3 of 9
3
Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Posted: 10 June 2013 10:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10

To those who do not believe in free will within the bounds of nature and physics, I have a test that proves to you that you have a free will or freedom to choose.

Let me know if you have taken this test or want to.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2013 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 09:47 AM
TimB - 03 June 2013 07:02 AM
Greatest I am - 03 June 2013 05:54 AM
TimB - 31 May 2013 05:47 PM

In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place.  But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will.  Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God.  In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God.

That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric. 

What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.

I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral.

I expected more from you.

 

Then I shall give you more.  In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father’s directive.  In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for “a greater cause”. We don’t typically complain that this is immoral.  And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else’s life, we don’t consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed.

Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy.

In this case the enemy is the son’s father.

A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price.

Regards
DL

One doesn’t have to die at the hands of an enemy to be esteemed for self sacrifice. e.g., A fireman could die in a fire while saving a child.  In the Christian story Jesus was the mortal manifestation of God himself.  But as the mortal personification of God, and separate from God by this mortality as a human, Jesus could have decided not to do as God demanded.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2013 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 09:54 AM
TimB - 03 June 2013 09:12 AM

Here’s what i think might be immoral about the God/Adam/Jesus myth:

To recap, God created Man as a perfect creature who had “free will” - Adam.  Adam exercised his free will in a way that caused a rift between him and God.  The only way for the rift to be repaired was for another perfect Man, by his own “free will” to sacrifice his own mortal life.

So, given that rule, Jesus’s sacrifice, and God directing him to do it, does not seem immoral to me.

What does seem questionably moral, to me, is the rule itself, if God is omnipotent.  One would think that God could have made a rule that did not require such a sacrifice.  But presumably, God gave up a part of his omnipotence, by allowing Man the ability to do other than God’s will.  So there seems to be some internal consistency within the myth.

Now, outside of the myth, we know that libertarian free will does not actually exist.  (See the Philosophy Forum.)

They have their own version of free will do they and have decided that their version does not exist?????

You say that a rift was created when Adam used his free will.
That means that he does not have free will as he is denied it’s use without death.

Regards
DL

You should note that, in the story, as I recall it, God did not threaten Adam with death for disobedience.  God essentially did nothing to prevent Adam from exerting his free will and eating the apple, except for telling him not to. Now, I think one might make the case that it was immoral for God to give Adam free will, in the first place. But then, there would be no story, to speak of.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2013 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
TimB - 10 June 2013 10:47 AM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 09:47 AM
TimB - 03 June 2013 07:02 AM
Greatest I am - 03 June 2013 05:54 AM
TimB - 31 May 2013 05:47 PM

In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place.  But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will.  Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God.  In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God.

That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric. 

What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.

I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral.

I expected more from you.

 

Then I shall give you more.  In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father’s directive.  In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for “a greater cause”. We don’t typically complain that this is immoral.  And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else’s life, we don’t consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed.

Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy.

In this case the enemy is the son’s father.

A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price.

Regards
DL

One doesn’t have to die at the hands of an enemy to be esteemed for self sacrifice. e.g., A fireman could die in a fire while saving a child.  In the Christian story Jesus was the mortal manifestation of God himself.  But as the mortal personification of God, and separate from God by this mortality as a human, Jesus could have decided not to do as God demanded.

No fireman’s son will sit back as part of his third head and let the father head start a fire that will kill him as son’s head.

Would you let your father start a fire that you have to snuff out causing your death?
Of course not. You are not stupid.

So why think Jesus would be that stupid.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2013 11:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
TimB - 10 June 2013 11:05 AM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 09:54 AM
TimB - 03 June 2013 09:12 AM

Here’s what i think might be immoral about the God/Adam/Jesus myth:

To recap, God created Man as a perfect creature who had “free will” - Adam.  Adam exercised his free will in a way that caused a rift between him and God.  The only way for the rift to be repaired was for another perfect Man, by his own “free will” to sacrifice his own mortal life.

So, given that rule, Jesus’s sacrifice, and God directing him to do it, does not seem immoral to me.

What does seem questionably moral, to me, is the rule itself, if God is omnipotent.  One would think that God could have made a rule that did not require such a sacrifice.  But presumably, God gave up a part of his omnipotence, by allowing Man the ability to do other than God’s will.  So there seems to be some internal consistency within the myth.

Now, outside of the myth, we know that libertarian free will does not actually exist.  (See the Philosophy Forum.)

They have their own version of free will do they and have decided that their version does not exist?????

You say that a rift was created when Adam used his free will.
That means that he does not have free will as he is denied it’s use without death.

Regards
DL

You should note that, in the story, as I recall it, God did not threaten Adam with death for disobedience.  God essentially did nothing to prevent Adam from exerting his free will and eating the apple, except for telling him not to. Now, I think one might make the case that it was immoral for God to give Adam free will, in the first place. But then, there would be no story, to speak of.

The consequence or threat to Adam was that if he ate and used his free will then God would lock away the tree of life and thus kill him. That is what the myth has God doing.

If that is not God doing something and exerting pressure for Adam not to use his free will then what is it?

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2013 11:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 11:16 AM
TimB - 10 June 2013 10:47 AM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 09:47 AM
TimB - 03 June 2013 07:02 AM
Greatest I am - 03 June 2013 05:54 AM
TimB - 31 May 2013 05:47 PM

In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place.  But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will.  Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God.  In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God.

That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric. 

What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.

I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral.

I expected more from you.

 

Then I shall give you more.  In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father’s directive.  In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for “a greater cause”. We don’t typically complain that this is immoral.  And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else’s life, we don’t consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed.

Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy.

In this case the enemy is the son’s father.

A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price.

Regards
DL

One doesn’t have to die at the hands of an enemy to be esteemed for self sacrifice. e.g., A fireman could die in a fire while saving a child.  In the Christian story Jesus was the mortal manifestation of God himself.  But as the mortal personification of God, and separate from God by this mortality as a human, Jesus could have decided not to do as God demanded.

No fireman’s son will sit back as part of his third head and let the father head start a fire that will kill him as son’s head.

Would you let your father start a fire that you have to snuff out causing your death?
Of course not. You are not stupid.

So why think Jesus would be that stupid.

Regards
DL

To fairly use the fireman analogy for the story of God/Jesus, you would have to include the Adam backstory.  It might be something like this: A wealthy nuclear scientist (God analog) creates a residential community for homeless people (Adam&Eve; analog).  The wealthy man tells the no-longer homeless folks “This is all yours.  Enjoy. Just be sure to never exceed the generating capacity of the compact nuclear reactor that powers your community.”  But of course, they do. (apple eating analog).  The reactor breaks down, a fire starts there, and radiation is about to spew out so intensely as to wipe out everyone in the community.  The wealthy scientist’s son, a fireman (Jesus analog), who happens to also be knowledgeable about the compact nuclear reactor that his father built for the community, is sent by his father to put out the fire and prevent a total meltdown.  The scientist father tells his son, “The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else.” 

Now any analogy breaks down, but this is a more fair analogy to the God/Adam/Jesus story than: A father starts a fire and demands that his fireman son kills himself to put the fire out.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2013 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 11:23 AM
TimB - 10 June 2013 11:05 AM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 09:54 AM
TimB - 03 June 2013 09:12 AM

Here’s what i think might be immoral about the God/Adam/Jesus myth:

To recap, God created Man as a perfect creature who had “free will” - Adam.  Adam exercised his free will in a way that caused a rift between him and God.  The only way for the rift to be repaired was for another perfect Man, by his own “free will” to sacrifice his own mortal life.

So, given that rule, Jesus’s sacrifice, and God directing him to do it, does not seem immoral to me.

What does seem questionably moral, to me, is the rule itself, if God is omnipotent.  One would think that God could have made a rule that did not require such a sacrifice.  But presumably, God gave up a part of his omnipotence, by allowing Man the ability to do other than God’s will.  So there seems to be some internal consistency within the myth.

Now, outside of the myth, we know that libertarian free will does not actually exist.  (See the Philosophy Forum.)

They have their own version of free will do they and have decided that their version does not exist?????

You say that a rift was created when Adam used his free will.
That means that he does not have free will as he is denied it’s use without death.

Regards
DL

You should note that, in the story, as I recall it, God did not threaten Adam with death for disobedience.  God essentially did nothing to prevent Adam from exerting his free will and eating the apple, except for telling him not to. Now, I think one might make the case that it was immoral for God to give Adam free will, in the first place. But then, there would be no story, to speak of.

The consequence or threat to Adam was that if he ate and used his free will then God would lock away the tree of life and thus kill him. That is what the myth has God doing.

If that is not God doing something and exerting pressure for Adam not to use his free will then what is it?

Regards
DL

An unstated consequence is not a threat.  If I threaten to kill you and thus successfully impede you from opening a particular door, I have impeded your free will. If I know that poison gas will come out and kill you, and demand that you not open that door, but you open it anyway, I have not impeded your free will.  Note, also, that I have provided all sorts of other doors that you can choose to open, or not, that will not result in your death.  It is only the one, that I have demanded that you not open.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2013 01:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
TimB - 10 June 2013 12:17 PM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 11:23 AM
TimB - 10 June 2013 11:05 AM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 09:54 AM
TimB - 03 June 2013 09:12 AM

Here’s what i think might be immoral about the God/Adam/Jesus myth:

To recap, God created Man as a perfect creature who had “free will” - Adam.  Adam exercised his free will in a way that caused a rift between him and God.  The only way for the rift to be repaired was for another perfect Man, by his own “free will” to sacrifice his own mortal life.

So, given that rule, Jesus’s sacrifice, and God directing him to do it, does not seem immoral to me.

What does seem questionably moral, to me, is the rule itself, if God is omnipotent.  One would think that God could have made a rule that did not require such a sacrifice.  But presumably, God gave up a part of his omnipotence, by allowing Man the ability to do other than God’s will.  So there seems to be some internal consistency within the myth.

Now, outside of the myth, we know that libertarian free will does not actually exist.  (See the Philosophy Forum.)

They have their own version of free will do they and have decided that their version does not exist?????

You say that a rift was created when Adam used his free will.
That means that he does not have free will as he is denied it’s use without death.

Regards
DL

You should note that, in the story, as I recall it, God did not threaten Adam with death for disobedience.  God essentially did nothing to prevent Adam from exerting his free will and eating the apple, except for telling him not to. Now, I think one might make the case that it was immoral for God to give Adam free will, in the first place. But then, there would be no story, to speak of.

The consequence or threat to Adam was that if he ate and used his free will then God would lock away the tree of life and thus kill him. That is what the myth has God doing.

If that is not God doing something and exerting pressure for Adam not to use his free will then what is it?

Regards
DL

An unstated consequence is not a threat.  If I threaten to kill you and thus successfully impede you from opening a particular door, I have impeded your free will. If I know that poison gas will come out and kill you, and demand that you not open that door, but you open it anyway, I have not impeded your free will.  Note, also, that I have provided all sorts of other doors that you can choose to open, or not, that will not result in your death.  It is only the one, that I have demanded that you not open.

Bottom line.

A consequence that causes a man,——or a God,——- to intentionally kill his children, or any child or human for that matter, for disobeying a command to stay with eyes shut when they can be opened, in ignorant bliss,——when the child can be bright, and forgo being as moral as God, then that man or God is a murderer and is without morals.

Christians follow such a God.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2013 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
TimB - 10 June 2013 11:59 AM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 11:16 AM
TimB - 10 June 2013 10:47 AM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 09:47 AM
TimB - 03 June 2013 07:02 AM
Greatest I am - 03 June 2013 05:54 AM
TimB - 31 May 2013 05:47 PM

In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place.  But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will.  Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God.  In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God.

That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric. 

What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.

I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral.

I expected more from you.

 

Then I shall give you more.  In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father’s directive.  In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for “a greater cause”. We don’t typically complain that this is immoral.  And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else’s life, we don’t consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed.

Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy.

In this case the enemy is the son’s father.

A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price.

Regards
DL

One doesn’t have to die at the hands of an enemy to be esteemed for self sacrifice. e.g., A fireman could die in a fire while saving a child.  In the Christian story Jesus was the mortal manifestation of God himself.  But as the mortal personification of God, and separate from God by this mortality as a human, Jesus could have decided not to do as God demanded.

No fireman’s son will sit back as part of his third head and let the father head start a fire that will kill him as son’s head.

Would you let your father start a fire that you have to snuff out causing your death?
Of course not. You are not stupid.

So why think Jesus would be that stupid.

Regards
DL

To fairly use the fireman analogy for the story of God/Jesus, you would have to include the Adam backstory.  It might be something like this: A wealthy nuclear scientist (God analog) creates a residential community for homeless people (Adam&Eve; analog).  The wealthy man tells the no-longer homeless folks “This is all yours.  Enjoy. Just be sure to never exceed the generating capacity of the compact nuclear reactor that powers your community.”  But of course, they do. (apple eating analog).  The reactor breaks down, a fire starts there, and radiation is about to spew out so intensely as to wipe out everyone in the community.  The wealthy scientist’s son, a fireman (Jesus analog), who happens to also be knowledgeable about the compact nuclear reactor that his father built for the community, is sent by his father to put out the fire and prevent a total meltdown.  The scientist father tells his son, “The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else.” 

Now any analogy breaks down, but this is a more fair analogy to the God/Adam/Jesus story than: A father starts a fire and demands that his fireman son kills himself to put the fire out.

“The scientist father tells his son, “The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else.”

Not so. The Father has what it takes except he lacks the love his own son. He is just too self-centered.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04

...

Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 01:44 PM

Bottom line.

A consequence that causes a man,——or a God,——- to intentionally kill his children, or any child or human for that matter, for disobeying a command to stay with eyes shut when they can be opened, in ignorant bliss,——when the child can be bright, and forgo being as moral as God, then that man or God is a murderer and is without morals.

Christians follow such a God.

Regards
DL

DL. It’s just a story, a work of fiction.  Star Trek fans have to suspend disbelief in some respects to enjoy the story. (e.g., How can they be zipping about the cosmos at multiple the spped of light and not become completely out of sinc in time with the rest of the Federation? They can’t. It’s impossible. But Star Trek fans ignore this, or come up with some jury rigged explanation, so as to enjoy the story.)  Now in the God/Adam/Jesus story , the part of the story line which may be jury rigged, so to speak, but which makes the story not so immoral as you percieve it is the free will wild card.  One has to assume that giving Man free will, took away from God’s omnipotence.  God could not force Man to do what is best form himself, lest he take away the gift of free will.  Free will includes, I think, the ability to make bad choices.  Thus God’s omnipotence was compromised once again, by this wild card.  God in creating Man with free will, had to provide the opportunity for Man to choose something that would not work out well for him, i.e., choosing knowledge of good and evil. Man made the choice to go for knowledge of good and evil, and it’s been a hell of a ride since (speaking within the story line). God could not take away the consequences of Man’s choice, without taking away free will, because free will includes living or dying with the consequences of one’s choices.  But God still loved Man and wanted to help Man with the burdens that Man’s choice had lead to. How can this be done without taking away Man’s free will?  By God making a art of himself become mortal, a human being with free will, Jesus.  Jesus was a grown Man when he allowed himself to be sacrificed.  He did this partly because God demanded it, but he didn’t have to do it.  He did it to offer Man a way to relieve some of the burdens that Man’s use of free will had lead to. 

So, I think that the story is not so terribly immoral as some atheists railing against the Christian belief system would have it be. My problem with the Christian belief system is not the internal consistency of story line, so much, (although it is rather simplistic and should stretch the limits of credulity of anyone who know much of anything) as it is that Christians base their lives and actions, in real life, on the belief that this elementary bit of fantasy represents absolute truth.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 09:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 01:55 PM
TimB - 10 June 2013 11:59 AM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 11:16 AM
TimB - 10 June 2013 10:47 AM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 09:47 AM
TimB - 03 June 2013 07:02 AM
Greatest I am - 03 June 2013 05:54 AM
TimB - 31 May 2013 05:47 PM

In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place.  But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will.  Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God.  In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God.

That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric. 

What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.

I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral.

I expected more from you.

 

Then I shall give you more.  In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father’s directive.  In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for “a greater cause”. We don’t typically complain that this is immoral.  And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else’s life, we don’t consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed.

Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy.

In this case the enemy is the son’s father.

A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price.

Regards
DL

One doesn’t have to die at the hands of an enemy to be esteemed for self sacrifice. e.g., A fireman could die in a fire while saving a child.  In the Christian story Jesus was the mortal manifestation of God himself.  But as the mortal personification of God, and separate from God by this mortality as a human, Jesus could have decided not to do as God demanded.

No fireman’s son will sit back as part of his third head and let the father head start a fire that will kill him as son’s head.

Would you let your father start a fire that you have to snuff out causing your death?
Of course not. You are not stupid.

So why think Jesus would be that stupid.

Regards
DL

To fairly use the fireman analogy for the story of God/Jesus, you would have to include the Adam backstory.  It might be something like this: A wealthy nuclear scientist (God analog) creates a residential community for homeless people (Adam&Eve; analog).  The wealthy man tells the no-longer homeless folks “This is all yours.  Enjoy. Just be sure to never exceed the generating capacity of the compact nuclear reactor that powers your community.”  But of course, they do. (apple eating analog).  The reactor breaks down, a fire starts there, and radiation is about to spew out so intensely as to wipe out everyone in the community.  The wealthy scientist’s son, a fireman (Jesus analog), who happens to also be knowledgeable about the compact nuclear reactor that his father built for the community, is sent by his father to put out the fire and prevent a total meltdown.  The scientist father tells his son, “The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else.” 

Now any analogy breaks down, but this is a more fair analogy to the God/Adam/Jesus story than: A father starts a fire and demands that his fireman son kills himself to put the fire out.

“The scientist father tells his son, “The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else.”

Not so. The Father has what it takes except he lacks the love his own son. He is just too self-centered.

Regards
DL

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 09:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
TimB - 11 June 2013 09:36 AM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 01:55 PM
TimB - 10 June 2013 11:59 AM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 11:16 AM
TimB - 10 June 2013 10:47 AM
Greatest I am - 10 June 2013 09:47 AM
TimB - 03 June 2013 07:02 AM
Greatest I am - 03 June 2013 05:54 AM
TimB - 31 May 2013 05:47 PM

In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place.  But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will.  Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God.  In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God.

That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric. 

What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.

I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral.

I expected more from you.

 

Then I shall give you more.  In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father’s directive.  In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for “a greater cause”. We don’t typically complain that this is immoral.  And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else’s life, we don’t consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed.

Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy.

In this case the enemy is the son’s father.

A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price.

Regards
DL

One doesn’t have to die at the hands of an enemy to be esteemed for self sacrifice. e.g., A fireman could die in a fire while saving a child.  In the Christian story Jesus was the mortal manifestation of God himself.  But as the mortal personification of God, and separate from God by this mortality as a human, Jesus could have decided not to do as God demanded.

No fireman’s son will sit back as part of his third head and let the father head start a fire that will kill him as son’s head.

Would you let your father start a fire that you have to snuff out causing your death?
Of course not. You are not stupid.

So why think Jesus would be that stupid.

Regards
DL

To fairly use the fireman analogy for the story of God/Jesus, you would have to include the Adam backstory.  It might be something like this: A wealthy nuclear scientist (God analog) creates a residential community for homeless people (Adam&Eve; analog).  The wealthy man tells the no-longer homeless folks “This is all yours.  Enjoy. Just be sure to never exceed the generating capacity of the compact nuclear reactor that powers your community.”  But of course, they do. (apple eating analog).  The reactor breaks down, a fire starts there, and radiation is about to spew out so intensely as to wipe out everyone in the community.  The wealthy scientist’s son, a fireman (Jesus analog), who happens to also be knowledgeable about the compact nuclear reactor that his father built for the community, is sent by his father to put out the fire and prevent a total meltdown.  The scientist father tells his son, “The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else.” 

Now any analogy breaks down, but this is a more fair analogy to the God/Adam/Jesus story than: A father starts a fire and demands that his fireman son kills himself to put the fire out.

“The scientist father tells his son, “The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else.”

Not so. The Father has what it takes except he lacks the love his own son. He is just too self-centered.

Regards
DL

The father is in France at the time. He is communicating with his son by cell phone.  (God, not being mortal cannot Himself provide the sacrifice.  Only a perfect mortal Man with free will can do so.)

You know, we might as well be arguing over whether the bulk of the elves were being unethical by abandoning Middle Earth, and sailing into the West, in the midst of the Mordor crisis.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10

Respect is gone as you do not see the immorality in the Abrahamic cults.

We are done here.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
Greatest I am - 11 June 2013 09:57 AM

Respect is gone as you do not see the immorality in the Abrahamic cults.

We are done here.

Regards
DL

Wow.  Ease up.  Take a chill pill if necessary.  It’s not that big of a deal, DL, unless I somehow threatened the foundations of your belief system.  As I mentioned there is at least one story line, that I consider rather immoral in the “Abramic cults, and I expect that I could find many others.  I am just not that into tearing down the internal consistency of story lines of, what I consider to be, the not very entertaining fiction/fantasy/historical stories of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Respect is gone as you do not see the immorality in the Abrahamic cults.
We are done here.
Regards
DL

DL help me out here. I understand the questions “Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?”
Now you are bringing in the Abrahamic cults.

My understanding in the Abrahamic cults is that God is one. And that he used Jesus’ body. Jesus the god did not die. Only the body that he used while at earth. This is not my thinking this is from Christians defending their religion. I argued the blood of Jesus and all that, but I was told the sprit of God left the body before it died. That man is not able to kill God. If God died then the religion would be over, correct. But I view that as a Christian view only.
Because the dictionary has the definition “deicide” 1. a person who kills a god.

You would have to think that at sometime in history somebody was killing gods to have had the reason to come up with a name for it.

My thinking is that Jesus was trying to convert the people to the Gnostic way of thinking. There is no inherited sin that I am aware of. So it may have been his way to get rid of the sin so he could communicate his ideas one step at a time, sort of spoon feeding the people.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 9
3