Friday, November 19, 2010

Reflections on the Slick-Barker debate

Matt Slick and Dan Barker recently debated the topic "Is There Reason to Be Good Without God?"

Around the 1 hour, 1 minute mark, the first cross-examination period contained the following exchanges:

Exchange 1
Barker: Could you succinctly, in one sentence or less, define the word "good"?

Slick: Well, I would theologically and as a Christian, I would say it's worth exploring more. Good is that which is in compliance and conformity with the nature of God.

B: So it's obedience to His nature and commands, basically. What He says.

S: Well, obedience to a nature isn't the issue. Obedience to the command would be. But I would say goodness is based on the very nature of what God is.

B: So people who obey and follow whatever God says, they are good people and people who do not are bad people, regardless of the consequences in the real world, your standard is judging...good by what God says is good. Am I clear on that ?

S: Well we're not saying that God just arbitrarily declares sthg good.

B: I don't care if He does it arbitrary or not. Whatever His reasons are, that's your standard.

S: His reasons lie in His own nature and essence.
B: OK, well, whatever they are.

A few notes:
-While I think Slick came out the clear victor in this debate, he lost his way in a puzzling manner more than twice.  This is one of those times.  What is "it's worth exploring more" supposed to mean?  It's been explored, a lot; I'd've wished Slick might have prepared a bit more beforehand on that count. 
-Slick could have been clearer on the relationship of God's nature as that from which the command flows. He commands X because X is in accord with His nature.  If He hadn't commanded X, X would still be objectively good, but nobody else would know that b/c He hadn't communicated it to anyone.  And we sort of are, actually, saying that God arbitrarily declares something good, in a sense anyway.  He's The Arbiter; there's no higher standard to which He appeals.  He decided/decides what is good and that's it - it's good.  I wish Slick would have said that and then continued to expose the emptiness of the alternative that Barker was offering.
-Barker makes a lot of money and a name for himself for being an apostatised preacher, yet he demonstrates very little understanding of a solid biblical view of things. This is one of those times, and it's amazing how this topic is so fundamental to the Christian message! The man claims to have preached countless times at revivals, been a full-time evangelist, done crusades, etc.  James White, commenting at times on Barker and even face to face with Barker in debate, has expressed doubt that Barker ever preached, or even knew, what the Reformedigelicals would call "the Gospel", and this is more evidence that he never did and still doesn't.  Specifically, note that he said, "people who obey and follow whatever God says, they are good people and people who do not are bad people".
What?!??!   Could Barker really be so clueless as not to know that biblical doctrine is that NO PEOPLE are good?  The question is terrible and unhelpful. The correct answer is:  "You claim to be a former preacher; how could you have forgotten Romans 3, the first part of preaching the central message of Jesus?  Nobody is good, none seeks after God, no, not one.  People do good and bad things, so to answer the question you were weakly trying to ask, yes, obeying and following what God says is good in and of itself.  And obviously, part of the analysis is gauging, as you put it, 'consequences in the real world', but again w/o a standard to know whether those consequences are themselves good or bad, which you don't have outside of an arbitrary Barkeristic one, you're still stuck unless someone bridges the Is/Ought gap with a normative command."  
All that to say, the evidence that Barker ever had very little more than a superficial understanding of the Bible is strong.  He is a liar and a bit of a fraud. 

Exchange 2
Barker: Define the word "ought".
Slick: Sthg you should do.
B Isn't 'should' a synonym for 'ought'?
S: Yeah, that's why you really ought to belive that definition is true.   ::Laughter:
B: Well if ought and should are synonyms, then what are those synonyms referring to? What does "ought" actually mean?
S: That's interesting, b/c I've got this quote from you..."if you ever get into a situation where you're stumped, over your head, or out of ideas and can't think of a way to loop the argument around, then there's always the appropriate tactic of backing up and making the person define his terms" (Losing Faith In Faith, p 113).
I'm gonna assume you're backed up b/c you can't define good rationally.
B: ...I've been asked to ask you these things. It doesn't mean I'm stumped.

Slick goes on to partially whiff on the definition of "ought/should", as he goes on to naïvely throw in, "If I love my wife, then...", which was walking right into Barker's cannon fire. I suppose this is a time when I will (appropriately, since we're so near to Thanksgiving) express gratitude to and for the various skeptics who have engaged me over the course of many comboxes - their questions and challenges have forced me to think this issue through. It does not appear that Slick has, as he got caught at precisely the point where he should have been prepared to stick a fork in Barker by asking just one or two more questions.
What Slick should've said is found here, basically. We ought to do what God has commanded, b/c what God commands is objectively good by definition, in and of itself. The OUTWORKINGS of such is where the "if, then" statements come in - that's step 2. Barker's "if, then" also is step 2; Slick should have zeroed in better on Barker's assumed step 1 (the definition: "that which minimises harm is good") and camped there the entire debate. Slick did do that at times, and Barker had no answer except to make emotional appeals to the crowd and argumenta ad populum. "If, then" statements are useless for DEFINING such things as "ought/should", though, b/c obviously it doesn't tell us whether the if-action is good, much less whether the then-consequence is good. It's merely another exercise of the naturalistic fallacy. Slick, to his credit, pointed that out numerous times in the debate, though it would've been nice if he had named it and cited Hume, he who also a priori rejected the miraculous b/c of his naturalistic presuppositions, as its originator, just to stick it to the naturalistic atheist Barker.

Anyway, I also bring this exchange up b/c it illustrates how airheaded Barker often is. He didn't just toss out the statement about "(if you're) stumped...mak(e) the person define his terms" in a debate cross-examination question. No, he wrote it in his book, which has now gone through at least one revision since its original publishing. What a ridiculous thing to say! Defining terms is perhaps the most important tactic in debate, for the edification of all. This seems to stem from the common skeptical viewpoint where the skeptic/Christian or atheist/theist debate centers around facts and not presuppositions. Creationism, for example - Creationists argue there's a set of facts, and we are trying to explain the facts via the narrative we support. Darwinians like to argue instead that "you have no facts", which is idiocy. Nobody "has" facts. Facts exist; how we explain them, for which worldview they are evidence in support - those are the questions. Sometimes, though, the skeptics will accidentally grant the obvious, thus exposing their more-common objections and complaints as mere chicanery, smokescreening, and gamesmanship.

Barker should know this, but I'd struggle to find any evidence that he's ever thought this deeply about the situation, despite being confronted with it numerous times in public debates. It's illuminating as to why he remains an atheist, though - if you don't think deeply about such things, then I'd certainly expect you to be an atheist.

224 comments:

1 – 200 of 224   Newer›   Newest»
bossmanham said...

I dunno about Slick winning. I did stop listening halfway through the cross examination because I was so disgusted that Slick was missing so many good chances to bury Barker's argument. Maybe the end went better, but I don't think Slick was prepared enough.

Rhology said...

Slick did prepare somewhat, and pinned Barker a few times, but got carried away with acting like tuff dude several times and with continually complimenting Barker. I don't know why anyone does that. Why do ppl repeat "Dan is a nice guy" and stuff like that? Maybe he's charming, but not in debates! he's a blasphemous punk in debates and in his writings! How about you just stick to it?

The Jolly Nihilist said...

Can one be blasphemous and uncompromising in one's critique of, and attack on, Christianity while still, in your view, being "a nice guy"?

Andrew said...

I haven't listened to this, but I heard a lot of interaction between Slick and Robert Sungenis on the dividing line. I thought Slick's performance was terrible. He didn't seem prepared for Robert Sungenis. I think Dr. White would prolly agree that one must be prepared for Sungenis in order to debate Sungenis. Anyway, maybe there is a pattern emerging here?

@Jolly: You didn't ask me but I'll answer anyway. If someone were blasphemous and uncompromising they might still be personally kind to me. That is fine. However, in a debate setting (public or private) I agree with Rhology that it would be best to spare everyone the lovey doveys and go about the business of burying your opponent. That can be done respectfully.

Andrew said...

Or rather, your opponents arguments.

The Jolly Nihilist said...

Andrew,

I think that I basically agree with you.

In my opinion, maintaining a consistently high level of respect for an interlocutor during a debate is important. One hasn't the slightest obligation to have a shred of respect for his/her position, but, in my view, debate protocol includes proscribing personal insults, personal mockery and such (i.e., words like "idiot," "fool," "moron," etc.).

At the same time, it's a debate, not a love note, so I see little reason to remind observers what a swell guy your opponent is.

And, to turn my question back on myself, I certainly believe it's possible, according to my definition of the term in question, for a fundamentalist and/or evangelical Christian to be "a nice guy." I know some.

Coram Deo said...

Can one be blasphemous and uncompromising in one's critique of, and attack on, Christianity while still, in your view, being "a nice guy"?

Arius was reportedly a very articulate, warm, engaging, and charismatic man with a magnetic personality and a compelling presence.

He was also guilty of spreading damnable heresy.

Hell will be full of "nice guys" and "nice girls".

In Christ,
CD

The Jolly Nihilist said...

Just for the record...

Finding one's immortal soul damned to spend eternity lodged in the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish's digestive tract is none too pleasant, I hear.

Repent.

Rhology said...

You hear? Um, from whom? How? When? Did anyone else hear it?

The Jolly Nihilist said...

I possess the information that I do because, two weeks ago, the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish condescended to reveal Itself to me.

The revelation contained much information, including the following descriptions of the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish’s unchanging nature: It is infinite. It is solely God. It is eternal as God. It is unlike humankind, which It specially created. This list, it should be noted, is not comprehensive and is subject to addition.

The Ethereal Cosmic Catfish also informed me that I, alone, am Its prophet. It advised that other prophets, including those who claim to speak the Gospel of the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish, would attempt to lure people, but It definitively stated that all such prophets are false and speak only damnable heresy. Additionally, It informed me that only the elect will be saved, but It gave no indication of how numerous the elect might be.

For all I know, I am the only member of the elect; the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish repeatedly reinforced that It is a wrathful deity. It demands, spiritually speaking, servile, abject submission from Its creations as well as near-ceaseless praise for Its greatness. Even the most minor flirtation with other gods is an impossibly grave offense.

All those who are not members of the elect will end up with their immortal souls lodged in the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish's digestive tract for all eternity. By contrast, It will whisk the immortal souls of the saved to an immaterial land of pleasure, peace, serenity and soothing zephyr-like breezes.

Rhology said...

the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish condescended to reveal Itself to me.

Anyone else?
If not, that's very different from Christianity.



It is infinite. It is solely God. It is eternal as God. It is unlike humankind, which It specially created. This list, it should be noted, is not comprehensive and is subject to addition.

Why does the ECC sound exactly like the God of the Bible?
Can't you make up something unique?


The Ethereal Cosmic Catfish also informed me that I, alone, am Its prophet.

Did he tell anyone else about that?
If not, that's very different from Christianity.


speak only damnable heresy.

What is the consequence for heresy and how do you know?


It informed me that only the elect will be saved, but It gave no indication of how numerous the elect might be.

Again sounds alot like tGotB. Why?
IOW, you're being very silly, and that wasn't even a good try. You've seen my article on the FSM. Answer all of those questions (just replace FSM with ECC) and then we can talk. But it has to be all of them. Good luck!

Brabble Frabbitz said...

"Arius was reportedly a very articulate, warm, engaging, and charismatic man with a magnetic personality and a compelling presence."

He also had a much more reasonable and compelling interpretation of the Bible than Athanasius and the gang.

Coram Deo said...

He also had a much more reasonable and compelling interpretation of the Bible than Athanasius and the gang.

It's interesting to me that you've found someone with a "reasonable and compelling interpretation of the Bible" with whom, presumably, you have some common ground.

Despite the fact that he's one of the most notorious heretics in the annals of church history, I'm curious to understand your meaning.

What Arian Biblical interpretations are "reasonable and compelling" to you, personally; and what about those interpretations do you find to be more reasonable and compelling than those of "Athanasius and the gang"?

This should be instructive coming from someone who denies that the Bible is the Word of God.

In Him,
CD

Rhology said...

CD,
You're barking up the wrong tree, demanding solid exegesis from someone like the JN. He only said that to get your knickers in a twist. We'll soon see that he doesn't have any idea how to properly interpret the Bible. Any port in a storm, and any argument as long as he thinks it has a chance to score a point against Christianity.

The Jolly Nihilist said...

**Part One**

How does the ECC account for the origin of the universe?

The Ethereal Cosmic Catfish specially created the universe, as well as space, time, matter and energy as we know it. The Ethereal Cosmic Catfish is made of divine substance. It is timeless, does not occupy space, is not made of matter and is not composed of energy as we know it.


Since the ECC's nature is not timeless, how does it solve the problem of entropy or infinite regress?

Let me emphasize again that the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish absolutely is timeless. Although It is not “part” of the universe, It can be described as both immanent and transcendent.


How is the ECC sufficient as a foundation for all reason and intelligibility?

Reason, logic, intelligibility, morality, etc. are grounded in the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish’s very nature, which is unchanging. The Ethereal Cosmic Catfish’s unchanging nature is sufficient grounds for all of the above.


Why is it that enough questioning of Catfishians or approximations thereof always leads you back to a clear imitation of the God of the Bible?

On the contrary, your god of the bible is infringing on the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish. Stop it. Because It is a timeless entity, and the very Creator of the universe itself, It (and, of course, Its nature) naturally preceded Christianity’s founding.


There is no serious self-revelation of the ECC. Thus, how can anyone know anything about the ECC?

The Ethereal Cosmic Catfish condescended to reveal Itself to me, informing me that I, alone, am Its prophet. The Ethereal Cosmic Catfish, following the completion of creation, decided not to make any miracles. Would you question It? The Ethereal Cosmic Catfish also decided not to make any prophecies. Would you question It?


Does the ECC provide any foundation for any objective morality?

Absolutely! You see, righteousness is defined by the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish’s very unchanging nature. What is in accordance with Its nature is good. What is contrary to Its nature is evil. Given that the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish’s nature is unchanging, moral law is fixed.

The Jolly Nihilist said...

**Part Two**

What precisely has the ECC done?

Only created the universe. Created space and time. Created matter, and energy as we know it. Serves, through Its nature, as the foundation for all reasoning, logic, intelligibility, morality, etc. Just that kind of stuff.


Why are the claims made by the ECC "religion" so incoherent?

I see no incoherency. You might not like the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish’s revelation, but do you think you could do better than It?


Why is the founder of the ECC "religion" so incoherent?

Do you mean me? If so, I disagree. Do you mean the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish? If so, I sure hope you like Its digestive tract….


Why so much Jon Stewart-like disingenuousness and inconsistency with respect to whether Catfishianism is satire or not?

Not applicable.


What is the ECC's answer to the problem of evil?

Evil is defined as that which is contrary to the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish’s unchanging nature. If one repents of one’s evil--and falls into servile, abject submission to the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish--prior to death, I am led to believe that one’s soul will be saved. The unrepentant will end up lodged in Its digestive tract for all eternity.


Why do so few people believe in the ECC?

The Ethereal Cosmic Catfish condescended to reveal Itself to me only recently. It is God. Who am I to question Its plan, which is perfect by definition?


Does the ECC ensure the continual consistency of observed physical laws, thus ensuring the utility of scientific inquiry and experimentation?

You bet! Remember that unchanging nature? The regularity of the universe, too, reflects that nature. It is somewhat inconceivable that such a regular, unchanging God would operate a chaotic universe, isn’t it?


If Catfishianism is true, what explanation does it give for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

The resurrection did not happen, and any supporting evidence for it is illusory. The Ethereal Cosmic Catfish was there. (Immanent and transcendent, remember?) It would know if it’d happened. It didn’t. The Ethereal Cosmic Catfish, following the completion of creation, decided not to make any miracles. Thus, any miracle claim, by definition, is and must be false.

Rhology said...

Why so much Jon Stewart-like disingenuousness and inconsistency with respect to whether Catfishianism is satire or not?

Not applicable.


Look this is cute and all, but this is a lie, and the reason I wrote the FSM post is to discourage moronic arguments like FSM/ECC. If you can't bring yourself to admit the obvious, I have nothing else to say on the topic. Call it a deal-breaker.

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology said...

Oh, and this:
The Ethereal Cosmic Catfish, following the completion of creation, decided not to make any miracles.

is patently ridiculous. Revealing itself to you would be a miracle. Buh-bye and thanks!

The Jolly Nihilist said...

Insofar as a "miracle" could be defined as a violation or suspension of the laws of nature, I see no reason why the condescension would constitute a miracle, per se.

But, OK.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

@Corum,

Arian and unitarian views are far better attested to in the Bible than trinitarian views. To demonstrate that Jesus is God, you must be highly selective, plucking proof-texts from remote portions of the Bible, then weaving them together with highly speculative arguments straight out of Greek metaphysics to make the point -- a point most churchgoers can't even express accurately, let alone defend.

However, you can open the New Testament at nearly any point and demonstrate that it teaches: 1. the Father alone is "the only true God" (John 17:3), 2. Jesus is distinct from God (hence, the many references to "God AND the Lord Jesus Christ"), 3. Jesus is and always will be subordinate to God (e.g., in 1 Cor 11:3), 4. Jesus lacks the proper attributes of God -- he can die, be tempted to sin and lack knowledge (such as not knowing the day of his return).

On top of it, many of the orthodox proofs are flimsy ... such as, "Jesus could forgive sins, therefore, he was God." The authority to forgive sins can be delegated, as Jesus clearly did it to the apostles. Or, "I and my Father are one," which begs the question: If Jesus prayed that we all be one as he and the Father are, how can such a oneness be ontological?

