• In total there are 23 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 23 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Unread post

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Do you think it a sin to alienate yourself from a genocidal baby torturing and murdering God?
Is it a sin to alienate yourself from a God who is less moral than Satan?
Are you just curious about my views on sin and God, or are you still trying to show that substitutiary atonement is "demonstrably immoral"?
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Unread post

Harry Marks wrote:
Gnostic Bishop wrote:Did you miss this.
Look, your statements work off of a number of distortions. One is that God punished Jesus. Not what the theology says. Another is that it was imposed on Jesus - he didn't accept his role voluntarily. Also not what the theology says.

You argue that having someone take a penalty that is rightfully due to someone else offends the right of the injured party to retribution. But since the offended party is God, if God accepts the substitution then where is the need for retribution?

You argue that accepting that someone else take my place is wrong - but I have no choice about Jesus' action, only about whether I accept the forgiveness. I don't see this as remotely immoral.

I have some dissatisfactions of my own with substitutionary atonement, but your complaints are not among them. And "demonstrably immoral" is monstrously distortionary.
So you do not see the moral wisdom and justice in those biblical scriptures that preach for individuals taking responsibility for their own actions and you see the following scriptures as Jesus not being chosen but somehow volunteering. Ok.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

You say you have a problem with substitutionary atonement, yet promote it and will take advantage of it if you are given the opportunity.

As I said, your morals are garbage.

I think you are best to ignore me or start dealing honestly with the questions I pose.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Unread post

Harry Marks wrote:
Gnostic Bishop wrote: Do you think it a sin to alienate yourself from a genocidal baby torturing and murdering God?
Is it a sin to alienate yourself from a God who is less moral than Satan?
Are you just curious about my views on sin and God, or are you still trying to show that substitutiary atonement is "demonstrably immoral"?
If you are going to answer questions with questions so as to deflect from your poor morals then forget about my asking you to ignore me. I will ignore you.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Unread post

Gnostic Bishop wrote:You favor the KKK and Nazi right to march over the Jews and blacks right to not be insulted by discrimination without a just cause. IOW, unjustified hate speech.
Wait, wait, wait. We were talking about speech, not discrimination. I do favor the rights of hate groups to express that, over the rights of victim groups to be free from insult. I take insult seriously, but so do a lot of other people who would abuse that kind of "protection." So yes, on balance, it is better to let nasty people be nasty in public, as long as they are not actually trying to hurt someone (or get others to).

Let me give you a simple example. Up until 1960, Catholics were considered unfit to be President because "they were obligated to take orders from the Pope." John F. Kennedy had to explicitly deny that he would do so (despite what a strict reading of Catholic doctrine would say.) Now maybe you can tell me: was this view of Catholics justified discrimination, and therefore legitimate under your principle, or was it hate speech? And assuming that you know an answer, please tell me how you know. That is, what is the principle upon which such issues should be decided?
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Unread post

Gnostic Bishop wrote:So you do not see the moral wisdom and justice in those biblical scriptures that preach for individuals taking responsibility for their own actions
No, it is a good principal for people to take responsibility for their actions. Taking that principle so far as to refuse forgiveness from the person they have offended is just being weird.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:and you see the following scriptures as Jesus not being chosen but somehow volunteering. Ok.
1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
There is no conflict between being chosen and volunteering. I have been in that position myself: "We think you are the right person to take on this job, but it is up to you." The scriptures are very clear that Jesus took on his role voluntarily.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:You say you have a problem with substitutionary atonement, yet promote it and will take advantage of it if you are given the opportunity.
I am not promoting it, I am asking you to defend "demonstrably immoral" for which you are proposing to deny people their freedom of religion.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:As I said, your morals are garbage.
Your idea of morals seems to come from the way someone argues on the internet, and basically whether they agree with you. I am quite satisfied as to my morals, and your criticisms strike me as completely misplaced.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:I think you are best to ignore me or start dealing honestly with the questions I pose.
I am being honest. I am not so sure you have any sense of how that works.
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Unread post

"There is no conflict between being chosen and volunteering."

