Author Topic: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?  (Read 21592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1815
  • Darwins +193/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #87 on: October 15, 2013, 09:26:42 PM »
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.

I just don't want you guys to think, "He's stumped! We got him!" if I don't respond to everything. I do have things to do in life. I can not constantly be in a 1 vs 20 battle every day.

I will try my best to respond to posts I deem to be the most important due to time purposes.


No problem. Take your time :)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #88 on: October 15, 2013, 09:41:44 PM »
So what?  Sin- shmin.  You get to have your sins forgiven.  You would do so much good by killing boat-loads of babies and send them directly to heaven.  And they you would be forgive, because JESUS.

No, that is not how forgiveness works. I can not knowingly go out and do things like that and simply just ask for forgiveness. Foreknowledge of things like that will not get me forgiven.

"let me go out and kill babies because God will forgive me" is the lazy way of not taking responsibility. it shows no attempt to even try to not to sin. No attempt to even try to be godlike with your actions.

It's the excuse people use when they don't believe in God and just want to justify it somehow. "I hate person X so I'm gonna kill them because God wants person x dead." This shows I would just be using God as an excuse for my selfish gains, kind of like the Crusades and Inquisition that we all detest so much. Those people weren't believers. They just wanted land and power and just say "We'll use God as our excuse to kill."

We must try our best not to do any sin. Occasionally, we slip up and ask for forgiveness and we try to not to do it anymore. The effort and determination is what counts. It's very difficult to be a believer. Atheism is easy as pie. No responsibility to anyone. Just do what you want whenever you want, for tomorrow we could be dead.

I have a friend whose father is an atheist and an alcoholic. He does nothing except drink beer and watch TV all day. He is spiritually dead. When we try and bring up the bible with him he says, "I don't wanna hear it! You're blocking the TV!" as if he cares about absolutely nothing. Believers who rejoice in Christ don't wallow around like that wasting away.

Obviously, if atheism is 100% true, my friend's father has nothing wrong with him. he can do that all he wants with no worries. He'll just die one day.

But in Christianity, being lazy is a sin that needs to be repented. God didn't create us to waste away on couches falling asleep in beer bottles.
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: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #89 on: October 15, 2013, 09:55:08 PM »
And how are you skeptical of non-belief?  Do you think that atheists secretly believe despite saying they don't?  Or is it simply a way for you to say that you are a believer?

I don't think they secretly believe. I believe that they disbelieve.
But, an atheist could never empirically prove to me that they are an atheist. It's just something we have to take on faith.

 So, if an atheist were to tell me, "Only empirically proven things exist," then I would have to assume that atheists do not exist because I can't empirically prove that they are an atheist in the first place.

None of this really follows.  It's basically a series of statements that don't have a lot to do with each other, that you're trying to tie together.  And it isn't really working.  A willing sacrifice isn't necessarily an act of love; coming back to life after said sacrifice suggests that it failed of its purpose; and we don't really know whether Jesus was actually an exception or not.

The sacrifice was his torment. He was tormented very badly.

Animals are not innocent.  Have you ever actually seen what animals can and will do to each other?  Adult male carnivores will often murder (and sometimes eat) young of their own species so that the female will be sexually available.  Adult males in a herd or pack will attack and attempt to drive off or kill wandering males.  This whole business of animals being innocent is based primarily on the idea that humans are sinful (due to the "original sin" in the book of Genesis), and animals are not.

Animals are not making a choice to do that. That is how they were made. It is not murder when an animal does it. Only humans can murder. God can not murder either. It is only something humans can do. God just takes his children. It is not murder.

Animal sacrifices were because YHWH found the smell of cooking meat pleasing, but hated the smell of cooking grains, fruits, and vegetables[1].  They were generally not blood sacrifices - Passover being a notable exception, when it was used to mark the mantles of doors to keep YHWH from killing off the firstborn of each generation.
 1. In actual point of fact, it was because the priests liked cooked meat better than cooked grains - what do you think they did with all the cooked meat after the sacrifice was done?

In the same way the blood of the lamb (Jesus) keeps Yahweh from sending us to Hell.

While I appreciate the lack of mindless Bible quoting, you should spend some time reading the Bible, considering that you don't know it nearly as well as you think you do.

With all due respect, I know the Bible very well. Christians are the ones who know the Bible. Taking advice on the Bible from an atheist doesn't make sense to me.

For example, if I wanted to know what Muslims believe, I'm gonna ask a Muslim, not a Jew.
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: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #90 on: October 15, 2013, 10:02:06 PM »
So God sins then? There are quite a few places in the bible where God commands the killing of children and/or kills children himself (with bears etc). I guess your God needs to repent then because he has (according to that book) committed murder on many occasions (as well as condoned slavery and genocide).

God repented after the Flood. He said it didn't do anything to wipe away all the sin. A God who actually apologizes to us, despite how wicked we are, is remarkable in my opinion. Shows His love for us.

But if you admit that you believe in a God who can violate his own moral laws (holding a double standard), why would you want to worship such a thing? Earlier you brought up the case of a judge in a courtroom, but judges are not held to a different standard than lay people. They are held to the same standard. If you believe God can do whatever he wants (even break his own commands) doesn't this just make God a big mafia boss (aka - a cosmic hypocritical dictator)? This sounds a lot more like a man's writings then an all-loving God's. Why would you even consider such a monster to be worthy of worship?

No way is it a double standard.

Is it a double standard for a judge to put someone in prison, yet we can't hold a criminal hostage in our basement?

Of course, I speak tongue in cheek of sorts b/c I don't think the bible is an authority on anything moral, let alone anything about deities, but I'm wondering why you accept it a moral authority with such a double standard (and heinous acts performed by God) in place. Islam has a very similar rationale for their moral compass you know.

I am curious where you get your morals. Is anything ever 100% right or 100% wrong?

If so, where does it come from?

if not, then all moral discussions & moral dilemmas are meaningless.
It's just whatever feels right to the person and that's that.

Yet, atheists do discuss moral dilemmas so I guess they must be believe things are objectively right and wrong. Otherwise, no discussion needed.
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: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #91 on: October 15, 2013, 10:14:45 PM »
The point here is that no gods ever created anyone - mankind creates gods.

Evidence?

God is a spirit. How does man create a spirit?
 
Perhaps you mean that God was made up by people.
I would need evidence of this, otherwise my view that God created man is still valid.

Rational people didn't listen to voices in their head. Rational people asked questions.

Are you implying that everyone who believes in God is not rational?

How do you know that you are rational?
Where does rationality come from?
Can you empirically experience rationality?


Look, at some time, someone said, "Why should I spend my time with a load of other people singing songs to a non-existent god?" That was, according to one god out of 5,000 gods, a sin. Before gods were invented, there was no sin. People must have survived, otherwise you would not be here.

Nobody was around before God. That is nonsensical to me. People came AFTER God created us.

"Sin" is a silly word. Yes, people will be bad from time to time. I see this as human nature. You see it as the work of a god who didn't make perfect beings.

You view it as human nature because it is what is leftover from Adam & Eve. It is sin nature, not human nature.

No, blame the idiot who gave that as an example -> the kid is condemned to an eternity in Hell for disobedience? Is that what you want?

Is there any hope that you will think about what you are saying?

The point remains that the child will think the punishment is stupid and claim that the parent didn't even have to make rules in the first place. The child wonders why they can not just do whatever they want, whenever they want.

This sounds a lot like the atheistic side of the debate. They wonder why God made all these rules and think it's silly. God has reasons for his rules though, just like parents. The children understand this when they mature. Believers understand this when they are spiritually mature.
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: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #92 on: October 15, 2013, 10:25:59 PM »
What if I said, "Yahweh is just a demon disguised as God.  Thor is the One True GodTM, and all others are just demons."  Why are you right, as opposed to me, even though we've said basically the same thing?

Are there any Scriptures out there that condemn Yahweh as a false god?

The Bible mentions the fallen angels coming down and mating with humans. Since the fallen angels hated God and wanted to be like him, it makes perfect sense that they would disguise themselves as false gods to deceive people into worshiping them.


That's a very dangerous worldview that you should probably keep to yourself.  You sound an awful lot like a suicide bomber in training.

No way lol

Suicide is a sin. I try not to commit sin as best I can. No reason to commit suicide or kill other human beings.

It suggests to me a bunch of dumb luck and cherry-picking.  If Eve was created after Adam, does that mean women the superior gender and the entire universe should be centered around the needs and caring of women?  I doubt it.

A lot of the perfect knowledge in the Bible is always being described as "dumb luck" by a lot of doubters in my opinion.

