Human sacrifice

[Zzyzx]

.
Christians often condemn human sacrifice and use it as justification for slaughtering competing religious groups and societies.

However, Christians glorify the sacrifice (called "martyrdom") of their namesake and other religious notables. Supposedly the "martyrdom" was often done willingly "to serve god."

How is that different from "pagan" sacrifices to their "gods?"

[bluethread]

I don't see how any arguments that the crucifixion is not the central theme of Christianity could hold water.

That is one view. However, some would say that the resurrection is the central theme, ie new life. Yeshua's sacrifice is self sacrifice. If you look at the the events that lead up to the execution, it is He who is in control. He knew what was going to happen and permitted it to happen. He was following the will of Adonai, as He did throughout His life. That is the central theme of the Scriputres. As Shlomo says, "Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

[dianaiad]

In fact, you utterly ignored the point HE made in his post.

What "sacrifice" did Jesus make in the garden? He didn't elaborate on any details.

NOW you ask?

Why didn't you ask Vanguard?

Why did you simply ignore this rather important point?

Because from my vantage point it wasn't important. It was trivial. I already gave you my argument against it. It doesn't matter what Jesus might have supposedly sacrificed in the garden the crucifixion would have clearly overshadowed it.

Why?

What is a bigger sacrifice; dying (which we will all do) in an extremely painful manner (which Vanguard stated has been done by more than one person) and being resurrected, or being willing to 'take upon himself' all the sins...or rather, all the responsibility for all the sins...all of us have, do, and will commit? Yes, He was resurrected--but I don't see any indication that THIS responsibility was removed from Him. We are His to deal with.

I don't see how His death could possibly overshadow that particular sacrifice, willingly made--and not 'fixed.' Not that His death wasn't vital...or the manner of it. Not the cross, specifically, but the WHY of it.

Why would an all-intelligent God bother overshadowing the main point of his sacrifice with the unnecessary drama of a gory crucifixion?

The manner of His death was the choice of those who killed Him, DI.

Did this God not realize that the drama of the crucifixion would become the focal point of Christianity?

I don't see how any arguments that the crucifixion is not the central theme of Christianity could hold water.

The central theme of Christianity is Christ....and yes, Him crucified. However, the CROSS is only important in that it was the instrument of His death. Had He been hung, or beheaded, or his life ended in any other way, then that would have been the symbol, with no change in the meaning of His life and death.

That He died...that He allowed himself to be killed by whatever means others decided to use, is the point. That He took upon Himself the responsibility for our sins, and for us, is the point. That he spent His life teaching others how to live, is the point...in reverse chronological order.

To Vanguard, and to me, the crucifixion is important...not because He was crucified, but because He allowed those who wanted to kill Him the free will to do so, and to choose the manner of it. To Vanguard (and please forgive me, Vanguard, for speaking for you here) and to me, the Atonement is as much...even more...about what He did in the Garden of Gethsemane, when He accepted the responsibility for us, that is, when He took upon Himself our sins: when He accepted His role as our Savior, with all the pain and responsibility that involved. The rest was the seal on the deal.

Is this different from Christianity as a whole? yes...and no...depends on who you ask. The thing is, though, it wasn't "Christianity as a whole" you were responding to. It was Vanguard.

[Divine Insight]

That is one view. However, some would say that the resurrection is the central theme, ie new life. Yeshua's sacrifice is self sacrifice. If you look at the the events that lead up to the execution, it is He who is in control.

It doesn't appear that away to me. He was wanted for questioning. If he were truly in control he would have volunteered to be questioned freely. Instead he was hiding from the law. And there's no getting around this. It makes no sense that the Jewish Priests would have put 30 pieces of silver up as a reward for information leading to his whereabouts if they hadn't already made a normal effort to locate him.

It also makes no sense to pin the charge of betrayal onto Judas for having kissed Jesus on the cheek so the Roman Soldiers could know which man was Jesus. Obviously Jesus was trying to hide. That's hardly being in control of anything.

He knew what was going to happen and permitted it to happen. He was following the will of Adonai, as He did throughout His life. That is the central theme of the Scriputres.

I understand that this is the story. But what I reject to is not the idea that Jesus was supposedly obeying or cooperating with the "Plan of God", but rather that the Father God would have such a hideous plan in the first place.

At this point we aren't even talking about Jesus. At this point we're talking about Yahweh or Adonai as you call him. The Father God is the one I'm objecting to. At this point Jesus is nothing but an obedient pawn in a truly disgusting and immoral plan by the God of the Bible.

As Shlomo says, "Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

That's exactly the mentality of this religion. And that is my main point.

We're supposed to view God as the ultimate fatherly figure who will give us a spanking if refuse to obey his every command. And who owns the patent rights on the commandment of this God? Well Duh, in this case Christianity owns the patent rights on the commandments of God. They are the ones who tell you what hoops you must jump through to "Obey God".

And the number one commandment is that you shall never place any other God above theirs.

This religion isn't about any imaginary Santa Claus God who sits on a throne in heaven threatening to spank everyone who disobeys him. On the contrary it's a made up superstitious myth created by men to be used precisely in this way for this purpose.

The idea that a genuinely supreme intelligence could be a jealous God sitting on a throne in heaven threatening to spank everyone (potentially for eternity) if they refuse to obey him, is IMHO, absolutely ludicrous.

If such a creator does indeed exist and we are the pets that he has created then we are in serious trouble no matter what we do. Worshiping this God out of the fear of being given an eternal spanking if you fail to fear him is disgusting.

Such a "God" would be a Devil for sure.

Christianity is an immoral religion that expects us to believe that we have an unreasonable and unintelligent sadistic heavenly Father who demands that we either do as he says without question or he'll condemn us in some horrific unimaginable way.

IMHO, that's not only absurd, but it's truely is the worst reality I can imagine. I certainty wouldn't rejoice over it. I could never honestly love this God. Are you kidding me? At best I could do is if FEAR him just as you say. With no love lost.

Yes, if Christianity is true, then without the slightest doubt I hate the Christianity God with the same passion that I would hate the most disgusting heartless psychopathic sadist. That's precisely what this God would be.

There is no love to be found anywhere in the Christian God. All this God has to offer is "Grace" to be freed from his unreasonable wrath against you. But even that "Grace" is not free, you must pay for it by bowing down and worshiping him and proclaiming that you will indeed be his mindless pet for all of eternity and that you will love him for hating you.

He certainly doesn't love you. That's for certain. He doesn't even respect you enough to allow you to take responsibility for your own actions. He has raped you of any free will choices you thought you might have had.

A purely secular materialistic existence would be a far brighter reality. I would much rather just die when I die than to suffer either one of the only two options the Christian God has to offer. For all he has offered me is either an eternal spanking, or complete surrender to obey his sadistic ways for eternity. Either option would be hell.

So the Christian God has nothing to offer me but hell. Period.

There is no good in him.

Let us all pray to any powers that might be that Christianity is indeed a hoax no different from Islam. Because if it were true there would be no hope for any decent person. We would all be doomed to an eternity of hell. Either doomed to an eternal spanking, or doomed to worship a sadistic unreasonable Godhead.

Atheists who just die when they die would have found the true heaven.

[Divine Insight]

Because from my vantage point it wasn't important. It was trivial. I already gave you my argument against it. It doesn't matter what Jesus might have supposedly sacrificed in the garden the crucifixion would have clearly overshadowed it.

Why?

What is a bigger sacrifice; dying (which we will all do) in an extremely painful manner (which Vanguard stated has been done by more than one person) and being resurrected, or being willing to 'take upon himself' all the sins...or rather, all the responsibility for all the sins...all of us have, do, and will commit? Yes, He was resurrected--but I don't see any indication that THIS responsibility was removed from Him. We are His to deal with.

I don't see how His death could possibly overshadow that particular sacrifice, willingly made--and not 'fixed.' Not that His death wasn't vital...or the manner of it. Not the cross, specifically, but the WHY of it.

But that's my whole point Dianaiad. Jesus cannot take on responsibility for your actions. Especially not without your consent. Even then the concept of penal substitution is highly problematic.

In fact, that's my whole complaint with this part of Christianity. I refuse to give my consent. I demand that should be given the right to take responsibility for my own sins, and I'm willing to make "restitution" for them myself on my own. All I'm asking for is to take responsibility for my own actions. But this is not an option in Christianity. Christianity rapes us of the right to be responsible for our own actions. It's precisely the opposite of asking us to take moral responsibility.

So if Christianity were true, I would have no choice but to reject this offer. And for that I would supposedly be cast into an eternal hell of torture and suffering. Something that would be extreme overkill for my moral behavior. I've never done anything in my life that would even warrant beating me and nailing me to a pole for a single day, much less warrant an eternity of suffering and torture.

Christianity actually refuses to allow us to take moral responsibility for our own actions. That is totally forbidden in Christianity. It's considered blaspheme against this immoral penal substitution that God is demanding you must accept whether you like it or not.

This is how I can know for certain that this religion is the creation of immoral men and did not come from any supremely moral entity. Christianity is the anti-thesis of moral responsibility. It demands that we embrace immorality and also support the CHURCH. Maybe not the latter so much today, but back when this religion was created failure to support the church would be seen as blaspheme against God and refusal to do as God has commanded. You don't speak out against the Church because the Church is GOD. They created God, and they own God.

