Is Christianity the only religion that punishes God?

[Avoice]

Is Christianity the only religion that likes the idea of God being punished for their iniquities? And why do they like to perpetually shame him by displaying images of him nearly naked hanging on a cross?. With blood dripping from his head. If Christians think Jesus is God why dont they vover him up? Why are they dishonest with their imsge? Theyve got the blood dripping. What about the urine snd feces snd the flies? How can they leave all that out?
Whats it like to be proud of a religion that blames and punishes God. And shames him on top of it all. And in the end wants to be rewarded for it?

[Purple Knight]

Your post confirms - again - the Religionist are bad at moral values.

The moral value they're bad at, is saying one person can pay for another person's sin. You don't let people murder and just let another person serve the sentence. That's common sense. But the fact that there is a debt owed in the first place is not ancient or outdated; it's again common sense.

And maybe it's brutal. Some people are brutal. Some people won't stop raping and killing unless we enforce negative consequences, so we do.

I'm not a Christian and never will be, but I prefer to give them the best defence I can in case they have something right that I have wrong. I haven't designed a value system that lasted for thousands of years.

[boatsnguitars]

Your post confirms - again - the Religionist are bad at moral values.

The moral value they're bad at, is saying one person can pay for another person's sin. You don't let people murder and just let another person serve the sentence. That's common sense. But the fact that there is a debt owed in the first place is not ancient or outdated; it's again common sense.

And maybe it's brutal. Some people are brutal. Some people won't stop raping and killing unless we enforce negative consequences, so we do.

I'm not a Christian and never will be, but I prefer to give them the best defence I can in case they have something right that I have wrong. I haven't designed a value system that lasted for thousands of years.

Fair enough, but be careful what you are defending. Are you defending the average "pew warrior's" defense of why brutal laws were needed back then 'but Jesus changed all that', or are you defending the ethical and moral principle that blood, death, sacrifice was and is always a real and important aspect of our reality - and that we all just need to accept it?

Yes, some people can be brutal. Most people who are were raised in brutal conditions. Wild animals fight for survival and are constantly afraid. Child who grow up in violent homes, war zones, or with toxic parents think that the world is one continuous fight for survival - like wild animals.

Yes, this was the case for much of human history, but we are clearly moving away from that being the norm. Wars and conflicts, worldwide, are on the decline. There are endless social markers that show we are trying to be more humane as a society: Me Too movement, Black Lives Matter, corporal punishment is generally banned or being outlawed, animal rights, etc...

The point being, we'd hardly expect this clear progression towards a more civil society to not even be a thought on the mind of the (alleged) Master of Morality (God).

So, I wouldn't give Christians an inch in how they defend brutality. It doesn't serve anyone for people to prolong the idea that "an eye for eye" is valid. I wouldn't want someone defending the Witch Burnings as "well, they were brutal and needed to be in those times."

Or, the extermination of Jews. If we keep apologizing for past brutalities, we open the door to do exactly what you've opened: the opportunity for someone to commit brutal acts and explain them away as, "Well, you guys are brutal, so we're going to be brutal." No, that's just people being brutal.

Specifically, because I feel this is where the problem really manifests when we allow Christians (et al) to explain away the brutal precepts of their religious views is that it leaks or bleeds into the current era. We think of ourselves as millions of years away from that brutal past, but then Christians use the "spare the rod, spoil the child" as a reason to beat their children. Christians (et al) use the OT to defend all kinds of brutality towards women, LGBTQ+, people of other religions. The recent wars in the Middle East were defended with Christian imagery ("Crusade", guns with biblical verses were issued to soldiers, etc).

Christians already believe they have justification to do whatever they feel based on their religious beliefs. They don't need us to give them more of a reason to be horrible.

[boatsnguitars]

BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD
BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD
BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD
BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD
BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD
BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD
BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD
BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD
BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD
BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD

.

And, to drive the point home:

They drink blood and eat human flesh every Sunday. (Some might say, "symbolically!" - but not the Catholic Church, which is the one, true Church of the Christ)

[Purple Knight]

or are you defending the ethical and moral principle that blood, death, sacrifice was and is always a real and important aspect of our reality - and that we all just need to accept it?

