Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HelenM · 03-22-2003, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
I am critiquing the model that says God couldn't forgive without it.

I believe you

But, doesn't Meta's approach also imply "God couldn't forgive without it"?

I.e. we were enemies of God without it; we had no solidarity with God without it, etc.

Helen

HelenM · 03-22-2003, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
It would be most foolish of God to forgive sin without some kind of repayment to those wronged.

But...if person A sins against person B and then A gets saved, how is person B ever 'repaid'?

Helen

Bill Snedden · 03-22-2003, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Well actually Bill, Paine is laying down a general rule, as if any payment by another for anything is unjust by definition. He does not distinguish, although I suppose you can ASSUME he thought there was a great difference.

Well, no not really. Remember, all I posted was an excerpt from the relevant portion of AoR in order to assist Vinnie in finding the correct place. In the sentence immediately preceding what I posted, Paine makes it clear that he accepts the standard pecuniary formulation:

Quote:

From The Age of Reason, chap. VIII:
If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me.

So Paine recognizes that it is acceptable for one person to pay the financial debt of another. In fact, it is only this recognition that lends force to his argument against PS. He's explicitly saying that PS is an attempt to shape a theory of redemption upon a pecuniary model and he does not accept that a moral debt can be paid in the same manner as a financial one. If he didn't accept the justice inherent in the financial model, he would be unable to raise the objection by analogy against PS.

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Well I'm gratified the hear an atheist talk about some kind of objective morality which cannot be easily erased by some legal activity. Now why might I consider you an exception?

Actually, objective morality isn't required to make that statement, but that's really immaterial.

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Perhaps you missed MY point. When I included the qualifiers of being destitute, and being also remorseful for disobeying the law, I was addressing the moral issues. I say yes the moral stain can be erased by me, if there is genuine repentance by you, and you purpose never to steal from me again. This is why true repentance is so absolutely essential and ade a strict condition of receiving atonement. Without it, it would make no difference what the offense was, who repaid it, how or why it was repaid.

This is interesting, though. I would think that few people would disagree that genuine repentance is needed to erase a "moral stain", the question is why is any other act required? What you say above would seem to suggest that God would require nothing more to forgive sin than true repentance, or at least that true repentance is both necessary and sufficient to erase the moral stain (as long as the "injured party" is willing to grant such". However, what of the necessity of Jesus' "sacrifice?" If God could grant forgiveness based upon true repentance, why did Jesus have to die? Obviously there's something else at work here.

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
The problem here I think here is that people are suddenly and conveniently limiting what God can do, and how he goes about it. I find this approach transparently hypocritical, when we will hear tomorrow he should be able to do anything A SKEPTIC AGREES he should do.

I'm not sure that's a fair statement. I think that skeptics are, by and large, not quibbling about what God can or cannot do, in the physical sense. It's more often, "given that God is X, why would he do Y?" or "Action Y is incompatible with a being that is supposed to be X, therefore God would never do Y". Of course, those slippery apologists are constantly redefining God's attributes, so you really can't blame skeptics for the occasional misstep...

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
But my main point was never fully addressed. Paine, et al, claim you cannot right one injustice by commiting another. But of course, there IS NO INJUSTICE in Jesus' substitutionary death because NOBODY INVOLVED feels wronged or would have it any other way.

Wow! This has got to be the first time I've ever seen a relatively conservative Christian admit that Jesus really didn't lose anything by his "death" on the cross! "Sacrifice" indeed!

But note that your point is not a claim made by Paine. He's not claiming that "one injustice cannot right another" (I think that's true, but it doesn't apply here). He's claiming that the completely understandable settlement of a pecuniary debt does not provide an acceptable model for the settlement of a moral one.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Vinnie · 03-22-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Oops, I guess Vinnie quickly slipped into the most gratuitous ad hom after almost convincing me us he was sticking to rational arguments. I'm shocked.

Your stupidity is having that effect on me.

Quote:

Ah so now you're limiting the entire PS doctrine/model to what EVANS says.

You just don't get it do you? I can't help you anymore. I can't be bothered by this nonsense. Good day to you.

Vinnie

Yellum Notnef · 03-22-2003, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Your stupidity is having that effect on me.

