Great post by the way Terry. I think your right. It's almost like christianity is a license to do whatever and you can always come out on top with no repercussions or regard for the wronged party. Interesting thought though. In the eyes of god it appears as though all sins are equal . Romans says that the wages of sin is death. This means that Saddam Hussein and Hitler have equal opportunity with a man who litters by dropping a bubble gum wrapper on the floor. If however a person dies and the debt is paid why is there to be a resurection of judgement. I thought the sin was paid for. Besides that if sin is paid for with death, then why did Jesus have to die for us. It's all insanity.
WHY GOD CANNOT FORGIVE YOU
by Terry 53 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Quentin
When you leave the illusion of religion behind you realize you stand on your own two feet, being accountable for whatever you do...by accident, or design, you pay the price, not God...
TANSTAAFL...there aint no such thing as a free lunch....
-
Narkissos
I think this greatly oversimplifies both Judaism and Christianity -- ancient and modern --, resulting in a false dichotomy.
In the OT Yhwh's forgiveness (including for bloodguilt, cf. David and many Psalms, or the introduction of Isaiah, 1:16ff) is rarely if ever dependent on the individual victim's.
In the NT you also find the notion (albeit minoritary) that what men forgive is forgiven, and what they don't is not (e.g. John 20:23).
In addition it compares what is not really comparable imo, such as everyday civil justice (which much of the Torah is about) and the metaphysical salvation/perdition issue (which the NT is most concerned about).
-
Gordy
In Judaism; only the person you sin against can forgive you!
Then why did the Pharisses say to Jesus that only God can forgive sins?
-
Terry
Have you considered the possibility that you're hanging out with the wrong bunch of "Christians." I've been associated with a Christian church (which is associated with several others in the area) for seventeen years, and I've never heard anything like what you're going on about.
An odd response!
You base your reply not on knowledge per se, but; on the basis of your experience with a small number of people.
Indeed.
If you have never heard anything like what I posted would that indicate an absence of data necessary for a full disclosure of matters to be considered BEFORE you make a decision one way or another?
In Logic there is a fallacy called the Argument from Ignorance.
Argument from ignorance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search- This article covers both the 'Argument from ignorance' and the 'Argument from incredulity'.
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view (or alternately, regards their personal bias against the view) as constituting evidence or proof that another view is instead true. In reality this is not valid evidence or proof, as further described below. The types of fallacies discussed in this article should not be confused with the reductio ad absurdum method of argument, in which a valid logical contradiction of the form "A and not A" is used to disprove a premise.
Contents
[ hide ][edit] More
Commonly in an Argument from Personal Incredulity or Argument from Ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of her or his choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of opinion which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if "obvious" is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view).
[edit] Argument from ignorance
The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:
- Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently explained, so it was not (or could not be) true.
- Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case - it is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more.
[edit] Argument from personal incredulity
Two common versions of the argument from personal incredulity are:
- "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true" (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)
- "That's not what people say about this; people instead agree with what I am saying." (Here the person is asserting that a proposition must be inaccurate because the opinion of "people in general" is claimed to agree with the speaker's opinion, without offering specific evidence in support of the alternative view.) This is also called argumentum ad populum.
An argument from personal incredulity is the same as an argument from ignorance only if the person making the argument has solely their particular personal belief in the impossibility of the one scenario as "evidence" that the alternative scenario is true (i.e., the person lacks relevant evidence specifically for the alternative scenario).
Quite commonly, the argument from personal incredulity is used in combination with some evidence in an attempt to sway opinion towards a preferred conclusion. Here too, it is a logical fallacy to the degree that the personal incredulity is offered as further "evidence." In such an instance, the person making the argument has inserted a personal bias in an attempt to strengthen the argument for acceptance of her or his preferred conclusion.
- (Also see similar arguments: wisdom of repugnance and argument from emotion)
-
Terry
Terry....but.....but.....but what about the guilt offering and the sin offering that the priests made to god in behalf of all the people with the goat and the bull.....wasn't that an offering that covered sins that didn't require physical restitution??
Gumby......who just adores your boobs
Gumby the Boobermeister:
A "sin" had two layers in Israel.
Let us say you stole your neighbor's sheep. The neighbor makes a complaint to the the tribal leader and you confess your wrongdoing. Next you make restitution to your neighbor. THEN YOU MUST MAKE AMENDS WITH GOD by asking forgiveness for violating His commandments. THEN--the nation as a whole is not held accountable for having a rotten apple.
Daily sacrifices take care of the secondary sin offering to God by the sinner. On the day of Atonement the nation as a body must corporately be forgiven as well. The scapegoat sent off into the wilderness symbolizes this.
-
Terry
How about this:
God cannot forgive you for what God made you to be (or not be)?
The immediate and (threatened) subsequent punishments imposed upon ordinary "sin" are sociological constructs, perpetuated by religious and cultural traditions, and enforced by political engines, which merely serve to maintain the status quo of human communities.
As are also, the promises of compliance with those constructs, though not demonstrable.
Hypostasis.
Indeed.
The environment of "sin", "God", "forgiveness", etc. is an artificial enviornment which is much the blend of history, myth, legend and artfully doctored amending over a long stretch of time.
The Ten Commandments are pretty much split down the middle between offense to God on the one hand and offense to man (by man against man) on the other.
The trouble with all this is that currently in the world we address JUSTICE through the lens of having long regarded our law as the LEGACY of Judeo-Christian backgrounds.
I'm trying to point out what an unruly hybrid this is!
Judaism had to be practical because people were living close together in daily contact ethnically, nationally and religiously bonded by a common purpose. If the law did not solve daily problems and absolve the very practical nature of who is injured and who feels guilty it would have resulted in anarchy.
That the Jews survived as long as they did is a reflection of how well their sense of law, fairness, god, sin and forgiveness worked for them.
Yet, it was not perfect and did not entirely last.
Christianity, in my view, is NOT an improvement. It is a fantasy wholly impracticable.
Look at these tenets and ask yourself how practical they ever could be:
1.When somebody strikes you on the cheek; offer to let him strike you on the other cheek.
2.If somebody asks for your outer garment; give them your inner garment as well.
Stop!
Where does self-defense enter into #1?
How would you pay for the welfare state created by #2?
See? Impractical, untenable and wholly fantastic in the extreme as compared to Judaism.
-
Terry
In the NT you also find the notion (albeit minoritary) that what men forgive is forgiven, and what they don't is not (e.g. John 20:23).
The NEW TESTAMENT deals with Jews.
The principle you mention is Judaic.
What eventually transformed into "not_Judaic" is what we today finally call Christianity.
So....I don't really get your objection here.
-
Terry
In addition it compares what is not really comparable imo, such as everyday civil justice (which much of the Torah is about) and the metaphysical salvation/perdition issue (which the NT is most concerned about).
Well, with all due respect to you Narkissos, the NT is pretty much a dichotomy itself between three kinds of ethos:
1.Judaism
2.Neo-Platonic philosophy (from the likes of Paul)
3.A Hybrid religious/philosophy eventually called Christianity.
The struggle in Judaism at first was on a national/Messianic level.
When the temple was destroyed that pretty much was a non-issue.
What was left of Judaism after 66 C.E.?
Only this...some few people had the radical idea that the Messiah was not a national political leader, but; a rabbi who died and would return to create a new state of Israel.
Well, why not? What else did they have going?
At that stage the secondary struggle was between Messianic Jews who thought Jesus was their guy and neo-Judaizers who reinterpreted Jesus/Judaism through the lens of Platonic philosophy (Paul.)
This is, indeed, as you point out rightly, Narkissos, a false dichotomy. But, it was THEIRS!
-
Terry
Then why did the Pharisses say to Jesus that only God can forgive sins?In Judaism; only the person you sin against can forgive you!
Simple.
Jesus was dealing with a context specific situation and the Pharisees were addressing it in terms of who sinned, who was the injured party and who would rightly be in the correct position to forgive.
Let us look at the situation and the context.
1.It was believed that physical infirmity (deformity) was caused by either a man's sins or his parents' sins.
2. A crippled man was brought to Jesus for healing under this premise.
3.Jesus granted the man forgiveness for that particularity of view.
4.The Pharisees saw that context. It would only be God's authority to forgive an "inherited" sin. They corrected Jesus by this understanding.
5. Jesus demonstrated that he could also HEAL the infirmity indicating a greater source authority than the Pharisees themselves.
Note: I view this story (like so many other bible stories about Jesus) as quasi-folklore and merely teaching stories rather than actual incidents.
My Topic only relates to the superiority of Judaic justice vs Christian philosophy about justice and forgiveness.
I don't mean to enter a verse by verse rebuttal of New Testament Christianity as reported and transcribed century by century in layers of addenda and rethinking.