The Passion discredited

[Advocate]

If someone can pay for someone else's sins (much less give them a nature that inevitably results in sin), the idea of responsibility is impossible. If responsibility is impossible, ethics is impossible. If ethics is impossible, the original contention can only be judged useful or not by individuals according to their particular aims. Christianity requires an abdication of morality. It cannot be treated ethically or be balanced against ethics. Without the passion, there is nothing in christianity that is of any value. Seuss books provide better morality and almost any book is a better read than the bible.

[Greatest I am]

If someone can pay for someone else's sins (much less give them a nature that inevitably results in sin), the idea of responsibility is impossible. If responsibility is impossible, ethics is impossible. If ethics is impossible, the original contention can only be judged useful or not by individuals according to their particular aims. Christianity requires an abdication of morality. It cannot be treated ethically or be balanced against ethics. Without the passion, there is nothing in christianity that is of any value. Seuss books provide better morality and almost any book is a better read than the bible.

If true, and I do not disagree, why is it that Christians cannot see their poor moral sense?

What creates the blind spot that allows then to knowingly abdicate their responsibilities for their own actions/sins?

Do they even care about morals or is the tribe all they care about?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

If someone can pay for someone else's sins (much less give them a nature that inevitably results in sin), the idea of responsibility is impossible.

Let me disagree with this with an example.

I can pay my children's fines to keep them out of trouble, but that does not mean that they will not learn to take responsibility for their own actions eventually. They may even want to in these cases and just do not have the cash.

That is the hope.

Regards
DL

[gaffo]

If someone can pay for someone else's sins (much less give them a nature that inevitably results in sin), the idea of responsibility is impossible.

yep, but lets not let Judiasm off the hook (and many other religions that killed animals in the name of sin) killing a Bull/Goat/Sheep./Pigeons for one;s sin is a form of "atonement"

If responsibility is impossible, ethics is impossible. If ethics is impossible, the original contention can only be judged useful or not by individuals according to their particular aims. Christianity requires an abdication of morality. It cannot be treated ethically or be balanced against ethics.

agreed, per today;s Paulist/Johnian Chrsitianity.


the older - now extinct form of Judiac christianity (the Synoptics) were less about Atonement - luke was not about it at all (in it Satan "won" by killing Christ, and Christ won eventually via 3 days later via his ressurection).

Without the passion, there is nothing in christianity that is of any value.

thats not true, the Synoptics, along with Jude, James offer stuff not related to Atonement/scapegoating, only those works are ignored by today's Saulists who along with John's Gospel won the theology wars and now rule and make up the theology of Christianity (the Judiac Christian works are either ignored or twisted/re-interpreted to force a fit into Saul/john's theme.

poorly, for it is a bad fit. and one with an honest mind can see it as such.

Seuss books provide better morality and almost any book is a better read than the bible.

indeed!

Lorax and Star Belly - no! no star! belly Sneeches!

[PeteJ]

If someone can pay for someone else's sins (much less give them a nature that inevitably results in sin), the idea of responsibility is impossible. If responsibility is impossible, ethics is impossible. If ethics is impossible, the original contention can only be judged useful or not by individuals according to their particular aims. Christianity requires an abdication of morality. It cannot be treated ethically or be balanced against ethics. Without the passion, there is nothing in christianity that is of any value. Seuss books provide better morality and almost any book is a better read than the bible.

I think you have perfectly explained what is wrong with your interpretation of the passion.

Do you not know that in various places Jesus denies the reality of sin and tells us guilt is easily dealt with?

I fear you may be taking the Church's reading of the Bible seriously. Not a good idea.

[Advocate]

[quote=PeteJ post_id=474864 time=1602231058 user_id=11479]
[quote=Advocate post_id=469090 time=1599149046 user_id=15238]
If someone can pay for someone else's sins (much less give them a nature that inevitably results in sin), the idea of responsibility is impossible. If responsibility is impossible, ethics is impossible. If ethics is impossible, the original contention can only be judged useful or not by individuals according to their particular aims. Christianity requires an abdication of morality. It cannot be treated ethically or be balanced against ethics. Without the passion, there is nothing in christianity that is of any value. Seuss books provide better morality and almost any book is a better read than the bible.
[/quote]

I think you have perfectly explained what is wrong with your interpretation of the passion.

Do you not know that in various places Jesus denies the reality of sin and tells us guilt is easily dealt with?

I fear you may be taking the Church's reading of the Bible seriously. Not a good idea.
[/quote]

The problem with holy text isn't in how they're interpreted, but in that they must be interpreted. There is no divine interpretation that makes everything make sense. However, there is also no rational interpretation of the bible at all, because much of it is directly opposed to other parts of itself.

[PeteJ]

The problem with holy text isn't in how they're interpreted, but in that they must be interpreted. There is no divine interpretation that makes everything make sense. However, there is also no rational interpretation of the bible at all, because much of it is directly opposed to other parts of itself.

Well, you can believe this if you wish. Shame though, because it isn't that difficult to establish that what you say here is wrong,

I would re-iterate that you seem to have been taken in by the Church's dogma. It is, as you suggest, philosophicalyl unsound and easily debunked.