When you clear out the weak, "dead wood" arguments, you're left with three or four decent texts -- some of which are missing from early MSS. Arius had a much stronger case than Athanasius. If Arius had won the day politically, the church today would not believe in the Trinity and you'd be calling trinitarianism "a damnable heresy."

Coram Deo said...

BF,

So then, are the Arian arguments "reasonable and compelling" enough for you to believe them, and profess yourself to be a unitarian of the Christian theistic variety?

I guess what I'm getting at is this, if you reject the Bible as God's Word, and don't declare any allegiance to any form of Christianity - orthodox, heretical, or otherwise - then why should I, you, or anyone care if you find one set of arguments or another "reasonable and compelling"?

It's sort of like getting a recommendation for where to buy a really good steak from a life-long vegetarian, ya know?

In Him,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

A student of English lit can study Homer's Iliad or Plato's writings and set forth opinions about their meaning without anyone objecting, "Your opinion has no credibility because You don't even believe any of this stuff!" Right?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Duhhhh. I meant a student of Greek lit.

Coram Deo said...

Surely you realize the gross category error you've committed above, don't you?

Does the truth even matter to you, or is it merely a plaything that you enjoy toying with from time to time for kicks and giggles?

The point is it's really quite pointless to engage someone on the subject of Biblical doctrines like the deity of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, and the Triune nature of God when he flatly rejects the whole of it from the start.

In Him,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

So you only discuss these issues with people who believe them already? Well, that's up to you, of course. So what's the point? Just to preen one another over your correctness?

Rhology said...

1 Cor 2:14-15 - 14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Yup. The perfect circular argument. "You don't believe the Bible is God's word, which only proves that it IS God's word, because it says that people who disagree with it do so because they can't receive God's word."

Rhology said...

Try to find us saying "which only proves that it IS God's word". You can't.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

OK, that's true, you didn't. Try this instead: "The Bible says that people who don't believe that the Bible is God's word simply won't believe in it. Why? Because they are unbelievers." That's essentially the point, isn't it?

Coram Deo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coram Deo said...

BF said: "So you only discuss these issues with people who believe them already? Well, that's up to you, of course. So what's the point? Just to preen one another over your correctness?"

You're deeply confused.

Tell me, hypothetically speaking, what would be the net effect or result of our discussion after I had proven to you beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Bible teaches Trinitarianism, and that the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Triune One true and living God?

In Him,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

You're deeply confused.

Tell me, hypothetically speaking, what would be the net effect or result of our discussion after I had proven to you beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Bible teaches Trinitarianism ...


Yeah, one of us is confused all right. I'd say it's probably the guy who professes monotheism, but thinks God is "three persons."

OK, we'll assume you could do such a thing -- an enormous assumption, since I'm convinced beyond a doubt that the Trinity was an idea completely foreign to the biblical authors. But the effect would be this: I would have to admit that the biblical authors believed in it.

I order for me to actually become a trinitarian Christian, you'd have to demonstrate that biblical absolutism and infallibility are true. Few people try to prove it though, even to themselves. They simply assume wholesale that the Bible is God's inerrant word, and that the compilers of the canon knew how to pick out only the divinely written texts (even when the texts themselves make no such claim).

Rhology said...

I'd say it's probably the guy who professes monotheism, but thinks God is "three persons."

Uh oh. Somebody is ignorant and doesn't want to trouble himself to learn and so just mocks what he doesn't understand.
But it's just another day, another fallacy, right Brabble Frabbitz? I mean, it's not like fallacies bother you...


since I'm convinced beyond a doubt that the Trinity was an idea completely foreign to the biblical authors

Which explains why Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God, yet they're not identical nor to be confused one with the other.
Why Jesus claims and accepts divinity and yet talks to the Father and calls Him God. Why Jesus and the Father receive worship at the same time in the same way.
Yeah, you're right, it's clear.


I order for me to actually become a trinitarian Christian, you'd have to demonstrate that biblical absolutism and infallibility are true.

Actually, in order for you to become a Christian, the Holy Spirit would have to change your heart unto repentance of your sin. You love your sin and it makes you a fool, as demonstrated (to name one way) by your laughing off your having engaged in numerous logical fallacies. That's what fools and morons do - they laugh at their own fallacies as if it doesn't matter, and then pretend they're truth seekers.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

"You love your sin and it makes you a fool, as demonstrated (to name one way) by your laughing off your having engaged in numerous logical fallacies."

Laughing off fallacies is a sin? Funny, I don't remember seeing that mentioned in Paul's "works of the flesh" list, or anywhere else. Maybe my judicial blindness prevents my seeing it.

But OK, I'll bite on the first part. What sin do I so "love"? Please explain this sanctimonious taunt that you fellas keep running up the flagpole? I'm a guy who tries to live well and I feel bad when I fail at it. Where's my conspicuous "love" of sin? I'm trying to imagine myself saying inwardly, "Mmmmm ... filthy lucre. Love, love, LOVE it." What an oddity, what a piece of work Calvinist zealots are.

"...Which explains why Jesus is God,"

Jesus is called the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Wisdom of God, the Image of God. He's said to be at the right hand of God. God is his "head" (1 Cor. 11:3). He called the mediator between the "one God" and men. That sounds like he's someone other than God, if language means anything.

"the Father is God

The Bible does teach this, consistently. Jesus called him, "The only true God." (John 17:3) Again, if language makes any sense at all, that would rule out Jesus also being God. He's also called "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," who "glorified his servant Jesus" -- again making it pretty plain that Jesus in NOT the God of Israel himself. (Acts 3:13)

"...the Holy Spirit is God..."

In the sense that the Holy Spirit represents God's influence and presence, yes. But as a person distinct from the Father ... no.

Playing the "ignorance" card doesn't cut it. I've studied the intricate arguments for the Trinity in considerable depth -- critically, not gullibly -- and I consider them contrived, idiotic. Again, had Arius won the political struggle at Nicaea, you'd be damning trinitarians to hell as vilest heretics.

Coram Deo said...

Laughing off fallacies is a sin? Funny, I don't remember seeing that mentioned in Paul's "works of the flesh" list, or anywhere else. Maybe my judicial blindness prevents my seeing it.

It's demonstrative of the darkness of your foolish heart. You get caught being irrational, inconsistent, and playing fast and loose with logic, then you simply agree and in essence respond, "Yeah, so what?"

Hence, as Rho points out, the truth is subjective and irrelevant to you; or as I alluded to earlier a sort of plaything that you enjoy toying with from time to time.

But OK, I'll bite on the first part. What sin do I so "love"? Please explain this sanctimonious taunt that you fellas keep running up the flagpole? I'm a guy who tries to live well and I feel bad when I fail at it. Where's my conspicuous "love" of sin? I'm trying to imagine myself saying inwardly, "Mmmmm ... filthy lucre. Love, love, LOVE it." What an oddity, what a piece of work Calvinist zealots are.

Funny that you should ridicule "loving filthy lucre" as an example. Do you gamble?

I'll leave your sexual fanstasy world alone...

Jesus is called the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Wisdom of God, the Image of God. He's said to be at the right hand of God. God is his "head" (1 Cor. 11:3). He called the mediator between the "one God" and men. That sounds like he's someone other than God, if language means anything.

Christians aren't objecting to any of the Biblical descriptors for Christ, but your leap to "That sounds like he's someone other than God, if language means anything" is simply an assertion based on nothing but your own personal opinion.

The Bible does teach this, consistently. Jesus called him, "The only true God." (John 17:3) Again, if language makes any sense at all, that would rule out Jesus also being God. He's also called "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," who "glorified his servant Jesus" -- again making it pretty plain that Jesus in NOT the God of Israel himself. (Acts 3:13)

More bare assertions. How do you reach your conclusions in the light of the truths mentioned by Rho in his response to you?

In the sense that the Holy Spirit represents God's influence and presence, yes. But as a person distinct from the Father ... no.

This deeply ignorant statement belies your following claim to have "studied the intricate arguments for the Trinity in considerable depth -- critically, not gullibly".

Your summary dismissal of the copious Biblical arguments and evidence for the Personhood of the Holy Spirit makes it more than obvious that you don't even have a passing familiarity with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Or else you're possibly a deeply indoctrinated, yet apostate, former Jehovah's Witness.

I order for me to actually become a trinitarian Christian, you'd have to demonstrate that biblical absolutism and infallibility are true. Few people try to prove it though, even to themselves. They simply assume wholesale that the Bible is God's inerrant word, and that the compilers of the canon knew how to pick out only the divinely written texts (even when the texts themselves make no such claim).

Rho has already pointed this out, but in fact no amount of evidence could ever rationally convince you to become a Christian.

You'd simply object on some irrational grounds, plug your ears, and run away screaming like you're doing right now.

Sinful humans don't rationalize their way to God, because they are rebellious usurpers who have set themselves upon the throne of God in their own heart, and will never, ever, ever turn away from their love of sin and self and turn towards the One true and living God apart from a spiritual heart change.

You must be born again.

Repent.

In Him,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

More mirth from Coram Deo:

It's demonstrative of the darkness of your foolish heart.

Coram, what kind of personality disorder sees "darkness" in everything someone else says? Honestly, you're a laff riot. There's nothing dark or sinister about admitting that I sometimes resort to nonrational arguments, like making fun of people -- which, of course, I shouldn't do.

You, on the other hand, do the selfsame thing without ever admitting it. You make pompous pronouncements all the time that you don't attempt to substantiate in the slightest. So why don't you get the beam out of your own eye -- in your case, it's a cedar of Lebanon -- before waxing indignant about my fallacious reasoning.

"Funny that you should ridicule 'loving filthy lucre' as an example. Do you gamble?"

Nope. In fact, I can never figure out why people want to go to Vegas. Not for me.

"I'll leave your sexual fanstasy world alone...

Yeah, let's. If you start upbraiding me too vehemently, people might think it's projection. That would be embarrassing.

" 'That sounds like he's someone other than God, if language means anything' is simply an assertion based on nothing but your own personal opinion."

OK, Mr. Exegetical Bigshot. I gave you some texts that fly in the face of your view. It's not enough to just snort at me. I'm calling your bluff: Let's hear you exegete John 17:3 in such a way that the Father is not "the only true God" and that Jesus, who was "sent" by the only true God, is actually God himself. Let me see you torture the text so it yields trinitarianism.

"More bare assertions."

Bare assertions my foot. I gave you texts that torpedo your orthodoxy and I told you why. Again, you come back with bluster and no substance.

"This deeply ignorant statement ..."

Amazing how disagreement with you equals ignorance. What's it's like to have an infallibility complex?

"Or else you're possibly a deeply indoctrinated, yet apostate, former Jehovah's Witness."

Wrong again. Your predictions here are all going tango uniform.

You'd simply object on some irrational grounds, plug your ears, and run away screaming like you're doing right now. Sinful humans don't rationalize their way to God, because they are rebellious usurpers ..."

For a guy who accuses me of bare assertions and unfounded opinions, you seem to have them in spades yourself.

Coram Deo said...

Brabble asked: "Coram, what kind of personality disorder sees "darkness" in everything someone else says? Honestly, you're a laff riot. There's nothing dark or sinister about admitting that I sometimes resort to nonrational arguments, like making fun of people -- which, of course, I shouldn't do.

Which question was posed in response to the reply to BF's prior rejoinder: Laughing off fallacies is a sin? Funny, I don't remember seeing that mentioned in Paul's "works of the flesh" list, or anywhere else. Maybe my judicial blindness prevents my seeing it.

To which CD had replied: It's demonstrative of the darkness of your foolish heart. You get caught being irrational, inconsistent, and playing fast and loose with logic, then you simply agree and in essence respond, "Yeah, so what?"

You just don't get it do you? You have zero committment to objective truth. You just float along picking what you like, and rejecting what you don't like from within your own little private world of subjective morality, and when it's pointed out you simply shrug, laugh it off, and go along your merry way blithely ignoring your own internal epistemological inconsistency.

Willful ignorance is a perversity, and belies a darkened heart.

That's why Rho called you a fool, and his assessment was spot-on accurate. This is not ad hominem, this is a statement of fact.

You, on the other hand, do the selfsame thing without ever admitting it. You make pompous pronouncements all the time that you don't attempt to substantiate in the slightest. So why don't you get the beam out of your own eye -- in your case, it's a cedar of Lebanon -- before waxing indignant about my fallacious reasoning.

What you label as "pompous pronouncements" are simply truths from Scripture applied to you as a rebellious, hell-bound sinner who is in desperate need of salvation.

The reason it strikes you as "pompous" is because it pricks your conscience, which is on my side because I'm speaking truth, and that stings. I know you can't escape it, and so do you.

Nope. In fact, I can never figure out why people want to go to Vegas. Not for me.

So are you lying now, or were you lying when you made this comment?

Well, you got me there. I admit, I like to play the horses with my mom's retirement money. But is that SO bad?

Why should I trust anything you say when you admittedly throw around logical fallacies for fun, and tell bald faced lies?

You sir, are a demonstrable liar. Does that concern you at all? Let it be clear that this assessment is not ad hominem, but is a statement of fact.

Cont.

Coram Deo said...

Cont.

OK, Mr. Exegetical Bigshot. I gave you some texts that fly in the face of your view. It's not enough to just snort at me. I'm calling your bluff: Let's hear you exegete John 17:3 in such a way that the Father is not "the only true God" and that Jesus, who was "sent" by the only true God, is actually God himself. Let me see you torture the text so it yields trinitarianism.

Why should I? You don't care about the truth anyway, plus you're a confirmed liar so even if you found anything I said compelling you'd most likely simply lie and say that you didn't in order to save face.

Bare assertions my foot. I gave you texts that torpedo your orthodoxy and I told you why. Again, you come back with bluster and no substance.

I can prooftext the Bible to say Judas hung himself...go thou and do likewise; but since you won't obey a simple command like, "believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved", then why should I think you care anything about exegesis? Plus you're a confirmed liar, so I can't have any assurance of your good faith in anything at all.

Amazing how disagreement with you equals ignorance. What's it's like to have an infallibility complex?

I'm not infallible, but you are demonstrably ignorant as your multiple comments here have shown, and you're a confirmed liar to boot!

Wrong again. Your predictions here are all going tango uniform.

Not a prediction, just one possibility among many. Plus since you're a confirmed liar I can't trust you to tell me the truth anyway, so it's really quite irrelevant at this point. You could be an active yet apostate JW elder, and simply be denying your affiliation from fear of being discovered and excommunicated from your cult. Who's to say?

For a guy who accuses me of bare assertions and unfounded opinions, you seem to have them in spades yourself.

And you're a confirmed liar, so your credibility is really running pretty low with me right about now.

In Christ,
CD

Coram Deo said...

Weird, blogger ate the first half of my comment, but the second half got posted, oh well...I'll try again for the sake of BF's soul:

BF asked: Coram, what kind of personality disorder sees "darkness" in everything someone else says? Honestly, you're a laff riot. There's nothing dark or sinister about admitting that I sometimes resort to nonrational arguments, like making fun of people -- which, of course, I shouldn't do.

You asked that question in light of a response that pointed out your deliberate use of fallacious logic, and the fact that you simply laugh it off as being a petty irrelevance, even though such a willful, wanton, purposeful rejection of the truth belies a perverse and inconsistent epistemology. In other words the truth doesn't matter to you, and you're cool with that, and don't see the problem.

That's reflective of a heart of darkness, and the heart of a fool (which Rho already pointed out).

You, on the other hand, do the selfsame thing without ever admitting it. You make pompous pronouncements all the time that you don't attempt to substantiate in the slightest. So why don't you get the beam out of your own eye -- in your case, it's a cedar of Lebanon -- before waxing indignant about my fallacious reasoning.

I'm simply applying Scriptural truths to you, and you find them to be "pompous pronouncements" because you hate the truth, as has already been pointed out. You simply don't have the stomach for truth, so when it hits your conscience - which is on my side by the way - it stings and makes you upset, so it comes across as arrogant, pompous, or whatever.

Nope. In fact, I can never figure out why people want to go to Vegas. Not for me.

So are you lying now, or were you lying when you made this comment?

Well, you got me there. I admit, I like to play the horses with my mom's retirement money. But is that SO bad?

Since you're a confirmed liar, why should I trust anything you say?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Coram, do you look like Dr. Zachary Smith on "Lost in Space"? That's the way I picture you.

Coram Deo said...

Coram, do you look like Dr. Zachary Smith on "Lost in Space"? That's the way I picture you.

Is this yet another lie?

Does it bother you that your worldview is irrational, incoherent, and untenable; or have you just decided that's the hand you were dealt, so you're going to play it the best you can?

I genuinely feel sorry for you.

By the standards of the world you're probably not a bad guy in real life.

But you're totally deluded, and your eternal soul is on a one way trajectory to eternal torments because God's standard is absolute sinless perfection, yet you fall infinitely short of that standard - and you don't even care.

I'll be praying for you.

In Christ,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Confirmed liar? That's rich. I'm such a stickler for truthfulness and honesty that my family sometimes thinks I've got a screw loose. They'd get a chuckle out of your assessment.

I'll be praying for you.

All right. While I disagree with your beliefs and the way you come across, I have no objection to prayers. (As long as they're not imprecatory Psalms, that is.)

Brabble Frabbitz said...

BTW, let me clear up the thing about betting on the horses with my mom's retirement: I thought it was pretty obvious to everyone I was just being a smart aleck. I never dreamed anyone would take that comment seriously. Lesson learned.

So Mom, if you're reading this: I didn't do it. Totally kidding.

Coram Deo said...

Confirmed liar? That's rich. I'm such a stickler for truthfulness and honesty that my family sometimes thinks I've got a screw loose. They'd get a chuckle out of your assessment.

