Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

Details

Closed to new replies
November 4, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 42

For God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral.

:icongreatest-i-am:
For God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[link]

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

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

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

[link]

[link]

Regards
DL
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconwhiskersalt:
WhiskerSalt Nov 8, 2012  Hobbyist Interface Designer
Note: sorry for the wall of text but their was much to address.

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

The whole sacrifice of Christ or death of Christ was planned, fashioned, carried out by God. God himself will it, he supplied the sacrifice which was himself, so the whole notion of God endorsing human sacrifice or implying that punishing innocent instead of the guilty is redundant since that obviously wasn't the purpose or intent of Jesus dying for mankind. The only people who would conclude to this is trying to find reasons to support their notions and ideas which you have done here and many times before.

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.

The verse you supplied it about who shall bear punishment of their sin and who shall receive the blessing of their righteousness and has nothing to do with the death of Christ since his death was by God, of God, through God.

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

This verse is about God stating through David that no man can save his brother nor can any man give him a sufficient ransom for sins and which again has nothing to do with Christ.
Substitutionary atonement is immoral according to scriptures.

Yet God, this God you claim to be immoral set up a entire substitutionary atonement for his people way before Jesus, through the blood of animals.

I think that the guilty should be punished and not an innocent human

I believe entirely the same, the guilty should be punished and no innocent person should die for another, I haven't believe once that it was right for Jesus to die in the place of man and neither have the majority of Christians either. But we are however continually thankful that our God would died for us, that he would pardon us from the sins which we deserve to be punished for doing and rather than showing us wrath which was ours he instead showed us love, grace and mercy.

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

Your not saying anything that Christians don't believe already, we never desire for God to die, we didn't demand he do so which you seem to think and most of us Christians would greatly accept death for him or face danger for him, or bear hated for him or scorn for him or abandonment for him.

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

What does this even mean, your sentence make no sense in the sightly. Do you care to make it understandable?

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

I don't believe that dying in the place for another in immoral, it an honorable and pure thing to do for others. I don't have to provide a argument since it evident in the action itself, if a person is willing to die for a evil person or any person at all, it something to be praise by other and commended.

The verses from the video
  • Proverbs 16:6: Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the fear of the LORD a man avoids evil.
  • We know from Psalm 49:7 that no man can atone for sins not for himself or his brother so this verse is not implying that through your own love or faithfulness can you atone sin but rather in the love of God and his faithfulness is any sin atoned.[Psalms 61:7, Psalms 91:4, Psalms 98:3, Psalms 117:2, Isaiah 42:3, Isaiah 61:8]
  • Psalms 51:16-17: You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
  • The verse itself speak the truth, I wouldn't say God didn't want sacrifice since clearly he set up the sacrificial system of animals and how blood was used in the Old Testament to cleanse nearly everything which he told at times to do. But the verse continue that God desire a sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart, he want people to repent, he desire and welcome it.
  • Psalms 40:6: Sacrifice and offering you did not desire — but my ears you have opened — burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require.
  • The verse must be look at in light of the rest of Scriptures. We know God set up the sacrificial system of animals and the usage of blood as prescribed by him and the sacrificial system was the way of atonement in those days and even David himself offered up sacrifices and the we also know the will of God was for Christ to died so the verse in not strictly implying God didn't want sacrifice.
  • Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
  • This verse has nothing about sacrifice but about seeking God and his mercy. The verse in it simplest rendition is saying to seek the Lord and he will have mercy and pardon them and nothing to do with sacrifice.
  • “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
  • This verse again has nothing to do with God desiring or not desiring sacrifice from people rather it God declaring who will die and who will live in regard of their conduct, not about sacrifice, forgiveness or repentance.
Peace,
Mussor
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
“But we are however continually thankful that our God would died for us, that he would pardon us from the sins which we deserve to be punished for doing”

If you deserved pardon then God could pardon in many ways that did not include the murder of his son.

No noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove his benevolence.

Further on deserving punishment for sin.
Not so because you cannot help but do evil and sin to survive.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradoxically, I even get help fron Christians to prove this popint.

