Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

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

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

[Justin108]

To clarify, the ability God is expected to perform here is helping us surrender. In order for you to claim that it is logically impossible for God to do this, you must first demonstrate that God does in fact not have this ability (i.e to help us surrender). All you have done thus far is demonstrate that God cannot surrender himself, but that does not mean that he cannot help others surrender.

To summarize your argument (as I understand it)
- P1: God cannot do that which he does not have the ability to do
- P2: God does not have the ability to help us surrender
- C: God cannot help us surrender

Now I am asking you to please support P2. How do you know that God does not have the ability to help us surrender?

No, that is not what I'm claiming. I've said God can help us surrender by telling us how to do it. But we don't follow God's help there

Do I need to clarify this every single time? When I say God can help us without becoming Jesus, I mean God can successfully help us without becoming Jesus.

You blame the failure on humans. If so, why is it that God changing his method (becoming Jesus) lead to us successfully surrendering? If it was as a result of his changing his method, then it was as a result of his previous method that we failed to surrender. If it was not as a result of his new method that we succeeded this time, then what was the point of him becoming Jesus?

- God tries to help us surrender
- The attempt fails
- God changes his method
- The attempt succeeds

Did the new attempt succeed because of God changing his method? Yes or no?

(3) help us in a new way that doesn't negate our free will

Can God successfully help us in a new way that doesn't negate our free will without becoming Jesus?

God moves our will to surrender because we couldn't move our own will to surrender. And it is this kind of helping that I'm saying is illogical for God to do without being able to surrender.

Please demonstrate why this kind of helping is illogical for God without being able to surrender himself? Don't be vague. Don't use analogies. Be precise. What is it exactly that God would have to do that is logically impossible without becoming Jesus first?

We have a will that doesn't want to help the homeless man. God wants us to help the homeless man. We surrender our will/desire to pass on by...we lay it down and take others into account. We then do God's will (because it is good for the homeless man and good for us).

I still see no reason why God needs to become Jesus first in order for this to happen... I am growing tired of this discussion. We've been at this for months. Unless you can give me a precise rundown of what it is Jesus' existence achieves exactly, I'm going to stop wasting my time on this thread.

From the very beginning I explained surrender as making a decision in concert with God as opposed to doing our own thing.

God can make a decision in concert with God... therefore, God can surrender...

We can either make our decisions without taking God's influence into account or we can take God into account, seeking and trusting God's advice.

Again, I see no reason for Jesus' existence in this scenario.

[The Tanager]

1. Does the Christian God reject people for beliefs they don't have control over?

Here is a basic form of your argument (focusing on the Christian God being unjust, but another formulation could be made...without, I think, changing my critique).

P1: A God is cruel if it rejects a person for beliefs they do not have control over.
P2: Person A does not have control over their beliefs.
P3: The Christian God rejects Person A for a belief they hold.
C: Therefore, the Christian God is cruel.

Of course, if I have misrepresented it or not represented it in its best life, please correct it. I am not seeking to argue against a straw man or a weaker version of your view.

My critique has been to ask you what support you have for P2. Since this is a premise in your argument you bear the burden of proof. This is the argument you are saying positively supports it:

I already have. By requesting that you choose to believe in fairies. You have failed to do so, thereby proving my point that belief is not a choice.

So, your argument appears to be this:

S1: Belief in the existence of fairies is a belief.
S2: Belief in the existence of fairies is not a choice.
C: Therefore, all beliefs are not a choice.

Have I accurately portrayed your supportive argument for P2? If not, where not and how would you change it? If so, do you think this is a valid argument?

Again, how do you do that? How do you choose? I do not know how. You insist that I have this ability but you cannot tell me how to use it. For me, this process is automatic. You insist it is not yet you cannot explain to me how to choose.

I explained it right after the quote you gave this response to. You quoted it. You have competing influences pulling you in different directions, but are not forced to believe either, both are reasonable and so you must choose which direction you will go in belief.

And what if reason pulls me away from Christianity? Should I ignore reason and go with wishful thinking instead?

