Xtians, I forget, What Do We Need a Saviour For?

[thomas t]

But I can't choose not to have one, which is where the injustice lies.

So this again is demnding utter perfection, as I see it.
To me, it comes across as saying "Either God offers me an utterly perfect nature so I can choose and take this or it is beyond consideration for me"
So, any choice that does not include utter perfection as an option for you seems unbearable for you.
This, in my opinion, is just the wrong attitude, and this is exactly what I was saying some 6 posts earlier.
The measure that you apply to others will be applied to you also, Bible says.

No matter how often you thoughtlessly repeat this, it's still nonsense - it's nothing like Shell.

That wasn't thoughtless, it isn't nonsense, and the Shell example is a perfect analogy here, I think.

Ironically, this is a perfect example.

actually it wasn't, in my opinion.

There. That was easy.

This is the incredible doublethink that I was referring to. Genocide (or killing an entire nation) is morally repugnant - the fact that you excuse your god from this, is truly frightening.

actually there is no doublethink on my side.
Nothing that could potentially really frighten anyone.
As opposed to humans, God is the one who created life, he may take it.
Any director of a theatre can choose the opening hours of his house. God chooses the opening hours of human existence on earth, seperately for everyone. So, no double standard here, may I ask you to apply the same measure to God and theatre directors alike?
This is totally fine, I think.

Deliberately making a conscious, intelligent being and then causing it to suffer and die is just about the most horrific abuse of power, for (apparently) nothing but perverse sadistic pleasure, I can actually imagine.

suffering as punishment is ok, for example, in my opinion. God may punish. It's his world.
No perverse sadistic pleasure there.

More empty contradiction.

it wasn't empty. I answered your point about potential other approaches explaining the beauty on earth.
You claimed there were some.
You named none.

Which is, at best, an argument from ignorance fallacy.

So go ahead and post an alternative explanation, please.

You totally ignored my question: how many of the people who wanted to kill him, even knew he was god?

One question may be allowed before I answer the question.
When you hear the number, would you conclude it is too little for God to stay alive on earth when showing up as a human? Do you even take any such consideration into account? Right to life please. No human should murder.
Just in case you would argue in such a manner, do I "lose" my right to life as well, when I show up somewhere in the wrong manner? I mean in your opinion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So this again is demnding utter perfection, as I see it.

What would be wrong with expecting perfection from a supposedly perfect God?

 

[thomas t]

What would be wrong with expecting perfection from a supposedly perfect God?

expect perfection as much as you want.
as far as I understand @ecco, he said that he expects God to deliver the option of having a perfect nature.
Delivering this option at once is not necessarily perfect.
So there is a difference.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

expect perfection as much as you want.
as far as I understand @ecco, he said that he expects God to deliver the option of having a perfect nature.
Delivering this option at once is not necessarily perfect.
So there is a difference.

Creating a flawed creation and then fixing it after the fact strikes me as more imperfect than creating a creation that doesn't need fixing.

 

[Ponder This]

Jesus sinned on multiple occasions, such as dishonoring his parents, vandalizing stuff, assaulting people, being a hypocrite, breaking the sabbath, being racist, etc.

Oh? Please explain how you judge his actions as sins (offenses against God)?

Although, I don't want to get too distracted from the point that Jesus told people to "go and sin no more" (for example John 8:11), I don't rule out that you may regard his statement as hypocrisy. It still seems to me to be central to the story of Jesus and his crucifixion - hence the comparison to the lamb used to atone for sins (John 1:29: "Behold the lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!"). Otherwise, it's.... die and uh... nothing's changed, you're a damned sinner? To return to the questions in the OP, "What Do We Need a Saviour For?" and "What did we do that someone had to die for?"

 

[Brian2]

Creating a flawed creation and then fixing it after the fact strikes me as more imperfect than creating a creation that doesn't need fixing.

I don't suppose there are any guarantees what a being with free will is going to do. Yet humans are so fantastic, made in the image of God and all, that God created us knowing that we would mess things up for ourselves and that He would have to come to the rescue.

 

[ratiocinator]

So this again is demnding utter perfection, as I see it.
To me, it comes across as saying "Either God offers me an utterly perfect nature so I can choose and take this or it is beyond consideration for me"

I don't know why you continue to misrepresent what I've said. This isn't rocket science - if we are to be judged for 'sinning' then whether we sin or not should be a genuine choice - that's basic, simple fairness. Giving us a 'sinful' is not being just and fair. It has nothing to do with any idea of perfection. Why doesn't everybody get the same choice as Adam and Eve had?

Nothing that could potentially really frighten anyone.

Somebody who's prepared to defend genocide and slavery, should scare people.

This is totally fine, I think.

Frightening.

suffering as punishment is ok, for example, in my opinion. God may punish. It's his world.
No perverse sadistic pleasure there.

This is beyond bizarre and horrifying.

You claimed there were some.
You named none.

Evolutionary aesthetics - Wikipedia

When you hear the number, would you conclude it is too little for God to stay alive on earth when showing up as a human? Do you even take any such consideration into account? Right to life please. No human should murder.

Loving the blatant double standards. It's "right to life" now is it? It's okay for god to indulge in mass slaughter of humans but when it comes to earth as one, he comes over all snowflake and it's all about the "right to life"? Of course people shouldn't murder but neither should a god

I actually suspect that none of the people calling for the death of Jesus really thought he was god.

 

[thomas t]

if we are to be judged for 'sinning' then whether we sin or not should be a genuine choice - that's basic, simple fairness.

this is what I call misrepresentation of God's judgement. God judges us for the sins we commit, not for the nature behind.

If you have a rotten pipeline and still use it for financial purposes... you are judged for the use of it - and not for the pipeline itself. The decision to use it as if it was a perfect pipeline was wrong, and this is what people are judged for. Not for the pipeline.

If it's a rotten pipeline... there needs to be another way to handle it in comparison to the way you would use a perfect pipeline. You can't just act as if the pipeline works perfectly.
Here again, I had to repeat myself.

The moment you demand a perfect neature, you demand perfection. This is what I referred to in my answer (as I said). I did not misrepresent anything, I think. As you did refer to the sinful nature and you did say you find it unacceptable that you - people in general - wasn't offered a perfect one.

This is beyond bizarre and horrifying.

actually it's not. The existence of punishment is nothing "beyond bizarre and horrifying". Even good working states apply punishments from time to time. There needs to be a judiciary system. Same with God.
Simply.

Somebody who's prepared to defend genocide and slavery, should scare people.

no, I would never defend genocide authored by humans.

Loving the blatant double standards

no blatant double standards here. Human rights - and the right to life - are rights humans have against other humans (or states). Humans do not have any rights against their creator.
A piece of arts does not have rights against me either, if I made it, I think.

The moment God incarnates and is a human being, he should have the same human rights as any other human being.
Human rights are universal. There are no humans who deserve less human rights than others.

God did and does not commit murder, since murder refers to unlawful killing.
God can proceed with his arts as he wishes.

Thanks for the link. Evolutionary aesthetics cannot explain the beauty of entire landscapes.
Evolution does not have anything to do with the beauty of an evening sky, for instance. Evolution deals with the rise of the species as I understand it.

------------
In answering the question from your last post...
The Pharisees used to know he was the son of God, this is my interpretsation of Mark 12:7. If they thought this is identical to God himself may be subject to questions.

 

[ratiocinator]

this is what I call misrepresentation of God's judgement. God judges us for the sins we commit, not for the nature behind.

None of this addresses the fact that (according to your storybook) everybody sins, so it's not a genuine choice. You seem to leave your basic humanity and sense of fairness at the door when you read your bible. I find that horrifying. I think it's been aptly demonstrated here, so I'm not going to continue with this pointless exchange.

 

[thomas t]

None of this addresses the fact that (according to your storybook) everybody sins, so it's not a genuine choice. [...]

You complain about the fact that you as a human aren't offered the choice to be sinless. You're complaining since you say it's unjust the way it is some posts before. This however means you want nothing short of perfection, since only a perfect nature enables you to remain sinless.

And now please don’t tell me I didn’t address your point that you want to be offered the opportunity not to sin at all.

That’s demanding the perfect nature.

However, if anything short of perfection isn’t acceptable for you it is the wrong attitude.

This was my point of departure in the discussion between us and so is my last word.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You complain about the fact that you as a human aren't offered the choice to be sinless. You're complaining since you say it's unjust the way it is some posts before. This however means you want nothing short of perfection, since only a perfect nature enables you to remain sinless.

Why wouldn't the creation of a perfect creator have a perfect nature?

If the creation is imperfect, wouldn't this imply that the creator is imperfect at creating?

 

[thomas t]

Why wouldn't the creation of a perfect creator have a perfect nature?

If the creation is imperfect, wouldn't this imply that the creator is imperfect at creating?

But Brian gave a perfect answer to this:

I don't suppose there are any guarantees what a being with free will is going to do.

let me add a word to it, Penguin;
I don't suppose there are any guarantees what a being with free will is going to do [to nature].

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But Brian gave a perfect answer to this:

let me add a word to it, Penguin;
I don't suppose there are any guarantees what a being with free will is going to do [with nature].

@Brian2 's reply was irrational nonsense, which is why I didn't engage with it.

