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?"

[Zzyzx]

.
Hammer,

Thank you for a reasoned response. Do not be overly concerned about the learning curve -- we all went through the process of learning the Forum processes, practices and procedures.

Many, many Christians are ill equipped to defend their positions once outside the confines of their church and that is unfortunate. Perhaps over time you will consider that I am not one of them.

I look forward to participating in this and future debates.

I (we) look forward to that. The Forum needs capable theistic debaters.

I will reply to your counterpoints - the debatable ones - when I have a keyboard. I will, however, make one point.

I will try not to take unfair advantage since I have a keyboard – a nice ergonomic / bent / split one that accommodates my large hands (have difficulty with a standard keyboard, can't type on a laptop, and couldn't imagine using a phone to post).

Likewise to look at something as complex as the universe and to say it just appeared would be illogical yet this is ultimately the position the atheist MUST take.

A few points here:

1) Some of your opponents here are not Atheists (me included) but are Non-Theists and/or Non-Christians,

2) Since Atheism denotes ONLY "without belief in gods" there is no requirement that Atheists MUST take any (or any particular) position regarding the formation of the universe.

My personal position regarding formation of the universe or origin of life is "I do not know and neither does anyone else – beyond their speculation, opinion, conjecture." That includes scientific guesses as well as theistic guesses.

3) The argument "The universe cannot have come from nothing so it must have come from my favorite god" is rather common – and full of holes. Those who attempt to argue that position claim knowledge of conditions required in formation of the universe (or this iteration of universes, or whatever) AND claim knowledge of a supernatural entity that is purported to have been involved. Neither has been shown to be true.

4) Saying "If you don't accept my god hypothesis you must offer a better alternative hypothesis" gets my reply, "Oh no I don't, any more than I must provide an alternative to the fairies hypothesis. The burden of proof is upon those making a claim."

You can tell me all about the big bang

I, for one, will not tell you about any bangs (large or small) – and will not pretend to know such things. Therefore, I (we) have no need to defend the proposition (and any attempt to saddle us with that responsibility is a straw man argument).

[HammerofGrace]

[Replying to post 88 by Divine Insight]

Hello Divine. Let me see if I can figure out this quote thing as I respond...

So in other words, you are claiming that Christianity has absolutely nothing at all to do with morality.

Morality is relative to the individual human concept of it and therefore not necessarily the same as God's "morality", either way it is not linked directly to salvation. Having said that it would be difficult to convince me that anyone who is clearly continuing to live outside of what we would all agree is 'good morals' is truly "born again" in Christ and you should be wary of them.

Anyone who simply believes that Jesus was the demigod son of Yahweh receives a FREE gift of salvation

I explained this in my previous post, clearly this is not what I said. Also it is your allegation that Jesus was the demigod son of Yahweh, I did not say that so you have not made a counterpoint at all.

Moreover, if this story were true I would flat out refuse this so-called FREE gift. I would not wish to live for eternity under the rule of such an insane egoistical and selfish God.

You seem to be referring to your own concept of the entire biblical story of Jesus Christ? If so, we have very different concepts of it and I say your concept is completely without basis. If you're trying to make a counterpoint to something I've said you've either lost me or failed to do so.

No. If you place your faith in the Hebrew mythology then you are not placing your faith in a loving God. On the contrary you are placing your faith in an extremely egotistical fascist God who is willing to give GRACE to anyone who asks for it no matter whether they have any sense of morality or not. Rolling Eyes

By "Hebrew mythology" I can only assume you are referring to Judaism of which I did not claim to be an adherent. No point. You say God is extremely egotistical and fascist and that is an opinion that you are entitled to but not a legitimate counterpoint to anything I said. God is willing to extend his grace to anyone who believes Jesus Christ has died for their sins, yes, but again the sense of morality you reference is covered in my statement above.

Moreover, this so-called "loving God" that you claim to believe in necessarily hates everyone who doesn't believe in Hebrew mythology no matter how good of a person they might be.

God does not hate anyone it is his intention that all come to know him, he shows everyone his love in one way by giving you the free will to choose to reject him. I've heard this question often asked: "If God were all powerful, couldn't he make everyone love him and feel his love?" I would say "yes" that would certainly seem possible but it would not truly be love if you didn't make the choice to love yourself, would it? Free will is our greatest gift and the granting of it is the truest form of love ever displayed.

Mother Teresa is rotting in hell this very moment. Wink

Because she was convinced that Jesus was a lie.

And why was she convinced that Jesus was a lie? Well, because Jesus broke every promise he ever made. Thus proving that he was either a liar or a lie.

Mother Teresa actually gave Jesus the benefit of the doubt, bless her heart. She preferred to believe that he was indeed a lie rather than a liar.

Imagine that. That should be the headlines in the "Heavenly Daily Paper".

Hear ye! Hear ye! Read all about it! "Mother Teresa forgives Jesus for lying by assuming that he never existed at all. But Jesus condemns Mother Teresa to hell for eternity for not believing his lies." Rolling Eyes

That really does deserve to be Front Page News. Wink

I'm not exactly sure where to go with this but I'll try. First of all, Mother Teresa may be revered in the Catholic Church, may even be a saint but the Catholic Church does NOT represent all of Christianity and many of their practices are clearly outside of biblical teachings - this would be a whole separate debate indeed. Having said that I will not even venture a guess as to where she currently is as it is not mine to say and it is clearly a jab at your concept of Christianity rather than a counterpoint to anything I said. As for the rest it doesn't merit a response.

This was more fun than I thought it would be! I've got to run will post again later gentlemen and ladies (I assume there are ladies in here as well?).

[higgy1911]

It is not a gift of free will to allow us to reject him and then impose Hell as a consequence of that "free will".

If He says we are free to love him but if we don't then we go to hell , that's not a gift of free will that's a protection racket, typical of the sort practiced by ruffians throughout human history.

[barneythedino]

[Replying to post 92 by higgy1911]

Hmm. I am not sure that the "Insurance" analogy really stands up.

If I wanted to join a scheme, I wouldn't choose one that had not paid up once in 2000 years

[Divine Insight]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum God is willing to extend his grace to anyone who believes Jesus Christ has died for their sins, yes, but again the sense of morality you reference is covered in my statement above.[/quote]

And where do you get that idea?

Also are you saying that Christ is dead? I thought he was risen and ascended to heaven to sit at the right-hand of God?

If he's still alive and enjoying eternal life no less, then he clearly did not die to pay for anyone's sins.

Being spiritually resurrected and taken up into heaven is every Christian's dream. That's the reward of saints, not the wages of sin.

Moreover the Gospels claim that along with the resurrection of Jesus saint were also raised from their graves as well. We can only assume that they too must have eventually ascended to heaven since they don't seem to be still hanging around. In fact, there's no historical indication that anyone saw these saints even though the Gospel rumors claim that these saints went into the Holy City and showed themselves to the people there.

I see no reason to believe that this is anything more than a truly poorly thought-out superstitious mythology that shoots itself in its own foot repeatedly.

And finally what kind of an immoral sadistic God would ask people to accept having his son brutally beaten and crucified for their sake. I would flatly reject that offer. I would have no choice but to reject that offer. That is a highly immoral thing to ask me to do.

Why do you support such an immoral religious God myth?

If this myth were true I would have no choice but to choose to be condemned by this hellish immoral demon that you call "God".

To accept his unreasonable demands would require that I stoop to his level of immorality. That would be like helping Hitler exterminate Jews just to avoid his wrath.

So no, your immoral demon cannot threaten me into becoming an immoral person.

So yes, I reject your immoral God.

[1213]

So I disagree with you. Jesus was flat out rejecting the Old Testament directives that we are to put away the evil that is among us...

...Jesus clearly rejected the Old Testament in spirit. It would be impossible to obey both Jesus and the Old Testament laws simultaneously...

...Jesus clearly changed the laws dramatically...

...So you see any Christians still stoning their unruly children to death?

Jesus didn’t change the Law. Everything that was earlier wrong is still wrong. Jesus came to forgive, if people have not done everything perfectly. If something has been changed, it is the judgment, not the Law.

Actually Jesus even made the Law tighter, because he said that person is already guilty, if he does wrongly in his mind.

