Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[JAL]

I hope you are not claiming holding God to the same standard to be applicable as in: He command us do not kill --does that mean that God must not kill? He commands us not to be jealous --does that mean he must not be jealous? Love is whatever God says it is --not what I might conclude.

You raised some good questions here. In the interest of brevity and simplicity, I omitted the most critical element of my ethics - the absolute authority of conscience. (Even direct revelation must honor that authority). Given that assumption, I ultimately cannot hold anyone to absolute standards of virtue - only to their conscience. Thus if God has a warped conscience such that He harms the innocent without compunction, I cannot fault Him for it. The exegete must assume that His conscience is not warped (because there's not much point in pursuing religion otherwise). Thus in a backdoor sort of manner, this assumption DOES allow me to hold God to my own absolute standards of virtue. Now I can answer your questions:

He command us do not kill --does that mean that God must not kill?

Absolutely correct. God must not capriciously harm the innocent. The innocent will suffer only if, in His eyes, such is an unavoidable necessity. That's what I have in mind when I say that I may refer to God as kind only if He meets MY definition of kindness. If He violates my definition, I must classify Him as unkind.

He command us do not kill --does that mean that God must not kill?

Are you referring to the guilty? Are we allowed to harm the guilty, as God does? Only if we can do so with a clear conscience, for example in acts of self-defense.

He commands us not to be jealous --does that mean he must not be jealous?

Correct. But don't misunderstand the divine jealousy. It's basically a righteous zeal for our love that we OWE Him according to our conscience and well-deserved by Him. But yes, He must not indulge in unrighteous jealousy, if He claims to be holy.

Love is whatever God says it is --not what I might conclude.

Depends what you mean by that. Again, see post 128.

 

[JAL]

So don't trust YOUR definition! It is yours (and mine) that deviates from the truth, and only his is true.

You missed the whole point. If I can't trust MY definition, I have no hope. In order to have hope, I have to trust that God is kind according to my definition of kindness.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You raised some good questions here. In the interest of brevity and simplicity, I omitted the most critical element of my ethics - the absolute authority of conscience. (Even direct revelation must honor that authority). Given that assumption, I ultimately cannot hold anyone to absolute standards of virtue - only to their conscience. Thus if God has a warped conscience such that He harms the innocent without compunction, I cannot fault Him for it. The exegete must assume that His conscience is not warped (because there's not much point in pursuing religion otherwise). Thus in a backdoor sort of manner, this assumption DOES allow me to hold God to my own absolute standards of virtue. Now I can answer your questions:

I question whether you consider Scripture to be both logically valid and AUTHORITATIVE. He is greater than our conscience. (1 John 3:20) I have often said that he will not punish us beyond what we deserve. My conscience is often wrong, but it is what I have. It is not absolute authority, and I have learned a lot about that.

(A really interesting (to me) offshoot of this subject involves the question of judging others according to our measure, and as a result being judged according to our measure. Perhaps you mention that in your essay.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Absolutely correct. God must not capriciously harm the innocent. The innocent will suffer only if, in His eyes, such is an unavoidable necessity. That's what I have in mind when I say that I may refer to God as kind only if He meets MY definition of kindness. If He violates my definition, I must classify Him as unkind.

I don't follow you here. Are you saying that if I consider him unkind that I am therefore correct? Or that it is only my idea kindness by which I must assess his deeds? He violates my pov on a regular basis. I have prayer for that, lol. And it certainly does work.

Correct. But don't misunderstand the divine jealousy. It's basically a righteous zeal for our love that we OWE Him according to our conscience and well-deserved by Him. But yes, He must not indulge in unrighteous jealousy, if He claims to be holy.

My very point. And not only does this principle apply to his jealousy, but to his Love, and all of his attributes. His nature is what he is, is what he does. These things are ours to learn and talk about, not to decide we have sounded their depth.

 

[SkyWriting]

You're right - if we're talking about direct revelation. At issue here (on this thread), rather, is the nature of exegesis. Suppose an exegete (such as yourself) is pondering one possible interpretation of a passage. He finds himself able to list a slew of ways that the interpretation logically or factually contradicts the factual data in the passage (facts that he finds to be incontrovertible).

What should he do? Is he warranted - by the very nature of exegesis - in dismissing that interpretation, at least tentatively for now? Or must he cast all his logic to the wind and therefore wholeheartedly accept what to him, seems contrary to Scripture?

Please clarify, because I'm not sure what you're advising me to do in these kinds of scenarios.

There is no factual data in scripture.
It's a historical record about man's reaction to God,
written from the human perspective of 40 authors.
Usually not read in the original language.
Hebrew is written in block logic which is not a formal step logic.

