Don’t forget to include room for John 6:44.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him….”

Great post Casey!! This is the first time that I have read anything other than my own stuff that mirrors my thinking on this so precisely.. a bit scary.. for you anyway

Free will is a funny old thing really. We think we are such free entities but in reality we are much more constrained by our genes and nurture than we like to think. How free is a child that is born surrounded by evil things to choose right from wrong? Its precisely this lack of equality surrounding our choosing that leans me towards accepting election and God’s sovereignty in it all.

“It just says that no man can answer God’s invitation without God first giving it.”

No, that’s not what it says. It says that no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. The word for draw there means to draw, drag off or metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel. That doesn’t imply anything about man answering an invitation.

The 2 Peter verse is interesting. I’d agree that God doesn’t wish any of us to perish, but he also didn’t wnat Adam and Eve to sin, but they did. So I don’t think that’s about God letting man have a choice.

I think the dichotomy is a false one. God foreordains because he is sovereign. He foreknows because he’s all knowing. I don’t think there’s a causative relationship between the two. This “If we take these two observations and put them together, I think the obvious conclusion is that God knows who will choose him before they are even born and that God chooses (secondary cause) those who choose him (primary cause).” seems to make man sovreign. Isn’t God the Prime Mover? I’d say so.

The Romans 8 passage doesn’t say that God foreknew therefore/thus he predestined. It says he foreknew and predestined. I think that’s more in line with Reformed thought.

Finally, this “If predestination meant that we have no choice in the matter, there would be no purpose in reading the Bible or engaging in evangelism.” ins’t how we Calvinist/Reformed folks think about that. God saves (first cause) by using the efforts of his creation (second cause).

Check this out:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_X.html

Also, in case it needs to be said, all of what I said should be taken as one brother to another with utmost humility on my end.

Good post Casey.

Personally, I find it disturbing that so many would easily accept the idea that God would consign so many to hell without even giving them a chance to be saved. This is a picture of a loving God? Please. This “reformed” position that Christians prescribe to is one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen creep into the church, but of course it would be perfectly palatable for those who think they’re elected. *rolls eyes* Many of them also have the arrogance to match it too.

There does seem to be a significant number who recognize how bad this makes God look, so they try to reconcile things by bizarrely holding to the idea that God sympathizes with man’s plight, even as He predestines an untold multitude to hell. Even Spurgeon had serious problems with this, although he himself was never able to fully reconcile it, he did recognize the abhorrence of such a belief.

It’s one of the reasons why I can’t associate with people who believe in this nonsense, otherwise I’d have an overwhelming urge to smack them around and stomp their faces in for being so willing to believe in a God who is quite plainly, a complete monster.

As for Scott’s assertion, attempting to divorce the two is an act of futility. It states plainly, “To whom He foreknew, THEM did He predestinate…” One follows the other, and you’re saying their’s no causative relationship? Sure, and denial’s just a river in Egypt.

Lord I love you but your people have some really strange notions about you sometimes. :-P

Lincoln… brother, surely if you goback and read your post you;ll see some of the arrogance that you accuse reformed believers in. Reformed theology did not “creep” into the church.

As far as God consigning men to Hell without the chance of being saved goes, little in the Bible indicates to me that outside of God’s grace any of us has a chance. We are dead in our transgressions. We are slaves to sin. The dead don’t raise themselves (outside of Christ) and the slaves don’t free themselves. God in his infinite Grace and Mercy choses whom he will. Men are damned because of their own sins, so that any who are chosen are not chosen due to any merit of their own. What you’re talking about, God predestining men to hell, is something very few Calvinists believe in. It’s pretty much a straw man.

See I don’t get this supposed arrogance. Reformed theology doesn’t teach that God chose you or I because of any special merit. He did so out of his own good pleasure.

As for God “looking bad” I don’t know about that. The idea of men going to hell whether they choose to or not is pretty misery inducing to me. So I can’t see how one or the other position makes him “look bad”.

In closing I did not divorce the two terms but united them. If you see causality I’d like to know where you get it from.

Casey, regarding the word to draw is used elsewhere in John thus:

Joh 6:44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 12:32 - And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Joh 18:10 - Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

Joh 21:6 - And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

Joh 21:11 - Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

In every case as I see it it is something acting externally in a way that doesn’t give the thing being acted on a choice. Now we aren’t nets or swords, but the first two that are about men being drawn seem clear to me. Of course there’s the use of the word “all” in John 12 which is tricky for everyone ecept Universalists.

Citation http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1670

Then there’s the verses in James and Acts.

Scott, blah blah blah whatever.

Most Calvinists choose not to believe the most repugnant aspects of their doctrines, but that only leaves them with a belief system rife with contradictions and half-truths.

And wow, I never knew I could only be saved by grace. I thought it was all on merit baby, cuz you know, how can God refuse a stud like me into the halls of heaven?

By the way, your verse references are also straw men, dichotomies, and whatever lovely words you brainy sorts just love to use to make it sound like you actually know what you’re talking about. Anyhow, all the things that are being “drawn” there are inanimate objects or nonsentient animals. It doesn’t really compare.

But what do I know, after all you are a member of the mighty elect, a speeeecial class of people that God has favored above all, so who am I to argue with this supreme race of the Chosen? *yawn*

I am reminded of this verse when I read through the post and some of the comments. Proverbs 16:4 (ESV):

“The Lord has made everything for its purpose,
even the wicked for the day of trouble.”

There was once I pondered over this issue as well, but after all that’s been said and done, I thought about it and decided I’d stop trying to justify what I think I know, but just accept that God has created all things for His pleasure and His glory.

Thinking that we know or have no idea about how God works in this respect doesn’t do anything for our Christian walk. What does have an impact is whether we do the will of God since many of us do pray that God makes us servants of His to do His will.

Shalom.

Hmm… that’s an interesting perspective, Casey. I’ll respond when I think I got it figured out as to what you have said on the surface.

Shalom!

Casey, lol, sorry, I’m antsy when I haven’t eaten.

I think the bottom line is that these Calheads define things differently than we do. Salvation is a gift we can accept or reject, but they believe just the act of choosing to accept a gift constitutes a work. Until that mentality changes, there’s really no point in arguing with them any further.

Calheads? Really? So you’ve resorted to name calling, ideations of physical violence, and shown that you have no interest in debating scripture. Lovely.

“…yet…even the poor, even Paul and Silas, though “compelled” had options to get out of the situation. They could have bitten and scratched their “draggers” or gouged their eyes out. They could have run or fought. Of course that may well have cost them their lives, but then that matches just as well with the sinner fighting off prevenient grace. You do so at the cost of your eternal life.”

This is a most excellent point. But I’d ask, can God be resisted? Fwiw, I didn’t always believe in predestination, but as I examine the scripture and see the language God uses about choosing his people, it’s pretty compelling stuff. God chose the Jews. And no matter what they did, they remained chosen. We are adopted as sons. Those adoptes don’t choose their parents. Getting back to being dead in our transgressions and being slaves to sin and bought by Christ’s blood.

“Scott, by the way, how do you get around the conclusion that God is predestining people to go to hell?”

The conclusion I reach is that regardless of shich theological school you belong to os that man is destined by his nature to go to hell. You can believe that man can fight against this inclination and win, this turning his back on Hell and accepting God’s invitation. I think that’s valid, after all I believed it for years. You can believe that man is incapable of resisiting sin outside of God’s intervention. Prevenient Grace, which the Methodist Church teaches (and perhaps others I don’t know) is sort of a halfway point between the two.

Regarding Hell Casey, what do you think happens to a person who never hears the gospel? What happens to babies? If this is all a matter of choice/being able to choose God how does the gospel reach those people incapable of choosing or not presented with the choice?

