patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
737,195 comments in 75,830 posts by 10,912 registered users, 1 online now: iwog

new post

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

By Greatest I am   2012 Nov 4, 4:15am   703 views   3 comments   watch (1)   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   995/997 = 99% civil   2012 Nov 5, 1:02am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

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    

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    

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 »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home