Crucifixion and forgiveness, a non sequitur

StTruth

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2016
501
233
Singapore (current)
✟22,369.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Oh, one more observation. Apart from the injustice of punishing the descendants of someone for his sin (even if sin it can be called), there is one more issue with regard to redemptive justice that is repugnant to truth and love.

In my history book about the Opium War between England and China, there was an incident in which two British soldiers became drunk and they committed murder in a Chinese village. The Chinese government insisted that the British released one of their crew to be throttled to death to atone for the death of the villager. That was because they didn't know who the criminal was and all of us in class went 'Urggghhhhh!!!!'. It's so unjust. How can you kill someone to atone for the crime of murder of someone else. But that's basically what redemptive justice is all about. It's repugnant to all of us who love truth and justice. It's wrong. But I can't say it's wrong because God will be furious. The whole story of Jesus is based on such a foul law and it's God's law and God is enforcing it and Jesus is participating in it.

So, to avert God's anger, I take it back. It's not a wrong law and God's law is good and wonderful. God is good and everything that comes from him is good and righteous. But I suppose you can think about what I've said in the earlier paragraph.

Cheers,

St Truth
 
Upvote 0

ExodusMe

Rough around the edges
Jan 30, 2017
533
162
Washington State
✟34,734.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just a step backward.

First of all, you again word it such that the crucifixion is sufficient and no argument is made to show how it is necessary. Granting your argument in its entirety does nothing to show necessity.

Second, you introduce more terms which are not defined, one of which is in "quotes" and so I cannot be sure I know what it "means." And, worse, a naïve reading makes it seem obviously false that Jesus had "infinite dignity" given that he humbled himself often. I'm left wondering why the nullification of Christ's dignity in the act of washing his disciples' feet with his loincloth was insufficient for the redemption of mankind since the sacrificing of Christ's dignity suffices.

And these problems are pointed out before I even get to the point of evaluating the logical connection between crucifixion and forgiveness. So let me know if you want to reword this and define your terms or if I need to create the strongest patchwork syllogism from your previous statements.



So then you are saying that the crucifixion was not necessary... therefore /thread.

And to be clear, I accept that if the Romans had another form of crucifixion - say, they had invented the electric chair - then Christians would be hanging electric chair necklaces around their necks and nothing would be fundamentally different. When I say "crucifixion" here I refer to the death of Christ. I'm asking how the death of Christ - by any means, so long as it was voluntary - is the linchpin of Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong: this aspect of Christ's death being voluntary is critical to Christian theology, and if Christ broke his neck by slipping on a banana peel then theology would be fundamentally different.



You made it clear that you understand. I'm not referring to a strange meaning of the word. But here's an example of necessity versus sufficiency:

(A) For me to feed my dog, it is sufficient, but not necessary, for me to cut off my hand and give it to him. This is sufficient because the action feeds him; it is unnecessary because I have other means of feeding him.

(B) Alternatively, for me to feed my dog, it is necessary, but not sufficient, for me to give him food. It is necessary for him to have food to eat, but it is not sufficient because I might be giving him the wrong kind of food or not enough of the right kind.

(C) For me to feed my dog, it is necessary and sufficient that I give him the right amount of the right kind of food.

Now, to a Christian, the crucifixion may appear to be in category (A) or (C). Probably most would say (C), because otherwise Christ suffered more than is necessary which seems to contradict the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. One cannot be a Christian and choose (B). Although you've been all over the place, you seem to be primarily arguing (A) so far.

To be fair, proving (A) should suffice for theological purposes. However, the starting place for me (and presumably most atheists) is that the crucifixion would fit into none of the above. We don't see the relevance of death to forgiveness. We see it as a new category:

(D) I want to feed my dog, but instead I cut off my hand and throw it into the sewer.

To us, we just see Christ as a man who was wrongfully executed. Good things don't magically happen because of that. Whether Jesus was a man, a demigod, or almighty God incarnate, we see a non sequitur.

So despite feeling nice about yourself for proving (A) to your own satisfaction, I insist that you prove necessity given all of the theological assumptions I've allowed you to have for free. I can explain why a dog needs to eat without the need for an analogy: the chemical bonds in the food are broken down into a usable form of energy to power cells. You must be able to explain to me, plainly, without analogy, what physical or logical process is dependent upon the execution of Christ.

1) There are many ways to use the word necessary in philosophy, so I wasn't really sure of your specific use. Sounds like I understand now.

2) I don't think you understand how insignificant your question is.

It seems you are using necessary to just mean that Christ could have been punished in some other manner in order to meet the retributive justice of God if God decided for it to happen that way.

That doesn't mean much to Christians. All we claim is that this is how God did do it. It doesn't matter if God could have done it another way.

/thread
 
Upvote 0

ExodusMe

Rough around the edges
Jan 30, 2017
533
162
Washington State
✟34,734.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi,

I just want to make a small comment after having read the interesting exchanges on this thread between Nihilist Virus and a group of Christians. A lot is said about God's retributive justice. I can't comment much because my readings are not focused on this area. But I just have a small observation to make which is highly relevant to the OP which is about crucifixion and forgiveness. Why do we Christians have this obsession with the notion of forgiveness?

We must first remember that this idea of retributive justice and the need for forgiveness come from the doctrine of the Fall of Man. The entire doctrine is one huge Pandora's Box of problems for me personally. Most Christians take it literally that the Fall of Man comes from Adam being duped by Eve who was duped by the Serpent into eating something forbidden by God. The Bible actually says that Adam and Eve were DECEIVED by the Serpent into eating the forbidden fruit. The victim of a deception is a victim. But God treats the victim in the cruelest fashion imaginable. Not only are these victims deserving of hell fire for all eternity, their children and descendants are similarly stained with Original Sin that earns them hell fire forever. That includes me born 2000 years after Christ. So, all deserve hell fire unless God himself in the form of His Son Jesus dies on the cross as an atonement of our sins which are the deception that Adam and Eve fell for thousands of years ago.

We sometimes speak of this retributive justice as some eternal law that even God is bound by. But that's rubbish. Everything comes from God and God can't be bound by an unjust law that demands the punishment of the descendants of someone who was the victim of deception. So who created this law that demands such an unjust punishment for the descendants of two victims of deception? A just God would instantly abrogate such a law and impose his own law of love.

So when we speak of the sins of mankind, we must call to mind what the Original Sin is. We'll then be outraged how unjust that law is and why should our God be bound by something so repugnant to truth and justice?

Cheers,

St Truth
Your problem of the chicken/egg is the euthyphro dilemma. Christian's just state that the law is a part of God's nature. He is not a servant to it as some external object and he did not create it. It is a part of him.
 
Upvote 0

StTruth

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2016
501
233
Singapore (current)
✟22,369.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Your problem of the chicken/egg is the euthyphro dilemma. Christian's just state that the law is a part of God's nature. He is not a servant to it as some external object and he did not create it. It is a part of him.

Hi ExodusMe,

Thanks for your reply. You are saying that the law that demands someone to be killed to atone for someone else's crime is a law that is a part of God's nature? Similarly, a law that requires the children and descendants of a sinner to be punished with hell fire is also a law that is a part of Almighty God? But our God is a just God, isn't He? How can a just God have as a part of his nature something so abhorrent, unjust and patently wrong?

St Truth
 
Upvote 0

ExodusMe

Rough around the edges
Jan 30, 2017
533
162
Washington State
✟34,734.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi ExodusMe,

Thanks for your reply. You are saying that the law that demands someone to be killed to atone for someone else's crime is a law that is a part of God's nature?

Retributive justice is a part of God's nature. God allowed for Jesus to take on the sins of other persons to meet the punishment for retributive justice...
Similarly, a law that requires the children and descendants of a sinner to be punished with hell fire is also a law that is a part of Almighty God? But our God is a just God, isn't He? How can a just God have as a part of his nature something so abhorrent, unjust and patently wrong?

St Truth

It would be unjust for him to not punish sinners who freely reject his mercy. The cross is mercy. A sinner who rejects it must satisfy justice himself (hell).

I don't mean to be insulting but your understanding of Christianity is weak and I would suggest listening to other people on this forum. @Quid est Veritas? is a smart guy. Try reading some C.S. Lewis or something. His book Mere Christianity is a good starting place for understanding the rationality of Christian thought and is very practical.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

StTruth

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2016
501
233
Singapore (current)
✟22,369.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Retributive justice is a part of God's nature. God allowed for Jesus to take on the sins of other persons to meet the punishment for retributive justice...


It would be unjust for him to not punish sinners who freely reject his mercy. The cross is mercy. A sinner who rejects it must satisfy justice himself (hell).

I don't mean to be insulting but your understanding of Christianity is weak and I would suggest listening to other people on this forum. @Quid est Veritas? is a smart guy. Try reading some C.S. Lewis or something. His book Mere Christianity is a good starting place for understanding the rationality of Christian thought and is very practical.

Thanks very much for your reply. No, you are not insulting. I don't take it as an insult at all. I'm quite grateful that you posted a reply.

But I'm talking about JUSTICE. I know that's what Jesus the Redeemer does and I know what atonement means and I know he died for our sins. But if God will forgive my troubled mind, I don't see justice in retributive justice. It is barbaric, wrong and totally unjust. Let's be honest. If you're the most powerful king in a land with full totalitarian power and someone has committed murder and the law is death and an innocent man steps in and says he wants to die for the murderer, you wouldn't pardon the murderer and kill the innocent man, would you? Because you have a sense of justice that prevents you from doing anything so monstrously wrong.

All I'm saying is maybe I may think like the rest of you when I'm older but I doubt it. To me, it's blatantly wrong. Just because God does it doesn't make it any more right in my eyes. God being Almighty and loving and wise should be able to overrule anything so repugnantly wrong.

If you think about it, you will also say I'm right here. I believe that. I can't believe that faith has hardened your heart so much that you think the innocent man should die in the place of the pardoned murderer. I don't believe anyone in CF will do that. But they seem to forget their sense of justice when they apply it to God. Somehow, God's wrong becomes holy and right to people. Is that right?

Cheers,

St Truth
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Retributive justice is a part of God's nature. God allowed for Jesus to take on the sins of other persons to meet the punishment for retributive justice...


It would be unjust for him to not punish sinners who freely reject his mercy. The cross is mercy. A sinner who rejects it must satisfy justice himself (hell).

I don't mean to be insulting but your understanding of Christianity is weak and I would suggest listening to other people on this forum. @Quid est Veritas? is a smart guy. Try reading some C.S. Lewis or something. His book Mere Christianity is a good starting place for understanding the rationality of Christian thought and is very practical.
His book definitely expands on the understanding the rationality of Christianity, and is quite practical.

It wasn't convincing, but I can understand it from a Christian view point.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thanks very much for your reply. No, you are not insulting. I don't take it as an insult at all. I'm quite grateful that you posted a reply.

But I'm talking about JUSTICE. I know that's what Jesus the Redeemer does and I know what atonement means and I know he died for our sins. But if God will forgive my troubled mind, I don't see justice in retributive justice. It is barbaric, wrong and totally unjust. Let's be honest. If you're the most powerful king in a land with full totalitarian power and someone has committed murder and the law is death and an innocent man steps in and says he wants to die for the murderer, you wouldn't pardon the murderer and kill the innocent man, would you? Because you have a sense of justice that prevents you from doing anything so monstrously wrong.

All I'm saying is maybe I may think like the rest of you when I'm older but I doubt it. To me, it's blatantly wrong. Just because God does it doesn't make it any more right in my eyes. God being Almighty and loving and wise should be able to overrule anything so repugnantly wrong.

If you think about it, you will also say I'm right here. I believe that. I can't believe that faith has hardened your heart so much that you think the innocent man should die in the place of the pardoned murderer. I don't believe anyone in CF will do that. But they seem to forget their sense of justice when they apply it to God. Somehow, God's wrong becomes holy and right to people. Is that right?

Cheers,

St Truth

...and that's part of the problem, isn't it St Truth? We evaluate life, and ethics, and religion, and even the uses to which we'll put logic into service, in ways that befit what is "right in our own eyes."

However, the problem is--which no one ever seems to clinch on--that God isn't about to pander to whatever the current moral/immoral trends happen to be. In response, we think He's being unfair and illogical for not joining in on the current hip-parade. But that's how it appears, I suppose, to those who do what is "right in their own eyes." It's this very thing that Paul the Apostle alludes to in his letters ...

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Upvote 0

StTruth

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2016
501
233
Singapore (current)
✟22,369.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
...and that's part of the problem, isn't it St Truth? We evaluate life, and ethics, and religion, and even the uses to which we'll put logic into service, in ways that befit what is "right in our own eyes."

However, the problem is--which no one ever seems to clinch on--that God isn't about to pander to whatever the current moral/immoral trends happen to be. In response, we think He's being unfair and illogical for not joining in on the current hip-parade. But that's how it appears, I suppose, to those who do what is "right in their own eyes." It's this very thing that Paul the Apostle alludes to in his letters ...

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Hi,

Thanks for your reply. But I really don't get what you are saying. Maybe I'm used to more direct things so I get confused if you don't say it clearly and to-the-point. I have said that all of us (you and everyone else on CF) will not kill the innocent man in exchange of the convicted murderer's execution. Now, you are saying that what's right in our eyes may not be right in God's sight? So, you are saying that a truly godly man will find it OK to kill the innocent man in the place of the murderer's and our reluctance to do that is our wrong and refusal to be like God in our sense of justice?

Too often, people hint at the broad principles without applying their minds to specifics. But I'm not like my grandfather who likes to talk about broad principles without getting down to practical specifics . I only see the practical side. So you are saying killing the innocent man in place of the murderer is right and the godly thing to do?

Cheers,

St Truth
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi,

Thanks for your reply. But I really don't get what you are saying. Maybe I'm used to more direct things so I get confused if you don't say it clearly and to-the-point. I have said that all of us (you and everyone else on CF) will not kill the innocent man in exchange of the convicted murderer's execution. Now, you are saying that what's right in our eyes may not be right in God's sight? So, you are saying that a truly godly man will find it OK to kill the innocent man in the place of the murderer's and our reluctance to do that is our wrong and refusal to be like God in our sense of justice?
No, I'm not saying this. What I'm attempting to say, in a nutshell, and without much aplomb, is that Jesus' innocent death is not one of those instances that 'fits' metaphysically, epistemologically, axiologically, or logically with our Modern ethical assumptions. God wasn't 'wrong' for placing Jesus in a circumstance in which He would die in our stead ...

It only becomes confusing and seemingly illogical if we try to lay our Modern ethical framework over the apparent metaphysical, Christian meaning of Jesus' life and death.

Too often, people hint at the broad principles without applying their minds to specifics. But I'm not like my grandfather who likes to talk about broad principles without getting down to practical specifics . I only see the practical side. So you are saying killing the innocent man in place of the murderer is right and the godly thing to do?
Again, I'm not saying this on a practical, modern level. I am saying that it is a good thing that Jesus, even as innocent as He was, voluntarily laid down His own life in our place, and it makes sense to me that Jesus' crucifixion pays our way into the merciful arms of God the Father.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
  • Like
Reactions: ExodusMe
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ExodusMe

Rough around the edges
Jan 30, 2017
533
162
Washington State
✟34,734.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
@StTruth a few thoughts here

your analogy of an 'innocent' person taking the place of a murderer doesn't match the crucifixion of Jesus because of the following
A) christian theology states that nobody is innocent in God's eyes. Even if a person was innocent for a murder they would still be guilty of many other sins (covetting, greed, lust, etc...)
B) retributive justice is not about a person "getting what they deserve". Further, it has nothing to do with revenge. It is purely about the 'price' of a crime.
C) this is more of an expansion on B. There is no reason to say that God cannot decide to provide a way for humans to repent of their wrongs and accept the death of Christ in their place for forgiveness. Why cant God do this? If you dig deeply on this topic you will realize that The Cross is where all of God's character is revealed

His justice in the punishment of Jesus
His mercy in the forgiveness of sinners
His love for His children in the providence of his plan

Dig deeply and you will not see contradiction but the revelation of who God is
 
Upvote 0

StTruth

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2016
501
233
Singapore (current)
✟22,369.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, I'm not saying this. What I'm attempting to say, in a nutshell, and without much aplomb, is that Jesus' innocent death is not one of those instances that 'fits' metaphysically, epistemologically, axiologically, or logically with our Modern ethical assumptions. God wasn't 'wrong' for placing Jesus in a circumstance in which He would die in our stead ...

