Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

I know I have done well in an O. P. when Christians run from a discussion.

I wrote these two posts and got almost no response. Not a usual thing for my posts. This tells me that I hit the nail right on the head and Christians have no apologetics to refute my claim.

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

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

God does not follow the first rule at all.

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

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

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott1...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_f...eature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

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:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

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

This lack of opposition to the premise given tells me that Christians may actually be more moral than what I give them credit for. They do not walk their talk in these cases and that is a plus.

Seems Christians actually recognize good morals even if they do not preach them.
I thank Christians for confirming my view that they are just following tradition, dogma and culture while not really following their God. Thank God for that. Any sane man would reject the bible God.

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So this is an outright spamming of this topic you stared:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=114035

Most likely people, theist and atheist alike, don't have the patience to sit through a 20 min video with only the highly dubious goal of engaging you. Why don't you try linking a transcript or at least provide the time marks in the video that correspond to your points?

Too much work? Exactly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A reply is possible without even viewing any of the links I put up.

It is the morality that believers run from, not the time.

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Surely you are aware that an argument some Christians use is as follows:
"If people claim that what we say is false or reject it, this is proof that we are right."

A person who is speechless due to awe or lack of insight for reply, as well as a person who ignores you, may both be silent - but they are so for entirely different reasons.

So you keep telling yourself.

 

Every time you start a thread here GIA, I always wonder who you think you're talking to. I mean, there really don't seem to be that many Christians around here at all. Certainly very few who are fundamentalists, anyway.

 

Without the links, both of these posts are incomplete ideas. Without watching the linked video, what "universal morality", what "first rule"? You cannot seriously claim viewing is not necessary when you do not bother to explain things only defined within the video.

So why not post complete ideas, without any external link, before assuming a premature victory based solely on a lack of response. Or should all of the cranks who go ignored also be claiming victory?

 

I go by experience.

Regards
DL

 

Look again for the first time.
All who believe are literalists. They have to be.

Regards
DL

 

I could write it all down but it is easier and more timely to view the author's presentation than just his words.

Regards
DL

 

I don't get what you're saying. The fact is that most of the theists around here aren't Christian fundamentalists, therefore your constant attacks on Christian fundamentalist theology are whizzing on past most people and thus not doing any damage.

It just seems to be kinda like walking into a Belgian beer cafe and trying to convince everyone there to stop drinking south African wine.

 

That completely belies what you just said:

You cannot have it both ways, so either define everything you reference within your posts or accept that many people do not have the time to watch a 20 min video just to find out what point you are trying to make.

Right now you are basically claiming a premature and unwarranted victory based solely on you being too lazy to make you own points in full.

That is the same sort of false dilemma fundamental theists use. Just like a typical theist, you are insisting that anyone whose beliefs are counter to your own must be in direct and complete opposition, without any possibility for moderation.

But, as above, I assume you are also too lazy to simply look up Biblical literalism, even though you expect others to sit through a 20 min video.

 

Or to perhaps better make my point of people not being willing to watch your linked video, you should watch the first two minutes alone.

Within which he clearly spells out for you that conservatives (those not as likely to be open to new, novel experiences and the theists you claim an unwarranted victory over) are less likely to be interested in that sort of video in the first place.

Go figure. The answer to your lack of response was there in your video all along. If you had watched it as many times as you've posted a link to it then perhaps we could have done without this pointless thread.

 

How can one believe in Jesus without reading literally?

Impossible.

If I am wrong, show how I could be.

Regards
DL

 

Any that believe in Jesus must to some extent read scriptures literally and they are fundamental in their beliefs.

Regards
DL

 

Anyone who takes a liberal view concerning the factual accuracy of the Bible is generally outside your line of fine, or can easily position themselves as such. About the only two people I can think of around here who are proper targets for you to shoot at are Adstar and Mind Over Matter.

 

Just because a hypothetical god doesn't follow the same rules that he wants his followers to follow, doesn't mean that such a god couldn't possibly exist. It's that simple.

None of this presents any real problem to Christian theology. Honestly, it's kinda ridiculous that you don't understand why being that you've made it your mission to try to dismantle it. Jesus is a manifestation of God, so ultimately, it was God Himself who suffered.


Personally, I'm quite certain that the Bible is merely a bunch of well editorialized bullshit (in terms of it's metaphysical truth value anyway), but I don't find your arguments against it all that compelling.

 

:shrug:

We agree on the bible.

Regards
DL

 

Really? You did not read the link I posted?


A person can believe that a man named Jesus existed and taught, even if they attribute the more colorful parts of his myth to exaggeration. Biblical literalism/fundamentalism is the specific tendency to take everything but the most blatantly obvious literary devices as literal. Thus your false dilemma that all Christians are literalists/fundamentalists.

 

So they must read literally some of what is written to believe he lived.

Thanks for confirming my view.

Regards
DL

 

If that was the view that you were attempting to express then either Rav was right and you're posting in the wrong place to find the majority of that audience, or you have conflated literalism with the Biblical inerrancy of fundamentalism. Selective literalism (liberal interpretation) is not fundamentalism.


Notice that the only reply you've received in this thread that is directly on-topic you have completely ignored:

This leads me to believe that most of your (GIA) threads are nothing more than propaganda pieces.