WALTER SAID:
“If Calvinism turns out to be true, then Ken is exactly where God wanted him to be. Ken never had any real choice in the matter. Ken's final destination was planned out long before he was ever born. It's all part of the script that was foreordained for Ken's life. Seems like the charge of human beings as nothing but ‘robots’ can apply equally as well to the Calvinistic worldview.”
This is what passes for intelligent argument in pop atheism.
i) I’ve often pointed out the inadequacies of the robotic metaphor in reference to Calvinism. Walter offers no counterargument.
ii) His criticism also disregards the literature on compatibilism and semicompatibilism.
iii) I’m not the one who leveled the “charge”; rather, I’m merely reproducing the language of Richard Dawkins.
iv) I, as a Calvinist, don’t take offense what someone characterizes me in Calvinistic terms. However, infidels have taken offense when I characterize an atheist in atheistic terms.
Therefore, the attempted analogy is fundamentally disanalogous.
Walter’s comparison also suffers from a fatal equivocation of terms. Here is Dawkins’ actual statement: “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.”
Is that parallel to Calvinism?
v) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Calvinism turns men into robots, we wouldn’t be “blindly-programmed” robots. For the God of Calvinism would be the All-seeing Watchmaker, and not the Blind Watchmaker of naturalistic evolution. As such, men would be omnisciently-programmed, not blindly-programmed. And that’s hardly a trivial difference.
vi) We wouldn’t be vehicles to transmit our genes.
vii) Even if the reprobate (e.g. Pharaoh) have a “vehicular” function, the elect do not.
vii) We wouldn’t be machines, for men are ensouled creatures, not simply bodies.
viii) And we don’t survive for the sake of replicating ourselves.
If anything, as a Calvinist your view of humans is even more consistent with the concept of a robot than Dawkins' since you believe in a robot designer and manufacturer: an intelligent, personal programmer. To you, all people everywhere always act in the exact manner that God ordains since nothing occurs without His foreordination. Dawkins' robots are just blind accidents, programmed by chance.
ReplyDeleteWell you're certainly comparable to a Chatty Cathy doll stuck on an infinite loop.
ReplyDeleteI'm convinced that people like Peter Pike take these kinds of cheap shots because, deep down, they know their beliefs are dopey and laughable. All the animus, the bluster, the cockiness -- it's a defense mechanism, like some harmless frog who puffs itself up twice its size to scare off a predator.
ReplyDelete"I'm convinced that people like Peter Pike take these kinds of cheap shots because, deep down, they know their beliefs are dopey and laughable."
ReplyDeleteJust another item in the long list of things unbelievers are prepared to believe without evidence.
And as such HD delivers a cheap shot. I just love the consistency.
ReplyDeleteA serious question, related to this.
ReplyDeleteOn Calvinism (or a common reading of Calvinism), is there any free will? Or does Calvinism demand, at most, a compatiblist reading of free will?
In Calvinism, freewill is generally construed along compatibilist/semicompatibilist lines.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that we need to distinguish between philosophy and theology at this point.
This is what passes for intelligent argument in pop atheism.
ReplyDeleteI did not realize that I was supposed to give a rigorous defense of atheism in my comment--Especially since I am not a 100% convinced naturalist. Believe it or not, the world is filled with non-Christian theists who believe that your Christian mythology is a load of bunk. It's not just atheism vs. Calvinism.
His criticism also disregards the literature on compatibilism and semicompatibilism.
ReplyDeleteI'm familiar with the literature.
According to orthodox Christianity, my very desires are enough to sentence me to an eternity of anguish. If I look upon a woman in lust, I have committed adultery or fornication in my mind, and am subject to eternal retribution for offending a perfectly holy God. The problem with this is that the sovereign creator-god of Christianity is the one that has "ensouled" me with a nature that wants to lust at a pretty girl walking next to me. I am being sentenced to eternal punishment for my sinful desires that the creator "himself" has instilled in me.
Maybe atheism is nihilistic and depressing, but conservative Christianity is monstrous, and as far as I can see it is nonsensical.
"The All-seeing Watchmaker"
ReplyDeleteAll-Seeing Watchmaker: "It's time for Ken Pulliam to go to his eternal destiny."
WALTER SAID:
ReplyDelete"It's not just atheism vs. Calvinism."
You were the one, not me, who tried to recast the issue in atheist/Calvinist terms.
"Maybe atheism is nihilistic and depressing, but conservative Christianity is monstrous, and as far as I can see it is nonsensical."
You have a wooden grasp of exegesis, and a wooden grasp of Christian theology.
Walter said "... my very desires are enough to sentence me to an eternity of anguish."
ReplyDeleteSo then, don't look upon a woman with lust in your heart. Believe it or not, you are not simply a slave to an animalistic nature.
Within you there is a struggle between spirit and flesh, and you do have influence over this struggle.
Hacksaw said:
ReplyDelete---
I'm convinced that people like Peter Pike take these kinds of cheap shots...
---
I'm sorry for not respecting your great and awesome opinion. Next time I wonder what to eat for lunch, I'll ask you what you're convinced of, seeing as how I live my life totally concerned with your every whim.
Enchantednaturalist said:
---
Chatty-Cathy assertions warrant Chatty-Cathy rebuttals. Don't blame me for your drivel.
---
I can't help it if you're too incompetent to mount an actual defense for your beliefs. Don't expect me not to point it out when you're just a one trick pony.
If you want to be taken seriously, try to understand the opposing view for once in your life.
So then, don't look upon a woman with lust in your heart. Believe it or not, you are not simply a slave to an animalistic nature.
ReplyDeleteWithin you there is a struggle between spirit and flesh, and you do have influence over this struggle.
All human beings will have at least a fleeting moment of lust when looking at another attractive person. This is natural for all human beings. That fleeting moment is supposedly enough of a crime for me to warrant eternal suffering--at least according to most Christians that I have ever met. God supposedly creates us with a normal range of human emotions, then condemns us for experiencing these emotions. That is simply perverse.
Walter,
ReplyDeleteEven if that "fleeting moment" of lust is a sin, it's not like it's the only sin you ever commit. And don't pretend that it's all that "fleeting" either.
Set aside God's law for a moment though, and just ask yourself this: Do you do everything that *YOU* think you ought to do? Do you live up to your *own* standards? Because if you can't even manage that, why are you complaning about God's standards? He doesn't have to judge you by His law when you convinct yourself already. See Romans 2:12-16, for instance.
Even if that "fleeting moment" of lust is a sin, it's not like it's the only sin you ever commit. And don't pretend that it's all that "fleeting" either.
ReplyDeleteThat fleeting moment ALONE is considered sufficient grounds to condemn me to an eternity of suffering. God created humanity with an inability to meet his standard of perfection, then condemns all but an arbitrary few to unimaginable suffering that is infinite in duration for not being able to measure up to an unattainable standard. Christianity makes it a crime against God for simply being born 'human.'
Walter said "All human beings will have at least a fleeting moment of lust when looking at another attractive person. This is natural for all human beings."
ReplyDeleteWalter, even Christian's do not profess to be perfect. Christ alone was perfect.
I confess, in fleeting moments of anger, to have wanted persons dead. By the standard Jesus sets out, I have committed murder in my heart.
That we sometimes feel things we ought not to, does not make them moral, which is why we must repent of them, and continue to struggle against our flesh.
Jesus' standard is high, but even with our failure, his broken body assumed the burden of accountability that we ourselves cannot.
Set aside God's law for a moment though, and just ask yourself this: Do you do everything that *YOU* think you ought to do? Do you live up to your *own* standards? Because if you can't even manage that, why are you complaning about God's standards? He doesn't have to judge you by His law when you convinct yourself already. See Romans 2:12-16, for instance.
ReplyDeleteI have done many a thing that I am ashamed of. If there is a righteous creator in heaven that is keeping tabs, then I will accept my punishment for the things that I have done. I do not accept eternal damnation as a just punishment for even the most heinous of crimes committed by human beings.
Walter said:
ReplyDelete"That fleeting moment ALONE is considered sufficient grounds to condemn me to an eternity of suffering. God created humanity with an inability to meet his standard of perfection, then condemns all but an arbitrary few to unimaginable suffering that is infinite in duration for not being able to measure up to an unattainable standard."
Yes, yes, Walter raises an interesting dilemma above doesn't he? Good question, but it's only half the problem/solution. Or you have stated the problem correctly, Walter, but either you don't accept the solution, or haven't verbalized it. I'm curious to know if you know what Christianity claims is the solution to your dilemma above?
Walter said:
ReplyDelete---
That fleeting moment ALONE is considered sufficient grounds to condemn me to an eternity of suffering.
---
Why?
You said:
---
God created humanity with an inability to meet his standard of perfection...
---
"See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes" (Ecclesiastes 7:29).
You said:
---
God created humanity with an inability to meet his standard of perfection, then condemns all but an arbitrary few to unimaginable suffering that is infinite in duration for not being able to measure up to an unattainable standard.
---
1) God condemns all men who fail to attain perfection. What's the problem with that?
2) God has provided a means for any who so desired to be reconciled to Him.
3) God has further ensured that certain people will definitely so desire; this does not entail Him forcing others to remain in their sins. If you remain in your sins, it's only because you want to. God never makes you do evil.
You said:
---
Christianity makes it a crime against God for simply being born 'human.'
---
Except that's not true. The only crimes against God are the violations of His law.
God has told us what He expects of us. He does not force us to disobey. In what way is He treating us unjustly?
I'm curious to know if you know what Christianity claims is the solution to your dilemma above?
ReplyDeleteWhose Christianity? The answer varies somewhat depending on which sect of believers that I am talking to. From what I know of Calvinism, I have to be one of the special pre-chosen elect to receive any forgiveness for not meeting an impossible standard. If I am not one of God's pre-chosen elect, then I am flat out screwed.
The Arminians, Semipelagians, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox will all give somewhat different answers. Let's not forget the liberal/progressive Christians either--they give yet another answer.
I think you'll find however, Walter, that they all point to Jesus Christ as the solution. But you already know that, don't you? This is the reconciliation to God that Peter Pike addresses above (not speaking for Peter here, but just my thoughts on his comments). So God has provided the means for you, individually, Walter, to be reconciled to Him for the dilemma you so aptly describe. You are given a choice, right now, to either accept or reject this solution. It is this decision on your part that will determine your eternal destiny. This decision by you, does not violate the Calvinism you rail against.
ReplyDelete1) God condemns all men who fail to attain perfection. What's the problem with that?
ReplyDeleteCreating a sentient being that is not perfect, then condemning that being for not being perfect is morally perverse
2) God has provided a means for any who so desired to be reconciled to Him.
Again assuming Calvinism, God has ensured that ONLY the chosen elect will desire to be with him. God has also ensured that the non-elect will never desire Him because He gave them a nature that does not desire to be with Him.
3) God has further ensured that certain people will definitely so desire; this does not entail Him forcing others to remain in their sins. If you remain in your sins, it's only because you want to. God never makes you do evil.
Where does my default evil nature come from? Did I create my own soul? Did Adam create my soul? Or has God created me with a soul that is predisposed to commit evil? I am told that I have been given a 'tainted' soul as a curse for something that my primordial ancestor did.
Would somebody be so kind as to direct me to a good Calvinist resource that explains in depth the concept of secondary causation?
ReplyDeleteWalter said "That fleeting moment ALONE is considered sufficient grounds to condemn me to an eternity of suffering."
ReplyDeleteWalter, the issues isn't the duration of the sin. Rather the issue is that sin any duration, sins of lust, murder etc do violence against the image of an unimaginably perfect God in creation (humans being the imaging of God).
But even so, even fleeting moments of sin, however small, make you accountable before God.
The choice is are you willing and able to be accountable eternally or are you willing to hand over that accountability to Jesus on the condition you hear and obey him forever more?
If you reject the grace of an infinite God, God is willing to allow you to live with that consequence forever.
The choice is still yours, though the grace isn't.
Walter,
ReplyDeleteSo you are objecting that those who don't want to make a choice cannot make a choice they don't want to make anyway, while those who do desire to make a choice can freely make the choice?
That doesn't sound like a reasonable thing to object to.
But you respond to this that it is wrong because God, ultimately, determines what we will want and not want.
But according to Scripture, at least as Calvinists read it, God has the right to create persons for whatever purpose he desires.
So there isn't anything immediately objectionable with not being able to make a choice you don't want to make and when you try to push it back there doesn't seem to be any internal inconsistency either.
Why should the Calvinist think that God cannot create wicked persons who delight in wickedness, are culpable for their wickedness and, subsequently, punished for it?
Or why should we think that some non-existent entity should, if he is made to exist by God, be made to exist in a certain form?
Walter said "Creating a sentient being that is not perfect, then condemning that being for not being perfect is morally perverse."
ReplyDeleteExcept that God created man upright but we fell due to the devices of our own heart [Ecc 7:29]
This means that we were perfect but chose not to be.
Why should the Calvinist think that God cannot create wicked persons who delight in wickedness, are culpable for their wickedness and, subsequently, punished for it?
ReplyDeleteIf that does seem morally wrong to you, then nothing I can ever say will make you see it. My moral compass does not align with the Calvinist concept of God.
So that's all the huffing and puffing comes down to?
ReplyDeleteExcept that God created man upright but we fell due to the devices of our own heart [Ecc 7:29]
ReplyDeleteThis means that we were perfect but chose not to be.
This means that my mythical ancestor was created perfect, not that I, personally, was created perfect. I was created imperfect, and supposedly condemned for my imperfection.
BTW, how does perfection fall? How did Satan fall unless God engineered it to happen?
So that's all the huffing and puffing comes down to?
ReplyDeleteWho is huffing and puffing? I thought we were having a polite conversation. :-(
Well you certainly seem to think some gross error has been made on the part of Calvinists. Yet in the end it turns out you have nothing to appeal to besides "It just strikes me as wrong" or something like that.
ReplyDeleteWell, in that case, it doesn't seem to strike us as wrong...
But according to Scripture, at least as Calvinists read it, God has the right to create persons for whatever purpose he desires.
ReplyDeleteMight makes right. God's morality is not our morality. I have heard all of these before. If my morality does not align with the Yahweh's, then how can I ever praise and worship Yahweh? I could not; I might try my best to serve out of stark terror, but I could never praise the deity for doing something that I consider to be morally reprehensible.
Furthermore, I do not consider our bibles to be the authoritative words of a deity--they are the words of men.
That is my objection to your beliefs.
WALTER SAID:
ReplyDelete"If that does seem morally wrong to you, then nothing I can ever say will make you see it. My moral compass does not align with the Calvinist concept of God."
But you've admitted that your real objection is to Biblical theism in general, and not Reformed theism in particular.
Walter,
ReplyDeleteLet's say a game maker sets out to create a new game. With that alone, do you think he has any obligation to make the parts of the game conform to some rules?
Let's say this game maker wants to invent a game called chess. He writes to his friend "I'm thinking of making a game called chess. In this game, there shall be pieces called pawns. These pieces can only move one space at a time in a forward direction. However, for their first move, they may move two spaces in a forward direction. [etc]. Another piece will be the queen. This piece can move any number of spaces in any direction [etc]."
Do you think that the friend could reasonably object that it is wrong for the game maker to make the game such that the pawn's movement is more limited than the queen's?
I'm sure the analogy has it's limits. But I think it illustrates that it is reasonable to think that a creator of such a thing has the right to endow the objects with whatever purposes he chooses.
Prior to the creation of the game, there can be no objection that the game has to be played in a certain way or that it has to achieve a certain purpose. The game maker makes sets those boundaries.
On the other hand, it looks like you want to say that there are some pre-existing rules to chess, before the game maker creatively instantiates the game.
Or we could look at it from the point of view of Euthyphro's dilemma. You want to say that some moral norm exists transcendent of God.
But that's not the Christian position (Calvinist or non-Calvinist). So no Christian is going to buy your objection, if I've pegged it right.
Walter,
ReplyDeleteI wrote the above before reading your latest reply.
However, I think my post deals with your "might makes right" objection. I can say that in certain cases, cases of creative might, might does reasonably make right.
Your objection to Scripture raises a different issue I wont bother addressing.
Walter said:
ReplyDelete---
Creating a sentient being that is not perfect, then condemning that being for not being perfect is morally perverse
---
A) Suppose you are correct. Why woudl that be "morally perverse"? What is morality absent God? Your opinion? But why should anyone care about what YOU think is morally perverse? You're not the standard of righteousness.
B) But you are wrong, as I pointed out before you responded, and as ἐκκλησία reminded you.
C) God doesn't condemn anyone for not being "perfect." He condemns them for *sinning*.
You said:
---
Again assuming Calvinism, God has ensured that ONLY the chosen elect will desire to be with him.
---
If I give an invitation for everyone in the world to come to a five star restaurant for a free meal, but then I go out of my way to pick up four people and drive them to the meal, am I somehow barring *YOU*, who I did not pickup, from coming?
You said:
---
God has also ensured that the non-elect will never desire Him because He gave them a nature that does not desire to be with Him.
---
God didn't give them an evil nature; that is a consequence of sin. And it doesn't alter the fact that if you wanted to, you could ask Christ for forgiveness and He would forgive you, even if you were not one of the Elect to begin with. God saves *all* who come to Him.
You said:
---
Where does my default evil nature come from?
---
Where did anything you have come from? Is it better for you to exist or not to exist?
You said:
---
I am told that I have been given a 'tainted' soul as a curse for something that my primordial ancestor did.
---
Go ahead and try that defense on Judgment Day then. See how far it gets you.
ReplyDelete"If that does (not)seem morally wrong to you, then nothing I can ever say will make you see it. My moral compass does not align with the Calvinist concept of God."
But you've admitted that your real objection is to Biblical theism in general, and not Reformed theism in particular
It is true that my objections do not stop at the 'borders' of Calvinism.
However, I think my post deals with your "might makes right" objection. I can say that in certain cases, cases of creative might, might does reasonably make right.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, the Christian is comfortable in the belief that God is justified in doing whatever he wants to other people but not them. As long as you believe that you are not going to be subject to infinite torture in the afterlife, it is a-ok for God to do as he pleases with the unbeliever who lives across the street. No crime against God can damn the elect, and no virtue can save the non-elect.
I object to the Christian God's supposed treatment of unbelievers and non-Christian theists. I do not believe that morality is whatever a deity subjectively chooses it to be, but that is another rabbit hole that I won't be chasing down right now.
Off to work right now. Maybe I can stop back by to continue this interesting discussion tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteYour concept of God is too small, Walter.
ReplyDeleteIn order for your objection to to be logically coherent, you must establish how transcendent morality can exist, consistent with the naturalistic materialism worldview. How can there be law without a law-giver? Until you answer this question, your objection is invalid.