 

[1213]

Well?

...and while we're at it, what did we do that someone had to die for?

If we want to live, we need savior, if we have sin, because the wage of sin is death.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

God sent Jesus to declare forgiveness.

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

And Jesus could forgive even before his death, so death was not necessary for it.

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

 

[thomas t]

While I highly appreciate that you challenge the Jehovah's Witnesses teachings here in the thread...
let me point out that [the leading] Jews wanted to kill Jesus.

The Romans even put forth the false rumor that Jews wanted to kill Christ.

Mark 12:7.
Nevertheless, I don't think that wanting to kill God is anything that distinguishes Jewish people from others.

But please go ahead with your work pointing out the flaws in Jehovah Witnesses teachings.

 

[ratiocinator]

And now please don’t tell me I didn’t address your point that you want to be offered the opportunity not to sin at all.

If I'm going to be judged for sinning, then not having a choice to not do so, makes the judgement unfair and unjust - if you can't see that, then you've compromised your basic human sense of justice in order to believe in your religion. That is horrifying.

Nobody should judge anybody for things they have no choice about - if your god does that, it is evil.

 

[thomas t]

Nobody should judge anybody for things they have no choice about - if your god does that, it is evil.

every single time you have a choice.
After having made 1.000.000 choices it so happens that not every single choice was right, but perhaps it was only 999.998 of the total million.
As an example.
But every single time you've had a choice. This, by the way, comprises making a choice between demanding perfection when you get a nature... or not.

If you say: God must supply you with the choice of being as perfect as to make every single one of the 1.000.000 choices right, then you demand nothing short the opportunity of performing utter perfection.
But this is possible only if you have the perfect nature. Only perfect beings can perform utter prefection always.
No matter how you rephrase your stance, it all boils down to demanding the opportunity to have an utterly perfect nature.
We see you complaining about the absence of that choice.

So, if this is the mesure you apply to God, this will be the measure applied to you, of course.


Luke 6:38b

This is just and fair and not evil. You demand perfection, and I'm convinced you will receive a perfect judgement also.

 

[ratiocinator]

If you say: God must provide you with the choice of being as perfect as to make every single one of the 1.000.000 choices right, then you demand nothing short the opportunity of performing utter perfection.

If that is the standard humans are going to be judged on, then of course it should be achievable by every human - and at least some of them would achieve it.

If you set a test and everybody fails it, then it isn't a fair and appropriate test. This is really simple and I have little doubt that if we were talking about some human using a test that everybody failed, you'd be agreeing with me. More doublethink.

 

[thomas t]

If that is the standard humans are going to be judged on, then of course it should be achievable by every human - and at least some of them would achieve it.

If you set a test and everybody fails it, then it isn't a fair and appropriate test. This is really simple and I have little doubt that if we were talking about some human using a test that everybody failed, you'd be agreeing with me. More doublethink.

I tell you what is achievable: the right choice for every single choice was achievable.
Let me give an example:
you do 999.999 of all choices right but on a Wednesday you slap your neighbor into the face.
On that Wednesday you did have a choice to not slap her or him.
Yet you failed and did exactly what every other human in your street would never have done.
So ... now you tell me that this should go unpunished?
Why? Did the neighbor deserve it? No.

Of course the punishment for that fauxpas will be there of course. It was your fault, you did have a choice and you shall receive the punishment for it.

And this is how judgement goes for every single time you make a choice.
There is always the option to not slap or yell or whatever might be the bad choice.

It is as simple as that, no doublethink here.
You won't be able to argue that you should not receive the punishment for that slap... just because you weren't given the perfect nature.

 

[ratiocinator]

I tell you what is achievable: the right choice for every single choice was achievable.
Let me give an example:
you do 999.999 of all choices right but on a Wednesday you slap your neighbor into the face.
On that Wednesday you did have a choice to not slap her or him.
Yet you failed and did exactly what every other human in your street would never have done.
So ... now you tell me that this should go unpunished?
Why? Did the neighbor deserve it? No.

Of course the punishment for that fauxpas will be there of course. It was your fault, you did have a choice and you shall receive the punishment for it.

And this is how judgement goes for every single time you make a choice.
There is always the option to not slap or yell or whatever might be the bad choice.

It is as simple as that, no doublethink here.
You won't be able to argue that you should not receive the punishment for that slap... just because you weren't given the perfect nature.

None of this squirming and wriggling actually addresses the point. If you set a test that everybody fails, then it isn't a fair an appropriate test. It's doubly unjust if there are serious consequences to failing the test.

Either people should have been made better, or the test should have taken into account their propensity to make mistakes. This isn't difficult, it's simple fairness.