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...?

[RBD]

If Jesus walked on water, is natural law immutable?

Yes. As I've already explained, the law of buoyancy is immutable.

Then immutability is no longer immutable.

The universe is not a pagan god, whose natural law is immutable, and can't be altered nor changed.

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.

Already responded back and forth enough. If you have anything new, then I'd be glad to look at it. Otherwise, I don't argue for argument's sake.

[POI]

You are hand-waving away my rational answers without refuting or even attempting to refute them. I'll give you another chance.

If Jesus walked on water, is natural law immutable?

Yes. As I've already explained, the law of buoyancy is immutable.

Then immutability is no longer immutable.

1) A miracle would qualify as bending or breaking immutable law(s). Your Bible god is said to perform all sorts of miracles.
2) A supernatural agency is not bound by anything in nature. Such an agency is (above or beyond) it. Your Bible god is asserted to be supernatural.

The universe is not a pagan god, whose natural law is immutable, and can't be altered nor changed.

See above.

Already responded back and forth enough. If you have anything new, then I'd be glad to look at it. Otherwise, I don't argue for argument's sake.

You know you are in between a rock and a hard place. Which is why you wish to dip out here. It's <either/or>:

A) An all-powerful god (could/would) break all immutable laws. So why only break some and not others?
B) A maximally powerful god would not or could not break any immutable laws. And yet, he somehow is said to break some immutable law(s), like the law of buoyancy, etc.

Seems you are in the B) camp, thus far. Either camp renders your argument in major trouble. Thus, I do not necessarily blame you for attempting to completely duck out.

[RBD]

[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.

Rom 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

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.

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.

Mat 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Deu 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Being tempted with evil is the evil heart, that lusts to do evil against both God and man.

Heb 1:9
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

And so, those who love to do good, and are not tempted with evil, are not fully human. So says those who say being tempted with evil, is the only way to be fully human.

It's an evil judgment, that mocks itself.

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,

Failing to answer the question, with an old tired bromide response.

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.’[/i]
(Luke 18:9-13)

Which of these is you?

You were an OSAS Christian, right? Or, you have learned the Bible the same as they. You're efforts to justify continued lusting for evil, by accusing the righteous, is exactly the same.

why do you assume that I would look for a christ?

You have such interest in this One with such extensive research. It can't all be just to reject Him? And, you're so offended by Him, maybe you look for another?

Jhn 5:43
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

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.

Failed to answer a question, and also failing to answer my response to yours.

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.

True, but being fully human is the subject, that you define by temptation with evil. So, only loving to do mercy is human, but not fully human.

You can change your made up dichotomy between human and fully human, if you like. Afterall, it's only invented to exclude Jesus Christ from being you're kind of fully human being.

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

True. But your standard of being fully human must choose to lust for evil. Your full human freedom is only by evil temptation...

Gen 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

[RBD]

If Jesus walked on water, is natural law immutable?

Yes. As I've already explained, the law of buoyancy is immutable.

Then immutability is no longer immutable. [/quote]

1) A miracle would qualify as bending or breaking immutable law(s). [/quote]

Arguing from your dysfunctional definition of immutability, is not a legitimate argument.

2) A supernatural agency is not bound by anything in nature. Such an agency is (above or beyond) it. Your Bible god is asserted to be supernatural.

True. And natural law is not immutable.

With nothing new to offer, time to move on. And it has to be according to functional definitions.

[POI]

I opted to give you one more chance, and you (again) failed the challenge.

Arguing from your dysfunctional definition of immutability, is not a legitimate argument.

Nothing but another hand-wave. Not surprising....

True.

Thanks.

And natural law is not immutable.

Your only work-around here is to reduce any claim to "absolutes". Which renders any debate, of basically virtually any topic outside "the self", null and void, as we can argue that nothing is 'absolute.' Thus, if this is the route you wish to go, then I suggest you stop asserting basically anything at all in any topic. In your worldview, all claims are backed by nothing more than blind-faith. Maybe this is your angle? Many theists do this to place anyone's worldview upon the same level playing field. Is this your strategy?

[RBD]

Your only work-around here is to reduce any claim to "absolutes". Which renders any debate, of basically virtually any topic outside "the self", null and void, as we can argue that nothing is 'absolute.' Thus, if this is the route you wish to go, then I suggest you stop asserting basically anything at all in any topic.

You may argue nothing is absolute, not the Spirit's word of truth.

Mal 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not:


First you argue for something immutable, that can be changed, which proves it's mutable. Now you argue for something immutable, that is not absolute, because it can be change. It's a dysfunctional immutability, that does not exist, because it can be changed, and is not absolute.

Thus, you need to stop arguing for an 'immutability' of your own, that you then argue is not absolute but changeable.


Immutability is absolute without change. Immutable law cannot be 'broken', because it absolutely cannot be changed.

In your worldview, all claims are backed by nothing more than blind-faith. Maybe this is your angle?

No, not everyone in the world argues for something made up in their own minds, and tires to argue from it, while arguing against it at the same time.

[POI]

Immutability is absolute without change. Immutable law cannot be 'broken', because it absolutely cannot be changed.

The (law of buoyancy), also known as Archimedes' principle, states that an object, submerged in a fluid experiences an upward buoyant force equal to the weight of the fluid that the object displaces. It cannot be broken because it is a direct consequence of the fundamental behavior of pressure in a fluid. This is where the terms 'miraculous' and 'supernatural' come in... A miracle would most certainly violate 'law'. And the 'supernatural' is also (outside/beyond) 'nature' and/or universal principles. Believers of the Bible god claims both these attributes.

Jesus walked on water, breaking an immutable law, to SHOW he was god.

No, not everyone in the world argues for something made up in their own minds, and tires to argue from it, while arguing against it at the same time.

This isn't what I'm referring to, at all. Do all claims boil down to faith to believe them, or not?

*****************************

Asking anew:

You know you are in between a rock and a hard place. Which is why you wish to dip out here. It's <either/or>:

A) An all-powerful god (could/would) break all immutable laws. So why only break some and not others?
B) A maximally powerful god would not or could not break any immutable laws. And yet, he somehow is said to break some immutable law(s), like the law of buoyancy, etc?

Seems you are in the B) camp, thus far, as you are desperate for the "laws" Jesus broke not be immutable in reality. However, either camp renders your argument in major trouble. Thus, I do not necessarily blame you for attempting to completely duck out.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #89]

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?

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.

Then how can the child in Isaiah 7 have had the untemptable nature of God if he ate butter and honey to know to refuse the evil and choose the good?

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

If none are righteous, how are the blessed enduring temptation not tempted with sin?

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.

Your words again:

Anyone believing and saying they are 'beyond' temptation to sin, where they cannot possibly allow themselves to lust again, is deceiving themselves in this life, and ready for a fall by temptation with lust

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.

If none are righteous, then there are no righteous "enduring trials".

Otherwise, if all temptation is the same, then it wouldn't matter whether righteous and unrighteous.

It doesn't matter to Romans 3:10 because it states that none are righteous.

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

Your words again:

Anyone believing and saying they are 'beyond' temptation to sin, where they cannot possibly allow themselves to lust again, is deceiving themselves in this life, and ready for a fall by temptation with lust

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.

If all people can allow themselves to lust again, how does it not apply to all people?


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.

Non-rebuttal.

If I've taught anything other than Scripture, show it

Hebrews 4:15 states that he was tempted, not that he merely "endured trials".

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

Again, what makes you assume that I look for any christ?

An untempted Christ has no merit in being sinless.

Consider this paraphrase of Job 1:6-10....

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?”

So Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My Son Jesus, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man who is without sin?"

So Satan answered the Lord and said, “Is Jesus without sin of his own accord? Have You not made a hedge around him by giving him the untemptable nature of God? How is his sinlessness a boast? Let him be tempted as other men are, and then honor him for his sinlessness."


God made him who had no sin to be sin for us
(2 Corinthians 5:21)

If the Christ you believe in wasn't above being made to be sin, how was he above being tempted by sin?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #93]

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?

You were an OSAS Christian, right? Or, you have learned the Bible the same as they. You're efforts to justify continued lusting for evil, by accusing the righteous, is exactly the same.

Which of those is you?

[RBD]

Immutability is absolute without change. Immutable law cannot be 'broken', because it absolutely cannot be changed.

The (law of buoyancy), also known as Archimedes' principle, states that an object, submerged in a fluid experiences an upward buoyant force equal to the weight of the fluid that the object displaces.

Smart.

It cannot be broken

Correct. Changing it, is not breaking it.

A law that is changed, is not broken when changed. Because it's not immutable.

A miracle would most certainly violate 'law'.

Only if not changed. The Spirit that made the law is not violating it, when changing it. Law that can be changed, is not immutable. Mutable law that is changed, is not broken, but only changed.

Speaking of immutable law being changed, is dysfunctional. Speaking of mutable law being changed, as being broken, is fallacy.

Changing a law is not breaking a law.

Jesus walked on water, breaking an immutable law, to SHOW he was god.

Jesus walked on water showing natural law is not immutable.

Immutability is not changeable. Immutability that is changeable is not immutable, but dysfunctional.

No, not everyone in the world argues for something made up in their own minds, and tires to argue from it, while arguing against it at the same time.

This isn't what I'm referring to, at all. Do all claims boil down to faith to believe them, or not?[/quote]

It does for anyone believing something immutable, is not absolute, but changeable. Any argument made from that dysfunction, is not functional.