|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 21, 2018 14:02:17 GMT
I don't think I exerted too much in the way of mental gymnastics here, and I don't think I added anything. The proverb is saying God likes your good works better than your ritual sacrifices. Christianity is saying that, though they're commendable, it's not your good works that will SAVE you, but Jesus' sacrifice. I don't see a problem on this one. But maybe a real Christian has a stronger argument to make than mine.
Does that not in itself seem antithetical to the point established originally? If God values good works over sacrifice then WHY would salvation be based on sacrifice instead of good works? It’s a contradiction in principle; God is basically talking out of both sides of his mouth. If good works was really better, then logically we shouldn’t need a sacrifice. Indeed, it could be so argued. But responding that Jesus' sacrifice, the one that all other sacrifices are mere symbolic foreshadowings of, is a unique case, one that the proverb doesn't seek to reference is a reasonable counter argument. These separate objections are stronger than the Proverbs objection, and each would make (and probably have made) interesting thread topics.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 21, 2018 19:48:26 GMT
Does that not in itself seem antithetical to the point established originally? If God values good works over sacrifice then WHY would salvation be based on sacrifice instead of good works? It’s a contradiction in principle; God is basically talking out of both sides of his mouth. If good works was really better, then logically we shouldn’t need a sacrifice. Indeed, it could be so argued. But responding that Jesus' sacrifice, the one that all other sacrifices are mere symbolic foreshadowings of, is a unique case, one that the proverb doesn't seek to reference is a reasonable counter argument. You're saying that the argument is basically: " sacrifice is NOT important - except in this one case, with this particular kind of sacrifice, which is different from other sacrifices, and therefore special. In fact, it's so different and special that it's the MOST important thing ever". Is special pleading a reasonable argument? Because I always thought it was a logical fallacy.  These separate objections are stronger than the Proverbs objection, and each would make (and probably have made) interesting thread topics. Perhaps they will in the future!  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 21, 2018 20:03:53 GMT
you said the NT said no one can be good. That's not an implication; it's a quote!  What that has to do with Proverbs is anyone’s guess but you can’t comprehend context so you don’t understand why you’re wrong. Actually, you are admitting here that YOU cannot comprehend context (because I actually explained why in context the passage contradicts the Proverbs verse concerning sacrifice in general). Either way, nothing was "implied" on my end. You are literally pulling your arguments from other people who don’t know what they’re talking about but can’t be bothered with looking at it yourself because you like the way you talk too much. I'm not sure who you think I'm pulling arguments from (also don't care), or how that is in any way an implication. Do you even know what the word "imply" means? [it's rhetorical, you don't] im accusing you of not having an original accusation and thus not having a way to defend the accusation. Your argument regarding Proberbs 21:3 is lame and rather than address what I said you pretend someone else said it or worse that you refuted it when you did no such thing. It’s ok. I’ll just chalk it up as another win and it’s on to the next one!😊 |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 21, 2018 20:41:48 GMT
That's not an implication; it's a quote! Actually, you are admitting here that YOU cannot comprehend context (because I actually explained why in context the passage contradicts the Proverbs verse concerning sacrifice in general). Either way, nothing was "implied" on my end. I'm not sure who you think I'm pulling arguments from (also don't care), or how that is in any way an implication. Do you even know what the word "imply" means? [it's rhetorical, you don't] im accusing you of not having an original accusation and thus not having a way to defend the accusation. Your argument regarding Proberbs 21:3 is lame and rather than address what I said you pretend someone else said it or worse that you refuted it when you did no such thing. It’s ok. I’ll just chalk it up as another win and it’s on to the next one!😊 Why do people think tat they have to 'win' arguments on the internet?  |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 21, 2018 20:42:40 GMT
That's not an implication; it's a quote! Actually, you are admitting here that YOU cannot comprehend context (because I actually explained why in context the passage contradicts the Proverbs verse concerning sacrifice in general). Either way, nothing was "implied" on my end. I'm not sure who you think I'm pulling arguments from (also don't care), or how that is in any way an implication. Do you even know what the word "imply" means? [it's rhetorical, you don't] im accusing you of not having an original accusation and thus not having a way to defend the accusation. I don't care what you are accusing me of. Unless you can demonstrate that there is some basis for your accusation, OR that this would in some way invalidate the argument then your accusation doesn't mean anything to me. I'm interested in the subject matter, not who originated it. And I'm not defending anything, I'm attacking something (morality associated with the idea of sacrificial atonement which Christians believe in). Your argument regarding Proberbs 21:3 is lame and rather than address what I said you pretend someone else said it or worse that you refuted it when you did no such thing. It’s ok. I’ll just chalk it up as another win and it’s on to the next one!😊 An "LOL" (which is what you usually offer up) in lieu of a counter-argument is a defeat as far as I can tell. But if you want to consider them wins, that's your prerogative. I'm not interested in your "opinions" or whether you think you've won something or not. I'm interested in the subject matter of the discussion and whether or not in this case the idea of sacrificial atonement can be reconciled with Proverbs 21:3, or with morality in general. And so far I don't see any argument (from you or anyone else) that it can be. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 21, 2018 20:43:38 GMT
im accusing you of not having an original accusation and thus not having a way to defend the accusation. Your argument regarding Proberbs 21:3 is lame and rather than address what I said you pretend someone else said it or worse that you refuted it when you did no such thing. It’s ok. I’ll just chalk it up as another win and it’s on to the next one!😊 Why do people think tat they have to 'win' arguments on the internet? And why they would think that I might care that THEY THINK they've won is beyond me.  |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 21, 2018 21:48:49 GMT
Indeed, it could be so argued. But responding that Jesus' sacrifice, the one that all other sacrifices are mere symbolic foreshadowings of, is a unique case, one that the proverb doesn't seek to reference is a reasonable counter argument. You're saying that the argument is basically: " sacrifice is NOT important - except in this one case, with this particular kind of sacrifice, which is different from other sacrifices, and therefore special. In fact, it's so different and special that it's the MOST important thing ever". Is special pleading a reasonable argument? Because I always thought it was a logical fallacy. It's not special pleading when you can explain why the object in question really IS an exceptional case, and not like all those symbolic animal slaughterings that for centuries preceded it. (I'll bet you, a former Christian, could explain it yourself). |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 22, 2018 14:47:34 GMT
You're saying that the argument is basically: " sacrifice is NOT important - except in this one case, with this particular kind of sacrifice, which is different from other sacrifices, and therefore special. In fact, it's so different and special that it's the MOST important thing ever". Is special pleading a reasonable argument? Because I always thought it was a logical fallacy. It's not special pleading;when you can explain why the object in question really IS an exceptional case, and not like all those symbolic animal slaughterings that for centuries preceded it. (I'll bet you, a former Christian, could explain it yourself). Except that I can't, and neither can any other Christians as far as I can tell (which is why I'm not a Christian anymore). There is nothing exceptionable about the sacrifice of Christ. I think I could actually make a stronger argument that it may in fact be the LEAST exceptional type of sacrifice there ever was (assuming it ever actually happened). As I mentioned in my previous comments, it's a stretch to even call it a "sacrifice" at all since nothing was actually lost. Christ is said to have been risen, and will reign forever. So, where was the sacrifice? Being dead for three days, and then becoming the second most powerful entity in the universe for all eternity is supposed to be some kind of "atonement" for all the sins of mankind? How? Why? Like I said, when Elvis died for my sins at least he stayed dead! And so did all of the sacrificial animals before Jesus. And none of this addresses why sacrifice would be necessary (or desirable) to God at all. How does someone sacrificing themselves "atone" for anything committed by someone else? The word atonement means "reparation for an offense". If someone else is sacrificing themselves for YOUR sin, then you haven't actually paid what you owe. Even the bible says that Jesus paid the ransom for believers. How is that a just system? It couldn't possibly be. You know what proper "atonement" would be for someone who committed a murder? Making the murderer have to experience what they actually did from the victim's perspective, and then coming to appreciate the "wrongness" of that act from a first hand account. Or making a rapist have to experience what their rape victims had experienced, from all of his victim's perspective. That would be atonement! Someone saying "I raped and killed people, but its okay because I believe in Jesus now, and I have faith that he will wash my sins away" is NOT atonement. Even if you combined that with a genuine regret for that person's actions, they still haven't actually paid for anything. They just put it on Jesus's tab and walked away scott free. And technically Jesus didn't pay for it either because he only died ONCE (pretty sure millions of people have been murdered in all kinds of ways), and he didn't stay dead. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 22, 2018 15:38:02 GMT
Of course the logical conclusion of that is humans are unable to make a moral evaluation of God, which makes it irrational for anyone to call God just. Of course they can. Since Adam, people were questioning God justice and God has even adjusted his judgement to accommodate some of them or at least be willing to accommodate their request. Divine justice is actually pretty easy to follow overall give or take an illegal census count. There are few if any executions of justice, I'm assuming we are only talking about killings since that's what is always talked about, that readers didn;t know the clear and obvious reasons for. Again, it just may be that we don;t agree with them. So maybe it's more accurate to say that rather than his justice being beyond our comprehension, since all it takes is reading comprehension, it's more accurate to say there is little we can do to stop his implementation of justice without changes on our part. It sounds like folks were just imagining what God's justice was and that their perception changed based on how civilization advanced.
On what objective basis would someone conclude God is just...or more importantly conclude that God is unjust? Unless there is a basis for saying God is unjust, it seems irrational to say God is just.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 22, 2018 16:51:37 GMT
It's not special pleading;when you can explain why the object in question really IS an exceptional case, and not like all those symbolic animal slaughterings that for centuries preceded it. (I'll bet you, a former Christian, could explain it yourself). If that's true, it's a really sad commentary.There is when you compare it to the ritual symbolic sacrifices that the proverb is talking about. If I were to put it as a parable, consider an adolescent boy. Though his teen years he jerks off a thousand times. Then finally one day, he has fer real sex with a real live woman. Try convincing him there was nothing exceptional about it compared with all those years burping the worm. Good luck. (This might make a good Sunday sermon, y'think?)
You notice I'm sticking strictly to the point regarding the proverb. Your other comments, like before, are larger criticisms of the whole idea of a sacrifice. You're on thicker ice there. If there are cracks to be pointed out, I should let a real Christian do so (if he can).
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 22, 2018 19:05:16 GMT
Of course they can. Since Adam, people were questioning God justice and God has even adjusted his judgement to accommodate some of them or at least be willing to accommodate their request. Divine justice is actually pretty easy to follow overall give or take an illegal census count. There are few if any executions of justice, I'm assuming we are only talking about killings since that's what is always talked about, that readers didn;t know the clear and obvious reasons for. Again, it just may be that we don;t agree with them. So maybe it's more accurate to say that rather than his justice being beyond our comprehension, since all it takes is reading comprehension, it's more accurate to say there is little we can do to stop his implementation of justice without changes on our part. It sounds like folks were just imagining what God's justice was and that their perception changed based on how civilization advanced.
On what objective basis would someone conclude God is just...or more importantly conclude that God is unjust? Unless there is a basis for saying God is unjust, it seems irrational to say God is just.
Not really since Gods Justice hasn’t changed. It’s very minimalist- Sin begets death and yet death is invaluable. It can be covered. That hasn’t changed for thousands of years Scripture has been written or after its completion . Mercy or undeserved kindness has always factored into it as well. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 22, 2018 20:31:19 GMT
It sounds like folks were just imagining what God's justice was and that their perception changed based on how civilization advanced.
On what objective basis would someone conclude God is just...or more importantly conclude that God is unjust? Unless there is a basis for saying God is unjust, it seems irrational to say God is just.
Not really since Gods Justice hasn’t changed. It’s very minimalist- Sin begets death and yet death is invaluable. It can be covered. That hasn’t changed for thousands of years Scripture has been written or after its completion . Mercy or undeserved kindness has always factored into it as well. "Not really since Gods Justice hasn’t changed."
Except "God has even adjusted his judgement to accommodate some of them or at least be willing to accommodate their request." In which case either his judgment wasn't just before or it wasn't just after he adjusted it unless his judgment is arbitrary.
What do you base your judgment of what is just or not just?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 22, 2018 20:35:28 GMT
Not really since Gods Justice hasn’t changed. It’s very minimalist- Sin begets death and yet death is invaluable. It can be covered. That hasn’t changed for thousands of years Scripture has been written or after its completion . Mercy or undeserved kindness has always factored into it as well. "Not really since Gods Justice hasn’t changed."
Except "God has even adjusted his judgement to accommodate some of them or at least be willing to accommodate their request." In which case either his judgment wasn't just before or it wasn't just after he adjusted it unless his judgment is arbitrary.
What do you base your judgment of what is just or not just?
Again,God's mercy has always factored into his judgement. Being just is not contradictory to being forgiving, patient, merciful, or kind since the end result is the same - death for sin until something comes along that can cover over it. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 22, 2018 20:39:10 GMT
"Not really since Gods Justice hasn’t changed."
Except "God has even adjusted his judgement to accommodate some of them or at least be willing to accommodate their request." In which case either his judgment wasn't just before or it wasn't just after he adjusted it unless his judgment is arbitrary.
What do you base your judgment of what is just or not just?
Again,God's mercy has always factored into his judgement. Being just is not contradictory to being forgiving, patient, merciful, or kind since the end result is the same - death for sin until something comes along that can cover over it. But mercy doesn't change what is just, does it? Either his decision is just, or it isn't. Either the punishment "fits" the crime by whatever standard God has, or it is either too severe or too lenient. Humans show mercy because their judgment isn't perfect...they can't tell whether the punishment adequately takes into acct factors they aren't aware of. But God isn't restrained by that. In fact, he can't be "changing" his decisions based on human requests because he already knew what those requests were going to be before they made them and before he made his "just" decision.
But in the end, you don't have a rationale basis for judging whether God is just or not, do you? If so, what is it? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 22, 2018 21:35:29 GMT
Again,God's mercy has always factored into his judgement. Being just is not contradictory to being forgiving, patient, merciful, or kind since the end result is the same - death for sin until something comes along that can cover over it. But mercy doesn't change what is just, does it? Either his decision is just, or it isn't. Either the punishment "fits" the crime by whatever standard God has, or it is either too severe or too lenient. Humans show mercy because their judgment isn't perfect...they can't tell whether the punishment adequately takes into acct factors they aren't aware of. But God isn't restrained by that. In fact, he can't be "changing" his decisions based on human requests because he already knew what those requests were going to be before they made them and before he made his "just" decision.
But in the end, you don't have a rationale basis for judging whether God is just or not, do you? If so, what is it? I disagree with the notion that mercy is a form of imperfection. Mercy is a form of perfection that we desperately try to adhere to imperfectly. That is my rationale for God being depth just and kind. You haven't provided a reason to think that being just is absence of feeling. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Dec 22, 2018 23:37:35 GMT
But mercy doesn't change what is just, does it? Either his decision is just, or it isn't. Either the punishment "fits" the crime by whatever standard God has, or it is either too severe or too lenient. Humans show mercy because their judgment isn't perfect...they can't tell whether the punishment adequately takes into acct factors they aren't aware of. But God isn't restrained by that. In fact, he can't be "changing" his decisions based on human requests because he already knew what those requests were going to be before they made them and before he made his "just" decision.
But in the end, you don't have a rationale basis for judging whether God is just or not, do you? If so, what is it? I disagree with the notion that mercy is a form of imperfection. Mercy is a form of perfection that we desperately try to adhere to imperfectly. That is my rationale for God being depth just and kind. You haven't provided a reason to think that being just is absence of feeling. No one said "mercy is a form of imperfection." Nor did I say being just is absence of feeling.
But for an omniscient being...if the God you're talking about is omniscient. a person's plea for mercy cannot result in a real change in the decision God makes regarding justice because he would have already known that the person was going to plead/repent/whatever before.
But in the end you don't have a rationale basis for judging whether God is just or not, do you? If so, what is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by looking4klingons on Jan 9, 2019 6:01:35 GMT
Yes! That's why we have the future Resurrection to look forward to. An earthly one. - John 5:28,29 Are you a Jehovah's Witness? Yes. (Sorry for being so late to reply, I’m not on here much.) Take care. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 9, 2019 20:46:51 GMT
Are you a Jehovah's Witness? Yes. (Sorry for being so late to reply, I’m not on here much.) Take care. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 10, 2019 0:11:10 GMT
Yes. (Sorry for being so late to reply, I’m not on here much.) Take care. Why? Why what? |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 10, 2019 0:22:07 GMT
Goz is either asking l4k why is he a JW, or why is he sorry for the late reply, or why he doesn't post much, or why you should take care. |
|
