I've been pining to write this post since, well, at least around June 5, 2025 if not sooner. But unlike another blog post of the same title, written by a well known fake Christian hater and liar, I won't have to imagine that my ideological/political opponents are likely or willing to support their leaders regardless of what they do or are found to have done. No. The crazy of which I speak will be easy to see by anyone who pays attention honestly.
What first compelled me to write this was not necessarily the aforementioned buffoon, but a different buffoon who goes back to my high school days and is just as severely TDS afflicted as anyone, including but perhaps not quite as bad as the execrable Dan Trabue. I say that because this high school acquaintance, whose name is Wally, doesn't go on about how he's spent years in serious and prayerful study of Scripture, so I don't know the extent to which he believes at all. I've reason to believe he doesn't, and that actually works in his favor because no Christian should hate and lie about Trump as both these dudes do, and Dan likes to tell us he's a believer.
Anyway, Wally posts anti-Trump memes on FB constantly. Between Wally and Dan, one pretty much has all the stupid covered completely as regards the crazy hatred of the best prez we've had since Reagan. Throw in Dan's troll, and there's no doubt.
What really stands out is the fact that none of these jamokes have the honor or integrity to give Trump props of any of the many great things he's accomplished throughout his 4.5 years as president. That's astounding given how much of it there has been and continues to be. What follows is a general list of the first six months of this current term of his:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/07/let_s_review_some_of_what_trump_has_done_in_six_short_months.html
And this from a guy from across the pond:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/07/the_experts_scoffed_trump_delivered.html
These two are in no way comprehensive or complete. They scratch the surface, especially considering it doesn't take into account the many great things he did the first time around.
No. One never hears anything good about Trump from a lefty, save a very, very tiny precious few, and that only on specific issues, not his entire body of work. It's the opposite of Dan's wildly false and totally unsupported claim about Trump supporters unlikely to ever withhold their support no matter how evil a crime he might be proven to have committed. Dan might rely on the Donald's claim during his first term that he could shoot someone down in the street and his supporters could continue to support him. But that's hyperbole, Trump's stock-in-trade. He's neither so stupid as Dan needs to believe, nor arrogant, to actually believe that.
Yet we have constant proof of the reverse, that there is no good thing Trump can do, nor not quantity of good things he could do, which any lefty will acknowledge at any point. They're too busy scraping the sidewalk for anything they think they can use as evidence which validates their hatred. Too often they misrepresent actions he's taken or proposed, or parrot the misrepresentations of others. Chuck Schumer continues to embarrass himself, as do other Dems such as AOC, Crockett and other miscreants who I'm always shocked were actually elected to their positions. Leftist media also continue to lie and distort, as do multiple chuckleheads from the worlds of sports and entertainment.
The memes Wally posts are unusually absurd, with all manner of accusation being made against Trump by people who are unique in their condescension and belief they have it all figured out. Most of it is incredibly obvious in how wrong, misleading or misunderstanding they are about whatever the hell it is they think they're schooling the viewer.
Dan actually said it best when he was projecting on the wealthy (and Trump, of course) when at Craig's he said, "They make it abundantly clear who they are." How ironic that it is far more true of Dan, Wally and other TDS sufferers.
236 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 236 of 236It's strange to me that Dan can confidently make assertions about what "minor sins" might be, yet cannot really provide a clear rubric to determine with confidence what the tipping point might be. He's seemed to acknowledge that there might be a point where an accumulation of "minor sins" might be equivalent to a "major sin", but can't acknowledge what that point might be.
To me, it seems like this construct would lead to a life of fear. Fear of committing "major sins" or fear of committing to many "minor sins". Yet in Dan's construct there seems to be no consequences for these sins, which seems to make the notion of sins kind of pointless.
Ultimately, it's all about a mystery score card which only Dan knows, and one in which everything is arbitrary and based on Dan's capricious hunches.
You are correct that you shouldn't make excuses for not obeying Jesus.
You continue to point out that the definition of sin is "missing the mark", while ignoring the fact that in order to "miss" a mark, there musts be a "mark" to miss. Yet you deny the existence of a universal, objective, transcendent, "mark". How does one "miss" a mark which cannot be accurately identified or defined? Miss/hit is a binary distinction, it's an either/or , pass/fail situation. If you "miss the mark" the distance by which you "miss" is irrelevant. Yet under your "minor sin" hunch, you're literally acting as if a "near miss" is not really a miss.
What you're doing is imposing your personal, subjective, hunches about what "degrees" of sin you personally and subjectively think there should be. It's simple, "the lesser of two evils, is still evil", and a "minor sin" is still sin.
"I'm talking about morality and immorality, I don't know what you're talking about. And, when it comes to morality, morally rational people recognize that"
What I recognize is that you switch terms at random and seemingly do so either to obfuscate or because you see some rhetorical advantage to doing so. That you now choose to change the term to "morality/immorality" is fascinating because you deny the existence (or at least the ability to know) of a universal, objective, transcendent, moral standard. As we dive deeper into the realm of Dan's subjective hunches about what is moral/immoral, the further away we go from a "mark" that is "missed". That you claim to speak for this "wide range" of people, with no evidence of this claim being True raises serious questions about your ability to identify moral/immoral actions.
A. If the "mark" you claim exists is "Thou shall not steal", then "stealing a cookie" misses that "mark". That you can equivocate about the fact that it might be (under your subjective, personal, hunch) a near miss is irrelevant.
In any sport of activity that involves hitting a target or goal, there are no points for missing. If a soccer player missed the goal post by 1mm, he doesn't get a partial goal, it goes down as a missed shot. Likewise, if a place kicker misses a field goal or PAT by 1mm they don't get ANY points for the close miss.
Yet you seem to be arguing that "missing the mark" is perfectly acceptable if it's a near enough miss, yet you won't explain what the margin for error actually is. In other words, how close does the miss need to be, in order to get credit for the hit?
