Hi Mike,
: You wrote: Your defense of your beliefs would be a lot more believable if you actually dealt with solid refutations such I posted and you've ignored. You can't hide behind "I'm not out to convince those who don't want to believe." The refutations stand, whether you deal with them or not. Failing to deal with them only proves to unbelievers that Christians are to a large extent blind believers.
: I believe you have made only one previous post to this thread, which I immediately answered almost line by line.
I now see that you did. For some reason I didn't see it, and have been looking for an answer for a couple of days. Sorry about the mixup, and I apologize for taking you to task for not answering. Below I give my response to your detailed reply.
: In my reply to you I never said anything like, "I'm not out to convince those who don't want to believe."
No, but you said that about certain others, in particular I believe, to JanH.
: Maybe you missed my reply. Or maybe you didn't like my answers to your objections. But to say I "ignored" your "solid refutations" is untrue.
Right, and I've rectified that below.
Belated response:
: You wrote: [So, according to you] God deliberately created humans so that they could never fully obey him. Doesn't that strike you as weird? Your exposition has not touched on why this is something that a reasonable creative entity would do, so far as I can see.
: No, it does not strike me as weird. For I believe God wanted everyone who would at some point choose to live their lives righteously, and who He would later give the ability to do so perfectly, to have a first hand knowledge and understanding of why God's ways are best. God did not want even those who would freely choose to do things "His way" to not personally understand why "His way" is the best way. Only by creating the human race in such a way that all of us would be sure to gain a personal "knowledge of good and evil," (i.e., creating a human race that could never fully obey him) could God be certain that all of us would acquire such "knowledge." For only by making sure that every human being would personally experience the negative results of unrighteous living could God be sure that all who would sooner or later choose to live righteous lives would fully appreciate why doing things "God's way" is the best thing for us.
I think that this argument is completely bogus. While you may not think it's weird, I certainly do, for reasons I've explained. Since you don't accept my reasoning, I'll present why the Bible itself seems to invalidate your reasoning.
First, Romans 5:12 is quite clear about the origin of sin:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. (NASB)
This "sin" is obviously what we're talking about -- the inherent inability of humans to fully obey God, whether they want to or not. If through the "one man" Adam this sin "entered", then until he committed his first act of sin, this inherited sin was not in the world, i.e., "inherited sin" did not exist. Furthermore, if upon Adam's sinning, "death through sin" entered into the world, then human death did not exist prior to Adam's sin, i.e., humans did not die until Adam sinned. Indeed, Romans 5:14 emphasizes this idea: "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam." But because we know that humans have existed in one form or another for hundreds of thousands of years, and depending on how we define "human", for millions of years, and they certainly died, and unlike the JWs and various young-earth creationists you admit that humans existed long before any "Adam" of a few thousand years ago, then you must admit that your ideas conflict with the Bible's direct statements.
Second, according to everything I've read in the New Testament, Jesus himself certainly never had to experience an inability to obey God in order to understand "why God's ways are best." Indeed, for whatever reason, Jesus was completely able -- both as a spirit being and as a man -- to fully obey God. If that were not true, then he would either be guilty of some direct act of sin or be burdened by the very sort of "inherited sin" that he came to earth to get rid of. So what you're saying is that God made the man Jesus quite different from the way he made all other humans before him. But if Jesus was that different from other humans, then he could not have been an exact substitute for Adam -- who you have already stated was created without the ability to fully obey God and therefore quite different from Jesus -- which pretty much invalidates the concept of "a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28) and the ubiquitous Bible notion of "life for life". And of course, if God could do this for the man Jesus and satisfy his desire for whatever you're claiming he wants, he could certainly do it for every other human.
: I believe "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" in Eden, which God told Adam and Eve not to eat from but from which he knew they would eat (being "forbidden fruit" and all), was meant to illustrate the situation we are now discussing.
Please relate this notion to the ideas I just expressed.
: You wrote: [So according to you] God deliberately created humans so that only a small, random fraction of them would end up gaining the prize of eternal life. Again isn't that a weird thing for God to do? Why would he want to do such a crazy thing? Why would he want most of his intelligent creatures to die? Why not just create ALL of them with the desire to choose to live a perfectly righteous life? If God can do it for that small fraction that randomly comes to possess the desire, why not for all? Why build in the defect in the first place?
: You seem to feel that those who at some point in their lives choose to serve God make that choice solely due to their genetic programming. I doubt that is the case.
That's not what I'm saying at all. My point is that the practically complete randomness of genetic tendencies plus the virtually complete randomness of environmental factors, which factors are incorporated into the final human product solely via genetic programming -- all of which effects would be known to an omnipotent C Creator God -- result in whatever choices each person makes. Since God created humans with all their abilities and tendencies, including being affected by evironmental factors, the final result must be according to God's will. And if you claim that the final result is that only a small fraction of humans will want to obey God, then that is according to God's will.
: But your basic question remains. Namely, "Why not just create ALL of us with the desire to choose to live a perfectly righteous life?" I do not believe God creates any of us with preprogrammed "desires." I believe God creates all us free to decide how we want to live our lives.
Yes, modified by various factors as I described above. Again, there are genetic tendencies that are modified by environmental factors, but the sum total -- the tendencies combined with the genetically programmed ability to be affected by the environment -- are entirely according to the will of the Creator. You can't possibly disagree with this, because to do so would be to say that humans were created to act opposite to the will of the Creator -- a logical absurdity.
If you believe that the Creator is responsible for how each animal acts, then we have plenty of examples of creatures that act almost completely according to pre-programmed instinct. They can act in no other way. For example, most infant snakes know instinctively how to hunt and what to hunt for. They learn a little bit by experience, but who taught them how to hunt in the first place? It's a lot more complicated with humans and we don't know a lot of the details, but the basics are the same: creatures act entirely according to the way they were created.
: You wrote: Several of your statements are self-contradictory. For example, you said: quote:
Even if we now all had the ability to live perfectly righteous lives, few people would choose to do so.
: I don't see how that is self-contradictory.
I went on to explain why, which is what we will now consider:
: You asked: First, how do you know that?
: Because we all now have the ability to live fairly righteous lives but few people choose to do so.
I see. In other words, you're saying that the observation that few people today, who don't have the ability to live perfectly righteous lives, actually choose to try to obey God is proof that if they had the ability, they wouldn't choose to. Don't you see how silly this is? You're trying to prove what "perfect" people would or would not do based on what you observe quite "imperfect" people doing. That's like trying to say what the perfect man Jesus would have done based on what you observe imperfect people doing. Your statement contradicts what you claim elsewhere to believe.
: You asked: How can anyone say that someone with a perfect ability to live an incorruptible life would choose to act contrary to his nature?
: Having an ability to do something is not the same thing as having a nature to do something. I have the ability to rape and to murder. However, I do not do these things. For they are not in my nature.
You're just about playing semantic games here. What do you think the "nature" is that God pre-programmed into humans throughout human history, going back as far as you care to go, down through Adam and Eve, through Jesus' day, and up through today? Please be comprehensive, or you'll leave me to guess what you're trying to say.
When I mentioned someone with a perfect ability to live an incorruptible life, i.e., a life that fully corresponds with God's expectations, I had in mind that the nature of the person, or his basic tendency as a result of the way his Creator made him, was to fully obey God. What you're postulating is something completely different. You're postulating that most humans, even if created "incorruptible", would still choose to disobey God. That's inconsistent with what I see the Bible saying, and with the idea of a reasonable creator.
: You wrote: Your above-quoted statement is contradicted by this one: quote: If God had created us incorruptible to begin with we would now have no such choice. We could not choose to do wrong. For if one has the ability to do wrong he is corruptible.
: I don't see how that contradicts anything else I said.