At what point do you pause and say, "You know what....maybe it's not dumb luck....maybe it's true after all?"
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 ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6134
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #93 on: October 15, 2013, 11:16:39 PM »
A lot of the perfect knowledge in the Bible is always being described as "dumb luck" by a lot of doubters in my opinion.

At what point do you pause and say, "You know what....maybe it's not dumb luck....maybe it's true after all?"

I can't speak for others, but I come up short when I try to think of places where the bible exhibited perfect knowledge. If you think it does, and also think that the flood actually happened, then your standards for knowledge are so wanting that you are in no position to tell us how perfect the bible is.

And I'll say that something is true once I determine it is. Your bible, as a fairy tale for adults, might accidentally get things right every once in a while, but anything with that many words has no chance of being wrong about everything. The odds are against it. That would take more planning than even the zealots that wrote it could muster.

No Eden, no flood, no Babel, no Red Sea parting, no lost tribe of half a million walking around for 40 years, no virgin births, no Jesus, no resurrection, no return, no armageddon, no heaven, no hell. Which part are you impressed with? The salt lady, man-eating whales, writing on the walls?

We can prove via genetics that the human race didn't start from scratch 6-10,000 years ago. We can prove via geology and biology and ice cores and tree rings and pollen layers and radioactive isotopes that life and humans and rocks and plants have been around far far longer than the bible claims. We can prove via astronomy and physics and chemistry that the universe has been around far, far longer than the bible claims. Our genes scream evolution, our rocks scream ancient histories, our stars scream chemical complexity.

You scream the name of Jesus and think you know more.

As I always say: That's sad.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #94 on: October 15, 2013, 11:19:24 PM »
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?
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: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #95 on: October 15, 2013, 11:26:17 PM »
I can't speak for others, but I come up short when I try to think of places where the bible exhibited perfect knowledge. If you think it does, and also think that the flood actually happened, then your standards for knowledge are so wanting that you are in no position to tell us how perfect the bible is.

And I'll say that something is true once I determine it is. Your bible, as a fairy tale for adults, might accidentally get things right every once in a while, but anything with that many words has no chance of being wrong about everything. The odds are against it. That would take more planning than even the zealots that wrote it could muster.

No Eden, no flood, no Babel, no Red Sea parting, no lost tribe of half a million walking around for 40 years, no virgin births, no Jesus, no resurrection, no return, no armageddon, no heaven, no hell. Which part are you impressed with? The salt lady, man-eating whales, writing on the walls?

We can prove via genetics that the human race didn't start from scratch 6-10,000 years ago. We can prove via geology and biology and ice cores and tree rings and pollen layers and radioactive isotopes that life and humans and rocks and plants have been around far far longer than the bible claims. We can prove via astronomy and physics and chemistry that the universe has been around far, far longer than the bible claims. Our genes scream evolution, our rocks scream ancient histories, our stars scream chemical complexity.

You scream the name of Jesus and think you know more.

As I always say: That's sad.

I used to think like that as well. Used to think scientists knew it all and we had no need for religion. But, when I humbled myself I realized how many things science has gotten wrong over the years. We also have only been intensively studying the age of the earth for the past 100-200 years. So to think we have everything figured out in such a short timespan and that it could never be wrong was not humbling enough for me. It made me feel dishonest.

So to put all my faith in science when things could change tomorrow, does not seem to be the best option.

"Today's facts becoming tomorrow's fiction" doesn't really give you a good leg to stand on. I believe the Bible gives a good leg to stand on because it doesn't change. God got it right the first time.
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: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #96 on: October 15, 2013, 11:33:13 PM »
Bad luck for Jesus hey! No bloody wonder &) God needed to rebadge Himself as Allah and send Mohammed to reboot His cause - with a return to violence as means of enforcement  :(

God did not do any such thing. The Islamic crescent moon is a satanic symbol. Anyone can look this up and see. Do a quick google search. It is one of the false religions created by the fallen angels deceiving Muhammad.

A religion with a blatant satanic symbol as it's symbol has to make you think, "This is certainly not the work of God."

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 William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #97 on: October 15, 2013, 11:40:32 PM »
God did not do any such thing.

Of course God didn't. It's fiction.
Git mit uns

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #98 on: October 15, 2013, 11:47:38 PM »
God did not do any such thing.

