Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

For God to condemn you just to die for you is

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 2:27:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral.

In doing so, God would be endorsing human sacrifice and the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice. He would also be condoning suicide.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

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

Substitutionary atonement is immoral according to scriptures and all other holy books that I know of. I think that the guilty should be punished and not an innocent human or even a man being ridden like a mule, ---- to use common jargon, --- by a God/Jesus. This is likely the moral reason why most Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah along with the fact that Jesus did not fulfill the other Jewish requirements set by their books and myths.

People are supposed to martyr themselves for their God, not their God martyr himself for them.

Do you agree that for God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral?

If you believe that substitutionary atonement is moral, please provide an argument to support your position.

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

There are also ample quotes in scripture that speak against God wanting any sacrifice at all and if you embrace the notion of innocent blood atonement and God setting Jesus as the ransom for sins, then please view these for the real biblical perspective.

Regards
DL
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 2:46:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Maybe you should've posted this in the debate section. It could be interesting.

I think it's a little misleading to say "God condemns you just so he can die for you." The immediate reason for why God condemns people is because they sin.

Whenever we commit sin, it is God's law that we have broken. Since it's him that we owe the debt to, he has the right to determine what he will accept as payment. So he has the right to accept the death of Jesus as payment for our sins even if he prohibits human sacrifice in any other case.

While we intuitively recognize that it's immoral to punish one person for the crimes of another, in the case of Jesus' sacrifice, Jesus was not an innocent third party. Jesus is God, which means he is the one offended. He has the right, then, to offer himself in sacrifice for those who sinned against him.

It's not true that the Bible strictly prohibits substitutionary atonement. The Mosaic law prescribes animal sacrifice for the sake of substitutionary atonement. There are scriptures that say God doesn't desire sacrifice, but if you read them in their context, God's desire for sacrifice is contrasted with his desire that people live righteously. If they lived righteously, they wouldn't need sacrifice. But obviously sacrifice is morally permissible since God prescribed it in the Mosaic law.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 2:46:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
Maybe you should've posted this in the debate section. It could be interesting.

I think it's a little misleading to say "God condemns you just so he can die for you." The immediate reason for why God condemns people is because they sin.

Whenever we commit sin, it is God's law that we have broken. Since it's him that we owe the debt to, he has the right to determine what he will accept as payment. So he has the right to accept the death of Jesus as payment for our sins even if he prohibits human sacrifice in any other case.

why do people sin?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 2:51:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 2:46:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
Maybe you should've posted this in the debate section. It could be interesting.

I think it's a little misleading to say "God condemns you just so he can die for you." The immediate reason for why God condemns people is because they sin.

True

Whenever we commit sin, it is God's law that we have broken. Since it's him that we owe the debt to, he has the right to determine what he will accept as payment.

True

So he has the right to accept the death of Jesus as payment for our sins even if he prohibits human sacrifice in any other case.

While we intuitively recognize that it's immoral to punish one person for the crimes of another, in the case of Jesus' sacrifice, Jesus was not an innocent third party. Jesus is God, which means he is the one offended. He has the right, then, to offer himself in sacrifice for those who sinned against him.

It's not true that the Bible strictly prohibits substitutionary atonement. The Mosaic law prescribes animal sacrifice for the sake of substitutionary atonement. There are scriptures that say God doesn't desire sacrifice, but if you read them in their context, God's desire for sacrifice is contrasted with his desire that people live righteously. If they lived righteously, they wouldn't need sacrifice. But obviously sacrifice is morally permissible since God prescribed it in the Mosaic law.

True
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 2:53:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.

Why do people want to sin?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 2:53:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:46:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
Maybe you should've posted this in the debate section. It could be interesting.

I think it's a little misleading to say "God condemns you just so he can die for you." The immediate reason for why God condemns people is because they sin.

Whenever we commit sin, it is God's law that we have broken. Since it's him that we owe the debt to, he has the right to determine what he will accept as payment. So he has the right to accept the death of Jesus as payment for our sins even if he prohibits human sacrifice in any other case.

why do people sin?
The simple answer is this: It is our nature.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 2:54:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 2:53:26 PM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:46:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
Maybe you should've posted this in the debate section. It could be interesting.

I think it's a little misleading to say "God condemns you just so he can die for you." The immediate reason for why God condemns people is because they sin.

Whenever we commit sin, it is God's law that we have broken. Since it's him that we owe the debt to, he has the right to determine what he will accept as payment. So he has the right to accept the death of Jesus as payment for our sins even if he prohibits human sacrifice in any other case.

why do people sin?
The simple answer is this: It is our nature.

If it is our nature then how are we responsible for our actions?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 2:56:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 2:53:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.

Why do people want to sin?

Why don't you tell me where you're going with this line of questioning so we can cut to the quick and not go back and forth all day?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 2:59:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 2:56:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:53:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.

Why do people want to sin?

Why don't you tell me where you're going with this line of questioning so we can cut to the quick and not go back and forth all day?

What he said.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 3:03:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 2:56:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:53:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.

Why do people want to sin?

Why don't you tell me where you're going with this line of questioning so we can cut to the quick and not go back and forth all day?

My point is that we don't have freewill, and hence cannot be morally responsible for our actions before any objective juristic process, such as the judgement of God.

You tell me we sin because we want to...but that begs the question of why do we want to. In order for you to prove that we control our actions, you must prove that we are the sole cause of our actions...and cause leads to an infinite regress. If desire causes action, then what causes desire? What is the cause of the cause of desire? etc. If you ever end the causal regress and claim that one event is self-sufficient, you admit it has no antecedent cause and therefore occurred without any control involved. Which then begs the question, how are we responsible for it if came from nothing?

For this reason, freewill is incoherent,....the very term is an oxymoron. Something that is free has no cause. Yet something without cause, could not have been willed!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 4:32:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 3:03:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:56:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:53:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.

Why do people want to sin?

Why don't you tell me where you're going with this line of questioning so we can cut to the quick and not go back and forth all day?

My point is that we don't have freewill, and hence cannot be morally responsible for our actions before any objective juristic process, such as the judgement of God.

You tell me we sin because we want to...but that begs the question of why do we want to.

For the same reason that we do not sin. In a given situation, we do not want to.

In order for you to prove that we control our actions, you must prove that we are the sole cause of our actions...and cause leads to an infinite regress.

If desire causes action, then what causes desire? What is the cause of the cause of desire? etc. If you ever end the causal regress and claim that one event is self-sufficient, you admit it has no antecedent cause and therefore occurred without any control involved. Which then begs the question, how are we responsible for it if came from nothing?

For this reason, freewill is incoherent,....the very term is an oxymoron. Something that is free has no cause. Yet something without cause, could not have been willed!

Nobody said, or alluded to, any idea that freewill is 100% complete in all circumstances.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 4:50:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 4:32:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/4/2012 3:03:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:56:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:53:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.

Why do people want to sin?

Why don't you tell me where you're going with this line of questioning so we can cut to the quick and not go back and forth all day?

My point is that we don't have freewill, and hence cannot be morally responsible for our actions before any objective juristic process, such as the judgement of God.

You tell me we sin because we want to...but that begs the question of why do we want to.

For the same reason that we do not sin. In a given situation, we do not want to.

In order for you to prove that we control our actions, you must prove that we are the sole cause of our actions...and cause leads to an infinite regress.

If desire causes action, then what causes desire? What is the cause of the cause of desire? etc. If you ever end the causal regress and claim that one event is self-sufficient, you admit it has no antecedent cause and therefore occurred without any control involved. Which then begs the question, how are we responsible for it if came from nothing?

For this reason, freewill is incoherent,....the very term is an oxymoron. Something that is free has no cause. Yet something without cause, could not have been willed!

Nobody said, or alluded to, any idea that freewill is 100% complete in all circumstances.

that's nice....except that my argument concluded that freewill 100% false in all circumstances. So if you have some circumstance where freewill is complete (whatever that means), my argument still addresses and defeats your position. You haven't addressed the the causal regress argument, so I'm not sure what you accomplished here.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 5:05:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 2:46:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
Maybe you should've posted this in the debate section. It could be interesting.

I think it's a little misleading to say "God condemns you just so he can die for you." The immediate reason for why God condemns people is because they sin.

True but even before man was created, God had planned to have Jesus killed as a sacrifice for them. That is scripture. He could have settled for an animal sacrifice or just followed the quote I gave to forgive as it says that Jesus holds no responsibility for our salvation. God set an insane ransom when he could have chosen a moral way to forgive.

Whenever we commit sin, it is God's law that we have broken.

A law that men have said he wrote unless you have some kind of proof to prove your statement other than hearsay and book say.

Since it's him that we owe the debt to,

Really? If I rape you, does God feel the strokes?

What of the real victim who has first rights to forgive?
We both know that man does not have the power to hurt an all-powerful God.


he has the right to determine what he will accept as payment.

Not if the victim is given the consideration due him or her. Does that person not deserve to have his or her rights enforced as well or do you think they have no rights?

So he has the right to accept the death of Jesus as payment for our sins even if he prohibits human sacrifice in any other case.

As above so below says that we are to emulate his example. If we are exempt on that one, why should we not be exempt on all others?

While we intuitively recognize that it's immoral to punish one person for the crimes of another, in the case of Jesus' sacrifice, Jesus was not an innocent third party.

What was Jesus guilty of if not innocent?

Jesus is God, which means he is the one offended. He has the right, then, to offer himself in sacrifice for those who sinned against him.

I see. So only a guilty God, from what you said just above, he is not an innocent third party, can sacrifice himself. That is suicide. Is suicide good then to God?

It's not true that the Bible strictly prohibits substitutionary atonement. The Mosaic law prescribes animal sacrifice for the sake of substitutionary atonement.

Not for capital crimes and that is supposed to be covered by the sacrifice of Jesus. Apples and oranges my friend.
The Jewish law also included restitution to the victim whom you seem to have ignored so far.


There are scriptures that say God doesn't desire sacrifice, but if you read them in their context, God's desire for sacrifice is contrasted with his desire that people live righteously. If they lived righteously, they wouldn't need sacrifice. But obviously sacrifice is morally permissible since God prescribed it in the Mosaic law.

Again, apples and oranges. See above.

You seem to think that Gods ways are, do as I say and not as I do, yet scriptures are clear that we are supposed to try to be and do exactly what God does. Are you saying that the law maker does not believe in his laws enough to follow them?

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 5:13:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 4:32:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/4/2012 3:03:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:56:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:53:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.

Why do people want to sin?

Why don't you tell me where you're going with this line of questioning so we can cut to the quick and not go back and forth all day?

My point is that we don't have freewill, and hence cannot be morally responsible for our actions before any objective juristic process, such as the judgement of God.

You tell me we sin because we want to...but that begs the question of why do we want to.

For the same reason that we do not sin. In a given situation, we do not want to.

In order for you to prove that we control our actions, you must prove that we are the sole cause of our actions...and cause leads to an infinite regress.

If desire causes action, then what causes desire? What is the cause of the cause of desire? etc. If you ever end the causal regress and claim that one event is self-sufficient, you admit it has no antecedent cause and therefore occurred without any control involved. Which then begs the question, how are we responsible for it if came from nothing?

For this reason, freewill is incoherent,....the very term is an oxymoron. Something that is free has no cause. Yet something without cause, could not have been willed!

Nobody said, or alluded to, any idea that freewill is 100% complete in all circumstances.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or " it"s all man"s fault".

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Regards
DL

----------------------------

Theistic evolution.
http://www.youtube.com...

Are you suggesting that free will or not, that you can somehow not compete for resources and somehow live?

Not so. If the fittest survives, those who cannot win at competition are the least fit and will die.
This is irrefutable.

Regards
DL
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 5:29:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 2:53:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.

Why do people want to sin?

Because they are tempted to sin. If someone upsets you enough you will want to stick a hatchet in their skull. Whether you act on that urge is your own choice. If you are 40 and married, and your wife let herself go, you may take a 25 year old up on their offer for sex.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 5:33:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 5:29:55 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:53:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.

Why do people want to sin?

Because they are tempted to sin. If someone upsets you enough you will want to stick a hatchet in their skull. Whether you act on that urge is your own choice. If you are 40 and married, and your wife let herself go, you may take a 25 year old up on their offer for sex.

just read my response to philochristos. There's no such thing as "choice".
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 6:54:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 3:03:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:56:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:53:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.

Why do people want to sin?

Why don't you tell me where you're going with this line of questioning so we can cut to the quick and not go back and forth all day?

My point is that we don't have freewill, and hence cannot be morally responsible for our actions before any objective juristic process, such as the judgement of God.

Oh, I see. Well, it sounds like you don't think moral responsibility is possible at all. Our actions are either caused or they are not caused. If they are caused, then they aren't free, and we're not morally responsible. But if they're not caused, then we have no control over them, and we're not morally responsible. So either way, we can't be morally responsible for our actions.

It seems to me, though, that to act out of our own desires is the very definition of being in control of our actions. If our actions were the result of blind mechanistic causes, and our minds were in neutral, then we'd be mere puppets on strings or robots, in which case I'd agree with you that we have no control over our actions and can't be morally responsible. And I also agree with you that if our actions are spontaneous and acausal, then we have no control over them and can't be morally responsible.

But what do you think it means to be "in control" of your actions? To me, that means your actions are determined by your own intentions, desires, motives, etc. The more we are forced against our wills, or the more spontinaeity in our actions, the less hand our own desires and motives have in them, and the less control we have. But the more hand our desires and motives have in our acts, the more our acts are under our control. That's what it means for them to be under our control. What do you think it means?

I don't think I've ever heard anybody use the excuse: "It wasn't my fault! I meant to do it!" Or, "I'm not responsible, because I did exactly what I wanted to do!" I have heard people try to excuse themselves by saying, "I didn't mean to do that," or "It wasn't my intention."

I agree that does raise the issue of infinite regress. We either choose the desires that determine our choices, or we don't. If we do, then that would lead to an infinite regress of desires and choices leading up to any present choice, which is impossible. So ultimately, our desires are caused by things that are outside the will. But I don't see how that diminishes our responsibility because all that's needed for us to be responsible for our actions is that we do them on purpose, and as long as our own minds are engaged in determining the will, then we are acting on purpose.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 7:11:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 6:54:24 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 3:03:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:56:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:53:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.

