Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is needlessly sacrificing your child, as God

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 10:19:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is needlessly sacrificing your child, as God did, child abuse and murder?

Bishop Spong indicated that we Christians should not perceive God as a God who demands barbaric acts like human sacrifice to appease his sense of justice. He uses the term child abuse and I just call it more of what it would be if the myth was real; murder.

I say needlessly because God has no needs. He only has wants and no decent God would want to needlessly sacrifice his son.

If a Sacrifice were required, God would not send a boy to do a man"s job and he would be man enough to step up himself.

If you were to dare judge this issue or scenario of God, --- knowing that he planned to have Jesus sacrificed even before creating the potential for sin, would you find God criminally liable for child abuse and murder?

Regards
DL
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 10:45:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 10:19:57 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is needlessly sacrificing your child, as God did, child abuse and murder?

Bishop Spong indicated that we Christians should not perceive God as a God who demands barbaric acts like human sacrifice to appease his sense of justice. He uses the term child abuse and I just call it more of what it would be if the myth was real; murder.

I say needlessly because God has no needs. He only has wants and no decent God would want to needlessly sacrifice his son.

If a Sacrifice were required, God would not send a boy to do a man"s job and he would be man enough to step up himself.

If you were to dare judge this issue or scenario of God, --- knowing that he planned to have Jesus sacrificed even before creating the potential for sin, would you find God criminally liable for child abuse and murder?

Regards
DL

God is the killer of all flesh my dear lost child.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:18:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.

No, that's just a cop out. You are a hypocrite.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:20:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:18:50 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.


No, that's just a cop out. You are a hypocrite.

It's not a cop out. I said that if God exists, he cannot be immoral(by definition), but if he exists, he would have to be immoral (because allowing these things is immoral). That means that if God exists, he is both:

(i) Immoral
(ii) Moral

That's a contradiction. Therefore, God's existence entails a contradiction.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:21:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:18:50 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.


No, that's just a cop out. You are a hypocrite.

So, if allowing all this suffering would be immoral if God exists, and God cannot be immoral if God exists; it follows that God does not exist.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:24:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:20:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:18:50 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.


No, that's just a cop out. You are a hypocrite.

It's not a cop out. I said that if God exists, he cannot be immoral(by definition), but if he exists, he would have to be immoral (because allowing these things is immoral). That means that if God exists, he is both:

(i) Immoral
(ii) Moral

That's a contradiction. Therefore, God's existence entails a contradiction.

You exist and you are able to be both moral and immoral. Do you have more options than God, are you greater than God?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:26:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:24:24 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:20:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:18:50 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.


No, that's just a cop out. You are a hypocrite.

It's not a cop out. I said that if God exists, he cannot be immoral(by definition), but if he exists, he would have to be immoral (because allowing these things is immoral). That means that if God exists, he is both:

(i) Immoral
(ii) Moral

That's a contradiction. Therefore, God's existence entails a contradiction.

You exist and you are able to be both moral and immoral. Do you have more options than God, are you greater than God?

You really need to learn some Vedic Philosophy and you will understand that the whole material cosmic manifestation is a place of suffering. But it is temporary by nature, real intelligence is to seek out the eternal nature behind the temporary material nature.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:26:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:24:24 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:20:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:18:50 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.


No, that's just a cop out. You are a hypocrite.

It's not a cop out. I said that if God exists, he cannot be immoral(by definition), but if he exists, he would have to be immoral (because allowing these things is immoral). That means that if God exists, he is both:

(i) Immoral
(ii) Moral

That's a contradiction. Therefore, God's existence entails a contradiction.

You exist and you are able to be both moral and immoral.

Yes, because I am not the most moral being possible by definition; God is. The most moral being possible is never immoral.

Do you have more options than God, are you greater than God?

We can all do things God cannot do! For instance, I can create a stone so heavy that I cannot lift it; God cannot.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:31:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:26:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:24:24 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:20:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:18:50 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.


No, that's just a cop out. You are a hypocrite.