Of course God didn't. It's fiction.

I can't accept statements like that unless you provide evidence.
How is it fiction?

I have provided evidence that things that once were facts in science are now considered fiction.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2013, 11:50:54 PM by skeptic54768 »
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 ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6134
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #99 on: October 15, 2013, 11:53:52 PM »
I used to think like that as well. Used to think scientists knew it all and we had no need for religion. But, when I humbled myself I realized how many things science has gotten wrong over the years. We also have only been intensively studying the age of the earth for the past 100-200 years. So to think we have everything figured out in such a short timespan and that it could never be wrong was not humbling enough for me. It made me feel dishonest.

Hey, how long have you been deciding that christianity was right? Surely you're younger than a couple of hundred years. If time is so important and never long enough, certainly the short little period in which you have been alive is completely inadequate when it comes to providing you with enough information on the subject of religion.

Or, perhaps time isn't quite as relevant as you are excusing it to be. Why in the heck is time relevant here? Is there some inherent limit as to how fast humans can learn? Are test tubes restricted by space and time to providing answers only after 50 centuries or something? Yes indeed science is relatively young. But that doesn't automatically make it wrong about everything. If it were, we would know it because it would sound silly. LIke religion sounds silly. But it doesn't. The findings of science are remarkable consistent across disciplines. You are using the time issue as an excuse to get out of actually confronting the truth. Which I realize is convenient for you, but it accomplishes nothing.

Quote
So to put all my faith in science when things could change tomorrow, does not seem to be the best option.

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.

Quote
"Today's facts becoming tomorrow's fiction" doesn't really give you a good leg to stand on. I believe the Bible gives a good leg to stand on because it doesn't change. God got it right the first time.

I googled your quote and found nothing. Hence I've no idea where it came from, who said it, how true it is, or even how the religious community feels about it. My legs can stand quite easily atop made up excuses from others.

And you're right. The bible doesn't change. Which is why all christians, throughout the world, agree with each other 100% on all biblical scholarship, on all interpretations, on every detail, on every prophecy, on every verse as it relates to literal, metaphorical, allegorical and other interpretations. Not one single human being has ever died disagreeing with another one over the details of your book. Not only has not a single war been fought over varying interpretations of religion, but there hasn't even been a single marital spat over what Jesus meant when he said something.

Of course, my knowledge of religious history is less than 200 years old, so I might be wrong about some of that.

« Last Edit: October 15, 2013, 11:56:42 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #100 on: October 15, 2013, 11:56:17 PM »
If you thoughts these things then there isn't any correlation between how you used to be and how I am now.

- I don't think God belief is for idiots
- I don't see myself as "smarter"
- I don't say "there is no God". I simply lack belief (just like I lack belief in astrology or unicorns)
- I don't say it's silly to know that the amount of people who believe something is no indication of it's correctness


So, it is a false comparison. When I was a believer I made many of the same arguments you are making (and I later changed). That is all I was saying.

Ok fair enough. However, there are certainly atheists out there who think they are superior and more intelligent because they think they figured out there is no God. They think they have a sense of entitlement and some of them even think that religious people suffer from mental illness. This is the same attitude the Nazi's had toward other people.

Many of them mindlessly quote Dawkins, Harris and new atheist authors as if they have no thoughts of their own. They laugh at believers and call us names and claim we blindly follow, yet they blindly follow Dawkins, Harris and others. It's like a pot calling the kettle black type of thing.

if you aren't this type of atheist, then that is fine. but these types of atheists give atheism a bad reputation. Makes people think it's condescending.

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.)

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #101 on: October 15, 2013, 11:59:02 PM »
You know, ideally at least, we don't throw people in jail just for the sake of punishing them.  The intent is to prevent them from doing further harm and to potentially rehabilitate that person so that they do not do harm in the future.  You seem to think that justice is about re-balancing universal karma or something - as if it doesn't matter who is being punished, as long as someone is getting hurt it is making up for some transgression.

You have a screwed up moral compass.

No. Sometimes we put people in prison for life with no possibility of getting out. How is that rehabilitation? No matter how sorry the person is, they won't get out. The judge could say, "All these laws are stupid. Let's just make everything legal," but people would be in an uproar. They'd be saying how the judge needs to enact punishment on the criminals.

You don't have to respond to absolutely everyone, 54768, but you really should bother to read the posts of people you do reply to.  I emphasized the parts of jdawg's post that you either didn't bother to read, or had deliberately ignored.

