Those Who Reject the Son Reject Also the Father

[TheRedneckProfessor]

For practical purposes, I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist.  Without claiming knowledge or certainty, I do not believe in the existence of a god or gods; and I have ample reasons for my disbelief.  By way of example, the problem of evil/suffering, divine hiddenness, logical contradictions, and several others are all good reasons to disbelieve in the existence of a god.  Reasons for which theists have yet to provide satisfactory answers.  And reasons which would be applicable to nearly every god conceivable.  Each of these reasons,  in their own way, exemplify one overarching principle: that, if a god does exist, he, she, or it plays no significant or practical purpose in the minutiae of daily life. 

 

While any and all of these reasons could fill a separate thread of their own, my intention here is to address the reason I reject the christian god, specifically.   It should be noted, here, that I deliberately use the word “reject,” rather than “disbelieve.”  I do, also, disbelieve the christian god, in every version and interpretation in which he is presented.  But, of more import, there is a fundamental element of christian theology, which cannot be explained away or gotten around by apologetics or interpretation; and it is this element that leads me to categorically reject the christian god and the doctrines of the christian bible.

 

That element, for the christian god in particular, is the idea of substitutionary death.  While presented as a free and willing sacrifice made by a loving savior, propitiation is too abhorrent for me to ever believe, let alone accept with broken humility.

 

The scripture tells me that without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin. 

 

Why?

 

Is the christian god not omnipotent?  Would omnipotence not imply that he has the ability to forgive without such brutality?  Is the christian god not also omnibenevolent; and thus should also have the willingness to forgo the barbaric practices of old in favor of simple mercy and compassion.  If the christian god is, in fact, both able and willing to forgive, then why is the shedding of blood necessary?  Does he take pleasure in cruelty and punishment?  That the christian god requires blood for the atonement of sin, suggests to me that he is evil.  If he is not evil, then some other explanation is owed as to why only the barbarity of bloodshed can appease him.

 

Now, adding to his already ghastly bloodlust is the utterly repulsive concept of substitutionary death in the form and person of his innocent son.  As a man who strives toward personal integrity and moral responsibility, I find this idea completely horrific.  I mean that I am literally horrified at the idea that someone should die in my place, on top of the horror I already feel that anyone needs to die in the first place… over sins that could be forgiven any number of other ways, if the christian god indeed had the infinite mercy his holy book ascribes him.  But, if bloodshed is the only way this supposedly omniscient god can think of to forgive, then let my "sins" be my own responsibility. 

 

No one else should ever bear the responsibility of my wrong-doing nor of making my amends.  I was never once consulted about this idea for jesus to die in my place; and I most certainly would not have consented to it, nor authorized it if I had been.  It is my moral responsibility, and mine alone, to set right the wrongs that I have done. 

 

A practical, though perhaps daring, question that requires legitimate treatment, can and should be asked: What right does anyone else have to decide how my wrongdoings ought to be addressed?  The apologist would say that god, as the creator, has every right to determine the rules of the game he created.  To this I would respond: What then of Free Will?  If the responsibility of amending my shortfalls is taken from me, and the response to my wrongs has already been determined, how then can I be a truly free moral agent?  How can I be said to have significant moral responsibility?

 

The very “savior” who took the decision away from me is also purported to have said that I should treat others in a way that I would like to be treated.  This is an unacceptable level of sheer hypocrisy, given that shifting blame to another is a boundary I strive never to cross.  That is how I would be treated; and that is how I would treat another.  But the blame-shifting for my own “sin” was taken out of my hands long before I was ever conceived.  And it was taken without my consent; indeed, without the slightest regard to how I might feel about the idea.  I was simply never given a choice, or a say in the matter at all.  Had I been, I cannot, could not, would not have agreed to allow someone else to die in my place.  That entire concept is as morally repugnant to me as the initial premise upon which it is built—that someone needs to die at all, for the forgiveness of sin.

 

“Ah, but you do have a choice,” our hypothetical apologist will say.  “You can choose to accept his sacrifice and forgiveness.”

 

And if I choose not to?

 

What then?

 

That he would kill someone else in my stead, suggests that he is cruel.  To then add eternal conscious torment in hellfire and brimstone for nothing more than honest disbelief, suggests moreover that he delights himself in cruelty and evil.  He must take pleasure in it, or he would have omnipotently created a different situation that did not require blood, death, and eternal damnation. 

