No sense, do you need me to explain the mechanics of words and how they are used? Are you unclear as to what the word vicarious means?

You've had me on ignore, good for you - then you're not qualified to comment about whether or not I'm mistaken on something, you don't even know what I'm talking about. Welcome to the discussion. You may not have been aware, but when I'm not cracking vulgar jokes......

(I want you to know that I had nothing to do with my having been removed from your ignore list, btw, I apologize for the inconvenience. Apparently it has something to do with the forums rules - understandable...but in this case regrettable, sincerely)

Yes sure. I pegged your comments in this thread as misunderstanding the concept. I'm very happy not to be subject to your usual denial of the truth. Carry on squaddie.

(September 21, 2014 at 6:53 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Your debt is paid because you want to receive it. Not because you're worthy. It's a reward that you aren't naturally capable of earning. You think that it's immoral to withhold something only justly received. A contradiction in terms.

It's immoral to offer redemption for guilt when you simultaneously make it clear that the person is not deserving of that redemption. By definition, that means they are being absolved of crimes they ought not have been. The contradiction is yours.

Haha nice spin attempt esq.

To get away with that nonsense you'd have to think that humans were capable of perfection. A nice delusion if you can get it, and I'm very happy for you.

So... back in the real world, for anyone wishing to consider it with me, your imperfection is natural. You may be elevated to live guilt free, even with your innate imperfections.

One needn't be perfect to avoid guilt for any given crime, or deserve redemption for the same. I'm not perfect, and yet I am not a rapist. If I forced myself on some poor girl I would be - but I could do my best to make amends and possible, someday, deserve redemption on that count - all the while having never achieved perfection.

What doesn't work - is if someone else does all that atoning -for me- or if I am incapable of achieving it, and yet it is granted.

Vicarious redemption.

Yes, and...?

(September 21, 2014 at 7:09 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Haha nice spin attempt esq.

To get away with that nonsense you'd have to think that humans were capable of perfection. A nice delusion if you can get it, and I'm very happy for you.

So... back in the real world, for anyone wishing to consider it with me, your imperfection is natural. You may be elevated to live guilt free, even with your innate imperfections.

Oh, so this is really a matter of the ludicrous, immoral standard that you've accepted, and has nothing to do with guilt. Because, in the actual real world, "imperfect," is not a synonym for "criminal." You can be imperfect while committing nothing worthy of guilt. If your god demands perfection and considers the possession of flaws to be a crime worthy of any sort of punishment inherently, then the issue here is with the byzantine and unreasonable rules he plays by, and not the moral content of the people he judges.

That's one option, and from the look of things it's what you've chosen, if you're willing to approach imperfection as something worthy of damnation inherently. But if you do, you're still in a situation where you consider humans unworthy of salvation from hell, yet still able to retain it. The actual content of human character is not germane at all, whether they can be perfect or not is merely a dodge; if you think humans are guilty and deserving of punishment, then by definition any method by which they can escape the punishment that you just got through saying they deserve is unjust.

It's pretty simple: person X is guilty of crime Y, and thus deserves to be punished for his actions. Person X can be absolved of crime Y without any cost or punishment to himself via application of sacrifice Z. But within the bounds of christian theology person X is still a guilty sinner, being absolved through an act of mercy; they are being let off the hook in spite of deserving punishment.

At that point, you're stuck: you either believe that person X got away with his crimes, or you believe that the crimes weren't worth being punished over in the first place. Immorality or exaggeration, those are really the only paths available there.

(September 21, 2014 at 7:09 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So... back in the real world, for anyone wishing to consider it with me, your imperfection is natural. You may be elevated to live guilt free, even with your innate imperfections.

So speaking of the "real" world, how much "imperfection" would you accept from your child if you were a father before you would torture them forever in a lake of fire?

{*Without having to shed the blood of someone else..}

Esq: you seen to be repeating yourself, so I won't be following.

Bm: as the ideal father, God forgives everything in enabling the child to choose what's unquestionably best for itself. You, the child, are free to choose to self harm all you like. Your dad will be there waiting for you when you come to your senses. What your dad won't do, is reward you for hurting yourself.

(September 21, 2014 at 10:00 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Esq: you seen to be repeating yourself, so I won't be following.

Bm: as the ideal father, God forgives everything in enabling the child to choose what's unquestionably best for itself. You, the child, are free to choose to self harm all you like. Your dad will be there waiting for you when you come to your senses. What your dad won't do, is reward you for hurting yourself.

Sin isn't about alleged self harm. It's about offending the dignity of God -- the allegedly all-powerful and wise being that can somehow be hurt by imperfect mortals. Yahweh: where majesty and pettiness intersect in the minds of believers.