 

[JAL]

I question whether you consider Scripture to be both logically valid and AUTHORITATIVE.

My post, as I recall, linked to my explanation of authoritative conscience. Several times over the years I've challenged people to find even one scenario indicating exception to the rule of conscience as defined on that link. No one's found one yet (for obvious reasons).

He is greater than our conscience. (1 John 3:20)

John's words aren't terribly clear. I wouldn't build an entire epistemology on them.

I have often said that he will not punish us beyond what we deserve. My conscience is often wrong, but it is what I have. It is not absolute authority

Um...Yes it is. Should be easy to prove me incorrect, right? Just find me one exception to the rule of conscience as I defined it (good luck with that).

 

[JAL]

There is no factual data in scripture.
It's a historical record about man's reaction to God,
written from the human perspective of 40 authors.
Usually not read in the original language.
Hebrew is written in block logic which is not a formal step logic.

That misses the thrust of the argument. The point is that if you've already drawn a particular conclusion from a passage, and you're confronted with a logically conflicting intepretation....I think my post was clear enough. I'm not going to repeat it here.

 

[JAL]

My very point. And not only does this principle apply to his jealousy, but to his Love, and all of his attributes. His nature is what he is, is what he does. These things are ours to learn and talk about, not to decide we have sounded their depth.

No, you missed the point (again). If God's jealousy is the KIND of jealousy that contradicts MY definition of righteousness, then I have no hope, because He is an unrighteous God (by my definition) whom, as such, I cannot trust.

He violates my pov on a regular basis.

Depends what you mean by that. If you really believed that God violates kindness as you understand it, then the prospect of heaven should terrify you. Right?

 

[JAL]

He violates my pov on a regular basis.

The issue becomes more clear if we consider other virtues such as honesty. Suppose God isn't faithful to honesty as YOU define it. That undermines our future hope, right?

 

[Mark Quayle]

My post, as I recall, linked to my explanation of authoritative conscience. Several times over the years I've challenged people to find even one scenario indicating exception to the rule of conscience as defined on that link. No one's found one yet (for obvious reasons).

Let's say I have a friend whose personality is one of constant anger. She thinks it is the gift of Prophecy, as some churches want to define it, and it doesn't bother her. Her conscience is clear. Does that mean that her anger is not sin?

I believe in freedom of conscience. Not

Um...Yes it is. Should be easy to prove me incorrect, right? Just find me one exception to the rule of conscience as I defined it (good luck with that).

I don't know how you defined it, but I don't see God bowing to my conscience.

 

[JAL]

We can't do right, as shown by the fact that we always CHOOSE to reject. We are the cause of our choices, and as Adam sinned, we have that nature to do so. To blame God is to say not only that he caused it in whatever way he did (which I happily admit to) but to say he is evil for doing so (which I vehemently deny). He has the right to do whatever he chooses to do with us.

This kind of thinking SHOULD undermine your hope. In actual experience it doesn't. Why not? Because deep down you have a direct revelation - from the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit - convincing you of His kindness, and this is kindness as YOU define it.

Paradoxically enough, then, the comforting work of the Inward Witness is blinding you to the fact that your exegesis makes no sense!

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, you missed the point (again). If God's jealousy is the KIND of jealousy that contradicts MY definition of righteousness, then I have no hope, because He is an unrighteous God (by my definition) whom, as such, I cannot trust.

Depends what you mean by that. If you really believed that God violates kindness as you understand it, then the prospect of heaven should terrify you. Right?

Or, you can amend your definition, trusting that the God of all the earth will do what is right; after all, he would have nothing to gain by creating, if he is not just. Heaven does not terrify me if my concepts are amended. I still can have more confidence that a just God is doing all this for his own purposes, and that he will complete all he has begun. If I go mad trying to understand it, he is still my anchor.

To get to see his purposes completed is perhaps my greatest desire. He is glorious, beyond any other beautiful thing, beyond everything. My concepts and definitions are irrelevant by comparison.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The issue becomes more clear if we consider other virtues such as honesty. Suppose God isn't faithful to honesty as YOU define it. That undermines our future hope, right?

No. As a matter of fact, that very matter has shown its ugly head many times. My conclusion so far has always been either my own concept of honesty was off, or the concepts I was taught were off. Either way, he is by definition faithful and will complete what he has begun. This does not depend on me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This kind of thinking SHOULD undermine your hope. In actual experience it doesn't. Why not? Because deep down you have a direct revelation - from the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit - convincing you of His kindness, and this is kindness as YOU define it.

Paradoxically enough, then, the comforting work of the Inward Witness is blinding you to the fact that your exegesis makes no sense!

I would like you to show me from scripture that not only my definition of kindness is authoritative, and to show me from scripture that my conscience is of absolute authority, and that God must stand aside in that regard.

 

[JAL]

Or, you can amend your definition, trusting that the God of all the earth will do what is right;

Do right by WHAT definition? YOURS, right? Otherwise you have nothing promising to trust in for you future. Right?

I gave you a straightforward question:

"If you really believed that God violates kindness as you understand it, then the prospect of heaven should terrify you. Right?"

You didn't give me a straight answer. You say you are here to learn and are committed to being teachable but it's beginning to look like you are indeed dancing in circles, as someone earlier accused. I hope I'm wrong about that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do right by WHAT definition? YOURS, right? Otherwise you have nothing promising to trust in for you future. Right?

I gave you a straightforward question:

"If you really believed that God violates kindness as you understand it, then the prospect of heaven should terrify you. Right?"

You didn't give me a straight answer. You say you are here to learn and are committed to being teachable but it's beginning to look like you are indeed dancing in circles, as someone earlier accused. I hope I'm wrong about that.

Wrong. Kindness by his definition. The most promising sort of kindness, not my fitful self-serving sort of kindness. He doesn't have to be nice, for example, to be kind.

I may be dancing in circles --I don't know, but I do know I can trust him to do right, and my definition, my perception, my conception, of right, is irrelevant. I am not entirely myself apart from him anymore. He is in me. I can trust him. I cannot trust myself.

 

[JAL]

I would like you to show me from scripture that...that my conscience is of absolute authority, and that God must stand aside in that regard.

What do you mean show you from Scripture? You mean give you an absolute apodictic proof? Exegesis can't prove ANYTHING apodictically because we are fallible. I can't even prove that you exist. I CAN show plenty of biblical events that seem to clearly illustrate the authority of conscience, but why should I bother? After all, I already gave you a simple challenge. Find me one exception to the rule of conscience. You can't find one, for an obvious reason - it's tautologically true.

Math is essentially based on tautologies, utilized to build up further conclusions (theorems). When your math teacher puts a theorem on the board, do you respond, "I can't accept it until it's proven from Scripture" ????? No, you accept it SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FIND ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THE FOUNDATIONAL TAUTOLOGIES. Enough said.

 

[JAL]

Wrong. Kindness by his definition. The most promising sort of kindness, not my fitful self-serving sort of kindness. He doesn't have to be nice, for example, to be kind.

Regarding the core elements of your definition of kindness, you trust that God complies with them. Otherwise you have no hope. Right?

(Sigh) For example, in your definition of kindness, one should not capriciously induce suffering. If God REJECTS that definition, you have no hope. Right?

I may be dancing in circles --I don't know, but I do know I can trust him to do right, and my definition, my perception, my conception, of right, is irrelevant.

Baloney. It's not irrelevant. You are COUNTING on God to conform to your definition of kindness and honesty (at least the core elements of that definition) - otherwise you wouldn't HAVE any hope. This is an incredibly obvious and undeniable point - and you keep dancing around it.

If I thought you honestly did NOT have hope, then I wouldn't accuse you of dancing. I'd find you to be somewhat consistent at least.

 

[JAL]

No. As a matter of fact, that very matter has shown its ugly head many times. My conclusion so far has always been either my own concept of honesty was off, or the concepts I was taught were off. Either way, he is by definition faithful and will complete what he has begun. This does not depend on me.

Again, you're saying you have hope without COUNTING on God to conform to the core elements of your virtues. That's contrary to fact, as my last post emphasized.

 

[Cis.jd]

Keep struggling, friend. Maybe the hardest thing for you to face, in spite of my inept representations of the truth, is that it only makes sense for God to accomplish it all from the very beginning. Whether, as some cosmologist like to poetically say, and as Deists like to think, God created, sowing the seeds of destiny in the disparities of his creation, or as Theists seem to think, he interjects himself throughout, or as I like to think, he inhabits and sustains the very essence of the smallest particle of matter, energy, and whatever else there may be, God causes. We are an effect.

I think it's quite clear that you are the one struggling, just looking at the amount of excuses and copouts you have made ever since you where asked about the fall. What is worse is that you are using God's name and claiming your side is his views as an excuse (or cover up) for your inability to make any sense to your arguments regarding predestination and free will.

You see how your views contradict so many important factors in the christian faith such as the fall, our redemption, and just our relationship with him but you lack any integrity to admit this. Instead "well it just makes sense for God".