Nothing Short Of Perfection

[BilliardsBall]

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

Again, on what basis(s) did you decide it is unjust to punish Larry--and please don't say "philosophers disagree with you" or "that is illogical". If you hold God's Word as supreme authority then 1 Peter 3:18, which says the just died FOR (on behalf of) the unjust--that alone should be clearing up this issue.

Thanks.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

I am a Christian, and this is the Christianity DIR thread. So, you are flat out wrong ... sorry, buddy. Try to be civil.

 

[Orontes]

Again, on what basis(s) did you decide it is unjust to punish Larry--and please don't say "philosophers disagree with you" or "that is illogical". If you hold God's Word as supreme authority then 1 Peter 3:18, which says the just died FOR (on behalf of) the unjust--that alone should be clearing up this issue.

Thanks.

Your question indicates you didn't understand my last post. As to why it would be unjust to punish Larry when Bob is the thief: this comes from a base understanding of the meaning of justice. Justice is to render what is owed. Larry is under no obligation to perform or suffer any kind of redress. He didn't steal the bike. Therefore to punish him for an act he didn't commit is unjust.

To your second sentence, it's problematic on several levels. I will list a few.

1) You conflate "God's word" with the Bible. Given there are a host of contradictions within the text, this would then mean God's word is irrational. If you believe in an irrational God, then there is no discussion to be had as any and all statements have equal standing, from the moon being made of blue cheese, to pizza sending secret messages, to thinking Country Music, actually being music.

2) Even were one to grant God's word and the Bible are synonomus, there is a distinction between text and interpretation. It doesn't follow that perfect thing X can be understood by imperfect thing Y. Therefore, unless you also assert you are divine (and thereby on par with the divine text), there is no way to understand the book. The assertion the text is God's word then has no value as you are cutoff from understanding it.

3) If we assume there is a right interpretation of the text, how does one verify their interpretation is in fact the right one? There is no verification schema to appeal to, Personal whimsy is not a proper criteria.


4) You make an appeal to authorty i.e. the Bible. The position seems to be that referencing the Bible trumps reason. If you believe this, then legions of absurdities await at the door as there are a myriad of bizzare positions that one could take and simply cite the Bible as their authority. A quick look at the history of Christianity demonstrates the point. In a rational context an appeal to authority is in many ways a short hand to make a point. Authority X has already done the work for point Y, therefore one references this X to secure the position. However, any conclusion using an authority does not trump reason. Any and all conclusions should be verifiable, if one were to take the time to check. Minus this possiblity, the appeal is nothing more than bald assertion. Your appel to1 Peter 3:18 doesn't accomplish anything for you. It does not demonstrate moral attributes are transferable. It does not allow for an unjust model of the universe.

I think you would be better served if you allowed place for repentance in your theology. In our last discussion on atonement models (in the Mormon Directory) one place you were constantly logically tripping over yourself and having problems with, was in a penchant to have Deity doing things independent of the will of the subject. One cannot be drug to heaven against their will.

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING THE BASIC PROBLEMS WITH THE THEORY OF MAGICAL (i.e. irrational) TRANSFERENCE OF PERFECTION

Clear said (# 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 (#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”

Clear responded (#37) : 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?

Billiardsball responded (#40) : “Did I claim moral perfection? I claimed total perfection. You seem stuck on one gear.

Ok lets call it “total perfection”, (which I am assuming includes “moral perfection). This detail of semantics is yet another irrelevant point that doesn’t answer the question of how Jesus can impart his “total perfection” to YOU?


2) Billiardsball said (#40) : “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?”

This principle is easily understood. But it was never the problem. It is irrelevant to the question of how Jesus impart his perfection to YOU? If your theory excludes progressive repentance and improving attempts to be obedient to God, how does Jesus impart his perfection to you (or anyone else)?


3) Billiardsball said (#40) : 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.

Billiardsball. Qualifications to enter and remain in heaven are not trifles since a Heavenly existence is the hope of all Christians and a profound summation of their eternal existence. For you to ask that you be allowed to publicly make a base Christian claim and ask that no one in this Christian forum examine the claim is simply unrealistic. If you do not want someone to respond to or to examine your theories, don’t offer them.

Billiardsball, We are left with more wasted posts. NONE of your responses answer the basic questions you were asked. They weren’t even relevant to your theory. This was the same problem you had in the other thread ("God in Mormonism" in the LDS DIR) .

If you cannot offer relevant and logical reasoning or authentic historical data to support your claims, then you cannot blame reasonable, logical and historically aware individuals for not accepting your theories. This is a problem, since we, as Christians, WANT individuals to be able to accept Authentic Christian beliefs.


Clear
δρφυτζω

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am a Christian, and this is the Christianity DIR thread. So, you are flat out wrong ... sorry, buddy. Try to be civil.

I'm being direct but civil. I join another poster, who mentioned that for a Christian, you seem to take the non-Christian contrary position on every issue we see you posting on daily. It's a little much. I also cannot remember a post where you shared one Bible verse, offered a prayer or witness, etc. Even to where I'm the OP and you seem to want to shift the discussion from the first posts... sorry, but I'm being honest. Maybe I should have put this in a PM. Not trying to be rude here, honestly.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your question indicates you didn't understand my last post. As to why it would be unjust to punish Larry when Bob is the thief: this comes from a base understanding of the meaning of justice. Justice is to render what is owed. Larry is under no obligation to perform or suffer any kind of redress. He didn't steal the bike. Therefore to punish him for an act he didn't commit is unjust.

To your second sentence, it's problematic on several levels. I will list a few.

1) You conflate "God's word" with the Bible. Given there are a host of contradictions within the text, this would then mean God's word is irrational. If you believe in an irrational God, then there is no discussion to be had as any and all statements have equal standing, from the moon being made of blue cheese, to pizza sending secret messages, to thinking Country Music, actually being music.

2) Even were one to grant God's word and the Bible are synonomus, there is a distinction between text and interpretation. It doesn't follow that perfect thing X can be understood by imperfect thing Y. Therefore, unless you also assert you are divine (and thereby on par with the divine text), there is no way to understand the book. The assertion the text is God's word then has no value as you are cutoff from understanding it.

3) If we assume there is a right interpretation of the text, how does one verify their interpretation is in fact the right one? There is no verification schema to appeal to, Personal whimsy is not a proper criteria.


4) You make an appeal to authorty i.e. the Bible. The position seems to be that referencing the Bible trumps reason. If you believe this, then legions of absurdities await at the door as there are a myriad of bizzare positions that one could take and simply cite the Bible as their authority. A quick look at the history of Christianity demonstrates the point. In a rational context an appeal to authority is in many ways a short hand to make a point. Authority X has already done the work for point Y, therefore one references this X to secure the position. However, any conclusion using an authority does not trump reason. Any and all conclusions should be verifiable, if one were to take the time to check. Minus this possiblity, the appeal is nothing more than bald assertion. Your appel to1 Peter 3:18 doesn't accomplish anything for you. It does not demonstrate moral attributes are transferable. It does not allow for an unjust model of the universe.

I think you would be better served if you allowed place for repentance in your theology. In our last discussion on atonement models (in the Mormon Directory) one place you were constantly logically tripping over yourself and having problems with, was in a penchant to have Deity doing things independent of the will of the subject. One cannot be drug to heaven against their will.

The Bible does not trump reason. It is harmonious with it.

My point stands. You have a "base understanding of justice" and make an appeal to a "base understanding of justice" regarding perfection and atonement. From whence does your base understanding arise? "Philosophers agree" and "it is self-evident" seem a little pat for me. Your argument, and I say this in a friendly spirit, Orontes, seems to be:

1. It is self-evident that it is illogical for God to want to transfer punishment/perfection/justice from one to another.

2. It is self-evident that it is logical for such things never to be transferred.

Can you present your logic in symbolic logic form, cite your source--or--not my favorite but perhaps necessary, use a better analogy?

For my side, the scripture says:

Hebrews 9:26 "Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”
1 John 4:10 "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
2 Corinthians 5:18-10 "Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”
Colossians 1:13 "For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son”
2 Corinthians 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”

Consider particularly the transference language of Colossians when you say it's not logical/possible for God to transfer perfection from Son to saint. And I'm unsure how to respond if you say the Bible lacks the ability to speak with authority on these issues...

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) REGARDING THE BASIC PROBLEMS WITH THE THEORY OF MAGICAL (i.e. irrational) TRANSFERENCE OF PERFECTION

Clear said (# 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 (#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”

Clear responded (#37) : 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?

Billiardsball responded (#40) : “Did I claim moral perfection? I claimed total perfection. You seem stuck on one gear.

Ok lets call it “total perfection”, (which I am assuming includes “moral perfection). This detail of semantics is yet another irrelevant point that doesn’t answer the question of how Jesus can impart his “total perfection” to YOU?


2) Billiardsball said (#40) : “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?”

This principle is easily understood. But it was never the problem. It is irrelevant to the question of how Jesus impart his perfection to YOU? If your theory excludes progressive repentance and improving attempts to be obedient to God, how does Jesus impart his perfection to you (or anyone else)?


3) Billiardsball said (#40) : 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.

Billiardsball. Qualifications to enter and remain in heaven are not trifles since a Heavenly existence is the hope of all Christians and a profound summation of their eternal existence. For you to ask that you be allowed to publicly make a base Christian claim and ask that no one in this Christian forum examine the claim is simply unrealistic. If you do not want someone to respond to or to examine your theories, don’t offer them.

Billiardsball, We are left with more wasted posts. NONE of your responses answer the basic questions you were asked. They weren’t even relevant to your theory. This was the same problem you had in the other thread ("God in Mormonism" in the LDS DIR) .

If you cannot offer relevant and logical reasoning or authentic historical data to support your claims, then you cannot blame reasonable, logical and historically aware individuals for not accepting your theories. This is a problem, since we, as Christians, WANT individuals to be able to accept Authentic Christian beliefs.


Clear
δρφυτζω

Clear,

I agree. Souls are at stake, therefore, I appreciate your zeal. Can there be a more vital discussion, then, besides grace and faith and works? I receive salvation--we need not use the word perfection if that helps clarify your understanding--via grace, transmitted THROUGH faith. Not by works, and I'm once saved, always saved, by transferring my trust from myself/good works to Jesus Christ/His finished work of atonement.

Maybe this will help overall. Once I give Jesus my trust, He gives me His perfection. Yes, I think that helps.

Thank you, brother.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm being direct but civil. I join another poster, who mentioned that for a Christian, you seem to take the non-Christian contrary position on every issue we see you posting on daily. It's a little much. I also cannot remember a post where you shared one Bible verse, offered a prayer or witness, etc. Even to where I'm the OP and you seem to want to shift the discussion from the first posts... sorry, but I'm being honest. Maybe I should have put this in a PM. Not trying to be rude here, honestly.

I believe that the spirit of Jesus' teachings are present and obvious in scripture. But, I also recognize the facts. The Bible (except for some of Paul's Epistles and possibly Luke/Acts of the Apostles) were written by unknown authors thousands of years ago who had a much more primitive understanding of the natural world. As a result, I don't see the Bible as being infallible, and, often, the human interference with "the word of God" is so obvious it seems to smack me in the face. So, when my fellow Christians go around using passages from scripture as evidence for God's will or God's law I get a bit frustrated.

Further, I don't come to this forum to learn what people believe, but, instead WHY they believe it. I find out myself what members of other faiths believe. And, after reading the Bible about 100 times (attended Catholic Grade School and an all-boys Jesuit High School ... not to mention my fascination with theology), I certainly don't need members here quoting/citing Bible verses, as I know the claims made in Christian Scripture. But, like I said, imperfect and unknown men wrote the Bible, so, like any other man-created book, it isn't perfect. So, it is frustrating when I ask Christians why they believe what they do, and they merely quote/cite Biblical verses, as it is a HUGE cop-out.

I hope this explanation helps. My devotion to Christ and the spirit of his teachings is great, but I have no loyalty to the unknown authors of the Bible. Because we all have a much more sufficient understanding of the natural world, I think we should all be willing to look at every text (scripture or not) with skepticism.

 

[Orontes]

The Bible does not trump reason. It is harmonious with it.

My point stands. You have a "base understanding of justice" and make an appeal to a "base understanding of justice" regarding perfection and atonement. From whence does your base understanding arise? "Philosophers agree" and "it is self-evident" seem a little pat for me. Your argument, and I say this in a friendly spirit, Orontes, seems to be:

1. It is self-evident that it is illogical for God to want to transfer punishment/perfection/justice from one to another.

2. It is self-evident that it is logical for such things never to be transferred.

Can you present your logic in symbolic logic form, cite your source--or--not my favorite but perhaps necessary, use a better analogy?

For my side, the scripture says:

Hebrews 9:26 "Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”
1 John 4:10 "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
2 Corinthians 5:18-10 "Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”
Colossians 1:13 "For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son”
2 Corinthians 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him”

Consider particularly the transference language of Colossians when you say it's not logical/possible for God to transfer perfection from Son to saint. And I'm unsure how to respond if you say the Bible lacks the ability to speak with authority on these issues...

Thanks.

Master Billiards,

To claim the Bible is harmonious with reason, when the text has contradictions is an absurdity. Reason requires coherence. Your stance is untenable.


Per justice: you are not reading very well. I made no self evidentiary claims. I will break down my explanation for you.

1) I define justice: rendering what is owed.

2) Larry (the one you would punish) is under no obligation to suffer or perform any redress. In other words, there is no obligation regarding the stolen bike that is traceable to him

3) Therefore, if Larry is punished for the bike's theft, it is unjust.

Do you understand, or are you actually advocating for the punishment of the innocent? If so, that is an evil system.


Per your Bible citations: all Christians recognize Christ as the pivotal figure in allowing atonement. That is not at issue. What is at issue is your penchant to assert God can make you perfect. You have not explained how this is possible. If perfection entails a moral element, which you seem to agree with, and morality necessarily entails free will. How can one be made perfect? The notion is contra basic reason.

You asked to take special note of Colossians 1:13: look to the pronoun used in the verse "us". Who is the "us" Paul addressing? If you check at the beginning of the Epistle in verse two Paul clearly identifies who his audience is "(the) saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colossae..." These are people who are penitent. They have already become followers. Your position remains void of support.


Why are you so hostile to the idea of repentance? It's a rather basic precept in Christian Thought? Why do you hold so strongly to a positioning that is both logically vacuous and bordering on advocating an evil system? What is the appeal?

 

[Clear]

1) Billiardsball said : " Once I give Jesus my trust, He gives me His perfection. Yes, I think that helps. "

This doesn't "help" you at all. It simply repeats your claim that Jesus "gives you" his perfection. It doesn't explain HOW Jesus gives you perfection inside of your theory. Thus, it is another wasted and irrelevant post that offers an irrational, illogical theory that is inconsistent with early Christian textual interpretation.


2) Orontes asked : " Why are you so hostile to the idea of repentance? It's a rather basic precept in Christian Thought? Why do you hold so strongly to a positioning that is both logically vacuous and bordering on advocating an evil system? What is the appeal? "

I have wondered is "easy believism" wasn't created partly as a response to religious theories that seemed to be too onerous and too legalistic and perhaps because it simply required less of the believer than the earliest Christian textual interpretation where one was expected to attempt improvement and ever improving and maturing obedience to God and Jesus through mechanisms such as repentance, etc. The "magical" belief that one is "changed in an instant" without any action on their part is, I think, often appealing to a psyche that eschews a more difficult and more time-consuming religion. It is human nature to attempt "short cuts" to any accomplishment. Easy-Believism is "easy".

I think this "summation" is an over-generalization and rough model. However, easy believism was the Christian theory I accepted and grew up with in my own native Church as a youth. I accepted it as a naive youth because it was the interpretation my pastor taught me. I and my friends simply "inherited" this interpretation through social exposure before I became older and exposed to other interpretations, including historical christian thought. Even though it is obviously incorrect, still, I think it gave me some basis, some "model" of what Christianity might have looked like to a youth who was not yet concerned with the logical or rationality or even historicity of the theory. I think that, at least for me, the reason I held onto easy believism was partly the bare inertia of "tradition" and the underlying discomfort with confronting questions such as "what was I to believe if my current belief was not correct". The concept of simply giving up a specific error in one model and replacing it with a specific truth in a step-wise fashion was not a principle that I had experience with as a youth. I do not think I was particularly unusual in this specific characteristic.

While I cannot say what Billiardsballs' answer might be, this is a bit of why I had believed in easy believism as a youth.


Clear

 

[BilliardsBall]

I believe that the spirit of Jesus' teachings are present and obvious in scripture. But, I also recognize the facts. The Bible (except for some of Paul's Epistles and possibly Luke/Acts of the Apostles) were written by unknown authors thousands of years ago who had a much more primitive understanding of the natural world. As a result, I don't see the Bible as being infallible, and, often, the human interference with "the word of God" is so obvious it seems to smack me in the face. So, when my fellow Christians go around using passages from scripture as evidence for God's will or God's law I get a bit frustrated.

Further, I don't come to this forum to learn what people believe, but, instead WHY they believe it. I find out myself what members of other faiths believe. And, after reading the Bible about 100 times (attended Catholic Grade School and an all-boys Jesuit High School ... not to mention my fascination with theology), I certainly don't need members here quoting/citing Bible verses, as I know the claims made in Christian Scripture. But, like I said, imperfect and unknown men wrote the Bible, so, like any other man-created book, it isn't perfect. So, it is frustrating when I ask Christians why they believe what they do, and they merely quote/cite Biblical verses, as it is a HUGE cop-out.

I hope this explanation helps. My devotion to Christ and the spirit of his teachings is great, but I have no loyalty to the unknown authors of the Bible. Because we all have a much more sufficient understanding of the natural world, I think we should all be willing to look at every text (scripture or not) with skepticism.

You read the whole Bible 100 times? That is amazing...

...I agree, and I want to know why people think what they think, although our mind is linked to our spirits, and wholly...

...For example, I not only want to know where you learned of a fallible Bible, but just as importantly, how you learned which parts are valid and which are fallible. Should I take all four gospels as "gospel"? Which books and verses should I remove from my Bible, and why? Is it you are making objective or subjective decisions in this matter?

Thanks!

PS. I think you are partially right, scriptural quotations can be a duck or a cop-out, although you must know that the Bible says to use God's Word as shelter, shield and weapon. However, I think much is accomplished when both the word and reasoning is shared. And I think your attitude about cop-outs shows up in this manner... you never quote the Bible or hardly ever. That book is our life! Guard it with your whole heart and thus guard your heart!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

To claim the Bible is harmonious with reason, when the text has contradictions is an absurdity. Reason requires coherence. Your stance is untenable.


Per justice: you are not reading very well. I made no self evidentiary claims. I will break down my explanation for you.

1) I define justice: rendering what is owed.

2) Larry (the one you would punish) is under no obligation to suffer or perform any redress. In other words, there is no obligation regarding the stolen bike that is traceable to him

3) Therefore, if Larry is punished for the bike's theft, it is unjust.

Do you understand, or are you actually advocating for the punishment of the innocent? If so, that is an evil system.


Per your Bible citations: all Christians recognize Christ as the pivotal figure in allowing atonement. That is not at issue. What is at issue is your penchant to assert God can make you perfect. You have not explained how this is possible. If perfection entails a moral element, which you seem to agree with, and morality necessarily entails free will. How can one be made perfect? The notion is contra basic reason.

You asked to take special note of Colossians 1:13: look to the pronoun used in the verse "us". Who is the "us" Paul addressing? If you check at the beginning of the Epistle in verse two Paul clearly identifies who his audience is "(the) saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colossae..." These are people who are penitent. They have already become followers. Your position remains void of support.


Why are you so hostile to the idea of repentance? It's a rather basic precept in Christian Thought? Why do you hold so strongly to a positioning that is both logically vacuous and bordering on advocating an evil system? What is the appeal?

a) You would have to prove these supposed contradictions. And 50 people at an Internet forum yelling, "It's full of contradictions, yeah, buddy!" isn't proof.

b) God advocated the punishment of the innocent when He slew Christ. This is evident in the gospels, Acts, the epistles, and the prophecies of the OT. Now, even the Bible says, "God hates when the innocent are punished," yet God was following His higher Law, love God and love your neighbor, in the atonement.

c) One is made perfect when their record of imperfection is utterly erased. Do you read verses about the eschaton and the judgment/return of Christ in this way? I'm a perfect driver if God wipes away my tickets. A perfect man if God wipes away my faults and the punishments for them--imposed on our glorious God and Christ. Praise Jesus!

d) I have no problem with repentance per se. It is sine qua non in most religions, even in most Hollywood films! (Most Hollywood films revolve around one or more characters who change their mind or stance on a given issue in the course of the film). The problem I have is that Christ's way is above... the many ways which seem right to men and lead to death and perdition.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) Billiardsball said : " Once I give Jesus my trust, He gives me His perfection. Yes, I think that helps. "

This doesn't "help" you at all. It simply repeats your claim that Jesus "gives you" his perfection. It doesn't explain HOW Jesus gives you perfection inside of your theory. Thus, it is another wasted and irrelevant post that offers an irrational, illogical theory that is inconsistent with early Christian textual interpretation.


2) Orontes asked : " Why are you so hostile to the idea of repentance? It's a rather basic precept in Christian Thought? Why do you hold so strongly to a positioning that is both logically vacuous and bordering on advocating an evil system? What is the appeal? "

I have wondered is "easy believism" wasn't created partly as a response to religious theories that seemed to be too onerous and too legalistic and perhaps because it simply required less of the believer than the earliest Christian textual interpretation where one was expected to attempt improvement and ever improving and maturing obedience to God and Jesus through mechanisms such as repentance, etc. The "magical" belief that one is "changed in an instant" without any action on their part is, I think, often appealing to a psyche that eschews a more difficult and more time-consuming religion. It is human nature to attempt "short cuts" to any accomplishment. Easy-Believism is "easy".

I think this "summation" is an over-generalization and rough model. However, easy believism was the Christian theory I accepted and grew up with in my own native Church as a youth. I accepted it as a naive youth because it was the interpretation my pastor taught me. I and my friends simply "inherited" this interpretation through social exposure before I became older and exposed to other interpretations, including historical christian thought. Even though it is obviously incorrect, still, I think it gave me some basis, some "model" of what Christianity might have looked like to a youth who was not yet concerned with the logical or rationality or even historicity of the theory. I think that, at least for me, the reason I held onto easy believism was partly the bare inertia of "tradition" and the underlying discomfort with confronting questions such as "what was I to believe if my current belief was not correct". The concept of simply giving up a specific error in one model and replacing it with a specific truth in a step-wise fashion was not a principle that I had experience with as a youth. I do not think I was particularly unusual in this specific characteristic.

While I cannot say what Billiardsballs' answer might be, this is a bit of why I had believed in easy believism as a youth.


Clear

1) I can endeavor further to explain how Jesus imparts perfection to us. Perhaps when I'm done, you'll ask me also to explain the mechanisms of Christ's resurrection, how He created the universe and space/time, and how He fed the 5,000 and the 4,000--or we can go back to me finding myself in the unfortunate position of witnessing the gospel to you, a Christian man. I mean, this is the gospel we are both trying to defend, yes? I cannot understand how you can read the whole Bible text and not recognize that Jesus utterly forgives and clears our record in the coming age. We are agree we are saved from something, forgiven for something, redeemed for something, ransomed for something. Simple logic dictates imperfect persons will be the problem in a given utopia and must be amended. Christ is the amender or "amendation" (sic) if you will!

2) I know why you have a heartfelt and sincere objection to easy believism. I wasn't raised that way. I was Bar Mitzvah'ed a Jew trying to earn my way to Heaven via works and repentance. Believing sounds easy on its face, but it isn't. First, you have to constantly here from people about easy believism. Second, saying it was "easy" for Jesus Christ on the cross is a horrible blasphemy. I know you weren't thinking about Christ when you wrote what you did--I'm sure it was an innocent slip. Only atheists say "It was easy for an omniscient God, knowing the outcome, to give His all on the cross". Further, it wasn't easy for me to believe. I faced tremendous backlash, even physical threats, for trusting Christ as a Jew. Also, once I knew God was watching me intimately, my life changed. I and the people who witnessed to me who also sacrificed income and lifestyle unto the service of Christ have never been the same. Finally, consider what I wrote--which you've never replied to--that in Romans 3, Romans 6 et al the apostles address (as does Jesus, e.g. in the parable of the workers in the field) easy believism and true believing.

Thank you!

 

[Orontes]

a) You would have to prove these supposed contradictions. And 50 people at an Internet forum yelling, "It's full of contradictions, yeah, buddy!" isn't proof.

b) God advocated the punishment of the innocent when He slew Christ. This is evident in the gospels, Acts, the epistles, and the prophecies of the OT. Now, even the Bible says, "God hates when the innocent are punished," yet God was following His higher Law, love God and love your neighbor, in the atonement.

c) One is made perfect when their record of imperfection is utterly erased. Do you read verses about the eschaton and the judgment/return of Christ in this way? I'm a perfect driver if God wipes away my tickets. A perfect man if God wipes away my faults and the punishments for them--imposed on our glorious God and Christ. Praise Jesus!

d) I have no problem with repentance per se. It is sine qua non in most religions, even in most Hollywood films! (Most Hollywood films revolve around one or more characters who change their mind or stance on a given issue in the course of the film). The problem I have is that Christ's way is above... the many ways which seem right to men and lead to death and perdition.

Per a) Noting there are contradictions in the Bible is typically not seen as controversial. I'm surprised you would challenge this. There is a large number. Your claim was the Bible is harmonious with reason. Reason is logic. Logic turns on validity. I only need to show our one contradiction therefore to demonstrate the point. Here is a simple one:

-Mark 6:8: And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse...

-Luke 9:3: And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.​

Here is another, with theological overtones:

-John 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time.

-Exodus 33:11: The Lord would speak to Moses face to face,A)'> as one speaks to a friend.​

Per b) The idea Christ was punished, by God I take it, bespeaks our earlier conversation in the Mormon Dir. where you were trying to advocate for Calvin's Penal Substitution Model of the Atonement. In that thread your position imploded. I presented that within the notion of justice is: the innocent ought not to suffer, and the guilty ought not to go free? Do you recall you were unable to answer how a Penal Atonement model could be just? The Penal model is an unjust system. As it makes Deity into an amoral or immoral being and therefore unworthy of devotion and potentially an enemy.


Per c) You confuse the meaning of perfection with the absence of fault or culpability. The word you should use is clean. As with your driving record example, if your ticket history has been wiped away, that means you have a clean record. It does not mean you are a perfect driver. The meaning of perfection is the maximalization of positive traits and attributes. As this applies to the moral arena, it means not simply the absence of evil, but the full embodiment and expression of virtue. One does not worship God simply because He is not evil, but because He is all that is good.

Your confusion of conflating perfection with being clean is why your position is problematic.

Per d) The things you claim are utterly fascinating. Can you show me a passage in the Bible where Christ repudiates the concept of repentance? I'll show you one that has him advocating for it:

I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. - Luke 5:32​

Now under the positioning you have been arguing the past few posts, Luke 5:32 should not exist. Christ would not call any to repentance, as it has no value. Further, because repentance has no value, it shouldn't be in the Bible. However it is there, along with lots and lots of other scriptures that express the need to repent. This means either your understanding is fundamentally flawed, or the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong, then that undercuts your earlier loyalties to it.


To review:

1)You assert moral attributes are transferable, but have not demonstrated how this is possible.

2)You have claimed the Bible is harmonious with reason, but it has contradictions.

3)You have claimed the Bible is the same as God's word, but have no way of demonstrating a correct understanding: text and interpretation are not the same.

4)You confuse the meaning of perfection with clean

5)You reject repentance as a lower law

6)You believe punishing the innocent is fine.

These above notions are a taxonomy of error. You are not in a good position here.

 

[Clear]

Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that Jesus imparts his own perfection to us
1) Billiardsball said (# 53) “ I can endeavor further to explain how Jesus imparts perfection to us. “

Please, don’t.

You have had eighteen pages in the “God in Mormonism” thread and in the three pages of discussion in this thread, and in these 21 pages, you have been consistently unable to offer relevant , logical and historical support for your personal theory that Christ imparts his actual perfection to you. Your attempts, in the main, have been to repeat your claim in differing forms.

Post # 53 is another example of your habit of irrelevance. For example, you suggest it is blasphemy to claim it was easy for Christ on the Cross. So what? This is irrelevant, since none of your present detractors claimed this. Your personal theory that Jesus will magically “impart” his perfection to you, for the second time, in as many threads, remains "dead in the water". Think carefully as to whether you actually have any relevant, logical, rational and historically accurate data to support your theory. Unless and until you have relevant data, lets drop it.


Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that God punished Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit

Your other theory that a just God punished Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit is an evil and unjust theory and has very little to do with early Christian worldviews. Why don’t you consider the possibility that Christs sufferings were not a punishment for sins he did not commit. Not all suffering one suffers in relation to another person is a punishment. For example, A parent may suffer by staying awake with a sick child, but the suffering in this context is not a punishment. Suffering, yes. Punishment, no.

If you still refuse to modify your theory of God punishing Jesus, then on what logical or rational basis do you theorize that God PUNISHED Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit?

Why don’t you start by doing a basic scripture search of the word “punishment” and see if any of these occurrences apply to Jesus actually being "punished"? If you find any suspicious reference, USE the greek training that you claim to have and see if it is a punishment. You claim to have historical training in religion. If you find a suspicious reference, USE the historical religious training and analyze historically, what is meant in the historical context. If you do this, you may have a better chance at offering relevant data, logical data and rational data that has some historical basis.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good Billiardsball.

Clear

 

[BilliardsBall]

Per a) Noting there are contradictions in the Bible is typically not seen as controversial. I'm surprised you would challenge this. There is a large number. Your claim was the Bible is harmonious with reason. Reason is logic. Logic turns on validity. I only need to show our one contradiction therefore to demonstrate the point. Here is a simple one:

-Mark 6:8: And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse...

-Luke 9:3: And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.​

Here is another, with theological overtones:

-John 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time.

-Exodus 33:11: The Lord would speak to Moses face to face,A)'> as one speaks to a friend.​

Per b) The idea Christ was punished, by God I take it, bespeaks our earlier conversation in the Mormon Dir. where you were trying to advocate for Calvin's Penal Substitution Model of the Atonement. In that thread your position imploded. I presented that within the notion of justice is: the innocent ought not to suffer, and the guilty ought not to go free? Do you recall you were unable to answer how a Penal Atonement model could be just? The Penal model is an unjust system. As it makes Deity into an amoral or immoral being and therefore unworthy of devotion and potentially an enemy.


Per c) You confuse the meaning of perfection with the absence of fault or culpability. The word you should use is clean. As with your driving record example, if your ticket history has been wiped away, that means you have a clean record. It does not mean you are a perfect driver. The meaning of perfection is the maximalization of positive traits and attributes. As this applies to the moral arena, it means not simply the absence of evil, but the full embodiment and expression of virtue. One does not worship God simply because He is not evil, but because He is all that is good.

Your confusion of conflating perfection with being clean is why your position is problematic.

Per d) The things you claim are utterly fascinating. Can you show me a passage in the Bible where Christ repudiates the concept of repentance? I'll show you one that has him advocating for it:

I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. - Luke 5:32​

Now under the positioning you have been arguing the past few posts, Luke 5:32 should not exist. Christ would not call any to repentance, as it has no value. Further, because repentance has no value, it shouldn't be in the Bible. However it is there, along with lots and lots of other scriptures that express the need to repent. This means either your understanding is fundamentally flawed, or the Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong, then that undercuts your earlier loyalties to it.


To review:

1)You assert moral attributes are transferable, but have not demonstrated how this is possible.

2)You have claimed the Bible is harmonious with reason, but it has contradictions.

3)You have claimed the Bible is the same as God's word, but have no way of demonstrating a correct understanding: text and interpretation are not the same.

4)You confuse the meaning of perfection with clean

5)You reject repentance as a lower law

6)You believe punishing the innocent is fine.

These above notions are a taxonomy of error. You are not in a good position here.

per A) has simple resolutions available with a Google search.

per B) I will not sit here to defend Calvinism. You are claiming perfection imputed is inappropriate because a penal model is inappropriate?

per C) Anyone breaking one law is a lawbreaker. Lawbreakers cannot be in Heaven. It has to be more than clean, but if that helps you, I'm okay with that.

per D) I don't repudiate repentance. I repudiate repentance as a works-based mode of salvation. Repentance is part of human sanctification, but sanctification does not save. Sanctification is for already saved persons (saints). I'm uncomfortable with where to go next because we are both arguing the Bible but one of us thinks it is a true book. Normally people who identify not only as Christians but as Christian apologist and hermeneutically skilled say the Bible is God's Word.

1) You assert moral attributes are transferable, but have not demonstrated how this is possible.
--you haven't demonstrated how moral attributes are non-transferable.

2)You have claimed the Bible is harmonious with reason, but it has contradictions.
--you have cited ancient Christian authorities and commentators--these persons claimed the Bible is harmonious with reason.

3)You have claimed the Bible is the same as God's word, but have no way of demonstrating a correct understanding: text and interpretation are not the same.
--text and interpretation are not the same, although in the Hebraic mode of understanding, only one level is the face value text. I grew up with four levels of interpretation. These are commonly accepted by Rabbis and Judaism.

4)You confuse the meaning of perfection with clean
--not at all. I was merely attempting to provide you with an analogy. By the way, an animal to be sacrificed at the Temple had to be both clean and without defect (perfect). But you can see where someone would conflate the two without being guilty of a crime.

5)You reject repentance as a lower law
--Not at all. Godly sorrow brings in repentance, not worldly sorrow. The godly repent. The ungodly... what do they do to be saved? Trust Jesus, receive of His perfection.

6)You believe punishing the innocent is fine.
--Not usually. But sometimes, as when God condemned His innocent Son, it is right. Do you really disagree with the Father punishing the Son? If it wasn't a "substitution" did He punish Christ because of His capricious nature?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that Jesus imparts his own perfection to us
1) Billiardsball said (# 53) “ I can endeavor further to explain how Jesus imparts perfection to us. “

Please, don’t.

You have had eighteen pages in the “God in Mormonism” thread and in the three pages of discussion in this thread, and in these 21 pages, you have been consistently unable to offer relevant , logical and historical support for your personal theory that Christ imparts his actual perfection to you. Your attempts, in the main, have been to repeat your claim in differing forms.

Post # 53 is another example of your habit of irrelevance. For example, you suggest it is blasphemy to claim it was easy for Christ on the Cross. So what? This is irrelevant, since none of your present detractors claimed this. Your personal theory that Jesus will magically “impart” his perfection to you, for the second time, in as many threads, remains "dead in the water". Think carefully as to whether you actually have any relevant, logical, rational and historically accurate data to support your theory. Unless and until you have relevant data, lets drop it.


Regarding Billiardsballs' theory that God punished Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit

Your other theory that a just God punished Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit is an evil and unjust theory and has very little to do with early Christian worldviews. Why don’t you consider the possibility that Christs sufferings were not a punishment for sins he did not commit. Not all suffering one suffers in relation to another person is a punishment. For example, A parent may suffer by staying awake with a sick child, but the suffering in this context is not a punishment. Suffering, yes. Punishment, no.

If you still refuse to modify your theory of God punishing Jesus, then on what logical or rational basis do you theorize that God PUNISHED Jesus for sins Jesus did not commit?

Why don’t you start by doing a basic scripture search of the word “punishment” and see if any of these occurrences apply to Jesus actually being "punished"? If you find any suspicious reference, USE the greek training that you claim to have and see if it is a punishment. You claim to have historical training in religion. If you find a suspicious reference, USE the historical religious training and analyze historically, what is meant in the historical context. If you do this, you may have a better chance at offering relevant data, logical data and rational data that has some historical basis.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good Billiardsball.

Clear

1) I would start to answer your new query--which is a great gedanken, I grant you, with this, "He became sin for us."

2) If you no longer desire that I attempt to justify the transference of perfection as necessary for salvation, we can take side issues to a new thread. I'm the OP and this is a "Nothing Short of Perfection" thread. I think you are overreaching to ask me to stop posting regarding the OP when you address me.

3) I don't understand quite what we're doing here. You and me and Orontes are supposed to be Christians who witness to the world the love of Christ by the love we have, each for the other. I feel a bit "inquisited" here. I love you. I think you have a different gospel than me, and I think you need to repent and also believe the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, but I care for you. I'm trying to give new light, new analogies, and you keep bringing up my supposed failings on another thread. The reason why it went on for 18 pages is I made some game attempts to try new ideas and see how they fit with you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Happened to come across a nice post by John Piper today.

**

If a mom stepped forward in a courtroom and said, "Let me take my son's place. Let me take my son's place, please..." We all know that would be unjust. She goes to the electric chair, and this son goes on to sin more. The two differences are:

1. She's not doing that to magnify the worth of the state—God. She's doing it to magnify the worth of her son, and that's not what's happening at the cross.

2. She's freeing the son, untransformed, to go into the world and sin some more.

And those are the very two things that are different about the death of Jesus:

1. Jesus dies not to magnify the sinner's worth, but to magnify God's worth.

2. And he dies and changes those who escape from hell. He doesn't just release more sin upon the world. He puts the Holy Spirit in our lives and begins to transform us into the image of Christ so that we bring more glory to the Father than if we had been left in our sin.

 

[Orontes]

As there are many points, I'll respond to your posts in red. I'll also mark my earlier statements you cite with a blue bracket to distinguish and separate the replies from each other more clearly.

per A) has simple resolutions available with a Google search.

This is not a proper response. Google has all kinds of things that can be found. They don't all have value. The point turns on the text and the text clearly indicates contradictory statements. Unless you can change the text, the contradictions stand and the position: the Bible is harmonious with reason is repudiated.

The idea a book that has significant portions that predate the development of logic is nonetheless harmonious with logic, is problematic.

per B) I will not sit here to defend Calvinism. You are claiming perfection imputed is inappropriate because a penal model is inappropriate?

The idea God punished Christ is Calvinistic. It is fundamental to the Penal Substitution Model you have previously tried to defend. Whether you still hold to it or no, the idea God punishes the innocent turns God into an amoral or immoral being and therefore unworthy of devotion. This is a killing argument against your position. You have never been able to defend this point which makes your stance irrational.

per C) Anyone breaking one law is a lawbreaker. Lawbreakers cannot be in Heaven. It has to be more than clean, but if that helps you, I'm okay with that.

Your example of the traffic tickets and previous usage of perfection all fit with the basic meaning of 'clean'. If you wish to assert your meaning is more that just being clean, that is fine. The standard notion of perfection would entail what I mentioned before: the maximalization of positive traits and attributes, including the same with virtue. So, if God makes one perfect, how is that done, given virtue is a moral category and morality is tied to free will? This is the original problem you have not been able to answer. Assertion is not justification.

per D) I don't repudiate repentance. I repudiate repentance as a works-based mode of salvation. Repentance is part of human sanctification, but sanctification does not save. Sanctification is for already saved persons (saints). I'm uncomfortable with where to go next because we are both arguing the Bible but one of us thinks it is a true book. Normally people who identify not only as Christians but as Christian apologist and hermeneutically skilled say the Bible is God's Word.

Repentance by definition is an action taken by the subject. It cannot be coerced as then it is not the subject's repentance. If you accept repentance, then you must accept the individual can do something in regards to their standing before the Lord. This venom toward a "works based mode of salvation" isn't something anyone has argued or does argue. It's a straw man. There are two options:

a) you accept repentance has value. If so, then there is something the individual can do that has merit.
b) you reject repentance. If so, then the sea of verses in the Bible calling for people to repent (including the citation from Christ) need to be rejected.

Master Billiards, I accept and believe the Bible is scripture. I do not believe in inerrancy. Inerrancy is a comically bad position and cannot be defended rationally.

1)(the good guys) You assert moral attributes are transferable, but have not demonstrated how this is possible.
--you haven't demonstrated how moral attributes are non-transferable.

This is not a good reply. One cannot prove a negative. My position has been that moral attributes cannot be transferred because its an absurdity, meaning it is impossible to do. It is the same as rejecting the idea of a square-circle. I explained in an earlier post why it is impossible:

"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."
​

from this I gave the stolen bike example where I defined and explained the meaning of justice.

You made the claim "(Christ) would impart His perfection to you". If this is a rational claim, you must explain how this is done, or it must be rejected as bald assertion, void of substance.

2) (the good guys) You have claimed the Bible is harmonious with reason, but it has contradictions.
--you have cited ancient Christian authorities and commentators--these persons claimed the Bible is harmonious with reason.

I don't believe I've cited any Christian authorities or commentators in this thread. Regardless, citation of a figure does not thereby mean one must accept the entirety of the referenced person's corpus. The basic point remains: you claim the Bible is harmonious with reason, but the text has contradictions. Therefore, the claim fails.

3) (the good guys) You have claimed the Bible is the same as God's word, but have no way of demonstrating a correct understanding: text and interpretation are not the same.
--text and interpretation are not the same, although in the Hebraic mode of understanding, only one level is the face value text. I grew up with four levels of interpretation. These are commonly accepted by Rabbis and Judaism.

In the Classical and Medieval Tradition, there are multiple interpretive models. Historically, it appears Rabbinic Judaism adopted such from the larger Hellenistic Tradition. Whether that is correct or not, if one opts for a allegorical, analogical or anagogical interpretive model etc., one is still placing an interpretation onto the text, and must justify that positioning. If one accepts that the Bible is God's Word, then (as I explained before) the problem is that as God's word it is by definition perfect. An interpreter to perform his role correctly, must also be perfect, and therefore equal to God. Unless you wish to claim equal status with Deity, there is a fundamental divide between text and reader/interpreter.

4) (the good guys) You confuse the meaning of perfection with clean
--not at all. I was merely attempting to provide you with an analogy. By the way, an animal to be sacrificed at the Temple had to be both clean and without defect (perfect). But you can see where someone would conflate the two without being guilty of a crime.

I responded to this in the above C)

5) (the good guys) You reject repentance as a lower law
--Not at all. Godly sorrow brings in repentance, not worldly sorrow. The godly repent. The ungodly... what do they do to be saved? Trust Jesus, receive of His perfection.

You posted "The problem I have (with repentance) is that Christ's way is above..." This indicates repentance is a lower order value. It's also problematic as I gave an example of Christ calling for people to repent. This means Christ (the higher way) is advocating your lower way. This is another problem for you.

6)(the good guys) You believe punishing the innocent is fine.
--Not usually. But sometimes, as when God condemned His innocent Son, it is right. Do you really disagree with the Father punishing the Son? If it wasn't a "substitution" did He punish Christ because of His capricious nature?

If you believe punishing the innocent is fine (even with the 'not usually' qualifier) it violates the principles of justice and morality. It is an evil system.

I don't believe God punished His Son. I don't believe in an evil God. I don't believe punishment is necessarily the same as suffering. I believe Christ took on the atonement and all it's pain and suffering because He loves us, not because of the demands of an evil tyrant that must have blood to be appeased.

 

[Orontes]

Happened to come across a nice post by John Piper today.

**

If a mom stepped forward in a courtroom and said, "Let me take my son's place. Let me take my son's place, please..." We all know that would be unjust. She goes to the electric chair, and this son goes on to sin more. The two differences are:

1. She's not doing that to magnify the worth of the state—God. She's doing it to magnify the worth of her son, and that's not what's happening at the cross.

2. She's freeing the son, untransformed, to go into the world and sin some more.

And those are the very two things that are different about the death of Jesus:

1. Jesus dies not to magnify the sinner's worth, but to magnify God's worth.

2. And he dies and changes those who escape from hell. He doesn't just release more sin upon the world. He puts the Holy Spirit in our lives and begins to transform us into the image of Christ so that we bring more glory to the Father than if we had been left in our sin.

Master Billiards,

This is poor reasoning. The ethical argument against punishment of the innocent is a deontological positioning.

This Piper fellow does not address the deontic stance, but instead offers a utilitarian argument. This is sloppy he doesn't deal with the argument he opposes. A deontological argument cannot be responded to via utility appeals. For example, note the below assertion and reply:

Assertion 1) slavery is evil (a deontic position)
Reply 2) all slaves get free housing, food and are taught the Gospel for the glory of God, that they otherwise wouldn't hear being savages on the Dark Continent. (a utility position)

The reply has not addressed the base indictment.

What is interesting is Piper commits in his 2) the same fundamental logical problem that you have. He claims "(Christ) changes those who escape from Hell". If this change has a moral component, how is it done while still being a moral system? Logically he begs the question.

Another interesting note: only those who escape from Hell are changed. This suggests not all will escape. Does this mean those who escape did something that the others did not? Or, does this mean Christ chooses some, but not others? If it is the later, then we seem to be dealing with a variant of Calvin's double predestination. This means all are totally dependent on Christ to be saved, but He only chooses some. This is a morally substandard Christ. Why? Because a Christ who could save all and does is more praiseworthy than one who could save all, but doesn't.

Best not to read this Piper. He's a sloppy thinker.