If the former, then please slow down and read the posts you choose to respond to, so that your responses actually make sense.

If the latter, then screw off and troll somewhere else.

I'm guessing it's the former, though.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #102 on: October 16, 2013, 12:01:37 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.


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

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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-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 #103 on: October 16, 2013, 12:03:24 AM »
I really want to hear Christians respond. How is it that you think Jesus actually died for your sins? According to this story, the guy didn't stay dead. What kind of sacrifice is that? In the OT the slaughtered cattle didn't come back. Now, a God named Yahweh supposedly made everything (knowing what would happen), and planned it all out so that it would happen just the way he wanted it to (his "divine plan") just so he could come down and sacrifice himself, to himself, then preach to some people in hell for three days only to come back to life? Does this honestly make any sense to you? If so, how? A real hero would actually stay dead. His sacrifice would be a true loss for him (i.e. - he would lose everything in order that we would gain) - but that is not what happened according to the bible. God didn't kill himself so that we could live. So, why should we think this story is true?  Doesn't it just sound more like foolish men made it all up (just like in other religions)?


Christians, please help us non-believers understand why you believe this story (what good reason do you have) and why should anybody think it makes any sense?




Makes me wonder, based on history, why Christians have hated Jews so much. I mean, if Jesus didn't "die", then, he wouldn't have died for "our" sins, nor even to come back to prove he was Biblegod .

They should've loved Jews, celebrated them. Of course, they probably truly hate Jews because they are Biblegod's chosen people, and they are not.

Sure, most love them now but that seems more of an end to a mean, like the "end" that they always preach will happen in their lifetime yet never does but then you have the fundies who may try to expedite the process--and they wonder why they're not the chosen ones.

;)

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

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #104 on: October 16, 2013, 12:05:20 AM »
You don't have to respond to absolutely everyone, 54768, but you really should bother to read the posts of people you do reply to.  I emphasized the parts of jdawg's post that you either didn't bother to read, or had deliberately ignored.

If the former, then please slow down and read the posts you choose to respond to, so that your responses actually make sense.

If the latter, then screw off and troll somewhere else.

I'm guessing it's the former, though.

I didn't think I ignored it. I'm sorry.

I am assuming that atheists are not big on the quality of forgiveness?

"Life without parole" seems harsh if this is the only life we get, doesn't it? Why not forgive the person and allow him out to enjoy the one life he has? Otherwise, there is no possibility of him learning from the punishment and getting out to live a normal life.
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 William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #105 on: October 16, 2013, 12:09:13 AM »
I can't accept statements like that unless you provide evidence.
How is it fiction?

A talking snake.
Exodus didn't happen.
Nazareth doesn't have a hill.
Jesus was captured after and before the Passover meal.
The Johannine Comma.
Drinking poison and handling snakes.

Don't get me started  ;D


Git mit uns

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #106 on: October 16, 2013, 12:16:04 AM »
I didn't think I ignored it. I'm sorry.

Well, you did ignore it.  As a result, your post pretended that jdawg was saying something that (s)he didn't say.  It was convenient for you to ignore what you did, which brings up the question of whether it was an intentional attempt at deception.

I am assuming that atheists are not big on the quality of forgiveness?

You are assuming a lot of negative things about other groups of people.  When the group of people is classified based on skin colour, that is called "racism".  It's no prettier when you do it to other groups, though, either.

"Life without parole" seems harsh if this is the only life we get, doesn't it? Why not forgive the person and allow him out to enjoy the one life he has? Otherwise, there is no possibility of him learning from the punishment and getting out to live a normal life.

In some cases, preventing harm someone might do to others is more important than attempting rehabilitation.  Because they're dangerous.

You clearly already know this and are now being disingenuous.

Legal punishments have four goals, not necessarily all of them at the same time for every case:
1. Direct protection.  Incarceration is primarily for this purpose.
2. Pre-emptive dissuasion.  The idea is that people will be less likely to commit crimes if there is a penalty to that crime.
3. Rehabilitation.  The goal is to correct behavior of a known criminal.
4. Vengeance.  The goal is satisfying the emotional needs of those who know about the crime.