It only becomes confusing and seemingly illogical if we try to lay our Modern ethical framework over the apparent metaphysical, Christian meaning of Jesus' life and death.

Again, I'm not saying this on a practical, modern level. I am saying that it is a good thing that Jesus, even as innocent as He was, voluntarily laid down His own life in our place, and it makes sense to me that Jesus' crucifixion pays our way into the merciful arms of God the Father.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Hi 2PhiloVoid,

You will think I'm dumb because I still don't get what you are saying. But I'm still in school and my education process is still on-going so there's no shame if I ask questions.

I will ask my question again because I can't tell what your answer is. Are you saying that killing the innocent man in place of the murderer is right and a godly thing to do? You say you are not saying this on a practical modern level. So what are you saying? How would you answer that question?

You can't have it both ways. It's obvious you won't say that killing the innocent man in place of the murderer is right and a godly thing to do. At the same time, you won't say that it's a wrong thing to do because you know I will then ask what about Jesus' sacrificial death? So, you try to pigeonhole morality to a 'practical modern level' and another level.

But I can see that you have no choice but to do that. Because I know you find it repulsive that an innocent man should be allowed to take the place of a guilty person. This kind of justice isn't justice to you. Neither is it justice to all the rest of Christians. But you have no choice but to accept that framework for our Lord's redemptive death. So you can't say it's wrong and you won't say it's right either.

Let me offer you one solution. You see, this redemptive death of our Lord is a premise that came about 2000 years ago. It was based on the blood sacrifice of the OT which is of course no different from the blood sacrifice of religious cultures all over the world from the Incas to the Hindus in the Indus Valley. It's actually an ancient and barbaric concept of justice which is repugnant to us today. Because it is inherently wrong, unjust, cruel and outrageous. But we can't say that to our Lord's redemptive death because we are Christians. I read one scholar who said that this idea of the redemptive death was not what St Peter came up with in Acts 2. Could it be (I'm just asking a question and I hope God will forgive me for anything I say) that God is too loving to accept an atonement as barbaric as this? Could it also be that God is too kind to really stamp the Original sin on every human being born of Adam because the entire concept is wholly unjust?

I'm saying all this because my first premise must be that God is love. And God is just. Anything that detracts from that must be questioned.

I'm not saying I accept the above. I'm just asking a question because I cannot pussyfoot around the way you adults seem to be able to do so well. For me, it's either wrong to kill an innocent man to atone for the sins of others or it's right. You can't have it both ways. And I feel it in my bones it's wrong. It's outrageous and monstrous to kill an innocent man just to appease an angry God for the sins of the wrong party.

Cheers,

St Truth
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
1) There are many ways to use the word necessary in philosophy, so I wasn't really sure of your specific use. Sounds like I understand now.

2) I don't think you understand how insignificant your question is.

It seems you are using necessary to just mean that Christ could have been punished in some other manner in order to meet the retributive justice of God if God decided for it to happen that way.

That doesn't mean much to Christians. All we claim is that this is how God did do it. It doesn't matter if God could have done it another way.

/thread

Wrong. Due to the nature of sufficiency, you must show necessity to avoid a non sequitur. And a non sequitur is a logical fallacy. Let me give you one final example.

Let's say the Detroit Lions are beating the Green Bay Packers 55-0 with 3 seconds remaining. In this scenario, victory is impossible for Green Bay no matter how many penalties the Lions might incur in some bizarre attempt to throw the game. Therefore, the following are true:

It would be sufficient for Detroit victory if all the referees started dancing like Michael Jackson. It would be sufficient for Detroit victory if a fan ran across the field naked. It would be sufficient for Detroit victory if a piece of the roof fell and killed the starting quarterback. Because no scenario can actualize a Detroit loss, anything is sufficient for a Detroit win.

But if I were to say that all of these things must happen for Detroit victory, I'd be guilty of a non sequitur. These things are sufficient but not necessary.

Given that I allow you to assume the existence of God and sin, it's understood that there is expected to be some kind of forgiveness mechanism. But if you can only show that the crucifixion was sufficient, then we have a non sequitur.

Again, you're entitled to treat any form of Christ's execution as equivalent. I'm not asking you to show that the actual cross was necessary - just that the sacrifice was.

This is a completely reasonable request.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'm sure you're right that my argument needs some mending since it is a first draft and all. But even with that being the case, I still have two points of friendly contention with your assertion that I haven't provided a “clear” definition:

1) I presented what I think is a sufficient definition of 'holy' that, even if brief, describes the historical connotations related to its use as it has emerged from the linguistic traditions of both Jews and Greeks. If this isn't good enough, then I'm not sure where else to go to get a satisfactory definition for something that can't be formulated by experience or caught in a test-tube and analyzed. Maybe you'd like to join me in Colorado to pan for gold—we'd probably have more luck with that, even if our efforts wouldn't bring home the motherload. OR maybe you want me to type out the remaining five paragraphs of the definition of 'holines/holy' in that Dictionary of the Bible I used, an act of labor which I am not really wont to undertake and which would probably go against copy-right laws anyway.

2) On another analytic level, I think it's inconsistent for you to allow us (Christians), on the one hand, to “...assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity,” and on the other hand, to not allow for the inclusion of some minimal but yet still meaningful use of the term 'holy.' Why does this seem inconsistent to me? It's because the concept of the Trinity has at least one member whose very essence is specifically identified by naught but the descriptor in question, i.e. the Holy Spirit. If we can't allow for sufficient meaning of the concept of 'holy' in a basic sense, then we can't cogently allow for the inclusion of the Trinity as a type of axiom. I won't even bring up the other inconsistency that automatically protrudes if the Trinity is assumed...​

So, is this where we're at? Are you going to continue to 'allow' for the inclusion of the Trinity, but not for a minimal yet sufficient presence of conceptual holiness within the attempted syllogism I've presented, one that religious Jewish persons and various Christians through the ages have already sufficiently developed and defined? :scratch:

Perhaps I should have articulated it differently, but my purpose for placing that clause in the argument was to prevent any balking about the very inference for which you are now balking. But, maybe the clause isn't even needed when the syllogism is read by an intelligent mind such as yours. In my mind, if God is Holy, then it follows that He can have no relational discord within Himself. God is Holy and His creations (or in this case, God's little human beings) can choose to maintain concordance with their Creator, or not, depending on their predisposition toward that relationship. With this in view, I think you should let this contention or yours go and just take the 'logical' hit, NV.

(I'm chuckling) ... at the moment I don't intend to derail this discussion. Or, I could just say that I “don't care” about discussing it and leave it at that. But, I might be lying if I said that. :rolleyes:

Well, it makes sense to me. My conclusion at 7 simply comes as a follow-up to the preceding premises...like 5 and 6, for instance.

I'm not seeing how the fact that God's requirement for the death of sinful human beings at the same time at which mercy is to be extended is analogous to “blue/faster.” Of course, I didn't take the Miller Analogies Test...so, maybe I could be missing something. :rolleyes:

No. I don't say. What I actually say is that it is not 'merely' a matter of deductive logic. In other words, without God's input into the overall data system, all we will be doing with deductive thought, if we try to apply it to the Biblical concepts of God, is to perhaps clarify some portions of what is already given; it won't be to find out new information about God. In saying this, I have in mind an accommodation to the kind of thing which Immanuel Kant referred to by way of his Analytic/Synthetic distinction. Of course, other philosophers since then have questioned Kant's sensibilities in making this distinction, but I think he offers some interesting points about the nature of statements.

While it isn't too much to say that Christian thought can use some of these methods in the process of understanding basic things in the bible—like the necessity of Christ to satisfy God's Justice, the substance of our having faith in these things as a form of reality will require the work of God Himself in orchestrating what is needed to believe; our reaching the conclusion of faith will not come about by our sole efforts to attain certain insights that we may, at any given moment, just happen to think will enable us to believe.

Actually, I think I provided a syllogism that sufficiently demonstrates the issue of necessity of Jesus' role in the extension by God of mercy and forgiveness to humanity (although I admit it might need some work or additional clarification).

What I don't believe is that there is any syllogism that can be constructed which will knock anyone to their knees and compel them to cry out, "Oh God, Abba, Father!!!” No, for that you have to actually eat the pretzel and find out that you savor it. Or you realize you detest the flavor, spit it out and go your way. This might sound empirical, but it's really not, at least not by much. Rather, I think that in the case of faith there is something to be said for axiological considerations and not just for those of epistemology, metaphysics and logic.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

My rules are fair here. You may use any term you like so long as you *clearly* define it. It's not my fault that it unravels when I paw at it. Just try something consistent, non circular, and preferably concise.

Far as I can see you haven't played by the rules quite yet.
 
Upvote 0

ExodusMe

Rough around the edges
Jan 30, 2017
533
162
Washington State
✟34,734.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wrong. Due to the nature of sufficiency, you must show necessity to avoid a non sequitur. And a non sequitur is a logical fallacy. Let me give you one final example.

Let's say the Detroit Lions are beating the Green Bay Packers 55-0 with 3 seconds remaining. In this scenario, victory is impossible for Green Bay no matter how many penalties the Lions might incur in some bizarre attempt to throw the game. Therefore, the following are true:

It would be sufficient for Detroit victory if all the referees started dancing like Michael Jackson. It would be sufficient for Detroit victory if a fan ran across the field naked. It would be sufficient for Detroit victory if a piece of the roof fell and killed the starting quarterback. Because no scenario can actualize a Detroit loss, anything is sufficient for a Detroit win.

But if I were to say that all of these things must happen for Detroit victory, I'd be guilty of a non sequitur. These things are sufficient but not necessary.

Given that I allow you to assume the existence of God and sin, it's understood that there is expected to be some kind of forgiveness mechanism. But if you can only show that the crucifixion was sufficient, then we have a non sequitur.

Again, you're entitled to treat any form of Christ's execution as equivalent. I'm not asking you to show that the actual cross was necessary - just that the sacrifice was.

This is a completely reasonable request.
Alright, but I don't think you understand that your objection doesn't matter then. Christian's don't claim that Jesus' crucifixion was logically necessary. They claim that it was what God decided to do to satisfy his retributive justice and redeem sinners.

We have no problem saying God could have done 'X' to satisfy his retributive justice in another possible world or God could create another possible world where Jesus dies by some other punishment.

On the other hand, it is necessary by way of 'this is how God decreed it would happen' as in we cannot rewrite history and do it another way - God chose to do it this way according to his will.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Alright, but I don't think you understand that your objection doesn't matter then. Christian's don't claim that Jesus' crucifixion was logically necessary. They claim that it was what God decided to do to satisfy his retributive justice and redeem sinners.

We have no problem saying God could have done 'X' to satisfy his retributive justice in another possible world or God could create another possible world where Jesus dies by some other punishment.

You don't seem to be paying attention at all. I've already said the following things directly to you:

Post#158:

And to be clear, I accept that if the Romans had another form of crucifixion - say, they had invented the electric chair - then Christians would be hanging electric chair necklaces around their necks and nothing would be fundamentally different. When I say "crucifixion" here I refer to the death of Christ. I'm asking how the death of Christ - by any means, so long as it was voluntary - is the linchpin of Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong: this aspect of Christ's death being voluntary is critical to Christian theology, and if Christ broke his neck by slipping on a banana peel then theology would be fundamentally different.

The very post you're quoting here:

Again, you're entitled to treat any form of Christ's execution as equivalent. I'm not asking you to show that the actual cross was necessary - just that the sacrifice was.

I've been conversing with you this whole time despite the fact that you're on my ignore list because I don't remember why I put you there. But if you are just going to talk past me and constantly shift your position, this isn't worth my time.

On the other hand, it is necessary by way of 'this is how God decreed it would happen' as in we cannot rewrite history and do it another way - God chose to do it this way according to his will.

I don't know how you could have possibly confused predestination with logical necessity in a thread that is very much discussing logic.

StTruth said a while ago that this topic is decided. I told him I'd wait to see what you have to say. 2PhiloVoid is still reserving his spot, but as far as I can tell you've simply dropped out.
 
