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]

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.

Focus... we are trying to figure out why God could not do this before becoming Jesus. So telling me "yeah but God became Jesus" is not helpful to the discussion at all. We are trying to establish why God could not do this without first becoming 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

Why can't God get us up the cliff without becoming Jesus first? And before you answer "because God did not have the ability yet" - why did God not have that ability?

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].

Why did God do that? We've established that God does not need to get up the cliff himself in order to get us up the cliff. So why did God get up the cliff? It is completely unnecessary.

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).

When did "pushing" become an analogy for surrender? Why are you changing the analogy? The analogy is not "pushing = surrender". The analogy is "getting up the cliff = surrender".

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.

Why do you insist God did not know how to push prior to becoming Jesus?? Look I'm getting sick of asking the same questions over and over. I am getting sick of this discussion. If you cannot give me a rational explanation for why God does not have the ability to "push" us - to help us surrender - without first becoming Jesus then I'm simply going to walk away from this discussion. All you keep doing is twisting my analogies and forcing in special pleads. I want a clear cut explanation for why you insist it is logically impossible for God to help us surrender without him first surrendering himself.

- God surrendering is like suicide in this analogy. He is killing himself. God cannot do this
- God can, however, kill someone else.

- Similarly, God cannot surrender his own will.
- But that does not mean he cannot surrender someone else's will.

There is absolutely no logical reason for why God has to surrender his own will in order to help us surrender ours. God did not need to become Jesus. God did not need to become a man. If you insist he did, give a concise argument or I will end this discussion.

Climbing up one's self and helping someone else up the cliff are different matters.

Yes. They are different matters. Which means that God does not need to have the ability to surrender in order to help others surrender. Can we finally agree on this?

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.

Back to my suicide analogy. God does not have the ability to take his own life. That does not mean he does not have the ability to take another's life. God does not have the ability to surrender his own will. That does not mean that God lacks the ability to surrender someone else's will.

I repeat: God lacks the ability to surrender his own will. But there is nothing to suggest he lacks the ability to surrender someone else's will.

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.

Anything outside the Bible is an opinion. I'm here to debate Christianity, not the opinions of select Christians.

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

I am saying you need to provide scriptural support for your claim that God experiences time simultaneously. Either that, or we can focus on you providing support for your claim that it is logically impossible for God to help us surrender without first becoming Jesus.

[The Tanager]

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

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.

You haven't explained (and haven't said you will explain) how the evidence for Big Foot is rational. I said I haven't looked into it. I accept there is eye-witness testimony, photos, videos and footprints. That is laying out the foundational facts for the case to be built. Now lay out the case for Big Foot really existing from this evidence and lay out the case for alternative explanations with why they don't explain (or don't have as much explanatory power) all the facts. It's what I'm doing (and will continue to do, if you want to keep talking) in section 2 for Christianity. Take it one step at a time, like I'm doing with the Resurrection. I'll be reasonable and hold my conclusion until after you do the whole thing, keeping my critiques to each step as you make them should I have any.

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

If it is a rational alternative among other rational alternatives, yes.

To help me out here, what is your point in this section of our discussion:

1. That you've never heard an historical argument for the Resurrection and, therefore, you don't have control over your disbelief in the Christian God.

2. That you've heard an historical argument for the Resurrection and know that such arguments are not rational, therefore putting Christian God-belief in the same category as fairy-belief and so you don't have control over your disbelief in the Christian God.

3. That you can prove we don't have control over our beliefs.

4. That you want to drop the critique of incoherence and analyse the support for the Christian God.

5. Something else.

[The Tanager]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

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.

I'm not asking you to assume that at all. Even many of those who don't think they are first hand accounts, will still agree that the earliest Christians claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus. That's the fact I'm talking about here, not whether the Gospels were first hand accounts.

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

No, not assuming they are first hand accounts or assuming the authors weren't lying. Many scholars who don't assume (or even believe) those things agree the tomb was empty.

They point to Paul's writings, the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story, the use of "on the first day of the week" instead of "on the third day", how the narrative isn't spruced up theologically or apologetically, the women being the ones that discovered the tomb, how the disciples could not have proclaimed the resurrection in Jerusalem without the tomb being empty, and how the Jewish case against Christianity assumed the tomb was empty. And I share all of that only to talk about whether it is the best explanation of the situation that the tomb was empty. Not going into explanations for why it was empty yet.

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

We can trust most scholars (liberal, moderate, conservative) or we can look at the cases they make.

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

I agree. So, do you agree with what I've said above on the three proposed facts? Not "let's just assume they are true," but "do they appear to you to be true?"

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

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.

The most likely explanation in a vacuum, yes. You'd have a point if we were only discussing this issue, but this is a part of a larger claim(s). It started as you showing Christianity to be incoherent. Saying something is improbable doesn't show it to be incoherent.

If we drop that critique of yours and then talk about analyzing the Christian solution on its own merit, I'm saying the truth of this rests on other arguments. We can't claim those arguments to be weak because of the unlikelihood of this because those arguments (if true) would strengthen the likelihood of this.

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

I was analyzing your logic in post 216. I do not think, as I've said many times already, that your logic properly takes into account free will when analyzing the probability of free will decisions.

[The Tanager]

4. The analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution

When did "pushing" become an analogy for surrender? Why are you changing the analogy? The analogy is not "pushing = surrender". The analogy is "getting up the cliff = surrender".

I've been correcting what I think is your misanalogy to make it actually fit what I'm saying Christianity teaches. Pushing is a way to get up the cliff, it's not something completely different from getting up the cliff. It's a specification, not a different part of the analogy.

Why do you insist God did not know how to push prior to becoming Jesus?? Look I'm getting sick of asking the same questions over and over. I am getting sick of this discussion.

We've been going around in circles. We've had our says. Let's focus on the other parts or just say adieu.

Anything outside the Bible is an opinion. I'm here to debate Christianity, not the opinions of select Christians.

And what does the Bible say? And after you think of an answer please realize you are actually debating your interpretation of the Bible (or your interpretation of another's interpretation of the Bible). You don't want a counter interpretation to deal with? Okay. This is a strange place for you to come. I doubt the Bible will post anyting in response, though, you know being a book. I have enjoyed your challenges to my views and helping me to clarify language to better present what I believe. If this is the end, thank you for this discussion.

[Justin108]

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

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.

You haven't explained (and haven't said you will explain) how the evidence for Big Foot is rational.

You are the one who considers testimony to be part of what is considered "rational evidence". Big Foot has testimony.

In post 223, you defined a rational argument as

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.

So let's compare the evidence for Christianity to the evidence for Big Foot

well supported by sound logic
- Neither Big Foot not the Christian God has any logical arguments for their existence. In this, they are equal

testimony
- Both have testimony. In this, they are equal

valid and reliable evidence
- Big Foot has photographic evidence, video evidence and footprints
- Christianity has an empty tomb

If you do not consider photographic evidence, video evidence and footprints to be valid and reliable evidence then why do you consider an empty tomb to be valid and reliable evidence?

So from all appearances, both Christianity and Bigfoot are equally rational (according to your definition). The only thing they seem to differ in is whether the evidence can be considered reliable. If you insist the evidence for Big Foot is unreliable, I would like you to explain why the evidence for Christianity is to be considered reliable.

Now lay out the case for Big Foot really existing from this evidence

I don't have to. I don't care to convince you that Big Foot exists. All I needed to do was prove that there is a rational argument for Big Foot (as per your definition) and since Big Foot now has a rational argument, it is (unlike fairies) not a "dead option".

In post 188, you stated regarding your disbelief in fairies...

Concerning belief in fairies, my lack in personal experience of such creatures plus the apparent lack of any rational argument limits me from exercising my free will in belief about fairies.

This is not the same with belief in God or, more specifically, in the Christian God because there is not a lack of rational argument for those that lack personal experience with God.

Unlike fairies, there are rational arguments (as you defined them) for the existence of Big Foot. Going by what you said in post 188, you should now have the free will ability to choose to believe in Big Foot.

In post 198, you clarify this position even further

No, you do have actual (supposed) rational reasons to believe in the Christian God: the philosophical, scientific and historical reasons we are trying to get at in section 2. You may think they are weak, but at least you are aware that they are there. Those same kinds of rational reasons do not seem to exist concerning the reality of fairies.

And now you have actual (supposed) rational reasons to believe in Big Foot. You may think they are weak, but at least you are aware that they are there. You should now be able to freely choose to believe in Big Foot.

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

If it is a rational alternative among other rational alternatives, yes.

Just to be clear, is this a yes? Can you choose to believe in Big Foot?

