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 Alcra 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.
Karma is justice.
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 Alcra 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 bbarr Since somebody once asked this in Aramaic, your desire for syntactical clarification is misguided.
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 DoctorScribbles 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.
I am not impressed by your psuedo-scientifico-logico formal manner of debate. Play your word games elsewhere, heathen!
Originally posted by bbarr I am not impressed by your psuedo-scientifico-logico formal manner of debate. Play your word games elsewhere, heathen!
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, 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 DoctorScribbles 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 Alcra 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.
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.
Originally posted by lucifershammer 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.
Thanks for the answer.
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.
Salvation and Justice
22 Mar '05 13:31
Back to Top