always gets his way (allegedly)? Does anything happen that does not go according to this God's will under your theology? I might refer you to Romans 9 here.

Secondly, your response does not deal with the objection I raised (i.e. - that there is a double standard where God violates his own rules). An all-powerful God would not need to violate his own 'commandments' in order to rid sin from the world. Of course (and again), I don't think there is such a thing as "sin" but even if there were this theology still makes no rational sense at all. It's just hear-say. You've read it in the bible and you believe it. Why? 

I already explained all that stuff. God gave people warning after warning after warning of His judgment and the people didn't care.

What should God have done?

Well first, fictional characters cannot do anything. But for the sake of this discussion an "all-powerful" deity God thing could have done any number of corrective actions besides slaughtering women, children, and infants in the womb. For starters, show up in some form (stop being invisible), reside among everyone for as long as it takes and be a teacher/example, not a dictatorial tyrannical moral monster (and no, the "freewill" argument doesn't work here b/c Satan and 1/2 the angels supposedly had freewill and saw God all the time). An Omnimax God (who was also all-knowing) wouldn't need to murder anyone who went astray or cut unborn children from the womb. He could easily correct things peacefully (b/c he's all-powerful). As others have noted, the fact that you can think such actions as the mass slaughtering of children  by this God are OK is disgusting and vile in the least. How could you even, for one second, think that a God like this is worthy of any worship or respect whatsoever?


Which heinous acts were performed by God?
What is your definition of heinous?
God is not heinous for bringing punishment upon the wicked. Every single one of us (including myself) deserves death. God created us, we belong to Him. He has the right to expect a certain standard from us.

No, he doesn't (even if he exists) and that's what you are missing (which is why I earlier asked what standard you are using to determine that God is "good"). Are you admitting that God can be a hypocrite? If God can "do whatever" (i.e. - change the rules) then 1) your bible contradicts itself b/c it says he doesn't change, 2) he is not love b/c love clearly does not slaughter infants, and 3) you have no way of knowing if God is actually good or not b/c you are accepting that God can change the rules at anytime. For all you know, what you think is God is actually a demon deceiving you. How would you know? This looks identical to credulity and gullibility.

Now, dictators do not have rights over others just b/c they have power. Power does not equal "right". In other words, what you've just described is "might makes right" and that is a fallacy (especially when the bible exhibits a hypocritical God who violates his own commands). Mothers, for example, are more powerful then their babies. Does this give them the right to kill their children? If we are to be "Christ-like", and Christ is God, then we are to be God-like. But how can you be God-like when this God has contradicted itself over and over in the bible (saying one thing and doing another). It's the old, "Do what I say, not what I do" hypocrisy. And you call this God good? How and why?


If there is no God, why is promoting human well-being a good thing?

Because we value human life (namely our own lives and our own happiness and health). There is nothing more needed than that.


Isn't the human body nothing but a huge blob of chemicals and elements?

Cockroaches are blobs of chemicals and elements and we suffocate them to death with poison by the billions without a second thought.
Why is human life more valuable than cockroaches? Both are blobs of atoms.


I know this line of reasoning very well, b/c I used to use it on non-believers when I was a Christian apologist debating online for nearly 15 years. We are not "nothing but" anything. That view is extremely reductionist. We are living beings with the capacity to reason, love, understand, learn, experience, innovate, play music, and be happy. And the finite nature of life makes it infinitely valuable (not less). Just because you've heard in your circles that "life is meaningless without God" doesn't make it true. See my OP on this subject here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25463.0/topicseen.html

We human beings value life, subjectively, and just because someone claims that life has "objective" meaning doesn't mean that it does (anymore than merely claiming that unicorns exist is true in virtue of someone claiming it). The notion that if there is no 'cosmic meaning' then there cannot be any meaning at all is fallacious (fallacy of division). The "meaning" you give to your life is your choice, regardless of whether there is a cosmic meaning.





« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 03:12:45 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12189
  • Darwins +262/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #135 on: October 16, 2013, 03:12:51 AM »
Every single one of us (including myself) deserves death.

What moral authority do you have to either declare this, or to assign someone else the authority to declare this?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +183/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #136 on: October 16, 2013, 03:18:16 AM »
Ummm, made better people...
With free will? Because people will just choose to sin again. You can't just force them to only do good either. That would be meaningless. No spiritual growth could occur.

