Add "stupid" to the list and I'm in 100% agreement.

Ah, chansen, you have no conception of how fully I agree with you.

It is a little odd.

It's also not a universal belief among Christians.

You'll find many, if not most, Christians here don't hold to that idea.

God rejected the vicarious atonement of Jesus as it would be immoral to offer it or accept it.

Why have you forsaken me is answered with this .

Pro 21:3 To do justice and judgment [is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Psa 49:7 None [of them] can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

As to the idea of blood sacrifice----

Are you willing to look up these and comment on our salvation without the blood or Jesus?

Regards

DL

Mainline christian theology rejects it - for one see saving paradise by Brock and Parker.... and many comments on this site have been made - check the past posts.  I am tired of comments that show no knowledge of what actually is said and are dependent on a small group of conservative statements.

Google "Douglas Todd    A Rough Guide to Three Kinds of Christians".  In the Vancouver Sun today,  he does a good job of explaining the difference between conservative and liberal Christianity.....a good read before making assumptions about what "all" Christians believe.

I'm a Christian and I reject the idea of vicarious redemption (or substitutionary atonement, as I've heard it).  I think Jesus was executed for the same reason as many others who died for their principles - he upset the status quo.

Ahh, I detect a Hitchens meme!

Oh, the problems when one takes things literally (only concentrating on their surface appearances).  Poor, poor English...

What a loving G_d, murdering His only begotten son, so that these fine folk could do their movie (which I have to watch again, somday):

Perhaps it also has something to do with the age-old tradition of Scapegoating?  Here is another series of notions, giving some sense of history and culture.

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study to find if there is any correlation between how we treat our fictional characters (of the 2 types--those who actually existed and those who didn't) and how we 'are'?

Rene Girard

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! I typed in Vicarious Redemption in yahoo and guess who's name came up? GREATEST I AM. The site is debatingchristianity.com, and it looks like he was banned.

BAWWWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

The site says, "The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate."

No wonder he was banned, GIA wouldn't know civil and engaging debate if it slapped him in the face.

GIA was also banned from  http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162443

GIA actually got banned from a James Randi website.

He also got banned from www.atheistthinktank.net a while back.  He just didn't know how to legitimately debate.

But, who is to say what morality is? What one considers immoral another person may not. I mean, it's all relative anyway, right.  Is morality in the case of vicarious redemption subjective or objective? Why do you find it personally immoral? You do not believe in any of it anyway so what is your objection?

I for one ABSOLUTELY believe that Jesus Christ dies for my sins. I am still responsible for the results of my sins, but, God in His goodness extended His grace toward me and now I am saved from His rath. I am still a rotten, stinking, filthy sinner, but I am a grateful sinner who has been saved by grace. You may consider that stupid, immoral or any host of other thoughts but, just because you say so, does not make it so.

By whose standard do you consider your god to be "good", CF?

Well, as I believe in God, God's.

What about my question? I'll make it succinct. Why do atheists get all hot and bothered about things they do not believe in anyway?

Probably because atheists think religion can be used as a weapon,is dangerous and conditions people to believe in faeries.

 What's wrong with faeries?

i am still upset that they replaced them as a way to get to PEI with a strait crossing.

Waterfall while I don't agree with all of cf theology I am tired of the old bs of dangerous - just read a scientist who spoke about how the misuse of science is dangerous - or dan gardiner an atheists who puts out how so called rationality is dangerous - make a good arguement then I will respond.   Alex comment was so bang on.

It's not an argument at all I was just answering CF"s question with what other atheists have said. Of course there are many other responses as I'm sure Chansen could provide us with.

Why is God's standard a "good" standard to use?  By whose standards do you judge God's standard of goodness to be a good one?  Your last response doesn't really answer the question.

Your question was not to me, but to Siege.  The immediate issue about which Siege was "hot and bothered" is not one that makes me "hot and bothered", so I'm not really qualified to explain why people are "hot and bothered" about it.  Also, because the question was not to me in the first place, I'm not sure why you got so "hot and bothered" about my not having answered it.

In a more general sense, atheists get "hot and bothered" about the beliefs of others for many of the same reasons that you might.  For example, if part of your family disowned you because you disagreed with them on a matter of scripture, then you'd probably care about that.  You might wonder why they got so "hot and bothered" about it in the first place, especially if you thought that their position was wrong anyway.

That sort of experience is one that doesn't just happen to atheists.  And it's a reason to get one's back up about the idea of in-group/out-group faiths.

Then again, you'd probably have been the one doing the disowning.

I wasn't hot and bothered. I simply asked if somebody would answer my question.

Your last comment just shows how ignorant you really are.  You have no clue what I would do in any given situation. So, before you go shooting your mouth off about things you know nothing about, get some facts about a person. Your conclusion jumping does nothing for you except to expose your ignorance and intolerance. So, I would appreciate it if you would simply speak to the points in question and refrain from thinking you know somthing about me, when clearly your ignorance overtook your judgement

My response did answer the question. God's standard is a good standard to use because I believe God is good.

I can only go by the attitudes you've already expressed, CF.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Hopefully I'm wrong. 

Now, do you have an answer to the first part of my post?  Or to any of the meat of it?  I don't see why you asked for an answer if you merely intended to ignore it.  That's not very courteous.

Ahh, so you did deign to respond.  That gets to the root of it:  You believe God is good.  By applying your own personal moral judgments, you are able to define God's morals as good ones.

Now, why is your judgment the right one?

What attitudes are those, Azdgari?

(Hey Alex - I just came home from riding a faeiry to PEI - it can still be done!  And it's magical!)

I do not use my own personal moral judgements about the goodness of God. As a Christian, I believe the Bible speaks of God's goodness as testified by Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior. Jesus says that God is good, I believe in Jesus as my Savior and that Jesus speaks the truth about God the Father. My "personal moral judgements" have nothing to do with it. 

Your personal moral judgments are what allow you to see something as "good" or not - such as the Bible's message.  How are you able to tell whether the Bible is good or evil?  By your own judgments.  You are god.

The attitude that those who are not a part of your religious in-group deserve to be tortured for eternity is one such attitude.  The general disrespect for those who don't believe in your god is another.  It is possible to disrespect an idea without disrespecting as a person the one who holds it, like you claim to do in the case of chansen.

Keep sharing the truth brother.

Even if it means lying...ends justifying means, right Jae?

Ohhhhh.......so now I am lying. You certainly have me allllll figured out don't you?

Well, I deserve to go to hell. What makes you think that I believe hell is a place of endless fire and torture?

You are either lying or oblivious about your application of your personal moral judgments to the Bible and to related ideas.  I don't have to know you to know that, I only have to understand morality in order to know that.

Well, I don't respect Chansen. Do I hate him? Nope. But I do not respect him. Do I not respect chansen because he does not believe in God? Nope. I do not respect him because he does not respect those who do believe in God and takes every chance he gets to mock and ridicule those who are believers.

I would direct you to the "Calling All Atheists" thread. There you can find Chansen's disgusting comment, which is a prime example of the hate and disrespect he has for those who believe in God. It's hypocrisy because if I were an atheist, the comment would not have included me. As it is, the comment is filthy and piggish and degrades myself and two of my brothers. However, should I expect anything less? Am I perfect. Nope. I have said some things on this board that I addressed as being inappropriate and have appologized. At least I have the crotales enough to admitt and apologize. However, Chansen's comment crosses the line.

Well, you are either being wilfully ignorant about my personal beliefs in order to prove your point or are deaf. I clearly and precisely broke down my beliefs about the goodness of God. My beliefs about the goodness of God come from the Bible. They come from the Bible because I believe that the Bible testifies about Jesus Christ. I believe that Jesus Christ testifies about the goodness of God. My moral judgements flow from those beliefs. Plain, simple and succinct. I really do not understand why you are having a hard time understanding that.

Other people's moral judgements are between them and God (or up to themselves if they do not believe in God).  I believe that in the end, God will sort ALL things out. It is not up to me.

Well then. since I am so ignorant about the subject, please enlighten me about morality. I eagerly await your reply.

So you're saying that you disagree with the treatment of the atheists in those videos?  I find that surprising.  And "wet dreams' is a metaphor, CF.  Not a particularly pleasant one, but as I understood him he was not making a claim about what you actually dream if or when you have a wet dream; instead he was suggesting that you agree with the treatment of the atheists in those videos.  Is he wrong?

After all, you believe in your god's wrath, and presumably - given the context in which you mentioned it - believe that it is a wrath that will rightly fall on chansen (whether or not he made the comment in question).  Given what that "wrath" is supposed to entail, such a belief represents hatred beyond that of which I am capable of comprehending.  Either you don't fully comprehend it either, or you're incomprehensibly hateful.  It's one or the other.

That's what I was doing.  That's where my questions were leading.

We got to the point where you admitted that you were the one judging the Bible to be good.  Against whose standard can you judge the Bible to be good?  To rely on the Bible to judge itself is just arbitrary, random - any book could serve equally as something that claims to be good.  Why pick one over the other?

The answer is that you have to actually evaluate the book in some way.  And the standard against which you're evaluating it isn't the book itself - if it was, then you'd be just picking a book at random as I said above.  Rather, the standard is your own.  That's the only standard at hand.  It's the only one you have that you can use, until the point where you've evaluated your god's as being worthwhile.  Hence, morally, you are God.

