How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

I have already shown the specific point relevant to the rule of conscience, that it is not the final rule for behavior.

No. You haven't shown one convincing scenario where a man should try to be evil as possible.

You may have challenged the authority of conscience as YOU would perhaps like to define the term conscience, but you haven't impugned my rule of conscience.

Abstracts of the human mind, such as what you term infinity-gibberish, do not disqualify Scripture's claims as to God's omnipotence.

Scripture doesn't spew gibberish, such as an impossible number called infinity.

That necessarily implies self-existence, and no dependence on nor obligation to any principle from outside himself. You won't find me submitting myself to a mere superhuman god like yours.

Meaningless rambling. I don't even know what "self-existence" is supposed to mean. You and I agree that God exists as an uncreated being. How that differs from your term "self-exists" is a point of ambiguity that you've never managed to clarify in your discussions with me.

It's just empty polemics.

 

[atpollard]

Your reversing the very definition of conscience is in fact the desperate wiggling of a man pinned down. The conscience is the following voice:

Action A is evil. Action B is good. Therefore, you should do B.

When a man hears that voice, and chooses action-A - he intentionally chooses action-A while believing it to be evil - he is rebelling against conscience, not heeding it.

This lacks both the depth and subtlety of real human beings: it denies the extent to which we are "bent" and "damaged" by this fallen world:

I was first confronted by "the problem of evil" when I was 8 years old (although I lacked the philosophical framework or vocabulary that I have now). My best friend missed school and when I walked to His house after school, it was surrounded by police cars. I later learned that his mother's boyfriend had sexually assaulted him. As he told me of his trauma and pain, there was nothing in the experience of an 8-year old to allow me to really comprehend that level of evil or to help him. As I watched the light fade from his eyes, I learned two things that day: a soul can die while the body lives on ... and God did nothing. [Omnipresent: God was there and did nothing.; Omniscient: God knew what was happening and what would happen and did nothing. Omnipotent: God had the ability to do something and did nothing.]​

​

Four years later, my search for answers ended in a quote by Bertrand Russel in the preface to a book: "The evidence of contemporary Christian life is such that God, if he ever existed, must surely be dead." I read that - it explained the 'Problem of evil' - and I stopped looking for answers. Within a year, I had embraced 'nihilism', joined a gang, and was training the children that the world had discarded to the streets to survive (as I had learned to). Burglar, arsonist, drug smuggler - there is no good or evil when even God is evil by the most basic human definitions of morality. [If you saw a child being raped and had a gun in your hand, would you stand there and watch? That is how God defines "good".]​

​

So when Ralph steals from a house to buy drugs to gain a few hours relief from the beatings of his drunk father: Who is God to stand in judgement and proclaim "thou shall not steal"? What is the "advice" of my conscience towards Ralph and the others struggling to survive? You bet I was in rebellion against God ... but which of us was really EVIL: the 'sinner' trying to help the children sin, or the God that chose to do nothing?​

Your definitions are naive and contrived. People are more complex.

 

[JAL]

If you don't know all the specifics of anybody's heart and thoughts, how can you expect @Clare73 to know them?

Um...er...have you ever heard of a hypothetical scenario?

Did I really need to spell out that such is all I was asking for? Clearly, I wasn't asking her to be a mind reader.

You're just dancing around because you can find no exceptions to the rule of conscience.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Conscience is about feeling certain. There is no real justice sans conscience - I don't care how many laws are in writing.

You can't just spew forth total nonsense and expect us to buy it.

Feelings do not justify. But as @Clare73 will agree, God does look at the heart to judge the deeds.

What I'm wondering is are you employing the royal plural here? Who is the "us" you refer to above? As far as I know, you are the only one here actually, publicly, coming out and claiming God is not quite omnipotent.

 

[JAL]

Your definitions are naive and contrived. People are more complex.

On a daily basis you yourself live ONLY by the rule of conscience. If not, you'd have anecdoted for me at least one scenario from your life where you found it appropriate to violate the rule.

Your posts are totally hypocritical, therefore.

Your definitions are naive and contrived. People are more complex.

Actually God's basis for judging us is quite simple. A man should always try to be as good as possible. He should never try to be as evil as possible.

 

[JAL]

Feelings do not justify. But as @Clare73 will agree, God does look at the heart to judge the deeds.

What I'm wondering is are you employing the royal plural here? Who is the "us" you refer to above?

Feelings? Random emotions make for a strawman caricature of my position, obviously.

As far as I know, you are the only one here actually, publicly, coming out and claiming God is not quite omnipotent.

(Sigh). Mathematical PI calculates out to an endless number of decimal digits. Your claim is that, right now, God has the whole infinite list in His mind? How many digits is that, exactly? This is pure gibberish.

The Bible tells us that God is the all-powerful King of Kings and Lord or Lords. That's all it says. Stop imposing your self-contradictory philosophical gibberish upon the text.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Um...er...have you ever heard of a hypothetical scenario?

Did I really need to spell out that such is all I was asking for? Clearly, I wasn't asking her to be a mind reader.

You're just dancing around because you can find no exceptions to the rule of conscience.

As @atpollard said, you are naive, if you think hypotheticals concerning individuals' attendance to and actions upon conscience, proves anything about the reliability or authority of conscience. The fact you demanded something of @Clare73 and myself is inconsequential to the question of the ultimate authority of conscience.

 

[Clare73]

(Sigh). Then your job is simple. Just paint me one clear scenario where I should deviate from the rule of conscience.

2295 posts deep, and I'm still waiting.

I gave you one in the post. . .regarding eating shrimp.

 

[JAL]

I gave you one in the post. . .regarding eating shrimp.

You raised a question about shrimp. I don't see where you indicated a scenario calling for deviation from the rule of conscience.

 

[atpollard]

On a daily basis you yourself live ONLY by the rule of conscience. If not, you'd have anecdoted for me at least one scenario from your life where you found it appropriate to violate the rule.

ONE SCENARIO: Every time I get into a car and drive 5 MPH above the Speed Limit.

Not once does my conscience say that obeying the speed limit sign is EVIL and violating it is GOOD, yet I constantly live contrary to the "rule of conscience" because MY WANTS seem more important than the issue of GOOD and EVIL being debated in a speed limit sign.

(However your core definition is STILL FLAWED.)

 

[zoidar]

Fair enough. Do you then conclude that Romans 1 doesn't apply to the man who does pretty much everything he can to live according to his conscience by good deeds, by positive attitudes, by the golden rule, even has moments we would consider altruistic, even attempts to live without preconceptions and biases? Is he not still without excuse?

Let me point at the obvious! God demands all men everywhere to repent. What is the basis upon which God will judge those that do not —on their conscience? And what is the basis upon which God will judge those that do repent —on their conscience?

If you are just arguing a smaller point but agree with me that conscience does not have final authority, as JAL claims, then I'm sorry if I seem to be striking out at you. It is not intended as such.

Concerning Romans 1-2. Every unbeliever needs to repent. Every unbeliever is under the wrath of God. It's not possible for the unbeliever to live righteously, that is only possible by the believer through the Holy Spirit.

 

[atpollard]

ONE MORE SCENARIO: Every time I answer questions about my wife's latest haircut and SELF PRESERVATION dwarfs anything my CONSCIENCE might be saying.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Concerning Romans 1-2. Every unbeliever needs to repent. Every unbeliever is under the wrath of God. It's not possible for the unbeliever to live righteously, that is only possible by the believer through the Holy Spirit.

With that, I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[JAL]

As @atpollard said, you are naive, if you think hypotheticals concerning individuals' attendance to and actions upon conscience, proves anything about the reliability or authority of conscience. The fact you demanded something of @Clare73 and myself is inconsequential to the question of the ultimate authority of conscience.

Proves nothing? Are you really going to stoop to that childish game of disputing whether something has been "proven" 100%? I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist.

As I said, the Bible seems to make it pretty clear that men should try to be as good as possible, rather than as evil as possible. If that's not proof enough for you, I'm not sure what you need.

Furthermore, you can cite no clear exceptions to this rule of conscience.

Furthermore, let's suppose everyone opposed this rule - they tried to be as evil as possible. The world as we know it would end in about one hour.

 

[JAL]

ONE SCENARIO: Every time I get into a car and drive 5 MPH above the Speed Limit.

Not once does my conscience say that obeying the speed limit sign is EVIL and violating it is GOOD, yet I constantly live contrary to the "rule of conscience" because MY WANTS seem more important than the issue of GOOD and EVIL being debated in a speed limit sign.

(However your core definition is STILL FLAWED.)

You misunderstood me. When I say you live by the rule of conscience, I did not mean that you are always faithful. I merely meant that you acknowledge its rectitude in all scenarios. Rebellion against conscience is a separate issue.

 

[JAL]

(However your core definition is STILL FLAWED.)

Where is the flaw? When is it appropriate to try to be as evil as possible, rather than as good as possible?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Proves nothing? Are you really going to stoop to that childish game of disputing whether something has been "proven" 100%? I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist.

As I said, the Bible seems to make it pretty clear that men should try to be as good as possible, rather than as evil as possible. If that's not proof enough for you, I'm not sure what you need.

Furthermore, you can cite no clear exceptions to this rule of conscience.

Furthermore, let's suppose everyone opposed this rule - they tried to be as evil as possible. The world as we know it would end in about one hour.

I have repeatedly, "hundreds" or was it "thousands" —I don't remember— of times asked you to demonstrate that conscience is, as you claim, the final authority on behavior. Instead, you insist I come down off the path and play with you in the swampy weeds. I do admire your effort to keep up, even though your feet are constantly sinking into the mud and tangled about with the weeds.

Tell ya what —I'll even give you a leg up —can you show how, as you claimed, conscience is the basis upon which God judges?

 

[JAL]

I can't believe we're debating the rule of conscience. Is this a 1st grade level Sunday school class?

 

[JAL]

I have repeatedly, "hundreds" or was it "thousands" —I don't remember— of times asked you to demonstrate that conscience is, as you claim, the final authority on behavior. Instead, you insist I come down off the path and play with you in the swampy weeds. I do admire your effort to keep up, even though your feet are constantly sinking into the mud and tangled about with the weeds.

Tell ya what —I'll even give you a leg up —can you show how, as you claimed, conscience is the basis upon which God judges?

You tell me. Does the Bible admonish men to:
....(A) Try to be as evil as possible?
....(B) Try to be as good as possible?

I'm pretty sure that choice B is correct. It just so happens that choice B is a reiteration of the rule of conscience.

Are you going with choice A? Do I need to prove to you that choice B is correct?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can't believe we're debating the rule of conscience. Is this a 1st grade level Sunday school class?

I can't believe you are debating the rule of conscience instead of conscience being the final authority over right and wrong.