Either /Or?
I have stated that the Triune God of Scripture is the only foundation for "laws".
To argue against this statement some have pointed to history to show that "unbelievers" have made laws and yet did not believe in the Triune God of Scripture.
But the Christian faith has an answer for this!
These ungodly nations or cultures did know the God who made them [Roman 1] and they, like unbelievers today, suppress this truth in the unrighteousness of their rebellious hearts.
The only reason why they can have "laws" of any kind is because they don't live their lives according to their "professed" beliefs...instead they live their lives according to their "suppressed" beliefs.
For the unbeliever to then try to argue against this claim by pointing to some Christians hypocrisy isn't an argument at all.
Hypocrisy assumes that there is a "law" or "universal standard" that a person is not living up to, even though they say they are.
If there isn't such a law or standard then why do unbelievers continually point to Christians hypocrisy? Without an absolute, universal standard... hypocrisy becomes non-existent.
The Bible teaches that there are covenant keepers...and it also teaches that there are covenant breakers [hypocrites included].
The Triune God, who is the foundation for "laws" to exist, has also shown us that many of His creatures rebel against His law. He also has shown that some of His followers even rebel against His law.
The unbeliever needs to go beyond showing that unbelievers make laws, they need to show how they can make sense of a law.
The unbeliever needs to go beyond merely showing that some Christians do not live up to an absolute, universal standard of morality...they need to show, according to their unbelief, how there could be such standard.
The unbeliever wants us [Christians] to give him this first footing...so he can then start tearing down our faith.
But we won't give him this starting point. Show us according to your unbelieving view of reality how their can be a absolute, universal standard or law.
I will ask it again...even though I know we won't get an answer...
According to the unbelieving view of reality...explain how their can be a universal or absolute of any kind.
And if you can't...then what is a law, and who is it binding upon?
posted by Dale Callahan at 8:56 AM
10 Comments:
So, let's leave aside the fact that there is no such thing as a "Triune God of Scripture" for the moment and discuss the central thesis of your post.
The Greeks whose thought underlies Western law, knew several Gods and understood them to be in a separate realm from the reality of knowledge and law. They were not suppressing anything. In fact, there's no evidence they had any particular knowledge of the Jewish God (the Christian concept of God not having been invented yet).
One doesn't have to point to hypocrisy to find the multitude of egregious crimes committed in the name of Christianity - one only has to read history. These crimes were not the work of hypocrites and backsliders, they were supported by all the leaders of the church - torture was orthodox; genocide was orthodox; persecution of unbelievers was orthodox. Any attempt to claim otherwise is simply hypocritical.
You insist that there must be an absolute, universal standard of morality before there can be any coherent framework for law or moral behaviour. The fact that over the centuries millions of human beings have lived eminently moral lives in spite of lacking such a framework is somehow irrelevant to you since it conflicts with your preconceived views.
Laws and governments exist because humans recognize their need for order and their need to band together to achieve goals they cannot achieve individually. They either agree to be bound by those laws in a democratic society, or are compelled to obey in autocratic or theocratic societies - either way, they are bound by the law. That's so simple you overlooked it.
Ultimately you make the same specious argument over and over in spite of the fact that there is no rational basis for it. You throw around ridiculous unhistorical terms like "the Triune God of Scripture" as your ultimate authority, but fail to realize that the authority is only in your head. You choose to believe in an absolutist moral code that you and others have devised and then used twisted phrases from the bible to present your ideas as though they were from God.
You want an example of a government, society, nation, culture that lives by religious law given from God? Try Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella, the 17th century Puritan community in Salem, Massachusetts -- that's what you are really advocating.
In other words...Dale I can't answer that tough question...so lets just assume my naturalism.
Dale, lets just put the transcendental argument aside, and not presuppose the Triune God as the precondition for all things.
You see, Dale, this way I can still argue and not show my rebellion.
You're so good at projection, Dale. You raise unsupportable assumptions and preconditions then accuse me of it. It just doesn't wash as an argument.
You are also unwilling to argue without preconditions - I suppose because you consider that logic and reason are preconditions and that we should substitute fantasy and irrationality instead. Rebellion is in the eye of the beholder. If the authority is the accumulated scientific knowledge of the human race, then you are rebelling. If the authority is your particular brand of religion, then I suppose I am rebelling.
You assume a pre-existent Triune God. Well that's a Christian doctrine that only became fully developed around the 4th century AD as a way to establish an orthodox belief that justified hierarchical control of the church and its subservience to the Roman state. Unless one reads the Bible presupposing the doctrine, one cannot even begin to imply that the writers of the New Testament believed such a doctrine. And that's the precondition you choose for everything? On what possible basis?
Why is it that you are so unable to examine your belief system? Why can you not use the mind God gave you to examine the history of your dogma and make an informed decision whether to believe them? Are you so frightened of the hell and retribution of the vindictive God of the O.T. that you are unwilling to trust the loving Father of the N.T.? Are you so scared of your imagined Satan that you cannot use the intellect that is your birthright to analyze the foundations of your beliefs?
Are these tough questions you cannot answer, Dale?
With all of your arguing you are presupposing ultimate standards...and yet you can not give any justification for ulitmate standards...this is what I continue to say.
It is impossible to argue without preconditions or presuppositions.
This is why "Evidential apologetics" is so impotent...it assumes there is something called "neutrality" or no mans land.
If you are neutral...have no presuppositions then what are you trying to bring me from and bring me to.
Your right I am not going to let you get away with arguing without giving justification of why you use the world.
I am saying that the world runs because of the Triune God...you say not.
Yet we both use reason, have moral standards, etc. Yet you use these because they work or they just are.
I can justify my use of these things you can't, and I really believe that you can't...but I would like to see you try.
I use the world because it exists. How it came to be is irrelevant - I and every human would "use the world" because we have no choice in the matter. You presuppose that the world is the property of something you call the "Triune God" - but that's a presupposition, not a fact.
It is absolutely possible to argue without presuppositions or preconditions, but you cannot do that because it requires you to put aside your religious ideas which you are afraid to do. You can only make assertions - unfounded, unproveable, illogical assertions.
You do not use reason - the example of the assertion that the world "...runs because of the Triune God..." is a classic example. There is no way to prove that there is such a thing as the "Triune God", or that a God created the world, or that the Triune God you worship is that God, or that the world's continued existence depends on that God, etc., etc. All you can do is assert that your position is correct, or find some handy Bible verses to "support" your position.
The first thing you would need to do is examine that assertion. The world existed long before any human developed a concept of a God. There are proven scientific laws that explain its continuing existence and the phenomena that we experience in the world. Humans in many parts of the world have developed their own concepts of God(s) and yours is only one of many. There is little reason to favor your "Triune God" idea over and above any of the other ideas that humans have believed and continue to believe.
You are believing an unexamined faith. If it is worth believing, it can withstand examination. If you have to protect it from reason and logic, then you are exposing its inherent weakness.
DL, There IS a way to prove if the Triune God of Scripture is the precondition for all inteligibility. Its an indirect argument but its one that shows that the "fool" is truly a fool.
You, being a man who prides himself on reason, cannot even justify, according to your own naturalism.
So is there a reason you didn't share the "way to prove if the Triune God of Scripture is the precondition for all inteligibility[sic]"? So far, I've never seen such a proof in any of your comments. Also how would you know that you had proved this assertion? What would be the basis on which one could assess the veracity of your proof?
Now your challenge is to prove this assertion without re-asserting the same point in a different way. That is, you can't prove that the "Triune God is a precondition" by using the Triune God as a precondition. I'm waiting......
You are sleeping DL, I have already shown to you how the Triune God is the precondition for morality...but you must have wanted to look past this...or it just wasn't what you wanted.
When you go through our comments I have, in a very simple way [which is much more complex then your "it works" argument for naturalism] talked about how the Triune God "justifies" the use of logic [immaterial, concepts, univerals...in a material,particular world] and morality [God is Creator/king, Lawgiver, and Judge].
Please notice this everyone!
How DL hasn't even begun to try to explain how his worldview can "justify" his using reason, uniformity of nature, and morality.
And then he has the nerve to say that I haven't.
Well I have...he just doesn't like the Christians answer...even though he can't disprove it.
Dale,
Do you ever read anything other than the Bible and "devotional literature"? Your response is silly. The "Triune God" justifies the use of logic and morality? Logic and morality existed long before the church fathers came up with the concept of the Triune God. Logic and morality have existed for eons in cultures that know absolutely nothing about your triune god. You have no rational proof of what you claim other than that the triune god must have said that he did it - in other words, no proof at all.
I don't have to "justify" my use of reason - all human beings use reason to a greater or lesser degree. You have to justify your desire to throw reason away. You want to live in an irrational, illogical, black-and-white world where no proof of anything can exist apart from your rather primitive concept of God.
If your religious world-view had some positive aspects, then it might be worthwhile, but so far it only leads you to think in circles, put down those who disagree (i.e., think logically), and come to erroneous conclusions about life and the world. In fact, you don't even make a rational effort to understand the one book you base your entire castle in the sky upon. I can't say I find such a world view attractive - more like pitiful.
Logic and morality exists in God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And the Trinity was believed long before the church councils affirmed this belief.
Logic and morality did not exist before God though.
I will take your response to mean that you do not have an answer how you can "justify" your use of reason. The one thing I have learned about you is if you did have an answer you would have been very quick to give it.
You can see that I think in circles...I admit I do. But you cannot see that you do the same...blindness.
Your circle cannot give answers.
Post a Comment
<< Home