Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...

[William]

Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

As a human being, how is such theology acceptable and a good and reasonable thing to be stating or even implying of others, on a debate forum or even in day to day life?

Are people right to be able to take a stand against such theology and call it out for being dated, dark, based upon information from dark ages, based in ignorance and evil of intent?

What gives individuals the right to say such things about others?

Is it a form of abuse?

Should others have to take that kind of abuse about their persons without protesting it?

[ttruscott]

What do you mean unproven? You have my testimony to prove it: one ought not sacrifice human lives because it is wrong.

Ephesians 5:2 and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.People who willingly die for the sake of family and friends are heroes, not goats.

Justice demands the eternal death of sinners so no sinner can die to fulfill all justice and allow for forgiveness. Jesus death, the death of a perfect human freely given in place of those under His promise of salvation IS an acceptable fulfillment of the requirement for eternal death.

As a divine member of the Trinity, His freely giving Himself for us for this purpose is not a human sacrifice which sacrifices other people for our own benefit to a false god but GOD’s self sacrifice for our benefit…it is less a human sacrifice than a GOD sacrifice, self chosen, by a divine person in human form.

Human sacrifice - forces another human to die
Christ’s sacrifice - offered Himself to death

Human sacrifice - to appease the anger or entice the blessings of a false god
Christ’s sacrifice - appeased His own righteous judgement condemning all sinners

Human sacrifice - for a personal benefit
Christ’s sacrifice - for our benefit

The obvious similarity is that Christ was in human form when He died but this does not negate or override the huge differences between His death and what we call human sacrifice in that He was not forced to die by another but chose freely to give Himself to death, not for His own benefit but for ours.

GOD hates human sacrifice: Leviticus 18:21 'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.


2 Kings 21:6 He made his son pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and used divination, and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD provoking Him to anger.

[Bust Nak]

Yeah, I acknowledge that you got me right, when you are got me right...just like I acknowledge that you got me wrong, when you got me wrong. Now, if it just so happens that my acknowledgment of you having me right/wrong is on the same subject...that is only because of your constant flip-flopping on what you say, which you do a good job of.

That's still not very specific, what flip-flopping are you talking about?

And no, I am not going to go back and scavenging through posts/paragraphs of you committing these actions (as I'm sure that would have been my task; dealing with you and all).

I call it out as I see it, when it happens.

Meh, put more effort into your posts please.

Was there an intent/purpose for the creation of aurora borealis?

No

Was there an intent/purpose for Mona Lisa painting?

Yes.

I did more than that.

And I address your so called "more than that" and you just fall back on your LOL's, SMH's and amnesia. That never stopped you form maintaining I am mistaken.

Why is it wrong?

Because I said so.

Me: Defend your position that human sacrifices is wrong
You: Ok, I will defend my position. Human sacrifices is wrong

LOL.

There you go with you LOL's again. Quit it.

Misrepresenting? Nonsense. How can what you call "evil is evil according to any old standard", when human sacrifices isn't evil according to the people who partake in human sacrifices?

I didn't say human sacrifices is evil by any old standard though. The evil in the problem of evil isn't specified either. Any old evil according to any old standard would do.

You said I did, though.

I corrected that.

But morality is objective, according to the Bible.

That's the point - the mere presupposition of a moral standard does not invoke subjectivism. An objective standard would work just as well.

Um, well...I will tell you what I was talking about...and that is subjective morality, according to YOUR view...and I've made that explicitly clear, even clarifying as needed.

And I made it explicity clear that presuppose a standard of morality isn't presupposing a subjective standard of morality. i.e. Not subjective is not subjective.

Um, any standard has to be particular, doesn't it?

Not sure what you are getting at here. It doesn't have to be one particular standard, it can be any. Take your pick.

[Bust Nak]

Ephesians 5:2 and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.People who willingly die for the sake of family and friends are heroes, not goats.

What about those do demand the death of someone for the sake of family and friends?

Justice demands the eternal death of sinners...

Justice demands this you say? Sounds to me like God is demanding that from here. And that's the point, no one needs to die if not to appease the anger or entice the blessings of a god (false or otherwise.)

... so no sinner can die to fulfill all justice and allow for forgiveness.

Why can't each sinner can die to fulfill each instances of this so called justice? Jesus's death is not required. Paying for someone else's crime is how justice is subverted.

Jesus death, the death of a perfect human freely given in place of those under His promise of salvation IS an acceptable fulfillment of the requirement for eternal death.

Risen again on the third day doesn't sound like eternal to me.

As a divine member of the Trinity, His freely giving Himself for us for this purpose is not a human sacrifice which sacrifices other people for our own benefit to a false god but GOD’s self sacrifice for our benefit…it is less a human sacrifice than a GOD sacrifice, self chosen, by a divine person in human form...

Jesus is fully man, last I checked. More to the point, the willingness of the victim/hero doesn't make human sacrifice any better. You do accept that there are instances of ritual human sacrifice that are not forced? Needing death to be appeased is the problem in itself, regardless of how sinful we are, or who would benefit.

GOD hates human sacrifice: Leviticus 18:21 'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.

2 Kings 21:6 He made his son pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and used divination, and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD provoking Him to anger.

Another case of do as I say, not as I do.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That's still not very specific, what flip-flopping are you talking about?

"And no, I am not going to go back and scavenging through posts/paragraphs of you committing these actions (as I'm sure that would have been my task; dealing with you and all)".

Meh, put more effort into your posts please.

Meh.

No

Then it ain't specified complexity.

Yes.

Then it is specified complexity.

And I address your so called "more than that" and you just fall back on your LOL's, SMH's and amnesia. That never stopped you form maintaining I am mistaken.

You are the only person that I have to continually go back pages upon pages, posts upon posts, paragraphs upon paragraphs, to find out what was said and how it was said.

There could be many topics/subtopics in a single post and I can't remember what I said and why I said it at a particular fraction of what could be considered a "long" post.

There you go with you LOL's again. Quit it.

I typed more than just "LOL" in what you quoted me. Focus your attention on that..instead of attempting to drop a red herring bomb.

I didn't say human sacrifices is evil by any old standard though. The evil in the problem of evil isn't specified either. Any old evil according to any old standard would do.

The evil in the problem of evil doesn't have to be specified, though. Evil can remain X, but the subjectivity of X doesn't go away regardless of what X is (on your subjectivist view).

I corrected that.

Props.

That's the point - the mere presupposition of a moral standard does not invoke subjectivism. An objective standard would work just as well.

I was going by your view and how you see morality through your own lens.

And I made it explicity clear that presuppose a standard of morality isn't presupposing a subjective standard of morality. i.e. Not subjective is not subjective.

You are generalizing, while I am talking about specifics. I tried to drop the subject but since you insisted, here we are.

Not sure what you are getting at here. It doesn't have to be one particular standard, it can be any. Take your pick.

Um, you said this isn't about any particular standard...then you tell me to take my pick..well, if I take my pick, that pick would itself be a particular standard.

And I fail to see how any standard that I pick would FAIL to be under the "subjective" umbrella, on your view.

Again, remember, I requested that we drop the subject and move along..but you wanted to continue to yap about it..well, lets yap about it.

You clearly were unable to defend your own position, when tasked to defend your position as to why human sacrifices is wrong...so a position that can't be defended is a position not worth debating.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 171 by ttruscott]

Justice demands the eternal death of sinners....

No it doesn't. That's just nonsense made up by humans.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 171 by ttruscott]

Jesus death, the death of a perfect human freely given in place of those under His promise of salvation IS an acceptable fulfillment of the requirement for eternal death.

But it is the only means by which salvation was possible so God is in effect demanding human sacrifice.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 171 by ttruscott]

Jesus death, the death of a perfect human freely given in place of those under His promise of salvation IS an acceptable fulfillment of the requirement for eternal death.

But it is the only means by which salvation was possible so God is in effect demanding human sacrifice.

