The Impossible God

Just a few of the logical absurdities of the square triangular god of the incoherent christian bible.

Divine Impotence: forgiveness w/o blood?

P1: Jehovah demands that humans forgive each other without bloodshed.
P2: Jehovah would not demand something that is not possible.
P3: Forgiving without bloodshed is possible. (P1 & P2)
P4: Jehovah cannot forgive without bloodshed. (Hebrews 9:22)
P5: There is something possible that Jehovah cannot do. (P3 & P4)
CONCLUSION: Jehovah is not omnipotent.


The bible clearly states that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Why? And why can (and must) humans forgive without shedding blood? Absurd. Especially in the face of claims of Jehovah’s love for humankind.

Advertisements

Filed under: Divine Impotence, , ,

6 Responses

  1. matt says:

    P2: -> is referring to man [being able to forgive without bloodshed], not God.
    P3: -> I think our forgiveness of each other is based on God’s forgiveness of us. So I think our forgiveness of each other is going to ultimately be based on Jesus death.
    P4: -> I think a way to understand what it means that God can’t do something is: God doesn’t do things that are against his nature because he chooses not to – because it wouldn’t be right. When God “can’t” do something, it is because it is against his nature, and God is consistent in his nature.

    • Thanks for your focused comments, Matt. Your comments are indented below.

      P2: -> is referring to man [being able to forgive without bloodshed], not God.

      If you are arguing that forgiving without bloodshed is possible for humans but not possible for Jehovah, you’ll need to argue why.

      P3: -> I think our forgiveness of each other is based on God’s forgiveness of us. So I think our forgiveness of each other is going to ultimately be based on Jesus death.

      Do you then think that genuine forgivness from humans who have not received forgiveness from Jehovah is impossible? If we have freewill, what prevents us from forgiving others independent of what Jehovah does?

      P4: -> I think a way to understand what it means that God can’t do something is: God doesn’t do things that are against his nature because he chooses not to – because it wouldn’t be right. When God “can’t” do something, it is because it is against his nature, and God is consistent in his nature.

      The problem is that there is no logical reason why Jehovah cannot forgive without bloodshed. This is an arbitrarily appended part of Jehovah’s nature that is not necessarily so.

      However, let me accept your premise that the claim of omnipotence must take into account the nature of god. Based on this assumption, I’d like to propose the following argument.

      P1: God is omnipotent in respect to everything within his nature.
      P2: God’s nature is not determined logically, but by what God claims about his nature.
      P3: God claims his nature does not include forgiving without bloodshed.
      P4: Not being able to forgive without bloodshed does not diminish God’s omnipotence. (P1 – P3)
      P5: I am omnipotent in respect to everything within my nature.
      P6: My nature is not determined logically, but by what I claim about my nature.
      P7: I claim my nature does not include making donkeys talk.
      P8: Not being able to make donkeys talk does not diminish my omnipotence. (P5 – P7)
      CONCLUSION: Both God and I remain omnipotent consistent with our respective natures. (P4 & P8)

      Does the term “nature” have any real non-arbitrary meaning? Is it not tautologous to merely state “I can do anything I can do”?

      If you can give up the traditional christian claim that your god is omnipotent, you’ll have one less absurd claim to defend.

  2. Brandon says:

    Psalm 51:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

    Hey Phil, I think you made your mistake when you assumed that man can sin against each other. A man hasn’t sinned against another man when he has murdered/stolen/lied to him, rather he has sinned against God, and God alone. That is why God commands us to forgive, because if He forgives us who have sinned against him, how much more should we forgive others who we feel have wronged us, when we are just as guilty as they are for sinning against God.
    Matthew 18:23-33

    Hopefully this will clear things up,
    Brandon

    • It then appears that “sin” was just a word invented to stipulate an offense against God alone so that Christians could arbitrarily suggest this type of offense requires bloodshed while other offenses don’t. You’ll need to explain why an offense against God requires bloodshed. Some Christian suggest that an offense cannot go unpunished, but then you are back with no explanation why there is no bloodshed required for offenses against other humans. You can call offenses against God a “sin”, but the only thing different about the word “sin” in contrast to “offense” is that is is against God, and that distinction is the very distinction in question. The distinction is arbitrary since I could claim that offenses against me aone were “xoop” and claim they deserve eternal tickling.

