"Reprehensible!" is not an argument

[Skandelon]

Just in case you missed some of those verses which suggest that God is not out there making child molesters to molest children:

“He is the Rock, His works are perfect, and all
His ways are just. A faithful God who does no
wrong, upright and just is He.”
Deuteronomy 32:4

“There is no one Holy like the LORD; there is
no one besides You; there is no Rock like our
God.”
1 Samuel 2:2

“As for God, His way is perfect; the word of the
LORD is flawless….”
Psalm 18:30

“Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; You
cannot tolerate wrong….”
Habakkuk 1:13

“When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is
tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by
evil, nor does He tempt anyone….”
James 1:13

“This is the message we have heard from Him
and declare to you: God is light, in Him there is
no darkness at all.”
1 John 1:5

“…Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am
holy.”
Leviticus 19:2

“Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I
am the LORD your God. Keep My decrees and
follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you
holy.”
Leviticus 20:7-8

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father
is perfect.”
Matthew 5:48

“For God did not call us to be impure, but to
live a holy life.”
1 Thessalonians 4:7

“Make every effort to live in peace with all men
and to be holy; without holiness no one will see
the Lord.”
Hebrews 12:14

“But just as He who called you is holy, so be
holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy,
because I am holy.”
1 Peter 1:15-16

They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin. Jer. 32:35

 

[Luke2427]

That's my point, its not based solely upon 'because I don't like to think that he would.' It is based on the fact that the bible teaches that God is holy, sinless and doesn't even tempt men to sin, much less determine it.

The Bible does not teach that. James doesn't use the word "even" which totally transforms the meaning of that verse.

The fact that God does not tempt men to sin does not at all advance the idea that God never intended for men to sin.

I, Winman and others have presented countless verses supporting this truth and you still seem to think we reject this solely for emotive reasons? You are simply mistaken.

Are you recruting help from Winman?

I know you are too intelligent to think his hermeneutic is REMOTELY useful.

What are you doing here?

He copies and pastes verse like they are going out of style that more often than not have NOTHING to do with what he is purporting.

Don't stoop to that Skan.

You are better than that.

Why won't you answer the question as to the origin of the reprehensible intent? I think we all know exactly why. It reveals the weakness and unbiblical nature of your deterministic framework.

Boy, you are nasty today.

What's wrong with you?

I'm not remotely intimidated by this nonsense.

I told you to start a thread on it and I'll meet you there.

This thread rightly points out that your Jeffry Dalmer statements are pointed at emotionalism and not exegesis nor logic.

Talk about that here and start another thread to talk about what you want to talk about so that you will not appear to be running from this subject by highjacking this thread to talk about the origin and problem of evil.

This thread is about argument and what constitutes a sound one.

This thread is not about theodicy.

Don't highjack it. You are a moderator. Do better.:thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

The Bible does not teach that. James doesn't use the word "even" which totally transforms the meaning of that verse.

The fact that God does not tempt men to sin does not at all advance the idea that God never intended for men to sin.

Don't you mean 'determined for men to sin...and determined the tempter to tempt,' after all you are a hard determinist Luke. I'm sure when James was writing that he was thinking to himself, "God determines all sin and all temptations to unchangeably happen just as they happen, but I'll just tell the readers that God doesn't tempt men to sin, and allow them to deduce the rest."

Sure.

Are you recruting help from Winman?
Don't stoop to that Skan.
You are better than that.

I simply remember him presenting several of the verses I quoted above in support of these views, so I referred to him. You don't need to demean him or dismiss his biblical arguments so flippantly. I'd put up his posts next to yours any day and compare the number of biblical references used. The point is, you were dismissing us as rejecting determinism for emotive reasons and I have proven that the reasons are biblical.

Luke sounds like you'd rather try to once again make this personal by pretending as if I'm so sorry of a debater that I now have to appeal to help from another...poor little me. Why do you feel the need to do this? Just discuss the topic.

Boy, you are nasty today.

What's wrong with you?

Ad hom...

I'm not remotely intimidated by this nonsense.

Intimidated? What are you talking about? Do you think this is a street fight or a pi$$ing contest, Luke? I made an argument regarding the points you presented in the OP. Answer it or don't, but please don't make this personal or respond with such emotion.

This thread is about argument and what constitutes a sound one.

It about you dismissing our actual arguments [which have to do with the holiness of God, biblical revelation of his holiness, the one responsible for evil (the reprehensible stuff in the OP)] but you making them all about emotive appeals, when they aren't.

 

[Skandelon]

God speaking, states:

They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin. -Jer. 32:35

 

[Luke2427]

Don't you mean 'determined for men to sin...and determined the tempter to tempt,' after all you are a hard determinist Luke. I'm sure when James was writing that he was thinking to himself, "God determines all sin and all temptations to unchangeably happen just as they happen, but I'll just tell the readers that God doesn't tempt men to sin, and allow them to deduce the rest

."

No Skan. He was thinking "God does not tempt men to sin so no one should say that he does."

That's what he was thinking.

He was not addressing theodicy AT ALL as you are trying to make him do.

Sure.

I simply remember him presenting several of the verses I quoted above in support of these views, so I referred to him. You don't need to demean him or dismiss his biblical arguments so flippantly. I'd put up his posts next to yours any day and compare the number of biblical references used. The point is, you were dismissing us as rejecting determinism for emotive reasons and I have proven that the reasons are biblical.

Yes, well coming across as an invincible debater being so important to you, aligning yourself with Winman's HORRIFIC hermeneutic and logic will UTTERLY undermine that.
.

It about you dismissing our actual arguments [which have to do with the holiness of God, biblical revelation of his holiness, the one responsible for evil (the reprehensible stuff in the OP)] but you making them all about emotive appeals, when they aren't.

[/QUOTE]

No. It's about your raw appeal to emotion not to logic or Scripture.

That's what it's about.

 

[Luke2427]

God speaking, states:

They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin. -Jer. 32:35

AND?????????

So what???

What do you think that verse is saying, Skan?

How do you think it helps you?

NOBODY ON EARTH THINKS GOD MAKES PEOPLE SIN.

Not even the fiercest determinist says that.

God can intend for them to sin, God can plan for them to sin, God can orchestrate circumstances so that they absolutely will sin without compelling them to sin against their will.

What is your point???

 

[Skandelon]

."

No Skan. He was thinking "God does not tempt men to sin so no one should say that he does."

Then why do you say that 'God does it' (God does all things) and then attempt to say that it is okay because he does it for the right reasons? That contradicts James, and even your own words above.

No. It's about your raw appeal to emotion not to logic or Scripture.

You can claim to disagree with my interpretations of the text and you can claim to disagree with my logic, but you cannot rightly claim that I've not made both biblical and logical arguments against your deterministic claims about God doing 'reprehensible' things, as it is well documented that I have appealed to all of the above, not merely the emotive.

These are established and provable facts Luke. Just read through some of our threads to see how many logical and biblical arguments I (and others) have posed in defense of my views and in response to yours. The fact that your view is so reprehensible, even to born again believers, certainly doesn't help your cause, but that is NOT nor has it EVER been the ONLY argument being made against your views Luke.

 

[Skandelon]

AND?????????

Luke's View: God unchangeably determined that they do this detestable thing...

God's View: It didn't even enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing.

And you don't see the problem? Hmmmm

:godisgood:

 

[Luke2427]

Then why do you say that 'God does it' (God does all things) and then attempt to say that it is okay because he does it for the right reasons? That contradicts James, and even your own words above.

Does what?

Brings it to pass? He does. Nothing could be clearer.

He does not tempt men to sin but he leads them into temptation when it suits him.

Regardless, James was not addressing theodicy at all here. You ought to know better.

You can claim to disagree with my interpretations of the text and you can claim to disagree with my logic, but you cannot rightly claim that I've not made both biblical and logical arguments against your deterministic claims about God doing 'reprehensible' things, as it is well documented that I have appealed to all of the above, not merely the emotive

.

I have never said that you never employ exegesis or logic. I said that saying "Jeffry Dalmer... yadayadayada... uh NO!!" is not an argument.

It is nothing but an appeal to emotion.

These are established and provable facts Luke. Just read through some of our threads to see how many logical and biblical arguments I (and others) have posed in defense of my views and in response to yours. The fact that your view is so reprehensible, even to born again believers, certainly doesn't help your cause, but that is NOT nor has it EVER been the ONLY argument being made against your views Luke.

[/QUOTE]

Right- there you go again. Saying a bunch of people find it reprehensible is not an argument.

This statement of your proves my point.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke's View: God unchangeably determined that they do this detestable thing...

God's View: It didn't even enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing.

And you don't see the problem? Hmmmm

:godisgood:

Wait a second.

God's view is that it never occurred to him???

Is that what you just said???

What do you think "it didn't even enter into my mind" means as it pertains to God?????

 

[Skandelon]

Wait a second.

God's view is that it never occurred to him???

Is that what you just said???

I quoted God and held it up next to your view. Enough said.

I think it means he is perfectly Holy and sinless and would never come up with (originate) reprehensible ideas like molesting children, or the evil being spoken of here. You think he not only came up with it (thought of it before they did) but unchangeably determined that they do it.

Now, whose view should I believe? God's actual words or Luke's deterministic system? I'll have to pray about that....

 

[Luke2427]

I quoted God and held it up next to your view. Enough said

.

You quoted God???? Are you serious??? Is that what you are retreating to??

You quoted God??

Are we children?

Is this fifth grade?

You quoted GOD?

Theologians NEVER say something so silly, Skan.

Christian thinkers believe in exegesis- not just "QUOTING GOD".

Exegesis of what God MEANT is required when adults discuss Scripture.

So, once again, what do you think God meant when he said "it never entered into my mind"

Don't run.

Stay in the pocket.

Be bold. Put it out there so we can scrutinize it. Don't just drive by shoot verses.

We are adults. We don't just quote verses like children. We exegete them.

I think it means he is perfectly Holy and sinless and would never come up with (originate) reprehensible ideas like molesting children, or the evil being spoken of here. You think he not only came up with it (thought of it before they did) but unchangeably determined that they do it.

So it never occurred to God? Is that what you are saying? He did not know they were going to do it before they did it?

 

[Skandelon]

.

You quoted God???? Are you serious??? Is that what you are retreating to??

You quoted God??

Are we children?

Is this fifth grade?

You quoted GOD?

Theologians NEVER say something so silly, Skan.

Christian thinkers believe in exegesis- not just "QUOTING GOD".

Exegesis of what God MEANT is required when adults discuss Scripture.

So, once again, what do you think God meant when he said "it never entered into my mind"

Settle down brother and keep reading. I actually tell you what I think he meant...

So it never occurred to God? Is that what you are saying? He did not know they were going to do it before they did it?

Luke I told you exactly what I think He means. Your turn, what do you think he means by saying those words?

I'm a biblicist first and a systematic theologian second. I don't read texts and attempt to make them fit my system, I read text to inform me and allow them to help shape my system.

 

[Luke2427]

Settle down brother and keep reading. I actually tell you what I think he meant...

Luke I told you exactly what I think He means. Your turn, what do you think he means by saying those words?

I'm a biblicist first and a systematic theologian second. I don't read texts and attempt to make them fit my system, I read text to inform me and allow them to help shape my system.

And I asked for more clarification.

Are you not comfortable being overtly clear about what you believe?


So it never occurred to God? Is that what you are saying? He did not know they were going to do it before they did it?

 

[Skandelon]

I could not be any more clear about what God said and what I believe he meant. Your turn...or are you unwilling to provide your exegesis of this text?

 

[Luke2427]

I could not be any more clear about what God said and what I believe he meant. Your turn...or are you unwilling to provide your exegesis of this text?

I need clarification.
So it never occurred to God? Is that what you are saying? He did not know they were going to do it before they did it?

 

[Skandelon]

I need clarification.
So it never occurred to God? Is that what you are saying? He did not know they were going to do it before they did it?

Why do you need clarifcation of my view to present your own? This is a discussion. A give and take. I gave my view and now its your turn.

I don't like introducing new terms into the discussion (like 'occurred') because they may carry different connotations to each of us. I believe what he said. It didn't enter his mind. It didn't start with God. He didn't originate that detestable thing, they did. It's really that simple. You tell us what you think he meant now.

Was I correct in my assessment earlier? "You think he not only came up with it (thought of it before they did) but unchangeably determined that they do it."

 

[Luke2427]

Why do you need clarifcation of my view to present your own? This is a discussion. A give and take. I gave my view and now its your turn.

I don't like introducing new terms into the discussion (like 'occurred') because they may carry different connotations to each of us. I believe what he said. It didn't enter his mind. It didn't start with God. He didn't originate that detestable thing, they did. It's really that simple. You tell us what you think he meant now.

Was I correct in my assessment earlier? "You think he not only came up with it (thought of it before they did) but unchangeably determined that they do it."

So God did not know for sure that they would do it, right?

 

[Skandelon]

So God did not know for sure that they would do it, right?

It didn't enter his mind, right? That detestable thing didn't originate with God, right?

We can both ask leading questions Luke but you aren't going to get out of providing your own exegesis of this passage.

 

[Luke2427]

It didn't enter his mind, right? That detestable thing didn't originate with God, right?

We can both ask leading questions Luke but you aren't going to get out of providing your own exegesis of this passage.

But does that mean that God did not know for sure it was going to happen?

Yes or no.

Once again, as in the other thread, it is a simple yes or no answerable question.

Yes or no?