One Died For All

[JAL]

So you guffaw as you ignore the two-nature claim I made. I sense rather a large proportion of intellectual dishonesty. Good day, sir. Sorry I tried again to reason with you.

What do you want from me? I cited 3 evangelical theologians on the fact that 2-natures is not something the human mind can comprehend.

 

[Fervent]

Don't feign confusion. Society would LIKE to provide a level playing field, where everyone is graded equally based on merit/effort, but hasn't managed to do so, by reason of expedience. The standard apology is, "Sorry, but life isn't fair."

But if you asked those same members of society as to how God can hope to judge us all fairly, would they likely respond this:

"Based on good genes and good IQ"

Or this:

"Based on our degree of effort"

You just contradicted yourself. First you say that suffering is not praiseworthy but the words in bold belie that nonsense.

In absolutely futility, you're attempting to escape an essentially tautological definition of merit. The only person who would be convinced by this is someone so committed to orthodoxy that he willing to buy into contradictions and lies concerning merit.

You continue to conflate merit with effort, but as I said earlier there is nothing inherently meritorious about effort. The link is specious at best. As for your bolding words, there is no contradiction. It is the obedience that is praiseworthy, not the suffering. If someone expended the same effort and did the same action, it would not have the same response since they had not been called to it. Effort is meritorious ONLY in regards to another quality, it is not always valueable and certainly not foundational.

 

[JAL]

@Fervent,
@Mark Quayle

And your metaphysical assumption that God is nothing like us is merely your own personal bias. Articulation of a bias, in a debate, does not count as an argument. Also that kind of metaphysics culminates in an inability to make any clear assertions about God - all we have left is gibberish.

 

[Fervent]

@Fervent,
@Mark Quayle

And your metaphysical assumption that God is nothing like us is merely your own personal bias. Articulation of a bias, in a debate, does not count as an argument. Also that kind of metaphysics culminates in an inability to make any clear assertions about God - all we have left is gibberish.

No, it is not "bias" it is what Scripture teaches which is why verses like Isaiah 46:9 exist. There is nothing like God. Just because you don't like a position does not make it biased, and your routine use of straw men, bare assertion, and confusing your opinion with argumentation/facts strips your accusation of any possible weight.

 

[JAL]

You continue to conflate merit with effort, but as I said earlier there is nothing inherently meritorious about effort. The link is specious at best. As for your bolding words, there is no contradiction. It is the obedience that is praiseworthy, not the suffering.

A distinction without a difference. Obedience has no merit if you don't have freedom to choose otherwise. In other words suffering/temptation/effort is always involved in any act of obedience deemed meritorious.

Try as you might, you can't escape the consensus definition on moral-merit. (I guess I should qualify it as moral-merit since I don't want to keep circling with you about beauty pageants).

If someone expended the same effort and did the same action, it would not have the same response since they had not been called to it. Effort is meritorious ONLY in regards to another quality, it is not always valueable and certainly not foundational.

(Sigh). That's what I said. Why are you taking my own definition of merit and pretending to use it as a rebuttal against me? Oh that's right, you don't have a real rebuttal.

In my definition, I said the effort has to be for a righteous cause. Obviously if you do something that you were not called to do, it is not a righteous cause. Duh. So here we are, 100 posts later, and I have to keep repeating myself, because you keep dancing.

 

[JAL]

No, it is not "bias" it is what Scripture teaches which is why verses like Isaiah 46:9 exist. There is nothing like God.

Correct. There is none holy but the Lord (Rev 15:4). And? Is there a point here?

 

[JAL]

A great example of merit was Abraham's attempt to murder his own son. It pained him greatly to undertake this endeavor. Much suffering/temptation/effort. But he received commendations/accolades from the Lord.

 

[Fervent]

A distinction without a difference. Obedience has no merit if you don't have freedom to choose otherwise. In other words suffering/temptation/effort is always involved in any act of obedience deemed meritorious.

Try as you might, you can't escape the consensus definition on moral-merit. (I guess I should qualify it as moral-merit since I don't want to keep circling with you about beauty pageants).
(Sigh). That's what I said. Why are you taking my own definition of merit and pretending to use it as a rebuttal against me? Oh that's right, you don't have a real rebuttal.

In my definition, I said the effort has to be for a righteous cause. Obviously if you do something that you were not called to do, it is not a righteous cause. Duh. So here we are, 100 posts later, and I have to keep repeating myself, because you keep dancing.

Sigh...another straw man. Nothing I said has anything to do with free will. You have conflated what you think is right with a universal fact. At this point I'm not sure I can grant you the good-faith assumption since you have routinely mischaracterized my statements and I find it hard to believe that you can honestly be so obtuse.

 

[JAL]

@EVERYONE:

Celebrate! This thread ought to be very enlightening/liberating to you all! Because according to my two dissenters, effort is not the chief factor in God's definition of merit! So relax! Party as much as you want! You can all be lazy sloths henceforth!

 

[JAL]

Sigh...another straw man. Nothing I said has anything to do with free will. You have conflated what you think is right with a universal fact. At this point I'm not sure I can grant you the good-faith assumption since you have routinely mischaracterized my statements and I find it hard to believe that you can honestly be so obtuse.

No, I assumed that the cross was a work of free will and wrote accordingly.

Fine. Are you saying that Christ's obedience was not free choice on His part?