It's not a cop out. I said that if God exists, he cannot be immoral(by definition), but if he exists, he would have to be immoral (because allowing these things is immoral). That means that if God exists, he is both:

(i) Immoral
(ii) Moral

That's a contradiction. Therefore, God's existence entails a contradiction.

You exist and you are able to be both moral and immoral.

Yes, because I am not the most moral being possible by definition; God is. The most moral being possible is never immoral.

Do you have more options than God, are you greater than God?

We can all do things God cannot do! For instance, I can create a stone so heavy that I cannot lift it; God cannot.

Why Not, your knowledge is insufficient,

According to the narrative, Jesus was God who took on the form of a man and I doubt he was able to life heavy heavy rocks whilst taking on the fallible human form.

God creates everything then manifests himself into a fallible human form ( Jesus ) and consequently lacked the ablity to life up a stone he himself created. Whallah!!!
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:32:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 10:19:57 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is needlessly sacrificing your child, as God did, child abuse and murder?

Bishop Spong indicated that we Christians should not perceive God as a God who demands barbaric acts like human sacrifice to appease his sense of justice. He uses the term child abuse and I just call it more of what it would be if the myth was real; murder.

I say needlessly because God has no needs. He only has wants and no decent God would want to needlessly sacrifice his son.

If a Sacrifice were required, God would not send a boy to do a man"s job and he would be man enough to step up himself.

If you were to dare judge this issue or scenario of God, --- knowing that he planned to have Jesus sacrificed even before creating the potential for sin, would you find God criminally liable for child abuse and murder?

Regards
DL

Hi there,

I don't personally hold to Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but I would say I have a pretty strong handling on the issue so that I could play the devil's advocate.

Let's define some terms here:

child a"buse
noun
1.
physical maltreatment or sexual molestation of a child.

mur"der
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

child
noun
1.
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

I would submit that it could not be called child abuse because of the following reasons.

1) Jesus of Nazareth would not be qualified to fit the definition of what a child is, being 33 at the age of his death.

2) The one who committed the act of putting him to death was not God, but rather the Romans. While he was in some sense, sent to die and this sending was apart of God's plan, it was not a forced plan, but rather an agreed upon conclusion. Which leads to my third point.

3) The cross was consensual in nature, as Jesus said, "not my will, but yours be done."

It is also not murder, because that would seem to indicate that only one party was interested in accomplishing Jesus' death, when rather Jesus himself was personally responsible for his death and would perhaps be better characterized as a suicide of sorts.

Also, within the Penal Substitutionary framework, the idea of "needlessly" is no where present as they believe nothing was more necessary. For justice to be met via a vicarious and propitious sacrifice of the willing Son for the sins of mankind. To be the ultimate picture of sacrificial love, of a man who lays down his life for his friends. Or the Father who will spare not even the most precious thing in the universe to him, for those he loves.

Personally, I think the atonement theory of Penal Substitution runs into big problems when it talks about the justice of vicariously punishing one person (who is innocent) for another (who is guilty).

Regards,
TrueScotsman
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:34:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:31:08 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:26:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:24:24 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:20:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:18:50 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.


No, that's just a cop out. You are a hypocrite.

It's not a cop out. I said that if God exists, he cannot be immoral(by definition), but if he exists, he would have to be immoral (because allowing these things is immoral). That means that if God exists, he is both:

(i) Immoral
(ii) Moral

That's a contradiction. Therefore, God's existence entails a contradiction.

You exist and you are able to be both moral and immoral.

Yes, because I am not the most moral being possible by definition; God is. The most moral being possible is never immoral.

Do you have more options than God, are you greater than God?

We can all do things God cannot do! For instance, I can create a stone so heavy that I cannot lift it; God cannot.

Why Not, your knowledge is insufficient,

According to the narrative, Jesus was God who took on the form of a man and I doubt he was able to life heavy heavy rocks whilst taking on the fallible human form.

Why not? He was still God!

Also, God was only in this human form for 30 years; the universe is billions of years old. I'm talking about God in general, not just when he was Jesus.



