Board index ‹ God

[J Lord]

> We as humans have all kinds of power and knowledge to manipulate life, but none to manipulate death.

What would be the difference between manipulating life and manipulating death? Like if someone found out how to live forever are they manipulating life or manipulating death?

> Since the consequence is death, there is no sequence of behavior or extent of knowledge with the capacity to reverse the action.

There are lots of things that cannot be reversed by human effort. Does that mean they could be reversed by killing a god come to earth as a man? I don't see the logical connection.

> The people who enter into relationship with God are the ones who get forgiven, and the ones who persist in their rebellion don't.

So really, Jesus dying didn't defeat death. It just allowed God to forgive some chosen few such that they didn't have to die.

[jimwalton]

> What would be the difference between manipulating life and manipulating death?

Surgery manipulates life. So also medicines, particular diets, even many elements of science. We have no capacity to manipulate death, not the dead person himself doing something to alter his status of quality of condition, or as living persons on behalf of the deceased. The only action we can take is a variety of strategies of dealing with the corpse, which is ultimately nothing, whether we fill the circulatory system with formaldehyde or mummify the remains.

> There are lots of things that cannot be reversed by human effort. Does that mean they could be reversed by killing a god come to earth as a man?

It is unarguably true that lots of things cannot be reversed by human effort, but death has been reversed by God's action of substitutionary death.

> So really, Jesus dying didn't defeat death. It just allowed God to forgive some chosen few such that they didn't have to die.

Oh, Jesus' dying did really defeat death, but it must be appropriated. My health insurance company offers free benefits (YMCA memberships, vitamins, chiropracty, etc.) as part of the policy, but you have to fill out forms and request the debit cards. It doesn't just come automatically, despite that it's part of the policy, it must be appropriated.

My credit card company offers percentage discounts off of certain merchant categories (gas, restaurants, etc.), but I have to go online every quarter and click the box to get it.

Jesus defeated death all right, but that benefit is available only to those who appropriate it by coming to him in genuine repentance and faith.

[J Lord]

> death has been reversed by God's action of substitutionary death.

Why would substitutional death be required to reverse death? Why not simply the will of God to reverse it?

> Jesus defeated death all right, but that benefit is available only to those who appropriate it by coming to him in genuine repentance and faith.

But this is not possible for many people. There are Christians who search for God and are ultimately rejected by him. Also people who honestly evaluate the available evidence to the best of their ability and conclude that God probably doesn't exist.

[jimwalton]

The only way to break the power of death is not to wave a magic wand, but to enter death and prove that it is not strong enough to hold you. (The only way to show a prison is not escape-proof is to enter the jail and prove that you can break out.) Otherwise it's just bravado: "I could break outta there." "Nuh-uh." "Uh-huh." "No you couldn't." "Yes I could." Somebody finally has to put their money where their mouth is and show that death doesn't have the ultimate power. Therefore the way to break the power of death and sin is to die as anyone else would, and then break out, to show that death has no power over you (Heb. 2.14-15).

> There are Christians who search for God and are ultimately rejected by him.

No doubt there are people who feel this way, but this is not a biblical teaching. God rejects no one who did not first and finally reject him. The rejection is ours, and God ultimately must allow us our free will, for to force us to come to him against our will is not an act of love. God rejects no one who sincerely seeks for him (Deuteronomy 4.29; Jeremiah 29.13; John 6.37).

> Also people who honestly evaluate the available evidence to the best of their ability and conclude that God probably doesn't exist

It sounds coarse, but those people aren't seeing straight. You and I have exchanged many many "letters", as I have with multiple others. I have offered as many as 8 or 9 evidences for God's existence, and I ask in reply for 1 atheist not to prove that God doesn't exist (a negative case is nonsensical), but to merely give evidence for what they DO believe. I never get a thing. It's like atheists have nothing—nothing to substantiate their presuppositions or the presenting evidence. Over and over again, even in scientific inquiry, the theistic argument is more plausible than the naturalist one. I guess I'm saying I'm not convinced they are "honestly evaluating the available evidence," but making biased conclusions based on visceral presuppositions, and are not honestly open to evaluating the evidence to the best of their ability. Just bein' honest. The evidence of God's existence is stronger than the evidence against it; what people usually want is not logic, but a visitation, and when that doesn't happen, they conclude God probably doesn't exist. Sorry. Venting, I guess.

[Skating the Waltz]

I would happily discuss that with you if you withdraw your allegation that I am a sinner. I have made it clear that I do not care what the bible says about me, or about everyone, but I object to your insinuations (especially when you say I 'object too much,' which implies I am guilty of something). You either do not care or do not understand how offensive this is to people who do not share your beliefs.

[jimwalton]

I can't in all honesty withdraw my allegation. It's hard for me to fathom that you are taking a stand that you have never acted in a harmful way, or that there is such a person on the planet who has never done something wrong. You are seriously arguing that you are perfect, and have never been guilty of anything wrong, and you take offense that I say otherwise, even without knowing you? That, to me, is incomprehensible. You won't talk to me about your perceived flaws in the Bible unless I acknowledge that you have none yourself. I cannot in good conscience recant. Mine is not an accusation to generate offense, but a shrug of the shoulders that we are all noticeably human. If you don't recognize that, you need to take a more serious look at yourself and the state of humanity.

[J Lord]

> The only way to break the power of death is not to wave a magic wand, but to enter death and prove that it is not strong enough to hold you.

Is this true because God deemed it to be so? Or is death some kind of force beyond the control of God (unless turns into a human and kills himself)?

> God rejects no one who sincerely seeks for him

The evidence suggests otherwise. To maintain your position you basically have to assume that countless numbers of seemingly reasonable and sincere people are all lying about their experiences. And they would by lying for no gain and at great sacrifice to themselves. This seems very unlikely. If you are open to changing your views based on evidence I would suggest asking the question of r/exchristian whether they were sincere in their beliefs.

> but to merely give evidence for what they DO believe. I never get a thing.

In relation to the existence of God, I believe that it is reasonable to reject all claims about the existence of something until someone can demonstrate that the thing most likely exists. And nobody has ever been able to reasonably demonstrate that the existence of God is likely. Neither of these points is something that you could really provide evidence for. The first point should be obvious. The second is based on people's claimed evidence for the existence of God. If you think someone has reasonably demonstrated the likely existence of God, then you can provide this and change my views. If there is anything else about what I believe that you want to know, I will answer. And if there is any aspect of my views that is irrational or inconsistent then I will change my views, as I have done many times before.

> I guess I'm saying I'm not convinced they are "honestly evaluating the available evidence," but making biased conclusions based on visceral presuppositions, and are not honestly open to evaluating the evidence to the best of their ability.

Are you saying it's not possible for a person to simply lack the intellectual capacity to understand an argument and get it wrong for this reason?

[jimwalton]

> Is this true because God deemed it to be so?

God is the only one who would know. Our knowledge of what happens after we die is understandably quite limited.

> Or is death some kind of force beyond the control of God (unless turns into a human and kills himself)?

Not at all. That's part of the point of the resurrection: death is proved to be under his sovereignty.

> The evidence suggests otherwise. To maintain your position you basically have to assume that countless numbers of seemingly reasonable and sincere people are all lying about their experiences.

I think at least part of it what people expect of God and of a relationship with him. They get frustrated when their expectations were misguided, and they assume failure when they've been running the wrong race.

> In relation to the existence of God, I believe that it is reasonable to reject all claims about the existence of something until someone can demonstrate that the thing most likely exists.

The arguments for the existence of God (cosmological, ontological, teleological, analogical, axiological, design, the existence of others minds, Moreland's argument from consciousness, the resurrection, and fine tuning) are all worthy arguments, especially when placed beside any atheist argument. The fact that the the arguments are not 100% convincing, but only good to about 90% still gives them a huge advantage over the atheist arguments that are only good to about 10%. Comparing the two is ludicrous, but atheists, for some reason, will favor 2 arguments good for about 10% over 10 arguments good to about 90%. It doesn't make sense to me.

> Are you saying it's not possible for a person to simply lack the intellectual capacity to understand an argument and get it wrong for this reason?

Oh, I'm not saying that at all, but that's not your situation, and you're the one I'm talking to.

[J Lord]

> Not at all. That's part of the point of the resurrection: death is proved to be under his sovereignty.

But if was totally under his sovereignty he could simply declare death to be under his control and it would be. He wouldn't have to come as human and die.

> are all worthy arguments, especially when placed beside any atheist argument.

I don't find any of them to be sound or convincing. But what atheist arguments are you comparing them to? Do you think it is reasonable to accept a bad argument because it's better than other even worse arguments?

> I'm not saying that at all, but that's not your situation, and you're the one I'm talking to.

Well then what reason would there be for me not being able to understand how convincing these arguments are?

[jimwalton]

> But if was totally under his sovereignty he could simply declare death to be under his control and it would be. He wouldn't have to come as human and die.

God still had to deal with sin and death in the appropriate way. There are rules, laws, and forces in the universe that are derivative of the nature and character of God, as Creator. These rules (such as goodness, morality, love, cause and effect) are part of the fabric of life/nature, so God has to work within the parameters of the fabric of who he is and how he designed the world. He can't act in self-contradiction or contrary to his own nature, and therefore when something in the universe is out of balance, God can't just ignore it or necessarily wave a finger to make it right, but has to work within the rubric of his own nature.

> But what atheist arguments are you comparing them to?

I've told you—I never get any. It's like the atheists have nothing to offer. About all I've ever heard is that some think the existence of evil negates the possibility of God, which is a very weak argument, and that God can't be omniscient if there's free will, which also doesn't follow logically. That's about all I've ever gotten, to which my thoughts respond, "Is that seriously all you have?"

> Do you think it is reasonable to accept a bad argument because it's better than other even worse arguments?

The arguments for the existence of God are quite good arguments; it's just that they're only good to about 95%, and not all the way. So atheists pick apart the 5%, legitimately, but offer nothing in return, nothing to the contrary. So I'm not accepting bad arguments because they're better than the worse arguments, I'm accepting really good arguments because they better than non-existent arguments.

> Well then what reason would there be for me not being able to understand how convincing these arguments are?

You tell me. I'm not in a place to judge you, nor to psychoanalyze. The Bible says you are spiritually blind (2 Cor. 4.4). Romans 1 says that people have suppressed the truth in their own minds to the point where their thinking has become futile. Those would be the reasons the Bible gives for you not being able to understand how convincing the arguments are.