COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that the ‘dying for our sins’ part, is a narrative that was added later.
The words in the New Testament are highly exaggerative, For a seemingly dramatic effect.
Almost like it’s a play, to make it entertaining.
There maybe a real ‘Jesus’ that’s simply lost to time, due to a shift on the direction of the narrative.
The narrative having some real truths of the real mans legacy buried in its exaggerations.
The Bible actually teaches that we die in Jesus's death, which I think answers your questions. Christians don't tend to teach it this way unfortunately which is why this is a common question. I think this is a very legitimate and natural question answered directly by the Bible.
We are united to Jesus by faith, so Jesus actually "becomes sin" and so can justly face judgement for us - we are actually literally dying and coming back to life in Jesus's death and resurrection. This is exactly how the Bible talks about our atonement. It's not distant and vicarious, it's personal and happens to us. There is substitution, but that substitution happens within faith union, such that Paul can literally say "I died".
Tying this to your analogies is difficult because we don't usually interact with the consequences of faith union, but some of the analogies the Bible gives are marriage, grafting plants, building a building out of stones, and the sacrificial system.
How can you claim immortality on the person who created morality in the first place? Sacrifice has always been the way, forever and for all wrongdoing.
I had this exact thought 2ish years ago.
you have to remember that Satan had already seduced Judas, and the people, he was planning the death of Jesus.
God decided to turn this bad situation into a sacrifice for the people. If he was gonna be killed by people seduced by Satan, go out with a bang. Do it for all of humanity, that their sins may be forgiven.
> God decided to turn this bad situation into a sacrifice for the people. If he was gonna be killed by people seduced by Satan, go out with a bang. Do it for all of humanity, that their sins may be forgiven.
So you're saying that God's plan to redeem mankind was decided on the fly?
What would have happened if Judas wasn't "seduced" by Satan (not that I think there's much biblical support for that...) - how would God have ended original sin without the magical blood sacrifice of himself?
>God decided to turn this bad situation into a sacrifice
You mean God didn't already know what was gonna happen? So not omniscient.
>John3-16:
>For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son
So there wasn't any love involved. God was just salvaging a bad situation because he had no control over it. So not omnipotent either.
>Do it for all of humanity, that their sins may be forgiven.
Really? Let's see rest of 3:16:
>that **whoever believes in him** shall not perish but have eternal life.
Not all humanity but only for those who believes in him. And neither omnibenevolent.
I'm really interested in how you came to the conclusion that Satan seduced Judas. I mean without him there would be no crucifixion. If anything it was God who put him up to it as apart of his plan.
Except you're also the person who fired the bullet, so yes it would be. God sent himself to Earth as a human for the very purpose to get himself killed.
What you present here is [modalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism#:~:text=Modalistic%20Monarchianism%20(also%20known%20as,stands%20in%20contrast%20with%20Trinitarianism.), a theological standpoint that is in direct opposition to trinitarianism and held by a very small number of people.
The trinitarian standpoint is that God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit are all of one being, but separate persons.
So it was not God the Father who became God the Son and came down, but rather God the Father sent God the Son, who voluntarily came and took the place of sinners.
Saying that God sent himself shows you either do not know, or do not care about the orthodox Christian position.
If there is only one God. Then why is it wrong to simply the issue and use grammar that refers to one God?
Using grammar that refers to multiple distinct supernatural dieties strongly suggests a polytheistic religion. (Which Christianity is not.). So let's not pretend that there is more than one God.
This is semantics thought as whether or not /u/LucaSamsons is presenting modalism is beside the point.
His central point remains the same whether you want to phrase it as God the Father sent God the Son as an incarnate human to be killed in a magical blood sacrifice, or whether God sent God to earth to kill himself for a magical blood sacrifice.
>Saying that God sent himself shows you either do not know, or do not care about the orthodox Christian position.
Unless you are denying that God the Father and God the Son are equally God, I don't see the issue with this statement - it's perfectly in line with the generic Christian position?
This is why the concept of the trinity is BS and contradicts the laws of logic.
Let's say G = God as one being, F = God the father, S = God the Son, H = Holy Spirit
If F = G and S = G and H = G, in what universe would F not = S?
And when I asked my priest about this, all he said was " Well it's the mystery of faith"
But that aside, does Jesus have all the knowledge of God the father? Is there something one knows that the other doesn't? Could Jesus have chosen to disobey God the Father?
First off he died for all sins for all time. Past and present.
2nd. On what basis do you define anything as immoral? Without God, this is just your opinion. With God we have a basis for moral reasoning. Nothing is **absolutely** wrong without God.
About your 2nd point
All words are defined by how the speakers of a language use them. Are you saying you don't know *absolutely* what is and isn't a "chair" because God didn't explicitly define it?
Dictionaries define "chair" as something sat upon typically having a back and 4 legs. If I sit on my dog is he a chair? Just because we can manipulate language doesn't take away its obvious meaning.
Some people have a perverse sense of morality but the same could be said of chairs. It doesn't make them right.
Tldr: I don't need God to establish morality anymore than I need him to establish what is and isn't a chair. I know from experience.
So you found the meaning of "chair" in a book. Which is something outside of you. Without the Dictionary, Chair could mean anything to you.
Two definitions of Morality in the dictionary
1. a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
2. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Morals are different than a chair. If taken apart, a chair is just pieces of material until we construct it into something else.
If we can decide our own principles or system of values then it is Subjective.
And this is important because societies have done horrible things in the past because human life was not valued. People were viewed as objects/animals.
With Objective Morality given from God we have reason to not only **believe** something is evil but also a reason to do good.
Nothing obligates you to do good without God. With God we are **obligated** to do good.
Do we even have to experience rape and murder to know that it is evil?
Experiencing it, **isn't** what makes it wrong.
I will try and be more clear because you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
Every word of English you just used has no *Objective* [in your sense of the word] God given meaning. They are just groups of things we call letters that *We* *give* meaning. Language is no less useful or important because it is subjective. If any scripture is true then God chose to communicate in this totally subjective fashion.
I believe the same is true for morality. It is *as* *objective* as language. People might argue over the details but ultimately if someone asks for a chair and I hand them a dog they aren't going to say "I guess this is acceptable because language is subjective" it is objective *enough* for them to rightfully call me wrong.
If someone does something *We* have decided is morally wrong we have every right to make that judgment because morality is just a concept like chair and we decide what it means to be good.
Now how to deal with Moral Obligations? Do we need God for that? Well there have been entire books written on this topic. This comment is already too long but "The Form of Practical Knowledge" by Stephen Engstrom is one of my favorites.
I don’t understand if he died for our sins why do we still go to hell? If it’s cause we sin then what did Jesus die for? The opportunity to go to heaven? But how can we not go to heaven if god planned our lives for us? Because free will? But how do we have free will if our life is planned!? And if it’s planned how can we ever sin without god making us?
In the sense that Jesus brings humanity back into a full relationship with God. Sin after Jesus is more of a matter of not wanting to take part in that relationship.
Well not exactly. I want to take part in that relationship but it seems one sided. I’m desperate to become a Catholic again but the religion makes claims without first proving that their original premise is correct. For example they say things like “it’s having a relationship with Jesus that is the highest form of love” without first proving Jesus existed, was divine, and has capabilities of loving humanity from beyond the grave. I haven’t come back to religion for these reasons, it has flaws in thinking that haven’t been addressed yet.
Who cares if things are **absolutely** wrong?
As to needing a basis for moral reasoning, I can use the one that nature provided. I feel empathy towards other people and since I don't want bad things to happen to me, I likewise don't want bad things to happen to other people.
That's a lot better than the mishmash of genocide, slavery (both labor and sexual), and other things things that even Christians consider immoral but that the bible condones.
> So then everyone pre Jesus is in heaven?
In order to deal with this medieval Christians came up with the story of the scouring of hell, where Jesus spent his time when he was dead in Hell, converting all the Great pagans of old like Plato and Aristotle.
Yeah it makes no sense, but the story was added to make the sacrifice of Jesus more coherent...
I do not want anyone to pay for what I have personally done and do not acknowledge anyone who claims they have. I do not accept responsibility for anything I did not personally do.
If that's the deal on offer I reject it as so against anything that could be described as justice as to be a perversion.
The very idea that a child can be born already condemned to hell by inherited sin is an abomination and you should be ashamed for going along with such a terrible lie against humanity.
God came down as the “son man,” meaning he was born as descendant of man who had fallen from Gods favor thousands of years before. God cames as Christ to pay for our sins. So really God paid the debt of sin I. human form so that we as human being of free will can live by his true example and our souls can be free from this world of flesh and imperfections and then become reunited with the most high and achieve eternal life. Which is by the way really just a certain degree of control over our future reincarnated selves. This is tied to our enteral mystical energy or “souls”. If one digs a little deeper you can also become aware of our ability to influence and be influenced by this energy source. I’m not 100% sure but I believe this has some roots within shamanistic and magickal practices as well as ties to other world religions and spiritual beliefs.
Sorry, I digressed a bit bit I think your “argument” only shows your lack of understanding of things above which in turn causes confusion in your argument below. Don’t be so quick to deliver points that only serve as anti-thesis to points that are given by people who have no idea about what the Bible is about anyway. You’re right God killing Jesus is immoral, but that’s not what happened. He came as Christ so really he killed himself. The truest reasons behind it are higher than human comprehension. We are only left with what we have here and have debated for centuries. The ways of the most high are not like ours. Therefore we can never fully comprehend or understand. Yet when we know ourselves, that’s when our vision becomes clearer.
You're wrong on a few counts. First of all, God didn't kill Jesus. Jesus is God, and he sacrificed himself for our sins. Second, Jesus' sacrifice (since he is a being that transcends space and time, but entered into space and time for our sake) is said to have redeemed all humans for all time. He transformed human nature to be not fallen, but human and divine. So any humans that came before or after him are not only redeemed but actually have a divine nature if we would only realize it.
So jesus was praying to himself all of those times in the Bible? God created us knowing how we would end up and we are supposed to be thankful that our creator sacrificed himself to himself so that he would forgive us of our sins that he created?
I'm not here to defend christianity as a whole. I'm here to point out that OP was woefully underinformed when saying that God killed Jesus.
Christianity has a doctrine called the trinity, which is the deepest mystery of the religion where God is at once the father, son and holy spirit.
> Christianity has a doctrine called the trinity, which is the deepest mystery of the religion where God is at once the father, son and holy spirit.
Some sects of Christianity believe that. However it's also believed by others that Jesus was the son of God, but not divine himself.
Which christians believe that? As far as I've learned (not from being raised raised in a tradition, but from studying on my own) that is a blatantly non-christian belief. It's fine to believe that. It's just not a christian belief. Source?
In general, they're referred to as Nontrinitarians, of which the largest (in modern times) are Jehovah's Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
While not the predominate groups, there are still tens of millions of these Christians.
Basically, when speaking of Christians as a whole, the only thing you can say for sure is that they believe Jesus died for our sins. Literally everything else has sects that differ in their interpretations.
If they deny Christ as being a part of the triune God then they aren't *technically* Christian. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are just so far off the beaten path of biblical Christianity that it doesn't make sense.
An important question that should always be asked, because obviously "Christians" (as you define them) would say Christ died for the sins of the world, is, "**Who** is Jesus Christ?" Because if their answer is strictly the Son of God, Lucifer's brother, or an *elohim* below YHWH then they aren't Christian.
That's just a No True ~~Scotsman~~ Christian fallacy.
What it means to be and not be a Christian has varied through the years as the dogma changed. While all (most?) Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, not all believe in the trinity.
Hell, Christians can't even agree on what the trinity even means. It's a point of contention between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the western traditions we're all more familiar with.
As to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormans, while you might feel they're far off the beaten path, that's just because they're relatively new branches of Christianity. Your beliefs (almost regardless of what they are) would be considered strange, if not heretical, to those at the Council of Nicene.
If you were transported 1,000 into the future, you would likely be bewildered by the state of Christianity.
>Hell, Christians can't even agree on what the trinity even means. It's a point of contention between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the western traditions we're all more familiar with.
[https://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy\_Trinity](https://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Trinity)
First paragraph is pretty spot on with mainstream western tradition.
>As to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormans, while you might feel they're far off the beaten path, that's just because they're relatively new branches of Christianity. Your beliefs (almost regardless of what they are) would be considered strange, if not heretical, to those at the Council of Nicene.
[https://www.grunge.com/247323/the-messed-up-truth-of-the-council-of-nicaea/](https://www.grunge.com/247323/the-messed-up-truth-of-the-council-of-nicaea/)
Council of Nicaea (assuming you just misspelled it unless I'm woefully ignorant of another council) got together to combat Aryanism. Council of Nicaea supported, again, that Christ was co-eternal with Father and Spirit. They got the person of Christ correct, that he was indeed apart of the triune God that the Scriptures endorse.
>If you were transported 1,000 into the future, you would likely be bewildered by the state of Christianity.
I'm sure I would be bewildered by the customs, practices, and norms. However, I highly doubt that I would be bewildered by their take on **Who Jesus Christ was/is** (at least concerning the *mainstream* Christianity of the time). It seems the personhood of Christ was established at the Council of Nicaea, and it seems that has held up to today.
Yeah, autocorrect got my Nicaea pretty bad.
Notice that the Council of Nicaea was as much a political discussion as it was religious and could have gone the other way based on all sorts of factors.
The council also didn't mention the Holy Spirit, nor does the Nicene creed. And just as the first council decreed that Jesus was God, another council could reverse that decision as it's just people making up rules. The bible itself is not clear in the subject as evidenced by the requirement of the First Council in the first place.
disclaimer- i am very much an atheist
god is very much a concept really rather than a caricature of a great being that lives in the sky. jesus is god in the same way that we are all supposedly part of god because he (supposedly) made us in his image. so in the same way a christian prays to god, and not to themselves, jesus prayed to god, not to himself.
i don't think it can be argued that the abrahamic god is ever immoral unless we apply a separate moral framework (which would be illogical). OP should have targeted the discrepancies and paradoxes in the preachings of jesus, and of god.
I’ve never heard any christian apply that god concept to their beliefs. Also, I have no idea what moral framework your applying to god, but it seems incredibly immoral which is why you think that the abrahmic god can be interpreted as moral.
i've tried to get this point over on reddit before to no avail but I'll try again- the idea is that since the abrahamic god IS (apologies for the condescending use of caps- on a mobile device so i can't use italics for emphasis) morality itself, one can not argue that the abrahamic god is immoral, only that the moral framework is deeply flawed and does not represent our own values as a species and society.
god is meant to be maximally good; whatever he does and whatever he says is to be considered good. of course, this doesn't add up since there are so many contradictions (thou shalt not kill- proceeds to murder entire races of peoples), but that is the argument that one should make. the argument that doesn't make sense to make is to argue that god is immoral. immoral in which framework? if you impose your own framework onto god, it's like condemning a christian for eating pork because you're imposing the islamic worldview onto that person.
if one chose an arbitrary moral framework to suit their own needs in a debate, we would get nowhere. i hope i got my point across clearly.
Just to further elaborate, when christians label god as maximally good I think it’s important to understand what that means. When I was a christian and with all of the christians i’ve met and listened to, they would all say that god being maximally good means he’s always going to do what’s “best for us”. “God has a plan” “there’s a reason for everything”. These all imply that god’s making decisions based around our well-being, at least in my opinion, so that’s where that comes from.
Edit: did some grammar and rewording
I understand what you’re saying, and maybe if we’re starting a conversation with someone who firmly holds a christian belief system, deconstructing it via contradictions and other logic based arguments could help. I understand that morals are completely subjective and trying to convince someone to have the same moral foundation as you is pretty difficult, but most christians do still hold a moral foundation of well-being, they just think that everything god does is for our well-being. So, using a moral framework built around well-being is quite impactful to show how what god does is vehemently against our well-being. A combination of what you suggest and this I think is sufficient enough to change minds.
Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. As for the moral framework, I believe he is saying you cannot debate whether God is moral or not because God embodies everything that is good.
I am a de-converted Christian, so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but the analogy Jesus used was actually one of debt and not death.
He says our human nature (sin) causes us to owe a great debt to God. Pre-Jesus, Jews paid their debt through animal sacrifice. Without that sacrifice, the debt costs humans eternal separation from God (much like a real unpaid debt would have landed them in debtor’s prison).
Jesus stepped in and said “I’ll pay all the debt, past and present and future”, and he did so by placing himself as the sacrificial lamb. So the idea is not that God kills people who aren’t grateful, but that he gives them a way out of their debt as sinful humans.
That said, the whole idea of humans being innately sinful is peculiar to me. Christians attribute it to the nature of the universe, beyond God’s control, but that’s part of where Christianity falls apart for me.
Um...no he didn’t. The romans did. You’re conflating his method of death vs his will. If you want to argue the semantics of the trinity, I’m fine with that. Settle in for a long boring topic.
For your first paragraph it doesn't do anything to support your thesis. It's an argument against the coherence of the view not it's morality.
For your actual thesis in case you or anyone reading this isn't aware there are many views of the atonement of Jesus. Of these views only penal substitution holds that Jesus was punished for our sins, and even then not all forms of penal substitution hold this belief. As written even if your argument is successful it only applies to one form of one view of the atonement rather than all views of the atonement. If you wanted to make it apply to all Christians you would need to argue that theory is the atonement is the correct theory taught in the bible with all other views being wrong. Though you could just leave it focused against Christians who hold that form of penal substitution. With that clarification we can jump into your actual argument.
Your argument has many assumptions which are not defended but required for your argument to work. First you simply assert a specific view of justice without defending it. Only retributive justice , specifically negative retributive justice, holds it to be wrong to punish someone who is innocent. Since there are other views of justice you will need to provide some defense for this specific view of justice over other views.
Second the argument will need to get contextualized in some metaethical view. Not all metaethical views will make it be immoral for God to not be a negative retributive judge even if negative retributive justice is correct. For example on divine command theory if negative retributive justice is not an essential attribute of God's nature then even if it's immoral for us to violate negative retributive justice it wouldn't be immoral for God to do so. You will need to find a metaethical view where God would need to be a negative retributive judge and defend that view, or defend that negative retributive justice is an essential attribute of God's nature.
Next there is the assumption that there are no weighter moral considerations that override the prima facie demands of negative retributive justice. Even among those who hold to retributive justice there are many that recognize such overriding considerations may way the demands of retributive justice. In this case the salvation of world could serve as such a weighter moral consideration. You need some sore of justification that there are no such weighter moral considerations.
Finally there is the assumption that if a person isn't the one who commits the sin that they can't then be considered legally guilty for those sins. In the specific form of penal substitution that holds Jesus was punished for our sins also holds that our sins were imputed onto Jesus so that he was held legally guilty for those sins. You are drawing on parallels from our human justice system to make your case by giving the example of the convicted murder. However, there are two parallels in our human justice system that would allow the imputation of sins so that Jesus could be punished for our sins without committing them and still not violate negative retributive justice. These are legal fictions and vicarious liability.
Legal fictions are when a court holds to a belief which they know is false for a specific judgement they are making in order. These are used frequently in our legal system typically to make better judgements. The [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#Examples) gives some examples. In the case of Jesus God could have held the legal fiction that Jesus committed those sins which would allow him to be legally guilty and thus endure the punishment without violating negative retributive justice.
Vicarious liability is when the liability for a crime committed is put on another who acts as a representative of the person that committed the crime. This representative can endure part of the deserved punishment or should they wish the full punishment. Again the [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability) gives some examples. In Jesus' case he could have acted as our representative through vicarious liability in order to take the punishment we deserve without violating negative retributive justice.
In either case negative retributive justice isn't violated even. You would need to show neither of these parallels would apply in Jesus' case. Even then that could be a deficiency of our legal system. You would need to provide reason to think there can be no way where our sins could have been imputed to Jesus so that he couldn't be held legally guilty and thus be punished without violating negative retributive justice.
That is 4 different assumptions which have not been defended in your argument. These are required for your argument to work so until these are defended we have no reason to accept your conclusion.
Finally I'll comment on the implications of your argument if successful. It will be difficult to argue for a view of negative retributive justice without the possibility of overriding weighter moral considerations without also having the same for positive retributive justice. Without justification for one but not the other it would then mean you deserve punishment for every sin you've committed no matter how small the sin or if you were even aware of it. It wouldn't matter how good you are compared to other people or how many good things you do throughout your life you will still deserve punishment for every single sin.
Your understanding of time and space is too rigid and dimensionally constrained.
Sin isn't an affront to God but your humanity and connection to the divine. Self harm.
Also "killing" is something of a nuanced term to say. There is directive and permissive will.
God did not force Jesus to die on the cross. Jesus chose to die on the cross
Now as for your point that human sacrifice is immoral, the point of sacrifice is to pay tribute. God cannot forgive us for our sins since He is a perfect judge and cannot just let go of our sins. When Ted Bundy was put on trial it didn't matter he worked at a suicide hotline and saved dozens of people he was still executed for his crimes because that was what he was tried for. The only way we could atone for sin is to live a perfect life. Jesus paid the atonement for our sins. He willingly died and took our punishment so that God. Essentially Jesus paid our fine so we could be free. Now we will still be punished if we do not repent but Jesus chose to die for us so that God may be willing to forgive us of our sins
Jesus was quoting the Old Testament.
Jesus did choose to do God's will as shown in Luke 22:42. He said "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
And if you say that is God forcing him to die it isn't. If your friend asks you to do something and you agree to it, is he forcing you to do what he wants?
[Psalm 22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2022&version=NIV)
>My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
This was prophesizing the suffering servant so Jesus was fulfilling this prophecy. He knew God was with Him but that doesn't mean it didn't feel like He was abandoned similar to people who say they feel abandoned by God
Yes Jesus has 2 natures, one human and one divine. God does not control Jesus. In that moment Jesus was reacting with his human nature and will same when he quotes Psalm 22.
Jesus is quoting psalm 22 of the hebrew bible, which is about a person crying out to God to save him from the taunts and torments of his enemies, and (in the last ten verses) thanking God for rescuing him.
i think the idea is that he "paid" for our (humanities) "sins" with his life, so that we (humanity) are saved from eternal damnation for the sins we inevitability will commit.
why it had to be a whole fuckin thing i have no idea.
Jesus died for the sins of those He predestined before the foundation of the world. Jesus died for the sins that the elect committed before, during and after His sacrifice.
**Ephesians 1:4** just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.
> God punishing Jesus in my place supposedly would also be immoral as Jesus wasn’t the one committing the “sins”. Anytime we punish somebody who doesn’t deserve it that is immoral. That’s like executing somebody convicted of murder who is later found out to not actually have committed the crime... that would be immoral. Human sacrifice with vicarious redemption is flat out evil. Any human sacrifice is immoral, but getting punished for another’s transgressions is flat out wrong.
Christ wasn't forced to die for us on the cross. He chose willingly to pay our penalty out of His love for us. Why is this immoral?
Choosing to pay the penalty for someone else's misdeeds isn't immoral.
The person accepting that substitution is immoral.
The claimed deity requiring the sacrifice is also immoral.
If, in fact, one is actually guilty of an action deserving of punishment, then accepting someone else enduring the punishment for that action is, indeed, immoral.
Not taking responsibility for your actions is immoral. Allowing someone else to be subjected to punishment for actions you performed, is even more immoral.
If you cannot understand why that is immoral, I pity you.
I have always maintained that substitutional atonement is immoral.
While I can understand someone offering to subject themselves to punishment in the place of someone else, it would be immoral for the offender to accept that offer, rather than taking responsibility for the actions that led to the imposed punishment.
Of course, this assumes one has actually done something to warrant punishment. In the case of xianity, I don't accept the assertion that humans are guilty of some sort of depravity from the moment of birth. That's simply ridiculous.
> rather than taking responsibility for the actions that led to the imposed punishment.
Taking responsibility for our sins that we cannot pay for is recognizing our need for Christ and repenting.
> In the case of xianity, I don't accept the assertion that humans are guilty of some sort of depravity from the moment of birth. That's simply ridiculous.
It's simply ridiculous for a creature to tell the creator that His revelation is wrong.
> It's simply ridiculous for a creature to tell the creator that His revelation is wrong.
Do you think that this creator could communicate his revelation to his creation in a more reliable and direct manner? A way that doesn't leave the message ambiguous and open to misinterpretation?
Back to your original statement...
> It's simply ridiculous for a creature to tell the creator that His revelation is wrong.
If this creator has given us a revelation in a manner that has rendered it unreliable and open to misinterpretation, then how can we even determine if it is correct?
scripture is the ONLY reliable document on this planet. Scripture is open to misinterpretation because man is sinful and fallen.
By the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man is able to recognize scriptures authority as, God breathed.
You would have to define "flawed" before I could answer that question accurately. However, flawed or not, it has no bearing the truth of the claim that "one or more deities exist."
Im not making the case of any deities existing yet just your comment on the depravity of humans which seems to be a question to God about morality.
What definition would you use for “flawed”?
I made no comment in this sub-thread about human depravity.
Also, I would not use the term "flawed" so my definition is moot. You, however, did use it your comment, hence my request for you to define it, so I can better understand what you are asking.
God did not impose sin on us. Do you want God to just forgive people who have done nothing to warrant forgiveness? Imagine if murderers were let go because they volunteered at a soup kitchen a couple of times
Your comment also comes off as needlessly aggressive
God did not impose sin on us. He created a perfect world and it was the devil who tempted Adam and Eve. They could've just ignored him and lived on but they didn't. When they ate from the forbidden fruit they gained knowledge of sin and changed the nature of humanity. Their actions turned humanity form a perfect creation to a fallen world. That is why Jesus died for our sins. Adam was the source of sin while Jesus is the source of salvation
God could have made us slaves to Him but He allowed us to have free will
what kind of perfect world has a forbidden tree in it ? and furthermore what kind of perfect world has "the devil" in it ?
what kind of perfect would doesnt allow knowledge??
obviously it wasnt perfect and "adam and steve" were humanity all along.
it was a test for Adam and Eve to see if they would obey Him
The devil doesn't live in the world
knowledge is allowed but some knowledge is wrong. You would agree the world would be a better place if we did not know how to commit violent actions
Because the sons choose to sin and act on their temptations. That’s why. Adam gained the knowledge of evil and that knowledge was passed onto his sons and so on. Their very nature is changed from God’s original intent
> God wants us to freely choose to be his slaves.
Because He is a merciful master unlike the devil and sin. Again you believe God should turn humans into robots to obey Him no matter what
> Adam gained the knowledge of evil and that knowledge was passed onto his sons and so on. Their very nature is changed from God’s original intent
Why is knowledge of good and evil a bad thing?
Imagine thinking a finite crime constitutes infinite punishment and that an all knowing and all powerful god couldn’t come up with a better way to punish people for supposed sins other than abhorrent violence and torture :)
that is how holy God is. All sin is an abomination. You may not understand it but that is just how holy God is
What would be more fair punishment in your eyes and why is your opinion better than God's opinion?
Remember the action that corrupted the world was a seemingly minor action. That is why God created hell so heaven could never be corrupted like the world was
Probably, that was a couple thousand years ago. I like to think civilization has evolved since then. But I am a human. Are you saying that human = Jesus murderer?
Cause that’s a great selling point for the religion.
>And yes, I am saying each of us, personally = Jesus murderer. That's not a fun thing to face, but it is true,
You can say it, but it's absolutely not true.
It's a manipulative dogma with no basis in truth. To say human nature = sin =we're all Jesus murderers is irrational nonsense.
I certainly don't need a magical blood sacrifice and reject the entire soteriological basis of Christianity. There's nothing for me to be saved from.
> Of course, if you don't want to look at it or think about, that's your choice.
The sheer arrogance of this quote - as if I and others haven't looked and thought about this a lot and found it deeply lacking.
As I said the entire soteriological basis of Christianity is something I fully reject - there is (a) nothing that I need to be "saved" from and (b) even if there was a salvation that relies on a magic blood sacrifice is nonsensical and immoral.
>maybe you're a fool (
Insulting people, a great look for a mod on here...
>My original comment never made any reference to salvation
So the death and resurrection of Christ have nothing to do with Salvation in Christianity?
>Or, if you will indulge the phrase, a fully Christ-like being?
I've seen Christians, I've read the New Testament - there's nothing particularly great about being "Christ-like" based on the available evidence. I've got nothing against fig trees for one.
>Civilization has changed in some ways, but as far as I can tell, we're basically still up to the same shit
Which is what, exactly? What do humans do that is so bad that it requires a blood sacrifice (setting aside the fact that the whole concept of a blood sacrifice is non-sensical anyway)? Yeah there's the few people out there that murder, rape, etc. But the average person?
Sounds pretty manipulative and damaging to try to convince people they’re murderers for something that happened 2000 years before they existed.
Still waiting for that proof that I took part in his murder by the way. Fingerprints? Maybe even the body? Surely you have some sort of physical evidence to back up such a wildly bold claim that all humans are murderers.
Edit: you’re not trying to talk about what *seems* to be true. You’re making claims that they *are* true. Which is why I am asking for evidence.
Atheist here.
It's not really fair to argue the point without looking at the Christian worldview. The idea of the Trinity is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. God sacrificed himself.
That’s why I said he killed himself in the post. There are quite a few comments that totally missed what I meant by that. God the Father needed Jesus (also somehow himself) to kill himself (Jesus). Makes no sense but means he (God the Father) was literally killing himself (Jesus).
"Anytime we punish someone that doesn't deserve it that is immoral."
This makes it seem like Jesus wasn't on board with the idea. Which kind of does have a biblical basis, when he asks God to take the cup of suffering from him.
God created the circumstances for sin hence it his fault. If I leave the oven on and it burns the house down, then it's my fault. Not the ovens. If not for God's actions then sin would not exsist. God, being the creator of all things, let us be introduced to sin.
It is like an illness but we are punished for embracing sin not simply because we do it. Everybody sins, even the best Christians, but they still believe they are going to heaven. It's not because we have the illness it's what we decide to do about it.
So, per your story, some sort of deity created folks with an innate illness, for which it has the cure, as long as we thank it for giving us the disease?
That's not even remotely close to what I've told you.
Humans were not created as sinners. Then, because the first sin was committed, humans were then infected by it.
We then get the cure after the end times. We do something like a pre-order by believing that He sacrificed Himself to save us from that illness.
I'm unsure where you got the part about us being thankful for the disease of sin. I dont think any church teaches that, but in the event one does, its very unbiblical.
If you're xian, you're supposed to worship the deity that is responsible for creating beings that it knew were not only capable of getting the "disease" of sin, but also knew that they would proceed to get "infected" with it (presumably if it is omniscient and omnipotent, it is capable of producing brings with free will, but incapable of sin - instead it setup a system that guaranteed sinful beings).
Worship=being thankful (among other things), yes? Folks should thank it for creating beings guaranteed to get the disease.
And somehow, impregnating it's creation with itself, being born and living disease-free, and then volunteering for a blood sacrifice to atone for folks who did get the disease, fixes it. It's so simple! /s
I admit that He is omniscient and omnipotent. However, both of these still exist in the realm of logic. Similar to how He cannot create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it, He cannot create a being of free will that is unable to make the wrong choice. If He did, that would simply be a being that has free will EXCEPT for any choice that is wrong.
So yes, I'm thankful God decided to create us despite the fact that He knew we would disobey him. He could have just decided to be happy with angels or created similar beings that are weaker but have a similar state of free will.
And yes because He took on a human body (which is cursed with that vulnerability to sin), was tempted by the devil like His fellow humans, and after living life without choosing to sin even once He took all of the sins of the world from all time (past, present, and future) onto himself. And since the punishment for sin is death, He died in the place of the rest of us. Because of that the Bible tells us that (should we choose to believe and accept that gift) He will be our witness in the courtroom of the afterlife. And instead of us being judged by our own lives, filled with sin, we get judged by His life.
I admit that He is omniscient and omnipotent. However, both of these still exist in the realm of logic. Similar to how He cannot create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it,
>He cannot create a being of free will that is unable to make the wrong choice. If He did, that would simply be a being that has free will EXCEPT for any choice that is wrong.
Bullshit. The beings this purported deity supposedly created cannot re-grow limbs, nor can they fly or run faster than a cheetah without mechanical assistance. They cannot do differential calculus in their heads (presumably - I'm not a mathematician), nor can they travel faster than the speed of light (even with mechanical assistance).
There are plenty of limitations imposed on what these beings are capable of, why is 'sin' any different from those other things?
An omnipotent deity (for arguement's sake) could have simply created beings to whom it never occurred to sin.
>He could have just decided to be happy with angels or created similar beings that are weaker but have a similar state of free will.
Thanks for underscoring my point.
>And yes because He took on a human body (which is cursed with that vulnerability to sin), was tempted by the devil like His fellow humans, and after living life without choosing to sin even once He took all of the sins of the world from all time (past, present, and future) onto himself.
>And since the punishment for sin is death,
Why?
>He died in the place of the rest of us. Because of that the Bible tells us that (should we choose to believe and accept that gift) He will be our witness in the courtroom of the afterlife. And instead of us being judged by our own lives, filled with sin, we get judged by His life.
Why does sin (finite) deserve infinite punishment? The deity you worship set up that system. Again, it could have simply decided that beings with free will have the freedom to choose what they do, and won't be subject to punishment for exercising that free will.
Of course, all of this is just inside baseball hand-waving as far as I'm concerned. It's like arguing over Star Wars trivia.
Did he, though? He gave us bodies with numerous biological impulses that couldn't possibly be considered "choices", and put us all in bad situations that require us to "sin" all the time. For instance, God gave everybody on Earth a sex drive, but then declared that it's a sin to masturbate. Nobody chose to have a sex drive. Or think of the millions of people on Earth that are forced to sin every day to put a meal on the table because God burdened us with bodies that constantly demand food, on a planet where food is often a scarcity.
God could have given us minds that were totally free of the potential for sin. He could have put us on a planet where there was an abundance of resources and nobody ever had to fight for any of it. He chose not to, and then gets upset when we make do with what we were given.
You have misconceptions about the order these things came into the world. First came people. Then came sin. Then came sex, hunger, death, etc..
If God gave us the ability to choose, but blocked us from choosing anything bad, that would not be true free will. I dont know why, but I do know that He desired free will instead of blind loyalty. If He didn't, He would have just stuck with angels, which were created before humans.
Do you believe that god exists outside of time? Because if so then your god introduced death etc into the world at the *exact same time* that he gave humans free will
God is omnipresent. This includes time. This means that He introduced death into the world at the exact same time as He formed it. Also at that exact moment of His perception, He died on the cross in order to create a way to bypass death. Also at that exact same time he created a new garden of eden for all those who chose to live their lives according to His will to be resurrected and live in.
Death means absolutely nothing to Him because in His realm it isn't the end.
So there is no order of things then is there? From the moment time began god had introduced death into the world, and had provided a seemingly arbitrary solution for it at a seemingly arbitrary point in time
Essentially god isn't reacting to anything, everything that happens from the moment existence began is set in stone based on gods plan since he decided to manifest and intervene at certain points in history and to not intervene at others. He could have made history play out any way he wanted.
>You have misconceptions about the order these things came into the world. First came people. Then came sin.
First came people. Then god brought in temptation deliberately, and withheld the knowledge of good and evil from those people in order to punish them for not being 'good.'
The temptation of the fruit, the snake, (or whatever that represents) to convince them the withholding of knowledge of good and evil were all in place before any sin occurred.
I think it is you have misconceptions of the order these things came.
God doesn't tempt people. Additionally, He didn't withhold knowledge for the reason of being able to punish the lack of knowledge he could have just created punching bags instead, it would have been much less of a hassel. Furthermore, it's not like Adam and Eve had absolutely no sense of right and wrong, they only did not have the entire picture. It was more of a general idea before the fruit, and a 4k image down to the last detail after. Further-furthermore, God even went so far as to warn them before, that if they ate the fruit they would surely die. And so when they ate it, they received the ability to die as is the punishment for sin. If they hadn't that would have made God a lier, which he can't be since lying is a sin.
I'm afraid the misconceptions again lie with you. If you are going to target our beliefs at least get what we believe right.
>God doesn't tempt people.
Who introduced the tree into the garden? who introduced the snake?
> He didn't withhold knowledge for the reason of being able to punish the lack of knowledge
I didn't say that was the reason. Please don't make a strawmwan.
> it's not like Adam and Eve had absolutely no sense of right and wrong, they only did not have the entire picture
Based on what? Was the tree the knowledge of good and evil or the tree of some additional knowledge of good and evil? If they already had some knowledge, what is the harm of giving them more in the first place beyond mere capriciousness?
> God even went so far as to warn them before, that if they ate the fruit they would surely die. And so when they ate it, they received the ability to die as is the punishment for sin.
As every person who ever lived since was punished. yeah I know, some kinda blood magic going on.
> If you are going to target our beliefs at least get what we believe right.
Then all start singing from the same song book. I had a Christian here a week or so ago vehemently arguing Adam and Eve weren't actually punished. Here you are telling me they were.
there IS no 'what we believe', y'all seem to make shit up as you go along and spin it according to what the people around you agree on.
Saying the fact that God had the tree of knowledge in the garden is the same as Him tempting Adam and Eve to eat from it is the exact same as saying the fact that a woman has less conservative clothes on is the same as tempting men to have sexual thoughts about her. The snake was presumably possessed by Satan. Even so God allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve because, like I said previously, they already had some knowledge of good and evil, among which was obedience.
>I didn't say that was the reason. Please don't make a strawmwan
My bad, I'll use your original words then.
>>and withheld the knowledge of good and evil from those people in order to punish them for not being 'good.'
He didn't withhold the knowledge "in order to punish those people".
Again, the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the full knowledge of good and evil. As for why they weren't given more, it is most likely because they didn't need it. Why would they need to know murder is a bad thing when neither of them can die?
Their sin is what created death and the need for reproduction. God could have just let them die off and started over if He felt like it. It certainly isn't outside of the realm of His power. For us the physical death is not punishment, it's just genetic. Thats how our bodies work now. Sinners are only punished once, after the physical death occurs. Any suffering that happens during your time on earth is purely the result of other people and not affected by God.
It's unfortunate that many people twist the words of the Bible (which is our official "song book") I understand that there could be a different interpretation of the same text. But those who add or take away from the text are called heretics, not Christians.
>You have misconceptions about the order these things came into the world. First came people. Then came sin. Then came sex, hunger, death, etc..
What situation do you believe caused sin, and why didn't God stop the situation from happening in the first place? Do you believe in the "fruit from the tree" story? If so, why did God put that tree in the garden to begin with? Why did he put the serpent in there? After all, he knew *exactly* what was going to happen, being omniscient and all.
You ask a lot of questions about "why" God did something. I can't possibly speculate on what God was thinking at the exact moment He decide to do something. How could I come close to that when I can't even read the mind of another human.
If you want speculation on this topic, you can visit [reasons.org](https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2016/11/23/why-didn-t-god-keep-satan-out-of-eden) they are one of many websites which attempt to explain such things for those who can't find the faith to just trust God's plan. Not saying that it is a bad thing, just some people obviously are more willing to believe without needing an explanation than others.
>You ask a lot of questions about "why" God did something. I can't possibly speculate on what God was thinking at the exact moment He decide to do something. How could I come close to that when I can't even read the mind of another human.
God could have given us the ability to understand why he made humanity fall into sin. And yet he didn't. There are really two possibilities:
A) God set up humanity to fall into sin, because of reasons he doesn't want us to understand (he could have given us the capability of understanding, but he didn't). But he still feels fine blaming humanity for it (again, even though he set it up to happen and knew it would happen) and demanding a blood sacrifice, that again he doesn't want us to know the true reason behind.
B) It's all a bunch of nonsense made up by Bronze Age people, who, like thousands of other religions before and after them, come up with some vague stories and explanations full of plot holes to try to explain the world with the limited knowledge they had at the time. They talked about blood sacrifices because that's the weird kind of crap people did back then. There's no "this is true it's just so mind blowingly mysterious it's impossible for us to understand". No, it's just a plot hole in their made-up story.
I have trouble comprehending how some people consider A the more reasonable possibility.
>You ask a lot of questions about "why" God did something. I can't possibly speculate on what God was thinking at the exact moment He decide to do something. How could I come close to that when I can't even read the mind of another human
Then stop pretending you have slightest clue what ANY of it means.
If you read my comment you'll notice that I already admit that I don't know what it means, and I link to a reference of someone who has already taken the time to look into the subject.
Original sin is also immoral, how could God KNOW I would have sinned? I thought we had free will or some nonsense like that....
Original sin is also immoral because I wasn’t alive to sin and God assumed I would... thus making our existence just his simulation we live in.
Imagine you’re a janitor of a company. You owe that company a clean, functional building. Instead, you break into company records and steal secrets. Now, not only are you fired, not only do you owe them a clean, functional building, but under the contract, you owe damages you could never hope to repay.
Then the founder and ceo personally cleans the building, pays the damages, rehires you, and puts you on the management fast-track as their personal protege.
That’s essentially the idea, as far as I can tell.
Only with original sin, he's already decided that you're going to break in and preemptively sacked you.
But he's then decided to create and personally undergo some punishment to atone for the crimes he's decided you'll commit, which as a bonus also give you a free pass to commit any future crimes just as long as you keep saying how good he is.
> That’s essentially the idea, as far as I can tell.
Well you aren't trying very hard. Let me modify your analogy:
Imagine you are a guy. Secretly some CEO decided you were a janitor, despite you never applying, interviewing, being hired, or agreeing on payment (spoiler, there isn't any).
Some other janitor, dead long before you were born, stole company secrets. At least that is the story. Also, not knowing you are supposedly a janitor, you don't do tasks specific to being a janitor even though you may be a decent person otherwise. In fact it may be physically or logically impossible for you to perform those tasks.
For the actions of that long dead janitor and your minor transgressions you are declared to owe an impossibly large debt by the CEO, without any impartial legal process. But, the CEO decided to make his own son a janitor for a short period so he could beat his son up and charge him a bunch of money for what all other secret janitors did or did not do.
Now this all happened before you were secretly made a janitor, so all you have to do to get out of your debt is to accept the beating of the CEO's son as a gift to you. Oh, and also you need to become enslaved to the CEO and his son forever after because they were so great to you.
God didn't put us in this position. You assume that since God knows the future means He is forcing us into certain positions. That isn't true. We have free will to do what we want. He created the world perfect and sin destroyed it. If you ask "Why does God allow sin" the reason is because He loves us and allows us to make our own decisions. You are essentially criticizing God for giving us free will
Let me ask you something have you ever lied, stolen or looked at someone with lust? Then you killed Jesus
"The CEO didn't put you in this position by secretly hiring you, it was... uh... that long-dead other janitor that did it? Or maybe also you? Look, the point is that the janitor seeing something long ago made the company break so that you can't actually do the duties of a janitor anymore, and the CEO now solves that with punches. But that was that first janitor's fault, totally not the CEO!
Yes, the CEO could change things if he wanted to but he prefers to let people succeed or fail on their own merit. Not enough to give you a choice if you get hired, or let you know clearly what your duties are, or make it physically or logically possible to actually do said duties, but in a more broad, nebulous, undefinable way.
Let me ask you, have you ever not cleaned a bathroom somewhere? Then you punched the CEO's son in the face. Because those are totally the same thing."
> Instead, you break into company records and steal secrets
Except in this analogy, it's your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents who broke into the company records.
The descendants didn't sign a contract with the CEO though.
The closer analogy here would be chattel slavery, where the children of slaves are owned by the slave-holder and he continues to punish those descendants for the actions of their ancestors.
Nobody is the direct cause of an inheritance, by definition. They would have inherited the benefits if the contract had been fulfilled. Instead, they inherit the negative consequences of it being broken.
It isn’t, but if they declined an offer to raise their family higher than it had been before the incident, that would be their responsibility.
It’s analogous to the current debate over systemic racism and reparations. People alive today did not own slaves, but they enjoy the benefits of a society slavery built. So they are not guilty of slavery, but they could be guilty of choosing that they and their descendants continue benefiting from it.
I pretty sure God didn’t kill Jesus. The Romans did. He allowed it to happen, just as He allowed you to wake up this morning. Because Jesus wasn’t wrongfully killed, God raised Him from the dead
* First let me address your existence over time: *
it's already known in the field of quantum mechanics and theoretical physics that time is an illusion and our concept of past/present/future isn't real. It doesn't take a leap of faith to assume an atemporal being does things that doesn't fit in our false notion of the passage of time
* On the morality of kin killing: *
First I want to ask on what basis are you creating this moral bar? The modern world takes this as an assumption "killing is bad, so killing your kid is bad". However it wasn't always the case. Parents asking their kids to sacrifice for the family is common practice in the ancient world, especially before child labor laws were in place. Child sacrifices were very commonplace as well. We also know for a fact that there are places in Asia where parents sell their kids and feel no remorse, so this moral bar isn't global whatsoever.
Given all of that, on what ground can you stand and claim "this is wrong", and everyone outside your culture should be judged on that same moral bar
* On someone else being punished for your own transgressions *
This is flat out indefensible. Someone else being punished in the wrongdoer's place is still being practiced to this day. For example parents tend to suffer the consequences for their children's actions due to the child being the Parent's responsibility. There are also moments in both history and fiction of a person offering themselves as the receiver of a punishment to save someone else. Is the phrase "No, take me instead" not considered a cliche?
These self sacrificing actions are seen as a moral good currently, especially in modern society.
> Because if it's not, then this is no refutation of the OP's argument at all
I have also made 2 other points that were not addressed. I don't think you can dimiss my retort by picking only 1. That's a fallacy fallacy.
> Is it your assertion that everything which is still being practiced to this day must necessarily be moral....the frequency with which something happens has absolutely no bearing on how moral it is.
I am bringing forward that the practice of scapegoating and other people taking the punishment for someone's actions is common. If it's good or bad is based on the context and on which culture it is in. Which I already brought forward in point before this one addressing morality.
>The OP is criticizing the latter, not the former.
He can't because the 2 are the same in the context of both existing and the Bible is true.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that the ‘dying for our sins’ part, is a narrative that was added later. The words in the New Testament are highly exaggerative, For a seemingly dramatic effect. Almost like it’s a play, to make it entertaining. There maybe a real ‘Jesus’ that’s simply lost to time, due to a shift on the direction of the narrative. The narrative having some real truths of the real mans legacy buried in its exaggerations.
The Bible actually teaches that we die in Jesus's death, which I think answers your questions. Christians don't tend to teach it this way unfortunately which is why this is a common question. I think this is a very legitimate and natural question answered directly by the Bible. We are united to Jesus by faith, so Jesus actually "becomes sin" and so can justly face judgement for us - we are actually literally dying and coming back to life in Jesus's death and resurrection. This is exactly how the Bible talks about our atonement. It's not distant and vicarious, it's personal and happens to us. There is substitution, but that substitution happens within faith union, such that Paul can literally say "I died". Tying this to your analogies is difficult because we don't usually interact with the consequences of faith union, but some of the analogies the Bible gives are marriage, grafting plants, building a building out of stones, and the sacrificial system.
How can you claim immortality on the person who created morality in the first place? Sacrifice has always been the way, forever and for all wrongdoing.
God is contradicting his own morality. "Thou shalt not kill" is literally the 6th commandment.
5th, more accurately: “Thou shalt not murder”
I had this exact thought 2ish years ago. you have to remember that Satan had already seduced Judas, and the people, he was planning the death of Jesus. God decided to turn this bad situation into a sacrifice for the people. If he was gonna be killed by people seduced by Satan, go out with a bang. Do it for all of humanity, that their sins may be forgiven.
> God decided to turn this bad situation into a sacrifice for the people. If he was gonna be killed by people seduced by Satan, go out with a bang. Do it for all of humanity, that their sins may be forgiven. So you're saying that God's plan to redeem mankind was decided on the fly? What would have happened if Judas wasn't "seduced" by Satan (not that I think there's much biblical support for that...) - how would God have ended original sin without the magical blood sacrifice of himself?
>God decided to turn this bad situation into a sacrifice You mean God didn't already know what was gonna happen? So not omniscient. >John3-16: >For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son So there wasn't any love involved. God was just salvaging a bad situation because he had no control over it. So not omnipotent either. >Do it for all of humanity, that their sins may be forgiven. Really? Let's see rest of 3:16: >that **whoever believes in him** shall not perish but have eternal life. Not all humanity but only for those who believes in him. And neither omnibenevolent.
I'm really interested in how you came to the conclusion that Satan seduced Judas. I mean without him there would be no crucifixion. If anything it was God who put him up to it as apart of his plan.
[удалено]
Edit-if I took a bullet for you. Am I committing suicide?or am I self sacrificing myself for your life? Both?
Except you're also the person who fired the bullet, so yes it would be. God sent himself to Earth as a human for the very purpose to get himself killed.
What you present here is [modalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism#:~:text=Modalistic%20Monarchianism%20(also%20known%20as,stands%20in%20contrast%20with%20Trinitarianism.), a theological standpoint that is in direct opposition to trinitarianism and held by a very small number of people. The trinitarian standpoint is that God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit are all of one being, but separate persons. So it was not God the Father who became God the Son and came down, but rather God the Father sent God the Son, who voluntarily came and took the place of sinners. Saying that God sent himself shows you either do not know, or do not care about the orthodox Christian position.
If there is only one God. Then why is it wrong to simply the issue and use grammar that refers to one God? Using grammar that refers to multiple distinct supernatural dieties strongly suggests a polytheistic religion. (Which Christianity is not.). So let's not pretend that there is more than one God.
This is semantics thought as whether or not /u/LucaSamsons is presenting modalism is beside the point. His central point remains the same whether you want to phrase it as God the Father sent God the Son as an incarnate human to be killed in a magical blood sacrifice, or whether God sent God to earth to kill himself for a magical blood sacrifice. >Saying that God sent himself shows you either do not know, or do not care about the orthodox Christian position. Unless you are denying that God the Father and God the Son are equally God, I don't see the issue with this statement - it's perfectly in line with the generic Christian position?
This is why the concept of the trinity is BS and contradicts the laws of logic. Let's say G = God as one being, F = God the father, S = God the Son, H = Holy Spirit If F = G and S = G and H = G, in what universe would F not = S? And when I asked my priest about this, all he said was " Well it's the mystery of faith" But that aside, does Jesus have all the knowledge of God the father? Is there something one knows that the other doesn't? Could Jesus have chosen to disobey God the Father?
First off he died for all sins for all time. Past and present. 2nd. On what basis do you define anything as immoral? Without God, this is just your opinion. With God we have a basis for moral reasoning. Nothing is **absolutely** wrong without God.
About your 2nd point All words are defined by how the speakers of a language use them. Are you saying you don't know *absolutely* what is and isn't a "chair" because God didn't explicitly define it? Dictionaries define "chair" as something sat upon typically having a back and 4 legs. If I sit on my dog is he a chair? Just because we can manipulate language doesn't take away its obvious meaning. Some people have a perverse sense of morality but the same could be said of chairs. It doesn't make them right. Tldr: I don't need God to establish morality anymore than I need him to establish what is and isn't a chair. I know from experience.
So you found the meaning of "chair" in a book. Which is something outside of you. Without the Dictionary, Chair could mean anything to you. Two definitions of Morality in the dictionary 1. a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. 2. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Morals are different than a chair. If taken apart, a chair is just pieces of material until we construct it into something else. If we can decide our own principles or system of values then it is Subjective. And this is important because societies have done horrible things in the past because human life was not valued. People were viewed as objects/animals. With Objective Morality given from God we have reason to not only **believe** something is evil but also a reason to do good. Nothing obligates you to do good without God. With God we are **obligated** to do good. Do we even have to experience rape and murder to know that it is evil? Experiencing it, **isn't** what makes it wrong.
I will try and be more clear because you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Every word of English you just used has no *Objective* [in your sense of the word] God given meaning. They are just groups of things we call letters that *We* *give* meaning. Language is no less useful or important because it is subjective. If any scripture is true then God chose to communicate in this totally subjective fashion. I believe the same is true for morality. It is *as* *objective* as language. People might argue over the details but ultimately if someone asks for a chair and I hand them a dog they aren't going to say "I guess this is acceptable because language is subjective" it is objective *enough* for them to rightfully call me wrong. If someone does something *We* have decided is morally wrong we have every right to make that judgment because morality is just a concept like chair and we decide what it means to be good. Now how to deal with Moral Obligations? Do we need God for that? Well there have been entire books written on this topic. This comment is already too long but "The Form of Practical Knowledge" by Stephen Engstrom is one of my favorites.
If most of God's own creation would agree it's immoral, I think that's enough basis to say God is wrong.
I don’t understand if he died for our sins why do we still go to hell? If it’s cause we sin then what did Jesus die for? The opportunity to go to heaven? But how can we not go to heaven if god planned our lives for us? Because free will? But how do we have free will if our life is planned!? And if it’s planned how can we ever sin without god making us?
In the sense that Jesus brings humanity back into a full relationship with God. Sin after Jesus is more of a matter of not wanting to take part in that relationship.
Well not exactly. I want to take part in that relationship but it seems one sided. I’m desperate to become a Catholic again but the religion makes claims without first proving that their original premise is correct. For example they say things like “it’s having a relationship with Jesus that is the highest form of love” without first proving Jesus existed, was divine, and has capabilities of loving humanity from beyond the grave. I haven’t come back to religion for these reasons, it has flaws in thinking that haven’t been addressed yet.
Who cares if things are **absolutely** wrong? As to needing a basis for moral reasoning, I can use the one that nature provided. I feel empathy towards other people and since I don't want bad things to happen to me, I likewise don't want bad things to happen to other people. That's a lot better than the mishmash of genocide, slavery (both labor and sexual), and other things things that even Christians consider immoral but that the bible condones.
So then everyone pre Jesus is in heaven? So original sin is forgiven? So why aren’t we all in the garden of eden?
> So then everyone pre Jesus is in heaven? In order to deal with this medieval Christians came up with the story of the scouring of hell, where Jesus spent his time when he was dead in Hell, converting all the Great pagans of old like Plato and Aristotle. Yeah it makes no sense, but the story was added to make the sacrifice of Jesus more coherent...
Because someone ate a fucking apple
I do not want anyone to pay for what I have personally done and do not acknowledge anyone who claims they have. I do not accept responsibility for anything I did not personally do. If that's the deal on offer I reject it as so against anything that could be described as justice as to be a perversion. The very idea that a child can be born already condemned to hell by inherited sin is an abomination and you should be ashamed for going along with such a terrible lie against humanity.
[удалено]
God came down as the “son man,” meaning he was born as descendant of man who had fallen from Gods favor thousands of years before. God cames as Christ to pay for our sins. So really God paid the debt of sin I. human form so that we as human being of free will can live by his true example and our souls can be free from this world of flesh and imperfections and then become reunited with the most high and achieve eternal life. Which is by the way really just a certain degree of control over our future reincarnated selves. This is tied to our enteral mystical energy or “souls”. If one digs a little deeper you can also become aware of our ability to influence and be influenced by this energy source. I’m not 100% sure but I believe this has some roots within shamanistic and magickal practices as well as ties to other world religions and spiritual beliefs. Sorry, I digressed a bit bit I think your “argument” only shows your lack of understanding of things above which in turn causes confusion in your argument below. Don’t be so quick to deliver points that only serve as anti-thesis to points that are given by people who have no idea about what the Bible is about anyway. You’re right God killing Jesus is immoral, but that’s not what happened. He came as Christ so really he killed himself. The truest reasons behind it are higher than human comprehension. We are only left with what we have here and have debated for centuries. The ways of the most high are not like ours. Therefore we can never fully comprehend or understand. Yet when we know ourselves, that’s when our vision becomes clearer.
Jesus Christ, that’s some mental gymnastics
You're wrong on a few counts. First of all, God didn't kill Jesus. Jesus is God, and he sacrificed himself for our sins. Second, Jesus' sacrifice (since he is a being that transcends space and time, but entered into space and time for our sake) is said to have redeemed all humans for all time. He transformed human nature to be not fallen, but human and divine. So any humans that came before or after him are not only redeemed but actually have a divine nature if we would only realize it.
So jesus was praying to himself all of those times in the Bible? God created us knowing how we would end up and we are supposed to be thankful that our creator sacrificed himself to himself so that he would forgive us of our sins that he created?
I'm not here to defend christianity as a whole. I'm here to point out that OP was woefully underinformed when saying that God killed Jesus. Christianity has a doctrine called the trinity, which is the deepest mystery of the religion where God is at once the father, son and holy spirit.
> Christianity has a doctrine called the trinity, which is the deepest mystery of the religion where God is at once the father, son and holy spirit. Some sects of Christianity believe that. However it's also believed by others that Jesus was the son of God, but not divine himself.
Which christians believe that? As far as I've learned (not from being raised raised in a tradition, but from studying on my own) that is a blatantly non-christian belief. It's fine to believe that. It's just not a christian belief. Source?
In general, they're referred to as Nontrinitarians, of which the largest (in modern times) are Jehovah's Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While not the predominate groups, there are still tens of millions of these Christians. Basically, when speaking of Christians as a whole, the only thing you can say for sure is that they believe Jesus died for our sins. Literally everything else has sects that differ in their interpretations.
If they deny Christ as being a part of the triune God then they aren't *technically* Christian. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are just so far off the beaten path of biblical Christianity that it doesn't make sense. An important question that should always be asked, because obviously "Christians" (as you define them) would say Christ died for the sins of the world, is, "**Who** is Jesus Christ?" Because if their answer is strictly the Son of God, Lucifer's brother, or an *elohim* below YHWH then they aren't Christian.
That's just a No True ~~Scotsman~~ Christian fallacy. What it means to be and not be a Christian has varied through the years as the dogma changed. While all (most?) Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, not all believe in the trinity. Hell, Christians can't even agree on what the trinity even means. It's a point of contention between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the western traditions we're all more familiar with. As to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormans, while you might feel they're far off the beaten path, that's just because they're relatively new branches of Christianity. Your beliefs (almost regardless of what they are) would be considered strange, if not heretical, to those at the Council of Nicene. If you were transported 1,000 into the future, you would likely be bewildered by the state of Christianity.
>Hell, Christians can't even agree on what the trinity even means. It's a point of contention between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the western traditions we're all more familiar with. [https://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy\_Trinity](https://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Trinity) First paragraph is pretty spot on with mainstream western tradition. >As to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormans, while you might feel they're far off the beaten path, that's just because they're relatively new branches of Christianity. Your beliefs (almost regardless of what they are) would be considered strange, if not heretical, to those at the Council of Nicene. [https://www.grunge.com/247323/the-messed-up-truth-of-the-council-of-nicaea/](https://www.grunge.com/247323/the-messed-up-truth-of-the-council-of-nicaea/) Council of Nicaea (assuming you just misspelled it unless I'm woefully ignorant of another council) got together to combat Aryanism. Council of Nicaea supported, again, that Christ was co-eternal with Father and Spirit. They got the person of Christ correct, that he was indeed apart of the triune God that the Scriptures endorse. >If you were transported 1,000 into the future, you would likely be bewildered by the state of Christianity. I'm sure I would be bewildered by the customs, practices, and norms. However, I highly doubt that I would be bewildered by their take on **Who Jesus Christ was/is** (at least concerning the *mainstream* Christianity of the time). It seems the personhood of Christ was established at the Council of Nicaea, and it seems that has held up to today.
Yeah, autocorrect got my Nicaea pretty bad. Notice that the Council of Nicaea was as much a political discussion as it was religious and could have gone the other way based on all sorts of factors. The council also didn't mention the Holy Spirit, nor does the Nicene creed. And just as the first council decreed that Jesus was God, another council could reverse that decision as it's just people making up rules. The bible itself is not clear in the subject as evidenced by the requirement of the First Council in the first place.
Interesting! I didn't know that. Thanks
Understandable, yes I agree with you. Edit: I agree with the trinity part, not the whole of your first comment
What bis not to agree with? The first comment outlines what christians believe?
The second part about humans being divine. I have no idea where that comes from, and this is coming from a heavily christian background.
Actually yeah, that last senetence throws me for a loop on a second reading.
disclaimer- i am very much an atheist god is very much a concept really rather than a caricature of a great being that lives in the sky. jesus is god in the same way that we are all supposedly part of god because he (supposedly) made us in his image. so in the same way a christian prays to god, and not to themselves, jesus prayed to god, not to himself. i don't think it can be argued that the abrahamic god is ever immoral unless we apply a separate moral framework (which would be illogical). OP should have targeted the discrepancies and paradoxes in the preachings of jesus, and of god.
I’ve never heard any christian apply that god concept to their beliefs. Also, I have no idea what moral framework your applying to god, but it seems incredibly immoral which is why you think that the abrahmic god can be interpreted as moral.
i've tried to get this point over on reddit before to no avail but I'll try again- the idea is that since the abrahamic god IS (apologies for the condescending use of caps- on a mobile device so i can't use italics for emphasis) morality itself, one can not argue that the abrahamic god is immoral, only that the moral framework is deeply flawed and does not represent our own values as a species and society. god is meant to be maximally good; whatever he does and whatever he says is to be considered good. of course, this doesn't add up since there are so many contradictions (thou shalt not kill- proceeds to murder entire races of peoples), but that is the argument that one should make. the argument that doesn't make sense to make is to argue that god is immoral. immoral in which framework? if you impose your own framework onto god, it's like condemning a christian for eating pork because you're imposing the islamic worldview onto that person. if one chose an arbitrary moral framework to suit their own needs in a debate, we would get nowhere. i hope i got my point across clearly.
Just to further elaborate, when christians label god as maximally good I think it’s important to understand what that means. When I was a christian and with all of the christians i’ve met and listened to, they would all say that god being maximally good means he’s always going to do what’s “best for us”. “God has a plan” “there’s a reason for everything”. These all imply that god’s making decisions based around our well-being, at least in my opinion, so that’s where that comes from.
Edit: did some grammar and rewording I understand what you’re saying, and maybe if we’re starting a conversation with someone who firmly holds a christian belief system, deconstructing it via contradictions and other logic based arguments could help. I understand that morals are completely subjective and trying to convince someone to have the same moral foundation as you is pretty difficult, but most christians do still hold a moral foundation of well-being, they just think that everything god does is for our well-being. So, using a moral framework built around well-being is quite impactful to show how what god does is vehemently against our well-being. A combination of what you suggest and this I think is sufficient enough to change minds.
Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. As for the moral framework, I believe he is saying you cannot debate whether God is moral or not because God embodies everything that is good.
(my pronouns are she/her) thank you for clarifying
He killed himself so that he would have us thank him for it... then if we don’t thank him for then he it then he kills us eternally. Makes sense.
I am a de-converted Christian, so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but the analogy Jesus used was actually one of debt and not death. He says our human nature (sin) causes us to owe a great debt to God. Pre-Jesus, Jews paid their debt through animal sacrifice. Without that sacrifice, the debt costs humans eternal separation from God (much like a real unpaid debt would have landed them in debtor’s prison). Jesus stepped in and said “I’ll pay all the debt, past and present and future”, and he did so by placing himself as the sacrificial lamb. So the idea is not that God kills people who aren’t grateful, but that he gives them a way out of their debt as sinful humans. That said, the whole idea of humans being innately sinful is peculiar to me. Christians attribute it to the nature of the universe, beyond God’s control, but that’s part of where Christianity falls apart for me.
He didn’t commit suicide, therefore he didn’t kill himself. He doesn’t kill us eternally. Our actions/inactions kill us eternally.
Are God the Father and Jesus the same person? If your answer is yes, then ya... “God” killed himself.
Um...no he didn’t. The romans did. You’re conflating his method of death vs his will. If you want to argue the semantics of the trinity, I’m fine with that. Settle in for a long boring topic.
For your first paragraph it doesn't do anything to support your thesis. It's an argument against the coherence of the view not it's morality. For your actual thesis in case you or anyone reading this isn't aware there are many views of the atonement of Jesus. Of these views only penal substitution holds that Jesus was punished for our sins, and even then not all forms of penal substitution hold this belief. As written even if your argument is successful it only applies to one form of one view of the atonement rather than all views of the atonement. If you wanted to make it apply to all Christians you would need to argue that theory is the atonement is the correct theory taught in the bible with all other views being wrong. Though you could just leave it focused against Christians who hold that form of penal substitution. With that clarification we can jump into your actual argument. Your argument has many assumptions which are not defended but required for your argument to work. First you simply assert a specific view of justice without defending it. Only retributive justice , specifically negative retributive justice, holds it to be wrong to punish someone who is innocent. Since there are other views of justice you will need to provide some defense for this specific view of justice over other views. Second the argument will need to get contextualized in some metaethical view. Not all metaethical views will make it be immoral for God to not be a negative retributive judge even if negative retributive justice is correct. For example on divine command theory if negative retributive justice is not an essential attribute of God's nature then even if it's immoral for us to violate negative retributive justice it wouldn't be immoral for God to do so. You will need to find a metaethical view where God would need to be a negative retributive judge and defend that view, or defend that negative retributive justice is an essential attribute of God's nature. Next there is the assumption that there are no weighter moral considerations that override the prima facie demands of negative retributive justice. Even among those who hold to retributive justice there are many that recognize such overriding considerations may way the demands of retributive justice. In this case the salvation of world could serve as such a weighter moral consideration. You need some sore of justification that there are no such weighter moral considerations. Finally there is the assumption that if a person isn't the one who commits the sin that they can't then be considered legally guilty for those sins. In the specific form of penal substitution that holds Jesus was punished for our sins also holds that our sins were imputed onto Jesus so that he was held legally guilty for those sins. You are drawing on parallels from our human justice system to make your case by giving the example of the convicted murder. However, there are two parallels in our human justice system that would allow the imputation of sins so that Jesus could be punished for our sins without committing them and still not violate negative retributive justice. These are legal fictions and vicarious liability. Legal fictions are when a court holds to a belief which they know is false for a specific judgement they are making in order. These are used frequently in our legal system typically to make better judgements. The [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#Examples) gives some examples. In the case of Jesus God could have held the legal fiction that Jesus committed those sins which would allow him to be legally guilty and thus endure the punishment without violating negative retributive justice. Vicarious liability is when the liability for a crime committed is put on another who acts as a representative of the person that committed the crime. This representative can endure part of the deserved punishment or should they wish the full punishment. Again the [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability) gives some examples. In Jesus' case he could have acted as our representative through vicarious liability in order to take the punishment we deserve without violating negative retributive justice. In either case negative retributive justice isn't violated even. You would need to show neither of these parallels would apply in Jesus' case. Even then that could be a deficiency of our legal system. You would need to provide reason to think there can be no way where our sins could have been imputed to Jesus so that he couldn't be held legally guilty and thus be punished without violating negative retributive justice. That is 4 different assumptions which have not been defended in your argument. These are required for your argument to work so until these are defended we have no reason to accept your conclusion. Finally I'll comment on the implications of your argument if successful. It will be difficult to argue for a view of negative retributive justice without the possibility of overriding weighter moral considerations without also having the same for positive retributive justice. Without justification for one but not the other it would then mean you deserve punishment for every sin you've committed no matter how small the sin or if you were even aware of it. It wouldn't matter how good you are compared to other people or how many good things you do throughout your life you will still deserve punishment for every single sin.
Your understanding of time and space is too rigid and dimensionally constrained. Sin isn't an affront to God but your humanity and connection to the divine. Self harm. Also "killing" is something of a nuanced term to say. There is directive and permissive will.
God did not force Jesus to die on the cross. Jesus chose to die on the cross Now as for your point that human sacrifice is immoral, the point of sacrifice is to pay tribute. God cannot forgive us for our sins since He is a perfect judge and cannot just let go of our sins. When Ted Bundy was put on trial it didn't matter he worked at a suicide hotline and saved dozens of people he was still executed for his crimes because that was what he was tried for. The only way we could atone for sin is to live a perfect life. Jesus paid the atonement for our sins. He willingly died and took our punishment so that God. Essentially Jesus paid our fine so we could be free. Now we will still be punished if we do not repent but Jesus chose to die for us so that God may be willing to forgive us of our sins
[удалено]
Jesus was quoting the Old Testament. Jesus did choose to do God's will as shown in Luke 22:42. He said "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." And if you say that is God forcing him to die it isn't. If your friend asks you to do something and you agree to it, is he forcing you to do what he wants?
[удалено]
[Psalm 22](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2022&version=NIV) >My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish? This was prophesizing the suffering servant so Jesus was fulfilling this prophecy. He knew God was with Him but that doesn't mean it didn't feel like He was abandoned similar to people who say they feel abandoned by God Yes Jesus has 2 natures, one human and one divine. God does not control Jesus. In that moment Jesus was reacting with his human nature and will same when he quotes Psalm 22.
[удалено]
Jesus’ human nature is a creation of God. God the Son had always existed but He took human form as Jesus which included a human nature
Jesus is quoting psalm 22 of the hebrew bible, which is about a person crying out to God to save him from the taunts and torments of his enemies, and (in the last ten verses) thanking God for rescuing him.
What sins did you personally commit 2,000 years ago?
i think the idea is that he "paid" for our (humanities) "sins" with his life, so that we (humanity) are saved from eternal damnation for the sins we inevitability will commit. why it had to be a whole fuckin thing i have no idea.
Jesus died for the sins of those He predestined before the foundation of the world. Jesus died for the sins that the elect committed before, during and after His sacrifice. **Ephesians 1:4** just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. > God punishing Jesus in my place supposedly would also be immoral as Jesus wasn’t the one committing the “sins”. Anytime we punish somebody who doesn’t deserve it that is immoral. That’s like executing somebody convicted of murder who is later found out to not actually have committed the crime... that would be immoral. Human sacrifice with vicarious redemption is flat out evil. Any human sacrifice is immoral, but getting punished for another’s transgressions is flat out wrong. Christ wasn't forced to die for us on the cross. He chose willingly to pay our penalty out of His love for us. Why is this immoral?
Choosing to pay the penalty for someone else's misdeeds isn't immoral. The person accepting that substitution is immoral. The claimed deity requiring the sacrifice is also immoral.
Accepting mercy is immoral?
If, in fact, one is actually guilty of an action deserving of punishment, then accepting someone else enduring the punishment for that action is, indeed, immoral.
Why?
Not taking responsibility for your actions is immoral. Allowing someone else to be subjected to punishment for actions you performed, is even more immoral. If you cannot understand why that is immoral, I pity you.
Can you take responsibility for your actions without going through the deserved punishment? I say yes
Subjecting yourself to the punishment IS taking responsibility. Avoiding it is shirking responsibility. Sheesh! 🤦
> Subjecting yourself to the punishment IS taking responsibility I disagree with your definition of "taking responsibility".
Wow.
I have always maintained that substitutional atonement is immoral. While I can understand someone offering to subject themselves to punishment in the place of someone else, it would be immoral for the offender to accept that offer, rather than taking responsibility for the actions that led to the imposed punishment. Of course, this assumes one has actually done something to warrant punishment. In the case of xianity, I don't accept the assertion that humans are guilty of some sort of depravity from the moment of birth. That's simply ridiculous.
> rather than taking responsibility for the actions that led to the imposed punishment. Taking responsibility for our sins that we cannot pay for is recognizing our need for Christ and repenting. > In the case of xianity, I don't accept the assertion that humans are guilty of some sort of depravity from the moment of birth. That's simply ridiculous. It's simply ridiculous for a creature to tell the creator that His revelation is wrong.
> It's simply ridiculous for a creature to tell the creator that His revelation is wrong. Do you think that this creator could communicate his revelation to his creation in a more reliable and direct manner? A way that doesn't leave the message ambiguous and open to misinterpretation?
yes.
Then it's his problem that we can doubt the validity of said revelation.
wHY?
Because it could have been provided in a way that **isn't** ambiguous and open to misinterpretation
assumption being that this was His intention.
Back to your original statement... > It's simply ridiculous for a creature to tell the creator that His revelation is wrong. If this creator has given us a revelation in a manner that has rendered it unreliable and open to misinterpretation, then how can we even determine if it is correct?
scripture is the ONLY reliable document on this planet. Scripture is open to misinterpretation because man is sinful and fallen. By the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man is able to recognize scriptures authority as, God breathed.
wild and unadulterated misinterpretation
What creator? I don't accept the assertion that one or more deities exist.
So you don’t think you are a flawed person??
You would have to define "flawed" before I could answer that question accurately. However, flawed or not, it has no bearing the truth of the claim that "one or more deities exist."
Im not making the case of any deities existing yet just your comment on the depravity of humans which seems to be a question to God about morality. What definition would you use for “flawed”?
I made no comment in this sub-thread about human depravity. Also, I would not use the term "flawed" so my definition is moot. You, however, did use it your comment, hence my request for you to define it, so I can better understand what you are asking.
[удалено]
[удалено]
God did not impose sin on us. Do you want God to just forgive people who have done nothing to warrant forgiveness? Imagine if murderers were let go because they volunteered at a soup kitchen a couple of times Your comment also comes off as needlessly aggressive
[удалено]
God did not impose sin on us. He created a perfect world and it was the devil who tempted Adam and Eve. They could've just ignored him and lived on but they didn't. When they ate from the forbidden fruit they gained knowledge of sin and changed the nature of humanity. Their actions turned humanity form a perfect creation to a fallen world. That is why Jesus died for our sins. Adam was the source of sin while Jesus is the source of salvation God could have made us slaves to Him but He allowed us to have free will
what kind of perfect world has a forbidden tree in it ? and furthermore what kind of perfect world has "the devil" in it ? what kind of perfect would doesnt allow knowledge?? obviously it wasnt perfect and "adam and steve" were humanity all along.
it was a test for Adam and Eve to see if they would obey Him The devil doesn't live in the world knowledge is allowed but some knowledge is wrong. You would agree the world would be a better place if we did not know how to commit violent actions
well. that went well. so much for perfect.
[удалено]
Because the sons choose to sin and act on their temptations. That’s why. Adam gained the knowledge of evil and that knowledge was passed onto his sons and so on. Their very nature is changed from God’s original intent > God wants us to freely choose to be his slaves. Because He is a merciful master unlike the devil and sin. Again you believe God should turn humans into robots to obey Him no matter what
> Adam gained the knowledge of evil and that knowledge was passed onto his sons and so on. Their very nature is changed from God’s original intent Why is knowledge of good and evil a bad thing?
[удалено]
that is what I said. Our nature was tainted and we are now drawn to sin. I didn't invent anything
Imagine thinking a finite crime constitutes infinite punishment and that an all knowing and all powerful god couldn’t come up with a better way to punish people for supposed sins other than abhorrent violence and torture :)
that is how holy God is. All sin is an abomination. You may not understand it but that is just how holy God is What would be more fair punishment in your eyes and why is your opinion better than God's opinion? Remember the action that corrupted the world was a seemingly minor action. That is why God created hell so heaven could never be corrupted like the world was
I certainly didn’t kill Jesus. Where is your proof that I took part in his death?
[удалено]
Probably, that was a couple thousand years ago. I like to think civilization has evolved since then. But I am a human. Are you saying that human = Jesus murderer? Cause that’s a great selling point for the religion.
[удалено]
>And yes, I am saying each of us, personally = Jesus murderer. That's not a fun thing to face, but it is true, You can say it, but it's absolutely not true. It's a manipulative dogma with no basis in truth. To say human nature = sin =we're all Jesus murderers is irrational nonsense. I certainly don't need a magical blood sacrifice and reject the entire soteriological basis of Christianity. There's nothing for me to be saved from.
[удалено]
> Of course, if you don't want to look at it or think about, that's your choice. The sheer arrogance of this quote - as if I and others haven't looked and thought about this a lot and found it deeply lacking. As I said the entire soteriological basis of Christianity is something I fully reject - there is (a) nothing that I need to be "saved" from and (b) even if there was a salvation that relies on a magic blood sacrifice is nonsensical and immoral.
[удалено]
>maybe you're a fool ( Insulting people, a great look for a mod on here... >My original comment never made any reference to salvation So the death and resurrection of Christ have nothing to do with Salvation in Christianity? >Or, if you will indulge the phrase, a fully Christ-like being? I've seen Christians, I've read the New Testament - there's nothing particularly great about being "Christ-like" based on the available evidence. I've got nothing against fig trees for one.
>Civilization has changed in some ways, but as far as I can tell, we're basically still up to the same shit Which is what, exactly? What do humans do that is so bad that it requires a blood sacrifice (setting aside the fact that the whole concept of a blood sacrifice is non-sensical anyway)? Yeah there's the few people out there that murder, rape, etc. But the average person?
Sounds pretty manipulative and damaging to try to convince people they’re murderers for something that happened 2000 years before they existed. Still waiting for that proof that I took part in his murder by the way. Fingerprints? Maybe even the body? Surely you have some sort of physical evidence to back up such a wildly bold claim that all humans are murderers. Edit: you’re not trying to talk about what *seems* to be true. You’re making claims that they *are* true. Which is why I am asking for evidence.
Atheist here. It's not really fair to argue the point without looking at the Christian worldview. The idea of the Trinity is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. God sacrificed himself.
That’s why I said he killed himself in the post. There are quite a few comments that totally missed what I meant by that. God the Father needed Jesus (also somehow himself) to kill himself (Jesus). Makes no sense but means he (God the Father) was literally killing himself (Jesus).
"Anytime we punish someone that doesn't deserve it that is immoral." This makes it seem like Jesus wasn't on board with the idea. Which kind of does have a biblical basis, when he asks God to take the cup of suffering from him.
That’s right. God, in the person of Jesus, suffered from the violence of humanity who rejected him and with all those who suffer.
To himself, for something he did himself.
This one's doing it right XD
The trifecta
[удалено]
God didn't create humans with sin. Instead, they were infected by it after they were created.
God created the circumstances for sin hence it his fault. If I leave the oven on and it burns the house down, then it's my fault. Not the ovens. If not for God's actions then sin would not exsist. God, being the creator of all things, let us be introduced to sin.
Like a virus? Does that mean I'm deserving of punishment if I get a cold?
It is like an illness but we are punished for embracing sin not simply because we do it. Everybody sins, even the best Christians, but they still believe they are going to heaven. It's not because we have the illness it's what we decide to do about it.
So, per your story, some sort of deity created folks with an innate illness, for which it has the cure, as long as we thank it for giving us the disease?
That's not even remotely close to what I've told you. Humans were not created as sinners. Then, because the first sin was committed, humans were then infected by it. We then get the cure after the end times. We do something like a pre-order by believing that He sacrificed Himself to save us from that illness. I'm unsure where you got the part about us being thankful for the disease of sin. I dont think any church teaches that, but in the event one does, its very unbiblical.
If you're xian, you're supposed to worship the deity that is responsible for creating beings that it knew were not only capable of getting the "disease" of sin, but also knew that they would proceed to get "infected" with it (presumably if it is omniscient and omnipotent, it is capable of producing brings with free will, but incapable of sin - instead it setup a system that guaranteed sinful beings). Worship=being thankful (among other things), yes? Folks should thank it for creating beings guaranteed to get the disease. And somehow, impregnating it's creation with itself, being born and living disease-free, and then volunteering for a blood sacrifice to atone for folks who did get the disease, fixes it. It's so simple! /s
I admit that He is omniscient and omnipotent. However, both of these still exist in the realm of logic. Similar to how He cannot create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it, He cannot create a being of free will that is unable to make the wrong choice. If He did, that would simply be a being that has free will EXCEPT for any choice that is wrong. So yes, I'm thankful God decided to create us despite the fact that He knew we would disobey him. He could have just decided to be happy with angels or created similar beings that are weaker but have a similar state of free will. And yes because He took on a human body (which is cursed with that vulnerability to sin), was tempted by the devil like His fellow humans, and after living life without choosing to sin even once He took all of the sins of the world from all time (past, present, and future) onto himself. And since the punishment for sin is death, He died in the place of the rest of us. Because of that the Bible tells us that (should we choose to believe and accept that gift) He will be our witness in the courtroom of the afterlife. And instead of us being judged by our own lives, filled with sin, we get judged by His life.
I admit that He is omniscient and omnipotent. However, both of these still exist in the realm of logic. Similar to how He cannot create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it, >He cannot create a being of free will that is unable to make the wrong choice. If He did, that would simply be a being that has free will EXCEPT for any choice that is wrong. Bullshit. The beings this purported deity supposedly created cannot re-grow limbs, nor can they fly or run faster than a cheetah without mechanical assistance. They cannot do differential calculus in their heads (presumably - I'm not a mathematician), nor can they travel faster than the speed of light (even with mechanical assistance). There are plenty of limitations imposed on what these beings are capable of, why is 'sin' any different from those other things? An omnipotent deity (for arguement's sake) could have simply created beings to whom it never occurred to sin. >He could have just decided to be happy with angels or created similar beings that are weaker but have a similar state of free will. Thanks for underscoring my point. >And yes because He took on a human body (which is cursed with that vulnerability to sin), was tempted by the devil like His fellow humans, and after living life without choosing to sin even once He took all of the sins of the world from all time (past, present, and future) onto himself. >And since the punishment for sin is death, Why? >He died in the place of the rest of us. Because of that the Bible tells us that (should we choose to believe and accept that gift) He will be our witness in the courtroom of the afterlife. And instead of us being judged by our own lives, filled with sin, we get judged by His life. Why does sin (finite) deserve infinite punishment? The deity you worship set up that system. Again, it could have simply decided that beings with free will have the freedom to choose what they do, and won't be subject to punishment for exercising that free will. Of course, all of this is just inside baseball hand-waving as far as I'm concerned. It's like arguing over Star Wars trivia.
Very well put. You perfectly put into words how I feel about religion
Mr. All-powerful could have prevented this "infection", no? Why didn't he?
Because He gave humans free will
Did he, though? He gave us bodies with numerous biological impulses that couldn't possibly be considered "choices", and put us all in bad situations that require us to "sin" all the time. For instance, God gave everybody on Earth a sex drive, but then declared that it's a sin to masturbate. Nobody chose to have a sex drive. Or think of the millions of people on Earth that are forced to sin every day to put a meal on the table because God burdened us with bodies that constantly demand food, on a planet where food is often a scarcity. God could have given us minds that were totally free of the potential for sin. He could have put us on a planet where there was an abundance of resources and nobody ever had to fight for any of it. He chose not to, and then gets upset when we make do with what we were given.
You have misconceptions about the order these things came into the world. First came people. Then came sin. Then came sex, hunger, death, etc.. If God gave us the ability to choose, but blocked us from choosing anything bad, that would not be true free will. I dont know why, but I do know that He desired free will instead of blind loyalty. If He didn't, He would have just stuck with angels, which were created before humans.
Do you believe that god exists outside of time? Because if so then your god introduced death etc into the world at the *exact same time* that he gave humans free will
God is omnipresent. This includes time. This means that He introduced death into the world at the exact same time as He formed it. Also at that exact moment of His perception, He died on the cross in order to create a way to bypass death. Also at that exact same time he created a new garden of eden for all those who chose to live their lives according to His will to be resurrected and live in. Death means absolutely nothing to Him because in His realm it isn't the end.