Why do people want to sin?

Why don't you tell me where you're going with this line of questioning so we can cut to the quick and not go back and forth all day?

My point is that we don't have freewill, and hence cannot be morally responsible for our actions before any objective juristic process, such as the judgement of God.

Oh, I see. Well, it sounds like you don't think moral responsibility is possible at all. Our actions are either caused or they are not caused. If they are caused, then they aren't free, and we're not morally responsible. But if they're not caused, then we have no control over them, and we're not morally responsible. So either way, we can't be morally responsible for our actions.

It seems to me, though, that to act out of our own desires is the very definition of being in control of our actions. If our actions were the result of blind mechanistic causes, and our minds were in neutral, then we'd be mere puppets on strings or robots, in which case I'd agree with you that we have no control over our actions and can't be morally responsible. And I also agree with you that if our actions are spontaneous and acausal, then we have no control over them and can't be morally responsible.

But what do you think it means to be "in control" of your actions? To me, that means your actions are determined by your own intentions, desires, motives, etc. The more we are forced against our wills, or the more spontinaeity in our actions, the less hand our own desires and motives have in them, and the less control we have. But the more hand our desires and motives have in our acts, the more our acts are under our control. That's what it means for them to be under our control. What do you think it means?

I don't think I've ever heard anybody use the excuse: "It wasn't my fault! I meant to do it!" Or, "I'm not responsible, because I did exactly what I wanted to do!" I have heard people try to excuse themselves by saying, "I didn't mean to do that," or "It wasn't my intention."

I agree that does raise the issue of infinite regress. We either choose the desires that determine our choices, or we don't. If we do, then that would lead to an infinite regress of desires and choices leading up to any present choice, which is impossible. So ultimately, our desires are caused by things that are outside the will. But I don't see how that diminishes our responsibility because all that's needed for us to be responsible for our actions is that we do them on purpose, and as long as our own minds are engaged in determining the will, then we are acting on purpose.

That kind of prerequisite for "acting on purpose" would apply only to secular courts, whose jurisprudence is predicated on the order and sustenance of society. Before the divine court, the court of God, which determines which beings deserve heaven and which deserve hell, the evaluation of "purpose" becomes more objective. Desire has to originate somewhere, and that origin too must originate from another thing. If ever the desire originates from nothing, it was not in control and hence not willed. So either the causal chain is infinite, with no beginning and no end, or there was a prime mover, or first cause, in whom we can rest sole responsibility for the events of the universe and the actions of the creatures therein. I could show you some neuroscientific studies that disprove freewill if you want.

How would you reconcile all this with the concept of hell?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 7:44:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 5:05:25 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
; God set an insane ransom when he could have chosen a moral way to forgive.

I'm not persuaded that the atonement of Jesus Christ was immoral.

Whenever we commit sin, it is God's law that we have broken.

A law that men have said he wrote unless you have some kind of proof to prove your statement other than hearsay and book say.

I'm referring to God's moral law, which existed before the Bible was ever written, but this is an irrelevant point anyway because you've been giving an internal critique of Christianity. You've been quoting scripture to show that the atonement is immoral. So the argument isn't over whether the scriptures are the word of God or not, but over whether the picture they present of God and the atonement is moral. Well, sin, in those same scriptures, is defined violating God's moral standards.

Since it's him that we owe the debt to,

Really? If I rape you, does God feel the strokes?

What of the real victim who has first rights to forgive?
We both know that man does not have the power to hurt an all-powerful God.


Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that sin doesn't hurt other people or that we don't owe them a debt. I'm saying that it is God's law we have broken. He is the one with the right to judge us by that law.

It's similar to civil matters. If I steal from somebody, I have wronged that person, and I owe them an apology, but I have also broken the law of the state, and the government has the right to judge me and put me in jail. The government has the right to pass sentence, offer a pardon, etc., because it's their law that has been broken.

he has the right to determine what he will accept as payment.

Not if the victim is given the consideration due him or her. Does that person not deserve to have his or her rights enforced as well or do you think they have no rights?

I don't understand what you're saying. When I say that God has the right to determine what he will accept as payment, that is analogous to the government having the right to pass sentence on a criminal breaking the law. I'm not sure what "consideration due" to the victim has to do with that, or what the victim's rights have to do with it.

So he has the right to accept the death of Jesus as payment for our sins even if he prohibits human sacrifice in any other case.

As above so below says that we are to emulate his example. If we are exempt on that one, why should we not be exempt on all others?

I'm not following you. If we are exempt on what? What "all others" are you talking about? Are you suggesting that if God has the right to sacrifice a human on our behalf, that we should have that same right? If so, I don't see how that follows. God's is the sovereign. He's the ruler. So he has the right to make these laws.

