Jarhyn

And regardless, the bible claims that there were no plants that had sprouted, when a look at geological evidence shows that plants had been sprouting, and dying, and growing and doing their thing for around a billion years before man ever walked the earth.

That sounds like a contradiction to me. Either the evidence provided in nature is false, or the account in the bible is false, and either way God made something to deceive people (a lie), and the bible says god can't lie.

GOD LIED ERGO THE BIBLE IS FALSE (as a unit; all parts are suspect).

How many times to I have to say this?

Zenaphobe

Threads like this make me wonder if God shouldn't let someone else run his public relations campaign.

Supposedly, God just wants people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, and he picks such idiotic methods to accomplish it.

It's like a cosmic Dilbert cartoon or God's Office Space. :huh:

Davka

Even the Christians have figured that out:

Jesus Needs New PR

dockeen

Bingo. This is what I have been mumbling about with respect to the importance of
checking your own work.

Take the notion of a book. As I have said before many times in these pages, the
notion that a book can avoid losing essential aspects of its meaning over many
hundreds of years of language and cultural changes strongly strains credibility.

The notion that a god would choose a book as a central pillar in passing on the
vital messages essential to the eternal fate of his children is actually, well,
pretty stupid.

The fact that people will strongly indicate that wildly divergent and opposing points
of view are supported by this book strongly suggests that the issues with using a
book for godly messages is every bit as questionable as I suggest that it is.

This suggest that, if a god actually used this method, he is either:

(1) Not real bright, and probably lazy or indifferent
(2) Wants to play hide and seek, with only those that study the hardest not being
destroyed.

Now, ponder those possibilities*, does either of them suggest a god who is great, and
worthy of worship. This suggests in turn, one of two possibilities

(a) The book is not as central as its worshippers want to think
(b) The god it represents really is unworthy of worship or greatness.

*before one hops in with "god didn't leave the book by itself, he left his holy spirit
to get around the problems you suggest", rexamine the point about people who
come to opposite conclusions about important topics like slavery, homosexuality,
religious tolerance etc. who are all convinced that they are hearing the voice of
the spirit in their ears.

simon kole

This one's for you, Wedge. (See http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p=6828390, my last response there)


Basic Logical Inconsistency of the Bible

The Biblical doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God appears to be incompatible (illogical) in regard to five areas of the Biblical doctrine on the moral responsiblity of mankind:

1) free will of mankind,
2) compromised free will of mankind,
3) justice of compromised mankind's moral responsibility for sin,
4) justice of mankind's moral responsbility for Adam's sin, and
5) justice of mankind's moral responsibility for acting as God determines him to act

In understanding the sovereignty of God in relation to the responsibility of man, the first consideration is the free will of man, for that is where the misunderstanding begins.

The Bible teaches the sovereignty of God (Da 4:35), and the Bible teaches the moral responsibility of mankind (1 Pe 4:5). It does not teach the free will of mankind. Free will is a philosphical notion (Aristotle, Cicero) asserted by Pelagius, a British monk around 400 AD, on the assumption that the moral responsiblity of mankind requires the free will of mankind. Biblically, this is not so, and this is where to begin.

The NT teaches that mankind is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34; Ro 3:19; Gal 3:22), that it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36, cf Jn 8:32; Ro 6:18, 22, 8:12; Gal 5:1). Free will (complete moral self-power) means the moral freedom (power) to always do the "good;" i.e., obey God (Mk 12:29-31). Free will (complete moral self-power) was lost in the Fall when man's nature became corrupted, enslaving him to sin so that he cannot always do the "good" (Ro 7:18-19, 8:7). He no longer has that complete moral self-power (Jn 15:5; Ro 5:6, 7:18), which is what is meant by the "depravity of man."

But mankind does have a compromised free will, which is what the philosphers call "free agency," which is the moral freedom to do what he wishes or desires, the moral freedom to act voluntarily according to his disposition. And there's the hitch. With his corrupted nature, his disposition is toward self in preference to God, which is natural dispositional sin against the first and greatest commandment (Mk 12:29-30; Ro 1:21, 3:10-12, 23).

So, the first thing to understand is that there is no incompatibility in Scripture between the absolute sovereignty of God** and the free will of mankind because the Bible does not teach that mankind has free will (Ro 3:9-12, 23, 6:6, 17-22, 7:14, 24-25, 8:7). Mankind has compromised free will, which is the moral power to choose voluntarily according to his disposition, which is corrupt (Ge 6:5, 8:21; Jer 17:9; Mt 7:11, Jn 1:5, 3:19). God exercises his sovereignty over mankind, not by compelling their acts or wills contrary to their preferences or dispositions (which would be an overriding of their "free agency"), but by operating through their dispositions*** to which their wills freely respond. So that means there is no incompatibility in Scripture between the sovereignty of God and the compromised free will of mankind, because mankind acts voluntarily according to his wishes and desires, he still voluntarily chooses to do what he prefers, which is the meaning of "free agency," or compromised free will (and what many think is the meaning of "free will").