I think you should follow reason and that reason does not pull you away from Christianity (even though you think it does), but I don't determine your beliefs. Either you get to or your will is mechanistic in regards to beliefs. But it must be mechanistic in regards to beliefs in order for your critique of Christianity we are analyzing to go through. So, the burden is rationally yours.

[The Tanager]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

I'll ask again as you seem to have missed my earlier question: Define rational argument

I addressed that issue posts before you asked the question. But if you want to try to pin down a more exact definition, here is a start:

A rational argument is an assertion or claim that is defensible because it is well supported by sound logic and valid and reliable evidence, examples, testimony or generally accepted information. To be rational, an argument need only be reasonably believable.

What, if anything, would you want to change from this definition?

, then give me an example of a rational argument for the Christian God

Which we've already started approaching. The valid and reliable evidence I said the historical argument for the Resurrection is built upon are:

(a) the resurrection appearances
(b) the empty tomb
(c) the origin of the Christian faith

Focusing on one at a time, I asked if you agreed that Jesus' earliest disciples claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus or if we need to look more into it. I think you were saying you agree (in post 211), but you also seemed to misunderstand what I was saying. This does not mean the disciples necessarily wrote the Gospels.

If you are okay with (a), do you then agree the tomb was empty or should we look more into that one?

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

And we both agree that oatmeal in this scenario represents self-reliance?

It shouldn't matter for analyzing the logic, but, yes, that would be the connection.

[The Tanager]

4. An analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution

Do I need to clarify this every single time? When I say God can help us without becoming Jesus, I mean God can successfully help us without becoming Jesus.

You blame the failure on humans. If so, why is it that God changing his method (becoming Jesus) lead to us successfully surrendering? If it was as a result of his changing his method, then it was as a result of his previous method that we failed to surrender. If it was not as a result of his new method that we succeeded this time, then what was the point of him becoming Jesus?

Why did humans fail the first time? The equation would be something like this: knowledge on what we should do [from God] + the will/desire to do it [from us] + the action of doing it [from us]. That equation would have worked if we performed the action we ought to have. But we didn't.

What changes in the second method? The equation would be something like this: knowledge on what we should do [from God] + the desire to do it [from us] + the action of doing it [God in us, God and us].

Can God successfully help us in a new way that doesn't negate our free will without becoming Jesus?

Not that I can see. But isn't God omnipotent? Yes. Isn't that a contradiction? No. Why not? Omnipotence is not doing the illogical and there are only 3 logical options that I see.

(1) God makes us do what He wants
(2) God gives us the knowledge of what to do but leaves the doing completely for us
(3) God gives us the knowledge of what to do and then does it with us

(1) clearly negates free will and (2) was the 'old' way. So, that only leaves (3)...

Please demonstrate why this kind of helping is illogical for God without being able to surrender himself? Don't be vague. Don't use analogies. Be precise. What is it exactly that God would have to do that is logically impossible without becoming Jesus first?

...and God can't do it with us if God doesn't have the ability we are doing together. The ability we are doing together is surrendering. What we are surrendering is a human will/human action to the Divine will. Surrendering means to lay our will/desires down and perform the action/desire God wants us to do/have (because God knows it is best for us).

In His nature of being the Creator of all things (i.e., Divine nature), God does not have the ability to surrender at all, much less specifically as a human does. God has no nature above His divine nature to surrender to. God must take on a created nature in order to have the ability to surrender.

Humans are the ones having problems surrendering their will. God wants to help them surrender and so takes on a human nature so that God can surrender human desires to the Divine will. First, in His own human life, but then to impart that to other humans, living in them (should they wish) so that they can, together, surrender their self-reliant human will to the Divine will as they were created to do.

God can make a decision in concert with God... therefore, God can surrender...

I thought you would maintain the context, but there I was talking about surrendering from our human perspective.

I still see no reason why God needs to become Jesus first in order for this to happen... I am growing tired of this discussion. We've been at this for months. Unless you can give me a precise rundown of what it is Jesus' existence achieves exactly, I'm going to stop wasting my time on this thread.

I'm not sure how else I can say it. Above is really no different than how I have said it throughout.

[Justin108]

So, your argument appears to be this:

S1: Belief in the existence of fairies is a belief.
S2: Belief in the existence of fairies is not a choice.
C: Therefore, all beliefs are not a choice.

No. My argument is...

S1: Belief in a given claim is a belief
S2: Belief in a given claim that we intrinsically find irrational is not a choice
C: Therefore, beliefs in that which we intrinsically find irrational is not a choice

I substituted your S2 for two reasons
1. The fact that some people believe in fairies immediately invalidates your version of S2
2. "Belief in fairies" can be substituted by so many other beliefs (belief in goblins, trolls, dragons, etc.) that "fairies" end up being far too specific. Looking at the core of why you do not believe in fairies; it is because they are intrinsically irrational to you. It is impossible to choose to believe in that which is intrinsically irrational to you.

And what if reason pulls me away from Christianity? Should I ignore reason and go with wishful thinking instead?

I think you should follow reason and that reason does not pull you away from Christianity

You told me that I should "decide to follow what you think reason is telling you"

I think reason is telling me to reject Christianity just as you think reason is telling you to reject fairies.

Either you get to or your will is mechanistic in regards to beliefs.

Is your will mechanistic in regards to belief in fairies?

[Justin108]

A rational argument is an assertion or claim that is defensible because it is well supported by sound logic and valid and reliable evidence, examples, testimony or generally accepted information. To be rational, an argument need only be reasonably believable.

I know of no argument for the Christian God that uses sound logic, valid and reliable evidence. Unless you can provide me with such an argument, you cannot claim that there are rational arguments for the Christian God.

What, if anything, would you want to change from this definition?

Testimony. If we consider testimony to be part of rational argument, then we would have to consider Big Foot sightings and alien abduction claims as "rational". I disagree.

then give me an example of a rational argument for the Christian God

Which we've already started approaching. The valid and reliable evidence I said the historical argument for the Resurrection is built upon are:

(a) the resurrection appearances

This is testimony. Above, I have rejected testimony as a part of rational argument. If we are to accept the testimony of resurrection appearances, we will have to accept Big Food sightings and alien abduction claims in order to be consistant.

(b) the empty tomb

There is absolutely no reason to assume a resurrection occurred just because a tomb was found to be empty... There are so many perfectly rational alternate explanations.

(c) the origin of the Christian faith

The origin of the Christian faith proves absolutely nothing. Every faith logically needs an origin. That does not mean that the origin of every faith is based on a supernatural event. I take it you're not a Mormon? Does the fact that Joseph Smith's claims resulted in the Mormon faith mean that Joseph Smith's claims are based in reality?

I asked if you agreed that Jesus' earliest disciples claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus or if we need to look more into it. I think you were saying you agree (in post 211), but you also seemed to misunderstand what I was saying. This does not mean the disciples necessarily wrote the Gospels.

If you are okay with (a), do you then agree the tomb was empty or should we look more into that one?

I agree with a) in that people claimed to have witnessed a resurrection. Their claim, however, could be a lie or a delusion. I accept b) but don't consider it proof of anything supernatural, and I accept c) but do not consider it proof of the validity of Christianity.

[Justin108]

3. The Effect of Sin

The odds of everyone choosing oatmeal are staggeringly low. But everyone choosing oatmeal does not mean that oatmeal is attractive to humans AND the donuts were naturally less attractive.

And we both agree that oatmeal in this scenario represents self-reliance?

It shouldn't matter for analyzing the logic, but, yes, that would be the connection.

Ok so in conclusion, you agree that the odds of everyone choosing self-reliance are staggeringly low. So basically, you're telling me that the odds of your version of events actually happening (that everyone chose self-reliance over surrender) are staggeringly low? If the odds of your version of events took place are staggeringly low, why would you believe this version of events? Why would you believe in something when you yourself agree that the odds of it happening are so low?

Basically you're giving me an explanation to justify Christianity, and in that explanation you admit that the odds of this explanation actually being true are highly unlikely.

[Justin108]

Do I need to clarify this every single time? When I say God can help us without becoming Jesus, I mean God can successfully help us without becoming Jesus.