“Everyday experience tells me that I have a choice in whether I am going to spend time with God or not. If I am able to choose not to spend time with God, does that mean that I am not one of the elect? After all, if I was part of the elect I would be compelled to worship God, would I not? Since I do not feel the irresistable urge to worship God, then I think the Calvinist conclusion is that I am not saved.”

You do have the ability to choose to spend time with God or not. Once you are saved you are free in Christ to make that choice. The “elect” aren’t any more perfect than than the “non-elect”. And we don’t believe, at least I don’t believe, that you are compelled to worship, but instead are freed to do so. Sometimes you will and someimtes you won’t. When you don’t, God’s grace is sufficient. By your fruits you will be known and based on what I see of you I have no doubt that you are my brother in Christ. So, for the record I don’t think God is sending you to Hell Casey. You don’t have to be Reformed in your theology to be saved.

>When God created the universe ex nihilo, he created
>space, matter and time.

Where in the Bible does it say that God created time?

Here’s an awesome debate on Open View vs. Settled View theology: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21711

Casey’s post looks like he’s trying to balance the verses to end up somewhere in the middle. None of you here may agree with the Open View, but I think it’s worth a read if you have the time.

Oh Scottie boy, stop whining and grow some balls.

About the Jews, yes they were chosen, but:

Romans 11:19-22 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, TAKE HEED lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, IF THOU CONTINUE in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Odd message to convey to the Elect, mmm?

But you go ahead and believe what you want, bask in the fuzziness for thinking out of bazullions of people, God has deemed you to be so special that He decided to add you to his elite club of saved souls. Lovely!

Heaven just gets uglier by the minute with all these elitist fartbags God keeps “choosing” to be saved. Lord, you really need to make some better choices, but don’t worry, I have a list here of people I’d like to see in heaven if You need some help (Jessica Alba being one).

>What do you think happens to a person who never hears the gospel?

My thoughts on this are that people are held responsible for what they do know, and not what they don’t. God wrote the moral law on our hearts, and even someone who was raised in a pagan environment with no knowledge of Christ is able to humble himself to the Creator God made apparent by the creation. If God sees a humble heart, willing to serve Him regardless of the pagan influences around him, is it beyond His ability to bring that person to his side through the blood of Christ? Of course, such a person would be a rarity, as humans tend to get caught up in pride and the wickedness of our own hearts.

>What happens to babies?

Babies go to heaven, as do children. A certain age of accountability (different for each person) is implied in Romans and I believe in the OT as well.

Here is an interesting article on that topic: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2256

Although I believe that Calvinistic Theology is illogical and in error, I also believe that those who adhere to it our saved by the blood of Christ if they believe that He, as God, humbled Himself and came to earth as a man, died in our place, and was bodily resurrected. But most importantly, it is essential to repent of our sins and accept God’s grace.

“My thoughts on this are that people are held responsible for what they do know, and not what they don’t”

So as Casey said, why evangelize?

“”Babies go to heaven, as do children. A certain age of accountability (different for each person) is implied in Romans and I believe in the OT as well.”

I’ve got some issues with what he did to some passages in Romans and while I don’t disagree regarding the state of Children I’d like to hear again why, if this is true, you think we should evangelize?

And I couldn’t agree with your last paragraph more.

“At least in my view, the Jews were God’s chosen people because God wanted to save all men and the Jews were the ones who were in the best position to reach all of mankind. God’s choice of Israel was made, at least in my mind (I don’t have any scriptures to back this up), because he saw that choice as leading to the most people being saved.”

So were they in the best position to reach all of mankind because of something intrinsic to them or because of something that God did to/through them?

“I don’t think that changes the fact that the natural conclusion of Calvinistic thought is that God predestines some people to go to hell.”

Only if you have a limited understanding of Calvinism.

So do you believe that man is dead in his transgressions? If so what does that mean to you?

I realize I’m coming to this party a little late, but Casey, I really appreciated what you had to say on this topic. My biggest problem with the concept of predestination without free will is that over, and over, and over again, the scriptures so clearly state that Christ died for ALL:

“For God so loved THE WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

* “Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for ALL.” (Romans 5:18)

* “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for ALL, and therefore all died.” (2 Corinthians 5:14)

* “Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for ALL – this was attested at the right time” (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

* “We have put out hope in the living God, who is the Savior of ALL men, and especially of those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:10)

* “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for EVERYONE.” (Hebrews 2:9)

* “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense–Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD.” (1 John 2:1-2)

* “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting ANYONE to perish, but EVERYONE to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)

The scriptures are also quite clear that Jesus did not only die for those who are saved, but also for those who will ultimately be lost. I do not believe that the Bible teaches us that those who will ultimately lost will be so because Christ did not die for them. I believe that it teaches us that they are lost because they rejected the free gift of salvation:

* “Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.” (Romans 14:15)

* “There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves” (2 Peter 2:1)

Or perhaps I have this all wrong. Perhaps I should be teaching my children to sing, “Jesus loves the elect little children… all the elect little children of the world…”

Scott,

>“My thoughts on this are that people are held responsible for >what they do know, and not what they don’t”
>
>So as Casey said, why evangelize?

Well, as I also mentioned, “Of course, such a person would be a rarity, as humans tend to get caught up in pride and the wickedness of our own hearts.”

Evangelism will lead to a much higher rate of people going to heaven. Wouldn’t you agree?

>“Babies go to heaven, as do children. A certain age of >accountability (different for each person) is implied in Romans >and I believe in the OT as well.”
>
>I’ve got some issues with what he did to some passages in Romans >and while I don’t disagree regarding the state of Children I’d >like to hear again why, if this is true, you think we should >evangelize?

Keep in mind that God is a just and righteous God when reading these passages, and they should make sense. I’m not sure what you mean about evangelizing in this case.

>And I couldn’t agree with your last paragraph more.

Amen.

Childlife, if Christ died for all, then what you seem to be saying is that Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient to save all. I don’t think I can agree with that. We both believe that those that are unsaved are unsaved because they reject God/Christ. We both believe (I think) that they do this because their hearts are hardened by sin/unbelief. I think we also agree that God saves man, man does not save himself.

“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.”

“Or perhaps I have this all wrong. Perhaps I should be teaching my children to sing, “Jesus loves the elect little children… all the elect little children of the world…””

Teach your children to sing the song the way it is, I know I do. I believe that God loves the children every bit as much as you. I’m just not sure how you reconcile that with the belief that we have to choose out of our own “free will”. How can a child choose? And if you don’t require that they do out of some belief in an age of accountability then how do you reconcile that with “For all have sinned and fallen short”?

“Both. They were specially chosen for who they were and what God was going to do through them”

Okay I think it’s time for you to back that up with scripture.

“Is this something that you can only understand if you believe it? I asked you to explain it and you dodged the question.”

Nope I didn’t dodge the question. We both believe (I think) that all men have sinned (women too). If you sin then you are destined to Hell, unkess you believe in God and accept Christ as your savior. You believe that somehow you can choose. Incidentally, why are you able to choose and not say someone like the atheist Hitchens? I believe that sin has made man dead and unable to choose outside of his nature. Neither view has God predestining men to Hell. Hell is there for all who don’t believe/have faith in Christ.

“It means that we’re destined for eternal separation from God if we fail to accept the free gift of salvation.”

On that we agree.

“Well, as I also mentioned, “Of course, such a person would be a rarity, as humans tend to get caught up in pride and the wickedness of our own hearts.””

No man is righteous, no not one. Isn’t that right? I’d say as rare as hen’s teeth then.

