- The biblical notion of redemption is logically absurd.
Participants:
- Pro: Phil (written format)
- Con: Vekl (Jay Atkins)
Structure:
- 1/6 | Phil | Pro | 1,000 words » (Posted May 16, 2011)
- 2/6 | Vekl | Con | 1,000 words » (Posted May 22 2011)
- 3/6 | Phil | Pro | 500 words
- 4/6 | Vekl | Con | 500 words
- 5/6 | Phil | Pro | 200 words
- 6/6 | Vekl | Con | 200 words
Rules:
- No personal attacks.
Notes:
- Comments will be allowed only after the debate has been completed.
- Identifying tags for propositions and sections will not be included in the word counts.
1/6 | Phil | Pro | 1,000 words
The absurdity of unavoidable culpability
A1: The degree of culpability for an action is limited to the degree that the agent can avoid the action.
A2: The degree that an agent can avoid an action is determined by the degree that the class to which the agent belongs (in this case human) has avoided or will avoid the action.
A3: The bible says no human has avoided or will avoid sinning.
A4: There is no degree of culpability for sinning humans. (A1, A2 & A3)
A5: Biblical redemption logically requires that there be culpability for sinning.
Conclusion A: Biblical redemption is logically absurd. (A4 & A5)
Section A-1: If a dog owner hates barking and deems barking worthy of the eternal torture of the dog, this is absurd. Why? A normal dog cannot avoid barking as determined by an assessment of all dogs. Also note…
- Simply saying the dog has a free will does not make it so. What does it mean for dogs to have free will not to bark when there is no available case of a dog not barking? The billions to zero failure rate makes the absence of free will clear.
- The fact that the owner does not bark does not make make the eternal torture of the barking dog necessary. Jehovah’s righteous nature does not demand that he torture humans for their unrighteous nature as is often absurdly claimed. If the allegedly righteous Jesus would have married and have had a son, he would not have been forced by his righteousness to eternally torture his unrighteous son.
Section A-2: Nearly every human court of law attempts to assign only a degree of culpability commensurate to the degree of free will. Those courts that do not are deservingly reviled as unjust. The degree of free will is not merely asserted in human courts, but is determined by assessing the rate of successes against failures for the action in question. We don’t hold humans culpable for sneezing (even though sneezes often annoy others) due to its largely involuntary nature determined by a inductive assessment. American courts attempt to categorize killing into degrees of murder or manslaughter in ways that map to the degree of free will of the killer. A child of 4 who jealously strikes another child is not hauled off to jail, much less eternally tortured. The bible, in contrast, declares that any child who has committed any transgression is deserving of the flames of Hell, yet also states that the child can not avoid transgressing. To say there is culpability here is absurd. Culpability requires the ability to avoid the action. According to the bible, we have received an unrequested, undesired and unavoidable sin nature. There is no culpability available here.
If even a small percentage of humans did live their lives without sin, then there would be reason to assign a corresponding small degree of culpability. The bible shoots itself in the spine of logical coherence when it claims all have sinned consistent with an unrequested, undesired and unavoidable sin nature, then claims there was free will available to the sinner.
Section A-3: If you create a billion creatures with free will to choose either a black or white poodle, and all of them choose a black poodle, would you not suspect that it was a hidden variable in your own creation blueprint that made this unavoidable rather than the improbable accident of a billion free minds all choosing a black poodle?
The absurdity of a righteous torturer
B1: The more righteous a being is, the more that being can simply forgive without torturing the bearer of transgressions.
B2: The biblical god can never simply forgive without torturing the bearer of transgressions.
B3: The biblical god is not righteous. (B1 & B2)
B4: Biblical redemption from unrighteousness by an unrighteous biblical god is logically absurd.
Conclusion B: Biblical redemption is logically absurd. (B3 & B4)
Section B-1: If you had the degree of righteousness and love that the bible says god has, would you be more or less inclined to torture those who offended you?
The bible perverts the notion of righteousness by redefining it as something nearly the inverse; the loss of patience over a single transgression to the degree that nothing will appease you except eternal torture.
If you owned dogs (having a “bark” nature) you loved dearly, would you (not having a “bark” nature) deem their barking so offensive that you could do nothing less than eternally torture them upon their first bark? Would the fact that you had never barked yourself make any difference?
Section B-2: You are currently (presumably) able to simply forgive others without torturing them. Would you feel more sadistic the more righteous you become? Theists can cite no logical reason why you or any god would.
The absurdity of the redemptive trade
C1: The actual price the unredeemed pay for a single sin is infinite torture.
C2: The redemptive price Jesus paid for sin was a finite 3 days of torture.
C3: Jesus’ torture was demonstrably not infinite since 4 days would have been greater torture than 3 days.
C4: The redemptive price Jesus paid for all sins of all sinners was finite and far below the actual infinite price. (C1, C2, & C3)
C5: Paying a finite redemptive price far below the actual infinite price is logically absurd.
Conclusion C: Biblical redemption (Jesus’ 3-day torture) is logically absurd. (C4 & C5)
Section C-1: Some christians claim that the eternal torture is incidental, and that the actual penalty is separation from the biblical god. This is absurd as 1) no just god would allow suffering beyond what has been deemed “deserved”, and 2) an omnipotent god could easily eliminate the pain once it was equivalent to the degree of Jesus’ finite “substitutionary” pain.
Section C-2: Consider the inverse perspective. If Jesus’ “redemptive” 3 days of torture was the actual price for sin, a sinner spending more than 3 days in Hell is mathematically absurd.
Summary
Each of the 3 arguments above independently demonstrates the logical absurdity of the biblical notion of redemption. Only those who have willfully abandoned logic can maintain belief in this incoherent myth.
2/6 | Vekl | Con | 1,000 words
“An Absurd Redemption” is the title of this debate given by none other than my opponent, philstilwell.#1 It should be probably made aware first and foremost that this will not be your average ‘does God exist’ or ‘did Christianity borrow from other religions’ type of debate.#2 But rather we are debating on whether or not the doctrine of redemption, (as it’s pronounced in the Bible) is an absurdity.#3
Now as with any debate, it’s safe to presume that both debaters will first and foremost seek not to make any logical or academic errors during the debate.#4 And I by no means am here to claim that I will have mastered something that several others before me, in more formal debates have been able to master.#5 Neither do I wish to start this debate off with an immediate attack of my opponents position, but I think I can say bluntly and boldly that given the arbitrary connation that’s applied to just the title of this debate itself, one cannot help but to immediately presume that my opponents’ position regarding this matter will do nothing more but denote subjectivism, and will not at all by any means, aid him in providing us anything ontological or objective regarding his position.#6
Now, that’s not an attack on my opponent’s character or his ability to debate, but I think I can honestly state, (especially after receiving his opening statement), that though you may get from him perhaps some honest attempts to observe my position, I predict that you will also receive from him more slight distortion of what we as Christians believe and what the bible teaches, and you may also bear witness to some appeal to emotionalism.#7
And this is the common attitude you get from people who I believe do not fully understand what biblical redemption is as it’s explained in the Bible.#8 There’s nothing wrong with opinions.#9 No one is against that.#10 But dogmatic statements of any sort, immediately places the onus on the individual making the claim, to properly validate it apart from any form of subjective inference.#11 And I submit to you that it cannot be logically or rationally done simply through any form of simple subjectivism.#12 In order for anyone to prove that biblical redemption is absurd, they would first be required to provide information from an autonomous and palpable authority of some sort to compare it to, before their argument can even be considered logically valid, and then they would also need to be apt to explain what exactly their opposition believes.#13
Why is biblical redemption absurd?#14 By what or whose authority is my opponent (or anyone for that matter) able to make such an arbitrary claim? Is it because my opponent ‘doesn’t like it’?#15 Is it because my opponent doesn’t understand it?#16 Well, if that’s the case; who cares?#17 His opinion is only his opinion, and it has no bearing over truth.#18 I can just as easily make arbitrary statements all day and write a three thousand word essay, or make a six part video series on Youtube about how all atheists are stupid and boring.#19 Now, have I met some stupid and boring atheists in my life?#20 I most certainly have, but I would never assert in a generalized or arbitrary fashion and make that the case for all atheists.#21 My opinion and/or lack of understanding and knowledge, does not dictate or negate whether or not something is actually true.#22 The same goes for my opponent regarding his opinion on biblical redemption.#23
Why did God make salvation to be attained through the death of His only Son?#24 Was God under some cosmic obligation where He had no other choice but to make salvation attainable through the sacrifice of His Son?#25 No, He was not.#26 Well, if that’s the case, if God is sovereign and all powerful, couldn’t He have made salvation attainable in a less painful manner?#27 Couldn’t He have decreed that all we have to do was click our heels three times and say; ‘there’s no god like God’?#28 Of course He could’ve.#29 In my opinion, the reason He chose redemption to be attained through the sacrifice of His Son, can be explained in a real simple fashion.#30 Because He wanted to.#31
Now, allow me to elaborate.#32 I believe God chose salvation to be attainable in that way, in order to show the utter seriousness of sin, to show the utter holiness of His nature, and to show the utter greatness of His grace and mercy upon those in whom He has mercifully chosen.#33 Since God is sovereign over all things, then that means that He was not obligated to make salvation to be available that way, but that He CHOSE salvation to be made available in that way.#34
Now you can call that the greatest act of love towards anyone that you’ve ever heard, or you can consider it the most absolute “absurd” thing you’ve ever heard.#35 And from this point on, my opponent and I can have our back-and-forth’s with each other sharing our subjective position against one another, saying ‘well my philosophy is better than yours!#36 Nah-na-booboo!’#37 Either way, it still doesn’t matter because the fact still remains; the opinion of whether or not redemption from the biblical sense is absurd, (which clearly is only a subjective connotation) does not have ANY bearing at all over whether or not it is indeed true.#38 Again, we are not here to debate the existence of God, or the origin or morality.#39 Neither are we here to debate whether or not people like or understand biblical redemption.#40 That would be a waste of both our time and your time.#41 But rather we are here to debate whether or not it’s true.#42 In fact, I would add that the arbitrary assertion that biblical redemption is absurd, is indeed in and of itself a logical absurdity.#43
3/6 | Phil | Pro | 500 words
The proposition being debated is “The biblical notion of redemption is logically absurd.“
I’ve offered 3 objective arguments in 1/6 above demonstrating the truth of this proposition.
Vekl completely ignored these objective arguments, choosing rather to suggest that my subjective interests somehow invalidate the objective arguments.
A lesson in the distinction between subjectivity/objectivity is unfortunately necessary here.
Let’s begin. Imagine the following argument between young boys.
V: I’m 12.
P: No you’re not. When were you born?
V: In 2002.
P: Then since this is 2011, you can’t be older than 10.
V: You’re claim is entirely subjective(#6) since you don’t want me to be older than you.
P: That has nothing to do with it. Look at this Argument X.X1: Anyone born in 2002 cannot be older than 10 in 2011.
X2: You were born in 2002.
Conclusion X: Therefore, you cannot be older than 10.V: But you subjectively(#6) want to be older than me.
P: Sure. But that certainly does not invalidate my objective argument.
V: But you’re being emotional(#7).
P: So what? My argument is objective.
V: You’ve distorted my position(#7).
P: Point out where. Is it X1 or X2 you don’t actually believe?
V: But you’re being dogmatic(#11).
P: Are assumptions X1 and X2 mine or yours? They are yours. I don’t need to actually believe X1 or X2 to show you are irrational. If you hold X1 and X2, yet don’t hold Conclusion X, then you are irrational, regardless of my own epistemic relation to the assumptions. This is not dogmatism; it is logic.
V: But that is just your opinion(#18|#23).
P: You don’t get it! Argument X is an objective argument. If you hold X1 and X2, yet don’t believe Conclusion X, you are irrational!
V: You’re being subjectively emotional again(#16|#36|#38) making your argument invalid.
P: (sigh)
V: Besides, I’m 12 because my father wants me to be 12, and therefore I am 12(#31|#34).
P: I feel bad for your father, but he is not above objective logic.
V: Yes he is.
P: Then you’ve abandoned objective logic in lieu of blind faith in your father; cute when you’re young but pathetic once you’ve reached puberty.
V: Your arbitrary Argument X is itself a logical absurdity(#43).
P: (sigh) If you can demonstrate that, then get on with it. But enough of your claim that my subjective intent invalidates my objective argument.
