You think it's unreasonable. I don't. I'm allowing you to make nearly any theological assumption you could possibly need.
No, you aren't allowing that at all. You are insisting on apodicity. You thus in effect, are not allowing any assumption at all.
So forget meeting you halfway - I'm coming to your doorstep and that's still not good enough for you.
My doorstep? Nonsense. You dug miles of earthworks and a moat. If your OP was actually followed through, by all means. All your further posts were not even close to this acceptance you tossed in, as even when people explained covenant frameworks, you rejected it all. If you were allowing theological assumption, why the vehement opposition to covenants and their ilk? You need to do some introspection on your methodology here.
I'm not sure which basic definition I'm excluding. Actually, I prefer that your definitions are basic - so long as they are consistent and non circular.
You rejected "missing the mark" out of hand.
In reading the OP, it is reasonable to infer that I don't require a definition for any of those terms. Crucifixion and forgiveness are not theological terms. God is, obviously, but I have a pretty good idea what that word means. It's true that I should have stated in the OP that I need theological terms to be defined - such as holiness - but that notion was formulated in discussion. I cannot allow, for example, participants to define sin as "an unholy action" and holy as "sinless."
How is forgiveness not a theological term? Odd that you are completely ignoring the fact that I said I gave you a definition of sin, which was my original 'grumbling' when you mentioned post 118 as my refusal to do so. Instead, you decide to go on some strange disingenuous rant, instead of addressing my complaint, and acknowledging your mudslinging on this point in error.
Really? To be clear, are you saying that if you challenged me to prove any arbitrary scientific notion, and you allowed me to make any scientific assumption according to my whim so long as I define my terms, then I will always fail? Is that really what you're saying? I just want to make sure before responding, because as I read it your claim here is outrageous.
If I apply the same apodictic requirements you adopted in this thread to craft scientific syllogisms, then yes. No scientific notion of any way, shape or form, can be shown based on the terms you insist on for theological ones here. For you wish terms defined so that you accept them, according to an absolutist framework, such as you did for sin, covenant, holiness, forgiveness, etc. One cannot do that for scientific inductive reasoning or method and without them, there is no science.
This thread is about the exploration of crucifixion and the forgiveness of sin. If I have no idea what sin is, it's going to be a nonsensical discussion. If it's left undefined, I see no reason why God cannot forgive all sin as an act of will. Christian theology, as I understand it, attests that the fundamental nature of sin and God's holiness do not allow for God to forgive sin as an act of will. I'm trying to formalize this concept, and formalization requires definitions.
Ok. I fail to see how this is relevant to what I said in the part you quoted.
OK. Maybe I should've used a square instead of a frog as a comparison.
How would that change anything? You would still be trying to exploit the inherent difficulties of definition and deficiencies of language.
The various disciplines of science were painstakingly cobbled together and built upon over generations without any help from a deity. Religious principles, conversely, were personally dispensed by God. If confusion arises, that's a problem. If my feet are held over the fire because of this idea of sin, and God won't even tell me what sin actually is, then I have to think of him as a trickster God.
Theology is itself a painstaking construct from centuries of Theologians. It is trying to make sense of a concept man has had since its earliest days, which is the same that the early natural philosophers were doing - This was before they just started building constructs upon their own theorums, building a massive ivory tower, while forgetting the basic axiomatic assumptions upon which the whole thing is based.
We see the same thing in Science, where on the grounds of Eugenics, Racialism, Economic theory, disagreements on taxonomy, etc., many had their "feet in the fire", as it were. Many lost their lives when Science of their day was applied in political spheres, like the Great Indian Famine, and many their careers and livelihood on petty disputes, like Cuvier's dispute over taxonomy of the cuttlefish. This is anyway a fallacious obfuscation, as the whole point is that no human concept can be so irreduceably defined, whether scientific or religious, thus it is silly to expect it in either.
I reject this. Parallel lines are not defined as lines which do not cross; that notion is simply taken as an axiom. However, in common usage, parallel lines are defined as lines which do not cross.
So there are two definitions. A mathematical one and a popular one. Are both not defined in the manner they are used? Does not the term then change meaning depending if used by a mathematician or the man on the street? How do you determine a defintion then, if not by how the word is used?
It looks like you're trying to say that a definition is an entity unto itself. Platonism is dead, nihilism has won, and we're moving on.
How can nihilism have won, if by its own precepts this is negated? If you cannot be sure of anything, neither can you be sure of nihilism.
Anyway, when someone makes an observation or writes an idea, they are writing the memory thereof or simulcrum of what was observed. This is not the thing itself, but a new thing, an abstract. Only on these abstract formulations can we apply any human thought, for how can they be reified? Even to test them entails creating simulcra into theoretical realms, to apply one to the other. There is a vast gulf between the intellectualisation of experience, the theory of what is occuring, and the experience itself. We create mental worlds and to pretend these are perfect representations of what exists in reality, is wishful thinking.
There is a reason why virtually ALL western thought is essentially based on the Socrates/Plato/Aristotle axis.
Again, you're right. I should have referred to a square instead. Biology is nothing but one big gray area. Heaven and hell are a black and white issue, so a mathematical reference would have been more appropriate.
If you think your theological terms are ill-defined, it's not my problem.
If you cannot define sin, then God is not reasonable in punishing us for it. No one has been sent to prison for "some kind of a crime or whatever." Worse yet, if we are "like ants" compared to God, why is he even playing with such high stakes to begin with? I wouldn't torture an ant for not understanding my rules and then violating them. Eternal consequences for beings who cannot possibly grasp the gravity of the situation, coupled with responsibilities and crimes that aren't even defined in the first place? You're making the insanity that is Islam look appealing by comparison.
Given the infinite stakes at play, I expect some kind of clarity here. We are literally being forced to play a game with loosely defined rules and immense consequences.
You assume correctly.
No, I absolutely don't understand the concept. Neither did the church fathers. "Mutilation for all penises!" "No, that's not a thing anymore!"
There already is a fundamental lack of meaning in all languages, including the formal language of mathematics.
And I'd love to see you show otherwise.
You're not addressing my criticism. You insist things cannot be defined properly, even mathematical ones, yet that is exactly what you are expecting from Theology. This is silly.
There isn't a "fundamental lack of meaning", but layered meaning, contextual meaning, multiple meanings. Place one concept against another, and we define it by its opposite as much as its own inherent qualities. We see dark by the lack of light, for instance. We form inherent dualities, which we only understand once we deconstruct them, and even then, meaning is fluid. For the act of definition, has itself altered how I saw the concept, and in essence, created a new additional definition. It is like Wittgenstein's portrait. If you look upon the actual thing, by describing it, you create a new thing. The description has not altered the original, unless I build it into the frame itself, but that would then have been inherently a part of it from the start, and any description would by necessity have to account for this description upon the portrait also.
We are very much at cross purposes, as you deny all meaning and then expect us to give you meaningful explanations. This is an exercise in futility, until you alter the conceptual framework from within which the discussion has been done.
No, you don't know it. You believe it. If you knew it, you could demonstrate it.
This is an axiomatic assumption with no basis. Does a child not know their family members, without being able to explain in what way or method they are related to one another? Sin predates Christianity and was widely accepted by humanity. This is a part of why the Gospel, the Good News, managed to spread so fast. Perhaps you should read some anthropology.
What a bizarre analogy. I know a car works because when I put my foot to the pedal, the car goes. What *actually happens* that makes you *know* that there exists some method of atonement?
Christ atoned my sins. I know it occurred. I recognised sin and then recognised its abscence.
I requested either a physical or logical explanation for the necessity of the crucifixion. I see you're going the physical route - no problem there - but you've shrugged off necessity. Granting your argument in its entirety, we only have sufficiency. Sufficiency without necessity allows for the possibility of a non sequitur.
For example, suppose the Detroit Lions have clinched the NFC North title. It would be true to say that if their quarterback wrestles a pig in mud, then they will win the NFC North. Such an act would be sufficient, but obviously not necessary. Hence, mud wrestling a pig is a non sequitur here.
Since necessity is the point in question on this thread, you've done nothing to resolve the non sequitur.
Also, it would make a lot more sense to me if you moved Christ's sinlessness to the Material category.
Please look up the four causes of Aristotle, as you missed the entire point I was trying to make. I was applying Logical Syllogism as it had been invented, in the manner of its inventor, in fact.
As I told you before, Necessity is a ridiculous requirement to insist upon from the start, for such apodictic statements cannot be made on such assertoric concepts. Again, we would be unable to show almost all human thought to be acceptable on such stringent grounds.
Why must an apple fall by necessity? By Gravity? Why? Why does gravity cause this? By mass? What material actions occur that matter has mass and this gravity? Why does one entail the other? - I hope this shows you why any logical construct of this nature cannot be expected on these grounds, it is plainly silly to. To insist on necessity, requires an assertoric logical proposition, one cannot do so on apodictic grounds for anything but the most basic of ideas.
Aside from the minor detail I mentioned with regards to sinlessness, your four causes seem to be valid and sound. I haven't intensely scrutinized them, though, because - as I said - granting your case in its entirety does absolutely nothing for the sake of this thread. Show necessity, and I will evaluate the argument.
You are being specious. See above for the problems of 'necessity' which you seem to be missing in entirety, or more likely, abusing for your ends. Perhaps you do not understand what an apodictic and an assetoric proposition is?
On the contrary, I'm willing to grant you any theological assumption you might need. In return, I insist that you define your terms and present a valid syllogism.
I disagree. You have not allowed a single theological assumption that I am aware of. People presented many valid Syllogisms with defined terms, yet by hook or crook you refused them, on grounds of denying the assumptions they entail like covenants and whatnot.
No, you don't. You believe it.
What pray tell, is the difference between knowing something or believing it? Science itself is built on the belief that all the experiments done before really happened and the trust in the Authority that informed you of them. Even if you redid every experiment, an impossibility, this would still be you 'knowing', because you believed you had done so, not actual 'knowledge' of the event itself. It would merely be memory.
Don't quibble on terms like this, for people in glass houses should not throw stones.
I hope you agree that you have a lot to fix here. I might as well - I usually proofread before posting, but I barely had time for a skim.
Seems okay to me. What are you having trouble following? Perhaps stylistically I used too many semicolons, yes...
