Based on the salvation theory, here is a new question (at least for me). Again, my interest is purely academic, so all views welcome.
Bob kills Sam. Bob is a bad man, while Sam is a good man (but not "saved", as he has not confessed his sins). Sam goes to hell, as he died in a state of sin (is this true so far? )
Bob now confesses his sins and is absolved of them. Leaving the confession, he is run over by a truck and dies, on the spot. He goes to heaven. (is this still correct?)
Now, where is the justice in that?
As I stated before, this is not a "bashing" session, and all views (and
corrections) welcome.
Originally posted by AlcraKarma is justice.
Based on the salvation theory, here is a new question (at least for me). Again, my interest is purely academic, so all views welcome.
Bob kills Sam. Bob is a bad man, while Sam is a good man (but not "saved", as he has not confessed his ...[text shortened]... t a "bashing" session, and all views (and
corrections) welcome.
A heavenly being demanding obeisance is not just as he/she/it has a vested interest in the outcome of all interactions of human beings.
Originally posted by AlcraDo you live by GOD'S justice, or by your justice?
Based on the salvation theory, here is a new question (at least for me). Again, my interest is purely academic, so all views welcome.
Bob kills Sam. Bob is a bad man, while Sam is a good man (but not "saved", as he has not confessed his sins). Sam goes to hell, as he died in a state of sin (is this true so far? )
Bob now confesses his sins and is absol ...[text shortened]... As I stated before, this is not a "bashing" session, and all views (and
corrections) welcome.
Originally posted by bbarrHow can one attempt to formulate a response to the interrogatory when the decision to affirm or deny it hinges on this unresolvable ambiguity?
Since somebody once asked this in Aramaic, your desire for syntactical clarification is misguided.
And I am not convinced that this interrogatory has been previously posed in Aramaic. I don't believe that 'just' is a word in that language. I don't even believe that language utilizes the Roman character set.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI am not impressed by your psuedo-scientifico-logico formal manner of debate. Play your word games elsewhere, heathen!
How can one attempt to formulate a response to the interrogatory when the decision to affirm or deny it hinges on this unresolvable ambiguity?
And I am not convinced that this interrogatory has been previously posed in Aramaic. I don't believe that 'just' is a word in that language. I don't even believe that language utilizes the Roman character set.
Originally posted by bbarrThen I will assume that 'just' is an adjective modifying 'justice'.
I am not impressed by your psuedo-scientifico-logico formal manner of debate. Play your word games elsewhere, heathen!
I note for the record that it is a superfluous adjective, a claim whose proof can be found in a simple reduction to absurdity, for a sort of justice that is not just is unjust, and something that is unjust cannot be justice.
Thus, the interrogatory semantically reduces to, after the redundant adjective vanishes, "Isn't all justice justice?", which should obviously be affirmed, for to deny it formally leads to the same sort of absurdity constructed above.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis is *just* strawman reasoning on your part.
Then I will assume that 'just' is an adjective modifying 'justice'.
I note for the record that it is a superfluous adjective, a claim whose proof can be found in a simple reduction to absurdity, for a sort of justice that is not just is unjust, and something that is unjust cannot be justice.
Thus, the interrogatory semantically reduces to, ...[text shortened]... be affirmed, for to deny it formally leads to the same sort of absurdity constructed above.
Originally posted by AlcraI think the classical question would be - define "good man" and "bad man".
Based on the salvation theory, here is a new question (at least for me). Again, my interest is purely academic, so all views welcome.
Bob kills Sam. Bob is a bad man, while Sam is a good man (but not "saved", as he has not confessed his sins). Sam goes to hell, as he died in a state of sin (is this true so far? )
Bob now confesses his sins and is absol ...[text shortened]... As I stated before, this is not a "bashing" session, and all views (and
corrections) welcome.
Also, is this question addressed only to OSAS Christians? Your situation mixes up aspects from both doctrines about salvation.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThanks for the answer.
I think the classical question would be - define "good man" and "bad man".
Also, is this question addressed only to OSAS Christians? Your situation mixes up aspects from both doctrines about salvation.
Let me answer your questions:
"good" and "bad" must be understood to mean "good" and "bad". Every person and religion has definitions of these two words. If there are different definitions, apply them fairly (in other words, use the definitions as they are from one source, do not mix definitions from different sources).
As to the last question, I would assume "salvation" means the same thing regardless of the source.
Either way, please give your opinion (in layman's terms) - the debate is the important thing here.