Nothing Short Of Perfection

[BilliardsBall]

My question is very similar to leibode84s. And, I think Leibode84 is correct in pointing out, you are not answering the basic question.

1) Billiardsball said : “…He will impart His perfection to me…” (post #1)
2) Clear asked : “ When you say that Jesus "will impart His perfection to me", can you explain what you mean by this. For example, do you mean he will exchange an imperfect personality for a perfect personality and then save the second personality? Can you further explain? If you mean that he will, as an external force, replace personal traits of a person with other traits, do you have a model as to how this happens?” (post # 2)
3) Billiardsball said : “ …I'm not ready to encounter God the Father but will enter His presence, made ready at that time.” (post #11)

This is not an explanation, but is simply be a re-worded, re-statement of your claim in post #1. What I am asking is HOW YOU expect to obtain actual perfection from the perfection of any other being (in this case, Jesus).



Clear
νεφιω

Clear,

How will you and I as believers raise from the dead? With what kind of bodies will we come? How will we enter Heaven? Where is Heaven? What will eat in Heaven? Drink?

I appreciate your desire to find answers to ineffable questions but am unsure I can service you in this thing. No one can logically enter a utopia without being a contributing member to the utopia. No imperfect person may enter Heaven. Since Jesus did nothing wrong, He was perfect. Since Jesus did nothing wrong, He was crucified to pay for my sin. Sin is disobedience to God, further, it is a state or action or being of imperfection. Jesus died for sinners. Are you asking whether Jesus died for perfect sinners or imperfect sinners?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your post stirs a lot inside of me about the faith. I left it for a few years, and having come back...I've learned...that Jesus was always there. He always loved me. He lets us leave Him. And then He comes to find us. I didn't go seeking Jesus, but a few weeks ago, He sought me. And in an instant, I realized who this Jesus is. And He is not what I thought, He is better than I imagined.

That is how much He loves us...He lets us leave. But, be careful to not worry too much about heaven, or if you are ready. All we need to be, is ready to love Him. All good things will flow from that, and you needn't worry.

That is good to know. If you have trusted Christ for salvation, you are 100% assured based on His character.

 

[leibowde84]

I think we can understand in the Bible how it is that Christ substituted for us.

I think you can certainly understand how to take on the responsibility of someone else's wrongdoing. For example, we are members on another thread, about abortion. And I have mentioned how a woman who is raped and impregnated may choose to bring to term a beautiful loved and cherished baby, a happy product of someone else's wrongdoing.

This is taking on the consequences, same as going to jail for someone. This is not taking on the responsibility or guilt.

 

[Orontes]

Clear,

How will you and I as believers raise from the dead? With what kind of bodies will we come? How will we enter Heaven? Where is Heaven? What will eat in Heaven? Drink?

I appreciate your desire to find answers to ineffable questions but am unsure I can service you in this thing. No one can logically enter a utopia without being a contributing member to the utopia. No imperfect person may enter Heaven. Since Jesus did nothing wrong, He was perfect. Since Jesus did nothing wrong, He was crucified to pay for my sin. Sin is disobedience to God, further, it is a state or action or being of imperfection. Jesus died for sinners. Are you asking whether Jesus died for perfect sinners or imperfect sinners?

Master Billiards,

I think you missed the thrust of Clear's question. You asserted Jesus "will impart His perfection to me". If perfection entails a moral component, and morality of necessity includes free will, how then does one impart a moral attribute to another? If it is imposed, then it isn't an attribute of the subject. Therefore, the subject is no different than before, but at best a slave or automaton of a greater power. Such a relationship is either amoral or immoral, neither of which fit with the perfection model you claim fealty to. There is a logical divide between the assertion and rational implementation.

 

[leibowde84]

Master Billiards,

I think you missed the thrust of Clear's question. You asserted Jesus "will impart His perfection to me". If perfection entails a moral component, and morality of necessity includes free will, how then does one impart a moral attribute to another? If it is imposed, then it isn't an attribute of the subject. Therefore, the subject is no different than before, but at best a slave or automaton of a greater power. Such a relationship is either amoral or immoral, neither of which fit with the perfection model you claim fealty to. There is a logical divide between the assertion and rational implementation.

Bravo!

 

[leibowde84]

Master Billiards,

I think you missed the thrust of Clear's question. You asserted Jesus "will impart His perfection to me". If perfection entails a moral component, and morality of necessity includes free will, how then does one impart a moral attribute to another? If it is imposed, then it isn't an attribute of the subject. Therefore, the subject is no different than before, but at best a slave or automaton of a greater power. Such a relationship is either amoral or immoral, neither of which fit with the perfection model you claim fealty to. There is a logical divide between the assertion and rational implementation.

This is what I was trying to explain, but I couldn't imagine doing it this well.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is taking on the consequences, same as going to jail for someone. This is not taking on the responsibility or guilt.

Are you saying you cannot think of a human situation where someone assumed responsibility for another? I thought you are studying law? Are you familiar with loco parentis in the schools?

As for taking upon oneself the guilt from another, are you familiar with Judaism? With Roman Catholicism?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

I think you missed the thrust of Clear's question. You asserted Jesus "will impart His perfection to me". If perfection entails a moral component, and morality of necessity includes free will, how then does one impart a moral attribute to another? If it is imposed, then it isn't an attribute of the subject. Therefore, the subject is no different than before, but at best a slave or automaton of a greater power. Such a relationship is either amoral or immoral, neither of which fit with the perfection model you claim fealty to. There is a logical divide between the assertion and rational implementation.

I don't think Christ's perfection is imposed, that is universalism. I believe Christ's perfection is like an umbrella, we stand beneath it of our free will.

 

[leibowde84]

Are you saying you cannot think of a human situation where someone assumed responsibility for another? I thought you are studying law? Are you familiar with loco parentis in the schools?

As for taking upon oneself the guilt from another, are you familiar with Judaism? With Roman Catholicism?

We are discussing responsibility/guilt for wrongdoing, are we not? Loco parentis is not relevant to this discussion.

As for Judaism and Roman Catholicism, what do you mean by them taking on the responsibility/guilt for the wrongdoings of others?

 

[Orontes]

This is what I was trying to explain, but I couldn't imagine doing it this well.

Cheers

 

[Orontes]

I don't think Christ's perfection is imposed, that is universalism. I believe Christ's perfection is like an umbrella, we stand beneath it of our free will.

Master Billiards,

The predicate you opted for was impart. Impart indicates: bestow, confer, grant etc. It runs afoul of the critique offered. The umbrella metaphor doesn't solve the problem. Moral attributes are subject specific. They are nontransferable. Moral attributes are not commodities.

 

[Clear]

Orontes : As ever, you have stated the difficulties of Billiardsballs' theory with wonderful clarity.


Billiardsball

This feels like deja vu. Your new OP has the same historical, rational and logical problems as the last time you attempted to offer your modern theory of acquiring the “perfection” which you say is necessary to enter a social heaven. For examples, Though you label your theory : “the doctrine of Christianity”, Historians will point out that your theory is quite different than historical christianity (which believed in other principles such as repentance, faith that is more than fleeting, actions and moral will of the believer, etc). 2) Philosophers and rationalists have already pointed out the illogic and irrationality of magical transference of moral perfection from one being to another.

Your theory will have to confront and solve these problems if it is to gain any traction at all with Christian historians or with individuals who think logically and rationally about what Christs’ superlative atonement accomplished for mankind. Irrelevant and/or irrational points and historically inaccurate interpretations will neither confront nor solve these basic problem in your theory.

For example, Clear, Leibode and Orontes have all asked the same base question regarding your theory of transference of moral perfection. You’ve offered at least 8 irrelevant posts that have not offered relevant logic or rational thought to answer this most basic question. The basic question still remains unconfronted and unsolved.

Leibode and Clear (myself) both seem to feel Orontes clear description of this first basic problem with your theory is a good description. How does your theory confront and answer the logical and rational (and historical) difficulties it raises?

Good journey Billiardsball,

Clear
τζειειω

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is taking on the consequences, same as going to jail for someone. This is not taking on the responsibility or guilt.

Okay. Look at it this way. See if you follow my line of reasoning.

If you feel, as do others on this thread, that it is illogical/immoral/unreasonable to assume another's guilt or to transfer guilt from person A to person B, on what basis did you decide that person A should accept consequences such as guilt/punishment for person A's behavior? I of course recognize the universal human desire to punish people for their inappropriate actions, but is this derived from evolutionary means? Societal need?

I believe the motivation and rationale behind freeing the innocent and punishing the guilty comes from God. So why might I question God's desire to show mercy, love and compassion and free the guilty? Because it seems illogical at first blush before God says, "No, I'm not freeing the guilty, and there has to be punishment."

The Bible says the wages of sin is not guilt, is not atonement, is not responsibility, but death. The wages of sin is death. Christ died for all.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

The predicate you opted for was impart. Impart indicates: bestow, confer, grant etc. It runs afoul of the critique offered. The umbrella metaphor doesn't solve the problem. Moral attributes are subject specific. They are nontransferable. Moral attributes are not commodities.

See my answer above. On what basis have you decided/how do we rationalize/justify that moral attributes are nontransferable? People are currently attempting to program computers with personality and these personalities will have attributes of their creators. Man is created with godly attributes in God's image. Children often are products of their homes and have attributes, including predilections, desires, genetics, behaviors and attributes of their parents. Famously, the Nazis and other totalitarian governments attempted to imprint their morals and ethics on entire nations of young people, arguably rather successfully.

How did you come to decide what justice is, what is isn't, and how it is that God's stated plan of salvation--One died for all therefore all died as in 1 Cor and Christ died, the just for the unjust, as 1 Pet 3 puts it:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God...

is morally bereft of justice?

Thanks!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Orontes : As ever, you have stated the difficulties of Billiardsballs' theory with wonderful clarity.


Billiardsball

This feels like deja vu. Your new OP has the same historical, rational and logical problems as the last time you attempted to offer your modern theory of acquiring the “perfection” which you say is necessary to enter a social heaven. For examples, Though you label your theory : “the doctrine of Christianity”, Historians will point out that your theory is quite different than historical christianity (which believed in other principles such as repentance, faith that is more than fleeting, actions and moral will of the believer, etc). 2) Philosophers and rationalists have already pointed out the illogic and irrationality of magical transference of moral perfection from one being to another.

Your theory will have to confront and solve these problems if it is to gain any traction at all with Christian historians or with individuals who think logically and rationally about what Christs’ superlative atonement accomplished for mankind. Irrelevant and/or irrational points and historically inaccurate interpretations will neither confront nor solve these basic problem in your theory.

For example, Clear, Leibode and Orontes have all asked the same base question regarding your theory of transference of moral perfection. You’ve offered at least 8 irrelevant posts that have not offered relevant logic or rational thought to answer this most basic question. The basic question still remains unconfronted and unsolved.

Leibode and Clear (myself) both seem to feel Orontes clear description of this first basic problem with your theory is a good description. How does your theory confront and answer the logical and rational (and historical) difficulties it raises?

Good journey Billiardsball,

Clear
τζειειω

First, I don't know why the other thread was suspended by a mod, but please do be careful.

Second, I'd like to see you or someone else on the thread defend the first premises you've stated before addressing the truth of the conclusion of your syllogism. When you say, "philosophers and rationalists have already pointed out the illogic and irrationality of magical transference of moral perfection from one being to another" these same ones need to also confront the biblical truth that Christ died, the just on behalf of the unjust. How does that fit into your thinking?

Thanks.

 

[leibowde84]

Okay. Look at it this way. See if you follow my line of reasoning.

If you feel, as do others on this thread, that it is illogical/immoral/unreasonable to assume another's guilt or to transfer guilt from person A to person B, on what basis did you decide that person A should accept consequences such as guilt/punishment for person A's behavior? I of course recognize the universal human desire to punish people for their inappropriate actions, but is this derived from evolutionary means? Societal need?

I believe the motivation and rationale behind freeing the innocent and punishing the guilty comes from God. So why might I question God's desire to show mercy, love and compassion and free the guilty? Because it seems illogical at first blush before God says, "No, I'm not freeing the guilty, and there has to be punishment."

The Bible says the wages of sin is not guilt, is not atonement, is not responsibility, but death. The wages of sin is death. Christ died for all.

Societal Evolution seems to be the obvious origin for criminal law though. There are plenty of immoral acts that aren't illegal. Punishment is based upon the need for deterrents to crime.

 

[Clear]

Hi Billiardsball :

Clear said (post # 32) : “Leibode and Clear (myself) both seem to feel Orontes clear description of this first basic problem with your theory is a good description. How does your theory confront and answer the logical and rational (and historical) difficulties it raises? “

Billiards responded (post #35) "... I'd like to see you or someone else on the thread defend the first premises you've stated before addressing the truth of the conclusion of your syllogism. When you say, "philosophers and rationalists have already pointed out the illogic and irrationality of magical transference of moral perfection from one being to another" these same ones need to also confront the biblical truth that Christ died, the just on behalf of the unjust”



Billiardsball, To simply say that you’d “like to see someone else defend their premise …” is not the same as supporting your own Premise which you, yourself claimed, in a thread which you, yourself started. This is another irrelevant post that does not contain data, or logic or rational considerations that might explain and justify your theory. Readers see this, surely you do?

Even your own comments often contain the very data that undermines your theory. For example, in post # 33, you say : “I believe the motivation and rationale behind freeing the innocent and punishing the guilty comes from God.“. However your theory describes the opposite, where the morally innocent (Jesus) is punished and the morally guilty (you and the rest of us) are freed from punishment. You don’t clearly tell us how this contradiction occurs nor have you logically rationalized this contradiction.

In fiction, Harry Potter, can wave a wand and we pretend that it causes impossible actions to occur. However, in reality, the wizard Harry cannot re-define Voldemort as actually being morally "Good". A being with Free will which is set on doing moral evil cannot BE made to be "good" since, human morality is inseparable from free will.

As a Christian, I very much agree with you that Christ died for mankind. However, you have not explained HOW Jesus’ death, somehow transfers his moral perfection to YOU so that you become morally perfect as you claim.

For example, "repentance" and attempts at improvement towards obedience to God played an integral role in the earliest Christian movements (as their textual witnesses show). Do such principles play a part in your theory as to how you will achieve personal moral perfection?



Clear
τωφυτζω

P.S. regarding your comment to "be careful" since a moderator, temporarily closed the other thread ("god in mormonism" in the LDS denomination DIR). I do not think you accidentally did anything wrong that caused that thread to close and be examined, and I hope you are at peace on this issue.

I had simply assumed one of the respondents was uncomfortable with something in the nature of that conversation and had asked a moderator to intervene. Please do not, worry. Once the thread is opened again, you will be able to take up the thread in the same position where you left. As I said, this thread feels like "Deja Vu". doesn't it?

 

[Orontes]

See my answer above. On what basis have you decided/how do we rationalize/justify that moral attributes are nontransferable? People are currently attempting to program computers with personality and these personalities will have attributes of their creators. Man is created with godly attributes in God's image. Children often are products of their homes and have attributes, including predilections, desires, genetics, behaviors and attributes of their parents. Famously, the Nazis and other totalitarian governments attempted to imprint their morals and ethics on entire nations of young people, arguably rather successfully.

How did you come to decide what justice is, what is isn't, and how it is that God's stated plan of salvation--One died for all therefore all died as in 1 Cor and Christ died, the just for the unjust, as 1 Pet 3 puts it:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God...

is morally bereft of justice?

Thanks!

Moral attributes are nontransferable because the contrary is irrational. I'll explain. Aside from bald assertion, there is no mechanic whereby one can transfer or impose moral awareness or moral standing. Looking at the latter first, moral standing refers to the sum of free acts made by a subject where good and evil are meaningful. It is thereby person specific, by definition. Such cannot be transferred because the ethical free decisions of a subject, are the subject's. Any lauding or condemning of those decisions relate to the acting subject. To apply a judgment to one outside the rubric of choice, would be unjust. If Bob stole your bike, it is unjust to punish Larry. Likewise, if Leroy excelled at passing a test, it would be unjust to give the high marks to Stan.


Per moral awareness (which refers to being a moral creature): imitation of moral behavior is not thereby moral. For example, if one created a robot that was designed to help old women cross the street, regardless of the robot performing its task, the robot is not thereby a moral being. The same is the case if the robot were designed to throw old women in front of passing cars. Independent of how many old women met their end at the hands of the grandma tossing robot, the machine is not an immoral agent. Programmed (imposed) behavior does not constitute morality. Actions alone do not determine moral standing. This is the same if a tiger hunts down and kills a villager. The tiger's grizzly act is amoral, not immoral. Morality is something that exists with the subject, or does not. Moral awareness will inform choice. It is not imposed from without

 

[BilliardsBall]

Societal Evolution seems to be the obvious origin for criminal law though. There are plenty of immoral acts that aren't illegal. Punishment is based upon the need for deterrents to crime.

If you have ZERO Bible criteria for determining why there is criminal law, why should I explain to you why God substitutes for us via atonement? You are on the wrong thread, which is why I asked.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hi Billiardsball :

Clear said (post # 32) : “Leibode and Clear (myself) both seem to feel Orontes clear description of this first basic problem with your theory is a good description. How does your theory confront and answer the logical and rational (and historical) difficulties it raises? “

Billiards responded (post #35) "... I'd like to see you or someone else on the thread defend the first premises you've stated before addressing the truth of the conclusion of your syllogism. When you say, "philosophers and rationalists have already pointed out the illogic and irrationality of magical transference of moral perfection from one being to another" these same ones need to also confront the biblical truth that Christ died, the just on behalf of the unjust”



Billiardsball, To simply say that you’d “like to see someone else defend their premise …” is not the same as supporting your own Premise which you, yourself claimed, in a thread which you, yourself started. This is another irrelevant post that does not contain data, or logic or rational considerations that might explain and justify your theory. Readers see this, surely you do?

Even your own comments often contain the very data that undermines your theory. For example, in post # 33, you say : “I believe the motivation and rationale behind freeing the innocent and punishing the guilty comes from God.“. However your theory describes the opposite, where the morally innocent (Jesus) is punished and the morally guilty (you and the rest of us) are freed from punishment. You don’t clearly tell us how this contradiction occurs nor have you logically rationalized this contradiction.

In fiction, Harry Potter, can wave a wand and we pretend that it causes impossible actions to occur. However, in reality, the wizard Harry cannot re-define Voldemort as actually being morally "Good". A being with Free will which is set on doing moral evil cannot BE made to be "good" since, human morality is inseparable from free will.

As a Christian, I very much agree with you that Christ died for mankind. However, you have not explained HOW Jesus’ death, somehow transfers his moral perfection to YOU so that you become morally perfect as you claim.

For example, "repentance" and attempts at improvement towards obedience to God played an integral role in the earliest Christian movements (as their textual witnesses show). Do such principles play a part in your theory as to how you will achieve personal moral perfection?



Clear
τωφυτζω

P.S. regarding your comment to "be careful" since a moderator, temporarily closed the other thread ("god in mormonism" in the LDS denomination DIR). I do not think you accidentally did anything wrong that caused that thread to close and be examined, and I hope you are at peace on this issue.

I had simply assumed one of the respondents was uncomfortable with something in the nature of that conversation and had asked a moderator to intervene. Please do not, worry. Once the thread is opened again, you will be able to take up the thread in the same position where you left. As I said, this thread feels like "Deja Vu". doesn't it?

Did I claim moral perfection? I claimed total perfection. You seem stuck on one gear.

Jesus died the just for the unjust (1 Peter 3:18) but unjust people cannot go to Heaven. I know you know liars, the covetous, etc. cannot go to Heaven. I don't know anyone who isn't occasionally covetous. Logic dictates they will be made to be not covetous before admission to the "most holy place". Why is this so hard to understand?

And are we anywhere near my intent as OP? I'm beginning to think you like to argue about trifles, and with believers at that. Please stop.