If Christianity ....

[bertatberts]

Headheart:

Bling states that " 'The idea of God needing “Blood” is belittling God. We needed to have blood sacrifices in the Old Testament to see the symbolic representation of Christ. God does not need or want blood, but allows this cruel bloody sacrifice to help us understand the debt of sin, to allow us be punished (disciplined) without being destroyed, and to provide us all the benefits that come from being disciplined.”I say what debt of sin? Why do we need to be punished? And what has suddenly changed that makes god not want blood sacrifices he did before.
And again Bling says ”In penal substitution you have God as the judge punishing the innocent Jesus Christ, because God cannot punish humans that are guilty and have offended God. " I would ask why, Why cant god punish a human? and why would he want to? Isn’t he supposed to be a god of love.
He goes on to say This punishment is to relieve God of a need He has to punish someone (a blood sacrifice)." Again I asked why. This being because god himself caused the problems in the first place. And apparently a few lines ago Bling was saying god doesn't need Blood sacrifices, and yet now he has a need that has to be fulfilled.

Hendrik states"I agree that the idea of God needing blood is wrong. I think however that one can view penal substitution from the other end. It's not that God needed blood to forgive us. He did not. He can and does forgive us freely. However he considers it right to take responsibility for our sin on himself, and to accept some of the punishment we would deserve." Well so he should, he should accept all the responsibility, because he caused the problems he blamed us for.
Hendrik went on to say "I don't think we can get away from the idea of Jesus dying in our place." Yes we can because it was unnecessary (as we had no sins, for him to die for) and not to mention that vicarious redemption is morally wrong.
Hendrik is clearly blinkered, as he goes on to say the "I think it makes moral sense, but only if you go beyond legalistic views of justice and look at the ways people are actually connected to each other. From a legal point of view, it does not make sense to punish someone who is innocent for what someone else did. I would consider a legal system that did this unjust. But in interpersonal relationships it does sometimes make sense for some to take responsibility for someone else's actions, including accepting punishment for them."I would like to know where!
It would still be immoral. If I allowed someone to take my punishment, then I would be morally inept.

So to your question ” Is this the best answer?” No! How is it an answer for vicarious redemption, not being immoral. All it does is try to justify it. Using already inept reasoning, for this so called sin.

From whence came the sin. Telling people they are born sinners without showing good reason as to how they became sinners, makes the suffering and death of a Jesus, nonsensical. The bible just goes from one moral fubar to another and then another etc…
And to make the reason for salvation vicarious redemption.
Is so immoral it is beyond reasoning. There is no answer or any juggling of reasons that can be made to make it moral.

[headheart]

<snip> I say what debt of sin? <snip>
From whence came the sin. Telling people they are born sinners without showing good reason as to how they became sinners, makes the suffering and death of a Jesus, nonsensical. The bible just goes from one moral fubar to another and then another etc…

Green Lantern, (nobody uses green )

Ah________ the old question of "sin". It's certainly a better starting point than "sacrifice of atonement".

Hell, it's the one subject I've seen discussed more often on forums than any other. It's the one word that religion has made it's millions keeping the public confused as to its exact meaning, yet, you seem to have no problem with acknowledging there is such a thing as "sin".

So, Albert if you don't mind: Describe what you mean by the word "sin"?

Peace,
Eric

[bertatberts]

Green Lantern, (nobody uses green )

Why not, it's a lovely colour.And when I was a kid, green lantern was my favourite super hero.

Ah________ the old question of "sin". It's certainly a better starting point than "sacrifice of atonement".

Well it is what Jesus supposedly was here to clear up,

Hell, it's the one subject I've seen discussed more often on forums than any other. It's the one word that religion has made it's millions keeping the public confused as to its exact meaning, yet, you seem to have no problem with acknowledging there is such a thing as "sin".

No, sorry I'm not acknowledging sin exists, as I don't believe it does, I would first have to believe in a god which I don't. I'm Merely using the word, just as I would use the word god to let the reader know I was referring too what they believe is there lord and master..

So, Albert if you don't mind: Describe what you mean by the word "sin"?

Peace,
Eric

According to dictionaries/encyclopedia's and what I've learnt it meant,"Sin refers to a deliberate willful violation of god's rules or religious rules." and as I've no belief in any of it, I can honestly say I'm sinless lol, just like Jesus.
I'm sorry I can't tell you anymore, but I will refer you to the Bible Qu'ran, Tanakh, most holy books. I think you can even find it in the Vedas. If you think it may mean more than I had said.

[headheart]

Why not, it's a lovely colour.And when I was a kid, green lantern was my favourite super hero.

Well it is what Jesus supposedly was here to clear up,

No, sorry I'm not acknowledging sin exists, as I don't believe it does, I would first have to believe in a god which I don't. I'm Merely using the word, just as I would use the word god to let the reader know I was referring too what they believe is there lord and master..

According to dictionaries/encyclopedia's and what I've learnt it meant,"Sin refers to a deliberate willful violation of god's rules or religious rules." and as I've no belief in any of it, I can honestly say I'm sinless lol, just like Jesus.

Yeah, I loved Green Lantern too. A truly magical character, always coming to the rescue of others.

The gospel, yes.

Obviously these rules and regulations that we have today are something that we need to make sure that there is order in society otherwise thing might get a little out of hand like say what happened in the movie called "The Beach" ?

The-Beach.jpg

Here's something I've been thinking about lately.
Have you ever studied Anthropology? Or, at least wondered about how these rules and regulations we have today came about?
I'm currently reading a paper by B. Holly Smith and Robert L. Tompkins titled "Towards a Life History of Hominidae" - I mean something along those lines? You know the "Evolution of Morality" ? < Here's a link to a lecture that Dr. David Lahti presented. Perhaps if you give it a listen (you can download it) and then get back to me with your thoughts about that?

Here's something he wrote for The Gaurdian that I thought was worth sharing: (obviously you'll need to click through to read it all)

"When I told my father I was going to Cambridge to give a talk on the question of whether humans were good or bad, he looked at me sternly over his glasses. "You know what the answer is, don't you?" Total depravity and filthy rags he was hoping I would say of our nature – the first is a primary tenet of Calvinist doctrine, and the second is a phrase from Isaiah. I was about to say that we are at our root neither good nor bad, but pulled in contrary directions with the ability to make a decision. So I knew we were in for … a discussion. .... (read more)

From: Why Does Religion Keep Telling Us We're Bad by Dr. David Lahti"

Peace,
headheart