WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[floo]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

And yet your god allows evil to exist and  fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.

You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.

In what way then is your god moral?

Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.

Now I have heard it all. The evil b*stard created evil in the first place, if it was responsible for creation, so it would do us all a favour if it committed suicide for the greater good!

[Alien]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

And yet your god allows evil to exist and  fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.

You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.

In what way then is your god moral?

Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.

But you also think it is morally wrong to NOT stop these things happening when you could easily stop them.

Your god does not stop them, therefore he is immoral.

If you think otherwise, explain how it is moral.

If you cannot do that then you are just hoping that your god is good, and you are just guessing.

I explained earlier in the thread. #Sorry, that was another thread. I have explained it elsewhere though and this thread is about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus. If you want to discuss theodicy, I'll see you on another thread (a new one?).

[floo]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

And yet your god allows evil to exist and  fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.

You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.

In what way then is your god moral?

Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.

But you also think it is morally wrong to NOT stop these things happening when you could easily stop them.

Your god does not stop them, therefore he is immoral.

If you think otherwise, explain how it is moral.

If you cannot do that then you are just hoping that your god is good, and you are just guessing.

I explained earlier in the thread.

Please note this thread is about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus.

This thread is about an unpleasant fantasy scenario! 

[Andy]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

It's quite clear I was talking within the realms of what is possible, so I don't know why you felt the need to say neither are possible.

OK, please help me here. Please give me an example of someone who is or has been as "morally perfect as can possibly be".

So you're not prepared to run with the hypothetical and you want the name of an actual person who is as close to being morally perfect as possible?

Having recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness, the person asks for it and resolves to live God's way (the equivalent of getting into a lifeboat).

So who, A or B?

[BeRational]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

And yet your god allows evil to exist and  fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.

You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.

In what way then is your god moral?

Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.

But you also think it is morally wrong to NOT stop these things happening when you could easily stop them.

Your god does not stop them, therefore he is immoral.

If you think otherwise, explain how it is moral.

If you cannot do that then you are just hoping that your god is good, and you are just guessing.

I explained earlier in the thread.

Please note this thread is about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus.

So you can explain how it is morally good to allow a 9 year old to be raped, or a child to be tortured to death for fun?

This must be some explanation, and would then invalidate your earlier claim that it is ALWAYS wrong.

Are you saying it is sometimes right to allow these things to happen?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do.

How would this god know whether something is "objectively morally good" exactly? 

The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose".

No, that's not "the one" at all - ie, an objective moral truth. It's just something lots of people (though not all) happen currently to agree on is all. Remember?

If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.

Aw, the "it's a mystery" get out clause of theists through the ages when confronted with the uncomfortable fact that observably things happen that contradict their claims of an omnibenevolent god.

Fantastic casuistry and special pleading, just fantastic.     

[Alien]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

It's quite clear I was talking within the realms of what is possible, so I don't know why you felt the need to say neither are possible.

OK, please help me here. Please give me an example of someone who is or has been as "morally perfect as can possibly be".

So you're not prepared to run with the hypothetical and you want the name of an actual person who is as close to being morally perfect as possible?

It would make it easier to discuss.

Having recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness, the person asks for it and resolves to live God's way (the equivalent of getting into a lifeboat).

So who, A or B?

As I said, neither is possible. I thought you were taking about someone, in general, who is a sinner and had "recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness".

[Nearly Sane]

Surely we are back at of omni god this is the best of all possible worlds, therefore as Alan Burns stated the holocaust is a miracle.

[Alien]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

And yet your god allows evil to exist and  fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.

You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.

In what way then is your god moral?

Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.

But you also think it is morally wrong to NOT stop these things happening when you could easily stop them.

Your god does not stop them, therefore he is immoral.

If you think otherwise, explain how it is moral.

If you cannot do that then you are just hoping that your god is good, and you are just guessing.

I explained earlier in the thread.

Please note this thread is about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus.

So you can explain how it is morally good to allow a 9 year old to be raped, or a child to be tortured to death for fun?

This must be some explanation, and would then invalidate your earlier claim that it is ALWAYS wrong.

Are you saying it is sometimes right to allow these things to happen?

It could be if the price to be paid for stopping one 9 year old being raped was that two 9 year olds got raped.

Anyway, as I said above, this is meant to be about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

Some here get a bit confused about the difference between Islam and Christianity. In case that happens here, the 72 virgins bit is an Islamic idea, not a Christian one.

And some here get a bit confused when the conversation has moved on to the phenomenology of religious faiths generally rather than of just one of them. 

[BeRational]

Alien

It could be if the price to be paid for stopping one 9 year old being raped was that two 9 year olds got raped.

Anyway, as I said above, this is meant to be about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus.

So you now say that it might be morally okay to allow a child to be tortured just for fun even if you could stop it happening?

How can you tell if something is right or wrong then, as you cannot know everything?

How do you know Hitler did not have some idea of ultimate long term well being for all?

How do you judge any action wrong?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Surely we are back at of omni god this is the best of all possible worlds, therefore as Alan Burns stated the holocaust is a miracle.

Quite so. Apparently this omniscient god wasn't smart enough to figure out a plan for the greater good that didn't involve the deaths of six million jews.

[Andy]

So you're not prepared to run with the hypothetical and you want the name of an actual person who is as close to being morally perfect as possible?

It would make it easier to discuss.

You're the one who is being difficult. If you run with the hypothetical it will make it easier

As I said, neither is possible. I thought you were taking about someone, in general, who is a sinner and had "recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness".

You've asserted neither is possible even when I included in the statements that it's within the confines of what is possible. A or B, Alan?

[Nearly Sane]

All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.

[jakswan]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

And yet your god allows evil to exist and  fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.

You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.

In what way then is your god moral?

Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.

So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.

[BeRational]

All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.

This would also apply to allowing a child to be tortured to death for fun as well.

So Aliens earlier statement about objective moral values have come unstuck.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

It could be if the price to be paid for stopping one 9 year old being raped was that two 9 year olds got raped.

So not only would this omniscient god not be bright enough to work out a solution in which no-one got raped, but he's a moral consequentialist too?

Wow!

Do you have any idea how far out of your depth you are Alien, let alone of how morally screwed you've become?

An inkling maybe?

Anything at all?

No?

[Andy]

All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.

I disagree. God didn't choose it because he can only do what is good.

[BeRational]

Alien,

Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?

[BeRational]

All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.

I disagree. God didn't choose it because he can only do what is good.

Stopping it happening would be good or bad?

[Andy]

All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.

I disagree. God didn't choose it because he can only do what is good.

Stopping it happening would be good or bad?

Neither as they've lost their meaning.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

So Aliens earlier statement about objective moral values have come unstuck.

Sorry to be picky here, but they were never "stuck" in the first place. He spent a lot of time sharing his personal opinion (and the opinions of lots of others) on TACTDJFF, but so far as I know he never troubled himself with an argument to bridge the gap from that to an objective moral truth.

[BeRational]

All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.

I disagree. God didn't choose it because he can only do what is good.

Stopping it happening would be good or bad?

Neither as they've lost their meaning.

I do not know what that means.

Had you been in a concentration camp, one option would have looked much better than another.

[BeRational]

BR,

So Aliens earlier statement about objective moral values have come unstuck.

Sorry to be picky here, but they were never "stuck" in the first place. He spent a lot of time sharing his personal opinion (and the opinions of lots of others) on TACTDJFF, but so far as I know he never troubled himself with an argument to bridge the gap from that to an objective moral truth.

I take your point.

But I now wonder if this make Alien question his earlier statement and will modify it to say it might sometimes be okay.

[Andy]

Neither as they've lost their meaning.

I do not know what that means.

Had you been in a concentration camp, one option would have looked much better than another.

If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless.