Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

Is it a good thing to be able to forgive without any price?

If so, is God imperfect for being unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice?

[Justin108]

3. This update forgives our past errors and guides us into eventually being free from errors.

This one seems pretty reasonable to me

Right. And God can do exactly that without Jesus dying

How can God give us a perfect human nature without violating our free will.

Did Adam and Eve have a perfect human nature?

What doesn't matter? God didn't change our nature against our will. Humans changed it.

How exactly did humans change our nature?

You aren't giving John a perfect batting average again, you are erasing the history that made his batting average imperfect. You are hitting the restart button. You'd still have to deal with future at-bats. You haven't done anything to ensure a perfect batting average.

Ok why exactly do we want a perfect batting average again? Can't we just "forgive" all John's strikes?

Philosophically, omniscience has usually been defined as knowing all true propositions.

No omniscience is usually defined as knowing everything. I'm not sure where you got the "propositions" restriction from

omniscience
mnsns/
noun
the state of knowing everything.

How does this definition fit how you are using it here to say God knows how to teach people how to surrender?

Maybe not under your definition, but under the official definition (see above), since knowing how to teach us can be classified under "everything", an omniscient being would be able to teach us, especially if this being is also omnipotent

The way you are talking about it would seem to fall under omnipotence.

That too. Is God not omnipotent?

But it is logically impossible for a being who can't surrender/submit to another to be able to surrender.

What makes it logically impossible? Did you follow the link I posted earlier?

Here we see a man who cannot walk, coaching a football team. Let me repeat that
- He cannot walk
- He teaches people how to play football

Now if this guy can teach something despite being unable to do it himself, then why can't God?

There is nothing logically impossible about the idea of God teaching people how to surrender.

Jack can be a sprinting coach because Jack still has a wonderful mind

And God has a perfect mind!

Jack isn't teaching the sprinter how to walk.

If Jack had kids, do you think it would be logically impossible for Jack to teach them how to walk?

Rehman isn't teaching what he doesn't know. He knows the game of football.

And God knows... everything.

He understands it.

Again, God understands everything

We can mental-ize truths about the game

And God can mentalize surrender

Surrender is a completely foreign concept to God

If surrender was a completely foreign concept to God then how did God know that surrender was what was necessary?

[The Tanager]

This one seems pretty reasonable to me

That's the scenario I've been talking about with Christianity.

Did Adam and Eve have a perfect human nature?

What do you mean by perfect human nature? It was capable of perfection. It wasn't forced perfection. Adam and Eve chose to set up on their own and, therefore, became imperfect.

How exactly did humans change our nature?

Using our free will we chose to live the self-reliant life, putting ourselves in the place of God. Our nature became one of rebellion.

Ok why exactly do we want a perfect batting average again? Can't we just "forgive" all John's strikes?

Because the abundant life God created for us means living in perfect harmony and surrender to our Creator, being guided by his knowledge and love in everything. Striking out, here, parallels our going out on our own. We don't just need those past mistakes forgotten, we need our nature to become one of no longer striking out. The scenario you said made sense above.

No omniscience is usually defined as knowing everything. I'm not sure where you got the "propositions" restriction from

The most accessible would be something like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Here is the address for the article on omniscience: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/ I'd trust that site over a general dictionary when talking about how philosophers have generally used the term omniscience.

What makes it logically impossible? Did you follow the link I posted earlier?

Here we see a man who cannot walk, coaching a football team. Let me repeat that
- He cannot walk
- He teaches people how to play football

Now if this guy can teach something despite being unable to do it himself, then why can't God?

I did and even responded to it as you clearly know and responded back to. He's not coaching them to walk. You don't have to physically play football in order to know tactics and strategy behind it. You have to have the capacity of understanding the tactics and strategy. Being unable to walk doesn't negate someone from having that ability. He is teaching what he has the capacity to know/do. He's teaching the tactics, the strategy. He can do those things. He is teaching those things.

You are asking God to teach something God doesn't know/can't do.

And God has a perfect mind!

Knowing more or having a more perfect mind can't overcome logical impossibilities. Adding more knowledge can't make someone know what a round square looks like, for instance. Adding more power can't make someone make a round square.

If Jack had kids, do you think it would be logically impossible for Jack to teach them how to walk?

No. Why? Because Jack isn't imparting a physical piece of himself to teach them. Jack is sharing his knowledge and knows how to hold their hands as they start to try to walk and encouraging them on and all of that. Jack is sharing what he knows.

If surrender was a completely foreign concept to God then how did God know that surrender was what was necessary?

I shouldn't have said concept. It's foreign to His nature. It's a foreign action is perhaps a better way to put it. But God knows that creatures should be in a surrendering relationship to their Creator by the very nature of them being created. It simply comes with being a creature, part of the definition. God knows that. God knows humans stopped doing this. God knows they need to get back to doing that for the intended relationship to get back on track.

[Justin108]

3. This update forgives our past errors and guides us into eventually being free from errors.

This one seems pretty reasonable to me

That's the scenario I've been talking about with Christianity.

Right. And I see no reason why that scenario cannot be achieved without Jesus' death. God can forgive our past errors and guide us into eventually being free from errors without Jesus needing to die

How exactly did humans change our nature?

Using our free will we chose to live the self-reliant life, putting ourselves in the place of God. Our nature became one of rebellion.

I don't recall making this decision

Because the abundant life God created for us means living in perfect harmony and surrender to our Creator

Right. But in order for us to have a perfect batting average, we are not allowed to make a single mistake. Ever. Is that true for humanity? Is humanity not allowed to make a mistake? Or is there a flaw in using "batting average" as an analogy?

The most accessible would be something like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Very well, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, omniscience is maximal or complete knowledge and so includes maximal and complete knowledge of the nature of surrender.

You are asking God to teach something God doesn't know/can't do.

God knows everything and being unable to do something (such as surrender) does not mean one is unable to teach it. You are the only one that insists on this.

God teaching X despite not being able to do X is not the same as a triangle with four sides. The latter is logically impossible, the former isn't.

Knowing more or having a more perfect mind can't overcome logical impossibilities

You are the only one who believes this is a logical impossibility

Adding more knowledge can't make someone know what a round square looks like

A round square is absolutely inconceivable. You literally cannot imagine it. This is not true for God teaching us how to surrender. It is the easiest thing in the world to imagine.

If Jack had kids, do you think it would be logically impossible for Jack to teach them how to walk?

No. Why? Because Jack isn't imparting a physical piece of himself to teach them.

Why would God need to impart a physical piece of himself to teach us?

Jack is sharing his knowledge

As is God

If surrender was a completely foreign concept to God then how did God know that surrender was what was necessary?

I shouldn't have said concept. It's foreign to His nature. It's a foreign action is perhaps a better way to put it. But God knows that creatures should be in a surrendering relationship to their Creator by the very nature of them being created. It simply comes with being a creature, part of the definition. God knows that. God knows humans stopped doing this. God knows they need to get back to doing that for the intended relationship to get back on track.

God designed the world and everything in it. This means he also designed the concept of surrender. If God designed the concept of surrender, then he knows everything there is to know about surrender, including how to surrender. If he knows everything about how to surrender, then he can teach it.

[The Tanager]

Right. And I see no reason why that scenario cannot be achieved without Jesus' death. God can forgive our past errors and guide us into eventually being free from errors without Jesus needing to die

And I've been telling why I think Jesus' death was necessary.

I don't recall making this decision

You don't ever recall making a decision without God's guidance?

Right. But in order for us to have a perfect batting average, we are not allowed to make a single mistake. Ever. Is that true for humanity? Is humanity not allowed to make a mistake? Or is there a flaw in using "batting average" as an analogy?

There is always a flaw in using any analogy if we are going to treat them as exact parallels because analogies are only meant to help us make a specific point to hopefully help the other member of the conversation understand that point we were trying to make. In this case I was using it to say that it's not just about regaining a 1.000 batting average, but becoming someone who does not strike out in the future, by our own choices.

Very well, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, omniscience is maximal or complete knowledge and so includes maximal and complete knowledge of the nature of surrender.

The article says that omniscience is maximal or complete knowledge and then in section 1 ("Defining Omniscience") it says that since this is the case "it is typically defined in terms of knowledge of all true propositions..."

What is the truth statement you are claiming God knows the truth of here? God knows creatures are capable of surrendering by their very nature. God knows Creators are not capable of surrendering by its very nature.

God knows everything and being unable to do something (such as surrender) does not mean one is unable to teach it. You are the only one that insists on this.

Knowing comes under God's omniscience; teaching is an action, a power and therefore, logically, comes under God's omnipotence. You've already agreed omnipotence doesn't include being able to do logically impossible things. You have given me no reason to think someone can teach what they don't know. The examples you've given don't show it.

You say I'm the only one insisting this is logically impossible. Yes, in the same way, that you are the only one insisting it's logically possible. Okay.

Why would God need to impart a physical piece of himself to teach us?

He wouldn't. I didn't say He did. You were using an example of someone not knowing how to physically walk being a sprinting coach as an example that we can teach what we don't know how to do. My point was that Jack's inability to physically walk doesn't have anything to do with not being able to teach strategies and techniques and proper exercises to stimulate the right kind of muscle growth, etc., because those aren't things that come from being able to walk or not, but come from Jack's fine ability to use his brain.

Jack is sharing his knowledge...something he knows how to do. That is, Jack knows what exercises to perform, what running techniques work better than others. Not through personal physical experience, but personal mental experience. That is in Jack's nature and, therefore, Jack can teach it and does. Surrender isn't in God's nature and, therefore, God cannot teach it until He takes on a nature that can surrender.

God designed the world and everything in it. This means he also designed the concept of surrender. If God designed the concept of surrender, then he knows everything there is to know about surrender, including how to surrender. If he knows everything about how to surrender, then he can teach it.

I'm saying surrender isn't something added onto created beings by God, but that it is a direct corollary to the very fact of being created. As a concept it just automatically is there. That God couldn't have creatures and choose not to have a concept of surrender. They go hand-in-hand, logically. And, therefore, surrender is, by definition, only the part of a created being.

[Justin108]

Right. And I see no reason why that scenario cannot be achieved without Jesus' death. God can forgive our past errors and guide us into eventually being free from errors without Jesus needing to die

And I've been telling why I think Jesus' death was necessary.

And I've been disagreeing vehemently

You don't ever recall making a decision without God's guidance?

I don't recall making a decision that would change my nature. If God wanted me to use his guidance with every single decision I make, why is it he doesn't appear to us all? How does God expect us to all instinctively know what his guidance is? Where can one find God's guidance?

There is always a flaw in using any analogy if we are going to treat them as exact parallels because analogies are only meant to help us make a specific point to hopefully help the other member of the conversation understand that point we were trying to make. In this case I was using it to say that it's not just about regaining a 1.000 batting average, but becoming someone who does not strike out in the future, by our own choices.

If a batter strikes out once but literally never strikes out ever again, he will still have an imperfect batting average. Please try a different analogy

What is the truth statement you are claiming God knows the truth of here?

Is it true that surrender requires X? Is it true that surrender requires Y? If God knows the answer to every one of these propositions, he will fully know surrender

God knows creatures are capable of surrendering by their very nature. God knows Creators are not capable of surrendering by its very nature.

Is method X how one surrenders? Is method Y how one surrenders? Using this method, God will eventually find a method where the answer is "yes". Ergo, he knows how to surrender and can teach it.

Knowing comes under God's omniscience; teaching is an action

And being omnipotent, God can perform any conceivable action.

You've already agreed omnipotence doesn't include being able to do logically impossible things.

Teaching something that God himself cannot do (such as surrender) is not logically impossible

You have given me no reason to think someone can teach what they don't know.

