I've been monitoring the back and forth between Bubba and Dan, and it's going pretty much as expected. I can't say that I don't understand what the big deal is. This is how I see it:
Let's assume two sides, since there really actually are. Since they generally run along political lines that are fairly well understood, I'll use "right side" and "left side" (of course I'm on the right side---the right side morally is just coincidentally the right side politically).
Anyway, Bubba argues for the right side, and Dan argues for the left. They are each, to one extent or another typical of all who are on each side, at least generally. And they each engage in a manner that is also, to one extent or another, at least generally, typical of each side. The right goes to the heart of the matter, dealing in reality, willing to face the truth on truth's terms. The left, goes to the heart of what they want reality to be, and takes great pains to avoid facing the truth on truth's terms in deference to that altered "reality" they would prefer.
When the right answers a question, the answer is as direct as the question. The left alters the question to reflect the preferred altered reality, and then answers a question that wasn't asked.
When the right balks at a question, it is because the question is leading, irrelevant, or takes the discussion down a preferred tangent believed by the left to be more amenable to the altered reality the left prefers. When the left balks at a question, it is because the question exposes the gaping holes in the altered reality the leftist hoped wasn't so glaringly obvious.
Maybe I shouldn't paint the entirety of the left with such a broad brush. But the above is descriptive of what's going on at Dan's blog and is typical of all debates with him. So I can show Dan how it's done and take the initial questions Bubba put to him and demonstrate how one answers the questions honorably. I won't answer as if I'm Dan, but answer as if the questions were put to me. I begin with the two set up questions to which I believe Bubba put forth with an assumption of a positive response from Dan:
Do you believe in orthodoxy and heresy as real categories and not just traditional understandings?
Yes.
Do you really believe that there are essential Christian doctrines?
Yes.
See how that works? I answered two "yes or no" questions with either a "yes" or a "no", in this case, a "yes". That's my honest response. But keep in mind that these were set up questions, as in setting the stage for the real questions of interest to Bubba. A "no" response would make what follows unnecessary and moot. There would be no point in asking what follows if a "no" response followed these questions, so the asking was rhetorical. So here are the actual questions:
NAME ONE ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
Jesus is God in flesh.
NAME ONE CLEAR TEACHING OF THE BIBLE.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Note that I didn't ask "essential to whom", as if the question wasn't seeking my opinion only. Note that I didn't take off on irrelevant asides regarding how some things in Scripture are clear to some and not to others. I answered as one who is convicted in my beliefs, confident that what I believe is true and honest enough to allow my beliefs to be scrutinized and tested openly in a manner that might lead to a better understanding of what is true, or greater confidence that what I already know is true. If I'm wrong, show me. I don't want to be wrong, but I do indeed want to know the truth.
Dan doesn't want to be wrong. He likes what he wants to believe is true. I think that's for the most part true for leftists in general, but for Dan I have little doubt of it based on our years of engagement. It makes perfect sense given his evasive and convoluted style of debate. It is being played out before our eyes at Dan's blog, though I wouldn't expect it to last much longer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
495 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 495 Newer› Newest»I'm not dogmatic about creation occurring in literally 144 hours, in part because there couldn't have been any human eyewitnesses to events prior to the creation of man. Maybe God gave Adam or Moses a vision like the one He gave John on Patmos, and it may not be clear exactly how we are to understand the details.
The overall claim is much easier to grasp, that God created the universe. The psalmists praise God for the act of creation, and the Apostles elaborate that God created everything through Christ, and I believe His act in creation is one of the clearest claims of Scripture, about which no good-faith disagreement is really possible.
Atheists can dispute the claim that YHWH created everything, but they cannot rationally dispute the objective fact that the Bible makes that claim, just as the Bible makes other claims, including the historicity and deity of Jesus and the divine authorship of Scripture.
--
Dan, I don't think you've thought through your particular rationale for objecting to a young-earth creationism involving six literal days.
You write, "a literal interpretation would conflict with the sciences (not just evolutionary ideas, but many areas of science...)."
In order to draw general conclusions from specific observations, science MUST assume that the universe is a closed and predictable system -- closed in that it is not subject to literally supernatural forces and predictable in that the laws governing any event govern all events.
This assumption is ONLY an assumption which cannot be proven and certainly cannot be proven by science, as that would be sheer question-begging. Since the claim of the miraculous is contradicts science's underlying assumptions, it doesn't matter that the claim doesn't agree with its conclusions: if the assumptions are WRONG, the conclusions are irrelevant.
But let's suppose you're right, that it's enough to know that the claim "would conflict with the sciences."
Guess what else would conflict with the sciences?
The bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Dead people don't come back to life after 72 hours.
A person who has been scourged, crucified, and evidently impaled through a lung and the heart could NOT survive. Even assuming the impossible -- his survival -- he certainly wouldn't be healthy enough after 72 hours to convince his closest friends that he conquered death, and he would be in absolutely no shape to walk the seven-mile trek between Jerusalem and Emmaus.
I pointed all this out a while back, when you were insinuating that Sarah Palin's (apparent) belief in young-earth creationism disqualifies her from speaking about geological matters like oil reserves. You seemed to think that an MD could still practice medicine even if he believed in the Resurrection of Christ, but you never got around to an adequate explanation of the distinction you were making.
You duck the issues a lot, Dan: in this very thread, you again refused to address the substance of Stott's argument that Christ didn't set aside the law. His argument appeals to the immediate context of Christ's assurance to the contrary, His introduction to the positions He opposed ("you have heard" rather than "it is written") and the extrabiblical content of those positions.
You dismissed all that as "proof-texting and cherry picking."
Tell us again how it's your pointed questions that go unanswered because they expose the holes in our arguments -- and tell us again how you're humble and open to correction.
So, I guess that's a No, you're NOT going to address my questions?
Doesn't give you much room to criticize for me not addressing all your points, then, does it?
I will address a few of your comments, nonetheless...
Guess what else would conflict with the sciences?
The bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Indeed, it does. It is a mystery, a miracle, an unknown. AND YET, there were apparently eyewitnesses, we have some reason to suspect that it just might be factual.
I'm not at all opposed to mystery or miracle. I just don't see any reason to embrace it when it isn't required by the text or by reality as we know it.
Clearly, to any unbiased reader, Genesis 1 is written in a mythic style, not in a scientific or historic style. That it was a story passed on in that literary genre would make complete sense and not conflict with the sciences as we know them.
So again, it is all about the evidence. Glenn has none other than an appeal to tradition and his silly circular argument. I have what I consider to be completely rational and completely biblical reasons to hold my beliefs.
If Glenn can generate not one shred of evidence on behalf of his case, why WOULD I embrace his opinion? An appeal to tradition is simply not enough.
I have complete faith that IF God wanted to create a universe in six days, make things look artificially aged, create 2 people with which to populate the earth, etc, that God COULD do it. I just have zero reasons to cause me to think that God DID do it that way and plenty of reasons to conclude that God did NOT do it that way.
It's all about the evidence.
Duck the issues, indeed.
Trabue,
So you think "parts" of Genesis read like myth. And then you decide what parts need to be mythologized in order to fit your biased world view.
Claiming that there are no other writings from the period that aren't mythological type history is arguing from silence - you can't find any so the Bible must be myth.
I didn't point to any tradition - I pointed to the fact that intelligent people for 4000+ years have understood ALL of Genesis to be literal history. MOST Christians today also understand it as literal. It is only the liberals like you who make "parts" into myth so it will fit with your worldview.
So is it a myth that Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day? Is the story of Adam & Eve a myth? Is Noah's flood a myth? just what part will you allow to be real?
Glenn...
And then you decide what parts need to be mythologized in order to fit your biased world view.
Just looking at the facts, Glenn, I HELD the beliefs you hold. I took the Creation story to be literal history as a child and young man. I did not "decide" to change my opinion on the text to support my "biased world view" (which at the time, was biased towards conservative beliefs), but rather, factually speaking, I just no longer felt that a literal history version was a rational, biblical answer and thus, I had to change my world view to match what I thought the Bible was teaching.
Facts are funny things. You can't just make them up to suit your needs, Glenn. That'll just bite you in the butt.
Glenn...
Claiming that there are no other writings from the period that aren't mythological type history is arguing from silence - you can't find any so the Bible must be myth.
I'm stating a simple fact claim:
We have ZERO evidence of literature from the time that was passed on in the modern history style. ALL the literature from that time period are, by all reasonable consideration, told in either epic or mythic or other not-strictly factual forms.
If you have evidence that there is a literal history from that time period, Glenn, just cite it. You can demolish my argument with just ONE bit of hard evidence.
But entirely lacking in ANY evidence to support the claim of literal history, then we simply have no reason to accept any of these texts that do not appear to be epic or mythic, as literal history.
It's all about the evidence, Glenn.
You got none.
Glenn...
So is it a myth that Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day? Is the story of Adam & Eve a myth? Is Noah's flood a myth? just what part will you allow to be real?
We have zero evidence that Adam and Eve represent actual literal people. They are characters in a story that appears on the face of it to be mythic.
Could there have been a Adam and Eve? Sure, there could have been some literal people by that name, who even had literal kids named Cain and Abel. I'm just saying the story itself reads as if it falls in the mythic literary form, just as the Psalms read as if they are poetry.
But that there might be some people from which these stories derive is not to say that the world was created in six literal days and these two were created on Day Six. We have no solid data to insist upon that opinion. If it pleases you to consider it literally, that's fine, you just can't insist that others must agree with you if you have no hard data to support your claims.
Same is true for Noah. Did water ACTUALLY cover all the land on the planet? There is no evidence of that and there is evidence that it COULD NOT have happened literally.
WHERE did all that water come from? WHERE did it all go? There's just not that much water on the planet to accommodate that scenario, taken literally.
It READS like myth, Glenn and comes from a time in history where stories were passed on in mythic and epic styles. If we have no evidence to insist upon a literal interpretation and plenty of evidence against it, on what basis would we insist that your opinion MUST be taken as THE ONE RIGHT opinion?
It's all about the evidence. I can change my mind when presented with hard data and rational thinking. But bullying and appeals to "the majority" are not rational defenses nor hard data.
What part will "I allow to be real..."? It's ALL "real," Glenn, it just may not all be factual.
I hold as factual the parts that SEEM factual. I hold as poetry the parts that SEEM to be poetic. I hold as metaphorical the parts that SEEM to be metaphorical.
I have no reason, no evidence to demand a literal, historic reading of Genesis.
If you ever have hard data, let me know and we can talk.
It's all about the evidence.
I believe I've addressed your questions, Dan, and if there's any in particular that you think haven't been addressed adequately, you're more than welcome to point them out.
It may well be that your questions were still raised AFTER I asked you to clarify what you mean by divine inspiration. You seem to think that Scripture isn't divinely authored but DOES have a "divine nature" and wisdom to a divine degree, or you suggest that Paul wants us to behave "as if" Scripture were divinely authored.
It's certainly the case that the questions you've raised here are far more recent than the arguments I presented from John Stott, countering your claim that Christ abolished part of God's law.
I first excerpted Stott's argument at length MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AGO, and I have since occasionally reminded you that you never addressed the substance of those arguments.
I haven't been quick enough to jump at your every whim, but that is almost literally nothing compared to your literal FIFTY MONTHS of avoiding a substantive argument.
Trabue
Evolution doesn't have a chance:
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/probability/does-evolution-have-a-chance/
Clearly, to any unbiased reader, Genesis 1 is written in a mythic style, not in a scientific or historic style.
Another bold assertion. How about, Clearly to any UNBIASED reader Genesis 1 is written in historical style. IT does not conflict with ANY science.
I point out that for 4000 years intelligent people, unbiased readers, understood the historicity of Genesis 1 and yet you say that is circular reasoning. Nice try.
The evidence is plain, as my opening link shows - evolution is impossible.
Now, answer the bloody questions about your beliefs respecting Adam and Eve.
We have ZERO evidence of literature from the time that was passed on in the modern history style. ALL the literature from that time period are, by all reasonable consideration, told in either epic or mythic or other not-strictly factual forms.
Of course in order to make this statement Trabue has to exclude the Bible. And his ilk, in order to discount the Bible, have made up their own ideas as to what constitutes proper historical style, and then claim since there is nothing matching their criteria it doesn't exist - arguing from silence and too ignorant or stupid to understand that is what their argument is!
If you have evidence that there is a literal history from that time period, Glenn, just cite it
THE BIBLE!!! Your bias won't allow that.
Trabue's response about Adam and Eve prove 100% that he is a rank heretic. If Adam and Eve are mythical, then there is no fall and no literal sin, and we need no savior.
Mr. cherry picker decides for himself what part of the Bible is literal so he can have his homosexual agenda, his social gospel, etc.
The evidence is all around for the Flood, but you attribute it to evolution.
No Trabue, you have absolutely NO evidence to support your heretical, non-Christian beliefs.
Huh.
"Clearly, to any unbiased reader, Genesis 1 is written in a mythic style, not in a scientific or historic style."
Apparently it's okay for Dan to make universal declarations, ex cathedra, about the conclusions readers ought to draw from the Bible.
It's not only clear TO HIM that Genesis 1 is written in a mythic style, he claims that it's clear "to any unbiased reader."
But I can't make a similar claim that the Bible is clear in teaching the existence of God, not only clear TO ME, but to any honest and capable reader.
If someone disputes that the Bible teaches theism, Dan tells me I CANNOT conclude that he's being dishonest; somehow he knows that to do so shows a lack of grace and humility.
But if someone disputes that Genesis 1 is written in a mythic style, Dan feels free to insinuate that the person is biased.
Dan Trabue is a hypocrite.
Bubba, the difference is that I allow that there WILL BE people who honestly disagree, EVEN THOUGH I may think it is abundantly clear not only to me, but to any unbiased reader. There is always the caveat that, "HOWEVER, there will be SOME who honestly disagree..."
I grant grace that this might and will happen. I am humble enough NOT to presume that I can know what people's motives are.
So, to be fair, when I say, "to any unbiased readers," that is hyperbole on my part, and should probably say "to most unbiased readers, at a guess..."
Because I DO allow for grace and the possibility that people will and do honestly disagree.
You allow no such grace, you hold no such humility.
THAT is the difference between you and I.
Bubba...
You seem to think that Scripture isn't divinely authored but DOES have a "divine nature" and wisdom to a divine degree, or you suggest that Paul wants us to behave "as if" Scripture were divinely authored.
I am stating THE FACT that the Bible makes NO claim that God "authored" the bible. ZERO claims.
I am stating the opinion that I DO think it is inspired by God, that the human authors were inspired by God. What SPECIFICALLY did Paul mean by that?
Bubba, here's the thing and follow me closely because you missed it the first time around:
I. Don't. Know.
Paul. Did. Not. Say.
ALL Paul said was that "scripture" is "inspired" and "useful for teaching, correction, etc."
Call me crazy, but my best guess then as to what Paul specifically meant is that scripture is inspired and useful for teaching and correction. Beyond that, you'll have to ask Paul.
I can make no authoritative statements as to what Paul meant.
Nor can you.
And that is a fact.
"I am humble enough NOT to presume that I can know what people's motives are."
But you know what their biases are, or at least whether they have biases. You won't make blanket statements about what is clear to all honest readers, but you will state what is clear to all unbiased readers.
No, that's not hair-splitting at all.
And you. don't. know. what Paul meant when he wrote that all Scripture is God-breathed, but you DO know that it cannot possibly mean God-authored.
You can rule that out, but we cannot expect you to hazard a guess on what it means.
And that too is entirely reasonable and consistent.
About Paul's understanding of interpretation, I believe that a passage in another letter of his sheds a lot of light on his claim in II Timothy 3.
I mentioned it in our earlier discussion,.
"In I Cor 2:10-16, Paul explains that God's Spirit plumbs the depths of God's wisdom, reveals that wisdom to the Apostles, equips them with the very words with which they impart that wisdom to us, and even guides us in interpreting those words."
I mentioned it again just yesterday, in this thread.
"According to their record of Jesus' teachings and their own, the Holy Spirit had a mission to guide and empower these Apostles, to recall to memory Christ's words on earth and to reveal what they were not then ready to hear, to seek out the depth of God's wisdom and even to guide the very words the apostles used to convey that wisdom to us. (See Jn 14:26, I Cor 2:6-13.)"
The passage is worth quoting, Paul writing with the apostolic "we" to make claims about the Spirit's work in divine revelation.
"Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." - I Cor 2:12-13, emphasis mine
The Spirit taught the Apostles the very words they used to impart God's wisdom to us, and that points to divine inspiration being what evangelicals call a verbal, plenary inspiration.
The very words the Apostles used were taught to them by God's Spirit.
I not only fail to see how you could rule out the position that God authored Scripture, I don't see what other position is possible in light of Paul's detailed explanation of the Spirit's role in revealing God's wisdom to man.
Here, we're using the plain meaning of I Corinthians 2 to interpret an less clear phrase by the same writer, in II Timothy 3.
No doubt we're guilty of cherry-picking and proof-texting, but we should not expect a detailed argument as to how.
Briefly, to get back to this, Dan:
"Bubba, the difference is that I allow that there WILL BE people who honestly disagree, EVEN THOUGH I may think it is abundantly clear not only to me, but to any unbiased reader. There is always the caveat that, 'HOWEVER, there will be SOME who honestly disagree...'"
You allow that there will be people who HONESTLY disagree, but not those who do so without bias. You think your position is clear, not just to yourself, but to "any unbiased reader."
(Have you surveyed all unbiased readers? How could you possibly know that all unbiased readers would agree with you?)
To anyone else who doesn't allow for honest disagreement on all possibly points, you assign a lack of grace and humility.
You believe that you can know who has bias and who doesn't.
You believe that you can know who has grace and who doesn't.
You believe that you can know who is humble and who isn't.
But you rule out the possibility of my knowing who is honest and who isn't.
That's absurdly hypocritical, and if you were as humble and willing to apologize for mistakes as you'd like us to believe, you'd be backtracking the claim with something like this: "I overstated my position, which shows how careful we must be to only say what we can know to be true. I don't know and cannot possibly know that ANY unbiased reader would agree with me, and I retract the claim."
But you're too interested in defending your position with even the most implausible hair-splitting.
Bubba...
1. Do you have hard, measurable data to support a claim that this "inspiration" is an objective fact?
If so, present it.
2. If not, then can you admit that you have no such evidence and it is, as is manifestly obvious, a subjective opinion? It is, objectively, human speculation?
3. Do you not even see how it could APPEAR to many to be reasonable to not make claims about a text that the text has not made?
4. I am not willing to make an authoritative claim about Scripture or the Bible that the Bible does not make. Do you think it is a good thing to make such claims, absent any evidence or even a claim from the Bible itself?
Why?
To further clarify: I may claim, "this text reads (to me) like an obviously mythic text... plus it was written in a time of myth-storytelling... thus, to me, it seems to be obviously mythic and I have no reason to think otherwise, short of any hard data..."
But that is different than stating authoritatively, "This IS written in a Mythic style. No one can possibly reach any other conclusion. Anyone who does is a liar."
The difference is one of grace and humility. Do you see that?
Bubba...
You allow that there will be people who HONESTLY disagree, but not those who do so without bias. You think your position is clear, not just to yourself, but to "any unbiased reader."
We are ALL biased in some ways or others, there is nothing innately wrong in holding a bias.
When I was conservative, BECAUSE of that conservative bias I held, I absolutely could not see any other possible interpretation of Genesis 1 than a literal one. Thus, it WAS obvious to others without that bias, but not to me, having had it ingrained in me that the text MUST BE taken literally and that there were no other options.
Some actual data from one person's life.
Bubba...
(Have you surveyed all unbiased readers? How could you possibly know that all unbiased readers would agree with you?)
It is only an opinion. I would be willing to bet that if you took 100 people at random who had no preconceived devotion to a literal Genesis and had them read it, that the vast majority would say it is obviously mythic in nature. I have no proof, it's just a guess, but I'd be willing to bet that it's a correct guess.
Why WOULD anyone take a text that comes from a time of myth telling and that appears to be written in a mythic form and that is contrary to multiple scientific fields... why would anyone take it to be literal history?
The difference between you and I, Bubba, is that I'm glad to point out which of my ideas are opinions and do not dogmatically hold to the view that anyone who disagrees with my opinion is a liar.
I don't do that because doing so would be arrogant and irrational.
Dan:
Questions 1 & 2, I already addressed in bringing up whether Christ's divinity is an objective fact or a subjective opinion. I appreciate your candor that you think it's the latter, but I disagree.
I don't think all objective facts require what you call "hard, measurable data."
The Law of Non-Contradiction is an objective fact -- a maxim on which all rational thought rests -- but there's neither any "hard data" I could marshall to prove the law, NOR IS THERE A NEED FOR SUCH DATA.
My own existence is something I can know to be an objective fact without hard, measurable data: Cogito ergo sum. The fact that I think is proof enough that I exist, but I can't measure or quantify that thinking.
"3. Do you not even see how it could APPEAR to many to be reasonable to not make claims about a text that the text has not made?"
No, I don't.
If I were to write an essay on Green Eggs & Ham, I could note both its origin AND its reception, neither of which are explicit in the text itself: Dr. Suess' publisher bet him that he couldn't write a book using a vocabulary of 50 words or less, which he did, and the book has become one of the top-five selling children's books of all time.
Are these facts in the text itself? No.
Is it unreasonable to state these facts? No, and only a fool would honestly think so.
...and I'm not sure you honestly think so, since you feel free to state that Genesis 1 was written in a mythic style, despite the text itself making no such claim.
"4. I am not willing to make an authoritative claim about Scripture or the Bible that the Bible does not make. Do you think it is a good thing to make such claims, absent any evidence or even a claim from the Bible itself?"
You're quite obviously willing to do what you say you're not willing to do: to say that Genesis 1 is in a mythic style, and to say that ALL unbiased readers would agree with you is a pretty clear attempt to speak authoritatively and not just offer your own personal opinion.
And your question is irrelevant, since I've REPEATEDLY offered biblical evidence for the divine authorship of Scripture: II Timothy 3, I Corinthians 2, and the Bible's record of Jesus' own teaching and example.
--
Now, having answered your questions from yesterday, I'm wondering if you'll ever address even one of Stott's substantive arguments behind his claim that Christ didn't abolish any of the OT law.
Or do you need more than 1500 days to read and respond?
Dan:
"Clearly, to any unbiased reader, Genesis 1 is written in a mythic style, not in a scientific or historic style."
Now you say, "It is only an opinion... I have no proof, it's just a guess."
You seemed pretty sure of yourself in presenting what you now describe as an opinion and a guess without proof. Maybe you should be a little more circumspect about what you see is "clearly" true.
You now say that we're all biased, so I don't know what you're trying to convey by telling us what you think "any unbiased reader" would conclude: no such reader exists, and so I wonder if you have a habit of telling us about the behavior of non-existent people.
You write, "I would be willing to bet that if you took 100 people at random who had no preconceived devotion to a literal Genesis and had them read it, that the vast majority would say it is obviously mythic in nature."
I'd be willing to take that bet, actually, if the people were taken at random TEMPORALLY and not just geographically.
A ninth-century Viking, a thirteenth-century shogun, a sixteenth-century Apache, and an official from Nebuchadnezzar's court (c. 600 BC).
Are you willing to bet THESE people, ALL of whom would be new to Jewish Scripture, would conclude that Genesis 1 is "obviously mythic in nature"?
You say that no one is without biases, but I suspect that your hypothetical sample of supposedly unbiased readers are our contemporaries, who have grown up in a culture that presumes the Big Bang, macro-evolution, and an orderly closed-system universe uninterrupted by supernatural forces.
Glenn is right to point out how odd it is, that Christian missionaries have encountered new cultures for literal millennia, but it's only now that Genesis 1's supposedly mythic style is obvious to people who are new to the Bible.
Trabue keeps talking about when he was once a "conservative." That claim goes right up there with those who say they were once a "Christian."
Both are bald-faced lies, used to give credence, but recognized for what they are.
Glenn...
Both are bald-faced lies
This is, of course, demonstrably false.
Glenn makes unfounded charges against that which is easily demonstrable.
Raised in a conservative church for the first 22 years of my life - Victory Memorial Baptist in Louisville, KY - to traditional parents, went to church about five times a week, studying the Bible from a conservative point of view, reading only conservative writers or the Bible. Traveled in a conservative Gospel band for 10 years, singing and preaching a conservative message.
This is all verifiable. What you are asking people to believe, Glenn, is that you - without EVEN KNOWING ME, personally - are able to somehow "discern" that these first 30 years of my life - all of which can be verified - were all part of an elaborate hoax to fake people into thinking I was a conservative Christian... This ridiculous charge is easily dismissed with facts for those who are interested in the facts.
Glenn, are you interested in facts, or are you too beholden to your political and cultural ideas that you are willing to make blatantly false - demonstrably false - statements without a care for Truth or Facts?
Pray on that, one, sir.
Bubba...
Glenn is right to point out how odd it is, that Christian missionaries have encountered new cultures for literal millennia, but it's only now that Genesis 1's supposedly mythic style is obvious to people who are new to the Bible.
It IS probably true that people in a pre-scientific world WERE more likely to accept mythic-sounding stories as some sort of history, but that would be true whether we're speaking of a creation myth that has the world on the back of a turtle or a Genesis (or Sumerian)-style creation myth.
That is hardly a convincing argument.
Bubba...
Maybe you should be a little more circumspect about what you see is "clearly" true.
I have no problem expressing confident opinions about matters where the answer is not provable. We regularly reach conclusions based not on absolute proof, but on reasonable enough proof.
THE DIFFERENCE between you and I is that I do not fail to make the distinction between my opinions (many of which are clearly - I THINK - extremely reasonable, even if unprovable) and facts. You appear inclined to hold opinions AS IF they were facts.
This leads to the sort of arrogance that would let you say - absent ONE SINGLE SHRED OF HARD EVIDENCE - "That fella must be lying because he disagrees with me and no one reasonable could disagree with me..."
There is an arrogance there that is bound to lead to a fall. There is no shame in owning your own opinions AS opinions. The shame is when you try to conflate those opinions with either fact or, worse, God's Word.
I'd avoid that if I were you.
Regarding your responses to my questions, Bubba, you said...
I don't think all objective facts require what you call "hard, measurable data."
So, you think that you have an idea that is, indisputably, an objective fact... BUT, you are entirely unable to provide hard objective evidence for that belief of yours.
On what basis would anyone agree with your idea, if you can produce no data to support it beyond, "I really REALLY think it is true and factual. I KNOW it is!"...?
I think I probably addressed this conundrum of yours earlier, by distinguishing between a possible fact that is not known or demonstrable and THE CLAIM to that "fact..."
It MAY BE an objective fact that purple unicorns exist with pink horns, and that we just have not discovered them yet. The PU's existence is an objective fact (or not) regardless of whether anyone could prove it.
BUT (and this is critical, so follow), THE CLAIM that "I 'know' PUs exist and it is an objective fact that they do exist... I just can't prove it or demonstrate it..." That CLAIM is a subjective opinion, if the person can't prove it.
Am I mistaken? If so, where?
As to your Stott worries, I think I probably have addressed the points, but two things:
1. Is it pertinent to the topic here on this post? How so?
2. Show me a point of Stott's you think I have not addressed and I'll address it. If it's off topic, Marshall can pull the plug.
Bubba...
And your question is irrelevant, since I've REPEATEDLY offered biblical evidence for the divine authorship of Scripture: II Timothy 3, I Corinthians 2, and the Bible's record of Jesus' own teaching and example.
Those texts don't say what you think they say. Well, that's not totally true. IF you engage in eisegesis and READ INTO them things that aren't there, then I guess you could argue they say that... otherwise, not so much.
And that Bubba takes his understanding of three verses as "evidence" that God "authored" Scripture is not real world evidence. It is a way of verifying yourself. "Hey! Lookit that! If you interpret the texts to mean what I THINK they mean, then they mean what I think they mean! How 'bout that?"
Raised by conservative parents in a conservative church doesn't make you a conservative or a Christian.
Your teachings are what prove your claims to be lies.
Glenn, when I was 12-30, my TEACHINGS were conservative.
I taught and preached against "the gays," against abortion, against not taking the Bible literally. I spoke out against drugs, in favor of "traditional marriage," in favor of Reagan, against the APA, in favor of James Dobson.
I was in word and deed, a conservative Christian. Still am, in many ways ("conservatism" has changed over the years, to its detriment...)
You are welcome to your own opinions, Glenn, but you can't just make up facts to suit your political agenda. The fact is, you are demonstrably mistaken on this point.
Deny reality if you wish, it only makes you appear demented.
Tell you what, Glenn, here's your chance: Show us all WHICH SPECIFIC teachings/beliefs I had when I was 20 or 22 that made me NOT a conservative and NOT a Christian.
Name just one belief I had when I was in my 20s that was not conservative in nature.
JUST ONE.
You can't do it, of course. Because your claim is demonstrably false and, seeing as how you keep repeating it after being corrected, it is a deliberate false witness.
You see, this points to the problem that folk like you have when trying to reason (in my opinion, based on the arguments - or lack thereof - you all put forth):
You are affected by your emotions to such a degree that it undermines your reasoning and you start making irrational leaps based on the emotions you're feeling that any hard data.
"Dan believes WHAT? Why, why, he's no Christian! Anyone who believes that is NOT a Christian nor a conservative and there is no way they ever were!"
"Why do you say that, what is your evidence?"
"?? It's right there! IF he believes THAT, then he NEVER was conservative, it's plain on the nose on your butt!"
"But what is your evidence?"
"??!!! I JUST GAVE YOU THE EVIDENCE! IF he believes THAT, then he NEVER could have been conservative of a Christian!"
"But, that's not evidence, it's an emotional response based on your disgust about his positions, not a data-based conclusion..."
"Wha... What?? Why, then YOU are not a Christian and never were one or a conservative, either!"
And round and round the circular argument goes...
It's all about the evidence, Glenn, Bubba. I have it, you don't.
Glenn, here's an easy question for you: Do you believe that believing deeply in/holding to/advocating for conservative opinions and values does not make you a conservative?
If not, then what DOES?
[okay, so that was two questions, but still...]
Trabue,
Do you have proof of your teachings being conservative? Not one item here or there (even liberals have an occasional conservative teaching), but consistent conservative, real Christian teachings? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it that you were once intelligent?
The thing is, Glenn, it's discoverable. You can check with people who knew me/still know me. People who are still conservative, even by your measure.
The guy that was best man in my wedding and my partner in the gospel band I was in for a decade and I were talking a decade or so ago, after I'd grown more progressive. I mentioned to him that I saw no need for taking the Creation story as literal history. He was shocked and said, "but if you don't take that literally, how do you know you can trust anything the bible says...?"
The thing is, he's still quite conservative, attends a conservative/traditional church. You could ask him and others like him and they could testify that I was indeed a conservative christian for all the decades we knew each other.
The point being, it is discoverable, there is evidence there that can be found out. And IF you took the effort to understand the facts rather than just making an unsupported and false claim, you'd find out the facts support what I've said.
But you don't appear to be interested in facts, just in making false and unsupported charges.
Dan, once again, you're being a hypocrite.
"This leads to the sort of arrogance that would let you say - absent ONE SINGLE SHRED OF HARD EVIDENCE - 'That fella must be lying because he disagrees with me and no one reasonable could disagree with me...'"
If it is unreasonable for me to conclude that a person is being dishonest from his words, then it is unreasonable for you to conclude that I'm being arrogant for my words: either a person's own words ARE evidence of his character, or they're not.
--
Your position is that facts require "hard objective evidence" or "hard, measurable data," but you provide no such evidence or data to back up that position.
Your position about objective facts is -- GOING BY YOUR OWN STUPID STANDARDS -- nothing but a subjective opinion, and so I don't see why I should be too concerned about my disagreeing with your position.
--
About Stott's argument, which I share and which I typed out at length: your concern for what's on-topic is inconsistent and patently self-serving, and you haven't actually addressed a single actual point of his argument.
All you've done is sneer that he's guilty of cherry-picking and proof-texting, and sneer without the thinnest semblance of an argument.
I summarized his argument, I restated that summary on May 28th, and I'll restate them again now.
1. The substance of the antitheses. Clearly, Jesus didn't "set aside" the prohibition of murder and adultery: He deepened their implications by also prohibiting hatred and lust. And, when He opposed the teaching of "hate your enemy", He opposed a doctrine that is found **NOWHERE** in Scripture.
2. The introductory formula. Christ routinely introduced Scripture with "it is written" (perfect tense), but here he introduces the antitheses with "it was said."
3. The immediate context. In the verses immediately prior (5:17-20), Jesus taught that not one penstroke would pass away, that He would fulfill all of Scripture, and that His followers were to obey even the least commandment.
4. Christ's known attitude to the Old Testament. Elsewhere He consistently appealed to Scripture as authoritative and even submitted to Scripture.
5. Christ's affirmation of retribution. In the very same sermon, Christ affirmed the same principle of retributive justice at the cosmic level.
You now write, "I think I probably have addressed the points."
Point out where, and I'll happily read your response and I'll retract the claim.
--
Instead of substantiating your charge of proof-texting Matthew 5, you now accuse me of eisegesis regarding II Timothy and I Corinthians.
You do so without an actual argument.
"Those texts don't say what you think they say."
Good to know! What do they say, Dan?
Let me guess: You. Don't. Know. What Paul meant in those chapters, you just somehow know that I'm wrong in my understanding -- and you think it's enough to say that I'm wrong without explaining why.
Trabue,
You have always just made claims and assertions about the Christian faith and about the Bible which are always false, and yet you want us to believe the claims you make about being conservative and fundamental Christian. Your record precedes you - your false teachings give you no credibility.
Bubba...
If it is unreasonable for me to conclude that a person is being dishonest from his words, then it is unreasonable for you to conclude that I'm being arrogant for my words
You are factually mistaken. It is NOT hypocrisy and here's why.
YOU are making a fact claim:
"That man is lying."
You have no data to support that claim. You can provide no hard evidence that demonstrates "here is a verified lie from that man."
The fact claim is either false or true. You have zero evidence to support the claim, however.
I, on the other hand, am making a moral judgment based upon the facts:
"That man is 1. factually calling another man a liar and, 2. He has no evidence to support that charge. THEREFORE, it seems to me clearly arrogant to make a charge of lying when one has zero evidence to support the claim."
I am offering AN OPINION about a behavior that is not unreasonable. You, on the other hand, are making a fact charge (NOT offering an opinion, but a fact charge) for which you have no data to support the charge.
Now, if you would back off the fact charge, move from a measurable fact charge offered authoritatively (when you have no such authority to make the charge) to a clear opinion (ie, "I have ZERO evidence to support this, but something seems hinky here and I am guessing - even with NO evidence - that perhaps this guy is a liar..."), THEN we would be both offering opinions and you would have an apples to apples comparison.
But as it is, you are offering an apples to oranges comparison, which is why your charge of hypocrisy does not stick.
You are clearly mistaken on that point.
Glenn...
your false teachings give you no credibility.
You have zero data to support your DEMONSTRABLY FALSE charges and yet I am the one who has no credibility? You are so blind, Glenn.
I pity you, that you are so consumed by your cultural blindness and allegiances that you are so comfortable making a demonstrably false witness.
Lord have mercy on your soul. I pray that one day, your eyes will be opened.
Trabue,
My factual statement that you are a false teacher when it comes to the Bible and the Christian faith has been verified by every single Christian blogger you have trolled.
He's a good piece of evidence which I can't post often enough:
http://wolfsheep2.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/false-teacher-profile-updated/
False witness. Demonstrably so.
Slander.
Gossip.
Shame on you.
May one day, the scales fall off your eyes and may you learn to embrace the grace by which we are saved.
Your bitterness and emotional rants only hurt you.
"You are factually mistaken."
"You are clearly mistaken on that point."
You're using the adverb "factually," but you don't provide any hard, measurable, objective data to support the claim. So your claim about what's factual must be a mere opinion rather than a fact charge.
You say something's "clearly" true, but you don't explain, "clear to whom?" We must presume that you mean to tell us only what's clear to yourself, which means you're giving a subjective opinion rather than any sort of objective claim of fact.
Even though you don't say so, it must only be your measured opinion that I'm wrong about your hypocrisy.
It would be so much easier for me to follow when you're offering mere opinions if you would follow the Universally Accepted Official Format for Subjective Opinions.
You could say something like, "I have ZERO evidence to support this, but something seems hinky here and I am guessing - even with NO evidence - that perhaps you're being arrogant."
In my simple-minded ways, I'd appreciate your following that format.
As it is, I appreciate you stating your subjective opinion that you're not engaging in hypocrisy.
I expect that you'll pardon me for not holding to the same opinion.
--
Now, where again did you address Stott's arguments?
You bitched about my not answering your questions...
"So, I guess that's a No, you're NOT going to address my questions?
"Doesn't give you much room to criticize for me not addressing all your points, then, does it?"
But I HAVE answered your questions. It's time for you to reciprocate -- or, since you're sure you've already done so, it's high time that you refresh my faulty memory.
"False witness. Demonstrably so.
Slander.
Gossip."
In the absence of any hard, measurable, objective data, these must only be subjective opinions.
Even the claim that Glenn's link is "demonstrably" false witness is a subjective opinion until and unless the claim is actually demonstrated.
Bubba, my claims are correct based on the meaning of words. If someone engages in words that meet the definition of gossip, then factually, they ARE gossiping, in the English language.
If someone engages in words of slander, then factually, they ARE slandering, in the English language.
If someone makes a claim that is objectively false, demonstrably so, then factually, they ARE bearing false witness, because these words have meanings.
I'll get to your Stott thing when I can.
You have not answered all the questions, not completely nor directly (you know, the point of this post), I raised follow up questions to help you understand why you have not completely answered these questions and why your responses are insufficient.
There is no false witness in that link. NONE.
I can speak also from experience from all of Trabue's comments on my blogs - He always misrepresents the Bible and the Christian faith, with numerous heretical teachings. It was rare that a comment of his DIDN'T have false teachings. That is my factual testimony.
Glenn, your opinion is not factual, it is your opinion. And, so far as it relates to your hunches about me, they are factually mistaken. Nearly every time.
Therein lies your core problem: The inability to distinguish between facts and your opinions, between your opinion and the Word of God. You keep trying to elevate your opinion into the place of God's Word and you're just not god enough to do that.
Again, I'm sorry for you. I hope grace one day finds your welcome.
Trabue,
It isn't just my opinion - it is the opinion of every Christian blogger who has dealt with you, as that link demonstrates.
YOU ARE A FALSE TEACHER - A HERETIC! Just in this string you proved it by saying that Adam & Eve are mythical, totally contradicting the teaching of Jesus and Paul.
"Bubba, my claims are correct based on the meaning of words. If someone engages in words that meet the definition of gossip, then factually, they ARE gossiping, in the English language."
You produced no hard, measurable, objective data to prove that the words meet that definition.
By your own standard, your claim that those words match the definition is just a subjective opinion, so you should be presenting your position as a subjective opinion and not "factually" true.
Or, should we infer that your claims about what's factually true are just subjective opinions in the absence of hard evidence?
--
"If someone makes a claim that is objectively false, demonstrably so, then factually, they ARE bearing false witness, because these words have meanings."
You don't provide any hard data to show that the claim is false, so by your own standards, it can only be your subjective opinion that it's "objectively" false.
You don't demonstrate that the claim is "demonstrably" false, so by your own standards, it can only be your subjective opinion that it's "demonstrably" false.
--
I asked you to point out which questions I missed, you did, and I answered them. If you didn't point out "all" the questions I missed, that's your fault, not mine.
I did answer those questions directly and adequately; your belief that I didn't is, in the absence of clear, measurable data, just your subjective opinion, with which I disagree.
You're welcome to raise clarifying questions, but at some point you ought to address issues I raised 1500 days ago before insisting on my answering any new questions.
After all, conversation is two way, Dan. Why don't we try it like that? It really helps in communication.
--
You now write, "I'll get to your Stott thing when I can."
I thought you already had: YOU certainly thought you already had.
You wrote, "I think I probably have addressed the points."
Where? How much time could you possibly need to link to where you've already substantiated the charge that Stott just engaged in proof-texting and cherry-picking, or to copy-and-paste the comment?
You already did reply, but NOW you say that you need time to reply.
In my subjective opinion, you were lying when you claimed to have already addressed his argument; you were factually lying, according to the English language.
Dan, you say that Glenn's "core problem" is an inability to distinguish between facts and opinions.
You don't produce any hard, measurable, objective data to substantiate that charge, so that must be only your subjective opinion.
You make an awful lot of claims without any such hard data, and you adorn these claims with modifiers about how these claims are nevertheless "demonstrable" even though you don't demonstrate them, and they're "factual" even though they don't meet your own exacting standards for objective facts.
Of course, I have ZERO evidence to support this, but something seems hinky here and I am guessing - even with NO evidence - that perhaps you're the one with the problem distinguishing between fact and opinion.
But that's just my subjective opinion.
Bubba...
You produced no hard, measurable, objective data to prove that the words meet that definition.
Glenn made the charge that I was never a conservative.
Factually speaking, I DID believe and act on conservative thoughts. This is verifiable.
Therefore, that IS FACTUALLY a false charge, by definition. It is NOT true, it IS false, thus, it is false. Demonstrably so.
Can you agree with this basic English-language sentence?
If you can't agree with basic English, then I'm not sure how you make it through a day and I'm not sure how to communicate with you if not in English.
Perhaps you were right earlier. At least with people like you and Glenn, maybe communication is impossible because you lack basic English understanding skills. I have to believe this is not the case, but if you can't agree with the facts I laid out above AS facts, given the English language we communicate in, then I'm at a loss.
I'll await your response to that question before continuing.
Factually speaking, I DID believe and act on conservative thoughts. This is verifiable.
You can say this is "verifiable" but give us no evidence. You say we can ask all your friends, etc, but give no references of names, addresses, emails, etc, nor have provided physical evidence of writings.
You have no credibility because of your false charges against everyone who demonstrates conclusively that you lie about what the Bible says and about what the Christian faith teaches.
"Factually speaking, I DID believe and act on conservative thoughts. This is verifiable."
If something is demonstrable, you should demonstrate it. If something is verifiable, you should verify it.
As it is, you present no hard, measurable, objective data to prove that the claim is verifiable, and so "it's verifiable" can only be a subjective opinion.
"Can you agree with this basic English-language sentence?"
Which sentence do you mean? The last thing you wrote prior to that was an adverb phrase lacking both a subject and a predicate: "Demonstrably so."
Whatever sentence you mean, you're insisting that we accept things as "FACTUALLY" true when they do not meet your own stated standards for what separates objective fact from subjective opinion.
We shouldn't conclude that those standards are crap, and that you're invoking them inconsistently as it suits you?
I should think not!
And, so, I'm surprised that you would think that my efforts to insist on a consistent application of your quite reasonable standards makes you question my ability to communicate in English.
Dan, let's not forget your clarification EARLIER THIS MORNING:
[quote]
YOU are making a fact claim:
"That man is lying."
You have no data to support that claim. You can provide no hard evidence that demonstrates "here is a verified lie from that man."
[end quote]
You continue, "I am offering AN OPINION about a behavior that is not unreasonable. You, on the other hand, are making a fact charge (NOT offering an opinion, but a fact charge) for which you have no data to support the charge."
You cannot now expect us to accept your claim as a fact charge when you present no data to support the charge.
It is a fact that I was conservative, holding to, espousing, believing conservative teachings. It IS verifiable.
Do you understand this concept?
NOTE: I'm not saying that you have the names and info of all involved, I'm just noting the reality that it IS verifiable.
That is, if indeed, I exist as a person;
If I grew up at Victory Memorial Baptist in Louisville, KY;
If attended church there multiple times weekly from birth until I was 22;
If I was saved and baptized there in 1973 at the age of ten;
If I was an active part of the youth group in my teens, attending camps and revivals and church, of course;
If I reached a more adult and complete decision to seriously follow Christ at the age of 16 at Ridgecrest Retreat Center at a Youth Retreat;
If I attended Sunday School and RA's and eventually taught Sunday School and helped lead in VBS;
If I helped create the Christian band, Remembrance, and we created two cassettes of original music featuring conservative Christian doctrine;
If I traveled across Kentucky and points beyond with this band - featuring 3-6 other similarly conservative Christian young fellows - all living, all still conservative Christians, as far as I can tell - doing this for TEN years (1982-1992), preaching and singing a conservative Christian message;
IF all of this is true, it IS verifiable, do you understand that reality as described in that sentence?
That is, you COULD locate Ed Stivers, Robert Grimes, Roger Rayburn and many, many others and they could attest to you my conservative Christian bona fides IF you were interested in the facts, thereby confirming that for ~30 YEARS + I lived and spoke up for conservative Christian teachings... do you understand that this is ALL VERIFIABLE?
Yes or no?
Do you further agree that, IF you took the energy to confirm this, you would then be confronted with two options:
1. Either Glenn stated a blatant and demonstrated falsehood or
2. for the first 30 YEARS of my life, I was involved in an elaborate and complex hoax, one that took up 30 years of my life... a hoax that would be so complex as to be utterly unbelievable.
Can you see that?
That is, if indeed, I exist as a person;
If I grew up at Victory Memorial Baptist in Louisville, KY;
Doesn't prove you were a conservative Christian
If attended church there multiple times weekly from birth until I was 22;
Doesn't prove you were a conservative Christian
If I was saved and baptized there in 1973 at the age of ten;
Your saying so doesn't make it so. Lots of fake conversions, especially at young ages.
If I was an active part of the youth group in my teens, attending camps and revivals and church, of course;
Doesn't prove you were a conservative Christian
If I reached a more adult and complete decision to seriously follow Christ at the age of 16 at Ridgecrest Retreat Center at a Youth Retreat;
Doesn't prove you were a conservative Christian. Especially since your definition of Christ includes that he embraces what God calls an abomination.
If I attended Sunday School and RA's and eventually taught Sunday School and helped lead in VBS;
Doesn't prove you were a conservative Christian. Lots of atheists claim to have had similar experiences.
If I helped create the Christian band, Remembrance, and we created two cassettes of original music featuring conservative Christian doctrine;
Lots of so-called Christian bands have horrendous doctrine, let alone vacuous lyrics. Doesn't prove you were a conservative Christian.
If I traveled across Kentucky and points beyond with this band - featuring 3-6 other similarly conservative Christian young fellows - all living, all still conservative Christians, as far as I can tell - doing this for TEN years (1982-1992), preaching and singing a conservative Christian message;
Claiming it was a conservative Christian message doesn't make it so - too many "Christian" songs nowadays are vacuous and self-focussed. Even so, being part of said band doesn't prove you believed as a conservative Christian.
Let's see documented proof - actual writings by Dan Trabue espousing conservative Christian doctrines.
or 2. for the first 30 YEARS of my life, I was involved in an elaborate and complex hoax, one that took up 30 years of my life... a hoax that would be so complex as to be utterly unbelievable.
It's called self-deception.
I see, Dan: you present a list of claims that I could verify for myself, and upon such a verification I would conclude that Glenn here is guilty of stating a falsehood.
I could present a list of claims about the contents of any number of passages from the Bible, attributing words and deeds to God, praising Him for these deeds and elaborating on them, and someone else could verify these claims for themselves.
Upon such verification, that reader would conclude that anybody claiming that the Bible doesn't teach theism would be guilty of stating a falsehood.
But, according to your standards, my position would still be nothing more than a subjective opinion and not an objective fact.
I'm left with only two possibilities, Dan.
1. Your standard for what is factual is reasonable, and therefore your claim isn't factual, either.
2. Your standard is shit.
The only distinction is that one could presumably ask Stivers and Rayburn to clarify whatever statements they made, and that's not true for Moses and Peter and John, but that shouldn't matter.
After all, you insist, "God IS still revealing God's will to us thru [numerous ways], including thru the words written by Moses, et al."
If we can discern God's will through Moses' words, surely we can discern God's existence through Moses' words -- and we can do so clearly without the possibility of good-faith disagreement.
You want people to accept your fact claims under a reasonable standard and understanding of what that means, I suggest you practice what you preach.
Ed Stivers still writes songs for Christian/Gospel singers. You can see his songs here...
https://us.songselect.com/search/author?Authors=4294885865&Sorting=Popularity
Here's one of his songs, "Under Cross Examination"...
http://grooveshark.com/#!/search/song?q=Brian+Free+%26+Assurance+Under+Cross+Examination
and the lyrics, in part...
Lyrics:
1. I dreamed my life was over and I faced the judgement day.
I stood before the Father, not knowing what to say.
My life was like an open book laid out before the throne
Every moment would certainly be known
2. I pondered every hour accounting for my days
The years of faithful service and the times I went astray
No righteousness to call my own, no goodness could I plead
Then the son of God arose and testified for me...
CH:
Under cross examination this one called upon my name
Under cross examination he is free of any blame
when you look upon his life you'll see, the blood I shed at calvary
Now his every sin is gone without a trace..."
and on it goes.
Very typical, traditional Southern Gospel music.
Or consider the songs we wrote together as Remembrance...
"Father, I hear you calling me and I, I'm not where I should be
Oh Lord, your open arms I see and I, I'm coming home..."
And...
"1. Take a look at your life
and I'm sure that you'll see
you're trampling the blood of God
down under your feet
Take a look at your life
and I'm sure that you'll find...
[something something something]
Chorus:
Don't be deceived, God will not be mocked,
a man will reap whatever he sows (x2)"
Sorry, going from memory, there.
Again, all verifiable. I saw one of our cassette tapes on Ebay not too long ago (tapes which we gave away, by the way, because we so believed in sharing the Gospel of Christ that we did not want a lack of money stand in anyone's way).
Facts. Verifiable.
There, Glenn, actual lyrics, actual writings by Dan and his conservative Christian friends in Remembrance.
Vacuous? No doubt, I would not disagree there. But conservative, Christian and traditional in message? Clearly so.
Some more lyrics from back in the day...
"Sinner man, what you gonna do
When God comes looking for you?... Sinner man, where you gonna be
Where you gonna be on judgment day?"
or,
"there you sit
thinking you've got it made
thinking no one
sees your evil ways
and you think
that nobody knows
but God doesn't see the outside
He sees your soul...
He sees the You, behind your eyes
He sees right through, all your filthy lies
that the You can't be disguised
from Me,
It's your heart I see..."
Ah, look! Here's one of our cassettes...
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Remembrance-Mechanical-Man-Cassette-Louisville-Kentucky-Gospel-Ministries-/380872622323
Verifiable. Factual.
Glenn, I repeat: IF someone holds to, espouses, believes, supports, spends money and time on, and otherwise promotes traditional conservative Christian beliefs - doing so for THIRTY YEARS +, is that not evidence that he is at least conservative?
If not, what is sufficient evidence?
The only facts presented are lyrics to two songs. There is no evidence that you believed as a conservative, fundamental Christian who accepted the Word of God as it is written. No evidence of worshipping a God/Christ who abhorred homosexuality. No evidence of worshiping a God/Christ who did NOT preach the social gospel. ETC.
No evidence of YOUR beliefs.
I wonder: if one can read lyrics to another person's songs and "clearly" see "verifiable" and "actual" evidence of a traditional, conservative Christian message, what else could one do with the ability to read?
Could a person read the Psalms and the Epistles and see verifiable, actual evidence of the belief in the existence of God and the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth?
Hmm.
Response to 2nd comment with lyrics:
Still no evidence that you believed as a Conservative fundamental Christian.
Lots of Christian song writers don't practice what their songs espouse.
You can't offer song lyrics as proof of your believing as a conservative, fundamental Christian.
Let's see documented evidences from writings or your teachings during this period where you claim to have conservative and fundamental Christian beliefs.
The fact is, for 30 years, I espoused, supported and promoted conservative Christian teachings. This is verifiable.
You all, on the other hand, are insane, by all appearances.
Why would someone promote conservative Christian ideals and teachings for 30+ years if they were not conservative and Christian?
You have no answer, only entirely baseless hunches with zero data to support your claims that have been demonstrated to be false.
Get help, men.
The fact is, for 30 years, I espoused, supported and promoted conservative Christian teachings. This is verifiable.
You keep saying this, but you don't provide any verifiable evidence. I requested documented proof of your writings and teachings during this claimed time period of Christian conservatism and you've provided none, but come up with ad hominem attacks of us being "insane."
Tsk, tsk.
Glenn, DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH COMMUNICATION?
I clearly stated, "This is VERIFIABLE..."
Do you understand that?
Now, if you find it easier to make shit upon rather than do the research necessary to validate your false charge (which, of course, you CAN NOT validate it, since it is demonstrably false), then that's on you. But that you are not willing to research it and you ARE willing to bear false witness is not evidence that your false charge is correct.
It is, rather, evidence that you are lacking in morals and/or scruples and/or basic human reasoning at an adult level.
Glenn: DO YOU UNDERSTAND that my claims are verifiable?
Do you understand that, IF you took the time to confirm with all the people around me, you could verify if what I am saying is true?
I posted the lyrics and other info just because it was something easy for you to do, but if you want to know facts, sometimes, you have to research them, follow up leads.
You are demonstrating by your actions here that facts don't matter shit to you. You'll just make false claims EVEN WHEN it's been pointed out to you that they're false and this can be demonstrated.
Again, get help. Repent. There is nothing good, pure, loving or of Christ in these false claims of yours.
Have you no shame?
More ad hominems from Trabue.
Trabue, you have not given said evidence. You can assert that things are verifiable that only demonstrate you participated in certain activities. None of that is evidence of your beliefs of the time.
What is it I have made up? You made that charge, now give the evidence.
So if I don't accept your assertions, that means I am "lacking in morals and/or scruples and/or basic human reasoning at an adult level"?!?!?
You are such a hypocrite!
You want me to spend my time and effort locating your pals who cannot verify what your beliefs were at the time, rather all they can do is verify you were involved in claimed activities.
Let's see some teachings from you from that time - is that so difficult for a man who is so profuse with your false teaching writings now?
ATTN:
I don't know why it is, but some comments being posted here do not show up in my email inbox as they once did. For example: When Craig and Bubba post comments, I get those comments in my email inbox as well. This is to notify me that a comment was posted on this blog. Posted comments from Glenn and Dan, however, do not generate emails to my email inbox. I don't know why this is. I am wondering if Glenn and/or Dan have recently begun doing something differently that results in no emails being sent to me.
This is problematic for me as I am now working an usual schedule that leaves me little time for blogging for stretches of three-four days alternating weeks. I can access my emails on my phone, which I must do considering all the stuff I get via email, and must take time to review, delete and store emails so as not to let it get away from me. I can easily have hundreds of unread emails if I don't. While doing so, it was easy to keep up with conversations on the blog. Now, I can only see one side of the conversations. I can, however, pull up my blog on my phone, and often do, but time does not always allow for it. The email situation demands my attention.
In any case, if there is something different in the way anyone is posting, I would appreciate either reverting to the old way, explaining why the new way is preferred or to let men know that no change was made at all and the fault lies with Blogger, which wouldn't surprise me.
Thank you.
Marshall, I too, am having that same thing. Your entries at my blog are no longer showing up in my email, whereas Craig's and Bubba's are.
Don't know why.
My comments show problems of not being received and this has been going on for a while on all google blogs. It's a google problem, since no other type blog shows these problems.
Bubba...
About Stott's argument, which I share and which I typed out at length: your concern for what's on-topic is inconsistent and patently self-serving, and you haven't actually addressed a single actual point of his argument.
As far as I can see, Stott's arguments you are putting forth have nothing to do with the topic here.
But just to address it nonetheless, you cite Stott:
1. The substance of the antitheses. Clearly, Jesus didn't "set aside" the prohibition of murder and adultery: He deepened their implications by also prohibiting hatred and lust. And, when He opposed the teaching of "hate your enemy", He opposed a doctrine that is found **NOWHERE** in Scripture.
That it is wrong to kill someone is neither here nor there as it relates to the OT.
My point has been:
A Behavior is not wrong or right because there is a line in the Bible that says so. It is wrong or right because it contributes to or takes away from the Good, the Whole, the Healthy, the Pure, the Decent, etc.
An action is wrong or bad because it causes harm, it oppresses, it is unjust, it kills.
Thus, my argument is that Jesus "clearly" teaches us this. A right understanding of Scripture, then, is NOT that it is a rule book, but that it is a grace and wisdom book.
So, when Jesus says, "I have not come to abolish the laws, but to fulfill them..." that is clearly, to me, his way of saying "I'm coming to bring you a better, more Godly way of understanding the Laws and the prophets... NOT in a legalistic, 'here are the rules, follow them or be punished' sort of way that leads to death, but in a life-giving, 'the sabbath was made for humanity, not the other way around' sort of way."
If Stott is teaching that we are still under the law because there are behaviors that are bad is part of the pharisaical and backwards, "humanity is for the sabbath, not the other way around" sort of thinking that we need to get away from, as we see in Jesus coming to complete and fulfill our understanding.
The passage you quote is ONE passage and you are using it exactly in a cherry picking sort of way, the exact sort of problem Jesus taught against in his Sabbath is for humanity and "neither do I condemn you" teachings.
Regardless of your opinions or Stott's opinions about what laws we are "under," I do not think a rational or moral or biblical consideration supports that approach, it is exactly the backwards sort of approach that reason, morality and the Bible consistently preach against.
What is true for that first point is true for the rest of it, as well. It is exactly the sort of magic 8 ball thinking that I find to be disrespectful to our God-given reasoning, to the Bible and to morality.
"Well, gee, fellas, what is the right thing to do about behavior X??"
"Well, THE BIBLE says in Burgle 1:32, blah, blee and bloh, so we can KNOW that THE BIBLE tells us we should blah, blee and bloh Behavior X..."
Come, let us reason like adults, not infants.
Now, as I have no desire to catch up at the moment, I do wish to follow up from where I last posted comments.
Dan,
I copied and pasted your last four responses to me to a document for easy reference rather than to continually search where we left off. I had meant to include the date and time of the comments, but did not, so you'll have to seek it out yourself if need be. Anyway, to proceed:
You seem to have gotten the wrong impression from my rather loose explanation for determining good faith disagreement. So some more detail is required.
We can start by simply looking at the position taken by the first person. If the position is such as Bubba's offerings, such as God exists, that person can refer to any number of verses that confirm that Scripture does indeed teach that God exists. (If you don't like the word "teach", then substitute "informs" or some such. Either way, Scripture does indeed say God exists.)
To then dispute the truth of that claim requires something from Scripture that says the opposite, or, the opponent needs to look at any of the passages used to validate the claim and show why those passages are misinterpreted or misunderstood. At this point, the discussion can rage on without moving to any other supporting passages until the dispute can be resolved or an agreement to put it aside for later occurs.
There may be a need to investigate the original language in order to determine the meaning of a given passage used to support a premise. This, too, can lead to a lengthy discussion as words in the original language can have multiple meanings determined by the context in which it is use, and searches for other examples of use is required.
Here's an example I once heard regarding "spare the rod". To some, this verse justifies corporal punishment of one's child. But it is my understanding that the original language refers to the staff that a shepherd uses to guide the lead sheep of a flock, after which all the flock follows. The shepherd would use his staff, also called a rod, and guide the direction of the lead sheep by nudging or gently tapping the sheep until it moves in the desired direction. Thus, the use of the "rod" was to guide the lead sheep lest it move wherever it pleases. The verse then refers to guiding a child in the moral direction desired by the parent wishing to raise a moral child, not beating the child who disobeys or acts immorally.
The person who felt that corporal punishment was the lesson wasn't necessarily acting in bad faith if he first read this, believed it as he did, and then produced a child he would then raise accordingly. But one who had a child and felt beatings were good parenting, who then read this passage and then used it to justify the beatings could be said to be interpreting in bad faith, injecting the preferred meaning to justify the beatings. If such a person, after having the meaning of the original language explained, insisted on maintaining his now debunked interpretation, he would even more so be seen as acting in bad faith.
more...
An action is wrong or bad because it causes harm, it oppresses, it is unjust, it kills.
Unless it is homosexual behavior, which causes physical and emotional harm, and kills, and even oppresses. Then Trabue thinks it doesn't matter.
And abortion - which causes harm and kills, but Trabue justifies that in some circumstances also.
Can't even consistently apply his own standards.
continuing...
For the person just described, there was no need for stockpiling a greater amount of passages to "win" the debate. All that was necessary was to examine the one verse improperly understood. If the person using corporal punishment was unaware of the true meaning, and stood corrected, this would be evidence of one of good faith seeking to know the truth. If that person instead insisted that beatings were the lesson, even after a clear explanation of the original language, that person would need something more solid than simply disagreeing to be considered one arguing in good faith. He would be John Cleese to Michael Palin.
"By that standard, then, there is - even from your point of view - NO teaching with which no people of good faith can disagree."
The quote to which the above is a reply does not follow. You examples that resulted in my response were offered with the caveat that some might not agree. Thus, they could not be be in accord with the standard set forth by the challenge:
A teaching of Scripture with which no one can in good faith disagree.
YOU, apparently, do not believe there exists anything in Scripture with which no one can in good faith disagree. But the challenge does not require that anyone does or doesn't. It only requires that you provide whether or not you believe that such a teaching exists. I side with Bubba that at least one does indeed exist, that Scripture clearly posits that God exists and no one can in good faith disagree with that. One might disagree that it is true, one might insist that God does NOT exist. But one cannot disagree that Scripture says He does.
You go on seeming to suggest that the problem lies with whether or not we can determine that a disagreement is in good faith. However, this is not an uncommon practice as in law, testimonies are often seen to be perjuries without the perjurer admitting to the perjury. Many in prison insist they are innocent and their testimonies put forth as truthful and honest explanations for the events of which they stand accused of lawbreaking. But other testimonies and evidences suggest that their testimonies and alibis could not be true and honest.
Can we know with "absolute" certainty that one is not arguing in good faith? I think we can reasonably conclude so in how they use their "supporting" verses and how they attempt to rebut the positions of others as initial examples.
Another problem is that just because one claims to sincerely believe what all evidence suggests is false, that they are arguing in good faith. This is too convenient to be so. Anyone can claim to be sincere in their belief, when what is really true is that they sincerely want what they say they believe to be true. You seem to insist that they must knowingly be lying, which is not the same as one who lies to themselves by claiming to be sincere. This would be a too strict standard that results in a convenient opening for any belief to be held.
more later...
Dan, I assumed too much.
When asking you to respond to Stott's arguments, I assumed that you would do more than copy-and-paste one of the points that I summarized and regurgitate your unsubstantiated claims.
I assumed that you would have read his argument, tried to comprehend it, and tried to respond to it substantively.
I forgot who I was talking to.
Carry on.
Okay, I have a bit more time, let me take the Stott thing one more time.
Stott says...
1. The substance of the antitheses. Clearly, Jesus didn't "set aside" the prohibition of murder and adultery: He deepened their implications by also prohibiting hatred and lust. And, when He opposed the teaching of "hate your enemy", He opposed a doctrine that is found **NOWHERE** in Scripture.
The same Jesus who said, "I do not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it..." also said...
The Sabbath is for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath
...giving us a KEY clue as to what Jesus though our relationship to OT laws that were given specifically to ancient Israel.
He also said, when confronted with the opportunity to follow the letter of the ancient Jewish law...
Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more...
Giving us another key to understanding our relationship to OT scripture.
Beyond that, Jesus' apostle Paul tells us that we are NOT under the law, but under GRACE...
Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!
Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
Thus, Jesus came teaching a NEW way, a NEW understanding... a FULFILLMENT of Scripture, not a doing away of it.
We are NOT UNDER THE LAW. Period.
If we are Christians; IF we hold to salvation by Grace, then by ALL that is holy, let us LIVE like it. Let us thank GOD for the Grace by which we are saved AND by which we are living, daily. UNDER GRACE, not under the law.
So, Jesus' teachings - TAKEN TOGETHER and rightly understood - will confirm that of course, we ought not do "bad," but NOT because we are under the Law, we are NOT! But because of the grace by which we are saved, by which we live and have our being.
It is a fulfillment of "the Law," then, to understand it correctly. The Sabbath is not something to beat us up and keep us submissive and defeated... the Sabbath IS FOR US. We are NOT condemned under those old laws that Israel held on to as an understanding of God's Ways, but we are set free under grace to go and sin no more. For HEALTH and LIFE and God's sake, not for submission to laws or else you get killed sake.
For the letter of the law brings death, but we are choosing GRACE.
So, the problem with Stott's thinking and case is that he is pulling out (proof texting) passages outside of the whole of Jesus' teaching, which clearly goes another direction.
Dan:
What you quote wasn't Stott's words, but my summary of his argument, which I excerpted at great length, beginning here.
His position (and mine) isn't to suggest salvation by works, but to counter the claim that Jesus "set aside" or "abolished" the law.
It's obvious you either haven't read or haven't understood even this one part of Stott's argument, because you're arguing against some entirely other position.
You can't be bothered to read for comprehension and you can't be honest about it; you'd rather throw around the accusation of cherry-picking to attack an argument you actually don't grasp.
So never mind.
I asked you to provide ONE point of Stott's. You provided something. I responded to YOUR words.
So, you can agree with me that we are NOT under the law?
Good, then what is your complaint?
DO you think we are "not under the law" and yet at the same time, the laws apply to us? What does "under the law" mean to you, then?
Give me a nice brief point that you want to make (yours or Stott's) and I will respond to it. Directly, as is the point of the post.
MY point to the words YOU offered is this, in brief: You appear to misunderstand what Jesus meant by "fulfill," because IT SOUNDS LIKE you're arguing, "WE are still under the law, and these OT laws specifically to ancient Israel still apply today."
IS that your point?
Or can you agree with me, "Yes you are correct, Dan. Those OT rules WERE specifically for ancient Israel and they do NOT apply to us today..."
How about a direct answer to these direct questions, so as to at least be a little similar to the point of this post?
"I asked you to provide ONE point of Stott's. You provided something. I responded to YOUR words."
You did so apparently not grasping the meaning being conveyed by those words, and not willing to read for comprehension the lengthy excerpts I typed out so that you could understand that meaning.
There was no point in excerpting Stott at length: you didn't read it.
There was no point summarizing Stott: you don't understand it.
There is no point answering questions that have NOTHING to do with the argument that Christ didn't abolish the law: even if you were to read my answers AND understand them, we would be NO CLOSER to your addressing the actual argument.
Asking and answering questions so that we reach some sort of consensus about a straw man position nobody's defending is pointless -- and since the alternative is just reading what's already been written, your trying that approach is lazy, vapid, and bizarre.
So, YOU, who misstate my position the vast majority of the time to the point of, when you say, "Dan thinks..." or "Dan believes..." that the odds are quite likely not only do I not think what ever you say, but I probably think the OPPOSITE of what you say...
You, who say I've misunderstood you but who won't clarify by directly answering the questions I've asked...
YOU think that answering my questions to clarify YOUR position is pointless and my "approach" is "lazy, vapid and pointless..."?
That's funny.
I believe all my points stand (the points I've actually made, not the points that you've read into what I've said), solid.
You and Glenn? Not so much.
I am comfortably, objectively, demonstrably correct when I testify that I was clearly in the conservative Christian camp for the first ~30 years of my life. It's a verifiable, real world fact.
Bubba and Glenn, on the other hand, make demonstrably false charges that have ZERO evidence and which are easily disproven, if one looks at the actual facts.
Again, as always, fellas, it comes back to the evidence. I have hard data, you have "But it seems to me..." that is, an appeal to your own perfect knowledge, which of course, does not exist.
And where I don't have hard data, I am always clear that I'm offering MY opinion, not a fact. I do not confuse my opinions for facts, nor do I conflate my opinions with God's Word. You all do.
Tis a shame. I hope you one day recognize this.
Marshall, thanks for the responses. I have not read them yet, but will, just had to take out some trash. (And, lest my analogy be misunderstood, the "trash" is bad opinions and false charges and arrogant claims, not any people, just the charges that fit the description.)
Dan,
"He also said, when confronted with the opportunity to follow the letter of the ancient Jewish law...
Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more..."
I would caution you against using verses as evidence which are already in dispute. He did not in any way contravene the ancient Jewish law. As He was not a witness to the woman's alleged adultery, He was not in any position to stand against her legally. Since no one was around who supposedly knew of her adultery, those who would allegedly be within Jewish law to condemn her, and because He was not among those who were witness to her adultery, He could not condemn her by law. Thus, He was acting according to the law as far as His obligation or duty to it in this case. This has been explained to you many times, but you prefer to insist that He had somehow decided not to condemn her for the sin He encouraged her to reject, when the "condemnation" referred to Jewish law. As Judge of us all, He will judge her later and if she has not repented.
There is nothing about being under grace that means we are not to abide the laws handed down to us by God. You confuse the mandate to be perfect adherents to the law, with abiding the law while enslaving ourselves to Christ. We will sin. Christ will intercede if He is claimed as our Savior. He is the sacrifice made for the forgiveness of our sins, but we are still obliged to recognize what is sinful behavior and what isn't and live accordingly if we are truly servants of God. Nothing Christ did changed the sinfulness of a sin, but only whether or not we will have to pay the big price for it. What was forbidden behavior under the Law is still sinful today and still forbidden those who would claim to be Christian.
Be forewarned. I am not looking to engage in a discussion regarding which OT laws are still in effect and which aren't. I do not count myself as one who has much difficultly in recognizing one law as strictly ceremonial or symbolic for the people of ancient Israel and which are forbidden behaviors that led to God's destruction of cities due to the peoples' perpetuation of those behaviors. Circumcision was ceremonial. Murder was not. Mixing fabrics was symbolic. Stealing was not. It ain't hard.
Clearly, Marshall, literally, Jesus did dismiss the literal law. You all are guessing that MAYBE the people who accused her were not witnesses, but the text does not say that. Indeed, if there were no witnesses, then the story could have pointed it out: "You are not able to continue with this stoning on the technicality that there are no witnesses present..." The story does not say that, literally. There is no dispute in the story that this woman - "CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF ADULTERY" - was in a kangeroo court.