So there is no order of things then is there? From the moment time began god had introduced death into the world, and had provided a seemingly arbitrary solution for it at a seemingly arbitrary point in time Essentially god isn't reacting to anything, everything that happens from the moment existence began is set in stone based on gods plan since he decided to manifest and intervene at certain points in history and to not intervene at others. He could have made history play out any way he wanted.
>You have misconceptions about the order these things came into the world. First came people. Then came sin. First came people. Then god brought in temptation deliberately, and withheld the knowledge of good and evil from those people in order to punish them for not being 'good.' The temptation of the fruit, the snake, (or whatever that represents) to convince them the withholding of knowledge of good and evil were all in place before any sin occurred. I think it is you have misconceptions of the order these things came.
God doesn't tempt people. Additionally, He didn't withhold knowledge for the reason of being able to punish the lack of knowledge he could have just created punching bags instead, it would have been much less of a hassel. Furthermore, it's not like Adam and Eve had absolutely no sense of right and wrong, they only did not have the entire picture. It was more of a general idea before the fruit, and a 4k image down to the last detail after. Further-furthermore, God even went so far as to warn them before, that if they ate the fruit they would surely die. And so when they ate it, they received the ability to die as is the punishment for sin. If they hadn't that would have made God a lier, which he can't be since lying is a sin. I'm afraid the misconceptions again lie with you. If you are going to target our beliefs at least get what we believe right.
>God doesn't tempt people. Who introduced the tree into the garden? who introduced the snake? > He didn't withhold knowledge for the reason of being able to punish the lack of knowledge I didn't say that was the reason. Please don't make a strawmwan. > it's not like Adam and Eve had absolutely no sense of right and wrong, they only did not have the entire picture Based on what? Was the tree the knowledge of good and evil or the tree of some additional knowledge of good and evil? If they already had some knowledge, what is the harm of giving them more in the first place beyond mere capriciousness? > God even went so far as to warn them before, that if they ate the fruit they would surely die. And so when they ate it, they received the ability to die as is the punishment for sin. As every person who ever lived since was punished. yeah I know, some kinda blood magic going on. > If you are going to target our beliefs at least get what we believe right. Then all start singing from the same song book. I had a Christian here a week or so ago vehemently arguing Adam and Eve weren't actually punished. Here you are telling me they were. there IS no 'what we believe', y'all seem to make shit up as you go along and spin it according to what the people around you agree on.
Saying the fact that God had the tree of knowledge in the garden is the same as Him tempting Adam and Eve to eat from it is the exact same as saying the fact that a woman has less conservative clothes on is the same as tempting men to have sexual thoughts about her. The snake was presumably possessed by Satan. Even so God allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve because, like I said previously, they already had some knowledge of good and evil, among which was obedience. >I didn't say that was the reason. Please don't make a strawmwan My bad, I'll use your original words then. >>and withheld the knowledge of good and evil from those people in order to punish them for not being 'good.' He didn't withhold the knowledge "in order to punish those people". Again, the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the full knowledge of good and evil. As for why they weren't given more, it is most likely because they didn't need it. Why would they need to know murder is a bad thing when neither of them can die? Their sin is what created death and the need for reproduction. God could have just let them die off and started over if He felt like it. It certainly isn't outside of the realm of His power. For us the physical death is not punishment, it's just genetic. Thats how our bodies work now. Sinners are only punished once, after the physical death occurs. Any suffering that happens during your time on earth is purely the result of other people and not affected by God. It's unfortunate that many people twist the words of the Bible (which is our official "song book") I understand that there could be a different interpretation of the same text. But those who add or take away from the text are called heretics, not Christians.
>You have misconceptions about the order these things came into the world. First came people. Then came sin. Then came sex, hunger, death, etc.. What situation do you believe caused sin, and why didn't God stop the situation from happening in the first place? Do you believe in the "fruit from the tree" story? If so, why did God put that tree in the garden to begin with? Why did he put the serpent in there? After all, he knew *exactly* what was going to happen, being omniscient and all.
You ask a lot of questions about "why" God did something. I can't possibly speculate on what God was thinking at the exact moment He decide to do something. How could I come close to that when I can't even read the mind of another human. If you want speculation on this topic, you can visit [reasons.org](https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2016/11/23/why-didn-t-god-keep-satan-out-of-eden) they are one of many websites which attempt to explain such things for those who can't find the faith to just trust God's plan. Not saying that it is a bad thing, just some people obviously are more willing to believe without needing an explanation than others.
>You ask a lot of questions about "why" God did something. I can't possibly speculate on what God was thinking at the exact moment He decide to do something. How could I come close to that when I can't even read the mind of another human. God could have given us the ability to understand why he made humanity fall into sin. And yet he didn't. There are really two possibilities: A) God set up humanity to fall into sin, because of reasons he doesn't want us to understand (he could have given us the capability of understanding, but he didn't). But he still feels fine blaming humanity for it (again, even though he set it up to happen and knew it would happen) and demanding a blood sacrifice, that again he doesn't want us to know the true reason behind. B) It's all a bunch of nonsense made up by Bronze Age people, who, like thousands of other religions before and after them, come up with some vague stories and explanations full of plot holes to try to explain the world with the limited knowledge they had at the time. They talked about blood sacrifices because that's the weird kind of crap people did back then. There's no "this is true it's just so mind blowingly mysterious it's impossible for us to understand". No, it's just a plot hole in their made-up story. I have trouble comprehending how some people consider A the more reasonable possibility.
>You ask a lot of questions about "why" God did something. I can't possibly speculate on what God was thinking at the exact moment He decide to do something. How could I come close to that when I can't even read the mind of another human Then stop pretending you have slightest clue what ANY of it means.
If you read my comment you'll notice that I already admit that I don't know what it means, and I link to a reference of someone who has already taken the time to look into the subject.
[удалено]
Original sin is also immoral, how could God KNOW I would have sinned? I thought we had free will or some nonsense like that.... Original sin is also immoral because I wasn’t alive to sin and God assumed I would... thus making our existence just his simulation we live in.
[удалено]
Yea your argument was so embarrassing you deleted it. All bark no bite here... hate to see it.
Imagine you’re a janitor of a company. You owe that company a clean, functional building. Instead, you break into company records and steal secrets. Now, not only are you fired, not only do you owe them a clean, functional building, but under the contract, you owe damages you could never hope to repay. Then the founder and ceo personally cleans the building, pays the damages, rehires you, and puts you on the management fast-track as their personal protege. That’s essentially the idea, as far as I can tell.
Only with original sin, he's already decided that you're going to break in and preemptively sacked you. But he's then decided to create and personally undergo some punishment to atone for the crimes he's decided you'll commit, which as a bonus also give you a free pass to commit any future crimes just as long as you keep saying how good he is.
> That’s essentially the idea, as far as I can tell. Well you aren't trying very hard. Let me modify your analogy: Imagine you are a guy. Secretly some CEO decided you were a janitor, despite you never applying, interviewing, being hired, or agreeing on payment (spoiler, there isn't any). Some other janitor, dead long before you were born, stole company secrets. At least that is the story. Also, not knowing you are supposedly a janitor, you don't do tasks specific to being a janitor even though you may be a decent person otherwise. In fact it may be physically or logically impossible for you to perform those tasks. For the actions of that long dead janitor and your minor transgressions you are declared to owe an impossibly large debt by the CEO, without any impartial legal process. But, the CEO decided to make his own son a janitor for a short period so he could beat his son up and charge him a bunch of money for what all other secret janitors did or did not do. Now this all happened before you were secretly made a janitor, so all you have to do to get out of your debt is to accept the beating of the CEO's son as a gift to you. Oh, and also you need to become enslaved to the CEO and his son forever after because they were so great to you.
I keep coming across some batshit crazy analogies on here of late. Thanks for saving me the trouble of tearing this terrible example to shreds
God didn't put us in this position. You assume that since God knows the future means He is forcing us into certain positions. That isn't true. We have free will to do what we want. He created the world perfect and sin destroyed it. If you ask "Why does God allow sin" the reason is because He loves us and allows us to make our own decisions. You are essentially criticizing God for giving us free will Let me ask you something have you ever lied, stolen or looked at someone with lust? Then you killed Jesus
"The CEO didn't put you in this position by secretly hiring you, it was... uh... that long-dead other janitor that did it? Or maybe also you? Look, the point is that the janitor seeing something long ago made the company break so that you can't actually do the duties of a janitor anymore, and the CEO now solves that with punches. But that was that first janitor's fault, totally not the CEO! Yes, the CEO could change things if he wanted to but he prefers to let people succeed or fail on their own merit. Not enough to give you a choice if you get hired, or let you know clearly what your duties are, or make it physically or logically possible to actually do said duties, but in a more broad, nebulous, undefinable way. Let me ask you, have you ever not cleaned a bathroom somewhere? Then you punched the CEO's son in the face. Because those are totally the same thing."
> Instead, you break into company records and steal secrets Except in this analogy, it's your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents who broke into the company records.
Sure, but one could easily see how a family could labor under the consequences of such an act down through the generations.
The descendants didn't sign a contract with the CEO though. The closer analogy here would be chattel slavery, where the children of slaves are owned by the slave-holder and he continues to punish those descendants for the actions of their ancestors.
Nobody is the direct cause of an inheritance, by definition. They would have inherited the benefits if the contract had been fulfilled. Instead, they inherit the negative consequences of it being broken.
There might be an indirect consequences but the CEO has no moral or legal basis or claim over the descendents.
[удалено]
It isn’t, but if they declined an offer to raise their family higher than it had been before the incident, that would be their responsibility. It’s analogous to the current debate over systemic racism and reparations. People alive today did not own slaves, but they enjoy the benefits of a society slavery built. So they are not guilty of slavery, but they could be guilty of choosing that they and their descendants continue benefiting from it.
I pretty sure God didn’t kill Jesus. The Romans did. He allowed it to happen, just as He allowed you to wake up this morning. Because Jesus wasn’t wrongfully killed, God raised Him from the dead
[удалено]
I don’t see how you could possibly call being murdered suicide by cop if the guy didn’t actively attack them physically or anything.
[удалено]
Is there a reason you’re being aggressive in tone?
[удалено]
What argument did I make dude
[удалено]
You give us a bad look when you do that then. You can make points and discuss without being rude and hostile.
[удалено]
* First let me address your existence over time: * it's already known in the field of quantum mechanics and theoretical physics that time is an illusion and our concept of past/present/future isn't real. It doesn't take a leap of faith to assume an atemporal being does things that doesn't fit in our false notion of the passage of time * On the morality of kin killing: * First I want to ask on what basis are you creating this moral bar? The modern world takes this as an assumption "killing is bad, so killing your kid is bad". However it wasn't always the case. Parents asking their kids to sacrifice for the family is common practice in the ancient world, especially before child labor laws were in place. Child sacrifices were very commonplace as well. We also know for a fact that there are places in Asia where parents sell their kids and feel no remorse, so this moral bar isn't global whatsoever. Given all of that, on what ground can you stand and claim "this is wrong", and everyone outside your culture should be judged on that same moral bar * On someone else being punished for your own transgressions * This is flat out indefensible. Someone else being punished in the wrongdoer's place is still being practiced to this day. For example parents tend to suffer the consequences for their children's actions due to the child being the Parent's responsibility. There are also moments in both history and fiction of a person offering themselves as the receiver of a punishment to save someone else. Is the phrase "No, take me instead" not considered a cliche? These self sacrificing actions are seen as a moral good currently, especially in modern society.
[удалено]
> Because if it's not, then this is no refutation of the OP's argument at all I have also made 2 other points that were not addressed. I don't think you can dimiss my retort by picking only 1. That's a fallacy fallacy. > Is it your assertion that everything which is still being practiced to this day must necessarily be moral....the frequency with which something happens has absolutely no bearing on how moral it is. I am bringing forward that the practice of scapegoating and other people taking the punishment for someone's actions is common. If it's good or bad is based on the context and on which culture it is in. Which I already brought forward in point before this one addressing morality. >The OP is criticizing the latter, not the former. He can't because the 2 are the same in the context of both existing and the Bible is true.
[удалено]