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.
402 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 402 Newer› Newest»It'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.
Craig...
"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."
Well, the facts are facts.
The fact is that NONE of us knows in any objective sense how God might deal with a misdeed or a life of misdeeds... at least in any afterlife kind of scenario.
As a point of fact.
1. We do not know if God will torture babies who die unrepentant because they had a "sin nature."
2. We don't know that humans HAVE a "sin nature."
3. We don't know if remote, isolated people who were never exposed to "the Gospel" will be punished for not "accepting a Christ" they never heard of.
4. We don't know if God can simply choose to forgive us (although I'd say a belief in an almighty God would insist that this God is not powerless to just forgive.)
5. We don't know if God arranges some sort of actually just and proportionate punishment for bad deeds done.
We just don't know objectively ANYTHING about a potential afterlife.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
What I DO know is that we are morally reasoning creatures with an observable, if imperfect, sense of right and wrong.
We know that broadly speaking, this sense of morality is universally found in all cultures... this Golden Rule sensibility is common to humanity.
And what I believe is reasonable is that there IS a God and that God is perfectly loving, perfectly just and thus, can rationally be counted on to behave in loving and just ways.
And because of that, any human traditions and theories that paint God as irrational, unmoving and unjust, I will disagree with their opinions and note the reality that these ARE their opinions.
"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?"
Stupid question. First, a human parent isn't infinite, and thus neither are that parent's laws for a child who will grow and no longer be under the parent's laws. God is infinite and His holiness is as well. When you sin against God, your punishment is thus infinite as well for transgressing against an infinite being. It wouldn't be true justice and thus not loving for all those who strive to abide His Will. That's because the sin isn't stealing the cookie. It's stealing and stealing is an affront to God. And if one steals one cookie every day, believing each day it won't be missed, eventually one steals enough cookies to surpass what even progressive hellhole California says is what's required to reach felony level. Now what? It's still just stealing one cookie every day.
Or just go back to the initial stupid analogy of yours. What if when questioned about the missing cookie, you say you don't know anything about it. Now you've not only stolen a cookie, you've lie about it. Lying is the crime against God, not what you lied about. Now it's two sins. Two offenses against God.
A loving parent doesn't let a child go without some degree of remonstrance for even the slightest misdeed. But even in the corporeal world, a point arrives when the misbehavior of a child becomes more important than the individual misdeeds he commits. He's clearly in rebellion against the will of the parents (and likely all authority). He will eventually be disciplined on the basis of his overall unrepentant reprobate state and likely more severely than for any single act. It's his disregard for authority, his selfish self-interest over authority and law which is his condition.
Thus, to steal a single cookie isn't why God would punish the cookie thief. If the thief is truly Christian who acted in a moment of weakness, he's still saved if he seeks to make amends and strives to never repeat the offense. But if he's not a Christian...if he doesn't believe and hasn't accepted Christ, his making amends only resolves his issues with other people. He's still in rebellion against God. He's still subject to eternal punishment for his sin nature.
Second, no parent tolerates a child continually engaging in bad behavior.
Marshal:
When you sin against God, your punishment is thus infinite as well for transgressing against an infinite being.
I get that this is your human theory. But I'm asking if you recognize how irrational and on-the-face-of-it evil this theory is? Or, if not, can you at least understand how morally rational people will view this theory with horror and revulsion at how evil it sounds?
When someone sins (and sin, presumably?) and you theorize that this "sin" is specifically "against God..." one deserves an infinite punishment?
Can you see how people hear you promoting that theory about God and thinking, "MAN! What kind of jackass 'god' does this guy follow?"...?
It's like your graceless, evil little godling is much like the pervert prince you elected: emotionally fragile and outraged when anyone commits what he considers the slightest offense against him.
You paint a picture of a god that is graceless and weak and pathetically narcissistic. What rationally moral person would want to follow that "god..."?
Do you see how ugly, pathetic and weak this image of god you promote appears to others?
"STILL trying to figure out where you all theorize I "get it wrong" about your and conservative evangelical human traditions"
First, by continually referring to Christian teaching you don't like as "human traditions" and the condescension therein.
Secondly, by contenting yourself with the most superficial understanding of the Truth and leaving it at that...as if there's nothing more. I recently saw a good analogy which describes your infantile understanding of that which you claim to have spent your entire adult life studying seriously and prayerfully: You regard God's nature as if describing a rainbow by referring to only one color of it, ignoring all the rest.
Thirdly, continuing with the theme ending the second point, you dismiss that which Scripture teaches if in your fevered imaginings it describes actions of God which are not of His nature, when it's describing a particular part of His nature which puts you and your kind in grave eternal danger.
Fourth, we don't disparage Scripture as a "magic rulings book" when confronted with teachings and RULES we find troubling. Indeed, from this point on, that's another phrase you're forbidden to use here. Nobody here but you uses the term because everybody but you has actual reverence and respect for the Holy Bible and the many rules within it. As I continue through your many desperate and lie filled comments, I will come upon more crap from you which will no longer be tolerated. Respect the rules of my blog as you dare to demand respect for yours at yours.
Fifth, while conservatives will speculate now and then on certain aspects of Scripture, they never make up crap out of whole cloth as you do and then pretend it's Biblical.
Sixth, conservatives don't say your kind has no support for a position and then immediately provide the very support said to be lacking.
"So, what am I missing or getting wrong in stating your opinions in just the same way that Ligonier folks do?"
You're missing the truth of it and getting wrong the fact that it is what Scripture teaches rather than a "human tradition", which is just another cheap tactic of your to disparage what you can't rebut or refute.
"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..."??"
WAIT! Are you again falsely suggesting there is no difference between what God can do versus what He chooses to do? Why YES! Yes you are! But here's yet another piece of evidence that proves you've no idea what conservatism is (here as regards Christianity, about which you know so little): Jesus is God. God, then, sent HIMSELF in human form to pay the price for our sin. All throughout the OT (and early in the Gospels), we see that animal sacrifice (death/the shedding of blood) was necessary to atone for sin. This required animals "without blemish", which means, "as perfect as possible". But the reality is nothing is perfect in this fallen world and God entering the physical world in the human form of Jesus Christ, the only sinless, perfect man, sacrificed Himself to save us from ourselves. Conservatives call this "Christianity 101". Progressives call it, "Huh?"
"If so, does it worry you to follow such a weakly, impoverished, graceless godling?"
Keep your hatred of God to yourself. Never use this pathetic, childish false rendering of the One True God we worship at this blog ever again.
"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?"
This is the one color rainbow about which I spoke earlier. Scripture does not support that self-serving, self-satisfying belief at all. You don't describe the God of Scripture. You describe the god you wish existed, because the God of Scripture opposes the sexual immorality and infanticide you find so wonderful. The god you've invented for yourself is like the father who says to his constantly misbehaving son, "That's OK, boy. You can fuck up all you like. There's no law of mine you're not free to break and still eat at my table."
"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,..."
There are no passages which says what you say. That is to say, what you say necessarily requires ignoring lots of what you wish Scripture didn't say.
"...I don't require a line in the magic rule book to "prove" it."
Actually, this is about as ludicrous a line as you've ever posted, and that's saying something. If you can't support your position with Scripture, that by definition means what you believe is not Biblical. More concerning is the lines you disregard because of their small number. So you've just argued for your eisegesis as well as for your disregard for actual Scriptural teaching.
"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?"
When you can produce one of your mythical "magic rulings book believers", you can ask them why their god is so pathetic and powerless against misdeeds and human perfections. Nobody here has so much as hinted at such a sacrilegious proposition about the One True God of Scripture. Don't mention it ever again, Sally.
Damned Blogger!
"Says who? God? (Dan used one of his childish, condescending terms insulting to God he chooses when truth is too hard for him to refute. What follows is his asshole version) "Your imagined impotent godling? Why would I care what an impotent, pathetic imagined "god" thinks?" Which is Danspeak for "What should I care what God thinks?"
In the meantime, Danielle has failed to provide convincing Biblical support for his invention of a God who doesn't care that we sin against Him...that if we can convince Him we didn't know we were mistaken, then anything goes.
"And again, you need to keep in mind the MEANING of the word in question (Bible study 101)"
That's not Bible study 101. That's progressive revisionism. Danny-girl wants us to believe that the "missing the mark" translation is the only way the word was ever used and never meant anything else, when I presented an expert in Koine Greek who says that was the less used meaning. If this were not true, then Jesus said to the adulteress spared of stoning, "Go and miss the mark no more." Does that make sense to even the average deluded member of the Jeff St congregation? (Perhaps, but I was being hyperbolic). That would mean he told her to "go and try not to commit adultery" but if she does, oh well! "You tried to do that which is expressly forbidden and darn it you just couldn't stop yourself. It happens. No big deal. The Father didn't really care if anyone ignored His Will. You're good. No worries. God's Will is just for show."
You're really a stupid little girl, Dan.
""There are no partial credits for a "minor" missing of the mark...""
"Prove it."
No, girl. YOU must prove there is something in Scripture which allows us to miss the mark with impunity so long as it's just by a skosh. Please try. I love to laugh.
"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."
Again, you turd of a petulant little girl, no one here is saying this. YOU'RE the girl who speaks of "minor" sins and "missing the mark". We speak of the difference between God's Will and that which isn't and which you have chosen to abide. We speak of God's Will, you speak of your will. We speak of conforming our hearts to God, you speak of forcing God to conform to yours, or worse, creating for yourself a false god who does just what you want him to do.
"My theology (study of God and religious ideas) is simply this:"
A sick, twisted joke.
"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?"
No, so far as it goes.
"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?"
The one color of the rainbow again. You only describe Him in terms you find personally pleasing and demand that is all there is to Him. This is totally counter to Scripture...that which constantly lie about having seriously and prayerfully studied.
"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?"
This question presupposes that everyone will agree with your self-serving notions of what God's love, grace and justice look like...that what you don't like about what Scripture says regarding God's response to sin is no less than "NOT loving, gracious or just"...that is to say, what Dan demands how a truly loving, gracious and just God should behave. You've made yourself clear about this repeatedly over the years, so hell yes, you're totally wrong in your (*ahem!*) "thinking".
"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."
Who are these mythical people you continue to reference? The only people who speak of God's behavior in this way is you. You stomp your little feet and scream about God being a perfectly loving, gracious and just God and when He dispenses His Justice as He sees fit you dare to call him an evil perpetrator of great atrocities! I'll bet He feels really ashamed at Himself for acting contrary to Dan Trabue's "Rules For Being A God I'll Worship"!
"It suggests that we are incapable of understanding love, justice and grace even at a very basic level"
No. It means, Sally, that your're incapable of understanding God isn't obliged to work by your rules.
"...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...""
God does do anything He wants and it is all good because, you know, He's like...you know.... God. That means all the things He did do which little Danny girl finds "atrocious" and "mean" are all good because He can do nothing else but what is good. That's because He's a perfect God who is perfectly Holy.
You don't get to dictate how God chooses to punish those who He believes are deserving of His Justice. If you were an actual Christian, you'd be warning your lesbo grannies to repent of their perversion and live according to God's Will because of the judgement coming their way.
"But we've covered all this before. How about you all just go back and tell me HOW one ends up in hell?"
We've covered it all before and you're just as wrong now as then, and no, I won't tell you against how one ends up in hell. No one who has actually seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture is without understanding on this point. Even nominal Christians get it. You're not a Christian.
"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."
Serious and prayerful students of Scripture know this is absolutely Biblical. See Matt 7:13.
"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?"
Danny-girl again presumes one is promoting a theory when Scripture says what he doesn't like. Choose God or choose the self. Those who end up in hell chose the self rather than God.
I gave multiple verses which confirm the position I (if not "we") hold regarding what's necessary for salvation. They are basic Christian concepts and for you to ask again for them is just you jerking around because you have no legitimate counter from Scripture to refute what I've presented.
He then goes on to suggest we're speaking of "the right way" to accept Jesus as if accepting Jesus on His terms is somehow unreasonable. But that means Jesus must accept any sinner regardless of how Jesus feels about sin and rejection of His commandments! Good luck with that, Sally!
And while this little bitch of a male demand we prove the obvious, he does absolutely NOTHING to support his contrary position. Thus, Jesus MUST accept anyone regardless of their behavior, attitude, level of belief, etc. How in the Name of all that is Holy is this the least bit logical?
More importantly is that it is Dan who is obliged to come up with some substantive support for his beliefs and to show ours are somehow in error. He not only doesn't. He isn't capable.
"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."
This is typical bullshit presented as "good faith". No one here is doing anything more than providing Scriptural evidence for our positions. "Proof" of God is not required because it is assumed that everyone here who claims to believe in God accepts that He exists. Cut the crap and defend your position with actual Scripture, not your convoluted eisegesis. What you should be saying is "Scripture says nothing about what I believe, but I believe it anyway and no amount of Scripture you present which refutes me will be accepted as more likely than my self-serving fantasies." At least that would be honesty for a change from you.
Note from Me:
Over the next few days (not sure exactly how long), I will be completing the final phase of our move to a new home. My ability to blog and/or review comment submissions will be delayed to some unknown degree. I may be able to do some blogging tomorrow, but after than, my computer will be down and hopefully up in the next day or so. I'm going to be doing something I've never done technically, so I'm hoping the goof folks among Best Buy's Geek Squad have provided good info. Wish me luck. Dan's a putz.
"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?"
When do we get to see this vaunted "reasoning" power of yours? If we don't accept Jesus as Savior...if you choose to reject Him or the Father...you won't be saved. One does not get into heaven if one is not saved. That is the point. I never said anything about Jesus rejecting your sorry ass being a crime. Try paying attention, addressing comments as written without injecting your hateful, anti-God projection.
"(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.)"
Ah yes! Dan the imbecile again daring to condescend. He's asks immature questions, makes immature disparaging remarks and descriptions of God and then dares to encourage me to be more mature and a "reasoner"(?), as if Dan has ever demonstrated he knows how to reason maturely. What an asshole!
Secondly, you don't get to insist that what I present is "theory" rather than presenting evidence from Scripture which contradicts the factual and accurate teachings from Scripture I present. You "theorize" that you're not mistaken about me being wrong, while never presenting evidence that anything you claim to believe could possibly be more accurate and factual. It's a stupid theory from a stupid little girl of a Jeff St. fake.
"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..."?"
Stupid questions and demands you're not privileged to make here until you present some evidence that I am wrong and that your laughable eisegesis and heresies might actually be truth, or more likely to be than what I present. But basically, accept Christ as Lord and Savior, sent by God to give His life so that we might be sanctified. God, both the Father AND the Son, tells us to obey His commandments. THOSE constitute His terms: acceptance, obedience, repentance. You've clearly done none of these things. You regard His terms as those of a moral monster...a "petty little narcissistic godling". I hope you like the heat!
"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)? "
What I believe is Scripture. There's nothing I believe about God, Jesus, the Christian faith, which is drawn directly from Scripture. If they disagree with me, they're disagreeing with Scripture, not because I have authority, but because I don't bullshit about the teachings in order to appease my sinful friends and compel their good feelings about me. I simply relate Scripture as Scripture is and you've failed miserably in demonstrating in any way that my presentation of Scriptural teachings is in any way incorrect.
" Is a failure to understand, in your little opinion, just cause for punishing someone with eternal torture?"
Why do you ask these questions when you should be dealing with your rejection of Scripture, not any "misunderstanding"?
"IF so, is that not just a works-based salvation scheme?"
No. Clearly you've not been called, or you wouldn't be trying to carve out this "mistake" loophole so allow you the liberty to do what you want.
"Where is the grace in that?
Where is the justice in that?
Where is the Perfect love of God in that?"
The Perfect love of God is that despite our not being deserving, He sent us the Way to salvation if we accept Him. Justice is Love. If you're on the wrong side of that Justice, it's still Love for those who aren't, because Justice for the saved is eternity with God.
"Help me understand."
Reject your leftist, marxist, self-serving fake Christian teachers and go back to (if you were ever students of them) actual Christian teachers and theologians.
I've no doubt you already understand, for you claim 50+ years of serious and prayerful study of Scripture. You just reject the Truth and think if you can find fault in my presentation of it, you can go on with your heresies while pretending you're right with God.
"So... you are taking a strong stand and saying NO ONE is punished with eternal torture for their sins?"
Again, you belie your claim of having the ability to reason. It's so simple that even an incredible simpleton like you should be able to grasp it, especially with an alleged 50+ years of serious and prayerful study of Scripture. It's a binary choice. God's way or your way. I choose God's way. You're fucked.
"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?"
How can anyone be mistaken? There are at least a dozen or so English language versions of the Holy Bible. In addition, there are likely at least thousands of commentaries on almost every subject imaginable, particularly those behaviors you champion which are unambiguously forbidden. Unless you're living in a hole in the ground on some uncharted island, there's no way you're not exposed to any number of solid, Scripture-based arguments about the sinfulness of your most favored and pleasing sins. This "being mistaken" is not even an intelligent hypothetical. But again, even if your cheap tactic results in me conceding in any way, you've only made me question the Truth of God which you clearly reject. There's no mistake about that.
"So, by that reasoning, if YOU are mistaken in your abusive language and policies against women, LGBTQ people and immigrants..."
I don't engage in "abusive language" about any of those groups. You're just lying to suggest such a thing. But you continue to "miss the mark" (as if you don't even see it) that this is about individual sins, or the imperfection of the average Christian. This is about you making excuses for purposely rejecting God's Will, the excuse being you "might" be "mistaken". You're not mistaken. You willfully reject His clearly revealed Will. By rejecting His Will, you're rejecting Him, and you clearly have done that creating for yourself a false god who has no problem with sexual immorality and infanticide, breaking laws and striving to tap the wallets of others.
"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."
What "vague list" do you have in mind? Does any item begin with "Thou shalt not"?
"Do you even see the problem I'm getting at... the holes in your human theories?"
God's Will as so clearly revealed in Scripture and then presented by me isn't a "human theory". There are no holes in it, and you've identified none. You're just pretending holes exist.
"what have I gotten wrong, specifically?"
That anyone is convinced you're a Christian. You go out of your way to describe him in the worst way you can because you don't like what He is or what He expects of us. You want to do whatever you like and pretend you can play the "I didn't know! I was 'sincerely mistaken'" card and actually expect God will accept it. And when we state what Scripture teaches, as it has been taught by far better people then us and certainly you, you act like it's something strange, and because non-believers would more honestly regard it as such, then by golly the accurate presentation of the unambiguous Scripture is somehow flawed.
God "simply forgives" those who are His children, which is not every person who ever lived and will live. His children are those who hear His voice, who accept Him on HIS terms and obey because they truly believe in Him. Those who are or were actual conservatives know this and understand it. Your universalism is rejected by conservative Christians and other true believers. It's YOU who puts humanity above God.
Marshal theorized:
If we don't accept Jesus as Savior...if you choose to reject Him or the Father...you won't be saved. One does not get into heaven if one is not saved. That is the point. I never said anything about Jesus rejecting your sorry ass being a crime.
But you are the one who is theorizing that IF we are not saved, THEN God will send us to an eternal hell of torture, right? So, is your opinion that "not accepting Jesus" (whatever you mean by that) is somehow "worthy" of a penalty of eternal torture?
And so, in order to be saved, it's not a matter of grace, it's a matter of we humans "accepting Jesus," (whatever you mean by that), is that your theory? It's not GRACE which saves us, but our action of "accepting Jesus..."? Is that what you're suggesting? And, failing that "acceptance" on our part, that means we've committed actions (crimes?) somehow worthy of eternal torture. Is that your theory?
Perhaps you would do well to define your personal human theory of what it means (to you) to "accept Jesus" specifically.
Also, what your theory is about "rejecting Jesus" looks like, specifically.
If I had to guess, I'd guess your theory is that IF people don't accept Jesus as YOU personally understand Jesus, then that is somehow a rejection of Jesus. But you tell me.
Marshall presumptuously said:
you don't get to insist that what I present is "theory" rather than presenting evidence from Scripture which contradicts the factual and accurate teachings from Scripture I present.
Your subjective personal opinions about how you personally think in your own head what Scripture means to you is LITERALLY your subjective personal theory, something that you have not proven. That's, by definition, YOUR theory and one that you literally have not proven.
You pointing to bible passages and saying, "I think these mean X" is not objective proof. Period. EVEN IF I don't offer alternative interpretations (which I have, in fact, for decades with you), that doesn't make your subjective human theories objective proof.
Understand?
Your link in no way supports your contention that God's Justice is as you demand it must be...rather than how it is...which is denying into His eternal presence those like you who reject Him. Your link speaks of how God wants us to interact in relation to each other. Indeed, the link acknowledges that He dictates to us how justice between us should look. It does nothing to assert that His Justice that you reject as the tantrum of a petty "godling" is not in play. It doesn't even come anywhere near doing that. Just and proportional punishment does not ignore the victim...the one or "One" who is the being offended. Dan Trabue crying for justice because his family was raped and murdered by a gang of illegal alien lesbians is nothing compared to the offense to God when Dan Trabue defends lesbian behavior and infanticide.
I'm out of time and I'll have to shut down my computer completely as in the morning, the movers are coming for our heavy furniture and my computer sits atop one such piece. There's a good chance the Geek Squad dude at Best Buy did not give me the best advice for my specific situation, which would mean I'd be without my computer for an extended period. I hope not. In any case, I've decided to jump to this comment and perhaps I will shred what's between it and the last Trabue comment to which I responded when I'm again situated. Until then....
"Your subjective personal opinions about how you personally think in your own head what Scripture means to you is LITERALLY your subjective personal theory, something that you have not proven."
This is what you tell yourself when confronted with an accurate presentation of Scripture you don't like. You suggest it's only opinion, because if it's only opinion, you can pretend you're good to go with a different opinion, regardless of how stupid, self-serving, far-fetched or how insanely heretical it is. But that's not how it works. You don't get to just say "subjective personal theory" and pretend the truth hasn't been told.
"You pointing to bible passages and saying, "I think these mean X" is not objective proof."
That's dependent upon why I pointed to the passage in question. What was the reason? Was it because Dan Trabue said "that's not Biblical" and what I pointed to was an exact quote or reference to that which Dan Trabue said wasn't Biblical, thereby proving that it is? Yes. That's most typically why and where I point to Scripture. Thus, it is proof given the situation. Dan says my position is not Biblical, and I point to the exact verse, verses or passages which plainly prove it is Biblical.
And no, offering alternative explanations by you is more than just a little rare. It's almost unheard of. Worse, when you do pretend you have another alternative interpretation, you point to verses which do not have anything to do with the topic on the table and force meaning into what in no way conveys your needed meaning. This is the pattern understood by every opponent of yours over those decades. The most laughable is your defense of SSM.
And your biggest lie in all this is to begin with simply regarding my positions as "subjective human theories" and then suggesting the verses I cite to prove my position is "subjective understanding" of those verses. That shit doesn't fly here. If you think my position is flawed, make an actual case. Don't waste my time continually saying it's "personal human theory". OK. Say it is, but still you have to PROVE or provide evidence which actually puts my presentation in real doubt. THAT NEVER HAPPENS EVER! Thus, at worst, my "personal human theory" is still a more accurate understanding of the text until you actually provide an argument to the contrary more compelling than your long-winded "Nyuh uh".
Blowing off the truth as "subjective personal theory" is not a counter argument. It's an unsupported premise, and an incredibly weak and cowardly one at that.
In the meantime, I don't provide "theories". I present Scripture. You hate Scripture but do nothing to show how my presentations fail to support my positions which I insist are drawn directly from Scripture. Borrow a pair of testicles and do the heavy lifting. You'll fail in any case because you're a heretic and Scripture won't support you. But at least you won't expose yourself as a cowardly little whiner.
I have absolute proof that your sin is 100% intentional, as there is no way to defend any form of homosexuality or abortion. Both are strictly and unambiguously prohibited, forbidden, denied us.
As to whether or not God separates those who sin intentionally and those who don't, it would have to be in terms of whether or not that intentionally reject Him (as you do) or simply never heard of Him, and the latter are not of concern in dealing with your convoluted and false arguments in defense of your behavior.
Yet Dan insists that his subjective hunches represent "reality".
If Dan has ever offered alternative explanations for scriptures he considered figurative, I am unaware of a single example where he actually made a coherent argument which used scripture to back up his hunches. As far as I can see it's always some version of "I suspect that's figurative language (often an unproven claim itself)." with no explanation as to what the alleged "figurative language" actually means.
"The fact is that NONE of us knows in any objective sense how God might deal with a misdeed or a life of misdeeds... at least in any afterlife kind of scenario."
That's quite the unproven claim to be presenting as fact. It seems that your position is that no one really knows ANYTHING about how YHWH will dispense justice. Which seems a strange position to take dogmatically.
1. Well, that's a straw man out of the gate.
2. Really/
3. Wow, that's the kind of objection I'd expect from a child, not an alleged adult with an extensive fund of knowledge about scripture and "conservative" thought.
4. Really? We have no clue about that?
5. If you say so.
The problem here seems to be that you seem to be implying that "know" means 100% certainty with absolute proof that would convince a die hard skeptic. Yet literally nothing is "known" to that level of proof.
That you "know" something, does not make that something objectively True. That you trust your flawed, imperfect, Reason and rationality to the point of claiming that you "know" things objectively and that your hunches represent "reality" might be your problem.
You say we "know" that "this sense of morality is universally found in all cultures" (strange that members of some cultures haven't gotten this memo), which implies some sort of "universal" objective "morality" despite ample evidence to the contrary. Again, the evidence against the "golden rule" being accepted and practiced "universally" is slim to none.
"what I believe is reasonable"
This is a subjective standard, grounded entirely in yourself and as such cannot be imposed on others.
That you "disagree" with something (scriptural) doesn't mean that you are correct. That you "disagree" with something means that the onus in on you to provide better evidence (that the evidence for the position you disagree with) that your hunch is more correct than the alternatives.
Really, then why do you focus on it so much?
Conservatives usually mention sin, as a prelude to explaining the need for a savior. If we "focus" on sin in these conversations, its' only as a response to you and your unproven hunches.
I get it, it's "insane" and "harmful" to quote scriptures that Dan doesn't like and can't provide an alternative explanation to, and to push back on his "everyone is born perfect" and "minor sin" hunches.
Awesome, you've found a source that completely agrees with the position I've been expressing for months/years. Great job!
Your incoherent hunches about YHWH's laying out temporal punishments for sins and what sacrifices/punishments are necessary to expiate/atone for/civilly punish sin/crime must somehow automatically apply to any eternal consequences for sin are creative, yet ignorant.
As you've offered no concrete proof of your hunches, why demand that which you will not provide?
You are correct, it is possible to miss a target by 1mm or by a kilometer. Yet both are MISSES. You don't win a target shooting competition by being close to hitting the target, yet you seem to insinuate that as long as we're close that YHWH will grade on a curve.
A miss is a miss. Sin is sin.
You're conflating literal meaning of the words with how the words are used metaphorically. As the expert in Koine Greek to whom I linked has stated, one is dealing with a single understanding of the word and in the case of those like you, doing so to minimize the seriousness of sin, specifically the sins which please you to indulge and/or enable. If one is on a literal journey from one geographic location to another, or in a contest or circumstance where hitting a target (or "mark") is required, and one becomes lost or misses the target, the words are used in there literal sense and accurately so. But when they're referencing one's relationship with God the "destination", the "target" (or "mark") is God and His Will and those words are used to determine what we now regard as sin or rejection/or being in breach of His clearly revealed Will. Said another way, the literal meaning of the Koine Greek or ancient Hebrew word for what we now call "sin" is inconsequential. What's consequential is how it is used in a given situation. "Missing the mark" is but one usage of the word and from what the expert to whom I referenced asserted, it was not the most common.
The same is the case with your Billy Graham reference. He's not using the word as you need it to be regarded. He's referring to the metaphorical explanation of the words. They still are properly used to denote sin and repentance as we use those English words. You seem to think that our words of translation somehow fail to convey the intended meaning behind the words as they're used in Scripture, or more likely, you insist on it so that you can carry on enabling sexual perversion, infanticide and other sinful practices while still maintaining you are a devoted follower of Christ.
As such, you ARE in rebellion against God, and decades of blogging and reading and other connections to expression of Bible truth condemns you by your rejection of it.
I don't care about your self-serving list of "good deeds". I'm demanding a legitimate, cogent, intelligent and honest argument for your willful rejection of God's Will. Any evidence from Scripture, while actually non-existent, would help. Good luck with that. Since at least 2008, you've failed miserably in that endeavor.
First, NO ONE is arguing that sin is failing to meet the standard that YHWH has established, NO ONE. Second if you want to use the term "missing the mark", that is essentially saying the same thing.
As far as "I explain it this way.". I don't care how you explain it.
The problem remains that you only focus on one half of the equation, sin.
From the very beginning of scripture, YHWH is provided ways to atone for sin. Which is the important part, would you not agree? As you seem to acknowledge, everyone sins. Therefore wouldn't it follow that a way to expiate, or atone for that sin be important? The question, therefore becomes what is at stake, or what is the end goal. The Rich Young Ruler was on track when he asked "What must I do to inherit eternal life". If eternal life with YHWH is the goal, and if YHWH is perfectly holy, then wouldn't some means of reconciling sinful humanity with a holy God be necessary?
The problem I have is that you seem to be suggesting that there is no need to atone for, or repent of "minor sins", that somehow those don't count the same way as other sins.
"What I think you all are not even trying to address is the person who is shooting for the mark..."
Then you think wrong. Repentance/atonement/asking for forgiveness is still a thing regardless of why someone sins.
"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!""
That you seem to think that you can know someone's thoughts is an impressive claim.
What scripture seems to support, and what most people who don't agree with your hunch would say, is that it's not so much a matter of saying "I'm going to intentionally choose to do what YHWH has prohibited.". It's more a matter of someone looking for loopholes. As Lewis said they choose "My will be done" over "Thy will be done". It's more about the elevation of the self over YHWH, than the narrow example you offer.
I'll offer myself, Jimmy Carter, and every man I've ever been in an accountability group with as an example. Christ was clear that looking at a woman lustfully was equal to committing adultery, well those I mentioned have all acknowledged our sin in this area and are trying to live a life of repentance. At a more extreme end of things, let's take this example. Is someone who chooses to drug and rape a child because they "didn't know it was wrong", somehow not sinning?
"the most common failure is to not care one way or another..."
That's quite a claim to be offered with no proof.
"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?"
As noted, I know quite a few people who are (by Jesus' definition) guilty of multiple instances of adultery. I know plenty of people (hell I see them on the news regularly) who are guilty of murder through their verbal expressions of hatred for others (again per Jesus). I know plenty of people who rationalize lying, cheating, and theft. Again, look at the news. We've seen a massive increase of squatters moving in to someone's home while the owners were gone, changing the locks, and living there for free (while the rightful owner keeps paying for the home), when they are confronted they aggressively assert that they have the "right" to the home. How is this not intentionally choosing theft?
Again, I know plenty of people including myself that regularly repent of choosing to place "my will" over "Thy will".
I think that part of the problem is that you are so fixated on this hunch about "minor sins" that you choose to only focus on the since YOU consider major.
The other problem that I see is the difference in focus. We try not to focus in keeping score or "minor/major" sins, we try to focus on YHWH and on showing our love by obeying His commandments as Jesus taught.
"It's a commonly accepted..."
Again, says who? Are you now claiming that an "ethics stance" equal to a "moral stance"? (FYI, it is a completely ethical stance for one to take advantage of any and every legal way to reduce their tax burden yet you've been claiming that Trump doing so is immoral)
As wasting time is the result of your continued obfuscation, I think that is a log/eye situation.
"When we use the word “justice,” we mean something. Justice implies conformity to an ethical or moral standard. Now, keep in mind, true justice requires the existence of an objective standard. That’s why anything outside of a theistic system ultimately fails. So, justice is the conformity to an ethical or moral standard defined by the nature and the will of God. This standard is revealed to us in God’s law."
I guess that you didn't read the first paragraph of your gotcha link.
As Art said, I seriously doubt that the link differs materially from the argument I've actually been making (as opposed to your straw man perversion of my argument).
"You paint a picture of a god that is graceless and weak and pathetically narcissistic."
Well, we're just agreeing with the picture painted by scripture, so there's that. It sounds like you think that YHWH, the God who created all that exists and who works everything to His glory is somehow "narcissistic". What a strange notion, you calling YHWH narcissistic. The fact that you believe that you can pass judgement on YHWH seems to indicate that one of the two of you actually is "narcissistic".
"What rationally moral person would want to follow that "god..."?"
Well, as "rationality" is subjective and (according to you) morals a (functionally) subjective, I don't see how that actually provides much grounding for significant decisions. But yeah, a holy, powerful, sovereign, just, merciful, etc God would suck.
"Do you see how ugly, pathetic and weak this image of god you promote appears to others?"
Let's start with the fact that this is a straw man argument. You have not and cannot accurately portray the "image" of YHWH that I "promote", therefor I don't care about your straw man and how people might react to it.
"Is that correct? If not, what have I gotten wrong, specifically?"
*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
* "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...
That's what you've gotten wrong to some degree or another. It seems strange that one so deeply versed in "conservative" theology would engage in such a poorly expressed straw man argument.
If one looks dispassionately at the entirety of scripture, the centrality of atonement for sin and the system instituted to do so, and how that relates directly to Christ is inescapable to most.
When you use words like "seems" and "appears" those merely indicate misrepresentations or straw men.
"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.""
What an incredibly stupid "question", the "support" (although not the entirety of the support) is literally in the idiotic question. The fact that Scripture teaches things like "All have sinned..." IS support. That you don't like or choose to pretend otherwise is your problem.
"THEY claim that no one gets to heaven because of their sin."
No, "THEY" and scripture claim that many get to heaven (or whatever) DESPITE their sin, BECAUSE Jesus (YHWH saves) FULFILLED the law and completed the need for additional sacrifice.
You keep "saying" things as if the act of you "saying" them automatically validates the accuracy of what you "say".
"Are you suggesting that THEY, too, are mistaken and don't understand conservative human traditions and theologies?'
No, I'm suggesting that you cherry lick from them much as you do from scripture, then you misrepresent what is said much like you do with scripture.
"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?"
It's a shallow and poorly articulated version, but there's a grain of accurate representation in there somewhere.
"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."
Nope, I've never said that nor have I seen anyone say that.
"So, what am I missing or getting wrong in stating your opinions in just the same way that Ligonier folks do?"
Well, since you're not "stating" things the "same way that Ligonier folks do", and that the "Ligonier folks" aren't scripture, that seems like the source of your problem. Maybe use scripture to make your case instead of the Ligonier folks
"Dan insists that it's possible for YHWH to forgive, without atonement, yet doesn't seem to have scriptural support for that hunch."
Well, yes I did. Because (based on your convoluted, vague, and imprecise claims) that is exactly the conclusion I've drawn. That you've failed to provide scriptural support for your hunch (specific, direct) goes without saying because it's so rare that you do.
"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..."??"
No.
"If so, does it worry you to follow such a weakly, impoverished, graceless godling?"
No. I'd be more worried about following a god made in your image, than following the God revealed in scripture.
"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?"
Ohhhhhhhhhhh, Dan is too lazy to even cherry pick proof texts. He just makes a vague reference to some of the attributes he attributes to YHWH (while ignoring the rest) to paint an incomplete picture of YHWH. Further, he fails to explain how those scriptures specifically support his hunches.
"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."
Neither does anyone else here. But hey straw men are what you do.
"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?"
Well, why would anyone explain your straw man as if it was an actual picture of the God revealed in scripture. That would be a waste of time.
"There are, after all, no passages in the Bible that attest or support THAT human theory."
Because that's your made up, bullshit, straw man.
I've been thinking about Dan's strange hunches, and I think that I have a real life parallel.
There was an incident a couple of weeks ago where an Indian Truck driver made an illegal U turn and ended up killing three innocent people.
Bizarrely enough, there is a massive campaign to go easy on him because he "just made a mistake". So, if that's True, let's look at the mistake.
Mistake
1. Illegally entering the US.
2. Illegally getting a CDL.
3. Driving with the illegal CDL.
4. Making an illegal U turn.
In reality he "made 4 mistakes" (probably more) which were not really mistakes in any real sense of the word. The reality is that he made a conscious choice in all of those instances and ended up killing 3 people.
So, who did he commit crimes against?
The 3 victims
The individual states he drove in illegally.
The US government.
In Dan's construct of sin, these were presumably all just innocent mistakes, he was trying to do the right thing but he just goofed. He should probably get credit for trying to do the right thing and just making a mistake, shouldn't he?
One problem with Dan's hunch is that even mistakes are choices. We choose, like the driver, to place what we perceive as our best interest over the best interest of YHWH (the govt) or of others (the victims). We think that it's only a "minor" transgression and I need to do this because it helps me.
It's not a perfect illustration, but the fact that millions of people insist that this tragedy was "just a mistake" fits so well with Dan's hunch.
Art,
While I understand that the term is commonly used, I think that the "accepting Jesus as your savior" language is problematic. I'm not sure what your options are to replace it, but the term seems to indicate that it is our action of accepting which is what saves us. I'm pretty sure you don't agree that we play any part in our salvation, but I wanted to make sure. Again, I get that the phrase is commonly used to describe conversion, and I don't really have an alternative. Just something to consider. You don't have to post this if you'd rather not.
Jesus calls us to Him. What happens next? Are we incapable of resisting the call? I get your caution, but like you say, how do we replace it? Even Scripture, John 3:16 suggests it. In that verse, is "believe" an action taken or something else? It's neither here nor there for me as I do believe.
A typo. I meant the "good" folk of the Geek Squad, who, by the way, did me a solid (are they still using that expression?). The Wi-Fi adapter worked!
"The fact is that NONE of us knows in any objective sense how God might deal with a misdeed or a life of misdeeds... at least in any afterlife kind of scenario."
Or course we do. At least those of us who actually study Scripture do, because it speaks of how God will deal with all of us in the afterlife. I don't think it's looking particularly pleasant for you.
"As a point of fact." responses:
1. Irrelevant. What's more, we don't need to know.
2. Yes we do. There are several verses in Scripture which attest to that fact, with one quoting God Himself. Of course it's only God. What does HE know next to Dan Trabue!
3. Irrelevant.
4. We know that God is Sovereign and can do anything. We know He chose to deal with humanity as He has.
5. Of course we do. That, too, is told to us in Scripture. You just don't like what Scripture says, so you pretend it's a big mystery.
"We just don't know objectively ANYTHING about a potential afterlife."
Sure we do. Scripture speaks of it more than once. You may have missed it because you never actually seriously studied it.
"Do you acknowledge that reality?"
When you ask this question, you're haven't spoken of "reality" at all. You're only asserting we're wrong and you're right beyond any question. But you're horrible at identifying "reality", so no one here any more the least bit uncertain about our positions when you say it. We do get a chuckle out of it, though, so thanks for that!
"What I DO know is that we are morally reasoning creatures with an observable, if imperfect, sense of right and wrong."
You say that if all people are equal in their imperfect reasoning abilities. If not for you, I might even believe that! But you take imperfection to a whole new level of stupid!
"We know that broadly speaking, this sense of morality is universally found in all cultures"
We know that, factually speaking, you like to trot out this tired canard when as if it has any true meaning or relevance in the context of a discussion such as this, when it's really just another of your routine ploys in furtherance of your heretical narrative. But it's not compelling in any case. I rarely, if ever, speak in terms of the whole world, but only that which are positions of those who post here. I don't, for a second, buy any reference by you regarding what anyone else thinks, as if you've taken a poll, so don't waste your time.
"And what I believe is reasonable is that there IS a God and that God is perfectly loving, perfectly just and thus, can rationally be counted on to behave in loving and just ways."
Another canard, because you post this as if there's no way that God is behaving "in loving and just ways" when punishes those HE regards as deserving, instead of those Dan Trabue regards as deserving.
"And because of that, any human traditions and theories that paint God as irrational, unmoving and unjust, I will disagree with their opinions and note the reality that these ARE their opinions."
I know of no one who comes here and "paints God" as anything not drawn directly from Scripture...except for you. The God of Whom we speak is not at all irrational in punishing for eternity those He believes are deserving. I hope you like the heat.
Marshal...
"It's neither here nor there for me as I do believe."
And yet, I believe and you theorize it's not sufficient.
And look, you all can't even SAY what it means to "accept Jesus" or that THAT is what saves us.
If you can't specify what specifically it is that saves us or sends us to hell, then why do you criticize others so much?
Craig's nonsensical and unbiblical, "People CHOOSE to be tortured for an eternity " is nonsense and inane on the face of it.
The Bible doesn't say it (not that the Bible is a rulings book in the first place!)
Common sense rejects it.
There is NO DATA to support the theory. You can't name one person who says, I'd like to be tortured forever, and you certainly can't cite even one actual person in "Hell."
Come, gentlemen, your logic is unraveling in front of your eyes, your theories evaporating like swamp gas for lack of reason or common decency.
Craig...
"It sounds like you think that YHWH, the God who created all that exists and who works everything to His glory is somehow "narcissistic". What a strange notion, you calling YHWH narcissistic."
And yet, the clear reality is that I never have said anything of the sort.
At the very least, can you fellas begin to demonstrate that you understand MY words? If you can't understand my words I've made plain to you in hundreds of ways, WHY would you have faith that you can understand the biblical texts?
I think people like YOU paint a very anti-Christ, anti-God image of God. I think YOUR HUMAN understanding of God portrays God as narcissistic, impotent, weak and morally irrational. I'm literally not objecting to God, I'm objecting to YOUR understanding of God.
Even if you disagree with my opinion, you should be able to understand what it is I'm objecting to and with whom I'm disagreeing. Unless you conflate your human theories with God's Word (which Marshal makes clear his theories are not his theories, but God's Word- in his imagination), I'm just not disagreeing with God, but with your human theories of God.
And yes, Marshal, no matter how many times you insist you can not be mistaken, these ARE YOUR unproven human opinions. Even if a million men who think like you have agreed with you over the centuries, they remain unproven human opinions.
Craig...
"If Dan has ever offered alternative explanations for scriptures he considered figurative, I am unaware of a single example where he actually made a coherent argument which used scripture to back up his hunches. "
Then you have a severe reading comprehension problem, as I've been doing exactly that with you all for nearly two decades.
Part of the problem is that I don't accept the way y'all treat the Bible as a rulings book.
How do we know God's position on the age of the universe?
How do we know God's position on the salvific status of infants and children before the alleged age of accountability?
How do we know God's position on the alleged age of accountability?!
How do we know God's position on the morality of gay guys marrying?
Etc.
For the rulings book believers, the answer is simple and simplistic... Look in the Bible!
But, for those of us who don't hold that view or agree with that theory, that just ISN'T the answer.
And WHY don't I hold to the Rulings book theory?
Because it's not a biblical teaching.
1. It's literally not taught anywhere in the Bible.
2. Indeed, "the Bible" is not taught in the Bible.
3. We see all manner of warnings from Jesus and elsewhere of the problem of using scriptural teachings to abuse God's Word and Way.
4. We also see tremendous respect for "the Scriptures" and that is why I don't advocate ignoring our human collection of scriptures AND, at the same time, value the importance of treating them rationally and not shoving words into the Bibles mouth.
The bottom line is, what the various human authors of the biblical books consistently teach is the importance of God's actual words, God's Way, the Will of God. We can try fairly well to find that in a number of ways, including reviewing the words of men recorded in the Bible.
I love the Bible and its teachings, which is why I'm opposed to reading into it something those human authors didn't say or that God didn't inspire.
And ALL of that IS me offering an alternative explanation to your human theories.
Saying, That's literally not in the Bible IS a biblical answer.
I tend to go with scripture and agree that salvation is 100% the work of YHWH, and 0% us.
As I noted, it's a commonly used phrase and I understand what people mean by it, I'm just not sure it's the most accurate way to put it.
Based on the context, I'd suggest that "believe" is more to acknowledge that the "world was saved through" Christ.
However, I'll note that v19-21 do have some bearing on this thread.
"19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”"
Despite Dan's claims, Jesus makes it clear that those who love their sin/wickedness choose to live in darkness because the light exposes their sin. Yes, the light is a metaphor for Jesus and His judgement, but that doesn't change the fact that (as Lewis said) those who end up in Hell got there because of their own volition.
Are they "good folks" because of the "good works" they do?
When you say "NO DATA" there is seemingly no way that you can possibly mean "NO DATA". I get that you think that using ALL CAPS somehow makes your statement more authoritative, but that's just your hubris.
As you might have ignored, I was merely quoting CS Lewis, and Jesus but that's clearly "NO DATA". It seems clear that what you really mean is that there is "NO DATA" that you will accept based on your arbitrary, flexible, criteria for accepting data. The fact is that the existence of multiple scholars, theologians, and the words of Jesus are "DATA". It's just "DATA" that you choose not to acknowledge.
There's nothing unraveling here, but you.
But that's the problem, isn't it? You hint and equivocate, but don't have the courage to acknowledge that when you refer to YHWH as "narcissistic", that you really mean what you imply.
The problem with understanding your words is your reluctance to clearly state your positions, instead hiding behind equivocation and vagueness. The differences is that the Biblical texts are much more clear than you.
"I think..."
That is the problem here. You rely more on yourself as the arbiter of things than on anything else. That your entire argument is based solely on you and what you think/Reason/rationalize is simply your arrogance and hubris. The simple fact is that what you think is wrong. It's possible that it's our fault for poorly explaining ourselves, but it seems more likely that the problem is you creating straw men and relying on the straw men to inform your vaunted Reason instead of what we actually say. That your characterization above is completely false, based on your straw man caricature is not our problem.
Coming from someone who insists that his "unproven opinions" are "reality" I simply can't take such idiocy seriously.
"Common sense rejects it."
Clearly what you mean is your personal, subjective, flawed, human, imperfect, common sense. Because only an idiotic narcissist would insist that their common sense was an objective measure.
They're "good folks" because of the good work they do! ;)
"Then you have a severe reading comprehension problem, as I've been doing exactly that with you all for nearly two decades."
As if this is somehow proof. I'll simply note that you haven't/likely can't provide one example of you making a purely positive, specific, scriptural case for one of your flights of fantasy.
Well, if you think we treat the Bible as a "rulings book" you are clearly incapable of comprehending what we've actually said and are more committed to your straw man that to The Truth.
Well, you've managed to come up with some random questions which have no relevance to this discussion.
"God's position on the age if the universe" is irrelevant. The universe is as old as it is, it's not a matter of opinion to the God who created it. What a stupid question.
Well scripture does offer some guidance on this question. Of course you've dismissed scripture as "DATA" so that leaves you up a shit creek when it comes to answering this question. Or really at the mercy of your vaunted Reason, which is pretty much a shit creek.
Well yeah, as Scripture is the best and most consistent explanation of things that might be helpful for believers to know, it seems reasonable to start there.
"But, for those of us who don't hold that view or agree with that theory, that just ISN'T the answer. "
Then great, don't look to scripture for answers. That's pretty simple, look to yourself and your Reason instead. Place your confidence in your imperfect, subjective, human Reason if that makes you feel superior. No one is stopping you at all. But, if that's your choice, cool. Just stop telling the rest of us that we're wrong. Stop cherry picking scripture for proof texts and playing games. Be consistent and tout the wonders of your non scripture answers to questions about YHWH, instead of trying to twist snippets to support your unproven human hunches. It's pretty simple, you just don't have the courage to follow through with not relying on scripture.
Again, you freaking idiot, NO ONE here holds to this imaginary "Rulings book" straw man you keep trotting out. So stop with the false claims. (Your inconsistent use of capital letters seems strange. You seem to be implying that by capitalizing "Rulings" that it somehow makes your straw man officially a position held by real people. Yet, if this is the case, it would make more sense to capitalize "Rulings Book" instead of just "Rulings". I understand that your use of capitalization is inconsistent and mostly incoherent, but thought I'd offer some constructive criticism for naming your straw men.)
Well, Dan's put together 4 unproven claims as if those claims have any meaning or Truth. Given Dan's penchant for "shoving words into the Bible's mouth" it seems like taking His own advice would be a good plan. Yet, as he's demonstrated he has one set of demands for himself, and another set of demands for others.
It might be an alternative explanation, it just lacks direct Biblical support.
The fact that the Scriptures referred to, quoted, and treated as True by Jesus were the Hebrew scriptures seems germane at this point. Jesus, and the authors of The Gospels, regularly quoted or made direct connections to the Hebrew scriptures. So, at a very minimum, it seems like we should treat the OT in the same way as Jesus. I'm not sure that dismissing large chunks of the OT as "myth" or "revenge fantasies" is quite in line with how Jesus treated the Hebrew scriptures.
The problem is that you haven't proven your claims, just spewed it out there as if the fact that you spewed it is enough to make it True.
"Even if you disagree with my opinion, you should be able to understand what it is I'm objecting to and with whom I'm disagreeing."
And we do. You're disagreeing with our accurate presentation of Scriptural teaching on the weak pretense we express only opinion. So to disagree with our accurate presentation is to disagree with the source of that presentation, which is Scripture and ultimately God, from Whom all Scripture flows. You want to insist our presentations are only "opinions" as if there's some better presentation you can't seem to provide which will compel us to give up our Scripture-informed beliefs and positions.
"Unless you conflate your human theories with God's Word (which Marshal makes clear his theories are not his theories, but God's Word- in his imagination), I'm just not disagreeing with God, but with your human theories of God."
Fortunately for us, we're not "conflating" anything. We're repeating, often verbatim, that which God, directly or through other Scriptural teachings, says. You need to insist that our opinion came first and then, like you, we searched for some way to pretend it's an accurate representation of Scriptural teaching. That's called "projection". If you have some fact-based, Scriptural evidence to rebut or rebuke our positions, bring it. Your constant default to writing off the truth as "personal human theory/opinions" doesn't wash. It's cheap and childish and just your typical "Nyuh uh".
"And yes, Marshal, no matter how many times you insist you can not be mistaken, these ARE YOUR unproven human opinions. Even if a million men who think like you have agreed with you over the centuries, they remain unproven human opinions."
This requires that nothing at all in Scripture is reliable...that we can trust none of it to be accurate records of God's relationship with humanity...and you NEED that to be true in order to maintain your fervent grip on sin as blessing, as abomination as God's preference, as infanticide as compassion.
If Scriptural is as unreliable a source as you need it to be and continually portray it as being, then no weak claim of "loving Scripture" by you is meaningful. You might as well be talking about loving Nancy Drew for all the good it does you.
So until you can provide something concrete, something fact-based and coherent...and alternative understanding which can be easily seen to be connected to whatever nonsensical crap you pretend is any of those things, I will rest assured that my understanding of the clearly presented teachings of Scripture are true and factual. Calling my positions "opinion" is meaningless without an intelligent counter argument. And no, you've not produced anything like that in all the years we've been going at this. THAT is just your opinion of your weak attempts despite it being factually untrue.
Ditto, you are disagreeing with simply quoting scripture. Even with quoting the words of Jesus if those words don't fit your unproven hunches.
Again, no. Quoting scripture is not conflating anything, it's quoting scripture. That you disagree with the plain meaning of the text, without offering an alternative that makes sense in light of the text and context, is immaterial, That you play the conflation card instead of proving that the scripture doesn't mean what it says, is your problem.
So the fact that they're good at their job makes them "Good People"? You sound like Dan. (sarcasm)
Marshal theorized...
"This requires that nothing at all in Scripture is reliable...that we can trust none of it to be accurate records of God's relationship with humanity.."
No. It simple requires the humility to understand your human limitations... to recognize the difference between,
"this is my opinion which can't objectively prove but which I think is an incredibly compelling case for these reasons..."
And...
" I'm reading this text and MY HUMAN UNDERSTANDING is perfectly correct... when THIS MERE MAN tells you That text means X, you can be sure I am the man who is understanding it perfectly and my opinion, then, is objectively factual (even if I can't objectively prove it...)"
I love the biblical record and I do not believe nor am I saying that the words of the authors are inscrutable or impossible to understand. I just disagree strongly that you humans are understanding it right. Likewise, you all think you have the right of it and I'm mistaken.
We disagree in good faith, each believing we're understand it pretty well. But neither of us can objectively prove we're right.
Nor am I saying we're both equally right in out own way. I think you're way off on many points. But even though I think my understanding is far better than yours, I can't prove it any more than you can objectively prove you yours is right.
That's just the reality of it all.
Craig got to it before me, but I'm going to deal with it anyway,
"Part of the problem is that I don't accept the way y'all treat the Bible as a rulings book."
You don't accept the Bible. You use it as a prop while you posture as a Christian to promote, defend and enable that which is in direct conflict with Its teachings.
"How do we know God's position on the age of the universe?"
Who cares? This has never been a topic of great concern and only one for speculation anyway.
"How do we know God's position on the salvific status of infants and children before the alleged age of accountability?"
Who cares. This question only comes up when fake Christians are trying to defend their favored sinful behaviors and those who indulge in them. In isolation, it's another fun topic to indulge in speculation, but I don't recall that I've ever dedicated a post to it. It's just another one of the many tangents Dan jumps to in order to avoid an honest defense of his heresies.
"How do we know God's position on the alleged age of accountability?!"
Another question of deflection.
"How do we know God's position on the morality of gay guys marrying?"
And here we see the real point which is all-consuming for Dan. All the previous questions were set-ups for this one, as if failing to answer the previous has any relevance to the fact-based logical conclusion of actual Christians regarding homosexuality and marriage. We know without question that God opposes homosexuality. We know without question than no mention in Scripture of marriage provides the hint of a possibility of anything other than a man/woman arrangement. Thus, we know the possibility of God regarding an SSM as anything more than immoral abomination is non-existent. And more than that, we know that Dan has never come close to providing an intelligent argument to the contrary. EVER!
"For the rulings book believers, the answer is simple and simplistic... Look in the Bible!"
For the Christian, questions regarding the morality of behaviors are easily answered in the Bible given It isn't a difficult read on any behavior. Dan's love of homosexuality is without question sinfulness.
"But, for those of us who don't hold that view or agree with that theory, that just ISN'T the answer."
Of course you don't. You reject anything which rejects your heresies.
"And WHY don't I hold to the Rulings book theory?"
Because It denies you what you love. It indicts you as the fake you've proven yourself to be over the last couple of decades.
"3. We see all manner of warnings from Jesus and elsewhere of the problem of using scriptural teachings to abuse God's Word and Way."
This is an egregious and unsupported false claim against us. We've never done this. You can't prove we've done this. You need to retract this as an actual concern because it's a lie to suggest it's been happening at all, except by you.
"...what the various human authors of the biblical books consistently teach is the importance of God's actual words, God's Way, the Will of God."
None of which you abide when it doesn't serve you to do so. Moreover, as we've been consistent in sticking to as accurate a representation of God's actual words, Way and Will as revealed to us in Scripture.
"I love the Bible and its teachings..."
That's funny. You say that like you expect us to believe it.
"And ALL of that IS me offering an alternative explanation to your human theories."
I'm sorry...where was that alternative explanation to our accurate presentation of Scripture? Provide the date and time of this revelation to us.
It was a risk I felt I had to take in order to give the Geek Squad their due!
Craig...
"Well yeah, as Scripture is the best and most consistent explanation of things that might be helpful for believers to know, it seems reasonable to start there..."
Also Craig...
"NO ONE here holds to this imaginary "Rulings book" straw man you keep trotting out. So stop with the false claims."
That, dear man. THAT is the rulings book approach y'all take to which I am referring.
"How do Christians find the best explanation of things..." such as moral questions, theological rulings/tenets?
Your answer is Scripture. Scripture (the Bible) you theorize is the sole best authority in matters of morality and theology. Am I mistaken?
You see, the difference (one difference) between us is I ask, "Where do we find the recorded words of Jesus and what the Gospel writers say about his story? In the Bible.
I do NOT ask, however, "HOW do we best discern the morality or advisability of abortion, slavery, war-making, child rearing, etc?"
...And then answer, The Bible.
Do you?
Craig...
"I tend to go with scripture and agree that salvation is 100% the work of YHWH, and 0% us."
So, are you saying (what it appears you are clearly saying) that
SOME people will be tortured forever through NOTHING they've done, AND, that there was nothing they COULD do because the decision to be saved or not is 100% up to God?
And if so, are you saying it has nothing at all to do with any sins they have committed?
...that they're just going to be punished with eternal torture just because that's what you God decided?
Help me understand.
Craig...
"That's [the reality that none of us knows objectively any specifics about how God may or may not deal with either "sin" or the theoretical "sin nature"] quite the unproven claim to be presenting as fact. "
And that's an intellectual cowardly response. I'm noting the reality that no human has objectively proven data about how God will deals with sin, post-life. Now, IF you have objective proof, all you have to do is present it and show objectively that I was mistaken. Failing that, the only intellectually honest response is, Yes, that's correct.
Craig continued...
"It seems that your position is that no one really knows ANYTHING about how YHWH will dispense justice."
That's not what I said. Once again, I'm noting that no one can objectively prove what God may or may not do.
BUT (and read closely and understand), IF one begins with accepting as a given that
God is good
God is just
God will not act in a bad or unjust manner...
THEN, we can RATIONALLY conclude:
Given that premise, it is rationally consistent to conclude that God won't act in an evil or unjust manner as God deals with "sin" post-life.
Right?
Why do you all push back so hard against just humbly acknowledging that you simply can't objectively prove some things, especially about something as esoteric as a potential afterlife?
Craig opined:
We try not to focus in keeping score or "minor/major" sins, we try to focus on YHWH and on showing our love by obeying His commandments as Jesus taught.
Good for you. May your tribe increase. Unfortunately, too many in the conservative religious world spend a great deal of time worrying about the "sins" of the LGBTQ, the "invasion and crime" of immigrants and refugees, the "demonic" actions of the "woke" liberals. I'd love for more people not to be focused on "sin," especially as conservative religionists have defined it for centuries.
Likewise, outside of those actively causing harm, I truly do not give much of a damn about people's alleged "sins" and misdeeds. Just don't hurt others.
Can I get an Amen, brother?
It's always refreshing when Dan acknowledges that his own hunches have no validity, being only his human, fallible, subjective, fallen, hunches and no more. Despite his claims that his hunches are "reality".
No. What's more, you insult God by pretending you're in any way concerned about His Will. I will give you a "go pound sand up your ass". Consider that a standing recommendation. In the meantime, I don't pray with heretics, so don't ever again request an "Amen" from me, pig.
As to what conservatives spend their time doing, it's not the "sins" of your perv friends. Those are obvious and as they and their heretic enablers like you promote their perversion as "good", our young are threatened, good people are sued, truth is called "violence" and all that are sins people of character oppose, regardless of political persuasion. Go ahead...find a person of character and ask.
The same is true of the invasion of illegal aliens who falsely claim refugee status or asylum because they know there are plenty of useful idiots who won't bother vetting. The result is a multitude of crime and violence which would never be perpetrated were they not here. Those are "sins" people of character will always oppose, while heretics like you will enable it all.
And those are just a couple of examples of the demonic actions of your tribe, which people of character wish to see decrease at the speed of light.
If more people were focused on sin and doing all they can to avoid sinning themselves and encouraging others to act similarly as people of character, there'd be less strife and suffering in the world. But crazy-ass morons like you cause so much suffering while bleating about "do no harm".
"I'm noting the reality that no human has objectively proven data about how God will deals with sin, post-life."
That's only true in the fevered imaginings of those who pretend to "love" Scripture while not placing on their top twenty sources of morality. There are several places speaking of how God will deal with your kind in the afterlife. You'd do well to take heed, but you're smarter than God, aren't you? You're certainly not "intellectually honest"...which is understandable given you're not honest in the first place.
Are you suggesting the exact details of your eternal punishment is uncertain? Fine. But all you need to know is that you will be punished eternally, because that's Biblical teaching. The specifics aren't important.
"Given that premise, it is rationally consistent to conclude that God won't act in an evil or unjust manner as God deals with "sin" post-life."
"Unjust" according to whom? According to Dan Trabue? I hope God pays attention to Dan Trabue!
"Why do you all push back so hard against just humbly acknowledging that you simply can't objectively prove some things, especially about something as esoteric as a potential afterlife?"
Why do you push back so hard on the teachings of Scripture, humbly acknowledging what a clown you are to pretend that's not "objective proof" enough about the afterlife? It's pretty clear. I hope you like the heat.
Literally NOT what I said, Craig. Learn to read for understanding. That is the OPPOSITE of what I said. Can. you re-read and understand correctly now? Or do you just not care that you're making an overtly stupidly false claim that any rational personal can look at my words and say, "Um, he literally just said the OPPOSITE of that..."?
See what I mean, Craig? Brother Marshal is ALL about calling all manner of decency "sin" and denouncing these self-proclaimed "sins" with the most vulgar, abusive and arrogant of manners. Marshal is the one focused on alleged "sins," him and people like him.
In the meantime, Jesus looks at such people who abuse the oppressed, the poor, the foreigner and the marginalized and says, "Depart from me, I never knew you..." BUT, not about "sinners" in general, just the abusers of the poor and marginalized.
That's quite the twisting of my words into a straw man. The problem with your hunch is that you have no alternative beyond your subjective, flawed, imperfect, human Reason.
Yes, for Christians the best (not only) and most consistent resource for matters of faith and life is scripture. What other resource is there that purports to be "God breathed" and has lasted thousands of years in a consistent form, that gives us information about YHWH?
I do so love it when you put words in my mouth. Especially when you have my actual words to refer to and choose to make shit up.
Well, that's not so much a difference as it is you admitting that you take a two tiered approach to scripture. That you ignore Jesus constant reference to the Hebrew scriptures as authoritative, and you choose to accord somewhat of a lesser position to the rest of the NT.
It's interesting, if I was to look for a framework to answer your questions, I would look to scripture. Specifically Deuteronomy 6, and Matthew 22:37-40. The principles that would guide me to my answers about those things are all summarized in those two places.
Abortion: If I truly loved YHWH with all of my being, why would I destroy another innocent human made in the image of YHWH? If I truly loved my neighbor as myself, why would I end the life of my neighbor for the convenience of another?
Slavery: If I truly loved YHWH with all of my being, why would I enslave another human made in the image of YHWH? If I truly loved my neighbor as I love my self, why would I enslave them?
Child rearing: If I loved YHWH with all of my being, why would I not bring up my child in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord"? Why would I mistreat, harm, or indulge my child's whims and desires?
War Making: Might be a little trickier, but if I truly loved YHWH with all of my being, why would I engage in an aggressive war intended to take what is not mine (my countries) or destroy those with whom I merely disagree? Likewise, if I loved my neighbor. However, loving my neighbor as myself might involve engaging in a war to defend my neighbors from others who want to destroy, conquer, or enslave us. Protection of the weak and innocent is an acceptable reason to engage in war based on those two passages alone.
As I can see no other alternative for a Christian (or an observant Jew) to find the principles to deal with those questions, I'm left with the best available option which is scripture. (For an observant Jew, they'd include both the Tanakh, Talmud, Nevi'im, Ketuvim,, and Midrash, but the same principle applies)
The difference between me/us, and your caricature of me/us is that I/we look to scripture for principles upon which we find answers for difficult questions, as well as acknowledging that the commandments of YHWH and Jesus provide guide rails for both spiritual as well as secular life which are beneficial.
Your problem is that you have nothing beyond your Reason and rationally (both subjective, flawed, and fallible) to appeal to, yet you regularly claim that your hunches are in perfect alignment with YHWH.
I find it strange that you only attack Christians for treating scripture as authoritative, not Muslims (for example).
Well, when Dan has nothing else, he just lies.
As Jesus said "Go and sin no more".
Dan says "I truly do not give much of a damn about people's sins and alleged misdeeds".
That is quite the contrast.
It's what happens when one's hunches about the gospel move away from "He (Jesus/YHWH saves) will save His people from their sins" to "meet the temporal needs of the poor and oppressed" with little or no regard for anything else.
As Jesus also said “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." (Those who think that they are "good people" or "righteous" are not who Jesus came for) "For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Jesus didn't come to call the "righteous" or the "good people", but He came to call "sinners")
People like Dan who's hope, those who believe his message, "Do good things and be a good person" aren't who Jesus came for. Those who are convinced that they're "good people" or "good" enough, those who believe that they only have a "few minor sins", are not who Jesus came for. Jesus came for those who acknowledge their sin, and their need for a savior.
Too bad we can't suss that out from Jesus very words recorded in The Gospels.
It's sad.
"If more people were focused on sin and doing all they can to avoid sinning themselves and encouraging others to act similarly as people of character, there'd be less strife and suffering in the world. But crazy-ass morons like you cause so much suffering while bleating about "do no harm"."
I'd suggest this as an alternative, which gets to the same place.
If more people focused on loving YHWH with their entire beings, and on loving their neighbors as themselves, there's be less strife and suffering in the world.
It's too bad that we have more than a billion people who choose not to follow this simple suggestion.
What I am CLEARLY SAYING is, "I tend to agree with scripture and agree that salvation is 100% the work of YWHW (through the work of Jesus, the second person of the Godhead) and 0% us.".
How that is not sufficiently clear, and how you managed to twist that into something else that I did not say, is impressive.
If you want to understand, don't look to me, look to scripture. Hell, look at Stan's blog, he's done multiple posts laying out the scriptural case.
I understand that you, in your fallible and subjective humanity, have Reasoned out a hunch that beings you to a much more universalist conclusion. The problem being that I don't consider your subjective, fallible, flawed, imperfect, Reason to be persuasive or aligned with scripture.
The problem people like Dan get into when they choose to focus ONLY (primarily) on the 4 Gospels, is that they miss the meta narrative than runs consistently throughout scripture. They miss the symbolism of the Passover, and the sacrificial system, and the nature of the Abrahamic covenant, and how it flows into the New Covenant. They miss the linguistic references to OT events in the NT texts as well. Finally, but limiting the gospel not to all of the words of Jesus, but only to the public words of Jesus they strip away the majesty of the overarching narrative of scripture.
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/suspect-fatally-shot-home-invasion-joliet-identified/
Strangely enough, when there are people who do exactly what Dan claims we do, Dan says nothing.
Marshal...
you insult God by pretending you're in any way concerned about His Will.
Why do you do this? WHY would you presume I'm making ALL of this up? WHY would I spend a lifetime in church, and as a church leader, reading the Bible and other Christian writers (good and bad) for decades if I didn't care about God and following God's Ways? Why would I spend no doubt thousands of hours writing on Christian themes and replying in good faith to conservative Christians who mostly abuse me if I wasn't truly concerned about following God? It's not like I'm being paid for any of this or get anything much out of it except for abuse from people like you... Who does that if they're not simply trying to follow God and do the right thing?
The problem with your irrational and unsupported theories that I actually "know" that I'm wrong in my theories and I'm deliberately choosing to reject God is that it just doesn't make rational sense. It's conspiratorial and just a bit crazy-sounding.
I fully get, "Man, I really disagree with that person!" But insisting that they're just making up their positions for the fun of it... no one does that, dear man.
Disagree if you wish, but do so rationally and in good faith.
First, you don't at all engage in discourse in good faith. I'm certain you're unfamiliar with the meaning of the term and how it's applied in practice, for nothing you say suggests you do. One isn't arguing in good faith by blasting opponents' verbatim citations of Scripture to respond to your insistence what the citations clearly present isn't Biblical. One isn't arguing in good faith by insisting Scripture says "X" without a citation of Scripture saying "X". One isn't arguing in good faith by presenting verses and passages unrelated to the issue on the table and injecting meaning those verses and passages don't convey in order to "prove" a point. One isn't arguing in good faith by merely stating "I'm arguing in good faith". This is just a partial list of that which demonstrates a failure on your part to understand what "good faith discourse" actually looks like.
As to why you do what you do...appearances. You wish to appear as a Christian, for in doing so you believe your defense of unChristian principles and behaviors have Christian validity. You believe...or pretend to believe, or insanely believe or perversely believe...that one day actual Christians will join you in your unChristian heresies and thus greater numbers of liars makes the lies you tell truer, and then you can claim for yourself a victory in the name of the false god you've made for yourself which you refer to as "God" or "Jesus Christ".
You know you're wrong by virtue of your flailing attempts to assert you're not, and worse, your inability to find true fault in our accurate presentations of Christian teaching.
To cut to the chase, I have no idea why you persist in claiming you're a Christian who loves God and Jesus and Scripture when most everything you do and say belies that claim as if you don't care how transparently false it is. Truly only God knows our hearts. He certainly does...unless you need proof for that, too. But I see nothing more than a very thin veneer of "Christian" spread over your heretical positions and I do indeed wonder why you bother. You're certainly not fooling anyone here. Hard to imagine God is fooled, either.
OK. Yours does sound better, and to focus on God results in knowing what sin is.
Again with the "Brother Marshal" shit, you pervert heretic? You want to disparage my behavior while purposely ignoring my request that you cease this false posturing as "noble" or "Christian"? It's neither and you intentionally sin in continually doing what would result in my being deleted at your Blog of Lies and Perversions if I continued doing what you requested I no longer do. Your cheap rationalizing of your continued rejection of my request is nothing more than lying on your part.
As to "lying", which is so common with you, there is nothing at all decent about homosexual behavior you love so much. There's nothing decent about enabling that behavior, given God's clear and unmistakable prohibition against it without caveat. Indeed, it is you who is indecent here as you might as well be pushing your lesbo grannies over the side into the pits of hell for all eternity yourself.
You lie as you always do about illegal aliens, as if they are mostly hapless and hungry people in rags dragging their starving children across our borders covertly to avoid death from murderous despots three or four nation away from ours. No conservative opposes helping the needy, even from other countries, you sorry and lying little bitch. No conservative fails to welcome actual immigrants who enter our country according to our laws as many of us are descended from such people (my own grandparents, for example). For you to act as if we are wrong for opposing the law-breakers you falsely portray as deserving of the same regard is just another sinful lie on your part.
You wouldn't know "decency" if it walked up to you and kicked you in your lady parts.
It's even more basic than that. Scripture is loaded with rules of living the Christian life, for abiding God's Will and for acting in a manner He not only finds pleasing, but demonstrates our claim of following Him isn't just lip service. That this is clear and obvious leaves no doubt about the Holy Bible being a book of rules, among other things.
Then, Dan, who disparages this abject fact as some kind of misunderstanding of Scripture, chides us for not following the rules he finds personally pleasing and for rightly reminding the lost of the rules he doesn't.
So those practices Dan promotes are not rules and thus no one is required, encouraged or obligated to waste their time with them. Are they even "suggestions"?
Dan lies when he uses the insulting term "magic rulings book". He seeks to demean those who are actually striving to abide the Will of God, most particularly with regard to behaviors Dan has chosen to call "decent" and "good" in direct rebellion against God's position on them, as so clearly revealed to us in that "magic rulings book" Dan only claims to revere.
Craig...
The problem people like Dan get into when they choose to focus ONLY (primarily) on the 4 Gospels, is that they miss the meta narrative than runs consistently throughout scripture. They miss the symbolism of the Passover, and the sacrificial system, and the nature of the Abrahamic covenant, and how it flows into the New Covenant.
Funny. I think the same thing about y'all (except y'all don't focus on the four gospels... you tend to focus on Pauline epistles - in part - and a variety of Calvinists and their tradtions).
I love the Bible, front to back. And the problem with conservative religionists is that they miss the consistent messages throughout the Bible.
1. God is a God of love, first and foremost, primarily and above all else.
2. God is greatly concerned with the treatment of the poor and marginalized, all iterations of them. God has staked God's Self clearly on their side.
3. God is on their side NOT to be unjust or "mean" to the rich and powerful, but because when the "least of these" are being tended to, allied with, supported and loved, then all will be doing okay. Failing to love/ally with the poor and marginalized fails us all.
4. ALL the ancient rules given to various people(s) long ago are rightly summed up in Love God and Love humanity/this world. When OUR human interpretations of rules and rules we offer fail to do these things, we have misunderstand the rulings given to ancient peoples in specific scenarios.
5. Given the long history of God siding with the oppressed and against the oppressors throughout the OT, we move into the NT and find that same story repeating itself. And so, Jesus makes clear from the beginning of his story: I've come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized. When you fail to ally with the poor and marginalized, you've failed to follow God's Way of Grace.
6. The Gospel stories consistently tell of the protagonists - Jesus and the Beloved Community - and the antagonists - the legalists who abuse rules and fail to love God and love humanity.
That positive story (love God, love humanity, love, grace, welcome, forgiveness) and that negative story (there are rich and powerful oppressors who oppress the poor and marginalized, God's on the side of the poor and marginalized...) those ARE the story of the Bible, if you're looking for a consistent narrative, and that story is there Genesis to Revelation.
On the other hand, the human theory of hellish punishment for eternity is simply not in the OT at all and just barely in the NT and you have to sort of squint your eyes and use your imagination to see it.
The human theory of blood atonement as a salvific tool is misunderstood in the OT and NT. The Hebrews who were celebrating their Jewishness and saying they could get atonement through blood sacrifices were missing the point, consistently.
"I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of well-fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of goats.
When you come to appear before me,
who has required of you
this trampling of my courts?
Bring no more vain offerings;
Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
...your hands are full of blood...
cease to do evil,
learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow’s cause.
https://www.esv.org/Psalm+50:8;Hosea+6:6;Psalm+51:16;Psalm+40:6%E2%80%938;Isaiah+1:11%E2%80%9331;Jeremiah+7:21%E2%80%9323;Hebrews+10:4%E2%80%9310/
Etc.
Y'all may disagree with me, but you can't say I'm not looking at and trying to honor the biblical texts (even if I don't treat them like a rulings book the way you all do, in practice, even if you don't call it that. Sola Scriptura=Rulings book...) It's not that I don't look at the Bible in its entirety - I do - nor that I look and dismiss that which I dislike - I don't - I simply disagree with your interpretations of it, as demonstrated here.
I'd simply point out your regular insistence that various passages of scripture secretly mean the complete opposite of the plain meaning of the text, and your insistence that (fallible, subjective, imperfect, limited) human Reason interpreting scriptures individually is the final arbiter of scripture.
If I had to guess why you do the things you claim, I'd guess that it's performative to make you feel good about yourself, and look good to others.
But that's a guess based on the limited information I've gathered interacting with you on blogs. I, as usual, could be wrong. Before you go on a rampage trying to prove me wrong, don't bother. You are literally incapable of providing any level of "proof" that could indisputably "prove" anything. Take it as my guess, disagree briefly if you must, and move on.
Thanks. I appreciate that. To quote an old comedian, "If we spend our time doing the do's, we won't have time to do the don'ts". It seems like focusing on YHWH and loving others is always a good option.
See Dan, you are incapable of showing the most minimal level of respect to others all while you prate on about us embracing grace.
But at least you have the hubris and arrogance to speak for Jesus, so you've got that going for you.
Yeah, when you literally acknowledge that you can't prove your hunches, you undercut your whole premise of speaking for YHWH ("God blesses gay marriages") or Jesus or wherever. It's just you spouting unproven hunches based on you and your subjective Reason. I understood you just fine.
"That's just the reality of it all."
When you claim that your unproven hunches are "just the reality of it all", that shows that you are divorced from reality and objectify your unproven hunches.
Jesus was quite clear. "If you love Me, keep My commandments.". It seems strange to deny the existence of any commandments to be kept, or at least deny the necessity of keeping those commandments, while claiming to love Jesus. When you don't do the one things Jesus specifically pointed out as a sign of our love for him, I'm not sure how to square that circle.
Of course, if one takes The Gospels as Gospel Truth, then one would have to acknowledge that the OT commandments from YHWH are literally Jesus' commandments.
"Disagree if you wish, but do so rationally and in good faith."
But only do so if you disagree according to how Dan defines "rationally" and "good faith", because those aren't always hallmarks of his disagreement style.
"That's [the reality that none of us knows objectively any specifics about how God may or may not deal with either "sin" or the theoretical "sin nature"] quite the unproven claim to be presenting as fact."
As I cannot find any example of me saying this in any recent comments, and as how it sounds nothing like anything I would say (unless I was quoting Dan), I suspect that Dan is actually arguing against himself here.
" I'm noting the reality that no human has objectively proven data about how God will deals with sin, post-life. "
I'm noting the reality that we do have data about how YHWH deals with sin "post life". That your minimize, reject, disagree with, or misinterpret that data, is not my problem. The fact is that scripture DOES give us DATA about what happens after we die. Is it perfect, no. Is it exhaustive, no. Is it "proven" by Dan's arbitrary standards, no. But that's not to say that it isn't DATA, nor is that to say that we cannot glean enough useful information to inform our beliefs and actions.
"That's not what I said."
Let's start by noting that I qualified my statement. But, that is essentially what you said.
"Once again, I'm noting that no one can objectively prove what God may or may not do."
With the caveat that this unproven claim is based on Dan's unpredictable, unknown, arbitrary standard of "proof". We can acknowledge that we are not completely and totally ignorant of what is waiting after death.
"BUT (and read closely and understand), IF one begins with accepting as a given that"
Well, we have a fatal flaw right here. Why would I accept ANY of your unproven claims as a given? On what basis do you even makes these claims?
"God is good
God is just
God will not act in a bad or unjust manner..."
Fatal flaw #2. When you cherry pick two attributes of YWHW, while ignoring others, then jump to the conclusion that you know to a certainty how YHWH will not act, the best you can say is that you've drawn an unproven conclusion while intentionally ignoring data.
"THEN, we can RATIONALLY conclude:"
You mean "You (Dan) can RATIONALLY conclude" because the rest of us are not bound by your fanciful, unproven, hunches based solely on your subjective, fallen, imperfect, flawed, arrogant, hunches no matter how much you congratulate yourself on how RATIONALLY you've invented those hunches.
"Given that premise, it is rationally consistent to conclude that God won't act in an evil or unjust manner as God deals with "sin" post-life."
Fatal flaw #3. You've merely asserted something you haven't proven (basing one unproven premise on top of another unproven premise). Why would you assume/demand that anyone blindly accept your unproven, unsupported, premise?
Fatal flaw #4. Your unproven premise is based entirely on your assumption that you have some degree of absolute (perfect/mostly perfect) knowledge about how YHWH might determine how He deals with sin post life. That you simply jump to a conclusion, then type it into a comment box on a blog doesn't give your flight of fancy any credibility. At a minimum one would want to know how you have this secret, perfect, definition of "evil" and "justice" that YHWH is bound by.
"Right?"
Wrong, but I'll not repeat your four fatal flaws.
"Why do you all push back so hard against just humbly acknowledging that you simply can't objectively prove some things, especially about something as esoteric as a potential afterlife?"
Let's start with the obvious. You've now introduced one more thing that you'll demand be "proven" to your absurd, unknown, random, standard of "proof".
Look, if you want to be honest and simply acknowledge that you deny the existence of an afterlife and of any sort of post death judgement for sin, do so now and stop the insanity.
If I'm "pushing back" against anything, it's simply against you and your unproven hunches, and unrealistic standards.
That you consider the afterlife "esoteric" despite Jesus Himself speaking of it, I simply have no desire to waste time with your childish idiocy.
Despite that, I'm not "pushing back" so much as I am leaning into what we know through scripture, and through thousands of years of scholars and theologians. That I've wasted as much time as I have over the years arguing with someone who's hunches are so far beyond the fringes of the mainstream of Christian/Jewish scholarship and theology shocks me. That you continue to act as if your fringe hunches are somehow "reality" and as if your unproven premises are exempt from the proof you demand of others, indicates a level of arrogance and hubris I rarely see.
I'll simply note that you know your hunches are fringe when someone like your butt buddy disagrees with them.
"Funny. I think the same thing about y'all (except y'all don't focus on the four gospels... you tend to focus on Pauline epistles - in part - and a variety of Calvinists and their tradtions)."
Thank you ever so much for so eloquently acknowledging that you don't pay attentiopn to what we actually say, but instead focus on your caricatures of us and straw men.
"I love the Bible, front to back. And the problem with conservative religionists is that they miss the consistent messages throughout the Bible."
I'm confused, earlier you were quite adamant that scripture was not proof of anything, and in the past you've been quiet adamant about not doing things because of a "line in the Bible". How can the information gleaned from the Bible be unauthoritative when it's convenient for you, but authoritative when you decide to proof text a few out of context snippets.
1. Unproven claim.
2. Unproven claim.
3. Unproven claim. (Although, in Leviticus 19 YHWH specifically condemns what you claim He demands)
4. Unproven claim, and Jesus Himself claims otherwise.
5. To except out one thread from the meta narrative and focus on that to the exclusion of all other possibilities is exactly what you accuse us of doing.
6. Unproven claim. At least to the extent that those divisions are the only two possible.
I guess ignoring Jesus' won words, from the very Gospels you claim to prioritize isn't enough for you to even bother to respond.
Hell yes we disagree with you and yoru fringe, unproven, fanciful, hunches based solely in your vaunted (if subjective) Reason and imperfect RATIONALITY.
"but you can't say I'm not looking at and trying to honor the biblical texts"
I could be wrong, but when you "honor" the Biblical texts by insisting that the true/secret meaning is the exact opposite of the plain meaning and when you prioritize certain sections and themes of scripture above others, I suspect that you and I define "honor" differently. That you have to make up this "rulings book" nonsense, then engage in making scripture your own "rulings book" , shows how much of this is us arguing against you, and your unproven hunches, not scripture.
The difference between us is that I can look at your cherry picked proof texts and acknowledge that there is a thread in scripture that does address those sorts of material travails. I can do so, and acknowledge that this thread is grounded in the reality that humans are made in the image of YHWH and have intrinsic value.
What you choose not to do, is to acknowledge that there is an equally strong, if not stronger, thread that runs throughout scripture which deals with the separation of man from YHWH by sin, and of the plan of redemption and atonement that runs from Genesis to Revelation. What you choose not to do is to acknowledge that sometimes the language talking about sin, is language that compares sin to things like poverty, illness, death, and slavery. I know you might think it;s "esoteric" or some such bullshit, but it's really not that hard for those with open and curious minds.
In short, you've posited an either/or gospel where you are absolutely convinced that there is only one correct answer, while I posit a both/and Gospel where YHWH provided the means to deal with the sin problem, while also providing some relief for that of material needs.
Maybe you'll get yourself out of your box someday.
Dammit, I totally screwed up. Jesus really said "If you love Me you'll deny that my commandments exist.". My bad.
Last one for now.
When Dan cherry picks attributes of YHWH to focus exclusively on, he ignores or skips over His holiness. Which seems strange to me. Because without holiness, none of the rest seem to matter that much. What does justice look like without a holy arbiter of justice? What does good look like absent holiness? Obviously, he skips over others, but skipping holiness solves the sin problem because a God who's not holy has no problem accepting "minor sins" as a cost of doing business.
"Be Holy, for I Am Holy"...that doesn't comport with Dan's self-serving "minor sins" philosophy. Indeed, God's Holiness belies any claims He wouldn't bother with "minor sins", despite sin of any kind being nothing like Holiness.
Dan likes to think that our position suggests a God who can't handle sin. But my position, and I would imagine yours to some extent, is that God chooses not to have sin in His presence because, being the Supreme Being, why should He? Yet, to one extent He will, though because of His sacrifice on the cross and the grace of it extending to all who believe, He regards us as no longer being in a state of sin...washed of all remnants of sin, as it were. Thus, the only reason He will allow us in His presence...as sinful as we all are...is because we believe in Christ and prove it by living by HIS standards as so clearly revealed in Scripture.
The word, Holy, in Greek and Hebrew, means set apart, distinct. The Hebrew scholar, Dr Eitan Bar, says...
"We tend to think of holiness as the opposite of sin. But in Hebrew thought, holiness is more like the opposite of commonness. To be holy is to be consecrated—dedicated to something higher. This applies to God, to sacred spaces, to people, and even to time, like the Sabbath"
He also notes:
"Philip Ryken, a prominent voice in Reformed theology and council member of The Gospel Coalition (Calvinism’s online hub), once summarized it like this:
[God the Father could not bear to look at the sin or at His Son. He had to avert his gaze. He had to shield his eyes.]
Such a claim might appear pious on the surface, but it misrepresents both the biblical text and the Hebrew understanding of holiness. The Hebrew word KADOSH, often translated “holy,” does not primarily mean morally spotless or unable to tolerate imperfection. It means set apart, unique, or distinct...
When God blesses the seventh day and makes it holy, He isn’t saying the other six days are evil. He’s setting it apart for a distinct purpose. The same is true for objects in the Temple—they are holy not because they are sinless, but because they are set apart for divine use."
https://eitan.bar/articles/what-does-it-mean-for-god-to-be-holy/
Likewise, the Greek word means much the same.
Conservative evangelicals have long fetishized this notion, "holy" as if it were unattainable and the opposite of humanity (or at least, the opposite of humanity that doesn't agree with conservatism.) But I think that is an unbiblical take on the word.
God DOES call us to be holy. That is to say, God calls us and expects us to be set apart for good purposes, for divine purposes... NOT that God expects imperfect humans to be perfectly sinless. God's not a douche.
Marshal:
is that God chooses not to have sin in His presence because, being the Supreme Being, why should He?
Because God loves us and isn't a douche.
Again, y'all may choose to disagree, but that I disagree with YOUR HUMAN PORTRAYAL of what YOU ALL think God is like, is NOT the same as me saying I don't love God and God's ways. I don't conflate y'all with God. And I don't do that because, in part, I think the biblical witness runs counter to your human theories, as does basic common sense and moral reasoning that is part of we mortals, created in the very image of God, a little lower than God.
That is, if you believe the biblical witness.
Skipping over holiness? Far from it. Striving to adhere more closely to God's holiness, set apart for God's work? Yes, that's what I'm trying to do.
That is, as God calls us, to be holy and set apart, as God is holy and set apart.
Don't ever use "douche" and "God" in the same sentence here, you douche of petty little girl! God is not a "douche" because He acts in accordance with His Holy nature. YOU'RE a douche for pretending that He would be.
"God the Father could not bear to look at the sin or at His Son. He had to avert his gaze. He had to shield his eyes."
I don't believe this is properly presented by your scholar, as I don't see it as widely understood this way among other of the "Coalition" or in general Christian understanding. I'll have to find the full Ryken piece to determine it, but it's enough that it doesn't reflect anything said here, so at present, it stands as just another straw man of yours.
As to the greater Bar piece, I literally defining of the word again fails to appreciate what it means in terms of how it is used. From what is God "set apart" but from sin. And thus, to "be holy" would require we seek to set ourselves apart from it as best we can in order to reflect God's full nature as best we can. That's harder to do when one embraces and enables sexual immorality and infanticide, neither of which are in any way reflective of God's Holiness.
That God doesn't cower from the presence of sin (and we're all sinners, He had a nice chat with Satan in the Book of Job, He sought out Adam and Eve after they sinned, Christ ate with sinners and came to save sinners), doesn't mean He welcomes it into His presence or that He'd prefer it not be in His presence. God is Holy and set apart. Why would He not prefer to remain set apart from that which He hates? Only a douche...who seeks to minimize the seriousness of sins he finds acceptable...would think God has no problem with sin of any magnitude.
"Conservative evangelicals have long fetishized this notion, "holy" as if it were unattainable and the opposite of humanity (or at least, the opposite of humanity that doesn't agree with conservatism.)"
And yet it is so, for why would He encourage to be holy if we already are? We can't be holy without Christ. We aren't truly holy with Him except that His penal substitutional atoning death on our behalf means we will be regarded as holy if we believe in Him.
"God DOES call us to be holy. That is to say, God calls us and expects us to be set apart for good purposes, for divine purposes... NOT that God expects imperfect humans to be perfectly sinless."
And only a Jeff St. douche would assert anyone here ever suggested that. It's not even possible, which is why He sent us Jesus. But, it also doesn't mean that a Jeff St. douche can redefine sin to exclude abominations he loves, and thus is more "holy" by having done so. Such a douche sins by enabling sinful behavior, by doing nothing to encourage repentance in those whose favor he clearly craves more than that of God's.
"...that I disagree with YOUR HUMAN PORTRAYAL of what YOU ALL think God is like, is NOT the same as me saying I don't love God and God's ways."
Pretty much does as you regard a direct presentation of Scripture's depictions of God and His Ways as mere "human portrayal" when it exposes your willful rebellion.
"I don't conflate y'all with God."
Nor should you, nor do you have any reason to pretend we do. Yet at the same time, you clearly regard yourself as more authoritative on issues of sin and morality than God is.
"I think the biblical witness runs counter to your human theories, as does basic common sense and moral reasoning that is part of we mortals, created in the very image of God, a little lower than God."
Blah, blah...you pervert this bit of Scripture so that you can regard yourself better than you should or deserve. Everything I read suggests the "little lower than God" refers to Christ, not mankind in general, though I'm not surprised a douche like you is so arrogant as to regard yourself as in any way close to God-like. It's absurd.
"Striving to adhere more closely to God's holiness, set apart for God's work? Yes, that's what I'm trying to do."
Not by enabling sexual perversion, infanticide, criminality and covetousness you're not.
"We tend to think of holiness as the opposite of sin."
I don't know who this "we" is, but I know exactly what holiness means, and I am using it correctly. That YHWH is holy means that He is "set apart" from sin, that sin cannot exist in His presence. I'm sorry that you had to Google holiness and provide some unneeded information on an attribute of YHWH that you rarely mention.
"Conservative evangelicals have long fetishized this notion, "holy" as if it were unattainable and the opposite of humanity (or at least, the opposite of humanity that doesn't agree with conservatism.) But I think that is an unbiblical take on the word."
Some perhaps, but no one in this conversation. That I have a "biblical" view of holiness, yet you need to pretend otherwise doesn't surprise me in the least. Although the very fact that you responded to something I actually said indicates that you read at least part of one comment.
"God DOES call us to be holy."
Yes He does. Strangely enough you seem to think that the holiness He calls us too comes along with a few "minor sins". The He also provides the means for us to be positionally holy seems to have slipped your mind. "Dressed in His righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne" as the hymn writer phrases it.
"That is to say," (hold on while Dan speaks for YHWH) "God calls us and expects us to be set apart for good purposes, for divine purposes... " Well, you got this part right anyway. "NOT that God expects imperfect humans to be perfectly sinless."
No, but YHWH does offer (and has since the OT) a path of atonement for sin which allows us to "take on the righteousness of Christ" and although "our sins are like scarlet," Through Christ "they shall be as white as snow".
"God's not a douche."
Quite the opposite, in fact. Although, you are.
There is so much here from the last couple of days that Dan has chosen to ignore that I'm kind of stunned. Although I probably shouldn't be given his double standard of demanding much of others and little of himself.
"That YHWH is holy means that He is "set apart" from sin, that sin cannot exist in His presence."....unless He allows it to do so. He sought out sinners as both Father and Son, and He allowed Satan in His presence both in Job and in Christ's 40 days in the desert. I don't believe He allows it in Heaven, particularly as there is no good reason for Him to do so.
Craig...
"I know exactly what holiness means, and I am using it correctly. That YHWH is holy means that He is "set apart" from sin, that sin cannot exist in His presence."
That's some claim you're making. Thanks for your opinion.
More unjust condescension from the fool who thinks he is "just a little lower than God".
What a bizarre response. You condescendingly assume that I don't know what holy means and mansplain it to me, and when I correct you you pull this bullshit. I literally acknowledged that I knew it meant what you condescendingly explained.
I guess between this idiocy and Dan ignoring all sorts of things, I guess we know what's next.
Hence, "in His presence". Jesus "set aside" His divinity while engaging in His earthly ministry, other wise He'd have been unable to interact with people at all. When YHWH interacted with people in the OT, He seems to have "masked" His fullness.
The point remains that one aspect of His set apartness is His sinless perfection.
Dan's choice to limit his contribution on the holiness of YHWH to merely a dictionary definition, which I was well aware of, rather than to address his choice to limit his discussion of YHWH's attributes (to exclude holiness) seems par for the course with him. It's easy to impose limits on things like justice and love because we can relate to those things on some level. Holiness is something that we can't simply stuff into a box limited to our human experiences with holiness. Which causes problems if your perspective is limited by your reliance on individual human experience.
Craig:
You condescendingly assume that I don't know what holy means and mansplain it to me, and when I correct you you pull this bullshit.
What YOU mansplained as YOUR guess as to what YOU think it means...
"I know exactly what holiness means, and I am using it correctly.
That YHWH is holy means that He is "set apart" from sin, that sin cannot exist in His presence."
That is you condescendingly assuming YOU hold THE ANSWER to God's definition of holiness.
GOD didn't define holiness the way you are suggesting it should be used.
The biblical authors did not define holiness the way you are suggesting it should be defined.
As always, WHO SAYS your hunch is THE "god-approved definition of Holiness(TM)"?
I'm noting the reality of the ways that holiness was recognized by speakers of Hebrew and Greek back in the day. I'm noting a source in a Hebrew scholar who does not limit it the way you do. And he's not the only one. I could provide others. You provide nothing but your personal assurance that YOU "know exactly what Holiness means..." It means (ways you) "that God is set apart from sin and sin cannot exist in God's presence."
That's a helluva silly little hunch you have there. Never mind that there are multiple biblical stories of God being in the presence of sin, talking with "satan" about Job's life, being tempted by the devil in the wilderness, Jesus "descending into hell," Jesus literally dining with literal sinners, etc, etc. IF one is someone who takes such stories fairly literally, then you have to say that of course, biblical stories DO portray God/Jesus in the presence of sin and evil.
Never mind how petty and small such a human opinion of God portrays "god" as.
This is what I'm talking about, men. Your cultural traditions have caused you to not think critically about what you say sometimes.
Mansplaining? Much better than Craigsplaining.
Craig...
Dan's choice to limit his contribution on the holiness of YHWH to merely a dictionary definition, which I was well aware of, rather than to address his choice to limit his discussion of YHWH's attributes (to exclude holiness) seems par for the course with him.
The "merely dictionary definition" of holiness - like Sin - IS the meaning of the word being used. Now, rational people can have a conversation to form theories about how the word meaning might be slightly different in this passage or that (as words tend to be at least a little fluid, not to mention, could be used metaphorically or otherwise figuratively), but one begins a discussion about the meaning of a given text in the Bible (or any text) with a grounding in the words' meanings in the context of the writer's day and culture, because that's how adults read for understanding.
Do you disagree?
Further, if you were "well aware of" the meaning (and truly, I assumed you were, as I always generally do unless we're talking about an obscure word), then why do you define it/assign meaning to it that simply isn't in the text? Or at best, why didn't you say, "Well, when it's used in Isaiah, my theory is that it means something closer to 'God is apart specifically from SIN' in this text..." instead of the blanket claim which is just not supported?
Further, there was no attempt to "limit discussion" to specifically exclude holiness. It's another one of the traits of God (and humans, ideally) of many that I didn't mention. There was no attempt to create an all-inclusive list of God's traits (or theoretical traits) on my part, any more than there was on your part.
Well played. When your condescension is pointed out, you simply accuse me of being condescending in return. Really creative response.
Yes, I did point out that if YHWH is holy "set apart" that would naturally follow that He is "set apart" from sin.
Not at all. I've never claimed to hold the answer to YHWH's definition of holiness. I DID simply use the examples of what you seem to believe is YHWH's definition of holiness and take them to their logical conclusion. Strangely enough, YOU offering what you think is YHWH's definition of holiness is perfectly acceptable, but get your panties in a wad when I point out the natural conclusion of your definition. Hypocrite.
Again, as always, WHO SAYS that the bullshit you spew is the "god-approved" definition of anything.
That I'm not "limiting" your "god-approved" definition of holiness apparently didn't bother you enough to not lie about it.
Yeah, the problem is you think your mansplaining is "reality" even when it's riddled with lies.
Well done again. You choose to ignore the point of the line you quote (although kudos for actually quoting me instead of making some shit up and pretending I said it), and simply bitch about the fact that I was already aware of the definition. By all means, provide an example or three of "holiness" being used figuratively. While you're at it, provide an explanation of what this figurative use of holiness really means.
"Do you disagree?"
The instances where I don't disagree with you fantasies, hunches, and bullshit are so extremely rare, that you could save time by simply assuming that I disagree with your fantasies, hunches, and bullshit. It's be much more efficient for everyone.
Well, the "text" you provided was a couple of guys you found in a Google search. I hardly think that constitutes some sort of sacred text that can't be expanded upon.
Instead of making demands of others, how about if you prove your hunch that holiness does NOT mean that YHWH is set apart from sin. That'd be fascinating.
I'm sorry if I was confusing you by pointing out your cherry picking of YHWH's attributes. That you cherry pick two, and make up the "god-approved" definitions to suit your personal gospel, while ignoring YHWH's other attributes is YOU CHOOSING to limit your discussion of YHW's nature to only two of His attributes. It's one more example of you cherry picking in order to push your perversion of The Gospel that limits Jesus to merely meeting the physical needs of the "poor and oppressed".
As always, I'll stick with scripture instead of your fantasies, hunches, and bullshit.
And Dan's craziness marches on!
Just as in Dan's insistence that "sin" must be regarded as "missing the mark", as if missing the mark of God's Will is no big deal...as if the term in ancient Greek and Hebrew is ONLY used in the manner related to archery, Dan likewise pretends that "set apart" allows him to pretend the gap between man and God isn't as vast as it is. We are all sinful creatures, and God is set apart from us until the shed blood of Christ washes us clean. How it is used in Scripture from cover to cover is a bit more serious than simply "set apart". God is Holy. We are not. Even when God set aside His Chosen people to be a "holy nation", they were not holy at all, even though their customs and laws were more reflective of God's Holiness than any other nation. Even Dan's link doesn't truly diminish the gap between God and us, particularly in terms of perfect goodness.
Dan's mission is simple. It's not about devotion to God. It's about devotion to a god he's created who bears the most superficial resemblance to the God of Scripture...enough so he can pretend to be what he is not, so that he can promote and defend what he shouldn't in order to gain the favor of those who most need to take heed of God's Will.
Last comment, just for charity's sake.
Marshal...
"Just as in Dan's insistence that "sin" must be regarded as "missing the mark", as if missing the mark of God's Will is no big deal...as if the term in ancient Greek and Hebrew is ONLY used in the manner related to archery,"
Your problem here is, "as if missing the mark is no big deal..."
NOT what I'm saying. It's a bad thing to lie to a friend about stealing a cookie.
It's a bad thing to steal a cookie.
It's an evil thing to commit atrocities such as slavery rape and genocide.
I'm not minimizing, I'm right-sizing.
Marshal...
"Dan likewise pretends that "set apart" allows him to pretend the gap between man and God isn't as vast as it is."
Same here. I'm not minimizing, I'm right-sizing.
One of the serious deficits of too many people is the deficit of understanding nuance, imagery, figurative thinking and poetry/art.
That's it. Y'all don't get it and I can't teach it to you.
One of the great distinctions of humanity and a perfect God IS God's holiness. One of the things that set God apart from humanity is how God can love perfectly and dispense justice perfectly and forgive perfectly (that is, IF you believe in a perfect God.)
Y'all see God's justice, holiness and love and imagine this alien thing with incomprehensible rage and terrifying Love and an unwillingness or incapacity to love and forgive to a degree better than mere humans can love and forgive. Y'all imagine God as different in a sub-human manner, not a greater-than-human manner.
There is no rational nuance to your theories of God. Just fear, horror and whimsical lashing out.
Your imagination does a disservice to God and the world.
But clearly, I'm not the one who can help you see that.
Well, when you make shit up and project it onto your opponents, it's really easy to "win" the debate, isn't it, you heretical hag of a woman.
First of all, God IS comprehensible, and that's without you injecting your Dan-approved characteristics upon Him. For the purposes of this "discussion", you continue to fail to comprehend that it's not about what one steals, but that one steals at all. It's not about one lying about what one stole, but that one lied at all. That's a "nuance" well beyond your infantile intellect can comprehend. Here's another:
You want to insist it's "evil" to to commit atrocities such as slavery rape and genocide. Jesus says to hate is akin to murder (the numbers of victims notwithstanding) and that lust is akin to adultery (of which rape is a most aggressive form of sexual sin). You choose to believe that sins with which you are most uncomfortable must be regarded in the same way by the God you pretend to worship and it's wholly incomprehensible to you that God would dare have a different criteria for one behavior over another which doesn't comport with Dan Trabue's approved list of worst behaviors and "minor" behaviors. You can't comprehend that there is no sin beyond your blasphemies which cannot be forgiven. Thus, of the following:
"It's a bad thing to lie to a friend about stealing a cookie.
It's a bad thing to steal a cookie.
It's an evil thing to commit atrocities such as slavery rape and genocide."
...which of the three above cannot be forgiven? It's incomprehensible to you that God would forgive one who indulges the third should that one repent and come to Christ, while the one who indulges the first and second, and ONLY the first and second throughout his entire life, can be eternally punished for rejecting Christ. No. Dan Traube's "Laws For God To Abide" won't countenance any infraction by God Almighty. The Lord MUST forgive the cookie thief, regardless of the thief's rejection of God!
You don't get to "right size" sin according to Dan-approved rankings of most egregious to Dan down to what least offends Dan and then dictate to God that He must abide. What incredible arrogance!
Your crazy just keeps goose-stepping on!
It seems clear that Dan wants "partial credit" for things like "trying to hit the mark" and for "nearly hitting the mark". Yet, as noted elsewhere, is the "mark" is "perfection" then it's reduced to a binary hit/miss. He ignores the Biblical reaching that Jesus work on the cross, essentially allows our efforts to be put away "as far as the east is from the west" and "remembered no more" , and Jesus "target" substituted for ours.
Yes, Dan loves to misquote the "lower than" scripture to support his hunch that the gap between created and Creator is minuscule, in fact he argues that there is no gap at all for newborns/infants. That "good people", measured by "good works" can close that gap if they try hard enough. Again it's a holy/not holy binary, there are not degrees of holy it's an either/or.
Absolutely, Dan highly values his hunches, and Reason, placing the majority of his hope in his Reason and hunches.
As Dan hasn't said anything worth shit in days, and has simply ignored so many comments, that he's condescending to make one more comment is simply arrogance.
"I'm not minimizing, I'm right-sizing."
What an unbelievably arrogant claim. That Dan, guided by his Reason, is able to categorize sins in an objectively "right" way.
"One of the serious deficits of too many people is the deficit of understanding nuance, imagery, figurative thinking and poetry/art."
The pride, hubris and arrogance are getting more obvious. As if Dan, being an expert in these things, could "teach" us anything. As if we'd want to have Dan teach us anything.
"One of the things that set God apart from humanity is how God can love perfectly and dispense justice perfectly and forgive perfectly..."
As long as the definitions and understandings of those things meets Dan's approval. The notion that there might be nuance, and dimension to YHWH's attributes that might escape Dan's tiny mind is incomprehensible to him.
"Y'all see God's justice, holiness and love and imagine this alien thing with incomprehensible rage and terrifying Love and an unwillingness or incapacity to love and forgive to a degree better than mere humans can love and forgive. Y'all imagine God as different in a sub-human manner, not a greater-than-human manner."
When all else fails, make up lies and deliver them in a folksy (yet condescending) manner. That we're literally arguing that YHWH's attributes and so much more than Dan's vaunted Reason to cram into a tiny little box, clearly escapes Dan's tiny little brain.
"There is no rational nuance to your theories of God. Just fear, horror and whimsical lashing out."
Again and unproven claim, in other words, one more lie.
"Your imagination does a disservice to God and the world."
Not nearly the disservice your unproven hunches do.
"But clearly, I'm not the one who can help you see that."
But you're arrogant and prideful enough to believe that you have the perfect knowledge to do so.
"What an unbelievably arrogant claim. That Dan, guided by his Reason, is able to categorize sins in an objectively "right" way. "
Indeed. He's really hung up on this "which sin is worse" crap, and more specifically, which sin is worse according to Dan.
"The pride, hubris and arrogance are getting more obvious."
Those traits in him have been far more obvious than his explanation for his heretical positions and why they should be seen as at all likely. But his "understanding of nuance, imagery, figurative thinking and poetry/art", is just Dan injecting as much ambiguity into God's Will so as to more easily pretend he's still right with Him while "being mistaken".
Craig...
What an unbelievably arrogant claim. That Dan, guided by his Reason, is able to categorize sins in an objectively "right" way.
Marshal...
He's really hung up on this "which sin is worse" crap
1. It's not like I'm some island in noting that there is a chasm of difference between stealing a cookie and genocide. This is just common moral reasoning.
Do you fellas REALLY want to make the case that there is NOT a huge degree of difference in the level of wrong between the theft of a cookie and the great evil of genocide?
2. Almost certainly, you fellas are not so depraved as to make that kind of claim or to deny the great chasm of moral difference between the two. But you tell me.
3. The degree of seriousness of a sin matters because people like YOU argue that all of humanity is so evil and depraved because of their theoretical "sin nature" that they are somehow "deserving" of a punishment of eternal torture. YOU fellas are making the morally and rationally outrageous claim. The burden on you is to defend that atrocious claim.
4. AND SINCE, you all hem and haw and won't be clear, maybe it's the case that you DON'T think these typical misdeeds or falling short of perfection are NOT deserving of eternal damnation. If so, say so. Right here, right now:
5. IF someone is guilty of stealing a cookie (hell, go wild and say they're guilty of stealing 1,000 cookies! AND lying about it! And slapping their mother when they were accused of stealing cookies!!!) and they did that (you theorize) because they have a "sin nature," IS THAT TRULY WORTHY of eternal punishment in your theory?
Just be clear and make your theory known.
6. OR, if it's your theory that it's NOT any sins or misdeeds on our part that demand that we be tortured for an eternity, but instead, it's the mistake of not "accepting Jesus" in just the right way, then say that.
Do you theorize that IF one doesn't "accept Jesus" (feel free to define that) in a right way, that such a person is "deserving" of eternal torture? Not EVEN for some misdeeds, but for merely "not accepting Jesus..."? Do you think God would take offense at that and consider that an eternity-sized capital crime?
If so, are you not capable of recognizing how overtly irrational and evil on the face of it that sounds?
But these are questions asked before. You have blinded yourselves with your human traditions.
Craig:
As long as the definitions and understandings of those things meets Dan's approval. The notion that there might be nuance, and dimension to YHWH's attributes that might escape Dan's tiny mind is incomprehensible to him.
At the same time, Craig is missing that HE is wanting to define God's "love" as to be something horribly unloving and even corrupt and God's "justice" to be unjust to an evil degree. You're failing to see the nuance that you're doing exactly what you're claiming I'm doing. You're failing to recognize the failure to understand the nuances of a perfectly loving and just God might be your own, are you not?
Craig theorized and stated, with no proof:
That we're literally arguing that YHWH's attributes and so much more than Dan's vaunted Reason to cram into a tiny little box, clearly escapes Dan's tiny little brain.
You are a fallible human person. YOU do not understand all of God's ways perfectly, any more than I do. Isn't that a 100% factual bit of reality? So, what YOU THEORIZE is that God's attributes are what you consider "more" than I can understand, I theorize that your theories are so much LESS than what is rationally or biblically expected of a perfectly good and loving God.
Why is it the case that I'm the only one who might be mistaken? Your own hubris?
I theorize that you are mistaken because the "god" you describe and that "god's" justice and love are so antithetical to love and justice as even our imperfect human brains and reason can understand that you'd have to come up with some HUGE support for your theories. "Because I, Craig, REALLY think it - and so have thousands of imperfect humans before me!" - is simply not a compelling argument.
Do you understand that?
Do you understand that I'm fighting for a HIGHER, more loving, pure, noble and perfect understanding of God while, from my point of view, you are fighting for a monstrous view of a god? Even if you ultimately disagree, do you understand that this is why I disagree with your theories?
"1. It's not like I'm some island in noting that there is a chasm of difference between stealing a cookie and genocide. This is just common moral reasoning."
It's simpleton reasoning which supposes the issue is what one steals as opposed to the fact that one has stolen. It's not how many one has murdered, but that one has murdered. By human standards, we can label one thing as a more grievous crime than another. God's standards are not the same thing, and it still comes down to one of the many questions you haven't answered: which of the two sins is unforgivable?
"Do you fellas REALLY want to make the case that there is NOT a huge degree of difference in the level of wrong between the theft of a cookie and the great evil of genocide?"
On a human level, no. I don't make that case. God's not human. But a far easier case to make is that there is an even far greater difference between one who can easily stay on point, follow the course of the discussion without going off on tangents, recognizing all questions asked have been answered with Scriptural support, versus you.
" 2. Almost certainly, you fellas are not so depraved as to make that kind of claim or to deny the great chasm of moral difference between the two."
No. We're not depraved at all. YOU'RE the homosexual murderer of infants, not us. What's more, we're not at all concerned with constantly rehashing this nonsensical argument about "minor" sins and mass murder (even though you enable it) as if your point isn't leading to legitimizing the sexual perversions you love so much.
"
3. The degree of seriousness of a sin matters because people like YOU argue that all of humanity is so evil and depraved because of their theoretical "sin nature" that they are somehow "deserving" of a punishment of eternal torture. YOU fellas are making the morally and rationally outrageous claim."
It's not a "morally and rationally outrageous claim" (says the immoral and irrational Dan Trabue). It's an accurate presentation of Scriptural teaching.
" The burden on you is to defend that atrocious claim."
Been there, done that comprehensively countless times over the years by citing the many verses and passages which teach that very principle.
"4. AND SINCE, you all hem and haw and won't be clear, maybe it's the case that you DON'T think these typical misdeeds or falling short of perfection are NOT deserving of eternal damnation. If so, say so. Right here, right now:"
Well, fuck you again for daring to think you can arrogantly make demands here at this blog, particularly again demanding what's been provided in great detail with Scriptural support many, many, many times, while you don't do jack shit when asked to provide for your heretical fantasies. What I "think" has been proven as true without so much as a hint of countervailing evidence from you to prove the contrary.
"5. IF someone is guilty of stealing a cookie...snip...because they have a "sin nature," IS THAT TRULY WORTHY of eternal punishment in your theory?"
If that's as far as your example goes, yes. But it's not a theory. It's Biblical teaching. Try reading the Bible for a change.
" Just be clear and make your theory known."
I haven't expressed any theories. I cite Scripture and have been crystal clear, though I can't account for your questionable comprehension and reasoning skills.
"6. OR, if it's your theory that it's NOT any sins or misdeeds on our part that demand that we be tortured for an eternity, but instead, it's the mistake of not "accepting Jesus" in just the right way, then say that."
You mean say it yet again, as if the last ten thousand times didn't make it clear to you?
"Do you theorize that IF one doesn't "accept Jesus" (feel free to define that) in a right way, that such a person is "deserving" of eternal torture? Not EVEN for some misdeeds, but for merely "not accepting Jesus..."? Do you think God would take offense at that and consider that an eternity-sized capital crime?"
Not a theory. Biblical teaching. And not a hard to understand teaching, either. It's quite clear and only a pro-homosexual enabler would question it in order to carve out the liberty of rejecting God's clear prohibition and still pretend you're saved.
"If so, are you not capable of recognizing how overtly irrational and evil on the face of it that sounds?"
I don't much care how it sounds to you. You don't matter. God's Will does and there's no mistaking what It is.
"But these are questions asked before."
And answered directly and comprehensively with tons of Scriptural support every single time. That is, up until recently as we're sick and tired of answering these questions over and over again while you do nothing to show how they're any way in error. No Scriptural support comes from you. Only crappy paraphrasing of that which is irrelevant to the issue, as well as meaning you've injected into that which doesn't convey the meaning otherwise.
Our "human traditions" are based directly on Scriptural teaching. Yours are based on your personal preferences alone.
"At the same time, Craig is missing that HE is wanting to define God's "love" as to be something horribly unloving and even corrupt and God's "justice" to be unjust to an evil degree."
No. That's your sick, heretical spin job. Because Dan Trabue doesn't like the punishment, God's justice is unjust and evil. God's gonna be very disappointed to find that out.
"You're failing to see the nuance that you're doing exactly what you're claiming I'm doing."
There's not "nuance" Craig fails to understand. That word doesn't even apply in this discussion as it's just a bullshit term given how you've been employing it. In a very similar manner, Craig is arguing for the God described in Scripture. He's not eliminating traits of Him he finds personally objectionable and then saying God is evil if those traits remain.
"You're failing to recognize the failure to understand the nuances of a perfectly loving and just God might be your own, are you not?"
No. He's not. But you certainly need that to be true.
"YOU do not understand all of God's ways perfectly, any more than I do. Isn't that a 100% factual bit of reality?"
Not at all. Your "understanding" isn't so much "understanding" as it is invention.
"I theorize that your theories are so much LESS than what is rationally or biblically expected of a perfectly good and loving God."
Who cares? What heretics such as yourself "theorize" is of no consequence as are the heretics themselves. To you, a "perfectly good and loving" God is only as good and loving as His adherence to Dan's Rules For Being A Perfectly Good and Loving God. Dan's God NEVER punishes those who transgress His Will. Dan won't have it!
"Do you understand that I'm fighting for a HIGHER, more loving, pure, noble and perfect understanding of God..."
You're fighting for a false god who "blesses" SSMs and waves of concerns about mothers (and fathers) who abort their own flesh and blood. You're fighting for Dan, not God.
Dan: "Last comment..."
Also Dan: Here are multiple additional comments.
1. It is like you're on an island pretending like that difference makes them fundamentally sinful acts. But then we've been over this and you still keep beating this dead horse.
2. No. What we are able to do is note that (at the core) both are inherently sin. Your problem is that without an absolute, universal, objective, standard of morality, your term (moral difference) really has no meaning beyond your tiny little brain.
3. Says who? That you make this unproven claim, simply means that you haven't proven it and assume it to be accurate, absent proof. What a bizarre notion, that you have no obligation to prove your "outrageous claim", but we have some obligation (imposed by you) to "prove" scripture.
4. Again with the arrogant demands. I've answered this multiple times, yet you continue to make these arrogant demands. To which I say, no more. I'm not answering/responding to these arrogant demands again.
5. IF the ONLY sin someone EVER COMMITTED was to "steal a (one) cookie" your might have a point. However, your insistence that people exist who've only ever "stolen a (one) cookie" is absurd and idiotic. Prove your claim or shut up. (I can play you game also)
6. No, you making shit up and pretending that we said it doesn't help you at all. It makes you look too stupid to accurately characterize what others have said, too lazy to copy/paste, or too arrogant to care about accuracy.
"Do you fellas REALLY want to make the case that there is NOT a huge degree of difference in the level of wrong between the theft of a cookie and the great evil of genocide?"
A) Yes and no.
B) Both are, at their very core, sin.
C) No one has ever existed who has only "stolen a (one) cookie". You are welcome to provide proof, but the likelihood that you will is slim.
D) No one is arguing that sin do not have different effects.
E) Jesus made it plain that looking at a woman lustfully and committing adultery are the same sin. Are you suggesting that Jesus was wrong?
F) You are continuing to apply the human construct of "degree" ( a legal concept) to sin.
G) If, as you note, sin is "missing the mark" and if "the mark" is "perfection", then any failure to "miss the mark" no matter how close is still a "miss". By your own definition, "stealing a cookie" is "missing the mark" of "perfection".
"Do you theorize that IF one doesn't "accept Jesus" (feel free to define that) in a right way, that such a person is "deserving" of eternal torture?"
No, this is one more thing you've simply made up and continue to ask about no matter how many times it's pointed out.
"Not EVEN for some misdeeds, but for merely "not accepting Jesus..."?"
See above, you blithering idiot.
"Do you think God would take offense at that and consider that an eternity-sized capital crime?"
I have no idea. I'm not interested in speaking for YHWH (as you seem to be), nor in making up YHWH's response to your made up bullshit. I will note that it well withing YHWH's prerogative to establish whatever standard He chooses that gives all of the honor and glory of salvation to Him.
"If so, are you not capable of recognizing how overtly irrational and evil on the face of it that sounds?"
That something "sounds" a certain way to you carries absolutely no weight or meaning to me. It's simply you arrogantly deciding that what "sounds" a certain way to you has somehow become some sort of objective standard. Simply insane.
"But these are questions asked before. You have blinded yourselves with your human traditions."
Yes, countless times. Yet, despite them being answered, you continue to ask them. Are you too stupid to recall that they've been answered? Too lazy to refer back to those answers? Or too arrogant to care?
That you've chosen your own personal, subjective, human hunches goes without saying.
"At the same time,"
Thank you for acknowledging that you do expect the "definitions and understandings" to be approved by you based on your subjective, fallible, imperfect, human Reason. Also that there might be "nuance and dimension" that you've missed (or ignored) which is incomprehensible to you. I guess that's something.
"Craig is missing that HE is wanting to define God's "love" as to be something horribly unloving and even corrupt and God's "justice" to be unjust to an evil degree."
I'm not missing something that doesn't exist outside of your tiny little mind. I'm not missing something that you made up with no evidence and pretend represents reality. I'm not missing what doesn't exist.
"You're failing to see the nuance that you're doing exactly what you're claiming I'm doing."
See above to reiterate that I'm not "failing to see" something that doesn't exist.
"You're failing to recognize the failure to understand the nuances of a perfectly loving and just God might be your own, are you not?"
The implication in this "question" that it is even possible for a finite, limited, human to "understand" the "nuances of a perfectly loving and just God" (and that you do) is the height of arrogance, hubris, and pride. Of course I don't understand but a tiny fraction of the infinite, boundless, love and justice of an infinite and boundless God. What I DO UNDERSTAND is my position relative to that infinite and boundless God and humbly accept that His love and Justice are also infinite and boundless. I also understand that for me to try (as you are) to set limits on YHWH is futile. So I don't waste time dong so.
You are a fallible human person.
"YOU do not understand all of God's ways perfectly, any more than I do. Isn't that a 100% factual bit of reality?"
That is correct. Therefore I don't bother trying to claim that I do.
"So, what YOU THEORIZE is that God's attributes are what you consider "more" than I can understand,"
If acknowledging the reality that YHWH is beyond you and your ability to understand (especially well enough to speak for Him, or perfectly) is to "THEORIZE" then I guess I do "THEORIZE". I was unaware that you considered yourself equal and able to understand YHWH, the very creator of all that exists.
"I theorize that your theories are so much LESS than what is rationally or biblically expected of a perfectly good and loving God."
Since I don't begin to claim that I speak for what is (subjectively) "rationally" expected of an infinite and perfect God, I guess you're right. As I realize my position relative to YHWH, (created v. Creator), I would never seek to impose my subjective rationality on YHWH because that would be insane. That I note what scripture says in the plain meaning of the text, without the convoluted eisegesis you engage in is not (subjectively) rationally problematic for anyone but you.
"Why is it the case that I'm the only one who might be mistaken? Your own hubris?"
Who said that you are the only one who is mistaken? Not I. I was however referring to you as you are the only one in this conversation making unproven claims and treating your unproven hunches as reality.
"I theorize"
I simply don't care what you theorize. Your theories mean nothing to me.
"that you are mistaken because the "god" you describe and that "god's" justice and love are so antithetical to love and justice as even our imperfect human brains and reason can understand that you'd have to come up with some HUGE support for your theories. "Because I, Craig, REALLY think it - and so have thousands of imperfect humans before me!" - is simply not a compelling argument."
Again, who cares what argument you find "compelling"? Not I. That you have the arrogance and hubris to act as if your unproven hunches magically Trump thousands of years of Christian scholarship and theology and that you magically have a better grasp of YHWH than those who've spent decades studying scripture, is simply your pride speaking. Grounded in your outsized beliefs about yourself and your Reason. Cool, let your Reason guide you if that's what makes you feel all warm and cuddly.
"Do you understand that?"
Yes I do understand that you've made your unproven claims, and that you believe them to be True. I simply don't care.
"Do you understand that I'm fighting for a HIGHER, more loving, pure, noble and perfect understanding of God while, from my point of view, you are fighting for a monstrous view of a god?"
If this is accurate, then you're doing a shitty job of that.
"Even if you ultimately disagree, do you understand that this is why I disagree with your theories?"
I don't care why you disagree with things. You've failed to make a positive, scriptural case for your unproven hunches. That I don't fawningly agree with your unproven blather is my default position. Until you prove your hunches, I ignore them. Until your hunches line up with the plain meaning of scripture, I dismiss them as your fantasies.
I wish to expound on a few points using Craig's responses as starting points. Craig may or may not agree with me exactly, but I think we're likely closer than not.
"2. No. What we are able to do is note that (at the core) both are inherently sin."
The commandment does not say, "Thou shalt not steal a cookie" nor "Thou shalt not steal a billion dollars". It says, "Thou shalt not steal". Thus, the sin is not stealing either a cookie or a billion dollars. The sin is stealing. The cookie or the billion dollars is simply that which was stolen. Dan likes to construct false comparisons to support his false premise that stealing something small won't condemn one to God's Justice.
Before I go on, I have to mention another Biblical teaching, which is that without Jesus, we're under the Law. Stealing is forbidden. Period. Thus, to break that Law, one is subject to God's Justice. That Justice is not contingent on what was stolen, but on the fact that something was stolen. Just as with Dan's made up caveats regarding Lev 18:22 ("it only references some forms of homosexual behavior"), the Law simply says, "Thou shalt not". There's no "nuance" which allows Dan to suppose the value of the stolen object makes any difference to the actual sin, which is theft, any more than he can say Lev18:22 isn't a comprehensive prohibition against the behavior regardless of the context or scenario in which it might take place.
More coming...
Art,
Of course he's hung up on his subjective system of score keeping. His entire "theology" of sin is based on humans being born "perfect", "good", or "sinless" and then keeping track of what specific sins they commit and assigning them and arbitrary ranking of "minor", major, or middle. Then trying to decide how many "minor sins" equate to a major sin or some such foolishness. He needs for there to be someone who only "stole" one single "cookie" as their only sin, but who's also never "been saved". That there has never been a person like that is immaterial, it's the theoretical possibility that keeps his hunch afloat.
Personally, I don't see the attraction to Dan's system. The pressure of trying to balance major, middle, and "minor" sins to keep myself in "good" standing and wondering what "good" things I need to do to be safe seems like a lot of pressure.
Likewise, if none of it matters, then the injustice of Hitler getting the same "punishment" as the "cookie thief" seems incredible.
The whole thing is muddled up nonsense, grounded solely in Dan's subjective, arbitrary, personal, human, fallible, imperfect, Reason and rationality. Which seems like a shitty basis to ground anything. Especially when Mohamed can come up with his own subjective, arbitrary, personal, human, fallible, system that allows things like raping children and abuse of women to be perfectly acceptable. Unfortunately, neither of those two systems has any grounds to tell the other that they are objectitvely wrong.
"5. IF the ONLY sin someone EVER COMMITTED was to "steal a (one) cookie" your might have a point."
I don't believe there's any evidence to support the possibility. Indeed, Scripture says otherwise:
"For whosoever shall keep the while law and yet offend on one point, he is guilty of all." --James 2:10 (KJV)
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" --Matt 5:19 (KJV)
I would also add that in the ancient Temple system, the priest would consecrate himself after atoning for his own sins to enter the the Most Holy Place:
"But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:" --Hebrews 9:7 (KJV)
Commentaries render "errors" as "unintentional sins" of the people committed throughout the previous year. I mention this in relation to Dan "being mistaken". Clearly, if such a sacrifice was necessary for "unintentional" sin, then "being mistaken" does not free one from Judgement. Thus, Dan's narrative regarding "minor sins", "missing the mark" and "being mistaken" does not get him off the hook, as it were, and it sends a message that one only need to be as "holy" as Dan has decided is sufficient.
"Do you theorize that IF one doesn't "accept Jesus" (feel free to define that) in a right way, that such a person is "deserving" of eternal torture?"
Without Jesus, there is only the Law and no one is perfect enough to keep the Law perfectly, which is required. Under the Law, there is still blood sacrifice necessary for atonement. But it, too, is never perfect enough for a perfect God. Dan regards this as evil. God regards it as His Will. Dan thinks God is evil, so he created his own god who bears only the most superficial of resemblances to the One True God, and satisfies himself he is doing all he needs to do to please this false god he put before the One True God.
"Accepting Christ"...repenting and giving one's self to Him...must be on His terms, not one's own, and certainly not on Dan's. Christ said to keep His commandments. Doing so indicates one's devotion to being a Christ follower and Christ's blood covers our imperfections.
So having tied all of that together using Scripture to back it all up, I put the bow on it by repeating the question Dan hasn't answered:
Which of the two sins Dan presented cannot be forgiven? I'll ask an alternative: which sin does not require forgiveness?
Craig...
Until your hunches line up with the plain meaning of scripture, I dismiss them as your fantasies.
And this is exactly the reason I dismiss your vulgar fantasies as being biblical, rational, decent, moral or anything having to do with adult moral reasoning.
And this brings us back to the age old question: Says who?
I have OBVIOUSLY made an astoundingly rational and biblical case that you all haven't even dealt with on a grade school level. You somehow don't see it. You THINK you have made a "biblical" case but I disagree that your human traditions have anything to do with reason or the bible.
So, who SAYS your reasoning is biblically sound? To whom do you appeal to support your vulgar, decrepit and indecent slander about an almighty loving God? You have no one other than other humans who happen to agree with your traditions and hair-brained immoral theories.
But do you even recognize that much? No, you don't.
And that's part of the problem y'all have. You don't even begin to acknowledge the holes in your theories or even admit that they are human theories.
Right?
Art,
Excellent point. I've said something similar. Sin is sin. "Thou shall not steal" doesn't offer any exceptions, nor does "If you look at a woman with lust...". They are binary options. Steal/don't steal, it's not complicated.
As to the rest, again good stuff.
That the High Priest was required to sacrifice before he could sacrifice for the people makes the point well. As do the others scriptures. Now, those aren't form Jesus in one of His public sermons, but they are still scripture.
Good luck getting a response to this, let alone answers.
It's strange you claim that your hunches are "biblical", yet they frequently are the complete opposite of the Biblical text, which makes me wonder in what sense anything you say is "biblical".
That you slip "biblical" in with a list of other (subjective) crap leads me to conclude that "biblical" is a secondary or tertiary consideration for you.
That you consider your nonsense to be "OBVIOUSLY" "astounding" (to yourself) "case" based on your subjective "rationality" and contrary to scripture is simply your arrogance and hubris shining through. Clearly you are concerned with impressing yourself, and not with making a case that is persuasive to others. That you can only offer yourself these accolades, suggests narcissism, arrogance and hubris have become a major factor.
No one "says my reasoning is Biblically sound". If I were to take after you and tout my "OBVIOUSLY astounding" Biblical reasoning, I'd sound like one just as arrogantly insecure as you. I'm not out to impress myself, let alone anyone else. I'm content to let scripture stand on it's own, along with referring to what thousands of years of experts have offered.
It's fascinating that you've resorted to personal attacks, lies, and (your personal worst sin) "slander" in your ad hom attacks toward me. That you've resorted to making shit up as the primary focus of your attacks, while ignoring specific arguments made by Art and myself, while engaging in self aggrandizing puffery, tells me that you have nothing of substance to offer and no response to make.
What's hilarious, and sad, is that I actually can offer thousands of years of experts who's conclusions I align with. You have nothing but you, yourself, your vaunted Reason, and your rationality. That you arrogantly display the hubris to set yourself over thousands of years of experts, as well as the plain meaning of scripture merely reinforces my conclusion that your hunches are bullshit. That you've constructed a "theology" focused on yourself and nothing else. Your pride in your Reason and rationality and your demands that others adhere to standards you choose not to adhere to, simply magnifies your arrogance.
Wrong. You can't seriously imagine that a bunch of bullshit that you made up (and obviously can't prove) could possibly be "Right". "Biblically sound" coming from you is simply a joke, isn't it?
I'd say that you are closer than Dan, but I would simply ague that YHWH's holiness sets Him apart from sin. Ultimately this is one of those things that is beyond us. We do not have the frame of reference to comprehend YHWH's holiness and what that entails. Dan might think that he does, but he does not. It's a matter of choosing to accept our limitations and not expect to have the degree of knowledge that Dan seems to demand.
"And this is exactly the reason I dismiss your vulgar fantasies as being biblical, rational, decent, moral or anything having to do with adult moral reasoning."
The difference being that nothing you've ever presented "lines up with the plain meaning of Scripture", by which Craig was referring to the words on the page. One can start again with something as easy to grasp as "Thou shalt not..." or something more complex, such a "the Trinity", "total depravity" or "Penal Substitutionary Atonement", all of which are drawn directly from multiple verses and passages which affirm each of them as true...or at the very least, far truer than your self-serving fantasy heresies could ever be. Said another way, unlike your "explanations", there are no contortions required to make the verses say, mean or convey what a simple reading of the relevant passages does.
Instead, rather than presenting relevant verses and passages of your own to either make your heresies appear possibly true, or to show how our understand of "Stop!" means something other than "Stop!", you force a connection between that which isn't relevant and that which you need it to mean. You simply can't honestly make that claim about us and then assert you're dealing in "good faith", which is why your claim to care about "good faith" is as false as most everything else you say.
"And this brings us back to the age old question: Says who?"
That's a deceitful question asked by a fraud who can't defend his positions or rebut ours.
"I have OBVIOUSLY made an astoundingly rational and biblical case that you all haven't even dealt with on a grade school level."
No. You haven't. Ever. Indeed, it's fair to say you've made no case at all, but rather expended a great deal of effort repeating "Nyuh uh" in a variety of absurd ways. Even more so, you "cases" are grade school level nonsense at best.
"So, who SAYS your reasoning is biblically sound?"
Honest people. One thing is certain: you've done nothing to demonstrate it isn't. "Nyuh uh" doesn't get it done. Asking "says who?" doesn't get it done.
"To whom do you appeal to support your vulgar, decrepit and indecent slander about an almighty loving God? "
Neither Craig nor I have engaged in any "vulgar, decrepit and indecent slander" about God. Not in any way, shape or form, nor in any way you can demonstrate.
"But do you even recognize that much?"
We only recognize your impotent attempts to portray our positions in the worst possible light because you can't demonstrate how they might be wrong.
"And that's part of the problem y'all have. You don't even begin to acknowledge the holes in your theories or even admit that they are human theories."
No problem on our part. Big problem on yours pretending you've exposed any holes at all in our accurate presentation of true Scriptural teaching.
In the fantasy land that Dan lives in, the answer to "Says who?', is Dan himself.
Look, just because y'all fail to understand I've made the biblical case doesn't mean I've not done so. The biblical authors give constant and clear messages about God's good, loving and just nature. For starters...
Biblical verses testifying that God is good...
Psalm 34:8:
"Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him".
James 1:17:
"Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows".
Nahum 1:7:
"The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; he knows those who take refuge in him".
Psalm 100:5:
"For the Lord is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations".
Matthew 7:11:
"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!".
Verses testifying to the Love of God...
1 John 4:8: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
1 John 4:16: "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them."
"Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments."
Romans 8:37-39
Asserts that nothing in all creation can separate believers from God's love.
1 John 4:19
"We love because he first loved us."
Zephaniah 3:17
"The Lord your God is with you, the Mighty Warrior who saves. He will take great delight in you; in his love he will no longer rebuke you, but will rejoice over you with singing."
Verses testifying to God's just nature...
Deuteronomy 32:4:
"He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he".
Psalm 89:14:
"Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you".
Psalm 146:6–8:
"The Maker of heaven and earth … upholds the cause of the oppressed and … loves the righteous".
Isaiah 5:16:
"But the Lord Almighty will be exalted by his justice".
Isaiah 61:8:
"For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong; I will faithfully give..."
1 John 1:9:
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"
The consensus from biblical testimony is overwhelming: God IS just, loving and good.
You fellas almost certainly don't disagree.
Where we differ, then, is that I take the testimony of God being good, loving and just literally and seriously. I believe that as the starting point.
Now, when y'all find verses that many humans interpret to mean God will sometimes act in an unmoving and unjust way, you try to give those verses (and those interpretations) priority over a straightforward understanding of goodness, love and justice.
When someone says, Punishing someone for an eternity for lesser, temporal failings is unloving and unjust, you all assume the straightforward understanding of justice and love must be wrong, rather than your understanding of the text being mistaken.
But holding to a high view of commonsense love, justice and goodness IS a biblical understanding, too.
But you don't seem to comprehend.
Craig repeated his appeal to numbers and other human opinions (as opposed to simply admitting that it's a human theory, not some kind of objectively proven idea):
What's hilarious, and sad, is that I actually can offer thousands of years of experts who's conclusions I align with. You have nothing but you, yourself, your vaunted Reason, and your rationality.
Your appeal to "thousands of years" of human opinion simply isn't compelling in and of itself. For "thousands of years," religious scholars have been fine with slavery, with misogyny, with denying women basic human rights like self-determination, etc. Humans have, in fact, been simply wrong on a wide range of experts, including your fallible human scholars.
And, at the same time, I can, of course, point to scholars who acknowledge some basic moral rationality regarding morality and justice.
For instance, the obvious notion that a punishment might be morally wrong if it it far exceeds the "crime" or misdeed being punished. Even you all would agree that the parent who punishes their 18 year old up for stealing a cookie and lying about it by locking them in a cellar prison for the rest of their lives is not only engaging in wrong in doing so, but is engaging in an overtly evil "punishment..." An evil that far surpasses the trifling theft of a cookie and lying about it.
Some scholars, in no particular order:
https://johnhoward.ca/blog/christian-view-criminal-justice/
https://www.thetorah.com/article/an-eye-for-an-eye-the-biblical-principle-of-proportionality
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2739&context=honors-theses
And I can, of course, go on and on but you almost certainly do not disagree with the notion of proportional punishment in a just system, so what's the point. You can tell me if you ARE coming out against proportional justice, which is not in any serious doubt anywhere that I know of and which has been accepted for millennia, including in the OT "eye for an eye" teaching.
And I further contend that it is a GOOD and obvious thing to use our God-given moral reasoning to think through such concepts of "What is and isn't a just punishment..." Are you actually disagreeing with that? I find that hard to believe, but you tell me.
So that would leave me guessing that perhaps you think I'm somehow alone in not even believing in eternal punishment from either a biblical, moral or rational point of view. But surely you know that your evangelical theories of hell have long been disputed in Christianity? You DO know that, right? You know, then, it's not just me?
https://braidedway.org/finding-out-hell-isnt-in-the-bible/
https://www.afterlife.co.nz/articles/history-of-hell/
https://tragoviproslosti.eu/2022/05/17/the-development-of-the-belief-in-heaven-and-hell-what-did-the-jews-and-early-christians-believe/
And here, again, I can go on and on. But perhaps you can either acknowledge that this theory is not unique to little ol' Dan in the 21st century. Your human theories and traditions have long been disputed, including by many in the church.
So, tell me: Do you think YOUR list of human opinions is more important than my list of human opinions? Do you think YOUR human apologists for your human traditions have somehow objectively "proven" what you can not prove? Or can you admit that, yes, you DO have a list of humans throughout history who have agreed with your theories but who could not prove it any more than you can?
The problem is that because you'll do anything to defend sexual immorality, infanticide, coveting the wealth of others and other heresies, you choose to focus on a partial concession of all Scripture says about the nature of God, eliminating that which holds to account all like you and those you defend despite their blatant rebellious behaviors. You want to believe that God being good, loving and just means He won't punish those in rebellion against Him, those who fail to live on the terms He set forth so unambiguously. And then you lie about those who adhere to those terms regardless of how they impact them personally. Here's but one recent example:
"Now, when y'all find verses that many humans interpret to mean Now, when y'all find verses that many humans interpret to mean God will sometimes act in an unmoving and unjust way,,"
This arrogant and condescending bullshit requires that anyone has suggested "Now, when y'all find verses that many humans interpret to mean God will sometimes act in an unmoving and unjust way" simply because God acted in a way Dan doesn't like. There is nothing about God wiping out entire populations by whatever means He chooses which is contrary to His Nature and His sense of Justice. YOU want to pretend it suggests God is indulging in evil. How arrogant! Who the hell are YOU to decide how God should respond to that which displeases Him? YOU dare to assert that suggests a "petty god", and you defend this blasphemy by pretending our acceptance of the Scriptural record is somehow in error...though you've NEVER explained how. Listing verses attesting God's love and justice doesn't do it, because you only focus on those verses while rejecting as "figurative" (or some shit) those verses which present how His Justice actually was administered.
With that said, you are also false in saying we "try to give" priority to verses which describe God's application of His Justice over those who speak of His acts of love and mercy. We don't. We simply don't reject those verses as you do and and as you give priority to verses you find pleasing over those you don't.
Out understanding of God's Nature is quite accurate, while yours is intentionally incomplete and thus you do not describe God at all. You describe YOUR god. More of your bullshit follows:
"When someone says, Punishing someone for an eternity for lesser, temporal failings is unloving and unjust, you all assume the straightforward understanding of justice and love must be wrong, rather than your understanding of the text being mistaken."
Who is this "someone"? Who are YOU to assert what MUST constitute either lesser or more serious sins and how God MUST address them? Which of the sins you have in mind are cannot be forgiven and which sins MUST be forgiven in order for you to worship the One True God? This last question is most relevant and must be answered, for you've, on more than once occasion over the last 17 years, insisted you won't worship a "god" WE'VE described with nothing but Scriptural support. You say we're mistaken and NEVER have provided an better understanding of the plain reading of Scripture.
You continue to conflate human expression of justice for infractions of civil law (a "justice" not universally accepted as "just" by those who must endure the consequences societies enact for those infractions), with God's Justice, because you demand that He must not be more offended by sin than is Dan Trabue, who wallows in it and promotes it as "good".
And you dare condescend to us.
Those are just a bunch of out of context proof texts, they aren't a "case" designed to prove your specific claims about YHWH. You've made some very specific claims about YHWH, His goodness, His justice, "Minor sin" and other topics. None of these verses actually prove (or even deal with) the specific claims you've made. Nor do they rebut or argue against our responses. But I applaud your ability to use Bible Gateway and copy/paste your proof texts.
It's also unusual to see you offer "myth" as a proof text.
You bravely re stating something that is patently obvious and that has been agreed on as if it is some sort of giant victory is incredibly stupid and a waste of time.
Where we differ is that you cherry pick proof texts out of context and eisegete them in such a way as to convince yourself that your hunches are what YHWH believes and is bound by.
It is strange that you somehow deride the consensus of thousands of years of expert testimony about scripture as merely "many humans interpret to mean", while elevating your personal, subjective, individual human hunch about what you personally "interpret" some proof texts "to mean" as if your hunches are somehow more accurate than thousands of years of experts.
Since no one here is arguing that YHWH will "act in an unmoving and unjust way,", I applaud you on your courageous attack on this straw man.
The problem is that YOU personally have concluded "unmoving and unjust" based on your subjective hunches and feelings. Certainly not from anything I've said.
"When someone says, Punishing someone for an eternity for lesser, temporal failings is unloving and unjust, you all assume the straightforward understanding of justice and love must be wrong, rather than your understanding of the text being mistaken."
Your ability to simply concoct blatant lies and straw men would be impressive, if it wasn't such a good example of the double standard you cling to.
When YOU (Not someone, you coward, man up and acknowledge that this is YOU not some magical creature.) makes unproven, unsupported, claims and presents them as if they are factual, what we actually say is (Prove your claims). We simply expect you to prove that your claims, your assumptions, and your definitions are accurate and grounded in something beyond yourself.
The problem is that we do "comprehend", but we don't blindly accept your unproven claims, definitions, and assumptions as True. We expect what you demand of others, proof.
You just don't seem to comprehend that. You also don't seem to comprehend that any "proof" grounded solely in you (or your Reason/rationality) is not proof.
"Craig repeated his appeal to numbers and other human opinions (as opposed to simply admitting that it's a human theory, not some kind of objectively proven idea):"
I'm not sure if this is a lie or a straw man, but in either case the fact that you wasted an entire post attacking either a lie or a straw man, is incredibly stupid.
For the record, I did not and have not argued that the consensus of thousands of years of experts makes anything "objectively proven".
What i have done, and will continue to do is to compare and contrast your unproven and unsupported hunches (solely grounded in your individual, personal, subjective, Reason and rationality), with the consensus and testimony of thousands of years of experts. It's more about pointing out that my position aligns with the vast majority of mainstream Jewish and Christian theology, while yours is unique to you.
You wasting your time pointing out the obvious and arguing against a straw man is amusing in it's stupidity. I see no reason to waste time pointing out the obvious.
Despite thousands of years of consensus of experts in Jewish and Christian theology, there ARE those who disagree. Most of Paul's writings addressed what he called "a different Gospel". That you can Google a few isn't impressive, persuasive, or compelling.
Now, if you could find anyone who aligns exactly with your hunches, that might be impressive. Although it undercuts your reliance on your (subjective, etc) Reason and rationality.
I needed a good laugh today, and Dan provided one.
What's hilarious is that I've addressed the most common objections or alternatives to some form of eternal punishment, at least once a few years ago. I see no reason to rehash those here, especially as Dan doesn't seem courageous enough to align himself with any of the options. It seems likely to me that he's a universalist, or annihilationist, but It's unlikely that Dan will ever be specific enough to actually stake a claim on this.
Dan knows this to be True, but is unlikely to stipulate to it, that I could easily provide volumes of expert commentary on all of these topics. The reason I won't is that it would clearly be a waste of time, as Dan is a self proclaimed expert on anything he labels "evangelical" and will not pay attention to anything I'd provide. I could provide theological experts that predate the evangelical movement, but that wouldn't stop him from making his false claims.
So I won't waste any more time with this, amusing as it is.
"Your appeal to "thousands of years" of human opinion simply isn't compelling in and of itself."
What's compelling about it is that it's not just "human opinion", but theological interpretations of Scripture by experts from those who were witness to events depicted, as well as those with expertise in the original languages, the laws of the times and a host of other aspects of the subject which result in facts and realities you've done nothing to contradict or show is in error in any way. Most all are people who ACTUALLY have spent their lives in truly serious and prayerful study of Scripture and all which relates to it, unlike you and your leftist influenced perversion of it.
"For "thousands of years," religious scholars have been fine with slavery, with misogyny, with denying women basic human rights like self-determination, etc. Humans have, in fact, been simply wrong on a wide range of experts, including your fallible human scholars."
Support this claim. Which "fallible human scholars" are you referencing? I'm willing to wager you're perverting the stances of these people because they explain the truth of that which you choose to describe as support for slavery, misogyny and no doubt, the perversion of homosexuality in all its forms.
"For instance, the obvious notion that a punishment might be morally wrong if it it far exceeds the "crime" or misdeed being punished."
You continue with this abject, blatant shit and worse, you do so by citing examples of that which to one extent or another, guides human behavior with regard to justice. None of your links speaks to how God's punishing those He chooses to punish is unjust or out of character for Him as they don't speak to why He would find someone worthy of eternal punishment. I know this without looking at any of them because you've never produced a damned thing which addresses THIS SPECIFIC issue. Instead, you think that by presenting what constitutes justice for breaking civil laws, it somehow supports your unBiblical position that there will be no eternal punishment for anyone.
They also fail to prove you have any understanding of what it is which actually leads to eternal punishment because you can't provide an explanation for which sins aside from your blasphemy can't be forgiven or what leads to their being forgiven.
"And I can, of course, go on and on but you almost certainly do not disagree with the notion of proportional punishment in a just system, so what's the point."
This is a lie. It has nothing to do with explaining why you think God's Justice isn't proportional if it entails eternal punishment, just as is described in Scripture, including by Jesus Himself.
"You can tell me if you ARE coming out against proportional justice, which is not in any serious doubt anywhere that I know of and which has been accepted for millennia, including in the OT "eye for an eye" teaching"
....which is an example of God teaching humanity about how each should treat another. It's got nothing to do with how God will deal with those who rebel against Him.
"And I further contend that it is a GOOD and obvious thing to use our God-given moral reasoning to think through such concepts of "What is and isn't a just punishment..." Are you actually disagreeing with that?"
I disagree that you've ever exhibited a competency in reasoning. Competency would not allow for rejecting those parts of Scripture you find personally objectionable before daring to suggest you're "reasoning" a proper and rational conclusion from incomplete information.
I don't know that either Craig nor I, nor anyone else who has schooled you on Scripture (Bubba, the late Eric Ashley, Neil Simpson---pray for him---Glenn or anyone else, ever suggested there haven't been discussions and debates about the afterlife. And no one would suggest that you're ever likely to bring to bear anything substantive to rebuke our positions or support whatever the hell you position actually is. So let's look at your links, 1, 2 & 3. Here are my responses to them:
1. This Universalist, who apparently cries a lot, gives his game away at the end when he asserts again that he "doesn't want to believe in hell". Thus, he cherry-picks his way to validation and feels good about it.
2. The Conditional Immortality/Annihilation argument offes little which is concrete or overcomes the "traditionalist" view. If this was offered to affirm that there are other schools of thought, big deal. That was never in question.
3. I find it curious that an analysis of what pre-Jesus Jews thought matters at all. Also, it speaks as if Jesus, and His disciples after His Ascension, weren't influenced by His teachings and the Holy Spirit later. No. They were influenced by Greek philosophy more. Jesus said He would send them the Holy Spirit to remind them of all He taught. According to this linked piece, Plato held much more sway.
I still consider what I've presented is reflective of the vast majority of Christian teachings/positions from the beginning. I think Craig would say pretty much the same thing. What's lacking is an actual argument by you, Dan, to show where the alleged holes are and what you have to fill them. We cite thousands of years of theology simply to say that our positions are not wild and crazy in any way. I only cite specific people or articles to better explain what I believe for convenience. But what I believe is a really straightforward presentation of Scripture without leaving out significant details as you are known for doing.
Again, our "proof", be it our own or theologians and scholars throughout history, is Scripture and an exhaustive explanation for how what it says is what it means. It's not a list which matters. It's the positions we hold themselves. You haven't done squat to find fault or holes in them.
So stop dickin' around and actually say something for a change.
What's compelling about the "thousands of years/thousands of experts" point is that it points out the arrogance and hubris of Dan to suggest that he (some random guy from the south with no formal theological education and no facility with the original languages) has somehow discovered the secret meanings of scripture and the True gospel over all of the centuries of expertise arrayed against him. It's clearly not an argument that the default position is True, as much as pointing out the mountain Dan needs to climb to overcome that reality.
Obviously Dan's "slavery" thing lacks context, and paints with a broad brush. while also ignoring the fact that other religions/philosophies/belief systems still justify/engage in slavery and ignoring that Christians were the primary driver in ending the slave trade (at least in the West).
As far as Dan's proportional punishment, I agree that in our human justice systems (injustice systems in some places) proportionate justice makes sense. As long as it's understood that proportionate is a subjective measure and not a universal, objective standard. The problem is trying to impose Dan's hunches about proportionality on YHWH.
1. Universalism shortchanges justice and limits it to merely what punishments an earthly tribunal may mete out. That an earthly tribunal cannot adequately dispense justice for a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Castro, Mohamed, etc is an absurd claim. Their crimes are so far beyond what we can adequately punish as to be almost incomprehensible To think that YHWH's sense of justice is satisfied by Hitler committing suicide or Guevara being killed is foolish at best.
2. Annihalationism likewise poses problems for the concept of justice. How is it just for the evil and the good to merely cease to exist. In this case I offered it to make the point that there are divergent streams in Christian theology , which don't alter the fact that there is a historic default position that has remained consistent for thousands of years.
3. Given the fact that Jesus, His disciples, and earliest followers were all second temple era Jews, and that the Jewish scriptures were regularly referenced by Jesus, I can't see how it is possible to dismiss what Jews believed prior to the first century. Not that they got everything right, but that Jesus very earthly ministry was initially a movement for Jews. YHWH's plan was always that salvation would come to/through Israel didn't change, it's why the genealogies are so important. Obviously, Jesus ministry changed many aspects of Jewish theology, while remaining consistent with the Hebrew scriptures. It's also important to recognize that Judaism was factionalized by the time Jesus was born and that taking the factional distortions or additions as representative of the Hebrew scriptures would be a mistake.
As a general rule, the one who's arguing for something outside of the mainstream or default position bears the burden of proving why their novel hunches are more correct than the thousands of years of previous consensus. To say that Dan has failed at that, understates Dan's failure.
"As a general rule, the one who's arguing for something outside of the mainstream or default position bears the burden of proving why their novel hunches are more correct than the thousands of years of previous consensus."
This challenge should have great appeal to Dan considering how often he insists the one making the wild claim is the person who needs to back it up. The "wild claim" angle assumes the claim is made against an existing, possibly consensus position. What's a more compelling existing consensus than the thousands of years of theological expertise?
Craig...
"in our human justice systems (injustice systems in some places) proportionate justice makes sense."
Are you suggesting that there is a place ANYWHERE, ANYTIME in the realm of reasoned morality that there's a place where proportional justice DOESN'T make sense?
That would be some theory. Do you have ANYTHING to try to support it? Because the suggestion sounds quite hellish and diabolical on the face of it to me and many others.
Craig...
"The problem is trying to impose Dan's hunches about proportionality on YHWH.
1. Universalism shortchanges justice and limits it to merely what punishments an earthly tribunal may mete out."
First of all, Prove it. Says who?
Secondly, you're bringing up universalism, not me. At this point, I'm talking about a perfectly loving and just God on the one hand, and a diabolically unjust, vague theory of some kind of disproportionate punishment on the other hand.
Thirdly, what is wrong with applying some sort of proportional justice/punishment? I mean, one problem for humanity is that we have NO way of adequately accurately applying a punishment with perfectly appropriate amount, right? But God (IF God is thinking about punishment in these terms at all) COULD, theoretically applying a perfectly appropriate amount of punishment, right? Or is your god not that all-wise?
Ultimately, I suspect your theory reflects a bad understanding of morality and justice. Not that I can prove it any more than you can prove your rather outrageous theories.
Speaking of...
"As a general rule, the one who's arguing for something outside of the mainstream or default position bears the burden of proving why their novel hunches"
If you're arguing that it can SOMEHOW possibly be just or moral or anything but overtly evil to punish someone an eternity for relatively minor temporal misdeeds, I'd say you are the the one advocating for something WAY outside the mainstream of moral reasoning.
Do you really think otherwise?
"Are you suggesting that there is a place ANYWHERE, ANYTIME in the realm of reasoned morality that there's a place where proportional justice DOESN'T make sense?"
You're taking this out of the full context in which it was asserted. In the statement which provoked this dumbass question, Craig was acknowledging that proportional justice is the way to go, but followed up with the qualifier that it is a subjective proposition in any case. Differing cultures/societies have different standards of proportionality for any given offense.
"Because the suggestion sounds quite hellish and diabolical on the face of it to me and many others."
I'm sure you can make anything we say "sound" hellish to serve your heretical agenda. But you reference a suggestion never at all made until you intentionally chose to pervert it...because perversion is your thing. Aside from that, how your distortion of Craig's comments sounds to some fictitious "many others" is totally inconsequential.
"1. Universalism shortchanges justice and limits it to merely what punishments an earthly tribunal may mete out."
First of all, Prove it. Says who?"
Says Craig, and he's not required to provide for your demand that his opinion be proven. If you think he's mistaken, YOU prove it.
I would also say that anyone who is honest and possessed of an actual and honest ability to truly reason can easily come to the same conclusion as has Craig.
" Secondly, you're bringing up universalism, not me. At this point, I'm talking about a perfectly loving and just God on the one hand, and a diabolically unjust, vague theory of some kind of disproportionate punishment on the other hand."
Secondly, you're a universalist if you're a Christian at all. At this point, you continue to speak of a god of your own creation as you once again assert that the God of Scripture is diabolically unjust and dispensing disproportionate punishment because you don't like the punishment, which is incredibly common among criminals of all levels when their sentence is handed down.
"Thirdly, what is wrong with applying some sort of proportional justice/punishment?"
Nothing. Moreover, there is no one here who is in any way opposed to the principle in the slightest.
"But God (IF God is thinking about punishment in these terms at all) COULD, theoretically applying a perfectly appropriate amount of punishment,"
God does apply His punishment proportionally. You're the one insisting Scriptural passages describing how that will play out isn't proportional. The problem isn't that God is "diabolically unjust". It's that you have no grasp of the issue.
"Ultimately, I suspect your theory reflects a bad understanding of morality and justice. Not that I can prove it any more than you can prove your rather outrageous theories."
Again, no "theories" have been presented by us. We simply cite verses and passages from Scripture which have for thousands of years been understood the way we've presented them here. The only "theories" are coming from you with next to nothing in the way of more solid evidence which make yours more probable than what we present.
"If you're arguing that it can SOMEHOW possibly be just or moral or anything but overtly evil to punish someone an eternity for relatively minor temporal misdeeds, I'd say you are the the one advocating for something WAY outside the mainstream of moral reasoning."
More evidence that you have the most infantile grasp (if even that) of the issue of God's Justice. What you regard as "moral reasoning" is no more than you judging God's actions by human (mostly fake Christian) understanding, which requires God adhere to human concepts of justice without regard to the seriousness of the offense for which He metes out the punishment which makes you soil your panties at the very thought of it.
"Are you suggesting that there is a place ANYWHERE, ANYTIME in the realm of reasoned morality that there's a place where proportional justice DOESN'T make sense?"
No. I AM suggesting that your hunches about what is "reasoned" and "proportional" are subjective and might not align with how YHWH judges sin.
"Do you have ANYTHING to try to support it? Because the suggestion sounds quite hellish and diabolical on the face of it to me and many others."
1. My support is that you are not YHWH, you lack the ability to speak for YHWH, and your limits preclude your from complete understanding of YHWH and justice.
2. I don't care how things sound to you and your mythical collection of "others". But if arguing from numbers makes you feel warm and fuzzy, then be consistent.
1. It's literally in the name and composition of the term universalism. If EVERYONE throughout all of history automatically gets into "heaven" then you automatically end up with the most vile criminals in history getting the exact same result as the most saintly person in history. How is that justice?
Thirdly, what is wrong with applying some sort of proportional justice/punishment?"
In a human "justice/injustice" system nothing. Choosing to apply your hunches about what might/might not be proportional to how YHWH judges sin is where you lose me with your unproven claims.
"I mean, one problem for humanity is that we have NO way of adequately accurately applying a punishment with perfectly appropriate amount, right?"
That is True. But so what?
"But God (IF God is thinking about punishment in these terms at all) COULD, theoretically applying a perfectly appropriate amount of punishment, right? Or is your god not that all-wise?"
Of course. The problem is that you have no idea what that looks like for YHWH and how it specifically works. You assume that He is limited by your hunches about punishment, the severity of sin, and the like.
I've said for years that there are "degrees of reward in heaven" and "degrees of punishment in hell". (I'm using heaven/hell generically in this comment)
Ultimately, I suspect your theory reflects a bad understanding of morality and justice."
Again, who cares what you "suspect"? That your hubris leads to to believe than anyone who doesn't blindly accept your unproven hunches has a "bad understanding" of "morality and justice" is arrogant. That you pretend that your subjective hunches about "morality and justice" must be treated as objectively correct, likewise hubris and arrogance.
"If you're arguing that it can SOMEHOW possibly be just or moral or anything but overtly evil to punish someone an eternity for relatively minor temporal misdeeds, I'd say you are the the one advocating for something WAY outside the mainstream of moral reasoning."
I'm not. I'm stating the reality that your unproven hunches on the topic are exactly that. unproven hunches.
I'm merely agreeing with the default position of Christian scholars and theologians for thousands of years.
"Do you really think otherwise?"
I think that the burden of proof is on you when you demand that we accept your novel hunches.
I had said
If you're arguing that it can SOMEHOW possibly be just or moral or anything but overtly evil to punish someone an eternity for relatively minor temporal misdeeds, I'd say you are the the one advocating for something WAY outside the mainstream
Marshal vaguely responded, withoutofferinganythingof substance. ..
evidence that you have the most infantile grasp (if even that) of the issue of God's Justice.
By all means, educate. Try to support your human theory.
For my part, I don't think there are TWO notions of justice, God's justice and human justice. There's just, Justice. And I believe that God is perfectly just and human understanding of justice is not perfect, but it's also just completely unrelated to justice. We who are created in the image of God, a little lower than God, having God's ways written on our hearts and imprinted into our being, have an imperfect understanding of justice, but it's not completely upside down and wholly foreign to perfect justice.
Do you disagree?
And in our common and morally rational understanding of justice, we recognize that any punishment cannot be wildly disproportionate to the misdeed. Do you disagree?
So, what am I misunderstanding?
What are typical humans doing that is so wildly evil (or whatever y'all think) that is somehow deserving of eternal torture/torment?
Be specific.
Dan has had multiple opportunities to accomplish great things both in demonstrating his prowess at dismantling historic Christian doctrine and beliefs, as well as proving the superiority of his hunches by proving them to be True outside of himself and his hunches. He regularly doesn't rise to the challenges.
First of all...and I meant to reiterate this in my last comment...you have no authority to demand anything of me or anyone else here at this blog. You have only the obligation to support YOUR positions, be they in favor of your heresies or to prove as erroneous our presentations of obvious truths and facts.
"For my part, I don't think there are TWO notions of justice, God's justice and human justice."
Good for you. But you ARE supposing we do simply because YOU don't like how God will dispense His Justice. You don't like the idea that God hates sin more than you do...which is clearly subjective according to your own self-serving standards. Law-breakers like you never see your sentence as just. Boo-hoo.
"And I believe that God is perfectly just and human understanding of justice is not perfect, but it's also just completely unrelated to justice."
I believe you didn't express yourself clearly with this comment, but even when you say what you mean to say, you're moronic. Obviously mankind doesn't have to be perfect in their understanding of justice and how they apply it to human behavior, but human imperfection doesn't mean it's completely unrelated to justice. It means it's not perfect as God's is perfect. Your followup sentence where you imperfectly apply "a little lower than God" to human beings...especially those like yourself who are far, far worse than "a little lower than God"...eventually corrects the poor implication of the first.
"So, what am I misunderstanding?"
As has been stated over and over again, yet ignored in favor of your personal preference, God's Justice is not disproportionate because the punishment is said by Scripture (and Christ's own words) to be eternal.
"What are typical humans doing that is so wildly evil (or whatever y'all think) that is somehow deserving of eternal torture/torment?"
This, too, has been answered over and over again and in a manner far more specific and direct than any of your counter arguments ever are. Thus, I will not entertain this question again. Instead, you will explain how one can be deserving of eternal reward but never eternal punishment and do so in a manner which aligns with Scriptural teaching. Be specific. Say nothing which has no specific parallel of a passage or verse so that we can review it in context and see how you're perverting it.
Indeed. It's the only truly consistent thing about him...he consistently fails to do what he demands of others.
"I had said"
You do realize that "I had said" carries with it no magical powers are you not? That you said something stupid or pointless carries with it no special value of weight. It's just you flapping your metaphorical gums with unproven hunches.
"If you're arguing that it can SOMEHOW possibly be just or moral or anything but overtly evil to punish someone an eternity for relatively minor temporal misdeeds, I'd say you are the the one advocating for something WAY outside the mainstream."
1. Again, I'm not.
2. Who cares what you'd say.
3. You still can't provide specifics about these "relatively minor temporal sins", how this bizarre hunch of yours actually works. It is cute that you think that adding "relatively" and "temporal" to your made up "minor sin" category makes it better somehow.
"For my part, I don't think there are TWO notions of justice, God's justice and human justice."
For my part, I don't think there are only two notions of justice either.
1. There is YHWH's :notion" (Calling YHWH's understanding of justice a "notion" sounds condescending of justice. It's part of His very being and how He chooses to administer that justice is for HIm alone to decide.
2. There is a "notion" of justice borne out of a desire to emulate YHWH as best we can given our incomplete human knowledge.
3. There are the perversions of justice (claiming to be from some "god" somewhere). Sharia law, extra scriptural Jewish law, and Mormon beliefs around racism and marriage, are two examples. They take YHWH's commandments and pervert them into something else entirely.
4. There is human legal justice. This might involve a guilty criminal going unprosecuted or unpunished because of a "technicality", or someone getting a lenient sentence because of how the law is written. We're seeing this in the UK and Europe right now as child rapists get off entirely or get light sentences.
5. Finally there is tribe or family justice. These rules might not be :just" in one sense, but they are applied justly (equally) and are aimed primarily at teaching children the mores of the tribe or family.
In a sense, all of these are streams that flow from YHWH and His being a God of justice, but they are all pale imitations of His justice or perversions thereof.
"And I believe that God is perfectly just and human understanding of justice is not perfect, but it's also just completely unrelated to justice."
No one is saying otherwise. What we are saying is the the problem comes when you pretend that your flawed, subjective, imperfect, hunches about justice are equal to YHWH's. When you keep acting like your hunches are YHWH's commandments sis where the problems show up. You claim that your "relatively, minor, temporal, sins" don't justify "eternal punishment", but fail to explain what the do justify. Likewise, you fail to explain what the lines between "relatively, minor...", "minor", "relatively major..." and "major" are, and what punishments are (in your not so humble opinion) appropriate for the various tiers. Logic would dictate that is someone knowingly and intentionally engaged in a "relatively minor temporal sin" over and over again, day after day and year after year, that there would be a tipping point. Yet no explanation of where this point might be.
"We who are created in the image of God, a little lower than God, having God's ways written on our hearts and imprinted into our being, have an imperfect understanding of justice, but it's not completely upside down and wholly foreign to perfect justice."
One more unproven claim.
Logic and a sense of proportionality would dictate that for someone like Hitler, that an eternity of punishment might not actually be sufficient to make up for his sins. Does Dan agree with that, who knows. "
Dan seems to look at punishment for sin like a prison sentence. That if someone has a certain amount of punishment that their sins are wiped away and they're all good from there on out. Although, I doubt he'd ever be that specific about it.
"Do you disagree?"
With your unproven hunches about proportionality, get out of jail free sins, and imposing your hunches on YHWH, I absolutely disagree.
"And in our common and morally rational understanding of justice, we recognize that any punishment cannot be wildly disproportionate to the misdeed. Do you disagree?"
Given the reality that in this mythical "common and morally rational understanding of justice" we see an entire legal/justice system that operates on the premises that it is permissible to marry 9 year olds, rape random women, subjugate women, kill gays, and demand submission of humanity, I fail to see your point. When those who protect innocents are charged and punished, while criminals are left free to continue to commit crimes, I fail to see this "common and morally rational understanding of justice" you prate on about. As both morality and rationality are not universal, objective measures, I fail to see the point of your claim. Prove your claim.
"So, what am I misunderstanding?"
I don't think you misunderstand anything. I think that you choose to ignore, misrepresent, and lie about what we actually say in order to provide straw men for you to go after.
"What are typical humans doing that is so wildly evil (or whatever y'all think) that is somehow deserving of eternal torture/torment?"
Given Jesus' teaching that sin is as much (or more) internal motivation as opposed to external action, my argument that it is impossible to have any clue based on limited observation of people's public behavior. As Jesus Himself equates lustful thoughts to adultery, and angry words to murder, it seems reasonable to suspect that there are a lot of adulterers and murders walking around (if one takes the explicit teachings if Jesus seriously).
"Be specific."
You won't, why would you demand of others that which you don't demand of yourself.
That you choose to ignore or fail to comprehend precious specifics does not obligate us to repeat those specifics.
At one point, long ago, I posted extensively quoting the foremost experts in Evolution/Evolutionary Biology as well as Materialist/Naturalist/Darwinist experts who all agreed on a couple of things.
1. Evolution is amoral. Survival of the fittest, does not have a moral component.
2. Very convincing cases that justify rape as an evolutionary imperative.
Given the number of people who wholeheartedly believe the Evolution/Darwinian/Materialist/Naturalist dogma, it seems safe to conclude that there is a significant number of people who have an entirely different concept of justice than Dan does.
No, I'm not going to post all of that again because Dan is lazy.
Craig irrationally said...
Given the number of people who wholeheartedly believe the Evolution/Darwinian/Materialist/Naturalist dogma, it seems safe to conclude that there is a significant number of people who have an entirely different concept of justice than Dan does.
? You KNOW, don't you, that believing in the reality of the science regarding the reality of evolution is not the same as advocating one way or the other for some just and moral system? Evolution is a science system explaining origins and life development, NOT a treatise on morality.
You know this, right?
What is THAT supposed to mean? Do you think those who believe in science reject morality?? How insane would that theory be?
I have no idea what that has to do with anything. ESPECIALLY coming from people who theorize there is a godling who can not/will not forgive humans for sin (outside of some very specific, vague way of "purchasing" that forgiveness) and who, as a result, will send the majority of humanity to some eternal torture/torment setting for the "crime" of being "sinners" and/or of not "accepting Jesus" in just the right way.
You want to talk immorality? Talk to hellish-theorists.
Craig, missing the point and failing to understand words, said:
Dan seems to look at punishment for sin like a prison sentence. That if someone has a certain amount of punishment that their sins are wiped away and they're all good from there on out. Although, I doubt he'd ever be that specific about it.
No. Dan looks at theories of "sin" as it's talked about in biblical and rational circles: That we humans will tend to "miss the mark." We may strive to shoot for doing right, but being imperfect, we WILL at least oftentimes, miss that mark of perfectly doing right. You know, like the Bible says over and over and over and over... and as rational people affirm.
As to "punishment" for sin and what God may or may not do to try to deal with/address/"punish" mistakes and failures in a human's lifetime, I don't know WHAT that looks like in any specific way. No one does. Certainly not you all.
Do you recognize that reality... that you absolutely do NOT KNOW any specifics of any potential afterlife in any objective manner? Because that is just the reality of it all.
Dan does affirm a belief in a God that is perfectly loving and perfectly just and, as a result, does not believe that a perfectly loving and just God would act in an grossly unloving and unjust manner in any afterlife (or in this life, here and now).
Do you disagree?
And Dan does not believe that understanding love and justice are some completely foreign concept. Dan believes that humans created in the image of God with God's word writ upon our hearts... that we CAN generally understand what it means to be loving and just and that these ideals are not going to turn out to be wholly backwards and hellishly different from our general understanding.
Do YOU theorize that love and justice will turn out to be entirely different than we generally understand?
If so, how crazy and hopeless that theory is.
Craig:
You won't, why would you demand of others that which you don't demand of yourself.
Because YOU all are the ones talking about the eternal torture of the majority of humanity for, in your frankly lunatical theories, the "crime" of having a "sin nature" and not "accepting Jesus..." in the right way. I don't think you are getting how hellishly insane that sounds. Do you?
Craig:
Given Jesus' teaching that sin is as much (or more) internal motivation as opposed to external action, my argument that it is impossible to have any clue based on limited observation of people's public behavior. As Jesus Himself equates lustful thoughts to adultery, and angry words to murder, it seems reasonable to suspect that there are a lot of adulterers and murders walking around (if one takes the explicit teachings if Jesus seriously).
Do you TRULY in your head think that a perfectly loving Jesus (the guy who said, "Neither do I condemn you" when some violent misogynists tried to get him to kill a "sinful" woman) would actually think, "Hey, that guy is imperfect. He lusted after a woman. The ONLY just punishment is to torture him for an eternity..."?
Again, I don't think you get how hellishly insane and wildly irrational and immoral that sounds, just on the face of it.
You don't, do you? Even if you don't ultimately agree with me, you can't just see and acknowledge, "well, hell! That DOES sound insane!" can you?
You tell me.
For the sake of brevity, I'll use the term "Evolution" as shorthand for "Evolution/Materialism/Naturalism and other similar but related philosophies. Further, I'll use the term "Evolution" as shorthand for Macro Evolution/Survival of the Fittest.
"You KNOW, don't you, that believing in the reality of the science regarding the reality of evolution is not the same as advocating one way or the other for some just and moral system?"
1. I know that there is a difference between some random person who casually believes in "Evolution" and those who've literally written the books on the topics. I pay more attention to those who've written the books, as opposed to casuals.
2. Evolution, is not the "reality of science". The holes in the Evolutionary narrative are significant and large.
3. Evolution IS a "moral system". The whole "survival of the fittest" "Nature is red in tooth and claw" the concept of the "Selfish Gene"
are a de facto "moral system".
"Evolution is a science system explaining origins and life development, NOT a treatise on morality."
I listen to, and read what those who've literally written the books on Evolution say, not you. As Evolution cannot explain "origins" (and frankly has admitted that it can't), the presence of massive gaps in the fossil record continue to plague the enterprise, and it's inability to explain the presence of information, I'm not sure why you'd cling so tightly to this philosophy.
"You know this, right?"
Again, I get my information about Evolution from people much more "expert" than you. So yeah, I know plenty, and know where to find accurate information.
"What is THAT supposed to mean?"
That Evolution is it's own "moral system" (survival of the fittest, social Darwinism, Eugenics, and the like), and those who are the "experts" readily admit that your "moral system" isn't compatible with Evolution. How does "survival of the fittest", "The Selfish gene", and "nature is red in tooth and claw" align with your "Golden Rule" system of morality? How are those things compatible with "justice" in your construct?
I'll stop here and note your goal post move from "justice" to "morality".
"Do you think those who believe in science reject morality??"
As this question is so broad and vague, and based on unproven assumptions, I'll give you a chance to reformulate it instead of trying to "answer" it. I will note that the very people responsible for "modern science" were believers who were committed to the idea that science revealed the workings of YHWH.
"How insane would that theory be?"
Well, it's a theory you made up, so it's highly likely to be insane.
"I have no idea what that has to do with anything."
That's because you're an idiot who doesn't pay attention. It's relevant because it compares and contrasts a view of "justice" that is at odds with your hunches.
"You want to talk immorality? Talk to hellish-theorists."
No, I don't want to talk "immorality" or with "hellish theorists". Yet I am relatively well read on the moral positions advocated by those who are the strongest advocates of Evolution, and their acknowledgements that Evolution is an amoral system.
If I've "missed the point" it has more to do with your lack of specificity about your hunches and how they work than anything. Trying to piece together something coherent from your vague hints, unproven claims, and unwillingness to provide details is challenging. Yet I do my best to pay attention to what you actually say, then fill in the missing pieces from there.
That your entire basis for your hunches is what's "talked about in biblical and rational circles" (as defined by you) makes it clear that your hunch as based on your subjective selections of what you think is "biblical" and what you think is "rational". There is warrant to speak of things that are objectively "Biblical" (that which is explicitly in the text), but not to speak of objectively "rational". When your hunches contradict the plain text and plain meaning, I fail to see how that is either "biblical" or "rational". Especially with no explanation for your leaps of logic away from the plain text.
"No one does. Certainly not you all."
Then stop making claims that sound like you do. That'll solve the whole problem.
"Do you recognize that reality... that you absolutely do NOT KNOW any specifics of any potential afterlife in any objective manner?"
Well, we know what Jesus said about the afterlife. So I guess you could claim that Jesus' words on the subject are not "objective".
"Do you disagree?"
As always I disagree with your unproven hunches about what YHEH might do and how He might act. I reject your hunch that YHWH is limited to your subjective understandings about things like justice.
"Do YOU theorize that love and justice will turn out to be entirely different than we generally understand?"
No. I do not theorize that my limited understanding allows me to make judgements and draw hard conclusions about what or how YHWH may act or how He might (or might not) punish sin. As with pretty much everything about YWHW, I suspect that we will find that we vastly underestimate Him.
"Because YOU all are the ones talking about the eternal torture of the majority of humanity for, in your frankly lunatical theories, the "crime" of having a "sin nature" and not "accepting Jesus..." in the right way. I don't think you are getting how hellishly insane that sounds. Do you?"
Let's start with the fact that this is a straw man and that you've concocted this straw man to be "hellishly insane" and who "hellishly insane" that makes you.
Leaving that aside, the fact that this is your best excuse for not holding yourself to the standards you demand of others, is pretty insane.
"Do you TRULY in your head think that a perfectly loving Jesus (the guy who said, "Neither do I condemn you" "
1. There is a high likelihood that this story never happened per the study notes in most any Bible printed in the last century.
2. That's not all Jesus said to her, is it?
3. This specific instance is not a blanket escape from judgement for everyone.
4. It's likely that Jesus' point was the He (as the only one in the group without sin) was the only one qualified to pass judgement.
5. If those who brought the woman were interested in justice, they would have brought the man.
This is why it's problematic to build your "theology" one one passage that might not actually have happened.
"when some violent misogynists tried to get him to kill a "sinful" woman"
To be accurate, they were (poorly and wrongly) referring to the OT law which Jesus (as the second person of the Godhead) would have promulgated.
"would actually think, "Hey, that guy is imperfect. He lusted after a woman. The ONLY just punishment is to torture him for an eternity..."?"
I'm merely quoting Jesus. The rest is you making shit up.
"Again, I don't think you get how hellishly insane and wildly irrational and immoral that sounds, just on the face of it."
If you're talking about my simply pointing out the reality that Jesus (in a public sermon) drew the lust/adultery and anger/murder equivalence then your problem is with Jesus, not me. The point of both Jesus' teaching and my comment is that sin is more than action, and that the internal motivation is as bad as the action.
But you spin Jesus' public teaching in a sermon as "hellish" if you want.
"You don't, do you? Even if you don't ultimately agree with me, you can't just see and acknowledge, "well, hell! That DOES sound insane!" can you?"
The problem is that I don't cherry pick parts of Jesus' teachings out of context. This is the same Jesus to told of Lazarus and the Rich man and who described the fate of the "goats" as " ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.... And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”". I'm constrained to take the entirety of the Biblical narrative, and that Jesus was there "In the beginning" and realize that when YHWH is credited as speaking that Jesus is speaking as well.
"Again, I don't think you get how hellishly insane and wildly irrational and immoral that sounds, just on the face of it."
Again, I don't think you get how little I care about your subjective, unproven hunches, straw men and made up bullshit.
"You don't, do you? Even if you don't ultimately agree with me, you can't just see and acknowledge, "well, hell! That DOES sound insane!" can you?"
What really sounds insane is you conflating your straw men with anything I've actually said. If you could quote me you would, but you can't so you make shit up and pretend.
The truth...particularly the truth of Scripture...always sounds insane to those for whom the truth is inconvenient. And if one finds the truth inconvenient, it doesn't hurt to embellish the truth with the most evil word choices to make it sound even more insane. Here, Dan hopes to suggest we're insane for not joining him in rejecting the clear teachings of Scripture he finds inconvenient.
I think CS Lewis put it well in saying we're left with the choice of God's Will versus God allowing us our own will. That's about as perfect a way to describe what gets us to one eternal destination as opposed to another. Choose God or choose ourselves. And when Paul listed the behaviors which will result in our being denied the Kingdom, he didn't differentiate between believers and non-believers, but pretty much acknowledged that those who indulge in those behaviors weren't really believers at all, or more to the point here, have chosen their own will over God's. Their claim to be believers will be met with Christ telling them "I never knew you".
And I'll reiterate the system of the Temple in which the High Priest will seek atonement for the nation's "unintentional sins", which suggests there's no "Gee, Lord! I guess I was mistaken in believing I could indulge in those behaviors you forbade. So which room is prepared for me? What? It's me, Dan! What do you mean you don't know me?"
I can't recall where Paul speaks of it...or maybe it's Jesus Himself...but I do recall an admonition that those most steeped in the Word have the least excuse for failing to abide it. Dan needs to get far more serious and prayerful in his study than he presumes he has been. I say again, that Dan's whole purpose is to defend that which is blatantly forbidden and even if we're as wrong as could be, there's no argument for him to dare legitimize that which is clearly forbidden. He just ignores that which is inconvenient.
I used the Thy will/my will quote not long ago in a comment somewhere, and it's applicable here as well. But you are correct. For those who follow their own will/Reason/self/whatever, scripture does sound insane. How crazy does "This is my body, broken for you..." sound? How crazy does Jesus voluntarily choosing to go to the cross sound? How crazy does all kinds of stuff Jesus said sound?
You know what doesn't sound crazy? Dan's hunches about the gospel being solely about providing physical succor to the poor. Maybe the problem is that Jesus is supposed to sound crazy to those who are focused on self.
I think that the whole notion of the whole sacrificial/atonement system and Jesus' place firmly within that system confounds Dan. It goes against so much the he holds dear, starting with the OT as "myth" and "revenge fantasies". It includes the very notion of a God who works supernaturally or the possibility of supernatural intervention. Miracles, right out. You'd probably need to jettison prayer as well, because praying to a God the won't/can't intervene directly and possibly supernaturally, sounds crazy as well.
I think that you are referring to the passage which admonishes that those in positions of teaching or authority will be held to a higher standard. What's amazing (and should be a problem for Dan) is that the Scripture being referred to was the Hebrew Scripture, which Dan has less use for than the "red letters".
I often wonder how many people in Dan's little circle actually listen to him, give him credence as some sort of Bible "expert", and get led away from the God of Scripture. If that is the case, I wonder what Dan will experience before Christ's judgement.
IMO, Dan is one of those people who thinks that if they stand before Christ, that they'll be able to give such an amazing defense of their actions or plead ignorance (I was "mistaken") and that Christ will immediately give them a free pass.
You claim that Evolution is a "science system explaining origins". If that's the case you should be able to find the answers to a couple of questions.
1. What, specifically, are the testable, repeatable, and falsifiable cornerstones of Evolution?
2. How does Evolution account for or explain the vital importance of the cosmological constant and the fine tuning of certain parts of certain universes to accommodate life?
3. How does Evolution explain the Cambrian explosion?
I'm not stupid, and I know that you'll likely not know the answers to these questions, and might Google search some random articles that you think might have definitive answers.
Regarding the "cast the first stone" passage, I'm aware that it is a disputed story. But I like it. And it serves a purpose perhaps not intended, which is to expose fakes.
Dan loves that "Neither do I condemn you" line to pretend that it meant Christ was not offended by her sin. Clearly He was or He would not have encouraged her to "sin no more". But clearly he was referring to civil condemnation, which could have resulted in her being stoned to death. He didn't have any authority to condemn her to a stoning. It's really that simple.
And it goes back to the point about our will being done versus His Will being done. If she continued to indulge in adultery, she's condemned herself. It would be as if God says, "OK. If that's what you want, that's what you'll have."
Feodor is really a nasty character, I tell you. He is so full of anger and unjustified condescension, being dumber than a box of rocks. It has to be miserable living that way all the time. He doesn't strike me as somebody who has received an advanced formal education at all, or at least he flunked badly in the process. Sometimes the most vicious rhetoric masks the deepest insecurities.
He's certainly full of something!
Dan's misuse of the passage in question isn't surprising from someone who builds his theology on cherry picked, out of context, snippets of larger passages. It's simply expected that he'll ignore the bigger point of Jesus demonstrating His authority, and ignore the last part of Jesus sentence.
I agree that the passage is illustrative of Jesus and I also appreciate it. Yet putting too much stock in it as the basis for anything seems foolish.
It does align with the my/Thy will concept.
The fact that Jesus didn't merely accept her in her sin and give her a blanket "get out of jail free" card escapes Dan. It also ignores the fact that we don't know what was said (theoretically) by the woman and the Jesus knew her attitude as He was talking to her.
I'm not sure I agree that Jesus didn't have the authority to enforce that Law the He gave the Hebrews, but the bigger point is that He has the ultimate authority and is the fulfillment of the law is what escapes folx like Dan.
Craig,
I don't think it's true that just any citizen of Israel could just decided to stone someone. I would think there should be some trial with a judge who would condemn the convicted according to the Law. Certainly, those who brought the woman before Him didn't believe He was so authorized, but only sought to entrap Him by getting His opinion. They sought to set up a "damned if I do/damned if I don't" scenario, but they weren't asking His permission to stone the woman.
Yes, yes he is. he's clearly got the impulse control of a 4 year old, and zero tolerance for disagreement. He's good at pontificating, and being vile/graceless/hateful, and not much else. Strangely, Dan never tells him to "embrace grace".
I don't think it's accurate to call Jesus "just any citizen of Israel". Jesus clearly has the right, ability, and role of sitting judgment of sin. In this case, He was treated as a Rabbi, and the Pharisees were doing what was common in rabbinical circles. Asking Jesus how He as a Rabbi) would judge the violation of Hebrew law. They were looking to catch Him and once again He turned the tables on them, as you note.
They clearly had the authority to take her before a "judge", but chose this instead. They also clearly allowed the man caught to go without accusation which did violate both the law, but also Deuteronomy 19:5 (I think) and it's admonishment against favoritism.
My point remains, that Jesus absolutely had the authority as the second person of the Godhead to judge and punish sin. The problem was the her accusers didn't believe or understand what His authority actually was.
Post a Comment