<p>You guys do realize that these are just naked appeals to authority, don't you?</p>
<p>"My scientist says it (in this case, "it" is something non-scientific, too), so it must be true."
"My scientist says the opposite."
"My scientist is better than your scientist."</p>
<p>This exchange reminds me of the kind of argument two kindergarteners might have. Maybe after a while you'll get tired and take a nap. :P</p>
<p>I like this post. It provides a gratifying method of debating without putting up retarted comments or verbally attacking each other. You should see some of the chatrooms where these type of things are discussed. No one listens to anyone.</p>
<p>GDWilner,
Let's go back to your original post. The question is:</p>
<p>"As we all know, according to the Bible, Jesus died in order to redeem all our sins. My question, however, is why? Why is it that Jesus' death absolves us of our sins? To me, it seems like such a "scapegoating" mechanism shouldn't work. For example, if I murder someone and find someone else willing to be punished in my place, should I get off scot-free? Does it work because God says it does, or is there logical justification for why Jesus is able to die for everybody's sins?"</p>
<p>Now, we know by now that you posted this to prove that you're right, which is probably why you're not actually listening to me. I've said in both my posts that I do not believe in the scapegoating mechanism you mention. Now, why do you? Where do you get this "as we all know, according to the Bible..."? Where in the Bible have you found this? </p>
<p>Christ came that through him, we should have everlasting life. He preached the repentence of sins, and he forgave the sins of those who repented. If anything, Christ does everything but absolve us of our sins: haven't you heard of hell?</p>
<p>Now, the other problem we've run into is, I believe, a matter of equivocation. One of the premises I began with, as a question to Christians, is that there is an absolute good, and if you won't agree to that, there's little point in continuing. If you want to debate absolute good, fine, ask another time, and someone who likes arguing more than I do will reply or, even better, quote Lewis at you.</p>
<p>Continuing with this idea, we run into the Euthyphro dilemma, which I've already partially explained, but will do again. If you haven't read Euthyphro, it begins by trying to define "good." A number of ideas are listed which are good: justice, etc... Then another definition is given, which is that good is what the gods love. Then the question is asked, are they good because the gods love them, or do the gods love them because they are good? </p>
<p>There are two ideas I've taken from this. One, to say justice is good isn't to say justice = good, nor that mercy = good. Neither is essentially or intrinsically good. To call them good is to say that they partake in goodness. The second is that because polytheism does not ascribe perfection to gods, the good is superior to the gods. What ends up being worshipped is the good, not the gods. Both of these lead to a monotheistic God, who is not subject to Good, but IS Good. God = Good. </p>
<p>Now, as far as I understand, your objection to God is that because he cannot do wrong, he must be amoral. In my opinion this is laughable wordplay. You're basically saying that since God is perfectly good he cannot be moral. Okay then. It would make almost as much sense to say that since men can never be perfectly good, they are amoral. Again, I presented a definition of good earlier that I am abiding by. Acts are only good as they partake in goodness, and thus, of god (which is why anything but absolute morality makes no sense). It is not the essence of an act to be good, which is probably why we're running into problems, as morality is based on acts, and good is based on essence. God is good, and therefore does good. Acts are not good in themselves, but can be good as they correspond to God.</p>
<p>You're right, a moral law is not equivocal with a physical law and I apologize if I did equate them. However, I believe it still is equatable with the laws of reason, both of which are axioms. And again, according to a Christian, or absolute, morality, there is only one correct morality in the same way there is only one correct reasoning. </p>
<p>If you are going to continue insisting that because God is perfectly good he is not moral, go ahead. You are making a logical jump you have no basis for. And again, you continue to repeat that you would not follow the morality of such a God. What morality would you follow? One in which it is good to steal, lie, cheat, rape, murder...? And as soon as you set up any morality, as subjective as you claim it is, you only set up another view of the good, and thus god.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure that the Bible says that Jesus died for our sins.</p>
<ol>
<li>2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."</li>
<li>1 Peter 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."</li>
<li>Rom. 8:3-4, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."</li>
</ol>
<p>Since the Bible says that Jesus took everyone's sins upon himself and then died on the cross for them, it implies his role as a scapegoat as sorts (if you can find a passage that contradicts the ones above, you'll just make my point, but in a different way).</p>
<p>The Euthyphro dilemma, in case you've been reading my posts, is exactly what I've been talking about. It seems to me that there probably isn't a logical justification for why our sins can be transferred to Jesus (if you can provide one, my entire argument collapses). Thus, the only remaining rationale is that it works because God says it does, implying that the "things are good because God loves them" statement of the dilemma is correct within the Christian framework. Your phrasing is simply a restatement of what I have said earlier.</p>
<p>Because "things are good because God loves them," anything God does is automatically good. Unlike your example of people, who can choose whether or not to follow God's directive, God has literally no choice but to be good, since any action he takes is, by definition, good.</p>
<p>The next thing we need to establish is that a moral being must choose goodness (again, I have yet to see a refutation, and I believe you said something to this effect earlier). Because God, by definition again, cannot choose, then he cannot be moral. The contradiction arises when we also observe that God is moral according to Christianity, leading us to reject the premise that Jesus died for our sins (as far as I can tell, a fatal blow to Christianity).</p>
<p>I think our problem is that you don't understand the concept of choice. Unless someone chooses to be moral, he cannot be, no matter what good things he might do. It's not that God can do no wrong--it's that he couldn't do wrong if he tried. If morality existed outside of God and God chose to abide by it, then my argument would be invalidated. However, I believe I have established that, in Christianity, this is not the case. Therefore, I believe I am justified in making this logical connection.</p>
<p>No, I am not going to follow a morality that is defined simply by the actions of an omnipotent being (if he existed, which I'm pretty sure he doesn't). What if God decimated an entire city, killed people for looking a things, and cared so much about blind obedience that he told someone to murder his son? (oh, wait...) I'm not sure what morality is, or even if it exists, but if it's defined as "what this guy does" ("this guy" being God, of course), I see no reason to follow it.</p>
<p>Besides, I disagree with 8 out of 10 commandments (give or take), and I can conceive of situations where it would be OK to break all 10.</p>
<p>Do you believe in life after death?</p>
<p>No, in the same way I don't "believe" in the tooth fairy.</p>
<p>This is not a scapegoating mechanism in the way you've understood it, which is what I object to. He does not die by our sins that all our sins (everyone's) are forgiven and forgotten, which would be against the basic message of Christianity. No one is forgiven who does not repent, and no one is cleansed who does not work for his salvation. It's not like Christ came and sin was banished and everyone went to heaven, is it? </p>
<p>Again, the passages you cited say nothing of such a mechanism. II Cor. 5:1-5:21 is referring to men accepting Christ and being re-born. II Cor. 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 5:19, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation" and the verses after it speak of a reconciliation, by which sins are pardoned, but Christ's significance is not that he died that all sins are forgiven. Romans and Peter speak in the same vein, not that all sins are forgiven us, but that because of Christ (his death a necessary part of God's mortality), there is a way of following Spirit and not only flesh. </p>
<p>Of course Christ died on the cross for mankind, but his death does not magically make serial murderers saints. The infinite had to become finite, signified by death. Forgiveness, however, and grace, are essential to Christianity, and Christ is partly the "mechanism" that allows these to function.</p>
<p>The idea of Christianity, of course, is that you don't have a choice in following another morality. Morality will just lead you to the same conclusions every other religion in the world has already figured out. Or else we wouldn't be getting along on any level whatsoever. </p>
<p>We've been debating the same point for several posts to no end. Metaphysically, I believe you have no basis to your argument. I have yet to see what your definition of morality rests upon, then, and I believe it would fall apart. As far as I see it, yours is an artificial construction made possible by language in which the only being that is perfectly good becomes amoral. It does not become un-good, or a-good, however, which is what moral acts are - ones that partake in good, simply amoral. I refuse to follow this proposition, or the significance of it if you insist, and you refuse to give it up, so I guess we're at a standstill. As to your original question, I believe you've misunderstood the idea of Jesus Christ presented in the Bible. </p>
<p>Again, why don't you post this in the parents forum?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Junior Member</p>
<p>Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Andreas, soon to be...Charlottesville VA!
Posts: 213</p>
<p>"son of God(or really is God, depends on who you ask)"</p>
<p>Umm...Christian doctrine asserts that God IS a trinity</p>
<ol>
<li>Father</li>
<li>Son(Jesus)</li>
<li>Holy spirit</li>
</ol>
<p>They are one entity -GOD, you dont discern them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I SAID THAT NOT ALL CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS BELIEVE IN THE SAME THING! My gawsh! DO I have to spell it out for you? J-E-H-O-V-A-H-S W-I-T-N-E-S-S and also, not every christian will go around saying "GOD died on the cross".</p>
<p>Oh, why does it work? Because before people had to sacrifice things for forgiveness. Since Jesus is the perfect sacrifice, you are always forgiven. Is that a good enough explaination?</p>
<p>An example of one that does not believe in the Christian trinity is Newton himself. He was a Unitarian Christian.</p>
<p>GD, I still can't bear the fact that you think Howard Stern crafted the Earth, or that Samantha Mumba said 'yes', and the universe was.</p>
<p>Haha! Samantha Mumba! She was like a one hit wonder! What was that song she sang?</p>
<p>Mm, back on topic. Newton. Yes.</p>
<p>Of course Christ's death doesn't "magically make serial murderers saints," as you put it, but his death does allow them to be forgiven for their sins. As the verses I quoted state explicitly, Christ bears everyone's sins for them, as long as they accept him. It's kind of like buying a gift for someone: if you don't accept it, it doesn't mean I didn't buy it for you. I don't see how you can assert that the Bible says that Jesus died for our sins. I'm no Christian, and if you want to contradict the Bible, rock on--I'm right there with you. However, you can't dispute that it does say exactly what I'm asserting.</p>
<p>"The idea of Christianity, of course, is that you don't have a choice in following another morality."</p>
<p>The idea of the argument I've made, of course, is that Christianity, as laid out in the Bible, is logically impossible. If there is a morality, that particular book certainly doesn't articulate it well. Personally, I don't think there's any kind of divine moral law woven into the fabric of the Universe. I just think there are certain things we can agree are good, like freedom, justice, equality, etc. without reference to some supernatural puppet master.</p>
<p>You continue to oversimplify my point. I believe I've elucidated this as much as I can, but I'm trying to say that it's not that God is totally moral, it's that he couldn't be immoral if he tried. Since he can't choose, he can't be moral. I think you're leaving out an important element, the concept of choice. I can't be moral unless I consciously choose to do moral things. If I were physically forced to give a million dollars to starving children, that wouldn't make me moral. In the same way, since God has no choice but to do moral things (since morality is defined by his actions, as I established in my earlier argument), he cannot meet the criterion of choice and cannot be moral. QED.</p>
<p>If you wish to dispute my reasoning, please tell me exactly what you take issue with. Off the top of my head, you could disprove my argument in one of the following ways:</p>
<ol>
<li>Demonstrate the Jesus didn't die for our sins (already addressed)</li>
<li>Demonstrate that morality doesn't involve choice (doubtful)</li>
<li>Find a logical fallacy that I have committed</li>
</ol>
<p>I'll be away for a week or so, and if anyone cares to respond, I'll address it when I get back (no wi-fi where I'm going)</p>
<p>GD, if that's your concern so much, then why don't you try Islam, nobody "died" for you in it. You are only accountable for your own sins and you do not have responsiblity for anyone nor does anyone have responsibility for you in Islam (as Christ did for Christians).</p>
<p>This actually isn't my main beef with religion--just a little something I came up with regard to Christianity. To be honest, it started as the very question in my original post, and I generated my argument later. I will never join a religion because I refuse to be bound by someone else's arbitrary ideas. My beliefs may coincide with some of the tenets of some religions, but I will not devote myself to an artificially constructed mechanism of control based on that. I find the concept of faith laughable (if you ask me for a definition, I'll tell you "belief with no rational basis"), I find religions to be extremely harmful, oppressive, and destructive institutions, and I will not be a part of that--by definition, if it qualifies as a religion, I would never consider joining it. Some are less repugnant to me than others (i.e. Buddhism), but even then, I oppose certain aspects of religion in general.</p>
<p>Most of the people who now live on this planet, respond to two very powerful feelings/understandings: love and faith. The two most often accompany each other. When one is present there is almost always the need for the other. Moreover, you either feel it or you dont. </p>
<p>It is also difficult to describe either one to someone who is neither in love, nor has faith of their own (thus, a Muslim can understand and sympathize with the faith of a Christian or Hindu far better than an atheist or agnostic can; in the same way, someone falling in love will be far more sympathetic to the seemingly irrational behaviors of someone else smitten with the awesome power of love).</p>
<p>Taken even further, there is no way to make someone else feel your love (other than that which is the object of your love itself). They can look at you and see the signs associated with love (seemingly irrational to be sure), but love itself is not a measurable, quantifiable phenomenon, it does not respond to the scientific methodfor the most part neither does art, music or poetrycertainly not how we feel about art in any case.</p>
<p>To deny yourself faith is, in my opinion (and many others better healed in this subject than I) to deny yourself love. Each is an abstract concept. Love in fact requires a leap of faith and a great vulnerability. Those who have a hard time with imagining themselves in this vulnerable predicament faith requires are likely to have a hard time with the vulnerable predicament love requires.</p>
<p>You either believe someone else loves you or you dont; you either love someone else or even some idea or you dont. According to the Bible, if you have faith in things unseen or unquantifiable, you have faith in love, it says specifically this: God is love. Said another way, faith in God is love.</p>
<p>For those like Mr. Wilder, who are not in-love with the unseen, in this case God (perhaps in another case a man or a womanof course, in Eros, there is also a biological component called lust that is often mistaken for true-love), others being in-love--in effect, in a mystery--will act irrational, their thoughts will not seem to make sense (no logical explanation will span the gap or cover the hole), their faith in the unseen may seem spectacular or ignorant much like the behavior of someone in love.</p>
<p>Of course, there are certain people who try to objectively describe, or quantify love and seek the same for faith. They often say things like, its in the economic interest of both parties. Or they will look for measurable criteria to make sense of the arrangement like having similar interests, or educations, or incomes, or backgrounds, etc. etc. etc. blah, blah, blah (read Romeo and Juliet, or Tristan and Isolde). Whereas, these quantifiable analyses may at times make sense, they are never the cause of love, or the generator of the faith love requires. </p>
<p>Solzinetsyn, wrote, in A day in the Life, it is hard for a man who is warm to make sense of a man in the cold. How very true. And I would add that it is hard for someone who is not in love, and has no faith to make sense of the one who does. </p>
<p>There is no effort here to come to an understanding; understanding, in love and faith, is a closed system.</p>
<p>GDWilner--First of all I can't believe I'm actually bored enough to read this entire post through, lol. Oh the joys of not having cable TV on a Sunday night. Also, I usually have a hard time following philosophical discussions like this--inevitably something goes WAYYY over my head. But you brought up some good questions and (as a Christian) I want to try my hand at answering them.</p>
<p>You said:
[quote]
You continue to oversimplify my point. I believe I've elucidated this as much as I can, but I'm trying to say that it's not that God is totally moral, it's that he couldn't be immoral if he tried. Since he can't choose, he can't be moral. I think you're leaving out an important element, the concept of choice. I can't be moral unless I consciously choose to do moral things. If I were physically forced to give a million dollars to starving children, that wouldn't make me moral. In the same way, since God has no choice but to do moral things (since morality is defined by his actions, as I established in my earlier argument), he cannot meet the criterion of choice and cannot be moral. QED.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm going to <em>try</em> to answer this, although I lack Psyche's philosophical brilliance, lol. I think you are making the assumption that Good=Moral. I agree with you that being Moral implies choosing to conform to a standard of Good. This, however, in turn implies that Good is somehow distinct from Morality. Morality (or lack of it) is the response to Good; they are not one and the same. Therefore, if God is Good, He is not bound to be Moral, since Morality implies choice. However, God is Good. Now, if God created humans in His own image, then they should naturally be inclined to reflect his Goodness. In other words, they have the ability (perhaps even the compulsion) to either reflect or oppose his Goodness. This choice is Morality. (Does that make sense? It makes sense in my head, but I'm not sure I expressed it well enough.)</p>
<p>Now your original question:
[quote]
As we all know, according to the Bible, Jesus died in order to redeem all our sins. My question, however, is why? Why is it that Jesus' death absolves us of our sins? To me, it seems like such a "scapegoating" mechanism shouldn't work. For example, if I murder someone and find someone else willing to be punished in my place, should I get off scot-free? Does it work because God says it does, or is there logical justification for why Jesus is able to die for everybody's sins?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can I get back to you on this? I've never really heard this question posed, and I want to at least mull it over a bit before I stick my foot in my mouth. It's a valid one and it deserves a valid answer.</p>
<p>I'm new to this whole CC forum thing and I haven't seen your other posts on religion, but I really admire how you are asking questions before jumping blindly into Christianity (or anything else, for that matter). Too many people think that they have to abandon their minds before coming to God, but in my experience, that really isn't necessary. God created logic (yes, He did) and He doesn't expect you to abandon it in order to come to Him.</p>
<p>hmmmm...my input....religion is something none of us will ever understand, because it deals with the supernatural...something so abstract that we can not even begin to think that we've come one step closer to solving the "mystery."...that's why it's called a faith....you have faith that it's right...you can believe in the proof(miracles, omens, scriptures, etc.) or you can say that it's either too far back in the past or too irreasonable to use as validation.....whichever end of the pole you wish to hold on to is your choice....the most you CAN do is study the history of religion and how it has progressed over time, but you will NEVER learn the true reason as to why it's embedded in to the hearts of many....is it because we're taught?...is it because it's just logical?...is it because we just have this gut feeling that it's right?....resistance to change?...organization?....a way to morally construe ppl within certain limits so they don't get out of control willingly?....so complex...i think this is where the humand mind has reached its limits...</p>
<p>Here is a very coarse, but helpful example for dealing with the "existence" of God.</p>
<p>All countries have police for preventing crime. In actual life, however, one finds a lot of crime everywhere. So does this mean that police force do not exist in that area? Anybody would agree that the presence of crime and injustice does not prove the fact that the police force does not exist.</p>
<p>Existence, or non existence, is not proved in this way.</p>
<p>Luckycharms,
Thank you! Whatever little philosophical brilliance (hah) I have doesn't express itself well... You made the exact point I was trying to get at. As far as I understand it, its a metaphysical problem, without the good morality is rooted in no standard, but to call the good a-moral as a judgment that implies its incapable of good is absurd. </p>
<p>I think the original question GDWilner asked is very interesting, but whatever chance of discussion there is in it has been ruined so far by repeatedly trying to reduce the whole idea to a scapegoating mechanism.</p>
<p>Since you are a Christian, while my grasp of Christianity is rudimentary at best, I'd be interested to hear what you think of my take on the original question.</p>
<p>I posted briefly before, quoting from Annie Dillard, the idea that Christ is Gods link to the world, that when Christ came to give us everlasting life He brought the infinite into the finite, that now man can partake in what is holy. As far as the idea of the scapegoating mechanism, that Christ took on all sins on the cross and crucified them, Im pretty skeptical unless its in a metaphorical sense. Apart from the three verses GDWilner posted, I havent seen this concept elsewhere in the NT, and the connection seems weak at best. As far as I can see all of those verses (especially Romans) dont say explicitly Christ took on all our sins, but that Christ took on our sins and became sinful in a loose sense by being made flesh, or finite, and that by his life and death brought spirit into the world, that we might follow spirit. As far as its connection to sin, this goes back again to the Dantean idea, that you cannot defeat sin except by Gods help. When Christianity says to let Christ into your heart, or that you must accept Christ, Im pretty sure its meant literally. Its Christ or the Holy Ghost that is usually meant, not the Father, who remains infinite, while Christ is infinity on earth, and by this it means letting Christ, or the Good, or whatever you want to call it, act in you. One of the ideas Ive heard about the Fall is that when man ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and not of the tree of life, he chose a human knowledge of good and evil (and thus every system of morality, necessarily fallible) rather than unity with God, while only God is good. The idea of doing good, not based on the law (for what the law could not do ), is based on that connection to what is holy, through Christ.</p>
<p>This is very much rambling but anyway I look forward to hearing what you think</p>
<p>Balla this is to answer the question had a few days ago:Maybe God's not answering because whatever you're praying for isn't something that you need right now or at your age maybe God is just waiting for the right ime.</p>
<p>nick, trust me, i "need" this thing at my age right now, in fact it's the best time. 2 years and still no answer. maybe prayer might not work that much after all, eh.</p>