Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Is needlessly sacrificing your child, as God did, child abuse and murder?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 335 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 10 Dec 2013 16:18:43 GMT
Is needlessly sacrificing your child, as God did, child abuse and murder?

Bishop Spong indicated that we Christians should not perceive God as a God who demands barbaric acts like human sacrifice to appease his sense of justice. He uses the term child abuse and I just call it more of what it would be if the myth was real; murder.

I say needlessly because God has no needs. He only has wants and no decent God would want to needlessly sacrifice his son.

If a Sacrifice were required, God would not send a boy to do a man's job and he would be man enough to step up himself.

If you were to dare judge this issue or scenario of God, --- knowing that he planned to have Jesus sacrificed even before creating the potential for sin, would you find God criminally liable for child abuse and murder?

Regards
DL

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 16:31:52 GMT
What if if God wanted to needfully sacrifce his son?

"If a Sacrifice were required, God would not send a boy to do a man's job and he would be man enough to step up himself."

Isn't that precisely what happened (according to Christianity, anyway)?

This OP is somewhat confused about what happened with Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

PS Spong is not the only one who uses the term 'child abuse'. Steve Chalke notably did this about 12 years ago, where he called it 'cosmic child abuse'.

Posted on 10 Dec 2013 16:37:38 GMT
Tosh says:
Jesus forsake himself.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 16:58:30 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Dec 2013 17:00:04 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 10 Dec 2013 17:05:29 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 17:50:06 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Dec 2013 17:50:20 GMT
Mr W D B

If God did want to needless sacrifice his son then he is insane and yes, that would explain his not stepping up and sending a boy to do a man's job if he did.

What am I confused about?

Regards
DL

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 17:51:56 GMT
Tosh

That line does sort of screws up the Christian view of voluntary sacrifice or sacrifice at all.

Regards
DL

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 17:53:39 GMT
Spin

Jesus said, my Father who sent me. He also said I do the Fathers will and not my own.

Age has nothing to do with this issue but hide your immorality behind age if you like.

Regards
DL

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 17:55:39 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 18:18:39 GMT
Mrs. F. Shaw says:
What was the purpose of a blood sacrifice of Jesus? To atone for sin. What's wrong with just saying 'I forgive you.'

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 18:25:24 GMT
Mrs F S

No money for the church in that. Don't forget that their job is to create guilt and fleece the sheep.

Regards
DL

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 18:26:00 GMT
Withnail says:
As we are taking about god, why not just change the rules and say... That is no longer a sin?

Then there is no need for punishment, nor forgiveness.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 18:27:45 GMT
What you are confused about:

"sending a boy to do a man's job if he did"

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 18:27:47 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 18:31:57 GMT
Penal substitution is just one of about 8 reasons for the atonement (of which I think only 4 are in common usage today).

I can't remember the differences of all of these, however 'Christus Victor' is the term used for the original view of Christians, which relates to the sacrifice providing victory over Satan/death. Penal Substitution is only relatively new - Calvin if memory serves, so around 400 years old.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 18:43:48 GMT
Mrs. F. Shaw says:
You have no idea how difficult it is to refrain from jokes about 'penal substitution' but I will try....

First of all, what's the point? An entire religion was built out of the alleged death of one man as a blood sacrifice to his god-father for the sins of mankind. What for? It seems a rather elaborate plot going from Adam and Eve to Jesus, just so god could sacrifice his 'son' for the sin of man. It just seems so horribly, incredibly stupid for a god, an almighty god, to do this.

It doesn't make sense.

Posted on 10 Dec 2013 18:53:01 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 18:54:21 GMT
Mr W D

So God gives us Satan and death and then has to die to get rid of them.

Quite logical that. If you are insane.

So if death was conquered, why do we still die?

Regards
DL

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 18:58:30 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 23:10:22 GMT
But is the plot of God's making or the solution?

When one switches from the idea that God made all these things happen to God responding to them happening, it makes a lot of sense.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 23:11:33 GMT
"So God gives us Satan and death and then has to die to get rid of them."

I didn't say that.

"So if death was conquered, why do we still die?"

A physical death yes, but not a spiritual one.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 23:12:27 GMT
Have you understood why your confusion leads to false ideas?

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Dec 2013 23:39:26 GMT
Mrs. F. Shaw says:
The solution for what? It makes no sense. What does an all powerful being NEED to do any of this? There isn't any NEED for it.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Dec 2013 00:14:01 GMT
Not really, not if he's being claimed to be both omniscient and omnipotence, as of course he is and has been traditionally by Christians. Then it creates a logical paradox.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Dec 2013 03:33:32 GMT
Mr W D

Show proof of an afterlife.

Regards
DL
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  335
Initial post:  10 Dec 2013
Latest post:  18 Dec 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions