• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Crucifixion and forgiveness, a non sequitur

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by Nihilist Virus, Aug 14, 2017.

  1. StTruth

    StTruth Well-Known Member

    501
    +196
    Christian
    Single
    Oh, one more observation. Apart from the injustice of punishing the descendants of someone for his sin (even if sin it can be called), there is one more issue with regard to redemptive justice that is repugnant to truth and love.

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

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

    Cheers,

    St Truth
     
  2. ExodusMe

    ExodusMe Rough around the edges

    533
    +153
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Others
    1) There are many ways to use the word necessary in philosophy, so I wasn't really sure of your specific use. Sounds like I understand now.

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

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

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

    /thread
     
  3. ExodusMe

    ExodusMe Rough around the edges

    533
    +153
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Others
    Your problem of the chicken/egg is the euthyphro dilemma. Christian's just state that the law is a part of God's nature. He is not a servant to it as some external object and he did not create it. It is a part of him.
     
  4. StTruth

    StTruth Well-Known Member

    501
    +196
    Christian
    Single
    Hi ExodusMe,

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

    St Truth
     
  5. ExodusMe

    ExodusMe Rough around the edges

    533
    +153
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Others
    Retributive justice is a part of God's nature. God allowed for Jesus to take on the sins of other persons to meet the punishment for retributive justice...
    It would be unjust for him to not punish sinners who freely reject his mercy. The cross is mercy. A sinner who rejects it must satisfy justice himself (hell).

    I don't mean to be insulting but your understanding of Christianity is weak and I would suggest listening to other people on this forum. @Quid est Veritas? is a smart guy. Try reading some C.S. Lewis or something. His book Mere Christianity is a good starting place for understanding the rationality of Christian thought and is very practical.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2017
  6. StTruth

    StTruth Well-Known Member

    501
    +196
    Christian
    Single
    Thanks very much for your reply. No, you are not insulting. I don't take it as an insult at all. I'm quite grateful that you posted a reply.

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

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

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

    Cheers,

    St Truth
     
  7. Non sequitur

    Non sequitur Wokest Bae Of The Forum

    +532
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Constitution
    His book definitely expands on the understanding the rationality of Christianity, and is quite practical.

    It wasn't convincing, but I can understand it from a Christian view point.
     
  8. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Triangulating THE WAY out of the void! Supporter

    +7,224
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    ...and that's part of the problem, isn't it St Truth? We evaluate life, and ethics, and religion, and even the uses to which we'll put logic into service, in ways that befit what is "right in our own eyes."

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

    Peace,
    2PhiloVoid
     
  9. StTruth

    StTruth Well-Known Member

    501
    +196
    Christian
    Single
    Hi,

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

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

    Cheers,

    St Truth
     
  10. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Triangulating THE WAY out of the void! Supporter

    +7,224
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    No, I'm not saying this. What I'm attempting to say, in a nutshell, and without much aplomb, is that Jesus' innocent death is not one of those instances that 'fits' metaphysically, epistemologically, axiologically, or logically with our Modern ethical assumptions. God wasn't 'wrong' for placing Jesus in a circumstance in which He would die in our stead ...

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

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

    Peace,
    2PhiloVoid
     
  11. ExodusMe

    ExodusMe Rough around the edges

    533
    +153
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Others
    @StTruth a few thoughts here

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

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

    Dig deeply and you will not see contradiction but the revelation of who God is
     
  12. StTruth

    StTruth Well-Known Member

    501
    +196
    Christian
    Single
    Hi 2PhiloVoid,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Cheers,

    St Truth
     
  13. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +1,212
    Atheist
    Private
    Wrong. Due to the nature of sufficiency, you must show necessity to avoid a non sequitur. And a non sequitur is a logical fallacy. Let me give you one final example.

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

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

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

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

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

    This is a completely reasonable request.
     
  14. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +1,212
    Atheist
    Private
    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.
     
  15. ExodusMe

    ExodusMe Rough around the edges

    533
    +153
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Others
    Alright, but I don't think you understand that your objection doesn't matter then. Christian's don't claim that Jesus' crucifixion was logically necessary. They claim that it was what God decided to do to satisfy his retributive justice and redeem sinners.

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

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

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +1,212
    Atheist
    Private
    You don't seem to be paying attention at all. I've already said the following things directly to you:

    Post#158:

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

    The very post you're quoting here:

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

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

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

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

    ExodusMe Rough around the edges

    533
    +153
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Others
    Your objection is worthless. I already have answered that it only matters that his death satisfies God's retributive justice and that this is how God decreed sinners would be restored. This makes it necessary because God decided it would happen as such...

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

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

    Thanks

    1 Corinthians 8:2-3

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

    StTruth Well-Known Member

    501
    +196
    Christian
    Single
    I have read what Nihilist Virus wrote and you totally misunderstood him when you treat the statement about Christ slipping on a banana peel as an insult. It's not an insult. What he's saying is that the voluntary aspect of our Lord's death is essential to our doctrine on redemption. If Christ had died accidentally (eg. he slipped and fell and died), that would not be consistent with our idea of what His sacrificial death should be. Isn't this obvious to you? Why did you say 'Christ could not have died by slipping on a banana peel because he died by crucifixion'? He knows that. And it's certainly not meant as an insult.

    Cheers,

    St Truth
     
  19. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,260
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    All sin is against God, God in human flesh being crucified makes perfect sense given the irrational and violent nature of sin. I don't spend my time jumping through syllogistic flaming hoops so don't expect me to chase this in circles. By the way, I don't assume the Trinity it's a matter of essential doctrine that requires neither your approval nor you permission. Sin is an attitude toward God and if you want a definition you might try a lexicon. You want to know what the Christian understanding of sin is then I suggest you do some research because I know how this goes. No matter what the response you want anyone who responds to chase it like ghosts in the fog.
     
  20. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +1,212
    Atheist
    Private
    In our previous discussion, you constantly accused me of an ad hominem. I will read this when you go find that conversation and review your remarks.

    Edit - I've found the thread.

    Dr. Habermas: Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

    After reading through it again, I insist that you revisit the conversation and explain yourself before we have any further interaction.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2017
Loading...