I've recently had a theist posit that god planned to have Jesus come and save us from the beginning of time, whether the fall had happened or not. Let's think about that for a moment, shall we?
If Jesus was always destined to come, then humans were always in need of saving, even before the fall. This wipes away any chance the theist has to claim that we deserve hell due to the fall (not that that is a good claim to make mind you). If we were in need of salvation from the beginning, the all humans regardless of our deeds or the past deeds of our ancestors were made by god to be destined for hell unless he comes to save us. What moral being would consciously make entities that it earmarked for hell from the very beginning?
Yet, in a strange way, it's probably one of the most logical stances that a theist could take. If god is omni-max, then anything and everything that happens in this world necessarily has to happen by this god's demand and according to this god's will. So, god wills that people die in horrible accidents, he wills that people are evil to each other, and he wills that people go to hell. The argument that god does not wish for anyone to perish is also obviously thrown out the window with this admission that Jesus was destined from the start. I'd score that one an own goal.
18 comments:
I really don't see anywhere where my rage against god, jesus, and the supposed "holy" spirit can be posted so I'd just like to say that this "3-in-1" is the biggest pile of steaming cow patty shit that I have ever encountered. I hope that crown and nails hurt like a mofo. BTW jesus fuckwad, how come you cried out "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me"?
Could it be that your a fucking fraud who somehow thought if you prayed that God would save you? My thinking is that you really are the son of god and that the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. God is a fucking dickhead and you are too! As for the "holy" ghost, what's so "holy" about an evil fucking spirit like yourself?
As far as I'm concerned, the three of you can all go have a circle jerk. Oh, and god, how about a pearl necklace to go along with his crown?
"theist posit that god planned to have Jesus come and save us from the beginning of time"
I think this time, GST, your logic fails. This "theist" statement is strictly his opinion for which there is no biblical basis. Therefore, there is no hypothesis against which you can logically argue.
It's kind of like air guitar.
How does my logic fail? Which part, please be specific?
Is there a Biblical basis for god to be omni-max? If so, then how can anything happen that is not part of god's will? Therefore, if Jesus did come to this Earth and die, then it must have been part of god's will, and it must have always been part of god's will. It's the logical conclusion of the argument from omni-max-ness.
"How does my logic fail? Which part, please be specific?"
My friend, I am pleased to announce that we agree. Your logic is excellent with respect to the covenant of redemption.
Eph 1:4 clearly states that God planned to have Jesus save us before the foundation of the world, which is what I think you are referring to.
The whole chapter verifies your logic, nicely done: for example take 1:11--In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.
I remember making the statement in a past argument we engaged in that if you were a Christian (not that you ever will be), you would be a Calvinist. I think I was correct based on your OP and response.
I'll attempt to be more clear.
The posit's statement that "god planned to have Jesus come and save us from the beginning of time, whether the fall had happened or not" was nothing more than an opinion. If we were to assume that the Bible is factual (which I'm not supporting one way or another), then this posit has no reasonable/factual basis for his argument conclusion (and I think we'll all agree that if the posit claimed "jesus told me", there'd be a whole new direction to this thread).
To reply that "if Jesus was always destined to come, then humans were always in need of saving, even before the fall", there would have to be some logical, rational, factual "truth" in the supposition that Jesus would have come, regardless.
If I tell you that there is a bird called a ztkrh and then make certain contentions about it, yet the ztkrh is just something I pulled out of my ass, how can there be any reasonable debate?
In other words, if the hypothesis is clearly unfounded from the get-go, how can it be disproved by any subsequent argument?
If I remember correctly MS, I think I agreed with you that a predetermined state of affairs would be the only logical conclusion to an omni-max deity, hence Calvinism.
"The posit's statement that "god planned to have Jesus come and save us from the beginning of time, whether the fall had happened or not" was nothing more than an opinion."
No, actually it came from a realization that an omni-max deity's plans would have to be realized. If Jesus was thrown in willy-nilly as a stop-gap for plans gone awry, then what does that say about god's supposed perfection?
"If we were to assume that the Bible is factual (which I'm not supporting one way or another), then this posit has no reasonable/factual basis for his argument conclusion (and I think we'll all agree that if the posit claimed "jesus told me", there'd be a whole new direction to this thread)."
It's the logical conclusion of the well-known Xian tenet that god is perfect and omni-max. Xians do tend to feel that the Bible supports this notion.
"To reply that "if Jesus was always destined to come, then humans were always in need of saving, even before the fall", there would have to be some logical, rational, factual "truth" in the supposition that Jesus would have come, regardless."
No, there doesn't need to be anything of the sort. Given the statement, "If X," I can take X to its logical conclusion and respond, "Then Y," without knowing the validity of X. IOW, what we are saying is if X is true, then Y necessarily follows. X doesn't have to be true in order to take the argument to its conclusion.
"If I tell you that there is a bird called a ztkrh and then make certain contentions about it, yet the ztkrh is just something I pulled out of my ass, how can there be any reasonable debate?"
Which is why the "debate" over religion is simply not reasonable.
"In other words, if the hypothesis is clearly unfounded from the get-go, how can it be disproved by any subsequent argument?"
Again, that doesn't stop us from following through the argument to its end.
well, i'll simply never be able to persuade the omnipotent new yorker. anyway, i read nothing of "if" and "then" in your setting up this thread.
Jesus role would have been different if we hadn't sinned. He would still be the mediator between God the Father and mankind, but his sacrificial love would have been different than the way things turned out. Any speculation of how things could have played out would be merely hypothetical and not concrete for it didn't play out that way.
He would not have been dieing for our sins if we had not have sinned. But he would have still sacrificially loved us even if it was not the same as death on a cross. He would still be way to God even if we accepted that right off the bat instead of rebelling and setting things on a different course than what could have been.
Had we not had that freedom to choose the wrong thing then we wouldn't have really had any real freedom to start with.
"well, i'll simply never be able to persuade the omnipotent new yorker."
I'm not a New Yorker, and you certainly can persuade me if you make arguments that are good.
"anyway, i read nothing of "if" and "then" in your setting up this thread."
Do I similarly have to preface every single argument about god with "If god exists?" It's all about context. Besides, it's your own fault for sloppy reading. I said quite clearly, "If Jesus...," "If god..." etc.
Karla,
"Jesus role would have been different if we hadn't sinned. He would still be the mediator between God the Father and mankind, but his sacrificial love would have been different than the way things turned out."
Nice contradictory statements there, but please make up your mind.
"Any speculation of how things could have played out would be merely hypothetical and not concrete for it didn't play out that way."
No one is doing that. What I'm doing is talking about the consequences of the Xian belief system.
"He would not have been dieing for our sins if we had not have sinned. But he would have still sacrificially loved us even if it was not the same as death on a cross. He would still be way to God even if we accepted that right off the bat instead of rebelling and setting things on a different course than what could have been."
If not dying for our sins, then what use would we have for him? Right here is where you lose the argument, because you are admitting that we are made inherently less than what god commands of us.
"Had we not had that freedom to choose the wrong thing then we wouldn't have really had any real freedom to start with."
Free will can not exist with an omni-max deity. Even if it did, Adam and Eve did not have a purely free choice in that they could not have known anything about the consequences. Further, god, knowing how it all would go down, allows it to happen anyway, thus allowing people to go to hell. god is certainly guilty of negligence at least.
"sloppy reading"? Youstate that "If Jesus was always destined to come, then humans were always in need of saving". So you said "if", how does that justify your illogical jump to "humans were always in need of saving"? Did you create some law that says Jesus couldn't come irrespective of any need for "saving"?
"Youstate that "If Jesus was always destined to come, then humans were always in need of saving"."
That is one of the if/then statements that you claim weren't there.
"So you said "if", how does that justify your illogical jump to "humans were always in need of saving"? Did you create some law that says Jesus couldn't come irrespective of any need for "saving"?"
The reason for Jesus to come is to "save" us so that we can go to heaven (salvation). It's a simple matter to realize that if god decided from the beginning that we need Jesus, then we were always in need of saving. This is pretty simple logic here, I don't know why you are resisting so much, except that the argument looks bad for god.
"If not dying for our sins, then what use would we have for him? Right here is where you lose the argument, because you are admitting that we are made inherently less than what god commands of us."
That's just it. We were made, created. God is uncreated. It would be impossible for someone created to be equal to someone uncreated. So even if we had never fallen morally we would still have relationship with God through Jesus. In the garden of Eden, God walked with Adam and Eve. That would have been Jesus who they had relationship with. Jesus is the exact representation of the Father. Jesus is eternally God just like the Father and just like the Holy Spirit so it would always be that we would know God through Jesus. However we had freedom to reject Him and we did and even still He came for us to lift us up to that place of reconcilliation and relationship with the Father once again.
BTW, Christianity is about far more than where we will live after death. It's about every moment of life. It's about living the way we were created to live. It's about loving the way we are created to love. It's about knowing God in an amazing relationship. Heaven is an eternal extension of that, but it's not what Christianity is about.
Karla,
"It would be impossible for someone created to be equal to someone uncreated."
I find it funny that an omni-max god is seemingly incapable of grasping that. But, hey, I'm glad that you're seeing my point. god is holding us to unfair standards that we can't possibly meet.
"So even if we had never fallen morally we would still have relationship with God through Jesus."
Hence we still need Jesus to "save" us. Hence, my argument stands. Thanks for playing.
"However we had freedom to reject Him and we did and even still He came for us to lift us up to that place of reconcilliation and relationship with the Father once again."
What freedom can there logically be with an omni-max god? Answer: there can't. Again, thanks for playing, but tough luck. Even if god did do the right thing and make up for his mistake of holding us to impossible standards, that doesn't make him good or right, because he put us in that position to begin with.
"BTW, Christianity is about far more than where we will live after death. It's about every moment of life."
Only because every moment in life has repercussions on what happens to you after you die.
"It's about living the way we were created to live."
As mindless automatons.
"It's about knowing God in an amazing relationship."
And being tortured if you don't know god.
"Heaven is an eternal extension of that, but it's not what Christianity is about."
No, actually it is, and it's a poor thing to shoot for. Your version of Xianity is self-defeating. See my post on the self-defeating nature of having heaven waiting for you.
I should have included a link, here it is.
Well no matter, jesus is a piece of fucking lying shit not worthy of passing out of an elephant's ass. Fuck you jesus.
Post a Comment