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]

4. An analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution

"Pushing" and "climbing" are two different things.

To substitute the analogy

climbing = surrender
pushing = ???

So in this analogy, God does not need the ability to climb (surrender), he only needs the ability to push. Yet you have constantly been insisting that God needs the ability to surrender... Why does God need the ability to surrender in order to "push" us?

No, the goal in your analogy is getting up the cliff. The goal in Christianity is salvation (which is living in surrendered relationship with God).

What is "pushing" in this analogy and why does God not have this ability?

You can get up the cliff by climbing or by being pushed. You can be saved (which is surrendering) by doing it on your own willpower or having God's help.

How are you saying Jesus can accomplish 2 and 3? In non-vague terms. Don't say "Jesus helps us surrender". I want to know exactly in concrete terms what Jesus does in this scenario.

Okay, so here is the hypothetical fact of the situation: our will is to walk by the homeless person (whether we are conflicted in that desire or not, the strongest desire we have is to walk on by without helping). Surrendering our will here means not following what we want to do, but doing what we should. We could make a distinction between Will A [the desire to walk on by] and Will B [the desire to help] and Action X [walking on by] and Action Y [stopping and helping].

Left to our own we do what our will is, which we've said is Will A, and that means we will perform Action X. Now let's bring God into the picture. Surrendering means doing Action Y, not Action X.

(1) God forces us to go against our will (A) and perform Action Y.

(2) God tells us what we ought to do, but leaves the choice up to us. Left on our own, we will have Will A and we will perform Action X, as we said above.

(3) We still have Will A, but a small part of us wants to perform action Y. But every opportunity that comes up we chicken out. Left on our own, we will continue to perform action X because we have will A. But God can enter into the picture, with our approval, and says He can surrender our will (A) and provide us with the power to perform Action Y in spite of our self-reliant will. This is different than (1) because God has our permission. It's different from (2) because the action is different. [As a result of multiple situations like this, our will will begin to be changed to become one who freely desires Will B].

I'm saying God can't do #3 without becoming a human. The ability that is required is laying down a will. God, as divine, does not have the ability to surrender a will. But isn't God laying down a will in (1)? No, He is negating it. It ceases to exist and is replaced with a robotic one that is forced to mirror His own. Our will doesn't cease to exist in (3); it is transformed. And it's not a robotic one forces to mirrow His own, for our permission is required.

[Justin108]

Very well then... You claim that you have no control over your belief in fairies. What argument would you use to support your claim that you have no control over your belief in fairies?

I'm honestly not certain on my belief there. It is my belief that I don't have control over my disbelief in fairies

As is the case with my disbelief in YHWH

but that I do have control over my disbelief of other things (like that my friend is telling me the truth).

So we have two categories. Beliefs we have control over and beliefs we do not have control over. Why is it you insist that my belief in YHWH falls in the first category?

I believe that because I have never seen a historical, philosophical, scientific argument for the existence of fairies.

If someone were to provide such an argument, does that argument have to be convincing in order for you to change your belief?

Now, if you are only saying that your disbelief in God is exactly the same as this...that you have not ever seen an historical argument for the Resurrection, then I will agree with you that you don't have control over your disbelief in the Christian God.

As asked before, when you say you need an argument for fairies, would this argument need to be convincing? Or would the fact that an argument exists, no matter how unconvincing, be enough for you to choose to believe in fairies?

If I wanted to pursue a proof that I don't have control over my disbelief in fairies, then I would need to show that people (probably) do not have the ability to control beliefs in situations that only present one rational alternative.

If I find the arguments for YHWH to be irrational, then I only have one rational alternative and that is to reject the belief in YHWH

But let's say all I ask you to do is to prove that historical arguments for the Resurrection are irrational alternatives.

That would be shifting the burden of proof.

[Justin108]

I am saying radical claims require more than just testimony. Claiming someone came back from the dead is most certainly a radical claim.

I agree it requires more than just testimony. You wanted to reject testimony from the definition I offered of 'rational argument.' I didn't say a rational argument is an assertion that is supported by testimony alone. I said:

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

Can testimony play a part in a rational argument? Are you ruling out an historical argument from being a rational argument?

What makes this approach difficult is the fact that you insist on taking it one at a time. This forces me to look only at testimony before then moving on to other supports for the resurrection. If there is only testimony, then I do not consider it a rational argument. For testimony to be convincing it needs to be accompanied by other rational arguments. So we can leave testimony at "to be continued" until we take a look at your other arguments for the resurrection.

Before we assess established history, answer this: do you believe in claims of Big Foot sightings? Do you believe in alien abduction claims?

No. But the why of the "no" is important.

What is the "why" of the "no"? Why do you not believe in Big Foot sightings or alien abductions?

[Justin108]

I agree. But when truth is unknown (as is the case regarding God, the notion of self-reliance vs. surrender, etc.), it is a rational step to look at probability. When truth is unknown, the most rational route to take is looking at what is most likely. Your scenario is highly unlikely and so there is no rational reason to believe it.

What is the context of this section? It came out of the larger critique you were making versus Christianity. That critique was that Christianity, as it stands, contradicts itself. I started this section to explain how I felt you were misunderstanding what Christianity teaches about sin and its effect on us and, therefore, are wrong in saying Christianity contradicts itself.

Your critique here has seemed to morph into there being no reason to think [my understanding of] Christianity is right in it's teaching concerning the effect of sin. I entered the discussion analyzing the first critique. Am I then afraid to support my beliefs? No. But my support for what is the true effect of sin would run through what we are doing in section 2. So, if you want to drop your original critique [as it regards what Christianity says about the effect of sin and how this leads to contradictions] as unsupported, we can focus on section 2.

My original critique was that Christianity contradicts itself. Your argument in this section essentially amounts to "if we assume for a moment that something highly unlikely happened (that all of us coincidentally chose self-reliance over surrender), then Christianity does not contradict itself". So we are left with either Christianity contradicts itself, or something highly unlikely happened.

[Justin108]

"Pushing" and "climbing" are two different things.

To substitute the analogy

climbing = surrender
pushing = ???

So in this analogy, God does not need the ability to climb (surrender), he only needs the ability to push. Yet you have constantly been insisting that God needs the ability to surrender... Why does God need the ability to surrender in order to "push" us?

No, the goal in your analogy is getting up the cliff. The goal in Christianity is salvation (which is living in surrendered relationship with God).

Yes and the means of that salvation is surrender.

So...
Getting up the cliff = salvation
Climbing = surrender
Pushing = ???

If you intend on twisting this to...
Getting up the cliff = surrender

...then that doesn't change the argument since God does not need to get up the cliff himself (surrender) in order to help us get on the cliff. He can push us up the cliff without needing to get on the cliff himself. He does not need to surrender.

What is "pushing" in this analogy and why does God not have this ability?

You can get up the cliff by climbing or by being pushed. You can be saved (which is surrendering) by doing it on your own willpower or having God's help.

How is this an answer to my question...? I asked "what is pushing in this analogy" and you respond with "you can get up the cliff by climbing or by being pushed". Again... what is "being pushed" in this analogy???

How are you saying Jesus can accomplish 2 and 3? In non-vague terms. Don't say "Jesus helps us surrender". I want to know exactly in concrete terms what Jesus does in this scenario.

Okay, so here is the hypothetical fact of the situation: our will is to walk by the homeless person (whether we are conflicted in that desire or not, the strongest desire we have is to walk on by without helping). Surrendering our will here means not following what we want to do, but doing what we should. We could make a distinction between Will A [the desire to walk on by] and Will B [the desire to help] and Action X [walking on by] and Action Y [stopping and helping].

Left to our own we do what our will is, which we've said is Will A, and that means we will perform Action X. Now let's bring God into the picture. Surrendering means doing Action Y, not Action X.

(1) God forces us to go against our will (A) and perform Action Y.

(2) God tells us what we ought to do, but leaves the choice up to us. Left on our own, we will have Will A and we will perform Action X, as we said above.

(3) We still have Will A, but a small part of us wants to perform action Y. But every opportunity that comes up we chicken out. Left on our own, we will continue to perform action X because we have will A. But God can enter into the picture, with our approval, and says He can surrender our will (A)...

...is it so hard for you to not use a tautology...? I want to know what surrender means. In your explanation of surrender you cannot use the word surrender. That is like defining "swim" as "to swim". So please, in non-vague, tautology free writing... what does "He can surrender our will" mean? Is he changing our will? What is he doing exactly?

and provide us with the power to perform Action Y

Do we not have this power prior to God's intervention?

I'm saying God can't do #3 without becoming a human.

As you keep repeating. You have not once demonstrated why God cannot logically do #3.

The ability that is required is laying down a will.

More vagueness. What does it mean to "lay down a will"?

God, as divine, does not have the ability to surrender a will.

At no point in the scenario above is God required to surrender his will. All he needs do to is help us surrender ours. I see no reason why helping us surrender our will requires God to surrender his. This is like saying "God cannot kill himself and therefore it is logically impossible for him to kill anyone". The fact that God cannot kill himself does not mean he cannot kill others. The fact that God cannot surrender his own will does not mean he cannot surrender the will of others.

But isn't God laying down a will in (1)? No, He is negating it. It ceases to exist and is replaced with a robotic one that is forced to mirror His own. Our will doesn't cease to exist in (3); it is transformed.

I fail to see why God transforming a will is logically impossible without first becoming Jesus.

And it's not a robotic one forces to mirrow His own, for our permission is required.

So if Abraham or Moses asked God to transform their will, God would not have been able to do so as he had yet to become Jesus? Regardless of the fact that Abraham and Moses gave God their permission, God would not be able to transform their will?

[The Tanager]

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

If someone were to provide such an argument, does that argument have to be convincing in order for you to change your belief?

What do you mean by convincing? I'm saying that if someone were to provide a an argument that would make it rational to believe in fairies, then I would have two rational alternatives. This would open me up to making a choice in what to believe.

If I find the arguments for YHWH to be irrational, then I only have one rational alternative and that is to reject the belief in YHWH

Again, there is a difference between finding arguments to be irrational and them actually being irrational. If you could prove the arguments for the Christian God are irrational, then you would only have one rational alternative, namely, rejecting belief in the Christian God.

That would be shifting the burden of proof.

Not in this context. That's why I write the title of each post each time. This section is about an argument you made that the Christian God (if true) would be rejecting people for beliefs that they don't have control over. The burden is yours. My burden is in section 2. If I asked you to disprove the Resurrection there I would be shifting the burden.

[The Tanager]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

What makes this approach difficult is the fact that you insist on taking it one at a time. This forces me to look only at testimony before then moving on to other supports for the resurrection.

Each step must be taken on its own merit. I'm talking about the facts that the argument is based upon. If we don't agree those are facts, the rest of the argument doesn't matter. If we agree those are facts, then we can analyze the logic of the argument that extends from there.

What is the "why" of the "no"? Why do you not believe in Big Foot sightings or alien abductions?

Well, the important point there was that we don't reject it simply because it is personal testimony. We reject Big Foot sightings and alien abductions because of inconsistencies or simply because their only logical appeal is to "trust me." I don't think that is the case with the Resurrection story. But, after hearing the whole argument, if you still think that is the case bring up that critique then.

So, here are the three basic (supposed) facts that we need to come to agreement on to begin with:

(1) the disciples claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus
(2) the tomb Jesus' body was placed in was empty
(3) the origin of Christianity rests on belief in Jesus' resurrection

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

My original critique was that Christianity contradicts itself. Your argument in this section essentially amounts to "if we assume for a moment that something highly unlikely happened (that all of us coincidentally chose self-reliance over surrender), then Christianity does not contradict itself". So we are left with either Christianity contradicts itself, or something highly unlikely happened.

Your original critique rests on assuming what Christianity says is true actually is true. That's the only way a contradiction could come out. I'm just holding you to the assumptions you are building your case of a contradiction on. And then arguing that no contradiction exists, if such assumptions are true.

If you want to change that critique to then say that Christianity's belief concerning the effect of sin is demonstrably false, you still own the burden. To argue it is improbable, even if true, is not rational support because, as you agreed, probability doesn't determine truth. But when free will is taken into account it may not even be improbable.

But if you want to simply ask the Christian why they think this belief concerning the effect of sin is rational and/or true, anyone who wants to answer would then need to provide more support than "If we assume...". And as I said last time, my support for that would go through what we are doing in section 2.

[The Tanager]

4. An analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution

Yes and the means of that salvation is surrender.

So...
Getting up the cliff = salvation
Climbing = surrender
Pushing = ???

If you intend on twisting this to...
Getting up the cliff = surrender

I've said many times, including that last post, that in Christianity surrender and salvation are identical, the exact same thing. Just like climbing is getting up the cliff in a certain way, i.e. on your own power. No "twisting" there.

How is this an answer to my question...? I asked "what is pushing in this analogy" and you respond with "you can get up the cliff by climbing or by being pushed". Again... what is "being pushed" in this analogy???

It was in the next sentence you quoted. "You can be saved (which is surrendering) by doing it on your own willpower [i.e., climbing] or having God's help [i.e., being pushed]." Pushing, in this analogy, is getting up the cliff on another's power.

Now, pushing could actually be distinguished into two kinds (or using two different terms) if you wanted to because we could push someone against their will or with their will.

...then that doesn't change the argument since God does not need to get up the cliff himself (surrender) in order to help us get on the cliff. He can push us up the cliff without needing to get on the cliff himself. He does not need to surrender.

God can't push us up the cliff without having the ability to push is the point. We need to surrender. God can't surrender our will with/for us without the ability to surrender a will.

...is it so hard for you to not use a tautology...? I want to know what surrender means. In your explanation of surrender you cannot use the word surrender. That is like defining "swim" as "to swim". So please, in non-vague, tautology free writing... what does "He can surrender our will" mean? Is he changing our will? What is he doing exactly?

Is it so hard for you to keep reading the exact same paragraph that explains it further? That you then even immediately quote and respond to next?

Do we not have this power prior to God's intervention?

We have the power, but don't use it and have gotten to the point where we can't...without God providing us with the follow through.

As you keep repeating. You have not once demonstrated why God cannot logically do #3.

I have not once convinced you, but I have demonstrated it numerous times. What is God doing in #3...surrendering our will[i/]. You can't surrender something if you don't have the ability to surrender. Just like you can't eat something unless you have the ability to eat. I have no idea why you aren't convinced of that.

At no point in the scenario above is God required to surrender his will. All he needs do to is help us surrender ours.

No, it's gotten to the point where He needs to surrender our will, not His. God already surrendered His human will in every aspect. And now that actuality is being imparted to us, so that our wills will surrender through God's ability and power.

So if Abraham or Moses asked God to transform their will, God would not have been able to do so as he had yet to become Jesus? Regardless of the fact that Abraham and Moses gave God their permission, God would not be able to transform their will?

That is where we get into God's relationship to time, being eternal. Many Christians believe that God doesn't just see past, present and future like an omniscient fortune teller or whatever. God actually experiences all of time in an 'eternal now'. God is outside of time. Jesus' work, from our perspective, works 'backwards' and 'forwards' in time.

But remember the context of this critique. It assumes Christian beliefs are true to show an inconsistency. I have no burden here to prove this Christian belief for the type of critique I'm responding to. If you want to have a separate discussion involving the validity of the Christian view of God's relation to time on its own merit, I would gladly take the burden for why I believe the way I do once these other sections close up.

If you think, given the belief, it leads to some other incoherence we can analyze that argument as well.

[Justin108]

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

If someone were to provide such an argument, does that argument have to be convincing in order for you to change your belief?

What do you mean by convincing? I'm saying that if someone were to provide a an argument that would make it rational to believe in fairies, then I would have two rational alternatives. This would open me up to making a choice in what to believe.

Very well, let's change "fairies" to "Big Foot". Big Foot has several sightings as well as photographs. It has arguably just as much evidence as Jesus' resurrection if not more. Can you choose to believe in Big Foot?