Dizerner
Active Member
Merely couching truths in a negative framework to make them look bad is not an argument, it is in fact a fallacy of smuggled presuppositions, assuming what you set out to prove.
For example, quite often with the belief that Jesus was punished for sins, we get the accusation of "cosmic child abuse."
But this assumes what the definition of abuse is must necessarily fit the thing described.
You will have to actualy prove this doctrine is something that could be described as fitting the definition of "abusive," not just assume and declare it so.
"Treat with cruelty, or improperly use something"—these ideas have moral properties of already presumed valid or virtuous motivations for suffering.
You will find this quite often when one Christian view wants to make another look bad without actually proving the point.
For example, Calvinists will say Arminian free will is "man-centered."
But the truth is, Arminian free will does not actually fit the definition of being completely centered around man—false presuppositions are just assumed to be true.
You will find this kind of language quite often with atheists, as well.
Here is a famous quote by Richard Dawkins:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Now I want you to think about this quote deeply—because it assumes a moral value system without previously establishing any reason for it. Take for example the word "capricious," which means "given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior." Now we know Scripture does not depict God just being completely random and unpredictable in this way, but rather having very set laws and principles for everything he does, and abiding by them.
So what is the implication being smuggled in here? The implication is that God's standards are capricious by my own personal standards of what I think he should do, even though objectively, they do not actually fit that definition.
Same thing with the word "petty" which just assumes God has minute value before even establishing it. And the rest of these can all be explained as misapplied or misunderstood in a similar manner, or for some, even a legitimate virtuous trait.
The above type of argumentation is far too often utilized against penal substitutionary atonement.
When you apply the exact same standard of logic back on their own position, and show how allowing Christ to suffer could also be considered abuse, they just shrug it off.
It's time to raise ourselves to higher standards of logical consistency.
For example, quite often with the belief that Jesus was punished for sins, we get the accusation of "cosmic child abuse."
But this assumes what the definition of abuse is must necessarily fit the thing described.
You will have to actualy prove this doctrine is something that could be described as fitting the definition of "abusive," not just assume and declare it so.
"Treat with cruelty, or improperly use something"—these ideas have moral properties of already presumed valid or virtuous motivations for suffering.
You will find this quite often when one Christian view wants to make another look bad without actually proving the point.
For example, Calvinists will say Arminian free will is "man-centered."
But the truth is, Arminian free will does not actually fit the definition of being completely centered around man—false presuppositions are just assumed to be true.
You will find this kind of language quite often with atheists, as well.
Here is a famous quote by Richard Dawkins:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Now I want you to think about this quote deeply—because it assumes a moral value system without previously establishing any reason for it. Take for example the word "capricious," which means "given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior." Now we know Scripture does not depict God just being completely random and unpredictable in this way, but rather having very set laws and principles for everything he does, and abiding by them.
So what is the implication being smuggled in here? The implication is that God's standards are capricious by my own personal standards of what I think he should do, even though objectively, they do not actually fit that definition.
Same thing with the word "petty" which just assumes God has minute value before even establishing it. And the rest of these can all be explained as misapplied or misunderstood in a similar manner, or for some, even a legitimate virtuous trait.
The above type of argumentation is far too often utilized against penal substitutionary atonement.
When you apply the exact same standard of logic back on their own position, and show how allowing Christ to suffer could also be considered abuse, they just shrug it off.
It's time to raise ourselves to higher standards of logical consistency.
in divine determinism and the same is true with PSA. Everyone outside of those beliefs see is clearly. As seth likes to says it’s the stronghold over those doctrines that makes one blind to the analogy that fits perfectly.