To help me out here, what is your point in this section of our discussion:
...
2. That you've heard an historical argument for the Resurrection and know that such arguments are not rational, therefore putting Christian God-belief in the same category as fairy-belief and so you don't have control over your disbelief in the Christian God.

This. I'd rather not phrase it as "know that such arguments are not rational" as I am very weary of making any knowledge claims. Rather, I would phrase it as "I do not consider these arguments to be rational".

3. That you can prove we don't have control over our beliefs.

Can you prove that you don't have control over your disbelief in fairies?

[Justin108]

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.

I'm not asking you to assume that at all.

I'm afraid the only options are
a) assume the above mentioned
b) abandon the discussion

As I do not know what happened 2000 years ago, all I can do is assume.

Even many of those who don't think they are first hand accounts, will still agree that the earliest Christians claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus.

Right. And I am not one of them as I have no idea what happened 2000 years ago. The best I can do is speculate. I will go as far as to say that it is possible that they are first hand accounts.

That's the fact I'm talking about here, not whether the Gospels were first hand accounts.

The fact you are talking about is that many agree that these are first hand accounts? Sure, I am aware that many agree that these are first hand accounts.

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

No, not assuming they are first hand accounts or assuming the authors weren't lying. Many scholars who don't assume (or even believe) those things agree the tomb was empty.

Again, as I was not there, the best I can do is speculate. I would go as far as to agree that it is possible that the tomb was empty.

We can trust most scholars (liberal, moderate, conservative) or we can look at the cases they make.

Which scholars? Some say the tomb was empty while others don't even believe Jesus ever existed. I am not an expert in the field so I have no idea which account to believe. I will grant you that it is possible (even probable) that the tomb was empty but that's as far as I'll go.

[Justin108]

The most likely explanation in a vacuum, yes. You'd have a point if we were only discussing this issue, but this is a part of a larger claim(s). It started as you showing Christianity to be incoherent. Saying something is improbable doesn't show it to be incoherent.

Yes. I know. You're forcing me to repeat myself. As already stated in post 244...

So we are left with either Christianity contradicts itself, or something highly unlikely happened.

I am well aware of the fact that saying something improbable doesn't show incoherence, but it being improbable is a problem within itself. We are left with Christianity either being incoherent, or it being improbable. As it stands, Christianity is between a rock and a hard place.

We can't claim those arguments to be weak because of the unlikelihood of this because those arguments (if true) would strengthen the likelihood of this.

You're stating the obvious here. Of course the arguments would be stronger if they were true. But we cannot know if they are true. Can you prove that Christianity is true?

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

I was analyzing your logic in post 216. I do not think, as I've said many times already, that your logic properly takes into account free will when analyzing the probability of free will decisions.

Is "choosing oatmeal" in your analogy not a free will decision? And did you not say that "the odds of everyone choosing oatmeal are staggeringly low"?

[Justin108]

When did "pushing" become an analogy for surrender? Why are you changing the analogy? The analogy is not "pushing = surrender". The analogy is "getting up the cliff = surrender".

I've been correcting what I think is your misanalogy to make it actually fit what I'm saying Christianity teaches. Pushing is a way to get up the cliff, it's not something completely different from getting up the cliff. It's a specification, not a different part of the analogy.

According to your interpretation of my analogy, everything is apparently an analogy for surrender

getting up the cliff = surrender
pushing = surrender
tying your shoes = surrender

If you aim to "correct" my misanalogy, please fill in all the blanks from scratch

getting up the cliff = ???
climbing = ???
pushing = ???

Why do you insist God did not know how to push prior to becoming Jesus?? Look I'm getting sick of asking the same questions over and over. I am getting sick of this discussion.

We've been going around in circles. We've had our says. Let's focus on the other parts or just say adieu.

You've been dancing around this argument from the start. I expect you to either lay out a concise, carefully worded, tautology-free, unambiguous explanation for why it is logically impossible for God to successfully help us surrender without becoming Jesus first. I want to know what exactly God gained from becoming Jesus, why what he gained was absolutely necessary, how he used what he gained and why it was successful. If you cannot do this then you have failed to explain the necessity of Jesus Christ and his purpose on earth.

[Kenisaw]

It certainly can. I think the shift in the definition of atheism happened as a response to some groups insisting it was a belief position, when it really isn't.

How do you define belief?

Sorry for just now answering, I missed your question back in the day...

My definition of belief depends on the topic, or tone. As it relates to religious belief, I define it as holding true a set of dogmas that have zero empirical data or evidence to back them up.