Post by gnosticchristian on Sept 25, 2018 18:28:42 GMT
Are Christians making Jesus into a moral monster?
Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, taught these.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Psa 49 7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
Christianity teaches that Jesus was put to death for our sins and is the savior of mankind. Christianity posits that god could not forgive mankind without a barbaric blood sacrifice. Christianity says that god demanded and accepted a sacrifice, --- which is synonymous with bribe and ransom, --- to reverse his usual justice. That usual good justice was punishing the guilty and not the innocent, --- which the bribe changed to accepting the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty, --- which goes against what Jesus taught.
This link has a little test to see if the morality of Christians is compromised. It proves in real time that it is in many cases. If you are a Christian, please take that test before you reply here and let me know if you passed or failed.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yhcm76Jfps
Given the reality of the immorality and lack of justice in substitutionary punishment, are Christians making a moral monster of Jesus by the dogma that says that he would ask us to accept the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty as moral and just?
I see one of the Jesus’ as not being particularly moral but I do not make him out to be the moral monster that Christians do by their dogma of substitutionary punishment.
Thoughts?
Regards
DL
uploads.disquscdn.com/images/68fc2058b6b63108527e710b1866ae94fe76f2e722ab8818b9e28fb92504f387.jpg
Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, taught these.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Psa 49 7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
Christianity teaches that Jesus was put to death for our sins and is the savior of mankind. Christianity posits that god could not forgive mankind without a barbaric blood sacrifice. Christianity says that god demanded and accepted a sacrifice, --- which is synonymous with bribe and ransom, --- to reverse his usual justice. That usual good justice was punishing the guilty and not the innocent, --- which the bribe changed to accepting the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty, --- which goes against what Jesus taught.
This link has a little test to see if the morality of Christians is compromised. It proves in real time that it is in many cases. If you are a Christian, please take that test before you reply here and let me know if you passed or failed.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yhcm76Jfps
Given the reality of the immorality and lack of justice in substitutionary punishment, are Christians making a moral monster of Jesus by the dogma that says that he would ask us to accept the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty as moral and just?
I see one of the Jesus’ as not being particularly moral but I do not make him out to be the moral monster that Christians do by their dogma of substitutionary punishment.
Thoughts?
Regards
DL
uploads.disquscdn.com/images/68fc2058b6b63108527e710b1866ae94fe76f2e722ab8818b9e28fb92504f387.jpg