Crucifixion and forgiveness, a non sequitur

[quatona]

Jesus could've easily killed his killers before they could kill him, the point(cross) is that he didn't do that. This world could certainly use more people who refuse to return violence with violence, but those are the people who die as martyrs, yet are justified in Christ.

Be that as it may - it doesn´t address the question at hand.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not sure quite what the OP is looking for. You can't deduce that Christ's death is necessary based on the axioms of geometry. Adding the existence of the Trinity and sin probably isn't enough.

I don't actually think it is the only way God could forgive us. Like ViaCrucis I point out the early theories of the atonement didn't all say that, and I don't find it in Scripture either.

But people who believe it are operating from understandings of the character of God, and therefore what is morally possible*, that are ultimately based on some combination of revelation and Christian experience. I don't see how you could reasonably expect to reach Christian conclusions without involving revelation, religious experience, or both. I can't imagine where you'd start your syllogism.

*I use the term "morally possible" because I doubt that even hardcore fans of penal substitution would say that it's physically impossible for God to forgive people without Christ's death. The usual assertion is that it's inconsistent with his character, and various commitments he's made based on that.

I'm pretty sure you could write a syllogism resulting in "therefore God can only forgive through Christ's death," though I'm not going to try. The problem is that the premises are going to come from things that you (and I) don't think are valid.

Indeed many Christians think that it's directly revealed in Scripture. In that case they don't need a deductive proof, so it's not a sequitur from anything. In a system based on Scripture being revealed truth, deduction or syllogism is needed only when dealing questions that aren't directly answered by Scripture. In some cases you can deduce answers to those questions from information that is in Scripture. (Scripture is not the only possible source of revelation. I use it only as an example.)

In my opinion, in conservative Protestantism (which feels most strongly about this issue), Scripture being revealed truth should be understood as an axiom. If I recall geometry from the high school days, the axioms by definition couldn't be proven. But they were based on intuition and inference from examples, so it was taken to be reasonable to assume them. The status of Scripture in traditional Protestantism is like that. It can't be deduced from anything, but is considered reasonable to assume.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not sure quite what the OP is looking for. You can't deduce that Christ's death is necessary based on the axioms of geometry. I don't actually think it is the only way God could forgive us. Like ViaCrucis I point out the early theories of the atonement didn't all say that, and I don't find it in Scripture either.

But people who believe it are operating from understandings of the character of God, and therefore what is morally possible*, that are ultimately based on some combination of revelation and Christian experience. I don't see how you could reasonably expect to reach Christian conclusions without involving revelation, religious experience, or both. I can't imagine where you'd start your syllogism.

*I use the term "morally possible" because I doubt that even hardcore fans of penal substitution would say that it's physically impossible for God to forgive people without Christ's death. The usual assertion is that it's inconsistent with his character, and various commitments he's made based on that.

I'm pretty sure you could write a syllogism resulting in "therefore God can only forgive through Christ's death," though I'm not going to try. The problem is that the premises are going to come from things that you (and I) don't think are valid.

Indeed many Christians think that it's directly revealed in Scripture. In that case they don't need a deductive proof, so it's not a sequitur from anything. In a system based on Scripture being revealed truth, deduction or syllogism is needed only when dealing questions that aren't directly answered by Scripture. In some cases you can deduce answers to those questions from information that is in Scripture. (Scripture is not the only possible source of revelation. I use it only as an example.)

There's plenty of examples in scripture where Jesus forgives sins before he's crucified. I think the OP fails to recognize this and therefore incorrectly assumes crucifixion is necessary to forgive sins.

 

[hedrick]

There's plenty of examples in scripture where Jesus forgives sins before he's crucified. I think the OP fails to recognize this and therefore incorrectly assumes crucifixion is necessary to forgive sins.

In fairness, many Christians claim it. I'm from the Reformed tradition. Conservative members of my tradition think it's essential. It's part of penal substitution, which is one of the 5 principles that started the battle over fundamentalism among Presbyterians.

 

[Butch5]

Except for when he chooses not to be a "God of council," and gets so torqued at what happens to humanity when he leaves the room for a second, that his only solution is to 'ctrl-alt-del,' save six people and the two by twosies. Maybe he had some anger management courses and decided killing just one person this time (albeit three short days - almost a no harm no foul - scenario) was all that was necessary.

Sorry, I'm not following you. What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

 

[Butch5]

Irenaeus' quote is nowhere near a syllogism.

Also, every Christian, as far as I know, believes the crucifixion was necessary. Whether for forgiveness, redemption, or victory over death is inconsequential to me. I just want you to fix the non sequitur.

What every Christian believes has no bearing on what actually is. If the crucifixion isn't necessary for forgiveness where is the non sequitur?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What every Christian believes has no bearing on what actually is. If the crucifixion isn't necessary for forgiveness where is the non sequitur?

Your question answers itself.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, you aren't allowing that at all. You are insisting on apodicity. You thus in effect, are not allowing any assumption at all.

I said,

"I'm allowing you to make nearly any theological assumption you could possibly need."

You replied with the above.

The degree to which you are wrong is astonishing. The OP has four paragraphs. The first paragraph is an introduction and the declaration of the challenge issued in this thread. The next two paragraphs are theological assumptions that I'm spelling out and allowing you to make. The last paragraph is where I say that you may make any other theological assumption your heart desires, so long as you explain clearly what the assumption is and why it's necessary.

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 explained numerous times that if a covenant is violated, the offended party is still allowed to honor their nullified obligation if they so desire. They are not forced to abandon the terms of the covenant, but rather they are allowed to if they choose to. If you think this is wrong, feel free to explain why. All I see you doing is whining that I am rejecting bad ideas.

You rejected "missing the mark" out of hand.

If you gave me a definition for "apple" and yet I can't determine whether or not something is an apple when I apply your definition, then guess what - you didn't give me a definition of "apple."

I made it clear in the OP that if I can't determine whether or not an action is sinful based on your definition of sin, then your definition fails. Feel free to connect the dots for me on "missing the mark" but as far as I can see, it doesn't tell me whether I should lie to Nazis about hiding Jews in my basement.

How is forgiveness not a theological term?

Because forgiveness is independent of theology.

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.

This is the definition you gave:

"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."

Do you really want to get into just how inadequate this definition is?

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.

Utterly bizarre. The analog here, as far as I can see, would entail a challenge in which one allows any scientific assumption to be made and then to establish a causal connection between two phenomena. If you think this cannot be done, ever, under any circumstances, then you are confused beyond measure.

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.

Everything in science is well defined. Ultimately, definitions are layered in definitions and if you continue to peel them back you will get to fundamental, primitive definitions (such as the idea that mass is resistance to acceleration). I insist that you provide the same framework in theology, or else concede the point.

Ok. I fail to see how this is relevant to what I said in the part you quoted.

You said,

"In my syllogism, it is irrelevant how sin is defined for it to remain a logical sequence, though. 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."

I replied,

"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."

You replied,

"Ok. I fail to see how this is relevant to what I said in the part you quoted."

I think any onlooker will understand that what I said was relevant. I think you're just dodging my response.

How would that change anything? You would still be trying to exploit the inherent difficulties of definition and deficiencies of language.

Mathematics and logic have the same problem, and yet they properly define their terms. Theology is outclassed on this topic. So please contribute to the discussion or else concede the point.

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.

I do not see how this is relevant to what I said. I said,

"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."

Let me highlight this part:

Religious principles, conversely, were personally dispensed by God. If confusion arises, that's a problem.

You provided no solution to this problem, nor did you explain why it is not a problem. Hence, your response was irrelevant.

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.

These are problems that arise solely because of the flaws inherent in mankind. For your comparison to make any sense, you need to claim that God is flawed. Are you making this claim, or are you making a completely bogus comparison?

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?

OK. So I assume your analogy here is that many people use a colloquial definition of sin, and that there exists a formal one which is theologically sound. Please present it.

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.

Nihilism has won because philosophy is dead. No fact of reality can be ascertained without physical observation. Sitting in an armchair and thinking really hard will not produce anything that is actually known to be true. Philosophy is not a method for determining facts or truth.

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.

We're getting off topic, but Platonism is thoroughly debunked. It's only liberal arts majors or theology majors who subscribe to Platonism, and STEM majors, who know what they're talking about, see it for the fluff it is.

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.

Perhaps try to apply the principle of charity.

I have said, whenever the topic arises, that language is ultimately undefined and this is undeniably true. The best we can do is define our terms upon foundational, primitively undefined terms. This is the standard in science and mathematics, and I will accept this here in theology. You may (and must) appeal to primitive terms for us to even have a discussion.

This has obviously been my position all along, and you're either attacking a strawman or else you're criticizing concepts that you don't even understand.

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.

You lack a fundamental understanding of what a definition is.

We are very much at cross purposes, as you deny all meaning and then expect us to give you meaningful explanations.

Explained above.

This is an exercise in futility, until you alter the conceptual framework from within which the discussion has been done.

Until you stop attacking the straw man, this will indeed be an exercise in futility.

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.

I don't understand your point. If we accept as fact that ancient people believed in a certain concept, so what? They knew next to nothing. Many ancient people probably had more false beliefs than true beliefs. Perhaps pick your sources better.

Christ atoned my sins. I know it occurred. I recognised sin and then recognised its abscence.

We're both aware of how vacuous this statement is.

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.

I'm aware of his four causes. I cite them often in debunking the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.

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.

You're not following the conversation one bit. If you allow me to make any scientific assumption I desire, I can easily explain why an apple falls. You clearly cannot do the same when it comes to the logical connection between crucifixion and forgiveness.

You say that necessity is a ridiculous requirement to insist upon. Astonishing, since the necessity of the crucifixion for forgiveness is the entire premise of the gospel.

Let me be crystal clear on how generous I'm being on this thread. I'm not asking you to demonstrate that the resurrection most likely occurred. I'm not asking you to reconcile the square peg of Matthew's resurrection narrative with the circular hole of Luke's resurrection narrative. I fully accept all claims that you have made. I have only the most basic, fundamental stipulation: that I understand what you are even saying, and to that end I insist that you define your terms.

And yet after all of the ground I've given, I only ask that you explain why the crucifixion results in our forgiveness. Somehow, this is apparently an unreasonable request.

This request is usually satisfied even in fiction. We have to get to time travel before it gets to the point that no effort is given in explaining how key elements work.

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?

I recognize hogwash when I see it. Again, digging in the dirt will tell you far more about reality than sitting in an armchair and thinking really hard.

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.

Do you have an example aside from covenants? I already explained why covenants fail to explain anything here. You seemingly just sign off on any post that merely invokes the word "covenant."

What pray tell, is the difference between knowing something or believing it?

Knowledge is justified belief. Beliefs need not be justified.

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.

You criticize my proclamation that nihilism has won, and now here you are walking the fine line between solipsism and insanity.

Seems okay to me. What are you having trouble following? Perhaps stylistically I used too many semicolons, yes...

I'm not having trouble following anything. I said I did not proofread my own post and that I hoped it was coherent.

In summary, I think it is obvious that you have been thoroughly dismantled here. I don't care if you disagree or not, but please stop making excuses as to why you don't need to satisfy the challenge of the OP. I really don't care at all. I am interested in either an answer that is relevant to the OP, or your admission that you concede the point.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

God showing us what true forgiveness and love looks like through Christ is what causes the sins of mankind to be forgiven, so long as we actually comprehend what he has done.



Thanks for clarifying, but it's still not a non-sequitur because understanding Gods's true forgiveness and love through Christ's life and death, leads to the forgiveness of mankind.

Once again, you are not following the conversation. Please re-read from the beginning.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm not sure quite what the OP is looking for. You can't deduce that Christ's death is necessary based on the axioms of geometry. Adding the existence of the Trinity and sin probably isn't enough.

I don't actually think it is the only way God could forgive us. Like ViaCrucis I point out the early theories of the atonement didn't all say that, and I don't find it in Scripture either.

But people who believe it are operating from understandings of the character of God, and therefore what is morally possible*, that are ultimately based on some combination of revelation and Christian experience. I don't see how you could reasonably expect to reach Christian conclusions without involving revelation, religious experience, or both. I can't imagine where you'd start your syllogism.

*I use the term "morally possible" because I doubt that even hardcore fans of penal substitution would say that it's physically impossible for God to forgive people without Christ's death. The usual assertion is that it's inconsistent with his character, and various commitments he's made based on that.

I'm pretty sure you could write a syllogism resulting in "therefore God can only forgive through Christ's death," though I'm not going to try. The problem is that the premises are going to come from things that you (and I) don't think are valid.

Indeed many Christians think that it's directly revealed in Scripture. In that case they don't need a deductive proof, so it's not a sequitur from anything. In a system based on Scripture being revealed truth, deduction or syllogism is needed only when dealing questions that aren't directly answered by Scripture. In some cases you can deduce answers to those questions from information that is in Scripture. (Scripture is not the only possible source of revelation. I use it only as an example.)

In my opinion, in conservative Protestantism (which feels most strongly about this issue), Scripture being revealed truth should be understood as an axiom. If I recall geometry from the high school days, the axioms by definition couldn't be proven. But they were based on intuition and inference from examples, so it was taken to be reasonable to assume them. The status of Scripture in traditional Protestantism is like that. It can't be deduced from anything, but is considered reasonable to assume.

Thanks. This is about what I would've expected you to say. I appreciate the honesty.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I said,

"I'm allowing you to make nearly any theological assumption you could possibly need."

You replied with the above.

The degree to which you are wrong is astonishing. The OP has four paragraphs. The first paragraph is an introduction and the declaration of the challenge issued in this thread. The next two paragraphs are theological assumptions that I'm spelling out and allowing you to make. The last paragraph is where I say that you may make any other theological assumption your heart desires, so long as you explain clearly what the assumption is and why it's necessary.

As I said, you are not following through the terms set out in your OP, that's all. You are not allowing any theological claim, but challenging each to the level of apodicticity, which is unreasonable.

I explained numerous times that if a covenant is violated, the offended party is still allowed to honor their nullified obligation if they so desire. They are not forced to abandon the terms of the covenant, but rather they are allowed to if they choose to. If you think this is wrong, feel free to explain why. All I see you doing is whining that I am rejecting bad ideas.

Which is what is occurring with the Crucifixion. The offended party is honouring the covenant, by the means in which the covenant was enacted and reinforced such as blooded sacrifice and scapegoating, even though He need not do so. What, quite frankly, is your point here?

If you gave me a definition for "apple" and yet I can't determine whether or not something is an apple when I apply your definition, then guess what - you didn't give me a definition of "apple."

I made it clear in the OP that if I can't determine whether or not an action is sinful based on your definition of sin, then your definition fails. Feel free to connect the dots for me on "missing the mark" but as far as I can see, it doesn't tell me whether I should lie to Nazis about hiding Jews in my basement.

Well, no one is given the chance to expand on it, as it is rejected out of hand. The best way to do so, would be to define the target: Is not the Law fully encompassed in Love your God and your neighbour as yourself? So clearly, any act that fails to accord by these standards, would be missing the mark, as it were. I think this quite clear on lying to the Nazis, for by abandoning the Jews, you are facilitating the Nazis' murder of them, thus an offence against the Jews as well as against the Nazis, who you could protect from thus sinning in this manner.

Because forgiveness is independent of theology.

I disagree. For a concept of 'wrong' to make sense, for Morality to make sense, we require a metaphysical absolute or system to ground it upon, or else it is merely my preference over yours. The difference between any such metaphysical system and theology is paper-thin to non-existent.

This is the definition you gave:

"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."

Do you really want to get into just how inadequate this definition is?

Please. I can see no way in which this is inadequate. Merely stating something is, without explanation as if obvious, is a very poor way of going about a discussion.

Utterly bizarre. The analog here, as far as I can see, would entail a challenge in which one allows any scientific assumption to be made and then to establish a causal connection between two phenomena. If you think this cannot be done, ever, under any circumstances, then you are confused beyond measure.

It can be done, but not to the level of apodicticity that you insist upon in this thread for theology, as I illustrated with gravity. You keep eliding my very criticism of this thread.

Everything in science is well defined. Ultimately, definitions are layered in definitions and if you continue to peel them back you will get to fundamental, primitive definitions (such as the idea that mass is resistance to acceleration). I insist that you provide the same framework in theology, or else concede the point.

That is not true. Science starts with bare assumptions like repeatability of phenomena giving the same answers, that sense-data is accurate, that empiricism is more valid than other systems of knowledge-gathering, etc.
I can give you perfectly workable definitions in theology down to fundamental, primitive levels, but you insist on levels beyond the underlying structure or paradigm upon which it is based. Science would fail on this astringent level, as readily as theology does. For instance, in your example of mass: What is acceleration? Is this not based on movement? What is movement? etc.

You said,

"In my syllogism, it is irrelevant how sin is defined for it to remain a logical sequence, though. 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."

I replied,

"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."

You replied,

"Ok. I fail to see how this is relevant to what I said in the part you quoted."

I think any onlooker will understand that what I said was relevant. I think you're just dodging my response.

Yes, our hypothetical onlooker would see that I was talking about the fact that it is unnecessary to fully explicate a proposition to see if another proposition follows from it, in sequence. Logic would still apply, as it does in advanced quantum physics or Mathematics, even if I myself, have no idea what is going on anymore. This is why logical syllogisms can be rewritten in the form of A thus B, where propositions are replaced with placeholders. Their own meaning does not need to be fully grasped to see that a logical sequence is being followed.

Thereafter I give a definition of sin.

You complain that I don't define sin, but I just did in the second part of the paragraph, and then completely ignore my first point that it doesn't really matter when determining if a logical sequence is being followed. So yes, very much an irrelevant response you made to what I had written.

Mathematics and logic have the same problem, and yet they properly define their terms. Theology is outclassed on this topic. So please contribute to the discussion or else concede the point.

As does Theology. You just try and hold it to a higher standard then Mathematics. Logic, by the way, is the study of inference and the form of argument - so this is very much a confusing pairing you are making here. Logic is defining when something is properly defined, so to grant it its own criteria, is somewhat of a Petitio Principii, instead of merely a necessary convention as it is usually construed.

I do not see how this is relevant to what I said. I said,

"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."

Let me highlight this part:

Religious principles, conversely, were personally dispensed by God. If confusion arises, that's a problem.

You provided no solution to this problem, nor did you explain why it is not a problem. Hence, your response was irrelevant.

It is the same. Both are based on personal experience of past humans - Standing on the shoulders of giants. In like manner, Galen's physiology held Medicine for 1000 years, or Aristotlean theories of motion Physics, so here 'Confusion' arose as well, and was likewise a problem. They declared these as facts as much as the theologians declared points they held on the nature of God. Like Medicine later went on to affirm that blood circulated, so Theologians affirmed that the One God consisted of three Persons. In neither case did our base experience alter, but new information helped us update the worldview.

These are problems that arise solely because of the flaws inherent in mankind. For your comparison to make any sense, you need to claim that God is flawed. Are you making this claim, or are you making a completely bogus comparison?

This is a specious statement. The people putting other men's feet in the fire were also human, not God. You STARTED to first oppose theology on the grounds that it is held with such utter conviction and sometimes used to do evil, and now I pointed out that Scientific points are also held with utter conviction and sometimes used to do evil. It is frank sophistry you are attempting here. Either way, people were responding to what they considered to be real within their world.

OK. So I assume your analogy here is that many people use a colloquial definition of sin, and that there exists a formal one which is theologically sound. Please present it.

Not at all. My point is that a word's meaning is determined by the context in which it is found. Even if a formal definition exists, it does not mean it is consistently applied in writings, since there is by necessity a disconnect between the definition and its use, as all words aren't defined every time we read them. There is a flux of meaning, which is why thought-paradigms need to be deconstructed and the strands of meaning investigated, although even then, meaning will alter depending on the observer. Perhaps you should read up a bit about Wittgenstein, and his portrait concept, or go back to my earlier post where I explained it.

Nihilism has won because philosophy is dead. No fact of reality can be ascertained without physical observation. Sitting in an armchair and thinking really hard will not produce anything that is actually known to be true. Philosophy is not a method for determining facts or truth.

Nonsense. Physical observation is merely one form of Qualia, of human experience, as subjective as any other. It cannot be shown to be more valid, nor to be superior any other form of qualia, hence Buddhist claims as to the Void of the world, or Neurology's inability to explain our experience based on depolarisation of neurons, or concepts like labelling our consciousness an 'emergent property' has to be adopted from a naturalistic materialist point of view.

We're getting off topic, but Platonism is thoroughly debunked. It's only liberal arts majors or theology majors who subscribe to Platonism, and STEM majors, who know what they're talking about, see it for the fluff it is.

Seems more that tertiary educated individuals are at disagreement on this. Everyone is either a Platonist or Aristotlean, as someone once said, I forgot who for the moment. Anyway, much observer-dependant theorising in higher physics and those that believe that the world is mathematically determinable, are anyway paper-thin Platonists, so your denigration of non-STEM fields in this regard is silly here to boot.

Perhaps try to apply the principle of charity.

I have said, whenever the topic arises, that language is ultimately undefined and this is undeniably true. The best we can do is define our terms upon foundational, primitively undefined terms. This is the standard in science and mathematics, and I will accept this here in theology. You may (and must) appeal to primitive terms for us to even have a discussion.

This has obviously been my position all along, and you're either attacking a strawman or else you're criticizing concepts that you don't even understand.

Which was exactly my point, that you are holding Theology to higher standards then any other discipline in this regard, because you decide to arbitrarily set what is 'foundational'.

You lack a fundamental understanding of what a definition is.

Once again, this is exactly my criticism of your simplistic position. You would state that all knowledge is meaningless, nihilistic, yet hold an almost schoolboy belief in exact definition. it boggles the mind.

Until you stop attacking the straw man, this will indeed be an exercise in futility.

Interesting that a supposed Nihilist holds such an exact conceptual framework and fails to even acknowledge one outside it. You are being very inconsistent here.

I don't understand your point. If we accept as fact that ancient people believed in a certain concept, so what? They knew next to nothing. Many ancient people probably had more false beliefs than true beliefs. Perhaps pick your sources better.

You think we know that much more? Every age thinks they know better or more than their ancestors. This is silly hubris on our part, as history has repeatedly shown. I assure you, we hold far more false beliefs than true ones, and I am sure this has always been the case. I see no reason to think today better then the 1920s say or even the 200s BC. You acknowledge that we cannot know what is true, so how pray tell, are you determining that more of ours are true than false vis-a-vis theirs?

We're both aware of how vacuous this statement is.

I consider it profound.

I'm aware of his four causes. I cite them often in debunking the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.

Then why do you appear so ignorant of them? I would assume then, that you are misusing them in Kalam argument discussions then.

You're not following the conversation one bit. If you allow me to make any scientific assumption I desire, I can easily explain why an apple falls. You clearly cannot do the same when it comes to the logical connection between crucifixion and forgiveness.

You say that necessity is a ridiculous requirement to insist upon. Astonishing, since the necessity of the crucifixion for forgiveness is the entire premise of the gospel.

Let me be crystal clear on how generous I'm being on this thread. I'm not asking you to demonstrate that the resurrection most likely occurred. I'm not asking you to reconcile the square peg of Matthew's resurrection narrative with the circular hole of Luke's resurrection narrative. I fully accept all claims that you have made. I have only the most basic, fundamental stipulation: that I understand what you are even saying, and to that end I insist that you define your terms.

And yet after all of the ground I've given, I only ask that you explain why the crucifixion results in our forgiveness. Somehow, this is apparently an unreasonable request.

This request is usually satisfied even in fiction. We have to get to time travel before it gets to the point that no effort is given in explaining how key elements work.

You are the one missing the point of everything I have written. Multiple Logically valid ways to do so have been presented you. You reject them on patently silly grounds as I have repeatedly demonstrated. I have even shown you how to do the same to Scientific Arguments, so to keep harping on that example, merely shows how completely flawed your reasoning is. For some reason you can see that it can be dismissed in the latter case, but defend the exact same type of groundless reasoning otherwise.

I recognize hogwash when I see it. Again, digging in the dirt will tell you far more about reality than sitting in an armchair and thinking really hard.

Perhaps, but you have no way to show this to be true. This is therefore merely a judgement of preference and cannot be shown accurate.

Do you have an example aside from covenants? I already explained why covenants fail to explain anything here. You seemingly just sign off on any post that merely invokes the word "covenant."

I gave a Sorites based on the Scapegoat.

Knowledge is justified belief. Beliefs need not be justified.

Why is a belief justified? Because you hold it to be? There is no functional difference between these two definitions therefore. For a belief is justified because you believe it to be, and there is no way to infinitely justify that belief in your justification as well. Thus, knowledge doesn't exist in your system, at heart, as nothing can be fully justified.

You criticize my proclamation that nihilism has won, and now here you are walking the fine line between solipsism and insanity.

Yes, I shall merrily walk along the edge of that precipice, if need be. Trust me, you are not on much better footing.

I'm not having trouble following anything. I said I did not proofread my own post and that I hoped it was coherent.

No, you said: "I hope you agree that you have a lot to fix here" - which I do not. This is what you clearly are thoroughly confused and befuddled about, and trying to facilely ignore via pseudo-self-depreciation.

In summary, I think it is obvious that you have been thoroughly dismantled here. I don't care if you disagree or not, but please stop making excuses as to why you don't need to satisfy the challenge of the OP. I really don't care at all. I am interested in either an answer that is relevant to the OP, or your admission that you concede the point.

I disagree, of course. I think the OP has been relevantly and successfully answered multiple times in this thread by multiple posters. I concede that by your flawed, puerile and very specific thought-paradigm of what logic should entail in Theology, that the OP is unanswerable, but this hardly means what you think it does. We have already established from the get-go that you find it illogical, so this is a worthless observation.

 

[Chriliman]

Thanks. This is about what I would've expected you to say. I appreciate the honesty.

Actually, you're thread has helped me realize crucifixion is not necessary to forgive sins. So thanks! In case you're wondering why - Jesus forgave sins before he was crucified, that's actually one of the reasons he was crucified.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Actually, you're thread has helped me realize crucifixion is not necessary to forgive sins. So thanks! In case you're wondering why - Jesus forgave sins before he was crucified, that's actually one of the reasons he was crucified.

If crucifixion is not necessary to forgive sins, what was the purpose of the crucifixion?

 

[Chriliman]

If crucifixion is not necessary to forgive sins, what was the purpose of the crucifixion?

On the one hand, the people wanted to kill Jesus because they thought he was a rebell blasphemer, which he was not. On the other hand, Jesus was willing to lay his life down in order to make a public spectacle of ignorant and malicious evil.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

On the one hand, the people wanted to kill Jesus because they thought he was a rebell blasphemer, which he was not. On the other hand, Jesus was willing to lay his life down in order to make a public spectacle of ignorant and malicious evil.

...but we have to remember the overall 'telos' that is involved with Jesus voluntary laying down of His own life, and that was to fulfill the requirements of the Old Covenant under Moses [and the Prophets]... so, while we can say that Jesus perhaps DID die in view of providing an example to all humanity, and that He did it to release us from the bondage of Satan, He also did it to provide satisfaction for those moral considerations that pertain to a God who is nothing other than HOLY, and I can't emphasize the importance of God's Holiness in all of this enough. It's not just 'extra' theological baggage that can be discarded.

Just something to think about. If this wasn't the case, then we wouldn't have all of the talk by Jesus about fulfilling this and fulfilling that, or Paul talking about the removal of the curse of death in the Old Law, etc. etc.

Basically, what it comes down to is that we are going to have to get over the myth that God, as He is shown in the Bible, is a God of love ONLY. No, He is much, much more than just that ...

Let's also take a look at Dr. Tim Mackie's viewpoint,

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Nihilist Virus]

On the one hand, the people wanted to kill Jesus because they thought he was a rebell blasphemer, which he was not. On the other hand, Jesus was willing to lay his life down in order to make a public spectacle of ignorant and malicious evil.

So the purpose of the crucifixion was to mock humanity?

 

[Chriliman]

So the purpose of the crucifixion was to mock humanity?

Actually, Jesus was the one being mocked, so no.

Please reread what I said and resist the temptation to make it into something it's not.

 

[Chriliman]

...but we have to remember the overall 'telos' that is involved with Jesus voluntary laying down of His own life, and that was to fulfill the requirements of the Old Covenant under Moses [and the Prophets]... so, while we can say that Jesus perhaps DID die in view of providing an example to all humanity, and that He did it to release us from the bondage of Satan, He also did it to provide satisfaction for those moral considerations that pertain to a God who is nothing other than HOLY, and I can't emphasize the importance of God's Holiness in all of this enough. It's not just 'extra' theological baggage that can be discarded.

Just something to think about. If this wasn't the case, then we wouldn't have all of the talk by Jesus about fulfilling this and fulfilling that, or Paul talking about the removal of the curse of death in the Old Law, etc. etc.

Basically, what it comes down to is that we are going to have to get over the myth that God, as He is shown in the Bible, is a God of love ONLY. No, He is much, much more than just that ...

Let's also take a look at Dr. Tim Mackie's viewpoint,

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

That video was great! Thanks for sharing.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Actually, Jesus was the one being mocked, so no.

Please reread what I said and resist the temptation to make it into something it's not.

He made a public spectacle of ignorant and malicious evil, but he was not mocking anyone?

Nothing you've said has made any sense, and worse, nothing you've said has been on topic.

 

[Chriliman]

He made a public spectacle of ignorant and malicious evil, but he was not mocking anyone?

Correct, since when is publicly exposing evil considered mocking? The term 'spectacle' doesn't imply it was done to mock, rather it implies it was done to make an impact, which it obviously did.

Nothing you've said has made any sense, and worse, nothing you've said has been on topic.

The fact that Jesus forgave sins before he was crucified and one of the reasons he was crucified was because he claimed to forgive sins, which they thought only God could do, not man, should hopefully put the OP to rest.

Mark 2:4-7
'Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”'

'Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”'