Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you? People who believe in the barbaric human blood sacrifice of the Triune Jesus/God must believe that the greatest force ever to exist decided that humans, lowly creations whom we are told are infinitely inferior to God, are somehow more important than God’s own life and that he would give it up for believers. That is like a slave master dying in place of his slave. A rather silly notion to me. Jesus preached that we should develop a humble character with little self-pride. How is placing your own life above Triune Jesus/God’s showing a humble character as you think that he would die for you? That is taking self-pride to the maximum. I think that those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence. Yet Christians who think they are moral will believe that God would do such a despicable thing as having his son killed even as scriptures say that God prefers repentance to sacrifice and does not believe in asking or accepting a ransom. Is thinking that to believe that God would die for you the epitome of an inflated ego? If not, what could possibly inflate an ego more than that? Regards DLNo god had his son sacrificed. Jesus was crucified for his attack on the money lenders in the Temple, just as bin Laden was supposedly assassinated for his.
What seems egotistical to me is the focus on humans. Like the idea that humans are made in God’s image and only humans have free will, etc. Basically animals are here so we can eat them. That doesn’t work for me.
I also think it is egotistical that people think they are the “chosen” ones and “saved” by god based on their interpretation of an ancient text. This is obviously highly subjective, as the Christian Bible, for example, can be very ambiguous and interpreted many different ways. It is egotistical to think one is more special than others. Like I often think about, after a tragic fatal disaster, people “thank god” they were spared–what about those who weren’t? They weren’t special enough? Or it was all part of gods plan? (the former being the default answer, I find).
I take it that you are an agnostic in this regard. I suppose I am too.Pretty much. When philosophy is confused for substantive evidence....is it is in the whole free will debate...it strikes me that there's really nothing much to talk about. Besides, when the the term used is libertarian free will, the point being made is political, which is the same thing as "divorced from any reality." (I know, I know, this is going to honk some people off, but they'll just have to get over it.)
I never really consider it egotistical. More so, I consider it a far reach that people need such a macabre and dramatic story of death, torture and bloodshed. Really? Why would an all-knowing god (who sees the future) create a human race only to have to go through all this drama because Eve made a poor dietary decision based on a talking snakes input. It's like, "Well, Eve ate that apple, so now you have Cancer/now you have AIDS/now you will have your legs blown off in a war/now you will be killed in a car accident." Sorry if all this is too much, but these are the things I think about.Nailed it! You take away all the fancy clothes, the gold embossed crucifixes on the bible covers, the high-falutin' sounding "Thou Shalt..." passages, and boil it down to what's really being talked about, and you see how utterly absurd the whole thing is. Honestly I think god would probably want to stay as far away from them dumb humans as possible.
I never really consider it egotistical. More so, I consider it a far reach that people need such a macabre and dramatic story of death, torture and bloodshed. Really? Why would an all-knowing god (who sees the future) create a human race only to have to go through all this drama because Eve made a poor dietary decision based on a talking snakes input. It's like, "Well, Eve ate that apple, so now you have Cancer/now you have AIDS/now you will have your legs blown off in a war/now you will be killed in a car accident." Sorry if all this is too much, but these are the things I think about.+ 1 And you do it better than theists. Regards DL
In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place. But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will. Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God. In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God. That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric. What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral. I expected more from you. Then I shall give you more. In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father's directive. In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for "a greater cause". We don't typically complain that this is immoral. And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else's life, we don't consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed. Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy. In this case the enemy is the son's father. A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price. Regards DL
If you want a Biblical story that seems immoral to me, it is the God/Abraham/Isaac story. It seems immoral to me that Abraham intended to murder a child (his own) just because God told him to. It also, seems immoral to me, that God tricked Abraham into thinking that murdering his child was going to be required.I agree. That does not give morality to God demanding that Jesus die. Regards DL
Here's what i think might be immoral about the God/Adam/Jesus myth: To recap, God created Man as a perfect creature who had "free will" - Adam. Adam exercised his free will in a way that caused a rift between him and God. The only way for the rift to be repaired was for another perfect Man, by his own "free will" to sacrifice his own mortal life. So, given that rule, Jesus's sacrifice, and God directing him to do it, does not seem immoral to me. What does seem questionably moral, to me, is the rule itself, if God is omnipotent. One would think that God could have made a rule that did not require such a sacrifice. But presumably, God gave up a part of his omnipotence, by allowing Man the ability to do other than God's will. So there seems to be some internal consistency within the myth. Now, outside of the myth, we know that libertarian free will does not actually exist. (See the Philosophy Forum.)They have their own version of free will do they and have decided that their version does not exist????? You say that a rift was created when Adam used his free will. That means that he does not have free will as he is denied it's use without death. Regards DL
q No god had his son sacrificed. Jesus was crucified for his attack on the money lenders in the Temple, just as bin Laden was supposedly assassinated for his.So says the myth, yes. Rome's version of the Jesus they created. http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/2011/04/caesars-messiah-a-summary-of-findings-by-john-hudson/ Regards DL
What seems egotistical to me is the focus on humans. Like the idea that humans are made in God's image and only humans have free will, etc. Basically animals are here so we can eat them. That doesn't work for me.Not the way Christians interpret things for sure but in esoteric ways which Christians ignore, thee terminology is quite good. Perhaps that is why the ancients plagiarized it from other older religions. Regards DL
To those who do not believe in free will within the bounds of nature and physics, I have a test that proves to you that you have a free will or freedom to choose.