Now to move on to the justice of mankind's moral responsibility for sin (Ro 3:19b, 14:12), even though his compromised will is "enslaved" (Jn 8:34) to dispositional sin (preference of self before God) and not able to obey (Ro 8:7) the greatest commandment (Mk 12:29-31). It's time for an analogy (which I've used before).

Suppose an invalid borrowed money from you on the promise that he would repay you from his inheritance at his father's death. The invalid has contracted a just debt, which he is responsible to pay. But suppose when the invalid comes into his inheritance, he is conned out of the whole thing before his debt is paid. The invalid is still responsible for his debt, even though he is unable to pay it. We have here the principle of our justice system that responsibility for a debt is not based in ability to pay, but in what is justly owed. The same is true in the divine justice system. Responsibility to obey God is not based on mankind's ability to obey, but on what mankind justly owes God. God is the center of the universe, not man (Rev 4:11) [see post #66 @ http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p=6837622]. God is the potter who owns everything he has created (Ex 19:5; Dt 10:14, Job 41:11; Ps 24:1, 50:12; Eze 18:4), including mankind (Is 45:9; Jer 18:6). He has a right to obedience from mankind (Lk 17:10) and, therefore, obedience is justly owed to him. Mankind's inability does not release him from that debt, because mankind's responsibility does not issue from his ability to pay, but from what he justly owes God.

Note that while justice requires the invalid to pay his debt to you, justice will not be satisfied in your case, because of his inability to pay. However, with God justice is always satisfied. If we do not pay our debt (by his Son), we will be thrown into debtors' prison even though we are unable to pay (because he has provided payment). Justice will be exacted of us to the last penny (Mt 5:26, 18:34) by God who is our adversary until our debt is paid (Ro 5:10), and with whom we are warned to settle our accounts before they come into his court of (final) judgment (Mt 5:25). So, in justice, mankind is morally responsible (Mt 12:36) to obey the greatest commandment (Mk 12:29-31) even though he is dispositionally unable to do so (Ro 8:7). And that leaves no injustice in Scripture between the moral inability of mankind and the moral responsibility of mankind.

And there's more. Mankind is not only responsible for his own sin, mankind is responsible for Adam's sin. That responsibility is established in Ro 5:12-21.

But that raises objection to the justice of mankind's moral responsibility for Adam's sin, which brings us to the law of Jesus (Mt 5:28) as he applies it to the present generation of Jewish leaders in his day (Lk 11:38-41). Jesus holds them responsible for the sin of their forebears all the way back to the beginning of the world. The divine justice of that is explained in another post (@ http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p=6835410, my responses within the post). And that then leaves no injustice in mankind's moral responsibilty for Adam's sin.

NB: It's about at this point when we need to remember three things:
1) Adam had complete moral power of his will to obey God. He was not deceived into disobeying him (1Tim 2:14). He chose, with full knowledge and full consent, to disobey (which in his case, with no impediment in his will to obedience, was rebellion against) God's command, because of Eve.
2) The gravity of Adam's rebellion is seen in the gravity of its consequences; i.e., fallen mankind, who now has a compromised will and a corrupted disposition.
3) But most importantly of all, this presentation does not deal with the love (mercy) of God, it deals only with the justice of God, because objections to God's sovereign actions are to the justice of them. Therefore, this presentation deals only with his justice, his love (mercy) is glorious subject for another day.

And which takes us now to the most difficult of the apparent incompatibilities with justice in Scripture. Scripture shows that God operates within the dispositions of mankind causing them to voluntarily do as he determines (Ex 12:36, 14:17; 2Sa 24:1; 1Kgs 22:23; 2Kgs 19:7; 1Chr 5:26; Is 13:17; Eze 14:9). And that raises strong objections of (moral) outrage to the justice of mankind's moral responsibility for acting as God determines them to act (Ro 9:19). The justice of that follows from God's choice of election (Ro 9:14-21). As Paul demontrates in Ro 5:12-21 and Jesus legislates in Lk 11:48-51, all mankind is born justly condemned as the result of their continuing just guilt of Adam's sin [because they agree in their own hearts with (Adam's) rebellion against God, which makes them guilty of continuous heart sin, according to the law of Jesus in Mt 5:28]. God sovereignly elects to save some from their just condemnation (Mt 24:31; Ro 11:7; 2Tim 2:10; Tit 1:1; 1Pe 1:1, cf Ac 13:48), while leaving the remainder in their just condemnation, and all to serve his own purposes, among them the glory of his justice (Ex 14:17-18; Eze 28:22-23), which is a foil setting off the glory of his mercy (Ro 9:22-23 (he is the center of the universe, we exist for him, he does not exist for us).