Oh, okay. So you're just a self-righteous moralist, that's way better than being liar.

I guess I had you all wrong; you're really a good person after all, a regular Mr. Nice Guy!

In Him,
CD

P.S. - I would have had more respect for you if you had simply admitted to being a liar, but instead you lied about it. Amazing!

P.S.S. - be sure not to pretend that you actually care for those certain family members you'll share Thanksgiving lunch with today whom you inwardly despise, or tell someone that you like their dish when it actually tastes like warmed over Purina to you, and don't tell anyone how great they look when you really think they've chunked it on since the last time you saw them.

Wouldn't want to play the hypocrite...

Brabble Frabbitz said...

OK, if anybody else is reading this thread (friend or foe), I'd like your candid input. Earlier, when Coram Deo said I have "a moral problem" (even though he doesn't know me from the Duke of Alva), I shot back with this admittedly snarky retort:

"Well, you got me there. I admit, I like to play the horses with my mom's retirement money. But is that SO bad?"

Now, show of hands. How many of you (1) thought I was being serious, confessing a particularly heinous fault and blowing it off as nothing, or (2) being sarcastic.

Just wondering if there's anyone else out there besides Coram who is a thoroughly humorless -- if not clueless -- soul.

As far as trouble at my Thanksgiving dinner, don't worry. We Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate holidays anyway. I'll be spending the day reading back issues of the Watchtower. (Note: That was another example of a sarcastic joke, NOT to be taken literally).

Anonymous said...

All this Christian love is getting to be a bit too much. I'm really not worthy of such an outpouring of affection, which could very well woo me back into the Calvinist fold if I'm not careful.

Coram Deo said...

As far as trouble at my Thanksgiving dinner, don't worry. We Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate holidays anyway. I'll be spending the day reading back issues of the Watchtower. (Note: That was another example of a sarcastic joke, NOT to be taken literally).

Assuming you "celebrate" or otherwise observe Thanksgiving, why do you do so? Is it sort of a cultural thing, or are you particularly reflective and thankful today, or...?

If you answered in the affirmative, then a.) what are you thankful for?; b.) to whom (or what) are you thankful?; and c.) why?

In Him,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Lots of questions from you, but no answers to mine. (That's OK. I don't mind taking the high ground.)

Yes, I'm thankful for the rich bounty I enjoy. I believe in the existence of God, a Supreme Being or first cause. And though I don't pretend to understand the extent of divine intervention in the natural world, I'm nevertheless thankful. Maybe that's not logically consistent, but ... nobody's perfect.

David said...

Well, I guess that one cannot say that I'm unbiased. Nevertheless, the comment about the horses was so off the wall, I immediately concluded that it was sarcasm or meant tongue in cheek. It was pretty obviously a joke.

I think that when you see darkness in everytone and expect the worst with respect to your fellow humans, it may be difficult to recognize when someone is joking. I'm very surprised that CD took this commnent seriously.

Coram Deo said...

Lots of questions from you, but no answers to mine. (That's OK. I don't mind taking the high ground.)

So we can add noble and self-sacrificing to your self-made crown of self-righteousness. That's fantastic! Give yourself a big pat on the back, you deserve it!

I believe in the existence of God, a Supreme Being or first cause.

But you reject the One true and living God of Scripture, so you're a false religionist with a demonic form of faith.

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! - James 2:19

And though I don't pretend to understand the extent of divine intervention in the natural world,

You can't rightly understand anything about divine intervention in the natural world because you reject the Creator's eyewitness testimony of His own creation fiat, and His subsequent dealings with his sinfully rebellious creature man, since His special revelation thereof is contained solely and uniquely within the 66 books of the Holy Bible.

I'm nevertheless thankful. Maybe that's not logically consistent, but ... nobody's perfect.

Correct, you're inconsistent, irrational, and imperfect.

Yet God's standard for inheriting eternal life is absolute sinless perfection, apart from which all human souls will be cast into eternal perdition where they will suffer conscious, unspeakable torments forever and ever.

In Christ,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

David, thanks for the input. I appreciate it.

Coram, where does this charge of self-righteousness come from? I'm a little puzzled about that one. Do you assume ipso facto that anyone who denies justification by faith alone is self-righteous? Just wondering.

"...since His special revelation thereof is contained solely and uniquely within the 66 books of the Holy Bible."

Now THAT is an assertion without an argument. The joke is on you, because the idea that ulimate authority rests in a 66-book canon of Scripture isn't even a biblical idea. Especially the New Testament. In the gospels, Jesus never says anything like, "The hour is coming when you will have new scriptures to guide you in all things." There's not a word in the New Testament about there even being a New Testament. And yet, you just gulp it down thoughtlessly, like a Catholic who just assumes papal infallibility without a lick of proof.

Show me where the authors of such books as Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Jude, Hebrews lay even the *slightest* claim to writing under a special influence. You can't. But you assume it, and you can't tolerate anyone who fails to share your unfounded assumption.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

"Correct, you're inconsistent, irrational, and imperfect."

Finally! We agree on something. But you know, for me being so self-righteous, I seem to be the one making all the concessions and admissions of imperfection. You aren't. What's wrong with this picture?

"Yet God's standard for inheriting eternal life is absolute sinless perfection, ..."

Balderdash. How can a just God impose a standard that no one is even hypothetically capable of achieving? We come into the world imperfect and God demands perfection. What a blockheaded assertion that is.

It's amazing to me that you say this. According to the Bible, even the righteous standards of the Old Testament *were* possible to keep (which means those standards couldn't have been perfection). Look at this text in Deuteronomy 30:

"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, 'Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, 'Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it."

The law was NOT too difficult, according to this text. Therefore, God's standard of righteousness is not perfection. If I'm wrong about this, tell me what this texts means. Don't just fulminate like an angry puritan -- try to explain the text (if you've ever read it before).

Coram Deo said...

Coram, where does this charge of self-righteousness come from?

Here's a good place to start:

Balderdash. How can a just God impose a standard that no one is even hypothetically capable of achieving? We come into the world imperfect and God demands perfection. What a blockheaded assertion that is.

Poor Paul, such a blockhead...

Here's another evidence:

It's amazing to me that you say this. According to the Bible, even the righteous standards of the Old Testament *were* possible to keep (which means those standards couldn't have been perfection).

The Pharisees were in 100% agreement with you on this point, does that give you any pause?

Look at this text in Deuteronomy 30:

"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, 'Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, 'Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it."


The point Moses was giving here was the the children of Israel would have no excuse for not knowing God's expectations. The law was plain for them to see, and clearly spelled out for them to understand.

Furthermore in the New Testament the Apostle Paul gives inspired commentary on the meaning of this OT passage when he exposits it in Romans 10:5-13:

5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

The law only condemns, it cannot save. Rebellious sinners love to have rules they think they can keep, but in reality the law is impossible to keep, as James points out:

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. - James 2:10

Cont.

Coram Deo said...

Cont.

Are you sure you want to be a law keeper?

The law is intened to show men their utter inability to keep God's ordinances, and to drive them to the Savior, but self-righteous hypocrites who think they are righteous in themselves don't see the need for the Great Physician:

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. - Romans 3:19-20

And again:

yet we know that a person is not justified [1] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. - Galatians 2:16

The law was NOT too difficult, according to this text. Therefore, God's standard of righteousness is not perfection. If I'm wrong about this, tell me what this texts means. Don't just fulminate like an angry puritan -- try to explain the text (if you've ever read it before).

Again, you're deeply confused.

Why do you keep prooftexting from a book that you think is stupid, full of myths, non-biding on men's consciences when each time you do so you make it manifestly clear that you are spiritually blind, deaf, and dead?

You must be born-again.

Repent.

In Christ,
CD

Coram Deo said...

Egads!

Blogger ate the first portion of my comment again and posted the latter half.

Here's the text of what should have preceded the "Cont." portion of my quote above:

Coram, where does this charge of self-righteousness come from?

Here's a good place to start:

Balderdash. How can a just God impose a standard that no one is even hypothetically capable of achieving? We come into the world imperfect and God demands perfection. What a blockheaded assertion that is.

Poor Paul, such a blockhead...

Here's another evidence:

It's amazing to me that you say this. According to the Bible, even the righteous standards of the Old Testament *were* possible to keep (which means those standards couldn't have been perfection).

The Pharisees were in 100% agreement with you on this point, does that give you any pause?

Look at this text in Deuteronomy 30:

"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, 'Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, 'Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it."


The point Moses was giving here was the the children of Israel would have no excuse for not knowing God's expectations. The law was plain for them to see, and clearly spelled out for them to understand.

Furthermore in the New Testament the Apostle Paul gives inspired commentary on the meaning of this OT passage when he exposits it in Romans 10:5-13:

5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

The law only condemns, it cannot save. Rebellious sinners love to have rules they think they can keep, but in reality the law is impossible to keep, as James points out:

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. - James 2:10

Coram Deo said...

Now THAT is an assertion without an argument. The joke is on you, because the idea that ulimate authority rests in a 66-book canon of Scripture isn't even a biblical idea. Especially the New Testament. In the gospels, Jesus never says anything like, "The hour is coming when you will have new scriptures to guide you in all things." There's not a word in the New Testament about there even being a New Testament. And yet, you just gulp it down thoughtlessly, like a Catholic who just assumes papal infallibility without a lick of proof.

With such a foolish comment you merely demonstrate your utter ignorance of canon formation.

Plus you commit yet another gross category error with the comparison between canonicity and the accretions of dogmas peculiar to Rome. Your affinity for logical fallacies knows no limits, does it?

Show me where the authors of such books as Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Jude, Hebrews lay even the *slightest* claim to writing under a special influence. You can't. But you assume it, and you can't tolerate anyone who fails to share your unfounded assumption.

LOL! So once again you object to the way God has chosen to reveal His truth because it doesn't fit your personal preferences.

I suppose you'd be more satisfied if each portion of Scripture was opened by the author with something to the effect of, "I [insert human author's name here] am now speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - the non-Personal energy force that emanates from the Supreme Creator Being you humans know as "God" - and that which follows from this point are His own Words and not mine, I am but an instrument speaking forth His Holy Words. Okay? Ready? Now here it goes!"

Mmmm-kay...

In Christ,
CD

Coram Deo said...

Blogger keeps eating my posts...

This comment was supposed to precede the one that has "Cont." at the beginning.

Coram, where does this charge of self-righteousness come from? I'm a little puzzled about that one. Do you assume ipso facto that anyone who denies justification by faith alone is self-righteous? Just wondering.

Here's a good place to start:

Balderdash. How can a just God impose a standard that no one is even hypothetically capable of achieving? We come into the world imperfect and God demands perfection. What a blockheaded assertion that is.

Poor Paul, what a blockhead.

You should be careful with your blasphemy, that's going to catch up with you one day soon.

Oh, and here's another handmade gem for the self-made crown of self-righteousness with which the Pharisees were in 100% agreement (which thing should give you pause):

It's amazing to me that you say this. According to the Bible, even the righteous standards of the Old Testament *were* possible to keep (which means those standards couldn't have been perfection). Look at this text in Deuteronomy 30

Yes, by all means let's! Mmm hmmm...yup...I know that one. In fact the Apostle Paul gives inspired New Testament commentary in Romans 10 where he exegetes that very passage.

Here's the money shot:

5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” - Romans 10:5-13

But if you want to be a law keeper consider this text:

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. - James 2:10

Again, are you sure you want to try your hand at being justified by the law?

In Him,
CD

Coram Deo said...

Blogger keeps eating my posts...

This comment was supposed to precede the one that has "Cont." at the beginning.

Coram, where does this charge of self-righteousness come from? I'm a little puzzled about that one. Do you assume ipso facto that anyone who denies justification by faith alone is self-righteous? Just wondering.

Here's a good place to start:

Balderdash. How can a just God impose a standard that no one is even hypothetically capable of achieving? We come into the world imperfect and God demands perfection. What a blockheaded assertion that is.

Poor Paul, what a blockhead.

You should be careful with your blasphemy, that's going to catch up with you one day soon.

Oh, and here's another handmade gem for the self-made crown of self-righteousness with which the Pharisees were in 100% agreement (which thing should give you pause):

It's amazing to me that you say this. According to the Bible, even the righteous standards of the Old Testament *were* possible to keep (which means those standards couldn't have been perfection). Look at this text in Deuteronomy 30

Yes, by all means let's! Mmm hmmm...yup...I know that one. In fact the Apostle Paul gives inspired New Testament commentary in Romans 10 where he exegetes that very passage.

Here's the money shot:

5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” - Romans 10:5-13

But if you want to be a law keeper consider this text:

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. - James 2:10

Again, are you sure you want to try your hand at being justified by the law?

In Him,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Coram, you did what so many Bible zealots do: counter a biblical citation with a contrary citation. You did NOT explain the meaning of the Deuteronomy text, which contradicts your assertion in the plain language imaginable.

All you've demonstrated is that some texts of the Bible counter others. Was that your intention?

Besides, there are scholars such as E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright who have done a great job debunking the idea that Paul saw God's standard as perfection or that the law was merely a way of illustrating human impotence. Try reading something outside the narrow confines of Spurgeon, Pink, Sproul and Piper once in a while. You might gain a new perspective.

By the way, quoting James is a bad idea, since he also said, "A man is justified by what he does and not by faith only."

At any rate, here's another text that's *devastating* to your thesis. In Luke 1, we find this description of Zechariah and Elizabeth:

"Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly."

Explanation? You deny this is even possible, but there it is in black and white. What gives?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Concerning the canon, yes, it would be helpful if the NT authors made the claim that you make on their behalf with such dogmatic fervor. Even an intimation would be nice. But they never say anything like that. (Paul claims to have received some kind of visionary revelation, but he never says that God was superintending his writing to make it free from error.)

You can prattle all day about category errors, but the fact remains: Your belief in the canon has no more rational validity than a Catholic's belief in papal infallibility or a Latter-Day Saint's belief in the Book of Mormon. You assume your point of view, straight up, with almost no evidence, just as they do theirs.

I must say, given the vociferous nature of your comments, you seem to have little substance to back it up. Like a bully, you show yourself full of tough talk and bombast ... hardly anything else.

Coram Deo said...

Coram, you did what so many Bible zealots do: counter a biblical citation with a contrary citation. You did NOT explain the meaning of the Deuteronomy text, which contradicts your assertion in the plain language imaginable.

All you've demonstrated is that some texts of the Bible counter others. Was that your intention?


As I pointed out, Paul's exposition of the passage was inspired commentary, not a contradiction. I'm sorry that you apparently hate the Bible, but I can't do anything about that.

Besides, there are scholars such as E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright who have done a great job debunking the idea that Paul saw God's standard as perfection or that the law was merely a way of illustrating human impotence. Try reading something outside the narrow confines of Spurgeon, Pink, Sproul and Piper once in a while. You might gain a new perspective.

Yes, the N.T. Wright's work on Paul has been amazing - amazingly heretical that is - especially his "New Perspective on Paul" novelty which thing is a direct full-frontal assault on Sola Fide.

But I can see why you'd have an affinity for apostates given that you apparently hate the Bible. Anything to undermine the text, eh? The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

By the way, quoting James is a bad idea, since he also said, "A man is justified by what he does and not by faith only."

Playing fast and loose with the truth again I see, tsk, tsk!

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. - James 2:24

What James says here is, of course, true because it's in the Bible.

The problem is, of course, that you prooftext from a book that contains spiritual truths, but you are spiritually blind, deaf, and dead so you can't make any sense of it. It seems like a big heap of contradictions to you, because you are a slave to sin and cannot understand the things of God because they are spiritually discerned, but you are natural, fleshy, and without the Spirit.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Cor. 2:14

What James is saying in context is that true faith in Christ will always and everywhere bear good fruit (good works) to the praise of His glory which will adorn Him.

Dead, demonic faith, like you claim to have, will be devoid of all truly good works that honor Christ because any so-called "good works" that a person with a dead, demonic faith, like you, might endeavor to perform are tainted by self-righteous, sinful motives and appear as filthy rags before the Lord.

Cont.

Coram Deo said...

Cont.

At any rate, here's another text that's *devastating* to your thesis. In Luke 1, we find this description of Zechariah and Elizabeth:

"Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly."

Explanation? You deny this is even possible, but there it is in black and white. What gives?

LOL! Devastating? Really?!?

You do err not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. They were examples of godly OT saints who were under God's covenant of grace. He had imputed righteousness to them on the grounds of His grace, mercy and love. The were pre-cross saints, the same as the OT "heroes of the faith" (see Hebrews 11).

Concerning the canon, yes, it would be helpful if the NT authors made the claim that you make on their behalf with such dogmatic fervor. Even an intimation would be nice. But they never say anything like that. (Paul claims to have received some kind of visionary revelation, but he never says that God was superintending his writing to make it free from error.)

You can prattle all day about category errors, but the fact remains: Your belief in the canon has no more rational validity than a Catholic's belief in papal infallibility or a Latter-Day Saint's belief in the Book of Mormon. You assume your point of view, straight up, with almost no evidence, just as they do theirs.

I must say, given the vociferous nature of your comments, you seem to have little substance to back it up. Like a bully, you show yourself full of tough talk and bombast ... hardly anything else.


Oh yeah, I nearly forgot that logic, coherency, and consistency don't matter to you. After all, truth is a subjective playing to you, not an objective reality, and you are the arbiter of truth, the ultimate authority, and all truth claims, even those of God, must be subjected to the high court of your own personal, sinfully corrupted reasoning powers where you pass judgment upon them sitting as your own private judge, jury, and executioner - god almighty.

You don't believe what I say, and even when I answer your questions and respond to your objections you reject my answers, so why bother?

Again, if you won't believe and obey God's words I certainly don't expect you to believe mine.

You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper and demonstrating your rank ignorance of the Bible and of Christianity. This is because you are a rebel sinner who has seated himself on the throne of his own heart, usurping the rightful place of the One true and living God.

I don't see any of those traits working out for you well on judgment day, nor in eternity to follow.

In Christ,
CD

David said...

"You are spiritually blind, deaf, and dead so you can't make any sense of it."

I keep seeing variations on this theme, and it keeps reminding me of this...

"One day two swindlers came to this city; they made people believe that they were weavers, and declared they could manufacture the finest cloth to be imagined. Their colors and patterns, they said, were not only exceptionally beautiful, but the clothes made of their material possessed the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who was unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid."

http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html

David said...

Oh, and of course the other constant theme is the repeated attempts to use threat, fear and terror to gain agreement and compliance. Charming.

Coram Deo said...

You men are obviously free to continue denying the truth, I don't see any Christians holding a gun to your head demanding that you convert or die.

I would be remiss, however, in not reporting to a man in a burning building that he's going to be consumed unless he flees the flames.

In Christ,
CD

David said...

"I would be remiss, however, in not reporting to a man in a burning building that he's going to be consumed unless he flees the flames."

You are confusing the physical world with things that occur solely in the mind.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

A few points:

1. David, your comparison to Coram Deo's orthodxy and the story of "the Emperor's New Clothes" is spot-on. It's exactly the same principle at work here.

2. N.T. Wright is an apostate? Yes, anyone whose words might weaken one of your sacred cows -- in this case "sole fide" -- is an enemy. Trouble is, Wright's arguments are daunting and well thought-out. But ... he's to be dismissed out of hand without a hearing because he doesn't state the party line. A very cult-like reaction.

3. Your explanation of James is the same one I always hear, but it's lame. Even your own explanation makes salvation dependent on works -- they're just works that demonstrate one's salvation instead of being a condition for it. But there's no difference in the end. No good works, no salvation. You just make a big deal over how to arrange the cart and horse.

Suppose I tell my nephew that I just put $100 in his bank account for him. And it's a gift -- totally free, unmerited. BUT ... if he doesn't show his appreciate for it by mowing my lawn every week, he won't have it in his account. Does that make any bloody sense whatsoever?

4. Coram, the Luke text contradicts what you're saying here, horribly. The author of the third gospel doesn't say Zechariah and Elizabeth were blameless because of some imputed righteousness. You're just reading Reformed claptrap into the text. It was because they OBSERVED all the Lord's commands blamelessly. What part of that is confusing to you?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Coram said: I would be remiss, however, in not reporting to a man in a burning building that he's going to be consumed unless he flees the flames.

Are you sure your thunderings of hellfire are based on concern for our eternal well-being? I mean, I don't exactly feel the love here. On the contrary, you sound like a very angry man.

Coram Deo said...

You are confusing the physical world with things that occur solely in the mind.

Wishful anti-theist thinking on your part, David. You'll learn the truth sooner or later, but it would be optimal to learn it prior to physical death, after which your eternal soul will face inflexible judgment.

1. David, your comparison to Coram Deo's orthodxy and the story of "the Emperor's New Clothes" is spot-on. It's exactly the same principle at work here.

Except that David's analogy comparing the One true and living God's truth to a human fairy tale is yet another category error, not that I'd expect you to object to someone engaging in fallacious reasoning.

2. N.T. Wright is an apostate? Yes, anyone whose words might weaken one of your sacred cows -- in this case "sole fide" -- is an enemy. Trouble is, Wright's arguments are daunting and well thought-out. But ... he's to be dismissed out of hand without a hearing because he doesn't state the party line. A very cult-like reaction.

I suppose since N.T. Wright hasn't publicly repudiated Christianity he might be better described as near-apostate; nevertheless his heretical teachings are to be dismissed where they contradict Scripture, and Sola Fide is the teaching of Scripture (see Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 2:16; John 3:14-18; John 5:24 for example).

As an aside, equating the teaching of the One true and living God as it is contained in Scripture with "sacred cows" is yet another gross category error, and borders on blasphemy; not that it matters to you of course.

3. Your explanation of James is the same one I always hear, but it's lame. Even your own explanation makes salvation dependent on works -- they're just works that demonstrate one's salvation instead of being a condition for it. But there's no difference in the end. No good works, no salvation. You just make a big deal over how to arrange the cart and horse.

Why would stupid, outmoded, fairy tales taken from a book written by a bunch of superstitious backwater nomadic rubes strike you as anything other than lame?

And of course your exegesis is nonexistent, because you can't understand the text in the first place. Good works always and everywhere follow true Christian conversion.

Of course it's a "big deal" where works come into play in Christian soteriology. Romanists and the cults of Christianity (like all false human religions) are works/merit based. Humans earn salvation, or whatever, from their gods based on performance.

But Christianity isn't based upon what men do for God, but rather it's based upon what God in Christ has done for men.

Christian salvation is all of God and all of grace, an unmerited, undeserved, and unspeakably precious gift.

Good works are a part of the Christian experience, but they are not to be thought of as earning anything, rather they are the fruit and evidence of God's grace.

Jesus said "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9:23). And again, "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20). He also said, "Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord’ and not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46).

The teachings of Jesus are clear - good works must be demonstrated in the life of the Christian.

But again, since you're a rebellious, usurper false religionist with a demonic faith who rejects the commands of God Almighty to repent and place your trust in His Son Jesus Christ for remission of sins, I don't expect you to accept or believe what I say.

Cont.

Coram Deo said...

Cont.

Suppose I tell my nephew that I just put $100 in his bank account for him. And it's a gift -- totally free, unmerited. BUT ... if he doesn't show his appreciate for it by mowing my lawn every week, he won't have it in his account. Does that make any bloody sense whatsoever?

All analogies break down at some point, but yours doesn't even get out of the gate. Once again you prove that you have absolutely zero understanding of Biblical Christianity. Frankly I'm a little embarrassed for you. More serious anti-Christian thinkers are at least able to grasp the relevant arguments, but you've come across throughout this exchange as particularly clueless and clumsy.

4. Coram, the Luke text contradicts what you're saying here, horribly. The author of the third gospel doesn't say Zechariah and Elizabeth were blameless because of some imputed righteousness. You're just reading Reformed claptrap into the text. It was because they OBSERVED all the Lord's commands blamelessly. What part of that is confusing to you?

Mmm hmmm...I'm confused. The Bible in both the Old and New Testaments repeatedly testifies to man's utter sinfulness and inability to please God, but somehow some people muster up enough goodness to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, break the mold, and become righteous by following rules.

You're projecting your misguided and delusional hope at being a good person upon Biblical examples and in effect saying, "See, if they could do it, then I can do it too!"

But maybe your example proves more than you'd like anyway since even by your hypothetical standard which posits that full, blameless observance of all God's rules and regulations could earn a right standing with God nevertheless disqualifies you personally since you reject His own Self-revelation as it's contained in the very Bible you appeal to, yet simultaneously deny.

Are you sure your thunderings of hellfire are based on concern for our eternal well-being? I mean, I don't exactly feel the love here. On the contrary, you sound like a very angry man.

I'm not angry, that's either more projection on your part, or else your conscience - which is on my side and knows I'm telling the truth - is condemning you.

That's a hopeful sign.

In Christ,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

OK, told me what the Luke 1 text couldn't possibly mean (based on its conflict with your received theology). So what DOES it mean? Zechariah and Elizabeth observed all the commands of God blamelessly, according to the text. According to you, that's impossible.

What's your explanation?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

s/b "OK, you told me ..."

David said...

“Wishful anti-theist thinking on your part, David. You'll learn the truth sooner or later, but it would be optimal to learn it prior to physical death, after which your eternal soul will face inflexible judgment.”

I’m not sure what either theism or anti-theism has to do with this. Do all of the gods found in various human cultures threaten humans will eternal damnation? I think that you are confusing a broad term (theism) with your particular version of god or gods. Many other theists would disagree with you about the fate faced by my eternal soul.

In any case, the two “warnings” scenarios are different. In the case of the fire, the problem is that I need to move my physical body out of the way of a physical danger. I can see, feel and smell the physical danger, and repeated observation of others in similar situations makes it clear what will happen to my physical body if I don’t physically move out of the way. The mistake that might be made here involves a failure to take a physical, material action.

In the case of your threat of eternal torture, the problem is in the way I think. It’s a matter of getting one’s mind right. If I fail to think as you think, then allegedly, I’m to be tortured for all eternity. It doesn’t really matter what how I act. I could be paralyzed and isolated from all human contact, but if I draw the wrong mental conclusion about the nature of the gods, I’m to be tortured for all eternity. It’s all about things that occur solely in the mind.

And I would add that no one has ever actually seen the eternal torture chamber that you claim awaits me upon death. I can see what happens to bodies exposed to fire, but I can’t see Hell. Odd, don’t you think, that God has overlooked the need to actually, physically show living human beings what Hell is like? Yes, we have the words in the ancient texts, but no one alive has actually seen the place of eternal torture. Now, if you really wanted to convince people that something was real, wouldn’t it make sense to show it to them?

In any event, the claim that I will face “inflexible judgment” is just one of many charming reasons why I’ve coming to the conclusion that Christianity is really just about the manipulation of fear, threat and terror. At its core, it’s a horrific and highly coercive belief system. Why can entity capable of creating universes would also create such an ugly malignancy is beyond me, and this is part of why I just can’t believe it anymore.

David said...

“Except that David's analogy comparing the One true and living God's truth to a human fairy tale is yet another category error, not that I'd expect you to object to someone engaging in fallacious reasoning.”

How so? What's a category error? Aren’t we talking about two examples of human invention here or two cases where you have to believe in order to see something that really isn’t there?

By the way, I don't know if you are an angry person or not, but you sure are obsessed with the need to threaten people with eternal torture. You're really into this Hell thing.

Coram Deo said...

OK, told me what the Luke 1 text couldn't possibly mean (based on its conflict with your received theology). So what DOES it mean? Zechariah and Elizabeth observed all the commands of God blamelessly, according to the text. According to you, that's impossible.

What's your explanation?


I'm not very hopeful at this point that anything I say will receive much of a hearing from you.

But since you asked, it means exactly what it says in context.

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years. - Luke 1:5-7

These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. - Genesis 6:9

And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?" - Job 1:8

Wow!

These were some righteous men, right? I mean God testifies to their blamelessness!

And that doesn't even consider the so-called "Heroes of the Faith" found in Hebrews 11.

But do you know who the greatest man who ever lived was, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself? Well, Christ gives a personal testimony of him:

I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

John the Baptist is the greatest man who ever lived as testified to by Jesus Christ, God incarnate.

So again, how did all these people get so righteous? What did they do to earn it?

Nothing.

Herein lies your error, you still view Christianity as a set of principles, rules, and regulations that a person follows, keeps, and obeys in order to merit a right standing before the One true and living God (i.e. righteousness).

Yet human works and effort can never merit a righteous standing before the One true and living God, it's an utter impossibility as I've pointed out previously:

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. - Romans 3:19-20

And again:

yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. - Galatians 2:16

You insist this is a contradiction, pointing to JtB's parents and in effect saying, Oooh, oooh!! Look, look!! THEY were blameless because they followed God's rules, see, see?!?

But there's no contradiction. Rather their walk before the Lord is demonstrative of hearts that had been changed by Him, and their circumspect and diligent obedience to follow Him "blamelessly" is indicative of the outworking of His inward grace in their outward good works.

It comes full circle to the passage in James you're complaining about.

Sanctification, like justification, and glorification, and all of God, and all of grace.

God's people walk in holiness before Him because of the alien righteousness imputed to their account for the sake of Christ, by grace alone (Sola Gratia), through faith alone (Sola Fide), in Christ alone (Solus Christus), to the glory of God alone(Soli Deo Gloria).

God gets all the glory, for He alone is worthy.

You must be born again.

Repent.

In Christ,
CD

Coram Deo said...

I’m not sure what either theism or anti-theism has to do with this. Do all of the gods found in various human cultures threaten humans will eternal damnation? I think that you are confusing a broad term (theism) with your particular version of god or gods. Many other theists would disagree with you about the fate faced by my eternal soul.

I'm not up to speed on every iteration of every false god. I'm a Christian theist, and this is a Christian blog. If you're not sure what anti-theism has to do with you being on a Christian theist blog, attacking Christian theism then I'd say you might be a little slow on the uptake.

Presumably every theist other than Christian theists would disagree with me on some level as to the fate of your eternal soul, since all religions are false apart from Biblical Christianity.

Possibly some professing Christian theists would disagree with me as well, but none are here at the present time to set forth a case.

In any case, the two “warnings” scenarios are different. In the case of the fire, the problem is that I need to move my physical body out of the way of a physical danger. I can see, feel and smell the physical danger, and repeated observation of others in similar situations makes it clear what will happen to my physical body if I don’t physically move out of the way. The mistake that might be made here involves a failure to take a physical, material action.

As I said to BF, all analogies break down at some point.

In the case of your threat of eternal torture, the problem is in the way I think. It’s a matter of getting one’s mind right. If I fail to think as you think, then allegedly, I’m to be tortured for all eternity. It doesn’t really matter what how I act. I could be paralyzed and isolated from all human contact, but if I draw the wrong mental conclusion about the nature of the gods, I’m to be tortured for all eternity. It’s all about things that occur solely in the mind.

Your judgment won't be based upon your conformity to my thoughts, rather it will be based upon your sin. Some of you sins occur only in your mind, while you commit some with your body, physically.

And I would add that no one has ever actually seen the eternal torture chamber that you claim awaits me upon death. I can see what happens to bodies exposed to fire, but I can’t see Hell. Odd, don’t you think, that God has overlooked the need to actually, physically show living human beings what Hell is like? Yes, we have the words in the ancient texts, but no one alive has actually seen the place of eternal torture. Now, if you really wanted to convince people that something was real, wouldn’t it make sense to show it to them?

There's at least one eyewitness testimonial that I can think of in Luke 16:19-31.

Cont.

Coram Deo said...

Cont.

I don't know why God doesn't place a big window into hell somewhere that people can look at from time to time. Hypothetically speaking do you think a display like that might convince you to repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ for remission of sins?

How about the window to hell, plus a host of angelic beings warning from heaven that such will be the fate of all those who fail to place their trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?

I assume there's a threshold of convincing evidence for you personally.

In any event, the claim that I will face “inflexible judgment” is just one of many charming reasons why I’ve coming to the conclusion that Christianity is really just about the manipulation of fear, threat and terror. At its core, it’s a horrific and highly coercive belief system. Why can entity capable of creating universes would also create such an ugly malignancy is beyond me, and this is part of why I just can’t believe it anymore.

Okay. Granted Christianity is a pretty offensive and scandalous faith to those who are perishing.

It doesn't offer much in the way of pomp and pageantry to those who prefer a bit more "oomph" in their religion, either.

How so? What's a category error? Aren’t we talking about two examples of human invention here or two cases where you have to believe in order to see something that really isn’t there?

One thing is a human fairy tale (The Emperor's New Clothes) and one thing is ultimate truth revealed by the infinite Creator and judge of the universe (The Holy Bible).

By the way, I don't know if you are an angry person or not, but you sure are obsessed with the need to threaten people with eternal torture. You're really into this Hell thing.

It's more of a promise than a threat, actually.

Frankly I think it's a horrific thing, but it's a Biblical concept, so there's no reason to avoid it, downplay it, or ignore it. Add to this the facts that a.) Jesus Christ spoke of hell more than any other subject, and b.) the New Testament contains more teachings on God's wrath and judgment than the Old Testament, and it seems that it's a subject worthy of our careful consideration.

In Christ,
CD

Coram Deo said...

This comment should have appeared before the one that begins with "Cont."

I’m not sure what either theism or anti-theism has to do with this. Do all of the gods found in various human cultures threaten humans will eternal damnation? I think that you are confusing a broad term (theism) with your particular version of god or gods. Many other theists would disagree with you about the fate faced by my eternal soul.

I'm not up to speed on every iteration of every false god. I'm a Christian theist, and this is a Christian blog. If you're not sure what anti-theism has to do with you being on a Christian theist blog, attacking Christian theism then I'd say you might be a little slow on the uptake.

Presumably every theist other than Christian theists would disagree with me on some level as to the fate of your eternal soul, since all religions are false apart from Biblical Christianity.

Possibly some professing Christian theists would disagree with me as well, but none are here at the present time to set forth a case.

In any case, the two “warnings” scenarios are different. In the case of the fire, the problem is that I need to move my physical body out of the way of a physical danger. I can see, feel and smell the physical danger, and repeated observation of others in similar situations makes it clear what will happen to my physical body if I don’t physically move out of the way. The mistake that might be made here involves a failure to take a physical, material action.

As I said to BF, all analogies break down at some point.

In the case of your threat of eternal torture, the problem is in the way I think. It’s a matter of getting one’s mind right. If I fail to think as you think, then allegedly, I’m to be tortured for all eternity. It doesn’t really matter what how I act. I could be paralyzed and isolated from all human contact, but if I draw the wrong mental conclusion about the nature of the gods, I’m to be tortured for all eternity. It’s all about things that occur solely in the mind.

Your judgment won't be based upon your conformity to my thoughts, rather it will be based upon your sin. Some of you sins occur only in your mind, while you commit some with your body, physically.

And I would add that no one has ever actually seen the eternal torture chamber that you claim awaits me upon death. I can see what happens to bodies exposed to fire, but I can’t see Hell. Odd, don’t you think, that God has overlooked the need to actually, physically show living human beings what Hell is like? Yes, we have the words in the ancient texts, but no one alive has actually seen the place of eternal torture. Now, if you really wanted to convince people that something was real, wouldn’t it make sense to show it to them?

There's at least one eyewitness testimonial that I can think of in Luke 16:19-31.

See comment above for part 1.

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

“I don't know why God doesn't place a big window into hell somewhere that people can look at from time to time. Hypothetically speaking do you think a display like that might convince you to repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ for remission of sins?”

Yes.

“How about the window to hell, plus a host of angelic beings warning from heaven that such will be the fate of all those who fail to place their trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?”

Yes, that would be good.

“I assume there's a threshold of convincing evidence for you personally.”

Yes.

“Okay. Granted Christianity is a pretty offensive and scandalous faith to those who are perishing.”

Actually, it’s pretty offensive to anyone who thinks about it a little bit.

“It doesn't offer much in the way of pomp and pageantry to those who prefer a bit more "oomph" in their religion, either.”

I don’t know, I’ve seen plenty of pomp and pageantry associated with Christiainity.


“One thing is a human fairy tale (The Emperor's New Clothes) and one thing is ultimate truth revealed by the infinite Creator and judge of the universe (The Holy Bible).”

Or maybe both are fairy tales. Same category.


“Add to this the facts that Jesus Christ spoke of hell more than any other subject”.

So, why is there so very little mention of hell in the OT? Here's a concept that is central to the NT and Christianity, and yet, in the OT, it barely gets a glance. Odd, don't you think?


Two mice in a cage...

"What are going to do tonight, CD?"

"Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world by telling everyone that we disagree with that they will be eternally tortured if continue to disagree with us."

Coram Deo said...

There should have been a comment preceding my "Cont." comment. I guess blogger ate it...

Oh well, I may go back and try to re-post it for the sake of consistency.

Yes David, you don't believe in the One true and Living God nor His Word as it's contained in the Holy Bible, and those who do believe are foolish/deluded/childish/possibly (probably?) mentally deranged, etc.

Got it. Thanks for sharing.

In Christ,
CD

David said...

"Those who do believe are foolish/deluded/childish/possibly (probably?) mentally deranged, etc."

Huh? At very best, this is a massive generalization and oversimplification of what I've said. Life's much more complicated than this, and people believe what they believe for many reasons. So, why characterize my words in this way?

Coram Deo said...

Huh? At very best, this is a massive generalization and oversimplification of what I've said. Life's much more complicated than this, and people believe what they believe for many reasons. So, why characterize my words in this way?

Feel free to correct my "massive generalization/oversimplification".

In light of your comparisons of the Bible to a fairy tale, and your caricature of those who believe its truth claims (or at least me as an individual believer) to a children's cartoon (Pinky and The Brain), my characterization of your stated position doesn't look like too much of a stretch from where I'm sitting.

But that's just one man's opinion.

In Him,
CD

David said...

"In light of your comparisons of the Bible to a fairy tale, and your caricature of those who believe its truth claims (or at least me as an individual believer) to a children's cartoon (Pinky and The Brain), my characterization of your stated position doesn't look like too much of a stretch from where I'm sitting."

Well, you're the one who kept using the "fairy tale" phrase, not me. I just finally gave in to your choice of words. Regardless, given that the phrase was used in the context of The Emperor's New Clothes, I don't think that the term "fairy tale" is a derogatory or pejorative term. The events in the tale may never have happened, but the story does have some merit and was intended as much for adults as children.

My comments have been directed almost entirely to you as an individual believer and not to all of the "those" in the world who call themselves. I was responding to your implication that I was a saying that all Christians can be characterized using the specific words that you chose. This is what I mean by generalizations and massive oversimplification. I am able to distinguish between individual Christians.

As far the cartoon goes, Pinky and the Brain was one of my favorites, and though already an adult at the time, I watched it regularly. Your obsessions happened to trigger my memory of the always repeated closing sequence. That fact that it happens to be from a cartoon should not be taken as implying "childishness".

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Coram, I do appreciate that you offered an explanation of the Luke 1 text. Still, the use of language here suggests something different than their being justified by faith. It says they observed the commands of God blamelessly. Whether as a consequence of already being saved or not, they're nevertheless doing what you insist cannot be done: fulfilling the commands of God by keeping them.

I don't know how it could be stated with greater clarity than in the Luke passage.

"Jesus Christ spoke of hell more than any other subject ..."

No, I believe he spoke more about the kingdom of God than any other subject. The references to gehenna are not as abundant as people might think. Most of what Jesus says about final punishment is nonspecific with regard to nature and duration. People have argued for annihilationism or even that gehenna is a metaphor for the impending destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. There's much more to the NT statements about "hell" than meets the eye. I realize that you see only one possible interpretation: endless torments. But don't you think this is the view that least honors the character of God?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

David said: "I am able to distinguish between individual Christians."

Absolutely right. There's no one kind of animal called "Christian." They differ so radically from one another that they appear to hold different religions.

There are staunch Reformed Christians like Coram who are inerrantists and talk a lot about hell. Liberals who focus on peace and helping the poor. Snake handlers in the backwoods. Eastern Orthodox Christians with a high liturgy, Plymouth Brethren with no liturgy. Mennonites who enter disaster areas and rebuild homes. Pentecostals who speak in tongues, monks who don't speak at all. And on and on.

I can hardly imagine a more diverse group.

Coram Deo said...

BF,

I didn't expect you to receive my explanation, but you asked.

Like I said before, no one is holding a gun to your (or David's) head demanding that you confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior - not that a coerced confession would be of any value anyway.

Obviously you're both free to keep on keepin' on just as you are, but someday soon your finite time on earth will be up, and you'll enter eternity under the wrath and condemnation of your Creator Whom you've variously spurned, rejected, denied, and ridiculed.

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
- John 3:18-19

You can't say no one ever warned you.

In Him,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Like I said before, no one is holding a gun to your (or David's) head demanding that you confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior - not that a coerced confession would be of any value anyway.

You're right, no one is holding a gun to our heads -- just threatening us with a lake of fire. That's not coercion?? And if a coerced confession at gunpoint would be pointless, why would a conversion under threat of hell be any more meaningful?

Coram Deo said...

You're right, no one is holding a gun to our heads -- just threatening us with a lake of fire. That's not coercion?? And if a coerced confession at gunpoint would be pointless, why would a conversion under threat of hell be any more meaningful?

According to David I'm guilty of confusing the physical world with things that occur solely in the mind.

And according to your own testimony you don't believe the stupid stuff written by a bunch of ignorant nomads anyway, so no worries, right?

Except that you can't escape the certain knowledge of an angry, wrathful God above you, an accusing guilty conscience within you, and a yawning hell beneath you.

Again, why are you complaining to me about what God has chosen to reveal, and the manner in which He has chosen to reveal it?

On the one hand God is a perfectly holy and just judge, and He will mete out inflexible justice to all lawbreakers, which is every single individual who has ever lived apart from the Lord Jesus Christ.

On the other hand God is a perfectly holy and compassionately gracious Savior, and He will bestow unmerited, undeserved mercy upon those who have been redeemed, which are those who are in Christ.

In Christ,
CD

David said...

Except that you can't escape the certain knowledge...that when people act as if they have absolute truth or certainty handed to them by a god, it will affect those who disagree with them right here, right now, in this world and in this lifetime. Sometimes that's a good thing when folks are motivated to do good, and sometimes that's a really bad thing, but regardless, it's difficult to ignore.

David said...

"Again, why are you complaining to me?"

Because it's tedious and tiresome and often not relevant to the topic at hand.

Brabble asks you a question about a passage in the Bible. You offer your interpretation, and that's fine. But then you always have add something to the effect that if we don't believe you or accept your interpretation, it's eternal torture because we disagree with your view of ancient events.

You know, we heard you the first time. After awhile, the repetition is more annoying than anything else, and suggests a certain obsession on your part.

Coram Deo said...

that when people act as if they have absolute truth or certainty handed to them by a god, it will affect those who disagree with them right here, right now, in this world and in this lifetime. Sometimes that's a good thing when folks are motivated to do good, and sometimes that's a really bad thing, but regardless, it's difficult to ignore.

The One true and living God has provided objective, absolute truth in His Word, the Holy Bible.

I don't how you've been personally affected for the better or the worse by God's truth.

Because it's tedious and tiresome and often not relevant to the topic at hand.

Brabble asks you a question about a passage in the Bible. You offer your interpretation, and that's fine. But then you always have add something to the effect that if we don't believe you or accept your interpretation, it's eternal torture because we disagree with your view of ancient events.

You know, we heard you the first time. After awhile, the repetition is more annoying than anything else, and suggests a certain obsession on your part.


You're free to stop the dialogue at any time. Again, I don't see anyone forcing you or Brabble to interact.

Let's see here...hang out at a Christian-theistic blog; pose various questions/challenges; reject the responses given from a Christian-theistic worldview; complain about said responses, throw in some ad hominem instead of dealing with the arguments presented...and you accuse me of being "tedious and annoying"?

LOL!

Pot meet kettle...

I know it's hard for you to believe, but I care about your eternal soul, even if you don't.

You must be born again.

In Him,
CD

David said...

"The One true and living God has provided objective, absolute truth in His Word, the Holy Bible. I don't how you've been personally affected for the better or the worse by God's truth."

What I've been affected by are people who think that the One true and living God has provided objective, absolute truth in His Word, the Holy Bible. I'm affected by what my fellow humans believe. This I know. Whether or not the One true and living God has actually, in fact, provided objective, absolute truth in His Word, the Holy Bible...is another matter entirely.


"Pot meet kettle..."

Ok, so we both can be tedious and annoying. Never said I was perfect.

Point is, you wanted to know what the compliant is, and I've tried to explain it to you. I know that you think that I'll be tortured forever if I disagree with you, I heard it the first time, and there's no need to keep repeating it. I've engaged in many discussion about the meaning of this or that passage in the Bible, and rarely have I encountered anyone who seems so obsessed with saying..."and further more, if you disagree with me, you'll be in agony for all eternity". Are you trying to convince me or yourself?

Coram Deo said...

Point is, you wanted to know what the compliant is, and I've tried to explain it to you. I know that you think that I'll be tortured forever if I disagree with you, I heard it the first time, and there's no need to keep repeating it. I've engaged in many discussion about the meaning of this or that passage in the Bible, and rarely have I encountered anyone who seems so obsessed with saying..."and further more, if you disagree with me, you'll be in agony for all eternity". Are you trying to convince me or yourself?

It's not disagreement with me, but disagreement with the One true and living God that's your problem; and your problem is rooted in your sinful rebellion against Him and His Christ.

There are only two possible eternal destinations for the human soul, heaven or hell.

And there are only two races, or types, of people in the world; the redeemed race belonging to God in Christ, and everyone else.

Christians go to heaven, and everyone else goes to hell. Everyone begins on the road to destruction, but God mercifully intervenes in time (temporally) to rescue some, plucking them as brands from the fire.

It's not overly complex.

In Him,
CD

David said...

Again, are you trying to convince me or yourself?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Christians go to heaven, and everyone else goes to hell.

This is stale theology. Scholars now understand that the hope preached in the gospels was not the hope of heaven at death, but the revelation of God's kingdom on earth, where the meek would "inherit the earth" and live forever. You're stuck in the past, Coram. This is not 1741. Leave Jonathan Edwards behind.

Coram Deo said...

Again, are you trying to convince me or yourself?

I'm not able to convince you, I'm just telling it like it is.

This is stale theology. Scholars now understand that the hope preached in the gospels was not the hope of heaven at death, but the revelation of God's kingdom on earth, where the meek would "inherit the earth" and live forever. You're stuck in the past, Coram. This is not 1741. Leave Jonathan Edwards behind.

Yes, certain "scholars" have been trying to jettison hell for a long, long time while simultaneously attempting to broaden that exclusive, narrow way.

I don't expect that anyone should lack for professing Christian teachers to tickle his ears and tell him; "You're good enough, you're smart enough, and dog-gone it, God loves you just the way you are!"

In Christ,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Yes, certain "scholars" have been trying to jettison hell ...

I'm not talking about hell. It's heaven. Where does Jesus teach with any clarity that the faithful will live with God forever in heaven?? Answer: Nowhere.

Coram Deo said...

Here are a few snippets, you can study the verses in context on your own, should you be so inclined.

MAT 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

MAT 6:20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

MAT 18:10 See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

MAR 16:19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

LUK 15:7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

LUK 20:34 Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.

35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage,

36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are
God's children, since they are children of the resurrection.

JOH 14:2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.


In Christ,
CD

David said...

"I'm not able to convince you, I'm just telling it like it is."

So, why do you feel compelled to tell me this again and again and again? I heard you the first time. It's as if you don't think that your arguments are convincing on their own merits, so you have to keep saying that if I don't believe you, I'll be eternally tortured. The rational argument fails, so we go with fear and terror as a back-up move.

By the way, why did Jesus say so little about what heaven is like? One might conclude that he'd never been there.

David said...

"You're good enough, you're smart enough, and dog-gone it, God loves you just the way you are!"

God doesn't love me just the way I am? Huh. I didn't realize that.

David said...

"After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God."

Ditheism!

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Coram, none of those texts place people in heaven for all eternity. The belief was that the saints would live in the messianic kingdom of God on earth, also called the kingdom of heaven. The riches and blessings of the righteous would be stored in heaven until that day when the Son of Man would bring them all down to the earth. Jesus was going to prepare a place for the saints (a place called the New Jerusalem in Revelation) and bring that place down to the physical earth.

Coram Deo said...

So, why do you feel compelled to tell me this again and again and again? I heard you the first time. It's as if you don't think that your arguments are convincing on their own merits, so you have to keep saying that if I don't believe you, I'll be eternally tortured. The rational argument fails, so we go with fear and terror as a back-up move.

Why do you feel compelled to keep asking? My arguments, such as they are, aren't particularly sophisticated or complex, in fact they're quite simple.

As I mentioned to Brabble earlier, no one can be "reasoned" to Christ, nor can one "reason" himself to Christ.

This isn't because the Christian faith is unreasonable, but rather it's because the sinner's reasoning powers are hopelessly perverted, twisted, and corrupted by sin such that he will by all means choose evil and flee from God, because of his fallen nature. Fallen man is a rebel.

One's spiritual eyes and ears must be opened by the Holy Spirit, otherwise the things of the spirit are folly, foolishness, and nonsense to the worldling such as yourself.

By the way, why did Jesus say so little about what heaven is like? One might conclude that he'd never been there.

This is a rather ironic comment coming upon the heels of my reply to Brabble above.

In Christ,
CD

David said...

Why do you feel compelled to keep asking?

Er, 'cause you almost always end your answers to questions with the same threats, whether it's relevant to the question or not.


"As I mentioned to Brabble earlier, no one can be "reasoned" to Christ, nor can one "reason" himself to Christ. This isn't because the Christian faith is unreasonable..."

Actually, if one cannot reason oneself to Christ, then I believe that this DOES mean that the Christian faith is unreasonable.


"This is a rather ironic comment coming upon the heels of my reply to Brabble above."

Why? Beside a few bits about marriage, where's the in-depth description of the place where you'll spend eternity? Again, if Jesus had been there, I would have expected a much, much fuller description. I mean, you want to sell the place, right?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

"...the sinner's reasoning powers are hopelessly perverted, twisted, and corrupted by sin such that he will by all means choose evil and flee from God, because of his fallen nature. Fallen man is a rebel.

Curious that the book of Genesis never mentions anything about this dreadful consequence of eating the forbidden fruit. Think about it: God tells Adam and Eve that weeds will invade the soil, that they'll have to work by the sweat of their brow, and that childbearing will be painful. He also tells them they will die (which he defines as a return to the dust). But not one word about their natures now being fallen, their new inability to choose good over evil, the perversion of their reasoning faculty. And worst of all, no mention that this condition would be transmitted to all generations.

Just like the glaring omission here of "hell when you die," there's nothing about this change in human nature that destroys our very power of reason.

Don't you find that a little ... odd?

Coram Deo said...

God doesn't love me just the way I am? Huh. I didn't realize that.

Rebel sinners abide under His indignant wrath, and He is angry with them every day.

Yet He nevertheless graciously offers redemption through the shed blood of Jesus Christ so that all who believe on Him will not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

There can be little doubt that you understand nothing of the love of the One true and living God.

His message is clear: "Repent, humble yourself, and receive grace - or perish!"

This is a profound manifestation of love, but blind, unrepentant rebel sinners like you and Brabble find it to be hateful, or angry; exactly the opposite character of what it truly is.

This is no surprise as it's every sinner's natural response to God's absolute sovereignty.

If there was no form of love of God at all towards rebel sinners, then there would be no such promises, nor threatenings. True love confronts the error of sin with the truth of Christ, in order that some might be saved.

The preaching of the Gospel is an expression of God's love, even for those who turn away and go on hating Him; yet the message of the Gospel isn't "God loves you just as you are"; rather it's "For the sake of Christ God will turn his divine wrath away from all those who trust on Jesus as Lord and Savior, and He will pour out His Fatherly love upon them for all eternity."

David said: Ditheism!

LOL! And this follows on the heels of BF's objections about the doctrine of the Trinity from earlier in the thread.

I thought you and BF were passing yourselves off as being knowledgable about the Christian faith?

Coram, none of those texts place people in heaven for all eternity. The belief was that the saints would live in the messianic kingdom of God on earth, also called the kingdom of heaven. The riches and blessings of the righteous would be stored in heaven until that day when the Son of Man would bring them all down to the earth. Jesus was going to prepare a place for the saints (a place called the New Jerusalem in Revelation) and bring that place down to the physical earth.

You're leaving out a ton of eschatology, but in a nutshell being mercifully and graciously accepted in God's presence and enjoying Him for eternity is heaven.

In Him,
CD

Coram Deo said...

Er, 'cause you almost always end your answers to questions with the same threats, whether it's relevant to the question or not.

Yet you continue asking anyway...

Actually, if one cannot reason oneself to Christ, then I believe that this DOES mean that the Christian faith is unreasonable.

Yes, you would think that, but you would be wrong. The problem lies with you, not with Christianity. You have a major problem called sin that corrupts your reasoning powers and makes you sinfully irrational, incoherent, and illogical.

It's a product of the fall.

Why? Beside a few bits about marriage, where's the in-depth description of the place where you'll spend eternity? Again, if Jesus had been there, I would have expected a much, much fuller description. I mean, you want to sell the place, right?

Evidently God didn't see fit to cater to your personal preferences and expectations any more than He did for Brabble.

Curious that the book of Genesis never mentions anything about this dreadful consequence of eating the forbidden fruit. Think about it: God tells Adam and Eve that weeds will invade the soil, that they'll have to work by the sweat of their brow, and that childbearing will be painful. He also tells them they will die (which he defines as a return to the dust). But not one word about their natures now being fallen, their new inability to choose good over evil, the perversion of their reasoning faculty. And worst of all, no mention that this condition would be transmitted to all generations.

Yes, God didn't write the Bible the way you would have liked, Brabble. We've established that. He's chosen to reveal His truth in His own way and in His own time.

Just like the glaring omission here of "hell when you die," there's nothing about this change in human nature that destroys our very power of reason.

See above. If you're interested, however, all those concepts (and more!) are available for your inspection in the whole counsel of God as it is contained in the 66 books of the Holy Bible.

Don't you find that a little ... odd?

No.

In Christ,
CD

David said...

"He is angry with them every day."

I didn't ask about anger. I asked about being loved the way I am.


"I thought you and BF were passing yourselves off as being knowledgable about the Christian faith?"

If I'm sitting on your right-hand, am I you? Or am I a second human being?

David said...

"You have a major problem called sin that corrupts your reasoning powers and makes you sinfully irrational, incoherent, and illogical."


...And we're back to the parable of The Emperor's New Clothes.

Here's another possibiity. Maybe Christianity really is just irrational, incoherent and illogical.

Coram Deo said...

I didn't ask about anger. I asked about being loved the way I am.

It doesn't seem that you reflected upon my response to you.

The fact that God created you, sustained you, and put you in a position to hear the Gospel is a gracious and loving display.

But you make yourself His enemy, and as His enemy His salvific love doesn't abide upon you, but rather His wrath abides upon you.

Yet in His patient lovingkindness He continues to give you His air to breathe, His food to eat, and heartbeats.

But someday the accounts will be settled, and His patience will end, at which point there will be only a fearful expectation of judgment for His enemies.

If I'm sitting on your right-hand, am I you? Or am I a second human being?

You and I aren't God. The Father and Son are God, as well as the Holy Spirit. The One true and living God is a Triune Being.

...And we're back to the parable of The Emperor's New Clothes.

Which is still, as I pointed out earlier, a category error demonstrating your illogical, irrational, incoherent epistemology.

Here's another possibiity. Maybe Christianity really is just irrational, incoherent and illogical.

Actually that's an impossibility since Christianity is based on divinely revealed ultimate truth.

Sorry. Try again.

In Christ,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

"I thought you and BF were passing yourselves off as being knowledgable about the Christian faith?"

Our pointing out the myriad inconsistensies in your system (which is only one expression of Christian faith) is not the same thing as being ignorant of what your system teaches. You keep making that mistake.

"You're leaving out a ton of eschatology ..."

The whole eschatology of the Bible moves toward the renewal of the earth -- a "new heaven and new earth." By setting forth "heaven when you die" as the essence of Christian eschatological hope, you're really preaching a different doctrine than Jesus did.

"Yes, God didn't write the Bible the way you would have liked, Brabble."

But I'm not saying, "God should have written the Bible the way I would have liked." I'm saying that these kinds of perplexing omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies are exactly what we'd expect from a human book. That's what the Bible appears to be: a work of men trying to understand God and ultimate reality. Some of it's profound and beautiful. Some of it isn't. (I know, I know, it's because I "hate God" that I see things in such a reasoned way.)

"The fact that God created you, sustained you, and put you in a position to hear the Gospel is a gracious and loving display."

But here's the absurdity of the Calvinist doctrine: While God is offering salvation to everybody, he has provided atonement for only a select, limited company. God sent Jesus to die for a mere portion of the human race, but offers salvation to the whole race. This amounts to an amazingly insincere offer. It's like me saying to a homeless man, "I'll write you a check for $500 if you simply receive it" -- knowing that there's no money in the checking account. My knowledge that "he would never accept it" wouldn't mitigate the insincerity of my offer.

David said...

"But you make yourself His enemy...

Uh, no. I just don't agree with your version of God. I don't understand why an entity with the power to create universes would particularly care what I think of said entity.

YOU'VE chosen to describe me as an "enemy". This is YOUR conclusions. Who knows if God has any beef with me or not? Certainly, you don't know.

"You and I aren't God. The Father and Son are God, as well as the Holy Spirit. The One true and living God is a Triune Being."

Doesn't really address the point. You're just creating new rules as you go along to avoid the reality that Jesus and God are clearly separate entities. Guess this is one of this irrationalities that is only rational if you can see the empreror's clothes.

"Which is still, as I pointed out earlier, a category error demonstrating your illogical, irrational, incoherent epistemology."

Is it? This is not clear. The new clothes story is basically a parable used to illustrate flawed thinking or behaviors. It can be used to crique or analyze real events, either though the events in the parable did not happen.

If you used a New Testament parable to point out the errors in someone's thinking or actions, would you be making a catagory error? The thought or action would be real or literal, but the events in the parable never actually, literally happened. So, this means that you cannot use the parable to say that the thought or behavior was wrong in any way without committing a catagory error, right?

"Actually that's an impossibility since Christianity is based on divinely revealed ultimate truth."

And you know this because...? Sounds like more new clothes to me. If it happens that you are wrong about this, how would you know? What data, tests, obervations, etc., have the potential to demonstrate that you are wrong?

David said...

To clarify...

...The thoughts or actions identified using the NT parable as being sinful or errorneous being would be real or literal. However, the events in the parable never actually, literally happened. So,...

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Just look at the irony in this: (1) we're God's enemies, (3) as such, he will someday inflict horrible vengeance upon us, (3) Jesus told his hearers to love their enemies and do good to them, and not to be like the heathen who only love those that love them, (4) he further said that we should not retaliate by inflicting evil on those who hurt us.

The third and fourth points hold human beings to a higher standard than God. How can that be? Isn't there something seriously wrong with any form of religion that is so internally inconsistent?

Coram Deo said...

Our pointing out the myriad inconsistensies in your system (which is only one expression of Christian faith) is not the same thing as being ignorant of what your system teaches. You keep making that mistake.

Actually you've not pointed out any inconsistencies at all, you've only pointed out your own contrived and imagined "inconsistencies". That really says more about you than anything else.

The whole eschatology of the Bible moves toward the renewal of the earth -- a "new heaven and new earth." By setting forth "heaven when you die" as the essence of Christian eschatological hope, you're really preaching a different doctrine than Jesus did.

As I said, you're leaving out a ton of eschatology; i.e. judgment at death, the intermediate state, resurrection, final judgment, eternal state. This may be among the reasons why you seem confused about the topic of heaven.

The hope of resurrection and eternal life in heaven, which is in the presence of the One true and living God is the summary of the Christian's hope. That's pretty basic, elementary "Christianity 101" stuff. Nothing to get all tripped up about.

But I'm not saying, "God should have written the Bible the way I would have liked." I'm saying that these kinds of perplexing omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies are exactly what we'd expect from a human book. That's what the Bible appears to be: a work of men trying to understand God and ultimate reality. Some of it's profound and beautiful. Some of it isn't. (I know, I know, it's because I "hate God" that I see things in such a reasoned way.)

What you see as perplexing omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies are nothing of the kind. God has provided His self-revelation progressively to mankind in precisely the manner He has seen fit, and He has inscripturated it in the 66 books of the Holy Bible.

You're just the clay complaining about the Potter.

But here's the absurdity of the Calvinist doctrine: While God is offering salvation to everybody, he has provided atonement for only a select, limited company. God sent Jesus to die for a mere portion of the human race, but offers salvation to the whole race. This amounts to an amazingly insincere offer. It's like me saying to a homeless man, "I'll write you a check for $500 if you simply receive it" -- knowing that there's no money in the checking account. My knowledge that "he would never accept it" wouldn't mitigate the insincerity of my offer.

More complaints from the lump of clay. God should have done it differently. God should do things your way, right?

Instead of being amazed that God would mercifully save anyone, you're sitting around complaining that he doesn't mercifully save everyone.

But mercy isn't deserved, it's undeserved - that's why it's mercy. Justice is deserved.

And instead of embracing God's offer of redemption and turning to Christ, you're instead complaining about things like the extent of the atonement, and claiming God's offer is "insincere". The hubris is simply amazing.

In Christ,
CD

Coram Deo said...

Uh, no. I just don't agree with your version of God. I don't understand why an entity with the power to create universes would particularly care what I think of said entity.

There's only One true and living God, the God of the Bible. Perhaps there are versions of gods that you might agree with, but that's rather irrelevant since by definition all other gods so-called are false gods.

I don't know why the One true and living God takes a personal interest in creatures like you or me either, but He does.

YOU'VE chosen to describe me as an "enemy". This is YOUR conclusions. Who knows if God has any beef with me or not? Certainly, you don't know.

The Bible is clear about who God's enemies are, they are those who reject and despise Him and His Son; e.g. you.

Doesn't really address the point. You're just creating new rules as you go along to avoid the reality that Jesus and God are clearly separate entities. Guess this is one of this irrationalities that is only rational if you can see the empreror's clothes.

LOL! Yeah, I just made up the doctrine of the Trinity kinda spur of the moment as I desperately tried to think of a response to your assertion...

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three Persons. There's some good teaching available on the subject of the Trinity that I can point you to if you'd care to learn more on your own time.

Is it? This is not clear. The new clothes story is basically a parable used to illustrate flawed thinking or behaviors. It can be used to crique or analyze real events, either though the events in the parable did not happen.

Yes. It is clear. The Emperor's New Clothes is a human fairy tale, whereas the Holy Bible is revealed ultimate truth from the One true and Living God to men.

Cont.

Coram Deo said...

Cont.

If you used a New Testament parable to point out the errors in someone's thinking or actions, would you be making a catagory error? The thought or action would be real or literal, but the events in the parable never actually, literally happened. So, this means that you cannot use the parable to say that the thought or behavior was wrong in any way without committing a catagory error, right?

You're simply confused.

Use and substance aren't the same things, either. I could use a Bible, or a copy of The Emperor's New Clothes as a paper weight, or as a coaster for my cold drink, but that use wouldn't make them equal in substance.

I'm not saying a purely human work can't be useful or helpful in some sense, what I'm saying is that a purely human work can't be equated to a divine work. They are by definition unequal.

Here's what you said that started us down this rabbit trail:

How so? What's a category error? Aren’t we talking about two examples of human invention here or two cases where you have to believe in order to see something that really isn’t there?

The answer, which I already gave in short form earlier, is: "No, we're not talking about two examples of human invention (TENC is a human invention and The Holy Bible is divinely revealed ultimate truth), and we're not talking about two cases where you have to believe in order to see something that really isn't there (the soul, heaven, hell, etc. are all spiritual realities, not imaginary fairy tales)."

And you know this because...? Sounds like more new clothes to me. If it happens that you are wrong about this, how would you know? What data, tests, obervations, etc., have the potential to demonstrate that you are wrong?

Of course it sounds like foolishness to you, because you can't receive the things of the Spirit; as I've been telling you and BF for awhile now.

Ultimate truth i) by definition cannot be "wrong"; ii) ultimate authorities are just that, ultimate. If an appeal is made to another "higher" authority to verify the alleged ultimate authority then the other "higher" authority would be the ultimate authority.

There's no higher judge than the infinite Creator and Judge of the universe, and there's no appeal to a higher authority than Him.

His Word is authoritative because it's His Word; God's Word.

In Christ,
CD

Coram Deo said...

Just look at the irony in this: (1) we're God's enemies, (3) as such, he will someday inflict horrible vengeance upon us, (3) Jesus told his hearers to love their enemies and do good to them, and not to be like the heathen who only love those that love them, (4) he further said that we should not retaliate by inflicting evil on those who hurt us.

Maybe you overlooked my comment to David that pointed out all the undeserved blessings of common grace that the One true and living God showers upon His hateful, rebellious, spiteful, evil creatures; not to mention His generous, gracious, and loving Gospel call to all those who will trust on Christ.

It seems that on your own terms you hate God, and reject Him on His terms; so why would you ever think He should allow you into His presence in heaven? Why would you even want to go into His presence forever when you reject Him in this life?

That's seems strange; in fact it seems that you want to be far, far away from Him.

Since this is the case, why shouldn't God grant your wishes and cast you into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth?

The third and fourth points hold human beings to a higher standard than God. How can that be? Isn't there something seriously wrong with any form of religion that is so internally inconsistent?

LOL! Speaking of internal inconsistencies it's ironic that you recognize the bar is set so high; yet you fail to see that you can never, ever achieve the standard by your own merits.

This is because the standard is nothing less than absolute, sinless perfection. You can't meet that standard, and neither can I; no one can.

That's why sinners are in desperate need of a Savior; and there's only one Name given under heaven whereby men must be saved; there is only One mediator between God and men; the man Christ Jesus.

You must be born again.

Repent.

In Christ,
CD

P.S. - Do you ever get tired of raging against and hating the One true and living God, or is it sort of your own personal hobby horse?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Call me crazy, but I'm seeing a pattern. We raise objections -- objections that, on the surface at least, appear legitimate. And here's what you do:

1. IF you offer an answer at all (and that's a big "if"), it's always a pat answer that fails to dispense with the difficulty.

2. You flatly deny there's any difficulty.

3. You tell us that the reason we don't see things your way is because we love sin and hate God.

4. You say that our questions prove our ignorance of the Christian faith.

5. You consign us to the flames of hell.

So we ask questions, you simply rebuke the questions and the questioners. Is there any way to get around such a subterfuge?

Nope. Probably not.

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

"So we ask questions, you simply rebuke the questions and the questioners. Is there any way to get around such a subterfuge? Nope. Probably not."

At this point, I have to agree with you.

If I disagree with CD, he will insist that I hate God. How can I hate something that I don't think exists as CD imagines that it exists? I disagree with CD's version of God. That's not hating God.

If I offer a different view of things, he will declare that he has the One and Only Truth, an Absolute and Certain Truth, and everything else is just the creation of humans. Got news for ya, CD. Humans wrote the Bible.

Well, what can you do? This seems to have run its course. Does make me glad that we don't live in a Christian theocracy like in the good old days. CD has the kind of religious zeal that used to get dissenters tortured and burned at the stake.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Good points, David. It's the "you love your sin" part that's the most perplexing to me. If people in general really loved their sin as he says, they wouldn't resist it (but people do), they wouldn't feel bad when they fail (but people do), and they wouldn't admire such virtues as honesty, integrity, charity, kindness, self-sacrifice (but they do).

A sizable body of evidence stands foursquare against many of Coram's dogmatic assertions, which is why he resorts to bullying and intimidation.

David said...

One last note...

"Ultimate truth i) by definition cannot be "wrong"; ii) ultimate authorities are just that, ultimate. If an appeal is made to another "higher" authority to verify the alleged ultimate authority then the other "higher" authority would be the ultimate authority. There's no higher judge than the infinite Creator and Judge of the universe, and there's no appeal to a higher authority than Him."

I have to say that this is one of my personal favorites. I've heard this argument many, many time. It's designed to shut down discussion when there are questions that cannot be answered or when the irrationalities and inconsistencies are revealed.

I like it so much because we are offered a version of God that always reminds me of a teenage girl on Jerry Springer, who says...

"Whatever, "I do want I waaant!"

Says the girl. And according to CD, says God.

Coram Deo said...

While you two have been in here stroking one another's egos and assuring yourselves that all is well, I've been at church worshipping the One true and living God and enjoying the fellowship of His saints.

Man it's the grandest experience this side of heaven! The love, joy, peace and contentment of knowing that God Almighty, the Lord of heaven and earth has poured out His grace upon a wretched sinner like me; hearing His glorious Word proclaimed, and seeing Him high and lifted up upon the praises of His people! Amazing grace!!

Anywho, if you guys have any other questions feel free to ask, and I'll respond to the best of my ability; otherwise I find myself in substantial agreement with David; this discussion has run its course.

Thanks for indulging the discussion and allowing us to use up your blog space, Rho. God bless you, brother!

In Him,
CD

David said...

"I've been at church worshipping the One true and living God and enjoying the fellowship of His saints."

Yeah, I used to do that, too. Then one day, it just didn't work anymore. Just couldn't see the clothes anymore. Shrug.

Later.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

It's been an interesting ride, gentlemen. Thank you.

Paul C said...

Coram Deo, I for one would love to know what behaviour marks me out as a "hateful, rebellious, spiteful, evil creature"?

Or am I hateful, rebellious, spiteful and evil *even if* I never do anything that is hateful, rebellious, spiteful, or evil?

Coram Deo said...

Or am I hateful, rebellious, spiteful and evil *even if* I never do anything that is hateful, rebellious, spiteful, or evil?

No, in that case you would be perfect. Are you claiming to be perfect?

In Him,
CD

Paul C said...

No, in that case you would be perfect. Are you claiming to be perfect?

I'm not claiming anything. I was asking you what in my behaviour marks me out as a "hateful, rebellious, spiteful, evil creature". An answer would be nice.

Coram Deo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coram Deo said...


I'm not claiming anything. I was asking you what in my behaviour marks me out as a "hateful, rebellious, spiteful, evil creature". An answer would be nice.


I'm not privy to your personal patterns of behavior, so it's a bit difficult for me to answer you with any degree of specificity.

I suppose I'd need to ask a few foundational questions, but for starters if you're a Christ denyer that would give me a pretty fair baseline from whence I could venture an educated guess as to what general characteristics are manifest in your life.

In Christ,
CD

Paul C said...

if you're a Christ denyer that would give me a pretty fair baseline from whence I could venture an educated guess as to what general characteristics are manifest in your life.

Let's assume that I'm a Christ denier (although I'm not sure exactly what that means), and I'd be interested to hear your educated guess.

Paul C said...

p.s. Please feel free to ask any questions you need to.

Coram Deo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coram Deo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coram Deo said...

Let's assume that I'm a Christ denier (although I'm not sure exactly what that means), and I'd be interested to hear your educated guess.

Hi Paul C.,

Sorry it's taken so long to get back with you. Busy, busy!

Anywho, assuming that you're a Christ-denier, meaning that you would deny that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, and therefore are not a Christian; then by default are the enemy of the One true and living God.

This is true because there is no middle ground between actively serving Jesus Christ, and actively serving the enemy, Satan.

All those who are outside Christ are actively the enemies of the One true and living God.

As an enemy of the One true and living God, you actively serve the evil one (Satan), and by serving the evil one, you prove yourself to be an evil man.

Because you are an evil man, you pursue wickedness and sin with gusto, and in wanton rebellion against the commands of the One true and living God and His Christ.

This makes you a corrupt, depraved, wicked, vile, wretched, sinful creature worthy of only destruction.

Yet the One true and living God out of His infinite oceans of grace, pity, mercy, and love sent His one and only Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to live a perfect life, die a perfect atoning death, and rise on the third day never to die again so that all those who believe on Him will find forgiveness, and restoration in His shed blood, and will be reconciled to their Creator, the One true and living God, as they stand clothed in perfect, imputed righteousness through grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone, to the praise and glory of the One true and living God alone.

There's room for you at the cross. Turn away from your sin and turn to Jesus Christ for cleansing.

In Christ,
CD

Paul C said...

When you said that you "could venture an educated guess as to what general characteristics are manifest in [my] life", I kind of assumed that you would identify some general characteristics! Funny.

When you say I'm an evil man who pursues "wickedness and sin with gusto", how exactly do I pursue wickedness and sin with gusto? What am I actually *doing* that's so wicked and sinful?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Paul, given that description, it sounds like you go WAY out of your way to visit the red-light district, as often as your finances allow (and then some). Plus, you probably cheat and steal from your fellow man, even when it's not expedient -- just for the sheer pleasure of sinning. And doubtless, you knock children off their bicycles, too. Is that accurate?

No? Hmmm.

I'm convinced people like Coram caricature the sinful practices of nonbelievers for two reasons: (1) it more sharply contrasts them (possessors of a "new nature") with everyone else, (2) it's easier to consign an openly pernicious wretch to the flames of perdition than a guy generally trying to live well.

Rhology said...

Brabble,

That kind of nonsense is compatible neither with the biblical worldview, because men are awful sinners in virtually everything we do in the sight of God, nor with a naturalistic worldview, where there is no good or bad.

I guess what we can conclude is that you're just making it up as you go. I'm just wondering why anyone else should think that such an approach has any value for anyone including yourself.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

I'm only reacting to Coram Deo, who said that Paul C. "pursues wickedness and sin with gusto." Do you agree or disagree with that assessment? Over the top or no?

Rhology said...

I wholeheartedly agree.
Such describes not only Paul C but the entire population of human beings throughout history. And I'll be the first to say that I was once among them. $10 gazillion says that Coram Deo will also confess to being a filthy sinner who has spent years of his life pursuing wickedness with gusto, just as I do. From which life Jesus has thankfully saved us.

Paul C said...

Such describes not only Paul C but the entire population of human beings throughout history.

Thanks for chiming in, Rhology. Perhaps you can explain in what ways *exactly* I pursue wickedness and sin with gusto?

Rhology said...

The 10 Commandments are an excellent place to start. You prefer other things to God. You take His name in vain. You don't honor the Sabbath in that you refuse to take your rest in Jesus. Don't lie to everyone and pretend you've never disobeyed your parents w/o justification. You've been unjustifiably angry. You've lusted. You've coveted other people's stuff.

I don't know why you asked the question, tbh.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

So being imperfect is the same thing as pursuing wickedness with gusto?? What about people who are trying to live decent lives? Granted, they still fail to live perfectly ... but is that the same thing as running after evil, licking one's chops and savoring it with gusto?

You people have a real flair for the dramatic.

Rhology said...

Brabble,

That kind of nonsense is compatible neither with the biblical worldview, because men are awful sinners in virtually everything we do in the sight of God, nor with a naturalistic worldview, where there is no good or bad.

I guess what we can conclude is that you're just making it up as you go. I'm just wondering why anyone else should think that such an approach has any value for anyone including yourself.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

"...where there is no good or bad..."

Yes, that's why people in the non-Christian world -- say, places like Japan -- have no qualms about raping and murdering one another, engaging in massive orgies in the streets, mugging their mothers, throwing bricks through store windows to take whatever merchandise appeals to them, torching nursing homes. Yeah, that's exactly what we see, isn't it? Because there's no good or bad with those people, they act accordingly.

Rhology said...

Complete whiff on the question. Please try again.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

A complete whiff on what question?

Coram Deo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coram Deo said...

A complete whiff on what question?

I probably shouldn't be surprised that BF continues to demonstrate an utter failure to grasp the most rudimentary notions of a discussion that's run some 140 or so comments now...but I admit that I still find the fact somewhat amazing.

Are you punking us BF? I mean, seriously, are you just seeing how long you can dupe us into responding to your pretend questions, or are you sincerely confused?

I'm not trying to be insulting because I realize that you're dead, blind and deaf to the things of the Spirit, but the particular line of argumentation in this thread has been pretty straightforward and basic.

Rho is asking how you account for anything being either "good" or "bad" from within your worldview. What makes something "good" or "bad"? Is there a standard we can measure against?

And have you paused to wonder why the Japanese [and others for that matter] aren't running amok in the streets raping, pillaging, and generally engaging in anarchy and mayhem?

In Him,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

No, I do grasp your point of view, Coram. I simply disagree with it, profoundly.

BTW, this is standard operating procedure, especially for Calvinists-with-attitude on the blogosphere. You rhetorically shake your head and announce that your detractors are abysmally ignorant of what you believe. You spit out that line as if on cue, like Pavlov's dog. It's an empty deflecting tactic that comes in lieu of a good argument.

Here was my point, in case you didn't comprehend it. You made the thoroughly unwarranted claim that Paul C. (and I'm assuming you don't know him) is pursuing wickedness with gusto. On what basis?

People do not all pursue wickedness with gusto. Everyone falls short of perfection, as we all agree. But some nonchristians actually try to live decently, treat others with kindness and feel ashamed when they fail. Is this "gusto" for sin? Enthusiasm for wickedness? Giddiness for concupiscence? How so?

The question of how people arrive at standards of right and wrong is another matter altogether. Your simplistic assertion that virtually everyone -- unless they make a commitment to a collection of ancient Hebrew writings -- is devoid of a valid moral compass ... well, it's simply beyond asinine. You have no idea just how asinine that assertion is. And the joke is, you probably think it's some kind of slam dunk.

As for my bumbling lack of comprehension over the course of our comments: I would invite anyone to go over these comments and try to argue that I *haven't* served up your backside on a plate over and over again. And let the reader note that your retort has been the unfailing, repetitive, stupefying assertion that I'm headed for hell and that I'm dead in sins. That's just about the only arrow in your quiver. Not much ammo, sir. Not much at all.

And I'll answer your question about why the Japanese don't degenerate into anarchy. Because every society has standards necessary for holding itself together. What's your explantion? (I mean, besides, "You're dead in sins.")

Coram Deo said...

Here was my point, in case you didn't comprehend it. You made the thoroughly unwarranted claim that Paul C. (and I'm assuming you don't know him) is pursuing wickedness with gusto. On what basis?

As a Christ-denier Paul C., like all those outside Christ, are slaves to sin. Sin is their master, and they love it. They evidence their love for their sin by fleeing from the light of the world, Jesus Christ, and denying Him.

Love for sin is wicked, perverse, and evil. This doesn't mean, as you seem to want to pretend, that everyone is as wicked as they possibly can be. Many who are outside Christ are self-righteous, hypocritical moralists, such as yourself.

People do not all pursue wickedness with gusto. Everyone falls short of perfection, as we all agree. But some nonchristians actually try to live decently, treat others with kindness and feel ashamed when they fail. Is this "gusto" for sin? Enthusiasm for wickedness? Giddiness for concupiscence? How so?

Yes they do, but to varying degrees outwardly. It's always a hopeful sign when the unregenerate feel ashamed and guilty of their sin, it's an indicator that they've not completely seared their God-given consciences.

I wonder what you mean by "living decently" and treating others with "kindness".

From your perspective what constitutes "living decently" and "kindness"? Does such behavior salve your conscience, and help promote your feelings of self-righteousness?

The question of how people arrive at standards of right and wrong is another matter altogether. Your simplistic assertion that virtually everyone -- unless they make a commitment to a collection of ancient Hebrew writings -- is devoid of a valid moral compass ... well, it's simply beyond asinine. You have no idea just how asinine that assertion is. And the joke is, you probably think it's some kind of slam dunk.

I don't recall making an assertion that a committment to a collection of ancient Hebrew writings is what's required for a moral compass. Where did I say that? Point it out, or else retract your baseless assertion. An apology would be pleasant as well.

Where do you think this mysterious "moral compass" comes from? What is its source?

As for my bumbling lack of comprehension over the course of our comments: I would invite anyone to go over these comments and try to argue that I *haven't* served up your backside on a plate over and over again. And let the reader note that your retort has been the unfailing, repetitive, stupefying assertion that I'm headed for hell and that I'm dead in sins. That's just about the only arrow in your quiver. Not much ammo, sir. Not much at all.

Uh...okay. Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, I guess.

And I'll answer your question about why the Japanese don't degenerate into anarchy. Because every society has standards necessary for holding itself together. What's your explantion? (I mean, besides, "You're dead in sins.")

So the "moral compass" is sort of an individualistic thing, but it sort of also is a societal thing, sort of like a gentleman's agreement, right?

In other words, I don't pillage your home and rape your wife, and you don't pillage my home and rape my wife, and we'll get along just fine; does that about sum things up?

In Him,
CD

Brabble Frabbitz said...

From your perspective what constitutes "living decently" and "kindness"? Does such behavior salve your conscience, and help promote your feelings of self-righteousness?

If no one had a clue what those things mean, the words wouldn't exist in the first place. They would be meaningless. But you really know decency and kindness when you see it and so do I, and so does everybody else, so drop the ludicrous suggestion to the contrary.

This is an example of why Calvinism is such a brick wall. You say the non-Christian loves sin, pursues wickedness and does so "with gusto." But if someone is trying to do their best to get along with others and practice integrity ... they're simply being self righteous and, besides, they don't have any basis for holding concepts of goodness anyway.

So the ONLY people who do good and are NOT self-righteous are people who share your faith. Have I got that right?

The absurd flip-side is that Christians admit they sin, too. But for them, it's not part of their essential nature, only the influence of "the flesh." Of course, they're not nearly the dreaded beasts, the incarnate devils they live with on this planet. No, nooooo, they're new creatures and all that. And if some of them don't do any better than the non-Christians, well, then they were never saved to begin with. (That's called "stacking the deck.")

I don't recall making an assertion that a committment to a collection of ancient Hebrew writings is what's required for a moral compass. Where did I say that?

So you don't believe that?

So the "moral compass" is sort of an individualistic thing, but it sort of also is a societal thing, sort of like a gentleman's agreement, right?


You tell me. How do we determine right from wrong? Why is there a right and wrong in the first place? (I'm assuming you won't
locate the source of right and wrong in the Bible, since you waxed indignant over the suggestion that you would utter such a thing.)

Rhology said...

BF:
How do we determine right from wrong? Why is there a right and wrong in the first place?

Here you go.

You whiffed on my question b/c you answered a different one than the one I was asking. I didn't ask why ppl don't rape and pillage. I asked why assert that things are right and wrong if you can't account for right and wrong.

David said...

I see that CD is still totally unable to understand that someone can simply disagree with his position, and at the same time, they may NOT necessarily, simultaneously be "persuing sin with gusto". I simply do not understand how a thinking adult can see everything in such extraordinarily stark, black and white terms. The world just ain't that simple.

With to knowing right and worong, I would ask, if God didn't tell Moses what was right and wrong, how would we know? Consider the hypothesis "God told Moses what was right and what was wrong". How would you test this idea? What would count as evidence against the hypothesis? Is this hypothesis even testable?

Rhology said...

if God didn't tell Moses what was right and wrong, how would we know?

GREAT question, and in fact that's what I keep asking YOU. What is your answer?


--Consider the hypothesis "God told Moses what was right and what was wrong". How would you test this idea?

I wouldn't test it. There exists no means to test that particular contention, b/c God is by definition the ultimate standard of morality. You don't test the ultimate standard of morality, you use it to test all other questions.
Now ask yourself the same question, of your own system of morality.



--What would count as evidence against the hypothesis?

If the worldview in question were internally contradictory, that's the best place to start.
Now ask yourself the same question, of your own system of morality.

David said...

"I wouldn't test it. There exists no means to test that particular contention, b/c God is by definition the ultimate standard of morality. You don't test the ultimate standard of morality, you use it to test all other questions."

Well, there you go then. No need for further discussion. You've chosen the particular human-created version of morality that you prefer, and there's no way to no if you are wrong.

David said...

Oops...

..."there's no way to know if you are wrong."

Rhology said...

And David, there you go then. No need for further discussion. You've chosen the particular human-created version of morality that you prefer, and there's no way to know if you are wrong.
This is precisely why I argue the way I do about morality. Why do you bother making ANY moral statements, at all, ever?

David said...

"And there's no way to know if you are wrong."

Of course, there are ways to know if I'm wrong. I have no problem with the idea that I might be wrong, and I'm sure that you can offer many arguments that you think show that I'm wrong. For example, all God has to do is make a return visit, and that would be that.

"Why do you bother making ANY moral statements, at all, ever?"

The phrase "human-created" does not equal "non-existent" or "without value" or "not needed".

But what's the point of having a discussion about this? You've picked your untestable answer. Given that, in your mind, no other answer can be correct. You will accept no arguments against your position. Pointless to continue, really.

Rhology said...

No, I meant wrong about your moral standard. The same topic you've been discussing here.
How do you know whether you're right about your moral statements?

How do you know moral statements are needed? Especially without begging the question that moral values exist?
How do you know moral statements have value? Especially without begging the question that moral values exist?
Prove that you haven't picked your untestable answer. That, in your mind, other answers can be correct. That you will accept arguments against your position.


Pointless to continue, really.

How do you assign "point" or "value" to anything?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Rhology, you don't have an objective standard of morality yourself. You have a collection of ancient documents you believe were written supernaturally by God, but you have no objective proof that they were. You have no objective proof that the compilers of the canon chose only those books that were God's word. You have no objective proof that your interpretations of various moral issues are, among the myriad competing interpretations, the correct ones. You have no good explanation as to why some things were OK in the ancient world (e.g., slavery, treating women like property, slaughtering enemies and their families) and not OK today. I realize you have arguments for these things, but certainly nothing approaching "objective" fact.

If an "objective" standard really is the prize you insist upon so strenuously and obsessively, we would expect to find anarchy where such a standard is lacking. But we don't necessarily find that -- not at all. So once again, reality militates against your theory. Not that you're really looking for a theory that works in tandem with reality anyway. No, you only use these irritating taunts like, "Murder? What's wrong with that?" as a "gotcha," an attempt at a philosophical checkmate, or as a way of derailing the discussion. It's on a par with "can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?"

What's so bloody important about your "objective" standard, anyhow (besides the fact that your theology doesn't work without one in place)? If people generally live in harmony (as most do), who cares if they can't prove that their mode of living is valid in every corner of the universe forever?

By the same token, people generally find the Grand Canyon beautiful. They don't concern themselves with whether it's beautiful in some external, objective sense. Nobody protests, "But ... but ... but, you have no objective standard!!" Such a person would be deemed a complete weirdo, and rightly so.

Rhology said...

you don't have an objective standard of morality yourself.

**IF** my position is true, yes I do.
And **IF** YOUR position is true, it's still true that none exists. Your position results in absurdity.
That's the point I'm making.


we would expect to find anarchy where such a standard is lacking

Why? Argue for your assertion, please.


No, you only use these irritating taunts like, "Murder? What's wrong with that?" as a "gotcha," an attempt at a philosophical checkmate, or as a way of derailing the discussion. It's on a par with "can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?"

No, those are not even close to similar. The former is a logical outworking of your position, the latter is a braintwister related to the attributes of God and how they relate. This is a smokescreen, very possibly so you won't have to face the bleak reality of your position's conclusions.


What's so bloody important about your "objective" standard, anyhow

Maybe that, w/o one, there's no reason to do anything, or not to do anything?


people generally find the Grand Canyon beautiful.

And some people generally find baby torture enjoyable and moral.
This has been dealt with a hundred times on this blog. You're just moving backwards at this point.

Paul C said...

You prefer other things to God.

I have no idea what this means.

You take His name in vain.

No, I don't.

You don't honor the Sabbath in that you refuse to take your rest in Jesus.

I honor the sabbath in as much as I take one day a week in which I rest, reflect and seek God.

Don't lie to everyone and pretend you've never disobeyed your parents w/o justification.

I've never disobeyed my parents, with or without justification.

You've been unjustifiably angry.

No, I haven't.

You've lusted.

Only after my wife.

You've coveted other people's stuff.

No, I haven't.

So, have you got anything else that I haven't done?

Paul C said...

As a Christ-denier Paul C., like all those outside Christ, are slaves to sin. Sin is their master, and they love it. They evidence their love for their sin by fleeing from the light of the world, Jesus Christ, and denying Him.

You accused me of pursuing wickedness and sin with gusto. I will ask once more, will you please give me some specific examples of how I pursue wickedness and sin with gusto? Rhology already tried, and it didn't go that well for him.

Rhology said...

it didn't go that well for him.

Haha. That's true.
Coram Deo obviously didn't take into account that we were dealing with a nearly angelic being, who has perhaps sinned twice or thrice in his entire life. That's why he and I have been entirely unable to make any headway.

Paul C said...

Coram Deo obviously didn't take into account that we were dealing with a nearly angelic being

I make no claims at all to being angelic; I merely answered your question honestly, as I always do. Now please, answer the question: in what ways do I pursue sin and wickedness with gusto?

David said...

Same old stuff.

Draw the (erroroneous) conclusion that there there is no possible way to open a can except with a can opener, and then solve the problem by assuming that you have a can opener and/or that a can opener must exist.

World doesn't work this way. First, you have to face the reality of life without a can opener before you can move on to how you might open the can without a can opener. Unfortunately, you refuse to test the proposition that your can opener doesn't exist. There is nothing that you would accept as evidence that you are wrong about things like the OT stories. So, what can one do?

"How do you assign "point" or "value" to anything?"

That's easy. My time is valuable to me. And I have to learn to stop wasting it.

Rhology said...

No, you did not answer honestly, but that's to be expected. Here, you've pursued untruth with some gusto. One can only guess at why you saw fit to treat us like we're idiots, but you know, whatever.

I did tell you how you pursue sin with gusto, and you are either so hideously blind or such a liar that you felt it necessary even while anonymous and buried deep in a combox of a third-rate blog like this not to speak truthfully about your past conduct. Yes, you have done all these things. The standard is not "Yeah, I think I've done OK". The standard is perfection, and you haven't met it.

If you disagree, you need to show how you are perfect on Christian presuppositions.
Or you can show how ANYthing is objectively good, on your own presuppositions. We've seen over and over again how well that's worked for you, but hey, again, your choice.

Rhology said...

That's easy. My time is valuable to me. And I have to learn to stop wasting it.

And raping and mutilating your entire family is valuable to me. Given numerous chances to show how that statement is actually an objectively bad thing, you've chosen to complain about how much time of yours I'm wasting, as if I'm forcing you to comment here, and to hem, haw, and evade. Thanks for playing!

Paul C said...

No, you did not answer honestly, but that's to be expected. Here, you've pursued untruth with some gusto.

Oh, so you can read minds and have remote viewing powers. I'm sorry, I didn't realise. Presumably when you accuse me of having mind reading abilities in future, I can still maintain my argument, safe in the knowledge that you'll recognise having "mind reading powers" as being a valid basis for making an argument.

The standard is perfection, and you haven't met it.

I quite agree, but it seems my standards are somewhat more exacting than yours. It seems you are at something of a loss when faced with somebody who doesn't meet your own low expectations. Where does your argument go from here?

David said...

"Thanks for playing!"

Thanks for considering the possibility that you might be wrong. No wait, I think that was me. Sorry, I got confused.

I don't think that I hemmed, hawwed and evaded. I just don't know how to argue with walls.

Not really my fight, but it occurs to me that it might be useful is someone could define the word "gusto".

Rhology said...

so you can read minds and have remote viewing powers

Not I, but God. And we've been over this before.


Presumably when you accuse me of having mind reading abilities in future, I can still maintain my argument

If you can give some kind of argument along the lines of God telling you sthg about me that I'm denying, be my guest. We'll talk about it then.


Where does your argument go from here?

God says you are as CD has been saying you are. You say you're not.
So it comes down to whether we take your word over God's. Not a tough decision.

Paul C said...

Not I, but God. And we've been over this before.

No, it's quite distinctly you who are telling me that I'm lying.

God says you are as CD has been saying you are. You say you're not. So it comes down to whether we take your word over God's. Not a tough decision.

For you, perhaps. For me it comes down to whether I accept the evidence of my own thoughts and actions over your accusations. Not a tough decision.

Now that your argument has fallen apart, I think you should repeat it 5 or 6 times, possibly with some ridicule and abuse thrown in.

Rhology said...

1) Not that you've ever shown any reason for anyone else to think that "don't abuse someone else" is a normative moral mandate that they should accept.

2) At this point you're simply telling me that you don't believe Jesus. We already knew that. You asked, we answered, and there comes a time when there's nothing more to say.

Coram Deo said...

For you, perhaps. For me it comes down to whether I accept the evidence of my own thoughts and actions over your accusations. Not a tough decision.

There's your answer, Rho - just as I pointed out to BF some 130 +/- comments ago.

Paul C., like all Christ-deniers, are their own ultimate authorities.

They are their own gods, seated upon the thrones of their own sin-darkened hearts, who deep down inside utterly loathe with every fiber of their being the One true and living God, and His Christ.

Such high treason against the infinite Creator and Judge of the universe is, of course, grossly evil; and it is pursued with gusto, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread.

In Him,
CD

David said...

Gusto? Definition of gusto? Anyone?

David said...

"Such high treason against the infinite Creator and Judge of the universe is, of course, grossly evil."

Well, of course, all of this assumes that you know the mind of God. Always liked what my friend, Chuck had to say about this:

"I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can."

Coram Deo said...

Well, of course, all of this assumes that you know the mind of God. Always liked what my friend, Chuck had to say about this:

"I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can."


Poor Chuck.

I guess no one ever told him that God has revealed His mind and will to men in His self-revelation contained uniquely within the 66 books of the Holy Bible.

Or more likely he has been told, but he blithely rejected the notion because he loves his sin and hates the One true and living God.

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. [3]

14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
- 1 Cor. 2:6-16

In Christ,
CD

David said...

You know, if I listen closely, I think I can hear dogs barking.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

I guess no one ever told him that God has revealed His mind and will to men in His self-revelation contained uniquely within the 66 books of the Holy Bible.

1. No one ever told you that the authors of the 66 books rarely, if ever, claim to have been writing under the special process you claim for them. You assume this wholesale without a shred of proof.

2. No one ever told you there was no foolproof process by which men picked out the books written by God and those that were not. You just assume they did, without a shred of proof. Like the Catholic, you figure the church must have gotten everything right.

3. No one ever told you that there isn't a single place in the gospels where Jesus ever says that a canon of new scriptures was coming to reveal God's "mind and will to men." He talks about the coming of the Spirit but never says anything about the coming of New Testament writings. Again, you make quantum leap assumptions devoid of any supporting evidence.

That makes you a very, very naive soul. No different than the adherent of any other religion who ignorantly assumes all manner of things about his holy book.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Rhology, your "torturing babies" argument is preposterous. People torturing babies doesn't seem to be a widespread problem, does it? Things like human sympathy and criminal laws prevent it. But I know, I know ... in your version of the universe, the ban on torturing babies has to be written indelibly somewhere to satisfy your need for an "objective standard."

Of course, you're aware that the Bible does allow the dashing of infants on a rock under some circumstances (Psalm 137:9). Even though the Bible is, for you, an eternal standard, I'm certain you wouldn't allow that nowadays. That said, how does the Bible assume the role you assign it when its ethics seem to shift according to time and place?

I don't bring this up to be flip. It's just that your insistence on some codified, forever-relevant standard of right and wrong runs up against an avalanche of objections when we page through these ancient texts.

Coram Deo said...

1. No one ever told you that the authors of the 66 books rarely, if ever, claim to have been writing under the special process you claim for them. You assume this wholesale without a shred of proof.

You're simply mistaken, again. The Holy Bible is the product of One mind, written by a collection of men selected by the One true and living God over the course of time to progressively yet fully reveal His mind to men, at least insofar as it is necessary for salvation.

The evidence is overwhelming, but you simply discard it out of hand because you prefer lies to the truth. This is evidence of your sinfulness.

2. No one ever told you there was no foolproof process by which men picked out the books written by God and those that were not. You just assume they did, without a shred of proof. Like the Catholic, you figure the church must have gotten everything right.

LOL! Again you demonstrate that you have absolutely zero grasp of canonicity, or canon formation. For someone so sure of himself it's especially humorous to see that you manifestly don't even realize how ignorant this statement is on its face.


3. No one ever told you that there isn't a single place in the gospels where Jesus ever says that a canon of new scriptures was coming to reveal God's "mind and will to men." He talks about the coming of the Spirit but never says anything about the coming of New Testament writings. Again, you make quantum leap assumptions devoid of any supporting evidence.


We've been over this one before, we're all in agreement that God didn't reveal His truth in the manner you would like. But for you to simply assert without evidence, that there is no evidence that God has revealed his mind to and will to men in the Bible, especially after the verse I just quoted to Paul C. above, is still more evidence that the truth is just a plaything to you; something you like to toy around with, but which has no meaning for you personally.

You just don't get it, and you don't even know that you don't get it. It's sad to see, but such is the state of the unregenerate heart.

In Christ,
CD

Paul C said...

They are their own gods, seated upon the thrones of their own sin-darkened hearts, who deep down inside utterly loathe with every fiber of their being the One true and living God, and His Christ.

I'm not "my own god", whatever that means; plus, I don't loathe your god. You have precisely no evidence that I loathe your God, except for the fact that I don't share your specific interpretation of the Bible.

Such high treason against the infinite Creator and Judge of the universe is, of course, grossly evil; and it is pursued with gusto, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread.

I'll ask you again: please give me some examples of what exactly it is that I'm pursuing "with gusto". All you've managed to pin so far is that I don't share your religious faith, but I hardly pursue that lack of shared religious belief "with gusto".

Rhology said...

you're aware that the Bible does allow the dashing of infants on a rock under some circumstances (Psalm 137:9).

BF, your understanding of that psg is atrocious. Let me suggest a real commentary, not a joke like the Skeptics' Annotated Bible.
Go to www.searchgodsword.org, look at the lower sections and you'll see numerous good and free commentaries. Try a couple of those.


forever-relevant standard of right and wrong runs up against an avalanche of objections when we page through these ancient texts.

It doesn't exactly surprise me that a sinful unbeliever like you are and like I once was would not believe the Bible and would reject its authority for no better reason than that HE thinks it's no good. Not a news flash. Give me some good reason to think your objections carry any more weight than your opinion.



Paul C,
You have precisely no evidence that I loathe your God, except for the fact that I don't share your specific interpretation of the Bible.

God said you do.
This is plenty of evidence. You won't agree, but that's hardly our problem; you said "no evidence". You were wrong.

Paul C said...

How funny. I could have sworn that I was asking Coram Deo for an answer. Oh well.

"God said you do" = "your specific interpretation of the Bible". There are many, many Christians who don't share your specific interpretation of your Bible, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of the bible is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.

But feeeeeeeeeeeeeel free to try.

Rhology said...

Let's say Jimmy were to come along and ask, "Hmm, what does Paul C's last comment mean?"
And Chris said, "It means he is eating tortillas and guacamole."

Paul C might later object and say "No, I was discussing whether I'm a sinner a la Christian theology."
But that = "your specific interpretation of your comment". There are many, many readers who don't share your specific interpretation of your comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of your comment is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.

Paul C said...

Tragically your argument (once again) fails. Your appeal to meaning is rooted in the text under dispute, which is of course viciously circular reasoning. How do you know your reading of the Bible is right? Because your reading of the Bible tells you so. Nice try; epic fail.

Coram Deo said...

Tragically your argument (once again) fails. Your appeal to meaning is rooted in the text under dispute, which is of course viciously circular reasoning. How do you know your reading of the Bible is right? Because your reading of the Bible tells you so. Nice try; epic fail.

But that's just your opinion, and there are readers who don't share your specific interpretation of Rho's comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

In Him,
CD

Paul C said...

But that's just your opinion, and there are readers who don't share your specific interpretation of Rho's comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Well, this is pretty easy to resolve - you can ask Rho to clarify, and he can post a comment for both of us to see right here, in this very comments box. This gives us *additional* information to clarify the *original* information, and is therefore not circular.

So now perhaps you'd like to claim that you can get *additional* information from God to clarify the *original* information he provided in the Bible? Unfortunately that additional information doesn't appear to be forthcoming - and if it is, isn't it strange that different Christians claim to have different additional information?

Coram Deo said...

Well, this is pretty easy to resolve - you can ask Rho to clarify, and he can post a comment for both of us to see right here, in this very comments box. This gives us *additional* information to clarify the *original* information, and is therefore not circular.

So now perhaps you'd like to claim that you can get *additional* information from God to clarify the *original* information he provided in the Bible? Unfortunately that additional information doesn't appear to be forthcoming - and if it is, isn't it strange that different Christians claim to have different additional information?


Why should I believe Rho's additional information? After all he might be lying or confused.

I like my interpretation just fine, and since Rho might be lying or confused can you think of any non-circular reason why I should give more credence or weight to an external authority over my own personal autonomous authority?

What if I think I know best?

In Him,
CD

Paul C said...

What if I think I know best?

You mean, what if you view your interpretation of Rho's statement in the same way as you view your interpretation of the Bible?

If you viewed your interpretation of Rho's statement in that way, I guess you could claim whatever you wanted about his statement *and* claim that only your view was correct.

Which was, of course, my point about your interpretation of the Bible. And here was me thinking that we disagreed!

Coram Deo said...

You mean, what if you view your interpretation of Rho's statement in the same way as you view your interpretation of the Bible?

If you viewed your interpretation of Rho's statement in that way, I guess you could claim whatever you wanted about his statement *and* claim that only your view was correct.

Which was, of course, my point about your interpretation of the Bible. And here was me thinking that we disagreed!


Close, but you missed.

The point is that I was inserting myself into your worldview. If the One true and living God is not the ultimate authority, and if His truth has not been revealed in the 66 books of the Holy Bible, then you and I and Rho are truly autonomous, and we are each our own ultimate authorities.

This gets back to my prior point that you are your own god. You dismissed the suggestion pretending not to know what I meant, but hopefully now you can understand.

The irony is that your worldview is self-defeating because you have no grounds from which to make an objection about anyone else's interpretation of anything, because everything is ultimately just a matter of each individual's subjective interpretation, which is ultimate for each individual.

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. - Judges 17:6; 21:5

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. - Proverbs 21:2

Although not not entirely on subject, you might find this article to be of interest.

In Him,
CD

Coram Deo said...

Rho,

I posted a response to Paul C.'s comment above, but it didn't appear in the post.

Is it stuck in the spam filter, or do I need to re-post?

In Him,
CD

Paul C said...

The point is that I was inserting myself into your worldview.

Unfortunately it's not my worldview that you've inserted yourself into, so you appear to be tilting at windmills.

This gets back to my prior point that you are your own god. You dismissed the suggestion pretending not to know what I meant, but hopefully now you can understand.

I checked the definition of god in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. I don't believe that I'm “the supreme or ultimate reality”, “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe”; I don't have “more than natural attributes and powers and... require human worship”; I'm not “of supreme value”' or a “powerful ruler”. So no, I'm not “my own god” by any actual definition used in the real world.

The irony is that your worldview is self-defeating because you have no grounds from which to make an objection about anyone else's interpretation of anything, because everything is ultimately just a matter of each individual's subjective interpretation, which is ultimate for each individual.

Unfortunately I don't believe that “everything is ulimately just a matter of each individual's subjective interpretation”, so this argument has no purchase with me whatsoever. Watch out for those windmills, CD! You might hurt yourself!

Let's get back to the matter at hand, shall we? My problem is that I'm faced with very many Christians who can't seem to agree on a singular interpretation of the Bible. What metric do you propose that I use to discern which interpretation is correct? It can't be the Bible, since that's the source of dispute in the first place...

Rhology said...

Paul C said earlier: There are many, many Christians who don't share your specific interpretation of your Bible, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of the bible is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.

But feeeeeeeeeeeeeel free to try.



Paul C says now: I don't believe that “everything is ulimately just a matter of each individual's subjective interpretation”, so this argument has no purchase with me whatsoever.

Now, Paul C has many times shown himself to be willingly, intentionally obtuse, so I don't expect him to accept the obvious here, but it should be obvious to anyone else reading.

Paul C said...

Now, Paul C has many times shown himself to be willingly, intentionally obtuse, so I don't expect him to accept the obvious here, but it should be obvious to anyone else reading.

Ooooh, oooh, this should be exciting! What's "the obvious", Rhology? What is it?

I love the way that you accuse me of being obtuse. It's almost as if you've got your own private definition of the word - oh wait, you probably do.

Rhology said...

It's so funny - you responded in exactly the way I thought you would.

Paul C said...

Well, we already knew you had mind-reading abilities. Now perhaps you could tell us what's so obvious?

Because I'll be honest: I think your generally poor reading comprehension may have mislead you once again.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 224   Newer› Newest»