Don't feel bad. He has that effect on everybody.

Vinnie · 03-22-2003, 08:08 PM

Helen,

Quote:

But, doesn't Meta's approach also imply "God couldn't forgive without it"?

Meta might or might not say forgiveness is based upon our response to God's initiative but let me clarify my view here. God's forgiveness is unconditional. Meta's view may agree with this but even if it or he doesn't the solidarity model could be easily be modified to include it.

God's forgiveness is absolute but our being reconciled to God is dependent upon solidarity as reconcilation comes through solidarity. Atonement is to make at one with something. How can we become one again with God without "creating solidarity" with him? We can't.

God's forgiveness is not "restricted" by our free will. God's forgiveness is absolute. But our being reconciled to God is impossible without our solidarity with God, as by definition, the reconciliation comes through solidarity. But unless we realize God's unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness, nothing changes and we remain in an "unforgiven" state (unforgiven from our perspective = sin, feelings of guilt etc.).

The work onm the cross was not necessary for forgiveness. It however creates solidarity which is necesssary for reconincilation.

I would say that we are unconditionally forgiven by God but until we realize God's unconditional love and forgiveness nothing changes and we remain in the exiled state of bondage that we are in. As Borg wrote:

Quote:

"The meaning of salvation as forgiveness is "You are accepted." This is one of the central meanings of grace in the Christian tradition: God accepts us just as we are. no "if" statement follows, despite our tendency to add one or more: we are accepted if we truly repent, if we trully believe, and so on. but adding an "if" statement makes our acceptance conditional and turns forgiveness into a rewarrd for metting a requirement, Rather, the message of forgiveness is unconditional grace: "You are accepted,' period, full stop.

Unconditional grace is a difficult notion for many people, including many Christians, for at least two reasons. First, it violated both religious and secular conventional wisdom, according to which there has to be a requirement: "You don't get something for nothing." Second, our difficulty also flows from commonly thinking of sin, forgiveness, and salvation within an afterlife framework. If God accepts everybody, does that not mean that everybody goes to heaven, regardless of how good or bad, repentant or unrepentant, faithful or unfaithful they are? And if so, why care about any of this?

But the mistake lies in thinking of sin and forgiveness within the framework of an afterlife. The issue is not making sure that one has adequatly repented before one dies so that one's entry into heaven is not obstructed by unforgiven sins. Rather, salvation as forgiveness has powerful meaning for our life on earth: to know God's unconditional acceptance profoundly changes our sense of ourselves and our sense of what our lives are about. God loves me in spite of my sense of sin and guilt.

To know this means that the Christian life is not about metting God's rrequirements; that has been taken care of. Rather, the Christian life is about living our lives in a relationship with the God who already accepts us and about letting the transforming power of the relationship with God work in our lives.

Of course, if one does not see thiss--namely, that one is already forgiven and accepted--then nothing changes: we remain burdened by sin and guil and the life of measuring up. But to know God's unconditional acceptance is one of the most liberating experiences there is.

The God We never Knew, p. 162-163. He cited Tillich in there as well. I really need to read some Tillich

Vinnie

Radorth · 03-22-2003, 10:08 PM

Re Helen:

Quote:

But...if person A sins against person B and then A gets saved, how is person B ever 'repaid'?

He isn't, unless A can and does make things right. However B can be forgiven for his sins without making amends as well. I suppose some will say this is not fair, as some people are worse than others. I also think God does repay B eventually, for he will avenge the innocent and make all things right in the end. And as you know I am one of the few Protestants to believe purgatory is also necessary to achieve final justice. Some servants may recieve "many stripes" and some are saved "as through fire."

Anyway PS maximizes the number of people who can be brought to repentance, be forgiven and saved.

Re: Bill

Quote:

So Paine recognizes that it is acceptable for one person to pay the financial debt of another. In fact, it is only this recognition that lends force to his argument against PS. He's explicitly saying that PS is an attempt to shape a theory of redemption upon a pecuniary model

Point conceded.

Quote:

This is interesting, though. I would think that few people would disagree that genuine repentance is needed to erase a "moral stain", the question is why is any other act required? What you say above would seem to suggest that God would require nothing more to forgive sin than true repentance, or at least that true repentance is both necessary and sufficient to erase the moral stain (as long as the "injured party" is willing to grant such". However, what of the necessity of Jesus' "sacrifice?" If God could grant forgiveness based upon true repentance, why did Jesus have to die? Obviously there's something else at work here.

Well yes- the need for justice which (in God's case) demands that righteous requirements of the whole law to be satisfied. One must be a "saint" in fact, or through "imputed righteousness" to be saved. "Not one jot or tittle" will be allowed to go without recompense.

Paul calls the church "the saints" because they are made perfect only through the blood of Christ. No one could live with God in heaven before Christ fulfilled the law, nor be indwelt by the Spirit as God wished. You can argue that's all a bit convenient, and really unecessary, but I think God had a dilemma here which cannot have been completely solved any other way. If we are truly so lost that we do not know we are lost, what is he to do then but take our sins upon himself, go clean out the temple for us, swap faith for righteousness and come down to "will and work in us the things that are pleasing to him."

The alternatives to PS (as I define it anyway) are far more problematic. They do not result in the righteous requirements of the law being fulfilled; they do not demand admission that one is hopelessly vulnerable to sin; they do not enable God to impute righteousness to a thief on his deathbed, eliminate the need for continual sacrifices, or, strangely enough, make a way of escape from self-righteousness. In some sense, every other alternative suggested is little more than a religion of good works and self-redemption, and we pretty well agree that doesn't work.

I find it somewhat absurd to demand on the one hand that a just God should take responsibility for his creation and fix it, and on the other to say "we don't need nonna that stuff. We promote personal responsibility, and you should to."

Well so do I but something tells me God will save a lot more repentant sinners than the average holy skeptic would in fact. It's not like many of them forgive my weaknesses.

Rad

HelenM · 03-23-2003, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
[quoting Borg] "The meaning of salvation as forgiveness is "You are accepted." This is one of the central meanings of grace in the Christian tradition: God accepts us just as we are. no "if" statement follows, despite our tendency to add one or more: we are accepted if we truly repent, if we trully believe, and so on. but adding an "if" statement makes our acceptance conditional and turns forgiveness into a rewarrd for metting a requirement, Rather, the message of forgiveness is unconditional grace: "You are accepted,' period, full stop.

Yes, but, unconditional truly means no condition; whereas you are saying we can't have solidarity unless...so in fact there is a condition!

And if the condition is not met then the person ends up being eternally tortured (I'm not sure if you believe in this, actually - perhaps you could clarify for me).

It is totally meaningless, in my opinion, to on the one hand claim God unconditionally accepts people and on the other, believe He will cast them out of his presence forever after death. Surely actions speak louder than words, here...

But I doubt Borg believes in eternal punishment. I don't know whether you and Meta do.

Helen

HelenM · 03-23-2003, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
I also think God does repay B eventually, for he will avenge the innocent and make all things right in the end. And as you know I am one of the few Protestants to believe purgatory is also necessary to achieve final justice. Some servants may recieve "many stripes" and some are saved "as through fire."

Ok, that answers my question. I forgot you believed in Purgatory.

Helen

Vinnie · 03-23-2003, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Yes, but, unconditional truly means no condition; whereas you are saying we can't have solidarity unless...so in fact there is a condition!

Huh? I didn't really posit a condition for solidarity. Solidarity and reconciliation are virtually synonymous in this understanding. Solidarity, by definition only requires a sharing of wills abut that is because solidarity is a sharing of wills. You can't have solidarity without sharing wills. And I said forgiveness was unconditional on God's end. But that doesn't axiomatically = solidarity on this end for all people in this life anyways.

Quote:

And if the condition is not met then the person ends up being eternally tortured (I'm not sure if you believe in this, actually - perhaps you could clarify for me).

The notion of eternal torment is nonsense to me (I went the reductio ad absurdom route in my paper). I do not believe it is ever ethical to punish more than is deserved except say for reforming purposes. Hell is not considered to be for reform though. Its "said" to be eternal. What crimes could warrant "eternal" conscious torture?

Borg and I share the same view on the afterlife: a general affirmation that their is something rather than nothing postmortem. But who can give detailed information about such a place?

Vinnie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.