Romans doesn’t teach about an age of accountability as far as I can see. I’m the father of three and children sin from an awfully early age. As such I don’t think I don’t think that I see how children are different in that respect. They are different in the sort of faith they have and I htink that that’s what Jesus was talking about when he said that only one’s such as these would inherit the kingdom. He couldn’t have been talking about children’s righteousness/holiness/purity.

Scott,

>No man is righteous, no not one. Isn’t that right? I’d say as rare
>as hen’s teeth then.

It’s not about being righteous. It’s about humbling yourself to God and asking for His forgiveness, i.e. seeking Him. I think even a select few who have never heard of Christ will do that, just based on the knowledge of right and wrong God wrote on their hearts, along with what they learn of Him through the creation. Wouldn’t you agree with that?

>I’m the father of three and children sin from an awfully early >age.

How do you interpret Romans 7: 8 and 9? Have you found in your experience that babies are exceedingly wicked and deserving of death? I have two and I haven’t seen any sin in them.

To predestine is to declare beforehand or decree in advance. That does not mean He maps out our future and decisions for us either for or against our wills. He foreknows, therefore declares it.

Blessings

Scott - I didn’t even come close to saying that “Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient to save all.”

Christ’s death was sufficient. Some accept the gift of salvation, some don’t. Plain and simple. The verse you quoted states it even plainer… “Yet to all WHO RECEIVED Him.” The condition of Salvation isn’t whether Christ died or not, or whether you are on some elitist list somewhere. The condition of salvation is what do you do with that gift? Do you accept it, or do you turn your back?

As to my comment about perhaps having it all wrong and teaching the lyrics “Jesus loves the elite little children…” Perhaps I should begin posting a sarcasm alert like Casey. I am not waffling around in what I believe, nor am I about to begin teaching my children that Christ picked and chose who he died for when the Bible clearly sates that He chose to die for, I will say it again… all.

I would respond to some of your comments to Casey as well, but I fail to see the point. All I can say Scott, is that I’m sure glad you’re not God. And I say that without malice. I believe I would rather like you if I met you face to face. I believe you’re sincere and all, and that I’ll see you in heaven one day, but I just think you’ll be surprised at who’s joining you there and that you’ll be quite grieved at how much energy you’ve wasted on this topic.

And Scott, I do believe that a child can choose. My oldest chose salvation (of her own free will I might add) at the ripe old age of four. She understands the path of salvation so well that she shares it without hesitation on a regular basis. I do believe that there is an age of accountability and that God knows what that age is for each individual person. I’m not sure where you picked up the idea that I didn’t.

Where in the Bible does it say that God created time?

I think this pretty well covers it:

Colossians 1:16 - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Since God is omniscient, He already knows exactly how many people will ultimately end up in heaven and exactly who they will be. But that is NOT predestination.

Jesus’ blood was sufficient to cover the sins of every human being who has ever been born or is yet to be born, and each and every one of those people have the option of accepting the gift of salvation or rejecting it. In fact, it isn’t His desire that “any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Although God already knows how each of us will ultimately decide, the choice is still ours to make.

So God chose in advance whether we’ll be saved or not, but it’s our fault if we’re not.

I get it.

How does that deal with the problem of evil, exactly?

I know a little girl who died in an accident. Her mother is the loveliest Christian person imaginable. Oh sure, she’s not perfect. A sinner, no doubt.

Was the death my fault because I am an atheist?

Is it moral for God to test people’s faith by killing their children?

I don’t get it.

Thanks for your response Casey - I appreciate it.

The Bible seems pretty clear to me that God created and is responsible for evil - see for example Isaiah 45:7.

But in any case, entirely agree that mankind must be responsible for its own actions.

Getting back to the Bible… How was it moral for God to punish Adam & Eve if they didn’t know right from wrong before they ate the forbidden fruit?

Is mere disobedience to be punished even if there is no malice or intention? Is that a moral way for man to act? Is is moral for God?

Even worse, as I see it, God punishes not just Adam & Eve but all their descendants for all eternity for this one transgression.

While I agree mankind must take responsibility for our own actions, it is clear the only person here you are NOT blaming is the only person who has the power to do anything about it - e.g. God.

Love must be freely given, and in order to love, one must also have the capacity to hate. I think the same is true for good and evil. One cannot truly do good without the option to also do evil. The ability to hate and do evil are a natural result of free will, so evil itself was not created by God, but the ability to choose evil was a natural result of the freedom He gave us.

Each individual will be judged in the afterlife for their own deeds, not for the sins of their fathers.

Sorry I didn’t take the time to look up verses to support this, but this is my take on it.

Even with the best possible reading, Habakkuk 1:13 flatly contradicts Isaiah 45:7. If it isn;t a contradiction, it’s even worse - because it says God causes evil but doesn’t even look at the results.

The Bible is rather clear that humanity is suffering now because of Adam & Eve’s transgression.

And still, the Christian view of God requires man to love God solely as God requires - and all the good works in the world will not save you if you do not so love God…

If you or I were to treat our children the way God treats humanity in the Bible, would we be good parents?

I doubt it.

If God exists, how can he possibly be as the Bible describes?

The Hebrew word translated as evil in Isaiah 45:7 can also mean “calamity” or various similar words: http://www.carm.org/diff/Isa_45_7.htm

In the NKJV it is translated as:

7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.’

Certainly God causes calamity in many instances in the Bible, such as the global flood. But he does it for his own righteous intentions. If God is our creator, wouldn’t he have the right to bring us into the second stage of our lives when and how he chooses? It is there we will be judged for our actions.

>The Bible is rather clear that humanity is suffering now
>because of Adam & Eve’s transgression.

I believe the world is broken because of Adam’s sin, and humanity is suffering from natural disasters as a result of that. But people will not be punished for the sins of Adam in the afterlife. A similar example would be a child born with abnormalities as a result of his parent’s destructive lifestyle. This is a natural result of sin, but the child will not be punished for the sins of his father in the afterlife.

>If you or I were to treat our children the way God treats >humanity in the Bible, would we be good parents?

Well, he sacrificed himself in our place. Being willing to die for your children is the ultimate expression of love in my book.

>If God exists, how can he possibly be as the Bible describes?

I’ll admit that some of the ways God deals with people in the Bible, especially in the OT, seem horrible. But then I remember he has a much better concept of the way life is set up than I do, since he created it. If he chooses to take people to the second stage of their lives by drowning them, who am I to say that my ways are more righteous?

What is your take on this Casey?

As humans, we simply cannot understand the mind of our Creator. His power, knowledge and love are all infinite, and He always deals with us in the ways that will best further His overall plan for both the saved and the unsaved.

His Son Jesus Christ paid a mighty heavy price on the cross at Calvary so that all who choose to believe can be saved and avoid spending eternity in a fiery, miserable hell. Is it any wonder that He’s willing to do everything He can to ensure that as many people as possible are able to accept the free gift of life that Jesus made available to us with the shedding of His precious blood? Woe be unto anyone who attempts to hinder the workings of the Lord.

All throughout human history, God has dealt harshly with those who chose to oppress His people or did things to prevent others from doing His will. Sometimes “innocents” get caught up in the collateral damage, but that’s an unfortunate result of our fallen state as sinners, not the fault of our supremely loving, yet vengeful God.

Thanks for your comments guys. I’d be very interested to hear your views on a morality as it relates to non-Christians. Can atheists, or Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus be moral? If they lead exemplary lives of good works, can they be saved or are they necessarily damned?

The Parable of the Good Samaritan is a good example of this. Samaritans were considered pagan and despised by the Jews.

Thanks everyone. As I understand it, you are saying that for God:

MIGHT IS RIGHT
God is answerable to no-one because he is all-powerful

THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS
The “big picture” justifies God drowning innocents

DO WHAT I SAY NOT DO AS I DO
God is not subject to the same rules he sets for us

HE SETS IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS
The standard is perfection, which only He can meet

Is that really how you see God?

Thanks Casey.

So, the following moral standards are righteous, holy, absolute and acceptable as long as they are exercised by God:-

MIGHT IS RIGHT
THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS
DO WHAT I SAY NOT DO AS I DO
THE STANDARD IS PERFECTION

Are these moral standards also acceptable for a human being - assuming of course they are acting in God’s name, or perhaps if they are exercising the will of God?

Apples and oranges? Are you being serious?

This is from an article on your site:

Presuppositions and the Existence of God
by Dennis McCallum

People who accept that there is such a thing as morality must also presuppose a personal basis for morals. But naturalists have no such basis in their world view. Ask yourself, “Is it morally wrong to sexually abuse 3 year olds?” “Is this purely a personal moral preference, or is there a universal moral standard at stake?” If such a moral is universal, and lies outside of the individual’s decision to make it a moral, then there must be a basis

McCallum’s ludicrous ignorance of “naturalists” aside, it seems that by your own descripton of God, there is no “universal” standard of morality.

For if it was Universal, God would be expected to comply with the same rules of behaviour as he expects from his creation.

Isn’t the basis of morality?
But you are saying for God:

MIGHT IS RIGHT
THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS
DO WHAT I SAY NOT DO AS I DO
THE STANDARD IS PERFECTION

…And, it seems to me and I apologize if I am wrong, but you are avoiding the very simple questions:

Are these moral standards also acceptable for a human being - assuming of course they are acting in God’s name, or perhaps if they are exercising the will of God?

To me, your description of God is as a tyrant.

Now if that is how you see God - as a benevolent tyrant - then fine, I understand you.

But it is very clear that the morality you are arguing for may be “absolute”… But it is not “objective”. For it to be objective it would have to apply in all circumstances, surely.

>God is answerable to no-one because he is all-powerful

I’d say he is answerable to no one because he is the creator.

>The “big picture” justifies God drowning innocents

As our creator, God has the right to bring us into the afterlife when and how he so chooses. It is there we will be judged for our actions.

>God is not subject to the same rules he sets for us

Correct. Just as he is not subject to the laws of nature, which he created.

>He sets impossible standards

I agree. The key is to realize that you cannot live up to God’s standards on your own. He wants us to humble ourselves to him. The key is humility, although so many people shake their fist at God and demand him to live by their rules. His law is the tutor that shows us we all fall short of the righteousness he requires.

It’s funny to me when atheists try to claim they have the upper hand where morality is concerned, but they think we’re nothing more than a bag of molecules bumping into each other in a random, mindless, and meaningless universe. Here’s an email I sent to another atheist who never replied to me. Maybe you’d be nice enough to grace me with a reply, PTET:

I noticed you have spent a great deal of energy attacking Christianity on your site, but I was wondering:

1) Do you believe in an intelligent creator?
2) If so, do you believe that creator is able to interact with its creatures as a personal being?

If you believe that nothing exists beyond the bounds of materialism, then how can you honestly determine what is right and what is wrong?

If the world exists of atoms and molecules which happened to arrange themselves into complex biological systems by chance, then ultimately there is nothing wrong with rearranging those molecules to how you see fit. Slaughtering millions of innocents would be no worse than a meteor crashing into the sun. After all, all this would involve is an alteration of atoms and molecules. Why couldn’t the stronger organism kill the weaker organism because it feels good? Morality is ultimately reduced to opinion in this scenario, and who has the right to condemn someone with moral standards different from his or her own? If your conscience tells you that it is wrong to
rape and murder, what if someone else feels it is perfectly normal to do these things? On what basis can you condemn these actions other than you feel it is wrong?

Forgive me for not reading your site thoroughly, but the impression I received from your writings as a “freethinker” were that, at this point in your quest for truth, you have lost belief in the supernatural (that is, anything existing outside the bounds of materialism).

Hope to hear from you!

- Ash75

Hi Casey

Please don’t stop talking - I really want to understand this.

Let’s take “the end justifies the means.” Explain to me how this can apply to someone who is all-knowing. If I know every possible outcome of every possible situation and I choose the best out of all possibilities, how is that “the end justifies the means”? How could such a description ever apply to choices made by God?

Earlier in this thread you wrote: “… the consequence of Adam and Eve’s rebellion is that God has removed his protective hand (as much a consequence as it was a punishment), and the laws of physics are now all that apply.”

God knew this would happen, right? I completely understand your argument that all of the suffering in the world is art of God’s master plan… But if you are saying it was impossible for God to act in a way that would alleviate that suffering, then *you* are limiting what God can do.

Could God allow the laws of physics to apply fully, but not to harm innocent young children? If not, why not?

These are not new questions of course. They are at the very essence of “the problem of evil”.

I think we’ve had a fascinating discussion here. I just wondered if you had an explanation which did not, in effect, come out as “this is the best of all possible worlds”, which with respect, seems philosophically weak.

But let’s go back to “the standard is perfection.” I already told you I don’t think this is a standard God is actively setting. You chose to repeat your argument without addressing my comment,

Apologies - I misunderstood you. You wrote: “All men are destined to eternal separation (hell) from the holy Creator without his intervention. Even a single sin is an infinite offense against a holy God. The standard isn’t “good” it’s “perfection.””

But I see you are saying that we need not reach that “perfection” alone - we can meet it through his intervention, by which I take it you mean reaching out to God.

On that basis, I do not understand the philosophical basis for saying that this “reaching out” applies to one religion and not to any other - or even that (say) atheists could not “reach out” to God through good works and living well.

so I think we can both agree now that you are not interested in a discussion.

On the contrary, I am. And please do correct me if I’ve misunderstood anything you have said. I am all too human!

Hi Ash 75

Thanks for your answer!

I agree. The key is to realize that you cannot live up to God’s standards on your own. He wants us to humble ourselves to him. The key is humility, although so many people shake their fist at God and demand him to live by their rules. His law is the tutor that shows us we all fall short of the righteousness he requires.

This is the crux of the issue… The nature of God The Father. The answer of religion is submission to God. I understand that. I just do not think that we, as humans or as societies or as a world, have or perhaps even can have an idea of what “God” is. Perhaps that’s just my opinion. But to me all human notions of God seem like man-made constructs. How can or could we know “The Mind of God”?

Or more importantly, how would we ever know that we have understood the actual mind of God, as opposed to human construct of what we think the mind of god is?

I noticed you have spent a great deal of energy attacking Christianity on your site, but I was wondering:My interests are religion and philosophy. I spend substantially less energy talking about Christianity than many websites

1) Do you believe in an intelligent creator?

I am agnostic on the topic. I do think, however, we can rule out visions of God which require exclusive forms of worship (such as the traditional Islamic and Christian traditions) on various philosophical grounds. But that’s another question.

I agree with most Christian philosophers and scientists when the say that the notion of “ID Theory” is pseudo-scientific hokum.

2) If so, do you believe that creator is able to interact with its creatures as a personal being?

If there is such a being, “he” seems to be going out of his way to ensure that people can’t agree what “He” is or what “He” says!

If you believe that nothing exists beyond the bounds of materialism, then how can you honestly determine what is right and what is wrong?

My entire point here is that your only definitions of “right” and “wrong” are God’s Will. If God wills it, it’s right. If God doesn’t will it, it’s wrong. God is exempt from following his own rules. That me absolute, but I don’t think it’s moral. Since I think it would be logically inconstant for God to be that way, I think we can reasonably conclude that if God exists He is not as you describe.

But to get back to your question, yes, of course we can honestly determine what is right and wrong. Sometimes the questions and answers are not easy… But very, very of