• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Human Sacrifice & Scapegoating, Easter's questionable morals

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
This is a non-starter, as the implication isn't true for either side. I have no more reason to accept this is true than 'the only reason people become Christian is out of self-interest.' The desire for immortality or to avoid perceived punishment or to feel more cosmically meaningful. It's a false dilemma.
I'm sorry but I just do not see how it can be any other way. If materialism is true then any questions of right and wrong, yet alone values and meaning are an irrelevance. If 'God' is but an unconscious, inexplicable void then the only meaningful questions left to us are ones of utility. Yeah, it's useful to treat others with consideration but doing so is not inherently meaningful because there is no meaning. There can't be any meaning. The only answer is that the world is inexplicable.

Now there's certainly in the Christian view of things that aspect of final reward or punishment. It is written in the good book that "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". But the end of wisdom is the love of God for his own sake. If I can go out at night and feel awe at the sight of the stars then how much more awe do I owe him who put those stars there in the first place? Accepting the belief in God is actually a deep act of humility. "Thy will, not mine be done". Atheists on the other hand are all too often glued to thrones of their own lives. Even if those thrones are made from the cheapest of plastics. I'm sure you know fully well of the type I'm speaking of.

As i said, you don't need a god(s) for altruism, compassion, empathy etc and arguably putting a god in there can make a more selfish person than any non-believer.
You don't need a belief in God to be moral. Again referencing the good book. "The law is written onto their hearts". Nor does a mere assent to the idea of God automatically make a person moral. "Depart from me ye workers of iniquity!" But you see, I presuppose God so my view is not that atheists don't have a sense of right and wrong but that they should continue to have a sense of right and wrong is because of the moral nature God created us to have. Now whether or not an atheist's moral nature is in all regards properly ordered is another question. The further one drifts from God the less likely that would be. (But that would be a pointless discussion between us as our axioms are simply too opposed). The important point is not that I deny that atheists have morals, but that moral values in a materialist worldview can be built on nothing more than a combination of personal opinion and utility. A far-right racialist can never be "wrong" in any objective sense in regards to his hateful values.

And if someone can find no reason to not hurt someone other than the threat of punishment, I think that says a lot more about them than people who don't.
Conversely there are people who either do find reason to hurt people or find no reason not to hurt people if it advantages them. Believe it or not there are people who do not give a damn about any notion of benevolence. You're going to tell such a person what? That they're a bad humanist? I at least can tell them that they'll face God the minute their heart stops beating as I believe in a final justice you simply cannot.

In any case materialism =/= antitheism or forced atheist governance.
That wasn't my point. My point is that there's no such thing as a godless person. In the consumerist society I described, those gods tend to be Asmodeus and Mammon.

Incidentally are no more well off than many religious nations including our own.
Just as an aside, I'm assuming that by "our own" you mean the U.S.

I'm Australian.
 
Last edited:

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
If materialism is true then any questions of right and wrong, yet alone values and meaning are an irrelevance
I've posted numerous times on the assertion that theism equals objective morality and why it isn't actually any more objective, and while I don't want to get too far off the thread's OP, I will say thay i have no reason to believe a god's perspective not also subjective to its experience, even if it existed, even if its perspective were reachable, even if your interpretation was not colored by your own interpretation and the interpretations of those who write your religious literature (bible included). In the end, your belief on morals is just as subjective as mine. And your belief on meaning no less attributed to you BY you. As in you chose to adopt the meaning provided by the bible rather than other sources, and believe it to be superior even though others do not.

Also, subjective morality does not equal arbitrary. There are many and more meta-ethical systems besides divine revelation I have no reason to believe they are less capable of producing greater harmony and happiness than the former. And no, I certainly don't believe it has anything to do with 'bible in your hearts' or some malarkey. Especially since, as I said, I am not a totalitarian. Finding what tangibly helps and harms societies and individuals, collecting data and analyzing it to produce the best outcomes is way more important to me than anyone's 'I tell you so.' As is putting my eggs in the basket of 'well justice will happen sooner or later.' Both because I feel that's passing the buck, I don't believe afterlife belief is constructive, and that and because I don't feel the bible god is actually just even if it existed.