And don't just come back with "everybody knows" x, because that's an absurd and fallacious statement. Knowledge has 3 basic components: Truth, Belief, and Warrant. You've got the first 2: there is transcendent morality, and you believe there is. Where's your warrant, or justification?
Walter said: "If that does seem morally wrong to you, then nothing I can ever say will make you see it. My moral compass does not align with the Calvinist concept of God."
ReplyDeleteThe Bible makes it clear that God's hope is that all should come to repentance; that no one should die. [2 Peter 3:9]
How does that reconcile with the fact that many will in fact perish? God has committed Himself to honouring the choice the un-repentant man.
He holds someone accountable for every man's sin, be it Christ or man. Though it goes against his hope that man should perish, I'm certain it was also against his hope Christ should have to suffer.
For all we know (speculation) God could also have hoped Adam would obey him and not eat of the tree, yet whether Adam had eaten or not, God's is glorified whether man obeys or not.
Man has no ability to diminish God's glory though his choice.
Walter,
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, the Christian is comfortable in the belief that God is justified in doing whatever he wants to other people but not them. As long as you believe that you are not going to be subject to infinite torture in the afterlife, it is a-ok for God to do as he pleases with the unbeliever who lives across the street.
In fact many Christians struggle with evil or suffering in their own lives and in the lives of others. As a result, some question the goodness of God.
Take Job, for example. Job's suffering caused him to cry out to God for help and a chance to question God's reasons behind his suffering. But it also caused Job to look at and become more sympathetic towards other people's suffering.See Job 21 and 23-24 for example.
The Bible isn't naive about the nature of suffering or the sufferer.
But I don't see what relevance this has other than to say everyone suffers and we sometimes (or often) have a hard time accepting the justice of it, even if we know that it is just.
Most philosophers agree that there is no logical problem of evil. But this doesn't mean that knowing the logical solution to the problem of evil will automatically make any existential problem of evil disappear.
No crime against God can damn the elect, and no virtue can save the non-elect.
I think repenting and trusting in Christ is a virtuous thing to do. And that can save any man.
But then there is in a sense no virtue among the non-elect (that is not itself an act of God's common grace). So it's not very surprising or problematic that an unregenerate person can't merit salvation.
I object to the Christian God's supposed treatment of unbelievers and non-Christian theists.
That's been obvious for a while now. The question is whether you can present any good arguments that others should agree with.
I do not believe that morality is whatever a deity subjectively chooses it to be
I don't see any problems with God's moral commands being grounded in his immutable nature.
You're not giving anything here in terms of an argument, just sharing your beliefs.
It looks like were stuck at "I just don't like God and how he does things."
Ekklesia, by attacking God's omnipotence, you're not helping. Maybe one of the bloggers here can direct you to a post on the ordo salutis.
ReplyDelete"I just don't like God and how he does things."
ReplyDeleteIsn't it interesting that all atheistic arguments boil down to this one simple sentence.
They might as well just say "I'm unregenerate" and leave it at that. Nothing more need be said.
Jonah said "Ekklesia, by attacking God's omnipotence, you're not helping.".
ReplyDeleteJonah, if I am attacking God's omnipotence, I am attacking your understanding of it only.
I happen to believe God IS omnipotent. I try to conform my understand of His omnipotence to the Bible and I try to hold a very high view of omnipotence; as I'm sure you do as well.
Ekklesia, the minute you say God hoped this or hoped that you are indirectly attacking his omnipotence. The implication is that God had plan A for the world (the hope that there would not be a need for a Saviour) but man messed it up so God had to implement plan B (the need for a savior). There has ever only been one will, one plan if you will.
ReplyDeleteWarren Lotter said "Ekklesia, the minute you say God hoped this or hoped that you are indirectly attacking his omnipotence."
ReplyDeleteNot ... if I'm being Biblically correct and consistent (which is obviously subject to debate)
Having a high view of God's omnipotence means that man's choice in no way ever diminishes the outcome of God's plan. Whether Adam sinned or not, God's eternal plan will come to pass. We cannot yet appreciate this fully however, because we are still within His plan and unrighteous.
Having a high view of God's omnipotence means though our freedom is restricted by the initial conditions God originally set out in creating the universe, and further restricted by unrighteousness, our freedom within these bounds does not need to be determined by God.
We cannot say that bestowing free-will on man thwarts God's omnipotence.
The verse [2 Peter 3:9] makes it clear that God does not wish any man to perish. But man will perish, because God's holiness demands it.
Clearly man perishing goes against God's wish because God is omnipotent enough to allow man to be responsible for his own destruction. It won't effect God's plan.
Also, it is absolutely possible for man to choose to do things that God does not delight in [Isaiah 65:12], yet God still permits it because man's choice in no way threatens God's omnipotent plan.
There is no plan a, plan b. God is not that limited. When [Pro 16:9] says that the heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps , it means that God is able to live with the way man chooses. Whether man chooses a path towards or away from Him, God makes both ways clear for us, but we have to eternally live with the consequence of that choice.
In the end, it won't matter since no choice man makes, every choice God allows, still leads to the same destination.
That, my friend, is omnipotence.
"In the end, it won't matter since no choice man makes, every choice God allows, still leads to the same destination."
ReplyDeleteThat is fatalism, actually.
Do you really believe it means that God is able to live with the way man chooses? That's your definition of omnipotence?
ReplyDeleteThe definition of omnipotence I perceive in the Bible, indeed holds the power of God above the whimsical choices of man.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe God is incapable of bestowing free will on man.
Peter Pike said: " ... "
ReplyDeletePeter, I'd like you more if you weren't an Avs fan.
"That fleeting moment is supposedly enough of a crime for me to warrant eternal suffering"
ReplyDeleteI don't know where to start with such an incorrect caricature of the Christian understanding of temptation, sin, salvation and grace.
It is cried out that serious defences and discussion needs to be had. Agreed. First, let us start with an admittance that the above quote fails by a wide margain to understand the issues that are at stake.
Seems to me, Ekklesia, that you view YHWH more as "Supreme Grand Master of Cosmic Chess" than as sovereign Lord.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow: "Theists up, infidel beeyotches down" &c.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote something in response to Walter that surprised me, but maybe I'm just reading too much into it.