Upvote 0

ExodusMe

Rough around the edges
Jan 30, 2017
533
162
Washington State
✟34,734.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You don't seem to be paying attention at all. I've already said the following things directly to you:

Post#158:

And to be clear, I accept that if the Romans had another form of crucifixion - say, they had invented the electric chair - then Christians would be hanging electric chair necklaces around their necks and nothing would be fundamentally different. When I say "crucifixion" here I refer to the death of Christ. I'm asking how the death of Christ - by any means, so long as it was voluntary - is the linchpin of Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong: this aspect of Christ's death being voluntary is critical to Christian theology, and if Christ broke his neck by slipping on a banana peel then theology would be fundamentally different.

The very post you're quoting here:

Again, you're entitled to treat any form of Christ's execution as equivalent. I'm not asking you to show that the actual cross was necessary - just that the sacrifice was.

I've been conversing with you this whole time despite the fact that you're on my ignore list because I don't remember why I put you there. But if you are just going to talk past me and constantly shift your position, this isn't worth my time.



I don't know how you could have possibly confused predestination with logical necessity in a thread that is very much discussing logic.

StTruth said a while ago that this topic is decided. I told him I'd wait to see what you have to say. 2PhiloVoid is still reserving his spot, but as far as I can tell you've simply dropped out.
Your objection is worthless. I already have answered that it only matters that his death satisfies God's retributive justice and that this is how God decreed sinners would be restored. This makes it necessary because God decided it would happen as such...

Christ could not have died by slipping on a banana peel because he died by crucifixion.

Insults are the best way to know when you have won a debate.

Thanks

1 Corinthians 8:2-3

[2] If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. [3] But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. (ESV)
 
Upvote 0

StTruth

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2016
501
233
Singapore (current)
✟22,369.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Your objection is worthless. I already have answered that it only matters that his death satisfies God's retributive justice and that this is how God decreed sinners would be restored. This makes it necessary because God decided it would happen as such...

Christ could not have died by slipping on a banana peel because he died by crucifixion.

Insults are the best way to know when you have won a debate.

Thanks

1 Corinthians 8:2-3

[2] If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. [3] But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. (ESV)

I have read what Nihilist Virus wrote and you totally misunderstood him when you treat the statement about Christ slipping on a banana peel as an insult. It's not an insult. What he's saying is that the voluntary aspect of our Lord's death is essential to our doctrine on redemption. If Christ had died accidentally (eg. he slipped and fell and died), that would not be consistent with our idea of what His sacrificial death should be. Isn't this obvious to you? Why did you say 'Christ could not have died by slipping on a banana peel because he died by crucifixion'? He knows that. And it's certainly not meant as an insult.

Cheers,

St Truth
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

You may assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity.

You may assume the "existence" of sin, but only if you clearly define what it is ("Missing the mark" or "offending God" is not a complete, exhaustive, and clear definition; I must be able to determine on my own what is or isn't a sin from your definition).

If you think you need another logical premise for free, please state clearly what it is and why you need it as another freebie.
All sin is against God, God in human flesh being crucified makes perfect sense given the irrational and violent nature of sin. I don't spend my time jumping through syllogistic flaming hoops so don't expect me to chase this in circles. By the way, I don't assume the Trinity it's a matter of essential doctrine that requires neither your approval nor you permission. Sin is an attitude toward God and if you want a definition you might try a lexicon. You want to know what the Christian understanding of sin is then I suggest you do some research because I know how this goes. No matter what the response you want anyone who responds to chase it like ghosts in the fog.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
All sin is against God, God in human flesh being crucified makes perfect sense given the irrational and violent nature of sin. I don't spend my time jumping through syllogistic flaming hoops so don't expect me to chase this in circles. By the way, I don't assume the Trinity it's a matter of essential doctrine that requires neither your approval nor you permission. Sin is an attitude toward God and if you want a definition you might try a lexicon. You want to know what the Christian understanding of sin is then I suggest you do some research because I know how this goes. No matter what the response you want anyone who responds to chase it like ghosts in the fog.

In our previous discussion, you constantly accused me of an ad hominem. I will read this when you go find that conversation and review your remarks.

Edit - I've found the thread.

Dr. Habermas: Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

After reading through it again, I insist that you revisit the conversation and explain yourself before we have any further interaction.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0