Nor do I need to because there is nothing that God does not know

You say I'm the only one insisting this is logically impossible. Yes, in the same way, that you are the only one insisting it's logically possible. Okay.

Burden of proof. You are the first one to claim it is logically impossible and so you must therefore demonstrate it. Why is it logically impossible?

I can demonstrate why a triangle with four sides is logically impossible.
- It is logically impossible because it is impossible by definition
- It is logically impossible because it is literally inconceivable

Compared to God teaching us how to surrender
- Nothing in its definition makes this impossible
- It is very easy to conceive

[The Tanager]

I don't recall making a decision that would change my nature. If God wanted me to use his guidance with every single decision I make, why is it he doesn't appear to us all? How does God expect us to all instinctively know what his guidance is? Where can one find God's guidance?

I'm sure there are plenty of decisions you don't remember making, but that doesn't necessarily mean you didn't make them. But in this case, Christianity wouldn't say you made original sin.

Using God's guidance and God appearing to us are two different things. We don't get God's guidance every time, according to Christianity, because of sin and how it has damaged our relationship to God. One can find God's guidance, according to Christianity, through a relationship restored by Jesus.

If a batter strikes out once but literally never strikes out ever again, he will still have an imperfect batting average. Please try a different analogy

I didn't say otherwise. Analogies are for specific points. This wasn't the one I brought it up for in post 18. I used it there to try to get at what you meant by using the word omnipotence. When a theist says something like 'its necessary for God to do such-and-such' because it's logically necessary (like saying God can't help us to repent without us actually unlearning all of our self-will, self-reliance because that is just what repent means), some people have come back and said, "Yeah, but isn't God omnipotent, so surely God can find a way to do it." That is, they are asking God to do something logically impossible as though adding more power will make the impossible possible.

I wasn't saying you were doing this, I was just trying to clarify if you were. You have seemed to agree that's not omnipotence.

In post 20 a turn began to occur with the analogy to talk about human nature. I never said, analogically, that in the end our 'sin batting average' will historically have always been 1.000 after Jesus' death restores us to our relationship with God. I said that it's leading our nature to become one of no longer striking out (in post 22)" and that it's about "becoming someone who does not strike out in the future, by our own choices (in post 24)". I'm not using the 1.000 batting average analogy there.

Is it true that surrender requires X? Is it true that surrender requires Y? If God knows the answer to every one of these propositions, he will fully know surrender

I see what you are saying, but God isn't imparting just a knowledge of how to surrender to us. God has taught us that all along. We know that and still don't do it perfectly. We need help actually constantly doing it. God is actually 'forming the letter' and can only do that by actually surrendering, which God can only do if He takes on a nature that can surrender. Christianity talks of God actually giving us the new human nature, bit by bit from the inside out, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We do it together.

The distinction would be something like a man who cannot move, but can still teach their child how to write certain letters, and a woman who can use her hands to form the letter right there with her child, teaching her in that physical way. Both are teaching from what they have the capacity for and only from that capacity; nothing not within that capacity. In the same way God can only teach from what is in God's capacity and surrender is not in the divine capacity.

Analogically, we are children who hear from the man how to form letters, but we just continue to mess it up. We need someone to actually help us form the letters.

Burden of proof. You are the first one to claim it is logically impossible and so you must therefore demonstrate it. Why is it logically impossible?

I can demonstrate why a triangle with four sides is logically impossible.
- It is logically impossible because it is impossible by definition
- It is logically impossible because it is literally inconceivable

First off, burden of proof shifts are cop outs. I claim it is logically impossible, you claim it is logically possible. We both have burdens for our beliefs. I bet you can demonstrate why a triangle with three sides is logically possible, too. And we have both been trying to demonstrate our side on this throughout our discussion, so it's not like either of us have been trying to shirk our burden.

[Justin108]

Using God's guidance and God appearing to us are two different things.

Yes but in order to effectively guide us, he will need to first appear to us. So while the two are not the same thing, one is needed to achieve the other

We don't get God's guidance every time, according to Christianity, because of sin and how it has damaged our relationship to God.

