I'm sure you're familiar with the other theories of the atonement. Satisfaction and Penal Substitution are only two, closely related, versions explaining what Jesus may or may not have done. There are a few others, even within the Western traditions. For instance, the earliest view of salvation/atonement was the idea that God paid Satan in order to redeem humanity. The idea is that Satan had laid claim to human souls through our rebellion in the Garden of Eden and therefore God could not simply forgive sinners but had to purchase them back from their post-fallen ruler. Jesus is this payment. However, since Jesus was a perfectly sinless substitute, Satan could not hold him and he was thus freed.

My other favorite is the Cristus Victor theory which suggests that God in Jesus was challenging and transforming the evil powers of the world through his life and ministry. This doesn't have a payment or a satisfaction to make, but is more of an example by which God would win over the world to be more merciful and peaceful.

There are other examples, but this doesn't really get to the heart of your question which is about the nature of God based in a specific atonement theory. My point in bringing these up was to show that Christians do not agree on the life and meaning of Jesus, especially throughout history.

But, if God did need a perfect substitute in order to fulfill justice and assuage wrath, then He would be limited, but only by His nature. The Christians I know who hold to this position, and I used to be one of them, claim that nothing external to God has ultimate authority over God. This is what omnipotence means to them. So, if God were to be limited in needing a sacrifice from Jesus to fulfill the Adamic covenant, the covenant the Adam and Eve broke, then this theistic model would say that it is only God's nature that limits Him. Gos is simply appeasing Himself. It cannot be within God's nature to have an external authority.

I do not hold to this view as we see Jesus forgiving sins without a perfectly just payment all the time in the New Testament, not to mention that this God is entirely fearsome. I hold that God can indeed simply forgive people, but this is because God's nature allows it. Your question is a good one because it gets to the heart of who we think God is.

Isn't forgiveness a form of mercy?

, hello.

I am just thinking out loud here. First, as per Aquinas, logical contradictions are not part of the omnipotence of God. We would then need to define the terms "forgiveness" and "mercy". Can true forgiveness and mercy be unjust? If not, then this would not count against his omnipotence any more than not being able to turn good into evil or evil into good.

First, as per Aquinas, logical contradictions are not part of the omnipotence of God. — Samuel Lacrampe

Actually, the question of whether God is limited by the laws of logic is one of the major philosophical conflicts in medieval thought. The scholastics inclined to say that he was, but theological voluntarism such as that of the Franciscans believed this was an affront to divine power - also the same as Islamic philosophers. This is one of the major themes of a book called Theological Origins of Modernity, M A Gillespie.

, hello again.

You may be right about the historical facts - I don't know my history too well. But God cannot change the laws of logic. A conclusion is called "necessary" if it logically follows from the premises, and the alternative is illogical. Thus logic is the criteria to determine if a conclusion is necessary or merely contingent.

But to be able to determine necessity, the criteria itself must be necessary. If God could change the laws of logic, then logic itself would not be necessary, and consequently, nothing that falls under the criteria of logic would be necessary; which is absurd.

If God could change the laws of logic, then logic itself would not be necessary, and consequently, nothing that falls under the criteria of logic would be necessary; which is absurd. — Samuel Lacrampe

If you do read up on it, it's actually a pretty deep subject. It's not really about God subverting the laws of logic but more that logic itself is simply one of many consequences of God's omnipotent will. I think the idea is that on these grounds, mere logic, being of human devising, is utterly unable to comprehend the scope of the divine intelligence, and so has no right to declare that the divine will ought to be limited by logic. It is the stream of thought that is associated with something called 'theological voluntarism'. It is contrasted with scholasticism of Aquinas, for example, in that the Greek influence on Aquinas was such that he highly valued reason and rationality. But I think you can make the case that there's actually a deep conflict in Christianity itself, between the prophetic tradition of the Biblical texts, and the philosophical rationalism of the Greeks. You might sometimes encounter references to 'the God of the Philosophers' to distinguish those kinds of ideas from the pietism of the Biblical texts. 'The wisdom of God is folly to the wise', is a characteristic saying. 'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?' is another.

This is one of the themes of the book I mentioned in the post above. I found it a very important book in terms of history of ideas. Another well-known popular book which examines some of these ideas was Karen Armstrong's book, A History of God, which was a best-seller about 20 years ago.

You may be right about the historical facts - I don't know my history too well. But God cannot change the laws of logic. A conclusion is called "necessary" if it logically follows from the premises, and the alternative is illogical. Thus logic is the criteria to determine if a conclusion is necessary or merely contingent. — Samuel Lacrampe

Whys is it that God cannot change the laws of logic?

He/she/it must have changed the laws of logic in order for the Universe to come into being.

Furthermore objective reality (Trump, Hitler, Suffering, ecological demise etc) would suggest that God is a big fan of the illogical.

Existence, reality... both have not been proven to be reasonable or even in accordance with any particular logic as opposed to the logic of illogicity (whatever that is when its at home)

M

I think everyone is forgiven if they want forgiveness. I don't believe God punishes anyone. Suffering is a natural consequence of sin, not something inflicted by God.

I think the dispute lies in the true meaning of the word 'Logic'.

The laws of logic are not contingent laws like man-made laws or even the laws of physics, which are what they are but could have been different. Logic is an essential part of reality: not everything that is logical is real, but everything that is real is logical. I+I=II because you can see II in I+I (just remove the + sign). It does not "appear" from it, like an effect appears from its cause.

Being logical simply means making sense; and being illogical simply means not making sense. Reality cannot be illogical; only statements can. Saying "1+1=3" has no more sense than saying "there is a difference between a duck" or "shgknq".

Now if God is above the laws of logic, then "God can create the difference between a duck" and "God can shgknq". But, as per C.S. Lewis, a non-sensical statement does not turn into sense just because we put the words "God can" in front of it.

If you go back to Genesis, Adam and Eve eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of law. Law differentiates human behavior into two paths, a good path and a bad path. Implicit in law is reward and penalty attached to each respective option.

As the Genesis also shows, this tree was occupied by Satan; serpent. This symbols show that law uses Satan as an intermediary to God. Law can get corrupt, for example, in terms of enforcement. Or those in charge can make laws to benefit themselves and their donors.

In Revelations, which came after the time of Jesus, Satan is not thrown from heaven until the future; AD. This symbolism means Satan was in heaven, as the left hand of God, when law was in effect; Old dispensation. Jesus taught love, instead of law and was anticipating the future.

Jesus outsmarts Satan and the law via his death and rebirth symbolism. Once you die, the law no longer applies to you. If you had 10 death penalty sentences, due to crimes you committed, and you are kill on the electric chair, this single death purges all the others crimes, and law no longer applies to a dead man. So when Jesus comes back from the dead, he was technically free from law. He has already paid the ultimate penalty. This is what that symbols was about. Law was made void, as was the pact with Satan.

The future did not shift to the new way of love, but rather law continued; Old Testament. This stagnation was enforced by making laws that made it illegal to teach or practice the new way; Satan was among us as the symbolism goes.

The above post is more than philosophy, since law has an impact on how the brain works, which is not natural to the brain. When memory is created emotional tags are added to the memory, as it is written to the cerebral matter. Law is a unique form of memory in the sense it has two conflicting emotional tags; for good and evil. If you follow the law you feel calm, but if you break the law you feel fear.

The problem with this is the brain will not store a law memory, in one place, due to the two conflicting emotional tags. Instead law is a unique binarius memory, that is stored in two separate locations; layers, based on the two opposing emotional tags. If they were in one location, your memory of law would always be conflicted. Two locations makes each aspect more differentiated.

Since the ego can only focus on one at a time, if it tries to do good, the bad side of law is repressed and the side can become animated by the unconscious mind to help make it conscious. This is why prohibition creates temptation. If you try to follow the good side of law and repress the bad side, so you don't break the law, unconscious compulsion can still occur, as the bad side of law consolidates under the control of the unconscious mind. The preacher who teaches purity, tries to be and do good for his flock, but gets caught with prostitutes, due to the compulsions from dark side of repressed law.

As Paul said, I would not have know about coveting if the law did not tell me thou shall not covert. Law teaches us useful things, However, sin taking opportunity through the commandment, produces sin of all kinds. Law creates awareness, but it also creates the divided memory storage. If the dark half is repressed it can produce unconscious compulsive affects associated with the dark side. The anti-trump side believes they are doing good, but use methods normally associated with evil.

The Salem witch trials were based on laws. They thought they were doing good by being by the book. This seemed to justify their murderous compulsions that were evil. Jesus was aware of this mind and brain problem and overcame the law in his death and rebirth symbolism. If there was only love tags attached to all our memories; love your enemy, we are not internally divided. The mind is whole and there are no compulsions.

Religions limit God to a being that must provide an explanation to man in the form of writings. No one seems to believe a God would exist with a manual.

First things first: are you asking about the unknowable or your ideas of the unknowable that (you hope) render the unknowable knowable? Or do you start with the idea that God is knowable?

Second, and my point, is that you have to figure out if the god of your thinking is perfect or omnipotent. They're not the same thing and it makes a difference. As a corollary to this question, you have to try to face just what it means for a being to be perfect, or omnipotent. Work these through as propaedeutic to your questions, and you likely will either find your answers or a secure road to them.

The laws of logic are not contingent laws like man-made laws or even the laws of physics, which are what they are but could have been different. Logic is an essential part of reality: not everything that is logical is real, but everything that is real is logical. I+I=II because you can see II in I+I (just remove the + sign). It does not "appear" from it, like an effect appears from its cause. — Samuel Lacrampe

You're reifying logic. Logic is not part of "reality" it is a truth-preserving guide to reasoning. It "exists" only as abstractions exist - within the mind. Outside of the mind, there is no such thing as logic. Logic guides us to understanding the world based on limited "knowledge" (as a set of beliefs) about the world; it applies to propositions not directly to reality.

Hello.

If I understand you correctly, then I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. For when I say "everything that is real is logical", it is a way of saying, for my lack of better words, "logic is a truth-preserving guide to reasoning (about reality)". Logic/illogic indeed technically only applies to minds that can reason, and reasoning logically is the method to predict how reality behaves prior to observation.

you may have to be open to the possibility that what crhistians say may not be ..or may not be exactly as they describe it ..... you have to start with the admission that for humans to pretend to capture the depth of god into a book or set of rules and procedures is a bit telling that this may be more about ego than god ........

anytime you speak of god you are already limiting it into a finite concept ...the word god is already polluted because the majority of people upon hearing this word imagine a bearded paternal entity in the heavens ready to judge and then forgive ....... does that sound like god created man in his image ???? ........ or can you consider that it was man that created god in his .... the fact that god is male should already point out the obvious ....

as far as mercy vs forgiveness ..... perhaps I am not educated enough to distinguish the real difference .... but here is my opinion ....


mercy sounds like you are forgiving someone you should punish harshly ........

forgiveness is simply the act of not holding resentment towards "something or someone"


here is the part that most miss ...... forgiveness has nothing to do with the other person or situation , ...but instead it has everything to do with YOU and your ability or inability to let the memory go ......


here is the simplest example of forgiveness , .... I am am walking in a hospital hallway , and a child pushing her IV stand walks towards me and inadvertently bumps into me ... and hits my foot with the wheel ..... the child says " oh I am sorry " .... and my reply " it's ok " ..... if I truly forgive this moment I will simply not give it one thought ... it was a leaf blowing in the wind .... the moment is forgiven instantaneously and no resentment is built up .

it isn't an entity above you that does the forgiving .... it is you (not your name ) ..but the you that is the consciousness behind the mind , the one who can experience reality outside of time (time as referred to memories or projections) ..the one who is present ... that is what emerges when the layers of personality and egos are peeled and then forgiveness occurs and you "find god " if you want to use a common term for the event.

"If you go back to Genesis, Adam and Eve eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of law. "







have you ever considered that the tree of knowledge is a lot more symbolic than you may think , and it is possibly pointing to the human mind and the beginning of language and for all practical purposes deceit . It is very hard to lie if you communicate through actions and there is no language ..... the snake spoke ..... the snake ?? only one creature has the ability to speak , and that language does not come from the soul ...that is entirely a human construct

sinner when translated to its earliest roots simply means to miss the mark ..... to live outside of natural state ..... and when religion wants control they begin to use the word LAW ... which invokes fear if broken ........ but god is not fear ...it is love , so the interpretations by the bible in my opinion are corrupted and while they carry some truths ... they have been manipulated to serve man .... not god

Christians are limiting God by saying God can't simply forgive out of mercy, but he *needs/requires* punishment/justice to let go of the sinners. — Rd007

God already forgives out of mercy, because penalty for sin is death, non-existence, yet billions of sinners who sin every day are alive.

What you are asking when you talk about forgiveness is about God allowing sinners to have eternal life with Him, but that's more complex issue than simply only forgiveness.

Christians are limiting God by saying God can't simply forgive out of mercy, but he *needs/requires* punishment/justice to let go of the sinners.

I haven’t really thought about this issue too much before, but I’d imagine that this could have serious consequences for God’s abilities, powers, and aspects of his benevolent nature if true. If you believe that God demands justice and is truly fair, His mercy seems like it does not fit into the picture.

To put it in a logical and readable sequence, I have laid out what I think your argument might be below:
1. If God requires perfect justice, then it is necessary that sinners cannot be free without judgment
2. If it is necessary that sinners cannot escape judgment, then God cannot simply forgive these sinners only out of His free will (i.e. forgiveness through requiring the punishment of Jesus)
3. It follows that if God requires perfect justice, then God cannot forgive sinners out of His free will(1 and 2 HS )
4. God requires perfect justice
5. God cannot forgive sinners out of his free will(3 and 4 MP)
6. If God cannot forgive sinners out of free will, then He is limited in his abilities
7. Therefore, God is limited in his power to forgive out of His free will (5 and 6 MP)

I believe that there may be an issue with premise 2 and premise 6.
Against premise 2, I believe that God can offer mercy and justice simultaneously. The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is both justice and mercy at the same time. It still is full justice due to the price of sin being paid in full when Jesus was crucified. However, it is also merciful in the fact that those who sin are offered divine mercy. The sinners receive mercy while the guilt of sin is accounted for. It is the sin that God hates and seeks atonement for, but not the sinners in and of themselves.

Against premise 6, due to the nature that God is perfectly just, His inability to let those sins go unpaid for is not a limitation of God’s greatness or power. If God left sin go unpunished and unaccounted for, this would signal a fault in His system of justice. This limitation is not a weakness, but an absence of a weakness. Similarly, God cannot be evil or weak, but that does not speak against his greatness. A limitation of how weak God is only speaks to His strength.

Does Christianity limit God?

God is the unfortunate limitation to Christianity. Spinoza attempted the inverse in a Jewish context and encountered the usual consequence.

M

This 'God' talk is getting old really fast. We need to have conclusions or final statements in all the OPs which reference God.

My take on 'God' is that, He/She/It (next time I'll use They) is emergent in and incidental to our experiences. Our relative perception of an absolute reality creates a comprehensive (anthropomorphic) unity which is identified as God by some. That is, our awareness of reality as containing what we know and don't know has resulted in the response we categorize as belief. God, then, is the name of the configuration of that belief by some. Belief is a response to knowing. When we know something comprehensively, or when we are utterly ignorant, then expressing our beliefs is easy - we say, we know or don't know. However, when we know something that we don't know, that is, we have partial knowledge, then we attempt to use logic to fill in the gaps, usually with a great deal of symbolism (analogies), and that is where our language usually fails us.

We live in an age where religion is becoming increasingly irrelevant. We no longer need it to define our philosophy of reality, our ethics or our interactions whether familial, societal or cultural. The only true significance that religions offer, presently, is an opportunity to extract the last trickles of the wisdom contained within and communicated from former stages in human experiences. There has been a need for a change in perspective from the religious and metaphysical into the practical. Such shifts in perspectives are a necessary part in the progression of human knowledge. A quick example is the Biblical disparity between (or shift from) Moses' and/to Jesus' take on the same God and the same laws. To not change perspective is the true definition of being 'stuck' and being ignorant, which is why there is an increase in the need to 'see' beyond religions.

For me, forgiveness by God would be more significant if it could alter the principle of cause and effect; or if God could undo/alter any other fundamental principle of reality. That it doesn't happen (and can't) implies an underlying futility in maintaining an expired perspective. Define God anew or burst!

My conclusion is that, God is the construct which represents our (those who choose that identity) comprehensive understanding of and participation in reality; hence the reason for the constant anthropomorphism.