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]

[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

Now you acknowledge the difference between the divine nature untemptable with evil, vs a person with the corrupt nature of lust to be tempted by evil.

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?

Diet matters for healthy living and judgment. But, it's not the source.

1 Tim{4:8}
For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

3Jo 1:2
Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

A lusting heart tempted with evil, can eat all the butter and honey in the world, and still know to choose evil, and refuse the good.

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

Having no lust to sin in this life is by grace. Boasting to never receive lust to sin in this life, is pride before a fall.

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?

Having power to receive lust to do evil, is not the same as receiving it:

Pro 6:27
Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?

Having power to do foolishly, does not mean all are doing foolishly. The foolish have lust in the heart, and are in need of deliverance. The saints have no lust in the heart, and are in need of grace to keep themselves delivered.

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.

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

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.

Why the inferiority complex? Are you not a true human full of evil temptation? Are you inferior by not being fully human?

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?

The innocent man, that willingly stands in the place of the guilty, is made to be condemned instead of the guilty. The innocent is not made guilty, but only made to be guilty in the place of another.

So, you don't want the Christ that is made to be guilty in your stead, but rather a christ that is made guilty himself? A christ that deigns to receive his own lust, and be tempted with the world to do evil?

[RBD]

[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?

I'm not OSAS Christian, that's for sure. Were you at one time? You surely have listened to them enough. I don't believe you came up with your own OSAS Christianity arguments on your own.

Well, were you an OSAS Christian at one time, or not? I never was.

[POI]

It cannot be broken

Correct. Changing it, is not breaking it.

I never said he 'changed' the law. I stated Jesus (violated/broke) these "law(s)".

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.

Speaking of everything you just spoke of, directly above, is nonsense.

Changing a law is not breaking a law.

Yet again, when Jesus walked on water, he violated/broke an immutable law. Humans, or any other non-supernatural being, cannot ever do such a thing.

Jesus walked on water showing natural law is not immutable.

False. Jesus walked on water to demonstrate he was who he claimed to be. (Violating/breaking) immutable law does just this... It is deemed a miracle.

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

You still did not answer my question. 3rd attempt. In your worldview, are all beliefs (faith-based)?

[RBD]

It cannot be broken

Correct. Changing it, is not breaking it.

I never said he 'changed' the law. I stated Jesus (violated/broke) these "law(s)".

Of course. According to your dysfunctional immutability, that can be broken. You're arguing from your own imagined pseudo-immutability, in order to accuse the Spirit of 'breaking' it.

Which only shows you're own ill-defined immutability is not immutable, by accusing it of being broken. You see, whenever you accuse your own immutable law of being broken, you're accusing your own law of not being immutable. In your personal effort to find fault with the Creator, you foolishly accuse Him of 'breaking' an immutable law, that is thus proven to be mutable.

You're arguing from a pseudo-immutability of your own making, and you expose it as false, by claiming it can be broken. The more you keep claiming an immutable law is broken, the more your accusing it of being mutable. A truly immutable law by definition cannot be broken, changed, nor altered.

The Bible reveals that natural law is mutable, because it's changed by the creating Spirit at will:

Heb 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.


When the Lord changed the law for His nation from that of Moses to Christ, He also changed natural law for His New Testament, by rising from the dead. Thus, natural law is changed, and being changed is proven mutable.

The natural universe is not an immortal god, whose law is forever immutable. Arguing for immutable natural law, is old pagan universal deism.

Changing a law is not breaking a law.

Yet again, when Jesus walked on water, he violated/broke an immutable law.

Hence. not immutable law. Every time you accuse someone of violating an immutable law, you continue to accuse the law of being mutable.

You're arguing for an immutable law, that you then accuse of being mutable.

Humans, or any other non-supernatural being, cannot ever do such a thing.

You're personal belief/unbelief is as valid as your pseudo-immutability.

You still did not answer my question. 3rd attempt. In your worldview, are all beliefs (faith-based)?

Seriously? You're asking if belief is faith-based?? That's as irrational a question, as stating an immutable law can be broken...

[POI]

Of course. According to your dysfunctional immutability

Here is where things fall completely apart for your worldview. You see, immutability does apply to the law of buoyancy. In actual reality, it's very safe to conclude that no Jesus character ever actually walked on top of water. Why? Because we already know such a task is breaking an immutable law, which can and will never be violated or broken. I've already explained why the law of buoyancy is immutable. Thinking a Jesus character did violate/break this law anyways, is because such a belief derives from faith. Which is why I've been repeatedly asking you, and you continue to ignore, are all beliefs and claims faith-based (on some level), <and/or> also on (the same level?)

Which only shows you're own ill-defined immutability is not immutable, by accusing it of being broken. You see, whenever you accuse your own immutable law of being broken, you're accusing your own law of not being immutable.

Negative. Such sighted "laws", in which Jesus violated/broke, are just as immutable in actual reality, as the ones for which you claim are not. Case/point, the law of buoyancy. Theists are forced to make special exceptions, or apologetic word-arounds, to make things fit, as usual. The more you respond, the more these Christian apologetic hoop-jumping exercises get exposed. Let the fun continue...

In your personal effort to find fault with the Creator, you foolishly accuse Him of 'breaking' an immutable law, that is thus proven to be mutable.

LOL! The law of buoyancy is immutable. Which is why we know the story of a Jesus character breaking/violating this law must be believed upon based on unfounded blind-faith. Which is why it also takes blind faith to believe that a 2–3-day old rotting corpse rose again to say "hi" to his fellow followers.

Thus, for funsies, I ask believers why their believed upon god breaks/violates some law(s), but not others? And this is exactly where some believers apparently get their panties in a bunch.

The more you keep claiming an immutable law is broken, the more your accusing it of being mutable. A truly immutable law by definition cannot be broken, changed, nor altered.

The more you argue for a Jesus walking on water, the more you expose your blind-faith in that it actually happened, as the law of buoyancy is an immutable law. The only place it can ever be broken/violated, is in an old dusty story book, and nowhere else in realty. Which is why I continue to ask, unanswered, do all beliefs/claims require the same level of faith?

The Bible reveals that natural law is mutable, because it's changed by the creating Spirit at will:

Nope. In some places, the Bible reveals fibs, the stretching of the reality, and/or outright lies. You see RBD, the Bible is filled with some correct stuff, some incorrect stuff, some strange stuff, some illogical stuff, and some contradictory stuff. It's YOUR job, as the Christian apologist, to sometimes try and metaphorically stick the square peg(s) into the round hole(s). It must get exhausting at times....

When the Lord changed the law for His nation from that of Moses to Christ, He also changed natural law for His New Testament, by rising from the dead. Thus, natural law is changed, and being changed is proven mutable.

Wow, where to begin here....? I might have to start a whole new topic to devote to this collection of claim(s) alone, as there is just so many problems to unpack here. Stay tuned, for if I should decide to open this very large can of worms....

The natural universe is not an immortal god, whose law is forever immutable. Arguing for immutable natural law, is old pagan universal deism.

Nah. Since the law of buoyancy is immutable, it takes quite a bit of faith to assume that some 'agency' actually broke it anyways. That's all. And the ones that believe some 'agency' did break it, are forced to make all sorts of 'educated excuses' as to why it was not really broken/violated in reality. It's entertaining to follow, I'll give you that.

Seriously? You're asking if belief is faith-based??.

Serious as a heart attack, yes! If you finally responded above, in red, then no need to answer here. Tootles... for now.

[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?

I'm not OSAS Christian, that's for sure. Were you at one time? You surely have listened to them enough. I don't believe you came up with your own OSAS Christianity arguments on your own.

Well, were you an OSAS Christian at one time, or not? I never was.

I was Catholic, or thought I was. And if you know Catholicism, you know that it is definitely not OSAS Christianity.

If you're not the Pharisee, then aren't you the tax collector?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #101]

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?

Diet matters for healthy living and judgment. But, it's not the source.

Then let's put the butter and honey into context with a better translation:

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.
(Isaiah 7:14-16)

The two kings mentioned are Pekah and Rezin, the kings of Israel and Syria, and Isaiah is assuring King Ahaz of Judah that his enemies will fall during the early life of the child soon to be born. So the passage has nothing to do with Jesus, who wasn't born until centuries later.

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

How do you square this with your non-OSAS stance?

[RBD]

Of course. According to your dysfunctional immutability

Here is where things fall completely apart for your worldview. You see, immutability does apply to the law of buoyancy.

Not if it can be changed, broken, or altered.

Accusing someone of breaking a law, only confirms the law is mutable. The accusation itself is a confession of mutability.

In actual reality, it's very safe to conclude that no Jesus character ever actually walked on top of water. Why? Because we already know such a task is breaking an immutable law, which can and will never be violated or broken.

At least now you acknowledge true immutability: it's impossible to change, alter, or break. Therefore, there's no possible accusation for breaking it, since it's impossible to break.

Your title, 'God the law breaker', is rendered meaningless by referring to the supposed broken law, as being immutable.

Here are the only two honest titles, pertaining to mutability of law, "If Jesus walked on water, then natural law is not immutable." Or, "It's impossible for Jesus to walk on water, because natural law is immutable,"

The title, God the law-breaker, and then arguing immutable law can't be broken, is only nonsensical sensationalism. And of course, a false accusation, which in itself would be impossible to do...

I've already explained why the law of buoyancy is immutable.