Agree?  Disagree?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1815
  • Darwins +193/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #107 on: October 16, 2013, 12:17:41 AM »

Ok fair enough. However, there are certainly atheists out there who think they are superior and more intelligent because they think they figured out there is no God. They think they have a sense of entitlement and some of them even think that religious people suffer from mental illness. This is the same attitude the Nazi's had toward other people.

Many of them mindlessly quote Dawkins, Harris and new atheist authors as if they have no thoughts of their own. They laugh at believers and call us names and claim we blindly follow, yet they blindly follow Dawkins, Harris and others. It's like a pot calling the kettle black type of thing.

if you aren't this type of atheist, then that is fine. but these types of atheists give atheism a bad reputation. Makes people think it's condescending.


There is no such thing as 'giving atheism a bad reputation'. Unlike your faith in your religious beliefs, atheism is a negative positive (like being a non-astrologer). So neither Dawkins, no Harris, nor Dennett, nor Hitchens have "given atheism a bad name", anymore than they have given not believing in Unicorns a bad name. You cannot give a bad name to a none belief (only to a positive one). With that said, what you may be referring to are those atheists that also make blanket type positive claims regarding deities but I have not seen any of those men making such claims.


Again, atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of one (a negative position).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-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 #108 on: October 16, 2013, 12:17:55 AM »
I can't accept statements like that unless you provide evidence.
How is it fiction?

A talking snake.
Exodus didn't happen.
Nazareth doesn't have a hill.
Jesus was captured after and before the Passover meal.
The Johannine Comma.
Drinking poison and handling snakes.

Don't get me started  ;D

I saw a talking snake in Disney's Robin Hood. That's evidence they exist.

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

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #109 on: October 16, 2013, 12:20:18 AM »
Again, atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of one (a negative position).

It can still be given a bad name in the eyes of those who are ignorant of what you've explained.  That may not be justified, but it is still a real-world effect of a title getting a bad name.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6134
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #110 on: October 16, 2013, 12:22:57 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.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-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 #111 on: October 16, 2013, 12:41:30 AM »
PP,

Quote
P.S. I've never read any books  by Dawkins, Hitchens or any other prominent atheist.

Me either. Except Paine but I believe he was a deist.

from The Age of Reason[1]
Quote
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

-Nam
 1. I actually have this downloaded to my phone but this quote's from wiki
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6134
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #112 on: October 16, 2013, 12:48:41 AM »
I'm trying to imagine skeptic in a conversation with his friends. I imagine it would go about like this:

Friend: Hey skeptic, whatta you think of that debacle in Washington. Man, are our politicians useless, or what?

Skeptic: My car is not red, it's white. And you know it. You're just saying that because you think you're so special because you ride your bike on weekends. I've ever even seen a red car.

Friend: Right now I'm mad at politicians in both parties. They all seem crazy to me.

Skeptic: I am NOT an orphan. How could I be this tall if I was? Huh? You can't answer that one can you. That's why all the women in your life are cheap whores.

Friend: And I can't seem to get a straight answer on what will happen if the US defaults on its loans.

Skeptic: Hey, I hear you got gored by a buffalo when you were on vacation in Hawaii. And your wife is ugly too.

Friend: Well, gotta go.

Skeptic: Yea, run away with your tail between you legs, looser! Thought you could win an argument with me, huh. That'll teach you!
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4638
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #113 on: October 16, 2013, 12:49:18 AM »
I don't think they secretly believe. I believe that they disbelieve.
But, an atheist could never empirically prove to me that they are an atheist. It's just something we have to take on faith.
Sounds like a word game to me.  Or else you have a bad idea of what atheism means.

Quote from: skeptic54768
So, if an atheist were to tell me, "Only empirically proven things exist," then I would have to assume that atheists do not exist because I can't empirically prove that they are an atheist in the first place.
Atheists are not stupid enough to think that only things which have been empirically proven to exist can exist.  The universe is so large that there will always be many things that we can't empirically prove yet still exist.  For that matter, atheists are also not stupid enough to think that subjective things (preferences, tastes, etc) can be proven empirically to begin with.  You can't 'prove' that I like chocolate, or that I like peanut butter - you can only judge it based on my reactions to those foods.

However, a subjective belief can never prove that something objective exists.  Which is the problem, since most religious believers think their subjective belief reflects objective reality.