Theistic evolution.
[link]

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

“We know from Psalm 49:7 that no man can atone for sins not for himself or his brother so this verse is not implying that through your own love or faithfulness can you atone sin but rather in the love of God and his faithfulness is any sin atoned.[Psalms 61:7, Psalms 91:4, Psalms 98:3, Psalms 117:2, Isaiah 42:3, Isaiah 61:8]”

I and the bible disagree with your view that man cannot atone and pay his own way for his sins.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

To have anyone else atone is clearly a false doctrine. It would mean that your disclaimer that you did not want Jesus to die for you as a lie.

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

“The verse must be look at in light of the rest of Scriptures. We know God set up the sacrificial system of animals and the usage of blood as prescribed by him and the sacrificial system was the way of atonement in those days and even David himself offered up sacrifices and the we also know the will of God was for Christ to died so the verse in not strictly implying God didn't want sacrifice.”

The Jews had animal sacrifices that they used but not in the way you think and they did not believe in human sacrifice. They also thought that forgiveness was to them in most cases and not to God.

[link]

For Jews, the perpetrator was to seek forgiveness from the victim so that he would gain the closure. I take it further and think that once forgiven by the victim, God has no business forgiving a second time as the sin is erased by the first forgiveness.

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

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

Your reply.
What does this even mean, your sentence make no sense in the sightly. Do you care to make it understandable?

My reply.

Imagine God before man had even sinned.
He would think sin needed punishment.
He would choose his own death as punishment even as he could choose many other ways.
Choosing to condemn you knowing that he would have to die for it to me is insane; and since it involves unneeded suicide or having others murder him, it becomes immoral.

This person says it well. Ignore your prejudices like I had to and listen to the words.

[link]

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


“I don't believe that dying in the place for another in immoral, it an honorable and pure thing to do for others.”

Only if required and since God had many options it is immoral.

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

“•Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
This verse has nothing about sacrifice but about seeking God and his mercy. The verse in it simplest rendition is saying to seek the Lord and he will have mercy and pardon them and nothing to do with sacrifice.”

Exactly. Sacrifice is not required to be freely pardoned.

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

“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
This verse again has nothing to do with God desiring or not desiring sacrifice from people rather it God declaring who will die and who will live in regard of their conduct, not about sacrifice, forgiveness or repentance.

Exactly. Sacrifice is not required to be freely pardoned. All one need do is turn away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all of God’s decrees and does what is just and right, ---- and they are saved.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Nov 7, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Whoever dies is a man.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Exactly.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconafter--life:
After--Life Nov 7, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Every Christian will have a different ideal basis of answering this lol.

Just sit back and watch the show.
Reply
:iconincandescentinsanity:
IncandescentInsanity Nov 7, 2012  Student General Artist
Seeing all of these apologists try to justify their cruel and sadistic god is entertaining

They say humanity gets morality from religion, but it is religion that gets morality from humanity
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Yes. Few Christians are insane enough to ever live by the laws that God puts out.

They have wisely given their souls to secularism.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconkalinka-shadows:
The whole concept of the substitution atonement concept is meant to act as a form of entrapment. It's meant to be a way to make Christianity 'mandatory'.

Steps:
1. Yahweh created this world. He created Humans to worship him.
2. The First Humans acquire 'knowledge' (self awareness) without Yahweh's consent.
3. As a result, he cannot control us as Humans; so he sets it to be the case that 100% of Humans go to Hell by default because we acquired knowledge without his permission.
4. He is willing to spare some of us from Hell, his 'elect'. But to do this we must agree to accept a Human sacrifice and give up our 'knowledge'.
4a. Ignorance is no excuse, Yahweh imprinted the 'truth' on all Humans. Anyone not Christian is acting against Yahweh.
4b. Jews who reject Jesus also reject Yahweh.
5. He does not care about individual sins we create that much, he cares that we have self awareness we are not supposed too.
Reply
:iconincandescentinsanity:
IncandescentInsanity Nov 8, 2012  Student General Artist
Did you come up with that yourself? I love it

I really want to see a believer justify their belief after they read that
Reply
:iconkalinka-shadows:
That's what the Bible actually teaches, that is why there are creationists. The Necessary original sin of Adam was that he ate from the tree of Knowledge, which gave us knowledge. We were mindless things before the fall. Jesus came to remove the original sin of Adam. With no Adam, there can be no savior.
Reply
Add a Comment: