6 of 7
6
Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.
Posted: 19 July 2012 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6175
Joined  2009-02-26
student - 17 July 2012 08:44 PM

StephenLawrence:

You suggested answering why not. Your question is better. Thank you. Why would god not owe man a duty to eliminate evil? Assuming man is the source of the evil (open to debate), man may just be getting what man deserves. Arguably, this answer (along with many others deficiencies you may find) leads us off topic.

Seems god’s existence is a prerequisite to the blog’s title question.

Few question science’s failure to prove god’s existence. Does atheism claim science proves god’s non existence?

Few question theism requires at least some faith. Does atheism claim no faith is required?

student

Depends on your definition of faith. Demonstrated results or willy nilly result. In the case of humans being the children of god, I have faith that (if there is a) god has no emotion of any kind, else he’d be a mass murderer. Because man is special? Where is your proof that god has done mankind any favors. Give me a break.

[ Edited: 19 July 2012 04:12 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2012 07:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
student - 15 July 2012 07:33 PM

DarronS:

You asked where is the justice of childhood cancer? If children have a right to cancer free lives, then there is no justice.

Does your question assume that god owes children protection from cancer? And what’s with the distinction between children and adults?

Generally, seems the atheist will view god owing man the duty while the theist views man owing god the duty. Is this a fair generalization?

student

Do you have any responsibilities to your children?
Yes you do.
As above so below.
Does God have any responsibilities to his children?
Yes he does.
Is he exercising that responsibility?
No he is not.
As his example with Jesus clearly shows, God is a deadbeat dad who does not step up to his responsibilities.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 09:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Greatest I am:

You mentioned as above so below. Assuming the reverse is also true, do parents also claim that they created their children out of nothing?

You mentioned parental responsibility to children. This responsibility sounds like a custody relationship.

Assuming God created people, is the creator obligated to a custody relationship to his creation or just a possessory relationship?

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 10:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6175
Joined  2009-02-26
student - 01 August 2012 09:06 PM

Greatest I am:

You mentioned as above so below. Assuming the reverse is also true, do parents also claim that they created their children out of nothing?

You mentioned parental responsibility to children. This responsibility sounds like a custody relationship.

Assuming God created people, is the creator obligated to a custody relationship to his creation or just a possessory relationship?

student

None of the above, God is an abstraction which cannot claim anything, least of all Possession.
Define God and Motive first, before you start drawing conclusions or assume anything. If anything, humans are owned by, and subject to the natural process of Evolution.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2012 09:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
student - 01 August 2012 09:06 PM

Greatest I am:

You mentioned as above so below. Assuming the reverse is also true, do parents also claim that they created their children out of nothing?

No. We are more honest in this case and admit that it took sperm and egg.

God, as far as I can tell never claims anything. Men do in his name but most of those men have poor morals and are likely liars. How do we know they have no morals?
FMPOV, because they have embraced a genocidal God of war who even had his own son needlessly murdered.

These part of scripture do show a God with better morals but most Christians reject him. Because they embrace human sacrifice. Yuk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

You mentioned parental responsibility to children. This responsibility sounds like a custody relationship.

It goes further than that but basically, yes, as I understand your term.

Assuming God created people, is the creator obligated to a custody relationship to his creation or just a possessory relationship?

student

I would say that he does not have a custody relationship at all because he is not here showing his love the only way love can be expressed. By works and deeds. A prime example of this in scripture is his being a dead beat dad in relation to what is supposed to be his only half breed chimera son Jesus.

Scriptures do show a possessory relationship as it shows him sending the vast majority of us to hell without us ever having full disclosure even of his existence.

Now that is monstrously unjust given the immoral bible that he supposedly authored.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c0RFxXrYzg&feature=related

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2012 07:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Greatest I am:

You asked how do we know [men of God] have no morals? You ask an important question. Arguably these mens’ acts of righteousness are as filthy rags. If these men claim morals, do these men not deceive themselves and find the truth is not in them?

In an attempt to head back to this blog’s title question, who do these lacking morals offend?

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2012 08:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
student - 03 August 2012 07:48 AM

Greatest I am:

You asked how do we know [men of God] have no morals? You ask an important question. Arguably these mens’ acts of righteousness are as filthy rags.

If so, are you suggesting that they should stop doing acts of righteousness?
Are filthy rags not good to those who are naked?

If these men claim morals, do these men not deceive themselves and find the truth is not in them?

Show which moral principle you are referring to and we can see if they deceive themselves or not.

One principle that Christians seem to favor, as in the case of Jesus, is that it is good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty and that Christians should try to profit from such a murder.

In an attempt to head back to this blog’s title question, who do these lacking morals offend?

Everyone who has good morals.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2012 08:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Greatest I am:

You asked if the man of god should stop doing acts of righteousness. Assuming these men are doing righteousness, no. But your August second post mentioned most of those men have poor morals and are likely liars. In their immorality (aka filthy rags), why not just dispense with the deception of righteousness? I had not thought of filthy rags as a cover up for nakedness.

You asked which moral principle before you mentioned profiting at some other’s murder. At the risk of oversimplifying, profiting at some others expense would stand at one end of the moral continuum while loving others at your own expense would stand at the other. What greater love than to willingly lay down your life for another?

You answered that those lacking morals offend everyone with morals. This probably explains why I usually fail to be offended. Maybe this explains why I tend to focus on victim injury instead of the stark polar characteristics between the perpetrator and victim.

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2012 05:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1778
Joined  2007-10-22

Hey people:

No one is perfect, if we don’t have forgiveness of both ourselves and others society will collaspe.  Of course not all things can be forgiven but many can and need to be.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2012 03:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
student - 05 August 2012 08:58 PM

Greatest I am:

You asked if the man of god should stop doing acts of righteousness. Assuming these men are doing righteousness, no. But your August second post mentioned most of those men have poor morals and are likely liars. In their immorality (aka filthy rags), why not just dispense with the deception of righteousness? I had not thought of filthy rags as a cover up for nakedness.

You asked which moral principle before you mentioned profiting at some other’s murder. At the risk of oversimplifying, profiting at some others expense would stand at one end of the moral continuum while loving others at your own expense would stand at the other. What greater love than to willingly lay down your life for another?

You answered that those lacking morals offend everyone with morals. This probably explains why I usually fail to be offended. Maybe this explains why I tend to focus on victim injury instead of the stark polar characteristics between the perpetrator and victim.

student

You say such while lining up to profit from an innocent victim being punished instead of the guilty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzuxyq3ltls&feature=player_embedded

“You answered that those lacking morals offend everyone with morals. This probably explains why I usually fail to be offended.”

I agree. Christian morality sucks if it even exists.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2012 03:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
garythehuman - 06 August 2012 05:19 PM

Hey people:

No one is perfect, if we don’t have forgiveness of both ourselves and others society will collaspe.  Of course not all things can be forgiven but many can and need to be.

No argument.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2012 07:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Greatest I am:

You said I am lining up to profit from an innocent victim being punished instead of the guilty me. Maybe the question should be what greater love than to pay the punishment some other deserves.

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2012 10:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Only your god is omniscient.  How can you be sure of who is guilty, who is innocent, and how much if any punishment anyone deserves?  Didn’t the christian bible say something like, “Punishment is mine sayeth the lord”?  Or was it vengance?  LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 03:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2006-11-27

Student, I don’t think punishment is something someone “deserves”.  Punishment is pointless unless it has some practical effect, usually as a deterrent.  If I were a sociopath would someone else receiving punishment for my actions do anything but encourage my transgressions?  And, the myth of a God that somehow out of love takes on mortals punishment for their sake is absurd.  If you’re and omniscient, omnipotent being, how can you possible be punished?  If you choose to allow others to cause you pain isn’t that just some kind of masochism? 

The idea that a victim is somehow owed punishment seems faulty to me, too, perhaps because I think the idea of “fairness” is impractical.  When someone is injured by “an act of God”, we carefully make it clear that there is no recourse, (even though omnipotence implies the impossibility of accident).  That doesn’t mean we don’t build sea walls and warning systems for tsunamis, or don’t require buildings to be reinforced for earthquakes, though.  And, at it’s best that is what “punishment” is, a means of preventing additional injury.

I think it can be argued that the Christian idea that, “Christ died for our sins”, is really about inculcating a false sense of guilt into into gullible individuals.  A way of eroding people’s self respect and creating a more submissive population by creating a sense of guilt for purely imaginary sins and requiring submission and atonement to God, ( who is embodied in the form of a religious institution), as a way to expiate those sins.

 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 August 2012 07:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
student - 12 August 2012 07:46 PM

Greatest I am:

You said I am lining up to profit from an innocent victim being punished instead of the guilty me. Maybe the question should be what greater love than to pay the punishment some other deserves.

student

I agree that to give up one’s life for others is noble.
In the case of Jesus/God, he is the one who condemned us in the firtst place so his dying, sort of, for us after he himself condemned us is a sign of insanity.

Would you condemn your people and then put a ransom on your own life to save them?
Only if you are insane my friend.

You are trying to profit from insanity and the death of an innocent victim. Do try to be more moral.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzuxyq3ltls&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 7
6