Crucifixion and forgiveness, a non sequitur

[Nihilist Virus]

If I don't see a thoughtful attempt at understanding in your next response then I'll have to say goodbye for now.

OK, bye.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Jesus was not eternally separated from God because He is God. But He did go through death before He rose from the dead.

Do you have a logical syllogism?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@Nihilist Virus

You seem to try and exploit the difficulties inherent in classification and definition. You say you know what a Toad is, but do you really?
Toad is a popular classification of certain frogs, esspecially of Bufonidae, but there is no such group in scientific nomenclature. One group's toad is another's frog and people differ on whether size or leathery skin or shorter legs or what have you, is required. It is polythetic, but such classifications are nested in one another and often fuzzy borders, like classifying monotremes as mammals as another example.

There are popular concepts of Holy and Sin, there are technical ones. These overlap but aren't the same. Often the technical ones differ markedly. It is like animal classification, for before Linnaeus, Aristotle classified Cetaceans separate from mammals and most segmented groups together. Now with cladistics, we rewrite our taxonomy once again. Why do you expect such precision from Religion when the most basic of the sciences cannot even deliver it, even more so with popular uses of terms?

Ludwig Wittgenstein adressed this in his language theory, which simplistically is often put as "meaning is use". A definition does not alter meaning: it is deductively derived therefrom and creates a new abstract concept of the 'definition of X'. This is like your toad. You know what a toad is, but I doubt you would be able to define it in such a precise way, and when seeing a toad, you likely would not reach for your definitional armamentarium to decide whether an amphibian was one or not. Likewise, with Holy and Sin, and while addressing concepts couched in those terms, you either have to apply their inherent meaning in the context of the sentence or culturally, or rope in external definition, but neither would allow the sort you are insisting upon before addressing an attempted syllogism. It is specious to expect it to, and being a former Christian and I assume culturally western, you understand the concept even if its reificatory definition is not necessarily evident. The path you trod would otherwise eradicate all meaning presented in language that can be ambigiously understood or indeterminate and therefore leave all discussion moot outside of highly abstract systems like Mathematics.

Seeing though that you are seeking a syllogistic answer, I would point you to Aristotle, the father thereof. You would address this in the manner of Apodeixis, as he would call it. We Christians know Sin exists, we know Christ forgave it and that the Crucifixion was integral to Atonement. The operative method of Atonement is immaterial to know it works, just like I can drive a car without understanding the internal combustion engine.
The Material cause is Jesus and His suffering; the Formal cause is the Crucifixion; the Efficient cause is our Sin and Christ's sinlessness and the Final cause is Atonement. If we cannot agree each of these, then it cannot be placed in a syllogistic framework. For to say A thus B, etc. assumes that agreement is present already on the validity of A for instance, so that the logical interdependance of the concepts or not, can be investigated. This courtesy you seem not to have extended to us, so to argue the concept until you accept it and then syllogistically present it to you, is beyond the scope of the reasonable.

My 2 cents though: I know that the Crucifixion is the operable event in history that brings about Atonement. I know many theories of Atonement, such as Poenal Substitution, Moral Influence, Scapegoat, Christus Victor, etc. Many of them aren't mutually exclusive. They may all be right, they may all be wrong. This does not change the fact of Atonement on the Cross; that I cannot properly describe its minutiae; for this is again the dichotomy between the real use of something and the abstraction thereof. To syllogistically present it, is no different from explaining how Gravity makes a stone fall. I know it does, I can give clever ways to describe it and support it, but I cannot definitively and exhaustively prove it; it is assertoric after all; without axiomatic appeals or ignoring the basic teleological question of why it does so.

Do you have a syllogism?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Too early to declare victory?

 

[Chriliman]

Too early to declare victory?

I don't know, have you figured out what all is involved when forgiving someone even in extreme cases?

For instance, can you imagine someone being so forgiving that they don't retaliate against the wrongdoer, even to the point of being killed by the wrongdoer? Do you think anyone could be that forgiving?

 

[ViaCrucis]

The existence of this thread indicates that I'm interested in the logical or physical mechanics of atonement.

Then you aren't going to receive an answer because such an answer doesn't exist. The "mechanics" of the Atonement are not spelled out for us at any place in the writings of the New Testament, the apostolic tradition, nor writings of the ancient fathers. And any attempt to do so would almost certainly be very bad theology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Then you aren't going to receive an answer because such an answer doesn't exist. The "mechanics" of the Atonement are not spelled out for us at any place in the writings of the New Testament, the apostolic tradition, nor writings of the ancient fathers. And any attempt to do so would almost certainly be very bad theology.

-CryptoLutheran

So the core belief of Christianity is a non sequitur which assumes at least two unprovable premises. And the backstory for this core belief promotes appalling ideals, such as genocide, racism & sexism, while condoning rape and slavery. It is also self-contradictory and incompatible with science & history.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So the core belief of Christianity is a non sequitur which assumes at least two unprovable premises. And the backstory for this core belief promotes appalling ideals, such as genocide, racism & sexism, while condoning rape and slavery. It is also self-contradictory and incompatible with science & history.

This sounds more like a series of non-sequiturs.

 

[StTruth]

Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

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

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

If you think you need another logical premise for free, please state clearly what it is and why you need it as another freebie.

Hi Nihilist,

I don't know what a logical syllogism is but I do know that the connection between our Lord's crucifixion and His redemption is not one that is based on logic. It's like that because the early Christians just used the same vehicle that they were familiar with - death as a means of redemption. It's the same sacrifice we see in the Old Testament. That is why Jesus is called the Paschal Lamb. But of course there is no logic here. It's a religious image or symbolism.

As for sin, it's obvious that sin is simply what the body of believers decide in their particular culture and time to be wrong. What was sinful in the time of the Apostles may not be sinful today and what is sinful today might not have been wrong at all even to the Apostles.

I hope this answers your questions and you won't dismiss it as a non-sequitur, whatever that means. LOL.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This sounds more like a series of non-sequiturs.

I was just listing facts. As such, you are entitled to claim that I have listed several assertions and you may demand evidence for these assertions. However, no argument is being made and thus I have committed no logical fallacy. Do you know what a non sequitur is?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi Nihilist,

I don't know what a logical syllogism is but I do know that the connection between our Lord's crucifixion and His redemption is not one that is based on logic. It's like that because the early Christians just used the same vehicle that they were familiar with - death as a means of redemption. It's the same sacrifice we see in the Old Testament. That is why Jesus is called the Paschal Lamb. But of course there is no logic here. It's a religious image or symbolism.

As for sin, it's obvious that sin is simply what the body of believers decide in their particular culture and time to be wrong. What was sinful in the time of the Apostles may not be sinful today and what is sinful today might not have been wrong at all even to the Apostles.

I hope this answers your questions and you won't dismiss it as a non-sequitur, whatever that means. LOL.

Cheers,

St Truth

Thank you, but sorry this does not answer my questions. I understand that early Christians thought of Jesus as a sacrificial lamb. You can put it in those terms if you like, but you must then explain why slashing an animal's throat and lighting it on fire accomplishes anything whatsoever.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I was just listing facts. As such, you are entitled to claim that I have listed several assertions and demand evidence. However, no argument is being made and thus I have committed no logical fallacy. Do you know what a non sequitur is?

You are making quite a number of arguments here. You say the core belief assumes two premises. You say the backstory promotes and condones a number of other things. You also state it is self-contradictory and incompatible to other disciplines. All of these are logical propositions, saying A thus follows B, and all seem non-sequitur to me. Based on this response, I hazard you do not understand what "non-sequitor" means. So we would be at cross purposes.

But what do I expect? I write a long piece trying to explain how you poisoned the chalice in this thread against being able to present any syllogism as you insist on the apodictic, when clearly these are assertoric conceptions, to which you reply with a silly response of "Do you have one then?"

One can but shake your head in dismay.

 

[StTruth]

Thank you, but sorry this does not answer my questions. I understand that early Christians thought of Jesus as a sacrificial lamb. You can put it in those terms if you like, but you must then explain why slashing an animal's throat and lighting it on fire accomplishes anything whatsoever.

Hi Nihilist Virus,

You have misunderstood me. I did not say that slashing the throats of animals or crucifying our Lord achieved anything. I didn't say that at all. I was merely explaining why the vehicle of crucifixion was chosen by the early Christians as a means for the redemption of mankind. I am saying there is no logical connection but they chose it because they were used to this idea of death for the sake of forgiveness.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[StTruth]

Hi Nihilist Virus,

You have misunderstood me. I did not say that slashing the throats of animals or crucifying our Lord achieved anything. I didn't say that at all. I was merely explaining why the vehicle of crucifixion was chosen by the early Christians as a means for the redemption of mankind. I am saying there is no logical connection but they chose it because they were used to this idea of death for the sake of forgiveness.

Cheers,

St Truth

If I may add to what I have said, some scholars have said that this idea that our Lord's crucifixion had redemptive effect was not an idea adopted from the very start. There is evidence to suggest that the redemptive effect of His death was only brought up much later. At first, St Peter's argument seemed to be that Jesus was innocent but the Jews killed him. Not once did St Peter allude to his death for our redemption. It took the church some time to come up with the dogma on redemption.

 

[-V-]

Not once did St Peter allude to his death for our redemption. It took the church some time to come up with the dogma on redemption.

Peter never mentioned it?

"You know that from your empty way of life inherited from your ancestors you were ransomed – not by perishable things like silver or gold, but by precious blood like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, namely Christ." - 1 Peter 1:18-19

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are making quite a number of arguments here.

Then I would have quite a number of conclusions. But that's not the case. I'm not using terms like "therefore," "thus," or "implies." In fact, if you attempted to insert those words into post 87 then it would no longer be intelligible.

You say the core belief assumes two premises.

A statement, not an argument. And if you disagree, feel free to prove your case from scratch.

You say the backstory promotes and condones a number of other things.

It is beyond dispute that genocide is promoted in the Bible and that slavery is condoned. I can prove the other claims if you like. If I do that, then that's when I'd be presenting an argument.

You also state it is self-contradictory and incompatible to other disciplines.

I thought this was not a point in question.

All of these are logical propositions, saying A thus follows B, and all seem non-sequitur to me.

You don't know what you're talking about. "The Bible contradicts itself, science, and history" has no logical implication. It's just a statement. Logically, it could be symbolized as X. If I were to say that X implies Y, then I am providing an argument which could have a non sequitur in it.

Based on this response, I hazard you do not understand what "non-sequitor" means. So we would be at cross purposes.

Sorry, but you are dead wrong here.

But what do I expect? I write a long piece trying to explain how you poisoned the chalice in this thread against being able to present any syllogism as you insist on the apodictic, when clearly these are assertoric conceptions, to which you reply with a silly response of "Do you have one then?"

I do not automatically ignore everyone on my ignore list. I always click at the bottom of a thread to show hidden messages. If someone is on my ignore list, it could be that I'm never speaking to them again. Or it could be that I've determined that it's not worth reading such a person's posts unless they are fully on topic. I don't remember why I placed you on ignore, but I believe it was because of your refusal to give me straight answers on an issue regarding Satan and his ability to disrupt the church. So I extended the olive branch as far as I could in asking you to get on track and be on topic.

One can but shake your head in dismay.

Shake... my head? You went from third person to second person there.

 

[-V-]

Then I would have quite a number of conclusions. But that's not the case. I'm not using terms like "therefore," "thus," or "implies." In fact, if you attempted to insert those words into post 87 then it would no longer be intelligible.

LOL! Hardly. What do think your very first word of #87 ("So") means? You could easily put "therefore" or "thus" instead of "so".

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Then I would have quite a number of conclusions. But that's not the case. I'm not using terms like "therefore," "thus," or "implies." In fact, if you attempted to insert those words into post 87 then it would no longer be intelligible.



A statement, not an argument. And if you disagree, feel free to prove your case from scratch.



It is beyond dispute that genocide is promoted in the Bible and that slavery is condoned. I can prove the other claims if you like. If I do that, then that's when I'd be presenting an argument.



I thought this was not a point in question.



You don't know what you're talking about. "The Bible contradicts itself, science, and history" has no logical implication. It's just a statement. Logically, it could be symbolized as X. If I were to say that X implies Y, then I am providing an argument which could have a non sequitur in it.



Sorry, but you are dead wrong here.



I do not automatically ignore everyone on my ignore list. I always click at the bottom of a thread to show hidden messages. If someone is on my ignore list, it could be that I'm never speaking to them again. Or it could be that I've determined that it's not worth reading such a person's posts unless they are fully on topic. I don't remember why I placed you on ignore, but I believe it was because of your refusal to give me straight answers on an issue regarding Satan and his ability to disrupt the church. So I extended the olive branch as far as I could in asking you to get on track and be on topic.



Shake... my head? You went from third person to second person there.

In Logic, a statement is that which a declarative sentence asserts, whether true or false. Thus, a logical statement IS the conclusion of a sentence.

What you made here were connected propositions. A proposition is a sentence that affirms or denies a predicate by means of a copula. These are structures with objects and properties as constituents. This is especcially important if you are trying to put something into a logical Aristotlean syllogism.

You are saying (the backstory of Christianity) - first proposition - promotes (ideals like Racism et al.) - second proposition. These are connected by a referrent bearing implication (promotes). It is thus a logical argument you have made here.
Now does the inherent properties of the first proposition by necessity produce the second? I would say not, as would you call Martin Luther King a racist bigot? The propositions thus 'do not follow' one another inherently and are thus non-sequitur, as that is what the Latin means. They need to be expanded by additional intervening propositions, argued, or their constituent predicates or copulas altered to do so.

But as @-V- noted above, you already started the post with a determinative.

I was not talking about you placing me on an ignore list, I was blithely unaware of that fact, but your silly and facile response to my post in this thread itself. I have discussed the historic base of Christianity quite extensively before in these forums, with you as well, and quite frankly Christianity has a lot of historic support. Likewise, I am unaware of all these other claims you make - as I said, they are non-sequiturs.

Anyway, I have tried to educate you on how Syllogistic Logic functions, but I doubt you will pay it much heed. As I said before, we are at cross purposes here, as you are misusing formal logical terms and not allowing their actual function. As such, I fear further discussion here will be exceedingly tedious, so I bid you good day.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So the core belief of Christianity is a non sequitur

Nope. The language and theology of the Atonement, through various ways, goes about explaining Christ's work. If I say that Christ takes upon Himself the full weight of human sin in His death, and that therefore in dying He brings that into death, and in rising defeats the full weight of sin there has been no non-sequitur.

I haven't provided some sort of mechanical explanation--where none is to be had--but I certainly haven't offered a non-sequitur.

And the backstory for this core belief promotes appalling ideals, such as genocide, racism & sexism, while condoning rape and slavery.

The backstory to the Gospel is the long history of man's inhumanity to man. That includes genocide, racism, sexism, and the condoning of rape and slavery. So yes, that is the backstory: there exists in our world an unbearably deep wound. (And, yes, I'm quite aware that this was intended as a swipe against the Old Testament.)

It is also self-contradictory and incompatible with science & history.

Saying it is "incompatible" with history is presumptive. If it, in fact, happened, then it wouldn't be incompatible with history now would it?

As far as science? Irrelevant. Science doesn't deal with unfalsifiable claims.

And as far as "self-contradictory", you'll need to do better than that. What is self-contradictory here?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In Logic, a statement is that which a declarative sentence asserts, whether true or false. Thus, a logical statement IS the conclusion of a sentence.

You can use that language, I suppose - saying that sentences intrinsically have a conclusion - but that does not make them arguments. A flower is not violent if we call it a Murder Rose, and a sentence is not an argument if you call it a statement with a conclusion.

What you made here were connected propositions. A proposition is a sentence that affirms or denies a predicate by means of a copula. These are structures with objects and properties as constituents. This is especcially important if you are trying to put something into a logical Aristotlean syllogism.

My statements can be fed into any argument you can think of. That doesn't mean the statements themselves are arguments.

You are saying (the backstory of Christianity) - first proposition - promotes (ideals like Racism et al.) - second proposition. These are connected by a referrent bearing implication (promotes).

Advocacy is not logical implication.

It is thus a logical argument you have made here.

This conversation is asinine.

Now does the inherent properties of the first proposition by necessity produce the second? I would say not, as would you call Martin Luther King a racist bigot? The propositions thus 'do not follow' one another inherently and are thus non-sequitur, as that is what the Latin means. They need to be expanded by additional intervening propositions, argued, or their constituent predicates or copulas altered to do so.

I don't care to go on about this floundering anymore. You're devoting post after post to defend what you flippantly threw out as a joke. I showed you were wrong, and that's the end of it. Now do you have a syllogism related to the OP or are we done?

But as @-V- noted above, you already started the post with a determinative.

That's wonderful, you could replace the first word of the post with a "therefore." But since it is the first word of the post, it's not the conclusion of anything I said. ViaCrucis said that no syllogism related to the OP exists, and I said, "[Therefore] the core belief of Christianity is a non sequitur..." which follows by definition. Application or citation of a definition is not an argument. Again, this is absurd and moronic, and we're moving on. Or at least I am. Please post something related to the OP, or kindly derail some other thread.

I was not talking about you placing me on an ignore list, I was blithely unaware of that fact, but your silly and facile response to my post in this thread itself. I have discussed the historic base of Christianity quite extensively before in these forums, with you as well, and quite frankly Christianity has a lot of historic support.

I'd love for you to make a thread defending the historicity of Christian claims. Be sure to send me a PM if you do so as I won't automatically see it. But we're not discussing that here.

Likewise, I am unaware of all these other claims you make - as I said, they are non-sequiturs.

Right, you are unaware that the Bible promotes genocide and condones slavery. And yet you know all about everything else in the Bible and the age of the church.

Anyway, I have tried to educate you on how Syllogistic Logic functions, but I doubt you will pay it much heed.

Did you really try to educate, or did you spend way too long defending a point that you knew was wrong only to patronize me at the end and pat yourself on the back for claiming to know how logic works?

As I said before, we are at cross purposes here, as you are misusing formal logical terms and not allowing their actual function.

Remove the plank from your own eye before you dig for the speck in mine.

As such, I fear further discussion here will be exceedingly tedious, so I bid you good day.

I agree, discussion has been quite tedious as you've been off topic from the start and now here we are several posts deep logically probing a failed joke.