You blame the failure on humans. If so, why is it that God changing his method (becoming Jesus) lead to us successfully surrendering? If it was as a result of his changing his method, then it was as a result of his previous method that we failed to surrender. If it was not as a result of his new method that we succeeded this time, then what was the point of him becoming Jesus?

Why did humans fail the first time? The equation would be something like this: knowledge on what we should do [from God] + the will/desire to do it [from us] + the action of doing it [from us]. That equation would have worked if we performed the action we ought to have. But we didn't.

What changes in the second method? The equation would be something like this: knowledge on what we should do [from God] + the desire to do it [from us] + the action of doing it [God in us, God and us].

I see no reason why God (without becoming Jesus) cannot perform the necessary actions in us or with us.

Can God successfully help us in a new way that doesn't negate our free will without becoming Jesus?

Not that I can see. But isn't God omnipotent? Yes. Isn't that a contradiction? No. Why not? Omnipotence is not doing the illogical and there are only 3 logical options that I see.

(1) God makes us do what He wants
(2) God gives us the knowledge of what to do but leaves the doing completely for us
(3) God gives us the knowledge of what to do and then does it with us

(1) clearly negates free will and (2) was the 'old' way. So, that only leaves (3)...

Doing something "with us" does not necessarily mean God needs to do exactly what we do. God having a physical influence on our actions, physically guiding us into doing what needs to be done does not require him to do the exact same things.

Essentially, the only actual difference between 1) and 3) is our own participation. If God makes us do something and we resist, then he is negating our free will. But if he makes us do it while we simultaneously try to do it, then he is not negate our free will. It's like helping someone climb a ledge. If I pushed them and they didn't want to go up, then I am negating their free will. But if I push them as they try to get up, then I am perfectly within their free will. God can "push us" so to speak without "climbing" with us. He does not need to do exactly what we do in order to physically help us.

Please demonstrate why this kind of helping is illogical for God without being able to surrender himself? Don't be vague. Don't use analogies. Be precise. What is it exactly that God would have to do that is logically impossible without becoming Jesus first?

...and God can't do it with us if God doesn't have the ability we are doing together. The ability we are doing together is surrendering.

If you use this vague term one more time, I am ending this discussion. Give me a concrete example. Give me a scenario like the homeless man earlier. Give me a concrete example of what we need to do in that situation to surrender, and then explain to me why God cannot do that.

Surrendering means to lay our will/desires down and perform the action/desire God wants us to do/have (because God knows it is best for us).

Wait, didn't Abraham do this when he was about to sacrifice Isaac?

[The Tanager]

1. Does the Christian God reject people for beliefs they don't have control over?

No. My argument is...

S1: Belief in a given claim is a belief
S2: Belief in a given claim that we intrinsically find irrational is not a choice
C: Therefore, beliefs in that which we intrinsically find irrational is not a choice

How is that an argument? C is the exact same thing as S2? You are just making a claim that we have no control over beliefs "which we intrinsically find irrational." This isn't support for P2 (Person A does not have control over their beliefs) but a clarification of P2. This would appear to be your argument then:

P1: A God is cruel if it rejects a person for beliefs they do not have control over.
P2: Person A does not have control over beliefs which they intrinsically find irrational.
P3: The Christian God rejects Person A for a belief which they intrinsically find irrational.
C: Therefore, the Christian God is cruel.

I think you need to clarify P2 further. What do you mean by we intrinsically find something irrational?

You told me that I should "decide to follow what you think reason is telling you"

I think reason is telling me to reject Christianity just as you think reason is telling you to reject fairies.

Yes, I think we should follow what seems rational to us. But I also think you have information available to you to see that Christianity is actually rational.

Is your will mechanistic in regards to belief in fairies?

I cannot choose to believe in the existence of fairies because there is no rational reason offered for me (one without personal experience of them) to. I would have to personally experience their existence and deal with possible defeaters of that experience sufficiently in order to believe in fairies. No one offers a rational argument for the existence of fairies to get those without personal experience to such a belief.

"Why is your belief in the existence of God any different, Tanager?", you'll be asking yourself again. Because there are rational arguments out there available to you, whether you have engaged them and found them wanting or have not engaged them. "Then share it," you'll think in frustration. I am in section 2 step by step.