Salvation from what?

[Peter]

Christians are always going on about salvation and how I should want it. Exactly what threat do I want salvation from and who or what is the source of this threat? Is this threat real or imagined? Can I talk to someone who has suffered by ignoring this threat? Maybe I'm atheist simply because nobody has been able to convince me a real threat exists. So convince me.

[UFO]

It seems there needs to be something to be saved from, so original sin was created by some standards. It was automatically attributed to all humanity from the first humans according to the story.
Seems it was a means to be all encompassing no matter if we like it or not. We were forced into it and forced to accept it and the only recourse we have is burn forever according to many.
It doesn't make much sense when you consider the character God's suppose to have

The character according to whom specifically? Generally arguments are made with a rather ill defined deity in mind. This, of course, leaves plenty of room sifting one's accusations. However, if one wishes to gain understanding, one needs to be clear with regard to the premises of arguments.

The charactre that's taught by much of Christianity in modern times: loving, caring, all capable - you know all the 'good' characteristics

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 37 by FarWanderer]

People sacrifice for themselves all the time. For example, I've sacrificed drinking soda for better health.

That means you are being wise. When you don't eat rotten food you are hardly being sacrificing. Why would that be different with candy drink? I think you are not using the word sacrifice accurately in your example.

But to the point, I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. It's not for lack of altruism, but for lack of personal loss that I say altruistic actions in the context of Christianity aren't genuine sacrifice. Personal loss is a necessary outcome of anything deserving to be called a "sacrifice".

There's definitely personal loss in sacrifice. Ask the Anzacs. Does the sacrifice have to be forever? Suppose I give (not loan but give) $1000 to a friend and they later repay it and in fact they give me $2000. Do I have to reject the gift? Was my sacrifice false?

What did Jesus's "sacrifice" cost him?

Well it meant that God had to be man. That he had to not experience the perfect unity of the Trinity for a time. God didn't need to do what He did. That's another important part of sacrifice.

What you are really arguing here is that the Anzacs that didn't die or get wounded didn't pay a cost. That would be obtuse and insulting to them. Why is it different for God?

But I think the point of sacrifice is not what the person that is sacrificing gives up but what the person they are sacrificing for gains. We gain the opportunity for salvation.

To much obfuscation for me in the last page.
Did a human get tortured and then hung on a cross to a god in order for my sins to be forgiven so that I can go to heaven when I die?

It's yes or no. No blaming the Romans or justifying other sacrifices or claims about an immortal god sacrificing part of itself to itself.

According to the story... yes.
This free gift claim is crap (not sure if it was you or someone else that first mentioned it here, but regardless).

When selling "tickets to Heaven" on the streets, sure at face value it seems like a good selling point. However, once you stop to think about what you need to be OK with happening just so you can feel forgiven by a god concept you use your free will to believe in, it gets a bit more ugly IMO.

Personally, If there was a supreme being up there that cared about us, I could see this story being used as a test to determine who are those that would allow another to suffer for their own benefit. Perhaps believers really will get a place of there own, but would it have roads made of gold?

[bluethread]

It doesn't make much sense when you consider the character God's suppose to have

The character according to whom specifically? Generally arguments are made with a rather ill defined deity in mind. This, of course, leaves plenty of room sifting one's accusations. However, if one wishes to gain understanding, one needs to be clear with regard to the premises of arguments.

The charactre that's taught by much of Christianity in modern times: loving, caring, all capable - you know all the 'good' characteristics

No I do not know. That is what I mean. Loving, caring and all capable are general concepts that mean different things to different people, usually referring to things they personally like. Can you refer to a set of doctrines or Scriptures passages that are more specific with regard to what you are referring to.

[Peter]

[Replying to post 66 by Peter]

Life is valuable because it's finite. Infinite life would be infinitely valueless if diluted by an infinity of time.

Suppose I took your wallet and took out all the money and left a cent. Would you say that now you have more value because it is less close to infinity than the amount I took?

You are confusing price and value. Air is cheap but extremely valuable. Life is cheap but extremely valuable.

No, you are convolving value and price? If you wish to use a wallet example, what would you cherish(a better word than value) the most? $5 in the wallet or an infinite amount of money in the wallet? Air is a good example too. We don't cherish air because it's effectively infinite (at least over our lifetime). I argue that life is cherished because it is finite.

