With special thanks to PGA2.0

Author: secularmerlin ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 19
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,254
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    Christ and His righteousness, His sacrifice 
    Yeah let's talk about that shall we? Is it not by definition unjust to punish someone for the crimes of another? If you hit someone with your car while drunk driving and I agree to serve your prison sentence should you be absolved of all wrongdoing? Maybe given your driver's license back? Would that be moral? Do you think it would satisfy the family of the deceased or the community at large?

    Also what exactly is an omnipotent immortal being sacrificing by having (arguably) a pretty bad weekend followed by going back to being an omnipotent immortal being? He didn't lose anything but it did prove that his love is conditional and that my mother loves me more (whenever she needed to forgive me for something she just forgave me. She didn't have to sacrifice anything/one) than the Yahweh loves humanity (according to the source material).

    Really this seems more like performance art than noble sacrifice. 

    Or you could say.

    (IF) Yahweh is incapable of simply forgiving humans for the serious crime of being human (THEN) he is not omnipotent.

    (THEREFORE)

    (IF) the Yahweh is omnipotent (THAN) it was a possible to forgive humans without a sacrifice 

    (AND)

    (IF) it was a possible for the Yahweh's to forgive humans without requiring  a sacrifice (THEN) the Yahweh could have forgiven humans without a sacrifice.

    (THEREFORE)

    THE SACRIFICE WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.

    If you disagree then please point put the specific flaw in my logic and or offer a (demonstrable or logically necessary) counterfactual.

  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,959
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    i think your going to far into this, the story of Jesus isn't exactly philosophical, Jesus suffered and sacrificed himself in human form.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,254
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    (IF) it was a possible for the Yahweh's to forgive humans without requiring  a sacrifice (THEN) the Yahweh could have forgiven humans without a sacrifice.

    (THEREFORE)

    THE SACRIFICE WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.

    If you disagree then please point put the specific flaw in my logic and or offer a (demonstrable or logically necessary) counterfactual.

  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,959
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @secularmerlin
    your if statement was false at the time before Jesus
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,254
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    your if statement was false at the time before Jesus
    Ok why?
    Or in other words please show this with a demonstrable or logically necessary counterfactual.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,254
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    (IF) Yahweh is incapable of simply forgiving humans for the serious crime of being human (THEN) he is not omnipotent.

    (THEREFORE)

    (IF) the Yahweh is omnipotent (THAN) it was a possible to forgive humans without a sacrifice 

    (THEREFORE)

    (IF) your if statement was false at the time before Jesus (THEN) the Yahweh was not omnipotent before the time of jesus.

  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,959
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @secularmerlin
    its simple theology
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,254
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    its simple theology
    Then it should be easy to explain. Don't assume your conclusion demonstrate it.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,959
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @secularmerlin
    its basic bible stuff, not debate worthy
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,254
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    its basic bible stuff, not debate worthy
    If you cannot be bothered to back up your claim then I will have no choice but to dismiss your argument as invalid. 
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,959
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @secularmerlin
    it is not invalid
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,254
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    Without validation it is indistinguishable from invalid. 
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,892
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    its basic bible stuff, not debate worthy
    Are you suggesting that "YHWH"s motives are unquestionable or unknowable?
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,959
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @3RU7AL
    nope
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,254
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @3RU7AL @Dr.Franklin
    its basic bible stuff, not debate worthy
    Are you suggesting that "YHWH"s motives are unquestionable or unknowable?
    nope
    Yeah Dr.franklin hasn't actually said anything of substance yet 3RU7AL.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,959
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @secularmerlin
    i have said great things
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,254
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    Not in this thread.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,959
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @secularmerlin
    in this thread, yes
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,254
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    This is the Table Metaphor for a Rational Conversation. (TMFRC)

    Imagine if you will, two people in a room.

    They both bring with them a table with some number of legs.

    The first person says, here's my table, it has six legs, please let me know if you see any problems.

    The second person says, here's my table, it has nine legs, please let me know if you see any problems.

    The two people then examine the tables and if there's a structural problem with one of the legs, they point out the problem and give the other a chance to modify or repair the flaws.

    If a leg is fundamentally flawed it must be removed from that table.

    If either table has fewer than three legs, it can no longer function as a table and that person will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a (possibly similar) but better table.

    Perhaps both tables will stand, and perhaps both tables will fall.

    However, if one table stands and the other falls, there is absolutely no obligation for the person with the fallen table to adopt the design of the table that didn't fall.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, imagine that one of the two people decides to employ an argumentum ad ignorantiam. 

    Person (a) says, here's my table and it has seven legs.

    Person (b) says, I don't like any of those legs because they look strange (ad hominem).

    Person (a) says, perhaps they look a little strange to you, but they do a perfectly good job of holding up my table, can you please explain, if you believe they don't support my table, what specific -structural-problem- can you identify?

    Person (b) refuses to answer this question and instead says, my table is better and therefore your table is wrong (bald assertion, argumentum ad lapidem, false dichotomy).

    Person (a) says, what table are you talking about, you haven't shown me your table. AND more to the point, even if your table is "perfect" it does not make my table "wrong". You still need to explain any structural flaws you are able to identify.

    Person (b) says, well, it's difficult to describe my table but it is waaaay better than yours, so yours is wrong. I saw a table like your once and it was so dangerous it fell over and killed a bunch of people and made babies cry. (false dichotomy, emotional appeal, bald assertion, strawman, affirming the consequent, and argumentum ad baculum).

    Person (a) says, that's not really how this works. You have to show me your table.

    Person (b) says, my table is round and has like nine million legs (bald assertion).

    Person (a) says, can you be a little more specific?

    Person (b) says, YOU CAN'T PROVE MY TABLE IS WRONG (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

    Person (a) says, what table are you talking about? It is obviously impossible for me to point out structural flaws in a table that either doesn't exist or that you refuse to show to me or that you only explain in ridiculously vague terms.

    Person (b) says, I can't be bothered to show you my table because you could never understand it (ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantiam).

    Person (a) says, if you can't (or won't) show me your table and at least three legs, I think this conversation is over.