If You have Faith Now, Sex and Wealth Are Yours in Heaven!

We atheists are often accused of not having morals or ethics and, since this life is all we have, atheists are considered as indulging in all the sensual pleasures we can cram into this short life time.

But both the text and traditions of the two major monotheistic religions (Christianity and Islam) prove that if the faithful - especially Islamic men- are deterred by the stick (Hell) and lured by the carrot (Heaven), then much of what is labeled sin in the here and now can be part of the eternal lustful reward in Heaven.

Lets look at a few so-called earthly sins in the Christian-Islamic religious traditions.

Sexual Desires on Earth in Islam: Very Bad!

In conservative Islamic countries, men are not to look at woman in the eyes for fear of exciting sexual feelings and urges. Thus, women are often confined to their houses, denied an education and, if they leave their houses, they must (in many conservative religious Moslem countries) be covered often with the berka from heard to toe to keep men from any sexual lustful thoughts.

Covering of the female can be a basic hijab to the full face covering of the burqa. Woman are not to be seen except by her husband and as one Pashto phrase states: “A woman belongs in the house - or in a grave.”

Sexual Desires in Heaven in Islam: Very Good!

“Two points need to be noted. First, there is no mention anywhere in the Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all Muslims, not just martyrs.”

…and…

“Modern apologists of Islam try to downplay the evident materialism and sexual implications of such descriptions, but, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam says, even orthodox Muslim theologians such as al Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and Al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) have "admitted sensual pleasures into paradise". The sensual pleasures are graphically elaborated by Al-Suyuti (died 1505 ), Koranic commentator and polymath. He wrote: ‘Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas.’”

[I must admit that after reading the statement “Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint.” the Lord immediately started dealing with my heart. I really think the Lord is calling me to be a Moslem!] (Quoted from here)

Wealth on Earth in Christianity: Very Bad!

The Jesus of the Gospels is an itinerate preacher who owns nothing (Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." Matt. 8: 20).

Tells anyone who follows him to do the same (Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. " Mark 10: 21-22).

Warns about loving wealth and getting into Heaven (“For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Luke 18: 25).

Jesus teaches a “Social Gospel” on sharing of wealth the Jewish punishment if you don’t (19 “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 “And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, … Luke 16: 19 -31).

Wealth in Heaven in Christianity: Very Good!

God has a mansion in Heaven with a dedicated room for each faithful believer (2 “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places (Greek: rooms); if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3 “If I go and prepare a place for you… John 14: 1-3 Talk about Circular Reasoning!)

While the faithful are forbidden to love and horde wealth on earth, in Heaven greed is king as the faithful’s material lust is filled to over flowing (19 The foundation stones of the city wall were adorned with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation stone was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; 20 the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates was a single pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. Rev. 21: 19 - 21).

Jesus said: “Rejoice and be glad because you have a great reward in heaven!” (Matt. 5: 12a)

Yea, right! Unlimited sex for the faithful Moslem and unlimited wealth for the faithful Christian.

Do I see religious hypocrisy here or is it just because my atheistic mind is not warped by religious righteous thinking?

55 comments:

Gandolf said...

Harry McCall said:"We atheist are often accused of not having morals or ethics"

Sticks n Stones break your bones but names will never hurt! Harry .

Hope you had a great Christmas break Harry !:).


Harry said :"Wealth in Heaven in Christianity: Very Good!"

Harry quite a number even have a rather heavenly wealth here on earth,i think Benny Hinn and quite a number of other m8s of his might agree.

And if we looked at religion as just another theatrical performance,would not it be recorded in history as the one with the highest takings ever at the door !.

A real blockbuster ,lavishly produced.Forcefully impressive,with an eternal plot .Past sales achieved being enormous !.

Happy new year ! Harry :)

Emanuel Goldstein said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Emanuel Goldstein said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Harry H. McCall said...

Good to hear from you in the New Year, Gandolf.

I’ve started using Playboy as study material on the Qur’an to help speed my religious conversion to Islam. LOL

Happy New Year to all here at DC!

Christ Follower said...

Wow, I think that you got the message of the gospels all wrong concerning wealth in heaven and on earth.

I noted how you ignored the part about Solomon and how God made him wealthy and gave him the knowledge that he asked for.

You ignored the book of job, about his previous wealth and his regaining abundance of wealth after his calamity afterwords.

Wealth is an of its self is NOT VERY BAD as you have supposed. The temptations and the possible distraction that great wealth may cause is a very live threat though as seen in the story of the rich young ruler. And in heaven we will be rewarded according to the riches that we have done on earth, sure there will be wealth :) but not is no the main point, considering the fact how much will gold be worth if the street is paved with it? The overarching wealth available in heaven is the "wealth" of seeing Jesus face to face, sin done away with, and a new earth to live and commune with God and his people forever...

But then again, I realize that your goal was not to pain Christianity or any religion in a pretty light..... after you could have easily have written a comparison between suffering on earth now and suffering in heaven..... :) but thats is not good marketing right?

Have a happy new year !!!

Daniel said...

The issue is "inherent purpose". For your Christian critique the inherented purpose of wealth in this life is greed, manipulation, etc.

In the "new earth" i.e. heaven, wealth in the form of streets of gold et al are not seen in this light as on earth because "all things are made new".

Man purposes earthly possessions for himself, God purposes possessions for others.

Wealth is not inherently bad, the love of such is. 1 Timothy 6:10

Teleprompter said...

Lemaro:

Yes, he easily could've written a post on suffering in a "heaven": after trillions and trillions of years, wouldn't you be suffering? Also, if you knew that people you loved were in a "hell", wouldn't that also increase suffering? I couldn't live with myself if I forgot about my family and my friends - it wouldn't be me anymore; I'd be automaton. It wouldn't be free will - it wouldn't be free love. How does your god ensure that people stop sinning in heaven, unless your god removes their free will? I'm not sure I'd even want to go to your "heaven" if I have to become an automaton and my free will is removed.

Steven Bently said...

I'd rather laugh with the sinners than weep with the saints -- Billy Joel

Harry H. McCall said...

Lemaro said:
I noted how you ignored the part about Solomon and how God made him wealthy and gave him the knowledge that he asked for.

You ignored the book of job, about his previous wealth and his regaining abundance of wealth after his calamity afterwords.


RE: Like most Christians I know, you look on God with loving care all the while refusing to see the real truth of the matter.

Solomon was the second child of David’s murderous affair / adultery with Bathsheba.
Solomon’s brother was himself murdered in a slow death over a number of days by God.

Like a sex addict, Solomon’s lust for women drove him to have sex with almost 2,000 women labeled as “wives” and “concubines”. For all the intelligence you see in him, the Book of Kings saw Divine retribution on Solomon for his apostasy ascribed to the influence of his pagan foreign wives. In short, Solomon’s penis was bigger than his brain!

On the other hand, Job’s life was ruined on a bet between God and his buddy Satan. For fun and to make a point, God wanted Satan to kill Job’s children, ruin his wealth and finally attack Job’s body itself with boils.

Unlike the God of the Covenant with Israel, the Book of Job show us a God who can NOT be trusted to adhere to any set theology.

I sure hope Satan and God got their rocks off with Job’s misery. At the end of the poetry (this Book starts with prose, goes to Hebrew poetry and ends again with prose), Job does not want, as Christians want, to go be with his Lord and Savior: God. Job just wants HIS DAMN THINGS BACK. Even a God who created a world in six days can not give him his original children back!

You should not Christianize either Solomon nor Job, and for that matter, you should see God for who he is; an old drinking buddy of Satan!!! (Little wonder a talking snake was ALREADY in the garden. (Probably JUST another reckless bet with his old friend Satan.)

Christ Follower said...

Many atheists have made it simple for Christians to deal with the problem of Hell. THEY WANT TO GO THERE!!! In fact, in Loftus most (jan 1, 2009) recent post he says that he would have to be taken kicking and screaming to heaven.

So what about the people burning in Hell they ask? Well I would love for them to be in heaven but it is their choice? So if is their choice there is nothing you can do but enjoy heaven with Jesus right? see the great divorce by C.S.Lewis

Mr. Mcall notes how you have changed the subject from the discussion on wealth in Christianity to something today different. Job illustrates that you cannot expect a "scratch your back policy" If you scratch God's back don't expect him to scratch yours simply because you did something for him.

In other words you went to church without missing a beat for 25 years that does not mean that you won't get cancer as a result. God is saying that his rule had come to earth, but it is not fully realized yet. Therefore there will cases when the faithful will suffer, but when his rule is fully materialized then you can expect one thing: shalom.

Your criticism of Solomon at best shows that he loves broken and sinful people like you and me and there is nothing that you can do to fall out of his grip of grace.

And can you speak as to what Job wanted back? Job seemed pretty content at the end of the story to me? And who can argue that his daughters, sons, servants would not be with Jesus upon their deaths (if the book is not merely poetry but a reality that occurred?) In many near death experiences the victims talk about Heaven and how they did NOT want to come back to Earth...... Who is not say that they are not better off?

