Why did Jesus have to die? Isn't that just immoral?

[Bacsi]

I think you’re mixing up Islam with Christianity. I highly doubt any saved Christian believe they are going to heaven due to their holiness, its rather the opposite.

You didn't understand. I was talking about the arrogance of being guaranteed heaven no matter what, not through your own merit. It's the trademark of Christians. Hypocrisy.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

You didn't understand. I was talking about the arrogance of being guaranteed heaven no matter what, not through your own merit. It's the trademark of Christians. Hypocrisy.

Is the person rescued by a lifeboat arrogant? Does he look down scornfully on the poor folk left in the water? Does he congratulate himself on his superior wit for grabbing the offered hand as he started to sink?

If you can answer "yes" then you have made a strong argument for the haughtiness and immorality of Christians...

 

[Bacsi]

Have you ever read Perelandra by CS Lewis @Bacsi ? It might challenge you but you may find it fascinating!

I don't like C.S. Lewis. I also think he was on hook of the freemasons. Never read Perelandra. But will check out the book. Thank you.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Back to the main question of the thread, the willing sacrifice vs the unwilling victim. If you can't tell the difference between these two scenes, you cannot appreciate the distinction.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I don't like C.S. Lewis. I also think he was on hook of the freemasons. Never read Perelandra. But will check out the book. Thank you.

If he was, his published ideas are in opposition to the dualism promoted by Albert Pike. One thing I love about his work is the way he is able to weave incisive thinking with story, to set out questions in thought pictures that would perhaps be lengthy and dry in debate.

I'm listening to it on audiobook now...

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Although I understand the point you are making with these two contrasting videos, and it is a point well made, they don't really work for me as it relates to the Bible. As the doctrine of "Vicarious Atonement" was always presented to me, it rested on the assumption, or arguably moral proposition, that the salvation of the wicked (namely, us) was obtained by punishing the innocent (Jesus). If somebody has five impossibly errant children, should he punish his one well-behaved child in consequence, to remedy the problem?

In a sense all such analogies break down. Can we truly imagine the dialogue where the Son and Father agree the plan of salvation from the foundation of the world? Could anyone less than the status of God pay the price?

If you can unravel the connection between the members of the Trinity in such a way as Jesus (in his Godhood) becomes separate from the will of the Father you could create a narrative of an angry father sending a son to give Him someone to let off steam against for our shortcomings.

With the Trinity, you have the judge setting the true tariff for the crime, then paying the fine Himself as we could not afford it.

These examples can only hold as much intellectual force as our understanding of the nature of the Godhead, and will probably fall on deaf ears for the most part.

 

[Bacsi]

Is the person rescued by a lifeboat arrogant? Does he look down scornfully on the poor folk left in the water? Does he congratulate himself on his superior wit for grabbing the offered hand as he started to sink?

If you can answer "yes" then you have made a strong argument for the haughtiness and immorality of Christians...

Straw man...

I talk about practice, not theory. In theory, everything sounds perfect. When I was studying Marxism-Leninism in school, in theory it was the ideal form of society. In real life? Far from it. Same thing here.

Certain ideas transpire in certain behaviour. It's a very practical issue. If a person thinks they're heaven-bound and the rest are not, simply by accepting certain information as true, it affects their mindset and actions. Christian theology corrupts people to the core.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Straw man...

I talk about practice, not theory. In theory, everything sounds perfect. When I was studying Marxism-Leninism in school, in theory it was the ideal form of society. In real life? Far from it. Same thing here.

Certain ideas transpire in certain behaviour. It's a very practical issue. If a person thinks they're heaven-bound and the rest are not, simply by accepting certain information as true, it affects their mindset and actions. Christian theology corrupts people to the core.

People call out straw men for a variety of reasons. Perhaps it is for others to decide if the man contains as much straw as you claim ;-)

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I am listening, if not always hearing.

Perhaps many of us find ourselves in that spot. Fortunately Jesus is alive and the Holy Spirit well able to communicate with us in ways that mere text fail to.

 

[Bacsi]

the willing sacrifice vs the unwilling victim

Well, there you go. That movie about native south Americans is a real deception. The human sacrifices were more willing in their culture than Jesus sweating blood in Gethsemany and asking God to please spare him if possible.

How many times should I repeat? Willing or unwilling - it doesn't matter. You can brainwash people to die for Adolf Hitler, their death is not glorified simply by fact of being enthusiastically willing.

The act of killing by itself is barbaric. Life was given by God not to be taken by anyone. The idea that God supposedly killed a human for the sins of mankind is abhorrent regardless of the sacrifice's wishes. A dove, a lamb, Isaac, daughter of Jephthah or Jesus, sacrifice is immoral because it's wrong to take away life from somebody who didn't do anything bad. It's wrong to free people from responsibility by punishing anybody but themselves for it. It's wrong to portray God as a vicious angry character who wants blood of an innocent man to appease his unhappiness with other people.

You don't get it. Sacrifice of any life, especially human sacrifice, is abhorrent.

 

[Bacsi]

People call out straw men for a variety of reasons. Perhaps it is for others to decide if the man contains as much straw as you claim ;-)

Theory, theory, theory.

I talk about a practical thing. It's the way the idea of being saved from responsibility for their sin by butchering somebody else works in people's minds and behaviour. I see it all the time. It's obvious as daylight. You say that no it doesn't because people are happy when they're saved from drowning. These are two completely unrelated examples. Straw man.

It's like saying, people aren't afraid of lions because they're not afraid of dandelions.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Well, there you go. That movie about native south Americans is a real deception. They human sacrifices were more willing in their culture than Jesus sweating blood in Gethsemany and asking God to please spare him if possible.

How many times should I repeat? Willing or unwilling - it doesn't matter. You can brainwash people to die for Adolf Hitler, their death is not glorified simply by fact of being enthusiastically willing.

The act of killing by itself is barbaric. Life was given by God not to be taken by anyone. The idea that God supposedly killed a human for the sins of mankind is abhorrent regardless of the sacrifice's wishes. A dove, a lamb, Isaac, daughter of Jephthah or Jesus, sacrifice is immoral because it's wrong to take away life from somebody who didn't do anything bad. It's wrong to free people from responsibility by punishing anybody but themselves for it. It's wrong to portray God as a vicious angry character who wants blood of an innocent man to appease his unhappiness with other person.

You don't get it. Human sacrifice, any sacrifice of life is abhorrent.

I get that you see things that way @Bacsi
Perhaps you will never understand the Gospel. Cain offered grain, Abel offered from his flock. You may always reject what Jesus did for you, but He still did it.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Theory, theory, theory.

I talk about a practical thing. It's the way the idea of being saved from responsibility for their sin by butchering somebody else works in people's minds and behaviour. I see it all the time. It's obvious as daylight. You say that no it doesn't because people are happy when they're saved from drowning. These are two completely unrelated examples. Straw man.

It's like saying, people aren't afraid of lions because they're not afraid of dandelions.

The shaman doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[Bacsi]

I get that you see things that way

It's the way it works in real life. Immoral ideas cause corrupt mindsets and corrupt mindsets lead to wrong behaviour. Simple.

In Marx's book, communism was paradise. In real life, it was hell.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

It's the way it works in real life. Immoral ideas cause corrupt mindsets and corrupt mindsets lead to wrong behaviour. Simple.

In Marx's book, communism was paradise. In real life, it was hell.

...which is why what we believe matters more than most people give credit for.

 

[Bacsi]

Perhaps you will never understand the Gospel.

I do understand the real good news of Jesus. "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me". (Matthew 25:40).

As for human sacrifice, it's not good news. It's very bad news for Jesus and for those who believe in this lie.

 

[Bacsi]

The shaman doth protest too much, methinks.

I'm not a shaman, I already told you. Please don't call me that.

So you don't like my protesting you? Like I said, apologetics. "They will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear". (2 Tim 4:3)

Sorry, I'm not one of those teachers who will please anybody against the truth.

 

[Bacsi]

...which is why what we believe matters more than most people give credit for.

Christians believe in many doctrines. Some of the doctrines are excellent, some are good and some are terrible. Mixed bag.

There are different types of Christians. Some hold to the great stuff more than the bad, some emphasize the bad.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I do understand the real good news of Jesus. "Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me".

As for human sacrifice, it's not good news. It's very bad news for Jesus and for those who believe in this lie.

Has it ever struck you that the notion of a sacrifice for sin and one who will come to crush the head of the serpent have been present in the Bible from the beginning.

Does it really surprise you that those cultures who love evil and invert the truth, from Baal and Moloch to the Wicker Man and the Maya drag an unwilling or dazed "sacrifice" to their death.

Given the fact you are aware of much of the material of the elites with their satanic mockery and corruption, does it really come as an impossible notion that the spiritual forces behind these groups would want to mock the Passover Lamb, and associate two unlike concepts in order to repel people from the shed blood of their Saviour?

https://www.gotquestions.org/bronze-serpent.html

 

[Bacsi]

Has it ever struck you that the notion of a sacrifice for sin and one who will come to crush the head of the serpent have been present in the Bible from the beginning.

Does it really surprise you that those cultures who love evil and invert the truth, from Baal and Moloch to the Wicker Man and the Maya drag an unwilling or dazed "sacrifice" to their death.

Given the fact you are aware of much of the material of the elites with their satanic mockery and corruption, does it really come as an impossible notion that the spiritual forces behind these groups would want to mock the Passover Lamb, and associate two unlike concepts in order to repel people from the shed blood of their Saviour?

I'm convinced, given all the evidence, that in the past (over 10 000 years ago) there were beings on earth who possessed more advanced technologies than even us today. Human or not, I don't know. I know that they required humans to bring them gold, animals, crops. Their buildings exist in North Africa, the ME, South America, South and East Asia. People called them gods. People also sacrificed their young ones to them, perhaps it was a way for the gods to keep their human subjects in total submission, or maybe human blood/flesh was of some value to them.

These barbaric practices never existed in our part of the world. No animal or human sacrifice. We had no ideology to substantiate such an act. We offer gifts of food to our deceased ancestors, which we ourselves then eat (share with the spirits).

This is why this theme of animal and human sacrifice is present in the Bible or some other religions. It's awful.

As for religion mockery, there's nothing unusual about it. It's been going on for centuries for all religions. There are always skeptics, rebels, critics etc. As for Freemasonry etc., they might target certain ideas in religions because they see those ideas as going against their agenda. Particular ideas Freemasons oppose can be good or bad ones.