If Vekl wants to address my 3 objective arguments in 1/6 and demonstrate that they are invalid or unsound, he’d better do so quickly within his remaining 700 words. Hitherto he has done nothing more than talk irrelevant fluff.
He has his work cut out for him. He must logically dismantle each of my 3 objective arguments before biblical redemption can be redeemed from its current status of complete logical absurdity.
He won’t. Not for a lack of irrelevant arguments based on a misunderstanding of the subjective/objective distinction; but rather because he is on the wrong side of truth.
4/6 | Vekl | Con | 500 words
Let me first state that with the short amount of time we have been allotted in this debate, I predict that the audience will be in for a disappointment.#44 They will not get all the answers they deserve, and since that is the case, I would suggest that they can contact me personally if they have any other questions or want to personally continue this debate with me.#45 I am well aware and prepared to answer any questions regarding this issue, but again, this short amount of time will not give what should be a thorough answer from either side.#46
I think that I can be speak boldly on behalf of the Christian audience that has read my opponents’ transcript that my opponent, philstilwell, has made it blatantly clear that he does not understand the God of the bible, or His attributes.#47 Neither does he understand what the Gospel is.#48
The god that my opponent is referring to is not the God of the Christian.#49 The God of the bible does not create sinners just so that He can later on capriciously send them to hell for it.#50 All throughout scripture we see many examples of God bringing punishment to Israel and to other individuals BECAUSE of their CONTINUOUS transgression against God, even after being warned several times through the prophets sent by God.#51
Even some that hold to the doctrine commonly called ‘double predestination’, realize that those that are destined for hell, would have gone by way of their own merit.#52 The book of Romans in chapter 1 tells us about people called ‘reprobates’.#53 These are people that have been warned time and time again about the consequences of their sin, and then one day God turned them over to their lust.#54
Neither does God give the same type of punishment for all sinners.#55 We see in the book of Revelation that God has appointed to all people (both saved and unsaved) rewards according to their works.#56 All those going to heaven will receive rewards according to what they did on earth, and for those who will go to hell will likewise receive rewards according to what they did on earth.#57
Now from here on, my opponent can easily say; ‘that’s absurd’.#58 But then I can easily respond and say; ‘no. It’s not absurd’, and then we can end the discussion right there and everybody can go home.#59 But that’s not how you properly execute a debate in an academic fashion, now is it?#60 I would suggest that since my opponent has no ultimate authority to give an account for, then he cannot give us a substantial and reliable explanation as to WHY something or anything is morally absurd.#61 In order for my opponent to get the response that he desires from any Christian regarding this issue, then he’s gonna have to first define the origin of morality in order for him to determine dogmatically whether or not redemption is absurd.#62
5/6 | Phil | Pro | 200 words
Nowhere within his 1,500 words above did Vekl even once index a single proposition within the 3 arguments presented in 1/6, much less demonstrated any of them unsound, even while baldly asserting time and again I have misrepresented the gospel. Instead he props up his own strawmen(#49|#50|#51|#52|#53|#54|#55|#56|#57) to proudly knock them down a very safe distance from my actual arguments(A-C).
This is like a boy boasting he has a golden square triangle in his pocket, and when called on the logical absurdity inherent to a square triangle, merely claims we have not proven it isn’t golden.
Not only has he demonstrated that he has not the foggiest idea what the objective/subjective distinction is(#12|#18|#38), he equivocates on the “logically absurd” found within the very proposition of the debate and attempts to sneak one by us by converting it into “moral absurdity” as if we didn’t know the difference(#58|#59|#61).
Vekl ought not feel too bad. My 3 arguments demonstrating the logical absurdity of redemption have been merely skirted by not just a few alleged apologists. These logical arguments stand intact while Vekl attacks an imagined “moral” goblin(#58|#59|#61). Any readers who will address my actual arguments are very welcomed to do so below.
