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

[Immanuel Can]

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.

No probs. It's common for people here to check in and out as their life schedules go.

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.

Well, again, that would seem very likely...if we are depending on ourselves or other humans to tell us the truth about this stuff. Presumably, none of us is significantly better-positioned than anyone else to say what the mind of God or the nature of ultimate morality (if such exists) would be.

But the question is, are we all dependent on nothing but our own wit to know?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

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

Christians believe that He does. God incarnated Himself in Jesus Christ because He took pity upon our ignorance . The human component of Jesus Christ makes Jesus comprehensible, and the transcendent component of Jesus Christ allows us to be sure that JC is God on Earth.

[uwot]

God incarnated Himself in Jesus Christ because He took pity upon our ignorance .

Wait a minute. Is this the same god that chucked us out of Eden for knowing too much?

[Belinda]

God incarnated Himself in Jesus Christ because He took pity upon our ignorance .

Wait a minute. Is this the same god that chucked us out of Eden for knowing too much?

So I understand. I understand that the Christian interpretation of the Myth is that the God in the Garden allowed man to have his freedom. The story continues that since God is mercy He incarnated Himself to help us out of the trouble we are in.

Those bare bones of the Myth are as available to non-literalists as they are to literalists, more so for non-literalists. Genesis is a great and important book

And prophets and visionaries such as Jesus, Ecclesiastes, Buddha, Einstein ,Wordsworth, and probably some obscure person one knows personally, are great people who are a big help to us. I don't mean that religions' appropriation of this or that prophet or visionary is a good thing because that is divisive.

[Immanuel Can]

Christians believe that He does. God incarnated Himself in Jesus Christ because He took pity upon our ignorance . The human component of Jesus Christ makes Jesus comprehensible, and the transcendent component of Jesus Christ allows us to be sure that JC is God on Earth.

True enough. Now, if we concede for argument's sake that we Christians could be right about that, that would change the equation radically. We'd no longer be at sea about the groundwork of morality.

But if Christians are right, it also won't matter whether skeptics concede it or not. It will still be true, either way. And if they are not, then it will mean we're back at sea...all of us.

[Dontaskme]

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

Where did I say that?

This mind > (Well, anything that can refer to itself as 'me', can fairly comfortably be said to 'be' a mind. This was essentially Descartes point.)

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

What mind?

[Dontaskme]

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?

It's existential knowledge.Example: I asked my 3 year old Grand-daughter did she have a baby sister, which I know she does, and she just pointed to herself.

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.

if you can't know if someone else is aware, where are you getting your knowledge that you are a 'me' ?

You said here...

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

[uwot]

This mind > (Well, anything that can refer to itself as 'me', can fairly comfortably be said to 'be' a mind. This was essentially Descartes point.)

Oh that. You're reading rather more into it than is actually there. 'Mind' is a loaded term, so while I am happy enough to use it to refer to any sequence of experiential data that includes self-reference, I'm not going to commit myself to anything that you might think is 'mind' until it is clear what you think that entails.
So, if you want to tell me precisely what you mean by 'mind', I will give you a yes or no to whether I accept that.

[Dontaskme]

This mind > (Well, anything that can refer to itself as 'me', can fairly comfortably be said to 'be' a mind. This was essentially Descartes point.)

Oh that. You're reading rather more into it than is actually there. 'Mind' is a loaded term, so while I am happy enough to use it to refer to any sequence of experiential data that includes self-reference, I'm not going to commit myself to anything that you might think is 'mind' until it is clear what you think that entails.
So, if you want to tell me precisely what you mean by 'mind', I will give you a yes or no to whether I accept that.

If there's no Absolute Mind aka God...then there can be no objective truths...that can refer to themselves as a ''me''

[uwot]

...I asked my 3 year old Grand-daughter did she have a baby sister, which I know she does, and she just pointed to herself.

What controls did you have in place to eliminate potential false positives caused by insufficient language development? Don't answer that; I'm just being a git.

if you can't know if someone else is aware, where are you getting your knowledge that you are a 'me' ?

That's a standard philosophical exercise called the problem of other minds https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ . It's a bit like musicians playing scales, it's not something that many people take seriously. Strictly speaking, all that is certain is that there is a stream of consciousness, or if you are really hardcore, just whatever experience there is at any moment. From that 'we' conclude that the simplest explanation is that there is a coherent entity, which we call 'me'; that the experiences of 'body' and 'mind' refer to actual things and, hey presto, we're human beings, so are the things that look like us, and they operate in essentially the same way.
Those kind of ideas are trippy enough in a controlled environment, but sometimes they occur to people spontaneously and it blows their mind.

You said here...

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

Yup, and I explained that you don't see the world through my eyes.

[uwot]

If there's no Absolute Mind aka God...then there can be no objective truths...that can refer to themselves as a ''me''

I see. Well, I certainly wouldn't commit to that. It may be true that there is an "Absolute Mind", but it simply doesn't follow logically from the fact of the experiences I call 'me', that there is something else, of which I have no experience.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote referring to the role of Jesus Christ as saviour from death and sin:

Now, if we concede for argument's sake that we Christians could be right about that, that would change the equation radically. We'd no longer be at sea about the groundwork of morality.

But if Christians are right, it also won't matter whether skeptics concede it or not. It will still be true, either way. And if they are not, then it will mean we're back at sea...all of us.

"If Christians are right" .Christians are partly right, and the ones who don't quite 'get it' are the literalists who are unable to understand the use of myth.

Jesus Christ is supposed by most Christians to be the unique Saviour. It is typical of a cult that one person is elevated to godhood. The doctrine of the Atonement may be interpreted literally so that it makes sense as cultish human sacrifice; or it may be interpreted as an analogy of how complete selflessness that some humans sometimes display saves humans as a species from being totally amoral and deranged.

It is high time that pastors become better teachers. Institutionalised religions' doctrines are the habitat of mental dinosaurs. It would improve religions if the ministers and priests taught from sources other than The Bible. The cult of The Bible. I keep trying to promote the Bible as literature not as an object of cultish devotion.

[Dontaskme]

...I asked my 3 year old Grand-daughter did she have a baby sister, which I know she does, and she just pointed to herself.

What controls did you have in place to eliminate potential false positives caused by insufficient language development? Don't answer that; I'm just being a git.

She has no concept of separation. That sense can only come through knowledge of other...that knowledge splits the nondual mind into a self-aware being...separating her once ''nondual self'' into an awareness of other ''duality self'' the self -aware knowledge of other.

if you can't know if someone else is aware, where are you getting your knowledge that you are a 'me' ?

That's a standard philosophical exercise called the problem of other minds https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ . It's a bit like musicians playing scales, it's not something that many people take seriously. Strictly speaking, all that is certain is that there is a stream of consciousness, or if you are really hardcore, just whatever experience there is at any moment. From that 'we' conclude that the simplest explanation is that there is a coherent entity, which we call 'me'; that the experiences of 'body' and 'mind' refer to actual things and, hey presto, we're human beings, so are the things that look like us, and they operate in essentially the same way.
Those kind of ideas are trippy enough in a controlled environment, but sometimes they occur to people spontaneously and it blows their mind.

This is saying there are existential experiences that pertain to the idea there is someone experiencing them. Therefore, there must be an absolute non-conceptual mind that must be for concepts to arise, concepts that are referred to as 'me' 'you' 'them' etc... concepts that are taken to be real literal things existing ..even though the things original source does not appear to part of that knowledge..?

Yup, and I explained that you don't see the world through my eyes.

Then your personal world-view must be your own creation right? ...so if that's the case then there can be no objective truths...rather we all experience different personal world-views as separate people with their own moral codes of conduct with the free will to choose the reality of their choice.... Can we live life like that?

[Arising_uk]

If there's no Absolute Mind aka God...then there can be no objective truths...that can refer to themselves as a ''me''

No idea what an 'objective truth' that can refer to itself is but there are loads of people who can do such a thing without a 'God'.

[uwot]

...there are existential experiences that pertain to the idea there is someone experiencing them.

Well, yes; that is true in my case, and I assume it is true in yours.

Therefore, there must be an absolute non-conceptual mind that must be for concepts to arise...

As I said, there may be a god, but there is no logical link between 'I have/am a mind' and 'There is an absolute mind'. What is your reason for saying "there must be"?

...concepts that are referred to as 'me' 'you' 'them' etc... concepts that are taken to be real literal things existing ..even though the things original source does not appear to part of that knowledge..?

Do you mean that there is a cause of our perceptions, a 'real world' that is separate from our experiences of it?

Yup, and I explained that you don't see the world through my eyes.

Then your personal world-view must be your own creation right?

Well, I don't necessarily create the perceptions I experience, if that is what you mean by "world-view". On the other hand, the conceptual model that I make up to explain the things I see and hear, while it is influenced by what I have read, is ultimately my decision.

...so if that's the case then there can be no objective truths...rather we all experience different personal world-views as separate people with their own moral codes of conduct with the free will to choose the reality of their choice.... Can we live life like that?

We already do. The problem is not that there are different ideas; the problem is that some people insist that their idea is right, and demand that others agree.