Endless joy. Think about that for a moment. Endless anything sounds very unappealing to me. I suppose some god could wipe your memory every few minutes to keep the joy going but, really, who would want that?

And you know what is boring and unappealing - being dead.

You know, I was dead for billions of years and I don't recall being bored at all.

The only way I could survive in heaven would be if a god programmed me to. I could not be the person I am now in heaven. My head would explode.

I hope so! You would be the real Peter, not the decaying one you are now.

I'm decaying? You would think people would mention the smell to me...

[Wordleymaster1]

Christians are always going on about salvation and how I should want it. Exactly what threat do I want salvation from and who or what is the source of this threat? Is this threat real or imagined? Can I talk to someone who has suffered by ignoring this threat? Maybe I'm atheist simply because nobody has been able to convince me a real threat exists. So convince me.

I always wondered why a god would create something that would need a means of saving anyway. Seems to me it's more of a way to get people to kneel down and worship god than really 'saving' them. Why couldn'tGod have created a system that didn't need any saving? It doesn't make a lot of sense considering how God's described in today's churches.

[ttruscott]

...

I always wondered why a god would create something that would need a means of saving anyway.

...

GOD's goal was heaven, a place or state of love and holiness.

A forced love, forced by creating them capable of 'love' only is not true love.
A forced holiness, limiting their ability to be bad, may be un-sinful but it is not true holiness.

To fulfill HIS goal, GOD had to create us with the ability to make free will decisions which had to allow for some (or all) to reject HIM and HIS goals either in part or completely.

Since HIS ways are perfectly loving and holy then to go against them is to become evil. Even the ability to choose to become perfectly, that is, eternally evil, had to be possible. Therefore a method of salvation from the state of evil had to be put in place and also a method of separating the self chosen eternally evil from the rest of polite society so the love and holiness of the heavenly state would not be contaminated.

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

GOD's goal was heaven, a place or state of love and holiness.

Is this stated as YOUR opinion or God's opinion? If the former it should be identified as personal opinion. If the latter, kindly cite God's statement to that effect.

[ttruscott]

.

GOD's goal was heaven, a place or state of love and holiness.

Is this stated as YOUR opinion or God's opinion? If the former it should be identified as personal opinion. If the latter, kindly cite God's statement to that effect.

It is my interpretation of the Bible as a Christian book which supports the Christian pov about reality. Our end in life is heaven as implied by GOD in the Bible and verse support for my interpretation is: 2 Peter 3:13 But according to HIS promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. As our eternal home after earth, it is implied that this was HIS goal for creating us...

2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Unless there is a new revelation about something beyond heaven then we can only assume that the heaven that follows this earth was HIS goal for our creation.

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

GOD's goal was heaven, a place or state of love and holiness.

Is this stated as YOUR opinion or God's opinion? If the former it should be identified as personal opinion. If the latter, kindly cite God's statement to that effect.

It is my interpretation of the Bible as a Christian book which supports the Christian pov about reality. Our end in life is heaven as implied by GOD in the Bible and verse support for my interpretation is:

According to a couple anonymous bible writers God wanted heaven for humans -- but evidently didn't think through his creation plan very well since only a tiny minority of humans are (according to many Christians) destined to heaven and the vast majority consigned to hell.

Where is the error?

1) Defective design
2) Faulty bible story
3) Incorrect claims about heaven requirements
4) Other (explain)

[Wordleymaster1]

...

I always wondered why a god would create something that would need a means of saving anyway.

...

GOD's goal was heaven, a place or state of love and holiness.

A forced love, forced by creating them capable of 'love' only is not true love.
A forced holiness, limiting their ability to be bad, may be un-sinful but it is not true holiness.

To fulfill HIS goal, GOD had to create us with the ability to make free will decisions which had to allow for some (or all) to reject HIM and HIS goals either in part or completely.

Since HIS ways are perfectly loving and holy then to go against them is to become evil. Even the ability to choose to become perfectly, that is, eternally evil, had to be possible. Therefore a method of salvation from the state of evil had to be put in place and also a method of separating the self chosen eternally evil from the rest of polite society so the love and holiness of the heavenly state would not be contaminated.

Peace, Ted

Then it seems God didn't reach his goal
Was God's way of flooding the whole world perfectly loving?