God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9Uhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=relatedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_fjBkwxc&feature=relatedI think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.I agree with scriptures that say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives | TED TalkDo you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is harm/care and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?Regards
DL

Thread copied here from the God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

If that were the case, it certainly would make God look not very bright.But...it's also a pretty perverted way to view the story.

The OP is describing the concept of "original sin."I consider that the most evil concept ever foisted upon us by our shamans.Ayn Rand, in Atlas Shrugged described this exceptionally well, far better than I can:

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

​

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

​

Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a tendency to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

​

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledgehe acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evilhe became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his laborhe became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desirehe acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joyall the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he wasthat robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without lovehe was not man.

You have to remember god was over 14 billion years old when he started playing with humanity. So he was probably a bit insane by that time.gods train of thought
-ok best tell them not to eat the apple
-hello Satan walking snake thingy source of all evil u wana come and see my perfect garden and my perfect creation
-dang go to go and check Raxacoricofallapatorius those pesky Slavine are up to something i can feel it, Satan can babysit my creation for a while, and the few day old people.-U fucking bastards u ate from my apple tree Satan u walking snake thingy from now on you will be crawling on your belly as punishment, and u 2, u will DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-some 4000 or 250 000 years later god has a conversation with JesusJ: Cant you forgive them Da
G: No they ate my apple im so mad i wana kill something
J:Cmmon Da
G:No!
J: Tell u what u wanna kill something to calm you down, ok then u kill me and since i am you i cant die and will rise again.
G: How am i gonna get you down to earth i dont wanna use magic.
J: Well send the other you the ghost guy to inpregnate a virgin or something. (multiple personality disorder anyone)after the crucifiction
g: Oh now all that blood made me calm down finaly
J: Those bastards that hurt
G: After they killed me or my only son i can finaly forgive them.

The thing is, how can Ayn Rand come up with judgement on morality? Who made her intelligent at all?

While we might argue about whether or not Ayn Rand was intelligent, the answer to your question is genetics, her teachers and her experience.