How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

(Guffaw). Total deflection once again. You refuse to directly respond to even the most simple, straightforward questions, because they easily refute your position.

 

[JAL]

Your "rule of conscience" renders the terms good and evil meaningless, since apparently everyone defines them for themselves and there is no objective standard.

Then why not paint me one specific example - an example where it is appropriate to try to be as evil as possible?

 

[Fervent]

Then why not paint me one specific example - an example where it is appropriate to try to be as evil as possible?

If your idea of "good" is sending millions of innocent people to the gas chamber, then that's an instance where it is appropriate to be as "evil" as possible.

 

[JAL]

@Fervent,

God expects men to do as much as good as possible. Not as much evil as possible.

That's all the rule of conscience addresses. Why are you fighting this?

Oh that's right. You are fighting it because this rule refutes Sola Scriptura.

 

[Fervent]

(Guffaw). Total deflection once again. You refuse to directly respond to even the most simple, straightforward questions, because they easily refute your position.

Then you don't understand the quote, because it refutes your "rule of conscience" by showing that good and evil are not subjective.

 

[JAL]

If your idea of "good" is sending millions of innocent people to the gas chamber, then that's an instance where it is appropriate to be as "evil" as possible.

So let me get this straight.

Suppose I am convinced that the holocaust is good, and abstaining is evil. For example I might be under the delusion that I will save all mankind (say 100 billion people) from death by pandemic, simply by exterminating the Jews. But I decide to be as evil as possible, so I abstain. I say to myself, "I don't care about 100 billion people dying by pandemic, let them all suffer. In fact I will enjoy it."

That would be pretty evil. Are you saying that was the right decision? That God should reward me for trying to be evil?

 

[JAL]

Then you don't understand the quote, because it refutes your "rule of conscience" by showing that good and evil are not subjective.

See post 2044.

 

[Fervent]

So let me get this straight.

Suppose I am convinced that the holocaust is good, and abstaining is evil. For example I might be under the delusion that I will save all mankind (say 100 billion people) from death by pandemic, simply by exterminating the Jews. But I decide to be as evil as possible, so I abstain. I say to myself, "I don't care about 100 billion people dying by pandemic, let them all suffer. In fact I will enjoy it."

That would be pretty evil. Are you saying that was the right decision? That God should reward me for trying to be evil?

I repeat "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Your belief that what you are doing is "good" does not make it good, it remains evil. Your "rule of conscience" destroys any possibility for morality because it renders the idea solipsistic, since the only thing that matters is what you believe whether it truly is evil or good. It makes a mockery of morality.

 

[JAL]

I repeat "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Your belief that what you are doing is "good" does not make it good, it remains evil. Your "rule of conscience" destroys any possibility for morality because it renders the idea solipsistic, since the only thing that matters is what you believe whether it truly is evil or good. It makes a mockery of morality.

Deflection again. You deflect every signficant question posed to you.

Let's try this again. Shall God reward a man for choice A? Or choice B?

...(A) He tries to do what is good/right to the best of his knowledge/ability.
....(B) He tries to what is evil to the best to the best of his knowledge/ability.

You'll deflect on this one too, right?

 

[Fervent]

Deflection again. You deflect every signficant question posed to you.

Let's try this again. Shall God reward a man for choice A? Or choice B?

...(A) He tries to do what is good/right to the best of his knowledge/ability.
....(B) He tries to what is evil to the best to the best of his knowledge/ability.

You'll deflect on this one too, right?

If choice A is not truly good, but is in fact evil, God will reward neither. But then again, the idea that God is out handing out gold stars for good behavior is in itself a false proposition.

 

[JAL]

But then again, the idea that God is out handing out gold stars for good behavior is in itself a false proposition.

What Bible are you reading?

If choice A is not truly good, but is in fact evil, God will reward neither.

What Bible are you reading? In your view, then, a man can be 100% faithful, all his life, in trying his best to behave righteously, and God won't reward him, because he lacked sufficient IQ to figure out God's will correctly.

You might not want to preach that message from the pulpit. You might get stoned!

 

[JAL]

If choice A is not truly good, but is in fact evil, God will reward neither. But then again, the idea that God is out handing out gold stars for good behavior is in itself a false proposition.

I haven't given up quite yet. Which should a man aim for:


...(A) He tries to do what is good/right to the best of his knowledge/ability.
....(B) He tries to what is evil to the best to the best of his knowledge/ability.

 

[Fervent]

What Bible are you reading?

One in which God selects the weak things to shame the strong.

What Bible are you reading? In your view, then, a man can be 100% faithful, all his life, in trying his best to behave righteously, and God won't reward him, because he lacked sufficient IQ to figure out God's will correctly.

You might not want to preach that message from the pulpit. You might get stoned!

"100% faithful" If he's not following God's will, what's he being faithful to?

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, But the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[JAL]

One in which God selects the weak things to shame the strong.

"100% faithful" If he's not following God's will, what's he being faithful to?

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, But the end thereof are the ways of death.

See 2052.

 

[Fervent]

See 2052.

Already been addressed, your questions fail to take into account that good and evil are not subjectively determined. You're essentially advocating following one's heart, which the Bible says:

every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time.

 

[JAL]

Already been addressed, your questions fail to take into account that good and evil are not subjectively determined. You're essentially advocating following one's heart, which the Bible says:

every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time.

(Guffaw). This is yet another deflection, of the simplest, most straightforward questions.

You still have not painted ONE SCENARIO where it is appropriate to try to be evil.

This is why I'm pretty confident about my conclusions. I'm one of the few people who gives straightforward answers, without having to stoop to deflection.


If you want to maintain that trying to be evil is sometimes appropriate, that's your prerogative.

I'll stick with the only alternative - namely the rule of conscience.

 

[JAL]

Already been addressed, your questions fail to take into account that good and evil are not subjectively determined. You're essentially advocating following one's heart, which the Bible says:

every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time.

God is going to judge us on objective truth rather than subjective certainty? Really?

Suppose I visit a lawyer's office and see a precious jewel on his desk. I steal it.

Unbeknownst to me, the lawyer was intending to bequeath it to me as part of my father's will. The jewel belonged to me - I just didn't know it.

How do you suppose God's going to evaluate my behavior? (I'm not talking about salvation, since that's based on the cross).

...(A) On the subjective perspective that I engaged in grand larceny.
....(B) OR, on the objective fact that the jewel belongs to me.

Awaiting your next deflection.

 

[JAL]

@Fervent,

Here's a better example. Suppose I'm looking at a military screen monitoring Russia. I am able to point nuclear bombs in their direction. I'm in a bad mood one day, so I decide to take it out on them. I nuke the entire country.

Turns out I was wrong. This military screen was actually a training simulator. No bombs were released.

How do you suppose God will evaluate my behavior? (I'm not talking about salvation, since that's based on the cross).

...(A) On the subjective perspective that I tried to slaughter a nation.
....(B) On the objective fact that no one was injured.

 

[John Mullally]

I thought you had been told before this, that Jeremiah 32:35, in context, is pretty obviously saying that it never entered his mind to command that they should do it. Are you going to show exegesis to prove that wrong, or just plow on ahead and ignore this?

What is "show exegesis"? Be specific in you ask..

All the english translations I see indicate that the thiing that "never entered into God's mind" was man doing the abomination - not God commanding man to do the abomination.

 

[JAL]

Seems I missed a couple of posts.

You are more like my wife than I realized! Haha, yes she was a concrete thinker. She always had to have a resolution, a finished concept, NOW. Your definitions are good enough for you, no doubt. But since you're finite, I think I'll go with what God thinks, no matter how long it takes for me to know it.

Deflection. You shouldn't deflect on concepts relevant to a debate. To say, "God agrees with me, not you" is sheer assertion.

I gave you four definitions of real-life experiences dependent on time, contrary to atemporality. Deal with it.