In the literal story, she appears to be clearly guilty and the religious zealots within their rights to kill her for the adultery she was caught in the act of. That's sort of the point of the story: EVEN THOUGH you are guilty, I do not condemn you, go and sin no more.
Now, you all can read extra stuff and make extrabiblical guesses as to maybe why they didn't do what GOD commanded they should do, but it's not in the story.
Literally speaking.
Marshall...
There is nothing about being under grace that means we are not to abide the laws handed down to us by God.
1. The laws were NOT "handed down to us by God." As a matter of fact, the ancient Jewish laws were given specifically to ancient Israel, no one else.
2. Paul says, literally, "For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace."
3. As Paul goes on to say, "Shall we sin, then, that grace may abound? God forbid!" I am not saying that we SHOULD engage in bad behavior. I'm making the unexceptional, extremely orthodox, biblical and rational claim that we are not under laws given to Israel ~4000 years ago.
Dan,
How can you "clearly" and "literally, Jesus did dismiss the literal law?" when He clearly and literally did no such thing? Because He said to the woman, "Then neither do I condemn you?" He clearly and literally told them to go ahead and stone her, with the first stone to be cast by the one without sin.
Anyone who seriously and prayerfully studies Scripture knows that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. If He said simply to go ahead and stone her, they would have run to the Romans as the Romans forbade the Jews from exercising capital punishment. But if He said simply that they should not stone her, He would have been in breech of the very Laws of Moses He told everyone to abide. This was the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" snare they tried to set for Him. He replied in a manner that satisfied the Law, while challenging them to pretend any of them were without sin. His stooping down the second time allowed them to slink away without Him looking at them doing it. Oh, if I could have but half of that quick-thinking ability!
But dismiss the law? Not in the least. Jesus didn't come to the world to condemn anyone, but to provide a means to avoid condemnation. But it is His job to one day condemn some.
And BTW, I never addressed whether or not I believed actual witnesses to her adultery were present or not. But witnesses were required for an adulterer or adulteress to be convicted and both were to be put to death. Where was the man?
Also, that the men dispersed as they did shows that they were now riders of an expertly chauffeured guilt trip. However, the woman may not have been stoned anyway due to the Roman law. The Romans might not have seen her "sin" worthy of death, for all we know. In any case, it was a moot issue. The whole thing was staged to see how Jesus would answer and they would have given Him grief either way if not for his wisdom confounding their plans.
The point here, however, is that you are conflating His treatment of the woman after the crowd dispersed with Him overturning the Law, which He clearly did not do, since He spoke of throwing a stone.
As to Mosaic Law, I say once again that I am not about to go into explaining the differences between purity laws, ceremonial and symbolic laws and laws regarding behaviors, which are not all the same things. Christ did away with purity laws saying that nothing that goes into the body makes us impure, but what comes from within us. Other laws symbolic of the separations between the Jews and the Gentiles were replaced by Christ offering Himself and His saving Grace to all people who accept Him as Lord and Savior.
But as Bubba pointed out earlier, Jesus said hate is as murder and lust is as adultery. Two examples of Christ insisting how we think and act determine how much we please or disappoint God, how much we compare to or contrast with Him. The Law, as regards behaviors, teaches us what is pleasing and displeasing to God. It isn't abiding those laws that save us. But acting contrary to them shows how much we truly have devoted ourselves to Him.
As YOU describe it, not being under the law means there is no such thing as sinful behaviors. But Paul says,
"Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness."
What does he mean by "sin"? There must be some guide, some teaching, some set of "rules" that inform us of that to which we must not offer any part of ourselves.
Marshall...
As YOU describe it, not being under the law means there is no such thing as sinful behaviors.
Remember what I've often pointed out...
When YOU all say, "Dan thinks..." that it's a safe assumption that Dan does NOT think that? How it's quite likely that I think the OPPOSITE of that?
Yeah, that applies here.
What I HAVE said is that we, today, are literally NOT under the OT laws given specifically to the Jews, NOT US, and that, 4,000 years ago. WE are not under THAT law. WE are under grace.
You know, like Paul says.
As to your interpretations of the text, I simply disagree and for reasons I've gone over multiple times.
I think clearly, you are literally mistaken in what you're reading into the text.
Y'know what's really funny, Dan?
Your ripping my words out of context, ripping Mark 2 out of context, and ripping John 8 out of context, all to argue that my error (and Stott's) is ripping Matthew 5 out of context -- when the truth is, the argument I present is a closer reading of the actual text AND its context than anything you've ever presented.
You're just too lazy or cowardly to actual deal with it on a substantive level, and you're STILL making the idiotic claim that I repudiated with those thousand-word excerpts of Stott's commentary.
"Clearly, Marshall, literally, Jesus did dismiss the literal law."
Jesus did no such thing, and you simply cannot be bothered with a detailed examination of what your supposed Lord taught in that sermon you supposedly love so dear.
Dan, you argue, "Jesus did dismiss the literal law," but you make clear, "I am not saying that we SHOULD engage in bad behavior."
I can see only one way to reconcile those claims -- the position that Jesus affirmed the law AS THE STANDARD FOR ETHICAL BEHAVIOR but dismissed the law AS THE MEANS FOR SALVATION.
Would that be where you stand?
If so, I have a couple follow-up questions.
Three quick and easy, straightforward questions to you fellas. Given the topic of the post, I will expect easy, straightforward answers...
1. IF the pharisees had brought the adulterous woman AND the adulterous man to Jesus, do you REALLY think he would have said, "Okay, the gang's all here. Give me a rock and let's start bashing in some heads, IN ACCORDANCE TO WHAT I SPECIFICALLY, LITERALLY TOLD ANCIENT ISRAEL TO DO..."?
2. Or do you think that would be ENTIRELY missing the point Jesus was making?
3. Do you have ANY evidence that "the Law" was only to be carried out if all guilty parties were there? That is, if TWO people worked together to commit murder - and the law says, "kill them..." just like it does for two adulterers - do you think there was a loophole in the Law that said, "...BUT, if you only bring ONE of the two murderers, let them off, because BOTH have to be there..."?
Bubba...
I can see only one way to reconcile those claims -- the position that Jesus affirmed the law AS THE STANDARD FOR ETHICAL BEHAVIOR but dismissed the law AS THE MEANS FOR SALVATION.
Would that be where you stand?
My position is that I take Paul literally and use my own head to confirm Paul's words. Read closely and understand:
WE. are. not. under. the. laws. given. to. ancient. Israel.
Those laws do not apply to us, simply because they are found in the OT.
We ought not kill or steal or kill adulterers or kill those who break the sabbath, but NOT because there are rules that ancient Israel understood to be from God to them, but BECAUSE THEY ARE WRONG.
It does not matter if ancient Israel thought that men should not cut the hair on the side of their heads. We don't enforce that rule because it would be wrong to enforce it, not to mention, just plain silly.
It does not matter if ancient Israel thought that God didn't want us to work on the Sabbath and that God wants us to kill those who DO work on the Sabbath. We don't enforce either of these rules because it would be WRONG to do so.
This gets back to the whole notion of treating the Bible as some holy rule book or magic 8 ball.
"Should we kill this adulterous or must we wait until we find the man, too?... magic 8 Bible says... KILL HER!"
No, we DON'T kill adulterers because doing so is wrong.
We don't want to commit adultery because doing so is wrong.
And these are NOT wrong or right because ancient Israel thought they were wrong or right, but because they cause harm, they are not just actions, because it is an overreaction, etc. We don't use the Bible as a rule book to get rulings on this behavior or that behavior based on what ancient Israel thought. We strive to do the right and promote the good, healthy, wholesome and discourage the opposite.'
And why don't we use it as a guideline to establish rules for us? Because (say it with me, friends...)
We.
Are.
Not.
Under.
The.
Law.
Jesus did NOT affirm "the Law" as a whole as "the Standard" for being good to which rules WE ought to hew tightly to in order to be good.
Doesn't mean that some of the rules ancient Israel held are not good ideas, but that is not "the Standard," en masse, for good behavior, Jesus did NOT teach that, given what Jesus had to say in whole and not just proof texting a verse here and there.
Does that help clarify?
What IS "the Standard for Right Living," according to Jesus?
Grace, that would be my opinion.
Here's an interesting article that I'm still reading through, but touches on much of what I've said, although stated in a way that you might for more appealing...
http://www.gci.org/law/sct17
I am concerned that the author is merely replacing an OT legalism with a NT legalism, but I think the overall message is sound: We are NOT under OT Law.
"However, the New Testament tells us that the Old Testament is informative but not normative."
I'm not endorsing this group, I don't know them, I just found the article interesting given our conversation and thought you might appreciate it, too.
Looking forward to your answers to my questions. Direct, clear answers.
"It does not matter if ancient Israel thought that God didn't want us to work on the Sabbath and that God wants us to kill those who DO work on the Sabbath. We don't enforce either of these rules because it would be WRONG to do so."
It would be one thing to believe that God revealed the law to ancient Israel and ONLY intended the law to apply to them: this statement not only doesn't imply that God actually did give these particular commands, it implies that He didn't.
It implies that ancient Israel MISTAKENLY "thought that God didn't want us to work on the Sabbath and that God wants us to kill those who DO work on the Sabbath" -- because, after all, God wouldn't command what is intrinsically immoral.
Throughout your comment, you refer to the Old Testament, NOT as what God revealed to ancient Israel, but only "what ancient Israel thought."
Starting with that misguided assumption, it's no wonder you wander so far from orthodoxy.
--
"Doesn't mean that some of the rules ancient Israel held are not good ideas, but that is not 'the Standard,' en masse, for good behavior, Jesus did NOT teach that, given what Jesus had to say in whole and not just proof texting a verse here and there."
To mention that Jesus explicitly taught that He came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it;
To mention that Jesus explicitly warned against relaxing even the least commandment;
To mention that Jesus submitted to Jewish Scripture during the temptation in the wilderness, in the controversies with the religious teachers, and in the understanding of His own ministry;
To mention that Jesus didn't teach us that His standard was only grace, but that the greatest commandments are to love God and love our neighbors, each of which were quotes from the Torah;
All that is "proof-texting" -- why? Because you say it is.
And the contentious and arguably tendentious conclusions you draw from Mark 2 and John 7 are "what Jesus had to say in whole" -- again, only because you say so.
--
Yes, Dan, let's take serious and literally what Paul wrote about the law.
"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. - Rom 8:3-4, emphasis mine
Why, it looks like Paul thinks that the law's requirement is righteous and not just the patently immoral speculation of ancient Israel.
And it looks like Paul thinks that the law's righteous requirement ought to be fulfilled in us, that in fact God sent His Son FOR THAT VERY PURPROSE, *NOT* that we should strive to obey the law in our own flesh, but that we WOULD fulfill its requirements by walking in the Spirit (and receiving by faith the justification that Christ won with His death).
I must be proof-texting that passage, too.
Dan, did you start reading that essay for years ago? If not, I think it would be rude to place reading that essay higher on the to-do list than making a serious attempt to tackle the long excerpts from Stott's commentary.
But that just might be me.
About your questions, I'm more interested in studying what Jesus did teach than in speculating about what He would have taught in different circumstances; I'm more interested in understanding the OT law as-written than in speculating about loopholes that could have been there in an alternate reality.
And I think it's crap to demand clear and direct answers to your questions when your response to my questions is to delay as long as possible, read them out of context, and then ask irrelevant questions in reply.
Yeah, expecting clear and direct answers to questions that poke holes in your reasoning, I get why that's uncomfortable for you and why you'd avoid it.
But hopefully Marshall is made of tougher mettle than that, since he's the one posting in favor of clear and direct answers.
I, of course, have no hope that Glenn would even consider answering the question, it just isn't in his history to answer questions AT ALL, much less clearly and directly.
And in case you're missing the point, Bubba, the questions raised DIRECTLY impact the points your Stott Man has raised, so they are topical and critical to YOUR points. Choosing to ignore/avoid these questions - questions that point to gaping holes in your and Stott's assumptions (at least as I understand them) - can either be addressed and strengthen your argument or avoided, which only undermines your argument.
Your call, just pointing out how the questions I'm raising DO specifically address your Stott opinions.
You know, of course, you can't raise some points, demand answers to them, and when legitimate questions are raised about those points, just avoid them and think that you "win..." That would be a forfeit on your part, not a win.
Seeing your flimsy excuse of a response to my lengthy arguments regarding Matthew 5, I think you're in no position to speculate that other people are avoiding hard questions.
Your position has been that, in John 7, Jesus was given an opportunity to follow the clear letter of the OT law and didn't; it's entirely relevant to point out that the situation was anomalous in multiple ways, and having us speculate on what-might-have-been is a frivolous way to avoid conceding the point.
You claim that Jesus "clearly" set aside the law, and my focus on WHAT HE ACTUALLY TAUGHT repudiates that claim.
You claim that Paul "literally" set aside the law, and my focus now on WHAT HE ACTUALLY WROTE shows that he believed God's plan was that the just requirements of the law would be fulfilled in us.
Since it's obvious that you never have and never will have any intention to reciprocate, it's foolishness to allow you to drive this conversation with your irrelevant questions.
...and, Dan, you obviously don't understand Stott's argument enough to ask probing questions about it.
You're ignoring what he wrote about the actual text of Matthew 7 -- the actual words on the page -- to speculate about what might have been in an alternate-universe run of John 7.
That's not on-topic, you schmuck.
Dan, you claim your questions "point to gaping holes in your and Stott's assumptions (at least as I understand them)."
I don't believe you understand his argument, and so therefore your beliefs regarding his assumptions are wildly off-base.
Summarize Stott's argument -- SUMMARIZE IT, don't just copy and paste it or my own summary of it -- and then explain your questions' relevance.
I'm happy to address legitimate questions and critiques of his argument; I just refuse to be derailed with half-assed pseudo-critiques based on straw men that hardly even bear a superficial resemblance to that argument.
Refusing to fight on behalf of a straw man is conceding nothing about the real man and his real analysis.
uh huh.
...and, FYI, Dan, about that "Stott Man."
In 2005, Time Magazine listed him among the 100 most influential people in the world; for the issue, Billy Graham wrote, "I can't think of anyone who has been more effective in introducing so many people to a biblical world view."
CERTAINLY, that doesn't mean John Stott was right about the Sermon on the Mount or anything else, but let's not act as if I'm referencing a crank who nobody's heard of.
It's rude.
Trabue keeps asserting that Bubba and I have made false charges, and yet he has yet to demonstrate how they are false!
Trabue,
In the context, the people said they caught her in the act of adultery, which by law required both man and woman to be charged and yet they brought only the woman. Hypocrisy.
Then Jesus gave them the opportunity to bear witness to the event. We don't know what he wrote in the sand, but I have a feeling it was something like, "where's the man."
No one was ready to stand as witnesses as required by the law. THAT is why Jesus released her BY THE LAW.
That's a cute guess, Glenn.
How about an answer to these questions, which poke holes in your arguments...
1. IF the pharisees had brought the adulterous woman AND the adulterous man to Jesus, do you REALLY think he would have said, "Okay, the gang's all here. Give me a rock and let's start bashing in some heads, IN ACCORDANCE TO WHAT I SPECIFICALLY, LITERALLY TOLD ANCIENT ISRAEL TO DO..."?
2. Or do you think that would be ENTIRELY missing the point Jesus was making?
3. Do you have ANY evidence that "the Law" was only to be carried out if all guilty parties were there? That is, if TWO people worked together to commit murder - and the law says, "kill them..." just like it does for two adulterers - do you think there was a loophole in the Law that said, "...BUT, if you only bring ONE of the two murderers, let them off, because BOTH have to be there..."?
you are literally mistaken in what you're reading into the text
As has been demonstrated on every Christian blog Trabue trolls, HE is the one reading into every text he comes across. Trabue has no clue about proper exegesis, as has been demonstrated time and again.
Glenn...
yet he has yet to demonstrate how they are false!
Demonstrated repeatedly. I was a conservative young man who held tightly and strongly to traditional conservative Christian beliefs. It is a matter of record and verifiable. You can go ask people who knew me and find out.
YOU are the one making the stupid and false charge, the onus is on YOU to produce hard evidence of your false charge and, LACKING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, it is on you, if you were a man of morals and human decency, to admit you can not support the charge with EVEN ONE bit of hard evidence.
Or how about we do the same thing in reverse, Glenn? Here's a charge, just for giggles:
When Glenn was a young man, he molested puppies and raped kittens. It is "obviously" true, given the state of his mind today, anyone can see it.
No, I don't need any hard evidence to support the charge, it's enough that I think it to "prove" it as a "fact..."
By your standard of "decency," that is an entirely fair charge and you can NOT disprove it, so it must be true. Otherwise, you would provide evidence to clear your name.
As it is, you are just a sick puppy molesting, kitty raper.
You sicko.
Is that how charges work in your world? That would explain a lot.
Dan:
Glenn points out where the circumstances in John 7 don't meet the requirements of the Mosaic law as written.
Your response?
"That's a cute guess, Glenn."
It's apparently more important to you that he answers your question in SPECULATING ABOUT WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, then in examining the text's details about what DID happen.
That's just great.
Between that and your "uh huh" response to me, you don't do much to make a person reconsider his conclusion that you're just not interested in arguing your position in good faith -- and you're just not all that skilled in arguing in any case.
Funny. Seriously, you always bring a smile to my day with your irony-rich commentary.
uh huh.
What's cute (but a bit sad) is that you all just don't seem to get that you're attempting to call the pot (Dan) black for what you're actually doing, but Dan isn't.
Again, I suspect a cultural blindness brought on by a hard and arrogant dependence upon your cultural and political agendas.
All I can do is keep pointing to actual evidence and keep pointing out when you are pointing to your head and calling it evidence or, worse, "god's word..."
Trabue,
Your hypothetical "what if" they brought the man is irrelevant - they didn't because it was a test. Bubba explained that to you, but you are too dense to understand.
You think Jesus was okay with adultery just like he is okay with homosexuality. But that's because you worship another Jesus.
Traube,
Asserting that there are people who could verify things you did does not prove that you had a conservative Christian belief.
Our charge is that you could never have had such a belief based on your current teachings. Therefore, it is for you to demonstrate by your own teachings of the time that we are wrong in our charges.
Your stupid claims about me only show what an immature person you are.
Again, those are cute guesses, Glenn.
Any hard data to support your whimsical hunches, or do I just have to take your word for it?
And if it's just on your word, do you mind if I pass. I must obey God and not glenn.
Trabue,
you don't obey God anyway!
Another unsupported charge.
Although, no doubt, this poor sinner does fail at times to perfectly follow God. Thank God for Grace, may we all learn to live by that which we are saved!
As to your unsupported charge, I rather guess that what you actually mean (if you're being rational and not thinking you are God) is that you hold opinions about behaviors that are different than mine, and you think your opinions about what God wants lines up best with what God actually wants moreso than mine.
If that is what you mean, you are certainly welcome to your opinion. I will continue to hold that my opinions - humble and error-prone though they may be - reflect God's grace and love more accurately than your hunches, which tend towards the harsh, arrogant and wrongfully judgmental. In my opinion.
Certainly, the fact (and it IS a demonstrable fact) that you are so willing to produce a false charge with ZERO actual support does lend credence to the notion that, at least on these areas where you are factually, demonstrably offering false charges does point to the possibility of an arrogance and presumption not becoming a follower of the Christ.
Words to those who have ears to hear.
Dan,
My position is that due to your wacky notions of what constitutes conservatism, that you were never a "conservative" Christian except on a most superficial level. Said another way, your current statements regarding conservatism indicate you never understood the conservative point of view even while you thought you were conservative. Thus, you can say you used to think like us all you want, but your current understanding of conservatism says otherwise. Your current understanding doesn't in any way reflect the perspectives of conservative Christians at all.
Now, to your questions:
"1. IF the pharisees had brought the adulterous woman AND the adulterous man to Jesus, do you REALLY think he would have said, "Okay, the gang's all here. Give me a rock and let's start bashing in some heads, IN ACCORDANCE TO WHAT I SPECIFICALLY, LITERALLY TOLD ANCIENT ISRAEL TO DO..."?"
They could have brought twenty people so accused and it would have made no difference. Christ's response would not be altered because He knew what they were about. Their intentions had very little to do with the woman, whether the charge against her was true or not. That's what you fail to understand. The point of the story was another illustration of how the Scribes and Pharisees hoped to entrap Jesus whom they saw as a threat to their power over the people.
We speculate about the charge being false because the man was not brought as well. For all we know, he could already have been put to death (if they did that sort of thing behind the backs of the Roman rulers). OR, perhaps they knew who he was and he had escaped their clutches and they only had the woman at that point. OR, it was all crap and they had not first hand knowledge of her adultery, which the Law required in order to convict.
But again, none of that matters. What matters is that they were trying to entrap Jesus and He allowed for the implementation of the Law in His response to them. He never said the Law was not to be carried out, that it was wrong or even hinted at anything like that. That would have resulted in Him being caught in the trap. He DID, however, encourage them to carry out the sentence, with the first stone cast by the one dude in the crowd who was without sin. The only thing Christ altered in that story was the outcome for which the Scribes and Pharisees hoped.
Christ didn't refuse to condemn her because He was overturning the Law. He was in compliance with the Law the whole time up to and including His telling her He would not condemn her. How could He? He was not witness to her sin as the Law required, nor was He in a position of authority to pass sentence and carry it out. In the meantime, you have NOT shown why or how He overturned the Law. You have simply asserted that because He would not condemn the woman that He was overturning it. That's a leap and an example of reading into the text what it does not say at all.
"2. Or do you think that would be ENTIRELY missing the point Jesus was making?"
It's clear that as the story is laid out, the point Christ was making was that the Scribes and Pharisees ain't all that. They don't have the smarts to entrap Him. They don't have the wisdom He does, nor the understanding of the Law, both Mosaic and Roman. But the point Jesus was making had nothing to do with overturning the Law.
continuing...
"3. Do you have ANY evidence that "the Law" was only to be carried out if all guilty parties were there? That is, if TWO people worked together to commit murder - and the law says, "kill them..." just like it does for two adulterers - do you think there was a loophole in the Law that said, "...BUT, if you only bring ONE of the two murderers, let them off, because BOTH have to be there..."?"
No, but I don't need any since I haven't made that argument. I've only said that because the woman was brought forth without the man with whom she committed adultery, it is quite possible that she was not actually seen committing adultery, but only accused of being an adulteress, despite how the story is worded. That is speculation to which I have no trouble admitting, but it is logical given that the story also says they intended to trap Jesus.
Murder does not require more than one person. Adultery does, so that one cannot be convicted of adultery if there is no second party. And that is all that anyone here has suggested---that because they only brought the woman, and the story states they were trying to trap Jesus by doing so, the charge might indeed have been false. But again, that doesn't matter and is not the relevant feature of our position.
However, since adulterers had to be caught in the act in order to convict, it would not matter the fate of one if the other managed to get away. Why would it? They were caught red handed.
"Again, I suspect a cultural blindness brought on by a hard and arrogant dependence upon your cultural and political agendas."
This is baseless considering how much and how well we cite Scripture in support of our positions and beliefs. You like to blame cultural and/or political influences, but the reverse is true, that the culture and politics to which we subscribe are influenced by the clear teachings of Scripture. What's more, we stand ready to defend that proposition at all times. Thus...
"All I can do is keep pointing to actual evidence and keep pointing out when you are pointing to your head and calling it evidence or, worse, "god's word...""
...results in consistent failure for you. You provide no evidence that does what you'd like it to do for you and we continue to show how we are NOT speaking FOR God, but relating what God has clearly revealed. Think of it this way, Dan: every time you resort to "that's your hunch" or "those are cute guesses", you've exposed your failure to make your case. Those are signs of your surrender to stronger arguments. It demonstrates your unwillingness to admit you are wrong in your position or beliefs, or that you even have the courage to stand back from them to reconsider them in light of the arguments against which you can only level charges of "hunches" and "guesses". Your claim that you "might be wrong" is rhetoric and untrue of your true attitude.
Marshall...
that you were never a "conservative" Christian except on a most superficial level.
1. What then, does it mean to be a conservative Christian, if not affirming conservative and Christian values?
2. If I TRULY believed, deeply, that abortion and any gay behavior were blatant sins, If I believed and affirmed the Bible as inerrant, and other conservative Southern Baptist values, are those NOT conservative Christian values? [They are, of course. Along with all the other beliefs aforementioned.]
What, then, would it take to mean that I was a conservative Christian NOT at a superficial level?
3. By what measure? On what basis?
It is this sort of thing, along with Mark's very first statement on this thread and John's that followed it, that points to a type of arrogance and ignorance on your parts. It seems you all are saying, "If I can not see how it is possible, then IT MUST NOT BE POSSIBLE..." despite all evidence and hard data. But perhaps you can provide a clear, direct answer to the three questions I asked above and clarify...
Marshall...
That's what you fail to understand. The point of the story was another illustration of how the Scribes and Pharisees hoped to entrap Jesus whom they saw as a threat to their power over the people.
Clearly, that the pharisees were trying to trap Jesus is part of the story, and it is confirmed in other sections of the Gospels where we see the Pharisees plotting similar tricks.
But who says that this is THE ONLY point of the story?
I asked, "Do you think that if the TWO adulterers were brought to Jesus, THEN do you think Jesus would participate in the stoning in accordance with GOD'S LAW as you and the Pharisees understood it?"
Your answer, in brief, is NO. You say...
They could have brought twenty people so accused and it would have made no difference. Christ's response would not be altered because He knew what they were about.
But it seems to me clear that in this part of the story, the facts are:
1. The woman WAS CAUGHT IN THE ACT of adultery. There is no hint at all that the charge was false.
2. You and I both agree that Jesus would NOT have followed Jewish Law, as you and the Pharisees understood it (ie, that the adulterers should be killed).
3. Thus, Jesus is giving a twist to the teaching. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO FOLLOW THE LAW exactly. In fact, today, you and I would probably agree, that IF someone tried following this law literally, THEY would be guilty of an egregious sin - killing adulterers. We are NOT under that law or any of the Laws found in the OT that were given specifically to the ancient Jews. Following those laws simply because we find them "given from God" to the ancient Jews is not sufficient to make the law right or good.
I don't see how anyone could say this is not a dismissing of at least THIS law.
Marshall, here's a follow up question:
Suppose that two adulterers were caught in the act and brought to Jesus NOT by pharisees plotting to trap him, but by sincere Jews intent on literally following the law FROM GOD. THEN, would Jesus have said, "Your hearts are in the right place and this IS My law, so yeah, let's kill them suckers!"?
No, of course he wouldn't.
He was giving them a new way of looking at the Law given specifically to ancient Israel, a literal CHANGE of the law from "kill the adulterers," to "DON'T kill the adulterers."
How is that NOT a change of the Law?
Out of time...
Marshall...
it was all crap and they had not first hand knowledge of her adultery, which the Law required in order to convict.
The text...
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them.
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, IN THE VERY ACT.
Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?”
So, in your opinion, you are guessing that when the Bible tells us the woman was CAUGHT IN THE ACT, that it was just playing along with a lie that the Pharisees were using?
If so, then why didn't Jesus simply say, "she was not caught in the act" or "you are lying..."? And, thus, the woman not being guilty, Jesus would have succeeded in stopping the trap.
Or, if the law required BOTH adulterers to be present - as you are guessing (even though the text does not require it, it's just a guess on your part) - why would Jesus not simply say, "Um, the dude isn't here, this is not a legitimate stoning. Go get the dude so we can kill both of them..."?
Holes in your guesses. I see no textual reason to make these guesses.
Marshall...
since adulterers had to be caught in the act in order to convict, it would not matter the fate of one if the other managed to get away. Why would it? They were caught red handed.
So, just to be clear: You have zero evidence to support the claim that "If two people were caught in adultery and one ran away, they COULD NOT kill the captured one, and any attempts to do so would be wrong...," is that right?
It's just an unsupported guess that Jewish people would be wrong for killing only one of the two adulterers, is that right?
Marshall...
You provide no evidence that does what you'd like it to do for you and we continue to show how we are NOT speaking FOR God, but relating what God has clearly revealed.
So you're NOT saying, "I'm speaking FOR God..." you're saying, "I'm telling you MY OPINION of what the Bible says God says, and my opinion CAN NOT be mistaken...", is that right?
If so, what is the difference, is that not two ways of saying the same thing?
Marshall...
In the meantime, you have NOT shown why or how He overturned the Law. You have simply asserted that because He would not condemn the woman that He was overturning it. That's a leap and an example of reading into the text what it does not say at all.
Not nearly as much a leap as making your guess that maybe the woman was NOT caught in the act of adultery (in spite of that being the literal text from the passage and there being no hint of her guilt being question) or that maybe the Jewish folk wouldn't kill one if they only caught one of the two adulterers.
He demonstrated that clearly, it was not what he wanted to kill this adulterous woman. And it wouldn't have mattered if there had been the man there, too, the point was, "Don't kill them. Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more..."
Straight question: Do you think Jesus, in general, supported the Jews killing "men who lay with men," adulterers, those who worked on the sabbath, etc? What is your evidence for that?
Dan,
"1. What then, does it mean to be a conservative Christian, if not affirming conservative and Christian values?"
Not sure that I want to take the time to go into great detail, and I fear not doing so would compel you to ask more questions deviating from the already tangential discussion. But based on how you speak of it now, I would say an example would be that conservative Christians do NOT believe that all Levitical law is applicable today, while at the same time having very little difficulty in determining which are and which aren't. However, this is a tiny thing in the grand scheme. The larger point was a general one, that because of how you speak of conservatism today, and how far astray from real conservatism it is, you could not possibly have understood conservatism properly during that span of your life you insist you were conservative. For example, your constant reference to conservatives as if we are war-mongers, a "war as solution" as if it is a first choice. No true conservative thinks like that. That said, it seems equally unlikely that you were truly a conservative as regards Christianity. I have not collected every comment you've made regarding either conservatism or conservative Christianity, so I am not prepared to get into a discussion on the specifics of the issue as regards why I feel as I do.
I do not believe that I need to list all the comments you've made over the years to justify my position on whether or not your were truly conservative in any way. I will, however, attempt to remember to point out when you expose your lack of understanding in the future.
"But who says that this is THE ONLY point of the story?"
Is this one of those "layers of meaning" arguments? Yet I didn't say it was the only point, or that other legitimate lessons could not be inferred. What I'm saying is that there is nothing in this story that demonstrates Jesus overturning the Mosaic law regarding punishment for adultery. He did not. That sort of thing comes with His sacrifice on the cross.
"1. The woman WAS CAUGHT IN THE ACT of adultery. There is no hint at all that the charge was false."
Of course there's a hint. There are two: 1. Only the woman was brought before Jesus, and 2. The story clearly states they were looking to trap Him. Those aren't proofs that the charge was false and I never stated they are or that the charge indeed was false, but only that there is enough there to suspect so. I also said it is not an important detail as to the overall point of the story. Thus, there is no reason to belabor the point.
"2. You and I both agree that Jesus would NOT have followed Jewish Law, as you and the Pharisees understood it (ie, that the adulterers should be killed)."
Where in the hell did you get that? Of course I disagree. He told them to throw stones. It's right there in the story! AND, as Bubba has stated over and over, Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law. What the hell more do you need? Sure, it would be swell to know that if He was in the position to pass sentence, that He would let the chick off. But nothing in the story indicates that He would. You keep trying to point to His telling her the He, too, does not condemn her. But again, He was not a witness to her crime. He was not in a position of authority that allows Him to sentence her based on testimony. He wasn't even asked to do the honors by the Pharisees. He was merely asked His opinion on the matter.
more coming now...
"3. Thus, Jesus is giving a twist to the teaching. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO FOLLOW THE LAW exactly."
Absolutely in your dreams only! He is not "giving a twist", but getting His own behind out of a jam with some clever response to their question. That's it.
"In fact, today, you and I would probably agree, that IF someone tried following this law literally, THEY would be guilty of an egregious sin..."
And thus you do here what so often you accuse us of doing: interpreting ancient texts by today's standards. It was not an "egregious sin" during the time of Christ to exact the God-decreed punishments for forbidden behaviors. How could it be given that God decreed them?
"We are NOT under that law or any of the Laws found in the OT that were given specifically to the ancient Jews."
You mean like: stealing, lying, deceiving one another, swearing falsely by God's name, defrauding your neighbor or robbing him, holding back wages of a hired man, cursing the deaf or putting a stumbling block before the blind, perverting justice, showing partiality to the poor (!!!) or favoritism to the great, spreading slander, endangering your neighbor's life, hating your brother, seeking revenge or bearing grudges? We are no longer bound by Mosaic law concerning these behaviors? What a relief; especially as you like to accuse us of slander so often!
"Suppose that two adulterers were caught in the act and brought to Jesus NOT by pharisees plotting to trap him, but by sincere Jews intent on literally following the law FROM GOD."
You can speculate any which way you like. It doesn't change anything about the story we actually have before us. But to answer, I have no reason to believe Jesus would be a hard ass about every little thing, but He would definitely school all parties regarding their particular roles in the affair (no pun intended). But that's case specific. It still wouldn't mean that He is overturning the Law even if in your scenario He encouraged the sincere citizens to let the adulterers off with a warning to "sin no more". Yet again, as He stated clearly that He did not come to abolish the Law, there's no reason to suspect that He wouldn't just as easily comfort the convicted before they were executed. AS I said, there is nothing "egregious" about carrying out God's mandated punishment for sin.
"He was giving them a new way of looking at the Law given specifically to ancient Israel, a literal CHANGE of the law from "kill the adulterers," to "DON'T kill the adulterers."
How is that NOT a change of the Law?"
Once more, with feeling...He TOLD them stone the broad beginning with whomever was without sin. Imagine, how can we execute ANY sentence in our society under those conditions? Which of us is guiltless? Can we put a thief in prison, or a perjurer? It's ludicrous to pretend He was doing away with a God decreed sentence at that point in time. It's inane to use that story for your purpose as it requires all sorts of injections of meaning the story itself does not provide. And what's more, He was giving them nothing but a taste of what it is like to try and mess with the Lord.
more coming now...
"So, in your opinion, you are guessing that when the Bible tells us the woman was CAUGHT IN THE ACT, that it was just playing along with a lie that the Pharisees were using?"
What the hell's wrong with you? Why do insist on beating this dead horse? Haven't I clearly stated that I am speculating on why the Pharisees only brought the woman? None of that matters to the story. All that matters is that they were trying to entrap Jesus. Did they really catch her? Well the text says so, but what does that have to do with whether or not Jesus was overturning the Law here? NOTHING!! as I have repeatedly said. Your desperation to insist what isn't implied by the story requires counseling.
"If so, then why didn't Jesus simply say, "she was not caught in the act" or "you are lying..."? And, thus, the woman not being guilty, Jesus would have succeeded in stopping the trap."
Oh, really? And how did He convince the Romans that the Jewish leaders were full of shit? These were leaders of the people with some level of authority and credibility. They set up this charade in order to trap Jesus. He's gonna get away with calling them liars, even if they were absolutely lying? Really? What in Scripture leads you to believe that would happen...I mean since you are so into speculating about what the text does NOT say. My speculations have no weight in the story but to respond to the story itself, as in regards to why the man wasn't brought as well. But still again, my speculations don't try to inject into the story that which the story itself isn't saying.
"Or, if the law required BOTH adulterers to be present - as you are guessing..."
I never said the law required both to be present for execution. I said the law requires both be executed. Can you not see the distinction between what I said and what you continue to suggest I said? Do you even read anyone's comments in full?
No holes in either my speculations OR my opposition to your self-pleasing injection of what the story doesn't say.
"So, just to be clear: You have zero evidence to support the claim that "If two people were caught in adultery and one ran away, they COULD NOT kill the captured one, and any attempts to do so would be wrong...," is that right?"
Just to be clear, I never made that claim. Ever. Thus, the following is an incredibly stupid question:
"It's just an unsupported guess that Jewish people would be wrong for killing only one of the two adulterers, is that right?"
"So you're NOT saying, "I'm speaking FOR God..." you're saying, "I'm telling you MY OPINION of what the Bible says God says, and my opinion CAN NOT be mistaken...", is that right?"
No. That's not even close to anything I've done or said. That is to say, when I say "This is what Scripture says" or "God says.." I am quoting directly from the Scripture. And since I am quoting directly from Scripture, you have to prove why the words I quoted don't say what normal people know the words say.
"Not nearly as much a leap as making your guess that maybe the woman was NOT caught in the act of adultery..."
Just a reminder: I have not hung my hat on that speculation, nor does it matter to the point of this discussion.
"...maybe the Jewish folk wouldn't kill one if they only caught one of the two adulterers."
Another reminder: I never made this claim or suggested it in the least.
"He demonstrated that clearly, it was not what he wanted to kill this adulterous woman."
No. He didn't. You just wish He did. He demonstrated that He could not be entrapped by the lame-assed Scribes and Pharisees.
"...the point was, "Don't kill them. Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more...""
No. The point was that He could not be entrapped by the lame-assed Scribes and Pharisees. He didn't "condemn" the woman to death because He wasn't a witness to the adultery and He had not authority to do so. Try to focus.
"Straight question: Do you think Jesus, in general, supported the Jews killing "men who lay with men," adulterers, those who worked on the sabbath, etc?"
Yes.
"What is your evidence for that?"
Matthew 5:17
Keep in mind to whom you refer. Is Jesus not God? Since God decreed these punishments, because of how He was offended by the behaviors to which they were attached, what makes you think that Jesus would be any less offended by them? While He may have authority from the Father to forgive sins, that does not mean He was granting that same authority to the Jewish leaders. While He may have taught each of us to be forgiving towards those who trespass against us, it does not lead to a complete disregard for the Law and the punishments the Law provided for the convicted. I don't believe there is any evidence that Jesus suffered from your well known inability of separating God from Man and Man from government as regards things like justice and mercy.
The issue with the woman caught in adultery was, as previously noted, intended to entrap Jesus. Jesus would not have demanded them to kill her because they did not have the authority by the Romans to do so and He would be violating Roman law. He could not say to let her go because that would violate the Jewish law. But the fact that there was no man there, if she was truly “caught in the act,” leaves some doubt as to whether she actually was caught in the act (not that she wasn’t an adulteress, but that she was not caught “in the act” as they were claiming) - and if she was, why were they not bringing the man also? And what did Jesus write on the ground? There are many, many things to speculate about, but what we do know is that nowhere did Jesus say that they were in error about the law - and THAT is the important point. Nowhere in the story does Jesus say that the law is now no longer in effect.
Do you think Jesus, in general, supported the Jews killing "men who lay with men," adulterers, those who worked on the sabbath, etc? What is your evidence for that?
The obvious answer is, “YES.” The evidence is that Jesus is God and He gave the Jews the law. They were still under the law. Paul’s discussion about no longer being under the law had to do with the ceremonial law, and even then it was AFTER the crucifixion and resurrection.
Let me point out that the Law of Moses was only for Israel and no other nation. The Gentiles did not have the Law, nor were they ever to be given it or mandated to follow it. (For biblical references see: Deut. 4:7-8; Lev. 27:34; Ps.147:19-20; Neh. 9:14; Mal. 4:4; Acts 15: 5, 24; Rom. 2:14; 2 Cor. 3:7-8, 11, 14; Gal. 3:25; Heb. 7:12, 18.)
But the moral law was before Moses and is written on the heart of every person. (Romans 2:14-15). Even the 10 Commandments were just for Israel, but they included the moral law written on our hearts. (the Sabbath law was not part of the moral law, and was a sign of a covenant between God and Israel so the Gentile NEVER had a law about the Sabbath. Exod. 31:12-17; Deut. 5:15; Neh. 9:14; Ezek. 20:12, 20)
As for executing homosexuals, that wasn’t just the moral law; as I have demonstrated in my article on the subject, God stated that the destruction of the Canaanites was partly because of their sexual immorality - which included homosexual behavior. So that was for all nations, not just Israel.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/bible-and-homosexual-behavior.html
Trabue continues to look for reasons to justify his belief that homosexual behavior is approved by his false god - well it probably IS approved by his false god, but it isn’t approved of by the real GOD.
Trabue’s claim about the case of the adulteress:
He was giving them a new way of looking at the Law given specifically to ancient Israel, a literal CHANGE of the law from "kill the adulterers," to "DON'T kill the adulterers.”
This, of course, is 100% pure eisegesis. Nothing in the story even hints at this nonsensical claim.
I’m going to post just a few commentaries, and blogspot doesn’t allow too much comment space, so it will take a few posts.
First, let it be understood that I agree that there are some speculations among these commentators. However, the point here is that NO ONE - non of these scholarly theologians - see some sort of change in the Mosaic law as does Mr. Trabue. Sort of ironic that Trabue has the “truth” while everyone else is deceived.
The NET Bible has the following commentaries:
“The accusers themselves subtly misrepresented the law. The Mosaic law stated that in the case of adultery, both the man and woman must be put to death (Lev. 20:10, Deut. 22:22), but they mentioned only such women.”
ref v.9: “or possibly ‘Jesus bent down and wrote an accusation on the ground with his finger.’ The Greek verb katagrapho may indicated only the action of writing on the ground by Jesus, but in overall context (Jesus’ response to the accusation against the woman) it can also be interpreted as implying that what Jesus wrote was a counteraccusation against the accusers (although there is no clue as to the actual content of what he wrote, some scribes added ‘the sins of each one of them’ either here or at the end of v.8.”
The NKJV Study Bible has the following commentaries:
“8:3 Abruptly bringing the adulterous woman into the midst of the proceedings was a rude disruption. The Pharisees were bent on confounding Jesus (7:45).”
“8:4,5 such should be stoned: Stoning was specified in retain cases of adultery (see Deut. 22:23,24), though not all. (It is not clear why the authorities intended to punish the woman but not the man.) In the Greek text, the pronoun You is emphatic. The religious leaders were trying to trap Jesus into saying something that was contrary to the Law.”
“8:6 testing Him: If Jesus had said not to stone her, He would have contradicted Jewish law. If He had said to stone her, He would have run counter to Roman law, which did not permit Jews to carry out their own executions (18:31). What Jesus wrote on the ground is a matter of conjecture. Some suggest that He wrote the Ten Commandments recorded in Ex. 20.”
In referenced to vs 8:7, John MacArthur’s Study Bible says:
“This directly refers to Deut. 13:9: 17:7, where the witnesses of a crime are to start the execution. Only those who were not guilty of the same sin could participate.”
I don’t see the relevance of 13:9, but 17:7 says the witnesses must be the first to throw the stones. I also don’t see where MacArthur gets that the person doing so could not be guilty of the same crime, unless he is implying that’s what Jesus meant. Nevertheless, if the people who were the actual witnesses to the adultery were not there, they could not stone her!
The Defender’s Study Bible, with commentary by Henry Morris has this to say:
“8:5 commanded us. Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 indicate that both parties to the adultery were to be put to death. Since the woman was caught ‘in the very act’ (John 8:4), it is obvious that the man was caught also, so the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees is apparent in their double standard. They were concerned with finding an action they could take against Jesus, not with upholding the Mosaic law.”
The NIV Study Bible commentaries:
“8:3 a woman caught in adultery. This sin cannot be committed alone, so the question arises as to why only one offender was brought. The incident was staged to trap Jesus (v.6), and provision had been made for the man to escape. The woman’s accusers must have been especially eager to humiliate her, since they could have kept her in private custody while they spoke to Jesus.”
“8:4 caught in the act. Compromising circumstances were not sufficient evidence, as Jewish law required witnesses who had seen the act.”
“8:5 to stone such women. They altered the law a little. The manner of execution was not prescribed unless the woman was a betrothed virgin (Dt 22:23-24). And the law required the execution of both parties (Lev 20:10, Dt 22:22), not just the woman.”
“8:7 let him be the first. Jesus’ answer disarmed them. Since he spoke of throwing a stone, he could not be accused of failure to uphold the law. But the qualification for throwing it prevented anyone from acting.”
William MacDonald’s “Believer’s Bible Commentary:
“8:6. They had no real charge against the Lord and were trying to manufacture one. They knew that if He let the woman go free, He would be opposing the Law of Moses and they would accuse Him of being unjust. If, on the other hand, He condemned the woman to death, then they might use this to show that He was an enemy of the Roman government, and they might also say that He was not merciful. Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger. There is absolutely no way of knowing what He wrote. Many people are quite confident that they know, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Bible does not tell us.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Abridged Edition, by Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III:
“2-5 …The entire affair had the appearance of trickery, a trap specially prepared to catch Jesus. The Sanhedrin forced their way into the center of the group and interrupted Jesus’ teaching by bringing a woman before him. The guilt of the woman was indisputable; she had been ‘caught in the act of adultery,’ and Jesus did not challenge the charge. The dilemma that the scribes and Pharisees posed was this: According to the law, she should be put to death (see Lev 20:10; Dt 22:22-24). If, then, Jesus refused to confirm the death penalty, he could be charged with contradicting the law of God and would himself be liable to condemnation. If, on the other hand, he confirmed the verdict of the Pharisees, he would lose his reputation for compassion; and possibly he could have been reported to the Romans as inciting the Sanhedrin to independent exercise of the death penalty.”
“6-8 The Pharisees’ question was emphatic: ‘You, there! What do you say?’ Jesus made no reply but ‘bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.’ It was, incidentally, the only occasion on record that refers to his writing; what he wrote is impossible to say. When his questioners kept pressing him for an answer, Jesus replied by putting the dilemma back on them. For this particular offense there would normally be no witnesses, since its nature would demand privacy. Either the witnesses became such by accident, which would be unusual; or they were present purposely to create the trap for Jesus, in which case they themselves were guilty; or they condoned the deed, and this would make them partners in it. Since Jewish law required the witnesses in any case of capital punishment to begin the stoning, each one of the accusers would either have to admit that he was guilty or else refrain from demanding the woman’s death.”
I have numerous other commentaries, all of which say essentially the same things. But according to Trabue they are all in error because HE just knows there was a change in the law of Moses in this incident.
Foolish, unteachable man.
Computer problems. Respond when I get a chance. Briefly, though...
Cute eiesegesis there yourself, Glenn.
Were the pharisees trying to trap Jesus? Of course, never said otherwise.
Is that the ONLY possible point of the story? Well, you can read only that one point into the story if that's what you want to do, but there is a significant OTHER point that you are ignoring.
Fortunately, you don't get to place limits on understanding, we all get to strive to understand the bible the best we can.
So, while you may say, "It's not saying that Jesus changed the law from 'kill the adulterers' to 'Don't kill the adulterers,'" that is precisely what Jesus factually did, in the text.
So, if your response is "nuh - uh, you CAN'T find that point in the story..." my response is, as always, Says who? On whose authority and what basis can people not find this quite obvious point in the story?
On the authority of honest people who see no need to read into the story what the story itself doesn't provide. It absolutely does not say or even hint that Jesus was changing the Mosaic punishment for those caught in the act of adultery. He tells the men to stone the woman. THAT states that He definitely did NOT change the Law. He was not a witness to the adultery, so He could not take part in any execution, nor could He honestly convict or condemn her. They simply asked His opinion. They didn't ask for Him to pass judgement on her or render an official ruling as to whether or not her punishment was still valid for the crime of which she was accused.
Please show SOMETHING that supports your wild conjecture.
The accusation of eisegesis would normally be a lot more credible with a detailed and compelling attempt at exegesis, but thank God we can take Dan's word for it!
"So, while you may say, 'It's not saying that Jesus changed the law from "kill the adulterers" to "Don't kill the adulterers,"' that is precisely what Jesus factually did, in the text."
If only Jesus had explicitly affirmed the law to the smallest penstroke and warned against relaxing the least commandment, we wouldn't be have this discussion.
Of course, if he did and we were to say that's what Jesus factually did in the text, we'd probably be guilty of cherry-picking, proof-texting, eisegesis, not taking Scripture seriously, treating it like a rule book, treating it like a Magic 8 Ball, applying a woodenly literal interpretation, mistaking ourselves for God, mistaking the Bible for God, and idolatrously worshiping the Bible instead of God.
We'd also be committing the sin of the Pharisees of which Jesus was so critical.
Never mind that, with the antitheses of Matthew 5, the Pharisees' oral tradition was guilty of the EXACT OPPOSITE, of trying to relax the law -- keeping adultery and murder immoral but condoning lust and hatred, permitting oath-breaking so long as the oath invoked Jerusalem or the temple but not God Himself.
We're the proof-texting Pharisees, as Dan has declared in his own authority. We should repent immediately.
Trabue
So, while you may say, "It's not saying that Jesus changed the law from 'kill the adulterers' to 'Don't kill the adulterers,'" that is precisely what Jesus factually did, in the text.
So all the scholars who never found that in the text are wrong and you are right? Such hubris!
Mr eisegesis calls finds something no one has found for 2000 years.
"If it is new, it isn't true; if it is true, it isn't new."
I wonder:
If a chief executive, be it a state governor or the president, pardons a particular convict for a particular crime and commutes that particular sentence, are the laws and sentences associated with those crimes suddenly revoked?
When George Washington pardoned a couple people involved in the Whiskey Rebellion and convicted of treason, did treason suddenly become legal or no longer punishable by death?
When Bill Clinton pardoned some FALN terrorists, did terrorism suddenly become legal or no longer punishable by death?
If a governor pardons JUST ONE death-row murderer, is it no longer legal to execute any murderers?
Going from modern law to ancient Israel, I also wonder a couple things.
"David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the LORD.'
"And Nathan said to David, 'The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.'" - II Sam 12:13
God through Samuel forgave David of the capital crimes of adultery AND the successful conspiracy to murder; does it follow from this one instance of pre-Christian forgiveness and pardon that God revoked the law of Moses?
Is there any Scriptural evidence for that revocation? Or did the Old Testament (esp. the post-Davidic writing prophets) still presume that the law of Moses was still in effect and that Israel was condemned for not following it?
?
You all are wack.
Straight question in search of a straight answer:
IF we were a theocracy, do you think it would then be a moral good to kill people who commit adultery? To kill those who worked on the sabbath? To kill "men who lay with men..."?
Based on your words of late, I think your answer (at least Glenn's) is an unqualified "Yes, dammit! Kill 'em!"
If so, I would posit that this is the problem with your rather clumsy and whimsical wooden-ish approach to "biblical literalism..." it causes you to call obvious morally bad behavior, morally good behavior.
But you tell me.
Trabue
Your hypotheticals are insane.
First, Israel was a theocracy under God and God gave them the moral laws He wanted them to practice. You can call it immoral for Him to designate the death penalty for various violations of the law, but then you would be blaspheming Him - which is normal for you.
God gave such punitive measures to separate Israel from the rest of the world - to purify them. Those punitive measures for the nation of Israel were NEVER abolished. You claim they were but you can't find even a hint of such in the Scripture without practicing outrageous eisegesis.
No other nation, no other people, have been called separate among the nations besides Israel, nor will there be. God used Israel for a specific purpose - to call the world to the true God (the one you don't like).
God called out Israel for His own glory (Is. 43:7, 21), He made the a nation of priests to the world (Ex. 19:15), He called them out so that all nations would be blessed through them (Gen. 12:3; 28:14), and as such they were to be a "Light unto the nations" for revealing God and God's salvation (Isa. 42:6, 49:6; Lk.2:32; Acts 13:47; Rom. 2:17-20, 3:2).
THAT is why God had such strict punishments for violating laws He gave them to separate them from the world.
I suppose you have a problem with God striking Ananias and Sapphira dead for lying to Paul? The purpose of the severe punishment for them was for the same reason as the severe punishment for Israel - to set an example of how Christians were to be.
So, in the context of the adulteress, it was right and proper for Jesus to confirm that the death penalty was called for when he told them to throw stones.
Try reading what the Bible says sometime instead of reading what YOU want it to say to match with your personal aberrant and perverse ideology.
That I think you are reading Scripture incorrectly is not a sign that I think God is mistaken. Only you.
You see, I don't mistake Glenn for God...
So, your answer is, what? YES, if we were the ISRAELI theocracy, it would be a moral good to kill adulterers, Sabbath workers and "men who lay with men...," is that correct?
Just a straight and clear answer, please.
Trabue,
GOD is the one who gave the punishments to be meted out to the violators of His law. GOD is all good, so it is morally good for God to do with His creation as He sees fit.
I can guarantee that it is not I, nor Bubba, nor Marshall Art, nor all the scholars and teachers for 2000 years of Christendom who are in error here. It is YOU. YOU are the one who claims that God's punishments are immoral because YOU don't like them.
It is YOU who has a very low view of Scripture; it is YOU who has decided that YOUR eisegesis is correct and all others who hold to the authentic hermeneutical principles and interpret the Bible as it was intended are all wrong while YOU are correct.
You arrogant, blaspheming, unteachable tool of Satan!
PROVE your interpretation is correct; prove it from Scripture!! YOU CAN'T. All you have is your "hunches" that it is immoral to execute people.
I'm sorry, is that a Yes or a No?
Remember, the point of this post is that Marshall thinks it poor form (and I agree) to not simply respond directly to questions. I don't care so much for your rants about points I've not made, I'm just wondering what your direct answer to my simple question is.
On June 6th, Dan wrote:
"It does not matter if ancient Israel thought that God didn't want us to work on the Sabbath and that God wants us to kill those who DO work on the Sabbath. We don't enforce either of these rules because it would be WRONG to do so." [emphasis mine]
Even though Dan will tell us that he thinks God communicated (and still communicates!) through the writings of Moses and the other OT prophets, it appears that he thinks that ancient Israel INCORRECTLY thought that God commanded what is recorded in the Mosaic law.
His question now certainly points in that same direction, and so if he doesn't think that, he ought to clarify.
Gladly. You are misunderstanding.
Simple, isn't it?
Just keep in mind, Bubba: IF you think I am saying, X, you can be pretty sure I'm NOT saying X.
Now, I answered your question, you can answer mine, directly and clearly, please.
Trabue,
Are you incapable of reading and understanding ? (oh, wait - yes you are, as demonstrated by you inability to proper understand Scripture).
My response to your question was:
GOD is all good, so it is morally good for God to do with His creation as He sees fit.
Ergo, in response to your question about whether it was a moral good, the answer is YES. How in the world could you not understand that?!?!?
You imply it is NOT a moral good, so you are the one who has to explain why God gave the commands.
Dan, you write, "I would posit that this is the problem with your rather clumsy and whimsical wooden-ish approach to 'biblical literalism...' it causes you to call obvious morally bad behavior, morally good behavior."
Let us ignore for the moment your hypocrisy in supporting a legal regime that has allowed the killing of literally 50 million children in the womb -- your ignoring that mass murder is something you have plenty of practice in.
Let's ignore that and concede that most of us believe that it is wrong for man to engage in the unjust taking of human life.
I've raised the question quite a few times before, but it bears repeating, WHY is it wrong?
Is it wrong because it is ALWAYS wrong for any being -- human OR divine -- to take human life?
Or is it wrong, not because it's always wrong, but because it's GOD'S PREROGATIVE?
The answer you would draw from your own stab at rationality and common sense would probably diverge radically from the plain teachings of Scripture.
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." - Gen 9:6, emphasis mine
That deviation would snowball: rather than believe that God is sovereign and that He takes human life at His discretion, you'd have to conclude that death is a part of nature that's really beyond God's control; rather than believe that death is the result of sin (Rom 6:23), you'd have to conclude that death is a good and blessed thing if only we had the right perspective.
Or, barring all that, you'd have to believe that God was evil in not exercising His omnipotence to ensure our bodily immortality, as you apparently believe that His act of creating us entails a moral obligation to sustain our physical lives for all eternity.
Your instinct is to rebel against the notion that God could (and did) take human life at His own discretion, even through the means of human agency -- that God could (and did) command ancient Israel to execute flagrant sinners within the community of believers and to wage wars of annihilation against His (not simply their) enemies.
That instinct may be well-intentioned, but it's not biblical: it is instead rebellion, not against an woodenly literal interpretation, but against the plain meaning of Scripture.
And you evidently prefer to avoid facing up to that rebellion with arguments from outrage.
"Gladly. You are misunderstanding.
"Simple, isn't it?"
That's not a clarification: telling me I misunderstand DOES NOT CLARIFY what you believe, Dan, anymore than accusing us of eisegesis is an adequate substitute for an attempt at a more credible exegesis.
Do you believe God communicated His law to ancient Israel through Moses?
More specifically, do you believe God commanded ancient Israel to execute murderers and adulterers?
Your argument from outrage is wholly inconsistent with an answer in the affirmative.
"IF we were a theocracy, do you think it would then be a moral good to kill people who commit adultery? To kill those who worked on the sabbath? To kill "men who lay with men..."?"
Prime example of a really stupid question.
IF we were a theocracy, then God would be in charge and establish the rules.
IF God is a good, loving and just God, then by definition His rules would be good,loving and just. By extension, so would the consequences for breaking said rules.
IF God is a good, loving and just God who has established good, loving, and just rules for His people to live by, and good, loving and just consequences for violation of said rules, the who cares what any of us think of the (again, this is your hypothetical) rules or consequences established by God.
He's God, we're not, IF we were in a theocracy, then He gets to establish the rules and consequences independently of what our opinions might be.
Again, IF we lived in a theocracy rules by the God revealed in scripture, then this is a stupid question.
Craig:
"IF we were a theocracy, then God would be in charge and establish the rules."
That's correct, if we're a legitimate theocracy, ruled by God (the "theo-" in theocracy) and not just by men falsely claiming to preach in God's name.
But by just using the term without qualification, Dan can hold to his belief that God wouldn't really command the taking of human life in ANY circumstances, but he can obscure that belief.
After all, we're not talking about God, we're talking about theocracy.
So, Bubba, Glenn and Craig are ALL affirming, IF we were a theocracy, God might command us to kill sabbath breakers, adulterers and "men who lay with men," and in your opinion, that would be a moral good, then. Is that correct?
Is there anything that God might command us to do that you would not call immoral? Something that God would NOT command us to do?
If "God commanded" us to rape puppies, would you also call that a moral good, because "if God commanded it, then it IS good..."?
Do you see the moral dilemma your hunches about God leads to?
It appears that in your view, God might command the most atrocious acts and we could never call it immoral or unjust because, "god commanded..."
There is a hole in your moral reasoning that is neither moral nor reasonable.
More later.
Trabue,
So are you saying that God did NOT command the death penalty for crimes in discussion?
God is perfect in his morality, and even defines morality. If God commanded us to do something, it would be by definition "moral" to do so.
However, God would never command that which is against his own character. His character includes perfect justice, which is why He commands just punishment for certain violations of His law.
Your bizarre idea that God would command anyone to "rape puppies" shows just how desperately perverse your mind is, and how desperate you are to "prove" that God would never command the death penalty.
It appears that in your view, everyone has "hunches" but you, and that you deny there is a just God.
One more piece of evidence that you do not worship the God of the Bible but a god of your own imaginings and ideology, and in your own image.
You are the one with a hole in your moral reasoning, because you dare to set the moral standards.
Craig...
Prime example of a really stupid question.
There are, of course, no stupid questions. Only really, really stupid answers.
Dan, you haven't clarified whether you believe God commanded ancient Israel to execute murderers and adulterers.
You also haven't answered whether you believe the taking of human life is wrong for man because it's absolutely wrong or because it's God's prerogative.
Conversation is two way, Dan. Why don't we try it like that? It really helps in communication.
As it is, you seem intent on an argument from outrage where you can gasp at the details of our beliefs while continuing to obscure your own, and that approach isn't necessary if your beliefs are really as biblical as you would like to have us believe.
Glenn (Bubba, et al)...
So are you saying that God did NOT command the death penalty for crimes in discussion?
I'm saying that these stories in the Pentateuch were not written in a literary style comparable to modern history. They were told in more epic and mythological manners, by all appearances. And it is in this manner that Israel passed on these stories.
Not unlike passing on the poetry as poetry or the parables as parables.
And if one tries reading poetry or parable or epic as literal modern history, one will likely make mistakes in understanding text, as I believe you all are clearly doing.
How can we have a good idea that you are misunderstanding text? Because your understanding leads you to conclude that there is no atrocity a perfectly loving, perfectly just God might do, thus undermining God's very nature.
You can't say you're understanding math correctly when you reach the conclusion that "2 + 2" MUST equal "anything but 4..." nor can you say you have a perfectly loving, perfectly just God who sometimes might command us to commit atrocities or other acts of injustice.
So, NO, I have no reason to believe that God commands us to rape puppies, to kill babies or to put to death those guilty of adultery or working on the Sabbath. In fact, I would call each of those actions - actions which you're willing to call "good," objectively and obviously immoral and say that God obviously would not command us to kill an adulterer ANY MORE than God would command us to rape puppies. Both are equally ridiculous presumptions based on, I believe, poor and irrational interpretations.
The problem with your approach is that the words "loving" "Justice" and "grace" become meaningless and irrational.
Bubba...
Conversation is two way, Dan. Why don't we try it like that? It really helps in communication.
Irony, thy name is Bubba. And Glenn. And sometimes, Craig.
Marshall will at least try to answer questions most of the time, directly and clearly.
Perhaps "stupid question" is a bit off the mark. Deeply flawed premise is a more accurate way to look at it.
Of course, it's always refreshing to see the old "raping puppies" canard. It just helps me remember how hypothetically challenged Dan can be.
Ultimately, the problem (as Bubba pointed out) is the question, not our answers. You, use the term "theocracy", but seemingly don't understand what it means or the implications of a theocracy.
While our approach to your flawed hypothetical is perfectly consistent with the concept of a theocracy, (God is in charge, so He gets to make the rules and establish the punishments), yours seems a bit flawed. You seem to be suggesting that in your concept of a theocracy God is "in charge" and He gets to "make the rules", unless His subjects don't like the rules or consequences, in which case then God must bend Himself to what Dan considers good or right or moral.
It seems more rational to start from the place that God is (I know I just said this, but you chose to pretend I didn't), Good, Holy, Loving, Just, Omniscient, etc, and that any rules or consequences that He establishes are consistent with His attributes and not contrary to His attributes.
So, as long as you start from a deeply flawed premise, and possibly a poor understanding of what a theocracy means, it doesn't seem strange that you don't understand why it makes sense for the created to play by the rules established by the creator, and not to presume to determine which of God's rules are immoral. (Again, I'm speaking in terms of your deeply flawed hypothetical theocracy, not in terms of the current reality.)
"I'm saying that these stories in the Pentateuch were not written in a literary style comparable to modern history. They were told in more epic and mythological manners, by all appearances. And it is in this manner that Israel passed on these stories."
Which doesn't answer the question that was asked.
The question was in essence "Did God command x,y, or z?", not what literary style was used to write about it.
What Dan has done is to move the discussion from the actual event (or lack of an event), to the way the event was recorded for posterity. The literary style used has no bearing on the underlying events being talked about.
Once again, goal posts moved.
Dan, even if you're correct that I don't answer your questions -- and I do, you lying little weasel -- your saying so is no substitute for a clarification on what you believe.
It's a remarkably simple question.
Did God through Moses command ancient Israel to execute murderers and adulterers?
"You misunderstand me" isn't an answer.
"You don't answer my questions to my satisfaction" isn't an answer.
You yourself just said that there are no stupid questions, SO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
I knew it!!!
Trabue doesn't accept ANYTHING as literal history in the Bible unless it agrees with his ideology. Since he thinks capital punishment is wrong, therefore if God commanded it, then it must be myth or legend because we all know God wouldn't command that sort of justice.
And he wonders why I say he is NOT a Christian because his god and his christ are made in HIS image and those are who he worships.
No more pearls to this swine on this string from me. It is foolish to waste time with him.
Craig...
You, use the term "theocracy", but seemingly don't understand what it means or the implications of a theocracy.
The meaning and implications of "theocracy" is "rule by God," meaning, God is ruling the group of people/nation.
What part of "theocracy" am I misunderstanding?
No, I understand English just fine. The problem, it appears to me, is that you all have a problem with English and the notion of a perfectly loving and just God. In your hunch about how a perfectly loving and just God might act, he might act in an unjust and unloving manner, thus establishing a dead end idea. A JUST God can NOT act or command in an UNJUST manner.
You all get around this - or try to - by saying "Well, God's justice is not our justice..." (am I right?), thus returning to my point here and in previous posts: Your notion of God's "justice" is NOT the English notion of justice, but some other idea and you're trying to use an English word with a standard meaning to describe something that is in contrast/opposition to the English word.
Am I mistaken? Where?
By "justice," do you mean the standard English definition of the word, or do you mean something Other... "god's justice..." or "blarb," or whatever you want to call it, but not English language Justice, right?
Perhaps now would be a good time to ask you to define Justice as you are using it.
Bubba...
Did God through Moses command ancient Israel to execute murderers and adulterers?
"You misunderstand me" isn't an answer.
You stated, and I quote...
Even though Dan will tell us that he thinks God communicated (and still communicates!) through the writings of Moses and the other OT prophets, it appears that he thinks that ancient Israel INCORRECTLY thought that God commanded what is recorded in the Mosaic law.
And suggested I should clarify. I DID clarify. LITERALLY, what you said it "appears he thinks" IS a literal misunderstanding of what I believe. I have clarified that that is NOT what I believe.
I went on to clarify further and answered the question directly saying, and I quote...
So, NO, I have no reason to believe that God commands us to rape puppies, to kill babies or to put to death those guilty of adultery or working on the Sabbath. In fact, I would call each of those actions - actions which you're willing to call "good," objectively and obviously immoral and say that God obviously would not command us to kill an adulterer ANY MORE than God would command us to rape puppies.
So, AGAIN, the answer to your question is "NO, I don't think God commands us to kill adulterers or those who work on Saturdays. I think doing so would be WRONG."
Now, where are your direct answers to my simple questions, or have I correctly surmised your answers?
Craig, along these lines...
The question was in essence "Did God command x,y, or z?", not what literary style was used to write about it.
What Dan has done is to move the discussion from the actual event (or lack of an event), to the way the event was recorded for posterity. The literary style used has no bearing on the underlying events being talked about.
Now this is a fair question. Glad to clarify:
I was not present 4,000 years ago, give and take, to KNOW what God did or did not tell the Israelis. So, I can not affirm for sure what God did or did not say, any more than you can.
However, I CAN say that, IF God is a perfectly loving, perfectly just God, then such a God would not command people to literally kill babies, adulterers, sabbath workers or to rape puppies. Each of these suggestions is inconsistent with perfect love and justice, as we understand the concepts in English.
We can't rationally say, "God is perfectly just AND God sometimes might command us to rape puppies and kill adulterers" any more than we can say, "2+2 = 17" - it is a rational inconsistency.
But perhaps you are using some other meaning where you speak of "love" and "justice..." How do you all define those words?
It's a simple question that, in this context, would be reasonable to directly answer.
Craig, Bubba? Any chance of direct answers, such as the ones I've modeled?
I have to make one clarification.
God never commands US to execute adulterers, murderers, queers, etc. He command ISRAEL to do so.
Dan, I echo Glenn's clarification: I didn't ask about what God commanded US, but what God commanded ancient Israel.
"I wasn't there" isn't an answer, because you clearly believe that He didn't command ANCIENT ISRAEL to execute murderers and adulterers.
(Funny how you omit murderers from the list of ancient Israel's death row; could it be that executing is less obviously an atrocity?)
I think the gist of your position is perfectly clear, but you insist that I misunderstand it.
I wrote, "it appears that [Dan] thinks that ancient Israel INCORRECTLY thought that God commanded what is recorded in the Mosaic law."
You object, claiming that that is a "literal misunderstanding" of your position.
"I have clarified that that is NOT what I believe."
So what do you believe, then?
"NO, I don't think God commands us to kill adulterers or those who work on Saturdays. I think doing so would be WRONG."
So where is it that I misunderstand you? It seems like we're on the same page about what you believe, or very close to it.
"What part of "theocracy" am I misunderstanding?"
Seemingly the part where God is in charge, and gets to make the rules.
"Perhaps now would be a good time to ask you to define Justice as you are using it."
First, I haven't used the term "justice" anywhere, so I don't feel compelled to define it.
What I have said is that Gog (as revealed in scripture) is portrayed as just. As a finite limited fallible human, I am not sure I can completely grasp exactly what God means when He claims to be just. I am sure that He views being just differently than I do, I am also sure that His concept of Justice is not limited by the English language definition. I am also sure that while I trust that God IS just, I also trust that I am in no way qualified to pass judgement on the appropriateness of how He expresses this aspect of His character.
I know this won't satisfy you, and you'll whine about me not answering your questions, too bad.
Ultimately my problem is still with your underlying premise we are somehow able to pass judgement of God.
Oh, I know it would be a bother, but there are plenty of things you've dodged in your cherry picking. Maybe you could deal with ALL of what I've said, and it might be a little easier to move foreword.
"So, I can not affirm for sure what God did or did not say, any more than you can."
So, you cannot affirm what God did or did not say, in the very next sentence, you contradict yourself by saying, "However, I CAN say that, IF God is a perfectly loving, perfectly just God, then such a God would not command people..."
Which is it?
Dan, for what it's worth, the term for people of ancient Israel is "Israelite." An Israeli is a citizen of the modern nation of Israel.
--
Back to the more substantive point, you say that you cannot know what transpired in ancient Israel, but you say that you CAN know this, "IF God is a perfectly loving, perfectly just God, then such a God would not command people to literally kill... adulterers [or] sabbath workers... Each of these suggestions is inconsistent with perfect love and justice, as we understand the concepts in English."
"We can't rationally say, 'God is perfectly just AND God sometimes might command us to... kill adulterers' any more than we can say, '2+2 = 17' - it is a rational inconsistency."
[I omitted the other behaviors you listed. Since the OT doesn't claim that God commanded these behaviors, they're irrelevant except as an appeal to emotion and an argument from outrage.]
(And I see Craig has noticed this same inconsistency.)
Using this standard to draw the line between myth and history is untenable for any Christian.
You can't just draw the line at or before the deluge, since what you quote is in the law of Moses. You can't just draw the line at Moses, either, since the rest of OT history affirms the law.
Specifically, Saul was rejected by God for disobeying the command to wage a war of total annihilation (I Sam 15), and Psalm 106:34-39 condemns Israel for disobeying that same command.
And you can't just draw the line at the Old Testament either.
Jesus taught that no one comes to the Father except through Him, and He warned about a judgment where the fire is not quenched, and *LOTS* of unbelievers reject as unjust the doctrines of Christ's exclusivity and eternal damnation.
(About both of those, you seem hesitant, always arguing that God wouldn't condemn a man for a mere mistake and that the imagery of an unquenchable fire is somehow symbolic of something less than everlasting.)
More directly germane to this, the New Testament explicitly teaches that a variety of sins deserve death, even if a true theocracy no longer exists to carry out the sentence.
"They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. - Rom 1:29-32, emphasis mine
The Apostle Paul wrote that God has decreed that those who practice these vices -- not just murder, but gossip and disobedience to parents -- DESERVE TO DIE.
To rule out the morally difficult passages as mythic creates the same problem as ruling out the miraculous: you can't just cut around the edges, a consistent approach would destroy the very heart of the Christian message. After all, the provision of manna and the parting of the sea are less central than the feeding of the multitudes and walking on water, but they're not MORE miraculous.
[continued]
[continued]
Dan, you have a habit for berating us for our lack of humility, but it's hard to find the humility in your insistence that God meet human standards -- really, YOUR standards -- of justice and love.
We are made in God's image, so God's moral law must not be completely different from our moral intuitions, BUT we're also fallen, so that divine image in us is marred, AND we're finite so we're not privy to all relevant information.
Because we are sinners and God is holy, and because God is omniscient and we are not, we MUST allow for the possibility that a truly and perfectly just, righteous, loving, and merciful deity would command things that we don't fully understand.
Suppose a young child got a serious cut on his arm, and the injury became infected and gangrenous before the discovery of antibiotics and anesthetics. His parents' moral duty is to have the gangrenous arm amputated even in the absence of anesthesia, and over the objections of a young child who doesn't really understand the mortal danger he's facing.
If the difference in moral understanding between adults and children is great, how much greater could the chasm be between us and the literally infinite and omniscient?
It is arrogance to insist that there must be no chasm, that God must submit to our understanding of morality. (Job 40:8, Rom 9:20)
If that's the position you want to take, be my guest, but it's dishonest to do so in the name of Jesus Christ, who both affirmed the authority of Scripture and claimed to be God as described in Scripture.
The intellectually honest thing is for you to renounce the deity described in the Bible as morally repugnant, not to twist the Bible's plain teaching to fit your preconceptions.
--
And, intellectual honesty would prompt you to answer the other question I keep mentioning, WHY is it wrong for man to murder?
Is it intrinsically wrong to take human life, such that even God is forbidden from doing so?
Or is the taking of human life merely God's prerogative, since He made us (and made us in His image), sustains us, and is sovereign over us?
If it's wrong for even God to take human life, is it wrong that He created a universe that precludes our biological immortality? He's omnipotent and sovereign over creation; doesn't He have a responsibility, NOT just to avoid taking our biological lives, but to act on our behalf and sustain our biological lives for all eternity?
I suspect you know how radical your ideas are about God's sovereignty over human life, and that's why you'll do anything to avoid being clear about those ideas.
Bubba's comment of June 10, 2014 at 9:19 AM was superb and one that stands as an incredibly obvious response to Dan's position, such that I'm surprised it wasn't brought up around 277 comments ago. If one wishes to say that Jesus got the chick off the hook, execution-wise, it is a stretch then to say that it means He did away with the Law regarding punishment for the crime of which she stood accused. Kudos, Bubba!
Gotta go...
Thanks, Marshall!
I'd be interested to know what Dan thinks about Paul's claim that God decreed that sinners deserve death for murder and gossip and being disobedient to one's parents -- and that sinners know that decree.
And I'd still like to know whether he believes taking human life is God's prerogative or wrong even for the deity who made us in His image.
Bubba...
it's hard to find the humility in your insistence that God meet human standards -- really, YOUR standards -- of justice and love.
? What standards are mine?
That love seeks only that which promotes the good, the health, the well-being, the care and nurture of others?
That justice seeks fair, responsible, proportionate, rational treatment and an end to oppression, enslavement, abuse and mistreat of others?
Those are just the normal English understandings of the concepts, Bubba, they aren't mine.
Again, how are you defining "God's justice" if it is nothing like, you know, normal justice? Why don't you just call it another word so as not to confuse it with standard English?
Like this:
"God seeks to establish BLARB, not justice. In fact, Blarb can be sort of the opposite of justice, although, it's a little hard to tell, because God's Blarb is beyond our understanding, so we can only guess as to its meaning and, if we guess at it, well, someone else can always say, 'no, you just don't get it. God's blarb is not like our understandings...'" - at which point, Blarb becomes a nonsense word. Which is the problem with the whole way you all are approaching this "YOUR standards of Justice," thing, as if I'm the one using the word in a non-standard manner.
Indeed, Bubba. It seems clear that from the first sin, death was closely connected to it. That actual execution would be decreed for some sins in Mosaic Law is not the least bit a stretch. I get the impression, and I'm not stating it is a fact, even though I believe it is, because, you know, we don't need another lecture about knowing Dan better than he does, but I get the impression that Dan believes execution for some sins, like adultery, homosexual behavior, etc., is no longer done because executing for such things is wrong and/or evil. This is problematic given Who mandated those punishments in the first place.
But as you point out, referencing NT Scripture, those sins are still worthy of death even though we, as humans, don't carry out such punishments for them. A physical death is the lesser option given the alternative is being cut off from God. Christ paid the price for those sins for those who accept Him as Lord and Savior, so we reserve that punishment for murder alone (we don't seem to put the treasonous or traitors or deserters to death anymore, though they can easily lead to the deaths of others).
So Christ's sacrifice is why we don't, not because there is, from a Scriptural point of view, anything wrong with execution for sins God Himself mandated execution. In other words, the only way it is wrong today is due to our modern sensibilities concerning such things. We've decided such punishments are not commensurate with the crime. But that's human invention, not morality from a Scriptural perspective.
Just to ease his likely troubled mind, I don't believe anyone here would be in favor of re-instituting those sentences for those sins. (So rest easy, Dan)
Bubba...
I'd be interested to know what Dan thinks about Paul's claim that God decreed that sinners deserve death for murder and gossip and being disobedient to one's parents -- and that sinners know that decree.
The problem, Bubba, is that you are stuck in legalism and misunderstandings of literary styles and forms. Here, you're still treating the Bible like a rule book, rather than a book of grace; a magic 8 ball, rather than a book of wisdom.
"Magic 8 Bible, should we kill people who gossip?" [shake, shake, shake] "...Bible says, 'all who gossip are deserving of death!' There you go, there's the Holy Answer!!"
"Magic 8 Bible, should we pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin?" [shake, shake, shake] "...Bible says, 'if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out!' There you go, there's the Holy Answer! Thank you Magic 8 Bible!!"
I repeat: Things are right or wrong NOT because we find a line in the Bible saying they are, but because they either promote the good, healthy, loving, etc, or they take AWAY from the good, healthy, loving, etc and cause harm, oppression, etc.
This was the problem that the Pharisees encountered, treating the Scriptures as a Holy Rule book rather than as books of wisdom and grace.
Bubba...
And I'd still like to know whether he believes taking human life is God's prerogative or wrong even for the deity who made us in His image.
And I'll repeat what I've said multiple times: God is God and can and will do as God wants. BUT, it is not in the nature of a good, loving and just God (as those words are defined) to encourage HUMANS to rape, kill, oppress or otherwise cause harm. And, the Bible contains text that affirms this.
Now, YOU are free to think that because of God's Blarb (which is beyond our understanding), there is NO END to the oppression and destruction that God might command humans to do in the name of Blarb, but that, I'd posit, is irrational, immoral and unbiblical.
Marshall...
I don't believe anyone here would be in favor of re-instituting those sentences for those sins. (So rest easy, Dan)
I'm sure you mostly won't... UNLESS you become convinced that God is calling for it, in the name of God's Blarb. Because, if BLARB demands it, then you must obey God and implement the Holy Blarb and be the Hand of God's Blarb on earth, according to His Will.
You see, this is the problem with your approach - there ARE no morals, there is NOTHING off limits IF GOD CALLS FOR IT.
Am I mistaken? IF we were in a Theocracy and God was giving commands based on Blarb, and God called for you to rape a puppy or a child, wouldn't you do it, in the name of Blarb, even though it was beyond your understanding?
I believe you all have affirmed that IF God is making the rules, then you WOULD obey, even if it was beyond your understanding, but you tell me.
So, while I am sure you all are not calling for capital punishment for Holy Sins against Blarb, I'm not sure you can say where you would draw the line or why, IF you came to believe that God willed it.
Indeed, you still hear calls for the killing and jailing of gay people by Christians in places like Uganda.
So, for you all, there IS no solid morality, because God might call for anything.
Whereas, I think reason can teach us that immorality is that which causes harm, oppresses, destroys, abuses, kills, etc and that justice demands fair treatment that is proportionate, rational and moral.
Bubba...
I suspect you know how radical your ideas are about God's sovereignty over human life, and that's why you'll do anything to avoid being clear about those ideas.
I think I've been quite clear. God is God and can do what God wants. BUT, God won't call US to do evil or to do what would otherwise be evil IF God didn't call us to do it.
That is a direct and clear answer. Now here's your chance:
Are you saying, Bubba, that there is NOTHING you wouldn't do if God called for it? You'd rape puppies, children, tear off women's arms and beat them about their head with them IF God commanded it?
Or would you agree with me that there are things that God won't call us to do because it would be a violation of justice and love?
I've made myself clear, your turn.
Funny, though, you call ME radical for holding to the notion that God won't call us to sin (or to do what would otherwise be sin if God wasn't calling us to do it), but you apparently hold the position that IF God commands us to rape or kill or kill, even babies, that it is moral to do so.
And you call ME radical??
Wow.
Again, this is the problem with this quasi-wooden semi-literalistic approach to Bible study: It busts one's moral compass and reasoning...
You know, I've been reading over Trabue's comments and it suddenly occurred to me that I hear this same reasoning often - from atheists!!!!!!
Always the charge that the God of the Bible, if taken literally, is a monster. And that is indeed Trabue's claim.
Glenn, NOT the God of the Bible, the god of Glenn's understanding.
Unlike you, I do not confuse Glenn with God.
Glenn, if God commanded YOU to kill a baby, would you?
How do you define justice (the "justice," you are speaking of, which I'm calling "god's blarb," because you are speaking of something other than English language Justice...)
Glenn...
You know, I've been reading over Trabue's comments and it suddenly occurred to me that I hear this same reasoning often - from atheists!!!!!!
You know, I've been reading over Glenn's, et al, comments and it suddenly occurred to me that I hear this same reasoning often - from Muslim extremists!!!!!!
"Death to the adulterer! Death to the homosexual!"
yadda, yadda, yadda.
Dan, you write, "God is God and can do what God wants. BUT, God won't call US to do evil or to do what would otherwise be evil IF God didn't call us to do it."
That seems like the sort of absolute statement that undermines your sneer about not confusing yourself with God -- and Glenn was clear about discussing God AS THE BIBLE DESCRIBES HIM. You seem determined to say that God didn't really do and command all of what the Bible attributes to Him.
--
Dan, you believe that love involves the good of others and justice is what is rational and proportional, AND I AGREE, but I reiterate that God is holy and we are fallen, that God is omniscient and we are not. Therefore, it's entirely possible that God's commands ARE loving and just even when we don't see them as such from our fallen and limited POV.
Again, a parent will do things that a young child cannot understand, and those acts may still be just and loving: how much greater may the chasm be between our understanding and that of an infinite and righteous God?
"'Magic 8 Bible, should we kill people who gossip?' [shake, shake, shake] '...Bible says, "all who gossip are deserving of death!" There you go, there's the Holy Answer!!"
I was NOT asking about whether WE should kill gossips, but only whether the Bible teaches that gossips are deserving of death: Paul clearly taught that, not just as his opinion or man's potentially mistaken theory, but as God's decree, and you cannot really get around that.
"I repeat: Things are right or wrong NOT because we find a line in the Bible saying they are, but because they either promote the good, healthy, loving, etc, or they take AWAY from the good, healthy, loving, etc and cause harm, oppression, etc."
Since you don't have an cosmic, omniscient, and infallible view of what is good, healthy, loving, etc., you ought to be even clearer that you're using your own limited view of those things to determine that, even if the Bible CLEARLY teaches it, we can discard those clear teachings if we disagree with them.
"This was the problem that the Pharisees encountered, treating the Scriptures as a Holy Rule book rather than as books of wisdom and grace."
No, it wasn't, Dan.
What Jesus criticized in Matthew 5 was an oral tradition that relaxed the law of Moses, and what Jesus criticized in Mark 7 is their abandoning God's word revealed through Moses for their own merely human traditions.
--
"And I'll repeat what I've said multiple times: God is God and can and will do as God wants. BUT, it is not in the nature of a good, loving and just God (as those words are defined) to encourage HUMANS to rape, kill, oppress or otherwise cause harm. And, the Bible contains text that affirms this."
That's not what I'm asking.
God has the power to do what He wants, but does He have the moral right to take human life?
If the answer is yes, why do you distinguish between His taking human life through disaster and disease and taking human life through human agency? Why would it be moral for God to destroy a sinful city with fire and brimstone, but NOT with the army of ancient Israel?
Or if the answer is no, why do you distinguish between His active work in taking human life and His passive permitting it in a universe where the human mortality rate is ultimately 100 percent? If God has the moral duty not to kill the humans He created, does He not have the moral duty to exercise His omnipotence and preserve our physical lives indefinitely?
[continued]
So now Trabue is claiming that God's commands to the Nation of Israel are analogous to Muslim terrorism!
The man just keeps proving what a non-Christian tool of satan he is.
Bubba...
You seem determined to say that God didn't really do and command all of what the Bible attributes to Him.
Again, scholars tell us - and the data shows - that the era of Modern History telling began in about 500 BC - 500 AD. Before that time, people just did not pass on stories in the more literal, more factual, more linear style that we do today. It would be silly and chauvinistic to insist that ancient peoples MUST have told stories in the way that WE like best. There is no more reason to insist that history-telling was done in the Modern History style back then than to insist that they must have written in English.
It just wasn't how stories were passed on, by all evidence of which I am aware. You all have never provided any evidence to counter the experts on this point.
So, GIVEN that stories weren't told in the Modern History style, but in mythic, epic and other less-than-literally, factually accurate styles, I have no reason to insist that the stories from prior to 500 BC (ie, the OT) were written in a Modern History style, so I have no reason to insist each act attributed to God is a literal, factual history.
And this is important: THIS DOES NOT mean that I think the OT's authors were "wrong," or "mistaken" or "lying." I simply believe they passed on stories in the style of the day, just as I believe they passed on stories in the language of the day.
I have no reason to believe otherwise.
[continued]
Dan, you ask, "Are you saying, Bubba, that there is NOTHING you wouldn't do if God called for it?"
If it was actually God giving the command, it would be a literal sin to disobey -- and it would be the height of presumption for me to dictate to God what is good and loving and just and moral.
I'll return the question: Are you saying that there IS something you wouldn't do even if you were sure God commanded it?
Where in that stance is the humble faith in God's goodness even when we cannot understand it?
You also ask, "would you agree with me that there are things that God won't call us to do because it would be a violation of justice and love?"
YES, I WOULD AGREE, but I've been asking about the specific act of taking human life.
It is my position that it is God's prerogative to take human life, when and how He chooses: after all, Genesis 9:6 affirms that He made us in His image.
Since He can determine the means by which He takes human life, He can choose human means. Again, in Genesis 9:6 we see the principle that God authorized man to execute other men who were guilty of murder, and that principle is affirmed in Exodus 21:12.
--
You now ask Glenn, "Glenn, if God commanded YOU to kill a baby, would you?"
Did the New Testament not praise Abraham for obeying God's command to sacrifice his son?
"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back." - Heb 11:17-19
In Romans 1, Paul writes that a broad category of sinners deserves death. Evidently you disagree.
In Hebrews 11, the writer praises Abraham for his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Evidently you believe God could not have possibly given that command.
Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law; you say that, in not executing the adulteress in John 7, that is EXACTLY what He did.
You may think your position is rational and moral, but it's clearly not biblical, and so I reiterate that the intellectually honest thing for you to do is distance yourself from God as the Bible describes Him.
Clearly, you worship another deity.
Saying you worship a deity other than the one described in the Bible isn't derogatory, it's only descriptive, just as it is to say that I worship a deity other than the one described in the Koran or the Book of Mormon.
Your concept of God is clearly driven by your own understanding of what's rational, just, loving, and good: passages in the Bible that clearly challenge your understanding, you reinterpret into meaninglessness on the thinnest of pretexts.
You don't let the Bible inform your understanding of God's justice. Instead, you use that understanding as a pretext to radically and implausibly reinterpret the Bible.
That's your right, of course, but you ought to be honest about it.
Bubba...
If it was actually God giving the command, it would be a literal sin to disobey -- and it would be the height of presumption for me to dictate to God what is good and loving and just and moral.
So, then, your LITERAL answer is, "YES, if God commanded ME to rape a child, I would do so." Is that correct?
Bubba...
I'll return the question: Are you saying that there IS something you wouldn't do even if you were sure God commanded it?
Yes, I would not do anything that is intrinsically evil. I would say to God, were it to happen...
"Lord, I know that human understanding is prone to error and mistakes. I know that we sometimes are confused and mentally ill. AND, I am sure that you do not tempt us to do evil and that raping a child IS evil, it is a sin against justice and love as I understand in my walk with you. So, Lord, NO, I will NOT rape a child, because I'm certain that it is wrong."
And again, here is the problem with your quasi-wooden semi-literalistic approach to Bible study: It busts one's moral compass and reasoning... You are willing to say that not even child rape is morally wrong, if God commanded you to do it.
Things are right or wrong because they support or destroy, not because of some line in the Bible is interpreted by humans one way or another.
Again, scholars tell us - and the data shows - that the era of Modern History telling began in about 500 BC - 500 AD
Appeal to ghostly authority and modern uniformitarian/evolutionist philosophy to dictate what is proper historical writing. Amazing how people didn't understand they were writing historical material until 500 BC. An arbitrary guess by SOME ghostly secular scholars who have an agenda to push.
And that makes the O.T. noting but mythical legends according to false teacher Trabue. Everyone one has been deceived for thousands of years, up to the time of some ghostly so-called scholars who made arbitrary claims.
Don't you just love non-believers and their excuses to discount the Bible?
Bubba...
You don't let the Bible inform your understanding of God's justice. Instead, you use that understanding as a pretext to radically and implausibly reinterpret the Bible.
This is, of course, bullshit. Excrement. I hold my views I hold BECAUSE of the Bible. I reached my views back before I quit taking the Bible in the Magic 8 Ball sort of way you do. This is demonstrably false.
I do NOT disagree with the Bible or God's Word. I disagree with YOUR take (you, who will not disavow even child rape as beyond what God might command!) on the Bible. There is a difference.
As always, I do not confuse God with Bubba, nor do I conflate Bubba's word with God's Word.
"Again, scholars tell us - and the data shows - that the era of Modern History telling began in about 500 BC - 500 AD."
What data, specifically? Do you even know what you're talking about, or are you making sweeping claims that you hope we accept because You Say So?
The late dating of the Gospels, a relatively recent development, is based on the presumption that prophecy is impossible: the Gospels record Jesus' prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, so OBVIOUSLY that prediction had to be recorded after the fact, so the Gospels were written no earlier than 70 AD.
That same sort of question-begging assumption underlies the claim that reliable history wasn't recorded until after the Babylonian captivity: why, the histories of Saul and David involve acts of God, and since we know that miracles don't occur, those CAN'T be histories as we would understand them.
That rationale would cast equal doubt on the Gospels. Moses supposedly parted the sea, Jesus supposedly calmed the storm and walked on water, CLEARLY the Gospels belong in the genre of myth and not the sort of modern history that we find in Tacitus and Josephus, to hell with Luke's claim regarding his careful historical investigations.
Dan, you don't claim to be a disciple and follower of modern historians, you claim to be a disciple and follower of Jesus of Nazareth, whose teachings were reliably captured in the Gospels OR NOWHERE AT ALL.
In Mark 7, Jesus referred to the law of Moses as being the commandment of God: Jesus really did affirm that the books of Moses contain divine instruction, and His explicit affirmation of the command to honor your parents implies an equally strong affirmation of the penalty that was AT LEAST prescribed for ancient Israel under the old covenant.
If you want to be seen as a faithful follower of Jesus, you can't really get around that, no matter how much you invoke "data" about which you've told us exactly nothing.
Um, the Gospels were written in the era of Modern History, when people WERE writing things in a more literally, factually linear sort of way. Not sure of what your point is there.
Again fellas, this is easy: Simply produce ancient, pre-Modern History era text that is demonstrably written in the Modern History style and you can disprove my thesis.
But you can't simply say, "the Bible is, and we know it is, because it is, so therefore, we can reliably know it is. Because it is..."
Circular arguments don't make for rational interpretation.
Dan, you said that "the data shows" that the Old Testament predates reliable historical literature; the burden is on you to tell us what this data specifically is.
You also said, "the era of Modern History telling began in about 500 BC - 500 AD."
If the era began closer to the end of that 1000 year window, it would indeed preclude the gospels, and again, modern scholars largely draw this line because of the existence of claims of the miraculous.
The argument would be that there wasn't a sudden transition from myth to history but a period where the two genres overlapped. Since the biographies of Jesus contain such unbelievable claims as walking on water and raising the dead, his work has more in common with Exodus and I Samuel than with Tacitus and Josephus.
And, anyway, Jesus Himself affirmed that Moses gave Israel God's law: your pretense to following Him ought to trump whatever is claimed by modern (and often post-modern) scholarship.
Dan, I asked, "Are you saying that there IS something you wouldn't do even if you were sure God commanded it?"
Your answer: "Yes, I would not do anything that is intrinsically evil."
You would tell God that you would NOT obey His command "because I'm certain that it is wrong."
You concluded that answer with this:
"Things are right or wrong because they support or destroy, not because of some line in the Bible is interpreted by humans one way or another."
But my question wasn't about Biblical interpretation, it wasn't some line in the Bible, and it wasn't even about a command whose content or source could have been misunderstood.
I asked whether you would disobey a command you believed to be immoral [quote] "even if you were sure God commanded it."
Your answer is an unambiguous yes.
So don't hold back.
Your position is that things are right or wrong EVEN independent of God's direct and clear commands.
That's not just confusing yourself with God: that's very clearly putting yourself on His throne, at least when it comes to your own life.
And that leads to my claim that you use your own understanding of morality to contort the Bible.
"This is, of course, bullshit. Excrement. I hold my views I hold BECAUSE of the Bible. I reached my views back before I quit taking the Bible in the Magic 8 Ball sort of way you do. This is demonstrably false."
What you've JUST demonstrated is that you won't even obey a direct command that you KNEW came from God Almighty Himself, if that command contradicts your own understanding of the moral law.
You would defy God Himself in favor of your own understanding; don't continue to pretend that you submit that understanding to texts written 2,000 to 3,000 years ago -- texts that, when it suits you, you will dismiss not only as merely human works, but as works that betray prejudice and revenge fantasies and works that predate any reliable historical record.
It just doesn't fly.
You give no evidence of a good-faith effort to wrestle with difficult passages en route to conforming your worldview to the text: instead, you obscure even very straight-forward passages for the sake of that worldview.
You ought to own up to that.