So since you changed the topic, do you agree that your analysis on wealth and Christianity was not at all true? Christianity does not despise wealth, but since notes the dangers of it!

Harry H. McCall said...

Lemaro said...
Many atheists have made it simple for Christians to deal with the problem of Hell. THEY WANT TO GO THERE!!! In fact, in Loftus most (jan 1, 2009) recent post he says that he would have to be taken kicking and screaming to heaven.

Lemaro, is it not true that Jesus went to Hell? (Matt. 12: 40 “for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” and I Peter 3: 18 - 20 “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.)

So, if Jesus set an example by busting Hell wide open when he died, then, it only follows since Jesus is our example, Christians should bust Hell wide open when they die too!

As for your fallacy that only the love of money is evil and not money itself, I now ask you to prove it from the Bible, especially the New Testament! Your only the love of money is wrong is only wishful thinking. PLEASE prove this with a chapter and verse from the Gospels!

I did not change the subject, you introduced Solomon and Job and I told you how I saw it. Sorry if you don't like my view.

Fact is, Jesus went to Hell when he died. Fact again is, your only the love of money is wrong is itself wrong.

Rick said...

I think the assessment of Islam’s view of sex is on target. It is hypocritical. The author would have done better to leave the issue there. When He gets to the Christian (biblical) view of wealth, he stumbles seriously.

His understanding of both the biblical teaching on wealth on the present, cursed earth inhabited by fallen, sinful men, and in the new heavens and earth, the home of righteousness, is seriously flawed. His problem is seen in his assessing Christianity as though it were like Islam. His grouping of the two in the way that he has shows his failure to see the critical distinctions between the two radically different worldviews.

For instance, although he doesn’t address this, the biblical teaching on sex provides a striking contrast to that of Islam. Biblically, sex is good. It is a gift given by God for the proper enjoyment of men and women created in His image (and the propagation of that image). It is given for our pleasure, and is to be celebrated (see Song of Songs). As with all of God’s gracious gifts to us, human sexual activity is not to become an obsession, a consuming passion, an uncontrolled drive – in other words, an idol – but is to be enjoyed in its proper, God-prescribed bounds. In all things God is to be Supreme. To ignore God’s command in this matter, is to attempt to cast off His rule as our Creator and Owner, and to forfeit the great blessing associated with His gift to us on this earth. To let our sex drive control us is to make us slaves to sin rather than to God – and sin, unlike God, is a cruel master.

But this gift is given to us only for our time on this earth. The Christian does not look forward to sex in heaven. Jesus makes it clear that this is one of the old things that will have passed away in the age to come. The error of Islam in this matter is thinking that what is desirable and pleasurable in the creation here and now will hold the same promise of pleasure in heaven – and will be available in greater measure and without limitation. The error that the author of the article makes is thinking that the bible presents the same worldview. This is natural to the natural mind, but is grossly mistaken.

To be sure, the Christian does look forward to pleasures in the new heavens and new earth – and yes, we anticipate pleasures far exceeding those of our experience here as fallen, sinful people in a cursed creation. But that pleasure and enjoyment that we look forward to is found and experienced in the glory of the presence of the God who is Himself our great reward.

Psalms 16:11 (ESV)
11 You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

If I can make the comparison, in terms of pleasure, sex is a very faint whisper, a fading shadow in light of the abundance of enjoyment that awaits those whose hope is the Lord. No one will be searching for partial and temporal pleasures, when they have full and lasting pleasures. Of course the full and lasting pleasure can be experienced only when we ourselves have been utterly freed from sin and have been perfected.

All of this is perfectly consistent with the biblical teaching to enjoy sex in its proper place, in subordination to the will of God. Our love to Him will issue in our obedience to Him and will bring the greatest enjoyment of His blessing for us here and now. But even now, our greatest joy and pleasure is in knowing and growing in our love for Him. When certain means of blessing and enjoyment (sex) will have passed, our love to Him will still be the means through which His love for us will be received and known – but then in measures previously unknown… the breadth and length and height and depth…the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge. So David is consistent when he prays

Psalms 73:21-28 (ESV)
21 When my soul was embittered, when I was pricked in heart,
22 I was brutish and ignorant; I was like a beast toward you.
23 Nevertheless, I am continually with you; you hold my right hand.
24 You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
26 My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
27 For behold, those who are far from you shall perish; you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you.
28 But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord God my refuge, that I may tell of all your works.

There is no hypocrisy here.

Now, as to the issue of the biblical teaching on wealth in this age and the next – all of the above applies, and equally without hypocrisy.

The author’s first premise is simply wrong.

>>Wealth on Earth in Christianity: Very Bad!

The truth is that wealth (a relative term) is a gift from God and may be used or abused (as can sex). The Bible identifies the LOVE of money as the root of all kinds of evil. It also condemns as foolish the presumptuous hoarding of wealth, and trusting in wealth. All of this is contrary to God’s prescription. But much good can be done for others with money and this is both encouraged and exemplified in many places in Scripture. The texts the author uses don’t support his premise and mostly work against it.

>>>The Jesus of the Gospels is an itinerant preacher who owns nothing (Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." Matt. 8: 20).<<<

So Jesus didn’t have an abundance of personal wealth. This, of course, does not make wealth itself “very bad.” This is simply bad logic. What Jesus undertook in order to carry out His purpose and mission in redemption does not ipso facto define its opposite as evil. If it did then His enduring death to fulfill His redemptive mission would mean that life was “very bad.” “He made Himself nothing…a servant… a man…humbled himself…obedient to death…on a cross” (Phil. 2:7-8). As the Bible tells us the point of His incarnation and death, it also tells us the point of His poverty.

2 Corinthians 8:9 – For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.

>>>Tells anyone who follows him to do the same (Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me. But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. " Mark 10: 21-22).<<

This is bad reading. “Anyone” is not being addressed here. One man is. His problem was not that he had wealth, but that his wealth had him – and therefore, God didn’t. He had no love for God, nor for his poor neighbor – therefore, he hardened his heart toward both.

>>>Warns about loving wealth and getting into Heaven (“For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Luke 18: 25).<<

Here the author himself even sees that it is “loving wealth” not possessing wealth that is “very bad.” It poses a trap to those who don’t love God, but serves good purposes to those who do.

>>>Jesus teaches a “Social Gospel” on sharing of wealth the Jewish punishment if you don’t (19 “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 “And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, … Luke 16: 19 -31).<<

Again, this does not indicate that wealth is “very bad.” Rather, this man is seen to be very bad, because he loves his wealth, has no love for his neighbor, and trusted that his own position and possessions meant he had favor with God. Jesus’ audience was “the Pharisees, who were lovers of money” (v.14). They held positions of prestige and loved their wealth – like the rich man in the story. They needed to see they were not entering the kingdom with Abraham, or obeying Moses, but unless they repented were set to receive the reward for their self-righteousness.

This does not teach we are condemned for having wealth anymore than it teaches we are saved by poverty, or hunger, or sores, or dog licks.

Finally, to the idea that “Wealth in Heaven in Christianity: Very Good!” The author completely misses the intention of the Scriptures (again, no surprise).

The depiction of the heavenly Jerusalem is not to be taken in a wooden, literal fashion. The brilliance of the foundations, the transparent gold streets, the gates of pearl, etc. are meant to portray a splendor and brilliance and beauty in the richest imaginable language. Beauty and glory are the purpose of this portrayal, not material wealth.

But 2 quick things to note in refutation of the idea that “in Heaven greed is king as the faithful’s material lust is filled to over flowing.” First, there is no indication that any of this vast wealth depicted will be the personal property of those who inherit the kingdom. It is seen to be there for their enjoyment and wonder. (The Scriptures teach that greed is idolatry and that the greedy and idolators won't inherit the kingdom. Rev. 22:15, Eph. 5:5).

Second, as the description of the New Jerusalem unfolds, these things are seen to be rather incidental to the real beauty, the real center, the real pleasure and joy of heaven – The glory of the presence of God.

3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.

This is the fulfillment of all the hopes of God’s people throughout the ages. This focus arises again and again in this chapter.

16 The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width. And he measured the city with his rod, 12,000 stadia. Its length and width and height are equal.

The city is said to be a perfect cube. The significance of this is that the only Scriptural parallel is that of the Holy of Holies in the Temple where the presence of God was most fully manifested. Now no longer behind the veil, God’s presence is fully manifested in the presence of all His people.

22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.

The Temple was the center of religious, social, and cultural life for God’s people. It gave definition, meaning, purpose and fulfillment to all life for the people of God. God Himself is said to be the temple in the New Jerusalem. His presence is the all pervasive and influencing element that defines all of life.

23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

As a beautiful old hymn says, “The Lamb is all the glory in Immanuel’s land.” The very radiance of God’s presence will pervade all of that happy society.

This is why the city is described as

11 having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal

John is seeking for words adequate to describe the magnificent beauty that is ultimately beyond description. And it should be clear as crystal that Harry’s eyes are not only blinded to the beauty described in this chapter, but willingly so, such that he can’t seem to deal honestly with the words on the page.

In 22:4, John says simply, "they will see his face." This is what the people of God long for, not material abundance. I pray that God will open Harry's eyes so that when he sees His face he will look with joy, not terror, as upon his Father, not his Judge.

Peace,

Rick

Jeff Eyges said...

So what about the people burning in Hell they ask? Well I would love for them to be in heaven but it is their choice? So if is their choice there is nothing you can do but enjoy heaven with Jesus right?

Perhaps the single most important reason I have for not being a Christian. You are a moral imbecile - and the fact that you won't even understand my response proves my point.

Jason said...

Rick's comments are spot on. Harry's entire premise is based on a flawed reading of the verses he quotes. For example, John 14:1-3 says nothing about "wealth in heaven" while Revelation 21 describes the glory of the kingdom, not the material wealth of the righteous.

The NT teaching regarding wealth is clear: it's the love of money that's wrong, not money or material possessions in and of themselves.

Harry H. McCall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Harry H. McCall said...

My response to you; Rick, would be that you have the virtually unlimited ability of a faithful believer to engage in self-delusion and rationalization to justify and protect your view of Christianity.

Paul emphatically states that the religious loafer who will not work, should not be given food for him to eat either: “For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; 9 not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. 10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. 11 For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. (2 Thess. 3: 8-11).

So while Jesus was called a “tekton” (Matt. 13: 55) in his early life, he was, according to Paul, a free loading bum, who in his later years was a “busybody” that ended up getting himself killed by the Romans (If only Jesus could have sat at the feet of Paul and repented of the error of his ways / sin!).

Rick, please tell me:

A. Other than his one set of clothes, what did Jesus ever owned?

B. Please explain why Jesus demanded his disciples leave their daily jobs along with their ability to earn an income (anti-Paul) to live off people who DID act responsible and who did hold down jobs? (Jesus sponged off Mary and Martha Luke 10: 38 – 41 like a leech!)

Fact is; Jesus is so anti-wealth he tells his disciples that they will have to sell their own clothes and walk about naked just to pay for a sword: “Then he said to them, "But now, whoever has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet. Whoever has none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword”(Luke 12:36)

You know what Rick? The late comedian Red Skelton used to do a skit which describes the non-employed Gospel Jesus anti-wealth life to a Tee; it was call Freddy the Free Loader!

In the end, while Paul worked as a tent maker to support himself, Jesus was a free loading bum who demanded others to sponge off society too as proof that God would protect them!

Have a Happy New Year!

Rick said...

Now Harry, I gave you a point by point response to show you precisely where your understanding of the texts is in error, and I showed you your faulty presuppositions that lead to your erroneous conclusions; and your response to me is that I’m engaging in self-delusion and rationalization? That’s it? Please, if this is the case, demonstrate from the texts and from my post where I am wrong. Otherwise, your response amounts to nothing more than childish name-calling.

I’m just looking at the words of the text, Harry. The language is clear. From reviewing your profile, I don’t think these things should be hard for you to understand. I think it’s clear to anyone who can read this exchange where the delusion and rationalization lie. Since I’m not interested in name-calling or empty “argument” I’ll respond to your latest and move on unless I receive a rational response.

Reading your post, it’s obvious that your response is aimed either at inciting a reaction or is, more basically, just an avenue for venting some significant pent-up anger. As groundless as your article was your response is equally irrational. Your entire rant misses a very relevant and plain fact – really, did You READ the text you quoted?

You want to maintain that Jesus would not have lived up to Paul’s standards regarding work; that Paul would have classified him as a “freeloading bum” and a “busybody” and called for him to repent. (You, of course add further words to express your contempt: leech, and sponge).

The problem with your failed assault is that Paul, in several places, including the very text you quote, gives his unreserved support for the principle that those who engage in the work of the ministry have the right to gain their living and support from that work. In II Thes. 3:9 (your text) Paul states very clearly that he and his fellow ministers “have a right” to the support of those to whom they ministered. In other places he applies this more broadly to all faithful ministers of the gospel, and cites his authority for this principle.

In I Cor. 9 he asserts his right to this support and rests his argument on the fact that Peter and the other apostles also have this right.

1 Corinthians 9:3-6 (ESV)
3 This is my defense to those who would examine me.
4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink?
5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?

He doesn’t argue against their right, but argues for his own based upon theirs. No rebuking and calling for repentance here.

In the next verse he goes on to argue from broader principles:

7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?

This principle finds its authority for Paul in the Law of Moses, it is seen in the history of the temple service and ultimately is commanded by the Lord Jesus.

8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same?
9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?
10 Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.
11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?
12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.
13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?
14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

So we find, contrary to your absurd assertion, that not only does Paul not condemn the practice of the Lord and his apostles, but he quotes his Lord in support of it. He also applies it to faithful elders/pastors.


1 Timothy 5:17-18 (ESV)

17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.
18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

The Scriptures he quotes are Deut. 25:4, and Luke 10:7

Luke 10:5-8 (ESV)
5 Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house!’
6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you.
7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.
8 Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you.

Paul agrees with his Master that a worker is worth his wages. This is the Scriptural teaching that he submits to. He quotes the Law from Deuteronomy, and the Lord from Luke as his authority.

In II Thes. 3 he is condemning idleness. If you are inclined to think that Jesus was idle, I suggest you read Mark sometime. That should correct your error.


Now for your direct questions:

>>>A. Other than his one set of clothes, what did Jesus ever owned?

A. The Scriptures don’t tell us exactly. But I suppose like all of us, he owned what he either earned or was given. There doesn’t seem to be much of a point here.


>>>B. Please explain why Jesus demanded his disciples leave their daily jobs along with their ability to earn an income (anti-Paul) to live off people who DID act responsible and who did hold down jobs? (Jesus sponged off Mary and Martha Luke 10: 38 – 41 like a leech!)

B. Quite apart from justifying your invective, I would simply say, because the work of the ministry is work, and men who give themselves to it deserve to get their living from that work; pretty simple really, and perfectly consistent throughout the Scriptures.

You may not think it’s work, or you may not like it being done, but that’s why you don’t pay the worker. But those who receive the great benefits that come from faithful gospel ministry think differently and willingly support such men. I don’t know what work you’re in, but if I had no personal desire for your services, I wouldn’t begrudge someone else the right to pay you if they gained a benefit from it; so, why so much hostility? Really, what has some Christian or minister done that has so angered and provoked you?

Truthfully Harry, I’ve rarely met a man so full of bitterness. You really make yourself and your cause look bad. You would do better to remain silent. But I hope rather, that you would earnestly seek the forgiveness of the One you so insolently and rashly seek to offend. I wish you well.

Peace,

Rick

Harry H. McCall said...

Thanks for your response Rick and I would like to reply here and now; but as often, you and I might find we are to only two engaged in this conversation as this post ages, plus we basically have changed the topic from wealth in Christianity to my view of Jesus.

So to include other comments (both pro and negative), I’m going to post an entire topic on my view of Jesus as irresponsible.

I would suggest you might want to “cut and past” your comments here on to my new post so others can add their thoughts as well.

Shalom.
Harry

Jeff Eyges said...

Before you two leave, I'd like to add something.

But I hope rather, that you would earnestly seek the forgiveness of the One you so insolently and rashly seek to offend.

I don't have the words to express how ridiculous I find this. You people absolutely love the drama, the solemnity, the pageantry; it's a large part of the attraction for you. Your view of God as a colossal "ego in the sky" who is even capable of being offended is nothing more than a projection of your own ego - which, of course, you will deny. I mean, really - who, outside of your subculture, talks like this? Just take the KJV and get a room already.

Naturally, if you respond at all, you'll tell me how wrong I am. You people are absolutely incapable of introspection.

Rick said...

Naturally, for me to agree with you I would have to deny many things that I know to be true.

1. My call for Harry’s repentance was based on his obvious ATTEMPT (“seek”) to offend God (and others), not on God’s oversensitivity. The problem is with Harry’s psyche, not God’s. This was my intention. I know this.

2. In order for my view of God “as a colossal ego in the sky” to be “nothing more than a projection of [my] own ego” would require that my view of God ACTUALLY BE that He is a “colossal ego in the sky” – which of course is NOT my view. In fact, this characterization sounds very foreign to my ears. I know this.

3. For my observation that Harry was seeking to offend God to be “a projection of my own ego,” it seems to me, would require that I had myself felt personally offended by his comments and projected that offense onto God. In fact my personal response to what he said was pity, NOT offense. I know this.

4. I do not think that God is capable of being offended in the same way that we are (where it involves a disturbance of one’s ego). I do think that all persons have a level of dignity that should be recognized and honored – even though all men diminish their own dignity. This plain fact is seen throughout our legal codes, our social structures, and ethical ideals. There are many undignified ways in which people seek to diminish the dignity of other persons – many are punishable by law. An offense against another’s dignity may or may not diminish the dignity of the one assaulted, but usually, if not always, diminishes the offender’s dignity. God is the greatest and most majestic of all beings, and His dignity cannot be diminished, though all men everywhere have assaulted and attacked Him. These are all offenses against His dignity, majesty, honor, and person, and are justly punishable. In his assaults on God’s dignity, man immeasurably diminishes his own. The more deliberate his attack on God, the more evidence of his depravity is displayed. This is why my response to Harry is one of pity. He is publically and progressively diminishing himself. I find it sad. I know this.

5. I personally don’t read the KJV. I know this.

6. Anybody who knows me would say that I am probably TOO introspective. I know this.


So in terms of correct assumptions cipher, you are living up to your name.

Peace,

Rick

Jeff Eyges said...

God is the greatest and most majestic of all beings, and His dignity cannot be diminished, though all men everywhere have assaulted and attacked Him. These are all offenses against His dignity, majesty, honor, and person, and are justly punishable.

Again, when you say things like this, you really are fashioning a deity that is an extension of your own ego, and is a reflection of your own level of development. You're operating at the primitive level of reward and punishment, and you insist upon dragging God (if He exists) down to that level with you.

I know this.

Stop it. Seriously. You know nothing. You have nothing but assumptions. It's evident from your response that you don't even really understand what I'm saying.

This is why I stopped commenting here two years ago. You Christians who participate here are so monstrously full of yourselves - and frankly, I blame John and his cohorts for allowing you to get away with it.

Rick said...

Cipher,

Seriously, in your first post to me you twice said that I’d just disagree with you and then indicated that if I disagreed it would simply exhibit my own self-delusion (“incapable of introspection”). Yet you were making assumptions about my intentions in my previous post, my motives, my preferences, my view of God, my understanding of what an offense to God would mean – even denying that I am capable of introspection. These are matters of my subjective thoughts and intents, my psychological make-up, knowledge which you don’t have if I don’t tell you. And yet you word your post in such a way that I’m supposed to just say, “well this stranger says he’s right about me and I’m wrong, and if I don’t agree that just proves how wrong and deluded I am”? If I agree with you you’re right, and if I don’t you’re proven right? I think it’s you who needs to get over yourself.

My response simply addressed your false assumptions about ME. These are matters that I KNOW since they are matters of my subjective thoughts and intents. I know the “I know this” got annoying – it did to me too. I was just emphasizing the point that to agree with you I would have to deny things that I do know about me because your post was full of false assumptions about me – which I demonstrated.

I also know that #4 – the one you took issue with, addressed in some detail matters that you would certainly disagree with. Again the point was to demonstrate that your assumption that I was attributing certain feelings of offense to God was misplaced, as my concern was for Harry’s self-degradation in his irrational displays of contempt for a being he says doesn’t exist. I don’t think he hurt God, though I do think he attacked Him. I realize we differ here – I think he attacked the God that is, you think he attacked the concept of a God that doesn’t exist. But my point wasn’t to argue for God’s existence – only to show how a person can commit an offense against another person and hurt themselves far more than the other person, which itself is reason to call for them to stop (repent). In God’s case, I would say, all the damage is done to the offender. Your connecting the idea of offending God with the concept of “an ego in the sky” was attributing to me an idea that I simply don’t hold. I was seeking to demonstrate that, and to show how that was consistent with my calling on Harry to seek the forgiveness of the one he sought to offend.

>>>Again, when you say things like this, you really are fashioning a deity that is an extension of your own ego, and is a reflection of your own level of development. You're operating at the primitive level of reward and punishment, and you insist upon dragging God (if He exists) down to that level with you.<<

The concept I have of God does not originate with me. This concept is not fashioned out of my own ego, as you say, but revealed in the pages of Scripture. As to my primitive level of development, do you consider ethics and justice and honor and dignity to be primitive concepts? Is it more primitive to hold wrongdoers responsible or let crime and violence run rampant and unchecked forever?

I think again your assumptions are off base.

(I know you’ll just disagree and that only proves how deluded you are by your obsessive need to define and control and manipulate everyone you come in contact with because you see yourself as rationally and morally superior, even though this is really rooted in your deep-seated fear that you have no control over your own life, or thoughts, or destiny. Of course, you’ll deny this because you people are incapable of introspection. BTW, I don’t really mean this – just threw it in for effect.)

Peace,

Rick

Philip R Kreyche said...

As to my primitive level of development, do you consider ethics and justice and honor and dignity to be primitive concepts? Is it more primitive to hold wrongdoers responsible or let crime and violence run rampant and unchecked forever?

He was plainly talking about your idea of God as a being who punishes those who offend him. Don't go trying to make it seem like he was ridiculing Morality.

Jeff Eyges said...

John, if you're paying attention -

Again, this is why I walked away two years ago. Life is too short, and I have no patience for this nonsense. If you want to spend your life arguing with these cretins, you're made of stronger stuff than I am. And, frankly, I meant what I said - you and your cohorts allow the Christians here far too much leeway.

Gandolf said...

"The NT teaching regarding wealth is clear: it's the love of money that's wrong, not money or material possessions in and of themselves."

Hmmmmm.....oh i see now i understand :)


Except the bit about how people end up with material possessions or money etc,without loving it .How the hell does that happen .

Hmmmmmm...??... these two houses and three cars and fine bank balance of mine i really hate ,so that makes it all mighty fine see! praise the lord...Damm things just fell into me lap they did!.I hate them and never wanted them.

Harry McCall is this some sort of christian Irish joke ?.

Its sounds a bit like a m8 of mine who`s half Irish and half Scotch.One half likes to drink like hell,and the other half doesnt like paying for it.

Rick said...

Cipher,

If your offense is due to the parenthetical statement at the end of my post, I apologize. It wasn't meant to offend. I simply put it there to demonstrate - through what I thought was obviously a tongue-in-cheek example - how unfair it is to cast an argument in terms of "either you admit my slander about you is right or concede that you're deluded."

And don't run away on my account. I don't plan to make this my new home - though the brief visit has been interesting.

John, if you read this, I think you can see that I made an honest attempt to respond to both of his posts in a fair and reasonable manner. I haven't seen this reciprocated. (Not complaining, just noting).

Peace,

Rick

Rick said...

Philip,

You quoted me:
>>>As to my primitive level of development, do you consider ethics and justice and honor and dignity to be primitive concepts? Is it more primitive to hold wrongdoers responsible or let crime and violence run rampant and unchecked forever?<<

And responded:
He was plainly talking about your idea of God as a being who punishes those who offend him. Don't go trying to make it seem like he was ridiculing Morality.<<<

MY idea of God and offense and punishment is not the idea HE was attributing to me. I thought I made that clear in the post you’re responding to.

As the standard of ethics, as the definer of morality and as the ultimate judge, God punishes those who offend Him in the manner that I carefully qualified above. So, in doing so, I find Him to be defending ethics, honor, dignity - and this with perfect justice.

I was asking what makes what I said indicative of primitive development? Is it the concepts of ethics? Dignity? Justice? The act of upholding and defending these things? Punishing the offenders of these things as all civilized societies do? Or is it simply thinking that God might do these things that suddenly makes it primitive?

If these are ideals we strive for and which we have yet to attain as we should, and if I believe God has them in perfection, HOW can this reasonably be considered primitive?

It seems to me the only answer would be that though these are principles and concepts you would consider desirable, what you react against is the idea that they would be the within the province of a Personal God who is also Absolute. Keep the concepts abstract, fine. Let us work them out ouselves, great. But attribute them to a God who defines them and who can act on them, and they become primitive? You’re running from something here.

Peace,

Rick

Gandolf said...

"The NT teaching regarding wealth is clear: it's the love of money that's wrong, not money or material possessions in and of themselves."

Ahaaaa now i understand !.I have two houses three cars and a decent bank balance ,but of course quite naturally i hate it! .Makes it all ok doesnt it,praise the lord hallelujah!.

Harry McCall is this some type of Irish joke?.How the hell do people have possessions without loving them?.


Sounds a bit like a friend of mine who`s half Irish half Scotch.One half likes to drink like hell!,but trouble is the other half doesnt like paying for it.

Philip R Kreyche said...

I'm running from nothing, Rick.

The concepts of ethics, justice, etc, are not primitive. What is primitive, however, is the idea that the Creator can be offended by something that humans do, to the point where It feels that It must punish them for it.

That is what's primitive. The idea that the Infinite can get offended, and have to resort to destruction and torture in order to bring itself honor and respect (like a warlord).

(Even Jesus exhorted people to "Bless those that curse you." If humans can do this, why couldn't the Infinite?)

Rick said...

Philip,

You said,
>>> The concepts of ethics, justice, etc, are not primitive. What is primitive, however, is the idea that the Creator can be offended by something that humans do, to the point where It feels that It must punish them for it.<<

I explained what I understand offending God to be – and it’s not giving him a bruised ego.

To violate the law is to commit a legal offence, to offend against the law. Ethics and morality and law have to be defined somehow. The question is how and by whom they are defined. I’m proposing that the personal creator God is the definer and determiner of ethics and morality. His very character is the standard. Because these are bound up in Him personally, offending Him is offending them, offending them is offending Him. An offense against the law is the same as an offense against God. If a person can commit a legal offense, then they can commit an offense against God. It doesn't mean his ego is bruised, it means His law is broken. Hope that's clear now.

Justice is upholding the law and doing right. Not doing so is injustice. We admire people who uphold the highest standards of ethics, and we expect judges to uphold the law and punish violators, and we disdain judges who are unjust. If God’s person and the standards of ethics and morality are inseparable, then He is in the perfect position to uphold justice and punish violators. If he can do perfectly what we strive for, only imperfectly, then His administering justice is the perfect fulfillment of our highest ideals. The only way this could be primitive is if our ideals (ethics, justice, etc) themselves are primitive.

You may argue that God does not exist, or that He doesn’t define the highest ethics, or that he doesn’t uphold the law or execute justice. But you cannot logically demonstrate how taking our highest ideals to an absolute and infinite degree can somehow make their execution primitive, or that the idea of such a thing could be primitive.

To say that for God to be good or “not primitive” He must operate in some other way or by some other standard is to 1. define God. 2. say our highest ideals are not really good, and not truly desirable since the highest being rejects them as primitive. 3. leave us without any way of developing anything other than a completely arbitrary standard of ethics and justice, because the highest standard is completely inaccessible to us. This, of course, ultimately would reduce in practice to might makes right or mob rules.


If God upholding a perfect moral standard, and carrying out justice accordingly is too primitive, what standard of justice would you like to impose on a god, if for a minute you could allow that one exists?

Philip, what you’re really saying is that you don’t LIKE God’s ethics, or don’t want HIM to execute justice. It’s the particular standard/law-giver/judge you can’t stand, not the abstract concept. If God is an infinite, personal being whose character is the law of the universe, to which all men will be held accountable you have no wiggle room. So you resort to turning definitions on their head so that highest ideals to an infinite degree become primitive. That’s why I say you’re running from something.


>>>(Even Jesus exhorted people to "Bless those that curse you." If humans can do this, why couldn't the Infinite?)<<<

Good question. Jesus said this to those who followed him as his disciples, and is addressing how people will treat them BECAUSE they are His disciples. It has direct reference to how to respond to being persecuted and maligned FOR BEING A CHRISTIAN.

Luke 6:13-49 (ESV)

13 And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles:
14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew,…

20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God….

22 “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!
23 Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets….

26 “Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you….
35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.


This clearly is not meant to be a standard of justice for society in general. It doesn’t preclude the appropriate authorities from carrying justice within their spheres of responsibility.

Now the question is how and why can Christians do this? And the answer is found precisely in the fact that there is a universal judge who will bring everything into judgment and establish perfect justice. Therefore, the disciples don’t have to feel that they must avenge themselves against such people – especially at a time when the authorities themselves would give them no justice, but rather were a source of persecution. Christians, knowing that the sentence which was justly due them was born by their Savior, could lovingly and patiently endure the injustices done to them by others, hoping that their persecutors would come to repentance and receive mercy even as they themselves had, and being confident that those who found no repentance would meet with justice in the end.

Paul says on Romans 12

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.
15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.
17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.
18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Thanks for the interaction, but I've overstayed my time.

Peace,

Rick

Jeff Eyges said...

Philip, what you’re really saying is that you don’t LIKE God’s ethics, or don’t want HIM to execute justice.

Rick, you really don't get it. If you're at all capable of considering the possibility that you may not have the handle on this you think you do, you may want to keep this in mind the next time you're tempted to pontificate to a group of non-believers.

Rick said...

Cipher,

I really DO understand.

The charge was essentially that it is a primitive idea that God would execute judgment – especially if the matter were personal to Him. I will add that this was a bald assertion, made several times, without any reasoned argument.

My choices are:

1. Say “prove it” which is a legitimate response and which, in a manner, I have requested several times.

2. Say “well, if you say so” which is just plain silly, but which it seems is the only answer you’ll accept.

3. Provide a reasoned argument why the premise is flawed. This is what I have done – several times.

This could be done positively or negatively. I have done both. I have demonstrated that the concepts of morality, ethics, justice, dignity etc. don’t lose their value simply because they’re raised to an infinite degree (even if this is in God). I have invited a response to this argument.

I have also shown that a person does not become undignified or primitive because he upholds and executes justice (especially if he does so perfectly).

I have shown that perfect justice can best be upheld by the one who is the standard of morality and justice – I have proposed that this is the God revealed in Scripture.

I have explained how God can be the perfect standard of morality and ethics and justice such that to offend the law is to offend God, and how this is not the same as bruising his ego (which was your initial straw man assertion).

These things show that the charge has failed to hit the mark. The premise is unsound. There is no reason why an infinitely righteous, holy and just God whose very character defines morality, should be considered above the execution of perfect justice. In fact the premise is preposterous.

Of course the position I’m arguing from is that such a God does exist. But remember that isn’t the primary issue being disputed in this premise. The premise addresses whether the concepts of justice, reward and punishment (along with their foundations of ethics and morality) are primitive and below God. The premise itself ASSUMES God’s existence.

“IF god exists, this concept of reward and punishment (upholding justice) would be below him, as it is too primitive.”

Or your specific wording: “You're operating at the primitive level of reward and punishment, and you insist upon dragging God (if He exists) down to that level with you.”

Or Philip’s wording that I was responding to: “What is primitive, however, is the idea that the Creator can be offended by something that humans do, to the point where It feels that It must punish them for it.”

But, before you think that I don’t keep the unbeliever’s perspective in view, you should recognize that I have challenged anyone (you) to demonstrate the soundness of the premise from that perspective.

“You may argue that God does not exist, or that He doesn’t define the highest ethics, or that he doesn’t uphold the law or execute justice. But you cannot logically demonstrate how taking our highest ideals to an absolute and infinite degree can somehow make the execution of them primitive, or that the idea of such a thing could be primitive.”

I notice you have not done this.

I have also invited anyone (you) to tell me what standard of action would be worthy of God since you say that my position that He is the standard and upholder of Justice is primitive. In your words, “you insist upon dragging God (if He exists) down to that level with you”

Here’s what I said,

“If God upholding a perfect moral standard, and carrying out justice accordingly is too primitive, what standard of justice would you like to impose on a god, if for a minute you could allow that one exists?”

I notice you have offered no proposal.

I also took your premise to its logical conclusion, and demonstrated how untenable and impracticable it is.

“To say that for God to be good or “not primitive” He must operate in some other way or by some other standard is to 1. define God. 2. say our highest ideals are not really good, and not truly desirable since the highest being rejects them as primitive. 3. leave us without any way of developing anything other than a completely arbitrary standard of ethics and justice, because the highest standard is completely inaccessible to us. This, of course, ultimately would reduce in practice to might makes right or mob rules.”

Again, the premise has been refuted.


What you quoted from my post was my conclusion after demonstrating that the premise you and Philip put forth was untenable. I again invite you to demonstrate, through reasoned argumentation, either how my reasoning is flawed, or how I missed the mark, or how my response is in some other way irrelevant.

I believe I’ve given you plenty of opportunity and explanation. Remember this started with your post that presented a straw man and was garnished with a generous dose of ad hominem.

In fact, I’ve noticed that people here are seemingly very practiced at making unfounded assertions, question-begging, setting up straw man arguments, engaging in ad hominem attacks and slurs, and avoiding answering questions, but what is severely lacking is the practice of providing reasoned and relevant responses to arguments, or offering reasoned arguments.


Cipher, you have charged several times now that I “don’t get it”, or am not capable of understanding. But you have yet to present a REASON for your own position. You assert, and expect others to accept. Thank you, but I’m not interested in falling into that abyss with you. There is no firm footing there, only endless speculations and groundless assertions – mostly faulty. This is what you’re left with without God. I have no interest.

>>>Rick, you really don't get it.<<

Oh, I understand alright…but go ahead and tell me again that I don’t. I realize that’s about all you’ve got.

Peace,

Rick

Philip R Kreyche said...

“If God upholding a perfect moral standard, and carrying out justice accordingly is too primitive, what standard of justice would you like to impose on a god, if for a minute you could allow that one exists?”

The issue is not justice, it's the form of "justice" that Christians claim God executes. Infinite punishment for finite transgressions.

My [fairer] proposal? Finite punishment for finite transgressions.

But the fact that the Infinite created a universe in which It would need to punish or reward infinitely lesser beings is in itself absurd, as (considering the inherent nature of the Infinite) it is exceedingly unnecessary and trivial to create anything, much less a universe where It needs to act like a Judge and punish and reward at all.

Philip R Kreyche said...

And Rick, you have still not answered my question as to how God can be offended at all. You claimed that offending God's Laws = offending God, but that doesn't answer the question.

