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]

Then you can't say we had the free will choice to surrender. If we cannot choose to perfectly surrender, then we cannot be said to have the free choice to surrender. Yet earlier you said...

Let me clarify what I was saying there, for I think it was confusing because I was giving you more information than what you were directly asking without clearly explaining I was doing that. I was saying surrender means making our decisions in concert with God (i.e., necessarily involves intervention from God). Because "in concert with God" requires God's intervention into our decision making process, our lives. So, in one sense, logically, surrendering requires God's intervention, by definition. I was trying to better explain my more general idea of surrender, but this involved taking out the "through Jesus" part. I'm sorry for that confusion.

I then went and answered your question how I thought you meant it directly. You seemed to me to be asking if I thought we could have chosen to perfectly surrender without Jesus' incarnation ever happening. To that, I said yes we could have. And this does not contradict what I earlier said in point (2) of that earlier 16 (or however many) point post that "Humans didn't have to, but we ended up choosing to be self-reliant and not surrender." Long before Jesus' incarnation we had the free will choice to surrender and humanity has chosen not to, which then brings about the need for Jesus' incarnation to fix the problem, since God doesn't want to negate our free will or just replace us with new, different beings.

How and when did humans "fall"?

It may be in what many Christians believe about original sin, that in Adam and Eve (whether that is a historical or mythical story) sin entered all human natures after them. But if you don't believe that, it would still be the Christian belief that every human falls on their own.

That's simply not fair. Why didn't God give all of us this same choice?

Perhaps God did. Some Christians would say that everyone freely chooses to sin on their own and there is no Sin nature we all inherit. But many other Christians think original Sin is real and now all humans inherit a Sin nature. Is that fair? No. So what?

As I've presented it, it would not actually be that God is up there and says a relationship with me is a separate prize for how you freely choose to act. 'Choose to surrender to me and I'll give you the prize of a relationship. You won me for being good or choosing right.' The surrender and the relationship are actually the exact same thing.

It would be unfair and unloving for God to say here is a prize for those who freely choose to surrender and here is a punishment for those who freely choose not to surrender and then punish those who were simply forced into not surrendering. The loving God would take pity on those who didn't have the freedom to choose and made the wrong "choices." But the surrender and the "prize" aren't separate things. They are the same. God can't, logically, give someone the relationship (one of surrender) without them actually surrendering.

If humans are broken and can't surrender their lives to God, it doesn't matter if it was their fault or just one human's fault. They still need to be fixed. If a robot was broken and then fixed and could feel gratitude about being fixed, would it say, "Thanks for fixing me, but it wasn't my fault I became broken in the first place, so I don't think you should have fixed me?"

So, what are you asking here? For God to give you the prize of a relationship without you actually surrendering? But they are the same thing. For God to leave you broken because it wasn't your fault you were broken? Why does it matter who's fault it was? Isn't it better to be fixed then broken? For God to fix you, but make you a robot, with no freedom of your will?

Why did God not give us this new nature originally? Why didn't he create us with a nature that can choose to be self-reliant but doesn't?

You are asking for a logical absurdity. You are asking for a nature DETERMINED to CHOOSE self-reliance. Determining our choice, makes it not a choice. This negates free will.

God can create us with (1) a nature that cannot go wrong or (2) with a nature that can go right or wrong. The first is a determined will, not a free will. The second can lead to two possibilities: (a) we use that freedom and freely choose to be self-reliant or (b) we use that freedom and freely choose to surrender. God is responsible for giving humanity these two possibilities (2a/2b), but we choose which possibility. For God to make sure the second possibility happens (2b) is determinism and negates the 'freely' part of that. That possibility simply becomes the very first option above (1): God creates us with a nature that cannot/will not go wrong.

Once God gives humanity a choice (2), God logically cannot determine which possibility will occur (2a/2b), because then there isn't a choice, there aren't two possibilities: only one possibility is open (2b) and it's the one God has determined to happen, which makes it the same as (1).

I suppose this is where the Holy Spirit comes in. And the Holy Spirit could help us "form the letter" without Jesus ever needing to come to earth and dying

The Holy Spirit doesn't "have hands," though. The Holy Spirit doesn't have a human nature and, therefore, cannot surrender in a human way (i.e., "form the letter"). So, the Holy Spirit could not help us here. God needs a human nature. God takes on a human nature in the Person of Jesus.

The ability to breathe is instinctive, so why isn't the ability to surrender instinctive as well?

This would negate free will. Yes, but aren't we negating the free will to breathe or not? No, we have a physical limitation on our body, but we can still choose right/wrong actions which is what free will is talking about. We can have meaningful choices within certain physical limitations, like automatic breathing.

God can do the first. Then we will never need to "learn" how to surrender. Isn't that what Jesus did? Teach us how to surrender?

God did the first, according to Christianity. This is the Law (on the hearts of Gentiles, but in the hearts and history/writings of the Jews). Knowing what to do is NOT the same as actually doing it. We have failed in doing it. (This then muddies our ability to know what we should be doing in every case, but that is beside the point which would hold even if we perfectly knew what we were supposed to be doing).

Jesus doesn't just reteach us how to surrender. Jesus surrendered his human nature perfectly. This gives God the ability to surrender with us, which is doing something more than just teaching us how to surrender.

So we knew how to all along? Then why do you keep telling me that God is "teaching us how to surrender"? If we already have the knowledge and ability, then what exactly is God teaching us?

Yes, we knew how to all along. But I don't keep telling you that God is teaching us how to surrender. I keep distinguishing between teaching us how to surrender (analogically, teaching a kid what hand movements to make to form a letter)...we knew how to do this...and helping us actually surrender (analogically, holding a kid's hand to actually form the letter they can't form just from learning what hand movements they should be making) because although we know how to, we don't actually surrender.

We had the ability, but we've lost it. We had the knowledge and still do (although we have muddied it, but again that is beside the point because even if we had perfect knowledge of how to do it, we still don't do it...we've lost the ability either through our fault or through another human's fault).

[Justin108]

No but if it's a choice, none of this should matter. Can you choose to look at a duck and believe it's a giraffe? No. It is simply impossible to make this choice.

But not everything is like this. Choosing to pursue a relationship with someone, for instance, is very different than determining what kind of animal you see.

You are shifting the focus from belief in God to relationship with God. I never said it's impossible to choose who to pursue a relationship with, I said it's impossible to choose what to believe. So why are you talking about relationships all of a sudden?

How can we be expected to pursue a relationship with God when we don't believe he exists?

I could choose to stop looking at further challenges to my belief or choose to believe that other beliefs must be lies and things like that.

Right. And I never did that. I never stopped looking for challenges to my belief. But despite looking for challenges to my beliefs, none have arisen that changes my belief to believe in God. At the end, my belief in God is still not a choice. I cannot choose to believe in God. I can choose to look for evidence of God (which I have done and still do), but I cannot choose to believe in God

Then it's God's fault that I don't believe in him

How do you get from "God doesn't communicate with everyone the same" or "God doesn't directly communicate with everyone by audible voice" to "therefore, it's God's fault that I don't believe in Him"? What's the second premise in that argument?

Here's my argument:

Premise 1: If God wanted me to believe in him, he would know exactly what it would take to convince me
Premise 2: I do not believe in God as I have never seen or experienced anything that would lead me to believe in God
Conclusion 1: Since God did not introduce me to any experience that would convince me that he exists, he must therefore either not want me to believe in him or he is entirely indifferent on whether or not I believe in him

Since I, as a mortal man, cannot find proof that God exists on my own, I cannot believe in God until God decides to provide me with said proof. Ergo, God is at fault for my disbelief as he is the only one that could get me to believe in him.

It's simple. If God truly wants me to believe in him, then this direct audible communication (or something equally convincing) is required.

Why? What's the connecting premise that makes this necessarily true?

Premise 1: If God wants me to believe in him, God can effortlessly make me believe in him
Premise 2: I do not believe in him
Conclusion: God must not want me to believe in him

2. It is unfair that God communicates directly to some and proves himself to them while others are forced to go on faith. Why did Thomas get to ask for proof but I don't?

But that doesn't mean you don't have enough reason to believe.

1. What reason is there to believe in him?
2. Whether there is some shred of a reason to believe in him, it is still unfair that I do not get as much reason to believe in him as Moses and Paul did

I never claimed God treats everyone the same, nor do I think God needs to because we are different kinds of people.

Right. And I am a skeptic. So if God were to consider how different I am to people like yourself, God would realize that I require more proof than you do

I would expect a benevolent God to either stop the devil from tricking me this way or otherwise warn me that the devil has spoken to me. What loving parent would allow their children to be deceived by such an intruder?

First, it assumes God hasn't warned humanity what God is like and what the devil is like.

Right. So it should be even easier for me to recognize God then. If this voice does not entice me to do evil, then I can assume it is not the devil.

But even if I failed to acknowledge this warning: what parent would let their children be just because they have already warned them in the past? If you told your child to not take candy from a stranger and you saw your child do exactly that, would you just leave them to it? "Well I told them not to so let them get abducted. See if I care".

Christianity would say God has done that, best in the person of Jesus and has been recorded in various events and teachings in the Bible.

I am talking about God communicating with me directly. Reading about God supposedly doing it 2000 years ago is not the same.

But that God has also implanted a conscious in us that would help us discern whether a voice was from God or not. If the voice tells you to kill your child, it's not from God, for instance.

Well there you go. All the more reason for God to talk to me audibly without needing to worry that I will be suspicious over whether he is the devil or not.

You obviously don't feel good reason to trust the best sources we have of Jesus' life and the Bible as a whole. That doesn't mean there aren't good reasons.

What good reasons are there?

Second, this line of thinking seems to me to be the same as thinking a loving God couldn't possibly allow evil to happen to God's creatures. But that means no free will.

How would God proving his existence to me violate my free will?

I'm questioning why you think anything less isn't enough.

What do you suggest would be enough to convince skeptics who do not believe the claims of the Bible?

Where does surrender come in in all of this?

Surrender, as I'm using it, is equivalent to "being in relationship with God, making decisions in concert with God."

I am baffled as to why you would use the word "surrender" as meaning "being in a relationship with God". But if this is what you mean by "surrender" then this changes your entire argument.

You keep telling me that "God can't surrender because it's not in his nature", but if "surrender" simply means "be in a relationship" then how is this "not in God's nature"?

If surrender is simply being in a relationship with God, why did Jesus have to die in order for us to be in a relationship with God?

Then you cannot call Jesus' death him "forming the letter". The Holy Spirit is God "forming the letter". So if the Holy Spirit is God "forming the letter", then what is Jesus' death?

Let's fill in the analogy

teaching us to surrender = teaching us to write
Holy Spirit = holding our hand and forming the letter
Jesus' death = ???

Jesus' death was God "forming a letter" of surrendering human nature to God in death (let's call it the letter Z). This is God forming a letter in the same way that I form the letter Z.

This analogy does not fit. "Forming the letter" is a task that needs to happen in the present. If someone is helping me "form the letter" then this is happening now. What happened with Jesus happened 2000 years ago so you cannot compare this to "forming the letter". How can someone help me "form the letter" if I'm not even born yet? I'd suggest a new analogy because this one makes absolutely no sense

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is God holding our hand to "form the letter" of surrendering human nature to God in every situation, including our upcoming death.

You just told me Jesus was God "forming the letter" and now all of a sudden it's the Holy Spirit "forming the letter"? Again, this analogy makes no sense. Please find another one.

This is God helping us to surrender in every human situation (i.e., form the letters A-Z) in the same way I am helping my daughter by holding her hand to form the letters A-Z.

How could someone help their daughter "form the letter" when their daughter wasn't even alive yet? Jesus helping us "form the letter" 2000 years ago makes as much sense as me teaching my child to write 20 years before she was born. It makes absolutely no sense

We had the choice to surrender to God or not, yes. On our own we choose not to. Jesus' death opens back up the possibility of restoring our relationship.

Why didn't we have the possibility to change our mind before Jesus?

We had the choice to surrender to God or not, yes. On our own we choose not to. Jesus' death opens back up the possibility of restoring our relationship. Jesus doesn't force that on us, though, we have a choice in the matter.

So we once had a choice to follow God or be independent. Then we chose to be independent. And now we have the choice to choose Jesus that then allows us to choose to follow God? Jesus seems like an unnecessary middleman. If I would choose to follow Jesus, why wouldn't I choose to follow God in Jesus' absence?

Imagine for a moment that Jesus never existed. Would you choose to follow God?

God gained that ability? So God can surrender now? (and by "now" I don't mean 2000 years ago, I mean now. Can God surrender now?)

Jesus still has a human nature and, yes, Christians would say is still surrendering that nature perfectly.

Wait so Jesus and God are two different entities?

No, because the Holy Spirit would have no freely, descriptively perfect human nature to transform us with. But He could just create one from scratch, because He is omnipotent, right? Yes, but this would negate our free will and really just replace us with a new, different person.

How would God creating the Holy Spirit with a perfect human nature negate our free will...? And why would the Holy Spirit helping us "form the letter" negate our free will? If we willingly accept the Holy Spirit, then we can accept the Holy Spirit's help in teaching us how to surrender. I see no violation of free will

[Justin108]

I then went and answered your question how I thought you meant it directly. You seemed to me to be asking if I thought we could have chosen to perfectly surrender without Jesus' incarnation ever happening. To that, I said yes we could have.

Then why is it that not a single person has ever successfully made this choice? If no one has ever succeeded in a particular task it suggests that this task is likely impossible. In which case, we cannot be said to have had a "free choice"

It may be in what many Christians believe about original sin, that in Adam and Eve (whether that is a historical or mythical story) sin entered all human natures after them.

Why would God allow us to inherit the sins and mistakes of Adam? Why not have all of us be born with a clean slate the way Adam and Eve were born?

If humans are broken and can't surrender their lives to God, it doesn't matter if it was their fault or just one human's fault.

Yes it does! If I am broken because of someone else's mistakes then this is unjust. For God to allow this would mean God is unjust. If God were just, he would allow us all the same chances that Adam and Eve had.

They still need to be fixed. If a robot was broken and then fixed and could feel gratitude about being fixed, would it say, "Thanks for fixing me, but it wasn't my fault I became broken in the first place, so I don't think you should have fixed me?"

If God condemns us for not being fixed when it was someone else's fault we are broken, then God would be unjust. What happens to those who aren't "fixed"?

So, what are you asking here? For God to give you the prize of a relationship without you actually surrendering?

I am asking God to give me the same clean slate he gave Adam and Eve at birth.

Why did God not give us this new nature originally? Why didn't he create us with a nature that can choose to be self-reliant but doesn't?

You are asking for a logical absurdity. You are asking for a nature DETERMINED to CHOOSE self-reliance.

I am using your wording here. If it's absurd then it's because you made it absurd.

So, the new nature can choose to be self-reliant, but doesn't.

God can create us with (1) a nature that cannot go wrong or (2) with a nature that can go right or wrong.

So we start of as (2)... then Jesus does his thing.... and then what? With what nature do we end up with? Still (2)? Then what changed? What exactly did Jesus do to our nature?

The ability to breathe is instinctive, so why isn't the ability to surrender instinctive as well?

This would negate free will.

No it wouldn't. Giving us an ability does not negate free will. Forcing us to use that ability does. I never suggested God force us to use the ability, I simply suggested he gives us the ability (that is, the knowledge of knowing how to surrender).

God did the first, according to Christianity. This is the Law (on the hearts of Gentiles, but in the hearts and history/writings of the Jews).

No. The law would be telling us how to breathe. What I'm suggesting is God giving us the ability to breathe.

I keep distinguishing between teaching us how to surrender (analogically, teaching a kid what hand movements to make to form a letter)...we knew how to do this...and helping us actually surrender

Jesus surrendering does not help us surrender... But keep in mind that earlier you defined "surrender" as "having a relationship with God". Why did Jesus need to come to earth to gain the ability to have a relationship with us? This makes no sense. If we define "surrender" as "having a relationship" then God can surrender (under this definition of surrender)

[The Tanager]

You are shifting the focus from belief in God to relationship with God. I never said it's impossible to choose who to pursue a relationship with, I said it's impossible to choose what to believe. So why are you talking about relationships all of a sudden?

Because, to me, when Christianity talks about being a believer in God, it's talking about choosing to trust and follow God, which is a relationship. That's why I contrasted it against your example of "choosing" what category to put our sense data of a certain animal in. I also think belief in the existence of God is a third kind of belief.

The Christian use of belief in God was why I earlier brought up the example about choosing to trust my friend or not. I've had two kinds of past experience with them (lying to hide their addiction and being honest and sober). I can choose to trust them or distrust them based on our past experiences and what I think I'm observing about them in the present or even base my belief on simply what I want to be true or probably a number of other different competing influences. In that way I think many of our beliefs involve free choices.

Why do you think we have no control over our beliefs? Sure, we can't believe we are looking at a duck when we see a giraffe before us (once we know what those words mean), but I don't see why this is a comparable "choice" to either one's beliefs about whether God exists or beliefs about whether to trust and follow this God or not. Beliefs of the kind we are talking about (like whether God exists), seem to me to have more to do with trying to interpret various sense data, fit it all together, taking into account logic, etc.

How can we be expected to pursue a relationship with God when we don't believe he exists?

I agree we can't. And believing God does not exist could also cause us to misunderstand if God was actually trying to communicate with us. God, if Christianity is true, will meet each person where they are. A person doesn't think God could even possibly exist and God should be expected to meet them there. A person thinks it's possible, but not probable and God should be expected to meet them there. Concerning ourselves with whether God is telling us something specific, or that it would be better for us to do this or that comes later.

Right. And I never did that. I never stopped looking for challenges to my belief. But despite looking for challenges to my beliefs, none have arisen that changes my belief to believe in God. At the end, my belief in God is still not a choice. I cannot choose to believe in God. I can choose to look for evidence of God (which I have done and still do), but I cannot choose to believe in God

Then how do theists and atheists look at the same info and come to different conclusions? If there is no choice involved anywhere in that process, what accounts for the difference?

Here's my argument:

Premise 1: If God wanted me to believe in him, he would know exactly what it would take to convince me
Premise 2: I do not believe in God as I have never seen or experienced anything that would lead me to believe in God
Conclusion 1: Since God did not introduce me to any experience that would convince me that he exists, he must therefore either not want me to believe in him or he is entirely indifferent on whether or not I believe in him

This seems to me to smuggle in with it the idea that we have no freedom in our beliefs. You either (1) don't intend this argument to mean that, in which case the conclusion could be either (a) God never introduced you to such an experience or (b) God did and you chose to believe against God or (2) you do intend it to mean this and will need to make a prior argument proving this idea is true or the most probable answer.

Premise 1: If God wants me to believe in him, God can effortlessly make me believe in him
Premise 2: I do not believe in him
Conclusion: God must not want me to believe in him

But if free will exists, premise 1 doesn't work.

1. What reason is there to believe in him?
2. Whether there is some shred of a reason to believe in him, it is still unfair that I do not get as much reason to believe in him as Moses and Paul did

1. We could have about 50 different conversations. I like to do one at a time (for each one has various branches themselves), but after this one I will gladly have any you want to.

2. If everyone gets enough reason to believe/trust in God, then how can it be unfair to them? It can be uneven, but it's not unfair.

Right. And I am a skeptic. So if God were to consider how different I am to people like yourself, God would realize that I require more proof than you do

I would consider myself a skeptic as well, but we may be using that term in different ways. What do you mean by it?

But even if I failed to acknowledge this warning: what parent would let their children be just because they have already warned them in the past? If you told your child to not take candy from a stranger and you saw your child do exactly that, would you just leave them to it? "Well I told them not to so let them get abducted. See if I care"

First, I don't think God stops warning them. Second, I would counter if you would lock your child up in your house so that they never have a chance to be taken by others. I would prefer a middle ground where I give them advice many times, but ultimately let them have some independence so that they have a life.

I am talking about God communicating with me directly. Reading about God supposedly doing it 2000 years ago is not the same.

I didn't say it was the same. You seemed to say that there has been no warning to you from God about who He is and what the devil is like. I countered that Christianity teaches that God has warned humans throughout history. These were recorded in the Bible and stand as records for us now. I'm not saying you should believe this to be true without good reasons. Possible reasons would be another conversation.

God then incarnated and showed humanity what He was like and taught about the devil. This was recorded in the Bible and stands as records for us. Again, though, you personally need to see reasons to believe this is true. Going over those would be another discussion. You've probably had ones like them before. And both the theist that you conversed with and yourself looked at the same evidences and chose to believe differently from each other.

I also said God gives everyone a conscience to help guide us. I don't think God needs to directly communicate with everyone to be considered having warned us.

What good reasons are there?

If you want to have this conversation we can. But I only like to do one conversation at a time. My responses are long and I only have so much time to devote to this, even though I wish I had more because I love talking with people of different world views and challenging my beliefs and giving them something to think about. There are enough branches even within this conversation already. Once this one is over, if you still want to have a conversation with me about why I trust the Gospels and the Bible, I will gladly do so.

For the conversation we've been having, I think it's enough to say that if Christianity is true, then the three things above do constitute good reasons to trust that God has warned us sufficiently. At the beginning of this thread you seemed to be saying that assuming what Christians believe is true, for the sake of argument, it still doesn't make sense, it's logically inconsistent or incoherent. It seemed to me to be a reductio ab asurdum type of argument. And so, I've been responding to that kind of argument. Moving onto a discussion about the reliability of the Bible would be a different kind of argument and so I'd like to keep them separate so as to better focus on them, rather than muddying the water with too many different conversations at once.

How would God proving his existence to me violate my free will?

I was responding to your claim that a loving God, like a loving parent, would make it so their children could not be deceived. I think the only way to guarantee that is through getting rid of free will. Deception can be our fault. To keep that from happening is to control our actions.

What do you suggest would be enough to convince skeptics who do not believe the claims of the Bible?

I think there are evidences for God's existence, for Jesus' resurrection through the use of observation and logic. I think these raise the believability of claims of divine revelation, like the Bible is claimed to be. I think that this needs to be coupled with personal experiences of God, but that many people are closed off to that experience because of those earlier beliefs.

I am baffled as to why you would use the word "surrender" as meaning "being in a relationship with God". But if this is what you mean by "surrender" then this changes your entire argument.

It doesn't change my argument at all. I've said it all along. I said from the beginning that God made us to be in a relationship with God, that we were to live life and make decisions in concert with God, but that we chose to be self-reliant instead. We need to surrender our self-reliance and trust in God as a guide for our decisions.

You keep telling me that "God can't surrender because it's not in his nature", but if "surrender" simply means "be in a relationship" then how is this "not in God's nature"?

That is not what I said. I said "being in a relationship WITH GOD, making decisions in concert WITH GOD." For humans to surrender is the opposite of being self-reliant in our life choices. It is to make decisions in concert with God, who is above us as Creator. God, in God's divine nature, has no Creator; no one to surrender to and rely upon to live God's life and make decisions.

This analogy does not fit. "Forming the letter" is a task that needs to happen in the present. If someone is helping me "form the letter" then this is happening now. What happened with Jesus happened 2000 years ago so you cannot compare this to "forming the letter". How can someone help me "form the letter" if I'm not even born yet? I'd suggest a new analogy because this one makes absolutely no sense

You just told me Jesus was God "forming the letter" and now all of a sudden it's the Holy Spirit "forming the letter"? Again, this analogy makes no sense. Please find another one.

Let me try again. I learned how to form all the letters of the alphabet many years ago. A few months ago I taught my daughter how she should move her hand to form some of the letters, but she just didn't get it. Today I am putting my hand around her lovely little hand and helping her to form the letter. Those are three different events, but they all have the possibility of including forming letters. Right?

In the first I learn how to form the letters myself because I didn't know how to do it before. In the second I am teaching how one forms letters. In the third I am helping someone else actually form the letters. These all involve forming letters (or at least the possibility of doing so in the second case).

In my analogy, God, in his own nature could not form the letters of surrender (because God has no one above God to surrender to and rely upon). Through the incarnation God takes on a human nature (and we know this God-man as Jesus) which can form the letters of surrender (because humans are created beings and have someone to surrender to and rely upon). So, God here learns how to form the letters of surrender. This happened about 2000 years ago.

God put the Law on the hearts of humans (from the very beginning through now) and gave a revealed Law to the Jewish people (more than 3000 years ago). This is God teaching us how one forms letters of surrender.

God then helps us to actually form the letters of surrender through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This happens in the present, the now.

Why didn't we have the possibility to change our mind before Jesus?

If Original Sin is true, that made it impossible to change our minds on our own. If it is not true, then history tells us that we simply don't change our mind even though we have had the possibility to.

So we once had a choice to follow God or be independent. Then we chose to be independent. And now we have the choice to choose Jesus that then allows us to choose to follow God? Jesus seems like an unnecessary middleman. If I would choose to follow Jesus, why wouldn't I choose to follow God in Jesus' absence?

Following Jesus and following God is the same thing because Christians believe Jesus is God. But I think you are talking about two different things here. There is following God (i.e., doing what God wants us to do on our own power) and following Jesus (i.e., realizing we can't/don't do this on our own power and trusting Jesus to help us follow God). So, it's not that Jesus is just a middle man. Jesus being a middle man would be Jesus telling us that how we could do what God wants us to do on our own power. That's not what Christianity says about Jesus.

Or to bring it back to the language of surrender. Your 'following God' is us choosing to surrender in a relationship with God, which Christianity says we can't/don't do. Your 'following Jesus' is relying on Jesus to help us surrender in a relationship with God.

Imagine for a moment that Jesus never existed. Would you choose to follow God?

Christianity says history shows me that I either can't or don't.

Wait so Jesus and God are two different entities?

Most Christians believe that God is a Trinity. One Being in Three Persons. Not two different entities. One of those Persons, the Son took on a human nature (Jesus) that the Son still has and will always have.

How would God creating the Holy Spirit with a perfect human nature negate our free will...? And why would the Holy Spirit helping us "form the letter" negate our free will? If we willingly accept the Holy Spirit, then we can accept the Holy Spirit's help in teaching us how to surrender. I see no violation of free will

The Holy Spirit isn't created. As God, the Holy Spirit has a divine nature. God the Son was the Person of the Trinity that took on the created human nature. The Son is just the name we've given to the Person of the Trinity that did so. The title comes after the event. Whichever Person did it would have gotten that name, as far as I can tell, but I haven't thought too much about this.

And this is the nature God will 'share' with us. To help us God would need to share a perfect human nature with a free will, not a human nature with a determined will. It sounded to me like you were saying why can't God just give the Holy Spirit this generic perfect human nature without actually having to live that human life and perfectly surrender it in every aspect. That would be just replacing our nature with a generic prescriptively perfect human nature, not one that actually showed itself to freely choose perfect surrender, not a descriptively perfect human nature.

[The Tanager]

Then why is it that not a single person has ever successfully made this choice? If no one has ever succeeded in a particular task it suggests that this task is likely impossible. In which case, we cannot be said to have had a "free choice"

Absolutely not. It's possible that some one in baseball history could have retired with a perfect batting average. Easy? No. But impossible? No. That no one has doesn't mean it is impossible. And remember this is just an analogy to get the main point across. So, please no counter like "yeah but hitting a baseball is really, really hard and practically if not truly impossible." If we gave it more thought I'm sure we could think of another example that wasn't as hard as hitting a baseball, yet has never had anyone do it. A perfect math record, since that only involves one person's mind? I don't know and it doesn't matter for the point: no one succeeding in something doesn't mean it is impossible, just unlikely to be done.

Why would God allow us to inherit the sins and mistakes of Adam? Why not have all of us be born with a clean slate the way Adam and Eve were born?

It would be us inheriting a sin nature, not the actual sins and mistakes of Adam. It would be us inheriting a broken humanity. We get our humanity from our parents.

But, like I said, if you think original sin is silly, then all of this works with us not inheriting sin from Adam and Eve. Christianity would still say that history has not shown us anyone who is perfect (except Jesus).

Yes it does! If I am broken because of someone else's mistakes then this is unjust. For God to allow this would mean God is unjust. If God were just, he would allow us all the same chances that Adam and Eve had.

If original sin is true, I'm saying it doesn't matter if it is unjust. We are still broken.

If God condemns us for not being fixed when it was someone else's fault we are broken, then God would be unjust. What happens to those who aren't "fixed"?

What do you mean 'condemn' us? You seem to be treating heaven/hell like a separate prize/punishment for our actions. If that was the case, then I'd agree with you. But this isn't what I think Christianity teaches. We either are in a relationship with God (fixed) or we are not (broken). There is no further, separate prize (heaven) for the one who is fixed and punishment (hell) for the one who is broken. Heaven and hell are just extensions of whether we are in a relationship with God or going to be self-reliant.

I am asking God to give me the same clean slate he gave Adam and Eve at birth.

Some Christians believe God did. This doesn't get you out of Christianity's claims about brokeness and restoration through Jesus.

I am using your wording here. If it's absurd then it's because you made it absurd.

No you aren't. I said God could either (1) create us with a nature that can't choose self-reliance or (2) create us with a nature that can choose to either be self-reliant or not and then we either (a) choose self-reliance or (b) we don't. For (2) to be free will we must include "self-reliant or not" and leave open the possibilities of (a) and (b).

Your wording appears to be a third thing because you use the word doesn't instead of can't. This isn't your exact wording, but I think this is equivalent: God could create us with a nature that does not choose to be self-reliant. Which means you are really saying (2b). Feel free to show how it doesn't mean this. But this is determinism. You are asking God to make it so (2b) happens and not (2a). That means making it so only 1 of 2 possibilities does occur. How is this not determinism? Only one option can occur.

So we start of as (2)... then Jesus does his thing.... and then what? With what nature do we end up with? Still (2)? Then what changed? What exactly did Jesus do to our nature?

We start with the nature of (2) which means the possibility of (2a) or (2b). Humans freely choose (2b). Jesus starts with the nature of (2) which means the possibility of (2a) or (2b). Jesus freely chooses (2a).

God forgives us of our (2b) but knows if He just lets us try again on our own without changing anything, that we will end up choosing (2b) the next time. But God doesn't want to determine our actions because that is giving us (1) which is not free will. So God shares with us Jesus' (2a), transforming our (2b) into a (2a).

No it wouldn't. Giving us an ability does not negate free will. Forcing us to use that ability does. I never suggested God force us to use the ability, I simply suggested he gives us the ability (that is, the knowledge of knowing how to surrender).

And Christianity says God did. And we messed it up. And God wants to help us.

No. The law would be telling us how to breathe. What I'm suggesting is God giving us the ability to breathe.

No, giving us the ability to breathe is determinism that we will breathe. Breathing is not a choice. The Law is something we can choose to do or not do.

God does give humanity the ability to choose self-reliance or living life in concert with God, if that is what you are asking of God by your analogy.

Jesus surrendering does not help us surrender...

No, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit helps us surrender because of Jesus' surrendering 2000 years ago.

But keep in mind that earlier you defined "surrender" as "having a relationship with God". Why did Jesus need to come to earth to gain the ability to have a relationship with us? This makes no sense. If we define "surrender" as "having a relationship" then God can surrender (under this definition of surrender)

Hopefully you understand what I was saying better from my last post on this point.

[Justin108]

You are shifting the focus from belief in God to relationship with God. I never said it's impossible to choose who to pursue a relationship with, I said it's impossible to choose what to believe. So why are you talking about relationships all of a sudden?

Because, to me, when Christianity talks about being a believer in God, it's talking about choosing to trust and follow God, which is a relationship.

You're making a habit of redefining words along the way. Please stick to accepted English. When I say "believe" I mean the English use of the word "believe". If you mean to say "follower" then please use the word "follower" to avoid any potential confusion.

But anyway, this doesn't change anything since in order to have a relationship with God, I must logically first believe in God.

Sure, we can't believe we are looking at a duck when we see a giraffe before us

And I can't read the Bible and say "this came from God" when I don't believe it did

but I don't see why this is a comparable "choice" to either one's beliefs about whether God exists

I see no reason why not.

Let's try to be as comparable as possible then. I do not believe in the existence of Santa. Can I choose to believe int he existence of Santa?

Right. And I never did that. I never stopped looking for challenges to my belief. But despite looking for challenges to my beliefs, none have arisen that changes my belief to believe in God. At the end, my belief in God is still not a choice. I cannot choose to believe in God. I can choose to look for evidence of God (which I have done and still do), but I cannot choose to believe in God

Then how do theists and atheists look at the same info and come to different conclusions?

People are different. This is nothing new. Some people are more gullible than others

If there is no choice involved anywhere in that process, what accounts for the difference?

A difference does not automatically suggest a choice. A straight man can look at another man and not find him sexually attractive. A straight woman can look a the same man and find him sexually attractive. This difference does not mean they "choose" to find him attractive/unattractive. All it means is they process things differently. Similarly, skeptics and believers process information differently

Here's my argument:

Premise 1: If God wanted me to believe in him, he would know exactly what it would take to convince me
Premise 2: I do not believe in God as I have never seen or experienced anything that would lead me to believe in God
Conclusion 1: Since God did not introduce me to any experience that would convince me that he exists, he must therefore either not want me to believe in him or he is entirely indifferent on whether or not I believe in him

This seems to me to smuggle in with it the idea that we have no freedom in our beliefs

If God appeared before me as he did before Moses, I would literally have no freedom in this belief. I will literally be unable to "choose" to not believe in God.

or (b) God did and you chose to believe against God

Are you saying God appeared before me as he did before Moses but I chose to believe against it?

Premise 1: If God wants me to believe in him, God can effortlessly make me believe in him
Premise 2: I do not believe in him
Conclusion: God must not want me to believe in him

But if free will exists, premise 1 doesn't work.

So you think that if God appeared before me as he did before Moses, I would still have the "choice" to not believe in God?

1. What reason is there to believe in him?
2. Whether there is some shred of a reason to believe in him, it is still unfair that I do not get as much reason to believe in him as Moses and Paul did

2. If everyone gets enough reason to believe/trust in God, then how can it be unfair to them?

Ok if whatever reason God gave me was "enough", why did he not give the exact amount of reason to Paul? Do you think Paul would have believed if he were given the same amount of reason as I got?

It can be uneven, but it's not unfair.

Yes it is! If your father gave you $1000 to live for the month, and he gave your brother $100 000, would you not consider this unfair by definition?

Right. And I am a skeptic. So if God were to consider how different I am to people like yourself, God would realize that I require more proof than you do

I would consider myself a skeptic as well, but we may be using that term in different ways. What do you mean by it?

I require radical proof before I start believing radical claims. So when the Bible says Jesus walked on water, I will need more proof than a simple claim that he walked on water. That is what my skepticism entails: radical proof for radical claims.

What would it take for you to be convinced that Jesus walked on water?

But even if I failed to acknowledge this warning: what parent would let their children be just because they have already warned them in the past? If you told your child to not take candy from a stranger and you saw your child do exactly that, would you just leave them to it? "Well I told them not to so let them get abducted. See if I care"

Second, I would counter if you would lock your child up in your house so that they never have a chance to be taken by others.

Remember, in this analogy, the child is still young. While I will not lock my child in my house, I will certainly look after them at all times. I won't just let them walk the streets if I believed the streets to be dangerous. This isn't a problem for God, however, as he gets to always watch us at all times.

I would prefer a middle ground where I give them advice many times, but ultimately let them have some independence so that they have a life.

So if you witnessed your child about to be abducted, you'd let them go because "you gave them advice many times"?

You seemed to say that there has been no warning to you from God about who He is and what the devil is like.

No believable warnings

I countered that Christianity teaches that God has warned humans throughout history.

Can Christianity support this claim?

These were recorded in the Bible and stand as records for us now.

Why should I believe the Bible?

I'm not saying you should believe this to be true without good reasons. Possible reasons would be another conversation.

We went full circle. God has never given me any warnings worth believing.

I was responding to your claim that a loving God, like a loving parent, would make it so their children could not be deceived. I think the only way to guarantee that is through getting rid of free will. Deception can be our fault. To keep that from happening is to control our actions.

Suppose a stalker was constantly calling your child on their cellphone. Would blocking the stalker's number on their cellphone violate the child's free will?

What do you suggest would be enough to convince skeptics who do not believe the claims of the Bible?

I think there are evidences for God's existence, for Jesus' resurrection through the use of observation and logic.

Can you give me an example without saying "because the Bible said so"?

I am baffled as to why you would use the word "surrender" as meaning "being in a relationship with God". But if this is what you mean by "surrender" then this changes your entire argument.

It doesn't change my argument at all. I've said it all along. I said from the beginning that God made us to be in a relationship with God, that we were to live life and make decisions in concert with God, but that we chose to be self-reliant instead. We need to surrender our self-reliance and trust in God as a guide for our decisions.

Yes and then you defined "surrender" as "choose to be in a relationship with God". You said "God cannot surrender (be in a relationship) because surrendering (being in a relationship) was not in God's nature". How is being in a relationship not in God's nature?

In my analogy, God, in his own nature could not form the letters of surrender

He could still teach it

So, God here learns how to form the letters of surrender

God already knew how

Why didn't we have the possibility to change our mind before Jesus?

If Original Sin is true, that made it impossible to change our minds on our own.

So we lost our free will?

If it is not true, then history tells us that we simply don't change our mind even though we have had the possibility to.

If not a single person in the history of humanity has ever changed his mind, then changing one's mind is impossible. Ergo, we don't really have free will

So we once had a choice to follow God or be independent. Then we chose to be independent. And now we have the choice to choose Jesus that then allows us to choose to follow God? Jesus seems like an unnecessary middleman. If I would choose to follow Jesus, why wouldn't I choose to follow God in Jesus' absence?

Following Jesus and following God is the same thing because Christians believe Jesus is God.

Ok then why do we need God to become Jesus first before we can choose to follow him? Why can't I choose to follow God pre-Jesus?

But I think you are talking about two different things here. There is following God (i.e., doing what God wants us to do on our own power) and following Jesus (i.e., realizing we can't/don't do this on our own power and trusting Jesus to help us follow God).

So it was impossible for the Jews before Jesus to realize we can't/don't do this on our own power and trusting God to help us follow him?

Imagine for a moment that Jesus never existed. Would you choose to follow God?

Christianity says history shows me that I either can't or don't.

1. Then you don't have free will
2. Didn't Job successfully follow God?

Jesus still has a human nature and, yes, Christians would say is still surrendering that nature perfectly.

Wait so Jesus and God are two different entities?

Most Christians believe that God is a Trinity. One Being in Three Persons. Not two different entities. One of those Persons, the Son took on a human nature (Jesus) that the Son still has and will always have.

So when you say Jesus still has human nature, are you saying God still has human nature?

How would God creating the Holy Spirit with a perfect human nature negate our free will...? And why would the Holy Spirit helping us "form the letter" negate our free will? If we willingly accept the Holy Spirit, then we can accept the Holy Spirit's help in teaching us how to surrender. I see no violation of free will

And this is the nature God will 'share' with us. To help us God would need to share a perfect human nature with a free will, not a human nature with a determined will. It sounded to me like you were saying why can't God just give the Holy Spirit this generic perfect human nature without actually having to live that human life and perfectly surrender it in every aspect. That would be just replacing our nature with a generic prescriptively perfect human nature

No it wouldn't. All the Holy Spirit would do is "hold our hand" and "show us how to surrender". It's not replacing anything. It's just showing us how things should be done. All the Holy Spirit should be able to do is perfectly surrender. Once the Holy Spirit knows this, it can show humans how to do it.

[Justin108]

Then why is it that not a single person has ever successfully made this choice? If no one has ever succeeded in a particular task it suggests that this task is likely impossible. In which case, we cannot be said to have had a "free choice"

Absolutely not. It's possible that some one in baseball history could have retired with a perfect batting average. Easy? No. But impossible? No.

On a technicality, it's possible. But it is so hard to achieve that not a single person of the billions of people that have ever lived has achieved this. So how can God expect this of us?

If a guy held a gun to your head and said "win a perfect game of pool in one round", would you deserve to die for failing? Why would God assign a near-impossible task to us?

Why would God allow us to inherit the sins and mistakes of Adam? Why not have all of us be born with a clean slate the way Adam and Eve were born?

It would be us inheriting a sin nature, not the actual sins and mistakes of Adam.

I don't care. It doesn't change the fact that we unjustly inherit something negative. Adam messed up and now we have to all sit with a sin nature

It would be us inheriting a broken humanity. We get our humanity from our parents.

We get our humanity from our parents as a result of a system that God designed. If God wanted to, he could have let us all be born with a clean slate

If original sin is true, I'm saying it doesn't matter if it is unjust. We are still broken.

We are broken as a result of an unjust system designed by God

What do you mean 'condemn' us? You seem to be treating heaven/hell like a separate prize/punishment for our actions. If that was the case, then I'd agree with you. But this isn't what I think Christianity teaches. We either are in a relationship with God (fixed) or we are not (broken). There is no further, separate prize (heaven) for the one who is fixed and punishment (hell) for the one who is broken. Heaven and hell are just extensions of whether we are in a relationship with God or going to be self-reliant.

Why are those who do not have a relationship with God sent to hell? How exactly do you define hell? Is it a place of suffering?

I am asking God to give me the same clean slate he gave Adam and Eve at birth.

Some Christians believe God did. This doesn't get you out of Christianity's claims about brokeness and restoration through Jesus.

Yes it does. If we are born with a clean slate then we aren't broken

I am using your wording here. If it's absurd then it's because you made it absurd.

No you aren't.

I literally quoted you word for word. See post 47

So we start of as (2)... then Jesus does his thing.... and then what? With what nature do we end up with? Still (2)? Then what changed? What exactly did Jesus do to our nature?

We start with the nature of (2) which means the possibility of (2a) or (2b). Humans freely choose (2b). Jesus starts with the nature of (2) which means the possibility of (2a) or (2b). Jesus freely chooses (2a).

God forgives us of our (2b) but knows if He just lets us try again on our own without changing anything, that we will end up choosing (2b) the next time. But God doesn't want to determine our actions because that is giving us (1) which is not free will. So God shares with us Jesus' (2a), transforming our (2b) into a (2a).

If we still end up with nature 2 then our nature remains unchanged. All Jesus did was help us make a choice. This isn't the same as changing our nature.

No it wouldn't. Giving us an ability does not negate free will. Forcing us to use that ability does. I never suggested God force us to use the ability, I simply suggested he gives us the ability (that is, the knowledge of knowing how to surrender).

And Christianity says God did. And we messed it up. And God wants to help us.

Help us with what?? You keep telling me that Jesus is teaching us how to surrender (an ability). That's where that whole "forming the letter" stuff comes in. If God gives us the ability to surrender then he no longer needs to teach us how to surrender as we would already know

No. The law would be telling us how to breathe. What I'm suggesting is God giving us the ability to breathe.

No, giving us the ability to breathe is determinism that we will breathe. Breathing is not a choice.

I can literally demonstrate to you right now how I hold my breath.

But this isn't a perfect analogy. Let's replace "breathe" with "swallow". We are all given the untaught ability to swallow from birth. The fact that we have this ability does not go against our free will. We can still choose when to swallow and when not to. Similarly, if God gave us the ability to surrender, we can still choose when to surrender and when not to. Our free will is still intact

God does give humanity the ability to choose self-reliance or living life in concert with God, if that is what you are asking of God by your analogy.

No my analogy is about the ability to perfectly surrender. God can give us this ability without needing to "form the letter" with us.

No, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit helps us surrender because of Jesus' surrendering 2000 years ago.

God could have given the Holy Spirit this ability without Jesus surrendering 2000 years ago

[The Tanager]

You're making a habit of redefining words along the way. Please stick to accepted English. When I say "believe" I mean the English use of the word "believe". If you mean to say "follower" then please use the word "follower" to avoid any potential confusion.

Words and phrases do not have only one use/meaning. You meant believe in God's existence. And I meant another widely used historical use of "believe in God." It didn't go like this: (1) you clearly define the phrase, then (2) I said I agree with that meaning and then (3) I changed it. That would be redefining words along the way. I didn't do that. We both used a phrase in a different way that can mean those different things and it caused confusion. No big deal. Not one person's fault or purposeful deceit. We're just having a conversation, not writing a philosophical treatise.

But anyway, this doesn't change anything since in order to have a relationship with God, I must logically first believe in God.

As I already agreed to. But in this part we were talking about whether ANY beliefs involve free choice or not. Why do you think we have no control over any of our beliefs?

but I don't see why this is a comparable "choice" to either one's beliefs about whether God exists

I see no reason why not.

You see no difference between beliefs about universally accepted English words where there is no debate and beliefs about the supernatural existing where there are thousands of years of debate? Or with whether one believes a certain being is worth their trust?

The first simply involves knowledge of what has been universally determined to be a category name in a specific language. The second involves bringing together various lines of evidence (or lack thereof) and telling what one thinks makes the most sense. The third can involve the second, but also involves personal experience (or lack thereof) between two beings.

Let's try to be as comparable as possible then. I do not believe in the existence of Santa. Can I choose to believe int he existence of Santa?