Nobody wants to go out with a man/woman if they were forced to go out with you. You want somebody who freely chose you.

An Omnimax (all-powerful) and all-knowing God could effortlessly look into the future, see whom of his creation would not "sin" and only create them (instead of slaughtering babies and practicing blood lust) - or the deity could just stop hiding (unlike a childhood invisible friend) and be our teacher/mentor, etc. It sounds like you accepted this stuff prior to giving it any real good critical thought or investigation. Am I right?

God wants people in Heaven, not Hell. Why would He want us to kill people who may have not accepted the Gospel yet? That is against God's moral character.

A couple things. First, God's "moral character" in the bible is not anything we can know (b/c this God can violate it's own rules like a dictator). So you have no reliable way of determining if this God is good b/c you've already admitted that you are willing to go along with anything you believe this thing says (even if it violates what the thing said before - aka don't murder, etc).

Secondly, if God really wanted all people to be in heaven (he "wishes that none should perish" etc) then they would be there - b/c he's all-powerful, and by definition all-powerful beings can get what they want no matter what. This is quite a conundrum you are in b/c it clearly contradicts your theological beliefs. You can either admit that God is not all-powerful (a sad story) saving the claim that some don't get into heaven b/c God can't get them there, or you can hold that God is all-powerful but actually wishes (and "plans") that some do not go to heaven (which is stated in Romans chapter 9 btw). But you can't have it both ways. This is why Calvinism exists.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 03:40:06 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #137 on: October 16, 2013, 04:06:54 AM »
How can they be immoral personal values if personal values are the basis for atheistic morality?

Are you seriously going to start that all atheists cannot tell moral from immoral?
I, as an atheist know not to murder jews, i came to the conclusion from others and my own common sense.
People like Hitler are, simply put, assholes who have no care for others.

Hitler's personal values were "destroy the Jews and make a super race."

Indeed they were, so one single man being insane means all atheists are?
In that case i would like to say that good old Hitler was actually a christian, funny no?

Your personal values are "live and let live."

Good, as is everyone else who is not insane...maybe excluding Nam  ;).

I'm not seeing an objective way to determine which one is moral or immoral. I am just hearing a personal opinion.

People have, for thousands of years, gained behavioral traits and started the single most advanced civilization on earth, and you cannot tell moral from immoral without a fictional book written god knows when?
This frightens me...

The best you can say is, "Everyone has their own opinion."

Funny, as i never said that...ever.
Although opinions do have a role in morals.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #138 on: October 16, 2013, 05:47:47 AM »
I am assuming that atheists are not big on the quality of forgiveness?

You need to be very, very careful when making assumptions about atheists.  The only thing we all have in common is lack of belief in deities.  Beyond that, however, you cannot assume that all atheists share a particular viewpoint on anything -- forgiveness, bigfoot, gun control, death penalty, musical preference, sexual orientation, anything.  It is true that most of us have a strong interest in science and place a strong emphasis on use of the scientific method to understand the world, but even there, there are some exceptions.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline pianodwarf

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #139 on: October 16, 2013, 05:58:36 AM »
These are a lot of responses. I have read them all but I do not have all the time in the world to respond to them all. I did not know this forum moves so quickly.

It normally doesn't.  The problem you're encountering here is a common one: we don't get many believers here, so when one does show up, he ends up getting a lot of responses to his posts.  If you do need time to respond, just say you're feeling overwhelmed, as you've done here, and we'll be patient.  I, for one, have a lot of other things to do, and I know I'm not the only one, so we can keep checking back.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2131
  • Darwins +70/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #140 on: October 16, 2013, 07:15:12 AM »
Hey skepticdude, I'm still waiting. You've painted yourself into a corner, and I'd like to see one of two things from you.

Either intellectual honesty, or horrible mental gymnastics.

What's it gonna be?


God didn't create anyone with sin. He gave us a choice. We didn't listen. Every day people choose to sin.

Parent tells their child, "no cookies before dinner." The child eats a cookie and gets punished. Blame the parent for making up the rule or the child for not listening?

Then really, how do you answer Anfauglir's posting below?

Jesus was part of god since the beginning, so in his omniscience he knew right from the beginning that his sacrifice would have been necessary.  Which means that before man was created, Yahweh knew they would fail, Yahweh knew the flood would not work, knew at every intervention he made in the world that it would fail, so.......

Um.

