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?

[MuffMaYne]

[Replying to post 100 by Justin108]

viewtopic.php?t=31890

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 100 by Justin108]

viewtopic.php?t=31890

Oh yeah I started that one. Care to chime in on that topic?

[The Tanager]

We've got to get an overview of our conversation and see about narrowing it down. Feel free to stick with all the arguments/issues or to focus only on certain ones.

1. Do we have control over our beliefs?

Basically, if we were just arguing about this issue, I think an objective third party reading us would end up in agnosticism. Neither side has proven their view over the control (or lack thereof) concerning our beliefs. But why have we been talking about this point? It is actually a part of a wider argument you made against the Christian view of God, which I am rejecting, that goes something like this:

P1: A just God would not reject a person for beliefs they do not have control over.
P2: We have no control over our beliefs.
P3: Therefore, a just God would not reject a person for beliefs they do not have control over. (from P1 and P2)
P4: Christians believe God is a just God.
P5: Therefore, Christians believe that God would not reject a person for beliefs they do not have control over. (from P3 and P4)
P6: A person's belief about God's existence is a belief.
P7: We have no control over our belief about God's existence. (from P2 and P6)
P8: Christians also believe that God will reject people who do not believe in God's existence.
P9: Therefore, Christians believe that God will reject a person for a belief that they have no control over. (from P7 and P8)
P10: Christians believe in a God that will both reject and not reject a person for a belief that they have no control over. (from P5 and P9)
C: Christians believe in an illogical God (from P10 and law of non-contradiction)

For your argument to go through, you need to show P2 is true or, at least, the best explanation. You need to move the third party reader beyond agnosticism, in other words. All I need to do to counter the larger argument you made against my Christian view of God, and have been trying to do, is to show that P2 is not more probable than it's opposite. So, let's recap the supports offered and see if they satisfy what we each need to do. I'm not trying to leave anything out, but I am trying to narrow the conversation down, so please bring things you think I've overlooked.

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

Okay, but then you really aren't trusting me as the reason to accept the claim. You are trusting your past experiences and trusting me only because they fit with your past experiences. So, to bring it back to why you offered these examples, why should I accept your more radical claim (that we have no control over our beliefs) simply because you said you've tried and failed? You're not even in the counter-example you tried to give above. We need other reasons (analogically, like your past experiences with people not flying really determining your view on my claim that I tried to fly, but can't).

So, this doesn't rationally support that we have no control over our beliefs and P2 remains unsupported. So C1 isn't a sound conclusion yet.

gullible
'g?l?b(?)l/
adjective
easily persuaded to believe something; credulous


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

Well, how about some people are more gullible than others? Gullibility is consistent with P2 being true (accounting for the difference of beliefs we both observe in reality). But gullibility is also consistent with the opposite of P2 (that we have control over some of our beliefs) being true (accounting for the differences in what it takes for people to come to a certain belief). So, this leaves us in agnosticism.

That isn't rational support that we have no control over our beliefs. P2 remains unsupported. So C1 isn't a sound conclusion yet.

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

This is a misunderstanding of what choice means. I'm not saying choice is deciding upon a belief with no consideration of any evidence or information. That would be a blind choice. Not all choices have to be blind. A free agent in the NFL gains information about prospective teams that are after him and after looking at all the information chooses which team he wants to play for. Here, whether the choice is free or determined, it comes out of various options. The choice may be limited (Tony Romo doesn't have the choice of playing for the Virginia Calvary, because they don't exist, for example), but it's not a choice void of any considerations of evidence.

Now, I'm not saying this is proof for the opposite of P2, but it definitely isn't proof for P2. That remains unsupported, which means we have no rational reason to accept P2 and C1 isn't a sound conclusion yet.

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

Yes, but in that part we are not talking about 'belief in Santa's existence' moving towards 'belief in God.' We are talking about 'belief that bribes have a role in truth' moving towards 'belief in Santa's existence.' Those two don't operate the same.

So, this isn't rational support for P2 and C1 isn't a sound conclusion yet.




But I didn't want to leave these unanswered, so concerning my conversion:

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

Prior to that experience, no, I had not considered that possibility. I had previously thought that God was a being who would reward/punish people based on how good/bad they were.

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

I know what it feels like when I'm just having my thoughts race through my head. God's presence doesn't feel like that. It feels like another presence within me, offering thoughts for me to consider, offering love (acceptance, but also calling me to improve). And, yes, there are other alternative explanations. That's why I think it's a choice on my part to keep believing it is God. Without alternatives to choose from I can't make a choice. With uncertainty among those alternatives, I must make a choice. I'm not technically 100% certain on my belief being true, but we also can't technically be 100% certain on just about any belief.

[The Tanager]

2. Radical evidence for radical claims

Here I am trying to explore another argument that goes something like this:

P1: If God is loving, then God would want everyone to have enough reason to reasonably believe in God's existence.
P2: If God appeared directly to everyone, then they would have enough reason to reasonably believe in God's existence.
C1: Therefore, God should appear to everyone.

This argument clearly isn't valid because it still leaves room for things other than 'God appearing directly to a person' that could count for being enough reason to believe in God's existence. Those alternatives have not been rationally ruled out. You seem to be arguing that God's direct appearance is the only thing that results in anyone having enough reason to reasonably believe in God's existence. That is why you talk about the need for radical evidence, I think.

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

Some of the pertinent ones, it would seem, would include these (new numbering):

1. There are certain pieces of evidence that point towards God's existence as the best explanation.
2. You physically see God and His tools. (This mirrors the radical evidence you wanted of Santa's existence).
3. You hear an audible voice claiming to be God speaking directly to you.
4. You have an experience with an immaterial being.

Which ones (or ones I haven't mentioned) would constitute radical evidence, if they actually happened. And why or why not for each one? To support what I think is your claim above you need to logically rule out everything except 'God appearing directly to a person.' If I'm misunderstanding your argument, please tweak the above.

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

But what does it mean for God to not allow you to be deceived? To go against a free will that believes the falsity? If not, then how can God freely force you into a specific belief? That seems contradictory to me.

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

As far as the six things I sketched out regarding why God's hiddenness (i.e., not just revealing Himself directly to everyone), I only sketched them. I gave the website if you wanted to jump ahead, but I didn't spell out the justification for every point. I even said that I'm not sure I accept every point. It was simply setting the table for us to analyze this issue more deeply, if you wanted to.

But why talk about this? Because apart from saying that the threshhold for reasonably believing in God's existence (and choosing a relationship with that God) is lower than 'direct appearance from God,' I'm saying that God may have good reasons for not appearing to people. If you want to pursue that, we must look at the six things more in depth. But if even one is reasonable to believe, then we have reasonable support for not expecting God to appear directly to everyone. So, if you want to pursue this, let' look at each issue.

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

I think the point there was about wasting effort on something an omniscient God knew would not take place. If God's specified motivation to ensure Person A would believe is to allow for relationship, that motivation is lost if God knows Person A would immediately reject that relationship. What are your thoughts here?

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

We are going to assume we don't have sinful natures passed on from Adam and Eve to narrow our discussion here.

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

God isn't expecting you to do it perfectly on your own. I think your confusion here may be still arising out of seeing Christianity as teaching a God who says do A (surrender to me relationally in every situation) and I will reward you with B (heaven). Don't do A and you will be punished with C (hell). That's not what I think Christianity teaches. It's saying surrendering to God relationally in every situation is heaven. It doesn't gain you or result in heaven; it is the same exact thing. I think that confusion is part of what leads you to say the above. You seem to be saying that to be reasonable, God should expect and allow for us to get heaven without surrendering to Him relationally in every situation. But that would be like saying, to be reasonable, someone should allow for a bachelor to be married and remain a bachelor.

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

Why wouldn't they be equally attractive initially? Once we choose self-reliance, that could become more and more attractive. My experience is that the things worse for me (eating candy) are easier to become addicted to than things that are good for me (eating carrots). But, why didn't God just make it the other way round? Well, then, we would be choosing surrender out of an addiction, not a choice. God doesn't want us in a relationship simply because we can't go against our naturally stronger attractions. That would seem to be something like choosing a wife based on your sexual addiction to her, rather than because you love her. Our will is most free when we choose to overcome simply following our natural attractions. God doesn't want people addicted to surrendering to Him, God wants people freely choosing Him.

Losing our ability to perfectly surrender.

It's not that one act of not surrendering makes it so that we can never surrender again. It's that tasting self-reliance makes it easier to keep going for self-reliance in future actions like an addiction that we need outside help to break.

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

We taste self-reliance and what it seems to promise us and then, even when we realize it doesn't deliver on those promises, we can't stop taking the drug of self-reliance. We need outside help. And when we get it, we can (with difficulty) unlearn those addictions and relearn the free way of life.

Or think about divorce. A married couple starts slowly drifting apart, becoming more self-reliant roommates than they are spouses. The more they practice self-reliance the harder it is to be self-surrendering helpmates. They often need counselors to come in and help them get back.

[The Tanager]

4. Analyzing One Theory (I changed it from Analogy because I think theory is a more accurate) of the Christian Solution

A cure for what exactly?

A cure for the condition we find ourselves in, having freely (with no unfair sin nature being passed on from Adam and Eve) come to consistently choose self-reliance over surrender.

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

What do you mean? I've said God has given us the knowledge of how to surrender as humans already. In spite of that knowledge, we don't surrender. We don't desire surrender; we don't choose surrender. Implanting knowledge doesn't change that; we already have that knowledge. It's not the knowledge of how-to that is broken. It's the doing that's broken, the follow-through. We are addicted to self-reliance and need help actually surrendering.

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

With the letter analogy you initially don't know how to form the letter. Teaching you the hand movements doesn't result in you forming the letter. It imparts knowledge of how to, but it doesn't impart the doing, the follow-through. You need someone to hold your hand to actually form the letter, to do, to follow-through. There is a difference between knowing how to do something and actually doing it. I know I should eat that carrot instead of candy and I know how to do it, but that doesn't mean I do it.

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

We are working with Christian beliefs because your claim from the beginning was that, assuming them to be true for the sake of argument, they lead to absurdities. You originally argued that God is unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice, which conflicts with Christians saying God is good or all-powerful and, therefore, Christianity is false. I said logic (rather than a lack of goodness or a lack of power), with the other given Christian beliefs, limits God to forgive sin with Jesus' sacrifice rather than another method. Part of those other given Christian beliefs, that you think lead to inconsistency, is that it is within God's nature to take on a human nature.

To show my view is false you need to either:

(1) show different beliefs within that worldview to be logically inconsistent with each other...which here would involve assuming my Christian belief on God's nature including within it the ability to take on a human nature is true and showing how a different Christian belief contradicts it or

(2) show a belief within that worldview to be demonstrably false...which here would involve supporting the claim that God's nature CANNOT include within it the ability to take on a human nature.

Which one are you wanting to do here?

Do humans have a divine nature?

Only if a Divine being takes on a human nature. The Being responsible for creating and sustaining everything, that is omnipotent, is a more likely candidate to be able to take on different natures than a created being that doesn't have such control over what they can be. Unless, you can show a Divine being taking on a human nature is logically impossible. Then, no amount of power, including omnipotence, could logically make it possible.

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

More than human doesn't mean he's not human, though. A square is more than a line, but it still is everything a line is. To counter the Incarnation you need to be able to prove that it is logically impossible for a person to have two natures. What support do you have for that? It's not illogical in a clear sense, like a married bachelor would be. Just like it's not illogical for a person to have 0, 1, or 3 personalities.

Is it possible for one being to take on a different nature?

It's possible until you can show it is logically impossible. And remember that you have been saying, given certain Christian beliefs, it leads to absurdities and therefore, we shouldn't trust it to be true concerning reality. To support that you need to show it isn't possible for one being to take on an additional nature.

If so, why couldn't God just take up the nature of surrendering without completely turning human?

Humans need to surrender as humans, not as rocks or something else. We need God to take on and perfect and impart to us a perfectly surrendering human nature. We need to surrender in every part of being human, so God needs to take on every part of human nature and surrender it and then help us to do it in every aspect.

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

One, I didn't assume it. I said it directly comes out of being the Creator and not having anyone above Him to surrender to. But even if I did just assume it, you are saying certain Christian beliefs, when looked at together, lead to absurdities. So you are assuming the Christian belief is true in order to show it doesn't make sense and is therefore untrue.

[The Tanager]

5. On the Trinity

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

I absolutely did try to demonstrate it. By showing that a 'being' and a 'person' are different concepts. If being and person are different concepts, a difference in number doesn't mean it is illogical. To respond to this that I'm just insisting the Trinity isn't illogical and not demonstrating it is clearly wrong.

One being and three persons don't contradict. One being and three beings (in the same sense at the same time) does contradict.

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

Merriam-Webster's defines a being in one way as "something that is conceivable and hence capable of existing" or "something that actually exists." Dictionaries don't put in definitions that have never been said by anyone. Does a rock fit that definition? Yes. It's a being.

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

I did not say (or at least never meant to say or imply) that right now both Jesus has the ability to surrender and God doesn't. I said God cannot surrender until taking on a nature that does surrender. Jesus is God gaining the ability to surrender. That's not one being having contradictory traits.

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

Being human means we are non-divine, yes. It doesn't mean a being can't be both divine and human. It would seem to depend on which way the movement is. A 2-D object (like a square) can conceivably have 1-D elements to it, but a 1-D figure can't have 2-D elements.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 103 by The Tanager]

I've always maintained that an agnostic is just a form of atheist. Regarding your third party, if they don't know for sure one way or another, than they cannot be termed a believer. If they aren't a believer, than they DON'T believe. That means they lack belief, ergo an atheist. Just food for thought

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 103 by The Tanager]

I've always maintained that an agnostic is just a form of atheist. Regarding your third party, if they don't know for sure one way or another, than they cannot be termed a believer. If they aren't a believer, than they DON'T believe. That means they lack belief, ergo an atheist. Just food for thought

I think recently there has been a lot of unfortunate confusion over what was traditionally a quite clear distinction between being an agnostic and being an atheist. Atheism is not-theism; it's a negation of theism (the belief that God(s) exist). It's an actual belief held that theism is not true. Just like the belief that '2+2 does not equal 5' is a belief, not a lack of belief. Christians were originally called atheists because they rejected the Roman pantheon of gods; they denied they existed. It was a belief Christians held, not a lack of a belief.

Agnosticism is lacking a belief one way or the other. Agnostics either think the truth or falsity of God's existence is unknown or unknowable. They don't or can't have enough information one way or the other.

Just like 'a-unicornism would be denying that unicorns are real. They would hold the actual belief that unicorns do not literally exist like horses do in reality. An agnostic on the subject of unicorns would say they don't (or will never) have enough information to make the decision one way or the other.

[The Tanager]

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

More than human doesn't mean he's not human, though. A square is more than a line, but it still is everything a line is. To counter the Incarnation you need to be able to prove that it is logically impossible for a person to have two natures. What support do you have for that? It's not illogical in a clear sense, like a married bachelor would be. Just like it's not illogical for a person to have 0, 1, or 3 personalities.

Obviously, I should have said "Just like it's not illogical for a being to have 0, 1, or 3 personalities/persons."