The Atonement of Jesus Christ is Immoral.
Debate Rounds (3)
I make my argument as if this event occurred only to bring to light a pervasive doctrine that stands on shaky moral ground. So let's begin with my argument and topic at hand. The atonements of Jesus Christ is immoral and here's why:
Punishments can include harm or detainment.
Major: Punishing and or Harming and or detaining an innocent is immoral.
Minor: Penal substitution requires 'punishing and or harming and or detaining an innocent' for the crimes of another.
Conclusion: Therefore, penal substitution is immoral with a possible exception.
Exception: If penal substitution worked effectively to produce the most happiness for all involved in a community, it may be moral.
There are two reasons for which humans may find penal substitution as an end to justify means to provide the most happiness possible for a community.
Penal substitution can be used as punishment on the convicted to produce a feeling of guilt in the mind of the convicted to modify behavior to thwart further punishment against the innocent, and ultimately, to thwart criminal behavior.
The innocent being punished may request the truly convicted to modify his or her behavior to thwart further punishment against the innocent, and ultimately, to thwart criminal behavior.
There is no way to guarantee the truly convicted will modify his or her behavior based on the reasons listed above. (I can explain why it's impossible to guarantee behavioral modification upon your request.)
If modification doesn't occur, there will be continued suffering and or discomfort for the punished and others. This is an axiom. Many will suffer as a result, including the innocent being punished. (Please see the example below for further details on this point.)
Among humans, penal substitution will remain ineffective.
If penal substitution is ineffective, it remains immoral.
Therefore, the atonement of Jesus Christ is immoral.
Here is an example: If we work in an office together, and I make a mistake, which causes our boss economic grief. He is angry with me, but he fires you using penal substitution. You request that I no longer make that same mistake again. And I may feel guilty to modify my behavior and no longer make the same mistake. However, in the end, there is no way to guarantee that I won't make the same mistake. And if I know that I can get away with making this mistake without punishment, I may continue onward getting the next person in line fired from the office. As a result many new employees, the company, and my boss will suffer from this repeated mistake.
God created a system that requires substitution for the punishment of our sins through his son Jesus Christ for our salvation. He used an ineffective means to modify human behavior. I believe, as a result of this method are clear to see. Not that I would deem many of gods commandments crimes; however, these alleged sins are repeatedly committed by Christians without modification or correction. Evidence for my argument, in many ways, is staring at believers' in their face.
Minor: Penal substitution is immoral.
Major: God's system requires penal substitution.
Conclusion: If god's system includes penal substitution, then it is immoral.
I thought it an axiom that the system would fall under moral scrutiny.
Furthermore, to respond to your first remark, Jesus was punished for our sins. He did not take our sins. Then he was punished for them, so now we can go to heaven.
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and respond to your statement with rearrangement.
If God is truly keeping a tally of our sins, and he sees these sins as currency, then why can't we pay God back for our sins?You might say, Jesus was the only individual who could pay God back for the debt accumulated because he was perfect or the son of God. Why? Why was he the only human capable of perfection? Am I not the son of God as well? Why? Why? And why? Furthermore, why can't God simply forgive us for our sins? And if you believe Jesus to be God, why would he punish himself, and who is he trying to impress?? Why create a system based on such nonsense and an economic for sin?
The answer to these questions is obvious. God is improbable. And we should not base our lives on nonsense.
I also believe that the idea of sin as a form of debt is misunderstood.
You may feel a sense of debt to Jesus Christ because he was substitute for the punishment of you sins, and you may modify your behavior. But he did not take our sins. He was punished for them. If he had taken our sins, he would be with sin. And he would cease to be perfect. If he is not perfect, how could he atone for our sins if a requisite for the task at hand is perfection. The idea of debt is nothing more than a feeling you have towards Jesus Christ. And as I stated before, the feeling of debt may lead to behavioral modification. But it does not guarantee modification.
OK. As I understand it the protocol was changed to "do as you would be done by"; This overrides previous protocols. Your argument then is amended to: God's system required penal substitution; The conclusion then is amended to: If god's system included penal substitution, then it was immoral.
The proof of the existance of God is highly subjective with only personal experience to support it. Naturally we doubt it untill we recieve sufficient evidence. Just because you personally have not yet received sufficient evidence only makes God an improbability to yourself. This doesn't prove that God doesn't exist but only that you haven't recieved sufficient evidence to support a subjective opinion that God does exist.
The modification of behaviour is something I struggle with. I accept that a sin is doing something to another that I don't want done to myself (new protocol) and if I feel sufficient remorse then my sin is foregiven. Now I have to accept that every incidence is in accordance with my personal account. And if I am displeased I'm sure there will be an answer.
1. Evolution trumps all creation myths carried out by a God. If God didn't create man, then God most likely does not exist.
2. The 'big bang theory' also trumps creation myths carried out by a god. The big bang theory does not include a god at any point. And we have valid reasons and evidence to prove an initial start to the big bang. Reasons and evidence for the initial start can be found in Lawrence Krauss's book titled "A Universe from Nothing". I highly recommended reading it.
3. So called spiritual experiences cannot be evidence for a God. They are experiences that you may associate as a foundation for your belief in God or a religion. But they are merely experiences. These things occur in or out of a religion or a belief in God. Neurology can easily explain such experiences without the need for there to be a spirit or God.
4. There are reasons aside from the few mentioned.
I know God is improbable. If God existed, then we would need an explanation as to the origin of God. And complex ideas, require complex explanations.
We can explain the origin of man and the universe without a god. So why do we need one? We don't.
If I'm not mistaken, it sounds as though you agree with my point. You stated: "Now I have to accept that every incidence is in accordance with my personal account. And if I am displeased I'm sure there will be an answer." You want to be accountable for your actions. And so do I. Letting someone else take the fall is weak and doesn't allow me to stand on my own and be man. But the scriptures do not justify your logic or mine. Jesus was punished for your sins.
2/ The Big Bang theory is a theory.
3/ Spiritual experiences are an on-going phenomena involving the subject with a great mystery.
5/Personally I don't care much about origins; I just want to get what I can get while the getting is good.
6/ So you don't need a God? So you're a techie working out the kinks in a routine that doesn't involve higher-powers. Nothing wrong with that. We need lots of techies.
7/ I've compare the Scriptures to frankfurters and pickles, they're just not meat and potatoes.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.