Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

Sin, by it’s very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin.

The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness.

If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust.

Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold.

Jesus would not condone such a thing.

Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given.

To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

This means that, “Why have you forsaken me? “, is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane.

In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge’s ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related Regards DL


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
but a christian can always

but a christian can always retort that, according to their theology, god is always the primary victim of every sin, since sin is first and foremost a "missing of the mark," i.e., god's law.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Greatest I am wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim. Sin, by it’s very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin. The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness. If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust. Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold. Jesus would not condone such a thing. Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given. To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable. This means that, “Why have you forsaken me? “, is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane. In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge’s ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related Regards DL

Yes but ...

You are objecting to the theology. In practice the gods are always silent. It is always the priests who know what that god wants and tell the believers. Who grants forgiveness? The priests. Even if a priestless protestant variant it may not be one on one forgiveness in a confessional but the minister is the arbitrator. Forgiveness is only via the spokesrat.

As to theology, when claims cannot be reconciled with reason, claims rule. Forget ever brining up theology. Believers are not rational. Claims always rule over reason. Whose claims? The priests of course. Full circle.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:but a christian

iwbiek wrote:

but a christian can always retort that, according to their theology, god is always the primary victim of every sin, since sin is first and foremost a "missing of the mark," i.e., god's law.

 

Sure, but that creates its own problems since apparently then morality is determined by Gods whim, I tried pointing that out to a theist once, did not like it.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3205
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:Jesus

Greatest I am wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim. Sin, by it’s very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin. The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness. If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust. Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold. Jesus would not condone such a thing. Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given. To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable. This means that, “Why have you forsaken me? “, is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane. In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge’s ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related Regards DL

I've had this discussion before with theists.

Forgiveness must come from the perpetrator and not the victims. 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:but a christian

iwbiek wrote:

but a christian can always retort that, according to their theology, god is always the primary victim of every sin, since sin is first and foremost a "missing of the mark," i.e., god's law.

  Only those with really swollen heads and inflated egos will think they can hurt God in any way. God's will is supreme and he would not will harm or hurt to himself. He is not that stupid. Stupid yes, but not that stupid.

Regards

DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Greatest

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim. Sin, by it’s very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin. The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness. If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust. Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold. Jesus would not condone such a thing. Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given. To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable. This means that, “Why have you forsaken me? “, is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane. In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge’s ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related Regards DL

Yes but ...

You are objecting to the theology. In practice the gods are always silent. It is always the priests who know what that god wants and tell the believers. Who grants forgiveness? The priests. Even if a priestless protestant variant it may not be one on one forgiveness in a confessional but the minister is the arbitrator. Forgiveness is only via the spokesrat.

As to theology, when claims cannot be reconciled with reason, claims rule. Forget ever brining up theology. Believers are not rational. Claims always rule over reason. Whose claims? The priests of course. Full circle.

 

 

No argument.

That is why it is our duty to our fellow man to fight those religions.

I hope you do so where there are more foolish believers who will see your wise words.

 

Regards

DL

 


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim. Sin, by it’s very nature must have a victim. Without a victim, there is no sin. The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness. If Jesus usurps that right then I think it would be unjust. Closure is being denied the victim thus victimizing is twofold. Jesus would not condone such a thing. Secular law now demands a victim assessment report before sentence is given. To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable. This means that, “Why have you forsaken me? “, is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane. In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored thus showing the flaw in the judge’s ruling, if he accepts substitutionary atonement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=related Regards DL

I've had this discussion before with theists.

Forgiveness must come from the perpetrator and not the victims. 

Illogical.

What is the perpetrator forgiving if not himself?

Who else need or deserves forgiving?

Regards

DL

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:iwbiek

Greatest I am wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

but a christian can always retort that, according to their theology, god is always the primary victim of every sin, since sin is first and foremost a "missing of the mark," i.e., god's law.

  Only those with really swollen heads and inflated egos will think they can hurt God in any way. God's will is supreme and he would not will harm or hurt to himself. He is not that stupid. Stupid yes, but not that stupid.

Regards

DL

i said nothing about "hurting" god.  sin is an offense against god. 

human "hurt" is transient and ultimately unimportant in christian theology, and it is only relevant insofar as it is an offense against god.  human suffering is not the soteriological problem in christianity.  christianity does not offer a way out of suffering, although it often insists that relief from suffering is a typical (though not guaranteed) incidental benefit.  the soteriological issue in christianity is the individual human being's return to a primordial relationship with god that was broken when humans tried to detract from god's glory.

christianity is wholly theocentric.  in terms of eternal perspective, categories like "victims" and "perpetrators" have no meaning.  the perpetrator has sinned because he has offended god's glory.  the harm to the victim is only the accidental means by which the offense happened, it has no inherent importance.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Greatest I am

iwbiek wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

but a christian can always retort that, according to their theology, god is always the primary victim of every sin, since sin is first and foremost a "missing of the mark," i.e., god's law.

  Only those with really swollen heads and inflated egos will think they can hurt God in any way. God's will is supreme and he would not will harm or hurt to himself. He is not that stupid. Stupid yes, but not that stupid.

Regards

DL

i said nothing about "hurting" god.  sin is an offense against god. 

human "hurt" is transient and ultimately unimportant in christian theology, and it is only relevant insofar as it is an offense against god.  human suffering is not the soteriological problem in christianity.  christianity does not offer a way out of suffering, although it often insists that relief from suffering is a typical (though not guaranteed) incidental benefit.  the soteriological issue in christianity is the individual human being's return to a primordial relationship with god that was broken when humans tried to detract from god's glory.

christianity is wholly theocentric.  in terms of eternal perspective, categories like "victims" and "perpetrators" have no meaning.  the perpetrator has sinned because he has offended god's glory.  the harm to the victim is only the accidental means by which the offense happened, it has no inherent importance.

 

Yet your semantics will get him sent to hell.

Thanks for hiding behind semantics.

Regards

DL


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:Yet your

Greatest I am wrote:

Yet your semantics will get him sent to hell.

Thanks for hiding behind semantics.

Regards

DL

what the fuck is your problem?  of course this is all semantics, because none of it is fucking real.  you're talking about a fictional god sending people to a fictional hell for fictional reasons.  my "semantics" didn't send anybody to hell (which, again, does not exist).  my "semantics" merely spelled out the (once again, fictional) christian justification for why god can forgive sins and not be (fictionally) "unjust."

if you're butthurt because you misunderstand mainstream christian soteriology, i honestly don't understand why, since that info is basically as useful as a map of middle earth on a road trip.  if you don't like "semantics," don't bring up the imaginary justness of an imaginary god.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen