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?

[The Tanager]

5. On the Trinity

That does not explain anything. All you've basically said is "we can't comprehend it".

Christians call things like the Trinity mysteries. This doesn't mean mystery in the sense that we can't comprehend anything about it, but that we can't fully comprehend it. I'm mainly saying that it isn't illogical.

Define "person" and define "being", then tell me how it is that one being can be several persons

I'm not sure what the best definitions are. I'm open to trying to pin that down, but we really just need to see they are different, I think. Humans, cats, dogs, rocks all have being. They are things that exist. Personality involves having intelligence, a will, expressing itself, among other things. Rocks don't have personhood. A rock is one being in no persons. We do have personhood; one being in one person. There is nothing illogical about another being being more than one person. Different than us? Yes. Transcending our limited understanding, sure, but not going against the laws of logic.

If you say God is one being has 3 personalities then you are literally saying God has multiple personalities just like someone with multiple personality disorder.

But for a tri-personal being, it wouldn't be a disorder. We call it a disorder for us, because we are a being that is only one person.

The fact of the matter is that if one being has a thousand different personalities, it does not change the fact that they are all the same being. Therefore, a being cannot be perfect and imperfect at the same time.

God isn't perfect and imperfect at the same in Christianity. Being a human does not mean being imperfect.

[Justin108]

Ok. Prove to me that you can't fly (that is, without the aid of an aircraft). If you simply come back to me and said "I tried but I can't", wouldn't that be proof? At the very least, it's proof that you can't fly (or at least that you don't know how yet).

Do you really think my word is a good reason to accept a claim I'm making? If so, why aren't you compelled to believe in God's existence?

We're back to radial claims requiring radical evidence. If you told me, for example, that you can't swim, I will believe you because this is not a radical claim. If you said you tried to fly but couldn't, then I would believe you because the inability to fly is not at all radical. In fact, it is expected.

I tried to change my beliefs. I failed. So either...
a) I can't
b) I don't know how

If you think it's b) then can you please be so kind as to tell me step-by-step how to make myself believe in God?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by trying to change your beliefs. It seems that you are asking me to go against what I believe to be the case. I believe Santa doesn't exist. And you seem to be asking me, given that, could you choose to go against that belief. But that means believing what i don't actually believe (for whatever reasons I hold that belief), which is the logical impossibility I talked about earlier. Of course I can't believe what I disbelieve.

Ok so then it's logically impossible for me to believe in God. I don't believe in God, so asking me to believe in what I don't believe in is logically impossible. Right?

The part in bold seems to be where your conversion officially starts. What strikes me is the fact that it seems your conversion was solely based on desire. They talked about a God that wanted a relationship, that loves you despite the fact that you're a moral mess, etc. You liked the idea and figured "yes, I'll believe in this God". No offence but if this is your reason for converting then it is entirely irrational. Believing in something just because it sounds nice is not a good reason to believe in it.

I don't think that is accurate. The camp opened me up to even considering the idea that God might want a relationship with me (as opposed to just wanting me to be good).

Are you telling me that up until this point, you have not once considered this?

That this kind of God might exist.

Literally anything "might" exist. So what about this possible God convinced you?

Part of me was really hoping that kind of God existed, but I didn't believe it was true because of that hope. I needed it to be backed up further.

And when in your conversion was this belief backed up?

I still had doubts, I prayed for God to show up, and I feel God did respond. And I feel God has responded clearly at other times.

What do you mean "I feel God did respond"? Can you describe the sensation? How do you know this sensation was in fact God?

Can you describe this sensation? How is it you know this sensation was in fact God? Are there literally zero other explanations for what you felt?

No, there are other explanations. That is why I think choice is involved.

Ok why didn't you choose to believe that the sensation was something else? See I don't have this ability. I cannot choose as you do to believe that something is caused by something of my choosing. I cannot choose to believe that thunder is caused by Zeus or that winter is caused by Ice Giants. If you have that ability then good for you. I don't

One line of reasoning to support my view is that people looking at the same pieces of evidence come to different conclusions.

I've already offered a rebuttal. People are different. Just because the same amount of evidence convinces different people in different ways does not mean that it is a matter of choice. It can still very much be automatic. I enjoy spicy food. Others don't. This difference between us does not mean I choose to enjoy spicy food. Differences in responses do not mean it's due to choice.

If beliefs automatically followed, I don't see why we come to different conclusions.

Let's apply this logic to other instances. So your argument is this...

P1: Several people get the same evidence for God
P2: Some believe, some don't
C: Belief is a choice

Applying this argument elsewhere

P1: Several people eat the same food
P2: Some enjoy it, some don't
C: Taste is a choice

As you can see, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise.

You say one side is just more gullible. I don't see how you can back that claim up.

gullible
lb()l/
adjective
easily persuaded to believe something; credulous


Given that the people in the scenario you describe are more easily persuaded than others, they are gullible by definition.

I know atheists and theists that, in other areas I know them in, are no more gullible than the other.

You can be gullible in one area without being gullible in another.

But I'm not going to say the other side is more gullible, simply because they disagree with me.

I didn't say that. I said they are more gullible because they are more easily persuaded. This is, after all, the very definition of gullible.

If your view is true, then yes, one side is more gullible than the other.

Gullibility has nothing to do with whether a claim is true or not. If I said, for example, that I killed a tiger with my bare hands, if you believed me you would be gullible. Even if I actually did kill a tiger with my bare hands. Gullible does not mean "easily fooled by false beliefs". Gullible means "easily persuaded to believe something". It doesn't matter if the claim is true or not. If it is easy to convince you, then you are gullible.

I'm taking that evidence into consideration, but this doesn't mean it is necessarily forcing my belief. What is your argument that evidence doesn't matter when talking about choice? It doesn't compel, but it still matters.

It does compel. If I was on a jury and I saw video footage of the defendant killing a man, can I still choose to believe that he didn't?

I didn't ask if you would. I asked if you would be able to? Or would it be literally impossible to change your belief?

In order to change my belief due to a bribe, I would first have to change my belief that bribes can be a source of truth.

Well since belief is a choice, I see no reason why you can't simply choose to believe bribes are a source of truth.

And, even if I did change that belief, we would still need to analyze why I changed that belief to address our disagreement.

The reasons are irrelevant to me. All I want to know is if you are able to sincerely choose to believe that Santa exists. If belief is a choice, you should be able to choose to believe in Santa

But let's say I was compelled to have the belief that bribes are a good reason to change one's beliefs.

Why are you being "compelled" all of a sudden? Aren't we working under the premise that belief is a choice here?

Would it follow that all beliefs are like this?

I specifically chose "belief in Santa" as an example because it can be compared to God in that they both deal with the belief in the literal existence of an entity. So while not all beliefs are necessarily like this, these two should in theory operate the same as they both apply to the belief in the existence of an entity.

Am I now compelled to change my belief that Santa exists? No. It would be logically possible for me to try to hold out for more money before changing my belief about Santa's existence.

Again, why are you "compelled" all of a sudden? Fine. I increase the offer to however much money you would want. Would it be possible for you to change your belief in Santa?

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

1,2,5 - certainly not what I would call radical proof
3 - better, but not quite. These are still nothing but claims
4 - that depends how many other causes you have ruled out
6 - I have seen a lot of people resembling Santa in my life so no...
7 - bingo. This would constitute radical proof

And could you spell out what radical evidence would mean in the case of the existence of God? It seems that you think this means directly speaking to you.

Yes that would be a good example of radical evidence. If you would like, you can make a list as you did with the Santa example and I can point out which examples I would consider to be radical evidence?

But you want to hear God's voice audibly, right? How do we know for certain that Satan's voice is blocked and that the audible voice you hear would actually be God's?

I've been answering this question over several posts now... I would expect God to not allow me to be deceived. And, frankly, even if it was Satan's voice, I would still end up believing in God because for Satan to exist, God would have to exist.

1. Some non-theists, upon coming to belief, would immediately reject a loving relationship with God.

Well a non-theist already lacks a relationship with God so what would it matter if they "immediately reject" this relationship with God? The end result would be the same as the starting point - no relationship. So what's there to lose in trying?

Secondly, as an ex-Christian who once sought out a relationship with God, I would welcome such a relationship. I became an atheist not because I didn't want a relationship, but rather because I found no reason to keep believing in God.

2. Some would have an improper relationship with God. That is, the person may not recognize God as Good, reject moral transformation, lacking the right desire for God (instead just wanting gifts, experiences, to escape punishment), being jealous of God's power, considering himself an authority in the formation of the relationship.

As a Christian, I used to agree with God's morality. It was only after I stopped believing in him that I started questioning his morals.

Secondly, if we do end up forming an improper relationship, what's stopping God from ending the relationship? God might say to me "while you believe in me, you do not agree with my morals and so I reject you". At least at this point, God will have a good enough reason to damn me rather than "he does not believe in me"

3. Some could just abandon the relationship later in life (because of disbelief in God's goodness, jealousy of God, hatred of God's allowing suffering, a love of sin) which may result in the short time of relationship having no or even negative value to God and the person.

So because I might end the relationship eventually, God just figures "let's not bother starting one at all"? Besides, how is this different from theists? A believer can abandon his relationship with God just like someone who gets proof. I don't see why this would be a reasonable justification for withholding proof.

4. Greater goods of relationship would obtain with divine silence. These may include a greater total number of everlasting relationships, more quality in those relationships.

In what way is it a "greater good" to believe in God without proof?

5. More goods around the world could obtain from God's hiddenness (relationship goods, justice, mercy, moral knowledge, seeking of God, uncoerced moral choices).

You keep saying "it's better if God hid himself" but you don't give a shred of justification. You throw out words like "justice" and "mercy" but you don't bother explaining why God's hiddenness is important for us to have justice and mercy?

6. God can still have a relationship with someone during their disbelief.

So my disbelief doesn't matter then?

[Justin108]

Well, it would be harder odds to roll a 6 on two die 10 out of 20 times in a row, but I never said the odds were the same. My point was that improbable and actualy impossible are two different things.

I already agreed that it is possible on a technicality but still virtually impossible to the point where expecting it is utterly unreasonable.

Did Adam and Eve "wipe out who we are" when they changed our nature?

We weren't anything before we were born, so how could they wipe out who we were?

Then there's your solution. If God simply fixes our nature before we are born, then he wouldn't need to "wipe out who we are" in order to revert our nature back to how Adam and Eve's nature was before their fall

No I am asking (2a) and (2b) to be equally attractive to our nature. Using the tiger analogy again, I want (2a) and (2b) to be more like deer meat(2a) or goat meat (2b). The tiger is equally as likely to choose either one because it's in its nature to crave meat. As it stands, however, (2a) is deer meat while (2b) is a carrot. The tiger will never choose the carrot because it's not naturally attracted to the carrot.

But Christianity says that both surrender and self-reliance are attractive.

Are they equally attractive? Are they even close to being equally attractive? The fact that every single person in history has chosen (2a) over (2b) clearly illustrates that (2a) is far more attractive to our nature.

But, what does 'break' refer to, analogically?

Losing our ability to perfectly surrender.

I have made many choices yet I have never lost the ability to read, write, ride a bike, drive... why would choices lead to me losing the ability to surrender perfectly? Especially if God made it an innate ability. You cannot unlearn an innate ability

Certainly you are aware of people who have had an accident and had to relearn how to walk or talk?

Yes but the causal link here is clear. Nerve damage, brain damage, etc. There is a scientific and biological explanation for this kind of damage. Is there any such explanation for our losing our ability to perfectly surrender?

[Justin108]

Assuming original sin isn't true, history still shows us we mess ourselves up. So, we still need a cure.

A cure for what exactly?

What happens when your pet dragon just doesn't get it and isn't breathing fire? If you were a dragon you would have the best chance of teaching your pet dragon how to breathe fire

The robot dragon I mentioned earlier knows everything a dragon does. If I can teach him how to breathe fire by becoming a dragon, then my robot dragon can also teach him how to breathe fire. See, I'm very good at making robot dragons. The robot dragons I make are identical to real dragons in every way. If a real dragon can teach him, then so can my robot dragon.

or you mean that this machine actually makes the dragon breathe fire (no matter what it wills to do)

No the machine implants the knowledge of how to breathe fire. Once I use this machine, breathing fire will be as easy as breathing air to the dragon. The dragon can still refuse to breathe, but at least it knows how to if it so chooses to breathe fire.

I don't mean to imply that we never get things right. No one (besides Jesus) has ever chosen to surrender as a way of life, in all instances.

And, thus, we need God's help to do something He's taught us how to do, but we don't do it. We need help actually doing it.

If he taught us how to do it, why would we need help doing it? If I know how to write, then I won't need anyone to hold my hand and "form the letter" with me.

Because to lead, to hand hold us, God must be able to surrender. God can't in a Divine nature alone.

Do humans have a divine nature?

God cannot surrender, but he can turn into a human (who can surrender). Is being human in God's nature? No. Then how can God even become human in the first place if being human is outside his nature?

The ability to take on a human nature is in God's nature. But God can't surrender until He takes on that human nature.

How do you know what is in God's nature and what isn't?

Why does it mean He was not completely human? What is your argument for that?

If he was human and God, then that means he was more than just human. If he was 100% human, he would not be God as well. If he was less than 100% human, then he was not completely human.

A being cannot be human (Jesus) and not human (God) at the same time without breaking the law of non-contradiction.

This is true if it is logically impossible for one kind of being to take on a different nature. Do you have an argument for that for me to consider?

Is it possible for one being to take on a different nature? If so, why couldn't God just take up the nature of surrendering without completely turning human?

We can't assume that being God means the inability to take on a human nature.

Then we also cannot assume that being God means the inability to perfectly surrender.

That's not what I claimed. God, as God, cannot have the ability to surrender. This is a Triune God, one being in three persons (more on that in the next post). God must take on a human nature to gain the ability to surrender.

Why? Why can't he gain the ability to surrender without taking on a complete human nature? I see no logical contradiction in God simply taking bits and pieces of human nature to his liking. I see no reason why God could not take the ability to perfectly surrender while leaving the rest of being human behind.

[Justin108]

That does not explain anything. All you've basically said is "we can't comprehend it".

Christians call things like the Trinity mysteries. This doesn't mean mystery in the sense that we can't comprehend anything about it, but that we can't fully comprehend it. I'm mainly saying that it isn't illogical.

You insist it isn't illogical but you cannot demonstrate that it isn't illogical.

Define "person" and define "being", then tell me how it is that one being can be several persons

I'm not sure what the best definitions are. I'm open to trying to pin that down, but we really just need to see they are different, I think.

Ok let's make this simpler. What's the difference between a "being" and a "person"?

Humans, cats, dogs, rocks all have being

I have never heard of anyone calling a rock a "being".

There is nothing illogical about another being being more than one person.

Maybe... but it is logically impossible for one being to have different and contradictory traits. God cannot be said to have the ability to surrender and not have the ability to surrender at the same time. Yet, as you said earlier, Jesus has the ability to surrender while God does not, yet they are both the same being.

God isn't perfect and imperfect at the same in Christianity. Being a human does not mean being imperfect.

Being human does, however, mean we are non-divine. As you said in post 70 "God must be able to surrender. God can't in a Divine nature alone." So if God's divine nature prevents him from surrendering, why does his divine nature not prevent him from becoming a non-divine entity (human)?

[MuffMaYne]

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?

I think being able to forgive without a price is just a thing we are able to do. It neither good not bad, it just depends on the situation.

Is God lacking in some way for not forgiving sin without any price? No, but he is in a different position than we are. We can try to understand God from a humans perspective. He must be just, and to be just a price must be paid.

[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?

I think being able to forgive without a price is just a thing we are able to do. It neither good not bad, it just depends on the situation.

Is God lacking in some way for not forgiving sin without any price? No, but he is in a different position than we are. We can try to understand God from a humans perspective. He must be just, and to be just a price must be paid.

Is it just for an innocent man (Jesus) to pay the price for guilty men?

[MuffMaYne]

[Replying to post 77 by Justin108]

Is it acceptable for me to pay someones $1000 debt? Its my money. It was his life to give if he pleased. If the judge will accept it, if the criminal will accept it, and Jesus is willing, then by all means, yes.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 77 by Justin108]

Is it acceptable for me to pay someones $1000 debt? Its my money. It was his life to give if he pleased. If the judge will accept it, if the criminal will accept it, and Jesus is willing, then by all means, yes.

Why are you comparing a death sentence with financial debt? Let's compare apples with apples, death sentences with death sentences. If a serial killer was sentenced to death and an innocent friend of his offered to be executed on his behalf, would it be justice to allow this innocent friend to die on behalf of the serial killer? Would you be fine with a serial killer being set free because his friend offered to take his place?

[Bust Nak]

Is it acceptable for me to pay someones $1000 debt? Its my money. It was his life to give if he pleased. If the judge will accept it, if the criminal will accept it, and Jesus is willing, then by all means, yes.

Why would a just judge allow innocent man to die in place for guilty men? You are presenting a question begging argument.