  3. To forgive someone is different than to make a situation right.
    I can forgive someone who has stolen $5 from me, but that doesn’t mean I’ve gotten my $5 back. Likewise, it is entirely possible for Jehovah to forgive us without cleansing us. The process involving bloodshed is the process of making things right again. The process of returning to Love is the process of forgiveness.
    So, why couldn’t Jehovah just make everything right without bloodshed? Because death was the punishment for Sin, and He is a righteous, and logical, God, so he wouldn’t violate his own laws. Right?
    Could he have assigned a less severe punishment? Of course, but punishment should always be relevant to the offense. Yes, you could sentence someone to xoop for having killed a man, but that punishment doesn’t seem to fit the offense. To argue for a more agreeable payment for Sin is to argue that offending God is of less severity than death.
    “God, I know you’re upset, but you’re not really THAT upset with me. I mean, you may think you know how you feel, but…”

    *To be clear, bloodshed is not required for offenses between Men because we are not capable of making the situation right.

    • Tristan, you are going to have to choose one of 2 reasons for Jehovah’s eternal torture, instead of conflating them as you did in your comments above.

      1. Hell is a place where justice is administered, and in which the degree of sin is mapped to the appropriate degree of torture, rather than being a consequence of Jehovah’s emotions such as love after his forgiveness (as you suggest) or wrath over sin (as you also suggest). (If you choose this option, we’ll then discuss the biblical forgiveness found in Hebrews 9:22)

      2. Hell is a place where Jehovah’s wrath is eternally administered (even while his love, a consequence of his forgiveness, gloriously burns on) rather than a place of justice. (If you choose this option, we’ll then discuss the emotional incontinence of Jehovah, and why Jehovah’s wrath but not his love is reflected in his actions.)

      You’ll also want to clearly state why your god is impotent to pardon (as he commands humans to in the year of Jubilee) those he has forgiven. Simply replace “forgive(ness)” with “pardon” in the syllogism if you’d like to make this problem more salient.

      In spite of your heretical leanings, I’m confident I can provide an ad absurdum syllogism that accurately reflects your position.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Commenting Guidelines

Anyone may respond to the arguments with rigorous argumentation and evidence. No one may offer unfocused unsubstantiated affirmations of their beliefs. The assumptions in the posted arguments reflect mainstream Christian beliefs. If you have another view of the topic that you feel better reflects the mainstream position, provided that in the form of a syllogism.

Commenting Suggestions

1: Don't merely cite the Bible as proof that the absurdity stands. My simple citing of the affirmation of an alleged authority to substantiate my claim that I am in possession of a square triangle devalues the authority, highlights my credulity, and demonstrates a lack of commitment to rational thought.
2. Keep your comments condensed. Verbosity is not a virtue. Employ syllogisms if possible as these require rigorous definitions and argumentation.
3. Don't speculate on the character or motivation of the post's author. Address the argument.
4. Don't suggest that the christian concepts under-girding the premises are not common within Christianity.
5. Don't suggest that any particular argument on this site has already been given a rational answer at some point over the centuries without including that answer.
6. Keep your tone academic. This is not a site for preaching, rants or vitriol. The editors' responses will follow your tone.

Your Golden Square Triangle

This site does not waste time debating Christians over the logical possibility of miracles, the nature of the singularity, or the historicity of Jesus. If you argue that the square triangle in your pocket is made of gold, and produce genuine gold flakes as evidence, we still know with absolute certainty that you do not have a golden square triangle in your pocket.

If the biblical god is logically incoherent as this site argues, we can stop there. Enough of the silly games Christians play by diverting attention away from Jehovah's inherent absurdities and towards issues such as an incomplete evolutionary theory as if that will somehow redeem an incoherent Jehovah.

Top Posts

%d bloggers like this: