Make a case for your faith (or philosophy)

[Greatest I am]

I have made the leap of faith that Jesus Christ was the son of God, who he sent down to earth to perform miracles, died for the sins of humanity, and then was miraculously resurrected. I try to live by the two greatest commandments, to love God with everything I am and to love my "neighbor" as myself, which means to love my fellow man and adopt a humanistic outlook, while not being shy that my faith in God is behind such an outlook.

My outlook has several advantages: (1) It is wholistic and comprehensive. Based on a few simple first principles, I can search my views and have a compass to guide me no matter what the facts are. (2) It applies in both the political, personal, and interpersonal realms. (3) It answers the question, "what is the meaning of life"? (4) It means no man is my implacable enemy always. (5) It guarantees fairness and justice for all. I would encourage everyone to adopt my outlook, and let us build a more humane and just world together that dares to imagine the existence of a Higher being!

What of the morality of you using Jesus as savior?

Please view this clip and opine on the quote at the bottom.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

Regards
DL

I like this man. But why his picture of traditional resurrection story so dark? The point of the story is the resurrection, not the sacrifice. Jesus did not permanently die. As far as guilt, does it not merely refer to the notion that people are not inherently good? The beauty of the story is that it invests people who are not inherently good with the authority of a being that is.

My opinion of the quote at the bottom is that I do consent to it, because it was already given willingly before I consented. The harm was already inflicted, and to refuse would be to make it a waste, and disrespectful. I am in prison for theft, and an innocent boy takes pity of me and spends a day to bring me a bucket of water from a stream. Do I refuse? I agree that the original sin rhetoric may be a bit overplayed.

Morals are principles that are not usually flexible or based on the notion of past or present.
If it is immoral to take advantage of an innocent victim for past behavior, it is just as immoral for present behavior.

So let's bring it to the present instead of a past myth that likely never happened.

Human sacrifice is evil and God/Yahweh demanding one and Jesus accepting one is evil. Jesus accepted the premise of his sacrifice being somehow just. This is evil.

Those trying to profit from that evil are evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

We are all going to Hell, and my case for it is to observe the world around you.

You see more evil in the world than good. This is not the case if you look at all the markers you would call evil as they are at the nest level that we have ever enjoyed.

Slavery, violent death by all causes, poverty etc.

Check them out and you will get a better and real view.

I E.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

Look again for the first time my friend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADgh3yCSdM

Regards
DL

[Beet]

I have made the leap of faith that Jesus Christ was the son of God, who he sent down to earth to perform miracles, died for the sins of humanity, and then was miraculously resurrected. I try to live by the two greatest commandments, to love God with everything I am and to love my "neighbor" as myself, which means to love my fellow man and adopt a humanistic outlook, while not being shy that my faith in God is behind such an outlook.

My outlook has several advantages: (1) It is wholistic and comprehensive. Based on a few simple first principles, I can search my views and have a compass to guide me no matter what the facts are. (2) It applies in both the political, personal, and interpersonal realms. (3) It answers the question, "what is the meaning of life"? (4) It means no man is my implacable enemy always. (5) It guarantees fairness and justice for all. I would encourage everyone to adopt my outlook, and let us build a more humane and just world together that dares to imagine the existence of a Higher being!

What of the morality of you using Jesus as savior?

Please view this clip and opine on the quote at the bottom.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

Regards
DL

I like this man. But why his picture of traditional resurrection story so dark? The point of the story is the resurrection, not the sacrifice. Jesus did not permanently die. As far as guilt, does it not merely refer to the notion that people are not inherently good? The beauty of the story is that it invests people who are not inherently good with the authority of a being that is.

My opinion of the quote at the bottom is that I do consent to it, because it was already given willingly before I consented. The harm was already inflicted, and to refuse would be to make it a waste, and disrespectful. I am in prison for theft, and an innocent boy takes pity of me and spends a day to bring me a bucket of water from a stream. Do I refuse? I agree that the original sin rhetoric may be a bit overplayed.

Morals are principles that are not usually flexible or based on the notion of past or present.
If it is immoral to take advantage of an innocent victim for past behavior, it is just as immoral for present behavior.

So let's bring it to the present instead of a past myth that likely never happened.

Human sacrifice is evil and God/Yahweh demanding one and Jesus accepting one is evil. Jesus accepted the premise of his sacrifice being somehow just. This is evil.

Those trying to profit from that evil are evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

Because you have switched a voluntary situation to an involuntary one. A voluntary sacrifice is not evil, it is, like faith, an act of will. In this case God's will. Is God's will evil? I think not. It would be wrong to say, although you have sacrificed yourself for me, I deem your sacrifice evil, therefore I will not accept the fruit of it, and therefore render your sacrifice null and void. I accept it because God did it, and out of respect for God's will and gratitude for God's grace.

[Greatest I am]

Your genocidal son murdering God has an evil will.

He could cure instead of kill in scriptures yet takes the satanic moral low ground and kills.

You go ahead and admire that will.

As above, so below.

You are told in scriptures to emulate your God.

Would you kill when you could just as easily cure?

Seems you have about the same morality. Are you as big of a prick?

Regards
DL

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Your genocidal son murdering God has an evil will.

He could cure instead of kill in scriptures yet takes the satanic moral low ground and kills.

You go ahead and admire that will.

As above, so below.

You are told in scriptures to emulate your God.

Would you kill when you could just as easily cure?

Seems you have about the same morality. Are you as big of a prick?

Regards
DL

The Son chose to come and do everything He did. So your premise that the Father is evil is rendered null and void. Thus also killing your assertion that God is evil.

There were instances where the Father did heal humans before the Son came. Because humans (through our First Parents ((Adam and Eve))) missed the mark, death came to this world.

[Greatest I am]

Your genocidal son murdering God has an evil will.

He could cure instead of kill in scriptures yet takes the satanic moral low ground and kills.

You go ahead and admire that will.

As above, so below.

You are told in scriptures to emulate your God.

Would you kill when you could just as easily cure?

Seems you have about the same morality. Are you as big of a prick?

Regards
DL

The Son chose to come and do everything He did. So your premise that the Father is evil is rendered null and void. Thus also killing your assertion that God is evil.

There were instances where the Father did heal humans before the Son came. Because humans (through our First Parents ((Adam and Eve))) missed the mark, death came to this world.

Seems that you are a literalist who has gone into intellectual dissonance by believing in all kinds of supernatural B. S.

That the Son chose to come is you lying to yourself.

So says scriptures.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

As a literalist, you also seem to have ignored these word of wisdom.

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.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.


Repent or end in hell according to those scriptures.

Regards
DL

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Your genocidal son murdering God has an evil will.

He could cure instead of kill in scriptures yet takes the satanic moral low ground and kills.

You go ahead and admire that will.

As above, so below.

You are told in scriptures to emulate your God.

Would you kill when you could just as easily cure?

Seems you have about the same morality. Are you as big of a prick?

Regards
DL

The Son chose to come and do everything He did. So your premise that the Father is evil is rendered null and void. Thus also killing your assertion that God is evil.

There were instances where the Father did heal humans before the Son came. Because humans (through our First Parents ((Adam and Eve))) missed the mark, death came to this world.

Yeah! A JCL-GiA fight!
At last GiA found a worthy opponent

[Greatest I am]

Your genocidal son murdering God has an evil will.

He could cure instead of kill in scriptures yet takes the satanic moral low ground and kills.

You go ahead and admire that will.

As above, so below.

You are told in scriptures to emulate your God.

Would you kill when you could just as easily cure?

Seems you have about the same morality. Are you as big of a prick?

Regards
DL

The Son chose to come and do everything He did. So your premise that the Father is evil is rendered null and void. Thus also killing your assertion that God is evil.

There were instances where the Father did heal humans before the Son came. Because humans (through our First Parents ((Adam and Eve))) missed the mark, death came to this world.

Yeah! A JCL-GiA fight!
At last GiA found a worthy opponent

Worthy opponents can answer direct questions of their genocidal God.

Time will tell who is worthy.

Regards
DL

[CatoMinor]

I'd like to believe I am open minded to a reasonable extent, capable of reason and listening to the empirical evidence before me. I trust the Bible as it has without doubt the greatest number of surviving manuscripts relative in closeness to the original copies of any book from antiquity. Translations may allow for statistically insignificant wording errors but word choice aside is true tothe earliest known manuscripts we have. Going further, records of writings from early church fathers contain quotes that line of with almost if not the entire the entire NT.

I also see the lengths the apostles went to to spread the early church. As others have said before, Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. Its possible that a well meaning lunatic or a smooth talking liar inspired Thomas to walk from Judea to southern India where he would meet his end preaching the gospel, but I personally find it more likely that what the doubter saw with his own eyes convinced him of the lordship of Christ. Same of Paul of Tarus went from among the worst persecutors of the early church to being its greatest early missionary based off of what he witnessed while traveling to Damascus.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As others have said before, Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord.

That assumes of course that the gospels are indeed accurate in their portrayal of Jesus. (And to a lesser extent that our interpretation of them is accurate.)  It's a necessary assumption when considering the validity of Jesus' claims, because otherwise there's nothing to consider, but it is an assumption.

There are other ways we could have gotten those texts without requiring either lies or lunacy on the part of Jesus.  For instance, Jesus could have been more like the Islamic perception of him, the Messiah, but not the literal son of God, but his followers misinterpreted his metaphorical claim to sonship as a literal one.  In many ways, the nativity portions of Matthew and Luke are the most difficult to believe. Less difficult if one ignores the popular portrayal of the Star of Bethlehem as a widely visible apparition.  (Not nearly as difficult as the Protoevangelium of James.  The rapid spate of miracles that occur in that text make it inconceivable that Jesus could have been an unknown at the start of his ministry had they actually happened.)

[Mopsus]

For instance, Jesus could have been more like the Islamic perception of him, the Messiah, but not the literal son of God, but his followers misinterpreted his metaphorical claim to sonship as a literal one.

Off topic, but this raises a question that I've had for a while... what exactly is the role of the Messiah in Islam? And how do Muslims know what the Messiah is supposed to be like/what the Messiah did if they don't read the Bible?

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

For instance, Jesus could have been more like the Islamic perception of him, the Messiah, but not the literal son of God, but his followers misinterpreted his metaphorical claim to sonship as a literal one.

Off topic, but this raises a question that I've had for a while... what exactly is the role of the Messiah in Islam? And how do Muslims know what the Messiah is supposed to be like/what the Messiah did if they don't read the Bible?

I'll only answer your second question
By the revelation given by Allah to Muhammed.. Muslims believe that the Bible has been corrupted and no longer reflects its original message
(Iirc)

[Mopsus]

Off topic, but this raises a question that I've had for a while... what exactly is the role of the Messiah in Islam? And how do Muslims know what the Messiah is supposed to be like/what the Messiah did if they don't read the Bible?

I'll only answer your second question
By the revelation given by Allah to Muhammed.. Muslims believe that the Bible has been corrupted and no longer reflects its original message
(Iirc)

The Quran says the Messiah is not the Son of God, yet I don't recall reading a word about what the Messiah actually is. That's always been a confusion to me.

[Greatest I am]

I'd like to believe I am open minded to a reasonable extent, capable of reason and listening to the empirical evidence before me. I trust the Bible as it has without doubt the greatest number of surviving manuscripts relative in closeness to the original copies of any book from antiquity. Translations may allow for statistically insignificant wording errors but word choice aside is true tothe earliest known manuscripts we have. Going further, records of writings from early church fathers contain quotes that line of with almost if not the entire the entire NT.

I also see the lengths the apostles went to to spread the early church. As others have said before, Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. Its possible that a well meaning lunatic or a smooth talking liar inspired Thomas to walk from Judea to southern India where he would meet his end preaching the gospel, but I personally find it more likely that what the doubter saw with his own eyes convinced him of the lordship of Christ. Same of Paul of Tarus went from among the worst persecutors of the early church to being its greatest early missionary based off of what he witnessed while traveling to Damascus.

Yet if you look at the morality of what Jesus taught, you have to reject him.

He advocated for a no-divorce policy that would force people to stay married to even an abusive partner and that is an anti-love policy.

His forgiveness policy that includes substitutionary punishment is also highly immoral according to scriptures.

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.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

If you buy into the Trinity concept, you are praising a Jesus who used genocide against innocent babies and children and kills when he could take the moral high ground and cure instead of kill.

So much for unconditional love eh?

Regards
DL

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

I'd like to believe I am open minded to a reasonable extent, capable of reason and listening to the empirical evidence before me. I trust the Bible as it has without doubt the greatest number of surviving manuscripts relative in closeness to the original copies of any book from antiquity. Translations may allow for statistically insignificant wording errors but word choice aside is true tothe earliest known manuscripts we have. Going further, records of writings from early church fathers contain quotes that line of with almost if not the entire the entire NT.

I also see the lengths the apostles went to to spread the early church. As others have said before, Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. Its possible that a well meaning lunatic or a smooth talking liar inspired Thomas to walk from Judea to southern India where he would meet his end preaching the gospel, but I personally find it more likely that what the doubter saw with his own eyes convinced him of the lordship of Christ. Same of Paul of Tarus went from among the worst persecutors of the early church to being its greatest early missionary based off of what he witnessed while traveling to Damascus.

Yet if you look at the morality of what Jesus taught, you have to reject him.

He advocated for a no-divorce policy that would force people to stay married to even an abusive partner and that is an anti-love policy.

His forgiveness policy that includes substitutionary punishment is also highly immoral according to scriptures.

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.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

If you buy into the Trinity concept, you are praising a Jesus who used genocide against innocent babies and children and kills when he could take the moral high ground and cure instead of kill.

So much for unconditional love eh?

Regards
DL

Aren't you still a Christian?

[Greatest I am]

I'd like to believe I am open minded to a reasonable extent, capable of reason and listening to the empirical evidence before me. I trust the Bible as it has without doubt the greatest number of surviving manuscripts relative in closeness to the original copies of any book from antiquity. Translations may allow for statistically insignificant wording errors but word choice aside is true tothe earliest known manuscripts we have. Going further, records of writings from early church fathers contain quotes that line of with almost if not the entire the entire NT.

I also see the lengths the apostles went to to spread the early church. As others have said before, Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. Its possible that a well meaning lunatic or a smooth talking liar inspired Thomas to walk from Judea to southern India where he would meet his end preaching the gospel, but I personally find it more likely that what the doubter saw with his own eyes convinced him of the lordship of Christ. Same of Paul of Tarus went from among the worst persecutors of the early church to being its greatest early missionary based off of what he witnessed while traveling to Damascus.

Yet if you look at the morality of what Jesus taught, you have to reject him.

He advocated for a no-divorce policy that would force people to stay married to even an abusive partner and that is an anti-love policy.

His forgiveness policy that includes substitutionary punishment is also highly immoral according to scriptures.

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.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

If you buy into the Trinity concept, you are praising a Jesus who used genocide against innocent babies and children and kills when he could take the moral high ground and cure instead of kill.

So much for unconditional love eh?

Regards
DL

Aren't you still a Christian?

No. I am a Gnostic Christian.

I am not interested in being associated with an immoral creed.

An intelligent observer will see that both Christianity and Islam have created intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions that deny women and gays equality under the law. They also both grew themselves with the sword instead of good deeds and are therefore unworthy of being called moral ideologies.

Moral people will agree.

Regards
DL

[SingingAnalyst]

I believe in an aristocracy of the sensitive. Those with the capacity to feel shame ought not be the only ones called upon to redact past injustices.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I believe in an aristocracy of the sensitive. Those with the capacity to feel shame ought not be the only ones called upon to redact past injustices.

1. what
2. Anyone as sensitive as you'd want them to be would find this idea despicable.

[jate88]

1) One shouldn't believe in God without evidence.
2) There is no evidence for God's existence.
c) One shouldn't believe in God.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1) One shouldn't believe in God without evidence.
2) There is no evidence for God's existence.
c) One shouldn't believe in God.

makes u think

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Life is horrible. Belief in God may give you hope. Even if it is misplaced, you will die anyway. In the meantime, aggressive secularism is annoying, so there's that.