|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 12:43:11 GMT
Actually, I'd say that one would understand it much better if one had been on the defendant side of the equation at some point. The more angles that one experiences something from, the better one is going to understand it. This doesn't make sense from a corruption angle.
That's like saying the best firemen have to have 3rd degree burns.
It is not beneficial to experience something that will kill us in order to understand why someone else died from it. Further, it is more beneficial to save someone from something that could kill them because we have never experienced it.
I don't know what "from a corruption angle" refers to. You'd have to explain that better. I didn't say anything about "the best." I said something about understanding things better. You'd understand fires and how to deal with them, including people stuck in the middle of them, better if you understand what it's like to be in a fire, and firemen certainly understand that. It's part of their training to become a fireman. "It is not beneficial to experience something that will kill us in order to understand why someone else died from it." I'm not making a black and white statement. In other words, I'm not saying that one can't understand something at all, from some angle, if one hasn't experienced something. I'm saying you understand it better if you have experienced the various angles of it. You indeed would understand something that will kill you better if you've experienced it than if you haven't. For one, that experience is itself a kind of understanding. You can't have that if you've not experienced whatever it is. You can only have an intellectual understanding of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 12:44:26 GMT
It can't not be an ontological issue, even if it's just intended to be fictional. The fiction would still have to make some ontological sense, otherwise it's a plot hole (well, or at least just incoherent poetic stuff). It does make sense from within the teaching and you haven't provided a plot hole just by saying it doesn't make sense to you. That would just mean you don't get it. Explain how it works ontologically from within the teaching then. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2018 12:48:01 GMT
Terrapin StationIt's simply. Sin is corruption. However, anything that removes us from our optimal levels is a corruption. For example, meth head is not a better employee than a drug free one. You don't need to understand things "better, whatever that means, to understand them. All someone would have to know is being burned by a fire is bad. There's no extra step that needs to be taken although one could argue that Jesus did indeed step into the fire in a manner of speaking.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2018 12:49:13 GMT
It does make sense from within the teaching and you haven't provided a plot hole just by saying it doesn't make sense to you. That would just mean you don't get it. Explain how it works ontologically from within the teaching then. I said it wasn't one.
I was referring to the why it matters if Jesus sinned, not on the philosophical dilemma you keep refusing to bring out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 12:55:38 GMT
Explain how it works ontologically from within the teaching then. I said it wasn't one.
I was referring to the why it matters if Jesus sinned, not on the philosophical dilemma you keep refusing to bring out.
"It wasn't one"? You mean not ontological, I guess? If so, you obviously don't understand what that term refers to. In other words, whether you think "Jesus died for our sins" picks out something that really happened or whether you think it's just a fiction of some sort, there would have to be some way (in the real world or in the fiction) that it works. In other words, just how the action of dying has a particular effect on other people. So Jesus dies, and then what happens? What's the next event in the (fictional) world that was caused by him dying, and how exactly does that work in terms of causality? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2018 12:59:57 GMT
I said it wasn't one.
I was referring to the why it matters if Jesus sinned, not on the philosophical dilemma you keep refusing to bring out.
"It wasn't one"? You mean not ontological, I guess? If so, you obviously don't understand what that term refers to. In other words, whether you think "Jesus died for our sins" picks out something that really happened or whether you think it's just a fiction of some sort, there would have to be some way (in the real world or in the fiction) that it works. In other words, just how the action of dying has a particular effect on other people. So Jesus dies, and then what happens? What's the next event in the (fictional) world that was caused by him dying, and how exactly does that work in terms of causality? Ontological can be applied a few ways. Since I repeatedly referred to it in the common notion of philosophy, I assumed you were smart enough to figure that out. It's not a philosophical issue until you say it's one.
Are you simply asking in the most convoluted way possible why Jesus being sinless is important?
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 13:04:54 GMT
"It wasn't one"? You mean not ontological, I guess? If so, you obviously don't understand what that term refers to. In other words, whether you think "Jesus died for our sins" picks out something that really happened or whether you think it's just a fiction of some sort, there would have to be some way (in the real world or in the fiction) that it works. In other words, just how the action of dying has a particular effect on other people. So Jesus dies, and then what happens? What's the next event in the (fictional) world that was caused by him dying, and how exactly does that work in terms of causality? Ontological can be applied a few ways. Since I repeatedly referred to it in the common notion of philosophy, I assumed you were smart enough to figure that out. It's not a philosophical issue until you say it's one.
Are you simply asking in the most convoluted way possible why Jesus being sinless is important?
I just explained it in other words above: " there would have to be some way (in the real world or in the fiction) that it works. In other words, just how the action of dying has a particular effect on other people. So Jesus dies, and then what happens? What's the next event in the (real or fictional) world that was caused by him dying, and how exactly does that work in terms of causality?" |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 13, 2018 13:34:34 GMT
How come? The idea of sin in itself is a religious based philosophical concept within itself. Yes, from the outside of the religion.
From within, it's a rule set.
So in Judaism and Christianity sin leads to death and also leads to an imperfect mode of redemption through sacrifice. That's not a something up for debate in relation to other philosophies as if it's a hypothesis.
However, if ones want to debate on the assumption the doctrine isn't true, then have at it.
The rules are still an ideal or concept, based on what the religion believes in. You would have to give me some logical and reasonable explanation as to what that rule set means 'within' that religion and what makes it true to make it understandable and resonant using common sense? If you can't, then the belief in itself is not real and neither is the sin.
I might also add, that regardless of sin or no sin, death is still an absolute and the only thing that is. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2018 16:36:59 GMT
Yes, from the outside of the religion.
From within, it's a rule set.
So in Judaism and Christianity sin leads to death and also leads to an imperfect mode of redemption through sacrifice. That's not a something up for debate in relation to other philosophies as if it's a hypothesis.
However, if ones want to debate on the assumption the doctrine isn't true, then have at it.
The rules are still an ideal or concept, based on what the religion believes in. You would have to give me some logical and reasonable explanation as to what that rule set means 'within' that religion and what makes it true to make it understandable and resonant using common sense? If you can't, then the belief in itself is not real and neither is the sin.
I might also add, that regardless of sin or no sin, death is still an absolute and the only thing that is. This goes back to what I said though.
You would be the one that determines what is reasonable and understandable and thus trying to prove that notion to you is irrelevant and especially when it makes perfect sense within the religion, it's followers, & even some who don't actually believe in it or have negative opinions toward it.
It will never be my job to convince you of something I believe unless you can show me the rulebook for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 17:09:46 GMT
CoolJGS☺Your lack of even making an attempt is typical, by the way. I actually can't recall even one time that someone tried to explain what I asked about (re there would have to be some way (in the real world or in the fiction) that it works. In other words, just how the action of dying has a particular effect on other people. So Jesus dies, and then what happens? What's the next event in the (fictional) world that was caused by him dying, and how exactly does that work in terms of causality? ).
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2018 17:11:11 GMT
CoolJGS☺ Your lack of even making an attempt is typical, by the way. I actually can't recall even one time that someone tried to explain what I asked about (re there would have to be some way (in the real world or in the fiction) that it works. In other words, just how the action of dying has a particular effect on other people. So Jesus dies, and then what happens? What's the next event in the (fictional) world that was caused by him dying, and how exactly does that work in terms of causality? ).  |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 17:16:02 GMT
CoolJGS☺ Your lack of even making an attempt is typical, by the way. I actually can't recall even one time that someone tried to explain what I asked about (re there would have to be some way (in the real world or in the fiction) that it works. In other words, just how the action of dying has a particular effect on other people. So Jesus dies, and then what happens? What's the next event in the (fictional) world that was caused by him dying, and how exactly does that work in terms of causality? ). well, is it because you have no idea how it's supposed to work? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2018 17:24:04 GMT
Ontological can be applied a few ways. Since I repeatedly referred to it in the common notion of philosophy, I assumed you were smart enough to figure that out. It's not a philosophical issue until you say it's one.
Are you simply asking in the most convoluted way possible why Jesus being sinless is important?
I just explained it in other words above: " there would have to be some way (in the real world or in the fiction) that it works. In other words, just how the action of dying has a particular effect on other people. So Jesus dies, and then what happens? What's the next event in the (real or fictional) world that was caused by him dying, and how exactly does that work in terms of causality?" Because you are being particularly whining today, I will answer.
The notion of "real world" is varied based on whether you believe the teachings, so we will remove that since we can assume you don't believe a lick of it. You had mentioned anyway that this should work even if it's fiction so let's test you out on that.
So we are going to discuss the plot of the Bible. In the "fictional" world of the Bible, God set a standard that to gain eternal life, one needs to not sin. If you sin, you die eventually unless something can repair you.
Are you still with me?
In order to atone for this sinfulness, God's people would first need to be aware that they were sinful which is why there was a sytem set up for sacrifice for atonement.
Animals, being inferior to humans, could ever be an equivalent sacrifice. Imperfect humans, while better than animals.
A ransom sacrifice is the notion that there is a corresponding price for anything...At least up to human standards. Animals cold do the trick temporarily, but salvation would require permanence.
The only permanent solution would be to replace a perfect man with another perfect man. That's where Jesus comes into the picture. He is the only human ever capable of redeeming mankind back to a way that would qualify them for salvation. If he sinned, then someone drunk uncle would be just as good a sacrifice as him.
I can only assume this is not good enough so I await the opportunity to respond to yours or any others fake plot holes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 17:47:16 GMT
I just explained it in other words above: " there would have to be some way (in the real world or in the fiction) that it works. In other words, just how the action of dying has a particular effect on other people. So Jesus dies, and then what happens? What's the next event in the (real or fictional) world that was caused by him dying, and how exactly does that work in terms of causality?" Because you are being particularly whining today, I will answer.
The notion of "real world" is varied based on whether you believe the teachings, so we will remove that since we can assume you don't believe a lick of it. You had mentioned anyway that this should work even if it's fiction so let's test you out on that.
So we are going to discuss the plot of the Bible. In the "fictional" world of the Bible, God set a standard that to gain eternal life, one needs to not sin. If you sin, you die eventually unless something can repair you.
Are you still with me?
In order to atone for this sinfulness, God's people would first need to be aware that they were sinful which is why there was a sytem set up for sacrifice for atonement.
Animals, being inferior to humans, could ever be an equivalent sacrifice. Imperfect humans, while better than animals.
A ransom sacrifice is the notion that there is a corresponding price for anything...At least up to human standards. Animals cold do the trick temporarily, but salvation would require permanence.
The only permanent solution would be to replace a perfect man with another perfect man. That's where Jesus comes into the picture. He is the only human ever capable of redeeming mankind back to a way that would qualify them for salvation. If he sinned, then someone drunk uncle would be just as good a sacrifice as him.
I can only assume this is not good enough so I await the opportunity to respond to yours or any others fake plot holes.
What I'm asking about is how it's supposed to work--basically in terms of the mechanisms of it. Is it simply by fiat of God? And it's essentially arbitrary? Or is there some reason that Jesus dying can count as a "ransom sacrifice" other than an arbitrary fiat of God saying that it will count? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 13, 2018 23:12:28 GMT
The rules are still an ideal or concept, based on what the religion believes in. You would have to give me some logical and reasonable explanation as to what that rule set means 'within' that religion and what makes it true to make it understandable and resonant using common sense? If you can't, then the belief in itself is not real and neither is the sin.
I might also add, that regardless of sin or no sin, death is still an absolute and the only thing that is. This goes back to what I said though.
You would be the one that determines what is reasonable and understandable and thus trying to prove that notion to you is irrelevant and especially when it makes perfect sense within the religion, it's followers, & even some who don't actually believe in it or have negative opinions toward it.
It will never be my job to convince you of something I believe unless you can show me the rulebook for that.
It's not my argument about sin existing though and Christ being the savior of mankind. I have asked about the belief of the rules 'within' your religion and if it is something that you have faith in, wouldn't you then have concrete evidence to prove that the belief you hold is a truthful one? Isn't that then a reasonable and logical way to go about making something understandable to those that aren't convinced? Otherwise if you can't, it only goes to prove the rulebook analogy is just another delusion, because what and where are these rules anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Aug 13, 2018 23:22:28 GMT
I just explained it in other words above: " there would have to be some way (in the real world or in the fiction) that it works. In other words, just how the action of dying has a particular effect on other people. So Jesus dies, and then what happens? What's the next event in the (real or fictional) world that was caused by him dying, and how exactly does that work in terms of causality?" Because you are being particularly whining today, I will answer.
The notion of "real world" is varied based on whether you believe the teachings, so we will remove that since we can assume you don't believe a lick of it. You had mentioned anyway that this should work even if it's fiction so let's test you out on that.
So we are going to discuss the plot of the Bible. In the "fictional" world of the Bible, God set a standard that to gain eternal life, one needs to not sin. If you sin, you die eventually unless something can repair you.
Are you still with me?
In order to atone for this sinfulness, God's people would first need to be aware that they were sinful which is why there was a sytem set up for sacrifice for atonement.
Animals, being inferior to humans, could ever be an equivalent sacrifice. Imperfect humans, while better than animals.
A ransom sacrifice is the notion that there is a corresponding price for anything...At least up to human standards. Animals cold do the trick temporarily, but salvation would require permanence.
The only permanent solution would be to replace a perfect man with another perfect man. That's where Jesus comes into the picture. He is the only human ever capable of redeeming mankind back to a way that would qualify them for salvation. If he sinned, then someone drunk uncle would be just as good a sacrifice as him.
I can only assume this is not good enough so I await the opportunity to respond to yours or any others fake plot holes.
So once Jesus was sacrificed, because everyone else, including animals, were inferior to him, how does that death affect this thing called sin that he 'allegedly' died for? I still don't know what sin is and what your definition or concept of it is, BESIDES the context of what you believe it tells you in the bible. The bible is only 'within' context and within is not complete unless 'without' is also entered into the equation. |
|