Why is only by faith. Because you declare it is so.

How a law is immutable, must be proven. And in the case of natural law, it must be proven that the natural universe is uncreated, eternal, all encompassing, and inclusive of all intelligence: The pagan universal natural deity.

Natural immutable law also denies an expanding universe, where there would be no natural law beyond itself, and so is not immutable.

Thinking a Jesus character did violate/break this law anyways, is because such a belief derives from faith.

Thinking anyone could change, alter, or break immutable law, is because of dysfunctional belief in an immutable law, that can be made mutable.

Faith in the Bible record is that natural law made by the Creator, is not immutable, since it can be changed by the Creator.

It also rejects pagan universalism, that the natural universe is an uncreated intelligent being with naturally immutable law, that the natural deity cannot change, alter, nor break.

Which only shows you're own ill-defined immutability is not immutable, by accusing it of being broken. You see, whenever you accuse your own immutable law of being broken, you're accusing your own law of not being immutable.

Negative. Such sighted "laws", in which Jesus violated/broke, are just as immutable in actual reality,

Once again, it must be proven that an uncreated natural universe and deity, is the actual, and only reality.

Which must reject an expanding natural universe, to where the natural universe deity and law does not exist.

as the ones for which you claim are not. Case/point, the law of buoyancy. Theists are forced to make special exceptions, or apologetic word-arounds, to make things fit, as usual.

The ones claiming natural law is immutable, and accusing anyone of breaking it, is forced to make dysfunctional exceptions, and accusative word-arounds, to make the accusation fit.

Believing the Bible record is much simpler: natural law can be changed by the Creator of the natural universe, and so is not immutable.

The more you respond, the more these Christian apologetic hoop-jumping exercises get exposed. Let the fun continue...

By all means. Say again, that natural law is immutable, and can be broken.

And then accuse Jesus Christ of breaking it.

And we'll have more fun with this dysfunctional argument, whose sole purpose is a meaningless but sensational title, God is a law breaker.

The natural universe is not an immortal god, whose law is forever immutable. Arguing for immutable natural law, is old pagan universal deism.

Nah. Since the law of buoyancy is immutable, it takes quite a bit of faith to assume that some 'agency' actually broke it anyways. That's all.

And so, accusing someone of breaking it, takes dysfunctional faith that someone can possibly break a law, that is supposed to be immutable. That's all.

You see the problem of your title: You are agreeing with the Bible record, that Jesus walked on water, by accusing Him of breaking law.

It's you accusation that confirms your confession of faith in Jesus walking on water. Otherwise, you would not be accusing Him of breaking law.

Your title ought be, It's impossible for Jesus to walk on water, because natural law is immutable. In which case, He can't be rationally affirmed nor accused of doing so.

Withdraw your dysfunctional accusation of someone breaking immutable law, and then you can focus on proving natural law is immutable.

Seriously? You're asking if belief is faith-based??.

Serious as a heart attack, yes! If you finally responded above, in red, then no need to answer here. Tootles... for now.

I don't do sophistry and word games.

1 Tim 6:3… doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

[POI]

Accusing someone of breaking a law, only confirms the law is mutable. The accusation itself is a confession of mutability.

1) This goes directly back to what I asked, in which you skipped. Is your god A) all powerful or B) maximally powerful?
2) Breaking an immutable law would also be 'miraculous', and your god is asserted to perform the 'miraculous.' "With god, all things are possible."

Yet again... 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.

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 here.

At least now you acknowledge true immutability: it's impossible to change, alter, or break.

Yes. The law of buoyancy presents with immutability, as it will never be broken without being (above or beyond) the 'law'. And your story book says Jesus decided to break this immutable law, by "walking on water" to show off. You are in quite the pickle here.

Therefore, there's no possible accusation for breaking it, since it's impossible to break.

Your title, 'God the law breaker', is rendered meaningless by referring to the supposed broken law, as being immutable.

Already explained above and prior. Tired of repeating myself...

Here are the only two honest titles, pertaining to mutability of law, "If Jesus walked on water, then natural law is not immutable." Or, "It's impossible for Jesus to walk on water, because natural law is immutable,"

Or my third option... Jesus is (above/beyond) the law, and performs miracles, because anything is possible for him. He chose to break this immutable law, but not others. WHY?

The title, God the law-breaker, and then arguing immutable law can't be broken, is only nonsensical sensationalism. And of course, a false accusation, which in itself would be impossible to do...

Then you are arguing for a maximally powerful god. Which conflicts, as he breaks some immutable laws but is said not to be able to break others?

I'll tackle the rest later....

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #108]

The only thing else to add, without beating a dead horse, is that you seem to flat out reject the argument pertaining to the "omnipotence paradox". This is why I ask which position you are in, between A) and B) within the previous reply.