"Good" Friday?
Zachary Moore Permalink
37 comments
Craig Sowder's blog raised an interesting question- does the supposed crucifixion of Jesus make the Friday before Easter "good" for Christians, or for Jesus as well?
Craig gives a couple proof-texts to support his claim that the crucifixion was actually a good thing from Jesus' perspective, and I'm going to assume that they do so, for argument's sake- because I find the implication of that idea very strange.
Jesus, as the Nicene Creed describes him, is "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made." In other words, there is no coherent disctinction between the qualities ascribed to God the Father and God the Son- allowing us the convenience of ascribing all of God's characteristics to Jesus. Therefore, Jesus, among other things, can be described as omniscient. But this provides a problem when facing the claim posed by Hebrews 12, that Jesus endured crucifixion "for the joy that was set before him." Now, what does it mean for an omniscient deity to experience joy? The emotion of joy confers the idea of receiving pleasure of something hoped-for. But pleasure confers the idea of transitioning from a state of lesser to greater perfection, and hope confers the idea of doubt for the outcome of future events. Given the context of the passage in Hebrews (the metaphor of a race), the idea of joy at winning or completing the race seems completely reasonable from the human perspective, but it is completely unintelligible from the omniscient perspective, from which Jesus, being divine, must necessarily stand. To put it simply, a perfect and omniscient being cannot experience joy, for he cannot experience pleasure nor can he doubt the future.
But there's another concept that's raised by the Good Friday discussion- that of Jesus' suffering. Certainly, the backwash of cultural detritus left over from the "Passion of the Christ" has kept that same issue in the forefront, though not as much as one year prior. Still, the promotion of the idea of Jesus' suffering during his supposed crucifixion leads me to wonder: how much of a sacrifice was it, really? Keep in mind- Jesus, despite being incarnate, did not give up his divine nature- he was still of the same essence as God. That being the case, what small effort is it for a divine being to hang suspended on a piece of wood for a few hours? Even "death", and the supposed separation from the Father (I'll leave the logical implications of that to others) were completed in no more than three days. For an infinite divine being, what small sacrifice is three days? I'd say it's no great accomplishment, especially since Christianity purports to send unbelievers to that same location for an eternity. In the end, who is really the bravest- Jesus, or the infidel?
It seems that, despite arguments to the contrary, Jesus' supposed sacrifice was neither joyful, nor of any significance. So why then did he go to the trouble?
Post a Comment
37 Comments:
I really can't believe you were a Christian. You have just written a post which showed utter ignorance of Christianb theology. It is one thing for people to disagree with something, it's another thing to not even understand issues and then pretend you have made a stellar critique.
Paul, what's the bee in your bonnet this time ? Zachary raised perfectly natural points - in fact, those points about the contradictions between emotions and infinity, and the "suffering" of Jesus, have been explained by atheists a great number of times. If this is news for you, you haven't been following.
Most atheists have not been Christians who supposedly knew the theology. So, I somewhat expect it from them to be ignorant since why study, say, Berkof's systematic theology when you could read Quine? Zach, on the other hand, brags about his former profession and knowledge of Christian theology. Then he writes one of the most ignorant posts I've read this year. So, as you can see, my issue wasn't with the particular argument since I don't want to take up a *comment* section with long posts (something others seem to miss) but5 to point out that Zach wasn't even aware of Christian theology. If you want to be taken seriously you should *at least* offer a couple of our explanations (as found in reformed catechisms and systematics texts) and then refute them. Now *that* would be interesting. As it stands now all this post was was yet another example of not understanding Christian theology and then critiquing the misunderstood version. But this is uninteresting. Anyone can do that. Check it: Atheism believes that pink fairies give order to all the diversity in the world, therefore atheism is wrong. I seriously doubt Zach even knows of the counters to his post. So we have the rantings of an ignorant man... that's my bee.