How would sin prevent God from telling us what we ought to do?

One can find God's guidance, according to Christianity, through a relationship restored by Jesus.

You're talking in circles. First you tell me we sinned because we didn't follow God's guidance, and now you're telling me that the only way to receive God's guidance is through Jesus. That doesn't make chronological sense. How could we have followed God's guidance when God's guidance didn't exist until Jesus came along?

I see what you are saying, but God isn't imparting just a knowledge of how to surrender to us. God has taught us that all along. We know that and still don't do it perfectly. We need help actually constantly doing it.

Yes and God can help us to actually constantly do it without Jesus needing to die

God is actually 'forming the letter' and can only do that by actually surrendering

What would have stopped him from making a robot named Jesus and using him as an example (forming the letter) of how to surrender? I mean if all of this was just a demonstration then he could have demonstrated without actually becoming Jesus

First off, burden of proof shifts are cop outs.

I didn't shift the burden of proof. You did

I claim it is logically impossible, you claim it is logically possible.

Yes and then I demonstrated what "logically impossible" means here...

I can demonstrate why a triangle with four sides is logically impossible.
- It is logically impossible because it is impossible by definition
- It is logically impossible because it is literally inconceivable

And then I demonstrated that the situation with God teaching us how to surrender cannot be demonstrated to be logically impossible. I can demonstrate why a triangle with four sides is logically impossible. Now it is your turn to demonstrate that God teaching us how to surrender is logically impossible. It is your claim after all so now you need to prove it

- Is God teaching us how to surrender impossible by definition?
- Is God teaching us how to surrender inconceivable?

If you answer no to the above then it is not logically impossible

[The Tanager]

Yes but in order to effectively guide us, he will need to first appear to us. So while the two are not the same thing, one is needed to achieve the other

Perhaps 'appear' is what is throwing me off. If you mean God must physically appear to us, then I disagree with you.

How would sin prevent God from telling us what we ought to do?

I don't think it prevents guidance from coming at us (we have a moral conscience, for instance), but I think our self-reliance keeps us from doing what we ought to do.

You're talking in circles. First you tell me we sinned because we didn't follow God's guidance, and now you're telling me that the only way to receive God's guidance is through Jesus. That doesn't make chronological sense. How could we have followed God's guidance when God's guidance didn't exist until Jesus came along?

I never said God's guidance didn't exist until Jesus came along. God's guidance was always there. With Sin our connection to that guidance is lost and results in the various individual sinful actions we could list off. This connection to God's guidance is restored by Jesus, according to Christianity.

Yes and God can help us to actually constantly do it without Jesus needing to die

I don't see how, but I'd just be repeating myself. Throw out a theory you think logically works and I'll share some thoughts about it.

What would have stopped him from making a robot named Jesus and using him as an example (forming the letter) of how to surrender? I mean if all of this was just a demonstration then he could have demonstrated without actually becoming Jesus

I don't think it is just a demonstration. I'm using an analogy to say what it is like in one aspect. We are humans. We need to know how to surrender as a human should to its Creator. So, God needed to become a human, not a robot.

I didn't shift the burden of proof. You did

I did no such thing. I didn't say: "I don't have to prove anything, you are the only one who does." I made a claim and shared why I thought that was the case. It seems obvious to me that you can't teach something you don't know how to do. I can't teach someone Jeet Kune Do because I don't know how to do it. How is it logically possible for me to teach Jeet Kune Do in my current situation?

You thought otherwise (about teaching things not in one's nature, not the example of Jeet Kune Do) and shared things you thought were counter examples and I responded as to why they didn't work as counterexamples.

- Is God teaching us how to surrender impossible by definition?
- Is God teaching us how to surrender inconceivable?

If you answer no to the above then it is not logically impossible

It's impossible by definition. You can only teach what you have in you.

[Justin108]

Yes but in order to effectively guide us, he will need to first appear to us. So while the two are not the same thing, one is needed to achieve the other

Perhaps 'appear' is what is throwing me off. If you mean God must physically appear to us, then I disagree with you.

Maybe not physically, but at the very least in a way we can be absolutely sure it's him that's guiding us. How does God currently guide us?

How would sin prevent God from telling us what we ought to do?

I don't think it prevents guidance from coming at us (we have a moral conscience, for instance), but I think our self-reliance keeps us from doing what we ought to do.

It's not that I'm ignoring God's guidance, I'm just not hearing it. Again I ask, how exactly is God guiding us?

Yes and God can help us to actually constantly do it without Jesus needing to die

I don't see how, but I'd just be repeating myself. Throw out a theory you think logically works and I'll share some thoughts about it.

Ok tell me exactly what needs to be achieved and I'll storm up a few ideas about how God would be able to achieve it

What would have stopped him from making a robot named Jesus and using him as an example (forming the letter) of how to surrender? I mean if all of this was just a demonstration then he could have demonstrated without actually becoming Jesus

I don't think it is just a demonstration. I'm using an analogy to say what it is like in one aspect. We are humans. We need to know how to surrender as a human should to its Creator. So, God needed to become a human, not a robot.

He could have made a robot that was like a man in every regard, except that he was being remotely controlled by God. Robo-Jesus would have done exactly everything he did, except this time there would have been no one actually suffering and no one would know the difference

It seems obvious to me that you can't teach something you don't know how to do.

As I've said repeatedly, God knows everything

It's impossible by definition. You can only teach what you have in you.

Calling it impossible by definition does not make it impossible by definition. I can demonstrate why a triangle with four sides is impossible by definition. A triangle, by definition, has three sides. The moment you give it a fourth side, you break its definition. Ergo, it is impossible by definition.

Can you demonstrate the same for God teaching us something that he himself cannot physically do? Define "teaching" and then explain why God cannot achieve this by definition.

[The Tanager]

Maybe not physically, but at the very least in a way we can be absolutely sure it's him that's guiding us. How does God currently guide us?

What do you mean 'absolutely' sure? What things are we absolutely sure about in our lives?

Ok tell me exactly what needs to be achieved and I'll storm up a few ideas about how God would be able to achieve it

We need to not only know how to surrender, but actually need help doing the surrendering, to no longer be self-reliant, but live in relationship with God without breaking our free will.

He could have made a robot that was like a man in every regard, except that he was being remotely controlled by God. Robo-Jesus would have done exactly everything he did, except this time there would have been no one actually suffering and no one would know the difference

Robo-Jesus would not have done exactly everything Jesus did. Jesus perfectly surrendered human nature in every respect to live in relationship with God through a free will. Robo-Jesus doesn't have a human nature, it's got a robot nature.

You seem here (to me) to be acting under the thought that Jesus won something by his death like it was a separate prize. If that was the case, then I think you'd be on to something, but I don't think that is what Christianity teaches us. I think it says Jesus' death completed the perfect human nature lived out. That's the prize, so to speak. But it's not a prize that is separate and therefore other methods can be subbed into the sentence. The prize was "won" simply because that is what Jesus went through. They are the same thing: Jesus' perfect surrender of human nature and the needed perfect human nature.

Calling it impossible by definition does not make it impossible by definition. I can demonstrate why a triangle with four sides is impossible by definition. A triangle, by definition, has three sides. The moment you give it a fourth side, you break its definition. Ergo, it is impossible by definition.

Can you demonstrate the same for God teaching us something that he himself cannot physically do? Define "teaching" and then explain why God cannot achieve this by definition.

I didn't limit it to just what someone cannot 'physically' do. You can't teach something you don't have within you (whether it is knowledge of a subject or an ability to do it).

Teach (merriam-webster): to impart the knowledge of <teach algebra>.

How can you impart something you do not possess? The moment you try, you break its definition. Therefore, it is impossible by definition. You can't teach algebra until you have learned it/know it. Without learning it you have no knowledge to impart and, therefore, are unable to teach. That's why I can't teach Jeet Kune Do, any various number of trade skills, etc.