This Blog Has Moved!

This Blog Has Moved!
This Blog Has Moved to a more stable environment. Click the graphic above.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Corky's Response

I noticed Corky's response in the article "The God Factory" and i will challenge him on his conclusions.

Corky states "What Paul was teaching was the renewing of the mind, the "born again" thing.

The assumption Corky makes, which Paul does not, is that we can, by some process of our own choosing, be "born again". A flawed assumption at the best. Corky does what most people do when attempting to respond "about" something. If I can lead people to conclude that a specific point is made without actually pointing directly to the statement or its philosophical premises, then I can convince people that I have come to the proper conclusion.

First off, let me agree with Corky that there ,most likely was no Adam and Eve, and no "fall" in a magical Garden of Eden. However, dopes that make the philosophical conclusions Paul draws false? Not at all. There are many examples of Narcissism in which psychologists draw perfectly legitimate conclusions regarding the concept of Narcissism, yet we know there most likely never was a Narcissus who fell in love with his own reflection.

Corky would be correct IF Paul had stated that being "born again" actually did lie within the power of our human choice, simply because, as i pointed out in the article regarding Turing, Godel, and Church, any attempt by any human mind to define truth will lead to an infinity if undecidable propositions, which means that any attempt to "decide" which is the true religion will result in thousands of undecidable ideas about Christianity, as we see today.

Therefore, Corky's conclusions "about" Paul's teachings is flawed because he ignores the central statement which Paul makes: the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God, which, in itself, points to the obvious conclusion that all human attempts to represent God will result in exactly what we see today, over 38,000 versions of Christianity.

Corky has a bad habit of throwing in general ideas. "The idea is". Whose idea? he doesn't say. That's like the expression 'they say'. Who is "they"?

There is no "they", and there is no human "idea" that can act as authority, for the very simple reason that the natural mind is enmity against God. Does that mean Paul's premise is flawed? Not at all. Does it mean that Christianity is flawed? Obviously, since Christianity assumes that we CAN make "freewill" choices as to what is "God's truth".

As Corky writes: "The natural mind was not subject to the law of God, but the born from above mind was".

The question that immediately presents itself is: what is a "born from above" mind? Who knows? I can't define it, and neither can any other human to the satisfaction of giving a worthwhile answer. The term, therefore, is meaningless from any human definition, and any attempt to define it will produce the "confusion of Christianity" as Corky says.

Corky writes, "Therefore, you have to die and be 'born again'. To be 'in Christ' instead of 'in Adam'.

Is there a flawed conclusion in this? Not at all, since from a purely legal perspective, you would be free from law, which means you are free from the power of human laws that would attempt to punish you of its own power. There are no laws against a dead man. Does this mean you suddenly have the power to know truth? Of course not, nor does Paul say it does. he merely says there is no condemnation to those who follow Christ. Not only a sound but of reasoning, but quite useful in terms of the application of human law.

Corky quotes from the bible: "In Adam, all die, In Christ shall all be made alive".

Again, let's examine this purely from the standpoint of law. The penalty of sin(lawbreaking) is death. Therefore, by the act of one innocent man who was killed and declared it the right of all men to be presumed Innocent, then within that concept, all men will be made alive. Dead to the law, since law cannot punish a dead man. Alive by the recognition that we can not be held responsible simply by the power of law.

Corky further writes: "It all depends on if you are 'in Adam' as 'the natural man' or 'in Christ' as the 'spiritual man'."

Depends on whose conclusions?" By what human standards? By what authority? Name such an authority. You can't. None exists. Therefore, I am "free in Christ" because I say I'm free in Christ. Now suppose I say I'm free with no need of Christ or any religion. That would be equally valid, since Jesus himself told us in Matthew 24;23 not to follow any person who said "here is Christ". That is, we are free from the penalty of law, period, without a proper accuser.

"Just a bunch of hocus pocus since there never was an Adam and Eve in the magical 'fall'...etc".

I'm fine with that, since I believe it's purely a myth invented by Persian influences.

Corky writes: All this talking around it with quotes from Jesus and Paul is just adding to the confusion that Christianity already is".

I'm not "talking around" it, Corky. You are. I've directly shown that statements made by Paul and Jesus are fully consistent with logic. You have rather sloppily presented arguments "around" ideas taught by people who claim to represent Christ, when there is no possible evidence of such representation.

IF the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God, what is the result? Exactly what we see today, showing that Paul's statement is consistent with reality.

And if the natural mind cannot be subject to God, then there is logically no reason to follow any person who claims to represent Christ, which is what Jesus said in Matthew 24:23. Simple, direct logic, Corky, and you insist in "talking around it", not me.

Logically, since there exists no authority to represent God, as we see plainly and logically from statements made by Paul, then there needs to be no "confusing Christianity" since there's no need to follow any religion.

prove me wrong, Corky. And do it by actual logic, not simply implications and insinuations.


Corky said...

Of course Jesus warned of false prophets and false Christs and instructed the apostles to not follow them. Why wouldn't he? After all, he had already told them to follow him. "Follow me", he says, "I am the way".

Then Paul, later on, instructs people to be followers of him (Paul) as he was a follower of Jesus.

As far as "free-will" goes, there is no such thing, it's an illusion.

People can make free choices but they first must have a choice in order to choose.

Back in 30 AD, for example, no one in China or in America could possibly choose to follow Jesus. That choice had not been offered and by their free-will knew absolutely nothing of a Christ.

So, why didn't they use their free-will and follow Jesus? Because there is no free-will, only free choice and they didn't know that they had that choice.

As Jesus said to his soon to be apostles, "you have not chosen me, I have chosen you".

So, as you have said Ralph, we can't just choose God, it is God who chooses.

If there is a God and he has a will and his will be done, that necessarily means that we do not have free-will and are predestined to whatever God's will is.

I agree with you on that Ralph but then you have Rom 10:14 - "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (see context).

Then there is John 3:18 and context.

Sounds like the hearer has a choice, doesn't it?

Oh, the confusion that Christianity is. On the one hand we are predestined but on the other hand we are condemned if we do not choose it ourselves.

I reckon it all as double talk. If a person chooses to be a Christian then he is considered "called". But, is he really called? Who knows? God knows? What God? And, even if there was a God, how would we know who he has called?

No wonder there are over 38,000 sects and denominations of Christendom. It's because nobody knows anything about a God but everybody imagines that they do.

Odd that in science, where truth is usually paramount, facts are almost always questioned. But in faith, where belief is paramount, faith is seldom questioned.

When faith is questioned, it's lost. If religious beliefs had real evidence, it wouldn't be faith - it would be science.

Ralph said...

Yes, Corky. That is true, wehich is why Paul focused on the aspect of freedom ftrom LAW, not the free will to choose Christ. Free will is an illusion, at least in the sense that we assume we can choose Christ or that the decision os necessary for something caled "salvation". But even HWA had that one figured out, as did Paul, in Romans 11:7 and 11:32.

The fact that those in Chin had no "Jesus" to choose was irrelevant, and still is. Assuming you "follw Christ" or 'follow Paul" as he "followed Christ", then you can only make one correect choice: to follow no man at all, since there is no proof whatever that there was ever a Christ or a Paul to follow, again leading to the conclusion made by Paul, there exists no decision procedure to get from "here" to "God".

So, truthfully, there is only one correct choice to make: follow no man, which is what jesus said in Matthew 24;23.

Assuming now, that if i choose to follow "THE Christ", which one, exactly, and by what standards, would i choose? I can't define any, can you?

Therefore, I can choose as i wish, and choose not to believe at all, which is exactly what I'm told regarding the religions of men.

So we are left with the fact, as you point out, that if God is omniscient, then we don't make free will choices. We do as God already knows in advance.
Any choice of "God" we make, therefore, will be basically irrelevant. But even HWA had that part figured out. His major problem(in deceiving us) was that, once we chose him, he said we'd go to hell if we left. Yeah, right.