Let me know if you have taken this test or want to.
Regards
DL
In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place. But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will. Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God. In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God. That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric. What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral. I expected more from you. Then I shall give you more. In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father's directive. In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for "a greater cause". We don't typically complain that this is immoral. And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else's life, we don't consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed. Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy. In this case the enemy is the son's father. A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price. Regards DL One doesn't have to die at the hands of an enemy to be esteemed for self sacrifice. e.g., A fireman could die in a fire while saving a child. In the Christian story Jesus was the mortal manifestation of God himself. But as the mortal personification of God, and separate from God by this mortality as a human, Jesus could have decided not to do as God demanded.
Here's what i think might be immoral about the God/Adam/Jesus myth: To recap, God created Man as a perfect creature who had "free will" - Adam. Adam exercised his free will in a way that caused a rift between him and God. The only way for the rift to be repaired was for another perfect Man, by his own "free will" to sacrifice his own mortal life. So, given that rule, Jesus's sacrifice, and God directing him to do it, does not seem immoral to me. What does seem questionably moral, to me, is the rule itself, if God is omnipotent. One would think that God could have made a rule that did not require such a sacrifice. But presumably, God gave up a part of his omnipotence, by allowing Man the ability to do other than God's will. So there seems to be some internal consistency within the myth. Now, outside of the myth, we know that libertarian free will does not actually exist. (See the Philosophy Forum.)They have their own version of free will do they and have decided that their version does not exist????? You say that a rift was created when Adam used his free will. That means that he does not have free will as he is denied it's use without death. Regards DL You should note that, in the story, as I recall it, God did not threaten Adam with death for disobedience. God essentially did nothing to prevent Adam from exerting his free will and eating the apple, except for telling him not to. Now, I think one might make the case that it was immoral for God to give Adam free will, in the first place. But then, there would be no story, to speak of.
In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place. But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will. Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God. In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God. That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric. What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral. I expected more from you. Then I shall give you more. In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father's directive. In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for "a greater cause". We don't typically complain that this is immoral. And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else's life, we don't consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed. Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy. In this case the enemy is the son's father. A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price. Regards DL One doesn't have to die at the hands of an enemy to be esteemed for self sacrifice. e.g., A fireman could die in a fire while saving a child. In the Christian story Jesus was the mortal manifestation of God himself. But as the mortal personification of God, and separate from God by this mortality as a human, Jesus could have decided not to do as God demanded. No fireman's son will sit back as part of his third head and let the father head start a fire that will kill him as son's head. Would you let your father start a fire that you have to snuff out causing your death? Of course not. You are not stupid. So why think Jesus would be that stupid. Regards DL
Here's what i think might be immoral about the God/Adam/Jesus myth: To recap, God created Man as a perfect creature who had "free will" - Adam. Adam exercised his free will in a way that caused a rift between him and God. The only way for the rift to be repaired was for another perfect Man, by his own "free will" to sacrifice his own mortal life. So, given that rule, Jesus's sacrifice, and God directing him to do it, does not seem immoral to me. What does seem questionably moral, to me, is the rule itself, if God is omnipotent. One would think that God could have made a rule that did not require such a sacrifice. But presumably, God gave up a part of his omnipotence, by allowing Man the ability to do other than God's will. So there seems to be some internal consistency within the myth. Now, outside of the myth, we know that libertarian free will does not actually exist. (See the Philosophy Forum.)They have their own version of free will do they and have decided that their version does not exist????? You say that a rift was created when Adam used his free will. That means that he does not have free will as he is denied it's use without death. Regards DL You should note that, in the story, as I recall it, God did not threaten Adam with death for disobedience. God essentially did nothing to prevent Adam from exerting his free will and eating the apple, except for telling him not to. Now, I think one might make the case that it was immoral for God to give Adam free will, in the first place. But then, there would be no story, to speak of. The consequence or threat to Adam was that if he ate and used his free will then God would lock away the tree of life and thus kill him. That is what the myth has God doing. If that is not God doing something and exerting pressure for Adam not to use his free will then what is it? Regards DL
