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

[Hobbes' Choice]

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.,

I don't give a rat's arse about your "no true scotsman" fallacy.
If a person calls themselves a Christian - that is the person I want to ask this question of.

SO; rephrased

I'd love some person who thinks he is a 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?

[Immanuel Can]

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?

Quite so. If there is an option to choose relationship with God, there must, of logical necessity, be a choice available to choose NOT to engage in any relationship with God.

We do have names for "forced relationships," but so far as I know, none are complimentary.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I'm afraid you're posing a false dichotomy, and a very old one. It's been asked-and-answered many times. There is no reason to think that a forced-to-be-good humanity is ultimately better than one that has the option to do evil but with it acquires freedom.

People willingly give up their lives for their own freedom and that of others all the time. We seem to feel it's pretty much the sine qua non of meaningful existence. It's certainly the prerequisite for any genuine relationship. And without it, life is reduced to a forced charade.

Hence, a universe with potential for good and evil is actually better than one with only potential for good, if the addition of freedom can be considered an overwhelming good.

Most people think it can.

Read Leibniz on this, and you'd have an additional angle on this question as well. But I won't go over all he said about it. The important thing is that your proposed dichotomy is not legitimate there; there are other options.

But did you have an answer to my question: what is "salvation" from?

[uwot]

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?

Well, there's this place called 'hell', it's a special place for all the people who do not profess a love for Jesus.

Quite so. If there is an option to choose relationship with God, there must, of logical necessity, be a choice available to choose NOT to engage in any relationship with God.

And you will burn for eternity, if you choose the latter.

[uwot]

Read Leibniz on this, and you'd have an additional angle on this question as well.

Better yet, read Voltaire's Candide to see how absurd Leibniz's argument is.

[Harbal]

And you will burn for eternity, if you choose the latter.

Creating quite a significant carbon footprint, one imagines.

[uwot]

And you will burn for eternity, if you choose the latter.

Creating quite a significant carbon footprint, one imagines.

Assuming Old Nick doesn't chop your feet off.

[Dontaskme]

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.,

I don't give a rat's arse about your "no true scotsman" fallacy.
If a person calls themselves a Christian - that is the person I want to ask this question of.

If someone called them self a ''God''.. would you ask the same question to that person? Or is it only okay that a person can call them self a 'Christian' but not a 'God'

What I'm trying to point out to you, is that there is no such thing as a ''literal existing concept''. You take the word to exist as if it's some real actual thing separate from the otherwise ineffable endless flow of conscious living life... I know you like to think there is, but that's just a thought...but it's not like you can hold the thought up in front of you to examine it and say 'hey here it is' - here is the ''CHRISTIAN'' right here can't you see it?

...well, that goes for every concept, it's the same with the 'God' concept... yet you appear to be saying that it's okay to call oneself a Christian..do you not see the fallacy in your argument, it's just a false belief structure that's imposed upon you by society..is it not?

Hobbes, you're out of date, you're still believing in fairy stories about fictional characters, you need to get with the groove, and stop talking bollocks, know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink...

[uwot]

What I'm trying to point out to you, is that there is no such thing as a ''literal existing concept''. You take the word to exist as if it's some real actual thing separate from the otherwise ineffable endless flow of conscious living life... I know you like to think there is, but that's just a thought...but it's not like you can hold the thought up in front of you to examine it and say 'hey here it is' - here is the ''CHRISTIAN'' right here can't you see it?

You are making an unsound leap from epistemology to ontology, me old china. It is true that the only thing we know to exist is our immediate conscious experience, it doesn't follow that is all there is. As I keep saying, the most plausible explanation for all the phenomena that give the impression that there is a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of. But while that is generally taken for granted, it is just one hypothesis.

Hobbes, you're out of date, you're still believing in fairy stories about fictional characters, you need to get with the groove, and stop talking bollocks, know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink...

Well, the groovy bollocks you subscribed to has its roots in two and a half thousand year old Eleatic philosophy.

[HexHammer]

Enough for what?

.........................../facepalm!!!

[Dontaskme]

What I'm trying to point out to you, is that there is no such thing as a ''literal existing concept''. You take the word to exist as if it's some real actual thing separate from the otherwise ineffable endless flow of conscious living life... I know you like to think there is, but that's just a thought...but it's not like you can hold the thought up in front of you to examine it and say 'hey here it is' - here is the ''CHRISTIAN'' right here can't you see it?

You are making an unsound leap from epistemology to ontology, me old china. It is true that the only thing we know to exist is our immediate conscious experience, it doesn't follow that is all there is. As I keep saying, the most plausible explanation for all the phenomena that give the impression that there is a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of. But while that is generally taken for granted, it is just one hypothesis.

Nope, that's all there definitely is me old teapot, because there cannot be more than all there is...

Well, the groovy bollocks you subscribed to has its roots in two and a half thousand year old Eleatic philosophy.

Nope, that's just another human fallacy me old teacup, there is no solid ground for a root to take hold, so just lets call my bollocks this good old timeless placeless wisdom.

[uwot]

Nope, that's all there definitely is me old teapot, because there cannot be more than all there is...

Nah. You're jumping from 'That's all there definitely is.' to 'That's definitely all there is.' It's the same mistake Parmenides made. It might be true that thought is all there is, but it isn't definitely true.

[Harbal]

Nope, that's all there definitely is me old teapot, because there cannot be more than all there is...

Nah. You're jumping from 'That's all there definitely is.' to 'That's definitely all there is.' It's the same mistake Parmenides made. It might be true that thought is all there is, but it isn't definitely true.

If you're looking for a fruitless endeavour, uwot, you couldn't have made a better choice than trying to have a sensible dialogue with the forum fruit cake, which is a bit of an irony. He doesn't believe in "reality" but doesn't seem to be able to avoid referencing it when he tries to engage with someone.

[uwot]

If you're looking for a fruitless endeavour, uwot...

Harbal, I'm not about to break the habit of a lifetime.

[Harbal]

Harbal, I'm not about to break the habit of a lifetime.

Okay, uwot, enjoy yourself.