Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[jeremyp]

Jeremy thinks that offence imposes zero burden and forgiveness is just achieved with a word.

Do you believe that the victim of a crime can only forgive the perpetrator if the somebody else "pays" for it in some way?

As a mathematician he should know what is involved in achieving sum zero

If we've got to achieve a zero sum, there's a massive problem: all of the sins of humanity have to be equated against the mere temporary death of one god-man.

[Outrider]

Outrider says he has nothing to be forgiven.

Which you've not in any way given a reason to suggest is incorrect.

Jeremy thinks that ... forgiveness is just achieved with a word.

I think he's suggested that it CAN be achieved with just a word - and if it can be, then surely it's within the capability of an allegedly omni-benevolent being?

As a mathematician he should know what is involved in achieving sum zero so no, the moral equations used to acquit mankind have not been adequately presented.

Are we talking morality, or are we talking sin, because those are very different things. Sin can, allegedly, be inherited, but can moral responsibility be transferred?

As usual what is explained is just the usual warmed over vociferacely enforced agnosticism.

And, as usual, what's put up instead of any sort of an attempt at a rebuttal is word-salad, light-speed goalposts, selective avoidance and occasionally 'swivel-eyed' anti-atheism^TM.

O.

[/quote]

[Enki]

Who do you think, then, has not fallen short in moral terms?

We were talking about the idea of sin, and of original sin specifically, so I made it crystal clear that I don't agree with your idea that, as regards sin, we have all fallen short. The reason? I don't accept the idea of Biblical sin at all. As to morality, I can think of many people who have not 'fallen short' by dint of their attitudes and actions according to my take on morality.

Which is what most of us are doing here,isn't it

Then you should make it clear that it is simply your opinion, rather than state things as if they are factual.

You may believe that as an atheist but as an agnostic how can you know what the significance is to you of God resurrecting the dead?

I don't 'know', but as I consider the whole idea as being highly improbable then it isn't something I consider to be of much importance and therefore pay little attention to it.

Yes, that's about the size of it.

Good.

But you are familiar with the term alienation and would know it if you felt it right...or put another way, how do you manage to avoid it?

I don't think in terms of avoidance because it doesn't make any sense to me to avoid something I don't feel.

[Dicky Underpants]

But you are familiar with the term alienation and would know it if you felt it right...or put another way, how do you manage to avoid it?

One outgrows it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't, for reasons that have been explained to you.

It is i'm afraid since even a life sentence for a murder cannot bring that person back or fill the hole that loved one's have to carry, or with the possible dehumanised ease of killing again which the perpetrator could attain

Even if it were, that does not make the insane sadomasochistic nonsense of Jesus being tortured to death for our sins any more rational. Neither does it address the nonsensical standard of perfection your god imposes on its own imperfect creation.

Any imperfections at the start do not alienate Man from God since man is in fellowship with God. Alienation comes from man and is transmitted to man's posterity by man. That is the claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't. The consequences of murder are a life sentence if you get caught. If the victim's relatives forgive you, they don't have to serve your time. In fact, you'll be sent down whether or not they forgive you.

Or Jeremy, you get away with it...and defy the legal process. In which case the relatives have to bear non closure, non justice etc even  being unable to forgive and even if you do go down they are still left with the consequences of your act. Their mercy still leaves them with that. Your view of justice and mercy is IMO a restricted one because you reduce the complete picture and eliminate quality as well as detail.

[Stranger]

It is i'm afraid since even a life sentence for a murder cannot bring that person back or fill the hole that loved one's have to carry, or with the possible dehumanised ease of killing again which the perpetrator could attain

And.....?

If a murderer is forgiven, that doesn't mean somebody else needs to serve the sentence. Neither does somebody else serving the sentence address the issues you raised.

You're just emphasising the absurdity of the nonsensical crucifixion.

Any imperfections at the start do not alienate Man from God since man is in fellowship with God. Alienation comes from man and is transmitted to man's posterity by man. That is the claim.

Irrelevant. Whatever the reasons (which would all be under an omni-god's control anyway) judging people against a standard that nobody can achieve is unjust, not to mention stupid.

[jeremyp]

It is i'm afraid since even a life sentence for a murder cannot bring that person back or fill the hole that loved one's have to carry, or with the possible dehumanised ease of killing again which the perpetrator could attain

So Jesus dying for a couple of days is not enough consequences either.

You really are talking nonsense. If you stole my car, I might choose to forgive you even if you still go to prison and the insurance company bears the  monetary consequences. Forgiveness absolutely does not require the forgiver to take on the consequences.

Any imperfections at the start

So God made us imperfect. Got it.

Alienation comes from man and is transmitted to man's posterity by man. That is the claim.

Yes but, if God had made us perfect we wouldn't have become alienated at all. Why didn't God make man perfect?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't, for reasons that have been explained to you.

And yes you would have had me there if only Jeremy hadn't omitted some salient details which I have pointed out to him

Even if it were, that does not make the insane sadomasochistic nonsense of Jesus being tortured to death for our sins any more rational. Neither does it address the nonsensical standard of perfection your god imposes on its own imperfect creation.

The only thing that is insanely sexual is your take on it.

[jeremyp]

Or Jeremy, you get away with it...and defy the legal process.

In my example the murderer gets caught.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm familiar with the term, are you?
How would anyone know if they felt alienated?
Is it identical feeling for everyone or is it an individual case by case experience?

Alienation is an observed behaviour which one does not have to be conscious of in order to display it. Or maybe I'm imagining it and there is no alienation in the world........no....there is and to imagine there ain't is, perhaps a tad rose tinted humanistic claptrap....... IMO.
If you get round to recognising the feeling, that's probably progress.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In my example the murderer gets caught.

But it isn't a straight transaction given emotions and details such as irreplaceable loss or possible undersentencing.
I'll put my cards on the table Jeremy, your barebones formula comes in as underdetailed and under par. And that's about as far bas I can advise you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So Jesus dying for a couple of days is not enough consequences either.

It's more than enough for an innocent man.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One outgrows it.

Given the amount of alienation in the world and the lack of actual influence of your average rebellious teen as opposed to comfortable old gents like ourselves. I do wonder iff you are correct.

[Nearly Sane]

It's more than enough for an innocent man.

Which means it is unjust

[jeremyp]

But it isn't a straight transaction given emotions and details such as irreplaceable loss or possible undersentencing.
I'll put my cards on the table Jeremy, your barebones formula comes in as underdetailed and under par. And that's about as far bas I can advise you.

It's not me with a bare bones formula or who thinks crimes and punishments can be modelled by numerical transactions. It's you. Your position is utterly incoherent.

If you want to argue that forgiveness is about taking the consequences, you have to acknowledge that Jesus did not take the consequences for the vast majority of crimes. He only died once, and then it wasn't permanent, so the best you can argue is he took the consequences for one murder, and that's iffy as he didn't stay dead.

You're all over the place Vlad. Find a religion that's more coherent.

[Sebastian Toe]

Alienation is an observed behaviour which one does not have to be conscious of in order to display it.

Do tell how one would observe alienation in oneself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not me with a bare bones formula or who thinks crimes and punishments can be modelled by numerical transactions. It's you. Your position is utterly incoherent.

On the contrary I have tried to be as comprehensive and wide ranging as possible, considering civil and criminal law, the notion of compensation, the scale of the consequences of sin, costs to victim including recourse to justice, the inadequacies in human law, the two victim nature of wrongdoing etc, etc It is you and your colleagues here who have omitted factors seemingly as and when it suits

If you want to argue that forgiveness is about taking the consequences, you have to acknowledge that Jesus did not take the consequences for the vast majority of crimes.

There are temporal consequences of course. We operate in both a material and human environment but sin has a further more serious consequences on the self and there is no improvement without repentance

He only died once, and then it wasn't permanent, so the best you can argue is he took the consequences for one murder, and that's iffy as he didn't stay dead.

But that is getting death wrong. Given the universal resurrection of the new testament there is not the ''permanent death'' that you are suggesting. Also satisfaction of conditions by Jesus death is in God's judgment and not ours and thirdly I would move that Jesus is taking on an entity known as 'the sins of the world' and that your metaphor is thus inadequate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which means it is unjust

It could be argued that mercy is unjust since it foils the mechanics and realisation of the blind process of justice....and God's operation and Jesus' mission are ones of mercy. God soaks up the spiritual consequences for the self of sin.

Also, Jesus is aquitted...The grave is unable to hold him......which brings us round to the third point.....who sentences God to death in the hope that he stays dead? People do. I think it was Socrates who suggested that a perfect human being would inevitably be put to death.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then you should make it clear that it is simply your opinion, rather than state things as if they are factual.

But as an agnostic atheist surely you can see that you don't know whether they are factual or not

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do tell how one would observe alienation in oneself.

I think you need to start spot it others since we do not initially want to think bad of ourselves and then check that we aren't demonstrating the same behaviour.

I often find my myself with an unjustifiable level of distaste for instance for your online input here. I seek to counter it by using and weaponising my sarcastic humour such as it is .....and i'm sure you are motivated similarly. But such behaviour and attitude is remiss and one should be resolved to refrain from it....

By the way, is it true that you felt ill once and someone told you to get on the forum quick, before it wore off?

[Nearly Sane]

It could be argued that mercy is unjust since it foils the mechanics and realisation of the blind process of justice....and God's operation and Jesus' mission are ones of mercy. God soaks up the spiritual consequences for the self of sin.

Also, Jesus is aquitted...The grave is unable to hold him......which brings us round to the third point.....who sentences God to death in the hope that he stays dead? People do. I think it was Socrates who suggested that a perfect human being would inevitably be put to death.

So he's overly punished after he's acquitted. And it all happens because he's the son of a merciful loving god.

You give incoherence a bad name.

[Enki]

But as an agnostic atheist surely you can see that you don't know whether they are factual or not

When you make categorical statements like:

The death involved Jesus experiencing a very human sense of alienation from God which comes from sin. That cannot be his own sin. Jesus really does die and is ressurected by God, as we all will be.

(as you did in post 135) then I suggest that you also don't know whether they are factual or not and therefore you have no justification to state them as so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So he's overly punished after he's acquitted.

Your thesis, Your burden.

[Nearly Sane]

Your thesis, Your burden.

My thesis that you give incoherence a bad name?

'M'lud, we are here to decide whether the piss artist formerly known as Vlad is guilty of giving incoherence a bad name. As evidence, I cite his voluminous posting filled with a void of vacuity and vacancy.

To paraphrase Bon Jovi, a popular beat combo, M'lud

"I play my part and he plays his game
He gives incoherence a bad name"'