"Vicarious redemption is immoral!" A case of anti-theist hypocrisy.

[SaxonX]

The natural world mirrors the spiritual world, so in the natural sense let's say we rename sin and call it starvation,  No one would claim that killing and eating an innocent chicken to save one from starvation is immoral...

Murdering another human being to make "sin " go away is not remotely morally equal to killing a chicken if one is starving. The further is immoral the later is not.

If you would have read the post in it's entirety, I explain. In short "vicarious redemption" is Hitchens terminology for the act of Jesus dying for sin, but Jesus himself states that his purpose in dying is so people may have life eternal, sin is the condition that separates man from God, the source of life.

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

There is no law in nature that says murder this dude to make magic hunger go away so people can live forever

[SaxonX]

You still don't get it,

No he seems to get it fine it's nonsense no matter how you look at it 


 

sin isn't an act it's a condition

Irrelevant killing someone to fix sin is evil by default  

the same as starvation. 

Kill animal for food is not equal to killing a human being for any reason 

The bible clearly states one is born into sin, therefore a newborn is guilty of sin... what act has it done?

Irrelevant killing someone to fix sin is evil by default  

I like how you guys take the troll angle... what's my purpose?

 
Because behave in a trollish way and you don't seem to have a purpose you simply talk nonsense then get huffy when we call you rambling nonsense 

 Talking to you guys is like talking to children,  I have to oversimplify and it still goes over your heads.

No we understand it just fine we just understand that it's nonsense.

[SaxonX]

No matter how you look at it human sacrifice is bad.

[Edible crust]

Your god brought all this shit upon itself with it's ridiculous tree planting and talking snake placement.
It's almost like your god was looking for an excuse to fall out with his creation.
Then it went through all the rigmarole of killing everything to start a fresh, of course that plan went tits up too so it ended up torturing itself to pay the price for us all being 'born sick'.

Substituting the word sin for starvation makes no difference to the above debacle. Your god's an idiot at best and a sadistic monster at worst.

[Minimalist]

I have literally never heard of ANYONE arguing the immorality of presidential pardons.

Then, Huggy, you should pay closer attention.

US President Donald Trump issued new pardons Wednesday for allies including the father of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and two confidants caught up in the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election that brought him to power.
The pardons added to a long list he has granted in his waning days in office and sparked fresh outrage.
Among those pardoned were Charles Kushner, who pleaded guilty to charges including tax evasion and witness tampering in 2004, as well as former campaign manager Paul Manafort and longtime adviser Roger Stone.
The trio were among 26 people pardoned and three who had all or part of their sentences commuted by Trump on Wednesday.
They come only a day after Trump pardoned another 15 people and commuted sentences for five, including corrupt Republican congressmen and security guards convicted of killing 14 civilians in a 2007 Baghdad massacre.
Trump's pardon of Manafort, who was at the heart of the investigation by special prosecutor Robert Mueller into allegations of Russian interference in the election four years ago, triggered fury that Trump was trying to erase the probe he has always described as a "witch hunt."
Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, who heads the House intelligence committee, said in a tweet that "during the Mueller investigation, Trump's lawyer floated a pardon to Manafort. Manafort withdrew his cooperation with prosecutors, lied, was convicted and then Trump praised him for not 'ratting.' Trump's pardon now completes the corrupt scheme."

https://www.barrons.com/news/trump-pardo...1608750612

[Huggy Bear]

You still don't get it,

No he seems to get it fine it's nonsense no matter how you look at it 


 

sin isn't an act it's a condition

Irrelevant killing someone to fix sin is evil by default  

the same as starvation. 

Kill animal for food is not equal to killing a human being for any reason 

The bible clearly states one is born into sin, therefore a newborn is guilty of sin... what act has it done?

Irrelevant killing someone to fix sin is evil by default  

I like how you guys take the troll angle... what's my purpose?

 
Because behave in a trollish way and you don't seem to have a purpose you simply talk nonsense then get huffy when we call you rambling nonsense 

 Talking to you guys is like talking to children,  I have to oversimplify and it still goes over your heads.

No we understand it just fine we just understand that it's nonsense.

Helios, is that you?

[Paleophyte]

No matter how you look at it human sacrifice is bad.

Well then I guess your god should do it less.

[pattylt]

Have you ever read each of the gospels and asked the question, Why Did Jesus Die? You will get more than one answer. Christians are so indoctrinated into a blended gospel story like they all really say the same things that it’s hard for them to see it. You need to read each gospel and note the reason(s) then the next and so on. Compare your notes at the end.