In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place. But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will. Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God. In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God. That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric. What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral. I expected more from you. Then I shall give you more. In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father's directive. In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for "a greater cause". We don't typically complain that this is immoral. And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else's life, we don't consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed. Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy. In this case the enemy is the son's father. A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price. Regards DL One doesn't have to die at the hands of an enemy to be esteemed for self sacrifice. e.g., A fireman could die in a fire while saving a child. In the Christian story Jesus was the mortal manifestation of God himself. But as the mortal personification of God, and separate from God by this mortality as a human, Jesus could have decided not to do as God demanded. No fireman's son will sit back as part of his third head and let the father head start a fire that will kill him as son's head. Would you let your father start a fire that you have to snuff out causing your death? Of course not. You are not stupid. So why think Jesus would be that stupid. Regards DL To fairly use the fireman analogy for the story of God/Jesus, you would have to include the Adam backstory. It might be something like this: A wealthy nuclear scientist (God analog) creates a residential community for homeless people (Adam&Eve; analog). The wealthy man tells the no-longer homeless folks "This is all yours. Enjoy. Just be sure to never exceed the generating capacity of the compact nuclear reactor that powers your community." But of course, they do. (apple eating analog). The reactor breaks down, a fire starts there, and radiation is about to spew out so intensely as to wipe out everyone in the community. The wealthy scientist's son, a fireman (Jesus analog), who happens to also be knowledgeable about the compact nuclear reactor that his father built for the community, is sent by his father to put out the fire and prevent a total meltdown. The scientist father tells his son, "The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else." Now any analogy breaks down, but this is a more fair analogy to the God/Adam/Jesus story than: A father starts a fire and demands that his fireman son kills himself to put the fire out.
Here's what i think might be immoral about the God/Adam/Jesus myth: To recap, God created Man as a perfect creature who had "free will" - Adam. Adam exercised his free will in a way that caused a rift between him and God. The only way for the rift to be repaired was for another perfect Man, by his own "free will" to sacrifice his own mortal life. So, given that rule, Jesus's sacrifice, and God directing him to do it, does not seem immoral to me. What does seem questionably moral, to me, is the rule itself, if God is omnipotent. One would think that God could have made a rule that did not require such a sacrifice. But presumably, God gave up a part of his omnipotence, by allowing Man the ability to do other than God's will. So there seems to be some internal consistency within the myth. Now, outside of the myth, we know that libertarian free will does not actually exist. (See the Philosophy Forum.)They have their own version of free will do they and have decided that their version does not exist????? You say that a rift was created when Adam used his free will. That means that he does not have free will as he is denied it's use without death. Regards DL You should note that, in the story, as I recall it, God did not threaten Adam with death for disobedience. God essentially did nothing to prevent Adam from exerting his free will and eating the apple, except for telling him not to. Now, I think one might make the case that it was immoral for God to give Adam free will, in the first place. But then, there would be no story, to speak of. The consequence or threat to Adam was that if he ate and used his free will then God would lock away the tree of life and thus kill him. That is what the myth has God doing. If that is not God doing something and exerting pressure for Adam not to use his free will then what is it? Regards DL An unstated consequence is not a threat. If I threaten to kill you and thus successfully impede you from opening a particular door, I have impeded your free will. If I know that poison gas will come out and kill you, and demand that you not open that door, but you open it anyway, I have not impeded your free will. Note, also, that I have provided all sorts of other doors that you can choose to open, or not, that will not result in your death. It is only the one, that I have demanded that you not open.