Quote from: skeptic54768
The sacrifice was his torment. He was tormented very badly.
According to the Bible.  However, the Bible doesn't prove that it actually happened.  It only shows that someone wrote about it happening - there's no objective evidence to prove that this torment ever actually happened (never mind the whole resurrection business).  All you have is your own subjective belief about what's written in the Bible.  But you can't prove that your belief is objectively true, anymore than someone else can prove that it's objectively false.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Animals are not making a choice to do that. That is how they were made. It is not murder when an animal does it. Only humans can murder. God can not murder either. It is only something humans can do. God just takes his children. It is not murder.
What, you think animals do not have volition?  You think animals don't make choices?  You think animals don't have morality of their own?  Maybe you should spend some time checking out recent animal research which indicates that animals do have morality (admittedly, a primitive form of morality) and that they do make choices.

We also see some kinds of animals exile members of their social group that act too viciously towards other members of that group (and kill them if they don't take the hint), which is a clear mirror of human tribal/social behavior.  Indeed, humans do exactly that, both long ago and today - if you act in a way that unnecessarily hurts other people of your social group, you're exiled from that group, or killed if you try to stick around.

Instead of reciting platitudes about how animals don't murder, you might want to spend some time thinking about the fact that even today, we have a large number of people who don't think of other humans as actual people.  For them, killing a "non-person" human is no more an act of murder than killing a dog or a horse would be.  And then you might want to think about the fact that the Old Testament treats most humans as non-persons, and thus whether it was the Hebrews or YHWH who killed these "non-people", it wasn't murder because their victims weren't actual people (according to them).  For that matter, it happened long after the New Testament was written - take the way dark-skinned humans were treated for hundreds of years.  They weren't actually considered people either, which is why they could be bought and sold as property, separated from their families, beaten, raped, and even killed by their masters with near-impunity.

Quote from: skeptic54768
In the same way the blood of the lamb (Jesus) keeps Yahweh from sending us to Hell.
Except it doesn't.  If it did, nobody in any religion would be threatened with Hell.  Yet there are plenty of Christian sects which state, unequivocally, that if you don't follow their particular rules (usually far above and beyond simply accepting the necessity of the "human sacrifice"), you're going to hell.  So no, it doesn't keep anyone from going to Hell.

Quote from: skeptic54768
With all due respect, I know the Bible very well. Christians are the ones who know the Bible. Taking advice on the Bible from an atheist doesn't make sense to me.
I seriously doubt you know it half as well as you think you do.  I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't know it a tenth as well as you think you do.  And that's because the vast majority of Christians don't actually read the Bible.  They just open it up when instructed to by a religious leader and read a few passages, then close it up until the next time they're told to open it.  And while not everyone is like that, most Christians who read the Bible on their own just focus on the New Testament, specifically Genesis, Exodus, the Gospels, and Acts, and cherry-pick the rest as needed.  So don't try to tell me that you know the Bible very well, because the odds are very much against you knowing very much about it at all.

Have you actually read the entire Bible, cover to cover?  Have you studied and seriously thought about everything written in it?  If the answer to either of those questions is no, you don't know the Bible all that well.

Quote from: skeptic54768
For example, if I wanted to know what Muslims believe, I'm gonna ask a Muslim, not a Jew.
Many atheists, at least in this country, are former Christians who started seriously reading the Bible (and I mean the whole Bible, not just a handful of books within it) when their faith wavered.  So you shouldn't dismiss their knowledge of the Bible just because you don't agree with the conclusions they ultimately came to, especially given the extremely high likelihood that you are much less familiar with the Bible than you think you are.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1815
  • Darwins +193/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jesus - What Kind of Sacrifice Are You Talking About?
« Reply #114 on: October 16, 2013, 12:49:30 AM »

skeptic54768, thank you for responding to my post :)

[size=78%]God repented after the Flood. He said it didn't do anything to wipe away all the sin. A God who actually apologizes to us, despite how wicked we are, is remarkable in my opinion. Shows His love for us.[/size]

So there's is a double standard then. God can kill/murder women, children, infants, babies in the womb, and he can just say "sorry" and it's all good but somehow we are given a "sin nature" and are (by design and default) on our way to hell due to the God thing creating us that way. How is this any different from superstition?



No way is it a double standard.

Is it a double standard for a judge to put someone in prison, yet we can't hold a criminal hostage in our basement?