"You have heard that it was said, [TR adds "to the ancients,"] 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Matt. 5:27-28

The thing that Jesus did was not that he abolished the Law. He confirmed it and proclaimed that sins are forgiven.

I think it is also good to notice that OT doesn’t give judges rights for all. In ancient times God put judges for Jews and gave those orders how to judge. People who don’t know those rules, shouldn’t judge at all, because guilty must have proper trial and not some random lynching that most of those who manage read few passages from the OT would do.

And Jesus even confirms for his disciples that we shouldn’t judge, in case of if we are not able to understand the OT, even if there would be reason for that.

"Don't judge, so that you won't be judged. For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you."
Mat. 7:1-2

If we take the right to judge, then we will be judged in same way as we judge.

If God feeds the birds and you are much more value than they, then surely God will feed you too.

Why would he bother to even ask that question within the context of this proclamation if he didn't intended a direct correspondence?

The point is, we shouldn’t worry about things. The point in my opinion is not that we shouldn’t do things, but after we have done what is necessary, then we can trust that God takes care of things that are not in our hands

[Zzyzx]

.

The point is, we shouldn’t worry about things. The point in my opinion is not that we shouldn’t do things, but after we have done what is necessary, then we can trust that God takes care of things that are not in our hands

How can "God takes care of things" be distinguished from happenstance or chance?

If a positive or desired outcome occurs, is that God's work? If a negative or undesirable outcome occurs, is that God's work also?

How can anyone know which "god", if any, is involved? Do they just "feel" it is their favorite one? Do they often blame "Satan" if things go wrong?

[Divine Insight]

Jesus didn’t change the Law. Everything that was earlier wrong is still wrong. Jesus came to forgive, if people have not done everything perfectly. If something has been changed, it is the judgment, not the Law.

I disagree. I've already posted the proof that he did.

The Old Testament Law is that we are to "Put the evil away from among us". And in the OT this is done by putting people to death by stoning.

Jesus rebuked this directly and instead taught "Turn the other cheek". That's exactly the opposite of putting the evil away from among us. That's allowing the evil to live among us. Precisely the opposite of what the Old Testament commanded must be done. And the OT even made it clear that "Thine eye shall not pity". Jesus rebuked that precisely by teaching to forgive instead of carrying out the LAW.

Jesus was as anti-Old Testament as anyone could possibly be.

He was a heathen blasphemer against the Old Testament. And ironically then according to the Old Testament the Jewish Priest were only following God's law to h ave Jesus put to death.

The God of the Old Testament could do nothing but praise the Jewish Priests for obeying his directives and putting the Heathen Jesus to death.

Jesus was the anti-thesis of the God of the Old Testament. He was a heathen blasphemer. The Jewish priests had no choice but to put the evil Jesus away from among their midst just as the God of the Old Testament had commanded must be done with no pity.

We should be worshiping the Jewish Priests instead of that evil heathen Jesus.

[1213]

How can "God takes care of things" be distinguished from happenstance or chance?

Maybe there is no way to distinguish them. For example I can pray that God takes care of me and helps me to give you good answer. And now that I think I got it, how could you know it is from God? I think it is matter of belief. Personally I believe that God takes care of me in these debates, because I am probably not as intelligent as atheists are. And yet I think I always manage to get answer that beats the question.

If a positive or desired outcome occurs, is that God's work? If a negative or undesirable outcome occurs, is that God's work also?

If I don’t get positive outcome, I think it is because I have not received it for some reason.

I think God don’t do anything evil. He may allow evil to happen, but I think the evil is not from him. And evil really is in my opinion like darkness, lack of light or emptiness, nothing. When good is not in place, evil remains, because it is the emptiness that is left, when good (God) is missing.

How can anyone know which "god", if any, is involved? Do they just "feel" it is their favorite one? Do they often blame "Satan" if things go wrong?

Maybe it is matter of belief as everything seems to be.

[1213]

The Old Testament Law is that we are to "Put the evil away from among us". And in the OT this is done by putting people to death by stoning.

I think there is no reason to think that judgment is the law. Law is the thing that says what is wrong and what is right. Judge is the one who decides the judgment in fair trial.