The Bible God, the Law Breaker

[POI]

God is claimed to break "natural law" all the time, by walking on water, turning water into wine, raising the rotting dead, turning humans into salt, etc...

For Debate: Does God break all "law", or just some "law"? And if only some, why only some, and not all? Further, what is the point of breaking some "law", and not others? Or maybe, God breaks all "laws", which is why the Bible is illogical, immoral, and defies later human discovery?

Before you answer, a running theme is expressed among many theists... When a skeptic asks a theist, 'can God do anything?", the theist might respond with, "God can only do what is logically possible and/or what is in his moral nature". In essence, God strictly abides by some "law", but not others? By "law", I'm referencing natural law, the laws of logic, moral law, mathematics, and any others I may have missed. I trust you get the gist...?

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #79]

We can circle back to post 75 after we address the following....

Would (anything at all) be deemed immutable to a claimed all-powerful god? Or, are you instead of the position that the Bible god is not all powerful?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #78]

Freely underwent temptations of trials on earth, not tempted with sin.

The good soldier freely endures the hard trials of the battlefield. The traitor is tempted with the sin of betrayal. The temptations of Jesus Christ were not the temptations of Judas Iscariot.

Wrongdoing is the only thing there is to be tempted with.

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
(Hebrews 4:15)

If Jesus was never tempted by sin, then "yet without sin" is utterly meaningless. Someone who is never tempted by sin has nothing to boast of in living a sinless life. And that being the case, why does the author of Hebrews include that statement like it carries weight? The only way the words "yet without sin" in Hebrews 4:15 mean anything is if Jesus was tempted by sin and resisted the temptation.

No one has to be enticed with their own lust, in order to be fully human.

One has to be enticeable in order to be fully human.


Perhaps what bothers you even more is the notion that he would do so.

Not at all, because He didn't do so.

Perhaps that's just your denial.


No one can be fully human without the fullness of the human experience.

So says the ungodly.

Accusation =/= rebuttal.

So, that's what you are? A poor, weak, and wretchedly tempted sinner? That's what being fully human is with the full human experience? That's what you say every person must be like? Including any christ acceptable to you? Is this the misery loves company gospel?

I'm just holding up the mirror to your assessment of every human who doesn't measure up to your standard of sainthood.

What kind of "Christ" is acceptable to you? One who would never soil his immaculate hands by actually getting down into the trenches of humankind's moral struggle?

If all temptations are the same for all people, then why are your sinful temptations so poor, weak, and wretched

If "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", how are all temptations not "poor, weak and wretched"?

when the trials of the righteous are counted as joy and blessed?

They're righteous only when they resist temptation, right?

If all temptations are the same, then aren't you also a blessed saint, when tempted with your lust. Or, are you a poor, weak, wretched sinner?

If all temptations aren't the same, then who is more spiritually righteous: the pampered saint who need undergo only a bit of temporary discomfort, or the endangered sinner whose soul is on the line and who comes through by resisting the temptation of sin?


But poor, weak, wretched, tempted sinners have no appeal to find in an untouchable "savior" who walks snobbishly over their heads on a glass ceiling, never deigning to make himself as humanly vulnerable as they are.

So Jesus was not just boring, but snobbishly so.

That's the way you're depicting him.

He was boorish?

That's the way you're depicting him.

And He didn't just walk on the water, but on a glass ceiling above it all.

That's the way you're depicting him.

Not deigning to tip so much as a pinky finger into the lusts of the flesh and the world, that true humans miserably know all too well.

Not deigning to be tempted by the lusts of the flesh and the world, that true humans miserably know all too well.

That's how you depict him.

Are you saying that Jesus didn't have the guts to take on the full human experience of resisting evil?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #80]

Where is the prophecy, "God is not a man, but he will be a man in the future"?

Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

It wasn't a virgin who conceived. It was just a young woman.

Or do you believe that God in the flesh knew to refuse the evil and choose the good because he ate butter and honey and not because he had the untemptable nature of God?


The man who endures temptation----not the man who isn't tempted.

So, blessed is the man that endures your temptation with lust for sin? Not a poor, weak, wretched tempted sinner?

The man who endures the temptation of sin without giving in to it.

Is preserving one's self, evil?

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it"
(Matthew 16:25)

Or does that not apply to "saints"?

So, to you it's evil for Jesus Christ not to lay down His life for you?

So to you, it would not be evil, since you believe that he was incapable of being tempted by evil but still had free will?


and the full nature of man, which can be tempted by evil.

The full nature of sinful man, which is tempted with evil.

The full nature of the good man, is not tempted with evil.

"None is righteous, no, not one;"
(Romans 3:10)

If no one is righteous, then there is no good man. If there is no good man, then there are no "saints" whose temptation is different from that of sinners----because all the "saints" are sinners themselves.


So he wouldn't have been disobeying God by turning the stones into bread?

Of course not. There is no such commandment forbidding bread to eat.

So you believe that Jesus could have said, "You know that whole die-for-the-sins-of-the-world" thing? I'm not doing it. Not thy will, but mine be done!"....and it wouldn't have been disobedient?


If you're saying that he used his free will to be untemptable by sin, then you're saying that he used his free will never to have free will.

Only to the lusting sinner, that believes lusting for sin is full human freedom.

Rather, to "faithful saints" who imagine themselves so pure that they could never be tempted by evil.....thus lusting after a sense of moral superiority.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #79]

We can circle back to post 75 after we address the following....Would (anything at all) be deemed immutable to a claimed all-powerful god? Or, are you instead of the position that the Bible god is not all powerful?

Nope. I've already honestly answered your questions so far, including that one.

Now, it's time for you demonstrate you have any integrity in the argument.

If Jesus walked on water, is natural law immutable?

[OneJack]

[Replying to RBD in post #84]

If Jesus walked on water, is natural law immutable?

If the Son of God walked on water, would the natural law be still immutable?

The answer is NO in that instance only because the Son of God was a man who was the human vessel of the Almighty God in coming in the flesh. That man was able to walk on water because of the Spirit that was in him - the Father, whose name is Jesus.

[POI]

If Jesus walked on water, is natural law immutable?

Yes. As I've already explained, the law of buoyancy is immutable. And I already explained why. I also already explained that your believed upon god is said to be above and/or beyond 'law', as he is said to be supernatural. And since Jesus is said to break natural law all over the place in your believed upon ancient collection of writings, why (can't or won't) Jesus also break the laws of "logic", "math", and "morality" as well? Or, can (and/or) does he?

Further, in religious and philosophical contexts, breaking an immutable law would almost certainly be considered a miracle, as this is a fundamental definition of a miraculous event. And Jesus is said to have performed all sorts of miracles. And as already explained, Jesus performed such a miracle, (by walking on water), for show.

Thus, I ask again....

Do you believe your god is 1) all powerful, or merely 2) maximally powerful? I think you know either answer presents with problems. Why? If you select 1), you are forced to make excuses as to why god won't break other "laws", even though he somehow could. If you instead choose 2), you conflict with yourself, which is likely why you are instead attempting to argue that the expressed "natural laws" Jesus is said to have broken are not actually immutable. In essence, you know you are caught in between a rock and a hard place.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #78]

Freely underwent temptations of trials on earth, not tempted with sin.

The good soldier freely endures the hard trials of the battlefield. The traitor is tempted with the sin of betrayal. The temptations of Jesus Christ were not the temptations of Judas Iscariot.

Wrongdoing is the only thing there is to be tempted with.

This is only true, if wrong doing is what tempts people to become fully human.

1 Peter 3:10
For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

Those who do good and not evil, are not fully human. If only evil doers can be fully human.

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
(Hebrews 4:15)

If Jesus was never tempted by sin, then "yet without sin" is utterly meaningless.

Only if sinning is what gives life real meaning.

Someone who is never tempted by sin has nothing to boast of in living a sinless life.

At least, they can't boast of being fully human. Only those living ungodly can make that boast.

And that being the case, why does the author of Hebrews include that statement like it carries weight? The only way the words "yet without sin" in Hebrews 4:15 mean anything is if Jesus was tempted by sin and resisted the temptation.

Only if temptation is only with evil.

However, it's already been confirmed that not all temptation is the same, since the blessed temptation of those that endure for the good, is not at all the poor, wretch, weak temptation to do evil.

No one has to be enticed with their own lust, in order to be fully human.

One has to be enticeable in order to be fully human.

Only if one has to be enticed with evil to be fully human.

In that case, those not enticed with evil lust for sin, would not be fully human.

3Jo 1:11
Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

And so, only those doing evil are fully human, not those doing good.

No one can be fully human without the fullness of the human experience.

So says the ungodly.

Accusation =/= rebuttal.

Ok. To be more accurate then:

Wrongdoing is the only thing there is to be tempted with.

So says the wrong doer.

So, that's what you are? A poor, weak, and wretchedly tempted sinner? That's what being fully human is with the full human experience? That's what you say every person must be like? Including any christ acceptable to you? Is this the misery loves company gospel?

I'm just holding up the mirror to your assessment of every human who doesn't measure up to your standard of sainthood.

It's not the mirror of yourself, but only of others? You're not a fully human poor, weak, and wretchedly tempted sinner? So, you're one of the blessed saints that endure temptation?

Or, are you different from both, since no one can be both blessed with endurance, and poor, weak, and wretched at the same time.

What kind of "Christ" is acceptable to you? One who would never soil his immaculate hands by actually getting down into the trenches of humankind's moral struggle?

So far, I've been answering all the questions.

Time for you show some credibility and do the same:

What kind of christ would you look for?

You answer a question, and then I'll continue answering your questions.

If all temptations are the same for all people, then why are your sinful temptations so poor, weak, and wretched

If "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", how are all temptations not "poor, weak and wretched"?

Still credibility time for you: Are all temptations the same, if some are blessed with endurance, and others are poor, weak, and wretched?

when the trials of the righteous are counted as joy and blessed?

They're righteous only when they resist temptation, right?

Wrong. Only when enduring them:

Jas 1:3
Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.


Mat 13:20
But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

The blessed endurance of harshness of life, pain, suffering, and possible persecution, is not being tempted and enticed with lust to do evil.

And according to some. It's also not being fully human, like those who are causing the pain, suffering, and persecution to them doing good. Or, are them that forsake the faith to do good, and instead do evil to become fully human too.

Rom 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Heb 10:38
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Gal 1:10
For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

If all temptations are the same, then aren't you also a blessed saint, when tempted with your lust. Or, are you a poor, weak, wretched sinner?

If all temptations aren't the same, then who is more spiritually righteous: the pampered saint who need undergo only a bit of temporary discomfort, or the endangered sinner whose soul is on the line and who comes through by resisting the temptation of sin?

Still credibility time for you. You answer questions honestly, and then I'll return to doing the same for you as before.

Are you a blessed saint enduring temptation, or a poor, weak, and wretched tempted sinner? Or, are you another kind of human? Not saint, nor fully human?

Or, is being fully human not necessarily being a poor, weak, and wretched tempted sinner?

Without an answer, then it's a yes: Not all temptation is the same, and so all temptation is not with lust for sin.

But poor, weak, wretched, tempted sinners have no appeal to find in an untouchable "savior" who walks snobbishly over their heads on a glass ceiling, never deigning to make himself as humanly vulnerable as they are.

So Jesus was not just boring, but snobbishly so.

That's the way you're depicting him.

That's from you're quote, not mine:

Athetotheist wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 7:02 pm But poor, weak, wretched, tempted sinners have no appeal to find in an untouchable "savior" who walks snobbishly over their heads on a glass ceiling, never deigning to make himself as humanly vulnerable as they are.

Do you now also deny, that you're the one saying only poor, weak, wretched, tempted sinners are fully human?

Not deigning to tip so much as a pinky finger into the lusts of the flesh and the world, that true humans miserably know all too well.

Not deigning to be tempted by the lusts of the flesh and the world, that true humans miserably know all too well.

If fully human is being a true human, then your definition of true and fully human, is being poor, weak, wretched, sinners tempted by the lusts of the flesh and the world.

The Bible definition of being a fully good human, is one blessed with endurance of temptation to do good. Being fully sinful human is one cursed and enticed by temptation to do evil.

Are you saying that Jesus didn't have the guts to take on the full human experience of resisting evil?

Not if rewarding evil with evil, is necessary to take on the full human experience of doing evil.

Mat 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Rom 12:21
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Do poor, weak, wretched, sinners also have to be tempted to return evil for evil? Being merciful is also not fully human?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #87]

Those who do good and not evil, are not fully human. If only evil doers can be fully human.

You're not doing a very good job mocking my position with that strawman. Only those who can be tempted by evil can be fully human.


If Jesus was never tempted by sin, then "yet without sin" is utterly meaningless.

Only if sinning is what gives life real meaning.

More strawmanning, same result.

However, it's already been confirmed that not all temptation is the same, since the blessed temptation of those that endure for the good, is not at all the poor, wretch, weak temptation to do evil.

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
(Luke 18:9-13)

Which of these is you?

So says the ungodly.

Accusation =/= rebuttal.

Ok. To be more accurate then:
Athetotheist wrote: ↑
Wrongdoing is the only thing there is to be tempted with.
So says the wrong doer.

Judgement =/= rebuttal.


What kind of "Christ" is acceptable to you? One who would never soil his immaculate hands by actually getting down into the trenches of humankind's moral struggle?

So far, I've been answering all the questions.

Time for you show some credibility and do the same:

What kind of christ would you look for?

To answer your question with a question, why do you assume that I would look for a christ?

Do you now also deny, that you're the one saying only poor, weak, wretched, tempted sinners are fully human?

Do you deny that "there is none righteous; no, not one" (Romans 3:10)? If you do, then you're accusing your own Bible of making a false statement.

If fully human is being a true human, then your definition of true and fully human, is being poor, weak, wretched, sinners tempted by the lusts of the flesh and the world.

If you don't like that, take it up with Romans 3:10 and not with me.

Do poor, weak, wretched, sinners also have to be tempted to return evil for evil? Being merciful is also not fully human?

Returning evil for evil is human.

Being merciful is human.

Having the freedom and the moral agency to choose between them is human.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #80]

Where is the prophecy, "God is not a man, but he will be a man in the future"?

Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Do you believe that God in the flesh knew to refuse the evil and choose the good because he ate butter and honey and not because he had the untemptable nature of God?

Mat 15:17
Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

So, blessed is the man that endures your temptation with lust for sin? Not a poor, weak, wretched tempted sinner?

The man who endures the temptation of sin without giving in to it.

Deu 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Jas 1:3
Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

So, blessed is the man that endures your temptation with lust for sin? Not a poor, weak, wretched tempted sinner?

The man who endures the temptation of sin without giving in to it.

So, when you are tempted with sin, then you are the blessed enduring temptation, and not a poor, weak, and wretched sinner?

Or, are there two kinds of fully human tempted with evil?

Is preserving one's self, evil?

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it"
(Matthew 16:25)

Or does that not apply to "saints"?

It's the command and warning to all sinners lusting for evil, to repent for Jesus' sake, and be delivered from temptations with evil.

Unrepentant sinners continue being tempted with evil by their own lust, and saints without their old lust, who now by grace enter into the Lord's temptations and sufferings to continue doing His good.

2Pe 1:3
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue. Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

3Jo 1:11
Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

Following evil is lusting for evil. The command to all men is lust not, but only in Jesus Christ can any person keep themselves from lust of the world:

Rom 7:7
I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Jas 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

So, to you it's evil for Jesus Christ not to lay down His life for you?

So to you, it would not be evil, since you believe that he was incapable of being tempted by evil but still had free will?

Credibility time again. Answer a question, and I'll return to doing the same:

So, to you it's evil for Jesus Christ not to lay down His life for you?

"The full nature of the good man, is not tempted with evil."

None is righteous, no, not one;"
(Romans 3:10)

So, you acknowledge sinners lusting for evil, are not tempted the same as the righteous enduring trials and doing good. Otherwise, if all temptation is the same, then it wouldn't matter whether righteous and unrighteous.

If you want to now argue doctrine of Christ, about who are the unrighteous vs the righteous, we can do so.

Psa 14:2
The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

The Scripture in context applies to those not seeking God at all. And so, are become unrighteous without God. No one without God is righteous with God, but are all gone astray after their own lusts. Man's philosophy, spirituality, nor religion without the true God, is vain and

And now anyone can seek God by Jesus Christ and do His righteousness:

1 John{3:7}
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

And so, now, not all are forsaking God for their own unrighteousness, but some seek and find Him in Christ Jesus.

Rom 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

All have sinned on earth, not all are sinning. Not all are unrepented sinners still lusting for their own sin. Some have repented, and are now called to the glory of God and His righteousness:

Mat 7:13
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

2Pe 1:3
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue.

If no one is righteous, then there is no good man. If there is no good man, then there are no "saints" whose temptation is different from that of sinners----because all the "saints" are sinners themselves.

Some Christians do the same as you are doing, and also quote this Scripture out of context for themselves. As though it applies to all people, including all Christians. They specifically do so, in order to justify still being unrepented lusting 'Christian' sinners.

I've asked before. Did you used to be one of those lusting OSAS Christians? Or, are those the kind of Christians you like to listen to?

So he wouldn't have been disobeying God by turning the stones into bread?

Of course not. There is no such commandment forbidding bread to eat.

So you believe that Jesus could have said, "You know that whole die-for-the-sins-of-the-world" thing? I'm not doing it. Not thy will, but mine be done!"....and it wouldn't have been disobedient?

And so, Jesus would have done evil, by not doing that "whole die-for-the-sins-of-the-world" thing? Especially for yourself?

If you're saying that he used his free will to be untemptable by sin, then you're saying that he used his free will never to have free will.

Only to the lusting sinner, that believes lusting for sin is full human freedom.

Rather, to "faithful saints" who imagine themselves so pure that they could never be tempted by evil.....thus lusting after a sense of moral superiority.

Usual failed argument bromide. Blame the messenger.

If I've taught anything other than Scripture, show it, If not, then your offended sensibilities are with Jesus Christ, and His "whole die-for-the-sins-of-the-world" thing. And for resurrecting from the dead to preach repentance unto salvation from lust and temptation of sin:

Rom 4:25
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;


Your credibility time is running out, to begin answering questions yourself:

1. Are all temptations the same, if some are blessed with endurance, and others are poor, weak, and wretched?

2. When you are tempted and enticed with your own lust, are you a blessed Bible saint enduring temptation, or a poor, weak, and wretched tempted sinner?

3. Since you have so much interest and angst in Jesus being the sinless Christ, what kind of Christ do you look for?

4. A bonus question: Were you once a sinning OSAS Christian, or are they the only ones you like listening to?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #84]

If Jesus walked on water, is natural law immutable?

If the Son of God walked on water, would the natural law be still immutable?

The answer is NO in that instance only because the Son of God was a man who was the human vessel of the Almighty God in coming in the flesh. That man was able to walk on water because of the Spirit that was in him - the Father, whose name is Jesus.

True. God is the true God and Creator of the natural universe. The universe is not a pagan god, whose natural law is immutable.