Sorry, I think my apologetics just failed.  If (as 54768 claims) "Jesus knew he would be resurrected since the beginning of time", then Jesus/god knew before mankind was created that a sacrifice would be necessary.  Knew before Adam, before Eden, before the serpent, that mankind would fall.

And, knowing that, Yahweh created things anyway.  KNOWING that creating the serpent would lead to mankind's fall, Yahweh created it and allowed it into the garden.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4277
  • Darwins +89/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #141 on: October 16, 2013, 09:31:40 AM »
Were an omnipotent and loving God that was our creator to really exist, it would be deeply offended by what the scriptures have depicted it as.

How do you know that? Did you just make up your own God?
no but you have
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11678
  • Darwins +288/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #142 on: October 16, 2013, 09:42:55 AM »
You say that free will makes sin inevitable.

"God" is supposedly all-knowing.

"God" supposedly gave us free will.

Therefore, "God" knew that we would sin from the start.  It was a part of the plan.

According to you, anyway.  I won't be surprised if you go and disagree with yourself now.

You have it backwards.

It wasn't part of the Plan. God made the Plan because of sin.

He made the Plan before we sinned though because He knew we were going to sin.

People confuse omniscience causes our choices. But, this is backwards.
Our choices cause God's omniscience.

You just contradicted yourself in the same breath. Congratulations! What is your prize, you may ask? 2nd place Idiot trophy. Why not 1st? You took to long for my enjoyment.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6029
  • Darwins +652/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #143 on: October 16, 2013, 09:52:46 AM »
Ummm, made better people...

With free will? Because people will just choose to sin again. You can't just force them to only do good either. That would be meaningless. No spiritual growth could occur.

Nobody wants to go out with a man/woman if they were forced to go out with you. You want somebody who freely chose you.

Why is it that god-given free will is so readily available in minor instances, like dating, but not available when one is being raped and murdered, blown up by a drone, run over by a drunk driver, squished in an earthquake or being stoned to death by fellow muslims? Why is god-given free will both of ultimate import and so easily trampled on/taken away?

Did you know that leaded gasoline caused behavioral problems in people for over half a century, and its effects and hence crime rates, are now decreasing because the use of leaded fuels has stopped and the lead levels in human bodies are slowly decreasing? What sort of free will does a mind/body unwittingly poisoned by lead have?

If god wants little Charlie to freely choose him, but at age 3, way too soon for little Charlie to be making life decisions, his drunken father smashes him over the head with a baseball bat and kills him, what free will did the little boy have? How relevant was it? Why did the father's free have so much bearing on his child's sudden lack of it? Are such imbalances typical of your god, or merely a byproduct of inadequate and oversimplified human rationalizations about variations in behavior?

If your god both puts high value/priority on his god-given free will be does nothing to protect it in an individual (i.e., protect people from external forces that violate individual god-given free will to the extent that it is no longer viable), then it is an irrelevant issue. If god-given free will is both of ultimate importance and easily disposable, then it cannot be considered a useful method of determining individual worthiness. If a twenty pound little girl being simultaneously raped and smothered by a 350 pound rapist has no choice in the matter, then your placing a high value on free will is merely an excuse, an oversimplified explanation as to why people aren't as perfect as we all wish they were. And an excuse for you to accuse others of being less perfect than you, rather than an incentive for you to help to find solutions to totally human problems.

The religious appear to have to keep things simple. One cannot espouse the existence of a god and relate his or her deity to reality without pretending not only that there is a god, but also that said god is viable, relevant, pertinent and helpful.

Made up stuff barely works in movies and books. It never works in real life. Not if one wants real answers and real solutions. Look at what the fantasies of the tea party are doing to American politics. The religious do the same thing every day with their useless notions. Such as free will and its relation to their god. Get over it. We have societies to fix. That can't happen when 70% of the people live down a rabbit hole.
Never trust an atom. They make up everything!

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4569
  • Darwins +490/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #144 on: October 16, 2013, 10:39:07 AM »
This was a response to median, but I have my own take on it.

God wanted sin out of the world. When it didn't work, He repented. But, God owes nothing to us. He was doing it out of kindness to eradicate sin. We didn't deserve it.
What makes you think this 'sin' stuff ever existed in the first place?  I'm quite serious here - saying that God only acted against sin, out of kindness to the thousands or millions of people he presumably slaughtered, is sounding like you're trying to make excuses for behavior which is beyond atrocious.  Would you offer such a rationale on behalf of Hitler[1], or other mass murderers in history?  Or would you condemn them like the monsters they were?

