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

[osgart]

the Bible is written in patterns and steps. each author taking the story and building their own upon those previous patterns.

The crucifixion is analogous to Passover. for example.

[Dontaskme]

Mr Can insisted that atheists are irrational, because they believe there is no god. It was pointed out by several members that is not what atheism entails. All an atheist need say to qualify is 'I don't believe there is a god.' which is different to 'I believe there is no god.' Mr Can either couldn't or wouldn't accept that and continued to call people irrational for not believing in something there is no evidence for.)

Freewill chooses to believe or not. No belief whatsoever is ever forced upon you. If you believe you have a rational mind, then it is irrational to believe it doesn't exist.

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

Life is irrational, get used to it.

You are the invisible visible, what more evidence is there? it's self-evident.

[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.

[Immanuel Can]

What are those "better explanations" than mere theatrics.

I think it was an issue of justice...and of mercy.

I hear two accusations routinely thrown out against God by the skeptics:

One is that God isn't just or fair, because people like Hitler and Stalin seem to have gotten away with murder.

The other is that God isn't kind or merciful, because the Bible says He judges and punishes sin thoroughly.

So what is it: a problem of injustice, or a problem of too much justice?

It never seems to occur to the critics that these are opposite accusations: one is that God is not doing enough, the other that He does too much. I want to ask them, "Which is it? Do you want God to do something about evil, or do you want Him to let you off the hook? How does God satisfy you? Does He do it by being more lenient, or by cracking down?"

But I think that in many cases their whole point in asking one question or the other is perhaps not to get an answer, but rather they hope to perplex the Theist. Having thus asked what they consider an unanswerable question, they plan to return to ignoring God anyway. And maybe that's why they don't realize they're asking for something so contradictory.

But, of course, the sacrifice of Jesus answers all of that.

[Immanuel Can]

The crucifixion is analogous to Passover. for example.

Yes, it is. In fact, it was on Passover. And you're right: that's not accidental.

[Immanuel Can]

Freewill chooses to believe or not. No belief whatsoever is ever forced upon you. If you believe you have a rational mind, then it is irrational to believe it doesn't exist.

I accurately foreknew that uwot would become contentious about Determinism.

According to his thinking, then, I must have predetermined and caused him to become contentious. He would logically have to say it was not a response of his free will, since foreknowledge = predetermination, according to him -- and as you see, I foreknew correctly.

But he knows better. Nobody made him do what he did...least of all me...despite the accurateness of my foreknowledge.

Or do you now see the flaw in his logic?

[uwot]

I accurately foreknew that uwot would become contentious about Determinism.

Well, if you bothered to read what I write, you would know that I am not contentious about determinism.

Or do you now see the flaw in his logic?

Not my logic, Mr Can. It really is terrible manners to attribute things to people who have never said them.

[Belinda]

The doc wrote:

What are those "better explanations" than mere theatrics.

Religious rituals are theatre. Doc is also right in implying that theatrics are okay. I begin to think that Immanuel is a wee Calvinist: religion with no singing and dancing or pictures so we take it all very seriously.

[thedoc]

What are those "better explanations" than mere theatrics.

I think it was an issue of justice...and of mercy.

I hear two accusations routinely thrown out against God by the skeptics:

One is that God isn't just or fair, because people like Hitler and Stalin seem to have gotten away with murder.

The other is that God isn't kind or merciful, because the Bible says He judges and punishes sin thoroughly.

So what is it: a problem of injustice, or a problem of too much justice?

It never seems to occur to the critics that these are opposite accusations: one is that God is not doing enough, the other that He does too much. I want to ask them, "Which is it? Do you want God to do something about evil, or do you want Him to let you off the hook? How does God satisfy you? Does He do it by being more lenient, or by cracking down?"

But I think that in many cases their whole point in asking one question or the other is perhaps not to get an answer, but rather they hope to perplex the Theist. Having thus asked what they consider an unanswerable question, they plan to return to ignoring God anyway. And maybe that's why they don't realize they're asking for something so contradictory.

But, of course, the sacrifice of Jesus answers all of that.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” - Edmund Burke?

Atheists will often claim that the Bible is not a valid source of information, and then they will quote the Bible to discredit God.

People will ask why God didn't prevent some disaster or evil event, if these are the same people who asked God to get out of their lives it doesn't matter, others did not speak up and ask God to be in their lives. A small vocal group demanded that God not be present in schools, business, government, and other places, and people who wanted God to be part of their lives, said little or nothing. So if God doesn't stop or prevent a disaster, it's just as much the fault of quiet Christians as anyone, but it's part of Christian teaching to be tolerant of others and allow them to believe what they want.

[Immanuel Can]

The doc wrote:

What are those "better explanations" than mere theatrics.

Religious rituals are theatre. Doc is also right in implying that theatrics are okay. I begin to think that Immanuel is a wee Calvinist: religion with no singing and dancing or pictures so we take it all very seriously.

That's really funny. Do you know what a "Calvinist" is? Well, I'm not one of those, you can trust me. If I were, I'd most certainly have been arguing in favour of Determinism. It's their most cherished belief. As you can see from the other strand, I'm not doing that.

But you're right about "religious rituals," at least for a great many. They are a kind of theatre. However, I think we were talking about the sacrifice of Christ as a historical event, not merely as a symbol, far less as a mere "ritual."

[thedoc]

Do you know what a "Calvinist" is?

Of course Belinda thinks she knows what a Calvinist is, Most skeptics think they know what all religious people believe and they are more than willing to tell you what you believe. They have all the stereotypes down and think they know everything, of course the stereotypes don't usually fit but that doesn't matter to them.

[Belinda]

Okay Imannuel you have set that straight, especially that of course you are not a determinist. I gather that theists have to believe that God granted Free Will to humans. Otherwise you would be a determinist wouldn't you? You would even perhaps believe in horrid predestination and I cannot accuse you of that

[Immanuel Can]

Okay Imannuel you have set that straight,

Sorry. I wasn't trying to sound mean. I really did think it funny.

It's strange to see someone pull out such a theologically-specific word, and I couldn't help but wonder how you ever would think it would suit me. It's all good.

I gather that theists have to believe that God granted Free Will to humans.

No, because Calvinists are a kind of Theist, but they deny free will. Theism is a group of beliefs, centered on the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being; but after that a lot of details need to be explained in order to classify someone.

Otherwise you would be a determinist wouldn't you? You would even perhaps believe in horrid predestination and I cannot accuse you of that

Yes, I'm not up for the Doctrine of Double-Damnation, among other things; so a Predestinarian I will never be.

Maybe I was predestined not to be.

[Immanuel Can]

Most skeptics think they know what all religious people believe and they are more than willing to tell you what you believe. They have all the stereotypes down and think they know everything, of course the stereotypes don't usually fit but that doesn't matter to them.

As they say in the 'hood,

"True dat."

[Immanuel Can]

it's part of Christian teaching to be tolerant of others and allow them to believe what they want.

That's an important point.

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.

But the Evangelicals, the Anaptists, the Quakers, and so on are theologically and morally committed to tolerance of diverse viewpoints; because (as John Locke said,) people cannot be "forced to Heaven," but rather must choose to believe if they will. The societies established on their values have sometimes become secularized -- although this is historically relatively recent -- and continue to believe in tolerance, though they no longer know why they would be obliged rationally to do so.

There is no reason why a secularist "owes it" (or "ought") to be tolerant. Some just do, out of post-Protestant habit.

Belinda's right, therefore, when she identifies that with Protestantism specifically.