Again, by way of analogy, the government has the right to imprison people, fine them, and execute them, but that doesn't mean everybody has that right. The government is a legitimate authority. Likewise, parents have the right to tell their children when to go to bed, but that doesn't mean the parents have to go to bed at that time. Superiors have prerogatives that inferiors don't. That's how it is in families, government, the military, jobs, etc. If God exists, then he is the supreme sovereign over everybody, so the rights of superiority ought to apply to him more than anybody.

While we intuitively recognize that it's immoral to punish one person for the crimes of another, in the case of Jesus' sacrifice, Jesus was not an innocent third party.

What was Jesus guilty of if not innocent?

The operative word was "third party," not "innocent."

Jesus is God, which means he is the one offended. He has the right, then, to offer himself in sacrifice for those who sinned against him.

I see. So only a guilty God, from what you said just above, he is not an innocent third party, can sacrifice himself. That is suicide. Is suicide good then to God?

I guess that depends on how you define "suicide." If you define it as any situation where a person puts himself in a situation where his death is inevitable, then I would say that suicide is not only good in some situations for God, but it's good in some situations for us as well. For example, when a person dies defending his family, that's good. Or even when a soldier jumps on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers, that's also good.

It's not true that the Bible strictly prohibits substitutionary atonement. The Mosaic law prescribes animal sacrifice for the sake of substitutionary atonement.

Not for capital crimes and that is supposed to be covered by the sacrifice of Jesus. Apples and oranges my friend.

I did not get the impression that you were objecting to substitutionary atonement merely for some crimes but not others. I thought you were objecting to substitutionary atonement in general for any crime. My bad.

The Jewish law also included restitution to the victim whom you seem to have ignored so far.

That wasn't the subject of your initial post. I suspect God will give comfort to victims. Jesus seems to suggest that in the beatitudes. But that's not relevant to the question of whether the atonement is moral, which has been the subject of this thread (unless I've misunderstood it).

There are scriptures that say God doesn't desire sacrifice, but if you read them in their context, God's desire for sacrifice is contrasted with his desire that people live righteously. If they lived righteously, they wouldn't need sacrifice. But obviously sacrifice is morally permissible since God prescribed it in the Mosaic law.

Again, apples and oranges. See above.

My point seems relevant to what you said, and still does, so maybe there's something about your point of view that I'm not understanding. I thought one of the objections you had to the atonement of Christ was that "God doesn't desire sacrifice," and that's what I was responding to here.

You seem to think that Gods ways are, do as I say and not as I do, yet scriptures are clear that we are supposed to try to be and do exactly what God does.

I don't know of any scriptures that say we are suppose to do exactly as God does. In fact, the very notion seems absurd. Besides that, there are at least a few scriptures that forbid us from doing what God does. For example in Romans 12:19, it says that we are not to seek revenge because vengeance belongs to God.

Are you saying that the law maker does not believe in his laws enough to follow them?

Either way, I don't think his belief in the laws are the issue under dispute. The issue, rather, is whether God is obligated to keep the same laws he imposes on us. In that case, my answer is no, he is not.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 8:03:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 7:11:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
That kind of prerequisite for "acting on purpose" would apply only to secular courts, whose jurisprudence is predicated on the order and sustenance of society. Before the divine court, the court of God, which determines which beings deserve heaven and which deserve hell, the evaluation of "purpose" becomes more objective. Desire has to originate somewhere, and that origin too must originate from another thing. If ever the desire originates from nothing, it was not in control and hence not willed. So either the causal chain is infinite, with no beginning and no end, or there was a prime mover, or first cause, in whom we can rest sole responsibility for the events of the universe and the actions of the creatures therein. I could show you some neuroscientific studies that disprove freewill if you want.

When you say "freewill," you appear to be talking about the libertarian notion of free will--the view that an act of the will is free as long as there are no antecedent causes or conditions that determine the will. But you don't need to disprove that notion of freedom to me because I already don't believe in it. I hold to the compatibilist notion of free will, which I explained to you but just didn't give the term for. In compatibilism, an act is free if it is determined by the person's own desires without there be any other antecedent conditions that force you to act contrary to your desires, i.e. "against your will."

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making between civil courts and divine courts. I thought the question we were arguing over is whether a person can be responsible for their own actions. It seems to me that the question is just as relevant in civil courts as it is in the divine court. My position is that a person is responsible for their actions as long as they do them on purpose, and they do them on purpose if they act out of their own desires and motives.

How would you reconcile all this with the concept of hell?

What is there to reconcile? I think that when people sin on purpose, they are culpable for their sins, and if they're culpable for their sins, then they deserve punishment.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 8:25:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 8:03:16 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 7:11:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
That kind of prerequisite for "acting on purpose" would apply only to secular courts, whose jurisprudence is predicated on the order and sustenance of society. Before the divine court, the court of God, which determines which beings deserve heaven and which deserve hell, the evaluation of "purpose" becomes more objective. Desire has to originate somewhere, and that origin too must originate from another thing. If ever the desire originates from nothing, it was not in control and hence not willed. So either the causal chain is infinite, with no beginning and no end, or there was a prime mover, or first cause, in whom we can rest sole responsibility for the events of the universe and the actions of the creatures therein. I could show you some neuroscientific studies that disprove freewill if you want.

When you say "freewill," you appear to be talking about the libertarian notion of free will--the view that an act of the will is free as long as there are no antecedent causes or conditions that determine the will. But you don't need to disprove that notion of freedom to me because I already don't believe in it. I hold to the compatibilist notion of free will, which I explained to you but just didn't give the term for. In compatibilism, an act is free if it is determined by the person's own desires without there be any other antecedent conditions that force you to act contrary to your desires, i.e. "against your will."

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making between civil courts and divine courts. I thought the question we were arguing over is whether a person can be responsible for their own actions. It seems to me that the question is just as relevant in civil courts as it is in the divine court. My position is that a person is responsible for their actions as long as they do them on purpose, and they do them on purpose if they act out of their own desires and motives.

How would you reconcile all this with the concept of hell?

What is there to reconcile? I think that when people sin on purpose, they are culpable for their sins, and if they're culpable for their sins, then they deserve punishment.

I'm sorry, but that's quite ridiculous. The Libertarian definition of freewill is the only one that permits for responsibility. You're basically admitting that we are not responsible for the desires which catalyze action,....but yet somehow we are responsible for the action. Most people have concluded that compatabilism is incoherent
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 8:37:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 8:25:04 PM, 000ike wrote:

I'm sorry, but that's quite ridiculous. The Libertarian definition of freewill is the only one that permits for responsibility. You're basically admitting that we are not responsible for the desires which catalyze action,....but yet somehow we are responsible for the action. Most people have concluded that compatabilism is incoherent.

Rofl, okay bro. I'm not a compatbilist, but I suspect you just made that up on the spot.

This is a survey of professional (and grad student) philosophers and here's the relevant part:

Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?

Accept or lean toward: compatibilism550 / 931 (59.1%)
Other139 / 931 (14.9%)
Accept or lean toward: libertarianism128 / 931 (13.7%)
Accept or lean toward: no free will114 / 931 (12.2%)

http://philpapers.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 8:47:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 8:37:21 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/4/2012 8:25:04 PM, 000ike wrote:

I'm sorry, but that's quite ridiculous. The Libertarian definition of freewill is the only one that permits for responsibility. You're basically admitting that we are not responsible for the desires which catalyze action,....but yet somehow we are responsible for the action. Most people have concluded that compatabilism is incoherent.

Rofl, okay bro. I'm not a compatbilist, but I suspect you just made that up on the spot.

This is a survey of professional (and grad student) philosophers and here's the relevant part:

Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?

Accept or lean toward: compatibilism550 / 931 (59.1%)
Other139 / 931 (14.9%)
Accept or lean toward: libertarianism128 / 931 (13.7%)
Accept or lean toward: no free will114 / 931 (12.2%)


http://philpapers.org...

Not really, I was going on most people I've ever heard or read give an opinion on the issue....but anyway your statistics prove nothing. Compatibilism is still extremely incoherent, it's only popular because its an easy position to run to when the issue gets too complicated.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 8:55:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 8:47:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 8:37:21 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/4/2012 8:25:04 PM, 000ike wrote:

I'm sorry, but that's quite ridiculous. The Libertarian definition of freewill is the only one that permits for responsibility. You're basically admitting that we are not responsible for the desires which catalyze action,....but yet somehow we are responsible for the action. Most people have concluded that compatabilism is incoherent.

Rofl, okay bro. I'm not a compatbilist, but I suspect you just made that up on the spot.

This is a survey of professional (and grad student) philosophers and here's the relevant part:

Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?

Accept or lean toward: compatibilism550 / 931 (59.1%)
Other139 / 931 (14.9%)
Accept or lean toward: libertarianism128 / 931 (13.7%)
Accept or lean toward: no free will114 / 931 (12.2%)


http://philpapers.org...

Not really, I was going on most people I've ever heard or read give an opinion on the issue....but anyway your statistics prove nothing. Compatibilism is still extremely incoherent, it's only popular because its an easy position to run to when the issue gets too complicated.

Right. I'm pretty sure a survey like that is more representative of the philosophical climate as a whole then the necessarily limited material you've read and/or listened too... And you know it's popular because of this how?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 10:20:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 4:50:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 4:32:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/4/2012 3:03:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:56:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:53:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:52:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/4/2012 2:48:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
why do people sin?

The simple answer is because they want to.

Why do people want to sin?

Why don't you tell me where you're going with this line of questioning so we can cut to the quick and not go back and forth all day?

My point is that we don't have freewill, and hence cannot be morally responsible for our actions before any objective juristic process, such as the judgement of God.

You tell me we sin because we want to...but that begs the question of why do we want to.

For the same reason that we do not sin. In a given situation, we do not want to.

In order for you to prove that we control our actions, you must prove that we are the sole cause of our actions...and cause leads to an infinite regress.

If desire causes action, then what causes desire? What is the cause of the cause of desire? etc. If you ever end the causal regress and claim that one event is self-sufficient, you admit it has no antecedent cause and therefore occurred without any control involved. Which then begs the question, how are we responsible for it if came from nothing?

For this reason, freewill is incoherent,....the very term is an oxymoron. Something that is free has no cause. Yet something without cause, could not have been willed!

Nobody said, or alluded to, any idea that freewill is 100% complete in all circumstances.

that's nice....except that my argument concluded that freewill 100% false in all circumstances. So if you have some circumstance where freewill is complete (whatever that means), my argument still addresses and defeats your position. You haven't addressed the the causal regress argument, so I'm not sure what you accomplished here.

I have the freewill to walk next door and screw my neighbor if i so desire. I can go either way on it. My choice.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 11:38:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 8:25:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm sorry, but that's quite ridiculous. The Libertarian definition of freewill is the only one that permits for responsibility.

Oh no, I'm sorry. When I was responding to you, I thought I was responding to GreatestIam. He doesn't believe that moral responsibility is possible under libertarian freedom, and I agree with him, and for the same reasons.

You're basically admitting that we are not responsible for the desires which catalyze action,....but yet somehow we are responsible for the action. Most people have concluded that compatabilism is incoherent

I haven't. :-)
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 12:52:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 7:44:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
I'm not persuaded that the atonement of Jesus Christ was immoral.

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 prove the ' atonement ' was a sham!

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org...) - What Jews believe Point 1.)

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16) RSV Story book catholic edition 1965

cf.

Fathers must not be put to death for what their children24 do, nor children for what their fathers do; each must be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16) NET Story book

See also -

Ezekiel 18:20 RSV

"THE SON SHALL NOT SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER. NOR THE FATHER SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Ezekiel 18:20 also "pulls the rug out from under" Christianity's main premise, that all generations of mankind are burdened with sin and death stemming from Adam's act of disobedience. Only Christ's redeeming shed blood can end this never-ending cycle of sin and death. Quite clearly Ezekiel refutes this notion. "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father." (Online Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net...)

&
Story book jebus couldn't even ' save itself ' let alone ANY others, LOL! -

Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. (John 12:27) KJV story book

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:30) KJV story book

Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster!
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 10:39:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 7:44:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
Either way, I don't think his belief in the laws are the issue under dispute. The issue, rather, is whether God is obligated to keep the same laws he imposes on us. In that case, my answer is no, he is not.

I began my reply like this------------

"I'm not persuaded that the atonement of Jesus Christ was immoral."

Yet you do not provide an argument to show how it would be moral to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. Do so and I can see where your logic is faulty FMPOV. Denial give me nothing and just makes it look like you are following dogma and not some logic trail.

------------------------------

"Well, sin, in those same scriptures, is defined violating God's moral standards."

Yes. Standards that cannot possibly be fathomed from an un-fathomable God who works in mysterious ways. Your own dogma forces you into ignorance of God"s morals.

His first commandment also indicates that his morals are sell-centered whereas good morals should center on others and not on one"s self. It is do unto others, not do unto one"s self.

---------------------------------

"He is the one with the right to judge us by that law."

A law that we cannot know or fathom.

We give our judges the right to judge us based on their values. Who gave God that right and why should we acknowledge them when we do not know his values and when he has shown that his morals are quite poor seeing as how he kills us all over the bible instead of taking the moral high ground and curing us?

----------------------------------

"It's similar to civil matters. If I steal from somebody, I have wronged that person, and I owe them an apology, but I have also broken the law of the state, and the government has the right to judge me and put me in jail."

Not if the victim has forgiven you.
Your God ignores the victim and that is wrong.

---------------------------------

"I'm not sure what "consideration due" to the victim has to do with that, or what the victim's rights have to do with it."

Then you should ponder why in our systems, judges ask for a victim assessment report before passing sentence.

Do you not think that a victim has any rights or is due any consideration in how he views his situation?

--------------------------------

---- but then I saw your last and when combined with your view that God is our sovereign, even though he is absentee, and the fact that you are not understanding what I am saying as you have noted above, then I don't know where you want to go.

I will give you this quote as you do not seem to think we are to emulate God and if you apply it to your comment of God not having to follow his own law you might see how foolish your views are.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

You cannot physically follow your absentee God. All you can do is follow his law and example and if his example is that he need not follow the law then all bets are off and you and I will not agree on much of anything.

You go ahead then and believe that it is good to punish the innocent and not the guilty. I just hope that you are never foolish enough to vote for a human judge with the morals of your God as you might find yourself being punished for what someone else did and I guess you will have to think that that is a good thing.

Regards
DL
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 11:40:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 10:39:45 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 11/4/2012 7:44:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
Either way, I don't think his belief in the laws are the issue under dispute. The issue, rather, is whether God is obligated to keep the same laws he imposes on us. In that case, my answer is no, he is not.

I began my reply like this------------

"I'm not persuaded that the atonement of Jesus Christ was immoral."

Yet you do not provide an argument to show how it would be moral to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

Yes, i did. I gave arguments in my first response. What you are quoting here is me just reiterating my position.

Denial give me nothing and just makes it look like you are following dogma and not some logic trail.

You can't assume that because somebody doesn't tell you why they believe something that they therefore don't have reasons. Sometimes, people just like to share what their point of view is. Can't we do that sometimes without having to argue about it?

"Well, sin, in those same scriptures, is defined violating God's moral standards."

Yes. Standards that cannot possibly be fathomed from an un-fathomable God who works in mysterious ways. Your own dogma forces you into ignorance of God"s morals.

I would argue with you about that, but it seems off-topic to what we were discussing.

His first commandment also indicates that his morals are sell-centered whereas good morals should center on others and not on one"s self. It is do unto others, not do unto one"s self.

Again, these are irrelevant points (besides being just plain wrong).

"He is the one with the right to judge us by that law."

A law that we cannot know or fathom.

Another irrelevant point. The purpose of this thread, as I understand it, is that the substitutionary atonement of Christ is immoral. Launching into an argument against moral epistemology seems misplaced in such a discussion.

We give our judges the right to judge us based on their values. Who gave God that right and why should we acknowledge them when we do not know his values and when he has shown that his morals are quite poor seeing as how he kills us all over the bible instead of taking the moral high ground and curing us?

When you ask who gave God the right to judge us, you're assuming facts not in evidence, namely that if God has the right to judge us that it had to have been given to him by somebody else. But the very meaning of sovereignty includes God not deriving his authority from anybody. God has no superior. He is the ultimate superior. That is what gives him the right to judge us. He doesn't get that right from somebody else.

And judges do not judge merely on their own values. They judge according to the law. You seem to not be grasping the analogy I made. Earlier, I said that if God imposes a moral law on us, and we break it, then he has the right to judge us for it. You objected by saying it is the victim we have wronged. I agreed it was the victim we have wronged, but that God has the right to judge us for breaking the law. Then I used the civil law as an analogy. Even though I may commit a crime that harms another person, and even though I have harmed that person and owe them something as a result, the government nevertheless still has the right to judge me for breaking the law. Your response is just a tangent from this line of thinking. You are truly all over the map with your responses, and this conversation is getting unwieldy.

"It's similar to civil matters. If I steal from somebody, I have wronged that person, and I owe them an apology, but I have also broken the law of the state, and the government has the right to judge me and put me in jail."

Not if the victim has forgiven you.

I disagree. Not only does the government have the right to judge me for breaking the law even if the victim forgives me, but that is often exactly what the government sometimes does. Besides that, some violations of laws do not have victims. For example, if I drive without a seatbelt and never get in an accident, but I get caught, the government has a right to fine me even though there is no victim to forgive me.

Your God ignores the victim and that is wrong.

I already addressed this point.

"I'm not sure what "consideration due" to the victim has to do with that, or what the victim's rights have to do with it."

Then you should ponder why in our systems, judges ask for a victim assessment report before passing sentence.

It's because when a judge passes sentence, there is a range of possible sentences he could pass, and he has discretion to choose the greater or lesser sentence. In that case, they take into account the harm done to the victim in order to assess the seriousness of the crime.

Do you not think that a victim has any rights or is due any consideration in how he views his situation?

I do. But that is not relevant to the question of whether the government has the right to punish somebody for breaking the law.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

This, I totally agree with. Your mistake is in thinking that means we are to do exactly what God does. But taking this passage to those extremes not only leads to absurdities, but it also leads to explicit contradictions with other passages, one of which I quoted for you--that we are not to seek revenge because vengeance belongs to God. You ignored all my arguments from superior/inferior relationships.

You go ahead then and believe that it is good to punish the innocent and not the guilty.

Now you know that is a grossly misleading characterization of my point of view after all I've said.

I just hope that you are never foolish enough to vote for a human judge with the morals of your God as you might find yourself being punished for what someone else did and I guess you will have to think that that is a good thing.

Me being punished for what somebody else did is not analogous to the atonement of Christ, which I have already demonstrated. You're either not understanding me, or you're just ignoring me.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle