Substitutionary sacrifical atonement: Is it moral?

Did anyone else notice how NotUrTypical would never answer the question about beating your servants? I asked him several times. It was clearly permitted, as long as you didn't kill them.

Exodus 21: 20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

I guess if he died a week later, it was ok?

Nor would he respond to his own comment about nudity being moral. I gave him plenty of examples and he would not respond to it. It was clearly shown that morality is culturally relative, it's even relative to time periods, where something may have been fine long ago, but now it is not. Isn't that clear?

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
If you take the position that Jesus is God. Then you have a situation where God is taking responsibility for His actions. He's sacrificing Himself for the sins of the species he created, rather than continue to ask for the blood of innocent animals.

edit on 12-4-2012 by wearewatchingyouman because: clarity

First, I don't take that position. There are a few members on this forum that believe Jesus wasn't God and can back it up with scripture.

Second, are you claiming the only way for an omniscient, omnipotent being to atone for his own mistake [at least you're the first to admit he's made a mistake] is to sacrifice himself to himself on a cross where he'll get tortured by his own children which in turn spills the blood of his fleshly body? You're okay with that?

First, I don't take any position on the matter. Both sides have good arguments. Whether or not Jesus is literally the physical manifestation of Yahweh or His first creation is, more or less, irrelevant to my personal beliefs @ this point in time. Regardless of whether Jesus is God those who take the position he's not usually still argue he had a very large hand in creation, so I think the argument still holds.

Second, I didn't say he made a mistake. I said He's taking responsibility for his actions. Meaning that He, for whatever reason, chose to set up a system where the earthly Creator(whether it was the Word as God or son) would now die for the mistakes of the earthly creation. As opposed to other earthly creations being sacrificed for the mistakes of the earthly creation.

Of course it wasn't the only way for Him to atone for our sins. It was His way according to the story. Am I okay with it? Sure. Why wouldn't I be? It's His game, I just play in it. Do I believe that this is the only way to everlastintg life, and have I accepted this sacrifice? I'm still on the fence.

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
Second, I didn't say he made a mistake. I said He's taking responsibility for his actions. Meaning that He, for whatever reason, chose to set up a system where the earthly Creator(whether it was the Word as God or son) would now die for the mistakes of the earthly creation. As opposed to other earthly creations being sacrificed for the mistakes of the earthly creation.

You have to remember, this god is eternal. He is omniscient. Before he created anything, he already saw how everything would play out. He was the author of the book. He made up the rules. It was his idea that he would make a rule that innocent blood was needed to cover wrong doings. It was his idea that he would sacrifice himself to himself FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. It was his idea that those who couldn't find the faith to believe in this silly story among all the other silly stories, that he would punish them by either burning them forever in fire, or annihilate them from existence, depending on which christian you ask...who are led by the same holy spirit.

Why would an omnipotent god have to play such games?

reply to post by wearewatchingyouman

Whether or not Jesus is literally the physical manifestation of Yahweh or His first creation is, more or less, irrelevant to my personal beliefs @ this point in time.

YHWH was a Hebrew "word" which according to the legend recorded in what we now call the Old Testament, means I Am.
It was (again, according to the legend) what was given by an angel, in lieu of a name, to have the people of the Israel tribe understand that it was some sort of deity who was giving Moses these orders to be then passed on to them.
That title, The I Am, was taken over by Jesus, and that angel in the OT has gone off, out of the scene, as in no longer of any relevance to those who are concerning themselves about who exactly is reigning supreme in the realm of heavenly deities.
We know that as far as we are concerned, the one we directly look to is Jesus, the new name of God for the people of Earth.
Jesus does know a higher god from whom he gets his authority, but it is not Yahweh, since for all intents and purposes, that title would be understood to be in effect for Jesus. Who, in turn says of his Father, 'You have not seen or heard'.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Who, in turn says of his Father, 'You have not seen or heard'.

Didn't he also say, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." ?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
Second, I didn't say he made a mistake. I said He's taking responsibility for his actions. Meaning that He, for whatever reason, chose to set up a system where the earthly Creator(whether it was the Word as God or son) would now die for the mistakes of the earthly creation. As opposed to other earthly creations being sacrificed for the mistakes of the earthly creation.

You have to remember, this god is eternal. He is omniscient. Before he created anything, he already saw how everything would play out. He was the author of the book. He made up the rules. It was his idea that he would make a rule that innocent blood was needed to cover wrong doings. It was his idea that he would sacrifice himself to himself FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. It was his idea that those who couldn't find the faith to believe in this silly story among all the other silly stories, that he would punish them by either burning them forever in fire, or annihilate them from existence, depending on which christian you ask...who are led by the same holy spirit.

Why would an omnipotent god have to play such games?

edit on 13-4-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

I'm well aware that He had this plan FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. I don't hold the position that unbelievers go to hell or be annhilated. Neither do the majority of Christians. Unbelievers will be judged based on their works. I don't know why God would play such games. I'm sure, if indeed this is God's way, He has his reasons. Who am I to judge?

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
Who am I to judge?

Was Hitler wrong? If so, who are you to judge? The answer is, you are YOU! You CAN make a judgement. Don't think you can't.

reply to post by Hydroman

Why would an omnipotent god have to play such games?

By qualifying this word, omnipotent.
That comes from a Greek word that appears once in the New Testament, while apparently quoting the Old Testament in the Septuagint version, where the word Pantocrator is substituted for the Hebrew word, El Shaddai.
That "Hebrew" word comes from Canaanite myth and is the designation for the regional gods who live on mountain tops. So the "all powerful" -ness is understood as being all powerful over the part of the geography overseen from that mountain on which he dwells.

So, the idea that one called "all powerful" as a translation of the Greek word, Pantocrator, means, over the entire universe is a more modern concept, and not one held by the original writers of the Bible. So, in other words, God exists in a time/space universe which existed before God was a god, and was somehow a thought in the mind of a formless sort of non-being entity that was able to exist in a non-physical, non-universe type void. Once that creative thought went into action to create a universe, that entity ceased to exist in whatever non-form it had previously "existed", and from that we have those we call the gods, and ourselves as a god-like species but of a type which exists only in a form that has as a part of itself a physical nature.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I'm aware of this argument. If I were to state every position everytime I typed something related to who or what God is I'd never get to the point...

reply to post by Hydroman


No, I don't take the position that Hitler was bad. He did a lot of horrible stuff I don't think I'd do in his position, but I never walked in his shoes. I've never seen his heart or been influenced by the things he was.

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
No, I don't take the position that Hitler was bad. He did a lot of horrible stuff I don't think I'd do in his position, but I never walked in his shoes. I've never seen his heart or been influenced by the things he was.

Do you take a position on anyone besides yourself? Also, your sig cracked me up.

reply to post by Hydroman


My children and my wife. That's about it. I'm not perfect by any means, and I do slip up at times. I do make judgements on whether or not a person's actions are healthy for me or my family to be around though. I just always try not to tie that to if the peron is good or bad.

Glad you enjoyed the sig

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The Bible prophesied Jesus would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver . . .

Obviously there is no mention of Jesus and Judas in the Old Testament.
There is a mention of 30 pieces of silver, which was the prophet's wages for shepherding the people, where the idea is that for being a prophet to lead the nation, he got the same salary as someone who spent a year out in the pastures tending a flock of sheep.
It was then taken up as a prophecy by a Gospel writer as some sort of tie-in between the OT and his book or whatever. So it was not being taken as a "prophecy" in the normal sense of the word, but as a foretelling of a sort of concept that could be later applied to a different circumstance.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Physics isn't required in a discussion of morality and philosophy.

It does when you get into the nature of time and the "free will" vs "predestination" argument, it's the foundation before the discussion can proceed. And I disagree about Philosophy.

It may be that your revelation of the answer to the argument can only be explained by using physics, but I am actually capable of abstract thought, and I disagree with you. God is not omniscient or omnipresent. There may a deity that is "so tall" that it can see for miles and miles ahead of the road I'm traveling, but he maybe surprised if I change directions. Because, "my" god experiences present time through me.

edit on 13-4-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

Ah...

but what if the "road" you're traveling IS God?

That would make him omnipresent and possibly capable of being omniscient

I'm not saying that there aren't parallel dimensions, in which time perception is encompassed within a never ending circle, with no beginning or end. But this, separate reality doesn't invalidate free will, present time and random chaos.

I don't believe that there is one being that is watching my every move and listening to my every thought, again, because he's already seen this movie. I think of god as the spirit of the fabric of the universe. If it walked on earth once, if it talked and performed specific actions in present time, it's not god. IMHO

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Point being, God exists outside of time, He can see the end from the beginning:

The verse you quoted to back this statement up is Isaiah 46:10
This is a bit of poetry about how great The Lord is, and starts out describing how the other gods, mentioned by name, bow down to him as the greater god.
The actual verse is The Lord asking if any of the gods he is addressing are capable of this feat.
Then in verse eleven, this poem has the The Lord character explain how he does it:

Yes, I have decreed,
yes, I will bring it to pass;
I have formulated a plan,
yes, I will carry it out.

So it is by way of self-fulfilling prophecy. The Lord decides to do something and it happens because He has the power to make it happen.
This is not The Lord seeing the future and foretelling it.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Who, in turn says of his Father, 'You have not seen or heard'.

Didn't he also say, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." ?

In response to a request by a disciple for Jesus to somehow show him the Father.
Jesus was demonstrating the character of God through his actions.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
In response to a request by a disciple for Jesus to somehow show him the Father.
Jesus was demonstrating the character of God through his actions.

Could you, in the same manner, do the same with Jesus? For example, if I say, "Show me Jesus," could you say, "Those who have seen me have seen Jesus." ? If so, please post your pic.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by jmdewey60
In response to a request by a disciple for Jesus to somehow show him the Father.
Jesus was demonstrating the character of God through his actions.

Could you, in the same manner, do the same with Jesus? For example, if I say, "Show me Jesus," could you say, "Those who have seen me have seen Jesus." ? If so, please post your pic.

Not saying he's Jesus, but I miss the old days of seeing jmdewey's face as his avatar... he seemed to have a serenity to him... of course I'm assuming the pic was actually JMD...

reply to post by Hydroman

Could you, in the same manner, do the same with Jesus? For example, if I say, "Show me Jesus," could you say, "Those who have seen me have seen Jesus." ? If so, please post your pic.

Yes, but not like the way you are describing it.

This is what I saw this person as, like this painting of St Francis of Assisi.
He was actually a Franciscan monk, who to me seemed the best example of Christ I have known as a person.
But of course he never made himself out to be Jesus, he just acted like him, or how I would imagine him as being if I had been around back then.

for wearewatchingyouman: I put a small version of my old avatar picture on my comments section of my profile page, and it is of me, and when I look at it, I think of an Eskimo for some reason.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I put a small version of my old avatar picture on my comments section of my profile page, and it is of me, and when I look at it, I think of an Eskimo for some reason.

Ahhh, I remember that! When I look at it, I think of someone who just smoked a doob. You should change your name to jmdoobie60.

I'm sorry, I'm just messing with you.