If you are talking about the videos in the "Calling All Atheists" thread then, yes, I do disagree with the way the athesists were treated. Whether or not I agree with a person's religious faith or philosophies does not dertermine how I treat them. I could care less if the person standing beside me is an atheist. I sat next to an atheist in teacher's college and we both got along great. She appricated the fact that I didn't evangelize and I appreciated the fact that that she respected my beliefs. We worked well together and kicked ass on projects. She showed me that not all atheists are hateful jerks and I showed her that not all Christians are looney nut bags looking to shove a bible down people's throats.

I wonder why you would think that I believe atheists deserve to be treated in a certain way?

Don't cop out, consumingfire.  Read what adz wrote and think on it -- don't automatically reject what he is saying because it reminds you of previous 'evil atheist' or 'dumb' questions or don't give in to your mental programs that are going 'I'm being ATTACKED!'.  Really read what he is asking...you might be pleasantly surprised by your answers.

If you're not sure of what he is asking, ASK for clarification :3

Your talk about God's wrath in that thread is what made me think it.

I didn't say the Bible is good. I do believe that the Bible is the word of God and contains truth. What I said however is that I believe that God is good because Jesus testifies that God is good. I believe that Jesus is telling the truth when He says that God (God the Father) is good because the Bible testifies about Jesus Christ (God the Son). Is there perhaps another way I can break this down for you? You really seem to be struggling with the concept.

Thanks, Inanna.  For the record, the upshot of what I'm trying to say to CF is that we all make personal moral judgments, and that it's self-deception to pretend otherwise - even if the only personal moral judgment that one makes is to judge that that the Bible's contents are good.

You realize, of course, that they are all fools for not recognizing DL's theological genius and authoritarian approach.  You realize, of course, I'm having a hard time typing this without rolling on the floor laughing.  (As far as civil and engaging debate slapping him in the face, that would require that he has one to slap.)  Oh, pardon my ad hominem comments.  I'd really prefer some mustard for my vegetarian burger.

I didn't, "cop out" Inanna. I have tried to explain my beliefs to Adzgari multiple times, multiple ways. He is beating an argument to death trying to prove a point and now statrting to put words in my mouth I never said AND accusing me of lying.

As you can see, I have not automatically rejected what he has said but have responded multiple times. I have no idea what, "mental programs" you are speaking about. I do not feel attacked nor do I think that Adzgari is an "evil atheist".

How do you evaluate Jesus' testimony to be true re: God's goodness?

I'm not struggling with the concept, but with your own apparent unwillingness to examine your ideas.  I'll break it down:

You have decided that Jesus' testimony of God's goodness is a true one.  I.e., you have agreed with Jesus that God is good.  On what moral authority can you agree with him?  You can say "on God's" moral authority or "on Jesus'" moral authority, but that just begs the question of how you decided God or Jesus to be an authority on goodness to begin with - and whose standard you used to determine their moral authority (i.e., their goodness)

Now see, that is something I can agree on. However, I believe that the Bible's contents are good, because I believe that the Holy Spirit leads and teaches me so. I make no claim to come to any conlusions on my own about what is good (especially the goodness of god) because of my own fallible human understanding. It is my faith in God and the Holy Spirit (God the Spirit) that leads me to believe in the goodness of God.

Like I said, if others come to different conslusions, that is between them and God (or themselves).

I am not putting words in your mouth, I was interpreting your words.  As far as I can tell, it was a reasonable interpretation.  The problem with what you're saying is that you are engaging in circular reasoning.  I am explaining why, and you are resisting.

Also I did not call you a liar.  I implied to Jae that he would approve of lying if it meant "winning" the argument.  That was a comment on Jae, not on you.

You may not thing that Adzgari or I are "evil atheists", but you are conducting yourself as if you are under attack.

You have responded multiple times, but only to cite different parts of a circle of reasoning.

But...(wait for it)...how do you know that the Holy Spirit's teachings are good?

See the problem, CF?  I don't mean to throw your olive leaf aside, so to speak.  But I don't want mutual understanding to escape us at this point.

Trust me, I have examined my ideas, over and over again in EVERY area of my life. If I came to my understanding about the goodness of God on my own i.e. just coming to that conclusion becasue that is what I felt was true than you would be correct in asserting that I have made a personal moral judgement. However, I believe that God is good not by my own human reasoning but because I believe that the bible testifies about Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ testifies that God is good. I believe that the Holy Spirit testifies to me that what is written in the bible is the word of God and that the truth is found within. If what I believe is the truth is to be found within the bible that God is good, then i believe that God is good. I did not come to that conslusion by my own human reasoning but by the Holy Spirit's guidance.

I have explained my beliefs to you in a honest way as honestly as I possibly can.