Since he has left them in their condemnation for the sake of his own purposes, he also operates within their dispositions to effect various of those purposes. But because his operation within their dispositions does not alter their eternal destiny of just condemnation [for natural dispositional heart sin] into which they were born (Eph 2:3) because of Adam's rebellion, he does them no injustice in causing them to voluntarily do as he determines, because they suffer no eternal loss thereby. Also, by definition, God can do the unjust (unrighteous) no injustice in causing them to glorify his justice, because it is just that the unjust should glorify the justice of God. For glory to God is a debt the unrighteous natural objects of God's wrath (Eph 2:3) justly owe (Ro 1:20-21), and as was shown previously, a debt which God will exact of them to the last penny (Mt 5:26, 18:34), for God is loser to no man. Therefore, it is just that God should collect (foreclose on) the debt of glory justly owed to him. And thus does Scripture show there is [u]no imcompatibility between the sovereignty of God (effecting his own purposes by operating within the dispositions of mankind, causing them to voluntarily do as he determines) and the moral responsibility of man (for his actions).

And thus we have a glimpse from Scripture of the divine counsels, which vindicte the justice of God (Ro 3:4; Rev 15:3), inescapably shut up all mankind in sin (Ro 3:19; Gal 3:22), and leave mankind without excuse (Ro 1:20), and the purpose of which is that mankind may have only one remedy (Ro 5:20-21; Gal 3:22; Col 1:19-20), the remedy which God himself provides.

CONCLUSION: The moral responsibility of mankind does not mean that mankind is able to obey God (Mk 12:29-31), but only that mankind justly owes obedience to God even though he is not able to obey. And, therefore, the necessity of God's provision for mankind's helpless estate.
________________________

**Da 4:35; Ac 2:23, 4:28, 13:48; Lk 22:22; Ro 8:29-30, 9:14-29, 11:25-34; Eph 1:4-12; 2Th 2:13; 1Pe 1:2

***Ge 10:6; Ex 3:21; Dt 2:25; Jos 11:20; 1Sa 10:9; Ezr 1:1, 5, 7:27; Ne 2:12, 7:5; Ps 105:25, 106:46; Pr 21:1; Eze 36:27; Da 1:9; 2Co 8:16; Rev 17:17
________________________

<is your brain completely fried at this point?>

Jarhyn

FIFY. Now please kindly address how any of that noise makes any difference in the light of any of the ample and conclusive proof I've given as well as others as to the fact that the bible is NOT true as a unit and is in fact suspect without outside corroboration

Zenaphobe

The puppeteer makes defective puppets and gets pissed at them for being exactly what he made them to be.

Behold! He fixes a few of them and manipulates their mouths to tell himself just what an awesome guy he really is.

What a heart moving tale of divine competence and outrageous love.

Light brings forth darkness and throws a tantrum over the shadows.

Deus Ex

There is no misunderstanding. We know that Calvinists believe in compatibilism. I say that it is wrong to punish someone for doing something when they could not do otherwise. For instance, when a person who is mentally ill harms another individual we attempt to help the mentally ill person, not seek retribution against that person for something that they could not help themselves from doing. Calvinist Christianity contends that we are all "mentally ill" as a curse for Adam's disobedience, then posits that it is moral for Yahweh to seek retribution against us for behaving in ways that he has guaranteed beforehand that we would. That is just plain twisted. You'll of course respond with something along the lines that our morality is the one that is twisted, but I see no reason to accept that proposition.

Basically, your post amounts to this:

the bible says it, you believe it, and that settles it

dockeen

The most common rejoinders in this family are:

(1) Our ways are not his ways.

(2) Who are we to judge god.

To which I would respond

(1) A god who insists that he be held to whatever standards he sees fit, where those
standards are in some cases far lower than he allegedly holds me to is not fit to worship.

(2) Since god allegedly does not want robots, and wants me to make a free will decision
as to whether to worship him or not, should want to be judged worthy by his children,
not seek to tell them "I am worthy because I say so"

Note that a god that wants me to make a "free will" decision to worship him, who
has to resort to bribery and threats of eternal torture to get what he wants is
not great, and not worthy of worship.

A tri-omni god that created everything from scratch - there should be very little
that I can say or do, much less believe, that should cause him a 0.00000000001 usec
of heartburn, much less make him mad enough to fry me, and my desendants forever.

simon kole

Well, how dare that Calvin, or anyone else for that matter, show the compatibility of Scripture with itself!Well, actually that should be: the Bible says it, that settles it, you believe it.