You are just a sheep who has been raped of any moral responsibility of your own through penal substitution of a demigod that the Church owns the patents rights to.

This religion isn't about any benevolent God.

IT can't be. It's far too immoral.

Why would an all-intelligent God bother overshadowing the main point of his sacrifice with the unnecessary drama of a gory crucifixion?

The manner of His death was the choice of those who killed Him, DI.

That doesn't fly in my book dianaiad. You can't have the Jewish Priests making God jump through their sick demented hoops.

If with this God all things are possible, then God could have had his miraculous demigod Son live and die in any way God sees fit. No way are you ever going to convince me that a supposedly all-wise omnipotent God was at the mercy of having to work with whatever a bunch of corrupt evil priests handed him.

That's absurd.

If you're going to believe in this religion at least face the fact that this God had to have control over everything. Otherwise he would be a very pathetic powerless God. You can't have the Jewish Priests determining the face of Christianity for this God. That can only result in a God who has no power to control his very own message to humanity.

In fact, any attempt to blame this on the Jewish Priests is nothing short of an admission that even you don't want God to have anything to do with this.

But that can't fly. It doesn't work.

You can't have these evil corrupt priests mandating to God how his religion has to be formed. That makes no sense at all.

Did this God not realize that the drama of the crucifixion would become the focal point of Christianity?

I don't see how any arguments that the crucifixion is not the central theme of Christianity could hold water.

The central theme of Christianity is Christ....and yes, Him crucified. However, the CROSS is only important in that it was the instrument of His death. Had He been hung, or beheaded, or his life ended in any other way, then that would have been the symbol, with no change in the meaning of His life and death.

Are you kidding me? It wasn't just that Jesus was crucified on a cross. They made this crucifixion as gory as they possibly could make it. They have Jesus first being badly beaten. And then made to carry his cross to the crucifixion site. They place a crown of thorns on this head. They don't merely tied him to the cross to die, but then actually nail him to the cross with spikes.

The crucifixion was purposely made as gory as it could possibly be made.

That He died...that He allowed himself to be killed by whatever means others decided to use, is the point. That He took upon Himself the responsibility for our sins, and for us, is the point. That he spent His life teaching others how to live, is the point...in reverse chronological order.

Again, he can't take on the responsibility for your sins without your consent. And for me the idea of giving my consent is immoral. I refuse to give my consent for Jesus to take responsibility for me. For this I must go to hell.

In fact, Dianaiad this is my choice. I'm saying that even if this religion were true, I would choice hell. I would have no other moral choice open to me. To condone Jesus taking responsibility for my sins would be immoral.

Christianity is demanding that they only way I can receive the LOVE of their God is if I'm willing to commit a hideously immoral act.

So Christianity gives me no choice but to choose hell.

To Vanguard, and to me, the crucifixion is important...not because He was crucified, but because He allowed those who wanted to kill Him the free will to do so, and to choose the manner of it. To Vanguard (and please forgive me, Vanguard, for speaking for you here) and to me, the Atonement is as much...even more...about what He did in the Garden of Gethsemane, when He accepted the responsibility for us, that is, when He took upon Himself our sins: when He accepted His role as our Savior, with all the pain and responsibility that involved. The rest was the seal on the deal.

Jesus cannot accept responsibility for your sins until you ask him to take responsibility for your sins. And because of this, the blood of the crucifixion of Jesus cannot be on your hands unless you have asked Jesus to take responsibility for your sins.

And ultimately that is basically the same as condoning his crucifixion for you sake.

And that boils down to the following. And it's really no different.

God hands you a cross, some spikes and a hammer and Jesus. And then God says to you, "If you nail my innocent son to this cross I will forgive you of your sins. But if you refuse to nail him to the cross to pay for your sins I will condemn you to hell".

What are you going to do?

If you refuse, then as far as I see you are refusing have any part in Jesus bearing the burden of your sins.

If you accept, then you need to be the one who nails Jesus to the pole. Don't be blaming that on those nasty Jewish priests because you are the one who has agreed to this.

In other words, unless you are personally willing to nail Jesus to the cross to pay for your sins, then you cannot claim to be condoning this act on your behalf.

If you refuse to do this then you are refusing to be party to penal substitution no matter who the executioner might be.

Is this different from Christianity as a whole? yes...and no...depends on who you ask. The thing is, though, it wasn't "Christianity as a whole" you were responding to. It was Vanguard.

I do not condone having Jesus crucified to pay for my moral responsibility. If this God refuses to allow me to be responsible for my own actions, then by all means, let him kill me.

I do not condone him having his own son beaten on my behalf. I refuse to be party to that.

Christianity is a highly immoral religion and I refuse to have any parts of it.

If true I have no choice but to choose hell.

Only if Christianity is false does that nightmare go away.

There is no good in Christianity.

You either condone the crucifixion of Jesus on your behalf or you go to hell.

Neither choice is morally sane.

Christianity doesn't even offer you a moral option.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

The central theme of Christianity is Christ....and yes, Him crucified. However, the CROSS is only important in that it was the instrument of His death. Had He been hung, or beheaded, or his life ended in any other way, then that would have been the symbol, with no change in the meaning of His life and death.

Are you kidding me? It wasn't just that Jesus was crucified on a cross. They made this crucifixion as gory as they possibly could make it. They have Jesus first being badly beaten. And then made to carry his cross to the crucifixion site. They place a crown of thorns on this head. They don't merely tied him to the cross to die, but then actually nail him to the cross with spikes.

The crucifixion was purposely made as gory as it could possibly be made.

Crucifixion was a gory, and ignoble, way to die. The Romans did it to a lot of people. As it happens, Christ's stay on the cross was, according to all accounts of other crucifixions, rather short. There have been stories of victims who lasted for many days.

The STORY didn't make the crucifixion " as gory as it could possibly be made." Indeed, having read other relations of crucifixions, that of Jesus was not, by any means, the most 'gory,' 'horrific' or longest lasting example. For instance, the average life span of a crucifixion victim was around 36 hours, and Jesus died in six.

That He died...that He allowed himself to be killed by whatever means others decided to use, is the point. That He took upon Himself the responsibility for our sins, and for us, is the point. That he spent His life teaching others how to live, is the point...in reverse chronological order.

Again, he can't take on the responsibility for your sins without your consent.

This is true.

And for me the idea of giving my consent is immoral. I refuse to give my consent for Jesus to take responsibility for me. For this I must go to hell.

If you do, you are choosing to walk there all on your own. Nobody is sending you there.

In fact, Dianaiad this is my choice. I'm saying that even if this religion were true, I would choice hell. I would have no other moral choice open to me. To condone Jesus taking responsibility for my sins would be immoral.[/quote]

OK, then you need to not commit any sins. That works too.

But....the whole idea, as far as I am aware (and believe) is that we are here to make mistakes, and even 'sin' and learn from those experiences.

Jesus has made it possible for us to do so; learn from them. Whether you want to allow this or not is entirely your choice...and whether you, when you know absolutely what Jesus did, turn your back on Him and walk into hell, remember that you are doing the walking, He isn't doing the pushing.

All up to you.

Of course, in my belief system 'hell', or 'outer darkness' isn't hellfire and brimstone, but simply a complete and utter lack of anything to do with God, or His influence. You will be on your own, utterly on your own. There may be a few who agree with you, but...????

It is entirely, in my belief system, up to you.

Christianity is demanding that they only way I can receive the LOVE of their God is if I'm willing to commit a hideously immoral act.

So Christianity gives me no choice but to choose hell.

Again, up to you.

To Vanguard, and to me, the crucifixion is important...not because He was crucified, but because He allowed those who wanted to kill Him the free will to do so, and to choose the manner of it. To Vanguard (and please forgive me, Vanguard, for speaking for you here) and to me, the Atonement is as much...even more...about what He did in the Garden of Gethsemane, when He accepted the responsibility for us, that is, when He took upon Himself our sins: when He accepted His role as our Savior, with all the pain and responsibility that involved. The rest was the seal on the deal.

Jesus cannot accept responsibility for your sins until you ask him to take responsibility for your sins. And because of this, the blood of the crucifixion of Jesus cannot be on your hands unless you have asked Jesus to take responsibility for your sins.

And ultimately that is basically the same as condoning his crucifixion for you sake.

And that boils down to the following. And it's really no different.

God hands you a cross, some spikes and a hammer and Jesus. And then God says to you, "If you nail my innocent son to this cross I will forgive you of your sins. But if you refuse to nail him to the cross to pay for your sins I will condemn you to hell".

What are you going to do?

If you refuse, then as far as I see you are refusing have any part in Jesus bearing the burden of your sins.

If you accept, then you need to be the one who nails Jesus to the pole. Don't be blaming that on those nasty Jewish priests because you are the one who has agreed to this.

In other words, unless you are personally willing to nail Jesus to the cross to pay for your sins, then you cannot claim to be condoning this act on your behalf.

er, you didn't read a thing I wrote, did you?

[Divine Insight]

er, you didn't read a thing I wrote, did you?

It appears to me to be just the opposite.

You say:

In fact, Dianaiad this is my choice. I'm saying that even if this religion were true, I would choice hell. I would have no other moral choice open to me. To condone Jesus taking responsibility for my sins would be immoral.

OK, then you need to not commit any sins. That works too. [/quote]

What are you talking about? That is the lie of Christianity.

All I am suggesting is that I should be permitted to accept my own responsibility for my own behavior. I have already stated that I would be more than happy to make restitution for any "sins" I may have committed.

Christianity is the one who rapes me of the right to take moral responsibility for my own actions. Just as you have suggested, they demand that it's all or nothing. You either don't ever commit a "sin" in your entirely life, or condone penal substitution allowing Jesus to take responsibility for your sins.

That is the underhanded immorality of Christianity. Christianity rapes everyone of any moral responsibility. They refuse to allow anyone to be responsible for their own actions. Yet in the most ironic and hypocritical way they hold everyone responsible for their own actions.

It's the most underhanded and hypocritical religion ever invented by mankind.

But....the whole idea, as far as I am aware (and believe) is that we are here to make mistakes, and even 'sin' and learn from those experiences.

And imagine how much better that lesson would be if you had to take moral responsibility for your own actions and pay our own restitution.

Jesus has made it possible for us to do so; learn from them. Whether you want to allow this or not is entirely your choice...and whether you, when you know absolutely what Jesus did, turn your back on Him and walk into hell, remember that you are doing the walking, He isn't doing the pushing.

All up to you.

He most certainly is doing the PUSHING. He's pushing me away by making the only way to walk to him an act of the greatest immorality I can imagine.

Of course in my case, penal substitution would be a piece of cake. I've never done anything in my entire life that would warrant beating someone to a pulp and nailing them to a pole. So if Jesus had to take my just due it wouldn't have been much of a bother for him anyway. But that's beside the point. This religion isn't based upon me, it's based upon all of mankind. And that's when it becomes extremely immoral. You would have Jesus paying for the sins of people who have done far more than merely "make mistakes". You would have Jesus paying for people who have viciously and intentionally hurt other people in ways that would make the crucifixion of Jesus look like a mercy killing.

You can hardly call that a mere "mistake".

Just as an example, I saw a documentary where a man's wife cheated on him. So when he found out he tied her up, hung her by her feet on a meat hook on the ceiling, plucked both her eyeballs out with a knife, cut off both her eyes, and her nose. Believe it or not the woman actually survived the ordeal. Obviously blinded and grossly disfigured for the rest of her life.

But hey, it's not a problem. Jesus was beaten and nailed to a pole, that pays for this atrocity and makes it ok. All this man needs to do is consent to Jesus taking responsibility for this and he can go straight to heaven. Jesus paid for this woman's suffering.

I don't think so.

Although I will agree that in this case, I can't imagine what this man could ever do to make restitution to this woman for the horrendous sins he committed against her.

In cases like this I can't help but wonder why this almighty Jesus didn't intervene earlier. Having himself butchered and nailed to a pole didn't help this woman in any way.

Where is there any morality in Christianity? I just don't see it. It is a highly immoral religion being peddle in the false name of morality.

Of course, in my belief system 'hell', or 'outer darkness' isn't hellfire and brimstone, but simply a complete and utter lack of anything to do with God, or His influence. You will be on your own, utterly on your own. There may be a few who agree with you, but...????

It is entirely, in my belief system, up to you.

If you think that I could exist without a God, then you must believe that I am a supernatural being in my own right.

Christianity is demanding that they only way I can receive the LOVE of their God is if I'm willing to commit a hideously immoral act.

So Christianity gives me no choice but to choose hell.

Again, up to you.

That's exactly right dianaiad. It is my choice. But the irony here is that my choice is based on morality. My choice is the higher moral choice. And yet this religion has me damned for holding high moral values.

And all they can say, "Well it's your choice". No kidding.

Yes, I do choose the higher moral ground. Absolutely.

But Christianity has me condemned for having done so. And therein lies the contradiction of the religion. It claims to be a religion of morality yet it is so quick to condemn the moral high ground.

[dianaiad]

er, you didn't read a thing I wrote, did you?

It appears to me to be just the opposite.

You say:

In fact, Dianaiad this is my choice. I'm saying that even if this religion were true, I would choice hell. I would have no other moral choice open to me. To condone Jesus taking responsibility for my sins would be immoral.

OK, then you need to not commit any sins. That works too.

What are you talking about? That is the lie of Christianity.

All I am suggesting is that I should be permitted to accept my own responsibility for my own behavior. I have already stated that I would be more than happy to make restitution for any "sins" I may have committed.

Christianity is the one who rapes me of the right to take moral responsibility for my own actions. Just as you have suggested, they demand that it's all or nothing. You either don't ever commit a "sin" in your entirely life, or condone penal substitution allowing Jesus to take responsibility for your sins.

That is the underhanded immorality of Christianity. Christianity rapes everyone of any moral responsibility. They refuse to allow anyone to be responsible for their own actions. Yet in the most ironic and hypocritical way they hold everyone responsible for their own actions.

It's the most underhanded and hypocritical religion ever invented by mankind.

But....the whole idea, as far as I am aware (and believe) is that we are here to make mistakes, and even 'sin' and learn from those experiences.

And imagine how much better that lesson would be if you had to take moral responsibility for your own actions and pay our own restitution. [/quote]

If you think that all this allows us to get off "Scott Free,' and without making restitution, you haven't been paying attention to the threads on repentance.

Jesus has made it possible for us to do so; learn from them. Whether you want to allow this or not is entirely your choice...and whether you, when you know absolutely what Jesus did, turn your back on Him and walk into hell, remember that you are doing the walking, He isn't doing the pushing.

All up to you.

He most certainly is doing the PUSHING. He's pushing me away by making the only way to walk to him an act of the greatest immorality I can imagine.

Of course in my case, penal substitution would be a piece of cake. I've never done anything in my entire life that would warrant beating someone to a pulp and nailing them to a pole. So if Jesus had to take my just due it wouldn't have been much of a bother for him anyway. But that's beside the point. This religion isn't based upon me, it's based upon all of mankind. And that's when it becomes extremely immoral. You would have Jesus paying for the sins of people who have done far more than merely "make mistakes". You would have Jesus paying for people who have viciously and intentionally hurt other people in ways that would make the crucifixion of Jesus look like a mercy killing.

You can hardly call that a mere "mistake".

Just as an example, I saw a documentary where a man's wife cheated on him. So when he found out he tied her up, hung her by her feet on a meat hook on the ceiling, plucked both her eyeballs out with a knife, cut off both her eyes, and her nose. Believe it or not the woman actually survived the ordeal. Obviously blinded and grossly disfigured for the rest of her life.

But hey, it's not a problem. Jesus was beaten and nailed to a pole, that pays for this atrocity and makes it ok. All this man needs to do is consent to Jesus taking responsibility for this and he can go straight to heaven. Jesus paid for this woman's suffering.

I don't think so.

Neither do I think so, nor the belief system I belong to think so. It's not that easy.

Although I will agree that in this case, I can't imagine what this man could ever do to make restitution to this woman for the horrendous sins he committed against her.

....and that is a problem in regard to his ability to repent, yes.

In cases like this I can't help but wonder why this almighty Jesus didn't intervene earlier. Having himself butchered and nailed to a pole didn't help this woman in any way.

Where is there any morality in Christianity? I just don't see it. It is a highly immoral religion being peddle in the false name of morality.

Of course, in my belief system 'hell', or 'outer darkness' isn't hellfire and brimstone, but simply a complete and utter lack of anything to do with God, or His influence. You will be on your own, utterly on your own. There may be a few who agree with you, but...????

It is entirely, in my belief system, up to you.

If you think that I could exist without a God, then you must believe that I am a supernatural being in my own right.

I 'must,' must I? Boy, is that a false dichotomy and a very strange conclusion to jump to!

Christianity is demanding that they only way I can receive the LOVE of their God is if I'm willing to commit a hideously immoral act.

So Christianity gives me no choice but to choose hell.

Again, up to you.

That's exactly right dianaiad. It is my choice. But the irony here is that my choice is based on morality. My choice is the higher moral choice. And yet this religion has me damned for holding high moral values.

And all they can say, "Well it's your choice". No kidding.

Yes, I do choose the higher moral ground. Absolutely.

But Christianity has me condemned for having done so. And therein lies the contradiction of the religion. It claims to be a religion of morality yet it is so quick to condemn the moral high ground.

Actually, I see a whole lot of pride going on here, to be truthful. Again, up to you, but would it really be so horrible to accept a little help in your journey to a better character?

I see nothing immoral in acknowledging the help of my big brother; indeed, after everything He did...and is doing, I believe that refusing to allow Him in is the immoral act; very much like having your brother offer to help you out of the ditch you drove yourself into, and you telling him to go to hell. Such an act might hurt his feelings and damage your relationship, but while your brother stays safe on the bank, you could, y'know....drown.

All because you are too proud to ask, or accept, help.

of course, this only applies if you actually believe that Jesus DID any of this. If, of course, you don't believe in any of it, the 'pride' thing doesn't apply. It also doesn't make sense as an argument.

[bluethread]

That is one view. However, some would say that the resurrection is the central theme, ie new life. Yeshua's sacrifice is self sacrifice. If you look at the the events that lead up to the execution, it is He who is in control.

It doesn't appear that away to me. He was wanted for questioning. If he were truly in control he would have volunteered to be questioned freely. Instead he was hiding from the law. And there's no getting around this. It makes no sense that the Jewish Priests would have put 30 pieces of silver up as a reward for information leading to his whereabouts if they hadn't already made a normal effort to locate him.

It also makes no sense to pin the charge of betrayal onto Judas for having kissed Jesus on the cheek so the Roman Soldiers could know which man was Jesus. Obviously Jesus was trying to hide. That's hardly being in control of anything.

That is your speculation. This was not a reward for locating Him, but for delivering him. They had wished arrest Him before, but had not been able to. Mt. 26:55 "At that time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me." It was not that He was hiding. It was that they did not wish to arrest Him in public.

He knew what was going to happen and permitted it to happen. He was following the will of Adonai, as He did throughout His life. That is the central theme of the Scriputres.

I understand that this is the story. But what I reject to is not the idea that Jesus was supposedly obeying or cooperating with the "Plan of God", but rather that the Father God would have such a hideous plan in the first place.

At this point we aren't even talking about Jesus. At this point we're talking about Yahweh or Adonai as you call him. The Father God is the one I'm objecting to. At this point Jesus is nothing but an obedient pawn in a truly disgusting and immoral plan by the God of the Bible.

Disgusting is a personal visceral reaction. Why should Adonai's plan be subject to you personal sensibilities? Also, what makes it immoral?

As Shlomo says, "Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

That's exactly the mentality of this religion. And that is my main point.

We're supposed to view God as the ultimate fatherly figure who will give us a spanking if refuse to obey his every command. And who owns the patent rights on the commandment of this God? Well Duh, in this case Christianity owns the patent rights on the commandments of God. They are the ones who tell you what hoops you must jump through to "Obey God".

And the number one commandment is that you shall never place any other God above theirs.

The last time I checked, the jews were the caretakers of the commandments of Adonai. Paul, acknowledges this. Rom. 9:4 "(T)he people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises."

This religion isn't about any imaginary Santa Claus God who sits on a throne in heaven threatening to spank everyone who disobeys him. On the contrary it's a made up superstitious myth created by men to be used precisely in this way for this purpose.

The idea that a genuinely supreme intelligence could be a jealous God sitting on a throne in heaven threatening to spank everyone (potentially for eternity) if they refuse to obey him, is IMHO, absolutely ludicrous.

If such a creator does indeed exist and we are the pets that he has created then we are in serious trouble no matter what we do. Worshiping this God out of the fear of being given an eternal spanking if you fail to fear him is disgusting.

Such a "God" would be a Devil for sure.

That is an extreme oversimplification. You say here that it is disgusting that people should fear the consequences of their actions. Yet, on another thread you say that not holding people responsible for their actions is tantamount to rape. It would be good if you could be consistent in your arguments.

Christianity is an immoral religion that expects us to believe that we have an unreasonable and unintelligent sadistic heavenly Father who demands that we either do as he says without question or he'll condemn us in some horrific unimaginable way.

IMHO, that's not only absurd, but it's truely is the worst reality I can imagine. I certainty wouldn't rejoice over it. I could never honestly love this God. Are you kidding me? At best I could do is if FEAR him just as you say. With no love lost.

Again, an oversimplification and a generalization. Daunte's Inferno, if that is what you are referring to are not universally accepted as accurate by Christians.

Yes, if Christianity is true, then without the slightest doubt I hate the Christianity God with the same passion that I would hate the most disgusting heartless psychopathic sadist. That's precisely what this God would be.

There is no love to be found anywhere in the Christian God. All this God has to offer is "Grace" to be freed from his unreasonable wrath against you. But even that "Grace" is not free, you must pay for it by bowing down and worshiping him and proclaiming that you will indeed be his mindless pet for all of eternity and that you will love him for hating you.

He certainly doesn't love you. That's for certain. He doesn't even respect you enough to allow you to take responsibility for your own actions. He has raped you of any free will choices you thought you might have had.

You definitely do like to rant and there it is the accusation of rape if one is not held accountable, Should one be held accountable or not?

A purely secular materialistic existence would be a far brighter reality. I would much rather just die when I die than to suffer either one of the only two options the Christian God has to offer. For all he has offered me is either an eternal spanking, or complete surrender to obey his sadistic ways for eternity. Either option would be hell.

So the Christian God has nothing to offer me but hell. Period.