Of course you can't not believe in Santa and believe in Santa. You can't not believe what you believe; that's just a law of logic. My point, however, is about why you don't believe in Santa. Little Jimmy believes in Santa. Why? He's never seen Santa in real life. He even has some friends who have told him it's all a lie. But he chooses to believe probably because (1) other people he trusts more have told him it is true or (2) he just wants it to be true. Someone in the exact same situation may believe Santa is unreal. Nothing is different, but they hold different beliefs. This points to there being choice involved in at least some of our beliefs. So, why do you think there is no choice involved here? And in every other kind of belief we have?

As far as this being the best comparison, many atheists and theists would disagree. I agree many theists believe in God because of the same reasons Little Jimmy believes in Santa. But those aren't the large sophisticated portion of believers. With them we have one being that everyone that isn't a little kid agrees was made up (although based on historical person(s)) and this can be clearly demonstrated. There is no debate over it. No one truly believes Santa is real and going around telling people that. This versus a being about whom there is tremendous amount of debate and no clear demonstration that this being was openly made up by those who first and subsequently believed.

People are different. This is nothing new. Some people are more gullible than others

Gullible means something like 'to be easily persuaded to believe something,' right? How can you persuade someone who doesn't have control over their beliefs?

A difference does not automatically suggest a choice. A straight man can look at another man and not find him sexually attractive. A straight woman can look a the same man and find him sexually attractive. This difference does not mean they "choose" to find him attractive/unattractive. All it means is they process things differently. Similarly, skeptics and believers process information differently

I agree. But this is only talking about a physical reaction. They can choose whether to pursue a relationship with this person they are attracted to or not. They can choose whether to trust this person. Those aren't just physical reactions like physical attraction.

Are you saying God appeared before me as he did before Moses but I chose to believe against it?

No. There I was saying that, in your argument, either the person doesn't believe in God because (a) God didn't give them enough information and/or experience to convince them about God or (b) God did give them enough information and/or experience to convince them, but they chose not to believe in God's existence and/or to trust in that God. You were acting like (a) was the only logical path. It is, if you assume or prove, we have no control over our beliefs. You don't strike me as a person that is okay with just assuming something. So, I'm asking for you to prove your view.

So you think that if God appeared before me as he did before Moses, I would still have the "choice" to not believe in God?

You seem to mean believe that God exists. I do think you still have a choice, because people have told me that even if this happened they would think they were just hallucinating.

In the sense I used it, I think there would probably be even more freedom, though. Even believing God exists, it's another question on whether you want to believe in, to trust in and follow that God.

Ok if whatever reason God gave me was "enough", why did he not give the exact amount of reason to Paul? Do you think Paul would have believed if he were given the same amount of reason as I got?

I don't know. People are different. I think God gave more to Paul because of Paul's missionary role in spreading the Gospel in person and in his writings.

Yes it is! If your father gave you $1000 to live for the month, and he gave your brother $100 000, would you not consider this unfair by definition?

We can try to come upon better terms to use, but my father doesn't have to give me anything to live. So anything he gives me is a bonus I should be thankful for. How is getting money I didn't earn unfair to me? I'm not getting less than I deserve.

And perhaps my father has good reason to be uneven with his giving. What if my father only has $101,000 to share with my brother and me? And my brother has gotten himself into a $100,000 debt and is under the threat of bodily harm? I'll gladly praise my father for saving my brother. Or what if my brother has an idea that could save the lives of others, but he needs that much? To keep the analogy as an analysis of what Christianity claims, God has good reasons why He interacts with people differently.

I require radical proof before I start believing radical claims. So when the Bible says Jesus walked on water, I will need more proof than a simple claim that he walked on water. That is what my skepticism entails: radical proof for radical claims.

But what does that mean? Can you explain it further? I didn't believe Jesus walked on water simply because I read about it in the Bible when I was an agnostic leaning towards atheism.

What would it take for you to be convinced that Jesus walked on water?

I believe that because I trust that Jesus really rose from the dead. And I believe that because of personal experiences I believe I have had with God as well as historical reasons for believing in the historicity of the Resurrection. If the Resurrection is true, I think we have good reasons to trust the Bible's recorded events, including Jesus walking on water. But I also don't think one must believe the walking on the water occurred to be a Christian.

Remember, in this analogy, the child is still young. While I will not lock my child in my house, I will certainly look after them at all times. I won't just let them walk the streets if I believed the streets to be dangerous. This isn't a problem for God, however, as he gets to always watch us at all times.

Then, so that I'm not responding to a different point than the one you are trying to clarify with this analogy, could you tell me specifically what "letting your child get abducted" is in your analogy?

So if you witnessed your child about to be abducted, you'd let them go because "you gave them advice many times"?

Ask this again after clarifying the above, so that I don't forget to answer it, but so that I can do so with a clearer picture of the point you are making.

Can you give me an example without saying "because the Bible said so"?

I would never think saying that would convince an atheist of anything.

No believable warnings...Can Christianity support this claim?...Why should I believe the Bible?

I think Christianity can support those claims. But, like I said, that brings another big discussion into this conversation. I will gladly look at it, if you want to, after we wrap things up on the issues we are already discussing at length.

Suppose a stalker was constantly calling your child on their cellphone. Would blocking the stalker's number on their cellphone violate the child's free will?

Not on its own. But what if the child found a way around that? And then you block that. And so on and so on. You constantly do that in every situation and you have violated that child's free will.

But we also need to keep straight exactly what the thing we are saying is analogous to. So, could you please spell out what you see this being analogous to as regards God's love for His creatures that doesn't violate free will.

Yes and then you defined "surrender" as "choose to be in a relationship with God". You said "God cannot surrender (be in a relationship) because surrendering (being in a relationship) was not in God's nature". How is being in a relationship not in God's nature?

I was trying to explain what surrendering to God meant for humans. I never meant it to sound like I was saying 'surrender' and 'being in a relationship' were synonyms. I do think being relational is in God's nature. I don't think surrendering within a relationship is in God's nature, though. I'm sorry for the confusion there.

So, to try to clarify. I think humans, by being created, naturally have it within them to surrender to their Creator, God. In other words, as creatures, the full human life means living life under God, in concert with God rather than being self-reliant. God, by virtue of being Creator, has no one to live life under, no one greater than Him that could guide Him and He could surrender to within a relationship.

He could still teach it

Teach what it means for a human to surrender, yes. I have already said that.

God already knew how

God did not know how to surrender to a being within a relationship, because God is the highest being in any relationship. As Creator of all, they surrender to God, not vice versa.

So we lost our free will?

There I was simply saying that Original Sin, if real, made it so that we can't be perfect. I guess that doesn't necessarily mean we couldn't make some free choices. Just that it would now be impossible for us to surrender perfectly.

If not a single person in the history of humanity has ever changed his mind, then changing one's mind is impossible. Ergo, we don't really have free will

Well, Christianity would say there was one who never sinned: Jesus.

But, even that aside, I don't think the general conclusion follows. It's the difference between prescriptive and descriptive perfection. Prescriptive perfection means we can't mess up. Descriptive perfection means we can, but don't. There is a difference between a robot, say, never making a mathematical error and a human never making one. If the robot is programmed correctly it is programmed not to make an error; it can't make an error. The human can make an error because it isn't programmed, but doesn't make an error. Those are different kinds of perfection.

Ok then why do we need God to become Jesus first before we can choose to follow him? Why can't I choose to follow God pre-Jesus?

Remember I said, using your distinctions, that 'following Jesus' would be realizing we can't follow God on our own and trusting in Jesus to make things right so we could follow God. Pre-Jesus we could realize we couldn't follow God on our own, but the solution (Jesus) to making things right was not revealed yet (from our time-bound perspective, at least).

So it was impossible for the Jews before Jesus to realize we can't/don't do this on our own power and trusting God to help us follow him?

No. Jews could have realized their inability to do this and trusted God to help us follow him. But the way God helped them (and us) is with Jesus. People who trusted God historically before Jesus are still 'fixed' via Jesus, even though they didn't know the name of the Person. I think this could even apply to non-Jews who weren't even looking forward to the promised Messiah.

But this would also involve getting into ideas about God's relationship to time versus our own. God is traditionally seen as transcending time. It is through Jesus' life, death and resurrection that God makes things right with humans who choose to trust Him to set things right, rather than trying to perfectly surrender on their own. God, transcending time, acts out of that eternal experience of life, so that even those who (from their vantage point in time) pre-date Jesus are still helped to surrender because of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

1. Then you don't have free will

If original sin is true, I think our will is severely limited, if not stripped away. But that doesn't mean humanity wasn't created with free will. And it doesn't mean God isn't concerned with restoring free will to humans.

If original sin is not true, then our choosing not to follow God shows we are exercising our free will.

So when you say Jesus still has human nature, are you saying God still has human nature?

Jesus is the one Person out of the three Persons that are the One God that has a human nature and will always have that nature.

No it wouldn't. All the Holy Spirit would do is "hold our hand" and "show us how to surrender". It's not replacing anything. It's just showing us how things should be done. All the Holy Spirit should be able to do is perfectly surrender. Once the Holy Spirit knows this, it can show humans how to do it.

God can know what it means for a human to surrender. God can teach that without taking on a human nature. God does teach that. It's called the Law (both Jewish Law and the law written on the hearts of all humans). But this just shows us what we ought to do. It doesn't help us to actually do it. Knowing what to do and actually doing it are two different things. We can know what to do. We can do it, even if it's really hard. But, Christianity says, we don't do it. We don't surrender perfectly. We are self-reliant. And we mess up because of that. We need someone who can perfectly surrender to hold our hands, actually helping us to do it.

The Holy Spirit, as God, cannot know how to personally surrender. God must take on a human nature to gain that ability.

[The Tanager]

On a technicality, it's possible. But it is so hard to achieve that not a single person of the billions of people that have ever lived has achieved this. So how can God expect this of us?

God doesn't expect it of us. But God still wants to be in relationship with us. That's why God incarnates as Jesus, so that it can become a real possibility for us again.

If a guy held a gun to your head and said "win a perfect game of pool in one round", would you deserve to die for failing? Why would God assign a near-impossible task to us?

I agree with your principle here. But I think you are applying it to a misunderstanding. This analogy has an action demanded of me and a separate prize/punishment. Play a perfect game of pool and you live. Fail and you die.

With what I'm saying about God there is not this distinction between demand and prize/punishment. God is saying this is what a human relationship with Me is like, by the very nature of humans being created beings. God isn't saying have this kind of relationship with me and I will then give you the prize of this kind of relationship with me. We either have this surrendered relationship or we don't have a relationship. The relationship IS the prize and the lack of one IS the punishment. They are one and the same thing.

Your analogy, to fit, would have to be a person saying "win a perfect game of pool in one round" and you will win a perfect game of pool in one round. Or if you don't, you won't "win a perfect game of pool in one round."

I don't care. It doesn't change the fact that we unjustly inherit something negative. Adam messed up and now we have to all sit with a sin nature

I agree. But, if my understanding of original sin is accurate and original sin is true, it also doesn't change the fact that it would be good to get rid of this unjustly inherited negative sin nature.

We are broken as a result of an unjust system designed by God

The possibility of the system becoming unjust is God's design. And without that design, we are robots (instead of beings with free will), which would strip away any possibility of a deep life, real love, etc. But the system becomes unjust because of Adam and Eve. They are given that possibility by God, but their choice makes the system unjust.

Why are those who do not have a relationship with God sent to hell? How exactly do you define hell? Is it a place of suffering?

I disagree with the most widely held traditional Christian view of Hell, that of eternal conscious torment from God.

I'm not exactly sure which alternative I hold, though. I think there is philosophical and biblical support for annihilationism (those who don't have a relationship cease to exist), I also see good support for a view like C.S. Lewis' where the one without a relationship becomes more and more self-reliant until they are only thinking about themselves and this state lasts for eternity and may not directly feel like a hell, but is dissatisfying and is much less then what they could have had. And I also recently came upon a view by N.T. Wright where he briefly talked about these people actually becoming non-human (in the sense of what it means to truly live a human life), but I haven't looked into that in detail. I think Wright's view also involves an eternal existence in that state.

I do see it as an extension of this life, where the hellish kingdom breaks into this life and earth here and now and extends beyond what we call death. Just like I see heaven as something that is breaking in our lives and earth here and now, but extends past death. I don't think of them as physical locations people are sent to. It's more of a dimension that becomes part of this world.

Yes it does. If we are born with a clean slate then we aren't broken

Yes, but I said that we then have become broken through our own choices.

I literally quoted you word for word. See post 47

You used the same words, yes, but you are understanding it out of context. Not clearly seeing that caused my confusion in how I responded. I responded to your understanding, thinking you had changed my wording since that wasn't the understanding or context I put with those words. But, yes, those were originally my words.

So, let me try to clarify the context. I'm saying God will transform our old nature into a new one with Jesus' human nature. This will result in us having a nature that can choose to be self-reliant, but doesn't. What I listed as (2a)...a nature created with the freedom to choose surrender or self-reliance that actually chooses surrender.

You asked why God didn't give us this new kind of nature to begin with. Because to give us this kind of nature from the beginning would negate free will. God's choice is between (1) and (2) from my previous post. Our choice is between (2a) and (2b) and both have to be open possibilities for us to have free will. For God to make it so we have (2a) from the get go is to determine our will. God can only choose (1) or (2). If God chooses (2) we have the choice between having a nature that is (2a) or (2b).

We chose (2b). God transforms that into a (2a). How God transforms that can either negate or take back free will or allow it to continue as free.

If we still end up with nature 2 then our nature remains unchanged. All Jesus did was help us make a choice. This isn't the same as changing our nature.

(2a) and (2b) are two different natures under the category of (2). They are both (2) only in the sense that they are free, as opposed to the determined will of (1). But (2a) and (2b) are different natures. (2a) freely chooses surrender. (2b) freely chooses self-reliance. (1) is determined to surrender. To jump to (2b) as the only possibility open to us is really just to give us a (1).

If (2a) and (2b) are different natures, then Jesus transforming our (2b) into a (2a) is changing our nature.

Help us with what?? You keep telling me that Jesus is teaching us how to surrender (an ability). That's where that whole "forming the letter" stuff comes in. If God gives us the ability to surrender then he no longer needs to teach us how to surrender as we would already know

I don't think you are rightly noting the various distinctions. First, concerning the ability to surrender. I'm saying God gave us this ability at creation. And God gave us the knowledge of how to surrender. We can surrender. But we end up not surrendering. So, to now actually exercise this ability we need help actually surrendering.

And the second way to make the same distinction, from the perspective of God teaching us. Teaching involves imparting to another something you have. Someone can teach us how to surrender in two ways: (1) give us head knowledge of how we can surrender and leave the actual surrendering to us based off this knowledge and (2) give us an experiential knowledge and help us to actually surrender. In both we are learning to surrender. Teaching/imparting (1) didn't work with us, so we need teaching/imparting (2).

I can literally demonstrate to you right now how I hold my breath.

The context of my statement was in response to you saying that in the analogy God giving us the Law would be telling us how to breathe. This would imply that we have to make a choice in order to start breathing, because the Law is optional. I was saying that this isn't right, because we don't have to make a choice to start breathing. We automatically breathe. Automatic denotes determinism. Following the Law is not automatic for humans; they are given the choice (at least initially, but that is where the original sin/no-original sin part of the conversation jumps back in, both fitting with the other things I've said about Christian beliefs).

Exploring the analogy used, yes, we can choose to stop breathing which would hurt the above use of the analogy, but I didn't think you were using the analogy for that specific point, so I didn't go into that since it seems to me that analogies are meant to try to clarify specific points, not fit onto the whole thing point-by-point like an allegory.

But this isn't a perfect analogy. Let's replace "breathe" with "swallow". We are all given the untaught ability to swallow from birth. The fact that we have this ability does not go against our free will. We can still choose when to swallow and when not to. Similarly, if God gave us the ability to surrender, we can still choose when to surrender and when not to. Our free will is still intact

These analogies are throwing me because both breathing and swallowing are things we usually do automatically. We don't have to think "breathe" or "swallow" to start breathing or swallowing when born. We don't have to knowingly make those choices to accomplish the activity.

But I think I get the point you are trying to use those examples for. And I do think God gave us the ability to surrender, the choice to surrender or not to. Free will was intact. But then we choose not to surrender and this snowballs and eventually gets us to the point (because of Adam and Eve or ourselves) where we no longer can fix ourselves and make it so we choose to surrender at every moment in the future. We are too far gone to correct ourselves.

And that is where Jesus' life, death and resurrection come in to the story. To restore to us even the ability to choose to surrender. Not through just telling us what we already knew (how to surrender), but teaching us how to do it through actually helping us do it. We learn better by doing, not just taking in information and trying on our own. But we can't do it without help actually doing it.

No my analogy is about the ability to perfectly surrender. God can give us this ability without needing to "form the letter" with us.

God did. God gave us the ability to perfectly surrender. We didn't perfectly exercise that ability, even though we could have. We choose not to surrender at times. We messed the system up. We are too far gone to just be reminded how to do it. So, we need God to help us re-learn it through holding our hands.

God could have given the Holy Spirit this ability without Jesus surrendering 2000 years ago

What ability? To surrender? The Holy Spirit would have needed to take on a human nature to receive this ability. How do you suppose this would have happened? Christianity says it did in Jesus. What alternative are you proposing? Spell that out better and I can better respond.

[Justin108]

Let's try to be as comparable as possible then. I do not believe in the existence of Santa. Can I choose to believe int he existence of Santa?

Of course you can't not believe in Santa and believe in Santa. You can't not believe what you believe; that's just a law of logic.

When I said "can I choose to believe in the existence existence of Santa" I was not asking "is it logically possible to believe and not believe at the same time" so I have no idea where this is coming from. I asked is it possible to choose to change my belief into believing in Santa? If I offered you $1000 to suddenly believe Santa exists, would you be able to choose to believe in him?

So, why do you think there is no choice involved here? And in every other kind of belief we have?

Because I am willing to bet that if I made the above $1000 offer, you would not be able to choose to believe Santa exists

As far as this being the best comparison, many atheists and theists would disagree. I agree many theists believe in God because of the same reasons Little Jimmy believes in Santa.

It doesn't have to have the same reasons to be comparable. The comparability comes in that it deals in the belief in the literal existence of an entity

With them we have one being that everyone that isn't a little kid agrees was made up (although based on historical person(s)) and this can be clearly demonstrated.

Do you want me to shift my analogy from Santa to fairies? Because I assure you there are people (adults) who believe in fairies

People are different. This is nothing new. Some people are more gullible than others

Gullible means something like 'to be easily persuaded to believe something,' right? How can you persuade someone who doesn't have control over their beliefs?

The same way you can make people crave food. If I show you a picture of a delicious meal, I might trigger an uncontrollable automatic craving. Similarly, if I introduce a compelling argument, I might trigger an automatic response. This is known as persuasion. If someone gives me a persuasive enough argument, I literally cannot stop myself from agreeing with them.

A difference does not automatically suggest a choice. A straight man can look at another man and not find him sexually attractive. A straight woman can look a the same man and find him sexually attractive. This difference does not mean they "choose" to find him attractive/unattractive. All it means is they process things differently. Similarly, skeptics and believers process information differently

I agree. But this is only talking about a physical reaction.

Belief is a neurological (physical) reaction

They can choose whether to pursue a relationship with this person they are attracted to or not.

Similarly, someone might choose to pursue a relationship with God. I agree, this is a choice. What isn't a choice, though, is whether one believes God actually exists

Are you saying God appeared before me as he did before Moses but I chose to believe against it?

No. There I was saying that, in your argument, either the person doesn't believe in God because (a) God didn't give them enough information and/or experience to convince them about God or (b) God did give them enough information and/or experience to convince them, but they chose not to believe in God's existence and/or to trust in that God.

Let's assume (b) to be the case. This would mean that even if God appeared to me as he did to Moses, I would simply reject him since apparently my disbelief in God is 100% my choice. Is that what you're saying?

If I got "enough" proof of God yet still don't believe in him then surely getting more proof of God would be useless as I would still "choose" to not believe in him. If belief is just a choice then no amount of proof will ever be able to convince me

You were acting like (a) was the only logical path. It is, if you assume or prove, we have no control over our beliefs. You don't strike me as a person that is okay with just assuming something. So, I'm asking for you to prove your view.

The best proof I can give is to tell you that I can literally not choose to believe what I believe. To me it is an automatic and uncontrollable process and I'm pretty sure this is the case for most atheists on this forum.

The best I can to do prove this is ask you to sincerely change your belief and choose to believe in the literal existence of fairies. Can you do that for me? If you cannot, then you prove my point

So you think that if God appeared before me as he did before Moses, I would still have the "choice" to not believe in God?

You seem to mean believe that God exists. I do think you still have a choice, because people have told me that even if this happened they would think they were just hallucinating.

Would they choose to think it's an hallucination? Or do they predict that they will probably think it's an hallucination?

Speaking of hallucinations... many schizophrenics suffer from hallucinations that they believe are real. This belief in their hallucinations is ruining their lives. If belief is a matter of choice, as you say, then schizophrenics would be able to simply "choose" to not believe their hallucinations are real. Wow it looks like you just cured schizophrenia. If belief is just a choice then schizophrenics can just choose to not believe in those pesky hallucinations. It's that simple, right?

Ok if whatever reason God gave me was "enough", why did he not give the exact amount of reason to Paul? Do you think Paul would have believed if he were given the same amount of reason as I got?

I don't know. People are different. I think God gave more to Paul because of Paul's missionary role in spreading the Gospel in person and in his writings.

No but the proof he gave me is "enough", right? So if he gave just as much (enough) proof to Paul then Paul would be a believer. He has enough proof to be so why wouldn't he?

Either belief is a choice - in which case it wouldn't matter how much proof God gave Paul since it would all be Paul's decision, or belief is automatic - in which case it makes perfect sense why God would make sure Paul had enough reason to believe.

Yes it is! If your father gave you $1000 to live for the month, and he gave your brother $100 000, would you not consider this unfair by definition?

We can try to come upon better terms to use, but my father doesn't have to give me anything to live.

I never said he had to. But if he gave your brother more money then you, it would be unfair by definition.

fair1
f/
adjective
1.
treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.

I require radical proof before I start believing radical claims. So when the Bible says Jesus walked on water, I will need more proof than a simple claim that he walked on water. That is what my skepticism entails: radical proof for radical claims.

But what does that mean? Can you explain it further?

I don't know what else there is to explain. What was unclear about my explanation?

What would it take for you to be convinced that Jesus walked on water?

I believe that because I trust that Jesus really rose from the dead. And I believe that because of personal experiences I believe I have had with God

Can you elaborate on what personal experiences you've had?

as well as historical reasons for believing in the historicity of the Resurrection.

Like what?

Remember, in this analogy, the child is still young. While I will not lock my child in my house, I will certainly look after them at all times. I won't just let them walk the streets if I believed the streets to be dangerous. This isn't a problem for God, however, as he gets to always watch us at all times.

Then, so that I'm not responding to a different point than the one you are trying to clarify with this analogy, could you tell me specifically what "letting your child get abducted" is in your analogy?

Letting your child get abducted is an analogy for God letting people be deceived by Satan. When I spoke about God speaking to me directly, at one point you asked "how would you know it isn't Satan?". Well if God truly loved me and protected me, I would expect him to either tell me it isn't him speaking, or directly block Satan's voice from my head just as a parent would take their kid away from someone trying to abduct them.

Can you give me an example without saying "because the Bible said so"?

I would never think saying that would convince an atheist of anything.

You're avoiding the question

Suppose a stalker was constantly calling your child on their cellphone. Would blocking the stalker's number on their cellphone violate the child's free will?

Not on its own. But what if the child found a way around that?

That's not the point. You would likely try to block the number. Yes you might fail, but you will probably try your best. The thing is, if God tried to block Satan from our minds, he will succeed as he is omnipotent.

I was trying to explain what surrendering to God meant for humans. I never meant it to sound like I was saying 'surrender' and 'being in a relationship' were synonyms.

You repeatedly called it "the same thing". You repeatedly said "this is what surrender means"

So, to try to clarify. I think humans, by being created, naturally have it within them to surrender to their Creator, God.

If we naturally have it within us, why does Jesus need to teach us by helping us "form the letter"? What exactly is Jesus teaching us if we already have it within us to surrender?

God already knew how

God did not know how to surrender to a being within a relationship

Then God is not omniscient

So we lost our free will?

There I was simply saying that Original Sin, if real, made it so that we can't be perfect. I guess that doesn't necessarily mean we couldn't make some free choices. Just that it would now be impossible for us to surrender perfectly.

That means we lost the free will decision to surrender perfectly. I cannot choose to do something if doing it is literally impossible. Ergo, I do not have free will to do that something

If not a single person in the history of humanity has ever changed his mind, then changing one's mind is impossible. Ergo, we don't really have free will

Well, Christianity would say there was one who never sinned: Jesus.

1. Did the fact that Jesus was basically God not help him achieve this task? Or was it just one big coincidence that Jesus happened to be the one to successfully surrender?

2. If literally 1 in billions of people have ever achieved this, it is still virtually impossible

Ok then why do we need God to become Jesus first before we can choose to follow him? Why can't I choose to follow God pre-Jesus?

Remember I said, using your distinctions, that 'following Jesus' would be realizing we can't follow God on our own

We can follow Jesus on our own but we can't follow God on our own? Why?

So I can decide "I like this Jesus guy. I'm gonna follow him" but I can't decide "I like this God guy. I'm gonna follow him"?

1. Then you don't have free will

If original sin is true, I think our will is severely limited, if not stripped away. But that doesn't mean humanity wasn't created with free will. And it doesn't mean God isn't concerned with restoring free will to humans.

If Adam and Eve can take away (or severely limit) our free will, I can't see why it's so hard for God to simply restore it. Why can't God snap his finger and magically restore our free will as it was meant to be from the beginning before Adam and Eve messed up?

So when you say Jesus still has human nature, are you saying God still has human nature?

Jesus is the one Person out of the three Persons that are the One God that has a human nature and will always have that nature.

The trinity makes absolutely no sense. How can one entity have three persons? Does God have multiple personality disorder or something?

Ok let me phrase my question differently. From here on, I will refer to the entire trinity as the "One Being" as you mentioned earlier that the trinity is in fact one being.

Does the One Being have a human nature?

No it wouldn't. All the Holy Spirit would do is "hold our hand" and "show us how to surrender". It's not replacing anything. It's just showing us how things should be done. All the Holy Spirit should be able to do is perfectly surrender. Once the Holy Spirit knows this, it can show humans how to do it.

God can know what it means for a human to surrender. God can teach that without taking on a human nature. God does teach that. It's called the Law (both Jewish Law and the law written on the hearts of all humans). But this just shows us what we ought to do. It doesn't help us to actually do it. Knowing what to do and actually doing it are two different things. We can know what to do. We can do it, even if it's really hard. But, Christianity says, we don't do it. We don't surrender perfectly. We are self-reliant. And we mess up because of that. We need someone who can perfectly surrender to hold our hands, actually helping us to do it.

The Holy Spirit, as God, cannot know how to personally surrender.

Yes it can. God is omniscient

God must take on a human nature to gain that ability.

Let me focus on this for a moment... is "human nature" imperfect by definition?