Also, answer my this: what is the use of a Universal Standard of Morality that refuses to make Itself conclusively known to all intelligent beings? What's the use of a treasure chest that no one truly knows the whereabouts of?

Jeff Eyges said...

Rick, you really frakking don't. You're a pompous Christian blowhard.

Rick said...

>>>And Rick, you have still not answered my question as to how God can be offended at all. You claimed that offending God's Laws = offending God, but that doesn't answer the question.<<

First, I don’t have to in order to refute the idea that the concepts of morality and justice (which are not primitive ideas), would become primitive if raised to an absolute perfect level in God, or that the idea of doing so would be primitive. That premise would have to be proven, and thus far no one has offered such a proof. I believe I have refuted it.

Second, I DID answer the question: several times. God IS the standard. His CHARACTER defines right and wrong. His character is perfectly Righteous and Just. The very essence of His Being is perfect moral rectitude. Therefore, anything contrary to that is NOT. His law cannot be abstracted from His Person. Morality therefore, is rooted in His Personal Being. To be immoral is to be contrary to God, and is a rejection of His perfect standard, which inseparable from His Person. It therefore is a rejection of His Person. Therefore, to violate His law is to violate His Person, an offense against His law is an offense against His Person, since THE TWO ARE INSEPERABLE. THAT is how God can be offended.

It’s not that hard a concept to get really. Analogically, though not perfectly, we see it reflected in our most basic relationships – parents and children. If I have reason, which I deem good (with God it is always and perfectly good) for my son to limit his time on the computer (perhaps not a hugely significant example), and he understands this, but then deliberately and deceptively spends as much time as he wants when he’s not directly supervised, then certainly he has violated my rule (law). But, even a rule such as this is not simply an abstract law, It has a foundation in my love for my son, in my wisdom or judgment, as well as other elements personal to me. So, more significantly than offending against my rule/law, he has offended against me, his father, and in doing so has also compromised his character.

His moral lapse in succumbing to the temptation to do what he shouldn’t, and his deliberate deception about it, have harmed both his character and our relationship. But it also was a statement about his thoughts about me. At least at the point of his offense, issues such as my love and concern for him, my judgment about what’s best for him, my rules about my computer, all became matters of little or no concern, being insignificant compared to what he wanted. This offense is not just against my rule (as an abstract law), but against me; my love and wisdom, as well as my authority and my property rights. All of these are qualities bound up in my person. In this matter then, it is an offense against me, and is a rejection of me. Added to this is the damaged trust between us. This demonstrates that even in basic family relationships, law is not some abstract entity separate from the person determining, administering and upholding it.

Now, as I have been arguing, with God the standard of morality, his law, is not just an exercise of imperfect wisdom and judgment in the service of a perceived good. It is perfect wisdom, love, goodness, righteousness, holiness and truth, and is bound perfectly with his Person, because those are the qualities of His Person. That God is infinite is no argument against this. Rather, it makes the personal nature of the law absolute. Thus, an offense against the law is an offense against a personally circumscribed and personally saturated standard, and so is a personal offense against the God whose character defines and fills it.



>>>Also, answer my this: what is the use of a Universal Standard of Morality that refuses to make Itself conclusively known to all intelligent beings? What's the use of a treasure chest that no one truly knows the whereabouts of?<<

My answer Philip, is that God HAS made it known. Would you like a dissertation?

Peace,

Rick

Rick said...

>>>“If God upholding a perfect moral standard, and carrying out justice accordingly is too primitive, what standard of justice would you like to impose on a god, if for a minute you could allow that one exists?”

The issue is not justice, it's the form of "justice" that Christians claim God executes. Infinite punishment for finite transgressions.<<

So you agree with me when I said “Philip, what you’re really saying is that you don’t LIKE God’s ethics, or don’t want HIM to execute justice. It’s the particular standard/law-giver/judge you can’t stand, not the abstract concept [of universal absolute justice].”

There is an argument to be made for the idea that an offense against an infinite being is worthy of an infinite punishment.

There is also the important consideration that those who will endure God’s justice will continue to despise Him and violate His law and so will continue with their punishment. IOW, their offense will be infinite… never-ending.

But I won’t develop those thoughts here. The significant matter is that these are not things the creature gets to decide. Who determines the standard of morality, the offender? Who determines the sentence, the guilty?


>>>My [fairer] proposal? Finite punishment for finite transgressions.

But the fact that the Infinite created a universe in which It would need to punish or reward infinitely lesser beings is in itself absurd, as (considering the inherent nature of the Infinite) it is exceedingly unnecessary and trivial to create anything, much less a universe where It needs to act like a Judge and punish and reward at all.<<


Now here, you’re just defining what God can be and do, what purposes He can pursue, and what means He can employ…sort of restricting the Absolute. So again, “what you’re really saying is that you don’t LIKE God’s ethics, or don’t want HIM to execute justice. It’s the particular standard/law-giver/judge you can’t stand, not the abstract concept [of universal absolute justice].”


You’ve shown you don’t like it, but not that it’s absurd or primitive.

Peace,

Rick

Rick said...

>>>Rick, you really frakking don't. You're a pompous Christian blowhard.<<

Thank you Cipher, for confirming my point; once again you provide no answer, no argument, no reason, just name-calling. Have you always been like this, or is this the fruit of your atheism?

Perhaps I was wrong, maybe you should run away. You don’t seem to do well where people don’t just simply agree with you….makes me think that parenthetical statement I made earlier…might not have so far off after all…I hope I’m wrong.

Philip R Kreyche said...

Now here, you’re just defining what God can be and do, what purposes He can pursue, and what means He can employ…sort of restricting the Absolute.

Uhm, this is precisely the same thing you've been doing this whole time. Has God been defending himself, describing himself? No, you've been describing God.

what you’re really saying is that you don’t LIKE God’s ethics, or don’t want HIM to execute justice.

What I'm "really saying" is that I don't like Christian ethics, which are not necessarily God's. You're the one making the assumption that they are one and the same, without a single piece of proof.

Jeff Eyges said...

Thank you Cipher, for confirming my point; once again you provide no answer, no argument, no reason, just name-calling.

Why on EARTH would I even bother to argue with you? Others here have attempted to; it makes no difference. You just keep giving these verbose, interminably long sermons that don't speak to the challenges at hand. You're in love with your own words, which, I'm sure, you have convinced yourself are God's.

Nothing that anyone can say will change your mind or alter your perception. You're an addict in a deep state of denial.

Have you always been like this, or is this the fruit of your atheism?

No - to be completely honest, it is you Christians who have made me this way.

And, one last time - you really do not understand what is being said to you here, by others or by myself.

You keep saying that you're leaving, but you seem to have a need to have the last word. Go ahead; I'm done. I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

Rick said...

>>>Now here, you’re just defining what God can be and do, what purposes He can pursue, and what means He can employ…sort of restricting the Absolute.

Uhm, this is precisely the same thing you've been doing this whole time. Has God been defending himself, describing himself? No, you've been describing God.<<

No, that’s not what I’ve been doing. The Scriptures are the source of my description of God. It is God describing Himself. I know you don’t accept that, but what I’ve described did NOT originate with me.

>>>what you’re really saying is that you don’t LIKE God’s ethics, or don’t want HIM to execute justice.

What I'm "really saying" is that I don't like Christian ethics, which are not necessarily God's.<<

It's clear I've been arguing the Biblical viewpoint and its presentation of God and His ethics, and you've been arguing your viewpoint. Now, you don’t expect me to argue for a different god do you? And are you arguing that a god that doesn’t exist can’t be or do certain things? Or are you proposing a different god? If so, where do you get your idea of god from? Your own mind or somewhere else?

>>>You're the one making the assumption that they are one and the same, without a single piece of proof.<<

My evidence is the Word of God itself. Again, I know you don’t accept this, but it is my source and it is my evidence. What is yours?

Where our discussion began, along with the one with Cipher, is still where we still are now; as I concluded in my last post to you.

“You’ve shown you don’t like it, but not that it’s absurd or primitive.”

Peace,

Rick

Rick said...

>>>Thank you Cipher, for confirming my point; once again you provide no answer, no argument, no reason, just name-calling.

Why on EARTH would I even bother to argue with you? Others here have attempted to; it makes no difference. You just keep giving these verbose, interminably long sermons that don't speak to the challenges at hand. You're in love with your own words, which, I'm sure, you have convinced yourself are God's.

Nothing that anyone can say will change your mind or alter your perception. You're an addict in a deep state of denial.

Have you always been like this, or is this the fruit of your atheism?

No - to be completely honest, it is you Christians who have made me this way.

And, one last time - you really do not understand what is being said to you here, by others or by myself.

You keep saying that you're leaving, but you seem to have a need to have the last word. Go ahead; I'm done. I'm unsubscribing from this thread.


Cipher,

You are the one who called us to remain here so you could make your attacks on me. I did not start with you. I’ve noted your persistence too.

I have reasonably, honestly, and carefully answered ALL of your challenges and accusations. You have not offered ANY reasoned response – only invectives and accusations.

You ask “why would I want to argue with you?” I don’t know Cipher, why did you insist on attacking and maligning me?

From the start you have been nothing but argumentative, whereas I have offered reasoned argumentation. Maybe you don’t know the difference. Maybe you should learn.

I wish you well.

Rick

Philip R Kreyche said...

The Scriptures are the source of my description of God. It is God describing Himself.

And this is something you have not proven, so how do you expect me to take your seriously?

My evidence is the Word of God itself. Again, I know you don’t accept this, but it is my source and it is my evidence. What is yours?

So the Bible is God's Word because the Bible is God's Word? How convenient.

And I'm sorry, but what evidence could you possibly be asking me for? I'm not the one making the claims here.

Rick said...

Philip,

You said,

“And I'm sorry, but what evidence could you possibly be asking me for? I'm not the one making the claims here.”

Making claims is all you’ve done since entering this discussion, and you’ve provided nothing to back them up.

Last attempt to get you to see this…the conversation went like this:


Cipher accused,

“[this is] a reflection of your own level of development. You're operating at the primitive level of reward and punishment, and you insist upon dragging God (if He exists) down to that level with you.”


I challenged,

As to my primitive level of development, do you consider ethics and justice and honor and dignity to be primitive concepts? Is it more primitive to hold wrong-doers responsible or let crime and violence run rampant and unchecked forever?


You defended,

He was plainly talking about your idea of God as a being who punishes those who offend him. Don't go trying to make it seem like he was ridiculing Morality.

You asserted,

The concepts of ethics, justice, etc, are not primitive. What is primitive, however, is the idea that the Creator can be offended by something that humans do, to the point where It feels that It must punish them for it.

You asserted,

That is what's primitive. The idea that the Infinite can get offended, and have to resort to destruction and torture in order to bring itself honor and respect.

You asserted,

that the Infinite created a universe in which It would need to punish or reward infinitely lesser beings is in itself absurd

You asserted,

it is exceedingly unnecessary and trivial to create anything, much less a universe where It needs to act like a Judge and punish and reward at all.”

The truth is Philip, both you and Cipher have made repeated, unsubstantiated assertions. I simply asked for some justification for your empty assertions. Neither you nor Cipher has given any. So, how can you honestly make a statement like the on in your last post?

”And I'm sorry, but what evidence could you possibly be asking me for? I'm not the one making the claims here.”

You ARE the one making claims, Philip. I’ve asserted that you can’t substantiate them. Thus far you have proven me right.

Far more than this though, I have shown that even from within your unbelieving perspective ““You may argue that God does not exist, or that He doesn’t define the highest ethics, or that he doesn’t uphold the law or execute justice. But you cannot logically demonstrate how taking our highest ideals to an absolute and infinite degree can somehow make the execution of them primitive, or that the idea of such a thing could be primitive.” I also have shown the end result of this position, AND I’ve demonstrated that from within the Christian worldview, “There is no reason why an infinitely righteous, holy and just God whose very character defines morality, should be considered above the execution of perfect justice.” In fact, I’ve shown why just the opposite is the case.

In other words, I’m justified and consistent in holding to my position and you can give no justification for holding to yours other than, “I don’t like it.” That at least is honest if you’re willing to leave it there.

But you don’t want to leave it there, you want to convince others (me) that you’re right (I assume that’s why you’ve entered this discussion and made your assertions). But your assertions are incoherent. You posit that a god, if he exists would have to possess certain qualities or take certain actions (i.e., justice and punishment) which are distinct from those qualities and actions associated with the God I worship, because you assert that the biblical concept of God is primitive and absurd.

In this scenario either:

A. You believe that such a god fitting your criteria does in fact exist (which I don’t think you’re saying – even though you didn’t answer my question on this). Or,

B. You don’t believe that this god of your imagination exists, but that if a god had to exist you would prefer this one to the God of the bible.

If A, I ask you (again) to provide your source of evidence for the existence of such a god. (Again, I wouldn’t have to ask this if you had answered my earlier question. Tell me if we should just eliminate this as a consideration).

If B, then I repeat (again) that you agree with me that, “what you’re really saying is that you don’t LIKE God’s ethics, or don’t want HIM to execute justice.”

Which you essentially agreed with earlier, but still wanting to find fault with me you challenged that my view of God is not necessarily the same as the God who exists. (Are we back to “A” now)?

But here you’re trying to shift the ground of the argument. The God of the Bible is the God we’ve been discussing. They are His characteristics and actions which are under consideration. And on THIS ground I have shown the coherence of the view the Bible presents and to which I hold. (This again, was not my burden to do, since it was YOU who was making the assertions against the idea. Again, where is your argument to back them up?)

So, when I say, “The Scriptures are the source of my description of God. It is God describing Himself.” Are you really so dull as to miss that fact that I’m saying “it is [the] God [of Scripture] describing Himself? I didn’t think the shorthand would have lost you, especially when the main point in response to your misdirected challenge followed in these words, “but what I’ve described did NOT originate with me.” Of course, you left that out of your retort.

I had said you were, “defining what God can be and do, what purposes He can pursue, and what means He can employ… restricting the Absolute.”

You said to me, “this is precisely the same thing you've been doing this whole time.”

I pointed out that “what I’ve described did NOT originate with me” but with the Bible.

Your response seems pointless:

I said,

The Scriptures are the source of my description of God. It is God describing Himself… what I’ve described did NOT originate with me.


You said,

And this is something you have not proven, so how do you expect me to take your seriously?


Are you saying I need to prove that I get my understanding of God from the Scriptures? Do you expect me to take you seriously?

Bottom line… you have not, and quite apparently, cannot back up your empty assertions that you’ve made since entering this discussion. I’ve given you more than enough of my time, and have had more than enough of your nonsense.

As I’ve said, you’ve shown you don’t like it, but not that it’s absurd or primitive. So what?

And given your persistent but empty responses, I repeat my earlier conclusion - Philip, you’re running from something.


Rick

Philip R Kreyche said...

I simply asked for some justification for your empty assertions.

Alright, here you are:

1) One of God's definitions is that Its nature is infinite, being limitless and timeless.

2) Being that God's nature is limitless and timeless, it is not restricted in any way.

3) The characteristics one would thus assume of this Infinite thing would be characteristics not associated with limited, spacial things.

4) Humans are limited, with limited characteristics (as they exist within time and space, therefore having restrictions)

5) Some human characteristics are jealous, revenge, justice, anger, and love.

6) Jealousy, vengeance, justice, anger, and love are all qualities associated (Biblically) with God.

7) The association of the characteristics of limited beings with an Unlimited being would not be consistent with the definition of God as being limitless and timeless.

8) Therefore, the association of human characteristics with an Infinite being is absurd.

Happy?

Are you saying I need to prove that I get my understanding of God from the Scriptures? Do you expect me to take you seriously?

Don't be a smartass. I was referring to your claim that the Scriptures are God describing Himself. That is what I said has yet to be proven.

Philip R Kreyche said...

And Rick, please refrain from accusing me from running from anything. You do not know me, nor my history with Christianity. Stop.

Rick said...

Philip, I appreciate you offering a direct response.

I stated:

I simply asked for some justification for your empty assertions.

You answered,
Alright, here you are:

1) One of God's definitions is that Its nature is infinite, being limitless and timeless.

Where do you get your definition of God? Do you believe this God exists?


2) Being that God's nature is limitless and timeless, it is not restricted in any way.

This needs some qualification: God is restricted by His own unchanging nature; e.g. being limitless He cannot become limited. The same would be true of other characteristics of His essential nature, such as love, wisdom, power, holiness, justice.


3) The characteristics one would thus assume of this Infinite thing would be characteristics not associated with limited, spacial things.

This is a non-sequitur. Could not a limitless Creator make creatures with certain characteristics which resemble His but to a limited degree? If not, why not?


4) Humans are limited, with limited characteristics (as they exist within time and space, therefore having restrictions)

I agree. This is true.


5) Some human characteristics are jealous, revenge, justice, anger, and love.

Yes; and kindness, mercy, patience, intelligence, volition, self-awareness, creativity, foresight, self-determination, abstract thinking, imagination, linguistic communication, moral inclinations, artistic abilities, aesthetic sensitivities, etc.


6) Jealousy, vengeance, justice, anger, and love are all qualities associated (Biblically) with God.

Yes; as are those qualities I mentioned.


7) The association of the characteristics of limited beings with an Unlimited being would not be consistent with the definition of God as being limitless and timeless.

This is a non-sequitur as noted above. If this were true, then this god could not have created, planned to create, willed to create, imagined and created beauty, etc. You may assert that He didn’t do any of these things, but you did not conclude that by logical deduction. You have not established your point.


8) Therefore, the association of human characteristics with an Infinite being is absurd.

Happy?