There is no good in him.

Let us all pray to any powers that might be that Christianity is indeed a hoax no different from Islam. Because if it were true there would be no hope for any decent person. We would all be doomed to an eternity of hell. Either doomed to an eternal spanking, or doomed to worship a sadistic unreasonable Godhead.

Atheists who just die when they die would have found the true heaven.

You may have a point with those who hold to a Christianity that aligns with your characterizations, but there are other views within Christianity. I personally do not identify myself as Christian, because of this tendency to equate Christianity with Catholicism or a caricature of it, as you have. The Scriptures appear to me to refer to the grave and refuse heap as the final resting places of the unbeliever. So, if you do truly consider annihilation as acceptable for the atheist, you have no argument from me on that point.

[Divine Insight]

Actually, I see a whole lot of pride going on here, to be truthful. Again, up to you, but would it really be so horrible to accept a little help in your journey to a better character?

Are you forgetting that I was a born again Christian?

I asked Jesus and God to give me all the help they can possibly muster.

If they have failed to do that I can hardly be blamed for that.

Moreover, I am still waiting!

Jesus is more than welcome to come waltzing into my life anytime he so desire. He's been asked. He's even been begged. I can't twist the arm of a deity.

I can only assume that he doesn't exist. The whole shebang has to be a lie.

Don't tell me that I'm the one at fault here because that's utter hogwash.

"I call, I cling, I want -- and there is no One to answer -- no One on Whom I can cling -- no, No One. -- Alone ... Where is my Faith -- even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness. ... When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven -- there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. -- I am told God loves me -- and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.� - Mother Teresa

I don't think I took it as hard as Mother Teresa because it's not that important to me. I can live without a God. Especially without a male-chauvinistic pig of a God.

But there is no excuse for Jesus to fail to keep his promise to answer the prayers of people who are calling upon him to come into their lives. That would be a really filthy trick for Jesus to play on anyone.

It's far better off that he's not real, because if he were real, he really would be a demon.

[Divine Insight]

Why should Adonai's plan be subject to you personal sensibilities?.

If he's my heavenly Father then he should be subject to my personal sensibilities.

Why shouldn't he be?

The last time I checked, the jews were the caretakers of the commandments of Adonai.

Fine caretakers they turned out to be. According to Jesus they were immoral hypocrites that Jesus could hardly stop degrading in his public rants.

Besides the Christians don't view the Jews as the caretakers of the commandments. Are you kidding me? The Jews are heathens who have refused to accept that Jesus is the Christ and is God's only begotten Son.

The Christians don't recognize the Jews to be the caretakers of the commandments anymore than Jesus recognized the Pharisees to be the caretakers.

That is an extreme oversimplification. You say here that it is disgusting that people should fear the consequences of their actions. Yet, on another thread you say that not holding people responsible for their actions is tantamount to rape. It would be good if you could be consistent in your arguments.

You are grossly mistaken. I didn't say that it's disgusting the people should fear the consequences of their actions. I said that it's disgusting to think that an supreme being would think that the consequence of disobeying him in any possible way should be eternal torture.

And this is especially disgusting when one of his demands is that you must believe in him. What if you don't believe? They you should be tortured for eternity?

That is disgusting.

You definitely do like to rant and there it is the accusation of rape if one is not held accountable, Should one be held accountable or not?

Of course a person should be held accountable. That's my whole point. But in Christianity that is totally forbidden. You aren't permitted to take responsibility for your sins. The only way to obtain grace is to condone having Jesus take responsibility for your sins.

So you aren't being held accountable for anything.

You may have a point with those who hold to a Christianity that aligns with your characterizations, but there are other views within Christianity. I personally do not identify myself as Christian, because of this tendency to equate Christianity with Catholicism or a caricature of it, as you have. The Scriptures appear to me to refer to the grave and refuse heap as the final resting places of the unbeliever. So, if you do truly consider annihilation as acceptable for the atheist, you have no argument from me on that point.

I have no problem being annihilated. In fact, if I'm given that option that's the option I will gladly choose.

This is why atheism is no problem for me. I would chose an atheistic death even if the Biblical God exists.

Christianity typically refuses to allow for this option. Christianity doesn't provide for a "Polite and Respectable Way" to decline the offer being made by the Christan God. If they did then atheists and Christians could get along respectfully.

Christianity can't afford to allow anyone to reject Christianity gracefully with respect. That would be too easy to reject the religion and then the religion would quickly die out.

The only thing that keeps the religion going is the negative social stigma that if you reject Christianity you can't possibly be accepted as a respectable decent person. They can't allow for that.

If that were allowed Christianity would have died out a very long time ago.