Vinnie

Starting now I will decode your posts (maybe I'll work back later):

I'll put a "x" in each category.

Decoding Rad's not so rad responses

Ad hominem arguments:

Rants:

Repetitions:

Bad Analogies: X

Leaps of Logic:

Straw man arguments:

Actual Arguements:



Your analogy does not seem to apply to the atonement. Think of an innocent person taking the punishment for a rapist or serial killer. Does that seem like justice? Surely that analogy applies better to the PS model than does the traffic ticket as the PS model says our sins are so bad they warrant eternal damnation. They are not mere 'traffic violations'.

Of course, I hear that in Anselm's day it may have been okay for someone to get out of a big crime through payment of money. In fact, a third party could provide this payment. And thus, satisfaction theories reach the limelight. Of course, most of us would consider that a not so ethical system when dealing with certain type of crimes. As I quoted Robin Collins in my paper:

Since you appear to have read my paper and you are promoting an argument I critiqued you must think I am wrong and Collin's was wrong. Why is that the case?

Vinnie

Vinnie

I am also very curious about your straw man charge. I explicitly laid out the model of penal substitution that I critiqued and pointed out that there are better, more tenable understandings of penal substitution out there. How is this a straw man, then? I critiqued this model as it is the most common one and I feel it distorts God's image and raises more problems than it solves for many critical thinkers. Or are one of my specific arguments a straw man? Do enlighten me.

Vinnie

Radorth

No thanks. I'll just comment that the definition of "ad hom" used by Worldling rather describes many comments made here, and would apply perfectly to your comment about God being wrong because the earth is billions of years old, or some such patronizing nonsense.

Anyway, back to what constitutes an injustice in PS, on which most of your case rests.

Rad

Vinnie

I don't recall said comment. Feel free to cite it.

What about the straw man charge?

Radorth

You have strawmen in most if not all of yuour arguments

From #1

You just assert that it is problematic, and over complicates the issue so we cannot understand it. But you just pick out selected Gospel events and scriptures to prop up a straw man argument which basically says "it's too complicated and certain scriptures contradict the idea that we needed the atonement to get forgiveness."

Nobody's arguing of course that God couldn't forgive without it. It's a justice issue, as you allude to later, let you misrepresent it as a forgiveness issue in #1. You over simplify the issues, then present #1 as though it were a complete objection in itself.

Rad

Vinnie

Let's try this again for those who just don't seem to get it. I am critiquing the model that says God couldn't forgive without it. Duh! Newsflash! Alert the press!. Calling all cars. Are you that dense? How stupid are you? That is the model I critiqed. I DID NOT CRITIQUE OTHER MODELS. I CRITIQUED THE MODEL OF PENAL SUBSTITUTION SUMMARIZED AT THE TOP BY C.S.EVANS. I SAID THAT PS COULD BE FORMULATED IN MORE TENABLE WAYS IN THE ARTICLE BUT THAT I WAS CRITIQING THIS ONE. Do you now understand? Give me your address and I'll draw it out in crayon for you and send you a picture. What do I have to do to get you to understand this?????

If you don't hold to that model I DIDN"T critique your view. And I would argue that the understanding of the PS model that I critiqued is the most popular form of penal substitution. THAT IS WHY I FELT A NEED TO WRITE UP A WHOLE TEN PAGE ARTICLE CRITIQUING IT!

Further you say, "Nobody's arguing of course that God couldn't forgive without it." Unfortunately that is exactly what they DO APPEAR TO ARGUE. But I guess J.P. Holding = nobody?

I see this as virtually indistinguishable from the model I critiqued. Am I missing something?

The model I critiqued is quite simple:

X is God's holiness. Y is forgiveness and Z is repayment.

X prevents y without z

No human can perform z.

Z is required for attaining y

No human then is capable of attaining y by theirself.

God is the only one who can perform z (provide the infinite sacrifice or payment REQUIRED for attaining y)

This isn't rocket science here and I don't know how you can betray so much misunderstanding of what I wrote when it was all clearly laid out as such. If you lack basic reading and comprehension skills why bother debating with adults on message baords?

Vinnie

Bill Snedden

That whooshing sound you heard as you wrote this was Paine's point going right over your head...

Paine obviously wasn't saying that one cannot pay another's financial debt. Of course it's acceptable for you to pay the traffic fine of another. Paine was saying that to extend that acceptable pecuniary compensation to the realm of moral debt was unjustified.

Let's say that I steal $1,000.00 from you. Bob, my friend, offers to pay it back. So, you've been financially compensated in full. Does Bob's payment erase the moral stain of my sin?

Wow. You are so right. Christian apologists never do this kind of stuff.

(oh, and that should be peddling...)

Yeah. Kind of like the fireman who sets a house on fire and then saves a child from the flames. My hero.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Radorth

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.

Ah so now you're limiting the entire PS doctrine/model to what EVANS says. How convenient and inane is that? And I seriously doubt he never onces presents the idea of justice as well as forgiveness, but I won't go on a goose chase tracking it down to prove you wrong.

I could care less what Evans says if PS generally is thought to include the need for justice as well as forgiveness. I'm simply quoting YOU and saying that when you make the issue only about forgiveness in #1, and run on about how God could forgive without Jesus' sacrifice, you have set up a straw man. It's not just about forgiveness AS YOU IMPLY. It's about justice as well, therefore you have, for any practical purposes, set up a straw man by failing to include it in what you are presenting as a stand alone argument.

#1 should be considered a part of a larger argument.

Rad

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

Rad

Radorth

From #3.

Huh? This is merely an assertion. It would be most foolish of God to forgive sin without some kind of repayment to those wronged.

1. There would be no real justice.

2. People would have no reason to repent in their hearts.

3. We ourselves would be called fools if we simply forgave and forgave and never permitted a person to suffer consequences for sin or looked for remoresfulness.

What's truly inane about these objections is that PS gives God the one and only just excuse he could possibly have to save people who might otherwise be lost- i.e those who could never dream of making reparations for their sins. (Which I think includes 80% of the world anyway).

Rad