Another false analogy here. Judges are held to the same standard anyone else is (i.e. - they cannot violate the law). In fact, under a citizens arrest you can hold a criminal against their will. However, this is aside from the point because we are discussing the analogy of a judge (i.e. - God) and the subjects (i.e. - us). Can a judge murder people and get away with it? Not under the law he can't, can he? Let's practice some intellectual honesty here now. If we are comparing apples to apples, then the God you believe exists must be held to the same moral standard we are. And yet what we find in the OT is quite the opposite. We find a moral monster who loves the smell of blood, endorses slavery, genocide, infanticide, stoning homosexuals and unruly children, and the list goes on. Why should we believe any of this ancient book is from a loving God?


Of course, I speak tongue in cheek of sorts b/c I don't think the bible is an authority on anything moral, let alone anything about deities, but I'm wondering why you accept it a moral authority with such a double standard (and heinous acts performed by God) in place. Islam has a very similar rationale for their moral compass you know.


I am curious where you get your morals. Is anything ever 100% right or 100% wrong?

If so, where does it come from?

if not, then all moral discussions & moral dilemmas are meaningless.
It's just whatever feels right to the person and that's that.

Well first, why did you just dodge my question and put a question to me like that? I'm glad to answer your question but it doesn't seem fair that I asked a question and you didn't answer. I asked: Why do you accept it [the bible] as a moral authority with such a double standard (and heinous acts performed by God) in place?


Now, pertaining to your question regarding my position on morality I will refer you to the below video (which pretty well spells out my position). However, you have presented a false dichotomy above (absolute morality or meaninglessness) and I reject that dichotomy as faulty. As a precursor though, I do not hold that morality applies where there are no minds, nor do I hold that morality is about pleasing/obeying some alleged invisible God thing. Furthermore, I also do not accept the flawed black and white thinking that we must "know for certain" specific moral truths in order to have morality (and this pertains to a definition of morality which has nothing to do with deities, ancient religious texts, etc). Perhaps this is where our disagreement may lie (and that's OK). I get my morality from a rational consideration of the consequences of my actions.



Yet, atheists do discuss moral dilemmas so I guess they must be believe things are objectively right and wrong. Otherwise, no discussion needed.

Actually, I partially agree with you here (at least if I understand you correctly). Some atheists do argue for an objective morality. However, the "objective" morality many of us non-believers discuss has to do with our definition of what morality is. In other words, if morality is about obeying/pleasing an invisible God then no, we don't think such a thing is real. However, if morality is about human well being, as many non-believers hold, then morality is objective in the sense that human well being can generally be measured and/or quantified (just as health/wellness can be quantified) - again, no absolute knowledge needed.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 12:54:21 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • 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 #115 on: October 16, 2013, 01:51:55 AM »
So there's is a double standard then. God can kill/murder women, children, infants, babies in the womb, and he can just say "sorry" and it's all good but somehow we are given a "sin nature" and are (by design and default) on our way to hell due to the God thing creating us that way. How is this any different from superstition?

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.

Another false analogy here. Judges are held to the same standard anyone else is (i.e. - they cannot violate the law). In fact, under a citizens arrest you can hold a criminal against their will. However, this is aside from the point because we are discussing the analogy of a judge (i.e. - God) and the subjects (i.e. - us). Can a judge murder people and get away with it? Not under the law he can't, can he? Let's practice some intellectual honesty here now. If we are comparing apples to apples, then the God you believe exists must be held to the same moral standard we are. And yet what we find in the OT is quite the opposite. We find a moral monster who loves the smell of blood, endorses slavery, genocide, infanticide, stoning homosexuals and unruly children, and the list goes on. Why should we believe any of this ancient book is from a loving God?

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, why did you just dodge my question and put a question to me like that? I'm glad to answer your question but it doesn't seem fair that I asked a question and you didn't answer. I asked: Why do you accept it [the bible] as a moral authority with such a double standard (and heinous acts performed by God) in place? [/font]

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.

Actually, I partially agree with you here (at least if I understand you correctly). Some atheists do argue for an objective morality. However, the "objective" morality many of us non-believers discuss has to do with our definition of what morality is. In other words, if morality is about obeying/pleasing an invisible God then no, we don't think such a thing is real. However, if morality is about human well being, as many non-believers hold, then morality is objective in the sense that human well being can generally be measured and/or quantified (just as health/wellness can be quantified) - again, no absolute knowledge needed.

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?

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.

 
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.)