My point is that there's no such thing as a godless person.
Sorry, that's just your projection. I do not believe in any gods nor so I worship anyone or anything. Take it from me, as I know me.

Just as an aside, I'm assuming that by "our own" you mean the U.S.

I'm Australian.
I mean both of us. The US is wealthier per capita than Sweden, Denmark, Finland (But not Norway) and Japan (looking at my prior examples of organic atheism) Australia is the same except slightly below Sweden also.

Leaving off with this series because it goes way deeper to why subjective isn't a bad word and why everyone has it:
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Seeing you can go about critizing, But have you any idea what the number one reason why Jesus gave his life in the place of yours.

There is no reason you could give that I would think is morally correct. Let me ask you this, if a rich man is convicted of a crime, should he be able to pay a poor man to go to prison for him?
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Back to the OP, I'm not doubting your claim above, I'm questioning whether "dying for our sins" is a good moral message. I'd say that it's not.

If you were to ask any Christian, what was the number one reason why Jesus died for the sin of the world, You would probably find they wouldn't know, other than Jesus died for sin. But what was the number one reason why Jesus died for the sin of the world.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
There is no reason you could give that I would think is morally correct. Let me ask you this, if a rich man is convicted of a crime, should he be able to pay a poor man to go to prison for him?

I didn't say I would give you.
I was asking You what was the number one reason why Jesus died for sin.
Do you know why ?
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
The problem is the evil aspects don’t go away - they’re just ignored. I suppose, for some, they are subdued as they try to be Christ-like. But I’ve seen many times the nicest Christians get under pressure and the evil pokes through. It is still there.
That's why I'm more and more attracted to the "gray Jedi" kind of thing, where you try to balance Light and Dark.

That lesson is that the ultimate act of love is to lay down one's own life for another.
The problem is that I see it as stepping in between a victim and a shooter, dying to protect the person behind me, and the shooter simply has another bullet and kills the victim anyway.

Humans are a violent animal species, evolving empathetic intelligence over several hundred millennia...
And that's why I think it best to accept the darkness within us. Trying to ignore it just makes it bottle up and explode later. Redirecting towards more constructive pursuits allows the instinct to be expressed without all the messiness.

Going back to my infinite chasm metaphor, Jesus set down the bridge but no bridge is any good if it's not crossed. Whether or not we cross that bridge is up to us. God compels nothing.
I believe the truth is that there is no chasm and the bridge is just for show.

in order to save humanity, he had to become a perfect human himself
That's a pretty low bar for perfection, considering all the rules he broke, even his own.

his birth and death were necessary. he didn't die out of a whim.
He died out of Roman whim. They essentially accused him of being Osama Bin Laden and dealt with it accordingly.

he had the purpose to save humanity and reconcile us with god. is that scapegoating?
What stops God from reconciling Himself?

You may not want to call it that but the reality is that everyone has that pigheaded, weak, selfish and sometimes malicious side to them.
I don't believe everyone has "sin nature." I see all life forms with certain instincts bred into them and when those instincts are inappropriate for the situation: BOOM ... "sin".

The only rational basis for any kind of moral reasoning in the godless husk universe that materialists accept is self-interest.
How is moral reasoning designed to get you into heaven NOT self-interest?

But in the end of the day there's no more value to your life than that of an amoeba's.
Jesus said God thinks of you as little more than sparrows or flowers. Given how often God sees fit to wipe out individuals or groups or entire populations, clearly God isn't "pro-life".

You offer nothing but moral subjectivism because assuming materialism that's all there can ultimately be.
Calling something moral just because God preferred it IS subjectivism.

If materialism is true then any questions of right and wrong, yet alone values and meaning are an irrelevance.
Not to the materials having to deal with it.

How bees treat each other means nothing to YOU, but it means life or death to THEM.

If I can go out at night and feel awe at the sight of the stars then how much more awe do I owe him who put those stars there in the first place?
Remember that when that star is a big rock flying towards you to wipe out a city block, the block you're in.

The further one drifts from God the less likely that would be.
I believe divine reality is omnipresent (more or less). "Separation" is impossible.