 

To now be coerced into accepting his death in my stead, on pain of eternal hellfire, is nothing more than emotional blackmail.  It is impossible for me to accept this "sacrifice" when I do not even accept the premise,  that bloodshed is necessary, upon which this "punishment" is based.

 

It is further impossible to accept that jesus bore consequences of "sin" when it is apparent that eternal damnation awaits every "sinner" anyway, despite the good lord's "sacrifice".  So, how does his death actually atone for the sins of the world, if simple disbelief is enough to completely nullify the atoning effect of his death?  Nor is his death effective against the horrific sins of believing in the wrong version of christianity, or subscribing to the wrong interpretation of the scripture.  Obviously, the only plan that this omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god could conjure will still result in the vast majority of humanity suffering hellfire everlasting, including most of his own believers.

 

This makes it perfectly clear to me that the god who designed this barbaric system must take considerable pleasure in cruelty and evil.  To place responsibility for "sin" onto the shoulders of his innocent son, while simultaneously holding us all equally accountable for the same "sin" and subject to eternal conscious torment in consequence is as nefarious as it is manipulative as it is abusive.

 

god cannot have it both ways.  He cannot give us free will, while simultaneously forcing decisions onto us; and the decision of substitutionary death is not, was not, never has been, ours to make.  That decision was made for us, forcing us now into the “decision” to either accept it or burn forevermore.

 

This is the appalling cruelty of god’s duplicity.  He would play both sides of the field and still blame us for the result.  But, either jesus' death truly atones for sin and nothing more is required, not even belief in the unbelievable, or acceptance of the unacceptable; or, we are all still responsible for sin and hell awaits, with or without our consent.  Either way, neither my personal integrity nor my moral code would allow me to accept the idea of "salvation" as it is presented in the gospel. 

 

[pantheory]

Blood sacrifice is all over the Old Testament. According to scripture, when Cain brought vegetables which he grew himself as an offering, God was displeased. But when Abel slay a lamb as a sacrifice and burned it, God was pleased -- the stupidity of the Bible and the beliefs of its writers. 

 

https://www.goodseed.com/blog/2014/01/02/where-in-the-scriptures-does-it-say-that-god-told-cain-and-abel-to-bring-a-blood-sacrifice/

file:///D:/ROOT/DLz/129814-Article%20Text-351328-1-10-20160203.pdf

 

https://bibleproject.com/blog/animal-sacrifice-really/

 

https://www.cjfm.org/blog/2022/05/16/if-god-forbids-human-sacrifice-in-the-old-testament-how-does-the-sacrifice-of-jesus-make-sense/

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

As the English would say, some bloody good replies above!  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, Weezer said:

As the English would say, some bloody good replies above!  

I see what you did there.  Clever. 

[Edgarcito]

Lev 17:11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

[Edgarcito]

Guess we might have to ask about is there sin, what's the definition, and how is that important in contrast to life.  Is that real outside of Christianity and if it is, does it sway our belief.

[RankStranger]

On 1/10/2023 at 8:40 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

For practical purposes, I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist.  Without claiming knowledge or certainty, I do not believe in the existence of a god or gods; and I have ample reasons for my disbelief.  By way of example, the problem of evil/suffering, divine hiddenness, logical contradictions, and several others are all good reasons to disbelieve in the existence of a god.  Reasons for which theists have yet to provide satisfactory answers.  And reasons which would be applicable to nearly every god conceivable.  Each of these reasons,  in their own way, exemplify one overarching principle: that, if a god does exist, he, she, or it plays no significant or practical purpose in the minutiae of daily life. 

 

While any and all of these reasons could fill a separate thread of their own, my intention here is to address the reason I reject the christian god, specifically.   It should be noted, here, that I deliberately use the word “reject,” rather than “disbelieve.”  I do, also, disbelieve the christian god, in every version and interpretation in which he is presented.  But, of more import, there is a fundamental element of christian theology, which cannot be explained away or gotten around by apologetics or interpretation; and it is this element that leads me to categorically reject the christian god and the doctrines of the christian bible.

 

That element, for the christian god in particular, is the idea of substitutionary death.  While presented as a free and willing sacrifice made by a loving savior, propitiation is too abhorrent for me to ever believe, let alone accept with broken humility.

