Philosophy Now Forum

.
.

bobevenson wrote:"If God is so merciful..." Who said that, and on what basis was it said?

Titus 3:4-5 “But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”

Peter 1:3-4 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you.”

Ephesians 2:4-7 “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.”

Bob is right. These are all promises made about some future mercy to be shown, either in a promised wonderful future age or God no longer harassing us after we are dead. Any notion that God is merciful in this life is necessarily a personal one - there's surely little evidence of mercy shown historically or at large scales.

thedoc wrote:

Harbal wrote:

HexHammer wrote:it was just his human form that got sacrificed

Oh, is that all?

That was enough.

Enough for what?

Greta wrote:To argue so intelligently and persuasively to all before him...Another option would be simply to appear in the clouds and speak to all in a clear and unequivocal manner...

Those are two other options, it's true. But there are two faults with these.

One is that since the proof would be "unequivocal" and absolutely "persuasive," there would no longer be any choice but to believe. Freedom to disbelieve or reject God would no longer be possible. Absent the possibility of any such choice, what could it mean to say a person "chooses" faith in God?

The second goes deeper: it goes to the question of what "salvation" (as mentioned in the OP) is actually salvation from. That would remain unaddressed by both of your proposed solutions.

Immanuel Can wrote: One is that since the proof would be "unequivocal" and absolutely "persuasive," there would no longer be any choice but to believe. Freedom to disbelieve or reject God would no longer be possible. Absent the possibility of any such choice, what could it mean to say a person "chooses" faith in God?

Indeed, of what value is belief when there is no question, of what value is a slave professing love for their master, when to not say it means punishment?

There was no sacrifice there was only the execution of a non-Roman. What about all the other many thousands of blokes who also got executed in the same manner as Jesus. There was nothing unusual in his execution and I still can't figure out what he would have been sacrificed for except for a made-up myth called original sin.

Dubious wrote:There was no sacrifice there was only the execution of a non-Roman. What about all the other many thousands of blokes who also got executed in the same manner as Jesus. There was nothing unusual in his execution and I still can't figure out what he would have been sacrificed for except for a made-up myth called original sin.

Yes, it was a common form of execution except that an innocent man was executed.

If you believe that it was a made up myth, then there is nothing I can say to you.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:To argue so intelligently and persuasively to all before him...Another option would be simply to appear in the clouds and speak to all in a clear and unequivocal manner...

Those are two other options, it's true. But there are two faults with these.

One is that since the proof would be "unequivocal" and absolutely "persuasive," there would no longer be any choice but to believe. Freedom to disbelieve or reject God would no longer be possible. Absent the possibility of any such choice, what could it mean to say a person "chooses" faith in God?

The second goes deeper: it goes to the question of what "salvation" (as mentioned in the OP) is actually salvation from. That would remain unaddressed by both of your proposed solutions.

The belief is ideally unimportant, just a game. Better to prove it and then have a more effective humanity. Why not help people be the best they can be rather than give them enough rope to hang themselves? Give people the chance to make an informed choice. If there is a broader universal (or at least stellar or galactic) awareness, then I doubt it would be petty enough to play on natural human weaknesses in such a petty way. By the same token one doesn't throw their babies into a swimming pool and let them drown if they prove to be weak.

Salvation should be easy - give people what they need to know and help them stay on track. Modern people should not be expected to believe and choose between ancient mythologies; it's an insult to the intelligence of both the ancients and the moderns.

If, after explicit and unambiguous revelation, some people are still hopeless (and, rest assured, there'd still be plenty of 'em) then they can be recycled until they are up to standard. There's no need for all this brutality and horror - unless there is either 1) no God or 2) God is not what theists think it is and cannot physically intervene.

Greta wrote:

Reflex wrote:It's symbolic. Jesus the man sacrificed himself to Jesus the Christ and overcame the world by doing so. I know this sounds absurd to literal-minded people...

... such as religious fundamentalists. Most secularists see the Bible's stories as either metaphorical or a product of the local culture.

Secularists can no more see the symbolism than religious fundamentalists.

Dubious wrote:There was no sacrifice there was only the execution of a non-Roman. What about all the other many thousands of blokes who also got executed in the same manner as Jesus. There was nothing unusual in his execution and I still can't figure out what he would have been sacrificed for except for a made-up myth called original sin.

thedoc wrote:Yes, it was a common form of execution except that an innocent man was executed.