Too stupid to reply to. Do you own a dictionary?

"Taking that principle so far as to refuse forgiveness from the person they have offended is just being weird."

???

You sinned directly against Jesus hard enough to get yourself a life sentence in hell!

Wow.

Yet you say your morals are good.

Details on your great sin please.

" The scriptures are very clear that Jesus took on his role voluntarily."

Read the sermon on the mount for the first time. I do my Fathers will and not my own.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Unread post

Gnostic Bishop wrote: You sinned directly against Jesus hard enough to get yourself a life sentence in hell!
Wow.
Yet you say your morals are good.
I don't believe in hell. Are we talking about me or about traditional doctrine?
Gnostic Bishop wrote:" The scriptures are very clear that Jesus took on his role voluntarily."
Read the sermon on the mount for the first time. I do my Fathers will and not my own.
I suspect you are thinking of the Gospel of John - the Sermon on the Mount is in Matthew. I do think a person has to listen closely to sort that out, but in several other places in John, Jesus says he lays down his life voluntarily. The contrast, "father's will" vs. "my own", has to be interpreted in light of the lack of compulsion - the father is not threatening Jesus if he does not comply, or punishing him whether he agrees to it or not. The contrast with "my will" is a figure of speech, like talking about "the world" meaning "the folks out there who are not followers like us" or "the flesh" as in "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."

It would help if you understand that Christian life is constantly dealing with trying to overcome unhealthy urges, like anger or greed. We all have these motivations, so we use figures of speech like "our own will" to distinguish them from what we think is right. When we have internal motivations that conflict with what we think is right, we consider it a mark of spiritual maturity to choose what is right rather than the conflicting internal motivation. That doesn't mean we have been forced to do what is right, or that we have no choice.
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Unread post

With your views on substitutionary atonement, I thought I was chatting with a Christian.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Unread post

Gnostic Bishop wrote:With your views on substitutionary atonement, I thought I was chatting with a Christian.
Currently at the church I am attending, we are in a study series on "making sense of the Cross." It might interest you to know that for the first 1000 years of Christianity, the theology did not interpret atonement as a matter of taking our place or suffering a penalty. We tend to interpret language such as "given as a ransom for many" in that light, because we live after Anselm introduced it and Calvin ground it into everyone's consciousness.

There are at least two other "theories" of atonement which have played major roles in Christian theology over the centuries. The one that said Jesus was teaching us what God is like, willing to suffer and be vulnerable out of love for us, in solidarity with the oppressed, is currently the favored interpretation in mainstream Protestant (Lutheran, Methodist, American Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, UCC) interpretation. It seems to be doing fairly well among Roman Catholics as well.
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Unread post

Harry Marks wrote:
Gnostic Bishop wrote:With your views on substitutionary atonement, I thought I was chatting with a Christian.
Currently at the church I am attending, we are in a study series on "making sense of the Cross." It might interest you to know that for the first 1000 years of Christianity, the theology did not interpret atonement as a matter of taking our place or suffering a penalty. We tend to interpret language such as "given as a ransom for many" in that light, because we live after Anselm introduced it and Calvin ground it into everyone's consciousness.

There are at least two other "theories" of atonement which have played major roles in Christian theology over the centuries. The one that said Jesus was teaching us what God is like, willing to suffer and be vulnerable out of love for us, in solidarity with the oppressed, is currently the favored interpretation in mainstream Protestant (Lutheran, Methodist, American Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, UCC) interpretation. It seems to be doing fairly well among Roman Catholics as well.
Sure. They will find all kinds of ways to make you beholding to the prick who unjustly condemned you in the first place. False guilt is a religious tool used to humble you so that you will not question why you are seeking redemption from a genocidal son murdering prick.

Pray to Hitler. He is less of a prick than Yahweh. At least he did not use genocide on the animal kingdom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

Regards
DL
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”