- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,778
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Deflection. Same issue here.Not to you anyhow, since you depend on man's words and concepts for fact, instead of realizing your limits, and accepting that there is always more to be known toward a conclusion. In other words, you draw your conclusions too early.
Following his heart? Depends what you mean. If you mean, "following the rule of conscience", then yes, that's what I advocate. No exceptions.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.
Inclination probably refers to the evil desires/disposition of the heart. Fallen man typically doesn't WANT to do what is right. And perhaps, in Noah's region (Mesopotamia), men had become exceedingly corrupt, much like wickedness seems to be on the rise in many cities of today.every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time.
I don't think that verse impugns the rule of conscience.The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?
The rule of conscience begins with the prophet himself. The Voice made him feel certain that the message was from God.Why not apply the test from Deuteronomy 18?
I choose not to address what you have failed to Biblically demonstrate is in error.Deflection.
I choose to address only Biblically demonstrated assertions here.You have interpreted Scripture in a way that YOU think is the best interpretation and thus the best outcome. I'm just asking you to clarify what is "best" about 75% of people being thrown in a pit of fire.
No, I'm not "heeding the rule of conscience." because the "rule of conscience" as you've described it places humans as the judge and makes the only consideration a person's judgment.@Fervent,
Why do you practice Christianity? Since you're a fallible person, you cannot convincingly say, "I have absolute, objective knowledge of the truth."
The most you can reasonably say is, "I currently feel certain that Christianity is true."
You're simply heeding the rule of conscience.
Intellectual dishonesty. Every moment you are faced with this choice:No, I'm not "heeding the rule of conscience." because the "rule of conscience" as you've described it places humans as the judge and makes the only consideration a person's judgment.
There is a way that seems right to a man, but that way is death.Intellectual dishonesty. Every moment you are faced with this choice:
I feel certain that rejecting Christianity is evil (choice A), and following it is good (choice B). Therefore I will opt for B.
There's no escaping it. You live it every moment, except when behaving unrighteously.
But we knew that, right? All your deflections of my questions already made it clear where you really stand, despite your immature protests and rants to the contrary.
Your empty rants mean nothing. Didn't anyone teach you that actions speak louder than words?There is a way that seems right to a man, but that way is death.
Your insistence that intent is all that matters is warped and incomplete.
I haven't deflected/avoided your scenarios, I've pointed to their deficiency. You're operating on a partial truth, that intent matters. But that is not the only consideration. it's not even the most important consideration. Your argument amounts to a solipsistic morality that is in fact no morality because everything becomes permissible.Your empty rants mean nothing. Didn't anyone teach you that actions speak louder than words?
....(1) You adhere to Christianity because you feel certain it's true. That's proof enough.
...(2) Your deflection/avoidance of all my scenarios and questions confirmed it irrevocably.
Both sets of actions are decisive.
Intellectual dishonesty. There's plenty of scenarios you refused to address.I haven't deflected/avoided your scenarios, I've pointed to their deficiency.
See above.You're operating on a partial truth, that intent matters. But that is not the only consideration. it's not even the most important consideration. Your argument amounts to a solipsistic morality that is in fact no morality because everything becomes permissible.
When backed into a corner, you're certainly entitled to plead your 5th amendment rights, as you so often do:I choose not to address what you have failed to Biblically demonstrate is in error.
I choose to address only Biblically demonstrated assertions here.
Agreed. . .When backed into a corner, you're certainly entitled to plead your 5th amendment rights, as you so often do:
"Your honor, I respectfully remain silent on the grounds that answering questions may incriminate me."
That's your right, and your privilege. Nothing I can do about it.
This is a strawman argument, and totally false.No, I'm not "heeding the rule of conscience." because the "rule of conscience" as you've described it places humans as the judge and makes the only consideration a person's judgment.
So, no exegesis. Ok.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.
No parent is God. Their children belong to God, as do they themselves. They have no right to behave concerning their children as God does concerning any of his creatures. But the fact you think this comparison is valid, well describes your limited view of God. Your small god is not God at all, by this view.By yours too. You're well aware that any parent who behaves as the Calvinistic God is pure evil. You therefore persist a contradiction.
I repeat, did they or did they not choose what they chose? I suppose your objection is the word, "freely"? Ok, not free, I don't care. Nevertheless, they chose.No on your deterministic assumptions, they don't.
From what I can tell by what you quoted, I didn't say there that God agrees with me, not you.Seems I missed a couple of posts.
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.
No parent is God. Their children belong to God, as do they themselves. They have no right to behave concerning their children as God does concerning any of his creatures. But the fact you think this comparison is valid, well describes your limited view of God. Your small god is not God at all, by this view.By yours too. You're well aware that any parent who behaves as the Calvinistic God is pure evil. You therefore persist a contradiction.
I repeat, did they or did they not choose what they chose? I suppose your objection is the word, "freely"? Ok, not free, I don't care. Nevertheless, they chose.No on your deterministic assumptions, they don't.
Mock on!Apparently, your ASSUMPTION is that God is the only self-propelling entity? How then do angels move? Do they fill up at the gas station? Are they literally banging on all cylinders?
No, I don't mean that first cause is the only cause. It is rather obvious that there are uncountable numbers "secondary causes". Even our choices are causes of their consequences, and we cause our choices, just as we ourselves are also the effects of many other previous and ongoing causes.By first cause you essentially mean "the only cause" (in a deterministic chain of dominoes). See above.
Again you try to equate God with man. But again, no wonder you do that, since you make him somewhat less than omnipotent, as you yourself admitted rather proudly, that your god is subject to circumstances beyond his control, and is a growing and changing being.I came up with that rule? Let's suppose you are holding a knife in your hand. I grab you hand and force you to stab someone to death. What are you going to tell the judge? "I take full responsibility, it was all my fault" ??? Let's be honest here.
See above. Not an applicable parallel.Or better yet, suppose I slipped you a pill inflaming you with an unquenchable thirst to kill people. What are you going to tell the judge?
That should be obvious, IF "taken to mean a control-freak who punishes deterministic puppets of his own making"! Because God is no control-freak. In fact, he rather famously skates so close to the edge of utter ruin that we often consider him to not know what he is doing! Consider, for a moment, how he even allows us to make utter fools of ourselves, in our attempts to describe him!Absolute mastery IS the distorted view of God, if taken to mean a control-freak who punishes deterministic puppets of His own making!
No, he is not "subject to an existence he cannot relinquish - circumstances beyond his control". You present meaningless words here, and attempt to subject God to them?? God is not subject to existence. Existence is subject to God. Your weak god keeps showing himself in your words. So weak, in fact, that you seem to think your words adequately describe brute fact.More philosophical bias. We've been over this. Even your god is a subject to an existence he cannot relinquish - circumstances beyond His control.
IrrelevantWhen backed into a corner, you're certainly entitled to plead your 5th amendment rights, as you so often do:
"Your honor, I respectfully remain silent on the grounds that answering questions may incriminate me."
That's your right, and your privilege. Nothing I can do about it.
Agreed. . .
Yes, my God has shamefully chosen to "limit" Himself by virtues like justice, love, kindness, integrity, fairness, and mercy. All the things that Scripture repeatedly says He prizes are the very things that Calvinism despises.No parent is God. Their children belong to God, as do they themselves. They have no right to behave concerning their children as God does concerning any of his creatures. But the fact you think this comparison is valid, well describes your limited view of God. Your small god is not God at all, by this view.
God can't be compared to men? If you'd take a serious look at Scripture for half a second, you'd see that it compares God to men repeatedly, mostly to evil men. Scripture is clear that God does not behave like evil men. How do evil men behave? Like the Calvinist God! For example they setup and predestine innocent children to be burned in the fire, just like the Calvinist God!No parent is God. ..But the fact you think this comparison is valid, well describes your limited view of God. Your small god is not God at all, by this view.
Seems you missed a simple point. You chastised me for dismissing atemporality. I responded by defining 4 time-based experiences critical to life.Just without going back, I can tell you that your four definitions of real-life experiences dependent on time, are. if real-life experiences, therefore by definition not atemporal. Yet you seem to think there is something worth contesting here, though you yourself say they are "contrary to atemporality".
Here we have the pot calling the kettle black. You've indulged in plenty of ad homs and unfounded snide remarks.You also seem to be operating under the misapprehension that I care to debate further with you. Do you recall the post someone put concerning your ad homs and other ways of distancing your opponents?
Cheap copouts. You are trying to inappropriately inject off-topic insinuations even if they have nothing to do with the topics at hand. Guilt-by-association and ad homs are the best defense of Calvinism available to you at the moment? Is that really all you've got?I have a reason to keep away, too, in addition to that --your god is not my God, yours being, by your own admission, of a changing and growing nature. I have already told you how that is evident in the way you exalt the ability of man to God's level, or that is to say, to bring God down to ours.
I should think that should give @John Mullally, and anyone else who rates your posts with "agree" and the like, pause. And, hopefully bring them to rethink the notion of a God who must deal with circumstances beyond his control.
So we have little common ground for debate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?