And, Dan, that "rulebook" smear is particularly stupid in light of our different answers to the question, "is there something you wouldn't do even if you were sure God commanded it?"
Life isn't about rules, it's about relationship, supremely the relationship with God.
Our purpose isn't even promoting good, it's FOLLOWING GOD.
That is the essence of faith, responding to the clear revelation of God: responding in trust even when it doesn't seem to make sense.
Sometimes God asks us to trust Him by giving us commands that contradict our understanding of what's rational.
- God told Abram to leave his family and home for a land he didn't know, and God would give him that land and make of him a mighty nation through which the whole world would be blessed. Defying what we would probably take to be common sense, Abraham believed, obeyed, and was blessed.
- Before even calling the disciples, Jesus told Simon to let down his fishing nets one more time after a night of catching nothing. Peter expressed his skepticism but said, "at your word I will let down the nets" (Lk 5:5), and the nets nearly broke from the massive catch of fish that resulted from his obedience.
Sometimes God asks us to trust Him by giving us commands that contradict our understanding of what's moral.
- God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, through whom God had already told him he would be blessed. Hebrews tells us that Abraham was willing to obey because he believed that God could raise Isaac from the did.
- In a vision God told Peter to rise, kill, and eat an assortment of animals, clean and unclean. Knowing the kosher dietary regulations, Peter objected, but God insisted that what He has made clean, Peter should not call common. Peter ultimately obeyed the deeper meaning of the vision in accepting Gentile brothers in Christ.
Both of these events were crucial in the history of God's redemption of man, the former being a lived-out allegory of God's sacrificing His Son for our sake, and the latter teaching that the resulting salvation extended to all people.
The question was, "is there something you wouldn't do even if you were sure God commanded it?"
I say no, and you think I'm wicked for saying so -- as you think I should follow what I believe to be moral even in the face of what I know to be divine revelation.
You say yes, and I think you are wicked for saying so -- exhibiting a literally diabolical pride in placing your own understanding above even the clear commands of God.
We're on completely separate and diametrically opposed pages on this very fundamental issue. There's no real possibility for compromise or even common ground.
Most importantly, the Bible doesn't really lead to both of these positions.
As the examples of Abraham and Peter make clear, your position is fundamentally a rejection of the attitude of humble, teachable faith that is essential to a relationship with God as the Bible reveals Him.
I believe that arrogant attitude of yours is both at the root of and FAR worse than any single deviation from the Bible's clear teachings regarding doctrine and ethics.
"God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." - James 4:6, I Pet 5:5, both from the Greek translation of Proverbs 3:34
Again, you would tell God that you would NOT obey His command "because I'm certain that it is wrong."
Dan, I mean this with all my heart: I believe that certainty in your own understanding, EVEN in the teeth of God's clear revelation, may be evidence of a literally damnable rebellion against God.
Bubba...
Most importantly, the Bible doesn't really lead to both of these positions.
Clearly not. Clearly, your position is not only morally and rationally atrocious, it is anti-biblical.
Feel free to condemn me for refusing to rape children, I think that you are STANDING ON THE SIDE OF SAYING, "YES, I WOULD EVEN RAPE CHILDREN..." points to all that is wrong with your biblical interpretation approach.
Wicked for refusing to rape children?
What a mixed-up, evil-is-good, unholy world you live in!
Thanks, I guess, for the honesty to provide the answer to where your approach to the Bible leads, I would think, though, that you would be a bit ashamed to admit it.
Glenn, Marshall, Craig... Are you all standing with Bubba in the "I will rape children if God commands it" camp?
I think Trabue and blasphemous to even suggest that God would command rape.
(Of course there is the claim by atheists, and probably Trabue, that God commanded rape when he allowed men to take wives from captives, but that demonstrates some real ignorance of what took place)
The death penalty has a purpose in justice; rape does not.
Dan, I've been focusing on the specific case of taking human life and on the general case of obeying God even when one doesn't understand the rationality or morality of the command.
I haven't once brought up rape, and when you have done so, I've not only omitted it from my quoting you, I've been explicit about why
Quote:
"I omitted the other behaviors you listed. Since the OT doesn't claim that God commanded these behaviors, they're irrelevant except as an appeal to emotion and an argument from outrage."
I understand that my position as it actually exists is incomprehensible enough to non-believers; you have no reason to misrepresent that position EXCEPT to gin up an argument from outrage, when you evidently are not reluctant to slander people with whom you disagree.
We both think the other's position is deplorable, but I believe my aim has been to expose what you really believe but have been obscuring, and your aim has been to distort my beliefs into what you wish it would be.
"Wicked for refusing to rape children?"
No, Dan: wicked for making your obeying God contingent on your understanding the rationality and morality of what He commands.
When all else is said and done, you don't actually trust God.
If you comprehend His commands for yourself, you'll obey them, but only for their evident benefit. If you don't comprehend His commands, you won't obey them: you won't obey HIM.
"Clearly, your position is not only morally and rationally atrocious, it is anti-biblical."
On the first two adjectives, we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I see you don't actually argue from Scripture that my position's "anti-biblical." You don't because you can't.
What I am commending is the example of faith exhibited by Abraham and Peter.
What you recommend is the arrogance of those who second-guess God's revealed will, going all the way back to Genesis 3:4-5.
Claiming to be wise, you have become a fool, worshiping and serving the creature -- yourself in your own limited understanding -- rather than the Creator.
As to your backing away from your vague answer, I'll remind you of the exchange...
Dan, you ask, "Are you saying, Bubba, that there is NOTHING you wouldn't do if God called for it?"
If it was actually God giving the command, it would be a literal sin to disobey -- and it would be the height of presumption for me to dictate to God what is good and loving and just and moral.
There is the indication, there, that you would do ANYTHING, up to and including raping a child if God commanded it of you.
But you did opt out of a direct answer to the direct and easy question, so I'll put it to you again so you can clarify:
IF God commanded you to rape a child, would you do it?
Your answer appears to be an unequivocal Yes, but you are especially vague about it, so perhaps I am misunderstanding. Feel free to clarify with a STRAIGHT and CLEAR answer, a simple Yes or No should suffice to make it clear.
And again, I'll just conclude that I do agree with Bubba that this is where we break apart in our understandings of the bible. You attempt to try to take it fairly literally, which causes you to affirm even child rape or child murder, if God commands it. These are, of course, horrible crimes.
They are crimes and horrible NOT because there is a line in the bible describing them as crimes, but because of their nature, because they cause harm to the most innocent.
You all appear to be falling back to your whimsical and inconsistent Magic 8 Bible approach to Bible study and that is just a rather silly approach to take, disrespecting the great wisdom and grace of this Holy Book.
Who wants to bet I'll never get a straight answer from Bubba and Glenn on this question? I bet Craig backs down, too. Marshall, here's hoping you'll come through, given the topic of this post and your claim that conservatives should/would answer directly and clearly.
So far, not so much.
Glenn...
The death penalty has a purpose in justice; rape does not.
Why? On whose authority do you make this claim?
Are you saying, "We find capital punishment in the Bible, therefore, we know it's a good thing..."? If so, then why not "we find killing children in the Bible so we know it's a good thing" or, "We find kidnapping the enemy's daughters and forcing them into marriage (aka, rape), so we know it's a good thing..."?
You see, your reasoning is so whimsical and inconsistent that you won't even stand by it yourself. You just adopt the parts that you like as "literal" and dismiss the other parts. Both are wrong, the Bible is not a rule book, nor is it a magic 8 ball.
But your reasoning IS consistent with other religious extremists, such as extremist Muslims and Mormons, so you have that consistency (ie, with the other extremists, not the Bible...)
And yes, I know I ask questions that will just be ignored, but such is life. I just hope somewhere in the back of your minds, it might occur to you, "I can't rationally or morally answer that question, given my approach to the Bible... MAYBE there's something wrong with my approach to the Bible..."
Dan, let me address the unstated question, do I think God would command rape?
No, I do not, and I do not foresee any circumstances under which that would change. But I say this based on my understanding of God's will as authoritatively revealed in Scripture, and my understanding is ALWAYS subject to further correction from God, who I believe corrects through Scripture which points to Christ and is illuminated by His Spirit -- the living capital-W Word and His active Spirit and the written small-w word all working in concert together, never in contradiction with each other.
I've already alluded to Proverbs 3, which teaches that God gives grace to the humble, and the same chapter gives a specific command that requires humility.
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding." - Prov 3:5
Trust YWHW, and trust Him WITH ALL YOUR HEART, even when doing so seems at odds with your own understanding.
I've tried to give YHWH that kind of trust, and doing so has challenged my previously held views in a variety of ways.
- While I never personally held to the belief, I used to be agnostic on transubstantiation, holding that Bible-believing Christians could disagree on the doctrine in good faith, but then I read how the Catholic doctrine entails Jesus being sacrificed daily in churches around the world, and I read Hebrews 10, which clearly teaches that Christ died once for all time, and "when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God" (10:12). I've now become a hardliner against transubstantiation.
- On a more personal note, I once believed in the right of personal retribution, never throwing the first punch but having the right to throw the last punch (and possibly the duty to fight back, out of self-protection). It was the commentary on the Sermon on the Mount from that "Stott Man" that convicted me that Christ really did forbid personal retaliation of ANY kind, violent or non-violent. The only lingering issue has been my willingness to obey what I understand to be Christ's clear teaching recorded in Scripture.
Trying to trust YHWH and not lean on my own understanding continues to challenge me.
As one who has always been classically liberal, which puts me in the Buckleyite/Reaganite mainstream of American conservatism, I want to affirm those great claims that the Declaration of Independence holds to be self-evident truths, but the Bible constrains me.
The document claims, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [of securing our rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I'm not sure we actually have that right, and if we do, I'm not sure Romans 13 permits Christians to exercise that right. As Daniel and his three friends in the OT and Peter and John in the NT demonstrate (see Acts 4:19-20), we have the right and indeed the duty to engage in civil disobedience if the state A) forbids what God commands or B) commands what God forbids, but OTHERWISE the Bible teaches that we defer even to a persecuting Nero (the probable context of I Peter 3:13-17).
[continued]
[continued]
Get this:
- Because of Genesis 9:6, I believe that man through the state has the God-given duty to execute murderers.
- But because of Romans 13:1-7, I believe that man ALSO has the God-given duty to submit even to wicked rulers, so long as their laws do not directly contradict God's law.
This last bit is quite controversial among my peers, and while it's not like a command to commit rape and other atrocities, it IS a command to permit (through suffering endurance) atrocities up to and including the persecution that faithful Jews faced during Babylonian and Persian captivity -- and the persecution that faithful Christians faced under Roman rule.
I know you've written much about how wrong you think you were when you counted yourself among the theological conservatives, no matter how much you betray a lack of real comprehension of what we believe, but what about now?
Dan, are there any areas where the Bible is strongly challenging some of the deeply held beliefs that you CURRENTLY have?
I'm not aware of any, and I think your attitude actually precludes any such serious, biblical challenges to your worldview.
Your current approach is evidently to let your understanding of morality dictate what God really did reveal and command through Scripture. Find anything you don't like, and you have an arsenal of justifications for radically reinterpreting the passage -- and, in fact, for interpreting it away.
--
Jesus affirmed the law of Moses to the smallest penstroke? Paul taught that God decreed that flagrant sinners deserve death? (Never mind whether and how that sentence is carried out.) The author of Hebrews praised Abraham for his willingness to sacrifice Isaac?
Jesus taught that His blood was shed for our forgiveness and that He's the only way to the Father? Jesus warned about judgment involving an unquenchable fire?
Pheh.
Those conclusions MUST be the result of cherry-picking, proof-texting, eisegesis, not taking Scripture seriously, treating it like a rule book, treating it like a Magic 8 Ball, applying a woodenly literal interpretation, mistaking ourselves for God, mistaking the Bible for God, and idolatrously worshiping the Bible instead of God.
Some of what the Bible teaches is good, but what it teaches isn't authoritative. What matters is what causes harm, what promotes the good, healthy, wholesome and discourages the opposite.
--
Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
Forget that: you seem quite happy with the results of relying on your own understanding, thank you very much.
More than that, you seem positively appalled by the attitude of whole-hearted trust in God as morally perilous, even morally atrocious.
That is damnable pride talking.
Dan, I'm still waiting for you to address Paul's claim that those flagrant sinners listed in Romans 1 deserve death: the claim was a statement of what they deserved, NOT a command to carry out that punishment on God's behalf, and your acting as if it were such a command is a poor substitute for dealing with his statement of what is deserved.
As I say, your specifying rape is an attempt to argue from outrage; atheists do the same thing when they're aghast that a rapist could get to heaven simply by asking Jesus for forgiveness while an otherwise generally decent pagan would be condemned to hell.
You also presume that what God commanded regarding women of decimated enemy nations is "aka rape" when that's not the consensus view.
Are we supposed to obey God even when we don't understand the rationality and morality of His commands?
That's the fundamental question, Dan.
I believe the right thing to do is trust God whole-heartedly. You apparently believe that we should lean on our own understanding.
I believe our primary duty is to love God whole-heartedly, and this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. You evidently disagree.
You not only disagree, Dan, you're trying your (near-literal) damnedest to make us appear monstrous and -- in accusing the OT of attributing to God the command to commit rape -- to make the Bible appear to be monstrous.
You're driven to undermine trust in both the Bible and ultimately YHWH who authored it.
In that respect, you're no different than Richard Dawkins.
("The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.")
But at least that hateful atheist has the intellectual honesty not to pretend to be a faithful follower of Christ and insist on passive-aggressively calling us brothers.
In that respect, you're actually worse than Dawkins: an overt enemy is far more honorable than a traitor.
Dan writes to Glenn:
"You see, your reasoning is so whimsical and inconsistent that you won't even stand by it yourself. You just adopt the parts that you like as 'literal' and dismiss the other parts. Both are wrong, the Bible is not a rule book, nor is it a magic 8 ball."
So what does Dan make of passages such as Deuteronomy 21:10-14?
Well, the Bible is a book of (capital-T) Truths not facts, and the genre of this book (and indeed all OT books) is myth and not literal history.
And this passage in particular? Well, I'm guessing Dan thinks it's evidence that people can attribute terrible things to God -- that's the meta-"Truth" to learn from that passage.
All the stuff about how we should take care of the poor? That's great, prophetic, and God's word!
This stuff? Literal blasphemy, as ancient Israelites put literal atrocities in God's mouth, and evidently nobody realized this for about THREE THOUSAND YEARS.
And WE are the inconsistent ones.
Well, as we approach 400 comments, it has at least become quite clear as to who does and does not answer questions directly and clearly.
You can side with the child rapist defenders (cheap shot, but not terribly unfair) or the moralists and rationalists as being the most clear expression of following God. I will side with rationality and morality and against defense of rape and child rape every time.
Call that radical if you will. I call it moral and rational and biblical, to boot.
Last time for this thread: The problem with your approach to the Bible - besides your inconsistency and emotional whimsy - is that it simply leads you to defend the indefensible, the atrocious.
The question is not "Who does and doesn't take the Bible seriously?" but "Is it reasonable to take a text written a pre-modern history era and treat it like it must be written in the style of our day?"
The answer is No, it is not reasonable, it leads to atrocious morals and it is a disservice to the Holy Bible. We can see the irrationality of the approach by the sheer hubris and crazy conclusions vehemently dodged by those who support it.
Thanks for not answering the questions put to you: It truly does serve to demonstrate how far off the Bible, reason and morality your positions are.
Bubba...
All the stuff about how we should take care of the poor? That's great, prophetic, and God's word!
This stuff? Literal blasphemy, as ancient Israelites put literal atrocities in God's mouth, and evidently nobody realized this for about THREE THOUSAND YEARS.
And WE are the inconsistent ones.
And IF I was putting for the conclusions you offered in my place, you might have a point. But seeing as how when you suggest, "Here's what Dan thinks..." you are mistaken, not so much.
It is right to defend the poor and marginalized because it contributes to the overall Good, Health and Well-being of humanity, NOT because we find a line in the OT (or NT) that says it is. But we can see the wisdom of it echoed in the pages of the prophets.
No inconsistency in my actual position.
Unlike yours.
"Well, as we approach 400 comments, it has at least become quite clear as to who does and does not answer questions directly and clearly."
1) You haven't explained what you mean by affirming the Bible's divine inspiration -- explaining how it could have a "divine nature" and wisdom to a "divine degree" while not being actually authored by God.
2) You haven't shown any real interest in tackling Stott's arguments regarding Matthew 5, which I excerpted at length 1500+ days ago: you apparently don't even understand his argument, and you're content to dismiss it as cherry-picking.
3 & 4) You accused me of eisegesis regarding II Timothy and I Corinthians, but you don't explain what you believe the texts say.
5 & 6) You didn't even acknowledge my questions regarding executive pardons and II Samuel 12.
7 & 8) You have not clearly answered whether you believe God has the moral authority to take human life and not just the omnipotence to "do what He wants," and -- assuming you do believe that -- you haven't explained why God could take human life through disease and disaster but not through human agency.
9) While distinguishing between reliable history and myth, you basically punted on a clear answer to the question of whether God communicated His law through Moses to ancient Israel, writing only that Israel "thought" God did.
10) More specifically, you haven't clarified whether you believe God commanded ancient Israel to execute murderers and adulterers.
11) I concluded that you believe that ancient Israel INCORRECTLY thought that God commanded what is recorded in the Mosaic law, you wrote that that's not what you believe, but you demurred from clarifying what it is you DO believe.
12) You claimed that "the data shows" that the Old Testament isn't reliable history, but you didn't produce that data.
13) I'm still looking for your thoughts on Paul's claim that those flagrant sinners deserve death.
14) And now you say that I misunderstand your position on Deuteronomy 21, but you don't say what exactly you believe about that particular passage.
Dan, what you present, in summation of your general approach to the Bible, is a thoroughly humanistic worldview, one that would be at home with agnosticism and perhaps even outright atheism.
"It is right to defend the poor and marginalized because it contributes to the overall Good, Health and Well-being of humanity, NOT because we find a line in the OT (or NT) that says it is. But we can see the wisdom of it echoed in the pages of the prophets."
What of the other things taught in the pages of the prophets? Never mind all that.
And what of the relationship to God? Well, what matters is what benefits humanity.
It's clear: what's wisdom is wise because it benefits humanity, whether it's revelation from God is quite irrelevant.
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding." - Prov 3:5
That attitude of humility before God, and a willingness to obey what He commands even if we do not see the rationality and morality behind it, you want to smear as literally monstrous and insane.
We stand with Abraham and Peter, and you want to accuse us of standing with rapists.
15) Are there any areas where the Bible is strongly challenging some of the deeply held beliefs that you CURRENTLY have?
You haven't said, but the answer is an obvious no.
You've set it up so that the Bible couldn't possibly challenge what you believe: you don't like what it teaches, you can dismiss it as myth not to be taken literally, and you'll congratulate yourself for standing with "the moralists and rationalists" and even lie to yourself that your approach is biblical.
You're evidently unteachable.
That was about the first thing Glenn said in this thread, and it dovetails with one of the last things I've written.
I'll say it again, THIS is the essence of faith, responding to the clear revelation of God: responding in trust even when it doesn't seem to make sense.
You want to almost literally demonize that attitude of humble trust in God, and your doing so can only be rooted in arrogant rebellion against God, perhaps to a literally damnable degree.
Glad to answer your questions when you answer mine. Clearly. Directly.
You can begin with:
IF God commands you to rape children and kill babies, will you do it?
How do you define blarb ("God's Justice, which is not like ours...")?
Sorry, that should have said, "Glad to answer your questions... AGAIN, as soon as you..."
Dan, if you could point out where you've answered my questions before, you wouldn't have to answer them "again." A link or copy-and-paste job would suffice, and it would be a lot more respectable than pretending that you've answered my questions in the hopes that the issue will die down.
Anyway, the questions I ask outnumber yours 7-to-1, and they go back some 50 months prior to yours; when you started a thread at your blog ostensibly for *YOU* to answer any questions *I* had, it quickly devolved into your insisting that I ask a series of questions before you could even begin to answer mine.
You have no ground whatsoever to insist that I answer anything first.
--
But for the sake of seeing how willing you are to reciprocate, notice that I did answer your first question -- by objecting to its wording, at 3:49 pm, pointing out that it is an obvious attempt to argue from outrage.
According to you, Dan, objecting to malformed questions is an entirely legitimate response -- at least it is when you do it, and God forbid anyone think that you're not entirely consistent.
I presented what I believe to be a more fair framing of the fundamental question, Are we supposed to obey God even when we don't understand the rationality and morality of His commands?
That question, I answered quite clearly in the affirmative.
--
As to your second question, I did explain why I believe God's concept of justice trumps ours.
We are fallen, and He is not.
He is omniscient and holy, and we are not.
Coining a word like "blarp" is ridiculous and transparently biased: it's difficult to take a concept seriously if you label it with a silly word.
(Atheists know that trick very well indeed, which is why they prefer to argue about Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Invisible Pink Unicorns and Bearded Sky Daddies than the Creator discussed by Aristotle and Aquinas. Funny, that.)
A more sensible term would be something divine justice or cosmic justice -- OR GOD'S JUSTICE, since you keeping using that phrase to remind us what you mean by blarf or flarp or whatever stupid derogatory term you want to use.
But what would this divine justice entail? Our merely human concept of love involves the good of others and our concept of justice involves proportionality. Would God's concept not involve these things?
No, I believe they would still involve these goals.
You believe that love involves the good of others and justice is what is rational and proportional, AND I AGREE, but I reiterate that God is holy and we are fallen, that God is omniscient and we are not. Therefore, it's entirely possible that God's commands ARE loving and just even when we don't see them as such from our fallen and limited POV.
It's almost as if I've written that last paragraph before -- oh, that's right, I did, at 10:09 am.
Divine justice would be rational and proportional, etc., but from the perspective of omniscience untainted by sin: since we cannot have that perspective, it's entirely possible that such justice is sometimes at odds with our limited and fallen understanding.
(See my analogy re: amputating a boy's gangrenous arm even without anesthesia, something else you haven't even acknowledged much less addressed.
(Oh noes! I support torturing children!--and I'm surprised you haven't berated me for that.)
--
Seeing as I've already addressed both your questions, I'll wait for you to address mine.
Or to do so again.
However you need to phrase it to make yourself feel morally superior.
Sorry, "I don't like your question" is not an answer.
If you're making the case that you will do "whatever" God commands, then it is a legitimate question to find out if you really mean it.
As Marshall noted...
When the right answers a question, the answer is as direct as the question. The left alters the question to reflect the preferred altered reality, and then answers a question that wasn't asked.
Except, we see now that, at least with you and Glenn, it is the Right that dodges and alters the question.
Try again?
I'm sorry, but there is no way to address Trabue's comments about God commanding rape, and even child rape, without saying that Trabue's whole line of argument is totally STUPID. He is using an atheist playbook looking for outrageous things to claim about us and the God we worship rather than the god he has invented.
He clamors about current methods of history not being the way we should look at Scripture, but then he takes current ideas of marriage to address ancient practices where women were pretty much property and never had a choice as to who they married. And this isn't so ancient when you consider how royalty married off their daughters without the permission of the daughter, so Trabue would call that rape also.
ABJECT STUPIDITY!!!
Trabue claims we dodge a question.
HEY STUPID - PAY ATTENTION!
IF God commanded us to do something, we'd do it.
BUT, God would NEVER command anyone to rape any age person or puppies. To suggest it is possible for God to do so demonstrates rank blasphemy - let alone rank stupidity.
God could not command anything against His character.
Post a Comment