You might have a point if we were discussing whether calvinism or catholicism better explains Jesus' words on the cross (or whatever), but theologians have no expertise on the topic of the post, therefore I see no reason for Zachary to take their "work" into account.
you might have a point if you assume that we calim the reformed catechisms/confessions to not be an accurate summary of what the Bible teaches on certain topics. If you didn't assume this then our works must be consulted since it is a summarization of what the Bible teaches on these matters. So, our works do explain this and if they had been read the misunderstanding would not have arose and therefore the post would be pointless.
p.s. you say that knowledge is justified belief, and that justification comes from sense perception. Now, you said (above) that "theologians have no expertise on the topic of the post." But do you *know* this? You may believe it but since you don't have universal perceptual abilites you cannot make the claim that the entire class of theologians have no expertise on this topic. So, since you don't know that they don't you had better get busy shoring up Zach's article since it makes you guys appear ignorant.
"p.s. you say that knowledge is justified belief, and that justification comes from sense perception."
To be stricter about it, justification comes from reason.
"Now, you said (above) that "theologians have no expertise on the topic of the post." But do you *know* this?"
Sure I do. I know what theologians "study" and that it does not correspond to the topic of the post.
"You may believe it but since you don't have universal perceptual abilites you cannot make the claim that the entire class of theologians have no expertise on this topic."
I never claimed to have universal perceptual abilities, neither are they necessary for my claim, which does not pertain to ALL theologians individually. If there is some theologian who does have the expertise to address the issues, that's fine, but that does not arise from him qua theologian.
"So, since you don't know that they don't you had better get busy shoring up Zach's article since it makes you guys appear ignorant."
I will do no such thing.
Please, Paul. Just because I was raised on Christian Theology doesn't mean that I still think it provides a cogent explanation! If I did, then I'd still be a Christian, wouldn't I?
Pleasde Zachary, even you can't be this blind. Check it out: If someone said that the Bible is false because it says Gid does not have a body but there are passages that say he has hands, feet, wings(!), etc you could, as a god-hater, answer that for us.. couldn't you? Or do you really think the Bible is teaching that he has a literal arm (never know with you)? So, you can still be an apostate pagan but tell the other person that his critique missed the mark. I have done that with some of my friends regarding atheism. I even did it with Gene Cook on his radio show wehn I was explaining the position of *some* atheists that they are without a belief in God. So, since I showed that they had an answer to some of Gene's criticism then I must really be a crypto atheist? Your reasoning has been getting worse and worse. I'll assume you're working har on your dissertation lately?
Paul: "you could, as a god-hater, answer that for us.. couldn't you?"
I may be wrong, but I don't think Zach can hate that which doesn't exist.
Paul: "Or do you really think the Bible is teaching that he has a literal arm (never know with you)?"
You don't think the bible teaches a literal flood, do you?
Paul: "I must really be a crypto atheist?"
All professing theists are.
Paul: Check it out: If someone said that the Bible is false because it says Gid does not have a body but there are passages that say he has hands, feet, wings(!), etc you could, as a god-hater, answer that for us.. couldn't you? Or do you really think the Bible is teaching that he has a literal arm (never know with you)?
Zach: So what are you saying, Paul- that the Bible teaches that Jesus' divinity was metaphorical? Come on.
Zach, again it flew over your head. The point was, IF SOMEONE MISREPRESENTS A POSITION YOU COULD CORRECT HIM AND STILL BE AN ATHEIST! Do ya get it now? I was addressing that point. Try not to change the subject to avoid arguments which expose your soft underbelly.
BB-
Well, the Bible says he does and so you'd have to disporove that. You can;t assume it elst you beg the question.
yes, I do-- but that wasn't the point of my refutation, now was it? let's try and stay on topic. I know it's har for someone who thinks neurons are bundles of concepts, but I know you can do it.
How am I a crypto-atheist? Why don't I profess it? Am I lying to myself? But how can someone lie to himself? Other-deception assumes that I know the truth and then I deceive X into believing a non-truth. You're saying that I do this to myself. So I know P and then I tell myself that P is not true. Do I believe P and Q at the same time? Isn't that a contradiction? What are you talking about???