Not necessarily blood, but when one person wrongs another, a debt is owed. This is anti-Christian. The Christian just forgives everyone, though some say that doesn't mean forget.

The simple fact that is part of reality by nature and can't be ignored is that it costs effort and resources to avoid doing things that hurt others, and if the society does not exact a price for failing to respect others, the strategy of ignoring the rights and feelings of others is going to be the one to experience the greatest fitness, because the people spending their time and energy being considerate and trying not to hurt people, are, biologically speaking, simply wasting that energy and being stupid.

Yes, some people can be brutal. Most people who are were raised in brutal conditions. Wild animals fight for survival and are constantly afraid. Child who grow up in violent homes, war zones, or with toxic parents think that the world is one continuous fight for survival - like wild animals.

Yes, this was the case for much of human history, but we are clearly moving away from that being the norm. Wars and conflicts, worldwide, are on the decline. There are endless social markers that show we are trying to be more humane as a society: Me Too movement, Black Lives Matter, corporal punishment is generally banned or being outlawed, animal rights, etc...

The point being, we'd hardly expect this clear progression towards a more civil society to not even be a thought on the mind of the (alleged) Master of Morality (God).

So, I wouldn't give Christians an inch in how they defend brutality. It doesn't serve anyone for people to prolong the idea that "an eye for eye" is valid. I wouldn't want someone defending the Witch Burnings as "well, they were brutal and needed to be in those times."

Or, the extermination of Jews. If we keep apologizing for past brutalities, we open the door to do exactly what you've opened: the opportunity for someone to commit brutal acts and explain them away as, "Well, you guys are brutal, so we're going to be brutal." No, that's just people being brutal.

The witch burnings were an example of mass hysteria. Nothing about that was good for anyone. An eye for an eye at least achieves equity. If you're just going to forgive the brute who pokes the eye in the first place, why not also forgive the second brute who takes an eye in retaliation? Isn't that also kind and gentle and perfect and enlightened? What about the second brute is so much worse? What about the second brute deserves punishment and castigation when the first one does not? If they're equal, fine, I agree, they're equal. Treat them equally.

One thing you have to accept about lax punishment is that if the punishment for poking an eye is nothing or next to, you're giving tacit permission for the victim to poke his attacker's eye in retaliation because getting his licks in, is worth more than whatever pittance he loses.

In other words, if what you take from an eye-poker is less valuable than an eye, the eye-poker-poker will just pay it, to get at his attacker's eye. When justice is less than equity, and leaves the attacker better off than the victim, the victim has no reason not to retaliate if he too is a brute and just wants to hurt the other.

Specifically, because I feel this is where the problem really manifests when we allow Christians (et al) to explain away the brutal precepts of their religious views is that it leaks or bleeds into the current era. We think of ourselves as millions of years away from that brutal past, but then Christians use the "spare the rod, spoil the child" as a reason to beat their children. Christians (et al) use the OT to defend all kinds of brutality towards women, LGBTQ+, people of other religions. The recent wars in the Middle East were defended with Christian imagery ("Crusade", guns with biblical verses were issued to soldiers, etc).

Christians already believe they have justification to do whatever they feel based on their religious beliefs. They don't need us to give them more of a reason to be horrible.

Most Christians accept and tolerate everyone modern society says they have to. And I have a positive opinion of spanking because I was emotionally abused. A punishment that is undesirable and painful but is quickly over, is far better. I don't need to give Christians any flak they aren't already taking, because other than a few weirdos like Southern Baptists and such, they're going in the right direction.

Muslims in or from Muslim countries... not so much. They really don't like homosexuality. When they put up their Infinite Shield of Religion To Do Whatever They Want, people respect it. And people even say, this is tolerance, to respect their way of life. If so I should respect Christians the same way.

[boatsnguitars]

or are you defending the ethical and moral principle that blood, death, sacrifice was and is always a real and important aspect of our reality - and that we all just need to accept it?

Not necessarily blood, but when one person wrongs another, a debt is owed. This is anti-Christian. The Christian just forgives everyone, though some say that doesn't mean forget.

The simple fact that is part of reality by nature and can't be ignored is that it costs effort and resources to avoid doing things that hurt others, and if the society does not exact a price for failing to respect others, the strategy of ignoring the rights and feelings of others is going to be the one to experience the greatest fitness, because the people spending their time and energy being considerate and trying not to hurt people, are, biologically speaking, simply wasting that energy and being stupid.

Yes, some people can be brutal. Most people who are were raised in brutal conditions. Wild animals fight for survival and are constantly afraid. Child who grow up in violent homes, war zones, or with toxic parents think that the world is one continuous fight for survival - like wild animals.

Yes, this was the case for much of human history, but we are clearly moving away from that being the norm. Wars and conflicts, worldwide, are on the decline. There are endless social markers that show we are trying to be more humane as a society: Me Too movement, Black Lives Matter, corporal punishment is generally banned or being outlawed, animal rights, etc...

The point being, we'd hardly expect this clear progression towards a more civil society to not even be a thought on the mind of the (alleged) Master of Morality (God).

So, I wouldn't give Christians an inch in how they defend brutality. It doesn't serve anyone for people to prolong the idea that "an eye for eye" is valid. I wouldn't want someone defending the Witch Burnings as "well, they were brutal and needed to be in those times."

Or, the extermination of Jews. If we keep apologizing for past brutalities, we open the door to do exactly what you've opened: the opportunity for someone to commit brutal acts and explain them away as, "Well, you guys are brutal, so we're going to be brutal." No, that's just people being brutal.

The witch burnings were an example of mass hysteria. Nothing about that was good for anyone. An eye for an eye at least achieves equity. If you're just going to forgive the brute who pokes the eye in the first place, why not also forgive the second brute who takes an eye in retaliation? Isn't that also kind and gentle and perfect and enlightened? What about the second brute is so much worse? What about the second brute deserves punishment and castigation when the first one does not? If they're equal, fine, I agree, they're equal. Treat them equally.

One thing you have to accept about lax punishment is that if the punishment for poking an eye is nothing or next to, you're giving tacit permission for the victim to poke his attacker's eye in retaliation because getting his licks in, is worth more than whatever pittance he loses.

In other words, if what you take from an eye-poker is less valuable than an eye, the eye-poker-poker will just pay it, to get at his attacker's eye. When justice is less than equity, and leaves the attacker better off than the victim, the victim has no reason not to retaliate if he too is a brute and just wants to hurt the other.

Specifically, because I feel this is where the problem really manifests when we allow Christians (et al) to explain away the brutal precepts of their religious views is that it leaks or bleeds into the current era. We think of ourselves as millions of years away from that brutal past, but then Christians use the "spare the rod, spoil the child" as a reason to beat their children. Christians (et al) use the OT to defend all kinds of brutality towards women, LGBTQ+, people of other religions. The recent wars in the Middle East were defended with Christian imagery ("Crusade", guns with biblical verses were issued to soldiers, etc).

Christians already believe they have justification to do whatever they feel based on their religious beliefs. They don't need us to give them more of a reason to be horrible.

Most Christians accept and tolerate everyone modern society says they have to. And I have a positive opinion of spanking because I was emotionally abused. A punishment that is undesirable and painful but is quickly over, is far better. I don't need to give Christians any flak they aren't already taking, because other than a few weirdos like Southern Baptists and such, they're going in the right direction.

Muslims in or from Muslim countries... not so much. They really don't like homosexuality. When they put up their Infinite Shield of Religion To Do Whatever They Want, people respect it. And people even say, this is tolerance, to respect their way of life. If so I should respect Christians the same way.

You sound like a Satanist:

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in another's home, show them respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your home annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm little children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

The Nine Satanic Statements
1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates.
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
7. Satan represents man as just another animal who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development", has become the most vicious animal of all.
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.

I'm sure you may agree with some of the others, but your idea of vengeance seems particularly in line with Satanism.

Having not been abused as a child, I don't feel the same anger and fear you might, so I empathize - that you had to experience that and form your view of the world based on it.

[Purple Knight]

I'm sure you may agree with some of the others, but your idea of vengeance seems particularly in line with Satanism.

I don't particularly want to take vengeance on anyone. What's weird to me is that Satanists now embody the eye-for-an-eye approach the Bible used to espouse.

And you have to acknowledge that any punishment for eye-poking short of equity just sets the stage for anyone who wants revenge, to take it. If the penalty for eye-poking is a quarter, and someone who's had his eye poked feels that justice has not been done, he is welcome in that system to poke his attacker's eye and simply pay the quarter.

[boatsnguitars]

[Purple Knight]

I'm just not sure it's an effective punishment.

If a man rapes my wife, must I rape his - even if she's ugly, diseased and I really don't feel like raping her? Or him? Would raping him make me feel better? I sincerely doubt it.

Wives aren't property. If he gave her AIDS, that's murder with a slow knife. Whether it's effective or not is less relevant than the fact that she is effectively dead now, and if she wants vengeance, what worse can you do to her for taking it? If the punishment for rape is zero, and she wants vengeance, she ought to rape him right back. If that leaves him pooping the bed for the rest of his life, he'd be a fool not to see that this is the result of choosing to hurt another person. But if he's that much of a fool, so be it.

If raping people isn't wrong, which is what you imply with a zero or close-to-zero punishment, then why would it be more wrong when done in retaliation?

If a man scratches my car - and he doesn't own a car, when is the equal? His bicycle? his bike, TV, cell phone?

I think we could explore all kinds of examples where "eye for an eye" fails.

It doesn't fail unless you're for absurdly specific laws that scratching a car is okay but scratching a bicycle is not. If people are brutes, but they'll be hurt if they hurt others, at least some are capable of understanding that way, that they shouldn't hurt others.

BTW, I pasted the old Satanic precepts. Here are the new ones:

It's difficult to disagree with any of that.

However, the last humanist tenet about altruism, I would argue does not mean what most people think it ought to. If it will alleviate suffering of the victim, I don't see why we shouldn't punish the bully. If you're for social justice, you would redistribute happiness and comfort and justice from he who has more, to he who has none or little, wouldn't you?

[boatsnguitars]

I'm just not sure it's an effective punishment.

If a man rapes my wife, must I rape his - even if she's ugly, diseased and I really don't feel like raping her? Or him? Would raping him make me feel better? I sincerely doubt it.

Wives aren't property. If he gave her AIDS, that's murder with a slow knife. Whether it's effective or not is less relevant than the fact that she is effectively dead now, and if she wants vengeance, what worse can you do to her for taking it? If the punishment for rape is zero, and she wants vengeance, she ought to rape him right back. If that leaves him pooping the bed for the rest of his life, he'd be a fool not to see that this is the result of choosing to hurt another person. But if he's that much of a fool, so be it.

If raping people isn't wrong, which is what you imply with a zero or close-to-zero punishment, then why would it be more wrong when done in retaliation?

If a man scratches my car - and he doesn't own a car, when is the equal? His bicycle? his bike, TV, cell phone?

I think we could explore all kinds of examples where "eye for an eye" fails.

It doesn't fail unless you're for absurdly specific laws that scratching a car is okay but scratching a bicycle is not. If people are brutes, but they'll be hurt if they hurt others, at least some are capable of understanding that way, that they shouldn't hurt others.

BTW, I pasted the old Satanic precepts. Here are the new ones:

It's difficult to disagree with any of that.

However, the last humanist tenet about altruism, I would argue does not mean what most people think it ought to. If it will alleviate suffering of the victim, I don't see why we shouldn't punish the bully. If you're for social justice, you would redistribute happiness and comfort and justice from he who has more, to he who has none or little, wouldn't you?

I believe the justice system we have - if run well - is fine. Imprisonment, not barbaric practices of removing body parts and raping men's mud chutes - he may enjoy it... Maybe he raped so he could get raped?

Either way, no, I don't think the State (we the people) should give sick people who enjoy removing body parts for fun and profit, a job at the Justice Department. We tried that at Abu Ghraib. We don't like Russia because of the Gulag. We don't like the Nazi's this very thing.

I believe in justice, but not barbaric justice. If we could give people a thwack on the ear and they were truly remorseful and changed their entire mindset to be good, productive people, I'd take it. Facts are, though, that thwacks on the ear don't work.