Secular Nativity

[Stranger]

In Jesus the cost of the transgression is born by Jesus. You or I cannot settle the costs and consequence so Jesus settles the account, Putting himself up sacrificially  as a human. His life for yours and taking the costs on himself as God.

This is just insane. God makes us all 'sinners', then decides that all sin deserves death, then makes up a 'get out' clause that involves it cosplaying a human for a while, getting itself killed, and then coming back from the dead. Then, as if by magic, we can be forgiven for being the way God made us, but only if we believe in this madness.

Christ takes these consequences on himself by exchanging his life for the sinner's thus restoring the person to what they were meant to be.

Except that it doesn't work. Christians don't become morally perfect and stop 'sinning', do they?

It's all carpet-chewing mad and itdoesn't even work.

[Gordon]

Beg pardon?

You said in #96 that "You also have the problem of the existence of non murderers." I'm just wondering, as a non-murderer, why my existence is a problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is just insane. God makes us all 'sinners',

How does God do that then? I've heard of the devil made me do it defence but a God made me do it defence?]All sin, in Christianity is down to the "Divorce from God" which is the choice of the sinner and spiritual death is the consequence. 

Except that it doesn't work. Christians don't become morally perfect and stop 'sinning', do they?

God has work to do when a sinner comes to him yes.

It's all carpet-chewing mad and itdoesn't even work.

Measuring the effects of Christian conversion on individuals isn't , I would have thought of interest in secular countries. Best look then at the social differences between ocommunities in the early church and periods of revival.

The difference between Christians and other roman communities at the time of the early church was marked. As was  the sobriety that accompanied the revivals of Westley, Whitfield and Methodists through to the salvationists of Booth.

Please let's be clear. Your description of how man becomes alienated from God is probably more related to a deterministic
and materialistic view of the universe and is substantively different from the Christian view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You said in #96 that "You also have the problem of the existence of non murderers." I'm just wondering, as a non-murderer, why my existence is a problem.

Sorry, Still not getting why your existence should be a problem.

[Gordon]

Sorry, Still not getting why your existence should be a problem.

It was you wot said it was (in #96) - not me.

[Stranger]

How does God do that then? I've heard of the devil made me do it defence but a God made me do it defence?]All sin, in Christianity is down to the "Divorce from God" which is the choice of the sinner and spiritual death is the consequence.

You answered your own question. I didn't make a choice to 'divorce' God. You seem to think it's down to whatever or whoever Adam and Eve represent. Regardless, as I keep saying, if God is holding people to a standard that nobody meets, that is inherently unjust.

God has work to do when a sinner comes to him yes.

But clearly the whole insane and unjust human cosplaying and pretend substitute blood sacrifice of Jesus doesn't undo what Adam and Eve did, does it?

There really is no way to spin this utter nonsense that will make it make the slightest bit of sense. The sad thing is that it seems to be so culturally ingrained that many people seem totally unable to take a step back from it and look at what is actually being sold to them and how utterly absurd it is and how far it is from anything remotely resembling basic justice and fairness, let alone love.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It was you wot said it was (in #96) - not me.

It was in response to Jeremy who seemed to be saying that we are born murderers or non murderers.
My point is you are not a murderer until and only if you murder and, in the Sane that is a choice.
The existence of non murderers is a problem for any argument that suggests murder is determined from the start.
And from that it creates a problem for those who say that  people were created by God as sinful.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

You answered your own question. I didn't make a choice to 'divorce' God.

I’m forced to ask then what steps are you taking/have taken to be ‘Engaged’with/to God?

You seem to think it's down to whatever or whoever Adam and Eve represent.

They represent our earliest fully human ancestors. The people initially responsible for our moral environment as we will be responsible for the moral environment of our descendants.

  Regardless, as I keep saying, if God is holding people to a standard that nobody meets, that is inherently unjust.

No, the Christian account is that they did meet it and were in unbroken perfect loving fellowship with God and this relationship is now open through Jesus taking the spiritual consequences of sin on himself to all who will avail themselves of it. What IS inherently unjust is the absence of justice suggested by wanting a blind eye turned to wrongdoing as found in “just say we’re forgiven” or “We are morally imperfect but deserving enough for justice to be waived.

But clearly the whole insane and unjust human cosplaying and pretend substitute blood sacrifice of Jesus doesn't undo what Adam and Eve did, does it?

People have been “taking a bullet” for others from time immemorial. You think that insane?

[Stranger]

I’m forced to ask then what steps are you taking/have taken to be ‘Engaged’with/to God?

I see no reason to think that there is a God, and the batshit Christian story certainly does nothing to suggest anything more than crazy fantasies.

They represent our earliest fully human ancestors. The people initially responsible for our moral environment as we will be responsible for the moral environment of our descendants.

Laughable.

The story is that they (without, apparently, having the knowledge of good and evil) did something God didn't like, so it had a total hissy fit and issued all sorts of petty, nasty, vindictive curses, and left subsequent generations no clue that it actually exists at all and unable to live up to its standards.

You really can't get away with characterising that as the humans being responsible for the 'moral environment'.

No, the Christian account is that they did meet it and were in unbroken perfect loving fellowship with God and this relationship is now open through Jesus taking the spiritual consequences of sin on himself to all who will avail themselves of it.

Just repeating this total bollocks over and over, does not address the insanity of it all that I outlined. The Christian message is that we are being held to a standard nobody can meet and we have to believe in the vindictive, petty, unjust monster God to be forgiven for being how it made us. And it doesn't even work in restoring the "unbroken perfect loving fellowship with God". Christians don't become sinless, nor do they even have clear communication with their God (if they did, there wouldn't be all the disagreements and different denominations, sects, and cults).

People have been “taking a bullet” for others from time immemorial. You think that insane?

This is nothing like a selfless act of sacrifice for somebody else, it's making unjust, insane rules, with an absurd 'get out' clause that involved no real sacrifice at all; what's about 30 years of being human, and three days of being dead, to an eternal God?

[jeremyp]

You didn't answer my question Jeremy. How is justice served by just turning a blind eye to something?

It isn't. But it is what your god does.

In Jesus the cost of the transgression is born by Jesus.

Except it isn't. For one thing, he only died once and that is supposed to pay for everything. For another thing, he didn't stay dead.

It's like there are five of us in a restaurant and the bill is £100. I give the waiter a £20 note and say "that's for all of us". The waiter is not going to be impressed.

But not only that, while he isn't looking, I steal the money back out of the till.

You or I cannot settle the costs and consequence so Jesus settles the account, Putting himself up sacrificially  as a human. His life for yours and taking the costs on himself as God.

Sin you see spoils and ruins the self and destroys the divine image. Christ takes these consequences on himself by exchanging his life for the sinner's thus restoring the person to what they were meant to be.

As we have discussed though: he clearly didn't.

[Maeght]

I’m forced to ask then what steps are you taking/have taken to be ‘Engaged’with/to God?

I've never really understood this idea (or the idea of this thread initially). How can you engage with something you don't believe in?

[jeremyp]

You said in #96 that "You also have the problem of the existence of non murderers." I'm just wondering, as a non-murderer, why my existence is a problem.

Actually, Gordon, he's claiming your existence is a problem for me. I do assure you though, he is wrong: I have no problem with your existence or any other non murderer. I have no idea why Vlad thinks I have any kind of problem with the existence of non murderers.

[Gordon]

Actually, Gordon, he's claiming your existence is a problem for me. I do assure you though, he is wrong: I have no problem with your existence or any other non murderer. I have no idea why Vlad thinks I have any kind of problem with the existence of non murderers.

Whew - that's a relief, Jeremy, I'm rather fond of existing 

[jeremyp]

It was in response to Jeremy who seemed to be saying that we are born murderers or non murderers.
My point is you are not a murderer until and only if you murder and, in the Sane that is a choice.
The existence of non murderers is a problem for any argument that suggests murder is determined from the start.
And from that it creates a problem for those who say that  people were created by God as sinful.

No. You are the one claiming that we are created morally perfect. I'm just pointing out that a person doing something immoral clearly shows they are not morally perfect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see no reason to think that there is a God, and the batshit Christian story certainly does nothing to suggest anything more than crazy fantasies.

Laughable.

The story is that they (without, apparently, having the knowledge of good and evil) did something God didn't like, so it had a total hissy fit and issued all sorts of petty, nasty, vindictive curses, and left subsequent generations no clue that it actually exists at all and unable to live up to its standards.

You really can't get away with characterising that as the humans being responsible for the 'moral environment'.

Just repeating this total bollocks over and over, does not address the insanity of it all that I outlined. The Christian message is that we are being held to a standard nobody can meet and we have to believe in the vindictive, petty, unjust monster God to be forgiven for being how it made us. And it doesn't even work in restoring the "unbroken perfect loving fellowship with God". Christians don't become sinless, nor do they even have clear communication with their God (if they did, there wouldn't be all the disagreements and different denominations, sects, and cults).

This is nothing like a selfless act of sacrifice for somebody else, it's making unjust, insane rules, with an absurd 'get out' clause that involved no real sacrifice at all; what's about 30 years of being human, and three days of being dead, to an eternal God?

I get you disagree with the Christian account but I wonder why you have a view of justice that actually seems to eliminate justice itself.

You say God's standards are unobtainable but the standard required is turning to Christ rather than meeting a moral standard.

As by the by as it is you offer no moral standard that would be just. Again Justice is not served if it is reduced or eliminated
Wrong doing like everything else in a consequential universe has consequences. Jesus takes those consequences on himself.
Finally, the Christian account is that we are all resurrected so Jesus is not special or inhuman in that respect.

[jeremyp]

Whew - that's a relief, Jeremy, I'm rather fond of existing 

I'm also a non murderer and I certainly have no problem with my own existence unlike what Vlad claims.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. You are the one claiming that we are created morally perfect. I'm just pointing out that a person doing something immoral clearly shows they are not morally perfect.

And I'm pointing out that you are not immoral until you choose to do something immoral.
Legally speaking you are innocent. The critical point is the attitude to God . Facing or turned from.

So mankind comes into being enjoys a sinless loving trusting fearless unbroken relationship with God and subsequently and on their own volition individually and communally turns from it.

[jeremyp]

And I'm pointing out that you are not immoral until you choose to do something immoral.

But your claim is that we were created morally perfect. Somebody who chooses to commit an immoral act is clearly not morally perfect.

Your claim is false.

[Stranger]

I get you disagree with the Christian account but I wonder why you have a view of justice that actually seems to eliminate justice itself.

Pointing out the utter absurdity of what your God seems to think is just, is not putting forward a version of justice, so you seem to be just making shit up again.

You say God's standards are unobtainable but the standard required is turning to Christ rather than meeting a moral standard.

And you think accepting a batshit nonsensical story means that all our wrongdoing can be wiped away, is justice, do you?

As by the by as it is you offer no moral standard that would be just.

I haven't offered one. I'm not a God, or even a lawyer, trying to design a system of justice, but if somebody ran a country like the Christian monster God is supposed to be running the world, it would be a pariah state. Not what you do, but who you suck up to.

Again Justice is not served if it is reduced or eliminated
Wrong doing like everything else in a consequential universe has consequences.

Except when people believe in the nasty vindictive God of yours, then they get off scot-free. 

Jesus takes those consequences on himself.
Finally, the Christian account is that we are all resurrected so Jesus is not special or inhuman in that respect.

What's the difference between what happened to Jesus after his resurrection and happens to somebody who doesn't accept this nonsense? If he was treated differently, then he didn't take the consequences.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm also a non murderer and I certainly have no problem with my own existence unlike what Vlad claims.

But Will you be a murderer in future?
If you are then in your own scheme of things and your logic you will have been a murderer all along.
Or will you be a non murderer who became a murderer?

[splashscuba]

But Will you be a murderer in future?

I could murder a cup of tea

[Outrider]

We inherit our morality and moral landscape though.

And we can then, once it's ours, change it. We can't, apparently, decide our way out of 'Original Sin'. We can't collectively throw out old mores and come up with new ones and expect that to count for anything sin-wise.

I think you’ll find that committing the sin that our forebears did also does not completely exonerate us from committing it

'Committing'? I wear a shirt, suddenly I have to go to hell because I didn't check if the fabric clashes with my underpants. God forbid I tumble-dry something that's dry-clean only. Eternal damnation for crimes against laundry!

But they wouldn’t say you are fated to go to hell by something inherited.

Who wouldn't? Tell me which bit of this chain isn't advocated by at least some (and I'd say a fair section) of the world's Christians:
1 - we are all born sinful, because of the sins of Adam and Eve
2 - if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and saviour you're not forgiven those sins.

Seems like I've just been fated to go to hell because of something I inherited.

You can choose to face God thanks to what Jesus has done.

Half the point here, though, is that I'm being expected to face God because of what someone else did. It's nothing to do with me, I'm not at fault here. The other half, the actual 'sins' are an arbitrary sack of half-baked tribal in-group identifiers, life-lessons wrapped up as divine edicts (robbing them of their moral underpinnings) and just outright bigotry. Who does God have to face for this shit-show? If Jesus is such a paragon of moral justification why doesn't he have some questions about this - on our behalf, you know, as his role seems to be that of our advocate. To himself.

But you would say that you have turned against homophobia and slave owning.

I haven't turned against them, that implies I started within the fold, but I do stand against them, yes.

Are homophobia and slave owning inherited?

Are you suggesting that they're sins? Oh, wait, now, they're advocated for in the Bible.

If not where does that leave your other thesis that we can’t be blamed because we inherit the tendency.

Disobedience to arbitrary edicts is part of human nature - whether you think that came from Adam and Eve or is an intrinsic part of the humanity that God wants, either way it's not our fault that we're human, we don't have any other choice. Why is that subject to punishment unless we ask forgiveness from the designer of humanity that made us human?

Here you are both blaming and rejecting the notion of inheritance. Confused or what?

Not at all. I reject the notion BECAUSE it's despicable - it's inconsistend with the idea of an omnibenevolent deity, it's intrinsically immoral.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And we can then, once it's ours, change it.

For better and worse

We can't, apparently, decide our way out of 'Original Sin'.

What about judgment for our own actions?

We can't collectively throw out old mores and come up with new ones and expect that to count for anything sin-wise.

Beg pardon?

'Committing'? I wear a shirt, suddenly I have to go to hell because I didn't check if the fabric clashes with my underpants. God forbid I tumble-dry something that's dry-clean only. Eternal damnation for crimes against laundry!

All our actions and attitudes come under judgment though there is apparently only one unforgivable sin

Who wouldn't? Tell me which bit of this chain isn't advocated by at least some (and I'd say a fair section) of the world's Christians:
1 - we are all born sinful, because of the sins of Adam and Eve
2 - if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and saviour you're not forgiven those sins.

Seems like I've just been fated to go to hell because of something I inherited.

Again, what about your own sins? The one’s Adam and Eve couldn’t possibly be accountable for.
Secondly, what makes you think you are special enough to be sent to hell when others are not?

Half the point here, though, is that I'm being expected to face God because of what someone else did. It's nothing to do with me, I'm not at fault here.

That is not the Christian view. You are judged on your own actions since Adam and Eve cannot possibly have committed or chosen to have committed them. Your sins and misdemeanours are not entirely their responsibility

The other half, the actual 'sins' are an arbitrary sack of half-baked tribal in-group identifiers, life-lessons wrapped up as divine edicts (robbing them of their moral underpinnings) and just outright bigotry.

Biblically, Gentile believers aren’t required to follow OBSERVANT Jewish practice

Who does God have to face for this shit-show? If Jesus is such a paragon of moral justification why doesn't he have some questions about this - on our behalf, you know, as his role seems to be that of our advocate. To himself.

Legally, if you act in a certain way you cannot point to others doing it to establish your innocence though. The same applies to neglecting to do what we should

Disobedience to arbitrary edicts is part of human nature [ whether you think that came from Adam and Eve or is an intrinsic part of the humanity that God wants, either way it's not our fault that we're human, we don't have any other choice. Why is that subject to punishment unless we ask forgiveness from the designer of humanity that made us human?

Again disobedience only appears after obedience. We didn’t start disobedient. Now, to some obedience has a bad connotation. That is why the bible talks of man walking with God in unbroken and intimate relationship... That is what God sought to restore while satisfying justice and negating the consequences of sin. And it is that which is rebelled against.

[Outrider]

For better and worse.

Historically, generally it seems for the better, although there have been highs and lows.

What about judgment for our own actions?

Is it Christian doctrine that we get to decide if we're saved from original sin? That's new to me.

Beg pardon?

Morality has progressed since the times of the Roman occupation of Israel, but that is irrelevant to the notion of 'sin' which is intrinsic, and to the particular 'sinful' activities which have been immutable edicts since the codification of the New Testaments, all before 1000AD.

All our actions and attitudes come under judgment though there is apparently only one unforgivable sin Again, what about your own sins.

Putting Calvinism aside, where it's not a 'judgment' at all, it's a whim (we can't 'earn' our way into heaven)... I'm guilty, regardless, just by virtue of being born, but that's OK because someone else didn't die really, so that's accounted for. Then I might be judged against my compliance to one or more lists of apparently arbitrary rules, some of which make sense some of which are absolute nonsense, which describe things so abominable that they warrant eternity in hell, except for the ones which suddenly became perfectly fine around the turn of the first millenium. But gay stuff's still a no-no, rape is a grey area, slavery's fine along as you abide by the fine-print. Who the hell has the audacity to espouse that and then claim they're in a place to judge me?

The one’s Adam and Eve couldn’t possibly be accountable for.

I'm condemned, and Jesus needs to die for a weekend, because of Adam and Eve - original sin. Or, if that's an allegory, because of human nature. Which I was born with, and didn't get to choose. That's entirely separate from any of my actions, which may or may not be relevant depending on which flavour of Christianity you take your crisps in.

Secondly, what makes you think you are special enough to be sent to hell when others are not?

Fucked if I know, ask the Christians (and others) who are of the opinion that I should go to hell for: having IVF children; not believing in the Baby Cheesus; working on a Saturday; working on a Sunday; still having an entire penis; eating shellfish; advocating for equal rights for women, gay people... I'm not saying I'm going to hell, I don't even like Spain. It's other people claiming I'm going to hell.

That is not the Christian view.

There is no 'THE' Christian view. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Christian views. And that's before you get into the more diverse variants of the ruleset of Prequelists and the Sequelists.

You are judged on your own actions since Adam and Eve cannot possibly have committed or chosen to have committed them.

Tell that to the Catholics and the Calvinists, and get two different arguments as to why you're wrong.

Your sins and misdemeanours are not entirely their responsibility

They're entirely not their responsibility. But they're also, in a large part, absolutely not something someone should be judged for.

Again disobedience only appears after obedience. We didn’t start disobedient.

And we're back to why Satan's the real hero of the story.

Now, to some obedience has a bad connotation.

Blind obedience is problematic. Obedience to arbitrary rules rather than agreed principles is problematic. You know, like religion.

That is why the bible talks of man walking with God in unbroken and intimate relationship...

When he drowned them all? Or when he killed off all their firstborn? Or when he sent down pillars of fire to destroy their towns? Or when he set his fan-club on them to kill all the men and male children, and take the girls and women as sex-chattel. So that I could be judged for 'sins' like eating prawns. Are prawn cocktails crisps sinful if they only taste 'like' prawns and not actually 'of' prawns?

That is what God sought to restore while satisfying justice and negating the consequences of sin. And it is that which is rebelled against.

I'm sorry, if you can get to the end of this and you still think that 'justice' and 'sin' are somehow related concepts then I'm obviously not getting through. I'm not 'rebelling against god', I'm not falling for the bullshit of the churches.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pointing out the utter absurdity of what your God seems to think is just, is not putting forward a version of justice, so you seem to be just making shit up again.

I’m sorry I’m not getting your saying that God’s expectations are too severe and when you are asked how severe they should be you answer “I don’t know”

And you think accepting a batshit nonsensical story means that all our wrongdoing can be wiped away, is justice, do you?

I am saying that wrong doing creates consequences which justice requires recompense. These costs in law are often settled by parties on behalf of others so nothing batshit nonsensical about that.

Reduction of costs to a level where there is not sufficient recompense is undue leniency and justice isn’t served...and it’s This you are advocating imo