How will you get yourself into heaven? On your own merit or via a scapegoat?

How will you get yourself into heaven?

On your own merit or via a scapegoat?

Revisit substitutionary atonement or vicarious redemption and scapegoating with me just to refresh your memory.

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

I am not an atheist but Satan and Christians want atheists to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that we should profit from punishing the innocent instead of the guilty. Scapegoating IOW.

In reality, if God did demand such a barbaric sacrifice, he would be sinning as we all know that it is immoral to kill the innocent. God knows this yet Christians do not seem to. You do. Right?

Those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a son just to prove it's benevolence. When you die, Satan will ask you; how was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood?

If and when you say yes, you become his.

-----------------------------------

The other option in scriptures, a moral one, is shown here. 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.

Scriptures indicate that God prefers repentance to sacrifice and as God’s will is supreme and cannot be thwarted, this will come to pass.

---------------------------------

It is a special distorted Christian view of love that sees, --- as the greatest act of love possible, --- their God condemning them, and then turning and demanding his son’s deaths and thus corrupting God's perfect justice. A bribe set by God as judge himself for himself. This is of course ridiculous.

Christians have an insane view of love, IMO.

Would you express your love for humanity or those you love by having your own child needlessly murdered?

Or if convinced that a sacrifice was somehow good, would you have the moral fortitude to step up yourself to that cross instead of sending your child?

Your cowardly God did not.

Regards
DL

For the latter day people the one and only way is to accept that Jesus came to save the world and to seek forgiveness for our sins.

Everything prior to the birth of Jesus is tottaly irrelevant to the peopel of today.

polyglide wrote:For the latter day people the one and only way is to accept that Jesus came to save the world and to seek forgiveness for our sins.

Everything prior to the birth of Jesus is tottaly irrelevant to the peopel of today.

So you have embraced barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that you should profit from God having his son needlessly murdered. Satan will be pleased.

Do you have children? Would you teach them that it is ok for them to use a scapegoat, at school let's say?

I did not think so. So how is it ok for you to use one?

Regards
DL

polyglide wrote:For the latter day people the one and only way is to accept that Jesus came to save the world and to seek forgiveness for our sins.

Two moms, Mary and Sue, are driving home with their children in their cars. Mary crashes into Sue and though no one was injured, the cars are both complete wrecks.

Mary: "I am so sorry! I just didn't see you and I crashed into you. It was all my fault."

Sue: "Yes, it WAS your fault. BUT ... have no fear. I forgive you. And just to prove that I forgive you, I'm going to murder my only begotten son right in front of you."

Only Begotten Son: "Huh, wha? Mom?"

Mary: "Really? You'd do that for me? You are such a wonderful person to do that. You truly are loving!

(Sue procedes to torture and then murder her son right there at the accident scene.)

Sue: "Do you voluntarily accept my son's sacrifice that I made him give to you without asking him first?"

Mary: "Of course I do! I will always love your son from here on out!"

Sue: "Good. You can be my son's first apostle. Go and tell the world what he has done for you and, indeed, for all humanity - anyone who gets into a car accident will be absolved of the blame by the blood of my son. You can now cancel your car insurance."

Mary: "Have no fear. I will immediately go out and start a messianic cult dedicated to the memory of your son!"

(15 minutes later)

Son: "Is she gone?"

Sue: "Yep."

Son: [snickers] It worked like a charm. I knew I wouldn't really die because you would "resurrect" me once the cult was formed."

Sue: "Of course not, I wouldn't sacrifice you. I only made it look like I did - just make sure you lay low from now on. I don't know - I'll spread the rumor that you were whisked off to Heaven or something."

Son: "Hey, good idea! NO one will expect to see me if everyone thinks I'm still dead."

Sue: "That's right, but I can't spread the rumor for another week. I have to fly to Morocco for a messianic cult-starting conference. I'm a keynote speaker. So you have to stay in the house until I get back."

(On the fourth day of Sue's conference, Son runs out of food and is caught sneaking into a grocery store by a gaggle of Mary's Accident Forgiveness Cult members).

