Christian morals

Originally posted by @fmf
Well if you read my response to it, you will be able to discern my perspective on the Jesus story, and on your admiration for him as depicted in that story, and on what's "wrong" with your question. Read it. Don't blank it out. You should also note that your mythologized Jesus character is postioned at the very heart of your depraved and ghastly torturer god id ...[text shortened]... d it utterly grotesque. I have been sincere and open with you about it, sonship, so many times.

As you know I find it utterly grotesque.
------------------------------------------------------------

You find the words and teaching of Jesus Christ utterly grotesque.
And you think Jesus Christ was a imaginary tale that somehow slipped into history.

Within the first 800 to 1200 years of the time of His recorded birth give or take a decade, can you refer to strong protest that such a man never even lived or did any of those things?

Where are the protests that a Jesus didn't exist from the first millennia?
Arguments that Jesus was not the Messiah of the Jews or that Jesus had a Roman soldier for a father don't count here.

Where are the voices within the first thousand years of AD saying the HOAX of Christ's existence is a imagined story ?

Originally posted by @sonship
Even if it is a ancient comic book story who would you submit as a greater example of high human morality?

You have your answer. And I don't "submit" to supernatural beings that happen to animate your superstitious imagination or anyone else's. Your thread-topic-avoiding question - you must have used it 20 times on me alone in the last decade - is a gimmick suited to preaching to the choir, sonship. You know what I think of your moral compass. You freely admit you got it from your "Jesus" ideology. And you know what I think of that. There is no onus on me to replace your religion or your superstition with some different, 'competing' ones. Read what I wrote.

Originally posted by @sonship
You find the words and teaching of Jesus Christ utterly grotesque.

I find your torturer god ideology and the "perfect morality" - as you called it - utterly grotesque.

Originally posted by @sonship
Within the first 800 to 1200 years of the time of His recorded birth give or take a decade, can you refer to strong protest that such a man never even lived or did any of those things?

Where are the protests that a Jesus didn't exist from the first millennia?
Arguments that Jesus was not the Messiah of the Jews or that Jesus had a Roman soldier for ...[text shortened]... ithin the first thousand years of AD saying the HOAX of Christ's existence is a imagined story ?

This is all deflection. You are running through every dodge-arrow that you have. My question about "Christian morals" still remains unanswered.

Originally posted by @sonship
Where are the voices within the first thousand years of AD saying the HOAX of Christ's existence is a imagined story ?

Murdered perhaps. Burnt to death. Tortured. Garotted. Disembowled. Scared to death. Cowed by their neighbours. Who knows.

Originally posted by @fmf
I find your torturer god ideology and the "perfect morality" - as you called it - utterly grotesque.

I know some of child traffickers, thieves, and rapists who probably think being punished with prison time for what they do to be absolutely horrendous and cruel to them.

Well, let's take this head on for the limited time I( have here this morning.
The word "torment" is used in the book of Revelation. There is no doubt about that.

It is interesting that it is first mentioned for a period or five months.
Now if that doesn't work it is mentioned again for a period of 12,60 days.
Now if that doesn't work it is mentioned forever and ever.

First - "torment" of God's enemies for five months (Rev. 9:5)

"And it was given them that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months; and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it strikes a man."

Second - torment for 1,260 days (Rev. 11:3,10)

"And I will cause My two witnesses to prophecy a thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. "(v.3)
" ... these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth." (v.10)

Finally - when no repentance whatsoever is done by the last of the hardest of the hard of God's enemy, they are tormented forever.

"He also shall drink of the wine of the fury of God, which is undiluted in the cup of His wrath; and he shall be tormented in fire and brimstone before the holy angels and before the Lamb.

And the smoke of their tormenting goes up forever and ever ... " (v.11a)

Now there may be protestations in us that NO ONE could be that bad to deserve that.
But apparently we are wrong. Temporary torment didn't turn them from opposing God. Longer torment didn't turn them from opposing God.

God means what He says and their penalty is torment from now on.

Of course Jesus took the need for our salvation so utterly seriously that He suffered what He did. He suffered under the wrath of God. Of course we could deny that He did it and that would neutralize the evidence that Jesus took the matter of sinners being in danger with God so seriously.

My reaction is not to imagine that He didn't shed His blood to save us.
My reaction is to take the seriousness of not being reconciled to God more as Jesus took it seriously.

I find then your innocent figure questionable.
It matters to be reconciled to God.
I doubt your shrug that sinners can or cannot be reconciled to God, and there should be no consequences so serious as God punishing forever.

Originally posted by @sonship
I know some of child traffickers, thieves, and rapists who probably think being punished with prison time for what they do to be absolutely horrendous and cruel to them.

Well, let's take this head on for the limited time I( have here this morning.
The word [b]"torment" is used in the book of Revelation. There is no doubt about that.

It is inter ...[text shortened]... ot be reconciled to God and there should be no consequences so serious as God punishing forever.[/b]

I would prefer your answer to my "Christian morals" question. I think I have shone a light into the sheer murky vacuousness of what you (often) say about morality and I think you know it and I think that explains you now running through your full spammy gamut of go-to rhetorical devices and changes-of-topic. Just answer the this-thread-topic-related question. Go on.

Originally posted by @fmf
Murdered perhaps. Burnt to death. Tortured. Garotted. Disembowled. Scared to death. Cowed by their neighbours. Who knows.

Who knows?
Argument by apathy is not too impressive to me.

It is His resurrection which was claimed by those in fear of their lives about torture, murder, etc. Something turned them around in a short time.

And you say nothing happened but we're dealing with a myth.
That is not realistic.

This matter started in Jerusalem, that Jesus had been raised from the tomb.
The opposers, religious and political, knew where that tomb was. They had every incentive to produce the corpse and dismiss the new movement.

Originally posted by @sonship
Who knows?
Argument by apathy is not too impressive to me.

It is His resurrection which was claimed by those in fear of their lives about torture, murder, etc. Something turned them around in a short time.

And you say nothing happened but we're dealing with a myth.
That is not realistic.

This matter started in Jerusalem, that Jesus had been ra ...[text shortened]... here that tomb was. They had every incentive to produce the corpse and dismiss the new movement.

sonship,

Start a thread on the historicity of Jesus.

Start a thread on your admiration for Jesus and invite people to suggest people you might think are better,

Start a thread on your torturer god ideology.

Start a thread about what animals you want to compare dissenters to.

And then answer my question about this thread's topic.

Originally posted by @fmf
I would prefer your answer to my "Christian morals" question. I think I have shone a light into the sheer murky vacuousness of what you (often) say about morality and I think you know it and I think that explains you now running through your full spammy gamut of go-to rhetorical devices and changes-of-topic. Just answer the this-thread-topic-related question. Go on.

Who reading my posts does not understand that for the purpose of this discussion I have repeated again and again, the living Jesus Christ made one with the receiver is her or his morality ?

FMFs repeated insistance that I explain what Christian morals are is simply his saying - "I don't believe Christ lives."

In other words I must answer his question in humanistic terms which work from the presupposition that what Christ taught was false.

Not going to happen.

For me to LIVE is Christ.
Christ Who is our life.
In Him was life.

No need to say " Please re-define Christian morals".
All he means is he doesn't believe that Christ is available to live in people's spiritual being.

Originally posted by @sonship
FMFs repeated insistance that I explain what Christian morals are is simply his saying - "I don't believe Christ lives."

The question I am asking you about "Christian morals" is very specific and very straightforward. Your dodging of it is very obvious and, sadly, very typical. The dodging has also been very prolific.

Originally posted by @sonship
In other words I must answer his question in humanistic terms which work from the presupposition that what Christ taught was false.

This is absolutely false, sonship. You can answer it with a "yes" or "no" and be a Christian while you are doing it, and still be a Christian after you've done it. You don't have to "answer [my] question in humanistic terms". There is simply no "presupposition that what Christ taught was false" contained in the question about "Christian morals" that I am asking, and which you continue to sidestep with your amazing array of omni-red-herrings.

Originally posted by @sonship
You find the words and teaching of Jesus Christ utterly grotesque.

You've used this little rhetorical maneuver many times in the past and many times you have had it pointed out to you that your own beliefs about Jesus are not the words and teaching of Jesus. What you believe about eternal suffering, effectively eternal torture is what is grotesque. And yes yes yes we all know that you have half-a-dozen scriptures, a Christian lifetime of indoctrination and a lucky sixpence which hold your bizarre and horrible "hung in chains of punishment" ideology together.

Originally posted by @fmf
sonship,

Start a thread on the historicity of Jesus.

Start a thread on your admiration for Jesus and invite people to suggest people you might think are better,

Start a thread on your torturer god ideology.

Start a thread about what animals you want to compare dissenters to.

And then answer my question about this thread's topic.

Start a thread with evidence that Jesus of Nazareth a powerful personality was imaginary.

Start a thread and invite people to admire you and reject that you could be wrong in any conceivable way.

Start a thread on how great Forum debater you are highlighting your greatest contributions.

Start a thread on your quite innocent objective figure who really doesn't care about all this Gospel message explaining for the purpose of "Spirituality".

Start a thread on how you're an expert on what you USE to be and now have seen the light - God does not exist.

Start a thread on Humanism, Self improvement, Self aggrandizement, Self appreciation being all the Spirituality anyone needs.

Originally posted by @sonship
No need to say " Please re-define Christian morals".
All he means is he doesn't believe that Christ is available to live in people's spiritual being.

Not so. Here is the question: So, are "Christian morals" simply ordinary human morals but applied by "Christians" while thinking stuff (having beliefs) about themselves and thinking stuff (having beliefs) about Christ?