A far-right racialist can never be "wrong" in any objective sense in regards to his hateful values.
It can according to the society. Hateful values promote social disruptions that are not healthy in short-term or long-term.

I at least can tell them that they'll face God the minute their heart stops beating as I believe in a final justice you simply cannot.
Why would an evil person care about hell? You're essentially grounding them to a place that caters to their every viewpoint.

There is no reason you could give that I would think is morally correct. Let me ask you this, if a rich man is convicted of a crime, should he be able to pay a poor man to go to prison for him?
Isn't that what happens now? :p
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
There is no reason you could give that I would think is morally correct. Let me ask you this, if a rich man is convicted of a crime, should he be able to pay a poor man to go to prison for him?


Let me ask you this, in most States have Capital punishment which is death for breaking the law.

Do you think if a rich was convicted of the death penalty, what person would be willing to trade their life for his, Would you, yourself be willing to trade your life for his ?

Therefore by the Law of God's, all of us humans were sentence to death for our sins of breaking the law of God's.
Where we were sentence to death for our sins, of breaking the law of God's, Jesus took your place and the whole worlds place to die for the sin of the world.
Jesus traded his life for your life and the whole worlds.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son to die in your place. But Jesus was willing to die for You and Jesus did.
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Let me ask you this, in most States have Capital punishment which is death for breaking the law.

Do you think if a rich was convicted of the death penalty, what person would be willing to trade their life for his, Would you, yourself be willing to trade your life for his ?

Avoiding the question AND missing the point.

In either case, do YOU think it would be morally acceptable for the rich man to pay for someone else to take his punishment for him?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Let me ask you this, in most States have Capital punishment which is death for breaking the law.

Do you think if a rich was convicted of the death penalty, what person would be willing to trade their life for his, Would you, yourself be willing to trade your life for his ?

Therefore by the Law of God's, all of us humans were sentence to death for our sins of breaking the law of God's.
Where we were sentence to death for our sins, of breaking the law of God's, Jesus took your place and the whole worlds place to die for the sin of the world.
Jesus traded his life for your life and the whole worlds.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son to die in your place. But Jesus was willing to die for You and Jesus did.
I don't believe in the death penalty. Instead of accepting someone else willing to die in their place, I would instead insist that the death penalty is unacceptable.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Avoiding the question AND missing the point.

In either case, do YOU think it would be morally acceptable for the rich man to pay for someone else to take his punishment for him?

Well first it would be up to that person if their willing to take the rich man's punishment. The rich man didn't force them to take his place, the rich man offered, but it's up to the person whether they want to accept it or not.

As Jesus did, God did not force Jesus to take your punishment, Jesus was willing to take your punishment to die for you.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
I don't believe in the death penalty. Instead of accepting someone else willing to die in their place, I would instead insist that the death penalty is unacceptable.

So you believe that when a person takes many lives all except your family, they shouldn't have the death penalty, But if it was your children or family members, Then you would all be willing for that person to have the death penalty and thats a guarantee,
You know there has been many people like yourself that stood against the death penalty, but until it was their family member, than everything they said before all changed.
Maybe before you speak you should stop and think and put yourself in their place of losing a family member to a murder ?

So maybe you think it's alright to feed them for the rest of their life in prison all the while one of your family member is laying in a grave.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
So you believe that when a person takes many lives all except your family, they shouldn't have the death penalty, But if it was your children or family members, Then you would all be willing for that person to have the death penalty and thats a guarantee,
You know there has been many people like yourself that stood against the death penalty, but until it was their family member, than everything they said before all changed.
Maybe before you speak you should stop and think and put yourself in their place of losing a family member to a murder ?

