Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?

dimension-1hacker said:
prove that one exists using logic, perceieved circumstancial evidence does not prove it.
Click to expand...
Here's the problem in what you said. It's already been stated that faith is truth without evidence. There is no reason to "prove it". That being said, if you deny the existence of God, can you prove that? In modern debate methods, the burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of the side being contrary to the initial statement. So the real answer is yes based on your inability to form an argument to the contrary. That is logic in it's most basal form.
 
SinisterThinking said:
Here's the problem in what you said. It's already been stated that faith is truth without evidence. There is no reason to "prove it". That being said, if you deny the existence of God, can you prove that? In modern debate methods, the burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of the side being contrary to the initial statement. So the real answer is yes based on your inability to form an argument to the contrary. That is logic in it's most basal form.
Click to expand...
why "should" the burden rest on the person arguing the opposite only, the first opinion is not proven by saying the opposition of the initial opinion has to prove otherwise. Faith being defined as truth contradict what truth is because without understand about why something is true , you do not understand why; faith is a feeling and unless you can prove why feeling a type of logic then there is no proof that faith proves anything. You think something does not need a reason to be true can be true yet all words have definitions and the definition is what the word means. The definition has another definition and that one has another definition and so on, as there is no difference between your statement and any other statement every statement yours requires proof. Every reason needs a reason to be true or there is no reason for that reason to be true. tauntology
I am arguing says thinking something is true without proof is rolling an infinitely sided die and hoping that your opinion is the truth.
proofs against?
 
Last edited:
SinisterThinking said:
As an Orthodox Christian(not like the people at rallies or giant churches), I feel compelled to answer. Sin isn't equitable with morals. Morality is a component of ethos. The argument just doesn't play. Sin is a Biblical thing. They cannot be compared. The best thing any Christian can do is accept that faith is a "presumed fact" with zero evidence. Meaning there is no real room to argue it from either side. Have faith and be happy. Fact is, no one can prove regulated quantum entanglement either. :)
Click to expand...

You did not answer the O.P., in terms of the moral aspect of substitutional punishment.

Care to? You have the intelligence to.

The issue is punishment, not sin.

Regards
DL
 
NaturalPhilosopher said:
well that's the prevailing mindset...that it doesn't matter.
we know god is testing our hearts(obviously, temptations and all) but is he also testing our head?
Click to expand...

I find the god testing us notion to be ridiculous.

He is all knowing and would already know all outcomes and he also supposedly created our natures and all we can do is follow that nature.

Now given Yahweh's incompetence at creation, and his satanic nature, we might want to test that genocidal prick.

Regards
DL
 
SinisterThinking said:
There are 2 tenets that I live by that have helped me forever.
  1. Never humanize God.
  2. Never assume the will of God.
After that I'm happy as a clam.
Click to expand...

I prefer to humanize my god.

What good is he if I cannot relate?

Have you not noticed that all the gods we have invented all have human traits?

Name any trait that cannot be applied to a super person.

Regards
DL
 
SinisterThinking said:
Here's the problem in what you said. It's already been stated that faith is truth without evidence. There is no reason to "prove it". That being said, if you deny the existence of God, can you prove that? In modern debate methods, the burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of the side being contrary to the initial statement. So the real answer is yes based on your inability to form an argument to the contrary. That is logic in it's most basal form.
Click to expand...

Negative propositions can never be proven. Only your positive one can be.

Look up logical fallacy, although I think you know what that is, and you are just playing with your interlocutor.

Close to Christian hypocrisy that.

Regards
DL
 

Top