@WAR_ON_ERROR - [You don't understand how anyone can understand you and not also agree with your point of view. That's the problem.]

I have no problem with people knowing what I believe and yet reject it. it is what you want to do. The problem is I don't think you are really addressing the issue. You do agree with me that all of 1-4 is not what your worldview holds to. And not coming from your worldview at all. I don't see why you are making it up as you go along. You may have used Bible verses for your conversation but are refuted to be false abuse of the fact of the word "kill" for example.

I wrote: "You are talking about your own made up god and made up Hell, and not that of Christianity. That seams to be a fact to me. Do you think I am mistaken in saying so?"

[Yes, I believe that you are mistaken as the argument map already demonstrates.  All the verses I am basing my position off of on the argument map come right from your Bible.  If the Christian worldview also owns the ontological copy rights to coherent thought, then certainly all of that I've demonstrated is completely consistent with your worldview as well.  ;) ]

Again, premises that are your own construction, and not the Christian view, and not even what you hold to. You did not answer my charge of straw-man--above. Your comment is not connected.

[I don't even understand what you are saying to know how to respond.]

read it again:

"IF I were to say something about Darwinism believes all living animal and humans came from only one cell that happen to developed and reproduce itself in different ways to form all kind of animal and human life that there is on the earth now, then I say how that is false and therefore I have disproved Darwinism; I think any real Darwinist would be able to point out that I have made a straw man of Darwinism and have attacked my own false conjecture of it. Would you agree that to be a foolish way of arguing?"

You are mistaken. The chart is your own personal construct as you said. and is not the debate, nor interaction.

@WAR_ON_ERROR - 

[My argument is not a straw man argument as I've clearly shown.  If it was, I would agree.]

Please show where you have "shown".

[...clearly God condones righteous lying as I
pointed out with the Rahab verses for instance, and context may be our
only judge.  You can't claim to know any better.]

Even if I grant you that God condoned the lying done by some people, that does not show that God lied. You are off the subject. How ever I do reject your claim that what was condoned was the lying, when the text says that what they were rewarded for was for the act of protecting the spies, and for NOT killing the Jewish babies. Either way, that does not go back to your claim of God being a liar.

[You can't point to one verse in Christian
thinking to refute another verse.  That's inconsistent Christian
thinking.  One part of the Bible says God doesn't lie.  Another part
clearly portrays him misleading someone.]

If you claim that the author is implying this, and yet another place in the document clearly rejects your assumption to be false, then it is clear that the problem is your false assumptions and not the text itself. That is how any book to be read let alone the Bible.

[....can you accept that my argument map is fair?]

Maybe the best person to answer this is your self: "Are you serious?  This argument map is a specific argument of mine and hence the 5 premises that go into that directly reflect the 5 premises of MY argument."

{emphasis yours}

It is YOUR argument chart, made up by you, organized by you, and made according to what you think the argument is and how YOU want it to go (my inputs where rejected). IF you want to call "fair" to mean fair to yourself and how you want it, then fair enough to you. It is not the conversation and how/what has taken place in the conversation. It is your own thing, and I wrote back admitting my misunderstanding of what I did thought was to be a fair (ordinary use of the word) chart where we are to interact over but according to you, I was mistaken. It is entirely your own opinion and how you view the conversation and want it to go. I have no issue with that, nor do I care to make up my own chart.

Change it however you would like, I just want my name, and points out of it, and understand that was not how the conversation really was. If anyone wants to read the conversation, they really need to go through the text instead of a chart made up by the one side. But anyone reasonable would know that much, those who are not willing not care for anything I have to say anyways.

@pychen - Even if I grant you that God condoned the lying done by some people, that does not show that God lied. If you claim that the author is implying
this, and yet another place in the document clearly rejects your
assumption to be false, then it is clear that the problem is your false
assumptions and not the text itself. That is how any book to be read
let alone the Bible.

We know that God is righteous, so in his judgment of someone, if he choose to deceive/lie to them by sending them a lying spirit, isn't that a righteous act of lying? When the bible says God cannot lie, when interpreting that in light of these verses, do you think it's referring to God not lying in an evil, unrighteous way, and that God can have righteous deception or lying  just as he can have righteous anger and jealousy?

@pychen -  I don't think there is anywhere in the Bible to say that God lie.

If God made the decision to deceive someone by sending them a lying spirit, then God is responsible for it happening. I don't see any way around that. The lying spirit didn't make the decision to deceive the person, God did. It was God's will to deceive them. Do you think there's a difference between God deceiving and lying? If you deceive someone, aren't you lying to them?

The Bible is against that conclusion.

Not necessarily as I explained in my previous comment post. It's your opinion that the bible is against that. I agree that God cannot unrighteously lie, just as he can't have unrighteous anger or jealousy, but can have righteous anger and jealousy. Or just as he can righteously send evil upon people in judgment.

You said that God gives Israel lying spirits/lying prophets to judge his own people, but the ones who lied is not God.

He is responsible for them being lied to. It was his will for them to be lied to. So for me, it's hard to separate the two. It would be like if I wanted to tell you a lie but I made someone else tell it to you for me. I'm still just as guilty of lying.

@pychen - [Bud, where does the Bible say that there is such a thing as a "righteous lie"?]

Where does the bible say that the trinity exists or that abortion is wrong? It doesn't but we know it's implied just as I've shown with lying.

[God does make the decision that people would be deceived, but where in the Bible says that God lied to them?]

If God is completely the one making the decision that they will be lied to, then he is responsible for it. They wouldn't be lied to unless it was his will. The lying spirits had no choice in the matter. They had to do what God told them to do. It was God who deceived them by sending the spirits. If I put a gun in your hand and had the power to force you to kill someone, would I be guilty of murder even though you killed the person? Of course I would. Peter, I understand from your way of viewing scripture, this is practically impossible to comprehend, but it's really not much different than the problem of evil. Why would a righteous God foreknowing that Adam would sin and bring evil into the world, choose to create Adam? That seems like an unrighteous act but we know it's not because God is righteous in all his doings. He is also righteous in deceiving people. Also in II Thess. 2:11, it says that God shall send them strong delusion , that they should believe a lie. It doesn't say it's a lying spirit there, just that God himself will send them strong delusion.

@pychen - Hey Peter,

I think this is all a big misunderstanding.  I hope you can bear with me as I attempt to show that.  I'd like to be able to continue talking with you, and wouldn't want this disagreement about the argument map to hinder that.

Ben:  [My argument is not a straw man argument as I've clearly shown.  If it was, I would agree.]

Peter:  Please show where you have "shown".

I showed it to you (link) in the section directly above that.  Don't know how you missed it.  I said, "Yeah, well it is connected.  My argument isn't a straw man argument because I appeal to more evidence than you do to prove my point.  You can't point to one verse in Christian thinking to refute another verse.  That's inconsistent Christian thinking.  One part of the Bible says God doesn't lie.  Another part clearly portrays him misleading someone.  The most logical resolution of those two pieces of evidence is that the original verse that says God doesn't lie only referred to unjustified deception.  This is already represented on the argument map." [new emphasis mine] 

Peter:  Even if I grant you that God condoned the lying done by some people, that does not show that God lied. You are off the subject.

How can a righteous God condone sin?  That's not off subject at all. If righteous lying is not a sin, then there's no reason why God cannot righteously lie.  

Peter:  How ever I do reject your claim that what was condoned was the lying, when the text says that what they were rewarded for was for the act of protecting the spies, and for NOT killing the Jewish babies.

The act of protecting the spies required righteous lying.  (Joshua 2:5)  Do you think, given what you've said to Larry above (link) that God will punish Rahab for the lying even though he condoned the act of hiding the spies?

Peter:  If you claim that the author is implying this, and yet another place in the document clearly rejects your assumption to be false, then it is clear that the problem is your false assumptions and not the text itself. That is how any book to be read let alone the Bible.

You do realize the Bible is made up of more than one document, right?  I'm going to assume you were being somewhat careless with your rhetoric and let that go. 

Perhaps you want me to add a note off of every single blue box of mine: "see Rebuttal 1 (pychen)"?  Or perhaps you'd like Rebuttal one to be a conclusion and the rest of the argument map to be completely nullified as though there are no issues to work out?  How can the Bible "clearly reject" my "assumption" as false if CLEARLY the rest of the verses I've shown from the Bible documents in fact demonstrate the opposite?  So with intellectual integrity I can assert the exact opposite of what you say is "clear" from your perspective.  Hence, there is at the very least a debate worth having to see who might be mistaken with their initial reactions. 

_______________________

Peter, the section between the two lines is all about different interpretations of a quote of mine.  I just don't want you to get confused and think I'm talking about the argument map.

Ben:  [....can you accept that my argument map is fair?]

Peter:  Maybe the best person to answer this is your self: "Are you serious?  This argument map is a specific argument of mine and hence the 5 premises that go into that directly reflect the 5 premises of MY argument."  {emphasis yours}

Peter, you seem to be blowing off my side of the story in context and I don't think this contributes to our mutual understanding of each others' positions.  There are two different ways of understanding the quote of mine above currently in the mix. 

The first way:  Your hypothesis is that the above quote of mine means I'm going to be unreasonable and not take any of your suggestions seriously.  I think LSP1, musterion99, and oeshpdog2 would disagree.  I've tried really hard not to be unfair to anyone.  The evidence you use to support your interpretation is that I didn't include your extra premises at the beginning of the map.  You think this is unfair and you use the quote of mine to justify the idea that I don't care.  That's just not the case.  Remember I said (link):  "As for your extra premises, I think some of them are *redundant* and others are *unnecessary.*  If God can lie for good ends, then Jesus can do so as well and still be considered sinless, so there's no need to clutter things up. And we're not talking about Satan and evil lying, so that's unnecessary." [new emphasis mine]

In other words, I think I'm being fair and not unnecessarily hindering the representation of your arguments on the map.  You don't seem to acknowledge that.  I could clutter things up, but I wouldn't even need to respond because it doesn't change anything.  Notice, I freely added the part of your contribution that made perfect sense as an addition to the map.  I said in that same comment, "I added *your 9A* and a 10A.  Version 15 is up."  [new emphasis mine]   Additionally, I acknowledged in the comments above that you were correct about there being more than one word for "kill" (link) and directed you to my rebuttal on the argument map.  

The second way:  My hypothesis is that I was responding to this quote of yours in context (link): Peter:  "Any honest person looking at this should be able to pick up the fact that your # 5 is not speaking from the Christian. That is your belief. Not Biblical and not Christian. Yet you stack them together with the Christian views. Why?"  I was answering the "why" question at the end, and it appears you think I was directly responding to the first half of your comment instead.  I can somewhat see why you might get that impression, but that's just a misunderstanding and we could leave it at that.  The reason I was telling you that the argument was mine is because it was my argument.  You are reading way too far into that and not seeing things from my perspective.  Obviously there wouldn't even be something to argue about if I were not making some new challenging argument.  I would agree that the entire argument map is undermined if I'm leaving out some critical part of Christian theology just because.  If that were the case, I'd want my arguments pulled off the map, too! 

I happen to be under the conviction that my hypothesis of what my quote meant is a better explanation of the facts from our comments.  Mainly because I knew what I was thinking when I wrote it.  :D  If you want to continue with your misguided interpretation of what I said, then that will greatly hinder our ability to communicate with one another.  I would greatly appreciate if you would take the time to reconsider, since I have a lot to do, and none of this is contributing to progress.

________________________

Peter:  "Change it however you would like, I just want my name, and points out of it, and understand that was not how the conversation really was."

I've thought of what I think might be a reasonable compromise.  You noted a lot of supporting verses (link) and I could easily add them to your Rebuttal 1 if you like.  Then there would be representation and things wouldn't be cluttered needlessly.  Would that seem fair to you? 

Ben

@WAR_ON_ERROR - Ben,

If this was to be a chart where we are able to interact over then it should be talked about how to make changes rather than you telling me what I can and can not say about it. It should rather be worked out. But again, that is how I thought it was, though you said otherwise. The problem still remains that you premisses are your own premisses, and not that of the people who are part of the discussion, as I have said you don't even hold to anyone of the 5. When you are willing to represent the subject as it really is, instead of premisses that you do not hold to, and stop the distortion, then wee can continue.

If you want to get back to making changes to the chart, that is fine with me.

You wrote: [My argument isn't a straw man argument because I appeal to more evidence than you do to prove my point.  You can't point to one verse in Christian thinking to refute another verse.  That's inconsistent Christian thinking.  One part of the Bible says God doesn't lie.  Another part clearly portrays him misleading someone.  The most logical resolution of those two pieces of evidence is that the original verse that says God doesn't lie only referred to unjustified deception.  This is already represented on the argument map."]

I wrote you back: "If you claim that the author is implying this, and yet another place in the document clearly rejects your assumption to be false, then it is clear that the problem is your false assumptions and not the text itself. That is how any book is to be read, let alone the Bible." Then I guess what you mean by "shown" is that you merely claimed that you appeal to more evidence than I. What evidence?

Peter:  Even if I grant you that God condoned the lying done by some people, that does not show that God lied. You are off the subject.

Ben: How can a righteous God condone sin?  That's not off subject at all. If righteous lying is not a sin, then there's no reason why God cannot righteously lie.  

I was saying so only for the sake of conversation. As you know, I go on to reject that claim. The point if still true, that God is not the one who lied. You are off the subject of if God lies or not, though you show other people lying and God does not judge them there and then for it. And now your question is off the subject again to ask of God condoning sin. That is not dealing with the issue of God lying.

You claim that there is such a thing a "righteous lying", as I asked Larry (LSP1) where is that distinction of righteous and unrighteous lying found in the Bible? I charged that you and Larry are imposing a false view onto the Bible.

@pychen -

Peter:  If this was to be a chart where we are able to interact over then it should be talked about how to make changes rather than you telling me what I can and can not say about it. It should rather be worked out. But again, that is how I thought it was, though you said otherwise. The problem still remains that you premisses are your own premisses, and not that of the people who are part of the discussion, as I have said you don't even hold to anyone of the 5. When you are willing to represent the subject as it really is, instead of premisses that you do not hold to, and stop the distortion, then wee can continue.

I've told you why *some* of your changes are redundant and unnecessary and you are pretending like I haven't.  You have not even attempted to explain why they *are* necessary and *not* redundant even though I've repasted my explanation at least once.  You cannot blame me for this situation by insinuating I am the one preventing a "working it out" process.  I've explained my perspective.  You haven't addressed it.  You just keep insisting there is distortion where there is none like that proves anything.  

Peter:  If you want to get back to making changes to the chart, that is fine with me.

I've already told you more than once you are free to make any meaningful changes to the argument map since this argument about the argument started.  I've said that all along basically.  Why is there even an "if" in your statement?  And still you haven't even directly addressed the proposed compromise at the end of my last comment to you.  Why not?  Why not take the conversation where the conversation is actually at?  It seems you still want to go with your lousy explanation of my comment you quoted out of context and it shows.  Why can't you just accept that you were wrong and move on?  Is it really that big a deal?

Peter:   Then I guess what you mean by "shown" is that you merely claimed that you appeal to more evidence than I. What evidence?

Have you never noticed the textual evidence brought up in Rebuttal 2?  My position explains (as I explained in Rebuttal 8A) the evidence of Rebuttal 1 *and* Rebuttal 2.  Yours only explains Rebuttal 1.  You should have noticed this eons ago.  I'm sure you did, but for some strange reason you pretend like you didn't.  Your behavior is very strange, Peter.  

Peter:  Even if I grant you that God condoned the lying done by some people, that does not show that God lied. You are off the subject.

Ben: How can a righteous God condone sin?  That's not off subject at all. If righteous lying is not a sin, then there's no reason why God cannot righteously lie. 

Peter:  I was saying so only for the sake of conversation. As you know, I go on to reject that claim. The point if still true, that God is not the one who lied. You are off the subject of if God lies or not, though you show other people lying and God does not judge them there and then for it. And now your question is off the subject again to ask of God condoning sin. That is not dealing with the issue of God lying.

So you think Rahab *will* be judged *later* for lying?  Even though James *specifically* says she was counted righteous?  Wow.  My point still stands that if righteous lying isn't a sin, then there's no reason that a righteous God can't righteously lie and no reason we can't interpret the verses in Rebuttal 1 in light of that to avoid the contradictions with Rebuttal 2.   

Peter:  You claim that there is such a thing a "righteous lying", as I asked Larry (LSP1) where is that distinction of righteous and unrighteous lying found in the Bible? I charged that you and Larry are imposing a false view onto the Bible.

Not every doctrine is explicitly spelled out in Scripture.  Larry has already given you examples.  I'm sure you think you've responded, but did you really? 

You said to Larry:  So, the entire Bible teach the Trinity, and explicit places such as the Baptism of Christ, Baptizing in the name of father, son and holy spirit; the dignity and sanctity of human life as created in the image of God, people people known by God before they are born, and John the baptist recognizing Jesus in Mary, are just only implications?

Where's the explicit word "trinity?"  Where is the word "abortion?"  We can't show you the phrase "righteous lying" but we can point to passages (like the Rahab scenario) where the OBVIOUS implication is that there is such a thing as righteous lying, just like you think the obvious implication of certain passages teaches the trinity and anti-abortion.   

Ben

@WAR_ON_ERROR -  Ben,

Your chart is not the form of discussion. I have already taken the time to explain the issue and your yourself says that it is yours thing. I have not taken that out of context, it is what you said. if you think I had taken it out of context, why did you not say that back a few days ago after I responded to your claim that it was your chart, and I have no means to makes changes? You have your chart and you want to do with your chart what ever you want, just take my name off of it. and take my argument off from it.

You should know very well, what I have already said about your supposed premisses, that you do not in fact believe. I responded to your use of verses, and what you said with Larry is your business, I do not hold to the same view as he, as you can tell. The verse you and Larry used have been pointed out that they do not say that God lied. Thus, not at all like the doctrine of the Trinity with is all over the Bible and the Bible's view of human life. Again, the rule of rightly understand a narrative text so as not to undermined the other parts of teachings of the Bible, the fact that God is the God of truth, and it is Satan who is the father of lies; Jesus is the spotless lamb of God, the word of God is truth, are clear teachings of the Bible not being addressed. And yet will continue this opinion, as you admit it is not the teachings of the Bible, though it is your and Larry's opinions that it is implied.

The Trinity and the issue over the killing of human life is not a matter of implication. If you think so, then anyone of you can check out the points I said by reading the Bible or your own church creeds, (Ben, I mean for you the teachings  of EO). Everyone grants that the words are not in the Bible, but the teaching is throughout the Bible and are not at all mere implications. It is to the extrema to put your assumption from narratives, on the level of these teachings.

If you and Larry want to argue together against me on it, then so be it. I just don't have enough time to write back to both of you at the same time. I have taken too much of my day doing this as is.

Do with your chart what ever you want, just remove my screen name from the chart, blog post, and the points I made, where not in response to your added on premises.

@pychen - God DID mislead Abraham when he told him to kill Isaac. Your explanation for this does not refute that fact. God DID make the decision to send the lying spirits. They did NOT have a choice. They had to go. If God wouldn't have sent them, the people would not have been lied to. So God is responsible for them being lied to. In II Thess., the time frame is irrelevant. What's relevant is that God is sending the delusion that they should believe a lie. He's responsible for them being lied to. It's his will for them to be lied to. Now I understand that you don't make the connection that because God is responsible for it happening, that he is the one lying. Is there a difference between deceiving and lying? These things imply that God is misleading and deceiving people just as much as the bible implies the trinity. But you're right Peter, it doesn't explicitly say that God has lied, which is why I am not dogmatic on this.  

@pychen - @WAR_ON_ERROR - Peter, Ben said in  the previous comment - "Your contributions to the map bring up important objections."

I agree with that Peter. All of your objections on the chart are important and should stay on there. Just because this is Ben's premises and conclusions (he agreed to let you put a non- conclusion on there) is really irrelevant. He made the changes that you asked him to, which is really fair of him to do so, and your objections on the chart are still relevant even though you and I both disagree with his conclusions. If a Christian reads the chart, most of them are going to agree with your objections and disagree with Ben's conclusions. I agree with Ben. I think you're making way too much out of this. I hope you change your mind.

@pychen - You claim that God lied to Abraham, but is it not the fact that those words of God lying is no where found in the text?

I said God mislead Abraham. Do you think there's a difference between misleading, deceiving, and lying?

I did not say that "God is responsible for
them being lied to", I have agreed with that from the beginning. But
that is NOT the same as to call God a liar, as both of you claim.

Who sent the strong delusion that they should believe a lie? God did. Was it God's will for them to believe a lie? Yes. So yes, I understand that you don't make the connection that since God is the one who sent the delusion and it's his will for them to believe a lie, that it means God himself has lied.

Did you read my comment to you right above your last comment? What do you think?