Cultist 1: "Look, it can't be. But it is! That's ... that's the Son!"

Cultist 2: "Wow, it really is! He's been ... resurrected!"

Cultists in unison: *GASP*

Cultist 3: "It's true, then, we really are forgiven for our car accidents!"

Cultist 1: [gets out a pen and a piece of paper] "And now I'll start writing a holy book detailing the accounts of Mary, the Son, and his bloody sacrifice and ultimate resurrrection so that our wrecks will be forgiven!"

Cultist 4: "No, maybe you should wait on that. Let someone a few hundred years from now write all of that. We don't want any first-hand accounts in that book. People will think we're crazy if we write that NOW!"

Cultist 1: [puts away pen and paper] "Good point ..."


*****

Silly, huh? Yeah ... now you get a small glimmer of how we view Christianity.

Well done for sure.

A great example of the foolishness and immorality of substitutionary atonement.

You will note that he has yet to indicate if he would teach his child to do what he is doing in a real life scenario.

There may be some hope left that he will see his poor moral position as he uses his scapegoat.

Regards
DL

Shirina, I could come up with numerous silly stories that have no particular meaning to the matter in question.

There were several peole in peril.

Two grown ups and four children.

The unfortunate circumstances were that to save 5 of their lives one would have to be sacrificed ?.

Poly

I see that my little question was too much for you. Apologies for putting wings on your feet.

I thought you wanted to discuss this O P.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:Poly

I see that my little question was too much for you. Apologies for putting wings on your feet.

I thought you wanted to discuss this O P.

Regards
DL

There are a large number of atheists here that have fully come to terms that there is no afterlife therefore your question has no meaning for them, I include myself in that number.

However if you had asked "What will you do if contrary to your belief there is an an afterlife?" that would be different.

Heretic

polyglide wrote:Shirina, I could come up with numerous silly stories that have no particular meaning to the matter in question.

Try to imagine it's biblical parable.

I am not sure exactly what you wish me to reply to.

I try to and have always, told my children to think for themselves based on the information available to them.

There are situations that arise in life that are seemingly impossible to solve without causing suffering to others, this is a fact of life.

The answer is to solve them in the manner causing the least suffering.

However, many of the problems are man made and it would be far better if they did not arise in the first place.

polyglide wrote:I am not sure exactly what you wish me to reply to.

I try to and have always, told my children to think for themselves based on the information available to them.

There are situations that arise in life that are seemingly impossible to solve without causing suffering to others, this is a fact of life.

The answer is to solve them in the manner causing the least suffering.

However, many of the problems are man made and it would be far better if they did not arise in the first place.

???

The question seems clear and simple enough.
-------------------

Do you have children? Would you teach them that it is ok for them to use a scapegoat, at school let's say?

I anticipated your answer to be a negative and continued with ---

I did not think so. So how is it ok for you to use one?

The questions are the ones with the question marks.

I await your reply.

Regards
DL

If my children take note of the advice I have given them there would be no need for a scape goat at any time of their life.

I have no idea how you feel that I have a scape goat in the first place.

You have to be on the wind-up, PG. Surely any Christian would recognise the analogy here.

polyglide wrote:If my children take note of the advice I have given them there would be no need for a scape goat at any time of their life.

I have no idea how you feel that I have a scape goat in the first place.

That is a totally hypocritical statement as you prepare to ride your scapegoat Jesus sacrifice into heaven.

No wonder Christianity is backsliding with apologists like you about.

Keep it up.

You put nails not only in your God but in Christianity as a whole.

Regards
DL

Dan Fante wrote:You have to be on the wind-up, PG. Surely any Christian would recognise the analogy here.

Not when they are running and hiding their true and very ugly beliefs.

Regards
DL

If you can actually point out the scape goat principle in what I believe then please do so.

I believe just to confirm, that Jesus came to save the world.

I believe that in doing so I should encourage my children to consider the same, neither attempt to force or coherce them to do so but to base their belief on what all the information and their experiences tell them is the truth.

Irrespective of any other consideration it is far better than a drug confused and drunken, foul mouthed wife beater or any of the other low life the present society breeds on a regular basis etc;

polyglide wrote:If you can actually point out the scape goat principle in what I believe then please do so.

The crucifixion of Jesus. I'm astonished at having to point this out.

polyglide wrote:If you can actually point out the scape goat principle in what I believe then please do so.

I believe just to confirm, that Jesus came to save the world.

I believe that in doing so I should encourage my children to consider the same, neither attempt to force or coherce them to do so but to base their belief on what all the information and their experiences tell them is the truth.

Irrespective of any other consideration it is far better than a drug confused and drunken, foul mouthed wife beater or any of the other low life the present society breeds on a regular basis etc;  

I see that Dan confirmed who your scapegoat is and you seem to have ignored him but to your last.

How can you blame people for being what they are when, to you, it is your God who is creating them as is.

Would you teach your children to take advantage of a scapegoat in school?

How about an answer? Or do I need to ask a few more times?

Regards
DL

I fear you confuse a saviour with a scapegoat.

I would always advise my children to take resposibility for their actions under all circumstances.

polyglide wrote:I fear you confuse a saviour with a scapegoat.

I would always advise my children to take resposibility for their actions under all circumstances.

That's the point though, Jesus died on the cross for the sins of others. Or so the story goes, at least. How is that not an example of someone being scapegoated, PG? Please explain why.

God made the ultimate sacrifice in as much as he offered his son as a means of saving man from himself who was heading for total distruction.

God was not making Jesus a scapegoat he was offering a sacrifice
through Jesus to give man another opportunity of salvation.

Had Jesus not lived a blameless life under all the circumstances involved then the sacrifice would have been in vain.

As I said you confuse scapegoat with saviour.

polyglide wrote:

God was not making Jesus a scapegoat he was offering a sacrifice

In this context they're virtual synonyms, so I don't see what you're getting at / why you fail to understand the point being made.

polyglide wrote:I fear you confuse a saviour with a scapegoat.

I would always advise my children to take resposibility for their actions under all circumstances.

No he does not. A saviour is just that, a scape goat. Have a look at the purpose of animal sacrifice in the Old Testament and how they are meant as a (symbolic) precursor of the Messiah.

Heretic

polyglide wrote:I fear you confuse a saviour with a scapegoat.

I would always advise my children to take resposibility for their actions under all circumstances.

Yet with Jesus, you have laid your responsibility on his cross and have advised that we all do the same immoral thing by accepting Jesus as our savior and scapegoat, --- and yes, those terms are synonymous.

Either you are trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth or are lying.

Repent sinner.

Regards
DL

Dan Fante wrote:

polyglide wrote:

God was not making Jesus a scapegoat he was offering a sacrifice

In this context they're virtual synonyms, so I don't see what you're getting at / why you fail to understand the point being made.

Buddy. Do you really expect honesty from a Christian?     


“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther “

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
Jonathan Swift

Regards
DL

polyglide

Three disagree with your definition.

How many would it take before you actually decided to care what others think?

Is there a number that would make you look again for the first time?

There is none is there?

What does that tell you if the situation was reversed and many theists were against one non-theist?

Regards
DL

polyglide wrote:Irrespective of any other consideration it is far better than a drug confused and drunken, foul mouthed wife beater or any of the other low life the present society breeds on a regular basis etc;  

LOL at "foul mouthed."

Just as a little sidebar here to the idea of scapegoating, you do realize that there is nothing Biblical restriction about being "foul mouthed" and, in fact, the words we consider "dirty" are arbitrary social conventions and have absolutely nothing to do with real morality.

Why we have plucked a dozen or so words out of the entirety of the English language to label as being "offensive" is really a rather bizarre mystery.

Let's take our favorite four-letter F-bomb, for example.

Is it offensive because of the way the word sounds? No ... because we have several words that rhyme with it: truck, duck, luck, muck, buck, cluck, puck, among others. I could shout at you, "Oh, go puck yourself!" and it would sound essentially the same as if I used an F instead of a P.

Is it the meaning of the word? Nope ... because we have plenty of synonyms. Telling someone "Screw you!" conveys the same meaning as using the F-bomb instead, but "screw" is acceptable to say in that context.

It really is arbitrary, and why we call it "swearing" is a mystery, too. What, exactly, am I swearing to do when I drop an F-bomb? Does a "swearing in ceremony" include a lot of F-bombs? Of course not. So you can't even call it "swearing." The only thing Biblical about all of this is the prohibition of swearing an oath to God, such as, "If you do that again, I swear to God, I'll slap you upside the head." Ironically, swearing to God is NOT considered profanity and is perfectly fine to say on television.

So the idea of being "foul mouthed" is rather amusing to me since there really isn't a such thing as a foul mouth - there is no reason behind it.

Not to mention the fact the wife beating used to be far more socially acceptable and prevalent in places like the UK than it is now. Not that facts are something to trouble ourselves with in these debates.

Shirina wrote:Just as a little sidebar here to the idea of scapegoating, you do realize that there is nothing Biblical restriction about being "foul mouthed" and, in fact, the words we consider "dirty" are arbitrary social conventions and have absolutely nothing to do with real morality.

I once attended one of those Seaman's Missions near the docks in Liverpool because I had been invited by a friend. During the proceedings a docker that 'had become' a Christian about a week earlier stood up to give his testimony. He was a huge man, you know the type, nearly as broad as he was tall with hands the size of dinner plates. He was dressed in his Sunday Best and he had made an effort but his suit looked uncomfortable on him and the tie more so. He had one of those faces that grew 5 o'clock shadow about five minutes after shaving. He was of the type that caused men to run away just by scowling at them.

After going on for a while about how he messed up his life, and that was a long story, he said "And since I met Jesus I never felt so ***king good", everyone laughed because he had been trying really hard to mind his p's and q's. He immediately apologised but nobody had been offended. Perhaps Jesus used the vernacular but through 2,000 years of adoration the meaning of the words changed, possibly that bit about the whip and the money-changers in the temple grounds.

Words are for communication and some people can make the 'F-Bomb' substitute for half their vocabulary. If that's how they want to present themselves then that's OK. I don't think I would seek out their company but this would not be a loss to either of us.

Heretic

Edit: asterisks not mine

It is the implication of a word that makes the word and nothing else.

I'm boycotting the place until it is clearly made a closed shop.

Penderyn wrote:I'm boycotting the place until it is clearly made a closed shop.

    

That would not be helpful to those who are in a great need of your help.

Step up. You are better than they are.

Regards
DL

Oops

Penderyn wrote:I'm boycotting the place until it is clearly made a closed shop.

A closed shop is for those that want to be locked in.

Heretic

But difficult for those who want in.

polyglide wrote:But difficult for those who want in.

...... or want to shut everyone else (it's how they get to feel 'special').

Heretic

polyglide wrote:But difficult for those who want in.

Poly. You won't listen to anything I say but I doctored this first quote for you, in the hope that you would think of the second. Only the refrencing to you was altered.

"Censorship reflects polyglide's lack of confidence in himself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian thinking." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God,
holds other people in contempt.
Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,
there is in that man no spirit of compromise.
He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature;
he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance.
Believing himself to be the slave of God,
he imitates his master,
and of all tyrants,
the worst is a slave in power."
--Robert Ingersoll

Regards lost     soul.

Regards
DL

Heretic wrote:

Penderyn wrote:I'm boycotting the place until it is clearly made a closed shop.

A closed shop is for those that want to be locked in.

Heretic

A closed shop is for those prepared to look after one another and not see blacklegs paid more for treachery, obviously. If there were a heaven it should be barred to those who worship the bosses and the Book.

Actually a closed shop is to exclude those who disagree with those inside.

They may be right or they may be wrong, what they are not is being capable of considering in a proper manner the opinions etc; of others.

Heretic wrote:A closed shop is for those that want to be locked in.

polyglide wrote:Actually a closed shop is to exclude those who disagree with those inside.

Two different sides of the same coin

polyglide wrote:They may be right or they may be wrong, what they are not is being capable of considering in a proper manner the opinions etc; of others.

I don't see the connection between this and what came before.

Heretic