No, this is very unsatisfying as there are too many basic and obvious questions left unanswered; and as I’ve said, your logic fails at several points. Your answer really isn’t an answer since your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises, some of which are false.

You seem to want to deny any personal attributes to your god. Why is that? This is why I asked you where you get your definition. It is also relevant whether you actually believe in such a god. It would, of course, be easy to make up and assert any absurd definition of god you like and then assert why it would be impossible for this god to do or be certain things.

The Christian worldview makes sense out of everything your definition fails to account for. The biblical teaching is that man is created in the imago Dei – the image of God. This is why these personal characteristics that I listed above are our common possession. Again, do you actually believe in the god you described, or is that just a useful definition to you in your attempt to refute me?

Thanks at least for engaging the argument.

Peace,

Rick

Philip R Kreyche said...

One of God's definitions is that Its nature is infinite, being limitless and timeless.

Where do you get your definition of God? Do you believe this God exists


Being extraspacial and extratemporal, it follows that space and time do not limit It, therefore it follows that It has no limits with regard to space and time. And since concepts like love and hatred are those concepts which exist within the limits of space and time, it does not follow that those concepts exist at all or in the same way in a construct that is extratemporal and extraspacial. If the Christian concept of God is one of God being outside of time and space, then the Christian concept is where I derive this definition from.

And no, currently do not, but it is not impossible.

The characteristics one would thus assume of this Infinite thing would be characteristics not associated with limited, spacial things.

This is a non-sequitur. Could not a limitless Creator make creatures with certain characteristics which resemble His but to a limited degree? If not, why not?


Of course It could create anything It wanted to with any characteristics It wanted to, but my point is asking why is it so?

As it stands, my assertion is still that there is no logical reason why an unrestricted Infinite would have the characteristics of beings which are restricted, if that Infinite is truly unrestricted.

If we are to continue this debate based on the concept of Man as imago Dei, then first you must demonstrate this as a prior condition.

The association of the characteristics of limited beings with an Unlimited being would not be consistent with the definition of God as being limitless and timeless.

This is a non-sequitur as noted above. If this were true, then this god could not have created, planned to create, willed to create, imagined and created beauty, etc. You may assert that He didn’t do any of these things, but you did not conclude that by logical deduction. You have not established your point.


I'm afraid your commentary on this point is unrelated to what I actually said. I was not talking about characteristics as created by God (that would, again, require you demonstrating the truth of the creation of Man as the imago Dei so that we would have some common ground to work from). My points are about the inconsistency of the attributes of an Infinite being shared with non-Infinites.

And I'm sorry to tell you this, but I'm not trying to assert what God did or did not do. What I am doing is demonstrating the absurdity of attributing petty human attributes to an Infinite God. My writings here are my own subjective commentary on Christian theology, not proofs.

You, however, are the one claiming what God did or did not do, therefore you are the one left with the explaining. So far, however, your explanations have amounted practically to "but why not?" which is not a logical argument.

The Christian worldview makes sense out of everything your definition fails to account for.

Which Christian worldview? The Catholic? Pentecostal? Calvinistic? There is no single "Christian worldview," as the different Christianities cannot agree on anything but the belief in the existance of the Jewish god and of the significance of the life of Jesus.

Philip R Kreyche said...

And Rick,

If your entire argument is dependent on the Christian interpretation of Genesis, as an account of God creating Man with some of God's qualities, then we may as well stop it here.

I say this because it is something you cannot demonstrate [practically] to me (as one who operates from different philosophical foundations from you), and I admittedly cannot refute it. I say this because man qua imago Dei is an intangible concept based on subjective interpretation of writings which must be assumed to be of divine origin before interpreting them.

I'm merely saying this so that you don't waste any more of your time, as well as to explain myself if I do not respond to your posts in the future.

Thank you.

Philip R Kreyche said...

And Rick,

If your entire argument is dependent on the Christian interpretation of the Genesis account, as recounting the creation of Man with many attributes of God, then we may as well stop here.

It's something that you cannot demonstrate [practically] to me (as one who does not share your philosophical foundations), and it's something that I admit I cannot refute. I cannot refute it, because it is an intangible concept and a subjective interpretation of texts which must be assumed to be divine in origin before interpreting them. I cannot refute it anymore than you can refute the concept of Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets in Islam, or the Jehova's Witness assertion that Jesus returned in 1915.

I'm saying this now so that you don't have to waste your time, and I don't have to waste mine.

Rick said...

Several things Philip:

1. If you’ve derived your definition from the Christian/Biblical definition, you’ve done so selectively. You can’t deal honestly with the view unless you take it as a whole. The Bible does not present a picture of God that is only and utterly transcendent, but one who is also near and active in His creation, one who is personal and purposeful, creative and communicative, and who has made you and me in His image and likeness.

2. When I refer to the Christian worldview, I have in mind the Biblical worldview, and contrary to your characterization, while there are many differences among those who call themselves Christian on a number of issues, on the issue we are discussing there is broad agreement. So it is fair for me to call it the Christian worldview in that sense as well. But if it will alleviate confusion I’ll refer to the biblical worldview – by which I mean the view of God, man, and things as derived from all of Scripture.

3. I don’t see how it is left to me to demonstrate the various elements of the biblical worldview (i.e. Imago Dei). It is you who are asserting that it is incoherent (absurd); therefore, it is up to you to demonstrate your position. Thus far you have taken part of it and said you don’t see how it could be, but you have not shown that it could not. I’ve sought to show you what you were not taking into account, not because I’m have to prove something, but rather to show you that you have not proven your point. Besides, you even admit my point in this exchange:

You,
The characteristics one would thus assume of this Infinite thing would be characteristics not associated with limited, spacial things.

Me,
This is a non-sequitur. Could not a limitless Creator make creatures with certain characteristics which resemble His but to a limited degree? If not, why not?

You,
Of course It could create anything It wanted to with any characteristics It wanted to, but my point is asking why is it so?

My position, the biblical position, is that God has in fact done what you admit He could do. For you to admit it could be is to concede that the concept is not absurd as you’ve been asserting. The question of why is another matter altogether – though the Scriptures do address that as well.

You continue nevertheless,
"As it stands, my assertion is still that there is no logical reason why an unrestricted Infinite would have the characteristics of beings which are restricted, if that Infinite is truly unrestricted.

That you don’t see a logical reason is not sufficient reason to conclude that it is therefore illogical. Something is illogical or absurd if it violates some formal or informal logical principle. In such a case, it could be demonstrated. But in this case it hasn’t – and can’t be. The Bible presents a perfectly satisfying and logical reason. But again, if you admit God could do what the Bible says He did do, it seems the argument is over, as to whether it is absurd. It clearly is not.

4. “My points are about the inconsistency of the attributes of an Infinite being shared with non-Infinites.”

Yes that has been your point all along.

“My writings here are my own subjective commentary on Christian theology, not proofs.”

Yes. That is what I’ve been saying all along. You’ve not given any objective, logical demonstration for the accusation of absurdity or primitiveness. You’ve offered your subjective response, which is interesting and all, but it’s simply an unsubstantiated opinion. I’m glad you admit this.

5. You seem to have missed my point that the god you presented could not create anything. You said, “The association of the characteristics of limited beings with an Unlimited being would not be consistent with the definition of God as being limitless and timeless.” And you repeated, “My points are about the inconsistency of the attributes of an Infinite being shared with non-Infinites.”

If you were correct, then this god you’ve posited could not create, because that which he created would, upon its being created, have actual ontological existence. This would be a characteristic commonly shared by the unlimited, infinite, timeless, one and the contingent, created, finite creature. This sharing of characteristics is what you are saying is inconsistent. This is why this god you’ve created could not create.

6. The stripped down caricature of god you present is not the one the Bible reveals, it is therefore not the One I believe in. Naturally therefore, I cannot and would not present a defense for it. In fact, I’ll happily stand by and watch you knock it down. It’s not the God that I believe in, it’s not even a god that you believe in. It’s nothing but a straw man.

But the biblical God stands undamaged.

Thanks Philip, this has been fun. But this time I’m really done.

Peace,

Rick

Philip R Kreyche said...

Rick,

1) You seem to make the assumption that if something can conceivably be so, then it cannot be absurd, but you do not demonstrate why this is. I've seen no reason to think that something can not conceivably so and absurd at the same time. In fact, by virtue of your critiques resting on the claim of "it's possible," you appear to have conceeded the weakness of your position.

2) I have indeed demonstrated my position. It is not unsubstantiated, as you claim. You have simply not agreed with my position or my reasoning by virtue of your Christian presuppositions, but that does not mean I have made unsubstantiated assertions, so do not misrepresent me.
3) You also claim that it is up to me to prove how man is not made in the "image" of God, but it most assuredly is not. My position is that it is yet unproven, not that it can not be so. And a smart guy like you should already know the concept of Burden of Proof, so this objection of yours is nothing.

With this message, I am exiting this particular debate. There is no further point in arguing over the attributes of a Hypothetical.