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

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

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speak of is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, --- instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen to sacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yet to create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- he had yet to create.

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completely needless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most call justice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, God chose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usual policy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could have shown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgive us.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to accept and embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the best form of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocent party.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if God punished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

As a staunch atheist, your threads make me want to defend Christianity. However, I'll let those with an actual horse in the race take up the cause if they so wish.

I know, maybe he is trying to convert people to christianity by spouting bs about it mmm

Sometimes an attack can be leveled against an extremist sect of a religion, but not the entire religion. With this, I don't think I've ever encountered a Christian sect with this interpretation, or anything close to it. Every sect from the most liberal to the most extreme, from biblical scholars to the old lady that sings in the church choir, would look at this and have a similar response after disagreeing with it. Christianity 101 - as in, the basic ideas that underlie literally all Christian thought - refutes this thread's premise.

Since interpretation of the bible is subjective, I can't technically call this a strawman. But in practical terms, he has an audience of zero.

I'm all for hearing uncommon interpretation of different religious traditions, but when they are so fixed against the official stances of christianity they are a bit too defined by it to rise my interest.

Interpretation leads itself to wider debates, which is sometimes cool, but it also makes it harder to validate an argument. Lot's of that in these forums.

Originally posted by Digi
... in practical terms, he has an audience of zero.

Not so. The only thing I'm wondering is if it makes sense to engage the man.
Not because he may or may not have a point, but because I'm not sure he actually would look at, read, and discuss any responses. From everything I've learned in the past few months, though, this is Gnosticism, sometimes called Gnostic Luciferianism, 101.

Originally posted by Bentley
I'm all for hearing uncommon interpretation of different religious traditions, but when they are so fixed against the official stances of christianity they are a bit too defined by it to rise my interest.

Interpretation leads itself to wider debates, which is sometimes cool, but it also makes it harder to validate an argument. Lot's of that in these forums.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Digi
As a staunch atheist, your threads make me want to defend Christianity. However, I'll let those with an actual horse in the race take up the cause if they so wish.

That and as an atheist, you likely have better morals than the average Christian.

I can appreciate those with a heart like yourself wanting to reduce my bullying Christians bur as you can see from their poor morals, they need a rude awakening.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Digi
Sometimes an attack can be leveled against an extremist sect of a religion, but not the entire religion. With this, I don't think I've ever encountered a Christian sect with this interpretation, or anything close to it. Every sect from the most liberal to the most extreme, from biblical scholars to the old lady that sings in the church choir, would look at this and have a similar response after disagreeing with it. Christianity 101 - as in, the basic ideas that underlie literally all Christian thought - refutes this thread's premise.

Since interpretation of the bible is subjective, I can't technically call this a strawman. But in practical terms, he has an audience of zero.

Every Christian sect that flies the cross is immoral as their religion is based on barbaric human sacrifice and their desire to profit from murder.

Their dogma hides the facts but those are the irrefutable facts.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Bentley
I'm all for hearing uncommon interpretation of different religious traditions, but when they are so fixed against the official stances of christianity they are a bit too defined by it to rise my interest.

Interpretation leads itself to wider debates, which is sometimes cool, but it also makes it harder to validate an argument. Lot's of that in these forums.

Are you saying that substitutionary atonement is moral?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Not so. The only thing I'm wondering is if it makes sense to engage the man.
Not because he may or may not have a point, but because I'm not sure he actually would look at, read, and discuss any responses. From everything I've learned in the past few months, though, this is Gnosticism, sometimes called Gnostic Luciferianism, 101.

By fools perhaps.

I try to read and answer all who have legitimate questions.

Not here that no one is talking morals and this is a moral question.

Waiting.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Are you saying that substitutionary atonement is moral?

Regards
DL

Whatever floats your boat 😉

Originally posted by Bentley
Whatever floats your boat 😉

So I decide your morality.

Pathetic.

Regards
DL

You ignore the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is God. The second Person in the Trinity. God sacrificed Himself to redeem mankind, not some independent scapegoat which you are implying. God arranged to robe Himself in human flesh(Jesus) before the oundation of the world to atone for the sins of man.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
So I decide your morality.

Pathetic.

Regards
DL

You decide your morality and it's by your moality tha you'll judge me. You just don't care about my morality (or lack of thereof) at all.

So again, whatever floats your boat.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You ignore the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is God. The second Person in the Trinity. God sacrificed Himself to redeem mankind, not some independent scapegoat which you are implying. God arranged to robe Himself in human flesh(Jesus) before the oundation of the world to atone for the sins of man.

I don't think the trinity is in Gnostic Christianity.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speak of is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, --- instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen to sacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yet to create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- he had yet to create.

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completely needless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most call justice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, God chose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usual policy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could have shown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgive us.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to accept and embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the best form of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocent party.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if God punished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

Isaiah 30:10 Warns of rebellious people

…9For this is a rebellious people, false sons, Sons who refuse to listen To the instruction of the LORD; 10Who say to the seers, "You must not see visions"; And to the prophets, "You must not prophesy to us what is right, Speak to us pleasant words, Prophesy illusions. 11"Get out of the way, turn aside from the path, Let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel."

Cross References
Romans 16:18
For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

2 Timothy 4:4
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

1 Samuel 9:9
(Formerly in Israel, if someone went to inquire of God, they would say, "Come, let us go to the seer," because the prophet of today used to be called a seer.)

1 Kings 22:8
The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, "There is still one prophet through whom we can inquire of the LORD, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah." "The king should not say such a thing," Jehoshaphat replied.

1 Kings 22:13
The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, "Look, the other prophets without exception are predicting success for the king. Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favorably."

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

well, if you think Jesus will NOT preach immoral things, then where on earth did you come up with all the stuff you're spewing? 🙄

Originally posted by dyajeep
well, if you think Jesus will NOT preach immoral things, then where on earth did you come up with all the stuff you're spewing? 🙄

Its so funny, he does not believe in Jesus, but he spends all his time talking against him, to which the person he does not believe in.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You ignore the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus is God. The second Person in the Trinity. God sacrificed Himself to redeem mankind, not some independent scapegoat which you are implying. God arranged to robe Himself in human flesh(Jesus) before the oundation of the world to atone for the sins of man.

Yes. That is why it is so immoral. God planned for sin and planned to murder Jesus instead of just using the other way that is scripture and moral.

The following 2 quotes are why I call what God did murder. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see all are saved without a sacrifice.

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

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

Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him but I see that you have taken the line that someone else should pay your dues. Quite manly and moral that. Not.

Do you really think someone else can pay your dues and allow you to shirk your just reward?

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.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

As above so below.

If you had God's power, would you not be able to find a way that does not go against the wisdom of Jesus and the bible?

Perhaps like being man enough to step up to your own demands for a worthy sacrifice?

That is what a good God would do.

Regards
DL