If God is so merciful, then why did Jesus have to be sacrificed?

[Dubious]

All of these stupid god debates between theist, atheist, agnostic and whatever degrees of separation amounts to nothing more than a mountain load of crap. One of the most obscene is that god died for our sins, a convenient addition long after Christ died for having pissed-off the Romans. He then had to be given another purpose having failed to consummate His that being carried forward by Saint Paul, one decidedly different from what Christ and his apostles had envisioned.

It's no secret that the themes which underlie Easter are at least as much pagan as Christian, its narrative being mostly a synthesis of the ancient myths of redemption and resurrection which doesn't start with Christ but ends with him as an assumed historical figure. It makes no difference what anyone believes; we're all going to end in the same cosmic landfill called oblivion because nature is very good in recycling which includes the gods we prayed to having proved themselves as mortal as those who imagined them in the first place.

...but having said all that, I can still take Easter in all of its magnificent Pagan and Christian symbology very seriously! There is much more to be gleaned when it blends with its ancient mythic inheritance then merely subscribing to god's mercy or the insane belief that he came to earth to die for our sins.

[Arising_uk]

This is a perfect example of what I mean. It's third-grade sophistry trying to sound coherent. "Atheist" is from the Greek word atheos: from a- "without" + theos "a god."

Without a 'God' is pretty much the same as not having a belief in a 'God' I'd have thought?

[Arising_uk]

On the topic of the OP, today of all days, that question should be on everyone's mind. ...

Chocolate eggs is more on mine.

God is merciful.

But apparently easily insulted.

Because of that, Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed.

Instead of just being merciful?

If it wasn't him, it was going to be the ones who had committed the sins, or else God could never be just.

God is just. God is merciful.

Why would the just need mercy, surely it's the unjust requiring this but then 'it' can't be just?

Because He is merciful and just, you are offered salvation. Take it while you can. ...

But don't forget 'it' already knows what you'll choose so you've been made by 'it' to be punished in the first place.

This is not just Good Friday. For us all, it's the best of all Fridays.

Payday is the best Friday for many.

Happy Easter.

And to you who believe.

[Immanuel Can]

You are correct. And backing for your claim comes from no less a self-declared "agnostic" than Richard Dawkins.

I don't know why you seem to consider Dawkins to be a great authority on religion, you really should try to stop thinking about him, it's going to eat you up if you're not careful.

I didn't suggest he was any kind of authority on religion. In fact, I would say you could put most of what he knows about it in a thimble.

[Harbal]

I would say you could put most of what he knows about it in a thimble.

And I would say that is very much to his credit. Besides, anything worth knowing about religion would fit into a thimble quite comfortably.

[Immanuel Can]

That is the definition of an atheist, to say that you just don't know is an agnostic.

You are correct. And backing for your claim comes from no less a self-declared "agnostic" than Richard Dawkins.

Thankyou, I have heard many atheists and agnostics define their position just as I have, but there are a few who claim the label and then try to redefine the term to suit themselves. Most atheists will claim "there is no God", most agnostics will claim that "they don't know if there is a God", but they do not claim to know the knowledge of others. Claiming to know what others know is a bit presumptuous.

You're right. They try to play it both ways. On the one hand, they want to say that all Atheism means is "a disbelief in gods." But then they want to turn around and say that OTHER people ought not to believe in gods, that you are WRONG to believe in any kind of gods, and that it is not RATIONAL or SCIENTIFIC to believe in gods.

Then you ask them for their reasons, their evidence, their science, or their moral framework that justifies their confidence, and they return to saying, "I don't owe you any, because I just disbelieve."

They're weasels. They're like the spiteful little bully in the playground that runs up and hits people, and then covers up and starts crying, "Don't hit me, don't hit me."

If private disbelief is the end of it, then it would make sense that they ought to mind their own business and not make claims about other people. On the other hand, if they're making public claims about the beliefs of others, they ought to have evidence, reasons and proofs.

But they've got squat, and they know it. They just don't want anybody else to have anything either.

[Immanuel Can]

I would say you could put most of what he knows about it in a thimble.

And I would say that is very much to his credit. Besides, anything worth knowing about religion would fit into a thimble quite comfortably.

So it passes as rational -- to you -- to simply dismiss things you don't understand?

Well, that's a surprise.

[Immanuel Can]

On the topic of the OP, today of all days, that question should be on everyone's mind.

God is merciful.

Because of that, Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed.

If it wasn't him, it was going to be the ones who had committed the sins, or else God could never be just.

God is just. God is merciful.

Because He is merciful and just, you are offered salvation. Take it while you can.

This is not just Good Friday. For us all, it's the best of all Fridays.

Happy Easter.

Your devotional language, Immanuel, wont help people who are intellectually puzzled.

Look above at all the big, "devotional" words.

Was it "sin" or "salvation" that confused you? There aren't any other words that even could.

[thedoc]

If private disbelief is the end of it, then it would make sense that they ought to mind their own business and not make claims about other people. On the other hand, if they're making public claims about the beliefs of others, they ought to have evidence, reasons and proofs.

There are several atheists that I occasionally listen to, Arron Ra knows a lot about paleontology and Evolutionary taxonomy, but he makes an error when he starts discussing Christianity and other religions. He claims that anyone who believes in God, does so without any evidence what-so-ever, yet I know that some people have evidence that suits them if not anyone else. Some people do believe without any evidence but not all religious people do so.

[Belinda]

they have an Easter egg hunt at the church,

That is very often the sort of religion that happens at churches. A church helps the obesity epidemic with chocolate eggs.

[thedoc]

And I would say that is very much to his credit. Besides, anything worth knowing about religion would fit into a thimble quite comfortably.

So it passes as rational -- to you -- to simply dismiss things you don't understand?

Well, that's a surprise.

I have encountered people like this, if it is outside their experience, then it isn't true or doesn't exist.

But I supose this is a step up from someone who would lie to support a previous inaccuracy.

[uwot]

You are correct. And backing for your claim comes from no less a self-declared "agnostic" than Richard Dawkins.

Right. So when one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists talks about evolution, he doesn't know what he is talking about, but when he is talking about semantics, suddenly he is to be trusted?

Thankyou, I have heard many atheists and agnostics define their position just as I have, but there are a few who claim the label and then try to redefine the term to suit themselves.

And then there are some people who know what the words actually mean.

Most atheists will claim "there is no God", most agnostics will claim that "they don't know if there is a God", but they do not claim to know the knowledge of others. Claiming to know what others know is a bit presumptuous.

I couldn't agree more, and claiming that I say "there is no God", even when I have stated repeatedly that I would not make any such claim is not simply presumptuous, it is absurd.

You're right. They try to play it both ways. On the one hand, they want to say that all Atheism means is "a disbelief in gods."

That's because that is what atheism means.

But then they want to turn around and say that OTHER people ought not to believe in gods...

Many atheists don't care about personal beliefs, they are nobody else's business. Theism only matters when theists interfere with other people's personal freedom based on their beliefs.

...that you are WRONG to believe in any kind of gods, and that it is not RATIONAL or SCIENTIFIC to believe in gods.

Science proceeds on the assumption that nature will obey some particular patterns, and will not suddenly do things which are contrary to those patterns. If it turns out that there are 'miracles', it would be unscientific not to study them.

Then you ask them for their reasons, their evidence, their science, or their moral framework that justifies their confidence, and they return to saying, "I don't owe you any, because I just disbelieve."

That's because the reason why many atheist do not believe in god, is precisely because there is no evidence.

They're weasels. They're like the spiteful little bully in the playground that runs up and hits people, and then covers up and starts crying, "Don't hit me, don't hit me."

I'm the the one sticking my chin out saying give it your best shot. It is you, Mr Can that has covered up and cried "Don't hit me, don't hit me."

If private disbelief is the end of it, then it would make sense that they ought to mind their own business and not make claims about other people.

It is you that tells atheists that they are irrational, that they have bad faith, that they believe things they know to be lies, that they are weasels. You, Mr Can.

On the other hand, if they're making public claims about the beliefs of others, they ought to have evidence, reasons and proofs.

If that is what they are doing, yes they should.

But they've got squat, and they know it. They just don't want anybody else to have anything either.

In your own words, Mr Can:

So...you think ad hominem psychological declaratives derived by cyber-post are likely to prove more informative than disciplining one's thoughts to the reasons associated with particular, identifiable philosophical positions and propositions?

[uwot]

...I know that some people have evidence that suits them if not anyone else.

Right. They would be relativists.

Some people do believe without any evidence...

So they wouldn't claim to know that god exists, which would make them agnostics in your estimation.

[thedoc]

...I know that some people have evidence that suits them if not anyone else.

Right. They would be relativists.

Some people do believe without any evidence...

So they wouldn't claim to know that god exists, which would make them agnostics in your estimation.

No, people who have evidence are Christians or other believers in an Abrahamic religion.

People who believe without evidence could also be a follower of an Abrahamic religion.

These people are not relativists because they believe there is a source of absolute truth.
You are just trying to twist everything to suit your own misconceptions.

[Immanuel Can]

Some people do believe without any evidence but not all religious people do so.

Of course. Some people believe in all kinds of things -- from astrology to anti-matter -- without benefit of any evidence themselves. Some people even believe that "God says" just because some guy with a pointy hat told them, or that "science says" because a guy in a white lab-coat said something to them.

I have not noticed the Atheists to fall behind in the production of these types...