...and how many times do you suppose that happened?

thedoc wrote:If you believe that it was a made up myth, then there is nothing I can say to you.

If you still believe in original sin then your conclusion is correct.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's said it was done for the salvation of mankind. Wasn't there a better way?

PhilX

No, there is no better way, there is only the way.

The way to see ultimate clarity of reality aka this self shining ''what is'' ...including all it's pain and pleasure of being entangled in the duality of knowing one from the other... is to understand what the metaphorical act of dying on the cross meant...which was that in order to see the (real you aka God)...you first have to die to the idea there is a separate ego you that is separate from the real you aka God.

The dying is of course symbolic and not literal. Since God aka ''Life'' DOES NOT die. Jesus was a ''conceptual symbol'' a manifestation of wholeness without a second...your true Buddha nature. He was showing that only the concept of I dies, but not that which manifests the I ..that which manifest the I is eternal..and is without concept... he was showing that the manifest seen, aka the body is temporal, and is not what you really are...rather, what you really are is the ETERNAL LIGHT generating and manifesting the temporal BODY... which serves as the vehicle for Light to experience life.

The story of Jesus is a symbolic representation that is supposed to awaken you to the realisation of oneness...aka consciousness is all there is, and that there never was /is or ever will be a separate you, aka ego.

Birth and Death is painful, only because those concepts are taken literally, and believed to be real, resulting in some tense feelings brought about by the unnatural contraction of feeling like you are a separate being living in a hostile world - a world that seems to be outside of you, bigger than you, and that you have to compete with it in order to survive...this feeling causes tons of unnecessary anxiety in the body that is felt as a kind of suffering... However, in order to understand and know the blissful true nature of pure aliveness boundless beingness , you also have to known pain and suffering...but the pain and suffering are cancelled out once they are transcended through the awaking process that is represented by the Jesus metaphor... One has to go through this process to realise that what you are deep down does not suffer the pains of birth and death, because eternal life has no concept of such ideas...all that's happening is Light experiencing itself as multitudes of experiences. Life dictates the awakening process, it either happens or it doesn't, nothing you can do can make it happen.

Jesus and Buddha and many other spiritual allegories are pointing to that realisation of awakening to oneness, but more often than not, we cling to the signposts, instead of directing our attention to where and what they are pointing to, so we don't always see the real way.

________

''Jesus’ central teaching was self-surrender. You’ll remember that Jesus said, “If you want to follow me, you must surrender your “self” and take up your cross.”

''Jesus was not saying to become passive or let people walk over you, but rather to peel back the layers of personality, history, hopes, dreams, and style, and then come to the realization that there is no separate self. There is only the One who sees the layers, and this One is none other than consciousness. Surrender this notion that you are some separate self operating in this world''

''The ocean refuses no river, no river.
The open heart refuses no part of me, no part of you.''

And all will become clear ..from belief to clarity.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I'd love some Christian to try and explain to what higher moral authority did God have to appeal that he had to kill Jesus to save the world.
Then I'd love them to explain how the hell that is supposed to make any sense. How exactly does that work?

There is no such thing as a Christian. You already know there is no God of authority in reality, so why make up the story of a Christian? You must make up your mind about what you want to believe in order to reach the clarity of being your natural self.


“Don't be satisfied with stories, how things have gone with others. Unfold your own myth.”
― Jalaluddin Rumi,

thedoc wrote:People are still talking about it and taking notice of the event...

People are still reading the book, much as they read the Analects of Confucius, the Vedas, the Book of the Dead, Homer, Plato, Dante, Shakespeare or Harry Potter.

thedoc wrote:...so it must have worked.

Not very well.

thedoc wrote:What other event in history has as much effect on peoples lives, our whole calendar is based on it, what year is it?

Depends on the calendar you are using. There are over 30 in use worldwide in all the places that the story of the crucifixion hasn't yet reached.

Immanuel Can wrote:One is that since the proof would be "unequivocal" and absolutely "persuasive," there would no longer be any choice but to believe. Freedom to disbelieve or reject God would no longer be possible. Absent the possibility of any such choice, what could it mean to say a person "chooses" faith in God?

So what are you doing trying to persuade us that there is proof that god exists?