patrick.net

  new post
register or log in

Patrick's 40 proposals »

10,753 registered users, 4 online now: alpo, FP, lostand confused, Macropodia

For God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral.

By Greatest I am   2012 Nov 4, 4:15am   ↑ like   ↓ dislike   685 views   3 comments   watch (1)   share   quote  

For God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral.

In doing so, God would be endorsing human sacrifice and the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is good justice. He would also be condoning suicide.

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.

Psalm 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

Substitutionary atonement is immoral according to scriptures and all other holy books that I know of. I think that the guilty should be punished and not an innocent human or even a man being ridden like a mule, ---- to use common jargon, --- by a God/Jesus. This is likely the moral reason why most Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah along with the fact that Jesus did not fulfill the other Jewish requirements set by their books and myths.

People are supposed to martyr themselves for their God, not their God martyr himself for them.

Do you agree that for God to condemn you just to die for you is ridiculous and immoral?

&feature=related

If you believe that substitutionary atonement is moral, please provide an argument to support your position.

===============================================

There are also ample quotes in scripture that speak against God wanting any sacrifice at all and if you embrace the notion of innocent blood atonement and God setting Jesus as the ransom for sins, then please view these for the real biblical perspective.

&feature=related

Regards
DL

Comments 1-3 of 3     Last »

1   Tenpoundbass (151/151 = 100% civil)   2012 Nov 5, 1:02am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

So you didn't like the book, Why can't you folks just leave it at that?

I think Luther would have been an Atheist had that didn't mean certain death back then. But make no mistake, his protest, would have still created a religion.

2   Greatest I am   2012 Nov 5, 1:50am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I rather like that book as it helped me push my apotheosis. As a book of wisdom and initiator of discussions of God it is likely one of the best. To read it literally though means that the reader will end with morals that embrace human sacrifice and the notion that it is good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty and that is a Satanic type of thinking.

Regards
DL

3   Greatest I am   2012 Nov 5, 1:55am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

CaptainShuddup says

I think Luther would have been an Atheist had that didn't mean certain death back then. But make no mistake, his protest, would have still created a religion.

I read Luther as more of a Gnostic Christian. He ended up recognizing that all men had access to the Godhead without the need of the Church hierarchy.

That is pure Gnostic thinking.

Regards
DL

Comments 1-3 of 3     Last »

Watch comments by email

home   top   users   about   contact  
#investing   #housing   #politics   #humor  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy   8 groups who lie about the housing market   37 bogus arguments about housing  
thunderdome   sexy pix   site suggestions  
best comments   ad hominem comment jail   patrick.net on twitter   random post  
please recommend patrick.net to realtors