6/6 | Vekl | Con | 200 words
Well, as I predicted ladies and gentlemen, because of lack of time, you’ve received nothing but a complete disappointment from the both of us, and I’ll give you my personal reason for that.#63 Logic shows that conjecture does not dictate nor negate truth.#64 Yet philstilwell’s assertion of redemption being “logically absurd” only proved one single thing in this entire debate; that it’s his prerogative to claim that redemption is absurd#65, and that it’s not fair for God to punish someone eternally for being something He created them to be#66, but at the same time philstilwell has not provided any scriptural or contextual evidence from the bible itself to support this assertion.#67 Neither did he give a logical CONSEQUENTIAL reason as to WHY anything is logically absurd in the first place.#68
So, is something absurd because philstilwell says it’s absurd, or is it absurd because some autonomous and sovereign entity says so?#69 My challenge to him is simply this; what his ultimate authority in this case?#70 If conjecture is indeed ALL that he has to offer in ANY debate, then we cannot assert that a legitimate response was provided.#71 And again, ladies and gentlemen…..that’s not a real argument.#72
8 Responses to “Debate: Jay Atkins’ Absurd Redemption”
Leave a Reply
Well, either Vekl is embarrassingly ignorant about what logic is, or he is mendaciously equivocating between my “logically absurd” and his “morally absurd”, or just plain “absurd”.
“Both A and not A” is logically absurd.
You’ll find all my 3 arguments expose this category of logical absurdity in the bible’s account of redemption.
Events such as “18-year-old Julie married 84-year-old Tom” are often tagged “absurd”. But not logically absurd.
Why anyone would confuse these 2 very different types of absurdity, especially when “logically absurd” is stated explicitly in the very proposition of the debate, is beyond me. Is it ignorance or mendacity?
A square triangle cannot exist since the definition of a square is that it has only 4 sides while the definition of a triangle is that it has only 3 sides. Where you have “3 sides” and “not 3 sides” held by the same mind, there you have a logical absurdity. You don’t need to consult a “sovereign entity” about this as Vekl hilariously suggests. Neither is it “conjecture”.
The only conjecture I made was in the proposition “The biblical notion of redemption is logically absurd.” I then demonstrated the truth of this with logically rigorous syllogisms that pass the logical mustard in every respect.
Vekl is also confused in his suggestion that I need to cite scripture to substantiate my premises. As long as he himself mentally holds the premises as true, then he is holding a logically absurd position.
I conveniently tagged each premise. All he had to do was demonstrate that he did not hold at least one premise in each of the 3 syllogisms to deflect my claim of logical absurdity.
He didn’t; in spite of having more than ample time to do so.
My 3 arguments stand.
Vekl seems to now question whether anything can be logically absurd. This is the only remaining refuge for him. Yet, in the above debate, he employs logic, presumably in a way he imagines is not illogical. His own acceptance of the possibility of logical absurdity is sufficient as a foundation for my logical argumentation demonstrating that redemption is logically absurd. I need not defend something he already accepts.
So we have Vekl, presumably having read my rigorous logical syllogisms, claiming I’ve offered nothing but conjecture. What are we to say of him? Is he merely ignorant or actually mendacious?
Given his previous fumbling of the subjective/objective distinction, I’m tempted to tag it mere ignorance. But should it persist in the light of my corrections, I would have to tag him as one intentionally attempting to distort truth.
Here are some follow-up questions for Vekl.
-philstilwell
Vekl has just made the following statement in the comments section of his 2/6 video.
I’ll now unequivocally call him dishonest.
He fully agreed to the debate parameters, and he did not even touch a single premises within my arguments.
He is now also suggesting he will “probably” take down his videos, after acting surprised prior to our debate when I told him a previous debate opponent had deleted their side of the debate.
-phil
I came here after looking at the YouTube videos of vekl’s “responses” to the debate. As a Bible-believing Christian (who has also debated with vekl in the past on what amounts to the validity of Calvinism), I must admit that I’m slightly embarrassed at his poor showing for “our” side. I also must admit that I’m not surprised that he wasn’t able to formulate any logical responses based on my past experience with him, though I am a little surprised that he didn’t even try.
As for your three arguments, I do believe there are logical responses that uphold the logical consistency of Biblical redemption, even if they don’t result in your being convinced they’re true (but you seem to be able to differentiate between “logically valid”, and “compellingly true”, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt).
Thanks for your comments, Gwposey.
Within the next couple of days I’ll be leaving my response to your comments embedded in your comments below.
After you respond and I have a firm understanding of your position, I’d like to debate you on your own position.
I’ll be happy to reply to any responses that are genuinely (or at least seem to be) seeking clarity, and I would expect that what I’ve already written provides a pretty firm and comprehensive view of my position.
But as for “I’d like to debate you on your own position”, I’m not really interested in “debate for the sake of debate”. I just saw what was an interesting title of a video on YouTube, saw that the Christian position was WOEFULLY undefended, and decided (hopefully in a manner that pleases God) to provide a legitimate response to what seemed to be legitimate (though not completely accurate) questions/doubts about the “internal logic consistency” of the Biblical plan of redemption (if that’s a fair characterization of your proposition).
There was a time not long ago (and may yet be again) when debate over these things was something that I found to be “entertaining”, for lack of a better word. I would get excited, not so much about “defending the truth” as much as “matching wits” with a “worthy opponent”.
At this point, I reiterate, it’s not something I’m all that interested in anymore. Opportunities to answer honest, genuine questions about Christianity from those who seek honest, genuine answers (as opposed to those who already have it all figured out, and are just out to prove Christianity wrong) is something I believe all of us who are equipped have been mandated to seize. Even (to an extent) public defenses of the faith are legitimate and appropriate. But the verbal auto-eroticism that so often is the only thing happening in these online “debates” just isn’t something I really have the time for at this point (and don’t take this as condescension, because I can very well see myself diving into this kind of thing with eager enthusiasm months from now, so it’s hardly like it’s “beneath me” or anything like that).
So, with respect to your arguments of “absurdity”. Starting with “The absurdity of unavoidable culpability” – I would assume that you’re familiar with Christian cosmology in that God created the Earth (just to keep the argument local) and created the 1st man Adam with full dominion over the world he was given.
That 1st man (and his wife) were truly free and capable of choosing to obey God or disobey Him (with the one admonition against eating from one particular tree). By his (Adam’s) act of freely choosing to side with Satan (and we can go into a number of details of this – even committing the same offense “wanting to BE God” as Lucifer did previously) over his creator – the verdict of eternal death (which Adam was forewarned of in Genesis 2:17) was passed. Not only was Adam made subject to this verdict, but the “dominion” of the world was passed from Adam to the current “god of this world” Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4), resulting in not only a fallen mankind, but also a fallen world.
Now, fair or not (by your estimation) – permit me to quote a little bit of Bible here, from Romans 5 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon ALL men, for that all have sinned… death reigned from Adam to Moses, EVEN OVER THEM THAT HAD NOT SINNED AFTER THE SIMILITUDE OF ADAM’S TRANSGRESSION… “.
So we have, however distasteful it may be, an inherited problem. Now if Bill Gates’ son inherits his billions – that may not be “fair” to the rest of the world, but it’s surely not a “logical absurdity”. In similar fashion, we’ve all inherited the repercussions of Adam’s disobedience (evidently an EXTREMELY grave matter to the only judge that has the ultimate jurisdiction to determine penalty).
And if that’s where we were left off, then what a sad state to be in (akin to when chattel slavery was legal in the USA – if you were born to an enslaved person, then you were also a slave, and property of the one who owned your parent(s), however “bad”, “distasteful”, “unfair” it might all seem, it’s no logical absurdity the the “chain of custody” would proceed in such a fashion).
But, continuing in Romans 5 – God has made available a method to “pay for the debt”, if you will. In fact, He has chosen to pay the debt Himself, and offering the “redemption coupon” (admit one to heaven) to all who will humbly accept their incapability of self-redemption, and need for a Savior, “But not as the offense, so also the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many… For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offense of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous”
So while one may not “like” the inheritance of such a “mess” being borne by everyone who lives (heck, I don’t “like” being saddled with trillions of dollars of debt due to the economic practices of the US government, but “dislike” doesn’t just make it all go away) – I can’t claim that there hasn’t been a plan/program of “debt cancellation” made available to me (of course assuming I buy into this whole explanation of “the way things are”, which I happen to do so), and for that I’m grateful.
So I believe that does address your “absurdity of unavoidable culpability” argument (agree or disagree, it’s not illogical), but if you believe it doesn’t, then I’ll be happy to address specific points of rebuttal.
Now on to your argument “The absurdity of a righteous torturer”. I’m not sure where you’re getting the basis of a part of your B2 (God can never simply forgive without torturing the bearer of transgressions).
To step back a bit, your B1 argument does seem to amount to a simple “I don’t like it” premise. If God has set up the universal laws to require “justice” be served, then “simply forgiving” without there being a “bearer of transgressions” isn’t what He allows. I don’t see how that has any effect on His righteousness (in fact, how “right” would it be to claim to be “just” and yet have zero consequences for wrong action?).
Now to be fair you wrote “without TORTURING the bearer of transgressions”. So am I to understand that the existence of a “bearer of transgressions” being necessary does NOT violate your estimation of the Biblical God’s righteousness? If so, then we can focus on the torture part (and since “righteous torturer” is in the “title” of this argument, I’ll assume I’m safe to proceed on that particular nuance).
Something that vekl wrote (or said, I forget immediately) about God allowing the torture/abuse/excruciating death of Jesus (if this is what you mean by torture, though based on your 3rd argument, I wonder) to impress on us the seriousness of sin – seems to ring true to me. Along the lines of those who ask “what’s the harm in telling a little white lie”, when the entire basis for genuine dialogue/agreement/commerce is destroyed due to an inability to ever know with any level of certainty whether the truth is being told – a demonstration of the seriousness of the offense is in order. And again, in the Christian belief system, the “bearer of transgressions” that God allowed to be tortured was GOD HIMSELF. So it wasn’t like He volunteered some unwilling dupe to go die on the cross – He did it, in the person of God the Son (and since this isn’t/wasn’t a debate about the Trinity, I feel safe in simply making that statement without having to provide “evidence” of the validity).
Back to your B2 “never simply forgive without torturing the bearer of transgressions”… I believe I’ve already addressed the matter of justice to the point of “simply forgive” and with regard to “torturing the bearer”, when the Old Testament practice of sacrificing animals and sprinkling blood to “cover” transgressions (until Christ came), I don’t remember anything about “torturing” the animals before killing them. You may say “killing them is torture in and of itself”, but going along with Hebrews 9:22 “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission…” if God’s system requires blood for remission of sins, then so be it. Is it “unrighteous” that in order for me to eat a hamburger, a cow must die (crossing my fingers that you’re not one of those “militant vegans”). So, since B1 and B2 are both fallacious, B3 “The Biblical God is not righteous” doesn’t have a leg to stand on – which of course invalidates B4, and argument B altogether.
Finally your C argument “The absurdity of the redemptive trade”. Each of your premises is simply not Biblical, and don’t apply to Biblical redemption. C1 – the “price” is not infinite torture. That’s the fate we choose by refusing to accept the option to “switch sides” from the default of Satan (again, initially due to the actions of one disobedient man in Adam) and residing with him for all eternity (damnation, lake of fire, etc. – “everlasting fire, PREPARED FOR THE devil AND his angels) to the side of glorious, victorious residence with God and His angels (as was God’s original plan that Adam messed all up).
C2 – Jesus didn’t pay the price by “3 days of torture”, as it says in John 19:30 it was finished when He “gave up the ghost” after saying “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit…” in Luke 23:46. So the concept of Jesus being tortured for 3 days (I’m assuming you’re referring to the time between crucifixion and resurrection) simply isn’t Biblical (even though I have even heard some Christians espouse it).
C3 – agreed, Jesus torture wasn’t infinite, nor need it be, it was His death that was the redemptive payment, not any amount of torture, so this is an irrelevant point.
C4 & C5 – since “infinite torture” isn’t proposed as any sort of “currency” in the situation of redemption, these points are pretty meaningless.
And thus I believe I’ve defended the consistent logic of the redemption (at least in the points that you raised as to the presumed logical absurdity) quite thoroughly.
At no point did I argue for the TRUTH of Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice, because of course that wasn’t the topic at hand.
I welcome all who are undecided to seek God for yourselves, read the Bible, “pray” for guidance and understanding, find a good church that teaches and preaches the Word of God, and strives to walk in love to all. Those who are atheists and/or are opposed to the very concept of the Biblical God – I pray that you come to the light of the truth on THIS side of the grave.
And to my fellow believers, let’s remember that we’re advised to be “ready always to [give] an answer to EVERY man that asks you a REASON of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you {or of our God}, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ”. (1 Peter 3:15-16).