Pike>> If I give an invitation for everyone in the world to come to a five star restaurant for a free meal, but then I go out of my way to pick up four people and drive them to the meal, am I somehow barring *YOU*, who I did not pickup, from coming?
Pike>> God didn't give them an evil nature; that is a consequence of sin. And it doesn't alter the fact that if you wanted to, you could ask Christ for forgiveness and He would forgive you, even if you were not one of the Elect to begin with. God saves *all* who come to Him.
What do you mean by "even if you were not one of the Elect to begin with"? Are you saying that the non-elect have some hope of becoming elect? If so, how?
I've always understood the position as holding that the elect are a fixed set of people chosen before time began, and that the non-elect are everyone else. I've also understood that the non-elect have no hope of ever joining the elect. Basically, neither God nor man will ever do anything to change the contents of these two groups. But I'm interpreting your comments to say that the non-elect do have hope, but no guarantee.
Just want to understand your position.
Thank you,
Jim
@GREV
ReplyDeleteIf you wish to copy my comment, and make a post about it on your own blog, I will be happy to continue the discussion with you there.
Let me know.
@Jim Turner
ReplyDeleteI recently had a discussion with a self-proclaimed Calvinist at another site that said something similar. He stated that the non-elect don't receive the irresistible grace that the elect do, but the non-elect could still get saved! That seemed inconsistent with my own understanding of Calvinism.
Aztexan, whatever portrait of God the Bible paints, is the one I try to view.
ReplyDeleteIf by "Supreme Grand Master of Cosmic Chess", you mean one who becomes a chess piece Himself, conforms His play to His own rules of play, and still wins the game (without help from other pieces), than yes, that is how I see him.
Jim Turner said "Are you saying that the non-elect have some hope of becoming elect? If so, how?"
ReplyDeleteJim, in the old covenant, it was possible for non-Israelite to become covenant people through right faith. Look at [Isaiah 56].
There were, however, a few exceptions.
Edomites could only join the congregation of Israel (as full covenant members) after three generations [Deut 23:8]. Ammonites and Moabites were precluded altogether [Deut 23:3] (but they were the only ones to who whom this restriction applied).
If Christ was the fulfillment of the old covenant, where do you believe these rules have been changed between the old covenant and new?
Ekklesia,
ReplyDeleteI do see where you are coming from, but unfortunately you are still arguing that God's omnipotence is centered around Him hedging his bets so that any path man chooses provides a good outcome for God. (As per Peter - fatalism)
2 Peter 3:9 is not an easy verse to understand. Does God wish and hope in the sense that we wish and hope for something? If He does, then is he really omnipotent to bring about the outcome he wills as well as each step resulting in that outcome? Does the rest of Scripture corroborate that. Not really, so we have to interpret this in light of the whole biblical message.
That is in light of the fact that God knows the future and that he has foreordained it. God is sovereign over all things (Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:29; Rom. 11:36; Eph. 1:11, etc.) – even human decisions (Prov. 20:24; 21:1). Although God does not entice men to sin (Jam. 1:13), he is still working everything, from individuals to nations, to the end that He has willed (Isa. 46:10-11). God’s purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24-26). Nor does God discover or learn (1 John 3:20; Job 34:21-22; Psa. 50:11; Prov. 15:3). All things are decreed by God’s infinitely wise counsel (Rom. 11:33-36).
Also as someone else said But I suppose you believe that in spite of God's hardening and prophecy to Moses (Exod 3:19-20), Pharaoh could have freely and sovereignly chosen to obey God and set them all free at any point...messing up the whole Passover/Lord's supper thing? God was just lucky? Was He?
In relation to your comment Though it goes against his hope that man should perish, I'm certain it was also against his hope Christ should have to suffer. this is never even intimated in Scripture, especially with verses like 1 Peter 1:18-20 and Rev 13:8.
Finally Job had this to say.. But he is unchangeable, and who can turn him back? What he desires, that he does. For he will complete what he appoints for me, and many such things are in his mind. Therefore I am terrified at his presence; when I consider, I am in dread of him. God has made my heart faint; the Almighty has terrified me; yet I am not silenced because of the darkness, nor because thick darkness covers my face. ~Job 23:13-17(ESV)
This is really an aside. The Walters and Enchantednaturalits etc. simply wish to be their own little sovereign gods so they fight to deny the God of the Bible on supposed moral grounds. Unfortunately they can never derive the absolute morality they wish everyone to adhere to from their naturalistic worldview. The simply borrow from a theistic worldview. And the point has been made that no one knows who is elect or not. God has offered the gift of salvation to anyone who who confesses their sin and relies totally on the saving and redeeming work of Christ. Unfortunately it looks like that is not something they are willing to do - to be terrified in God's presence. But the offer still stands.
ἐκκλησία said:
ReplyDelete---
Peter, I'd like you more if you weren't an Avs fan.
---
Then I must be content with you liking me less ;-)
Jim said:
---
You wrote something in response to Walter that surprised me, but maybe I'm just reading too much into it.
---
Yes, you are reading too much into it, but it's understandable why you did so. I am simply trying to find the edge of the discussion right now; that is, to frame it.
So you ask:
---
What do you mean by "even if you were not one of the Elect to begin with"? Are you saying that the non-elect have some hope of becoming elect? If so, how?
---
I was dealing with a hypothetical, a logical extreme. Logically, it is a fact that if a non-elect person were to turn to Christ, he would be saved. Practically, this is an impossibility, since no man will ever turn to Christ apart from the Spirit's regeneration. Yet that does not falsify the first portion.
You said:
---
But I'm interpreting your comments to say that the non-elect do have hope, but no guarantee.
---
I wouldn't say they have "hope" but they do have the logical possibility. God does not bar them from turning to Him should they so desire (they just will never so desire). This is, indeed, yet another reason why their rebellion is so wicked, for God does not actively keep anyone from Christ.
When dealing with salvation, one can never forget that it's a universal command to repent. Everyone, everywhere is called to turn to Christ. And the promise is that if any do turn to him, they are saved. This remains true even if God did not elect a single person and no one ever turned to Him.
If you need more clarification there, please let me know :-)
Walter said...
ReplyDelete"All human beings will have at least a fleeting moment of lust when looking at another attractive person."
Grev is right about that being a "caricature of the Christian understanding of temptation, sin, salvation and grace."
One can be tempted without actually commiting sin. For example, Messiah Himself was tempted by the Adversary and yet was without sin. There are natural instincts and desires that are not (of themselves) evil. However, our sinful tendancies (along with possible demonic influence) can twist and magnify them to the point that they do become sin.
Also, there's a difference between a fleeting temptation which you catch/take captive to the obedience of Christ, and one that you allow to linger and bring forth sin by relishing it.
Walter said...
ReplyDelete"All human beings will have at least a fleeting moment of lust when looking at another attractive person."
Grev is right about that being a "caricature of the Christian understanding of temptation, sin, salvation and grace."
Again, this depends on whose Christianity we are discussing. The sect of Christianity that I deconverted from did not believe that human beings automatically deserved hell because of the inherited guilt from Adam's wrongdoing; we believed that a person warranted eternal punishment as a consequence of our own personal sins committed after reaching some ambiguous age of accountability. The slightest burst of anger or lust was sufficient cause to condemn you. Churches with a more "Augustinian" view of human nature will obviously consider my former beliefs to have been heretical and a caricature of what they consider to be "true" doctrine.
I wouldn't say they have "hope" but they do have the logical possibility. God does not bar them from turning to Him should they so desire (they just will never so desire). This is, indeed, yet another reason why their rebellion is so wicked, for God does not actively keep anyone from Christ.
ReplyDeleteOf course he does. He causes every human soul to be born without the desire to want to be with him. He only reverses the desires of those that are pre-chosen for reasons that are never disclosed. How can I go against my god-given reprobate nature without God's assistance? The non-elect are damned for a crime their primordial ancestor committed, and they cannot save themselves without assistance from the creator who withholds that assistance from most humans on the planet. You blame the non-elect for something they don't seem to have the slightest control over.
Again, this depends on whose Christianity we are discussing.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly are you getting at here? On the one hand, you want to do an internal critique of a Christian system but then when someone starts to correct your caricatures you seem to want to dodge the correction by point out that Christians disagree over various things.
But why is the simple fact of disagreement significant? Not all conservatives agree on social policies. So imagine a debate between, for example, Ron Paul and Barack Obama. Ron Paul says something like "we need to get back to a conservative base and cut taxes and stop this interventionist foreign policy." Would Obama score any points (outside of mere rhetorical points) for saying "Ha ha, there are lots of different 'conservatives.' When I was a conservative I believed in interventionist foreign policy!"
Regardless of Barack Obama's anecdote, Ron Paul probably has reasons as to why a non-interventionist foreign policy is the proper stance of a conservative. Maybe Barack Obama does too. All you can do is lay out those justifications and weigh them. We could point out disagreement with any truth claim. Nothing significant follows from this fact.
He causes every human soul to be born without the desire to want to be with him.
You mean our sinful nature is a consequence of the fall. Yes, he created the world in such a way that Adam was the federal head and our guilt and punishment is just through his transgression.
He only reverses the desires of those that are pre-chosen for reasons that are never disclosed.
You mean he graciously saves some of those who hate him and, apart from his common grace, would destroy themselves along with their fellow man in their hatred.
How can I go against my god-given reprobate nature without God's assistance?
You don't know that you are reprobate. But you do know that your responsibility is to repent and believe.
The non-elect are damned for a crime their primordial ancestor committed
And the myriad of crimes they commit.
they cannot save themselves without assistance from the creator who withholds that assistance from most humans on the planet.
You mean the persons who do not want to be saved and who they delight in their sin? You mean those who willingly refuse to repent and believe? Yes, God allows some to stay in this rebellious state and he is under no obligation to mercy them.
You blame the non-elect for something they don't seem to have the slightest control over.
What type of control would that be? Like the non-existent pawn has some claim on whether he be created a pawn or a king?
Walter said:
ReplyDelete---
He causes every human soul to be born without the desire to want to be with him.
---
Yes, you are obviously the theological expert here. Why don't you stop making assertions and start PROVING what you claim?
Oh yeah. Because you can't. Silly me.
Walter claimed:
---
He only reverses the desires of those that are pre-chosen for reasons that are never disclosed.
---
Suppose you're correct. So what? Am I supposed to somehow intuit a morality you're not arguing for and come away with the conclusion that this would somehow be wrong? Just who are you that you get to decide these things, Walter?
Walter said:
---
How can I go against my god-given reprobate nature without God's assistance?
---
Ignoring your tenditious, unargued assumptions: Have you ever considered...I don't know, maybe *ASKING* God for that assistance?
Walter said:
---
The non-elect are damned for a crime their primordial ancestor committed...
---
Again, the "expert" Walter just makes up whatever he feels like about theology, despite having been corrected multiple times. It's wonderful that he's decided to bless us all with his knowledge, lest how would any Christian ever know what Christianity teaches?
Walter said:
---
You blame the non-elect for something they don't seem to have the slightest control over.
---
Except for the fact that this is not why anyone is condemned, your very complaint slits your own throat. Exclude God, and do ANY of us have any control over anything anyway? Did you or I choose to be born? Did we choose our genes? Did we choose our society? Did we choose what everyone else would consider right or wrong? How, exactly, is anyone condemned in your atheistic worldview for anything they have the slightest "control" over?
"You blame the non-elect for something they don't seem to have the slightest control over".
ReplyDeleteWhat type of control would that be? Like the non-existent pawn has some claim on whether he be created a pawn or a king?
Calvinists like to switch from the top-down perspective of God's point of view to the bottom-up perspective of humans when dealing with the issue of responsibility. From my perspective I seem to have libertarian free will, and can "choose" to repent of my sins and accept Jesus.
1)Assuming the Augustinian view, I am born completely dead in my sins. I am utterly incapable of making a move towards God because my spirit is absolutely dead.
2)Only if my spirit is quickened by regeneration will I make a move towards repentance and acceptance of the gospel.
3)Only if I am predestined to election will I receive the quickening of the Holy Spirit. If not pre-selected for salvation, I will retain my dead spirit all my days until death and judgment.
It may seem as if I have a choice from my 'spiritually dead' perspective, but in reality there is no REAL choice. This is why most Christians that I know reject Calvinism. You blame the created for the actions of a the sovereign creator.
How, exactly, is anyone condemned in your atheistic worldview for anything they have the slightest "control" over?
ReplyDeleteHow many times do I have to say that I am not a "convinced" atheist? I have doubts about naturalism, just as I have serious doubts about the Christianity that I was indoctrinated into as a child.