I gave you my thoughts on this...why do you consider that only your thoughts can be correct?

1. Jesus is Divine so no GOD demanded He do anything.

2. Self sacrifice IS NOT under the rubric of human sacrifice and never has been. This is a straw horse that can't swim, based upon a false premise.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 177 by ttruscott]

I gave you my thoughts on this...why do you consider that only your thoughts can be correct?

LOL! I do not necessarily consider that only my thoughts are correct. I do, however, consider that your thoughts are incorrect.

1. Jesus is Divine so no GOD demanded He do anything.

That doesn't even make sense. Jesus the human was the alleged sacrifice. If Jesus did not die there would be no salvation. Why? Because that is the only way that God would provide it. Therefore God required a human sacrifice. By the way, Jesus was simply executed as a criminal, not as a ritual sacrifice. The whole scenario was merely retrofitted to be some sort of sacrifice.

2. Self sacrifice IS NOT under the rubric of human sacrifice and never has been. This is a straw horse that can't swim, based upon a false premise.

Whether you are coerced or whether you go willingly, the death of a human being to secure some benefit from a god is still human sacrifice.

[Bust Nak]

No

Then [aurora borealis] ain't specified complexity.

That does not follow. That's like insisting that a black swan is not a swan because you've somehow gotten into your head that "all swans are white."

You are the only person that I have to continually go back pages upon pages, posts upon posts, paragraphs upon paragraphs, to find out what was said and how it was said.

You say that and yet there you were, saying you cannot be bothered to go back pages up pages to find out what and how it was said. Why do you response with "I don't remember" as often as you do, had you actually went back to check?

There could be many topics/subtopics in a single post and I can't remember what I said and why I said it at a particular fraction of what could be considered a "long" post.

So go and check, provide links back to any quotes you think is relevant.

I typed more than just "LOL" in what you quoted me. Focus your attention on that..instead of attempting to drop a red herring bomb.

But the extra stuff you typed was just an attempt at ridicule. First you ask me defend not sacrificing human, my response was one ought not sacrifice human because it is wrong. Then you asked me why it is wrong, in turn I told you it's wrong because I say so. The ball is in your court.

The evil in the problem of evil doesn't have to be specified, though. Evil can remain X, but the subjectivity of X doesn't go away regardless of what X is (on your subjectivist view).

Why would you think there was any subjectivity of X in the first place?

I was going by your view and how you see morality through your own lens.

By going with my views, YOU are appeal to subjectivism. The problem of evil doesn't require nor imply subjectivism.

You are generalizing, while I am talking about specifics.

That's the whole point - I get to general because the problem of evil does NOT presuppose subjectivism.

I tried to drop the subject but since you insisted, here we are.

When one typically tries to drop a subject, they concede stuff. You "tried" to drop the subject and still have the last word, insisting that somehow the problem of evil presupposes a subjective standard of evil, it does not.

Um, you said this isn't about any particular standard...then you tell me to take my pick..well, if I take my pick, that pick would itself be a particular standard.

Okay, let me reword that, it isn't about my particular standard but any standard you care to choose.

And I fail to see how any standard that I pick would FAIL to be under the "subjective" umbrella, on your view.

Does that matter when the argument doesn't impose subjectivism?

Again, remember, I requested that we drop the subject and move along..but you wanted to continue to yap about it..well, lets yap about it.

You clearly were unable to defend your own position, when tasked to defend your position as to why human sacrifices is wrong...so a position that can't be defended is a position not worth debating.

So you kept insisting, let me repeat my defence again: human sacrifices is wrong because I say so.

[Bust Nak]

1. Jesus is Divine so no GOD demanded He do anything.

Bait and switch fallacy: what we were referring to as demand, is "human sacrifice" (in speechmarks as I am acknowlging that according to you, not all sacrificing of human counts as human sacrifice,) as opposed to Jesus having to do something.

2. Self sacrifice IS NOT under the rubric of human sacrifice and never has been.

Again, I point to the other instances of "human sacrifice" with willing victims, don't those count as human sacrifice?