Christians break the Golden Rule when accepting Jesus as savior.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Greatest I am, Feb 21, 2017.

  1. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,723
    Policy is timeless.

    Substitutionary punishment has never been moral.

    Regards
    DL
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,723
    Only if the hang with other sadists. That is why they hang with masochists.

    Regardless, if a sadist asks a masochist to beat him, it would just confuse him or turn him off and nothing would be done to anyone.

    The insane or really strange likely do not follow intelligent rules.

    Regards
    DL
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,932
    Remains pap a ' one size fits all ' answer

    Because as I put forward in my view it reflects back to the questioner who provides their own answer

    Consent NOT required

    I think your correct in that not many people walk down the street punching others in the face

    Their internal values prevent such action

    Pychos held in check by laws

    However if a pycho is walking along punching others in the face and is picked up by a officer of the law

    It seems to me simply the psycho (ask the officer does he follow the golden rule

    If answer yes) <<<< this step can be missed

    Psycho ask officer

    Do you want to go to jail

    Officer NO

    Then under the golden rule let me go

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,623
    Of course it is. That's pretty much the point.
    Agreed. And supporting those values is the simple test - "would I want someone to do that to me?"
    Officer - Well, I could punch you in the face with this nightstick, since you are OK with that, but I will be nicer than that and just take you to jail.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,623
    Policy is. Action you desire to take on others is not.

    You are making a fool of yourself. Why not just admit you were wrong, and move on?
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,988
    No.

    Sadists do not enjoy having pain inflicted upon themselves. They enjoy inflicting pain on others. This actually says nothing about how they themselves would like to be treated.

    You are confusing sadism with masochism.
     
  10. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,847
    We have become insane .
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,470
    That's why it would be immoral to impose it on someone else, but sacrificing your own well being for another is the definition of altruism.
     
  12. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,932
    You are so right

    My two neurones let me down on this

    I listened to the wrong one

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,847
    Of which all Abramic religions have .
     
  14. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,723
    Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

    Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

    Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

    The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

    Better a fool than a coward without the stones to take responsibility for his own actions.

    Regards
    DL
     
  15. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,723
    Sacrifice? What sacrifice?

    Can a God die?

    Can theists ignore good common sense and morality?

    Read the quotes just above please.

    Regards
    DL
     
  16. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,470
    Even if misguided, if the human being Jesus willingly turned himself in to the authorities thinking his death would teach people a lesson about holding to your principles, that's a powerful act of altruism.
     
  17. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,932
    Better alive than dead if someone wants to make themselves a crispy in the electric chair in my place

    Echoes of

    And so say ALL us

    Us being a bunch on death row

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,723
    If the principle are worthy, you would have a point.

    If you are reading the more Eastern esoteric mystical Jesus, then I will agree.

    If you are talking the Rome created Roman ass kissing pacifist Jesus, then I would disagree. His morals and lessons are crap. Especially his no divorce for women policy as well as his asking his sheeple to find justice in substitutionaru atonement.

    Regards
    DL
     
  19. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,723
    That would really help the victims family gain closure as they see your murderous face walk by their house the next day.

    Only a fool will advocate for substitutionary atonement.

    That is why no court would accept it. It is immoral.

    Tell us how you would feel if it was your child's murderer moving in next door?
    Would you think justice was done with the death of some other innocent man?

    Regards
    DL
     
  20. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,932
    Moving goal post here

    I murdered someone trapped under a rock who was dying of cancer and would have had his injuries pain added to his cancer pain

    He had no family or friends for over 10 years he lived alone

    See how easy it is to create a scenario to fit any point of view

    Except having someone else let themself become a crispy instead of me is not technically speaking substitutionary atonement

    Which is the name given to a number of Christian models of the atonement that all regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, 'instead of' them

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement

    Don't see my case there

    My case is more ' taking my punishment '

    atone·ment
    \ə-ˈtōn-mənt\
    noun
    • 1 obsolete : reconciliation
    • 2 : the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ
    • 3 : reparation for an offense or injury: satisfaction
    • 4 Christian Science : the exemplifying of human oneness with God
    First use: 1513

    Mirriam-Webster

    Bulk answered

    Except

    it appears god initiated substitutionary atonement

    Funny that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,723
    Really?

    With what, these?

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

    Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

    Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

    As above, so below.

    Scriptures say that Christians are to emulate God.

    If you decided a blood sacrifice was required, would you send your only child, or would you have a better moral sense than God and step up yourself.

    Who should die first, you or your child?

    Most men would step up and thus show a better moral position than God.

    Regards
    DL
     
  22. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,932
    Whatever
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,988
    What? Sexual proclivities are not relegated to a specific religious group.
     

Share This Page