There is some seriously hostile sounding Christians here. No wonder that so many people consider Calvinists to be 'angry.'
Walter said:
ReplyDelete---
No wonder that so many people consider Calvinists to be 'angry.'
---
And your responses make it little wonder that so many people consider atheists to be fools, Walter. If you can't even bother yourself to accurately look at opposing views, if you assert your own contentious concepts even after they've been explicitly refuted multiple times, and when you continue to shirk your own burden of proof while trying to pretend you have some kind of moral high ground, then you have no grounds to complain when others point out your stonewalling to you.
You either can, or you cannot, give a defense for your view. Pretending that your views have not been responded to will not gain you anything. Pretending that you don't have to correct your misrepresentations after they've been highlighted for you will not gain you anything. If you want to actually converse, you will stop being lazy and start doing the heavy lifting for your worldview. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously.
Hostile Peter said...
ReplyDeleteAnd your responses make it little wonder that so many people consider atheists to be fools, Walter.
I don't claim to be an atheist. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
You either can, or you cannot, give a defense for your view.
I am undecided on my worldview, but I lean towards what you might call soft deism. I hold my beliefs tentatively, not dogmatically. My worldview is subject to revision.
Pretending that your views have not been responded to will not gain you anything. Pretending that you don't have to correct your misrepresentations after they've been highlighted for you will not gain you anything. If you want to actually converse, you will stop being lazy and start doing the heavy lifting for your worldview. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously.
One problem is the Christian pile-on that occurs when a fresh opponent shows up here. It can be a little overwhelming getting arguments from nine different directions all at once. I normally post at FRDB, and I see the same thing happen in reverse when the skeptics pile-on to hapless believers who wish to discuss their views.
Calvinists like to switch from the top-down perspective of God's point of view to the bottom-up perspective of humans when dealing with the issue of responsibility.
ReplyDeleteThat's because Calvinists believe that "[God does not govern] in such a manner that it violates the integrity of creaturely moral responsibility and volitional freedom to choose and act according to the moral agent's strongest inclinations…" (Ware, Bruce. God's Greater Glory. 18) to cite one example.
God is not morally blameworthy for human sin. Humans are morally blameworthy for their own sin. Naturally then, Calvinists are going to look at the human agent's responsibility in what you're calling a "bottom-up perspective."
From my perspective I seem to have libertarian free will, and can "choose" to repent of my sins and accept Jesus.
Sure, if you wanted to…
1)Assuming the Augustinian view, I am born completely dead in my sins. I am utterly incapable of making a move towards God because my spirit is absolutely dead.
Which means the natural inclination of your heart is evil and deceitful, that you have a darkened understanding, are a slave to sin, etc.
You are born with a sinful nature and the tree will always bear fruit in accordance with its nature.
2)Only if my spirit is quickened by regeneration will I make a move towards repentance and acceptance of the gospel.
3)Only if I am predestined to election will I receive the quickening of the Holy Spirit. If not pre-selected for salvation, I will retain my dead spirit all my days until death and judgment.
You're stating the obvious. It's also clear that you find this objectionable (I don't)… but like I said yesterday, that's just spinning your tires unless you have something beyond "I don't like it."
It may seem as if I have a choice from my 'spiritually dead' perspective, but in reality there is no REAL choice. This is why most Christians that I know reject Calvinism.
Perhaps there is no choice in the sense that the choice to submit one's self to God is not on the spectrum of desirable things for an unregenerate person to do. But then we don't have lots of real choices in that sense. I don't think I have the real choice to chop off my hand right now for no apparent reason. That doesn't register within my range of desires.
I don't think I'm less free for not having that choice. I also don't think there is any sense in which I could have genuine outrage for not having that choice, unless it already registered somewhere on my range of desires.
So if compatibilism is correct, I don't see that you have a genuine complaint. Either the desire to be reconciled to God is on your range of desires, in which case you can and should act upon that and ask God for help or else you do not have that desire on your spectrum, in which case this spiel of yours amounts to empty grandstanding because I don't see how anyone could reasonably be upset about not choosing something they don't want to choose anyway.
And of course you won't have anything to complain about here if compatibilism is incorrect. So it looks like either way you spin it your objection falls flat.
You blame the created for the actions of a the sovereign creator.
We morally blame the created for their own actions, which they do freely. The creator isn't morally blameworthy and so far you haven't given us any reason to think otherwise. You just make statements assuming they are self-evidently false.
So if compatibilism is correct, I don't see that you have a genuine complaint. Either the desire to be reconciled to God is on your range of desires, in which case you can and should act upon that and ask God for help or else you do not have that desire on your spectrum, in which case this spiel of yours amounts to empty grandstanding because I don't see how anyone could reasonably be upset about not choosing something they don't want to choose anyway.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I am wrong, but the point is that my desires are being influenced by higher powers beyond my control. If I desire to be saved, it is only because a sovereign God instilled that desire in me (regeneration of the elect). If I never desire salvation, it is because a higher power created me with a nature that does not desire God. Either way, it seems that I am just a pawn in a game that is above my pay grade.
Maybe I am just an incomptibilist at heart, but I have a hard time understanding how an individual can be held morally culpable for acting on desires that appear to be caused by divine influences beyond their personal control.
This post by Victor Reppert makes a lot of sense to me:
Making Sense of Reprobation
Calvinists will readily admit that God could save everyone but chooses not to.
Calvinists, so far as I can see, make three moves in defense of reprobation:
1)Hell is what everyone deserves. In fact in federal theology, we can retributively deserve hell because of the actions of Adam. But, setting that aside, we perform sinful actions which fail to give God the glory he merits by being God, and we perform these actions with compatibilist free will. We aren't forced to do them, we want to do them, therefore we do them. OK, we want to do them because God predestined that we should want to do them, but that doesn't matter, we're still guilty and deserving of punishment.
I don't think compatibilist free will is sufficient for retributive punishment, and retributive punishment by the person whose actions guaranteed that the action being punished was performed in the first place strikes me as morally perverse in the extreme. So this response doesn't make hell at all understandable to me, and I don't think my intuitions are idiosyncratic here. So, even if true, this defense doesn't provide any comprehensibility to divine reprobation. {snip}
Peter says:
ReplyDeleteIf you want to be taken seriously, try to understand the opposing view for once in your life.
Wow--what hubris. If everyone just tried to understand Calvinism they'd realize it were true? What a presumptuous comment to make in connection with any view, let alone with respect to a theology that is vehemently rejected by throngs of Christians who follow the same holy book and worship the same God described therein. They're all just wrong because they haven't tried hard enough to "get" Calvinism? Not to mention you know nothing about me or my background. I was a devoted Christian from childhood for nearly 20 years before altering my worldview so it's fair to say I understand the "opposing view," having held it for the majority of my lifetime.
Your dinner analogy is conveniently lacking. Who created the appetites of the diners? Who created their wills knowing full well ahead of time whether they'd accept the invitation to dine, and knowing that the result of them not accepting was an eternity of Beefaroni? Let me guess--we're supposed to believe that an eternity of Beefaroni for the dinner decliners somehow brings glory to God. It just does.
You believe that God can do or command anything, no matter how repugnant it may be to us, and it's still good because goodness is defined solely by His actions and commands, so why even try to defend or explain His ways in terms of human justice? Why the fluff? Shouldn't such an exercise be reserved for those of us with imaginary, man-made morals?
Exclude God, and do ANY of us have any control over anything anyway?
How does positing a deity, particularly the Calvinist deity, add freedom to the existence equation relative to a naturalistic worldview?
Enchanted said:
ReplyDelete---
Wow--what hubris. If everyone just tried to understand Calvinism they'd realize it were true?
---
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
You said:
---
I was a devoted Christian from childhood for nearly 20 years before altering my worldview so it's fair to say I understand the "opposing view," having held it for the majority of my lifetime.
---
In as much as you can't articulate it to save your life, you belie your own claims. Look at it this way: if I said "For 20 years, I was an expert in nuclear physics, and I can tell you for a fact that an electron is positively charged!" that statement would be proof positive that whatever else I was, I wasn't an expert in nuclear physics for 20 years.
You said:
---
Your dinner analogy is conveniently lacking.
---
Great argument.
You said:
---
Who created the appetites of the diners?
---
Demonstrate how that's relevant.
You said:
---
Who created their wills knowing full well ahead of time whether they'd accept the invitation to dine, and knowing that the result of them not accepting was an eternity of Beefaroni? Let me guess--we're supposed to believe that an eternity of Beefaroni for the dinner decliners somehow brings glory to God. It just does.
---
And we're supposed to believe this is an actual response. It just is.
You said:
---
You believe that God can do or command anything, no matter how repugnant it may be to us, and it's still good because goodness is defined solely by His actions and commands, so why even try to defend or explain His ways in terms of human justice?
---
You believe you can just assert a morality without backing it up. You get all huffy and puffy over mere chemical reactions. There is no meaning, yet you whine on and on because your precious wittle sesubiwities got snubbed.
Someone who lacks shame cannot shame me, enchanted. Emote all you want; it ain't proof of your view.
You said:
---
How does positing a deity, particularly the Calvinist deity, add freedom to the existence equation relative to a naturalistic worldview?
---
Way to completely miss the point! Now that you've batted .000 all game long, you can go back to the minors where you belong.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteInstead of reverting to inane mockery, is it too much to ask you to demonstrate how I have so sorely misrepresented your positions? If you have no intention of having some semblance of a reasonable dialogue at least admit as much. I don't mind a little vitriol, but at least sprinkle in an iota of actual argumentation.
What precisely did you mean when you stated:
If you want to be taken seriously, try to understand the opposing view for once in your life.
I don't understand the nuclear physicist analogy. I didn't claim I was a world-class theologian for 20 years; I simply said I was a Christian. What have I stated that so obviously negates my claim to have previously been a Christian?
If I give an invitation for everyone in the world to come to a five star restaurant for a free meal, but then I go out of my way to pick up four people and drive them to the meal, am I somehow barring *YOU*, who I did not pickup, from coming?
Does the person who does not get a lift to dinner have any other means of getting there? If not, and the host knows this beforehand and has the capacity to give rides to everyone in the world, how is this fundamentally different from barring entry?
You believe you can just assert a morality without backing it up. You get all huffy and puffy over mere chemical reactions.
You believe you can just assert a morality that is somehow backed by a compilation of hand-picked Iron Age and Ancient Near East writings. You get all huffy and puffy over mere musings of ancient goat-herds.
Enchanted said:
ReplyDelete---
What precisely did you mean when you stated:
If you want to be taken seriously, try to understand the opposing view for once in your life.
---
I said that comment in response to your horrible misrepresentation of Calvinism, which you've done in multiple comments here. You've been corrected multiple times by various people, yet you still persist in your error. Since you're not interested in discussing Calvinism as it actually is, why should I be interested in explaining anything to you?
You said:
---
I don't understand the nuclear physicist analogy. I didn't claim I was a world-class theologian for 20 years; I simply said I was a Christian.
---
Easy enough to prove whether you were competant. If I had five minutes left to live, what would you say to me--as if you were a Christian--about how I could get to heaven?
If you were really a Christian for 20 years, you ought to be able to give a Christian answer to that question.
You said:
---
Does the person who does not get a lift to dinner have any other means of getting there? If not, and the host knows this beforehand and has the capacity to give rides to everyone in the world, how is this fundamentally different from barring entry?
---
First, it doesn't matter whether the host has the capacity to give rides and does not do so. That is completely irrelevant. The host is not required to give rides to anyone.
Secondly, everyone has the means to get there. The dinner is not held in some secret location on top of an impossible-to-climb mountain or anything. Everyone has the capability. The only thing hindering anyone from coming is their desire to stay away.
This is something you would already know if you understood Calvinism, mind you. To use the language of Edwards, everyone has the natural ability to believe in Christ, even if some have the moral inability to do so. This isn't like asking someone to flap their arms and fly. It's asking them to walk down the street when they have the normal ability to walk anywhere they so desire. It is only their moral inability--their desire not to do that which they ought to do--that keeps them from using their natural ability, which they *HAVE*, to act.
Now are you going to keep quibbling with the analogy, or are you going to start dealing with it?
You said:
---
You believe you can just assert a morality that is somehow backed by a compilation of hand-picked Iron Age and Ancient Near East writings. You get all huffy and puffy over mere musings of ancient goat-herds.
---
If I'm wrong and you're right, then I'm simply in the same boat as you: a person with a manufactured morality. But if I'm right, then listening to you is the worst thing to do. That means I have a compelling and logical reason to oppose you. Your best case scenario is my worst.