[LastPoet]

@LastPoet

The concept of God becoming human and dying for sin, is already an absurd concept for an athiest, so we're already started off in absurd land, but that's not the point, do you think I forgot where I'm at? I'm addressing an athiests argument that supposes everything about the biblical account is true.

I asked in the OP for the opinions of people who agreed with Hitchens, if you don’t agree, you're welcome to keep it moving, this thread isn't for you.

I was already an atheist before I knew who Hitchens is. Or was. Pardon me for the poor English. I explained to you what an RA is and you keep rolling. You just want yourself validated. I understand. At any rate, let me help you out, it is atheist, not athiest. Have you bought a good logic book yet?

[Paleophyte]

I asked in the OP for the opinions of people who agreed with Hitchens, if you don’t agree, you're welcome to keep it moving, this thread isn't for you.

Let me explain this in simple terms:

1) I like to look at porn and some people consider this BAD.
2) 80 years ago a man in this town was executed for a crime that he didn't commit.*
3) Because the man in step 2 died for a bad thing that he didn't do it cancels out any BAD things that I might do, up to and beyond mass murder and genocide, so I can look at all the porn that I want and it isn't BAD anymore!

Please tell me that you can see what's wrong with that.

*Actually, he was hit by a car while crossing the street, broke an arm, and recovered fully. We've redefined that as a death row execution, but that absurdity is outside of the scope of this discussion.

[SaxonX]

No he seems to get it fine it's nonsense no matter how you look at it 


 Irrelevant killing someone to fix sin is evil by default  



Kill animal for food is not equal to killing a human being for any reason 



Irrelevant killing someone to fix sin is evil by default  


 
Because behave in a trollish way and you don't seem to have a purpose you simply talk nonsense then get huffy when we call you rambling nonsense 


No we understand it just fine we just understand that it's nonsense.

Helios, is that you?

Who ?

Also I like how you ignored all my points.

[SaxonX]

No matter how you look at it human sacrifice is bad.

Well then I guess your god should do it less.

What god?  I'm not a theist.

[LastPoet]

There was a time in my life that I kinda took a religionist person to to heart. Now, i say please fuck yourself. (I am get in trouble for this ain't i?)

[Edible crust]

Huggy is ignoring all my posts too. I'm not taking it personally. It's entirely up to him to decide which posts he responds to.

[Edible crust]

There was a time in my life that I kinda took a religionist person to to heart. Now, i say please fuck yourself. (I am get in trouble for this ain't i?)

I like and indeed love some theists but that's in real life. The internet one's though are another kettle of fish.

[Huggy Bear]

Huggy is ignoring all my posts too. I'm not taking it personally. It's entirely up to him to decide which posts he responds to.

Not ignoring, I was at work earlier posting from my phone, I can't possibly address everyone.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Huggy is ignoring all my posts too. I'm not taking it personally. It's entirely up to him to decide which posts he responds to.

Not ignoring, I was at work earlier posting from my phone, I can't possibly address everyone.

Pray moar. You can do anything with God!

[Huggy Bear]

No matter how you look at it human sacrifice is bad.

Except if it's abortion, correct?

[Astreja]

No matter how you look at it human sacrifice is bad.

Except if it's abortion, correct?

A fetus is a potential human.  According to the Bible, it isn't considered a living person until it draws its first breath.

In the case of a woman who is pregnant against her wishes, it is an unauthorized splotch of tissue that is preferably removed before it gains a functional nervous system with the potential for feeling pain - which is quite late in the pregnancy.

It is not a sacrifice.  If anything, a woman loses a large amount of her freedom (and sometimes her actual life), and sustains irreversible changes to her body if she chooses to continue a pregnancy.  That is a sacrifice.

[Huggy Bear]

Let's rename Jesus and call him Colonel Sanders.

I know you're attempting to be funny, but Jesus analogized himself as being food on multiple occasions, the very place he was born, Bethlehem, means house of bread... so comparing sin to starvation/hunger is appropriate BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT JESUS HIMSELF DID.

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

Is that enough emphasis for you?

Therefore if Jesus dying so others may have life(eternal) is immoral, then taking the life of an organism to temporarily sustain your life is also immoral, probably more so and herein lies the hypocrisy of the argument.

[Astreja]

Therefore if Jesus dying so others may have life(eternal) is immoral, then taking the life of an organism to temporarily sustain your life is also immoral, probably more so and herein lies the hypocrisy of the argument.

Maybe eating is immoral.  (shrugs)  It is, however, essential to life.  Call me a hypocrite if it makes you feel better; I'll just go on eating and go on rejecting Christianity because it fucking disgusts me at a visceral level.

If your god can't award eternal life without snuffing its Mini-Me and scaring people into saying "Yeah, I'm cool with that," your god is a worthless turd.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let's rename Jesus and call him Colonel Sanders.

I know you're attempting to be funny, but Jesus analogized himself as being food on multiple occasions, the very place he was born, Bethlehem, means house of bread... so comparing sin to starvation/hunger is appropriate BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT JESUS HIMSELF DID.

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

Is that enough emphasis for you?

Therefore if Jesus dying so others may have life(eternal) is immoral, then taking the life of an organism to temporarily sustain your life is also immoral, probably more so and herein lies the hypocrisy of the argument.

Talk to Aleksandr Solzhentisyn about food. He, a Christian, spent eight starving years in the Gulag. Your Jesus didn't see fit to give him -- a faithful believer -- one grain of wheat. He only survived by being moved to a sharashka, and oddly enough, your Jesus was absent there too. No crackers into flesh, no grape juice into blood. Just slimy soup with the occasional eyeball of a fish.

Go out into the desert of Utah without food and you'll see what your lord provides.

Protip: you may have to eat your words ... for all the good that'll do ya.

[Huggy Bear]

No matter how you look at it human sacrifice is bad.

Except if it's abortion, correct?

A fetus is a potential human.  According to the Bible, it isn't considered a living person until it draws its first breath.

In the case of a woman who is pregnant against her wishes, it is an unauthorized splotch of tissue that is preferably removed before it gains a functional nervous system with the potential for feeling pain - which is quite late in the pregnancy.

It is not a sacrifice.  If anything, a woman loses a large amount of her freedom (and sometimes her actual life), and sustains irreversible changes to her body if she chooses to continue a pregnancy.  That is a sacrifice.

First of all, the quote stated "No matter how you look at it human sacrifice is bad.".

A fetus is every bit human whether it's breathing on it's own or not.

2ndly, 1 percent of abortion cases are from non consensual means.

[Astreja]

A fetus is a potential human.  According to the Bible, it isn't considered a living person until it draws its first breath.

In the case of a woman who is pregnant against her wishes, it is an unauthorized splotch of tissue that is preferably removed before it gains a functional nervous system with the potential for feeling pain - which is quite late in the pregnancy.

It is not a sacrifice.  If anything, a woman loses a large amount of her freedom (and sometimes her actual life), and sustains irreversible changes to her body if she chooses to continue a pregnancy.  That is a sacrifice.

First of all, the quote stated "No matter how you look at it human sacrifice is bad.".

A fetus is every bit human whether it's breathing on it's own or not.

2ndly, 1 percent of abortion cases are from non consensual means.

I say again:  An abortion is not a human sacrifice.  It is an often-necessary medical procedure, and I unconditionally support every woman's right to terminate any pregnancy for any reason at all.  I sometimes make donations that enable women in under-serviced remote areas to travel to cities where they can obtain medical abortions.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, that's all the reason she needs to terminate.  Maybe her birth control failed.  Maybe her partner sabotaged it in an attempt to baby-trap her.  Maybe she was raped.  Maybe she just lost her job and can't afford to raise a child.  Maybe she (gasp!) just doesn't want to be pregnant.  Her body, her choice.  Period.

[Huggy Bear]

I know you're attempting to be funny, but Jesus analogized himself as being food on multiple occasions, the very place he was born, Bethlehem, means house of bread... so comparing sin to starvation/hunger is appropriate BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT JESUS HIMSELF DID.

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

Is that enough emphasis for you?

Therefore if Jesus dying so others may have life(eternal) is immoral, then taking the life of an organism to temporarily sustain your life is also immoral, probably more so and herein lies the hypocrisy of the argument.

Talk to Aleksandr Solzhentisyn about food. He, a Christian, spent eight starving years in the Gulag. Your Jesus didn't see fit to give him -- a faithful believer -- one grain of wheat. He only survived by being moved to a sharashka, and oddly enough, your Jesus was absent there too. No crackers into flesh, no grape juice into blood. Just slimy soup with the occasional eyeball of a fish.

Go out into the desert of Utah without food and you'll see what your lord provides.

Protip: you may have to eat your words ... for all the good that'll do ya.

Starving for eight years with not so much as ONE GRAIN of wheat? sounds like you're describing a miracle bro. 

He died at the ripe old age of 89 which is a lot more than alot of people who weren't starving in a Gulag could say.