Crucifixion and forgiveness, a non sequitur

[2PhiloVoid]

Hello StTruth,

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.

Actually, I won't think you're “dumb” since, as a former student of philosophy, theology, and education, as well as a short-term teacher myself, I greatly appreciate the efforts of anyone who wishes to learn and explore important ideas, especially at a higher academic level.

Moreover, I don't assume any person is “dumb” or “stupid”; no, a person has to 'earn' the distinction of stupidity by demonstrating to me--over and over and over again--that he is anti-intellectual and intransigent against learning anything up and above what he thinks he wants to learn.

However, what I may think is that if someone begins a response to me by admitting that he is still in his formative stages of education, but he then proceeds to tell me that he knows I'm dead wrong about this, that and the other, I might begin to question his integrity. In other words, I might see his tactics as a form of purposeful double-talk. But then again, I'd hope that I'm wrong about that.

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?

Hopefully, this time, I can be more clear. So here it goes....

I'm not saying that Jesus' death on the cross should by all moral counts be seen as a “right moral event.” I know that it definitely won't be seen this way if we work exclusively within the usual modern, colloquial sense by which we identify something as right when applying our moral evaluations as to what constitutes 'right and wrong.'

But what I am saying is that Jesus' death in our stead is still a good thing. And it is a good thing even if it doesn't appear to be an event that comports with our modern notions of justice; it is good, theologically speaking, because it was a necessary act within the parameters and outworking of God's eternal holiness and justice and love. All of this isn't to say, though, that it isn't a repugnant thing to have to of had happen on our behalf. But, this is what God knew was required, nevertheless.

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.

Actually, we can have it both ways, if the specific nuances of meaning pertaining to the significance of Jesus' crucifixion are clarified as they should be. Perhaps part of the problem you're having in understanding me is that you're conflating what seems to be, on the one hand, a universal moral principle about how it is generally wrong to sacrifice a common, innocent individual in the stead of a guilty offender with what we find in Jesus, on the other hand, where we have a specific and unique instance of an innocent death plied, by God no less, in our stead.

And why is Jesus' case any different than that of the common man and the common moral condition of substitution? Well, to begin with, the one thing WE CANNOT SAY is that Jesus was just another common person who lived like every other person who ever lived, having just another common (but innocent) life, and dying in a tragic yet no uncommon way. We can't say this because to do so would be to reduce the fullness of meaning which is embedded in the identity of who Jesus is and in His act of dying on the cross; to see Jesus as just another example of “the innocent man” would be to reduce Jesus down. The fact that He was fully human does not abrogate the other facts that He was way more than a mere a human in His identity and that his death was way more purposeful in its full ontology than have been all other apparent innocent deaths combined throughout history.

Again, here's the crux of your difficulty in understanding me, as I see it: you are grossly conflating “the innocent man” as a kind of universal moral principle of identity with that of the specific ontological case of Jesus as “the innocent Son of God.”

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.

Of course it's repulsive to know that an innocent person would and could be put in place of a guilty one. The additional problem here is that not only have you conflated the common “innocent man” with that of Jesus as the specifically innocent man, but you also have two conflated notions of 'innocence' dancing around in the middle of your argument, and you're treating them as if they are one and the same. But, they're not the same.

One notion of innocence, even seen in biblical terms, is applied to a generalized moral state a person has in legal terms: i.e. one person stole the bread, the other did not; therefore, the person who did not steal the bread is “innocent” of having stolen the bread. So, in this minor sense, there are indeed “innocent” people. HOWEVER, there is a second notion of innocence that is also seen in biblical terms, and this second one pertains to the moral status of any individual human being before the eternal, holy majesty of God in His full Being. And because all individual human beings, except Jesus, are smeared with sin in some way in their individual lives, NO MERE HUMAN BEING IS INNOCENT BEFORE GOD. So, in this second major sense, the person who did not steal the bread is … still not innocent before the face of God.

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.

Actually, some aspects of blood sacrifice which the Israelites promulgated through the centuries did have some differences from what seem to be similar practices among neighboring societies. I can list some various examples, but for now, I'll just cite two described by Martin J. Selman (1995):

Despite the existence of similarities between Israel and the rest of Syria/Palestine, there remain two major aspects of Israelite sacrifice for which no obvious parallel exists. The first is the various atonement sacrifices of the OT. Though some analogies have been proposed, they do not have the same significance as they do in the OT. Further, the nearest parallels are more concerned with the removal of evil than with meeting the personal moral standards of a supreme deity. The second case concerns the Passover for which, despite all scholarly endeavor to explain its origins, no real equivalent exists outside the OT. The attempts of scholars to derive the main Passover ritual form apotropaic blood rituals in Israel's nomadic period, and Unleavened bread from Canaanite agricultural practices, remain uncertainly founded on internal literary analysis of OT texts. (p. 101)​

Reference:
Selman, M. J. (1995). Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. In R.T. Beckwith & M.J. Selman (Eds.), Sacrifice in the Bible (pp. 88-104). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, Paternost Publishers.

Obviously the idea of blood sacrifice is repugnant to us today, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be. Even within the bible, the idea is that it represents death due to some fault upon humanity, an idea that should have various senses of repugnance to us. Perhaps we might also want to say that today, we fail to have a fully adequate sense of repugnance for what Jesus' death on the cross actually means.

Moreover, and still biblically speaking, if repetitive animal sacrifice was sufficient before God, then Jesus wouldn't have had to be offered up as the real and final sacrifice on behalf of the moral failures of all of humanity (and in saying this, I'm firmly alluding to the theology laid out in the book of Hebrews, with all of its inherent corpus of theology which is relevant here).

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.

Again, following from what I said above, if we recognize that there really are TWO MORAL FRAMEWORKS [maybe even three, really] operating here, and that there are two sets of ethical evaluations being made, i.e. one from the human perspective and one from God's perspective, then we can say BOTH at the same time that Jesus' death was indeed “wrong, unjust, cruel, and outrageous,” on the one hand, AND then on the other, that Jesus' death was necessary, holy, good, and sufficient to meet the requirements of God's Eternal Justice and Holiness via the new covenant He offers humanity through His love.

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?

Well, that's great that you read that scholar. I know that we all have our own interpretive perceptions and conceptions emerging from the sum of the sources from which we've learned. You have your set, and I have mine. Two sets which, as many times happens, do not easily mesh.

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 think your first premise is deficient; maybe see my argument I presented to Nihilist Virus. [link here]

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.

I think it's great that you're beholden to your own principles of understanding, but just make sure that your strength of position is truly born out from a want to understand the truth and not just a desire to have the truth so you can bat people over the head with it. You might even consider seeing Christian faith as a venture of exploration rather than a concrete destination at which you have to arrive in absolute terms. Just a friendly, philosophical suggestion, StTruth.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[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.

So, NV, what is you're definition of *clearly*? And how many terms do I have to define?

I'm in the process of looking through the chapters of my logic books and attempting to coordinate your requirements in the OP with what I'm finding in the books. The thing is, as I go through this process I've come to realize that if I have to waltz through the Vienna Circle in order to properly lay out a syllogism--something I don't really want to do since I'm a terrible dancer--then I suppose I won't really be able to get a syllogism off the ground since God is in a class by Himself and One who is available for interviews only by special appointment.

 

[Chriliman]

@Nilihist Virus are you aware that Jesus forgave while he was being crucified? What this means is a wrong act must happen and then forgiveness can happen, even while the wrong act is still happening. I don't see what's so difficult to understand here.

Here's a logical syllogism to help: all forgiveness requires a wrong done, crucifying someone is wrong and therefore can be forgiven.

How does this apply to us now? It simply means we should forgive those who wrong us, even if they don't ask for it.

 

[StTruth]

Hello StTruth,
Actually, I won't think you're “dumb” since, as a former student of philosophy, theology, and education, as well as a short-term teacher myself, I greatly appreciate the efforts of anyone who wishes to learn and explore important ideas, especially at a higher academic level.

Moreover, I don't assume any person is “dumb” or “stupid”; no, a person has to 'earn' the distinction of stupidity by demonstrating to me--over and over and over again--that he is anti-intellectual and intransigent against learning anything up and above what he thinks he wants to learn.

However, what I may think is that if someone begins a response to me by admitting that he is still in his formative stages of education, but he then proceeds to tell me that he knows I'm dead wrong about this, that and the other, I might begin to question his integrity. In other words, I might see his tactics as a form of purposeful double-talk. But then again, I'd hope that I'm wrong about that.

Hopefully, this time, I can be more clear. So here it goes....

I'm not saying that Jesus' death on the cross should by all moral counts be seen as a “right moral event.” I know that it definitely won't be seen this way if we work exclusively within the usual modern, colloquial sense by which we identify something as right when applying our moral evaluations as to what constitutes 'right and wrong.'

But what I am saying is that Jesus' death in our stead is still a good thing. And it is a good thing even if it doesn't appear to be an event that comports with our modern notions of justice; it is good, theologically speaking, because it was a necessary act within the parameters and outworking of God's eternal holiness and justice and love. All of this isn't to say, though, that it isn't a repugnant thing to have to of had happen on our behalf. But, this is what God knew was required, nevertheless.

Actually, we can have it both ways, if the specific nuances of meaning pertaining to the significance of Jesus' crucifixion are clarified as they should be. Perhaps part of the problem you're having in understanding me is that you're conflating what seems to be, on the one hand, a universal moral principle about how it is generally wrong to sacrifice a common, innocent individual in the stead of a guilty offender with what we find in Jesus, on the other hand, where we have a specific and unique instance of an innocent death plied, by God no less, in our stead.

And why is Jesus' case any different than that of the common man and the common moral condition of substitution? Well, to begin with, the one thing WE CANNOT SAY is that Jesus was just another common person who lived like every other person who ever lived, having just another common (but innocent) life, and dying in a tragic yet no uncommon way. We can't say this because to do so would be to reduce the fullness of meaning which is embedded in the identity of who Jesus is and in His act of dying on the cross; to see Jesus as just another example of “the innocent man” would be to reduce Jesus down. The fact that He was fully human does not abrogate the other facts that He was way more than a mere a human in His identity and that his death was way more purposeful in its full ontology than have been all other apparent innocent deaths combined throughout history.

Again, here's the crux of your difficulty in understanding me, as I see it: you are grossly conflating “the innocent man” as a kind of universal moral principle of identity with that of the specific ontological case of Jesus as “the innocent Son of God.”

Of course it's repulsive to know that an innocent person would and could be put in place of a guilty one. The additional problem here is that not only have you conflated the common “innocent man” with that of Jesus as the specifically innocent man, but you also have two conflated notions of 'innocence' dancing around in the middle of your argument, and you're treating them as if they are one and the same. But, they're not the same.

One notion of innocence, even seen in biblical terms, is applied to a generalized moral state a person has in legal terms: i.e. one person stole the bread, the other did not; therefore, the person who did not steal the bread is “innocent” of having stolen the bread. So, in this minor sense, there are indeed “innocent” people. HOWEVER, there is a second notion of innocence that is also seen in biblical terms, and this second one pertains to the moral status of any individual human being before the eternal, holy majesty of God in His full Being. And because all individual human beings, except Jesus, are smeared with sin in some way in their individual lives, NO MERE HUMAN BEING IS INNOCENT BEFORE GOD. So, in this second major sense, the person who did not steal the bread is … still not innocent before the face of God.

Actually, some aspects of blood sacrifice which the Israelites promulgated through the centuries did have some differences from what seem to be similar practices among neighboring societies. I can list some various examples, but for now, I'll just cite two described by Martin J. Selman (1995):

Despite the existence of similarities between Israel and the rest of Syria/Palestine, there remain two major aspects of Israelite sacrifice for which no obvious parallel exists. The first is the various atonement sacrifices of the OT. Though some analogies have been proposed, they do not have the same significance as they do in the OT. Further, the nearest parallels are more concerned with the removal of evil than with meeting the personal moral standards of a supreme deity. The second case concerns the Passover for which, despite all scholarly endeavor to explain its origins, no real equivalent exists outside the OT. The attempts of scholars to derive the main Passover ritual form apotropaic blood rituals in Israel's nomadic period, and Unleavened bread from Canaanite agricultural practices, remain uncertainly founded on internal literary analysis of OT texts. (p. 101)​

Reference:
Selman, M. J. (1995). Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. In R.T. Beckwith & M.J. Selman (Eds.), Sacrifice in the Bible (pp. 88-104). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, Paternost Publishers.

Obviously the idea of blood sacrifice is repugnant to us today, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be. Even within the bible, the idea is that it represents death due to some fault upon humanity, an idea that should have various senses of repugnance to us. Perhaps we might also want to say that today, we fail to have a fully adequate sense of repugnance for what Jesus' death on the cross actually means.

Moreover, and still biblically speaking, if repetitive animal sacrifice was sufficient before God, then Jesus wouldn't have had to be offered up as the real and final sacrifice on behalf of the moral failures of all of humanity (and in saying this, I'm firmly alluding to the theology laid out in the book of Hebrews, with all of its inherent corpus of theology which is relevant here).

Again, following from what I said above, if we recognize that there really are TWO MORAL FRAMEWORKS [maybe even three, really] operating here, and that there are two sets of ethical evaluations being made, i.e. one from the human perspective and one from God's perspective, then we can say BOTH at the same time that Jesus' death was indeed “wrong, unjust, cruel, and outrageous,” on the one hand, AND then on the other, that Jesus' death was necessary, holy, good, and sufficient to meet the requirements of God's Eternal Justice and Holiness via the new covenant He offers humanity through His love.

Well, that's great that you read that scholar. I know that we all have our own interpretive perceptions and conceptions emerging from the sum of the sources from which we've learned. You have your set, and I have mine. Two sets which, as many times happens, do not easily mesh.

I think your first premise is deficient; maybe see my argument I presented to Nihilist Virus. [link here]

I think it's great that you're beholden to your own principles of understanding, but just make sure that your strength of position is truly born out from a want to understand the truth and not just a desire to have the truth so you can bat people over the head with it. You might even consider seeing Christian faith as a venture of exploration rather than a concrete destination at which you have to arrive in absolute terms. Just a friendly, philosophical suggestion, StTruth.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Hi 2PhiloVoid

Thanks for your very long post which I read a few times so I didn't miss anything. No, I don't accept that there are two moral frameworks. You admit that it is repugnant to let an innocent man take the place of a guilty one and then you go on to say that Jesus was special. I think what you wanted to say but without making it too obvious is that it's different if the person dying is God himself. But that doesn't alter anything. It's still wrong.

But you see, this idea that a person's wrong can be transferred to another is actually the idea that God practises himself. It is repugnant to us today but it was not so bad in those days and the people who wrote about God wrote it at a time when morality was different (this constitutes one of my arguments that there is no objective morality in the Bible). When God cursed Adam and Eve, he cursed the descendants too. That is why even we today deserve hell fire for the sin of Adam. We call this the Original Sin but it's a sin imputed to us by our God for someone else's sin 5000 years ago.

We see this elsewhere in the OT. God cuts out the illegitimate child from the Congregation of the Lord even though the child did nothing wrong. Not only that but God cut out his descendants right down to 10 generations.

Imputing a wrong done by someone on another person is something God does flagrantly. It shouldn't surprise us that he does it with Jesus too. And you seem to say that Jesus dying on our behalf was "required" by God's law. You made it sound as if God wouldn't have done such a repugnant thing if not for the necessity of doing so. But God is supreme. It's his law. His law must be based on his own sense of morality. Visiting the sins of the someone on someone else is utterly wrong. But as I have shown, God does it elsewhere too.

One easier way to answer this is by understanding time and culture. At the time when the Bible was written and in that particular Jewish culture, casting one's sin on another was the proper thing to do within the bounds of morality. That is why the OT has the idea of a scapegoat where a poor goat was made to suffer for Israel's sins. In this cultural mores, the Bible was written and our redemption law was forged. I believe if the Bible were to be written today, such a barbaric system would not be in place. Maybe God would have made Jesus play a online game to redeem the world or something. That's a poor example but I can't think of something similar to death on the cross.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi 2PhiloVoid

Thanks for your very long post which I read a few times so I didn't miss anything. No, I don't accept that there are two moral frameworks. You admit that it is repugnant to let an innocent man take the place of a guilty one and then you go on to say that Jesus was special. I think what you wanted to say but without making it too obvious is that it's different if the person dying is God himself. But that doesn't alter anything. It's still wrong.

You're welcome. I like it when people give me the chance to write a lot of stuff...

Actually, I said that Jesus' crucifixion is repugnant from certain, limited perspectives...

But you see, this idea that a person's wrong can be transferred to another is actually the idea that God practises himself. It is repugnant to us today but it was not so bad in those days and the people who wrote about God wrote it at a time when morality was different (this constitutes one of my arguments that there is no objective morality in the Bible). When God cursed Adam and Eve, he cursed the descendants too. That is why even we today deserve hell fire for the sin of Adam. We call this the Original Sin but it's a sin imputed to us by our God for someone else's sin 5000 years ago.

Since I'm not an advocate of the doctrine of Original Sin, I'll drop this part of our discussion into the pail of creativity.

We see this elsewhere in the OT. God cuts out the illegitimate child from the Congregation of the Lord even though the child did nothing wrong. Not only that but God cut out his descendants right down to 10 generations.

Yep...and sometimes it happens all at once, like it did for Achan and family. (Uggh!)

Imputing a wrong done by someone on another person is something God does flagrantly. It shouldn't surprise us that he does it with Jesus too. And you seem to say that Jesus dying on our behalf was "required" by God's law. You made it sound as if God wouldn't have done such a repugnant thing if not for the necessity of doing so. But God is supreme. It's his law. His law must be based on his own sense of morality. Visiting the sins of the someone on someone else is utterly wrong. But as I have shown, God does it elsewhere too.

I don't know that the term 'flagrant' is one I would apply to an Eternal and Holy God. But, do what you will ...

One easier way to answer this is by understanding time and culture. At the time when the Bible was written and in that particular Jewish culture, casting one's sin on another was the proper thing to do within the bounds of morality. That is why the OT has the idea of a scapegoat where a poor goat was made to suffer for Israel's sins. In this cultural mores, the Bible was written and our redemption law was forged. I believe if the Bible were to be written today, such a barbaric system would not be in place. Maybe God would have made Jesus play a online game to redeem the world or something. That's a poor example but I can't think of something similar to death on the cross.

Yes, for many people, playing video games could be a form of punishment...


Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So, NV, what is you're definition of *clearly*?

As I said in the OP, "sin" will be clearly defined if I can use your definition on my own to correctly determine what is or isn't sin.

And how many terms do I have to define?

Once.

I'm in the process of looking through the chapters of my logic books and attempting to coordinate your requirements in the OP with what I'm finding in the books. The thing is, as I go through this process I've come to realize that if I have to waltz through the Vienna Circle in order to properly lay out a syllogism--something I don't really want to do since I'm a terrible dancer--then I suppose I won't really be able to get a syllogism off the ground since God is in a class by Himself and One who is available for interviews only by special appointment.

A syllogism is supposed to be compact. If you find that you have to do that much writing, then you're doing something wrong.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@Nilihist Virus are you aware that Jesus forgave while he was being crucified?

No, he did not. He told God to forgive his executioners.

What this means is a wrong act must happen and then forgiveness can happen, even while the wrong act is still happening. I don't see what's so difficult to understand here.

Therefore...?

Here's a logical syllogism to help: all forgiveness requires a wrong done, crucifying someone is wrong and therefore can be forgiven.

So... you're saying that the entire purpose of the incarnation and crucifixion was so that Jesus could ask God to forgive his executioners?

How does this apply to us now? It simply means we should forgive those who wrong us, even if they don't ask for it.

This is entirely irrelevant to the thread.

But it seems that in this post you are strongly implying that God can forgive us as an act of will, and that the crucifixion was not necessary for God to forgive us. As I understand this post, the crucifixion of Jesus was completely unnecessary.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I suggest you re-read it, as you are being disingenuous. I excused myself when you refused to read what I wrote, as it is a waste of my time to write something without knowing if you would even bother to read it. It is not discussing something if you ignore most of what another person says on the matter.

If you fill out a form nonsensically - like putting your date of birth where your name goes, scribbling your address in the margin, and writing your name over printed words - then the clerk is not likely to read what you have to say.

I asked for a syllogism, and you gave me a long, long post of paragraphs.

I addressed this in my first post in your thread, which you ignored, except for a flippant "do you have a syllogism, then?".

Right you addressed it, but I wanted it to be defined.

Refusing to read what someone writes is a courtesy? We have very different definitions of polite behaviour.

Straw man. Isn't that beneath you?

Ignoring you was not the courtesy - my act of *informing* you that I was not going to read such a long, irrelevant post was the act of courtesy. Or would it have been more polite to ignore everything you said and leave that post there to do nothing? It is your actions which have put us here. If you like, I can find the dispute that put the wedge between us and you can correct yourself.

Everything I wrote I consider relevant to the topic at hand, so as far as I am concerned, you either need to show why it isn't relevant or address the criticism. You cannot just ignore it.

I certainly can ignore it. You can consider it relevant all you want, but when I ask for a syllogism and you lob paragraphs at me, you're not being relevant. Irrelevance can be ignored.

I gave a definition of sin in that very post after what you quoted. This is therefore duplicitous.

I don't understand what you are saying. I quoted you from post 118, where you said,

I did read the OP long ago, so I did not define sin, it is true, but you are again asking in the OP for an unreasonable level of clarification when already excluding one of the most basic definitions.

The next post was me, and the post after that was your declaration that you were exiting the conversation.

I explained the character of syllogistic logical propositions and how your insistence on apodictic propositions was arbitrary, yes. I even did so utilising your example of toads. For this is an assertoric argument, but no less valid a syllogism for it, as the vast majority of all logical propositions are assertoric in nature. You chose to ignore what I said though.

If you are willing to read what I write, so that my effort is perhaps not wasted, then by all means we could continue. You could just go back to my first post in your thread and continue your response from there or from my Sorites, without butchering its continuity, after reading the first posts. Now I suggest we stop derailing here with talk of another thread.

I could be convinced to read your long posts, but I'd prefer to examine your syllogism. While I wanted to tidy it up via the removal of premises, I do not view this as an imperative because a valid, sound syllogism could contain extraneous premises. If your syllogism requires long paragraphs of explanation, then I will read those. But I'm not terribly interested in much else, and I don't know why you would've expected otherwise given the nature of the OP.

 

[Chriliman]

No, he did not. He told God to forgive his executioners.

And Jesus does what the Father does.

John 5:19
"Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

So... you're saying that the entire purpose of the incarnation and crucifixion was so that Jesus could ask God to forgive his executioners?



This is entirely irrelevant to the thread.

But it seems that in this post you are strongly implying that God can forgive us as an act of will, and that the crucifixion was not necessary for God to forgive us. As I understand this post, the crucifixion of Jesus was completely unnecessary.

If crucifying an innocent person is wrong then it can be forgiven, based on the logical syllogism I presented. Obviously, had Jesus not been wronged there'd be no need to forgive. So, logically, the wrong action of crucifying Jesus was necessary for forgiveness to be needed.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And Jesus does what the Father does.

John 5:19
"Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."



If crucifying an innocent person is wrong then it can be forgiven, based on the logical syllogism I presented. Obviously, had Jesus not been wronged there'd be no need to forgive. So, logically, the wrong action of crucifying Jesus was necessary for forgiveness to be needed.

This is bizarre. Could you perhaps bounce this idea off other Christians and let me know what they say?

 

[Chriliman]

This is bizarre. Could you perhaps bounce this idea off other Christians and let me know what they say?

What's bizzarre about it?

I'd hope other christians would agree as it makes complete sense.

There is no need to forgive if a wrong action isn't committed. If a wrong action is committed then forgiveness can happen.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What's bizzarre about it?

I'd hope other christians would agree as it makes complete sense.

There is no need to forgive if a wrong action isn't committed. If a wrong action is committed then forgiveness can happen.

Perhaps read the OP, I think you just looked at the title and responded.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I said in the OP, "sin" will be clearly defined if I can use your definition on my own to correctly determine what is or isn't sin.



Once.



A syllogism is supposed to be compact. If you find that you have to do that much writing, then you're doing something wrong.

ok. Here's another attempt:

1. All human sin is sacrilege against an eternal, holy, and loving God and requires the just destruction of the offenders.
   
   
2. Because sin also makes human beings unholy before God, only God can satisfy the just demands that His Eternal, Holy, and Loving nature requires.
   
   
3. Because God is loving, He must at some point satisfy the said demands of His justice on behalf of human beings.
   __________________________________________________________________________
   
4. Therefore, if His justice is to be satisfied on behalf of sinful human beings, God MUST satisfy the demands of said justice.

So, obviously, such a theological set-up would preclude forgiveness by 'fiat.'

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Silmarien]

I rejected Western Christianity a long time ago and then got hit by the truck that is Eastern Orthodoxy, so my understanding of the Atonement is based on the Ransom Theory and Christus Victor doctrines rather than in Penal Substitution or even Satisfaction. I'm particularly interested in the cosmic implications of a passage like Romans 8:18-22:

"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed to us. For the creation is eagerly awaiting the revelation of God’s children, because the creation has become subject to futility, though not by anything it did. The one who subjected it did so in the certainty that the creation itself would also be set free from corrupting bondage in order to share the glorious freedom of God’s children. For we know that all the rest of creation has been groaning with the pains of childbirth up to the present time."

I specifically questioned my (Episcopal) priest about the implications of evolution on Christian doctrine, and he handed me a very interesting paper by the Catholic theologian John Haught. Building on the work of theologians like Teilhard de Chardin, who tackled the Problem of Evil in the evolutionary context, Haught says:

"An evolutionary theology, I would suggest, must picture God's descent as entering into the deepest layers of the evolutionary process, embracing and suffering along with the entire cosmic story, not just with the recent human chapters. The Spirit of God stretches the divine compassion out across the totality of time and creation, enfolding and healing not only human struggles and suffering but also the epochs of evolutionary travail that preceded our emergence. In spite of its endless diversity, there is a fundamental unity to the life process; and all of life is linked, throughout its evolution, to the eternal ground that we may call Life-itself."

It's really the only context in which the sacrificial aspect of Christianity really makes sense to me, because it's hard to look at the way life has evolved on this planet and not see how deeply imbedded in it the reality of sacrifice is. If this is not the way things are supposed to be, it's a wound that goes much deeper than human nature itself, so perhaps it is something that would need to be assumed in full in order to be healed.

Is it necessary? On God's end, probably not, but from our perspective, absolutely. I mean, who's a better friend: the one who only offers platitudes and is nowhere to be found or the one who'll go above and beyond to help you out? If Christianity is true, I think that the forgiveness of sins is likely the subjective side of a much more comprehensive rescue plan in action, and I find someone like Abelard helpful for explaining just how this could function:

"It, however, seems to us that we have been justified in Christ's blood and reconciled with God in this: God has bound us more to God through love by this unique grace held out to us – that God's own Son has taken on our nature and in that nature persisted unto death in instructing us through word as well as example – so that the true love of anyone kindled by so great a gift of divine grace would no longer shrink from enduring anything for the sake of God."

So for a couple of alternatives to Penal Substitution, we've got here a modern evolutionary spin on Christus Victor and a medieval take on Moral Exemplar. I'm sure you will hate them, but hey, hopefully someone will find them of interest.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I rejected Western Christianity a long time ago and then got hit by the truck that is Eastern Orthodoxy, so my understanding of the Atonement is based on the Ransom Theory and Christus Victor doctrines rather than in Penal Substitution or even Satisfaction. I'm particularly interested in the cosmic implications of a passage like Romans 8:18-22:

"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed to us. For the creation is eagerly awaiting the revelation of God’s children, because the creation has become subject to futility, though not by anything it did. The one who subjected it did so in the certainty that the creation itself would also be set free from corrupting bondage in order to share the glorious freedom of God’s children. For we know that all the rest of creation has been groaning with the pains of childbirth up to the present time."

I specifically questioned my (Episcopal) priest about the implications of evolution on Christian doctrine, and he handed me a very interesting paper by the Catholic theologian John Haught. Building on the work of theologians like Teilhard de Chardin, who tackled the Problem of Evil in the evolutionary context, Haught says:

"An evolutionary theology, I would suggest, must picture God's descent as entering into the deepest layers of the evolutionary process, embracing and suffering along with the entire cosmic story, not just with the recent human chapters. The Spirit of God stretches the divine compassion out across the totality of time and creation, enfolding and healing not only human struggles and suffering but also the epochs of evolutionary travail that preceded our emergence. In spite of its endless diversity, there is a fundamental unity to the life process; and all of life is linked, throughout its evolution, to the eternal ground that we may call Life-itself."

It's really the only context in which the sacrificial aspect of Christianity really makes sense to me, because it's hard to look at the way life has evolved on this planet and not see how deeply imbedded in it the reality of sacrifice is. If this is not the way things are supposed to be, it's a wound that goes much deeper than human nature itself, so perhaps it is something that would need to be assumed in full in order to be healed.

Is it necessary? On God's end, probably not, but from our perspective, absolutely. I mean, who's a better friend: the one who only offers platitudes and is nowhere to be found or the one who'll go above and beyond to help you out? If Christianity is true, I think that the forgiveness of sins is likely the subjective side of a much more comprehensive rescue plan in action, and I find someone like Abelard helpful for explaining just how this could function:

"It, however, seems to us that we have been justified in Christ's blood and reconciled with God in this: God has bound us more to God through love by this unique grace held out to us – that God's own Son has taken on our nature and in that nature persisted unto death in instructing us through word as well as example – so that the true love of anyone kindled by so great a gift of divine grace would no longer shrink from enduring anything for the sake of God."

So for a couple of alternatives to Penal Substitution, we've got here a modern evolutionary spin on Christus Victor and a medieval take on Moral Exemplar. I'm sure you will hate them, but hey, hopefully someone will find them of interest.

Now, can you delineate the significance of all of that in a brief syllogism, Sil? I just had to ask that since that is what NV is after in this thread.

 

[Chriliman]

Perhaps read the OP, I think you just looked at the title and responded.

I've read it and have previously engaged in discussion on this thread. I'm well aware of what you're asking for and I provided it.

Here again: Forgiveness is only possible when a wrong act has been committed against the one who forgives. Therefore, wrongly crucifying the innocent Son of God can be forgiven by God if it is His will to forgive. This clearly shows that crucifixion and forgiveness is not a non sequitur.

 

[Silmarien]

Now, can you delineate the significance of all of that in a brief syllogism, Sil? I just had to ask that since that is what NV is after in this thread.

Well... he did invite me to post, so I'll consider myself exempt. The only part that explicitly addresses the forgiveness of sins is the Abelardian bit, though, and once you're dealing with subjective theories of Atonement, I think it becomes impossible. Or at the very least, pointless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well... he did invite me to post, so I'll consider myself exempt. The only part that explicitly addresses the forgiveness of sins is the Abelardian bit, though, and once you're dealing with subjective theories of Atonement, I think it becomes impossible. Or at the very least, pointless.

Personally, I don't care so much about syllogistic thinking, and in the case of theology I don't think it will do more than shore up a handful of theological definitions and/or concepts. It sure won't help us discover 'new' info or attain 'new' understandings.

And as far as Atonement theory goes, I've always kind of seen the "Christus Victor" view as the flip-side of either the "Satisfaction" view or the "Penal Substitution" view. (Although as far as the "Government" view, I think it can be gently shoved to the side ...)

Peace

 

[Silmarien]

Personally, I don't care so much about syllogistic thinking, and in the case of theology I don't think it will do more than shore up a handful of theological definitions and/or concepts. It sure won't help us discover 'new' info or attain 'new' understandings.

And as far as Atonement theory goes, I've always kind of seen the "Christus Victor" view as the flip-side of either the "Satisfaction" view or the "Penal Substitution" view. (Although as far as the "Government" view, I think it can be gently shoved to the side ...)

Peace

What do you mean by flipside?

Penal Substitution is strange to me, to put it mildly. Working off of the criminal law symbolism, it seems like the offender is let off and then... that's it. Being acquitted doesn't necessarily imply an improvement in the criminal's situation--without additional help, they may well just reoffend. The whole doctrine seems to miss the mark on what is meant by redemption entirely, so I'm not sure how it can survive except in conjunction with additional theories.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If you fill out a form nonsensically - like putting your date of birth where your name goes, scribbling your address in the margin, and writing your name over printed words - then the clerk is not likely to read what you have to say.

I asked for a syllogism, and you gave me a long, long post of paragraphs.

If someone is seeking to clarify the form, since it is poorly worded or consequently misrepresents, it is perfectly reasonable to send a letter to the framers or organisation thereof, requesting clarification and explaining the difficulties of the form.

Ignoring you was not the courtesy - my act of *informing* you that I was not going to read such a long, irrelevant post was the act of courtesy. Or would it have been more polite to ignore everything you said and leave that post there to do nothing? It is your actions which have put us here. If you like, I can find the dispute that put the wedge between us and you can correct yourself.

What put us here was your refusal to read what I wrote and then claiming on another thread that I was unable to answer you on this one. As far as I am concerned, everything I said here was relevant, but you chose to ignore it for whatever reason. I merely excused myself, once I realised that you have no intention of granting me the basic courtesy of reading what I wrote. How can you determine the relevance if you don't even read it?

I certainly can ignore it. You can consider it relevant all you want, but when I ask for a syllogism and you lob paragraphs at me, you're not being relevant. Irrelevance can be ignored.

You can ignore it, but then I can excuse myself as well, as my efforts are then for naught. This does not mean that you weren't answered. The problem is that the way you are framing the discussion and interpreting syllogistics, is flawed - this is what I tried to point out, to no avail.

I don't understand what you are saying. I quoted you from post 118, where you said,

I did read the OP long ago, so I did not define sin, it is true, but you are again asking in the OP for an unreasonable level of clarification when already excluding one of the most basic definitions.

The next post was me, and the post after that was your declaration that you were exiting the conversation.

Read post 118 again. Therein I said:
"I would say sin is that which brings division between man and God and harms loving your neighbour as yourself, the latter merely being an aspect of the former definition."

So yes, I did offer a definition of sin that you blithely ignored, not even bothering to read the very post from which you culled my admission that I initially did not do so.

I could be convinced to read your long posts, but I'd prefer to examine your syllogism. While I wanted to tidy it up via the removal of premises, I do not view this as an imperative because a valid, sound syllogism could contain extraneous premises. If your syllogism requires long paragraphs of explanation, then I will read those. But I'm not terribly interested in much else, and I don't know why you would've expected otherwise given the nature of the OP.

You didn't tidy it up. You butchered it. I wrore a Sorites. Removing those propositions make it no longer one.
ALL the syllogisms offered in this entire thread require long paragraphs, as you are being abtuse in your interpretation of the nature of syllogistic logic. The latter was one of my points, which is why your responses in this thread is so seriously flawed. Either read my posts, or cease wasting my time. I am sure you would not like it if someone ignored your posts and replies, and then proceeded to pretend your points were unanswered elsewhere, so I fail to see why you think it fair to hold such double standards.