 

The scripture tells me that without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin. 

 

Why?

 

Is the christian god not omnipotent?  Would omnipotence not imply that he has the ability to forgive without such brutality?  Is the christian god not also omnibenevolent; and thus should also have the willingness to forgo the barbaric practices of old in favor of simple mercy and compassion.  If the christian god is, in fact, both able and willing to forgive, then why is the shedding of blood necessary?  Does he take pleasure in cruelty and punishment?  That the christian god requires blood for the atonement of sin, suggests to me that he is evil.  If he is not evil, then some other explanation is owed as to why only the barbarity of bloodshed can appease him.

 

Now, adding to his already ghastly bloodlust is the utterly repulsive concept of substitutionary death in the form and person of his innocent son.  As a man who strives toward personal integrity and moral responsibility, I find this idea completely horrific.  I mean that I am literally horrified at the idea that someone should die in my place, on top of the horror I already feel that anyone needs to die in the first place… over sins that could be forgiven any number of other ways, if the christian god indeed had the infinite mercy his holy book ascribes him.  But, if bloodshed is the only way this supposedly omniscient god can think of to forgive, then let my "sins" be my own responsibility. 

 

No one else should ever bear the responsibility of my wrong-doing nor of making my amends.  I was never once consulted about this idea for jesus to die in my place; and I most certainly would not have consented to it, nor authorized it if I had been.  It is my moral responsibility, and mine alone, to set right the wrongs that I have done. 

 

A practical, though perhaps daring, question that requires legitimate treatment, can and should be asked: What right does anyone else have to decide how my wrongdoings ought to be addressed?  The apologist would say that god, as the creator, has every right to determine the rules of the game he created.  To this I would respond: What then of Free Will?  If the responsibility of amending my shortfalls is taken from me, and the response to my wrongs has already been determined, how then can I be a truly free moral agent?  How can I be said to have significant moral responsibility?

 

The very “savior” who took the decision away from me is also purported to have said that I should treat others in a way that I would like to be treated.  This is an unacceptable level of sheer hypocrisy, given that shifting blame to another is a boundary I strive never to cross.  That is how I would be treated; and that is how I would treat another.  But the blame-shifting for my own “sin” was taken out of my hands long before I was ever conceived.  And it was taken without my consent; indeed, without the slightest regard to how I might feel about the idea.  I was simply never given a choice, or a say in the matter at all.  Had I been, I cannot, could not, would not have agreed to allow someone else to die in my place.  That entire concept is as morally repugnant to me as the initial premise upon which it is built—that someone needs to die at all, for the forgiveness of sin.

 

“Ah, but you do have a choice,” our hypothetical apologist will say.  “You can choose to accept his sacrifice and forgiveness.”

 

And if I choose not to?

 

What then?

 

That he would kill someone else in my stead, suggests that he is cruel.  To then add eternal conscious torment in hellfire and brimstone for nothing more than honest disbelief, suggests moreover that he delights himself in cruelty and evil.  He must take pleasure in it, or he would have omnipotently created a different situation that did not require blood, death, and eternal damnation. 

 

To now be coerced into accepting his death in my stead, on pain of eternal hellfire, is nothing more than emotional blackmail.  It is impossible for me to accept this "sacrifice" when I do not even accept the premise,  that bloodshed is necessary, upon which this "punishment" is based.

 

It is further impossible to accept that jesus bore consequences of "sin" when it is apparent that eternal damnation awaits every "sinner" anyway, despite the good lord's "sacrifice".  So, how does his death actually atone for the sins of the world, if simple disbelief is enough to completely nullify the atoning effect of his death?  Nor is his death effective against the horrific sins of believing in the wrong version of christianity, or subscribing to the wrong interpretation of the scripture.  Obviously, the only plan that this omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god could conjure will still result in the vast majority of humanity suffering hellfire everlasting, including most of his own believers.

 

This makes it perfectly clear to me that the god who designed this barbaric system must take considerable pleasure in cruelty and evil.  To place responsibility for "sin" onto the shoulders of his innocent son, while simultaneously holding us all equally accountable for the same "sin" and subject to eternal conscious torment in consequence is as nefarious as it is manipulative as it is abusive.