So maybe you think it's alright to feed them for the rest of their life in prison all the while one of your family member is laying in a grave.
Maybe don't project onto me what you might do in the case of your family. This is no different than when theists say that atheists will pray in foxholes despite numerous military veterans who are atheists telling them that they didn't become religious just because of threat to life. Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
Changing one's morals because of need for revenge, or fear, or hatred, are never good policies.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
we ALL have evil moments and aspects of ourselves & this bugs us.
We all have those "dark side" thingies, but it doesn't necessarily bug us. I don't act out on mine, but I entertain my mind by letting my inner dialogue come up with some fairly nasty, mean, horrible things about people and various objects - the worst being fantasizing about putting on protective gloves and dunking a former boss's head in a hot deep fryer. But, the difference, it doesn't bug me and I don't beat myself up for being human. And the idea that even thought makes you guilty of the sin is nothing more than thought police. "Orwellian" is how many people would describe it. We all have "dark thoughts and feelings," but what matters is that we not have them, but what we do with those thoughts and feelings when we have them.
And then there are times when those "evil moments and aspects" of our nature inspire art. Sometimes it's a very beautiful, if even frightening, thing. Such as Rammstein, a band with a singer who's voice is very amazing and almost hypnotic sounding, and their lyrical themes revolve around letting those dark thoughts come out to play.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Maybe don't project onto me what you might do in the case of your family. This is no different than when theists say that atheists will pray in foxholes despite numerous military veterans who are atheists telling them that they didn't become religious just because of threat to life. Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
Changing one's morals because of need for revenge, or fear, or hatred, are never good policies.

Try telling to those who lost family members
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
I will gladly tell anyone who has experienced a loss or have been grievously wronged (including myself) that acting on the desire for revenge isn't the answer.

So what your saying is, that you have not experienced a lost, But you can speak and know how someone else who has experience a loss feels.

a person needs to be held accountable for their actions. Maybe when people start to realize that their going to be held responsible for their actions, it may deter people from doing things.

So far, your way of doing things haven't work out, look at all the killings, and to think the kid who took those 17 kids lives.
Did he care, was he afraid, no

But how he's afraid of losing his life in the death penalty, but he wasn't afraid of taking those 17 kids lives. nor did he care.

Go ask those parents how they feel, about losing their kids.and what they think should happen to the kid who took their kids life.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
So what your saying is, that you have not experienced a lost, But you can speak and know how someone else who has experience a loss feels.

a person needs to be held accountable for their actions. Maybe when people start to realize that their going to be held responsible for their actions, it may deter people from doing things.

So far, your way of doing things haven't work out, look at all the killings, and to think the kid who took those 17 kids lives.
Did he care, was he afraid, no

But how he's afraid of losing his life in the death penalty, but he wasn't afraid of taking those 17 kids lives. nor did he care.

Go ask those parents how they feel, about losing their kids.and what they think should happen to the kid who took their kids life.
Without going much into it, I experienced sexual assault when I was growing up. I'm all too used to the 'the perpetrator should be killed' type of mentality and how toxic it can be for the victims. Becoming obsessed with revenge actually blocks healing because it hinges personal resolution on external effect instead of internal circumspection, and it dehumanizes the assailant and makes the victim as likely towards irrational response as the assailant was.
Once again, revenge isn't the answer.

Statistics already show us that capitol punishment doesn't work as a crime deterrent. There’s still no evidence that executions deter criminals
The vast majority of murders are crimes of passion, or where drugs and alcohol are involved. In neither case is the person thinking rationally. And, in fact, in situations where there's a standoff with officers, the criminal is MORE likely to murder officers when there is a death penalty than when there isn't.
https://www.aclu-de.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Death-Penalty-Doesnt-Deter-Crime.pdf
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
So what your saying is, that you have not experienced a lost, But you can speak and know how someone else who has experience a loss feels.
No, she didn't say that. She said that--including as someone who has been grievously wronged--that acting on a desire for revenge doesn't work. And it doesn't. Hate never fixes or solves hatred. Hate that is returned with hate will bring more hate.
But how he's afraid of losing his life in the death penalty, but he wasn't afraid of taking those 17 kids lives. nor did he care.
How do you know this?
So far, your way of doing things haven't work out, look at all the killings, and to think the kid who took those 17 kids lives.
Did he care, was he afraid, no
Back when it was more accepted and common to be even brutally harsh on criminals, crime was never stopped, and while the means of torture and execution grew ever more sophisticated and gruesome, people still attempted to assassinate kings and monarchs. But the further we removed ourselves from such silly and petty notions of revenge and being as harsh as we can on criminals, the less criminal and violent significant portions of the world became. At no other point in history has your chances of being violently killed, or killed in an act of war, been lower.
 
Top