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

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Of course, that's only necessarily true of "free will" Christians, because Determinists (Calvinists) don't believe people have any ability to "believe" on their own. And it's not true of the Catholic Church or some cults, because they teach collective salvation (that people can get to Heaven by joining a collective, i.e. their "Church"), so people can be forced to join. And individual, free belief is nice...but less important.

I request that you outline for us which religious sects (Protestant or Catholic or both) believe that it is sufficient to be saved from sin and death just to believe in the saving power of JC. (as when she touched the hem of his garment) . And not have to do any good works at all. And that even though you have been a horrible sinner all your life a death bed confession will save you.

I also hope you can keep any explanation easy to understand.

[Immanuel Can]

I request that you outline for us which religious sects (Protestant or Catholic or both) believe that it is sufficient to be saved from sin and death just to believe in the saving power of JC. (as when she touched the hem of his garment) . And not have to do any good works at all.

I could give you a long list, but does that help you with anything? Let's just group them under the general banner "Evangelical groups." They have a whole bunch of denominational labels...Baptist, Brethren, Reformed, Methodist, traditional Presbyterian, Alliance, Pentecostal, Community Churches, and some among the Anglicans and United. Most are Protestant and generally conservative-leaning and non-sacerdotal, but there's even a splinter movement among the Catholics that leans this way. It's really premised on a reading of the gospel, so it crosses many lines.

Easy enough? If not, just ask.

Meanwhile, if I may ask, what would be the problem with that? Does is seem...unjust...in some way? Would a God who forgave sin or allowed people to repent on their deathbeds be...what's the word..."bad"...in some way?

From a secular view, why should anyone owe anyone to do "good works"? And from a secular view, why shouldn't anyone be allowed to do whatever he or she wanted on his or her deathbed?

Are you suggesting there's really a standard of fairness 'out there' somewhere that gives us grounds for offense if God forgives? Should people be obliged to "reap what they sow," or should they be allowed not to?

[Dontaskme]

Something is being you uwot, and it's not you.

Gotta disagree with you there, Dontaskme. I earned my philosophical chops the hard way; you know, going to university and throwing myself under the scrutiny of people who know what they are talking about. As a result, I can entertain almost any possibility about what I am: material, spiritual, mental (frequently), a dream, a program, you name it; anything at all that is not flatly contradicted by the evidence, and all before breakfast. But whatever it is that is being me, that is what I am. To say it is something else is just gibberish.

okay..thanks for the drama queen response...

I have two questions for you..

1: So do you agree that you have a mind?

2: And it is definitely your personal mind that belongs to you, the you that you are known by ..by name?

These two questions are genuine questions, look forward to your genuine reply?

[thedoc]

From a secular view, why should anyone owe anyone to do "good works"? And from a secular view, why shouldn't anyone be allowed to do whatever he or she wanted on his or her deathbed?

Are you suggesting there's really a standard of fairness 'out there' somewhere that gives us grounds for offense if God forgives? Should people be obliged to "reap what they sow," or should they be allowed not to?

The main point with any "death bed confession" is, is it sincere and people can't know that, that is for God to know. Skeptics can smirk and say, "He didn't really mean that, he was just CYA, just in case", but the truth is that people can't know. If the confession is sincere, God will know and all will be well, if it is not sincere, again God will know and all will be well. But perhaps not so well for the insincere sinner.

[Dontaskme]

Or do you now see the flaw in his logic?

Yes, I see the flaw. I'll talk more about that when uwot has answered my questions I've put forth.

[Belinda]

I request that you outline for us which religious sects (Protestant or Catholic or both) believe that it is sufficient to be saved from sin and death just to believe in the saving power of JC. (as when she touched the hem of his garment) . And not have to do any good works at all.

I could give you a long list, but does that help you with anything? Let's just group them under the general banner "Evangelical groups." They have a whole bunch of denominational labels...Baptist, Brethren, Reformed, Methodist, traditional Presbyterian, Alliance, Pentecostal, Community Churches, and some among the Anglicans and United. Most are Protestant and generally conservative-leaning and non-sacerdotal, but there's even a splinter movement among the Catholics that leans this way. It's really premised on a reading of the gospel, so it crosses many lines.

Easy enough? If not, just ask.

Meanwhile, if I may ask, what would be the problem with that? Does is seem...unjust...in some way? Would a God who forgave sin or allowed people to repent on their deathbeds be...what's the word..."bad"...in some way?

From a secular view, why should anyone owe anyone to do "good works"? And from a secular view, why shouldn't anyone be allowed to do whatever he or she wanted on his or her deathbed?

Are you suggesting there's really a standard of fairness 'out there' somewhere that gives us grounds for offense if God forgives? Should people be obliged to "reap what they sow," or should they be allowed not to?

Many thanks for that Emmanuel.

I'm not suggesting anything except tentatively. I am inclined to believe in the parable about the labourers who did less work and were paid the same as the men who had worked all day. I am a socialist.

I think that a death bed repentance would be acceptable to an eternal being even although it is unacceptable to human ideas of fairness.

As for your thoughts "from a secular view " I agree with you,

[Immanuel Can]

I am a socialist.

Then it's certain you have a sense of what "justice" would be. True, that may not be everyone's take, and they might have in mind a different concept from yours. But what reason could there be for being a socialist if you already thought society was fair as it stands?

[uwot]

Something is being you uwot, and it's not you.

Gotta disagree with you there, Dontaskme. I earned my philosophical chops the hard way; you know, going to university and throwing myself under the scrutiny of people who know what they are talking about. As a result, I can entertain almost any possibility about what I am: material, spiritual, mental (frequently), a dream, a program, you name it; anything at all that is not flatly contradicted by the evidence, and all before breakfast. But whatever it is that is being me, that is what I am. To say it is something else is just gibberish.

okay..thanks for the drama queen response...

My pleasure.

I have two questions for you..

1: So do you agree that you have a mind?

Agree? Who with? There is a string of more or less contiguous experiences, one among which is sense of self-awareness.

2: And it is definitely your personal mind that belongs to you, the you that you are known by ..by name?

I'm not aware that anything else is party to the phenomena that, for convenience, can be labelled 'me'.

These two questions are genuine questions, look forward to your genuine reply?

That's three.

[Vendetta]

I request that you outline for us which religious sects (Protestant or Catholic or both) believe that it is sufficient to be saved from sin and death just to believe in the saving power of JC. (as when she touched the hem of his garment) . And not have to do any good works at all.

I could give you a long list, but does that help you with anything? Let's just group them under the general banner "Evangelical groups." They have a whole bunch of denominational labels...Baptist, Brethren, Reformed, Methodist, traditional Presbyterian, Alliance, Pentecostal, Community Churches, and some among the Anglicans and United. Most are Protestant and generally conservative-leaning and non-sacerdotal, but there's even a splinter movement among the Catholics that leans this way. It's really premised on a reading of the gospel, so it crosses many lines.

Easy enough? If not, just ask.

Meanwhile, if I may ask, what would be the problem with that? Does is seem...unjust...in some way? Would a God who forgave sin or allowed people to repent on their deathbeds be...what's the word..."bad"...in some way?

From a secular view, why should anyone owe anyone to do "good works"? And from a secular view, why shouldn't anyone be allowed to do whatever he or she wanted on his or her deathbed?

Are you suggesting there's really a standard of fairness 'out there' somewhere that gives us grounds for offense if God forgives? Should people be obliged to "reap what they sow," or should they be allowed not to?

Many thanks for that Emmanuel.

I'm not suggesting anything except tentatively. I am inclined to believe in the parable about the labourers who did less work and were paid the same as the men who had worked all day. I am a socialist.

I think that a death bed repentance would be acceptable to an eternal being even although it is unacceptable to human ideas of fairness.

As for your thoughts "from a secular view " I agree with you,

I don't mean to sound like a sheep here, but if we lack the perspective to understand the rationale for God's doings, then how is it that we feel we can dictate whether or not one is fit for eternal life? Being God, there is likely reasoning for where he chooses to place his sympathy, and being flawed and biased humans that we are, we lack the all-encompassing view that would allow us to understand who goes and who doesn't. Perhaps the people we see as evil are not as evil as one would think.

[Vendetta]

punishing evil is a necessity. As well as self defense.

How can we say that punishing evil is a necessity when we are uncertain as to the exact role of evil?

Good question.

If there is no ultimate standard of good and evil, then it must follow that those words are simply expressions of either liking or not liking a particular action or value. Such can be held by the individual, a culture or nation, or a "justice" system approved by a culture or nation...but in all cases, since the likes of individuals, cultures and nations are contingent and changeable, so to the concepts good and evil would have to be understood as contingent and changeable.

So there's no longer any "necessity" of punishing "evil." For nothing at all, no matter how liked or not-liked it may be at the moment, is specifically, absolutely, or permanently "evil." Even outright genocide would become a contingent value; and it could only be said to be an "evil" if the dominant local population agreed it was.

Dostoevsky said, "If God is dead, everything is permissible." There again we see the wisdom of his observation.

While I apologize for bringing this back when the topic has so changed, I missed the opportunity to reply due to how crazily busy I have been in the passing days.
From this I suppose we can accept that through our lack of knowledge of the existence of an "ultimate standard" in relation to good and evil, we can thereby gather that all they are are concepts entirely manipulated by bias and therefore are untrustworthy when being referred to. In a sense, they don't really exist.

[Dontaskme]

1: So do you agree that you have a mind?

Agree? Who with? There is a string of more or less contiguous experiences, one among which is sense of self-awareness.

So you agree with yourself that you have a mind right?....yes or no answer only please?

2: And it is definitely your personal mind that belongs to you, the you that you are known by ..by name?

I'm not aware that anything else is party to the phenomena that, for convenience, can be labelled 'me'.

But then if you are so sure you have a 'me' that you are aware of ....surely that would point to the obviousness that other people have a 'me' too...or else where did you get yours from?

How can you be aware you have a 'me' and deny others their 'me' ...where are you getting your assurance that you have a ''me'' from?
and if you know where from, then surely that must be the same place that other 'me's' get theirs from? ... does that require a logical university educated level of intelligence to answer ?

Look forward to your answer...yes or no answer only please?

Do you have a mind?

[uwot]

So you agree with yourself that you have a mind right?....yes or no answer only please?

No.

How can you be aware you have a 'me' and deny others their 'me'.

I didn't.

...where are you getting your assurance that you have a ''me'' from?

As I said; there is a sequence of experiential data that appears to be localised, which for convenience can be referred to as 'me'.

...and if you know where from, then surely that must be the same place that other 'me's' get theirs from?

Well, anything that can refer to itself as 'me', can fairly comfortably be said to 'be' a mind. This was essentially Descartes point. But the experiences that are 'me' are different to the experiences that are 'you'; you don't see the world through my eyes.

... does that require a logical university educated level of intelligence to answer ?

No, but it probably helps to understand the question.

Look forward to your answer...yes or no answer only please?

Do you have a mind?

You already asked that.

[Dontaskme]

As I said; there is a sequence of experiential data that appears to be localised, which for convenience can be referred to as 'me'.

Okay, good, I get what you are saying. So, you have a sense of knowing that this ''experiential data'' is what is responsible for creating a sense of ''me''? ...yes or no?

We'll get to the crux of this later, be patient for now.

...and if you know where from, then surely that must be the same place that other 'me's' get theirs from?

Well, anything that can refer to itself as 'me', can fairly comfortably be said to 'be' a mind. This was essentially Descartes point. But the experiences that are 'me' are different to the experiences that are 'you'; you don't see the world through my eyes.

Good, I understand that and you have said it perfectly...so there is the sense of a mind present, but it's not your mind, you are just a unique never to be repeated experience..an appearance of something which can only be the mind..right? yes or no?

You've already said no to owning the mind above...so we agree it's not your mind.

... does that require a logical university educated level of intelligence to answer ?

No, but it probably helps to understand the question.

Only based on the knowledge you have available though. If you asked a child under the age of 3 do you have a mind, they could not answer that...prior to question they would be oblivious of there existing an other being separate from them self.

You can only know things based on knowledge, so where does the capacity to process knowledge come from if it's not your mind?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't mean to sound like a sheep here, but if we lack the perspective to understand the rationale for God's doings, then how is it that we feel we can dictate whether or not one is fit for eternal life?

Good point. Put that way, we couldn't could we? And who would we be to say so anyway?

However, things would look a bit different if the Supreme Being had told us something about that. For if anyone would know, surely He would.

Being God, there is likely reasoning for where he chooses to place his sympathy, and being flawed and biased humans that we are, we lack the all-encompassing view that would allow us to understand who goes and who doesn't.

Indeed so. Worse, how would we know he values something we do, or is sympathetic with us -- and why would we think so? And worse still, who would be to say He was interested in human beings at all?

Perhaps the people we see as evil are not as evil as one would think.

I wonder if we can't almost guarantee that this is true: for do we not all excuse our own faults and magnify those we see in others, while exalting our achievements relative to those of others? Who says we're fair? Who are we to judge? Are we reasonable judges at all?

But God...well, that would change the equation...if He spoke. So does God reveal his mind about any of this?

[uwot]

So, you have a sense of knowing that this ''experiential data'' is what is responsible for creating a sense of ''me''? ...yes or no?

No.

We'll get to the crux of this later, be patient for now.

No. Oh alright then.

...so there is the sense of a mind present...

Where did I say that?

...but it's not your mind, you are just a unique never to be repeated experience..an appearance of something which can only be the mind..right? yes or no?

No.

You've already said no to owning the mind above...so we agree it's not your mind.

What mind?

Only based on the knowledge you have available though. If you asked a child under the age of 3 do you have a mind, they could not answer that...prior to question they would be oblivious of there existing an other being separate from them self.

Do you have any data to support this contention?

You can only know things based on knowledge, so where does the capacity to process knowledge come from if it's not your mind?

You haven't established the premises to ask that yet.