But I explained why, in my very next statement, which you agreed with:
: You wrote: If it is true that if one has the ability to do wrong, he is corruptible, then it is equally true that if one is incorruptible, he does not have the ability to do wrong.
: I agree.
I don't understand what you don't understand about why I said your statements are contradictory.
: Once we are given incorruptibility we will no longer have the ability to do wrong. I would gladly give up that ability now.
I don't think I'd ever want to give that up, since it would mean I've voluntarily become a robot.
: But I am glad I had it for a while. For having it has allowed me to gain a first hand appreciation for why God's ways are best that I could have never gained without it.
Maybe so, but like Jesus, it is entirely possible to gain such an appreciation without actually personally being "imperfect" or "sinful" or whatever term you like to use.
: You asked: Are you saying that there are actually four potential categories of humans?
: (1) Those who do not have the ability to live perfectly righteous lives.
: (2) Those who have the ability to live perfectly righteous lives and choose to do so.
: (3) Those who have the ability to live perfectly righteous lives but choose not to.
: (4) Those who are incorruptible and therefore not only have the ability to live perfectly righteous lives, but do not have the ability not to do so.
: I guess so.
Then again I see no reason why you can't see the contradictions in your statements that I pointed out, as well as serious logical problems with the entire "ransom sacrifice" doctrine. If you agree that the above four categories fall out of your views, then you must admit that your views conflict with what the Bible says, since these four categories certainly can't be found in the Bible. If you disagree, then please provide scriptural references that support your claims.
: You wrote: The bottom line of your argument amounts to this: God created humans such that only a small, random fraction would CHOOSE to obey him perfectly if they could. Only those who happen to possess this unlikely tendency will eventually gain the prize of being UNABLE TO CHOOSE to disobey God.
: Again, I don't know about your "tendency" argument.
You have no logical choice but to accept it. There are three and only three possibilities: (1) complete inability to obey God; (2) complete inability not to obey God; (3) something in between. The first two possibilities amount to robotic behavior, which you've already discounted. Therefore we're left with (3). That is further refined by your own claim that very few would choose to obey God even if they had the ability. Your claim is simply that the general tendency of humans is to disobey God, since you say that very few actually do obey him. Case closd.
: Christ did say that more of us would end up on the road to destruction than on the road to life. But that does not mean God desired this to be the case.
Of course it does. If God created humans, then he created everything about them -- including their proclivities. If as you claim, the human proclivity is to disobey God, then God created that tendency. You can't have it both ways, Mike. To claim the contrary would be to claim that God created humans to be the way he didn't want them to be -- another logical absurdity.
: I have two children. I love them both. I have done everything I can to encourage each of them to make good choices in life. If one of them ends up choosing to live a life of crime, am I to blame?
Of course you're right in this. But you didn't create your children. You're stuck with whatever nature or tendencies or whatever you want to call it, that they came with. God is rather different.
: I believe that when Christ said most of us would end up on the road to destruction he was only predicting the future. Knowing the future and purposefully creating the future may be very different things, even for God.
What you're saying is that God created a world without purpose, since he has no control over what the future will bring. If he has no control, then he is not omnipotent. If he has no desire to control it, but wants to let it roll on randomly, then he is responsible for whatever nasty things happen due to "time and unforseen circumstance". In that case he's either irresponsible, an idiot, or someone I don't want anything to do with.
: But now we get into questions of man's "free will" and "predestination," subjects which I told Jan I prefer to let professional theologians argue about.
Well, I think that to be a complete human being you have no choice but to consider these things. If you bury your head in the sand and hope that such questions will go away, you're no better than the silly young-earth creationists who hope that the boundless problems that reality poses for their views will disappear.
: You wrote: "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport."
: I believe that old saw is mistaken. I believe God loves each one of us very much.
I have seen little or no evidence of that, either in my life or in that of anyone else, whether they try to do good as you and I do, or to do bad as criminals do.
AlanF