 

[Fervent]

No, I assumed that the cross was a work of free will and wrote accordingly.

Fine. Are you saying that Christ's obedience was not free choice on His part?

Nope, never said anything even close to that. The free will question has no bearing on the issue, which is purely your arbitrarily(and contradictorily) assigning effort as the sole consideration for merit. Which is purely your opinion, and an opinion not generally recognized as true and one I have explicitly rejected giving examples to demonstrate why it's not appropriate.

 

[JAL]

@Fervent
The only reason you're dancing around these fundamental tenets about suffering, effort, accolades, merit, and so on, is that I've shown them to raise serious questions about the orthodox Doctrine of God. If this had been some OTHER thread simply asking, "Why we do praise God for the cross", you would likely have been one of the first to chime in with comments like, "He suffered greatly for us, and so we give Him our honor and our thanks." And I would imagine that you've participated in Eucharists (or Easter services) where that kind of statement was a major theme, and you indicated your agreement.

But suddenly on this thread, you are backpedaling. Hm...wonder why THAT is.

 

[JAL]

Nope, never said anything even close to that. The free will question has no bearing on the issue, which is purely your arbitrarily(and contradictorily) assigning effort as the sole consideration for merit. Which is purely your opinion, and an opinion not generally recognized as true and one I have explicitly rejected giving examples to demonstrate why it's not appropriate.

See my last post.

 

[Fervent]

@Fervent
The only reason you're dancing around these fundamental tenets about suffering, effort, accolades, merit, and so on, is that I've shown them to raise serious questions about the orthodox Doctrine of God. If this had been some OTHER thread simply asking, "Why we do praise God for the cross", you would likely have been one of the first to chime in with comments like, "He suffered greatly for us, and so we give Him our honor and our thanks." And I would imagine that you've participated Eucharists (or Easter services) where that kind of statement was a major theme, and you indicated your agreement.

But suddenly on this thread, you are backpedaling. Hm...wonder why THAT is.

I'm really starting to feel like I'm playing chess with a pigeon...

 

[JAL]

Nope, never said anything even close to that. The free will question has no bearing on the issue, which is purely your arbitrarily(and contradictorily) assigning effort as the sole consideration for merit. Which is purely your opinion, and an opinion not generally recognized as true and one I have explicitly rejected giving examples to demonstrate why it's not appropriate.

Examples? You've talked about examples of praising someone for their beauty, but by now I've made it clear that:
(1) THAT kind of "merit" is of no moral value in God's eyes.
(2) The sort of merit that features in God's kingdom (i.e. the judgment seat of Christ) is (moral) VIRTUE.
(3) and my argument is that effort (for a righteous cause) is the chief consideration here.

You've done nothing to rebut that, and for you to now suggest that "free will has no bearing" is a bogus claim. Free will has no bearing on virtue? For you to even suggest such seems like intellectual dishonesty. That's your rebuttal? Just dismiss all the relevant points of debate as irrelevant?

God's holiness is a MORAL ISSUE - it is an issue of VIRTUE. The whole question here is on what basis He merits, or does NOT merit, the title of "Supremely Virtuous".

The cross is the prime example that He defines virtue/merit the same way we do: Self-sacrifice/effort/suffering for a righteous cause.

 

[Fervent]

Examples? You've talked about examples of praising someone for their beauty, but by now I've made it clear that:
(1) THAT kind of "merit" is of no moral value in God's eyes.
(2) The sort of merit that features in God's kingdom (i.e. the judgment seat of Christ) is (moral) VIRTUE.
(3) and my argument is that effort (for a righteous cause) is the chief consideration here.

You've done nothing to rebut that, and for you to now suggest that "free will has no bearing" is a bogus claim. Free will has no bearing on that claim? For you to even suggest such seems like intellectual dishonesty. That's your rebuttal? Just dismiss all the relevant points of debate as irrelevant?

God's holiness is a MORAL ISSUE - it is an issue of VIRTUE. The whole question here is on what basis He merits, or does NOT merit, the title of "Supremely Virtuous".

The cross is the prime example that He defines virtue/merit the same way we do: Self-sacrifice/effort/suffering for a righteous cause.

1 and 2 are nothing more than assertions, 3 is not an argument it is your opinion and nothing more.

 

[JAL]

I'm really starting to feel like I'm playing chess with a pigeon...

Do you, or do you NOT, believe that Christ deserves/merits thanksgiving/accolades/honor for His willingness to suffer on the cross for us?

 

[JAL]

1 and 2 are nothing more than assertions, 3 is not an argument it is your opinion and nothing more.

You say that after ignoring the scenarios painted for you in my key questions!

So it's your belief that God is more likely to determine our commendations/accolades based on inherent traits such as beauty and IQ (good genes), rather than effort?

Oh that's right. You sidestep all the key questions. Convenient for you, isn't it?

 

[Fervent]

You say that after ignoring the scenarios painted for you in my key questions!

So it's your belief that God is more likely to determine our commendations/accolades based on inherent traits such as beauty and IQ (good genes), rather than effort?

Oh that's right. You sidestep all the key questions. Convenient for you, isn't it?

Your questions aren't pertinent, especially as you can't seem to distinguish between opinion and argument.

 

[JAL]

Your questions aren't pertinent, especially as you can't seem to distinguish between opinion and argument.

Yet another sidestep. Lovely.