I realize that, you are talking about two different things here.
1. You are talking about "missing the mark", which is an all on nothing standard. You either hit the "mark" or you "miss" the mark. Sin is still sin, regardless of how "minor" you might consider it. Immoral is still immoral, regardless of your hunches.
2. You then add to the miss/hit binary, an additional notion. The human, legal, concept of degrees of criminality. The problem you have is in ignoring that a minor crime is still a crime. That there is a line between crime and not crime, between sin and not sin, between moral and immoral. When I look at scripture I see a perfectly holy God who's "mark" for humans is "to be holy as I am holy". I don't see some sort of "partial holiness" or "minor sin" as an option. But somehow you've taken the human legal concept of degrees of crime, and imposed it on YHWH.
As I've repeatedly acknowledged, there are obviously sins with greater or lesser consequences or impact. Yet, I see nothing in scripture that indicates that YHWH grades on a curve or lets some "minor sins" slide because they're just not that serious.
The problem is not that I don't have a theory, it's that you don't have a coherent explanation of your hunches about sin, where the lines are and how "minor sins" are dealt with. It's just you spewing your vague hunches as if they should just be uncritically accepted as reality, despite your lack of proof.
B. Given your insistence that there is not (at least knowable) universal, objective, transcendent moral standard, your insistence that something is "morally correct" is simply incoherent. For something to be "morally correct" there would have to be a standard by which to measure. Further, if the line is between correct and incorrect, you've just undermined your hunch about "minor" things. Correct/incorrect is a binary, there is no wiggle room.
Again you conflate a human legal standard with a moral standard. How does one define a "moral crime" without an objective, universal, transcendent standard?
"And since you fellows are the one with the insanely irrational and immoral theory that any and all misdeeds are rightly punished by eternal torment, "
I'm curious, is lying about something or someone a "minor sin"? Is you misrepresenting my position a "mistake"?
"you all are the ones dealing with missing the mark/human imperfection as if it were a crime worthy of the most vile punishment, right?"
Wrong.
"Don't you believe that the spiritual crime of having a "fallen nature" and a "sin nature" is worthy of an eternal punishment?"
No.
Art,
Great link regarding "missing the mark". I'd argue that what Dan is doing is taking one definition of sin, and applying it in a woodenly literal fashion as if it is the only possible definition or explanation of sin. However, as I point out, Dan's subjective hunch actually is negated by his woodenly literal definition.
That Dan can't or won't explain what the "mark" is, and can't or won't acknowledge that the "mark" is a universal, objective, and transcendent "mark", makes his insistence on this definition nonsensical.
As for the rest of your comment, I echoed it in my response to Dan's idiocy and see no reason to repeat.
The biggest problem with Dan's hunch is that it is so incredibly vague that it is useless as a meaningful guide to acceptable behavior.
This is one of those times when one of Dan's hunches could lead to negative results.
What is Dan's concept that stealing cookies is a "minor sin" and of no real concern or consequence leads someone to live their entire life engaged in "minor" theft because they believed Dan?
Marshal...
"And there you go again, describing sin as "misdeeds" as if their commission is some accident rather than a conscious or willful choice. "
The religious term, Sin, has a huge deal of human baggage.
Misdeed has more in common with the notion of Missing the Mark, as the word literally means in biblical texts, no matter how desperate those in your human tradition are to redefine it.
Craig...
"That Dan can't or won't explain what the "mark" is"
I've been quite consistently clear, it is the mark of perfection. As in shooting for a target and falling short or shooting wide... that shooter IS missing the mark, the target.
But that definitional meaning is quite different than the extra biblical theory y'all have of deliberate rebellion or cosmic treason.
Those human opinions bring a meaning to the idea that are literally not there in the text, definitionally.
The person shooting for a target and missing perfection or missing the target altogether are literally not rebelling. They're trying and, in their imperfect humanity are simply failing to be perfect.
Literally not rebellion.
So, the real question is why would anyone take your alternative meaning seriously? Because humans in your tradition have long believed it?
1. Well since you started with "IF" it's on your to prove that your underlying assumption is True.
2. Who says?
3. As neither Art nor I would ever say this, I have to wonder what or who in the hell are you talking about. It seems that making false claims like this is indeed slanderous. Too bad you only worry abut slander when you think others do it.
4. As you have no grounding to make objective claims about what is or is not moral, your point here is incoherent. YHWH will dispense justice is a manner consistent with His actual nature, not with Dan's hunches about His nature.
1. As Art offered an alternative to the reality that you claim, it seems incumbent on your to demonstrate that what you claim is more accurate than what Art offered. I'll note that your insistence on rigidly adhering to one woodenly literal definition of sin without regard to the ancient Hebrews thought about sin is incomplete at best. Ignorant at worst.
2. You haven't proven that your woodenly literal definition of the word is exactly how it was used in "ancient texts", nor have you specified what "ancient texts". As you seem to be wedded to the Greek term, that in itself seems problematic. As the Greek translation of the Hebrew texts might not accurately render the text properly, and the English translation from the Greek faces similar difficulties.
3. You're the one pushing the notion of "minor sins" and that it's mostly just "mistakes". The "mark" that is being missed is holiness. I'm not sure where you'd get the notion that sin and holiness can coexist, and the likelihood or you telling me is probably near zero. Having a "handful" of texts seem like a better foundation than having zero texts, but that's just me and I don't place the faith in your Reason that you do.
4. While it's probably not exactly like that, theft (any theft) violated the 8th commandment. When one chooses to do something they know is wrong, then one willfully disobeys. Whether it's parents, the state, or YWHW theft is theft and I can't imagine a circumstance where theft is a "mistake". Because I know how Dan thinks, he'll likely use some example like "X grabbed the wrong cookie", but Dan has specifically used "stealing a cookie" as an example and grabbing the wrong cookie is not stealing.
5. Blah, Blah, Blah, unproven bullshit.
Nice close with an appeal to numbers. I guess you're serious about morality being defined by imposing the will of the majority.
Marshal theorized:
if I was to concede the "definition" preferred by those wishing to mitigate their guilt, I still have to consider what "mark" is being "missed". I would insist it is God or God's Will. "Missing" that "mark" is no small matter
Are you saying that you theorize that mere mortals - imperfect, flawed humans like ourselves - missing the mark of being like God's perfection or God's perfect will is a problem? But, shouldn't that just be expected?
I mean, I don't expect a newborn babe to hit the mark of being able to drive a car on an expressway. To "blame" that baby (or even a 12 year old child) for the "great failure" of not being a great freeway driver is irrational, is it not?
FURTHER, to say to that babe or 12 year old: You are a terrible driver - SO BAD (in that you're not perfect) that you should be penalized with torture for the rest of your life (or eternity)... that this is an insanely evil expectation?
WHO demands perfection from imperfect humans? WHO rational says, "AND, if you're NOT perfect like me, the ultra-cool, amazing and "gracious" almighty God superstar, I will torture you for an eternity..."
Can you at least understand that, on the face of that, this is a crazy theory to hold... one that is grossly evil and immoral?
Reality is (for reasonable people) that to expect imperfect people to be imperfect is to be expected.
Expecting imperfect people to be perfect is irrational.
Punishing imperfect people for the "crime" of being imperfect and failing to be perfect is irrational, unjust and just plain evil.
Can you see the simple rational logic in that and how some people of good faith would reach that conclusion?
Help me understand: Do you think that all humans deserve to be punished for an eternity for failing to be perfect? For having what you theoretically call a "sin nature..."?
For someone who claims to have such intimate knowledge of "conservative" positions, you certainly don't demonstrate that knowledge.
CS Lewis, who you claim to be very familiar with, addressed the concept of "choosing hell" quite eloquently in one of his theological books (I know your list only specified his fictional works, so you might not be aware).
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce"
What's interesting is that you seem to be one who would say "My will be done.".
https://theparkforum.org/843-acres/choosinghell/
https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/c-s-lewis-on-heaven-and-hell/
Your ignorance of a "conservative" position (despite the fact that Art could have done a better job of articulating it) seems strange given your insistence of intimate familiarity with every "conservative" position that was held 30+ years ago, and this one predates 1990 by quite a bit.
"You're saying a few different things there."
Not really. It's just that you don't "reason" anywhere as well as you like to pretend you do.
"Help me understand."
Oh...my pleasure. Then it will remain up to you to acknowledge what that you do!
"Do you theorize that JESUS choosing "not to save us" is somehow a crime on our part..."
I'm not "theorizing" at all. I'm paraphrasing basic Christian principles. Christ saves those who turn to Him, and accept Him on HIS terms. While God desires that none shall perish, many will and it's their choice which brings that upon them. Lewis' explanation, to which Craig referred, is another way to say the same thing.
John 2:18, 6:40
But to your question, Jesus does imply divine Will as a necessity in order for those who believe in Him. See John 6:44. Indeed, most of this section of John 6 speaks to the need to believe in Christ for salvation. If this somehow still seems unBiblical, ask someone who has actually seriously and prayerful studied Scripture about it.
"Do you theorize that simply NOT believing in God is a crime sufficient to justify eternal torture?"
I don't theorize on this question, either. It's definitively Biblical.
I find it dishonest of you to constantly insist on speaking of "eternal torture" as if the opposite of eternity with God would be anything but, as if the point is somehow lost on my (or us), which is absurd given how fervently I (or we) speak of the Truth of Scripture and your great risk in rewriting it to your personal satisfaction.
" With a few exceptions, I doubt that many people ever deliberately choose to "reject Christ/God...""
But many do deliberately do things God prohibits. Here's a good example: your lesbo grannies and those who enable them. Both are choosing themselves over the clearly revealed Will of God believing they will be forgiven for being "mistaken" about that which is so clearly and unambiguously prohibited. Of course, you don't really believe you're mistaken. You believe you're good to go because you've only "missed the mark", as if you were even aiming for it. When in fact, you've deliberately chosen your way over God.
"What they MAY do is look at a flawed, irrational and graceless church and say, "If THAT is God, no thank you...""
How very convenient. You regard as "a flawed, irrational and graceless church" that which preaches the Truth against the very sins which please you. So you're still obliged to first present a case against that church being unBiblical in their positions and practices with regard that which you wish to do. But that's not how you roll.
"Did you intend to write, "Doing that which God/Bible COMMANDS NOT TO DO result in hell..."?"
Close enough. Thanks for that at least.
" If so, are you saying that ANY sin... any failure to follow a line in the Bible that should be considered a universal rule (as opposed to the rules that should NOT be considered a universal rule) deserves eternal torture?"
No. But continued indulgence in that which is clearly forbidden indicates a clear rejection of God. (And I must here assert a very important distinction: I'm not referring to those who know what compels them is sinful, but unlike you and your lesbo grannies, while striving to live according to God's Will, they sometimes succumb to temptations.)
"Which one of those theories rationally, morally and justly "deserves" eternal torture?"
I've presented no theories. I've presented only Biblical truths you've been thus far unable to rebut except for your ever present "Nyuh uh". To reject God is to choose Hell.
"And where if your proof for this rather irrational and immoral sounding theory?"
The Truth is irrational and "immoral sounding" to the unbeliever. The Truth I defend is directly from Scripture and easily understood by believers.
"1. IF you want to promote your human theory that God will literally punish someone for an eternity for temporal misdeeds/crimes, then YES, the severity of a misdeed IS at issue."
If you want to make up crap which you find easier to rebut than the Truth, you'll have to do it at your Blog of Lies and Perversions. I don't promote "human theories". I promote the Will of God as so clearly revealed to us in Scripture.
"2. Once again, to be just and moral, ANY punishment for ANY misdeed must be in proportion to the misdeed."
To determine such a thing, one must understand what the misdeed is, how serious it is to indulge and then make a case the punishment is unjust. You avoid doing these things.
" 3. Those humans, like you, who theorize that the majority of humanity will be sent by God to "eternal torment" (and that's not nothing) for the typical misdeeds of humanity need to try to make some kind of sense of that proposed theory, because it's grossly evil and slanderous of God on the face of it."
"Those humans" are not like me, for this is not any "theory" I've promoted. So you can go ask any of these mythical humans to explain the theory you seek to put in my mouth.
"It's just noting that it's a rational conclusion that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God can be counted on to dispense any punishment in a loving and just manner."
While I don't necessarily disagree with this general statement, I do indeed disagree that you think Hell for what you enable and promote won't be less than perfectly just from a perfectly loving and just God. For in order for that to be true, God would have to defer to Dan Trabue's notion of how He should dispense His justice. His justice must be identical to Dan Trabue's notion of justice and He cannot be any more offended by sin than is Dan Trabue. Good luck with that, Dan.
Clearly you did your typical cursory glance at my link and nothing more. You saw it didn't agree with you and you were done with it.
But despite your reliance upon "experts", usually unnamed if existing at all, I presented just such a person, whose list of credentials stretches way beyond the length of your Pinocchio nose. This guy's expertise is ancient Greek and he's been involved in translating Scripture for inclusion in Bibles. His response to the "missing the mark" angle those like you, so desperate to legitimize your sinful behaviors, includes insisting not even the Greeks themselves used it exclusively as you insist it can only be used. From my link:
The verb “hamartano” (αμαρτανω) was sometimes used in pre-Classical and Classical Greek to refer to missing a target. Homer uses it in the Iliad to speak of a man who failed to hit his opponent with a spear (Iliad 5.287, using the archaic form ημβροτες): “But Diomed all undismayed made answer, ‘You have missed, not hit.’” In other contexts it was used to speak of losing one’s way on a road. But more generally it meant, “to do wrong, err or sin” (see Liddell, Scott and Jones, abbrev. LSJ). He refers to LSJ in order to point to a well-known source which backs up his position. He also has a link to one of his posts referring to the problem of citing the ancient Greek in sermons.
In the rest of this last comment of yours, you again do your goal post moving to refer to those who seek to do good but sometimes, as Paul says of himself, do what they don't want to do (what they know is wrong). But that sort of thing is covered by Christ's atoning Blood, which He shed on our behalf for that purpose. He renders us as if perfect if we believe in Him.
But those like your lesbo grannies, who are old enough to know better and ostensibly mature enough not to engage in childish equivocation, clearly are rejecting God's Will and are not "missing the mark". They're ignoring the mark and not shooting any arrows at all.
(Note: "LSJ" refers to The Liddell, Scott, Jones Ancient Greek Lexicon, a comprehensive Greek-English lexicon first published in 1843, which serves as a key reference for the Ancient Greek language.)
Just to clarify, I want to acknowledge that I did a quick look at how the ancient Hebrew word for sin is defined. It has a similar "missing the mark" definition, but just as was said of the Greeks, it wasn't used exclusively in that manner, but as a word to describe sin as we understand it in the here and now. It was never used to dismiss the seriousness of disobedience as Dan falsely uses it.
You say I fail to understand you AND YET, at the same time, you fail to offer any specifics. Help me understand.
Our Ultra conservative friends at Ligonier have this to say about who "deserves" to go to hell (short answer... EVERYONE!!)...
"Because the reality of it is that none us deserves to go to heaven. All of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. All of us are in opposition to God, in enmity with Him. All of us are haters of God. We are insolent toward God in our natural sinful state."
https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/ask-ligonier/how-can-a-loving-god-send-people-to-hell
WHY do "none of us deserve to go to heaven...?" These folks in the human Calvin's tradition say, because, they claim (with NO support) "All of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. All of us are in opposition to God, in enmity with Him. All of us are haters of God. We are insolent toward God..."
Do you agree with these men in the conservative extremist religious tradition? (They are very much like those I grew up with and that I have read throughout these decades.)
If not, Good for you fellas! I'm glad to hear you affirm that we don't "deserve hell because of our sins/sin nature..."
But I suspect you DO agree with their human theories.
You tell me.
"Our Ultra conservative friends at Ligonier..."
Would very likely prefer, as I do, that a heretic like you not refer to them as "friends"
"WHY do "none of us deserve to go to heaven...?" These folks in the human Calvin's tradition say, because, they claim (with NO support) "All of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. All of us are in opposition to God, in enmity with Him. All of us are haters of God. We are insolent toward God...""
It's ironic you claim their expression of Biblical teaching has no support, while you then cite Scripture as what informs their position. In other words, the above is simply a recitation of Christianity 101.
As such, these men aren't the least bit "extremist", unless you mean they are extremely committed to the Word and Will of God.
What's more, it's not a "human theory", but a factual and accurate teaching of Scripture, which is evident by their citation of just one verse of many which confirms the concept. But hey...they're only quoting the Apostle Paul and everyone knows he was just a rube, right?
Marshal, you and Craig keep saying I am not stating conservative opinion correctly, so, help me understand and answer the question asked of you.
WHY do "none of us deserve to go to heaven...?" These folks in the human Calvin's tradition say, because, they claim (with NO support) "All of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. All of us are in opposition to God, in enmity with Him. All of us are haters of God. We are insolent toward God..."
Do you agree with these men in the conservative extremist religious tradition? DO you theorize that we deserve hell because we are "sinners..."? Because we are "in opposition to God..."? And/or, because we "hate God..."?
Help me understand your personal opinions on this matter.
Craig...
"How does one "miss" a mark which cannot be accurately identified or defined? Miss/hit is a binary distinction, it's an either/or , pass/fail situation. If you "miss the mark" the distance by which you "miss" is irrelevant. Yet under your "minor sin" hunch, you're literally acting as if a "near miss" is not really a miss."
And all of ... THAT is how a legalist thinks, to be sure. "You better HIT A BULLSEYE, you pathetic wretch or I'll beat you all the way to hell and leave you there!!"
But it's not the way of grace. A gracious Parent sees that you tried for a bullseye and yet, you missed the whole target and responds, "that's okay, child, try again. Neither do I condemn you!"
Which of those is the response of a parent of Love and Grace and which is the response of an irrationally out of control bully?
Which side would you want to be on?
Interesting, Dan insists that sin (in the Greek, not necessarily the Hebrew) is "missing the mark", so he them chooses to use a different word (misdeed) that the word he defined as "missing the mark). As Dan notes, he arbitrarily chooses "misdeed" over sin because he doesn't like the "connotations" of the word sin, despite the word sin being the word he defines as "missing the mark". If accuracy is the goal, then why not say "missing the mark" instead of adding another term to generate more confusion?
So, you acknowledge that "missing the mark" is binary. You either miss or hit, yet you continue to advance your "minor sins" bullshit as if getting close to the "mark" gets you some kind of partial credit.
Actually no it's not. "Missing the mark" is an action. Actions don't occur in a vacuum. Actions are virtually always precipitated by thought and motivation. "Missing the mark" is the RESULT of the choice to rebel against YHWH. Choosing not to follow YHWH's laws and commandments can only be looked at as rebellion against authority. Unless you are prepared to argue that YHWH has no authority to establish laws, and issue commands.
"They're trying and, in their imperfect humanity are simply failing to be perfect."
This is an unproven claim. It might be True sometimes, but not universally.
For example. If a Pakistani immigrant chooses to kidnap, drug, and rape a 12 year old girl because his culture accepts the kidnapping, drugging, and raping of those not a part of their culture, is that not an active choice to disobey YHWH's commands/laws?
"So, the real question is why would anyone take your alternative meaning seriously?"
You're right. Why would anyone take seriously the default position of The Church for thousands of years, as opposed to Dan's novel (non scriptural) hunches about "minor sins". Insanity.
"Reality is (for reasonable people)"
Here is the core of the issue. Dan defines "reality" as that which some unknown group of people who he's decided are "reasonable" (reason being subjective, as is Dan's process for selecting people that allegedly agree with him).
"Expecting imperfect people to be perfect is irrational."
Who is expecting "imperfect people to be perfect"?
One of the primary story arcs of scripture is that from Genesis onward, YHWH provided sinful humanity with a path to atone for their sins, and to be forgiven for their sins. It's not about expecting perfection, it's about atonement and forgiveness. You'd think that someone with such intimate knowledge of scripture and of "conservative" theological positions would not demonstrate so much ignorance of both of those things.
Yes. I do agree with scripture.
Dan's comments indicate a significant problem with his "theology". He's obsessed with sin, so much that he's created excuses and "minor sins" as a way to minimize that fact that "missing the mark" is a miss. That a "minor sin" is a sin. That there's no partial credit for "minor sins". This starts with his insistence that people are born 100% sinless and are intrinsically "good", that people can (theoretically) live a sinless life. This then continues with his "good works=good people" hunch and apparent belief that "good people" somehow slip by with YHWH. The final piece is his insistence that "the gospel" is primarily about fixing the social ills of the "poor and marginalized" here on earth.
Yet he ignores the fact that to focus on the pervasiveness of sin, while ignoring the existence of atonement and forgiveness, clearly laid out in scripture, is putting the emphasis in the wrong place. Dan insists that it's possible for YHWH to forgive, without atonement, yet doesn't seem to have scriptural support for that hunch. The Gospel, is that YHWH sent Jesus to atone for sin.
That Dan's claims that "reality" is defined by an anonymous group of "reasonable people" (appeal to numbers logical fallacy) while crying foul anytime the fact that thousands/millions of scholars/theologians/experts have held certain things to be True for thousands of years seems a poor trade at best.
The only reason why "conservatives" talk about sin, is because it leads to our need for a savior. As Jesus said, "Those who are well (good people) have no need of a physician, but those who are sick (sinners/not good people). Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous (good people), but sinners.”
Again, I'll stick with Jesus (who'd name literally means YHWH saves) and the rest on this, instead of with Dan's Reason and hunches.
I believe I noted elsewhere that the ancient Hebrew word for "sin" carries the same uses as the ancient Greek, but they also are not using it as anything less than a description of behaviors God prohibits. Dan uses the term purposefully, to suggest that those who willfully choose sinful behaviors, as do his lesbo grannies, do so always my mistake, as if they had no possible idea the behaviors in which they choose to indulge are prohibited by and displeasing to God...despite it clearly revealed to us in Scripture in a solidly specific and unambiguous manner. "OH! I didn't mean to rob that bank and shoot the guard! It was a mistake!"
To that, I can concede that there are those who backslide. Of course I can, as we are not perfect beings and are possessed of varying degrees of resistance to temptations. Christ's atoning sacrifice washes us clean of such if we accept Him as our Savior.
But those who claim knowledge of Scripture have little excuse for succumbing to temptations as if we have no control whatsoever, as if we didn't know what tempts us is forbidden us by God. Worse are those who simply choose to ignore, or rationalize out of existence those restrictions of behaviors they want' to indulge. Their choice to put the appeasement of their temptations over the Will of God is not "missing the mark" when they are not even taking up the bow in the first place.
Well, the fact that you had to go elsewhere and copy/paste someone else's words to be accurate, kind of makes our point. That you can copy/paste one "conservative" position while misrepresenting others doesn't really help your prove your claims True at all.
But I absolutely agree with what scripture says on the matter. It's strange that you act as if the scripture you "quote" is somehow an invention of some "conservatives".
That you can't offer a rational explanation for "all have sinned" without insisting that "all" means something other than "all" is telling.
"Are you saying that you theorize that mere mortals - imperfect, flawed humans like ourselves - missing the mark of being like God's perfection or God's perfect will is a problem? But, shouldn't that just be expected?"
Of course it's "expected" or God would not have sent us a Savior. But that doesn't mean it's "accepted" or God would not have sent us a Savior.
And now it's Stupid Analogy Time:
"I mean, I don't expect a newborn babe to hit the mark of being able to drive a car on an expressway."
The routinely stupidly inane quality of your analogies is evidence for the suspicion you know you're wrong.
"WHO demands perfection from imperfect humans?"
God. But He accepts us as such if we accept Christ. It's all there in Scripture. You should read it sometime.
"Can you at least understand that, on the face of that, this is a crazy theory to hold... one that is grossly evil and immoral?"
No. Your rejection of Christian teaching puts no obligation on me to reject Christian teaching right along with you.
Here's something I do reject: Your bullshit labeling of actual and accurately presented teachings you don't like as mere "human theory". It arrogantly implies your preferred heresies and perversions are facts, despite no legitimate evidence ever provided by you to support the premise or its likelihood.
No, that is literally the essence of the concept of hit/miss. As I noted, a place kicker doesn't get partial points for just barely missing a field goal, and Olympic shooter/archer doesn't get a medal because the barely missed the target.
The problem is that no one is saying "you better hit a bullseye" we're saying that you don't get partial credit for missing the entire target. (maybe you aren't familiar with what a target looks like and how the whole thing works, if so I can post a picture for you)
The problem is that you are (intentionally?) leaving out the rest of the story. YHWH provided a way (through the sacrificial system, culminating in Jesus to complete atoning sacrifice) for us to have the missed wiped away and to stand before YHWH as IF we'd hit a bullseye thanks to the work of Jesus.
The problem is that a loving God realized that it was futile to depend of human works and continue attempts to do what we can not do, and provided a solution.
I want to be on the side of YHWH.
"Expecting imperfect people to be perfect is irrational."
Not by a perfect God who bids us "be holy as I am holy".
"Punishing imperfect people for the "crime" of being imperfect and failing to be perfect is irrational, unjust and just plain evil."
The "crime" is not accepting God/Christ...the choosing of imperfection over perfection.
" Can you see the simple rational logic in that and how some people of good faith would reach that conclusion?"
God's Truth is irrational to those who prefer their way to His. No one who has truly studied Scripture can in good faith agree with you.
"Help me understand: Do you think that all humans deserve to be punished for an eternity for failing to be perfect? For having what you theoretically call a "sin nature..."?"
How many more times are you going to ask what has already been answered at every past occasion when you asked it? For what good reason did the Father send us His Only Begotten?
STILL trying to figure out where you all theorize I "get it wrong" about your and conservative evangelical human traditions... WHAT am I mistaken about? Be clear. Because it seems you're only confirming what I've already said clearly multiple times.
I have been saying, along with the conservatives at Ligonier...
WHY do "none of us deserve to go to heaven...?" These folks in the human Calvin's tradition say, because, they claim (with NO support) "All of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
THEY claim that no one gets to heaven because of their sin. That is one aspect of what I've been saying that conservatives believe about sin and salvation... JUST what they are saying.
Are you suggesting that THEY, too, are mistaken and don't understand conservative human traditions and theologies?
OR, am I correct that, at least in some degree, y'all believe that humans can't get to heaven because human sin keeps them out?
And yes, as you note (and I have noted), conservatives ALSO believe, in addition to our sins keeping us out of heaven, that failure to "accept Jesus" as our "lord and savior" in some specific manner, that TOO, keeps us out. Says y'all.
So, what am I missing or getting wrong in stating your opinions in just the same way that Ligonier folks do?
Craig, amazingly, said...
Dan insists that it's possible for YHWH to forgive, without atonement, yet doesn't seem to have scriptural support for that hunch.
Wait. Are you saying that YOU imagine that "god" is so pathetic and impotent that your imagined "god" is NOT able to forgive without somebody "paying for" our "sin" with an actual "blood payment..."??
If so, does it worry you to follow such a weakly, impoverished, graceless godling?
And the Scripture to support MY belief in an omnipotent, all-gracious, all-loving God's ability to JUST forgive IS the multiple biblical texts that say God is omnipotent and all-loving, a God of welcome, grace and forgiveness. It's all throughout the bible. Perhaps you missed it?
NOT that I believe in a magic rulings book, so I don't have a problem EVEN IF there were no passages that says that, as I don't require a line in the magic rule book to "prove" it. It's just rational IF you accept the theory of perfectly loving, just, gracious and omnipotent God.
What DOES need to be explained for the magic rulings book believers is WHY their god is so pathetic and powerless against misdeeds and human imperfections? There are, after all, no passages in the Bible that attest or support THAT human theory.
Craig theorized:
That there's no partial credit for "minor sins".
Says who? Your imagined impotent godling? Why would I care what an impotent, pathetic imagined "god" thinks?
And again, you need to keep in mind the MEANING of the word in question (Bible study 101): "There are no partial credits for a "minor" missing of the mark..."
Prove it.
You see, unfortunately for you all, we have no rational reason to consider morality some kind of game where some holy scorekeeper is making marks against all your misses. Again, that IS how legalists might well imagine it, but we have no reason to imagine a perfectly loving, just and gracious God does.
Craig, taking a swipe against innocent newborns, said:
This starts with his insistence that people are born 100% sinless and are intrinsically "good"Dan's comments indicate a significant problem with his "theology"
My theology (study of God and religious ideas) is simply this:
A. I believe in an almighty God, a Creator God in whose image humanity is created.
Do you guess that I'm mistaken on that point?
B. I believe that this almighty God is best defined by Love - perfect love, gracious, grace-giving love, welcoming love, forgiving love, just love.
Am I wrong to think this or do we agree?
C. Thus, if anyone says that this God of perfect love, grace and justice will act in ways that are NOT loving, gracious or just, they are reasonably mistaken.
Am I wrong to think this or do you disagree?
D. And while SOME people imagine a god that might commit and command atrocities and great evils and write it off as "Well, 'god's' ways are different than ours..." that is deeply problematic. It suggests that we are incapable of understanding love, justice and grace even at a very basic level. IF that were the case, then we would have NO hopes of understanding a God of love, because that "god" could do anything and say it's love... commanding slavery, commanding rape, punishing people for an eternity for the "crime" of being imperfect and the "crime" of failing to "accept Jesus..." Whatever you all may mean by that.
But we've covered all this before. How about you all just go back and tell me HOW one ends up in hell?
I see that you cite CS Lewis theorizing that people CHOOSE to be tortured for eternity, but that is neither biblical, nor rational nor is it supported by any serious kind of data.
But is that your guess/theory, Craig? That the REASON some people (the majority of humanity) have to go to hell is because they CHOOSE to do that?
Prove it.
OR, is your theory that people go to hell NOT because of their sin (that doesn't demand eternal torture) but because they didn't "accept Jesus" in the right way?
And if that is your theory (failing to accept Jesus in the right way is punishable with eternal torment! THAT's a hellacious theory!), prove it.
I'm still waiting for you all to answer questions and prove your crazy theories or admit you can't.
And, once again, I'm glad to admit that I can't prove any theories I hold about a potential afterlife because NO ONE CAN. But I'm glad to admit it. You all appear to have some arrogance that you're not willing to admit the obvious.
I asked:
"Do you theorize that JESUS choosing "not to save us" is somehow a crime on our part..."
Marshal replied:
I'm not "theorizing" at all. I'm paraphrasing basic Christian principles. Christ saves those who turn to Him, and accept Him on HIS terms. While God desires that none shall perish, many will and it's their choice which brings that upon them.
Okay... but that doesn't answer my question that I actually asked. I ASKED if it was the crime of Jesus choosing NOT to save us is a crime worthy of eternal torture, in your human opinion?
It APPEARS to be that your answer is NO. We are not punished for Jesus not choosing us. We are punished with eternal torture for the "crime" of not "accepting Jesus" on "Jesus' terms."
IS that your theory?
(And don't bother petulantly saying, "it's not my theory, it's a fact that I can't be mistaken about!" THAT is the question to be answered. Your insisting you can't be wrong is just question begging. Be a more mature reasoner than that.)
IF that is your theory, give the specific hoops a human needs to jump through/actions they need to take/understandings they must understand and without error in order to be saved. WHAT do YOU mean by "accepting Jesus..."? What do YOU theorize are "Jesus' terms..."?
AND, perhaps more importantly, what if a human in their imperfect knowledge and understanding, FAIL to agree with your reasoning/opinions (and it turns out you're correct in your theory)?
Is a failure to understand, in your little opinion, just cause for punishing someone with eternal torture?
IF so, is that not just a works-based salvation scheme? ("You must repent and you MUST NOT be mistaken in the way you repent, at least on these key points? Any failure to understand is rationally punished with eternal torture!! Says Marshal...")
Where is the grace in that?
Where is the justice in that?
Where is the Perfect love of God in that?
(Hint: It's just not.)
Help me understand.
I asked:
" If so, are you saying that ANY sin... any failure to follow a line in the Bible that should be considered a universal rule... deserves eternal torture?"
Marshal replied...
No. But continued indulgence in that which is clearly forbidden indicates a clear rejection of God.
So... you are taking a strong stand and saying NO ONE is punished with eternal torture for their sins?
How very progressive of you, if so.
BUT, at the same time, if they are MISTAKEN about a behavior that you happen to think is sinful but they don't, THEN that failure to perfectly understand some rules IS punishable with eternal torture?
So, by that reasoning, if YOU are mistaken in your abusive language and policies against women, LGBTQ people and immigrants, then, because of your failure to recognize what should be obvious (and truly, it really should be), that indicates (according to your theory) that you are rebelling against God and thus, you will be punished for an eternity for failing to understand some sins correctly?
OR is that just an indicator that you never correctly "accepted Jesus" and did so "on his terms..." and that your failure to fully/correctly "accept Jesus" is just cause to torture you forever?
Again, I can't see how you all aren't talking about some form of a works-based salvation... one dependent on us being relatively perfect in our knowledge on at least some vague list of points and beliefs.
You tell me.
Do you even see the problem I'm getting at... the holes in your human theories?
Craig...
"The only reason why "conservatives" talk about sin..."
*The need to have a god
* incapable of simple forgiveness
* Because that god is so angry about/repulsed by human
* sin and/or failure to repent correctly and/or "accept Jesus" correctly
That
* this god must demand a blood sacrifice
* coming from an innocent being
* to either "pay for" a theoretical "sin debt" or
* "cover over" the theoretical "stain left by sin"
* before that god is willing and/or able to forgive those imperfect humans for their failure to be perfect in either their morality or their understanding of how to be saved...
Is that correct? If not, what have I gotten wrong, specifically?
Or, the way it appears to this former conservative is that you talk about sin because you can't imagine a God who simply forgives, as God taught US to do. Which makes it seem to me that you imagine a humanity greater than the god you imagined.
I had said...
Once again, to be just and moral, ANY punishment for ANY misdeed must be in proportion to the misdeed.
And Craig asked...
"Says who?"
It's a commonly accepted ethics stance. But you know this.
Are you suggesting it's NOT true? If not, why waste time?
If so, I'd say that's an outlier position in the world of ethics and morality.
Indeed, even within conservative Christian traditions, there is, I believe, general consensus on this point. The gentlemen (largely) at Stand to Reason, for instance.
https://www.str.org/w/scripture-provides-us-with-a-comprehensive-guide-to-justice
I suspect you will agree with them and me and concede the point. But by all means, disagree. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Ancient Hebrew understanding of "sin..."
The Hebrew word for "sin" is חטאה (hhatah, Strong's #2403) and literally means "miss the mark." From my understanding of the Bible, there are two types of sin, accidental and deliberate. I explain it this way. The Hebrew people were a nomadic people and their language and lifestyle is wrapped around this culture. One of the aspects of a nomad is his constant journey from one watering hole to another and one pasture to another. If you are walking on a journey (literal or figurative) and find yourself "lost from the path," which is the Hebrew word רשע (rasha, Strong's #7563), you correct yourself and get back on the path. This was a "mistake" (accidentally missing the mark), but not deliberate. Once you are back on the right path, all is good. However, if you decide to leave the path and make your own, you are again "lost from the path", but this time, being a deliberate act, it is a purposeful mistake (missing the mark on purpose). In the Bible God gives his "directions" (usually translated as "commands") for the journey that his people are to be on. As long as they remain on that journey, they are tsadiq (Strong's #6662, usually translated as "righteous," but literally means "on the correct path"), even if they accidentally leave the path, but return (this is the Hebrew verb shuv, Strong's #7725, usually translated as "repentance," but literally means "to return") back to the correct path.
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/definition/sin.htm
Billy Graham and many (most?) others define it in a very similar way.
What I think you all are not even trying to address is the person who is shooting for the mark, for the target, for the path, and falls short of it, that does not imply and certainly does not insist that there is great intention to "rebel," to "reject God" or otherwise intend to do great wrong. The word quite literally suggests making a mistake or coming up short... that, as opposed to doing intentional evil.
And indeed, this is what I'm saying the rational moral person can see in an honest look at many if not most human lives. Maybe I travel around a better group of people than y'all, but generally speaking, I almost never see anyone intentionally thinking or saying, "I want to rebel against God and all that is good! I want to do evil!"
At worst, the most common failure is to not care one way or another - to fail to consider the needs of the poor, your parents, the LGBTQ folks in the room, the immigrants, the homeless, the orphans, the widows, etc.
Did I spend enough time with my parents in their waning years? Perhaps not, but I certainly spent a good bit of time with them and tried to help them as I learned they were not able to stay on top of things themselves. And, at the same time, I was doing work to help others, I was taking care of my family (and they were taking care of me), I was helping out at church, I was going for hikes for my spiritual, emotional and physical health, etc. I'd wager that 90-99% of "wrong" done is in that vein - in an effort to keep all the balls in the air, failing to keep up with one's parents sufficiently or failing to support your own family sufficiently, etc. And what is true for me is true for all my friends and family I know well enough to have an opinion on.
Seriously, do you all know vast swaths of people in your own lives who are deliberately stealing, deliberately cheating (on their finances... on their wives and mistresses and families), deliberately killing, raping? Who does that?
Give me an example: Who is the last person YOU PERSONALLY know of who said, "I want to rebel against God and do wrong, cause harm, embrace evil..."? What did they do?
The people over at Gospel Coalition have this to say about degrees of sin (heads up: They concede it's real):
Although all sin before God is serious and deserving of eternal punishment, Scripture distinguishes between degrees of sin. In this sense, not all sin is equal in terms of its effects, consequences, and degree of punishment on the person, others, the church, and society.
1. There's another group who say people "deserve eternal punishment" due to their sin...
2. They acknowledge the obvious reality that not all sin is equal.
3. Indeed, as the Bible does. The Bible speaks of unintentional sin and "sins unaware" and also speaks of degrees of punishment (killing a cow is one level of punishment, killing a slave is another level of punishment and killing a free man is yet another level of punishment.)
Of course, there are degrees of "missing the mark" and wrongdoing and evil.
Do you have ANY proof that even 50% of typical human failures are intentional evil? 10%?
Craig opined...
Dan's comments indicate a significant problem with his "theology". He's obsessed with sin, so much that he's created excuses and "minor sins" as a way to minimize that fact that "missing the mark" is a miss. That a "minor sin" is a sin.
I'm not obsessed with sin. That would be conservatives. Y'all can't stand it if people disagree with your opinions or even dare to say that your opinions on some sinful behaviors ARE your opinions. Conservatives, generally speaking in many cases, believe that because humans are "sinners" or have a "sin nature" that the "just punishment" due them is eternal torture. (As I have pointed out with Ligonier and the Gospel Coalition's testimony.)
Because conservative extremists have for so long promoted this theory and, indeed, insist it's not even their theory, it's just a fact, that all of humanity is "totally depraved" and thus, "deserves" to go to hell (and otherwise abused humans with their opinions about "sin..."), I think it is important to have discussions to push back against these calvinist human theories and traditions... to point out how crazily irrational it is to suggest that the misdeeds common to humanity are somehow only held accountable with eternal torture... and that this is a "just" and "godly" punishment.
I push back because it is so insane and harmful and so thoroughly unbiblical (not that the Bible is a moral rulings book). People responding to your immoral-sounding theories is NOT the same as being "obsessed with sin." I'm obsessed with pushing back against conservative theories about sin, because I'm convinced those theories are promoting/causing harm and are not of Jesus.
Post a Comment