Paul: Zach, again it flew over your head. The point was, IF SOMEONE MISREPRESENTS A POSITION YOU COULD CORRECT HIM AND STILL BE AN ATHEIST! Do ya get it now? I was addressing that point. Try not to change the subject to avoid arguments which expose your soft underbelly.
Zach: Paul, again it flew over your head. The point was, YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN HOW I MISREPRESENTED YOUR POSITION. Do ya get it now? Put up or shut up.
Again it flew over your head. As I said, I was not getting into that right now but was attacking the claim that you could prpoerly represent someones position without giving up yours. DO YOU GET IT NOW????? Will you admnit to this? If you do I will briefly resolve your problem. But the point was you were not asking me to show how you misrepresented it but just said that if it was coherent you'd still be an atheist. I can show how a particular view has been misrepresented within atheism without giving up my theism. Zach, do you like Jethro Tull/ I am reminded of you by their song: "Thick As A Brick."
Zach, see my above post first.
Now, for the resolution. You cited the Nicene Creed. But you left out the relevent portion that answers your query. I assume you did that not to purposefully misrepresent us but because you're unfamilar with Christian doctrine (thus giving you no authority to "critique" us, and actually hurting your good name. Please stick to discecting tetra hydra's =) ). Anyway, here is the material you left out: "Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made *MAN.* You do know of the hypostatic union, correct? Now theologians have recognized a distinction one can make when referring to Jesus. That is the saying: in respects to His human nature and in respects to his divine nature. So, when Jesus was touched and he said, "who touched me?" the purile mentality will yell: CONTRADICTION. But a contradiction is A and ~A in the same sense/time/relationship/respect. So, when it is formulated thus: "In respects to Jesus' human nature He didn't know who touched Him because man is not omniscient." Or, when Jesus exemplified traits of divinity (i.e., seeing Peter sitting under the tree when Jesus wasn't there) the purile will yell: CONTRADICTION. But if it is phrased thus: In respects to his divine nature Jesus was omniscient, then there is no problem.
So, we must make distinctions between the two-natures of Christ when we come accross certain passages which force us to do so.
You also said, "In other words, there is no coherent disctinction between the qualities ascribed to God the Father and God the Son-" but, again, one must make distinctions. In this case-between the ontological and the economical trinity. Since you're familar with Christian though I don't need to explain this (but I know you're gonna have to look this up since you're not familar with Christian thought =) ). Now this distinction also must be made when we refer to God qua God and the God-man. So, you go on to say that this is, "allowing us the convenience of ascribing all of God's characteristics to Jesus." But if you ascribe the perogatives of deity to the human nature of Jesus then you destroy His true humanity- and you know Christianity teaches that He was truely a man, correct? You entire into a monophysite heresy. What you have done is to confuse the natures- this distinction is laid out in our creeds and confessions. Now, you may think this is silly etc., but the point is that it is a coherent picture from *within our worldview.* My point is that you have misrepresented us since I have proven that you attributed divinity to humanity, and this has been denied by out theology for thousands of years.
Here is an example: "Therefore, Jesus, among other things, can be described as omniscient." taht's what you said. But if we want to be technical and scholarly about it you should have added: "with respects to His divine nature." Without this distinction many would fall into the same trap you have.
You go on to try and sound profound by asking: "Now, what does it mean for an omniscient deity to experience joy?" And then try and follow it by by stating:
"The emotion of joy confers the idea of receiving pleasure of something hoped-for. But pleasure confers the idea of transitioning from a state of lesser to greater perfection,."
But this is false. I have joy by thinking of my son. It is not future. I can recall past events and feel joy about them. So it is false that joy always refers to an emotion you get from a *future* hped for event. Secondly, you misrepresent the Christian position, yet again! God doesn't receive joy or pleasure in the sense that he had what was lacking. Many may try and contradict the Christian claim that God is all-glorious but created the world for his glory. If he has *all* glory how could He create the world for more Glory. But what we mean by this is that he *manifests* His glory. Again, you may not like this but if one would accurately represent us the problem disolves within the Christian framework.
