| Archsage |
| Posted 05/22/12 at 06:09 PM | Reply with quote #61 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Crash
For one, everyone is a sinner, and thus it makes no sense to only make some sins punishable by death. Secondly, you are literally equating humans to dirty plates.
One doesn't make sense. All sins are punishable by death. As for two, that's what analogies are bro. It compares things to one another. Hence it being analogous.
Quote: Originally Posted by Crash
Your rag analogy hinges on the notion that a thing can only be cleaned by a cleaner thing. Given there is nothing cleaner than Christ, and he isn't dirty now, the whole thing falls down.
What thing falls down? Are you saying that you don't need a cleaner thing to clean something dirty? If not, then the analogy holds.
Or are you trying to make something that is analogous to something be synonymous? If that's what you're doing, then you are just plain wrong, literally erroneous. If I make an analogy between a subatomic particle and spheres for the sake of understanding, and you try and make spheres literally synonymous with sub atomic particles, you'd just be plain wrong.
Lol. It sucks now, I'm having trouble taking you seriously. But come on bro. Don't take analogies outside of what they are comparing.
Quote: Originally Posted by Crash
Moreover, given the methodology was available all along...
What methodology? You mean the Christ coming and dying for us all? You're saying that it could have been done at any time in the past and work the same exact way, right? Enlighten me, then. How would it be done?
Quote: Originally Posted by Crash
Again, you haven't reasoned this out. Not only are the words and structure in that sentence fine, but the two factual statements in it, that Christians refer to God as loving and benevolent, and that God commanded the death penalty for homosexuality, are both true. Read. Learn to read carefully. Look at my post again, and see why your response to it was wrong:
The sentence and syntax and facts are all fine but the point is so off-base that I wondered if you even knew what Christianity is to begin with.
|
| Loading... | |
| Blake1960 |
| Posted 05/22/12 at 10:42 PM | Reply with quote #62 |
|
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned. (Titus 3:9-11 NASB)
He's playing us all. No matter what truth you might offer or sage illustration you employ, the obfuscation will continue ad nauseum.
His response to my last appeal couldn't be more clear. |
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 05/23/12 at 05:11 AM | Reply with quote #63 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by Crash
For one, everyone is a sinner, and thus it makes no sense to only make some sins punishable by death. Secondly, you are literally equating humans to dirty plates.
One doesn't make sense. All sins are punishable by death. As for two, that's what analogies are bro. It compares things to one another. Hence it being analogous.
Arch, I'm pretty disappointed by this response. On the first part, you know full well I am talking about the death penalty, not the mortal, kicked out of Eden, thing. If every sin was punished by death penalty, then everyone would be dead.
On the second, you actually deleted the sentence where I explained why it wasn't simply a matter of analogy. I know we disagree on a lot, but I've never known you sidestep my point quite this much...
Quote:
What thing falls down? Are you saying that you don't need a cleaner thing to clean something dirty? If not, then the analogy holds.
Or are you trying to make something that is analogous to something be synonymous? If that's what you're doing, then you are just plain wrong, literally erroneous. If I make an analogy between a subatomic particle and spheres for the sake of understanding, and you try and make spheres literally synonymous with sub atomic particles, you'd just be plain wrong.
Lol. It sucks now, I'm having trouble taking you seriously. But come on bro. Don't take analogies outside of what they are comparing.
I'm not. The only explanation you have given me is an analogy, and one that doesn't make sense. You have the following to premises buried in your account:
1) To clean something you need a cleaner thing. 2) Jesus did not require a cleaner thing.
You are expecting me to fill in the blanks of a completely nonsensical situation like it is completely obvious. Blood sacrifices don't fix things in the natural world, you can't just assume that I can work out where your analogy and your real example differ, and you certainly can't expect me to fill in the blanks... Quote:
What methodology? You mean the Christ coming and dying for us all? You're saying that it could have been done at any time in the past and work the same exact way, right? Enlighten me, then. How would it be done?
God is omnipotent. I really don't know why it tends to be atheists who are consistent on this. It honestly seems to me that for the Christian, omnipotence means 'able to do anything logically possible, unless God didn't do it'.
Quote: Read. Learn to read carefully. Look at my post again, and see why your response to it was wrong:
The sentence and syntax and facts are all fine but the point is so off-base that I wondered if you even knew what Christianity is to begin with.
As far as I can tell, you think it is wrong because you want it to be. I don't care if you think it's off base. If it is a grammatically correct sentence, which is 100% true, then you simply disagreeing with it is not going to do a lot to convince me.
Arch, I'm going to be honest, you're being needlessly rude and aggressive here, and I won't tolerate it very long in this thread. I have Blake to remind me what an actual troll poster is like, so I'm maintaining perspective, but you have absolutely no reason to be conducting discussion in this way. Michael has already acknowledged that this is an issue that requires thinking through, even if he believes that he has done so successfully. Many theists disagree with the homosexuality rules altogether, so you are not in a position to simply assume that your position is both obvious and correct.
Let me be very blunt here. I like you, and I like discussing things with you. But if you are going to defend the stoning of human beings of any demographic, in any time period, and in any place, I will not be patient with rudeness. |
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 05/23/12 at 06:17 AM | Reply with quote #64 |
|
Hmm. I realize this is probably a lot. So let's take this one thing at a time. Remember, I'm not trying to make you change your mind about anything, just making sure you actually understand it. Quote: Originally Posted by Crash
If every sin was punished by death penalty, then everyone would be dead.
Yep. This is very close. So why isn't everyone dead, according to Christianity?
|
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 05/23/12 at 06:19 AM | Reply with quote #65 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Blake1960
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned. (Titus 3:9-11 NASB)
He's playing us all. No matter what truth you might offer or sage illustration you employ, the obfuscation will continue ad nauseum.
His response to my last appeal couldn't be more clear.
Whether or not this is true, I'd rather continue my conversation. Had God dealt with mankind after their "first or second warning" according to their sins, would we be saved?
I'm not in the mood to condemn anybody, or declare anyone self-condemned. I'm in the mood to teach the Gospel. That's all I really should be doing anyways.
|
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 05/23/12 at 07:53 AM | Reply with quote #66 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ArchsageHmm. I realize this is probably a lot. So let's take this one thing at a time. Remember, I'm not trying to make you change your mind about anything, just making sure you actually understand it. Quote: Originally Posted by Crash
If every sin was punished by death penalty, then everyone would be dead.
Yep. This is very close. So why isn't everyone dead, according to Christianity?
Okay, cool, I like the idea of going step by step.
Right, this took me back for a second, because I realised I couldn't answer. Then I realised that this genuinely wasn't my fault, and also that I think the question is misphrased. This is a slight problem with your questioning method, because Christianity is not as homogeneous as you portray it, and whilst I'm sure you have an answer to the question, I do not believe this is true of all Christians, nor do I believe all those who do have an answer, have the same one.
So, allow me to summarise the most common theme in answering the question, which would be in some way related to free will. I honestly don't know what the point of this life is on a Christian account, and I haven't encountered too many Christians who really do. We are living this life as some form of developmental process, and free will, in the sense of being able to turn to or from God, ties into this. The exact specifics of why God couldn't create humans fully developed, or why suffering is necessary, or any of the other 'whys' are elusive, and fall under the mysterious ways label.
So, let's go with your account. Why do you believe that people are alive? |
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 05/23/12 at 01:14 PM | Reply with quote #67 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutoQuote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by Crash
If every sin was punished by death penalty, then everyone would be dead.
Yep. This is very close. So why isn't everyone dead, according to Christianity?
Okay, cool, I like the idea of going step by step.
Right, this took me back for a second, because I realised I couldn't answer. Then I realised that this genuinely wasn't my fault, and also that I think the question is misphrased. This is a slight problem with your questioning method, because Christianity is not as homogeneous as you portray it, and whilst I'm sure you have an answer to the question, I do not believe this is true of all Christians, nor do I believe all those who do have an answer, have the same one.
So, allow me to summarise the most common theme in answering the question, which would be in some way related to free will. I honestly don't know what the point of this life is on a Christian account, and I haven't encountered too many Christians who really do. We are living this life as some form of developmental process, and free will, in the sense of being able to turn to or from God, ties into this. The exact specifics of why God couldn't create humans fully developed, or why suffering is necessary, or any of the other 'whys' are elusive, and fall under the mysterious ways label.
So, let's go with your account. Why do you believe that people are alive?
That's a great answer, Crash, even though it's akin to "I'm not sure", it still is great. And now I'm burdened with answering my own question, touché.
According to Christianity, everyone isn't dead because God doesn't want people to die in their sins. Plain and simple. The punishment for sin is death, but God has no pleasure, no delight, no gratification in killing sinners. So, for the sake of Justice, our deaths are pretty much set in stone. However, God doesn't find us as "mere dirty plates" but actually cares and loves us. It's a stark contrast to deism, as you can note.
Ezekiel 18 (note, this is the same context; "Old Testament")
21 “But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. 23 Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? [...] 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live.”
2 Peter 3:9 (New Testament)
7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
emphasis mine
In light of this, we can look at the topic question with a complete grasp of the Christian worldview. I guess I'm saying that I want you to answer for me the questions radical logic raised, keeping this in mind.
|
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 05/23/12 at 01:24 PM | Reply with quote #68 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ArchsageThat's a great answer, Crash, even though it's akin to "I'm not sure", it still is great. And now I'm burdened with answering my own question, touché. According to Christianity, everyone isn't dead because God doesn't want people to die in their sins. Plain and simple. The punishment for sin is death, but God has no pleasure, no delight, no gratification in killing sinners. So, for the sake of Justice, our deaths are pretty much set in stone. However, God doesn't find us as "mere dirty plates" but actually cares and loves us. It's a stark contrast to deism, as you can note. Ezekiel 18 (note, this is the same context; "Old Testament")
21 “But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. 23 Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? [...] 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live.”
2 Peter 3:9 (New Testament)
7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
In light of this, we can look at the topic question with a complete grasp of the Christian worldview. I guess I'm saying that I want you to answer for me the questions radical logic raised, keeping this in mind.
Okay, let's slow this down a bit, as I want to understand exactly what you mean before we move onto the next step. Could you reverse the question, and answer why we are alive?
I understand that God does not want us to die. I understand that all sins must be punished by death. But I do not understand why only some sins are punishable by immediate death sentence, nor why anyone is allowed to live at all, given we are all sinners.
Before we cross that bridge though, let's first agree on why God wants us alive in the first place. We can't not become sinners. He knows which of us will turn to and from Christ. Presumably there is some function to living, which like I said seems to centre around free will, but what exactly do you think this is?
If you don't think these are the correct questions, I am happy to let you guide the discussion here. But I want to be very clear that thus far I am confused as to the point of both life, and death, on your view. |
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 05/23/12 at 01:48 PM | Reply with quote #69 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashBefore we cross that bridge though, let's first agree on why God wants us alive in the first place. We can't not become sinners. He knows which of us will turn to and from Christ. Presumably there is some function to living, which like I said seems to centre around free will, but what exactly do you think this is?
We can become non-sinners. And that is by our own volition doing the most basic form of volitional action regarding sinlessness -- believing faithfully in God, through the Christ. (Perhaps that is a vague concept, I'd be happy to explain if it's not really clear).
But I don't think I understand what you're asking here. Can you explain? AS of now I think you're asking what our 'life' is, which I've been pushing since I first started posting here, is "that which volition comes from". I call it the soul, but I'm sure everyone else has their own personal spin on it.
|
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 05/23/12 at 03:44 PM | Reply with quote #70 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ArchsageWe can become non-sinners. And that is by our own volition doing the most basic form of volitional action regarding sinlessness -- believing faithfully in God, through the Christ. (Perhaps that is a vague concept, I'd be happy to explain if it's not really clear).
But I don't think I understand what you're asking here. Can you explain? AS of now I think you're asking what our 'life' is, which I've been pushing since I first started posting here, is "that which volition comes from". I call it the soul, but I'm sure everyone else has their own personal spin on it.
Allow me to clarify my concern. If we are all sinners, and life is intended to give us an opportunity to turn to Christ, then what does a death sentence achieve? We're all deserving of death, so none of us deserve the opportunity to turn to Christ. How can it make sense to punish certain sins with death? For that matter, how can it make sense for a child to die before it has the opportunity to turn to Christ?
I'm not trying to catch you out here, but I'm not going to be able to understand a rationalisation of death, without an understanding of why God lets us live in the first place. |
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 05/23/12 at 04:12 PM | Reply with quote #71 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutoAllow me to clarify my concern. If we are all sinners, and life is intended to give us an opportunity to turn to Christ, then what does a death sentence achieve? We're all deserving of death, so none of us deserve the opportunity to turn to Christ. How can it make sense to punish certain sins with death? For that matter, how can it make sense for a child to die before it has the opportunity to turn to Christ?
I'm not trying to catch you out here, but I'm not going to be able to understand a rationalisation of death, without an understanding of why God lets us live in the first place.
You're working backwards, I think. As in, you're looking at it from the standpoint that Christ takes away our sins. Think about before the Christ, and think of my initial analogy. If there were nothing to clean the dirty plates, what would you do with them, in order to clean the place up?
As in, if you had a BBQ outside and used paper plates, (and we don't wash and clean paper plates, you know?), what would you do with the plates afterwards? Using that analogy as a crutch, you can see what it means to say that "all sinners must die"? Just like, all dirty plates much be cast away and forsaken.
Am I messing you up again here?
If not, then, and only then, do we recognize the need for the Christ. Because God doesn't want the plates to be dirty. He loves those plates. So what's He going to do? He's going to have them cleaned instead. And so the plates, that were dirty and about to be thrown away, will instead be kept, and much more than that, but these plates will be the most clean, beautiful plates anyone has ever seen.
So, knowing all of this, we can see that a dirty plate will be thrown out because it's dirty. But God doesn't want to throw out the plates. So He's going to have them cleaned. (Here we run into one of the boundaries of analogy, but for the sake of extending it further): However, some of the plates are sentient and say, " I don't want to be cleaned". So God doesn't clean them. But the plates, now not being cleaned, what place is there for them? They get thrown in the trash, with the rest of the unclean things -- they are forsaken and cast away.
|
| Loading... | |
| lucid |
| Posted 05/23/12 at 05:59 PM | Reply with quote #72 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Archsage
They get thrown in the trash, with the rest of the unclean things -- they are forsaken and cast away.
Arch, in biblical times, when gays were presumably ganged up on and pelted with rocks until they died, would you say those events were morally good?
Simple yes or no answer will suffice. |
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 05/24/12 at 07:07 AM | Reply with quote #73 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Archsage
You're working backwards, I think. As in, you're looking at it from the standpoint that Christ takes away our sins. Think about before the Christ, and think of my initial analogy. If there were nothing to clean the dirty plates, what would you do with them, in order to clean the place up?
As in, if you had a BBQ outside and used paper plates, (and we don't wash and clean paper plates, you know?), what would you do with the plates afterwards? Using that analogy as a crutch, you can see what it means to say that "all sinners must die"? Just like, all dirty plates much be cast away and forsaken.
Am I messing you up again here?
If not, then, and only then, do we recognize the need for the Christ. Because God doesn't want the plates to be dirty. He loves those plates. So what's He going to do? He's going to have them cleaned instead. And so the plates, that were dirty and about to be thrown away, will instead be kept, and much more than that, but these plates will be the most clean, beautiful plates anyone has ever seen.
So, knowing all of this, we can see that a dirty plate will be thrown out because it's dirty. But God doesn't want to throw out the plates. So He's going to have them cleaned. (Here we run into one of the boundaries of analogy, but for the sake of extending it further): However, some of the plates are sentient and say, " I don't want to be cleaned". So God doesn't clean them. But the plates, now not being cleaned, what place is there for them? They get thrown in the trash, with the rest of the unclean things -- they are forsaken and cast away.
Okay, yes we need to stop here, and get this very clear. I appreciate the analogy, but it isn't helpful here anymore. Allow me to phrase my issues with the analogy by explaining how I think it would play out.
All of the plates on the table are dirty. At a certain point in time I pick up a dish, and ask if it wants to be cleaned. The dish will answer differently depending on what time I pick it up, and their will be no discernible pattern to when I pick any particular dish up. For some types of dirt, say gravy, if I see it on a plate, I will command other dirty plates to throw it away immediately.
The cloth I use to clean the dishes will be clean, and is required to clean the plates. There is nothing required to clean the cloth. |
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 05/24/12 at 08:05 AM | Reply with quote #74 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutoQuote: Originally Posted by Archsage
You're working backwards, I think. As in, you're looking at it from the standpoint that Christ takes away our sins. Think about before the Christ, and think of my initial analogy. If there were nothing to clean the dirty plates, what would you do with them, in order to clean the place up?
As in, if you had a BBQ outside and used paper plates, (and we don't wash and clean paper plates, you know?), what would you do with the plates afterwards? Using that analogy as a crutch, you can see what it means to say that "all sinners must die"? Just like, all dirty plates much be cast away and forsaken.
Am I messing you up again here?
If not, then, and only then, do we recognize the need for the Christ. Because God doesn't want the plates to be dirty. He loves those plates. So what's He going to do? He's going to have them cleaned instead. And so the plates, that were dirty and about to be thrown away, will instead be kept, and much more than that, but these plates will be the most clean, beautiful plates anyone has ever seen.
So, knowing all of this, we can see that a dirty plate will be thrown out because it's dirty. But God doesn't want to throw out the plates. So He's going to have them cleaned. (Here we run into one of the boundaries of analogy, but for the sake of extending it further): However, some of the plates are sentient and say, " I don't want to be cleaned". So God doesn't clean them. But the plates, now not being cleaned, what place is there for them? They get thrown in the trash, with the rest of the unclean things -- they are forsaken and cast away.
Okay, yes we need to stop here, and get this very clear. I appreciate the analogy, but it isn't helpful here anymore. Allow me to phrase my issues with the analogy by explaining how I think it would play out.
All of the plates on the table are dirty. At a certain point in time I pick up a dish, and ask if it wants to be cleaned. The dish will answer differently depending on what time I pick it up, and their will be no discernible pattern to when I pick any particular dish up. For some types of dirt, say gravy, if I see it on a plate, I will command other dirty plates to throw it away immediately.
The cloth I use to clean the dishes will be clean, and is required to clean the plates. There is nothing required to clean the cloth.
Again, you're trying to make something that is analogous into something that is synonymous; you're taking the analogy out of the context in which it is being used. I'm trying to explain to you this extremely basic concept so that you understand. So let me go even slower.
When you want a clean table, and there are dirty things on the table, what do you do to make that table clean? Assume, first, that you have no means of cleaning the dirty things.
|
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 05/24/12 at 10:03 AM | Reply with quote #75 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Archsage
Again, you're trying to make something that is analogous into something that is synonymous; you're taking the analogy out of the context in which it is being used. I'm trying to explain to you this extremely basic concept so that you understand. So let me go even slower.
When you want a clean table, and there are dirty things on the table, what do you do to make that table clean? Assume, first, that you have no means of cleaning the dirty things.
No, I'm not trying to make the analogy synonymous, I'm trying to ask you to abandon the analogy, and identifying why I have issue with it. I understand the concept that 'dirty things need cleaning', but as the analogy falls down after that it is fairly unhelpful. Could you please explain the scenario in simple, non-analogous, terms. |
| Loading... | |
