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]

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 can't take it on it's own merit because it's not that simple. Testimony is convincing in some cases while being unconvincing in others. If someone gave testimony on witnessing a car accident, I would likely believe them. If they provided testimony that they witnessed a man turn into a werewolf, I would not believe them solely on testimony. The believability of testimony depends on the claim. So we can either agree to place the "testimony" argument on hold until you provide other arguments for God, or we end this discussion here at an impasse.

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...

What inconsistencies?

or simply because their only logical appeal is to "trust me."

That is simply not true. There are photos of Big Foot, there are photos of UFO's, there are footprints of Big Foot... Frankly, there's more evidence for UFO's and Big Foot than for the resurrection.

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

People have claimed to have seen Big Foot.

(2) the tomb Jesus' body was placed in was empty

There are natural possible explanations for this.

(3) the origin of Christianity rests on belief in Jesus' resurrection

I've already addressed all of these in post 227. The fact that this turned into a religion proves nothing. Every religion logically needs an origin. That does not mean that the origin of every faith is based on a supernatural event. Does the fact that Joseph Smith's claims resulted in the Mormon faith mean that Joseph Smith's claims are based in reality?

[Justin108]

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.

A momentary hypothetical aims only to investigate the likelihood of an event. I did that and concluded (and you agreed) that the likelihood of the hypothetical you provided is highly unlikely, leaving us with "either Christianity contradicts itself, or Christianity is highly unlikely".

[Justin108]

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.

Very well.

Getting up the cliff = salvation/surrender

God does not need to get up the cliff himself in order to get you to get up the cliff. Ergo, God does not need to surrender in order to help us to surrender (get up the cliff). God can help us get up the cliff without himself getting up the cliff. God can help us surrender without himself surrendering.

...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.

As we've established, getting up the cliff = surrender. So if God cannot surrender, this simply means God cannot get up the cliff. So as long as God does not get up the cliff himself (surrender), I see no reason why God cannot push us. Why do you insist God does not have the ability to push us? You're entire argument so far is that God cannot surrender. But as this analogy demonstrates, God does not need to surrender in order to push us. So what is the problem here?

God can't surrender our will with/for us without the ability to surrender a will.

That's like saying God can't kill without the ability to commit suicide. God cannot surrender his own will, but that doesn't mean he cannot surrender other people's will.

- God can't take his own life, yet God can still take the lives of others.
- God can't surrender his own will, yet God can still surrender the will of others.

Can you point out a flaw in the above comparison?

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.

You're being inconsistent. In post 241, you said "(God) provides us with the power to perform Action Y", yet here you claim we already have the power and that God is simply helping us use it. So which is it? Is God providing us with the power? Or is God simply helping us use the power?

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.

My point is he never needed to surrender his human will. He could have surrendered our will without ever having surrendered his own will.

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.

The fact that "many Christians" believe God experiences time simultaneously is not enough to call this a "Christian belief". Nice try on avoiding accountability here but the fact that "many Christians" believe this does not alleviate you from supporting your baseless claim. Unless you can provide a scripture stating that God experiences time simultaneously, this argument is baseless.

[The Tanager]

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

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?

Since I do not have personal experience of Big Foot, I would need to see a rational argument for Big Foot's existence. What is that argument? Not 'people have images (that can be doctored or fuzzy)', but an actual case. I haven't really looked into such claims. My initial reaction is that they don't exist and that even if they did, it's not really that important a question to pursue, so I haven't devoted time to it.

[The Tanager]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

I can't take it on it's own merit because it's not that simple. Testimony is convincing in some cases while being unconvincing in others. If someone gave testimony on witnessing a car accident, I would likely believe them. If they provided testimony that they witnessed a man turn into a werewolf, I would not believe them solely on testimony. The believability of testimony depends on the claim. So we can either agree to place the "testimony" argument on hold until you provide other arguments for God, or we end this discussion here at an impasse.

I'm not asking you if you believe their testimony right now. I am asking if this is their testimony. Was it the testimony of the disciples that they saw a resurrected Jesus? Then the next question I'm asking is whether the tomb was empty. The third question is whether the origin and immediate growth of the Christian religion and it's message was centered on the supposed resurrection of Jesus. Not 'should we believe that message at face value,' but simply 'was this the message?'

You seemed to have answered those questions in post 227, but you also raised a concern about my defintion of a rational argument that we had to address first. I was asking if you rule out testimony from being considered at all. Are you? Or do you think it is okay to get agreement on what the testimony of history is that we can then analyze to determine why this testimony is there.

If you are okay with looking at the historical testimony, am I understanding your response in post 227 correctly when I read you as saying that you believe the disciples claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus, that the tomb was empty and that the origin of Christianity was centered around the supposed resurrection of Jesus.

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

A momentary hypothetical aims only to investigate the likelihood of an event. I did that and concluded (and you agreed) that the likelihood of the hypothetical you provided is highly unlikely, leaving us with "either Christianity contradicts itself, or Christianity is highly unlikely"

Why would that be the dilemma? What would be the contradiction of the first horn? If you are referring to the conditional in post 244, I don't agree that is what I've said. If Christianity is wrong about us choosing self-reliance over surrender it is wrong, not contradictory.

As for the highly unlikely part, I've been analyzing your logic. I've been saying that even if it was highly unlikely...so what? Probability doesn't determine truth.

I've also talked at times about how free will changes the probability itself. Let's say a dice came up a six 10,000 times in a row. If you tell me it was randomly rolled, I wouldn't believe you. But if you tell me a person(s) was allowed to make it say whatever they wanted each time [free will], then, while I might wonder why they made it a 6 each time, I would say "okay, that makes sense."

[The Tanager]

4. An analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution

Getting up the cliff = salvation/surrender

God does not need to get up the cliff himself in order to get you to get up the cliff. Ergo, God does not need to surrender in order to help us to surrender (get up the cliff). God can help us get up the cliff without himself getting up the cliff. God can help us surrender without himself surrendering.

I'm not saying God is getting up the cliff. God already climbed the cliff in the life of Jesus. What we are talking about is us getting up the cliff, i.e., our salvation/surrender. To put it in your equation style:

Getting us up the cliff = our salvation/surrender

As we've established, getting up the cliff = surrender. So if God cannot surrender, this simply means God cannot get up the cliff. So as long as God does not get up the cliff himself (surrender), I see no reason why God cannot push us. Why do you insist God does not have the ability to push us? You're entire argument so far is that God cannot surrender. But as this analogy demonstrates, God does not need to surrender in order to push us. So what is the problem here?

We have ways to get up the cliff. This isn't a separate piece than the initial equation above. It's specifying that equation.

Getting us up the cliff by climbing = salvation/surrender on our own power

Getting us up the cliff by being pushed = salvation/surrender on God's power

God got Himself up the cliff [the perfect incarnated life of Jesus]. But now we are talking about getting up those who can't climb it on their own [i.e., can't surrender on their own]. We need pushed. I'm saying God can't push us up the cliff (i.e., can't surrender for us on God's own power) if God does not have the ability of pushing (i.e., surrendering).

That's like saying God can't kill without the ability to commit suicide. God cannot surrender his own will, but that doesn't mean he cannot surrender other people's will.

- God can't take his own life, yet God can still take the lives of others.
- God can't surrender his own will, yet God can still surrender the will of others.

Can you point out a flaw in the above comparison?

Suicide = climbing up the cliff one's self = one's own surrender/salvation
Kill = pushing someone else up the cliff = another's surrender/salvation

Climbing up one's self and helping someone else up the cliff are different matters. We are talking about helping another up the cliff. You can't push them up the cliff if you don't know how to push. Your climbing of your own cliff is a different matter.

You're being inconsistent. In post 241, you said "(God) provides us with the power to perform Action Y", yet here you claim we already have the power and that God is simply helping us use it. So which is it? Is God providing us with the power? Or is God simply helping us use the power?

I should use distinct terms. They both seem like a use of 'power' to me, but that isn't very helpful. Thomas Aquinas would probably speak about the terms potency and act (which may need more analyzing, but I'll give a brief initial stab). We have a potency (potential power) to surrender. If we surrender, this ability is actualized. In God we (or God in us) actualizes it, moving the ability from a potency to an act.

So we have the potency to surrender, but our will is not to make that actual. God provides us with the ability to make that potency actual.

My point is he never needed to surrender his human will. He could have surrendered our will without ever having surrendered his own will.

To surrender our will He needs the ability to surrender. He doesn't have that in His Divine nature. To eat something you need the ability to eat.

The fact that "many Christians" believe God experiences time simultaneously is not enough to call this a "Christian belief".

How do you define a belief as Christian, then? You never approached this thread saying that you were only addressing such-and-such a particular form of Christianity. You made a general critique and I offered my form of Christianity as a counter to that general critique. And you addressed me within my own Christian beliefs. But now I can't do that anymore?

Nice try on avoiding accountability here but the fact that "many Christians" believe this does not alleviate you from supporting your baseless claim. Unless you can provide a scripture stating that God experiences time simultaneously, this argument is baseless.

If you mean that I need to prove this is a prevalent Christian view, then the Bible isn't going to be the only source. The Bible does not directly address the question of what it means for God to be eternal, whether He is temporally eternal or timelessly eternal. Christian philosophers have since tried to explore God's relationship to time based on the Biblical writings and their other beliefs about reality (like every worldview does). Some hold that God is outside of time (Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas and on into today), while others hold God is (at least since creation) temporal.

Are you saying I need to provide proof that God being timelessly eternal is a popular Christian view?

Or are you saying I need to show why all Christians should believe that?

Or are you saying that it is my burden to provide reasons you should think God is eternal in order to counter your critique that Christianity, given your Christian beliefs, is incoherent?

Or are you saying something different?

[Justin108]

Since I do not have personal experience of Big Foot, I would need to see a rational argument for Big Foot's existence. What is that argument? Not 'people have images (that can be doctored or fuzzy)', but an actual case.

So basically what you're saying is that there is evidence for Big Foot but it's not good enough for you to believe?

The evidence for Big Foot
- Eye-witness testimony
- Photos
- Videos
- Footprints

The evidence for Christianity
- Eye-witness testimony
- An empty tomb

Please explain how the evidence for Christianity is rational but the evidence for Big Foot is not.

I haven't really looked into such claims. My initial reaction is that they don't exist and that even if they did, it's not really that important a question to pursue, so I haven't devoted time to it.

I don't care. I'll ask again: can you choose to believe in Big Foot?

[Justin108]

I'm not asking you if you believe their testimony right now. I am asking if this is their testimony. Was it the testimony of the disciples that they saw a resurrected Jesus?

How should I know? I'm no historian. What I do know is that it is highly debated whether the Gospels are indeed first hand accounts. But for argument sake, we can assume that they are first hand accounts.

Then the next question I'm asking is whether the tomb was empty.

Assuming they are in fact first hand accounts and assuming the authors weren't lying; yes, the tomb was apparently empty.

The third question is whether the origin and immediate growth of the Christian religion and it's message was centered on the supposed resurrection of Jesus. Not 'should we believe that message at face value,' but simply 'was this the message?'

Again, I have no way of knowing. But again, let's assume it is.

You seemed to have answered those questions in post 227, but you also raised a concern about my defintion of a rational argument that we had to address first. I was asking if you rule out testimony from being considered at all. Are you?

No. It can be considered but it cannot be the main argument. It needs support outside of mere testimony.

[Justin108]

3. The Effect of Sin

A momentary hypothetical aims only to investigate the likelihood of an event. I did that and concluded (and you agreed) that the likelihood of the hypothetical you provided is highly unlikely, leaving us with "either Christianity contradicts itself, or Christianity is highly unlikely"

Why would that be the dilemma? What would be the contradiction of the first horn?

Not an outright contradiction, but rather a questionable detail. If God designed us to be sinful, why is he punishing us for being sinful? If we are naturally attracted to sin, then God designed us to be sinful. Of course there is no logical contradiction here, but it begs so many questions like why would God design us that way? Why would he punish us for it? etc.

Alternatively, as you suggest, God did not design us this way but rather we all just happened to choose self-reliance over surrender. This as we agreed is highly unlikely. So we are left with either God is unreasonable for designing us to sin, or we all (against all odds) chose self-reliance over surrender.

As for the highly unlikely part, I've been analyzing your logic. I've been saying that even if it was highly unlikely...so what? Probability doesn't determine truth.

I know. We've already agreed on this. But as neither of us know the truth, all we can do is go by what is most likely. In this case, the most likely explanation is not the one you provided as we both agreed that your explanation is highly unlikely.

I've also talked at times about how free will changes the probability itself...

Don't back peddle. In post 216 you agreed that despite it being a free will decision, the odds are still staggeringly low.

The odds of everyone choosing oatmeal are staggeringly low.

Free will does not change the fact that everyone on earth choosing the same outcome is staggeringly low. Here you agreed that the odds of everyone choosing oatmeal (a free will decision) is staggeringly low.