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

[Old Spice]

I think a bhuddist answer would be that such a being would be all things, thus the boulder can is both /neither lifted nor non lifted. Transcending that inherent contradiction by triggering a state of non thought is pretty much the goal of every zen koen eva

Are you a Buddhist?

I imagine a Buddhist wouldn't care about the question because they don't care about proving omnipotence. They'd also be squashed under a massive boulder.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Are you a Buddhist?

I imagine a Buddhist wouldn't care about the question because they don't care about proving omnipotence. They'd also be squashed under a massive boulder.

Nope and only some bhuddists wouldn't care, hence the mention of zen koens. Not all schools subscribe to the idea of spontaeneous non thought, some are very studious. The results in both cases are likely the same.

 

[Old Spice]

It is derived from the consequence of choice. If you believe in a deity, and you believe in free will, then humans both individually and collectively need to be able to make certain decisions that will lead to suffering.

Why give a choice of suffering if you are omnipotent and can deliver endless joy? Think about it this way. If you had kids as I do and could send them through door A which you knew would deliver everlasting happiness (heaven) or could send them through door B (pot luck - poverty, war, violence etc) all with a view to returning them to door A, which would you choose?

 

[Play by Numbers]

Why give a choice of suffering if you are omnipotent and can deliver endless joy? Think about it this way. If you had kids as I do and could send them through door A which you knew would deliver everlasting happiness (heaven) or could send them through door B (pot luck - poverty, war, violence etc) which would you choose?

The theological explanation might be that without the possibility of suffering, you cannot have choice, without choice there is no differentiation.

 

[Old Spice]

The theological explanation might be that without the possibility of suffering, you cannot have choice, without choice there is no differentiation.

Why do you need choice, or differentiation? Isn't it better that God just creates heaven and everyone is invited to enjoy it?

 

[Play by Numbers]

Why do you need choice? Isn't it better that God just creates heaven and everyone is invited to enjoy it?

Choice represents a fundamental duality, without choice or the perception of choice, there can be no differentiation between god and his creations. At least thats my understanding of that particular theological problem.

 

[Old Spice]

I think a bhuddist answer would be that such a being would be all things, thus the boulder can is both /neither lifted nor non lifted. Transcending that inherent contradiction by triggering a state of non thought is pretty much the goal of every zen koen eva

You almost got away with it. What's the Christian answer? Is God powerful enough to create a boulder he can't lift?

 

[Play by Numbers]

You almost got away with it. What's the Christian answer? Is God powerful enough to create a boulder he can't lift?

I didn't try to get away with anything.

I'm also not sure what you are trying to prove, there are numerous theological and philosophical, even mathematical contradictions.

I could suggest an answer that someone may give, but ultimately if a question cannot be tested, few are going to value an answer. Thus it's a redundant exercise

 

[Old Spice]

Choice represents a fundamental duality, without choice or the perception of choice, there can be no differentiation between god and his creations. At least thats my understanding of that particular theological problem.

Theologians have tied themselves in knots over questions which are very clear and straightforward when they're asked right.

Why would God care about 'duality' or 'choice' in order to distinguish him from man? Surely God knows he's God without the need for affirmation from man.

 

[Old Spice]

I didn't try to get away with anything.

I'm also not sure what you are trying to prove, there are numerous theological and philosophical, even mathematical contradictions.

I could suggest an answer that someone may give, but ultimately if a question cannot be tested, few are going to value an answer. Thus it's a redundant exercise

Could it be that it is not only a philosophical trick but that in fact the idea of omnipotence is also a trick, a logical deceit?

 

[Play by Numbers]

Theologians have tied themselves in knots over questions which are very clear and straightforward when they're asked right.

Why would God care about 'duality' or 'choice' in order to distinguish him from man? Surely God knows he's God without the need for affirmation from man.

This is nonsense. Most theological questions cannot be answered in a testable way, hence why people tie themselves in knots.

I imagine the argument against your second point would be it has little to do with affirmation. You are transposing human values, onto a non human deity. Duality is implicit in creation, if their is man and God then there has to be choice as there is an other. I am sure you could pose a counter argument to this and thus it would continue in a circular fashion, the ultimate end being does one have faith in a higher power, whose actions may be beyond comprehension or not.

From either perspective it makes little sense trying to rationalise said actions in any absolute way. One can challenge anothers interpretation, in a historic, or academic fashion as to intended meaning, but never provide concrete evidence.

 

[Old Spice]

Even assuming God is omnipotent and spans all space and time, that's rather a significant problem in explaining his arbitrary historical arrival and patchy coverage on earth. That would seem to me to designate God as sloppy and selective and certainly pernicious, sadistic.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Could it be that it is not only a philosophical trick but that in fact the idea of omnipotence is also a trick, a logical deceit?

I don't think it is a philosophical trick. Paradoxes are not tricks, they are paradoxes. As for omnipotence being a logical deceit, since I can't quantify or test such a hypothesis, I have no reason to think this.

Even assuming God is omnipotent and spans all space and time, that's rather a significant problem in explaining his arbitrary historical arrival and patchy coverage on earth. That would seem to me to designate God as sloppy and selective and certainly pernicious, sadistic.

I don't see why.

 

[Old Spice]

This is nonsense. Most theological questions cannot be answered in a testable way, hence why people tie themselves in knots.

I imagine the argument against your second point would be it has little to do with affirmation. You are transposing human values, onto a non human deity. Duality is implicit in creation, if their is man and God then there has to be choice as there is an other. I am sure you could pose a counter argument to this and thus it would continue in a circular fashion, the ultimate end being does one have faith in a higher power, whose actions may be beyond comprehension or not.

From either perspective it makes little sense trying to rationalise said actions in any absolute way. One can challenge anothers interpretation, in a historic, or academic fashion as to intended meaning, but never provide concrete evidence.

The fact that many theological questions can't be answered in a testable way is because they have no logical core to them or are attempting to meld various accounts, as in the genesis story. One has God creating the earth in 7 days and creating man on the 6th the other has God making man from dust. The council of Nicaea decided that Jesus was born of both the Holy Spirit and Mary.

On 'transposing human values' who do you imagine wrote the Old and New Testaments? There is nothing more thoroughgoingly anthropomorphic than the Bible which was collated, edited and redacted over millenia by Christian copyists and even they couldn't iron out the glaring contradictions and sex up the credulous notions even when they fell out of vogue. It's not denied by anyone in the Christian tradition that the Bible is a text written by man.

That's your essential problem, you call for a super-mystical reading when it is not warranted. There were plenty of Messiahs back in an age thirsty for miracles but you put your skepticism in abeyance today about door to door salesman.

On evidence I suggest you read Karl Kautsky's Foundations of Christianity to see what the Pagan and Christian sources say about the existence of Jesus as a contemporary and historic character.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm

 

[Old Spice]

I don't think it is a philosophical trick. Paradoxes are not tricks, they are paradoxes. As for omnipotence being a logical deceit, since I can't quantify or test such a hypothesis, I have no reason to think this.


I don't see why.

So when you can't test something you tend to believe it?

 

[Play by Numbers]

The fact that many theological questions can't be answered in a testable way is because they have no logical core to them or are attempting to meld various accounts, as in the genesis story. One has God creating the earth in 7 days and creating man on the 6th the other has God making man from dust. The council of Nicaea (Church) decided that Jesus was born of both the Holy Spirit and Mary.

On 'transposing human values' who do you imagine wrote the Old and New Testaments? There is nothing more thoroughgoingly anthropomorphic than the Bible which was collated, edited and redacted over millenia by Christian copyists and even then couldn't iron out the glaring contradictions and credulous notions even when they fell out of vogue. It's not denied by anyone in the Christian tradition that the Bible is a text written by man.

That's your essential problem, you call for a super-mystical reading when it is not warranted. There were plenty of Messiahs back in an age thirsty for miracles but you put your skepticism in abeyance today about door to door salesman.

On evidence I suggest you read Karl Kautsky's Foundations of Christianity to see what the Pagan and Christian sources say about the existence of Jesus as a contemporary and historic character.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm

What a waste of a post. The whole point in engaging with me, was a fishing expedition, to get an answer you liked, to allow you to make certain assumptions and justify this response.

The highlighted I don't disagree with, have never claimed otherwise.

As for details within the bible, I also never quibbled about them with you. My point was a more broadly philosophical one, and the "transposing human values", was an attempt to illustrate the redundancy of such an argument.

As for Kautsky, his mission was the same as many religious leaders before him, undermine the previous dominant spiritual paradigm and supersede it with a new. His however, was a form of political worship, though no less all encompassing.

 

[Play by Numbers]

So when you can't test something you tend to believe it?

Don't be daft.

 

[Boston tiger]

Why give a choice of suffering if you are omnipotent and can deliver endless joy? Think about it this way. If you had kids as I do and could send them through door A which you knew would deliver everlasting happiness (heaven) or could send them through door B (pot luck - poverty, war, violence etc) all with a view to returning them to door A, which would you choose?

Do you make them eat broccoli?

They hate it. They can't understand why they have to go through the torture of eating it. Give us lollies they cry.Yet they some how trust us.
For we know the big picture.

God has given us our broccoli .. We can't see the big picture yet.

Sorry about that. All makes sense to me.

 

[Old Spice]

What a waste of a post. The whole point in engaging with me, was a fishing expedition, to get an answer you liked, to allow you to make certain assumptions and justify this response.

The highlighted I don't disagree with, have never claimed otherwise.

As for details within the bible, I also never quibbled about them with you. My point was a more broadly philosophical one, and the "transposing human values", was an attempt to illustrate the redundancy of such an argument.

As for Kautsky, his mission was the same as many religious leaders before him, undermine the previous dominant spiritual paradigm and supersede it with a new. His however, was a form of political worship, though no less all encompassing.

Hey buddy I didn't start this thread or invite you to the seminary, you followed me in. You tell me what the logical and historic core is of Christianity is or if you can't manage it that's fine too, only don't make up lame excuses for bailing out on the discussion.

 

[skilts]

No, I understood. Spontaniety does not imply unthinking, also the point on consequences was my own. I don't agree with you on the last point, there is no way to quantify quality of thought and neccessary tendance. To me that implies that morality is purely individual and is simply making decisions based on your own loose subjective criteria. Morality in that case does not really exist, because concientiousness or self awareness, is as variable as perspective.

Thus my point, that human morality is largely a retroactive exercise. One can think they are doing the right thing and consider their actions, however, another may view their behavior as immoral and the consequences undesirable. Morality in such a case is proscribed retroactively, and often via the vague notion of consensus.

It's hard to argue the case for the existence of moral behavior without the presence of an infalible other, whether that be divine order, or natural. Sure there is a weak counter argument, that adhering to a set code out of fear, necessity or faith in it's supremacy is inherently immoral, but one can also superimpose the same spontaneous good intentions, or thoughtful considered actions onto such people, so they don't have to be slaves.

However, since when have good or even considered intentions meant non harmful outcomes. Thus, I think it is better for people who take a similar position to yours to dump the pretense to a moral crutch or shield, you can try and be a "good" person without it.

You have answered your own question. An objective and prescribed morality does not exist. Even if it were to exist, what power would there be within its functioning to make what that system prescribed as morality a necessary, inevitable and moral outcome? If moral decisions are not made by individuals, who or what actually makes those decisions? Who, other than the individual, at a given time, under certain circumstances, and in a particular place, is called upon to make a moral judgement?

Why would you characterise your subjectivity as being so woefully inadequate to the task of making moral decisions? Do you have some profound inadequacy which makes you think so ill of yourself? Not everyone suffers from this self-admitted incapacity which has eroded any confidence you might have had about the quality of your judgement of what is and isn't moral.

As for the last paragraph, I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Being frustrated by asinine responses.

As for scripture, better to ask Contra Mundum but as far as I was aware, forgiveness without Christ as an intermediary was a little more complicated than simple prayer. The talmud and torah teach that forgiveness from sin is predicated on the kind of sin. Sins against god require prayer, fasting and charity, whereas sins against man require one to beg forgiveness of the injured party. Even then it is more complicated as to the consequences of dying with sin, as there is no belief in a heaven or hell. As for Christians many believe there needs to be an element of penance, atonement and even then God will be the ultimate judge on the day of judgement. It depends on ones sect whether one believes in salvation through faith alone.

You have confused the message though. Divine self sacrifice was meant to be an expression of love and mercy, as one without sin was willing to bear the sins of the many.

Anyway, gnosticism was just the new age quackery of the ancient world. It borrowed ideas from mystical Judaism, Christianity, Hellenism and Platonism amongst others. The best that can be said is it's western bhuddism lite for wankey mystery school numpties, but with a more judaeo christian flavor. In fact, its better as scifi filler, see eden is an endless world. The constant need to co-opt, like you and interpretations of the "gospel" of judas, really puts plaid to adherents claims of it being revelatory.

Can I suggest a book? "Is God a moral monster?" The "atonement" has not been part of Catholic teaching since Vatican II - only weirdos like Mel Gibson and his Dad Cling to that s**t now. There's a summary of "moral monster" on the web somewhere but don't bother to read it because if It was written by a believer so it's not worth looking at!

Nothing more open minded than someone with athiest confirmation bias

 

[Boston tiger]

You almost got away with it. What's the Christian answer? Is God powerful enough to create a boulder he can't lift?

May be that's what he did with life. Created something he cannot control.

 

[evo]

I've never understood this 'test' theory bullshit. God is testing you, teaching you a lesson you sorely need to learn etc. It's your plan God to devise or intercede in, so what type of being could that be?

Christiians are nothing if not self flagellaters. They thrive on disappointing themselves.

 

[clogged]

Christiians are nothing if not self flagellaters. They thrive on disappointing themselves.

Nice profile pic.

 

[evo]

Nice profile pic.

It is a homage to blackcat. He doesnt want to brag on Figbooty, but he's currently dating her.