Quote from: skeptic54768
I already explained all that stuff. God gave people warning after warning after warning of His judgment and the people didn't care.

What should God have done?
How about deciding not to exterminate millions of "human-shaped animals" with fire, flood, angels of death, or whatever, in the first place, and instructing his followers not to do so on his behalf later on?  Instead of causing or instigating all those deaths, which he actually did do according to the Bible which you claim to know fairly well.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Which heinous acts were performed by God?
How complete of a list do you want?  Just to name a few off the top of my head:  The flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and instructing his followers to genocide the inhabitants of Canaan.  Forget the excuses for why he did these things - anyone can come up with excuses to justify the unjustifiable.  Judge it by the results.

The flood?  Supposedly to eradicate 'sin'.  The result?  Thousands or millions of humans (never mind plant and animal species, which by your definition are 'innocent') dead, but 'sin' still present and accounted for.

Sodom and Gomorrah?  Supposedly to eradicate local hotspots of 'sin'.  The result?  Thousands of humans dead, and 'sin' not even affected.

The genocide of Canaan?  Supposedly to clear out the land for his "chosen people".  The result?  Thousands of humans, the true owners and residents of the land, murdered, the survivors (virgin girls) raped and enslaved...and the Hebrews themselves get culled and conquered repeatedly by their neighbors, and eventually evicted from the land they conquered.

YHWH does not seem to be particularly intelligent, never mind competent.  He keeps doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Quote from: skeptic54768
What is your definition of heinous?
Oh, that's how you're going to play this?  Okay, very simply, heinous means a vile, odious, or wicked act.

Quote from: skeptic54768
God is not heinous for bringing punishment upon the wicked. Every single one of us (including myself) deserves death. God created us, we belong to Him. He has the right to expect a certain standard from us.
Even if the people YHWH decided to kill actually were wicked (which is in no way confirmed, as they aren't around now to tell their sides of the story), their 'wickedness' couldn't possibly justify his own against them.  Never mind this nonsense about every human deserving death - that's sounds like propaganda from a Stockholm Syndrome sufferer.

Even if YHWH did actually create humanity - which, you will note, is in no way proved - it wouldn't give him ownership rights.  It wouldn't give him the right to slaughter humans by the thousands or millions.  And it wouldn't give him the right to dictate some arbitrary standard of behavior.  If he wanted possessions, then he should have stuck to making TVs or something like that, because TVs don't think, they don't act on their own, they just do what they're told and if they get broken, you either fix them or throw them out and get a new one.  But living creatures are fundamentally different than that.  When parents create a child, they can try to assert ownership rights, tell the child that it deserves death at their hands but in their kindness they're letting it live, and so on - but we would consider such people utterly heinous and wicked.  Why give YHWH a bye?

Quote from: skeptic54768
If there is no God, why is promoting human well-being a good thing?
Isn't the human body nothing but a huge blob of chemicals and elements?
You're not doing a very good job of impressing me with your skepticism - you're just parroting the typical religious arguments regarding how you can't have morality without a god to provide it.  I guess you're just skeptical of things that you personally disagree with?  Well, anyone can do that.  It takes a lot more oomph to be skeptical of things you agree with.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Cockroaches are blobs of chemicals and elements and we suffocate them to death with poison by the billions without a second thought.
Why is human life more valuable than cockroaches? Both are blobs of atoms.
You really haven't thought this through, have you?

There's a basic, fundamental flaw in your "blob of atoms" argument, and you can't even see it.  You know how amazing it is that a "blob of atoms" can move around and do things on its own, whether it's a human or an insect?  Thinking of things as "blobs of atoms" actually gives one a greater respect for life, because you quickly realize that this all came about through purely natural means, rather than a god doing magic and making things live.  It's all interconnected, a mutually-supporting web of life.  You don't get that through believing in a god which poofed everything into existence, because that god is separate and aloof from what it creates.
 1. He was only acting against the crimes of the Jews who ensured that Germany lost WWI, and he orchestrated the slaughter of millions out of kindness to the people of Germany, so they'd never have to deal with the vile conspiracy of the inhuman Jews again.
Why Science is Never Settled, by Tedd Roberts:  http://www.baen.com/Why_Science_is_Never_Settled.asp