God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

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

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

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

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

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

Regards
DL


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

jeffreyalex wrote:
I am completely in support of your abandonment of such a religion. However, an argument for God is not the same as an argument for some given religion. 

With regards to your edit, Mackie was an atheist philosopher, a major atheist philosopher, by the way—he was certainly not wedded to any religion, let alone an Abrahamic one. 

 

Yet you are still promoting a single god without evidentiary basis. You demonstrated you are a lying, fake deist already. You cannot retreat to your earlier lies. You have exposed yourself.

 

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


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It only takes a little scratching to bring a Christian out of his deception. Deists do not have a Jesus as that would be intervention. So you are not a deist. End of that deceit.

   Oh man, what is up with Christians like this ?  He's a pretend deist ?  They only speak the truth when it suits them ?   So much for personal piety and being an example to we filthy atheists.

  "And Jesus said, 'my little children, always speak in truth and honesty and never seek to deceive anyone...unless you are trying to score rhetorical points against atheists, then it's okay to deceive'.  Amen."

Yeah, Mouse pretty well beat the hell out of him in those other two 'Atheist belief' threads.  He also pointed out that he was most likely two different guys-as one seemed to not be able to figure out the quote function???

I'm usually on the lookout for such vermin, but he slid one past me. I don't even think Extreme caught it after a lengthy debate.  Way to go Mouse!

If the Mouse were humble the Mouse would say something humble. Eye-wink

But when responding to a statement that was equivocal they understood and pointed out the problem. When responding to a statement with unassailable logic they did not understand and wanted clarification in favor of theism. Seeing the difference between the two types of posts and exploiting them was the line of theist attack, a point of pride if you will. Attack the attack worked.

I did not connect the two approaches with quoting/not quoting.

Also I raised the point that if their arguments were correct then they were still not beyond multiple gods and they should stop talking about just one upper case god. There was no response to that. It was something they could not address with this approach.

 

Holy moly. Are you real people? 


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

jeffreyalex wrote:
We're talking past each other, that's the only explanation I can see for all this confusion. 

I made the comparison to 10 years ago to make the point that it's ridiculous to hold the same evidentiary standard for a modern historical figure as to an ancient nobody. As far as evidence for nobodies from 2000 years ago goes, we have good evidence to suggest that the historical Jesus did live. It seems he preached a novel message, had followers, and made trouble for the authorities of his time. That's all I'm saying. 

I am adding on that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that it is the more probable hypothesis that he never existed at all. 

That's all I'm saying. 

Now let us get passed your lies and look at an exact comparison. You do not get away with ignoring the miracles. That is the essence of the Jesus myth as the "wisdom" is barely grade school level.

The standard is that for a miracle working god on earth, period. Without those stipulations there is nothing worth discussing.

LETS GET BACK to the real point, your lie about Jesus being a historical fact.

 

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


jeffreyalex
Posts: 305
Joined: 2012-05-25
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:
We're talking past each other, that's the only explanation I can see for all this confusion. 

I made the comparison to 10 years ago to make the point that it's ridiculous to hold the same evidentiary standard for a modern historical figure as to an ancient nobody. As far as evidence for nobodies from 2000 years ago goes, we have good evidence to suggest that the historical Jesus did live. It seems he preached a novel message, had followers, and made trouble for the authorities of his time. That's all I'm saying. 

I am adding on that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that it is the more probable hypothesis that he never existed at all. 

That's all I'm saying. 

Now let us get passed your lies and look at an exact comparison. You do not get away with ignoring the miracles. That is the essence of the Jesus myth as the "wisdom" is barely grade school level.

The standard is that for a miracle working god on earth, period. Without those stipulations there is nothing worth discussing.

LETS GET BACK to the real point, your lie about Jesus being a historical fact.

 

 

Can you just honestly tell me that you're a real serious person?


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

jeffreyalex wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Now let us get passed your lies and look at an exact comparison. You do not get away with ignoring the miracles. That is the essence of the Jesus myth as the "wisdom" is barely grade school level.

The standard is that for a miracle working god on earth, period. Without those stipulations there is nothing worth discussing.

LETS GET BACK to the real point, your lie about Jesus being a historical fact.

Can you just honestly tell me that you're a real serious person?

My posts speak for themselves. Lets get back to your lie about Jesus being a historical fact.

 

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
jeffreyalex

jeffreyalex wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jeffreyalex wrote:
But just, please please please, read arguments from both sides. 

 

   Read arguments from both sides ?  Many atheists on this forum ( myself included ) not only read arguments from theists, we were at one point in time the actual theists who were making those very arguments.  

 

 

Come on. Who are you kidding?

I don't mean two paragraphs of babble from some fundamentalist from Alabama. I mean a serious philosopher's work, from a serious press. For example, Swinburne, Plantinga, Stump, Flew, Mackie, Hartshorne. From your discussion, it's perfectly obvious you've either not read anything of such sort, or haven't understood a word. 

I admit that this is not from me, but I feel it makes the point nicely http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/ while you might call the comparison silly, it is in a similar argument. The problem is this, a poor argument is a poor argument regardless of the level of verbal gymnastics or arguments meant to protect it. I could give similar arguments to the existence of dragons, or of various cryptozoological creatures that are believed to be out there.