God creates everything then manifests himself into a fallible human form ( Jesus ) and consequently lacked the ablity to life up a stone he himself created. Whallah!!!

He still lacked the ability even when he WASN'T in human form though. So, Whallah!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:37:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:34:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:31:08 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:26:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:24:24 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:20:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:18:50 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.


No, that's just a cop out. You are a hypocrite.

It's not a cop out. I said that if God exists, he cannot be immoral(by definition), but if he exists, he would have to be immoral (because allowing these things is immoral). That means that if God exists, he is both:

(i) Immoral
(ii) Moral

That's a contradiction. Therefore, God's existence entails a contradiction.

You exist and you are able to be both moral and immoral.

Yes, because I am not the most moral being possible by definition; God is. The most moral being possible is never immoral.

Do you have more options than God, are you greater than God?

We can all do things God cannot do! For instance, I can create a stone so heavy that I cannot lift it; God cannot.

Why Not, your knowledge is insufficient,

According to the narrative, Jesus was God who took on the form of a man and I doubt he was able to life heavy heavy rocks whilst taking on the fallible human form.

Why not? He was still God!

Also, God was only in this human form for 30 years; the universe is billions of years old. I'm talking about God in general, not just when he was Jesus.



God creates everything then manifests himself into a fallible human form ( Jesus ) and consequently lacked the ablity to life up a stone he himself created. Whallah!!!

He still lacked the ability even when he WASN'T in human form though. So, Whallah!

You miss the point entirely,

God can still choose to take on a fallible human form who can not life up a rock he himself creates. Weather he manifests this form for 30 years or five minutes, it doesn't matter he can still do it. Whalla!!!
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:40:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.

Curious how you would respond to the evangelical Calvinist argument that mankind deserve this suffering. That as a result of the fall, mankind is born with a sin nature that naturally opposes the things of God and therefore God is just in visiting his wrath upon them. That to say he is evil, because he allows the suffering of the innocent would be an inaccurate statement because there are none who are innocent and all are guilty.

If hypothetically, this God existed and morality was derived from his character, how could one take a contrary moral view and be correct in doing so?

The idea that God is against humanity collectively, because humanity turned against him.

Note: This is not my personal view, but since I don't see any devout evangelicals around here I thought I would throw it out there. :)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:44:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:37:08 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:34:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:31:08 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:26:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:24:24 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:20:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:18:50 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.


No, that's just a cop out. You are a hypocrite.

It's not a cop out. I said that if God exists, he cannot be immoral(by definition), but if he exists, he would have to be immoral (because allowing these things is immoral). That means that if God exists, he is both:

(i) Immoral
(ii) Moral

That's a contradiction. Therefore, God's existence entails a contradiction.

You exist and you are able to be both moral and immoral.

Yes, because I am not the most moral being possible by definition; God is. The most moral being possible is never immoral.

Do you have more options than God, are you greater than God?

We can all do things God cannot do! For instance, I can create a stone so heavy that I cannot lift it; God cannot.

Why Not, your knowledge is insufficient,

According to the narrative, Jesus was God who took on the form of a man and I doubt he was able to life heavy heavy rocks whilst taking on the fallible human form.

Why not? He was still God!

Also, God was only in this human form for 30 years; the universe is billions of years old. I'm talking about God in general, not just when he was Jesus.



God creates everything then manifests himself into a fallible human form ( Jesus ) and consequently lacked the ablity to life up a stone he himself created. Whallah!!!

He still lacked the ability even when he WASN'T in human form though. So, Whallah!

You miss the point entirely,

God can still choose to take on a fallible human form who can not life up a rock he himself creates.

You miss the point entirely.

He would still lack that ability regardless of a human form or not. Therefore, this "human form" stuff is a fallacious red herring.

Weather he manifests this form for 30 years or five minutes, it doesn't matter he can still do it. Whalla!!!

None of this matters though, because it doesn't matter whether he was in human form or not Whalla!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 1:45:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:40:31 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.

Curious how you would respond to the evangelical Calvinist argument that mankind deserve this suffering. That as a result of the fall, mankind is born with a sin nature that naturally opposes the things of God and therefore God is just in visiting his wrath upon them. That to say he is evil, because he allows the suffering of the innocent would be an inaccurate statement because there are none who are innocent and all are guilty.

If hypothetically, this God existed and morality was derived from his character, how could one take a contrary moral view and be correct in doing so?

The idea that God is against humanity collectively, because humanity turned against him.

Note: This is not my personal view, but since I don't see any devout evangelicals around here I thought I would throw it out there. :)

I am also talking about God in general, not just the 30 years he was Jesus! What a cope out.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 2:12:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

Indeed. As a creator God is a flop.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 2:14:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:14:58 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
What He needs even less than killing a son, is having a son !!!

I agree but wonder if we could even call Jesus that. His being a half breed chimera and all.

Regards
DL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 2:15:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 2:12:30 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

Indeed. As a creator God is a flop.

Regards
DL

Yes, any super-being that made this universe deserves a smack in the face, let alone being deserving of worship.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 2:18:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:26:35 PM, johnlubba wrote:

You exist and you are able to be both moral and immoral. Do you have more options than God, are you greater than God?


You really need to learn some Vedic Philosophy and you will understand that the whole material cosmic manifestation is a place of suffering. But it is temporary by nature, real intelligence is to seek out the eternal nature behind the temporary material nature.

Most men are greater than any absentee invisible God.

As to suffering, I have not done much nor has anyone that I know.
Have you?

Regards
DL
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 2:24:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 10:19:57 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is needlessly sacrificing your child, as God did, child abuse and murder?

Bishop Spong indicated that we Christians should not perceive God as a God who demands barbaric acts like human sacrifice to appease his sense of justice. He uses the term child abuse and I just call it more of what it would be if the myth was real; murder.

I say needlessly because God has no needs. He only has wants and no decent God would want to needlessly sacrifice his son.

If a Sacrifice were required, God would not send a boy to do a man"s job and he would be man enough to step up himself.

If you were to dare judge this issue or scenario of God, --- knowing that he planned to have Jesus sacrificed even before creating the potential for sin, would you find God criminally liable for child abuse and murder?

Regards
DL

Spiritually speaking, if the creator is our Father and nature is our Mother... You sorta of sound like the proverbial whiney little girl pissed off at her parents for making her life so miserable.

You put to much faith in your understanding in justice and morality. Life and death are inescapable certainties. Your life is not even a pimple on the existence of humanities. Yet you claim to know the difference between all good and all evil. I guess that makes you an Oracle...
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 2:33:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:32:34 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/10/2013 10:19:57 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is needlessly sacrificing your child, as God did, child abuse and murder?

Bishop Spong indicated that we Christians should not perceive God as a God who demands barbaric acts like human sacrifice to appease his sense of justice. He uses the term child abuse and I just call it more of what it would be if the myth was real; murder.

I say needlessly because God has no needs. He only has wants and no decent God would want to needlessly sacrifice his son.

If a Sacrifice were required, God would not send a boy to do a man"s job and he would be man enough to step up himself.

If you were to dare judge this issue or scenario of God, --- knowing that he planned to have Jesus sacrificed even before creating the potential for sin, would you find God criminally liable for child abuse and murder?

Regards
DL

Hi there,

I don't personally hold to Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but I would say I have a pretty strong handling on the issue so that I could play the devil's advocate.

Let's define some terms here:

child a"buse
noun
1.
physical maltreatment or sexual molestation of a child.

mur"der
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

child
noun
1.
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

I would submit that it could not be called child abuse because of the following reasons.

1) Jesus of Nazareth would not be qualified to fit the definition of what a child is, being 33 at the age of his death.


I give you this but point out that for an infinite creature, Jesus was quite young and we do not have anything but God's view and he calls Jesus his son.

2) The one who committed the act of putting him to death was not God, but rather the Romans. While he was in some sense, sent to die and this sending was apart of God's plan, it was not a forced plan, but rather an agreed upon conclusion. Which leads to my third point.