You also say, "and hope confers the idea of doubt for the outcome of future events." I partially agree that hope is future. the Bible says, "who hopes for what he has?" I have already shown that joy need not be associated with future events. Also, I do not fully agree because I hope for heaven but am certain of it, i.e., I have no doubt. Moreover, the passage doesn;t say Jesus "hoped." But even if it did I would refer it to His human nature since he knew that He had a mission to accomplish, again, He was certain about this accomplishment and so doubt was not involved.
You remark, "Given the context of the passage in Hebrews (the metaphor of a race), the idea of joy at winning or completing the race seems completely reasonable from the human perspective"
Note you mention of *HUMAN* persepctive. Note well that Jesus was, a what? HUMAN. So all you've done is confirmed our thesis. You go on, "but it is completely unintelligible from the omniscient perspective," again, you've nailed it right on the head! So, things are intelligible when attributed to humans, Jesus was a human, and so we can intelligently convey these claims to Him. This is according to what you have just said above. But if we try and attribute it to His divine nature then it is not intellligible, as you've indicated. So you've just shown how Christian theology understands this docttine. And you've also shown, thoguh you didnlt know it, that you have misrepresented us. Now i'm sure you're not going to admit it since sinful man is pridefull, but I've answerd you nonetheless.
I've said enough and won't comment on the rest because it is more of the same.
Paul: But the point was you were not asking me to show how you misrepresented it but just said that if it was coherent you'd still be an atheist.
Zach: No, Paul. You claimed that I was ignorant of Christian theology. I then responded that I was familiar with Christian theology, but that I had found it incoherent. You then began to argue for the ability of a person to correctly represent a system which he does not believe is true. I have no problem with this argument, nor did I object to it. I'm wondering about your purpose in pursuing this line of argumentation, since it seems to suggest that either 1) I, being an atheist, correctly represented Christian theology, or 2) that I, being an atheist, should have corrected Craig's mistaken interpretation of Christian theology.
Since you've already voiced your praise of Craig's position on his blog, it must be that 1) is true. Thanks for the compliment, Paul!
you obviously didn;t read my above post before you posted what you just said. Don;t you think you should delete your post now? How's it feel to say that you're not ignorant of Christian theology and then have my post above yours show your ignorance? red faced? anyway, you probably haven't responded since you, as a theological ignoramus, are trying to study up on what I wrote in order to "refute" me.
So, your (1) is wrong and you didn't represent us correctly. I know you had to strive pretty hard to get a complement out of me but it's not that hard. Zach, I'm sure you know more than I do regarding discecting frog-leggs.
Paul: So, your (1) is wrong and you didn't represent us correctly.
Zach: Sigh. Paul, don't play this game again. If I represented Christian theology so horribly then explain it. For all the whining you've done about it, I'd think you'd at least be able to show something. Maybe it's just your presuppositionalist mindset that conditions you to criticize other arguments without advancing any of your own.
I did 4 posts up from this ONE!!!!! I really can't believe someone can be this dumb.
On the contrary, you only agreed with me. Just because there is a distinction between the divine and human nature of Jesus doesn't mean that both weren't present during the crucifixion! You yourself agreed that "if we try and attribute it to His divine nature then it is not intellligible, as you've indicated."
As I said, I understand it, but it's not coherent. I really can't believe someone can be this dumb.
I wrote: "I don't think Zach can hate that which doesn't exist."
Paul responded: "Well, the Bible says he does"
So when you referred to Zach as "a god-hater," you meant to say that Zach hates something that does not exist? Okay, got it.
Paul: "and so you'd have to disporove that. You can;t assume it elst you beg the question."
That some book makes a claim in no way puts on me an obligation to disprove it. Also, it seems you're assuming that "the bible" (i.e., a collection of books and letters written over a period of about 1000 years, give or take) is a uniform report, and this is in serious question. So just by making this assumption, you beg the question.
I asked: "You don't think the bible teaches a literal flood, do you?"
Paul responded: "yes, I do"
But you don't think the bible teaches that your god has "a literal arm"? You seem to be picking and choosing what is literal and what is not literal.
Paul asked: "Am I lying to myself?"
You know you are.
Paul asked: "But how can someone lie to himself?"
By confusing what you want to be the case with what really is the case.
Paul wrote: "Other-deception assumes that I know the truth and then I deceive X into believing a non-truth."
I don't think you're so stupid as to actually believe it. If you were that stupid, you wouldn't try to defend it as you do. Why else would you try so hard to convince yourself?
Paul wrote: "You're saying that I do this to myself."
No one else is making you do what you do, Paul. They're your choices and actions on display here.
"You yourself agreed that "if we try and attribute it to His divine nature then it is not intellligible, as you've indicated."
So why attribute it to his divine nature then?
Anyway, you have been sliced and diced, I guess now I must do a public refutation on my blog and see if you have anything better to say than your pathetic attempt above.
BB: So when you referred to Zach as "a god-hater," you meant to say that Zach hates something that does not exist?
ME NOW: Nope.
BB: That some book makes a claim in no way puts on me an obligation to disprove it. Also, it seems you're assuming that "the bible" (i.e., a collection of books and letters written over a period of about 1000 years, give or take) is a uniform report, and this is in serious question. So just by making this assumption, you beg the question.
ME NOW: The Bible says you know God's existecne is more clear than the nose on your face. So you are making the extraordinary claim. So by saying it isn;t that clear you have now said that it is false, by your claim and have thus entered burden land.
It's in serious question if you assume that the same God didn't sovereignly oversee the project, which is the point in dispute- thus you beg the question b y even saying this. I We both assume our positions.
BB: But you don't think the bible teaches that your god has "a literal arm"? You seem to be picking and choosing what is literal and what is not literal.
ME NOW: Yeah, just like when the news caster says that sunrise is at 5:45 I know that the 5:45 is to be taken literal but the sun*rise* part is not. There are objective hermeneutical principles we can go by on any book. Are you denying that we can know wehn some speaks metaphorically?
Paul asked: Am I lying to myself?
BB: You know you are.
ME NOW: Okay... now prove it. I don't know I am but maybe I am, so let's see the argument.
BB: By confusing what you want to be the case with what really is the case.
ME NOW: No, that's not it. If I lie to myself I know that P and then I ALSO tell myself that P is not true. A confusion is not a lie. I could be confused about P and believe that P is reallt Q. I then tell someone Q, but I didn;t "lie" to him in the sense of purposefully misleading him. Also, it is not "really the case" so I guess that disporves that I'm lying to myself, huh?
Paul: So why attribute it to his divine nature then?
Zach: Because unless you want to argue that his divine nature was absent when he was on the cross, then the sacrifice of Jesus was meaningless.
It's amazing that how much you claim to slice and dice me you can't answer that objection.
Brad-
I was using the Nicene Creed- which is almost universally accepted among Christians. But I'm not aware of any theology (outside of Gnosticism) that holds that the divine nature of Jesus was absent during the crucifixion.
Brad-
That's a good point. Once you enter the world of 'interpretation', you've abandoned any hope of objectivity. That's why the wording of the Nicene Creed was so specific- because they knew that 'interpretation' leads to heresy.
I was mystified about Paul's claim that I was "bragging" to have been a Christian. I suppose that in Paul's worldview, being a Christian is the ultimate honor, so to claim it is akin to claim being a Nobel Prize Laureate.
Zach,
First off you said you don't know of any theology (outside Gnosticism) that denies that Jesus's divine nature was absent during the crucifixion! Sheesh! Gnostics deny Jesus had a HUMAN NATURE as well as that he had a BODY (matter is evil according to them). You don't even know what you're talking about historically.
Secondly, I did address it. No, His divine nature was not absent, but as I said there are things we attribute to his HUMAN nature (and not his divine) and things we attribute to his DIVINE (and not his human) nature.
Thirdly, I addressed the point that joy is how you've defined it. So you haven't shown that those are incompatible with deity, anyway.
Fourthly, stay tuned for a critique.
Mr. Truth, it's funny that you're yappin. Haven't you got worked repeatedly? Havent you seen that you couldn't give any answers? Anyway, ALL Christians agree with the two natures of Christ and so to ask, "which theology are you referring to" is to show your ignorance. It's not that hard to admit Zach messed up. He can still be an atheist while being humble about misrepresenting us.
Paul asked: "Am I lying to myself?"
I responded: "You know you are."
Paul came back to me: "Okay... now prove it. I don't know I am but maybe I am, so let's see the argument."
I don't need to prove it. Your own actions tell us you don't really believe, and that you're simply trying to save face and convince yourself at the same time. To overcome this, you need to prove that you genuinely believe what you say you believe.
I wrote: "By confusing what you want to be the case with what really is the case."
Paul responded: "No, that's not it. If I lie to myself I know that P and then I ALSO tell myself that P is not true. A confusion is not a lie."
I'm not talking about a confusion. The lie is in your pretense to certainty when in fact your actions say the exact opposite (though from your perspective, you probably don't see that).
On the contrary, Paul, Gnostics believe that the divine essence of Christ entered Jesus at his baptism and left him at the crucifixion. Time for you to hit the books again.
I never disputed the difference between Jesus' divine nature and his human nature, but both, as you've admitted again, were present during the crucifixion. Thus, Jesus' sacrifice was meaningless. You have yet to provide a coherent rationale to defend this. Hand-waving regarding the distinction between divine and human nature does not address this issue- in fact, it only exacerbates it.
Your criticism of the concept of an emotional God was also unintelligible. What does it mean for God to feel pleasure by "manifesting" his glory? This has no rational meaning, and is thus a non-answer. It might sound good at church, but it carries no weight here.
ZACK:On the contrary, Paul, Gnostics believe that the divine essence of Christ entered Jesus at his baptism and left him at the crucifixion. Time for you to hit the books again.
ME NOW: Actually, this is debated. But consiatnt gnosticism will side with me. Read the gnostics works to find references of Jesus not having a body, not leaving footprints in the sand as he walked, etc. This link should help you as your embark on your studies.
http://www.mastermason.com/hiramdiscovered/gnostic.html
ZACK: I never disputed the difference between Jesus' divine nature and his human nature
ME NOW: So? The point, Zachary, is that you *confuse* the natures. Some things cannot be attributed to the divine nature (vis versa). You have attributed those some things to the divine nature. Therefore you have misrepresented us.
ZACK: as you've admitted again, were present during the crucifixion.
ME NOW: Yeah, so? They were present His whole life. When Jesus said, "who touched me" you'd have to conclude that deity didn't know who touched him? No, ***in respects to His human nature**** Jesus didn;t know who touched Him. Zach, when Jesus; beard was trimmed you probably think little bits of deity fell on the ground, don't you?
ZACK: Thus, Jesus' sacrifice was meaningless.
ME NOW: Tell me in what logic book this conclusion follows from your two premises above???
ZACK: You have yet to provide a coherent rationale to defend this.
ME NOW: I have. I have shown how you apply things to each. You are applying these things to *both* natures. They cannot be. This is Christian theology, anyway... therefore, you have misrepresented us.
ZACK: Hand-waving regarding the distinction between divine and human nature does not address this issue- in fact, it only exacerbates it.
ME NOW: No, it answers it. Dogmatic assertions aside, you have not refuted my first post resolving this. It addresses it because SOME THINGS CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO THE DIVINE NATURE AND SOME THINGS CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO THE HUMAN NATURE. YOU HAVE ASCRIBED THINGS THAT CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO THE DIVINE NATURE. YOUR ONLY REBUTTAL HAS BEEN TO TELL ME I HAVEN'T PROVEN ANYTHING. SORYY, THAT BOAT DON'T FLOAT, GUY.
ZACK: Your criticism of the concept of an emotional God was also unintelligible.
ME NOW: let's look at Zach *support* this assertion.
ZACK: What does it mean for God to feel pleasure by "manifesting" his glory?
ME NOW: Oh, good back-up for the assertion. I guess all I need to do is try and sound profound by asking a question. Zachk, asking what does it mean is meaningless. What does it mean for you to not understand what it means? Oooooh, I'm so deeeep. ANyway, if you would read, which you never do, then you would know that you just misrepresented me. Also, look up the word. C'mon, guy.
ZACK: This has no rational meaning, and is thus a non-answer.
ME NOW: How do you *know?* Have you examined ALL the meanings by observation? What isn't rational? God manifests His Glory. You must have a bias that the only things that have meaning are empeirically verifiable. But this criteria is not empirically verifiable, therefore it's meaningless. Or, maybe the falsificationist challenge? or, maybe the non-cognitivist challenge? Whatever it is they have all been shown to be dogmatic predjudical statements and self-defeating... oh yeah, mainly by NON-CHRISTIAN philosophers.
Paul> As I said, I was not getting into that right now but was attacking the claim that you could prpoerly represent someones position without giving up yours. DO YOU GET IT NOW????? Will you admnit to this?
But you claim that you properly represented the position of Buddism while STILL holding on to you own...
Paul, you are contradicting yourself.
Paul: Actually, this is debated. But consiatnt gnosticism will side with me.
Zach: Right, so only "True Gnostics" agree with you. You're so lame, Paul.
Paul: Some things cannot be attributed to the divine nature (vis versa).
Zach: Like the crucifixion?
Paul: Tell me in what logic book this conclusion follows from your two premises above???
Zach: Tell me in what logic book they don't.
Paul: You are applying these things to *both* natures.
Zach: Strange, since you say that both natures were present at the crucifixion. Why are you allowed to say it, but I'm not?
Paul: YOU HAVE ASCRIBED THINGS THAT CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO THE DIVINE NATURE.
Zach: So the crucifixion cannot be ascribed to the divine nature of Jesus? I just want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting Christian theology here.
Paul: What does it mean for you to not understand what it means?
Zach: It means that the concept of a immaterial being 'manifesting' its glory to receive pleasure has no rational explanation.
Paul: What isn't rational? God manifests His Glory. You must have a bias that the only things that have meaning are empeirically verifiable.
Zach: No, it's not logically verifiable.
---
Anonymous: But you claim that you properly represented the position of Buddism while STILL holding on to you own...
Paul, you are contradicting yourself.
Zach: An excellent observation.
Anonymous said...
But you claim that you properly represented the position of Buddism while STILL holding on to you own...
Paul, you are contradicting yourself.
Yeah, and I'm claiming that Zach can do the same. Hint: hooked on phonics is a good thing. Don't hate.
Zach: Right, so only "True Gnostics" agree with you. You're so lame, Paul.
ME: Refutes the Gnostics that I cited. Refute the interpretations of Gnostic literature. Why do you think in Gnostic gospels they said Jesus never left footprints when he walked. You're goinna have to start refuting me insteading of being half me with the name calling.
ZACH: Like the crucifixion?
ME: What about it? Let's get specific, silly guy. Do you mean that immaterial deity had nailes through its hands? Do you mean that deity realy died? What are you talking about? This is sloppy. How are you trying for a Ph.D.?
ZACH: Tell me in what logic book they don't.
ME: (giggles). Zach, you didn't even have the predicate of your conclusion in your premises. What a joker you are. Zach, there is nothing in the premise "both natures were present" which warrants the conclusion, "thus Jesus sacrifice was meaningless." (Paul stops to bust a gut... okay, continuing on).
ZACH: Zach: Strange, since you say that both natures were present at the crucifixion. Why are you allowed to say it, but I'm not?
ME: You are. This shows you don't even get the point. The fact that the divine nature was "present" doesn't mean that nails went into divine nature! Goofy guy. Both natures were present when Jesus said, "who touched me." But this was said IN RESPECT TO HIS HUMAN NATURE.
ZACH: So the crucifixion cannot be ascribed to the divine nature of Jesus? I just want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting Christian theology here.
ME: See above.
ZACH: It means that the concept of a immaterial being 'manifesting' its glory to receive pleasure has no rational explanation.
ME: And you know this how? So.... ASSERTION, prove it. =)
Zach: No, it's not logically verifiable.
ME: Law out how it violates a law of logic. Goofus.
Me> But you claim that you properly represented the position of Buddism while STILL holding on to you own...
Paul, you are contradicting yourself.
Paul> Yeah, and I'm claiming that Zach can do the same. Hint: hooked on phonics is a good thing. Don't hate.
Me> What you're doing, both here and at your own blog, is "I'll show how this worldview is wrong, from the viewpoint of my worldview." while at the same time saying "you're not allowed to show how my worldview is wrong while you use the viewpoint of your own worldview."
Just remember, your worldview is your perception of reality and you cannot let it go. Everything you do, everything you think, is coloured by that worldview so you can NEVER give an unbiased, internal critique of another worldview. (no matter how much you claim to have done)
When you are able to accept that, you will finally understand why your attempts at proving other worldviews wrong are doomed to failure before you even start.
Paul: Refutes the Gnostics that I cited. Refute the interpretations of Gnostic literature.
Zach: You're not going to side-track this, Paul. I don't need to refute any Gnostic interpretation. I offered the Gnostic theology as an example of one in which the divine nature of Jesus was not present at the crucifixion. You claim it's debated within Gnostic circles- therefore it's your responsibility to refute me.
Paul: Do you mean that immaterial deity had nailes through its hands? Do you mean that deity realy died? What are you talking about?
Zach: I'm asking if the divine nature of Jesus was present and participatory to the crucifixion.
Paul: Zach, there is nothing in the premise "both natures were present" which warrants the conclusion, "thus Jesus sacrifice was meaningless."
Zach: Straw man. You're forgetting the premise of Jesus' divine nature being infinite.
Paul: The fact that the divine nature was "present" doesn't mean that nails went into divine nature!
Zach: I've not said that the nails were driven into the divine nature. Straw man again, Paul. You're slipping.
Paul: And you know this how? So.... ASSERTION, prove it. =)
Zach: Lazy, lazy Paul. I've already explained this. You really should pay attention.
Pascals Wager:
Pascal’s Wager seeks to justify Christian faith by considering the various possible consequences of belief and disbelief in the God of Christianity. If we believe in the Christian God, the argument runs, then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great reward in heaven while if he does not then we will have lost little or nothing. If we do not believe in the Christian God, the argument continues, then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great punishment in hell while if he does not then we will have gained little or nothing. The possible outcomes of belief in the Christian God, then, are on balance better than the possible outcomes of disbelief in the Christian God. It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward in heaven or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment in hell or gain little or nothing.
Anon: Pascal’s Wager seeks to justify Christian faith by considering the various possible consequences of belief and disbelief in the God of Christianity. If we believe in the Christian God, the argument runs, then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great reward in heaven while if he does not then we will have lost little or nothing. If we do not believe in the Christian God, the argument continues, then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great punishment in hell while if he does not then we will have gained little or nothing. The possible outcomes of belief in the Christian God, then, are on balance better than the possible outcomes of disbelief in the Christian God. It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward in heaven or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment in hell or gain little or nothing.
Pascal's Wager fails to take into account that there are more than just 1 religion.
Believing in Christianity guarantees you a fireside seat in whatever hell there is, should any other religion be true.
Pascal's wager, in whatever form you chose to use, is nothing more than "TURN OR BURN"
Now, why would a "loving" religion need to make such threats?
<< Home