How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

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

More time-wasting wiggling and dancing around. . .

 

[JAL]

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?

Why you think I should have to prove a logical necessity is beyond me. But I'll humor you for a moment - as long as you're not expecting me to prove something 100%. Again, I can't even prove that you exist. Here again is the rule of conscience:

If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B.

Certainty is the opposite of doubt. Therefore a reasonably equivalent paraphrase would be this.

If I have doubts about whether action-A is good, but feel certain that action-B is good, it would be best to go with B.

I'm pretty sure that's what Paul stipulated at Romans 14:23:

"The one who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that is not from faith is sin."

In that verse, Paul defines righteousness, not in terms of specific laws, but in terms of whether a man feels certain, on the one hand, or feels doubts on the other.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

It is you who said, "Conscience is about feeling certain."

(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.

Why should human words, or even human concepts, or even human gibberish limit God? They cannot. You say God is not omnipotent, then post some foolish self-contradictory notion to prove it. Why should God give value to what you call mathematical PI when even WE recognize this is only a mathematically useful rendering that can be used in equations to approximate related amounts. God ascribed the absolute value of anything that has absolute value. But you want to submit him to OUR values, OUR notions, OUR constructions?

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.

Well, actually, it also says all things were made by him. But you have presented him as subject to principles from beyond his control, from outside himself. That is not the God who made all things. If God is all-powerful, then why do you paint him as a resident of reality subject to its principles, just as we are, instead of the one who made all the principles of reality, and indeed is the source of 'fact' itself?

 

[JAL]

More time-wasting wiggling and dancing around. . .

I've been asking for a single scenario for hundreds of posts. You fail to provide it - and then accuse ME of dancing?

(Sigh). I don't see the relevance of your question. You asked:

Likewise, what in the conscience tells one not to eat shrimp?

I'm pretty sure that, at birth, our God-given conscience isn't yet updated/educated with that kind of specific information. What's your point here? That a man should try to be as evil as possible because his conscience is uninformed about shrimp?

Earlier I didn't respond to this question because you seem to be making some kind of ridiculous argument whose dots I can't even begin to connect. I'm still at a loss.

 

[JAL]

It is you who said, "Conscience is about feeling certain."

Which obviously doesn't mean random uncontrolled spontaneous emotions, contrary to your polemical insinuations and subtle antagonistic slanders and misleading caricatures.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why you think I should have to prove a logical necessity is beyond me. But I'll humor you for a moment - as long as you're not expecting me to prove something 100%. Again, I can't even prove that you exist. Here again is the rule of conscience:

If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B.

Certainty is the opposite of doubt. Therefore a reasonably equivalent paraphrase would be this.

If I have doubts about whether action-A is good, but feel certain that action-B is good, it would be best to go with B.

I'm pretty sure that's what Paul stipulated at Romans 14:23:

"The one who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that is not from faith is sin."

In that verse, Paul defines righteousness, not in terms of specific laws, but in terms of whether a man feels certain, on the one hand, or feels doubts on the other.

What, I ask again, does the definition of conscience, or even the rule of conscience as you posit it, have to do with whether conscience is the ultimate authority judging us?

 

[Mark Quayle]

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?

If you are only asking whether a person should or should not obey their conscience, great! But that isn't the question. The question is whether conscience is the ultimate rule of behavior.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Which obviously doesn't mean random uncontrolled spontaneous emotions, contrary to your polemical insinuations and subtle antagonistic slanders and misleading caricatures.

I have no intentions of playing in your swamp. Can you please show how conscience is the ultimate rule by which a person is judged?

 

[JAL]

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

I am not following you. The rule of conscience is my final authority in ever scenario because I should always try my best to do good.

I'm still not sure why you are in disagreement.

 

[atpollard]

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

Post #2302 ... but you already dismissed it.

 

[JAL]

I have no intentions of playing in your swamp. Can you please show how conscience is the ultimate rule by which a person is judged?

Again, I give you - wait for it - the whole Bible. The whole Bible admonishes men to try to do as much good as possible, not as much evil as possible.

Are you saying that the Bible is misleading us?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am not following you. The rule of conscience is my final authority in ever scenario because I should always try my best to do good.

I'm still not sure why you are in disagreement.

Because God is greater than the conscience. Simple.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again, I give you - wait for it - the whole Bible. The whole Bible admonishes men to try to do as much good as possible, not as much evil as possible.

Are you saying that the Bible is misleading us?

The Bible is telling us to pursue Christ and his righteousness. Hopefully conscience will come along.

Nevertheless, you have not shown how conscience is the final rule of behavior. You have only so far in that regard, presented the claim that it is better to do as conscience requires, than to do otherwise. That is irrelevant to the question of whether conscience bears the authority of final rule of behavior.

 

[JAL]

Post #2302 ... but you already dismissed it.

Can you please just make it simple - boil it down to one scenario with details explaining why, in that scenario, a man should try to do evil?

You mentioned Ralph. If Ralph's conscience is telling him it was evil to rob a house, and he does it anyway, then yes that's sin, isn't it?

Nobody said the rule of conscience is easy to follow. Was the cross easy for Christ?

 

[JAL]

The Bible is telling us to pursue Christ and his righteousness. Hopefully conscience will come along.

You haven't thought it through. A God who is fair and just cannot expect us to pursue something we know nothing about. We must have some degree of felt certainty about the correct course of action.

Think it through. Then get back to me.

Nevertheless, you have not shown how conscience is the final rule of behavior. You have only so far in that regard, presented the claim that it is better to do as conscience requires, than to do otherwise. That is irrelevant to the question of whether conscience bears the authority of final rule of behavior.

See above.

 

[JAL]

Because God is greater than the conscience. Simple.

God is greater than math. Therefore 2 plus 2 is not 4?

Your non-sequitur makes no sense.

Empty, meaningless polemics. That's all you've got.

 

[JAL]

Why should human words, or even human concepts, or even human gibberish limit God? They cannot. You say God is not omnipotent, then post some foolish self-contradictory notion to prove it.

Self-contradictory? Foolish? Explain to me, if I'm so foolish, how infinity is a specific/discrete number.

Just because you've accepted nonsense, doesn't mean I'm obligated to the same.

Why should God give value to what you call mathematical PI when even WE recognize this is only a mathematically useful rendering that can be used in equations to approximate related amounts.

Dancing and deflecting. Nothing more.

What we DO recognize about PI is that it doesn't calculate to a finite number of digits if we're trying to capture it to perfect accuracy.

And you're trying to say that this limitation isn't relevant to everyday life, right? That all we need, in daily life, is a finite number of digits, right? EXACTLY. An infinite God has zero relevance to everyday life. This is what you cannot seem to comprehend.

Well, actually, it also says all things were made by him. But you have presented him as subject to principles from beyond his control, from outside himself. That is not the God who made all things. If God is all-powerful, then why do you paint him as a resident of reality subject to its principles, just as we are, instead of the one who made all the principles of reality, and indeed is the source of 'fact' itself?

We've been over this. You're just in denial about the fact that your God, like mine, is subject to an existence He did not opt for and is thus beyond His control. Can He cease to exist? Clearly, no.

 

[JAL]

What, I ask again, does the definition of conscience, or even the rule of conscience as you posit it, have to do with whether conscience is the ultimate authority judging us?

Did you comment on Romans 14:23? That verse seems to be a fairly clear attestation of what I am saying.

 

[JAL]

What, I ask again, does the definition of conscience, or even the rule of conscience as you posit it, have to do with whether conscience is the ultimate authority judging us?

Here also, from Romans 14.

5One person regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes a special day does so to the Lord;b he who eats does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.


"Fully convinced" means feeling certain about what is good or evil.

 

[JAL]

What, I ask again, does the definition of conscience, or even the rule of conscience as you posit it, have to do with whether conscience is the ultimate authority judging us?

In addition to Romans 14, care to address 1 Corinthians 8 as well?

In that chapter, Paul discusses whether it is okay to eat shrimp - or rather, food sacrificed to idols.

He seems to make it pretty clear that it all boils down to the individual's conscience. For one man, therefore, it is an evil thing to do. For another, it might well be a perfectly good thing to do.