I do not agree with this and offer a link for my argument against your view.


3) The cross was consensual in nature, as Jesus said, "not my will, but yours be done."

You have this backwards. If Jesus is doing God's will so you are showing a non-consensual quote.

It is also not murder, because that would seem to indicate that only one party was interested in accomplishing Jesus' death, when rather Jesus himself was personally responsible for his death and would perhaps be better characterized as a suicide of sorts.

The Trinity thing gets involved here and that is all gibberish. Suicide is also immortal but if we consider that Jesus did not stay dead then there was no suicide or murder or sacrifice at all.

Also, within the Penal Substitutionary framework, the idea of "needlessly" is no where present as they believe nothing was more necessary. For justice to be met via a vicarious and propitious sacrifice of the willing Son for the sins of mankind. To be the ultimate picture of sacrificial love, of a man who lays down his life for his friends. Or the Father who will spare not even the most precious thing in the universe to him, for those he loves.

Sure but it shows that God did not love his own son or he would have stepped up himself.

Personally, I think the atonement theory of Penal Substitution runs into big problems when it talks about the justice of vicariously punishing one person (who is innocent) for another (who is guilty).

Regards,
TrueScotsman

I agree with this last 100%.

Regards
DL

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 2:39:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 2:24:25 PM, SemperVI wrote:
At 12/10/2013 10:19:57 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is needlessly sacrificing your child, as God did, child abuse and murder?

Bishop Spong indicated that we Christians should not perceive God as a God who demands barbaric acts like human sacrifice to appease his sense of justice. He uses the term child abuse and I just call it more of what it would be if the myth was real; murder.

I say needlessly because God has no needs. He only has wants and no decent God would want to needlessly sacrifice his son.

If a Sacrifice were required, God would not send a boy to do a man"s job and he would be man enough to step up himself.

If you were to dare judge this issue or scenario of God, --- knowing that he planned to have Jesus sacrificed even before creating the potential for sin, would you find God criminally liable for child abuse and murder?

Regards
DL

Spiritually speaking, if the creator is our Father and nature is our Mother... You sorta of sound like the proverbial whiney little girl pissed off at her parents for making her life so miserable.

You put to much faith in your understanding in justice and morality. Life and death are inescapable certainties. Your life is not even a pimple on the existence of humanities. Yet you claim to know the difference between all good and all evil. I guess that makes you an Oracle...

"Yet you claim to know the difference between all good and all evil."

I must have missed that part. Get the quote please.

Are you saying that your sense of justice and morality thinks it ok to punish the innocent instead of the guilty?

Regards
DL
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 3:01:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 1:45:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:40:31 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:17:06 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:08:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If God exists, he is definitely a psychopath. A wild one at that. That's another reason I am not a theist. No being who created our world is worthy of worship, maybe a nice smack in the face:

"We"re told that God is loving, and kind, and just, and intrinsically good; but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people, of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we"re told that God is mysterious." - Sam Harris

What was that you was arguing about God not able to be immoral according the literature, the greatest philosophers and theologians?

Ah that's right, if God exists he can not be immoral by definition. It's impossible. Ut-oh

But allowing all this suffering would be immoral. Therefore, God does not exist.

Curious how you would respond to the evangelical Calvinist argument that mankind deserve this suffering. That as a result of the fall, mankind is born with a sin nature that naturally opposes the things of God and therefore God is just in visiting his wrath upon them. That to say he is evil, because he allows the suffering of the innocent would be an inaccurate statement because there are none who are innocent and all are guilty.

If hypothetically, this God existed and morality was derived from his character, how could one take a contrary moral view and be correct in doing so?

The idea that God is against humanity collectively, because humanity turned against him.

Note: This is not my personal view, but since I don't see any devout evangelicals around here I thought I would throw it out there. :)

I am also talking about God in general, not just the 30 years he was Jesus! What a cope out.

Sorry, but I don't see how this addresses my point. I was referencing a specific type of theist, namely the kind for which this thread is about. Doesn't that make my question relevant?
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 3:14:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2013 2:33:56 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 12/10/2013 1:32:34 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 12/10/2013 10:19:57 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is needlessly sacrificing your child, as God did, child abuse and murder?

Bishop Spong indicated that we Christians should not perceive God as a God who demands barbaric acts like human sacrifice to appease his sense of justice. He uses the term child abuse and I just call it more of what it would be if the myth was real; murder.

I say needlessly because God has no needs. He only has wants and no decent God would want to needlessly sacrifice his son.

If a Sacrifice were required, God would not send a boy to do a man"s job and he would be man enough to step up himself.

If you were to dare judge this issue or scenario of God, --- knowing that he planned to have Jesus sacrificed even before creating the potential for sin, would you find God criminally liable for child abuse and murder?

Regards
DL

Hi there,

I don't personally hold to Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but I would say I have a pretty strong handling on the issue so that I could play the devil's advocate.

Let's define some terms here:

child a"buse
noun
1.
physical maltreatment or sexual molestation of a child.

mur"der
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

child
noun
1.
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

I would submit that it could not be called child abuse because of the following reasons.

1) Jesus of Nazareth would not be qualified to fit the definition of what a child is, being 33 at the age of his death.


I give you this but point out that for an infinite creature, Jesus was quite young and we do not have anything but God's view and he calls Jesus his son.

2) The one who committed the act of putting him to death was not God, but rather the Romans. While he was in some sense, sent to die and this sending was apart of God's plan, it was not a forced plan, but rather an agreed upon conclusion. Which leads to my third point.

I do not agree with this and offer a link for my argument against your view.




3) The cross was consensual in nature, as Jesus said, "not my will, but yours be done."

You have this backwards. If Jesus is doing God's will so you are showing a non-consensual quote.

It is also not murder, because that would seem to indicate that only one party was interested in accomplishing Jesus' death, when rather Jesus himself was personally responsible for his death and would perhaps be better characterized as a suicide of sorts.

The Trinity thing gets involved here and that is all gibberish. Suicide is also immortal but if we consider that Jesus did not stay dead then there was no suicide or murder or sacrifice at all.

Also, within the Penal Substitutionary framework, the idea of "needlessly" is no where present as they believe nothing was more necessary. For justice to be met via a vicarious and propitious sacrifice of the willing Son for the sins of mankind. To be the ultimate picture of sacrificial love, of a man who lays down his life for his friends. Or the Father who will spare not even the most precious thing in the universe to him, for those he loves.

Sure but it shows that God did not love his own son or he would have stepped up himself.

Personally, I think the atonement theory of Penal Substitution runs into big problems when it talks about the justice of vicariously punishing one person (who is innocent) for another (who is guilty).

Regards,
TrueScotsman

I agree with this last 100%.

Regards
DL



Really not a fan of this forum format, hence why I almost never take part in the forums here.

To your first statement:

You're not really understanding their theology on this point. Jesus as a man, was 33 years old. His human nature is the only one that experienced death, therefore appeals to him being "young" for an immortal being is irrelevant to my point.

To your second statement:

Unless you would like to represent the arguments within the video I can address them. As I am at work at the moment, I can't take the time and watch a whole video on the issue.

To your third statement:

Consent is defined as..

con"sent
noun
1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

Jesus statement was an acquiescence.

ac"qui"es"cence
noun
1.
the reluctant acceptance of something without protest.

Therefore, the statement was a consensual as he coincides with the Father's will for him to be crucified. There was no refusal involved, therefore your point is invalid.

To your fourth point:

Would you agree that when we critic a position we should represent it correctly? If so, then you should know that the Father in this theological system is invisible and cannot be seen by anyone. Therefore, he cannot "step up," and take the Son's place. It also would not represent the picture of submission and obedience that the Son represents as an example, for all his disciples to take up their cross in sacrificial love.

Also, if this were to be true, then wouldn't God be the standard for what love truly was? And that you would be critiquing this view with a separate and contrary understanding of love than the one he outlined?

I feel like I skipped a point... but that's something for you to chew on. :)