Here's what i think might be immoral about the God/Adam/Jesus myth: To recap, God created Man as a perfect creature who had "free will" - Adam. Adam exercised his free will in a way that caused a rift between him and God. The only way for the rift to be repaired was for another perfect Man, by his own "free will" to sacrifice his own mortal life. So, given that rule, Jesus's sacrifice, and God directing him to do it, does not seem immoral to me. What does seem questionably moral, to me, is the rule itself, if God is omnipotent. One would think that God could have made a rule that did not require such a sacrifice. But presumably, God gave up a part of his omnipotence, by allowing Man the ability to do other than God's will. So there seems to be some internal consistency within the myth. Now, outside of the myth, we know that libertarian free will does not actually exist. (See the Philosophy Forum.)They have their own version of free will do they and have decided that their version does not exist????? You say that a rift was created when Adam used his free will. That means that he does not have free will as he is denied it's use without death. Regards DL You should note that, in the story, as I recall it, God did not threaten Adam with death for disobedience. God essentially did nothing to prevent Adam from exerting his free will and eating the apple, except for telling him not to. Now, I think one might make the case that it was immoral for God to give Adam free will, in the first place. But then, there would be no story, to speak of. The consequence or threat to Adam was that if he ate and used his free will then God would lock away the tree of life and thus kill him. That is what the myth has God doing. If that is not God doing something and exerting pressure for Adam not to use his free will then what is it? Regards DL An unstated consequence is not a threat. If I threaten to kill you and thus successfully impede you from opening a particular door, I have impeded your free will. If I know that poison gas will come out and kill you, and demand that you not open that door, but you open it anyway, I have not impeded your free will. Note, also, that I have provided all sorts of other doors that you can choose to open, or not, that will not result in your death. It is only the one, that I have demanded that you not open. Bottom line. A consequence that causes a man, ---- or a God, ----- to intentionally kill his children, or any child or human for that matter, for disobeying a command to stay with eyes shut when they can be opened, in ignorant bliss, ---- when the child can be bright, and forgo being as moral as God, then that man or God is a murderer and is without morals. Christians follow such a God. Regards DL
In the same sense, it seems egotistical to believe that God created Man in the 1st place. But to be fair to the internal consistency within the myth, God created Man with free will. Man, in using his free will, did something to separate himself from God. In order to rectify this divide, God made a part of himself into a Man, and that Man, also having free will, went along with giving up his mortal existence (painfully so), in order to re-connect Man with God. That myth does not seem terribly immoral to me. And recognizing that it is egocentric is not a particular condemnation, IMO, as much of what humans do is egocentric. What effectively condemns the belief system, IMO, is that it is so obviously a simplistic and erroneous explanation of our reality.I agree but cannot understand why you say that embracing human sacrifice and the notion that people should profit from a God, in father persona having his son persona murdered to fill his own requirements is not terribly immoral. I expected more from you. Then I shall give you more. In the Jesus myth, Jesus, as an adult male of 33, had a choice as to whether to follow through with his father's directive. In reality, today, and through the ages, sons of actual living humans (younger than 33) have regularly been asked or directed to sacrifice their lives (in war) for "a greater cause". We don't typically complain that this is immoral. And in another sense, if someone chooses to sacrifice themselves to save someone else's life, we don't consider it immoral. In fact, such self sacrifice is often esteemed. Indeed. When one dies at the hands of an enemy. In this case the enemy is the son's father. A huge difference. God set the conditions and then demanded that Jesus pay the price. Regards DL One doesn't have to die at the hands of an enemy to be esteemed for self sacrifice. e.g., A fireman could die in a fire while saving a child. In the Christian story Jesus was the mortal manifestation of God himself. But as the mortal personification of God, and separate from God by this mortality as a human, Jesus could have decided not to do as God demanded. No fireman's son will sit back as part of his third head and let the father head start a fire that will kill him as son's head. Would you let your father start a fire that you have to snuff out causing your death? Of course not. You are not stupid. So why think Jesus would be that stupid. Regards DL To fairly use the fireman analogy for the story of God/Jesus, you would have to include the Adam backstory. It might be something like this: A wealthy nuclear scientist (God analog) creates a residential community for homeless people (Adam&Eve; analog). The wealthy man tells the no-longer homeless folks "This is all yours. Enjoy. Just be sure to never exceed the generating capacity of the compact nuclear reactor that powers your community." But of course, they do. (apple eating analog). The reactor breaks down, a fire starts there, and radiation is about to spew out so intensely as to wipe out everyone in the community. The wealthy scientist's son, a fireman (Jesus analog), who happens to also be knowledgeable about the compact nuclear reactor that his father built for the community, is sent by his father to put out the fire and prevent a total meltdown. The scientist father tells his son, "The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else." Now any analogy breaks down, but this is a more fair analogy to the God/Adam/Jesus story than: A father starts a fire and demands that his fireman son kills himself to put the fire out. "The scientist father tells his son, “The radiation will kill you, but you are the only one that knows the reactor setup, well enough and also has the skills to put the fire out in time to save everyone else." Not so. The Father has what it takes except he lacks the love his own son. He is just too self-centered. Regards DL