 

god cannot have it both ways.  He cannot give us free will, while simultaneously forcing decisions onto us; and the decision of substitutionary death is not, was not, never has been, ours to make.  That decision was made for us, forcing us now into the “decision” to either accept it or burn forevermore.

 

This is the appalling cruelty of god’s duplicity.  He would play both sides of the field and still blame us for the result.  But, either jesus' death truly atones for sin and nothing more is required, not even belief in the unbelievable, or acceptance of the unacceptable; or, we are all still responsible for sin and hell awaits, with or without our consent.  Either way, neither my personal integrity nor my moral code would allow me to accept the idea of "salvation" as it is presented in the gospel. 

 

 

If one isn't a fundamentalist, and doesn't insist on a literal reading of the bible... why would these objections matter?

 

Hundreds of millions of Christians are not concerned about any of this.  

[nontheistpilgrim]

14 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

If one isn't a fundamentalist, and doesn't insist on a literal reading of the bible... why would these objections matter?

 

Hundreds of millions of Christians are not concerned about any of this.  

I don't see that. Those millions of Christians probably sing hymns and recite the creeds - which support the fundamental Christian teachings. It's wny I would feel hypocritical if I attended church.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Lev 17:11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

 

Leviticus is preceded by Exodus and Genesis.

 

So, for Leviticus 17 : 11 to be true and real it depends on Exodus and Genesis also being true and real.

 

The catch is that the Genesis account of the origin of the universe and the world is contradicted by the facts.

 

The universe is 13.72 billion years old and was not created in 6 days.

 

Therefore, Genesis is false.

 

Therefore, Leviticus is false.

 

Therefore, Leviticus 17 : 11 is also false.

 

 

Edgarcito, bible quotes do not become true or real because they are believed by faith.

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Guess we might have to ask about is there sin, what's the definition, and how is that important in contrast to life.  Is that real outside of Christianity and if it is, does it sway our belief.

 

Edgarcito,

 

Yeah,sins are well-defined within the Bible, and the English word sin is likely defined based upon the Bible. But for a total atheist like me, the word "sin" is generally meaningless. For an atheist like me the word "sin" means doing wrong to others. I also don't eat meat because I don't like doing wrong or killing  animals either. So an atheist can make up his own moral system within the laws of the land made by his peers. My primary moral is not to do unto others as I would not want them to do unto me. I'm totally against war, but realize that sometimes we have to fight and kill to maintain our freedom, or to protect the freedom of others.

 

My morals, other than not spilling blood, is similar to Christian morals excepting for fornication.  Under 18 no, married, no, but beyond that it's just a matter of mutual preference  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

Hundreds of millions of Christians are not concerned about any of this.  

I have no doubt that the christian god will see to it that those guys are tormented for all eternity in the lake of everlasting hellfire and brimstone... in his great mercy.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Guess we might have to ask about is there sin, what's the definition, and how is that important in contrast to life.  Is that real outside of Christianity and if it is, does it sway our belief.

I don't need to ask myself those questions; but you are welcome to ask yourself as you see fit.

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I don't need to ask myself those questions; but you are welcome to ask yourself as you see fit.

You asked why....I was attempting to contribute.

[Edgarcito]

24 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Edgarcito,

 

Yeah,sins are well-defined within the Bible, and the English word sin is likely defined based upon the Bible. But for a total atheist like me, the word "sin" is generally meaningless. For an atheist like me the word "sin" means doing wrong to others. I also don't eat meat because I don't like doing wrong or killing  animals either. So an atheist can make up his own moral system within the laws of the land made by his peers. My primary moral is not to do unto others as I would not want them to do unto me. I'm totally against war, but realize that sometimes we have to fight and kill to maintain our freedom, or to protect the freedom of others.

 

My morals, other than not spilling blood, is similar to Christian morals excepting for fornication.  Under 18 no, married, no, but beyond that it's just a matter of mutual preference  

+1

 

The wages of sin is death if I'm remembering.  For me, I see it as more blood=life and sin=death.  Our morals are not wonderful sometimes, intentional and un.  

 

With that, I think as I've grown older, I'm realizing the value of the one life I have and had, and what I've done with it or squandered.  Sometimes I think God may have the same scenario for us....hey, I gave you this life and need you to see the value.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You asked why....I was attempting to contribute.

Posing further inquiries of questionable relevance often serves little more than providing convenient distraction when one would rather not deal with the information already at their disposal.  Scripture has already provided clear answers to your questions; further discussion will not help you answer the "why" I asked. 

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

+1

 

The wages of sin is death if I'm remembering.  For me, I see it as more blood=life and sin=death.  Our morals are not wonderful sometimes, intentional and un.  

 

With that, I think as I've grown older, I'm realizing the value of the one life I have and had, and what I've done with it or squandered.  Sometimes I think God may have the same scenario for us....hey, I gave you this life and need you to see the value.

 

The wages of sin is death, according to the Bible. As I said, I believe the entire Bible is a fairy tale so I view sinning as a form of trespassing and nothing more. As a human animal, I am certain that I'm going to eventually die anyway regardless of my "good" or "bad" deeds. Always thanks for the +1's.

 

Cheers

[Edgarcito]

45 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Posing further inquiries of questionable relevance often serves little more than providing convenient distraction when one would rather not deal with the information already at their disposal.  Scripture has already provided clear answers to your questions; further discussion will not help you answer the "why" I asked. 

Well then don't ask....

 

Edit:  Why DID you ask.  "I already knew what I believed and sat down and wrote this post on this forum soliciting inquiries for introspection."  Makes sense to me.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

23 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Well then don't ask....

 

Edit:  Why DID you ask.  "I already knew what I believed and sat down and wrote this post on this forum soliciting inquiries for introspection."  Makes sense to me.

 

Are you familiar with the concept of rhetorical questioning?

 

[Edgarcito]

Yes, thanks.  Might title your post "Mental Masturbation" next time...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Well, now, Ed, I already told you you're welcome to ask your questions as you see fit.  Just because I'm capable of reading the bible and seeing the answers doesn't mean you can't still try to find different answers for yourself.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

11 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Hundreds of millions of Christians are not concerned about any of this. 

 

That is correct.  Hundreds of millions of Christians haven't read the Bible.  They are just sheep, following any shepard they happen to like, because generations before them said they should.  And these seem to be the Christians that are slowly leaving Christainity one by one.  So, if we just leave them alone, they will eliminate themselves from Christianity.  You are right.  They aren't the dangerous ones, and they are helping the economy by driving back and forth to church and givng jobs to the workers who build the church building, and their cars, and the printers of their literature, the oil companies that provide fuel for their cars to drive back and forth to church, etc, etc.  HA! Forgive my rambling and carry on.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

"I already knew what I believed and sat down and wrote this post on this forum soliciting inquiries for introspection." 

Here's a question for you, Ed.  I built an argument for rejecting the god of the bible, based largely on what the bible says, and your initial instinct was to quote a scripture verse from the bible.  What possible rationale could you have for thinking that was the best approach to a counter-argument?  If I've already used the bible to reject the bible god, how is adding more bible to the equation going to help your side of the argument?  Especially if the verse you quote simply confirms the bloodlust for which I reject the bible god?

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here's a question for you, Ed.  I built an argument for rejecting the god of the bible, based largely on what the bible says, and your initial instinct was to quote a scripture verse from the bible.  What possible rationale could you have for thinking that was the best approach to a counter-argument?  If I've already used the bible to reject the bible god, how is adding more bible to the equation going to help your side of the argument?  Especially if the verse you quote simply confirms the bloodlust for which I reject the bible god?

Your argument just presented the side you want to see rather than discover any rationale behind the perspective you were arguing against.  Let's say you were wonderfully familiar with the Leviticus verse.  I'd rather you said, yep, it's bloodlust because we know life resides (X) rather than in the blood.  Then you might have made your argument more valid.  As it stands, you are just presenting an angry, biased diatribe...

[Edgarcito]

@RNP ....you're not confident in your beliefs at this point....not yet ok with where you are.  Florduh is, Pan is.  Some of the older members.  So you don't argue from a place of confidence.  Just my take.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

28 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Your argument just presented the side you want to see rather than discover any rationale behind the perspective you were arguing against.  Let's say you were wonderfully familiar with the Leviticus verse.  I'd rather you said, yep, it's bloodlust because we know life resides (X) rather than in the blood.  Then you might have made your argument more valid.  As it stands, you are just presenting an angry, biased diatribe...

As I said, and you've now demonstrated, further discussion eill not help you answer the "why" I asked.