Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it amoral religion?

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speakof is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, ---instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen tosacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yetto create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- hehad yet to create.

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completelyneedless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most calljustice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, Godchose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usualpolicy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could haveshown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgiveus.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to acceptand embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the bestform of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocentparty.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if Godpunished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoralform of justice?

Regards
DL

[fkizz]

Change the angle and you can see the blood of innocents being deified - through Christ sacrifice the innocents or victims stop being trash to being heroic burden supporters. There is an improvement in the qualitative status of the victim, he is no longer defeated crap, he is a mystified form that will be chanted for millennia to come, bringing a new game changer to the balance of weak vs strong, and keep in mind the strong can become the weak and vice versa very easily, considering the situation.

As for God moral nature, God is considered as beyond human or beyond our comprehension as a mere "evolved ape with overclocked brain", and there is some mix of natural law and divine right. But that raises an interest point, is God subject to his own morality or simply plays the role of a divinized Hobbesian leviathan?

Plus consider that the idea of justice and morality itself often written and defined by the winners of a military conflict. By having a divine standpoint, it is easier to bring natural law to judgement of the deed, which was already done in some military trials where people acclaimed to have been just following orders.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if Godpunished you instead of the guilty?

Of course not, but the idea of guilty and non guilty or evil or non evil can be subjective and relative to the eyes of beholder, to grasp at an objective morality requires years of effort, experience and study.

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoralform of justice?

You're on a totally different level.. Well Jesus did say "Father why has thou forsaken me" before dying on the cross, but he had the option of avoiding it, similiar to how Socrates had the option to avoid death penalty.. So I don't really know..

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Change the angle and you can see the blood of innocents being deified - through Christ sacrifice the innocents or victims stop being trash to being heroic burden supporters. There is an improvement in the qualitative status of the victim, he is no longer defeated crap, he is a mystified form that will be chanted for millennia to come, bringing a new game changer to the balance of weak vs strong, and keep in mind the strong can become the weak and vice versa very easily, considering the situation.

As for God moral nature, God is considered as beyond human or beyond our comprehension as a mere "evolved ape with overclocked brain", and there is some mix of natural law and divine right. But that raises an interest point, is God subject to his own morality or simply plays the role of a divinized Hobbesian leviathan?

Plus consider that the idea of justice and morality itself often written and defined by the winners of a military conflict. By having a divine standpoint, it is easier to bring natural law to judgement of the deed, which was already done in some military trials where people acclaimed to have been just following orders.



Of course not, but the idea of guilty and non guilty or evil or non evil can be subjective and relative to the eyes of beholder, to grasp at an objective morality requires years of effort, experience and study.


You're on a totally different level.. Well Jesus did say "Father why has thou forsaken me" before dying on the cross, but he had the option of avoiding it, similiar to how Socrates had the option to avoid death penalty.. So I don't really know..

Are you saying you do not know if substitutionary atonement is moral or not?

Regards
DL

[AqD]

Are you saying you do not know if substitutionary atonement is moral or not?

Obviously their God does not follow their morals. He must be a hypocrite!

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Obviously their God does not follow their morals. He must be a hypocrite!

Only if, --- do as I say and not as I do, --- is as offensive to you as it is to me.

Seems that it is. Keep up the good work.

Regards
DL

[G-Megas-Doux]

What you want to ask is by the standards of whom, would Christianity be a moral religion and why would they hold their opinion?

The ultimate preaching of Christianity is that acceptance of your suffering and insistence that others do the same whilst believing Christ will save them, redeems your eternal soul which will find salvation after death in heaven.

Whether it is moral or not, the first thing I would say is that it is insistent and controlling.

[MaximiIian]

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speakof is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, ---instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

You have to look at the context and the time. Animal sacrifices were a central pillar of virtually all religions in the Mediterranean world, even Judaism. Just as common were rituals where a member of the community was expelled as a propitiatory gesture, with the member being a scapegoat--a term that in fact refers to the same sorts of rituals, just with livestock in place of humans. The sacrifice of Jesus, though I do not believe in it or any other aspect of Christianity, is completely fitting to the religious structure of the ancient world. It's not immoral or unjust, and it is enormous presumptuous of yourself and modern ethical standards to suggest so.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

What you want to ask is by the standards of whom, would Christianity be a moral religion and why would they hold their opinion?

The ultimate preaching of Christianity is that acceptance of your suffering and insistence that others do the same whilst believing Christ will save them, redeems your eternal soul which will find salvation after death in heaven.

Whether it is moral or not, the first thing I would say is that it is insistent and controlling.

I agree. That is why Christianity changed the story of Eden from the Jewish view of our elevation to the Christian view of the fall.

That was for control as well as the money. People will pay to be elevated but will pay less if they are already up.

I am a religionist but hate lying churches and religions. I am between ------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pYBQg4qifU

Regards
DL

You have to look at the context and the time. Animal sacrifices were a central pillar of virtually all religions in the Mediterranean world, even Judaism. Just as common were rituals where a member of the community was expelled as a propitiatory gesture, with the member being a scapegoat--a term that in fact refers to the same sorts of rituals, just with livestock in place of humans. The sacrifice of Jesus, though I do not believe in it or any other aspect of Christianity, is completely fitting to the religious structure of the ancient world. It's not immoral or unjust, and it is enormous presumptuous of yourself and modern ethical standards to suggest so.

You have a point that to the ancients, human sacrifice might be quite moral.

That does not explain why so called civilized modern Christian people today still favor a genocidal son murdering God instead of seeking a modern God with decent morals.

Regards
DL

[G-Megas-Doux]

But they believe that God to be real and the only true god, seeking anything else would be anathema to them. Their only choice is to interpret differently or accept what they are told. Failing that is to not believe at all that religion which leaves the person at the point of not believing any religion or seeking another religion. There is no more compelling explanation as to why people seek something then there is as to why others believe something on faith. My view as an atheist is that any religious belief is a comfort mechanism for fear of death or seeking forgiveness for behaviour they deem abhorrent, or further to not take responsibility for decisions by passing the decision on to their god or priest. But that is just my view on it.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

But they believe that God to be real and the only true god, seeking anything else would be anathema to them. Their only choice is to interpret differently or accept what they are told. Failing that is to not believe at all that religion which leaves the person at the point of not believing any religion or seeking another religion. There is no more compelling explanation as to why people seek something then there is as to why others believe something on faith. My view as an atheist is that any religious belief is a comfort mechanism for fear of death or seeking forgiveness for behaviour they deem abhorrent, or further to not take responsibility for decisions by passing the decision on to their god or priest. But that is just my view on it.

And partly correct but un-enlightened as you forget all the sociological factors, primarily our tribal natures, that are keeping people in their religions. It has little to nothing to do with belief.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU

As an aside. Have you noticed that atheists are starting up their own churches to have a place for their children to gain the fellowship dose they need? They do so to feed their tribal or groupish instincts.

Regards
DL

[DaVinci]

Maximilian above is right with his comment.

And partly correct but un-enlightened as you forget all the sociological factors, primarily our tribal natures, that are keeping people in their religions. It has little to nothing to do with belief.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU

As an aside. Have you noticed that atheists are starting up their own churches to have a place for their children to gain the fellowship dose they need? They do so to feed their tribal or groupish instincts.

Regards
DL

No, it's practically normal social behaviour ... while i don't know anything about so-called atheist churches, ie. i never met one who calls himself atheist and is somehow organised in my whole life (as in principle, atheism should imo. refuse church-institution), those few people who do it (now) just make a kind of association/club, like others make a coffee and cookie club whatsoever, i guess at least, and if they, those atheist church people are different, then they are the few ones who are kind of fundamentalist or whatever colour, from which we have (and had) always some in human societies ie. to make themselves feel special or something like that (different from the normal crowd), or that even a founder of such a club discovered a way to make himself important (ie. giving his life sense in his opinion) and gathered disciples for his undertaking, plus to make perhaps money from that idea of a union of whatever type (which would be here then a typical sect item). You might call that "tribal culture", but normally we are above that kind of culture, and "groupish instincts" might be an interpretation from human biology, in which sticks of course some truth, but it's the simple fact that humans are social creatures like many other creatures as well, and usally that's a property which ensured survival in the evolutional process (thus for us humans, normal property), not more not less, discrediting it is idiotic. As humans but are special intelligent creatures, there are also some of us which prefer merely some lonelyness whatsoever to make whatever (ie. creative things like art), which wouldn't perhaps be possible if living more in social meetings. And "tribal natures" holding the line to a certain religion is not valid nowadays in our plural societies, except perhaps, well yes, for provincial regions and where a religion is merely a culture like that ie. muslims are a cultural group of people, but all that has primarily to do with the culture in itself, the societal structures (education, options, information, liberty, family-structures, etc.).

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Maximilian above is right with his comment.



No, it's practically normal social behaviour ... while i don't know anything about so-called atheist churches, ie. i never met one who calls himself atheist and is somehow organised in my whole life (as in principle, atheism should imo. refuse church-institution), those few people who do it (now) just make a kind of association/club, like others make a coffee and cookie club whatsoever, i guess at least, and if they, those atheist church people are different, then they are the few ones who are kind of fundamentalist or whatever colour, from which we have (and had) always some in human societies ie. to make themselves feel special or something like that (different from the normal crowd), or that even a founder of such a club discovered a way to make himself important (ie. giving his life sense in his opinion) and gathered disciples for his undertaking, plus to make perhaps money from that idea of a union of whatever type (which would be here then a typical sect item). You might call that "tribal culture", but normally we are above that kind of culture, and "groupish instincts" might be an interpretation from human biology, in which sticks of course some truth, but it's the simple fact that humans are social creatures like many other creatures as well, and usally that's a property which ensured survival in the evolutional process (thus for us humans, normal property), not more not less, discrediting it is idiotic. As humans but are special intelligent creatures, there are also some of us which prefer merely some lonelyness whatsoever to make whatever (ie. creative things like art), which wouldn't perhaps be possible if living more in social meetings. And "tribal natures" holding the line to a certain religion is not valid nowadays in our plural societies, except perhaps, well yes, for provincial regions and where a religion is merely a culture like that ie. muslims are a cultural group of people, but all that has primarily to do with the culture in itself, the societal structures (education, options, information, liberty, family-structures, etc.).

You are a tough read and I was not sure which of the many avenues you opened I wanted to touch on. I chose to show why atheists are opening churches and feeding their hivish natures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MYsx6WArKY

[ShockBlast]

You are a tough read and I was not sure which of the many avenues you opened I wanted to touch on. I chose to show why atheists are opening churches and feeding their hivish natures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MYsx6WArKY

There is no such thing as Atheist churches.Atheism, by it`s very nature, is not organised.Do non tennis players form clubs?

If some Atheists try to organise churches it`s more then likely they tried to abuse the system who grants tax exemptions to organised religion.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

There is no such thing as Atheist churches.Atheism, by it`s very nature, is not organised.Do non tennis players form clubs?

I sniped the garbage.

I am not an atheist but I recognize the needs of our instincts.

http://www.churchoffreethought.org/

Regards
DL

[G-Megas-Doux]

I am an atheist, I resent the idea that someone is trying to organise a belief structure and institution round a non belief in any divinity. To me there is no socialising beyond the I don't believe as such the only people I even discuss religion with happen to be nominal theists and others debating with the said theists. There is no need for atheists to meet up as there is no God to appeal to authority. All they would do would be to agree there is no god and then organise a secular activity. Quite frankly it is not a church it is a neighbourhood social gathering under a dubious name. Personally I don't want someone to come and create an organisation and impose their own views on the word Atheist as it then implies that everyone who was already an atheist holds all the specific views of the organisation beyond no god, I find it defamatory to me as a non believer, in the same way that a Christian would find a nominal Christian cult that is extreme defamatory on their beliefs as a Christian.

[Sphere]

Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it amoral religion?

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done so that you might escape responsibility for having done them isn't amoral. It is immoral.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I am an atheist, I resent the idea that someone is trying to organise a belief structure and institution round a non belief in any divinity. To me there is no socialising beyond the I don't believe as such the only people I even discuss religion with happen to be nominal theists and others debating with the said theists. There is no need for atheists to meet up as there is no God to appeal to authority. All they would do would be to agree there is no god and then organise a secular activity. Quite frankly it is not a church it is a neighbourhood social gathering under a dubious name. Personally I don't want someone to come and create an organisation and impose their own views on the word Atheist as it then implies that everyone who was already an atheist holds all the specific views of the organisation beyond no god, I find it defamatory to me as a non believer, in the same way that a Christian would find a nominal Christian cult that is extreme defamatory on their beliefs as a Christian.

Do you recognize that we have a groupish, hivish or tribal nature?
Are you part of a tribe or can you live alone by your own wits?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done so that you might escape responsibility for having done them isn't amoral. It is immoral.

Clear and concise and I agree.

Regards
DL

[MaximiIian]

You have a point that to the ancients, human sacrifice might be quite moral.
That does not explain why so called civilized modern Christian people today still favor a genocidal son murdering God instead of seeking a modern God with decent morals.

I wouldn't use such loaded language to imply that our modern morality is better (or worse) than that of the ancients. It's just different, based on different standards, themselves predicated on a different social and economic situation.
As for your question: I'm not so sure that most Christians do believe in their deity as described in the Bible. Most I come across seem more like Deists with a Jesus-loving veneer. Their change in standards of behaviour is reflected in the way they interpret their deity. None of which particularly bothers me. I'm polytheistic; what monotheists believe and do is, while fascinating from an academic standpoint, really none of my concern.

My view as an atheist is that any religious belief is a comfort mechanism for fear of death or seeking forgiveness for behaviour they deem abhorrent, or further to not take responsibility for decisions by passing the decision on to their god or priest. But that is just my view on it.

That view is predicated on Christianity being the baseline for all religions. I assure, comparing them all side-by-side, on even footing, that is not the case.

[Taiji]

I sniped the garbage.

I am not an atheist but I recognize the needs of our instincts.

http://www.churchoffreethought.org/

Regards
DL

Do you recognize that we have a groupish, hivish or tribal nature?
Are you part of a tribe or can you live alone by your own wits?

Regards
DL

You shouldn't use the word 'recognise' if you're being honest about your unverified inferences and their implications - 'Agree' would be more apt.

And by the way, by not taking the 'atheist church' joke, as performed by those comedians, as a joke, you're making it funnier at your own expense.