Unbelievable. Is this deflection? You seem to be the only person on this thread completely unable to grasp my position.
For the millionth time, I am not saying that conscience PHYSICALLY FORCES them to choose B. All I'm saying is that conscience imposes on them the moral obligation (read this is 'an expectation in God's sight') to do B.
Man, you're a piece of work. Not seeing a lot of the Spirit in the character of your remarks. Almost none at all, actually. Lots of snarky sarcasm, though, and impatience and temper.
Anyway, I'm glad to know you don't think certainty equates to compulsion. It sounded to me like maybe you did:
"If I
feel certain that choice A is evil, and choice B is good, I shall opt for choice B."
"If you feel certain that action A is evil, and B is good, you're obligated to B."
I looked back over your responses and see that you clarified your meaning. Your posts have been coming so thick-and-fast, I'm missing some of what you're writing. The following I didn't see at all until just now (I'm leaving the snarky bit out):
"...I am addressing not what I WILL do, but what I SHOULD do,i.e. what is my moral obligation? I used the word 'shall' because I like the decisiveness/finality of it and I assumed everyone would pick that up."
Looks like many of your subsequent responses to me are based on that total misunderstanding of my views. To save time I will ignore those particular responses.
But thanks, you're doing wonderful job of confirming to me that human intercommunications are utterly unreliable/fallible, which further cements my conviction on the need for infallible direct revelation.
From my end, your posts confirm once again how obnoxious some believers can be when they are communicating online.
- Faith is a fruit of the Spirit (per Galatians). Therefore it seems utterly implausible to credit it to exegesis. It's the work of the Inward Witness.
??? Romans 12:3 says that God has given to every man a measure of faith. And so it is that people who are not indwelt by the Spirit exercise faith in a wide variety of things everyday. They exercise faith in their spouses, doctors, dentists, barbers, other drivers on the road, etc.
The KJV uses the word "faith" in Galatians 5:22 but more up-to-date Bible versions have "faithfulness" instead, that is, constancy, enduring commitment. In light of what Romans 12:3 indicates and what is clearly in evidence in the lives of non-believers concerning the exercise of faith, "faithfulness" makes more sense in Galatians 5:22 than "faith."
In any event, I don't think I
have credited faith to exegesis. Since I believe what Romans 12:3 says and the evidence of faith at work in all people, lost and saved alike, crediting faith to exegesis would be a strange thing for me to do. I suspect your tilting at a windmill of your own making (or, perhaps, another Strawman).
- The primacy of direct revelation becomes self-evident when we consider biblical categories such as 'joy inexpressible' and 'peace transcending all understanding'. Because God knows your brain and body, He is capable of calming your anxieties, and influxing degrees of joy in you, beyond your wildest imaginations. Now, imagine trying to arrive at those levels of joy, peace - and heartfelt love/compassion for your neighbor - by exegetical efforts. To even so attempt is total nonsense.
Not sure how any of this applies to what I wrote. I don't believe faith is the by-product of exegesis but is given to all people by God.
@aiki
"Love does no harm to your neighbor" (Rom 13). In this fragile world fraught with dangers, there are an infinite number of ways to accidentally harm my neighbor.
Some more hyperbole here, I think. There aren't an "infinite number of ways" you can harm your neighbor. If you simply interact with others as the Bible prescribes, you'll be fine. Which fact prompts the question: Why has God taken pains in His word to explain how to love well when He intends to direct you personally at every moment in how to do so? Doesn't make a lot of sense, it seems to me... It seems evident to me, rather, that God gives us such a HUGE amount of scriptural material to work from regarding how to love because, of course, it is central to Christian living, but also because He doesn't speak to us through personal revelation at every moment. He doesn't need to, having shown us the proper way to love in the Bible already.
Deflection. You're focusing on the irrelevant parts of the analogy as to conveniently overlook the thrust of the objection.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
Deflection. It's not an issue of 'defining'. The issue is epistemological justification for belief. If you're reason to believe in the Bible is that the Bible says to do so, that's circular reasoning.
Not a deflection; a clarifying aside.
I have not argued for the circular thinking you describe. I believe the Bible is the word of God for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with the claims Scripture makes for itself about its divine origin. But these means of being convinced about the divine origin of Scripture, do not themselves produce the structure of Christian doctrines and practices the Bible lays out. Fulfilled prophecy, thematic unity, survivability, historicity, impact upon individuals and cultures, and so on give me cause to trust the Bible is truly the word of God, but these things do not
create the content of the Bible.
Deflection. Basically, "I don't like the implications of the animal analogy so I will just dismiss it as invalid."
I'm not sure how my
explanation of the inappropriateness of your comparison to animals amounts to "deflection" and dismissal. One does not bother with explanations when one is being dismissive.
A plenal psychopath is self-evidently innocent (although I don't believe such exist). You can't rightly punish someone for doing wrong if he has zero-conscience, zero sense of right and wrong. That's tautological justice which even you basically conceded recently when you admitted that wrongdoing is when a man knows that A is evil and B is good but does A anyway.
I have already responded to this. Even without an internal sense of morality, the psychopath may be informed of morality by external means: God's word, the preaching/dissemination of that word by the Church, the expression of God's Moral Law in the fundamental morality to which non-psychopathic people frequently appeal, the "laws of the land." Thus, a psychopath is justly punished for his wrongdoing even though he has no inner sense of right and wrong. So, using the psychopath to argue your point doesn't appear to work well. Do you have another better example?
I rebutted that analogy (you gave it in response to post 5) but I want to further emphasize a problem there. My rebuttal, to summarize, is that, now you are still standing on SOMETHING. You haven't lost your footing. In other words, you've replaced the gangplank with another footing (or so you imply), thus you now have a new authoritative basis for believing in the Bible. Either:
(1) That basis is the Bible, which leads to circular reasoning OR
(2) It's some other basis, contrary to the claim that Scripture is your only final authority.
See above.
I have no time to respond further. I may return to this thread. I may not. It has been rather unpleasant interacting with you and I am not so invested in the thread that I feel compelled to endure more of your sarcasm and jabs to continue with it.