Maybe some one has to go old school and ask GB what he thinks is going to happen when his life is whisked away from him? 
If he is true to his moniker, he would have to tell us he does not know being “agnostic.” I find it interesting that there are people who know so much about things they know nothing about. 
One does not have to be to know what good morals are.
Your bible has corrupted your morals.
Regards
DL
If humans could save themselves, Christ need not have died for our sins.
You would rather have your free satanic pass to heaven than think the right and moral way.
The following 5 quotes are why I call what God did murder, if he actually needs a blood sacrifice. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.
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.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
As you can see, especially those last two quotes, all are saved without a sacrifice.
As to Jesus and your immoral substitutionary atonement theology.
Psa 49 7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
Regards
DL
Gnostic Christians, in terms of an afterlife, are realists.
We cannot know and neither can theists who are believing the lies of their priests and imams who also cannot know.
We are perpetual seekers of truth and to believe a lie goes against our grain.
Most religions say that they God is unknowable, unfathomable and works in mysterious ways. Then they start to ream off all the lies and things they know about their God who they previously said cannot be known.
You might have noted how parents often use the carrot or stick approach in child rearing. Religions do the same thing and those who put the things of children away and grow up recognize that the religions do not want their sheeple to grow up. They want you to be reborn as children are easier to manipulate.
Regards
DL
Well, the problem you have GB, is that there was quite a bit of prophesy talking about the Christ. You can ignore it, but that would be a lie. There was a person, who came upon this earth that changed things. This is as simple as it gets. The life of the one we call Christ, is sacred, mysterious and totally consuming us who believe. We march on and we welcome your kind to show others who think like you, that there is love and hope and kindness, that The creator is a loving God, though unfortunately, you have to learn about him to realize what he has and will do for you. 
Only blind faith will have people see love in a genocidal son murderer who always seems to kill when he could just as easily cure those he created to be exactly what they are.
Thanks for showing us all your poor sense of morality.
Regards
DL
[/quote]
What evidence do you have that God killed his son? Hearsay? Such an idea is not found in the New Testament. What IS found there, is that after MAN unjustly killed Jesus, God raised him to life again.
Such an idea is found in the O.T…
Have you decided to ignore that part of your bible?
Jesus did not as he referred to it.
1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
Regards
DL
Where is the idea found in the Old Testament?
Thanks for ignoring the question and sharing your delusion.
You know you have lost an argument when you deflect with nonsense.
Regards
DL
In other words, you have no idea where it is found in the Old Testament.
What question have I ignored? I cannot find any question you have asked.
What delusion have I shared? To the best of my knowledge, I have not shared any delusion.
I have asked you a question that, obviously, you are unable to answer.
My question was, “What evidence do you have that God killed his son?”
What argument have I lost? I am unaware of having offered any argument.
I gave the pertinent quote that led to the murder of Jesus.
Your delusion is that the bible’s N.T. is the only Testament that is pertinent.
If God did not have his son murdered, then who is responsible?
Is 1 Peter N.T or O. T.?
Regards
DL
Peter was actually in the New Testament period. Are you saying that 1 Peter’s words that God chose Jesus are equivalent to declaring that God murdered Jesus? Like Paidion, my impression is that the apostles’ usual language is that sinful people (the Romans and Jews) killed Jesus.
If God chose to have Jesus murdered as indicated, he would have also have had to choose his killer and set up the rest of the plot.
youtube.com/watch?v=CWILhrSzw5o
Regards
DL
So, do you believe in free will, determinism or some other modality - not yet named 
Since you like notable quotes, I’ll share one with you.
God permitted the murder of Jesus for morally justifiable reasons. Most importantly the salvation of the world. What sinful man meant for evil God meant for good. It’s not that God was pleased in the murder of Jesus. He doesn’t delight in torture and evil in and of itself. What God was pleased in is what Christ accomplished in showing love and grace to sinners.
D.L.,
Thanks for explaining how you read 1 Peter 1:20. You write that it says, “God chose to have Jesus murdered.” I can see in the verse you quoted the words “God chose Jesus,” but not the words “to have Jesus murdered” that you declare. Peter might mean that God had “chosen” to use this man others had murdered and raise him up to provide hope. I’m not seeing why you feel sure that he meant that God chose Jesus’ killers, unless you claim to have assured knowledge that God is a reality who orchestrates all events in advance.
I can appreciate your confusion.
Free will we all generally have but if you consider things like the Stockholm Syndrome, you can see that our will is conditional to our conditioning and environment.
Apologies if that is too confusing for you.
Let me give you what I give to Christians who say our free will is God given.
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite “free will!”, or “ it’s all man’s fault”.
That is “God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy.”
But this simply avoids God’s culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose “A” or “B” (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of “being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent” and “desiring to eat a forbidden fruit” must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and “free will” means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.
Psalm 51:5 “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”
Regards
DL
Do you not find it strange that God would choose to show his love and grace to sinners by choosing to have his son murdered to forgive us instead of just forgiving us without that murder?
He could have done so. Right?
Why would he have you do the immoral thing instead of the moral thing?
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, — so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, — is immoral. Right?
As Ingersoll said; ‘no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.’
Regards
DL
Best to use an analogy here if you do not believe in the God plan notion.
If one piece of a puzzle is formed a certain way, then all other pieces near it must also be formed to comply to the first.
See it.
Regards
DL