Life being distracting, and with so many goofy leftists to correct on the internet, I never got around to doing an Easter post, particularly after noting once again how none of Dan's Easter posts are about Easter. He challenged me to do one, so here it is. Finally.
Aside from merely wishing everyone a Happy Easter, or merely posting "He Is Risen!" as I've done in the past, this is about the significance of Easter. My observations regarding Dan's Easter posts have been, as I stated above, they don't say anything about what makes Easter a special day in the Christian calendar. That is, what's the big deal?
Easter can be said to be actually three days long, from the crucifixion remembered on Friday, to the resurrection on Sunday. It's kind of a package deal. But Sunday is the day referred to as "Easter", and the resurrection that occurred on the day we call "Easter" has its own significance in the faith. Jesus rising from the dead assures us of the salvation He guaranteed by His death on the cross. He conquered death by rising from it, but more importantly for us, He conquered it for us, as we, too, shall one day be resurrected. Because He did, we have that Blessed Assurance we will, too.
Matthew records several times when Jesus prophesied about His resurrection. So actually doing it was important, to say the least. This impossible thing not only happened, but Jesus told His disciples it was going to happen! How cool is that?? No doubt they felt stupid later when they were reminded of it after the fact by the angel at the empty tomb.
But Paul spells out the significance of this most incredible miracle:
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. -1 Cor 15:17
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrections of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the first fruits; then when He comes, those who belong to Him. -1 Cor 15:20-23
Paul then goes on into more detail, also describing how we'll be raised in "the splendor of heavenly bodies", imperishable, glorious and powerful.
That seems to me rather significant. Far more so than any lefty notions about Christ being a revolutionary stickin' it to the man.
149 comments:
And an entire post on Easter without once quoting the Risen One.
Do you never find it troubling how very ABSENT the words of Jesus are from conservative Christian theology?
"And an entire post on Easter without once quoting the Risen One."
Clearly you didn't read the post, Dan. If you had, you'd have seen where I wrote:
"Matthew records several times when Jesus prophesied about His resurrection."
"Matthew" is one of the four Gospels, Dan. It's usually the first book of the New Testament. At least it is in every Bible I've ever seen. Borrow a Bible and see for yourself.
"Do you never find it troubling how very ABSENT the words of Jesus are from conservative Christian theology?"
I find it troubling how often you insist on proving you know nothing about conservatism...theologically or politically.
Indeed, you DID reference passages like Matthew 17, but you didn't quote the actual words of Jesus. If you did, you'd see words like these...
“The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.
They will kill him,
and on the third day he will be raised to life.”
Or similar passages in the other gospels, like this from Mark 8...
"He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and
be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes,
and be killed, and
after three days rise again."
Time and time again, we see Jesus saying that the rich and religious and powerful were going to get sick of him, arrest him, torture him and kill him with capitol punishment.
Which raises the rational question, "WHY would they kill "the son of man..."? What had he done?" After all, Jesus came preaching love and about God's realm... WHY would that be something worthy of capitol punishment?
And we can see precisely why the rich and religious killed Jesus. But there again, you'd want to read the actual words and understand the context. Time and time again, we see Jesus rebuke the rich and powerful, threaten their primacy on religious matters, their ideas about "sin," and being "pure..." He was an affront to the financial profits they generated in the temple and just to their wealth and power. As you can see on my Easter post. "It's hard for a rich man to enter the realm of God..." "Give up your wealth and come, follow me...," "WOE to you who are rich, now..."
In the context of ALL that /\ consistent teaching,
the warnings against wealth and power,
the teachings to align with the poor, marginalized and “least of these,”
the constant harsh rebukes and mocking of the religious leaders, the rich and powerful...
in THAT context and
immediately after this parable about the sheep and the goats...
The Pharisees met...
"When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples,
“As you know, the Passover is two days away –
and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”
Then
the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and
they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him.
“But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.”
It's not sufficient to lift one or two quotes from Jesus and ignore the greater text and context.
"Which raises the rational question, "WHY would they kill "the son of man..."? What had he done?""
In the context of an Easter post, the questions are irrelevant and out of place and thus not rational at all. Even "why did Jesus have to die?" isn't relevant, given how that question is better suited for a Good Friday post. In any case, why Christ died is far more an important question than any concern for the motivations of those who put Him to death. The reality, however is that sinners...we...put Him to death, and thus that includes more than merely the "rich and religious and powerful" with whom you're so perversely obsessed.
"As you can see on my Easter post."
...which had nothing to do with Easter, but rather with your socialist obsession. My post deals with the reason why Easter is the ultimate Holy Day of the Christian calendar, as I insist every Easter post should. But hey...you go ahead and pretend it's about rich guys.
"It's not sufficient to lift one or two quotes from Jesus and ignore the greater text and context."
Good thing I haven't done that. But context doesn't come into play in your Easter posts at all. True context would focus on the significance of the Resurrection, not on what rich guys did.
Everything you insist I should reference in MY blog post belongs in posts referring to that which took place earlier in Holy Week. Are you now going to demand that I must do posts on every day leading up to Easter? I observed that none of your Easter posts ever speak of the significance of Easter. You suggested in order for me to have any right to do so I must do Easter posts of my own. Now you want to suggest that my Easter posts cover that which isn't Easter-related...like you do? Get outa town! I've done here what I observed you not doing at your blog and as you seemed to demand, I showed you how I believe it should be done. You now want to correct me by insisting I should do it like you...after I commented on how you fail in how you do yours. Incredible.
Said another way:
Me: "Why don't you ever talk about Easter in your Easter posts?"
You: "Why don't you do your own if you don't like the way I do mine?"
Me: "Here's my Easter post."
You: "Why didn't you do it like I do mine?"
What an idiot!
"It's not sufficient to lift one or two quotes from Jesus and ignore the greater text and context."
After lifting "one or two quotes" out of context.
Craig... "After lifting "one or two quotes" out of context."
I know your white evangelical human traditions have probably helped you believe that, but of course, it's literally not true. On the topic of Easter, my passages I cited, like the many others on my blog that evoked this post, are clearly dealing with the reasons for Easter, properly understood in the text and context.
Here, in this post, I clearly present the difference between what the reason for Easter actually is, and that which you post in your annual Easter posts. It's not at all a matter of "white evangelical human traditions". It's a matter of what Easter actually and factually represents in the Christian faith. You literally ignore that in your posts in favor of your socialist, hate-the-rich and other leftists predilections. You'd have to go back and delete yourself in order to now maintain your position. Not a bad idea, actually.
I do so love the humility Dan demonstrates when he tries to explain away his lack of context by announcing that his interpretation is the one that has "properly understood" scripture.
Someday maybe...if we're really, really good...he'll provide some substance that supports what he likes to believe is a proper understanding of Scripture.
In the meantime, in the event I was the only one besides his troll to actually read his Easter blog post, he didn't at all present anything that dealt with the reasons for Easter, but simply recited some of the events leading up to it. That would've been fine in detailing the "Easter story", which has been told so many times by so many different people. But my objection, once again, was that none of his Easter posts spend any time dealing with the significance of the day itself...of the resurrection, given that's the event that makes it special and unique in human history. THAT has nothing to do with those who fed Him to the Romans and what their personal beef with Jesus had been.
The events that led up to Easter ARE the reasons his death happened. The religious, rich and powerful were threatened and angered at Jesus' teachings, they felt threatened by them and him. And so, they killed him. That is literally WHY he was killed, in the real world.
Now, are there greater meanings and implications of Jesus death? Yes, I think so. Is it that an angry god demanding a ransom or a blood sacrifice to appease his anger so that forgiveness could be purchased? That's literally not a teaching from Jesus.
But the reasons I gave directly from The Bible are literally the gospel teachings about why Jesus was killed. If you want to take the stories literally.
Marshal... "none of his Easter posts spend any time dealing with the significance of the day itself...of the resurrection..."
To be clear, You should say that I did not deal with what YOU consider to be the significance of Easter. I just dealt with the story as it's literally told in the Gospels. And yes, is not just you. It's a good bit of evangelical Christianity that agrees with you. The hair were talking about human traditions, not Jesus actual words and teachings.
For many of us, Jesus repeated emphasis on Living within the realm of God, a realm open to all, specifically the poor and marginalised, this IS the great good news of the gospel of Jesus as Jesus taught it. And thus the point of The Easter story.
That we in good faith disagree with your human traditions about the meaning of Easter does not mean I am not telling the Easter story. We just disagree with your human interpretations.
Despite that fact that Dan has argued that we are "good" and deserving of heaven (or whatever), I seriously doubt we'll ever be that good.
I think that part of his problem with the Easter story is that the Jewish leaders are pretty clear about why they want Him killed, and Pilate found Him innocent but ordered Him killed to appease the Jewish leaders and the crowd. There's nothing to paint Jesus as a revolutionary in the political/economic sense. He was certainly a revolutionary by claiming to be God and above Caesar, but Pilate was willing to "let" Him be "King of the Jews" and ignore the 'rebellion against Caesar.
"At last two came forward 61 and said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’” 62 And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?”[i] 63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.”
If the Jewish leaders were trying to convict Jesus of any political or economic rebellion, there doesn't seem to be any record of it in Matthew's account.
" Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus said, “You have said so."
Again, nothing about political or economic rebellion.
"So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man's blood;[b] see to it yourselves.” 25 And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”"
Pilate found nothing to condemn, it's strange that Dan seems to.
"The events that led up to Easter ARE the reasons his death happened."
Good gosh. The events that led to the crucifixion are the means by which the crucifixion came to pass. The reason Christ died was sin. This is basic stuff. In reality, the crucifixion...and ultimately Easter Sunday...were the result of events that began with the Fall of Man. THAT event led to the crucifixion.
But the crucifixion is not what Easter is about. Easter is about the Resurrection. The crucifixion had already taken place two days prior. Again...basic stuff.
"Now, are there greater meanings and implications of Jesus death?"
And Easter post is not a post about the death of Jesus. It's about the Resurrection of Jesus. (Basic)
"Is it that an angry god demanding a ransom or a blood sacrifice to appease his anger so that forgiveness could be purchased? That's literally not a teaching from Jesus."
I know you love putting that with which you disagree in the most negative manner you can in order to disparage that which doesn't work for you. That's dishonest, of course, but so you. In Hebrew law, blood sacrifice was the means of atonement for sin. It's all through Scripture, particularly OT, and continues with Jesus...The Lamb of God...being the final, ultimate sacrifice to atone for our sins. And Jesus did indeed speak of this purpose, as any serious, prayerful study of Scripture reveals:
John 12:23-33
Matthew 26:28
"But the reasons I gave directly from The Bible are literally the gospel teachings about why Jesus was killed. If you want to take the stories literally."
No. For those of us who actually take the stories literally, it is as I said above:
The events that led to the crucifixion are the means by which the crucifixion came to pass. The reason Christ died was sin. (Really basic)
"To be clear, You should say that I did not deal with what YOU consider to be the significance of Easter. I just dealt with the story as it's literally told in the Gospels."
The story of Easter is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. (More basics for you) What is the significance of the day is never what you ever cover in your Easter posts.
"It's a good bit of evangelical Christianity that agrees with you."
As I've no more done a poll than you have, I'll refrain from suggesting how much of Christianity in total (not just the evangelicals) "agree with me". But I'd wager the vast majority of Christendom understand the significance of Easter isn't the details of the events of the weeks prior to the crucifixion, but rather is the Resurrection. That has nothing to do with "human traditions". A "human tradition" would be Maundy Thursday services, lilies on the altar, using an Easter post to expound on that which is unrelated to the third day on which Christ rose from the dead. And while it is a "human tradition" of Christians to use Easter to speak of the Resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ, it is a tradition most appropriate to the day which memorializes the most important event in human history. Who would find it appropriate for speaking of anything else? I mean besides a "progressive" "Christian" so enamored of socialism and hatred of the wealthy?
"For many of us, Jesus repeated emphasis on Living within the realm of God, a realm open to all, specifically the poor and marginalised, this IS the great good news of the gospel of Jesus as Jesus taught it. And thus the point of The Easter story."
How sad to think that could even be true for some of us, to totally ignore the point of the Easter story in that way!
"That we in good faith disagree with your human traditions about the meaning of Easter does not mean I am not telling the Easter story."
That's exactly what it means. And again, I've not dealt in "human traditions" in my post detailing the significance of Easter. I've simply related what is true and in an accurate manner. You don't speak of Easter at all.
Marshal...
"The events that led to the crucifixion are the means by which the crucifixion came to pass."
They are the REASON, according to the Gospel story. "And they began to plot his death..." Were the Pharisees plotting his death because "sin?" Or because Jesus said explosive things that threatened them? IN THE TEXT AND CONTEXT, it's the latter.
"The reason Christ died was sin. This is basic stuff. In reality, the crucifixion."
It can be said that sin was METAPHORICALLY the reason Jesus died. In that it's a sin to kill off someone for speaking Truth to Power about oppressive religious and civic systems and abuse of wealth. But the Pharisees didn't say, "Hm. There's a thing called Sin. Therefore, let's kill Jesus."
They killed Jesus because they considered him and his teachings a threat.
Marshal... " In Hebrew law, blood sacrifice was the means of atonement for sin. It's all through Scripture, particularly OT, and continues with Jesus."
But only METAPHORICALLY. It's not like an angry god said, "ooo... I really hate how bad you are. I'm a-gonna punish you with fire forever! Oh, what? Wait? Someone's paid a lamb blood sacrifice? Okay, well, that debt's paid then. I've been literally appeased by this blood sacrifice."
You GET that it's metaphor, not a literal blood payment, right?
And that, according to the Bible. For instance, speaking of blood sacrifices to "pay for sin," the author of Hebrews says, in chapter 10...
The law is only a
shadow
of the good things that are coming
not the realities themselves...
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased..."
NOT the realities themselves.
Here's a good lesson explaining why such language should not be taken literally (beyond the fact that it's clearly figurative language).
https://redeeminggod.com/hebrews-9-22-shedding-of-blood-forgiveness-of-sins/
"The events that led up to Easter ARE the reasons his death happened."
Clearly God's plan was not in any way shape or form the reason why Jesus died as He did.
It's all focused on the actions of humans. Just leave God completely out of it. Just because Jesus made it clear that He was going to the cross voluntarily and because it was the will of His Father is irrelevant.
Craig... "Clearly God's plan was not in any way shape or form the reason why Jesus died as He did."
Not sure if this is supposed to be directed to me. It SOUNDS like it is, but given your trend of being vague and accusing me of assuming it's about me when you're speaking generally or blaming me for ignoring it when I assume it's not about me.
But, assuming this is directed towards me: You understand, don't you, that I said NOTHING about God's plan not being involved?
Indeed, I DO believe God's plan was at play in Jesus' story and teachings up to and including his capitol murder and resurrection. I believe this because Jesus regularly referred to God's plan.
God had sent him, Jesus said, to seek and to save that which is lost. God had sent him, Jesus said, to preach good news of the realm of God specifically to the poor and marginalized. Jesus came to teach that we may have life and that, more abundantly.
Yes, I believe Jesus taught us about God's plan and thus, I believe in God's plan in Jesus' story.
Understand?
It's just that I DON'T think God's plan had anything to do with a literal blood sacrifice to literally "pay" or "pay a ransom" for "our sin" to "purchase our salvation" like a business transaction dealing with an angry and impudent little god. And why don't I think this is an apt description of God's plan in Jesus life and teaching? Because Jesus never taught this.
I think that Jesus came teaching what he taught as part of an overall plan to teach about salvation - NOT by appeasing an angry little god with a brutal blood sacrifice - but by a way of Grace for all, starting with and especially including the "least of these..." Salvation is not in power or brutality or punishment or vengeance. Salvation is in the way of Grace, assuming a servant nature, working for justice, loving all of humanity as God loves.
There is, in fact, precisely ONE spot that Jesus said ANYTHING that even remotely sounded like this "blood sacrifice" "appease an angry god" theory of atonement. In Matthew 20, we see...
"When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.
Jesus called them together and said,
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them,
and their high officials exercise authority over them.
Not so with you.
Instead,
whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
and whoever wants to be first must be your slave —
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and
to give his life as a ransom for many.”
In that ONE place and indeed, that ONE word, we have Jesus making an allusion that COULD be taken to be referring to a blood sacrifice to appease an angry god. But not if you take it contextually.
Contextually in that passage AND contextually in the teachings of Jesus overall, we find Jesus speaking of that way of Grace, not of power and top down lording it over people, but in even GOD assuming an humble, loving servant nature. Grace, kindness, forgiveness, humility, love... THIS is the plan that Jesus came teaching.
And that is the plan I affirm.
Understand?
"They are the REASON, according to the Gospel story."
If you want to say that the personal hatred of the religious leaders were the "reason" Christ died, that can only be said as the most insignificant of reasons compared to the actual reasons He died. Of course, Christ also said that He gave His life, not that anyone took it from Him. That is to say, the Pharisees can hate and plot all they liked and they'd not have been able to put Christ to death had He chose not to let them. They simply lacked the power. So, their hurt feelings were not the "reason" Christ died at all. They were simply the means by which His death came to pass.
"Were the Pharisees plotting his death because "sin?" Or because Jesus said explosive things that threatened them?"
None of that matters for reasons given above. Their feelings of being threatened by Christ simply don't matter as to the reason Christ died. However they felt, whatever they plotted to do about how they felt, sin was the reason Christ died. More to the point, He died to save us from the consequences of sin as well as to bring us closer to the Father.
"It can be said that sin was METAPHORICALLY the reason Jesus died."
Only by morons and "progressive" "Christians" (same thing). The truth is that it was the actual reason why Jesus died. Indeed, it was His purpose to die to save us. It's actual Christians refer to Him as "Savior". From what did He save us? The Pharisees? Hardly, even if that can be regarded as collateral consequence.
"But the Pharisees didn't say, "Hm. There's a thing called Sin. Therefore, let's kill Jesus.""
How absurd. You truly seem to be hung up on what the Pharisees thought as if it mattered. They could have simply hated Christ's fashion sense and it wouldn't have mattered regarding the reason Christ died. Think (if that's actually possible for you) of it this way:
Why did the soldier die? Because the enemy shot him? No. Because the soldier volunteered to risk his life on behalf of others. The motivations of the enemy are inconsequential to that. The soldier would have been ready to risk regardless of why the enemy chose to be a threat. The purpose of the soldier is to fight and defend. It's why he came and why he inevitably died. The purpose of Christ was to die and save us from the consequences of sin. It's the reason He died.
"They killed Jesus because they considered him and his teachings a threat."
Why they killed Him is not why He died. It's the means by which He died, not the reason why He died. Jesus had to die, as it's why He came. He foretold it to His apostles. The OT foretold it as well.
"But only METAPHORICALLY."
Wrong again.
"It's not like an angry god said..."
Why do you insist on this type of language. For God to demand justice does not make Him "an angry god". Yet, He does demand justice. Yet again, basic stuff.
"You GET that it's metaphor, not a literal blood payment, right?"
I get that you need to believe it's a metaphor to appease your kumbaya sensibilities about the true nature of God.
As to Hebrews 10, you're totally corrupting the teaching as is the dude in your link.
"In that ONE place and indeed, that ONE word, we have Jesus making an allusion that COULD be taken to be referring to a blood sacrifice to appease an angry god."
First of all, Christ never used or referred to a concept of "appeasing an angry god", so stop putting words in His mouth. But that's clearly not the only place where He affirms what I've been saying. I provided two other places where He does so (John 12:23-33 & Matthew 26:28). It is further affirmed by Paul, John and Peter.
Marshal... "Why do you insist on this type of language. For God to demand justice does not make Him "an angry god..."
I imagine that you know that, other than Jesus' sermons, one of THE most famous sermons in all of Christendom is Jonathan Edwards's"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God..."?
I use the term because the notion is common in evangelical circles. Billy Graham preached the same sermon... as did Mark Devers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tonyreinke.com/2007/07/24/jonathan-edwards-sinners-hands-angry-god/amp/
Beyond its familiarity In Christian circles, the imagery of an angry god fits with evangelical thinking that ordinary sins need to be punished by an eternity of damnation and that God is not able to simply forgive and still maintain Justice. That this angry little God is rendered impotent in the face of sin leaving only one tool - vicious, outsized punishment.
We're you not familiar with Edwards' sermon and its legacy?
I googled "list of most famous sermons ever" and the 1st link answered the question simply, Jonathan Edwards' Sinners in the hands of an Angry God.
Another source listed the top 10 preachers of the last 1000 years and Jonathan Edwards was number 8. And the author said...
"His sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” may be the most famous sermon ever preached — at least since the days of Christ..."
https://www.preaching.com/articles/the-ten-greatest-preachers-of-the-millennium/
Christian education and church history are wonderful things. Of course, I knew about Edwards because I grew up in ultra conservative churches where this was our reading material.
Marshal... "stop putting words in His mouth"
Just to be absolutely clear about what should be abundantly clear... I am not the one saying that Jesus is talking about an angry God. That would be evangelicals, as I have now pointed out. This is your cohorts' reasoning, NOT mine.
No, I haven't read the sermons. I'll be sure to do so in order to determine if you've once again failed to understand plain English.
In the meantime, I would insist that there is no justice by letting a sinner off the hook. It's not a matter of what God is able to do, but of what He will do according to HIS nature and HIS sense of justice, not according the self-serving notions of some fake from Kentucky.
Marshal... " I would insist that there is no justice by letting a sinner off the hook."
I am not something about letting someone off the hook. When talking about wrongdoing come up and talking about Justice giving a proportionate and appropriate response or punishment. Him saying punishing someone for eternity of torment for typical human wrongdoing is not just. As defined in The Bible. And by good common sense.
A couple of things:
1. It occurs to me that you often see fit to reference Evangelicals as if I should care what Evangelicals say or do. I've never referred to myself as anything other than a Christian, and though I happen to have most recently attended an Evangelical Free Church, I do so because I was aware of the pastor and his positions on Scripture and found them sound and in alignment with my understanding of Its clearly revealed teachings. I may find that to be true of the sermon you think supports your position once I've found time to read it.
2. With the above in mind, and my comment regarding you putting words into the mouth of Jesus, I'll remind you of your ploy to insist what Christ says is what we should follow and how that is directly ignored by suggesting it makes a difference what any preacher might say regarding an angry god. That is, it is irrelevant to my own position which is all I present unless specifically identified as the position of someone else. This means your objections, criticisms and comments should only be directed to what I've said here...or anywhere else...without bringing up what other say or believe as if it reflects on me or influences me. You've identified yourself in a variety of ways over the years...such as "progressive" (*snicker*)...and as such you put yourself in a position to defend progressive ideology. Yet I still prefer to deal only with your own personal goofiness.
3. In your final comment, you once again display your arrogance in presuming to dictate that what constitutes justice in the eyes of God must align with our own human representation. You then have the greater arrogance as to presume what seems just or unjust to you equates to common sense. You've made clear that you believe yourself to have the authority to dictate which of God's laws of behavior can be dismissed and rejected as if there is any Scripture that supports this audacity. I'm sure God has been properly educated in what should and shouldn't offend Him, because you say so.
Marshal... "You then have the greater arrogance as to presume what seems just or unjust to you equates to common sense."
1. You keep making comments like this, as if I'm talking about some obscure weird notion of Justice. I'm speaking about Justice as is commonly understood by all of humanity, by and large. Minus the sociopaths, narcissists and Trump-types. But I repeat myself.
2. Common sense, the golden rule, basic human decency... all recognise that unjust actions are wrong, and that wildly disproportionate punishment responses to wrongs and misdeeds are, themselves, wrong and unjust. You do not chop off a child's hand for telling a lie or stealing a lollipop. Doing so would be a horrifically immoral and unjust response. I am sure you agree, right?
In so, out repeat what were talking about here is not some weird unique to Dan idea about Justice. It is common amongst humanity. Even you and I agree with at least my example, I am sure.
3. The problem with your hunch, it seems to me, is that you are saying when God is using the word Just or Justice in The Bible, they are speaking about some foreign concept that is not what we mean by Just amongst humans. Is that what you are saying?
The problem with that is that then means that we can't trust our understanding to ANY words in The Bible. If any or all given words in The Bible can mean something incomprehensible to us and not what we mean by that word, than The Bible becomes incomprehensible, whimsical and untrustworthy. If we don't know the meanings of ANY of the words, then we don't know the meaning of The Bible. Don't you see the problem with that reasoning?
How do you know God means by love what we mean by love? How do you know that what God means by redemption is what we mean by redemption? How do you know what God means by the word God is what we mean by the word God? You're advocating an incomprehensible nonsense Bible. Where am I mistaken?
Also, how do YOU know that the word defined Justice in English as used in The Bible doesn't mean Justice as we understand it? Are you relying upon OTHER words in Your Runic Bible to reach that conclusion? Then how do you know YOUR understanding of those words are reliable? Your argument is self defeating.
Dan, regarding your last...
1. No. You continue to ignore or miss the point. There's a difference between discussions of common understanding of Justice by whatever number of the world's population you wish to presume agrees versus presuming God's Justice must reflect our human understanding in every detail. We are not God. We are nothing like God. We cannot know His every thought and those like yourself are not willing to try if it means a conflict with your socialist nonsense. We humans base our justice on that which offends us or pleases us. But what pleases or offends God is not identical. It really comes down to believe and obey or disbelieve and do what you want. Our justice hinges on specific acts...not belief and obedience to ourselves.
2. Disproportionate according to whom? You again ignore that which God finds displeasing and you don't even consider just how displeased He might be by something. Worse, you don't consider that you have no problem accepting the disproportionate heavenly reward you no doubt feel you have coming. What did you do to deserve eternity with God? What can you do? You're more than willing to accept there's eternal joy in His presence as a reward for belief and obedience, but you reject the eternal punishment as a consequence of disbelief and disobedience. Somehow to you the former is justice and the latter is not. It's not a balanced scale the way you demand God respond.
3. Not at all. What I'm saying is that your position fails because you force God to act like a person rather than the God He is. You demand He must not punish too severely by YOUR twisted and corrupt standard for His behavior.
The Bible is not incomprehensible. Your demands on Him are. What I've been saying about God and justice is not at all irrational, unreasonable or in any way apart from the truth. It's not tough to understand unless one is so wrapped up in assuming authority one doesn't have to pick and choose which behavior God should regard as acceptable. When one reads Scripture as it is written, there is no problem understanding God's justice at all. But you have to assume you have the same authority as Him, or you have to presume to lower Him to our level in order to feel good about what you want to believe about Him...to pretend what you want to believe is at all true, possible or likely. As such you're not talking about justice at all. You're talking about self-worship...putting yourself before God, which has been obvious of you for quite a long time.
So where are you mistaken? In pretending there's some flaw in my position...that my position presents problems for understanding God and His nature and will. In pretending that your farce of an argument is honest and supportable.
"Also, how do YOU know that the word defined Justice in English as used in The Bible doesn't mean Justice as we understand it?"
Again, it's not a question of definition. It's a question of what pleases and displeases God and on what basis He rewards or punishes. You think it's up to you to dictate to Him what He finds displeasing and how He must respond to that which He does.
"Then how do you know YOUR understanding of those words are reliable?"
I'm not a "progressive" "Christian" who rebels against God's word as clearly revealed in Scripture. I'm not a moron like such (you specifically) who so laughingly regard themselves as Christians.
"Your argument is self defeating."
No. You're referring to your argument that you project upon me. My position has nothing to do with the definition of "justice".
Marshal... "it's not a question of definition. It's a question of what pleases and displeases God and on what basis He rewards or punishes. You think it's up to you to dictate to Him what He finds displeasing and how He must respond to that which He does."
I am not speaking of definition. And speaking of understanding. On what basis can you claim that your understanding is correct in my understanding is mistaken?
On what basis do you think YOU have the right understanding of what pleases God and doesn't displease God? After all you are not God, and as you say, God is so much greater and different than you, as a mere mortal. How do you know that you are understanding correctly?
On what objective measurable criteria can you make such a claim? Don't you see this coming down to you saying, "I THINK my understanding is best - in spite of the problem with the understanding Justice to mean something that is not just - and I THINK Dan's understanding is mistaken..."?
Isn't that just a matter of your unproven and unprovable opinion? Can you at least recognise that and acknowledge it?
Marshal... "I'm not a "progressive" "Christian" who rebels against God's word as clearly revealed in Scripture."
Of course, the objective facts are that I am not rebelling against scripture. I hold a different interpretation of scripture, which scripture I love in value and that is why I hold this position. It is a good faith position I hold seeking to follow God and do right. There is no deliberate rebellion.
And, if your saying that someone can read scripture and in good faith reach an opinion that is in rebellion - even if accidentally - then how do you know YOU'RE not in rebellion accidentally?
Marshal... "The Bible is not incomprehensible."
I haven't said so. And pointing out that you are saying so. I think The Bible's pretty clear about the nature of God and Justice. And yet you think I'm not comprehending it correctly. Thus, you literally think I am not comprehending it.
"Your demands on Him are."
I've made no demands of God. Literally. That hasn't happened in my words.
I AM asking you for some consistency in how you interpret things, or that you recognise that and admitting you have no objective consistent way of interpreting things.
But me having expectations for you explaining yourself are not the same thing is me having demands for God. Unlike you, I don't comnflate you with God.
"What I've been saying about God and justice is not at all irrational, unreasonable or in any way apart from the truth."
And yet, in reality, it is to me and many others. You see, saying that for a person who has committed normal misdeeds like lying and going 10 miles over the speed limit and getting angry in a wrong manner, etc, These are miss deeds, but it would be crazy to say that someone should be punished a lifetime in jail for it. and horrifying to say they should be punished an eternity in something like a fiery Hell... some kind of eternal torment.
Indeed, you almost certainly would agree that Putting a young adult in jail for life for 20 years of stealing candy and lying and typical childhood misdeeds would be a gross abuse of Justice. Would you not? And if you and I can agree on that travesty of Justice, then perhaps you could see why other people think your hunch about eternal punishment is unjust. Were not judging God. Were judging your hunches.
So, your theory is irrational to many people as a point of fact. And I believe it's irrational even to you, if you could agree the jailing a young adult for a lifetime for typical small sins is unjust.
Marshal... "You demand He must not punish too severely by YOUR twisted and corrupt standard for His behavior."
I am saying that It would be twisted and awful and a great abuse of Justice to take a 25 year old person, tell him that the various sins he's committed in his 25 years... lying and stealing 10 pieces of candy and lusting after 100 women, beating up his brother 3 times, laughing at a disabled person, spitting on a homeless man!, taking a pencil from his office and cheating on 4 tests, etc etc... To say to that man, "because of all of these sins, you are punished to spend the rest of your life in prison."
I think that punishment would be a great injustice. Does That mean I think his various sense were no big deal? No! Of course not. Some of those actions were despicable. But to punish him for lifetime for what amount to relatively smaller sins would be calm itself, a great injustice. It is a great injustice because the penalty is wildly disproportionate to the sin.
Do you disagree?
What in that, then, is twisted and corrupt? And by whose authority and on what basis do you call that twisted and corrupt?
"I am not speaking of definition. And speaking of understanding. On what basis can you claim that your understanding is correct in my understanding is mistaken?"
On the basis of a plain reading of the clear teaching of Scripture, as well as your proven inability to comprehend such.
"On what basis do you think YOU have the right understanding of what pleases God and doesn't displease God?"
For the purposes of this discussion, I don't need to know of anything that either pleases or displeases Him. That's irrelevant to the issue regarding justice. Are you going to keep going on tangents, or will you stick around for awhile on this topic?
"How do you know that you are understanding correctly?"
What am I failing to understand? In your mind it's what constitutes justice. The reality here is that it is you who fail to understand that you don't get to dictate to God what He finds displeasing and how He chooses to deal with it. And I'm certainly not failing to understand what Scripture says about His justice, eternal punishment, etc. You want to say it's metaphor. But where is the issue dealt with in plain language if the plain language I reference is only metaphor? As usual, you say such things without the plain meaning behind what you want to insist is metaphor, which you insist is the case because it offends you personally to take it any other way. Boo-hoo.
"On what objective measurable criteria can you make such a claim? Don't you see this coming down to you saying, "I THINK my understanding is best..."
Actually, it's really more the fact that your understanding is clearly crap.
"...in spite of the problem with the understanding Justice to mean something that is not just..."
Your desperate desire that this be true is proof your comprehension skills are crap as well. I've never referred to justice in a manner that means something that is not just.
"...and I THINK Dan's understanding is mistaken..."? "
No. I know, because it's so clear to see, Dan's understanding is crap. Indeed, it's not "understanding" at all.
"Isn't that just a matter of your unproven and unprovable opinion?"
No. Not at all.
"Of course, the objective facts are that I am not rebelling against scripture."
Yes. You are. Quite a bit, in fact.
"It is a good faith position I hold seeking to follow God and do right. There is no deliberate rebellion."
Says you. But your many posts and comments at other blogs demonstrate you seek "to follow God and do right". This is evidenced by your many starkly contradictory positions.
"And, if your saying that someone can read scripture and in good faith reach an opinion that is in rebellion - even if accidentally - then how do you know YOU'RE not in rebellion accidentally?"
Feel free to try and make that case. Just don't do it right now on this thread. Maybe at your blog where you'll delete me when I prove you wrong again.
More later. Save any response you might feel compelled to make until I've covered your last two comments above.
"I think The Bible's pretty clear about the nature of God and Justice. And yet you think I'm not comprehending it correctly. Thus, you literally think I am not comprehending it."
Redundant much? But more to the point, I know you're not comprehending it correctly.
"I've made no demands of God. Literally. That hasn't happened in my words."
You do. Constantly. It happens routinely, and has for over a decade, in your words.
"I AM asking you for some consistency in how you interpret things..."
First try providing evidence of inconsistency on my part.
"But me having expectations for you explaining yourself are not the same thing is me having demands for God."
Not an argument I've made.
"Unlike you, I don't comnflate you with God."
Nice unmerited and unsupported allegation. You default to this nonsense with every citation of Scripture I make. At the same time, you reject God with every objection to citations that correct your corruptions or your unsupportable interpretations.
"And yet, in reality, it is to me and many others."
"Others" are irrelevant. I'm dealing with you and you alone here. You're presumptuous in asserting "others" would be fine with you speaking on their behalf.
"You see, saying that for a person who has committed normal misdeeds like lying and going 10 miles over the speed limit...snip...gross abuse of Justice. Would you not?"
Here again you prove you're not comprehending. You're again demanding the God's response to sin should be in alignment with yours. So unlike what you assert about me, you're either putting yourself above God or playing God yourself. Good luck with that.
"And if you and I can agree on that travesty of Justice, then perhaps you could see why other people think your hunch about eternal punishment is unjust."
It's a question of what makes a punishment just or unjust, not whether any particular punishment is or isn't. For the record, I'd wager a survey of all who sustained punishment for breaking a law would result in many...if not most...insisting their punishment was too harsh. That's not how just punishments are decided, yet that's how you judge God.
"So, your theory is irrational to many people as a point of fact."
"Many people" is irrelevant. I'm dealing with you and you alone here.
"And I believe it's irrational even to you, if you could agree the jailing a young adult for a lifetime for typical small sins is unjust."
I try to deal in apples-to-apples. You should, too.
"I am saying that It would be twisted and awful and a great abuse of Justice to take a 25 year old person, tell him...snip...you are punished to spend the rest of your life in prison."
I think that punishment would be a great injustice."
Maybe yes, maybe no. Regardless, you continue to miss the point. OR, you're trying to force an equivalency where inappropriate.
"What in that, then, is twisted and corrupt?"
We're not talking about any man-made justice system. It's twisted to conflate human invention with God's will.
"And by whose authority and on what basis do you call that twisted and corrupt?"
Whose authority do I need and where do I get it? You never say.
I have more to say later on this topic...which no longer aligns with the topic of the post, thank you very much (so typical of you when you lose to change the subject)...and will provide links in support of my position and help (hopefully) to clarify it. Until then, feel free to post more wacky comments.
Dan... ""I am saying that It would be twisted and awful and a great abuse of Justice to take a 25 year old person, tell him...snip...you are punished to spend the rest of your life in prison.
I think that punishment would be a great injustice."
Marshal's wishy washy dodge response...
"Maybe yes, maybe no. Regardless, you continue to miss the point. OR, you're trying to force an equivalency where inappropriate."
Maybe yes?
I'm talking about putting someone in jail for the rest of their lives for "typical" sins and you say MAYBE YES, it would be a great injustice?
There's no maybe to it. Maybe that's the problem, here. You have NO understanding of Justice. Justice can not have a disproportionate response to misdeeds or it becomes injustice.
Now, answer the question put to you. It's a reasonable question and you saying that it's "forcing an equivalency" doesn't change that. I'm asking you if you can simply acknowledge that what humans are talking about when we're talking about justice is flawed, sure, and imperfect, sure... but it's NOT corrupt nor is it unreasonable.
Do you acknowledge that reality or are you just insane?
Do you think it is acceptable to chop off a child's hand for stealing a cookie? OR, do you agree with most of humanity that this would be a great travesty of justice, a horror, an EVIL?
For justice to be just, it must include a proportionate response to misdeeds.
Do you agree with that basic notion of Justice?
Stop dodging.
My answer is not a dodge...your question is.
"I'm talking about putting someone in jail for the rest of their lives..."
And it's irrelevant and a diversion from the point.
"Maybe that's the problem, here. You have NO understanding of Justice."
The problem is you insist on pretending that's the case when the point here isn't a matter of defining "justice". The problem is you falsely insist human forms of justice are those by which God must align His sense of justice. The problem is you rejecting God because He punishes in a manner that offends your sensitive feelings.
"Justice can not have a disproportionate response to misdeeds or it becomes injustice."
I'm sure God is filled with remorse for having run afoul of Dan Trabue's standards of proportionality.
"Now, answer the question put to you."
Just delete me. Oh wait! This isn't your blog! Here's a better demand: stick to the topic!
"It's a reasonable question and you saying that it's "forcing an equivalency" doesn't change that."
It's an irrelevant question and "forcing an equivalency" is in line with the point.
"I'm asking you if you can simply acknowledge that what humans are talking about when we're talking about justice is flawed, sure, and imperfect, sure... but it's NOT corrupt nor is it unreasonable."
Another example of your poor comprehension skills. It's your position which is twisted and corrupt...not the general definition of justice or even how it typically manifests in the judicial systems in most of the western world.
Can you acknowledge that reality or are you just insane?
"Do you think it is acceptable to chop off a child's hand for stealing a cookie?"
Irrelevant question.
"For justice to be just, it must include a proportionate response to misdeeds.
Do you agree with that basic notion of Justice?"
Not at issue here.
"Stop dodging."
You're projecting while yourself dodging. Neither the definition of justice nor its typical manifestations in the judicial systems of most of the western world is at issue here.
Marshal... "And it's irrelevant and a diversion from the point."
YOU made the claim about me, about... "YOUR twisted and corrupt standard for His behavior."
My standard for justice (not God) is as I've said - that any penalty can't be disproportionate the the crime. YOU APPEAR to be making some claim (ENTIRELY unsupported claim) that God has some different notion of Justice than what we do. I'm asking YOU about YOUR stupidly false and incredibly inane claim that I have a twisted/corrupt standard for Justice (the topic being discussed) and whether or not God has some different standard for justice.
Therefore, it's precisely on topic, NOT irrelevant. The topic is justice and God, I'm trying to establish if we have some common ground on understanding justice.
Now quit dodging and just answer the question.
Marshal... "The problem is you falsely insist human forms of justice are those by which God must align His sense of justice."
No, I'm talking about Justice, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT. Now, you appear to be suggesting that God has a different sense of justice... fine. Support that claim.
If we have no understanding of the words in the Bible, then we are entirely lost and unable to communicate. I'm TRYING mightily to get you to just clear up what YOUR understanding (NOT God's, you arrogant piece of shit - YOUR damned pulled-out-of-your God damned ass opinion/understanding) of Justice.
Quit conflating your gaseous hunches with God or God's Word.
WHAT do you mean by Justice?
DO you think that a penalty can be wildly disproportionate to the crime and still be just?
If so, based on WHAT besides your ridiculously deviant and delusional say-so?
Marshal... "It's your position which is twisted and corrupt."
WHAT SPECIFICALLY about my position is twisted and corrupt? That I believe in punishments proportionate to the wrong-doing? IF that's what you're saying, then support it. HOW is believing in proportionate punishment somehow corrupt or twisted.
Good Lord have mercy.
Marshal... "Neither the definition of justice nor its typical manifestations in the judicial systems of most of the western world is at issue here."
1. DO you think that God has some wildly different understanding of Justice than we do?
2. If so, please define/explain what YOU THINK IN YOUR HEAD what God's understanding of Justice is and support that nonsensical claim.
3. Regardless, you should explain what you think God means by Justice and specifically, can it include a wildly disproportionate punishment.
You keep speaking for God as if you have an understanding of God's sense of unfathomable (apparently, to you) "justice..." then explain what YOU think God means by Justice.
Marshal... "I'm sure God is filled with remorse for having run afoul of Dan Trabue's standards of proportionality."
Let me try it this way...
We're talking about words that we find in The Bible... what they mean.... How we understand them... What God thinks of that concept?
Love is mentioned in The Bible. Loving little children, even. Now if someone reads those words and understands the concept of loving little children meaning to sexually abuse them, you and I would agree that this is a piss poor understanding of the concept of love. We don't believe in question, does God Think that about love? The very question itself is ridiculous because it is clear to us that sexually assaulting children is NOT love. EVEN IF the word is found in The Bible.
You and I can agree on that, right?
Now come a likewise, the word Justice is found in The Bible. Inform any people it is every bit as obvious that you couldn't morally cut off a child's hand to punish them for stealing, that would not be Justice.And so, the question of, what do you mean by Justice? Is an appropriate and rational question in the conversation.One concept, 1 part of understanding Justice is the notion of any punishment being proportionate. A wildly disproportionate punishment that does not fit the crime is not Justice.
Not as we humans typically understand Justice.
Do you agree with that concept?
Once we establish where we stand on this concept of proportionality as it relates to Justice, then you can I can start talking about reasons God may or may not agree with that notion. But first we need to understand what the hell you believe.
Do you agree that the concept of proportionality is a key component of understanding Justice?
"YOU made the claim about me, about... "YOUR twisted and corrupt standard for His behavior.""
Yes I did. Yet YOU ask:
"I'm asking YOU about YOUR...claim that I have a twisted/corrupt standard for Justice..."
What's wrong with this picture?
"YOU APPEAR to be making some claim (ENTIRELY unsupported claim) that God has some different notion of Justice than what we do."
I don't know why it would when I've never so much as hinted such a thing. You continue to be hung up on definitions not at issue.
"The topic is justice and God, I'm trying to establish if we have some common ground on understanding justice."
Maybe it would help if you would seek out, then copy/paste where I presented a definition you find problematic. And actually, the topic is Easter, but what the hell...
"Now quit dodging and just answer the question."
I'm not dodging. Dodging would be more accurately illustrated by your constant trips down Tangent Way.
"No, I'm talking about Justice, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT."
No. You're talking about justice as we apply it. "We" being we humans.
"Now, you appear to be suggesting that God has a different sense of justice..."
Not even slightly.
"I'm TRYING mightily to get you to just clear up what YOUR understanding (NOT God's, you arrogant piece of shit - YOUR damned pulled-out-of-your God damned ass opinion/understanding) of Justice."
There you go embracing grace again.
Over and over again you continue to fret over definitions I've not disputed, not altered nor argued against. There's something seriously wrong with you.
"WHAT do you mean by Justice? "
The same thing most people mean. The same thing most dictionaries present.
"DO you think that a penalty can be wildly disproportionate to the crime and still be just?"
In theory, no. But who gets to decide what's "wildly disproportionate"? Can a reward be wildly disproportionate and still be just?
"If so, based on WHAT besides your ridiculously deviant and delusional say-so?"
This from a guy who supports and enables homosexuality, abortion and believes God's cool with. My "say-so" is never ridiculous, deviant or delusional just because you "say-so". Indeed, if YOU "say-so", then I'm definitely right on the money.
"WHAT SPECIFICALLY about my position is twisted and corrupt?"
That God is unjust if He punishes in a manner that offends your sensitive feelings...as if He should care what you think. I pretty much said this when you first broached the subject of His justice, but you had to waste so much time on definition and such.
"Good Lord have mercy."
Why would that be just?
"1. DO you think that God has some wildly different understanding of Justice than we do?"
No. At least so long as YOU aren't included in the "we". I can't account for anything YOU think any more than YOU can.
"You keep speaking for God ..."
No I don't. That's just something you like to say when you can't think of anything intelligent to present to counter the truth I relate.
"Let me try it this way..."
Oh no. Another crappy Dan Trabue analogy!
"Once we establish where we stand on this concept of proportionality as it relates to Justice, then you can I can start talking about reasons God may or may not agree with that notion."
Please go seek out and copy/paste any comment of mine that so much as hints I've suggested God's "disagrees" with what most rational people understand "justice" to mean.
"Do you agree that the concept of proportionality is a key component of understanding Justice?"
Irrelevant and not at issue.
Marshal...
"In theory, no. But who gets to decide what's "wildly disproportionate"? Can a reward be wildly disproportionate and still be just?"
We're establishing principles. So, you agreed with me and all right-thinking adults that for a penalty to be just, it MUST BE proportionate. Correct?
Why couldn't you say that in the first place and, even now, you state it so tentatively ("in theory...")?
But we agree, then. Justice is NOT Justice if a punishment is disproportionate to the misdeed. Indeed, a penalty could be wildly, grossly unjust.
Part of the problem with our imperfect human understanding of Justice is that we have NO authoritative definition or guideline of what precisely Justice is in every situation, nor what a perfectly just punishment is. Agreed?
No one has told us this, including God. Period.
Agreed?
Nonetheless, we can recognize Unjust punishment when we see it. Right?
Chopping off a child's hand for stealing a piece of candy would be grossly evil, not just at all. Stoning to death a gay person for being gay would be a great evil, agreed? Jailing someone (say, a 30 year old) for life for hundreds of "typical sins" (lying, cheating, stealing candy, gossip, etc) would be an affront to Justice.
Can you agree at least that far?
You're tired, boring and redundant in rehashing that which is irrelevant, unnecessary and established already (so no need to re-establish yet again). So I'm going to just get right to it.
It doesn't matter what I believe is just, even after I define the word in the typical manner. This is where your lamentations are irrelevant. Every effort you're making is another manifestation of you dictating whether or not a punishment is "just" based on YOUR criteria. Look at your most recent:
"Chopping off a child's hand for stealing a piece of candy would be grossly evil, not just at all."
We may both agree, but doing so demonstrates our standards...standards which may not be shared by all. Sharia-influenced nations still mete out punishments of this sort.
"Stoning to death a gay person for being gay would be a great evil, agreed?"
This, too, is not uncommon in other parts of the world. I'll break it down further: there's a difference between being "gay" versus engaging in homosexual behavior. In Scripture, the latter is punished, not the former. What's more, God declared the punishment for the former is "on their own heads". Keep this in mind for later.
"Jailing someone (say, a 30 year old) for life for hundreds of "typical sins" (lying, cheating, stealing candy, gossip, etc) would be an affront to Justice."
Many would insist various terms of incarceration are unjust lengths of time for specific crimes, particularly when one is sentenced for them. The point is that "disproportionate" is an ongoing discussion for any crime or sin to we humans.
And therein lies your problem. You ignore the reality that it isn't the action so much as on whom the action is perpetrated. Ultimately it's the aggrieved who sets what's appropriate sentence in order to feel justice has been appropriately served them. We, as a society, anticipate the feeling of having an act perpetrated against us and as such set sentences for conviction. Someone might steal your pen and you just shrug. Another might steal your car, and you'll call the cops. The same act impacts you differently on an emotional, psychological and even financial level. If you have two cars and someone steals the beater, you'll be less aggrieved than if the dude stole your Maserati. Two cars, the same sin, but you don't regard the former as all that serious because to you it isn't when compared against the theft of the more expensive vehicle.
And now we narrow it down more. It's criminal to you. Sinful to you.
But what about God? Doesn't He get any consideration? Are you going to continue dictating to Him what must aggrieve Him and to what degree? Evidently so. You ignore Who it is against Whom we sin. You ignore His Holiness. You ignore how He feels about it. Instead, you focus on how the thought of eternal punishment sits with YOU, as if YOU ultimately are the one whose feelings and standards must be considered by Him before He can pass judgement and levy justice. That's some incredible hubris and arrogance. Where the hell do you get off?
The following links address every angle of your self-satisfied drivel:
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/will-hell-really-last-forever
https://www.str.org/w/is-eternal-punishment-just-1
https://coffeehousequestions.com/2016/01/26/why-is-eternal-punishment-fair/
https://faith.edu/faith-news/evangelicals-and-the-doctrine-of-eternal-punishment/
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/annihilation-or-eternal-punishment/
Dodge, evade, whimper, dodge.
Marshal... "You ignore the reality that it isn't the action so much as on whom the action is perpetrated. Ultimately it's the aggrieved who sets what's appropriate sentence in order to feel justice..."
The problem here is that you serve a wimpy-ass, petty, impotent little flea of a god. A whiny baby-god.
A tiny-minded god not concerned with morality or Justice or reason, but on fussing about little shitstains in his diaper.
And keep in mind, this is not a criticism of God Almighty. It is a criticism of your frail, wheezing little image of God.
Imagine God Almighty as Infinitely More, not puny, spineless and less.
"And keep in mind, this is not a criticism of God Almighty."
It absolutely is. First of all, I've no doubt you didn't read a single link I posted in my last comment. Secondly, it wouldn't matter because all of what is posted is based on Scripture and you reject Scripture because you want hate the God it describes and prefer the fiction you've invented to take His place. "Wimpy-ass" is exactly the god you prefer...one who is as sensitive as you are.
But once again, you prove that you do not regard sin in the same way God does and you hate Him for daring to find it more egregious than you do. You want morality based on what please you, and so you hate Him for not falling in line with that according to the clear teachings of Scripture. So instead of making an actual case to counter the truth and facts I've presented, you throw another of your typical grace-embracing tantrums, presuming I'm somehow offended by your outrage that I would dare adhere to Scriptural teaching of the God that offends you so badly.
How dare God run afoul of the almighty Ducky-Dan Trabue!! May He repent of His sin someday and become the kumbaya god Dan demands He be!!
Let me ask you, Dan...when you were an actual child...rather than the petulant man-child you've become...and you did something that angered your mother, did you reject her for not adhering to YOUR demand that she not be so offended? Did you refer to her as a "whiny baby-mom"? How about your wife? Is she a "whiny baby-woman" any time she disagrees with something you've done or seek to so?
God doesn't operate on your terms, Danny-girl, no matter how badly you insist He must in order for you to give Him His due. It's crystal clear to me now why you're so opposed to the truth of eternal punishment.
Marshal... "How dare God run afoul of the almighty Ducky-Dan Trabue!"
Again, I'm not complaining about God. I'm critiquing your little toy-tyrant-god.
YOU have not shown that God demands to punish someone for an eternity for petty human sins of the every day sort.
YOU have not shown that God does not demand penalties be proportionate to the crime.
YOU have not shown that God deems our every day sins to be worthy of eternal damnation.
These are all YOUR ideas, NOT anything the Bible says or that God has told you.
Marshal... "did you reject her for not adhering to YOUR demand that she not be so offended? Did you refer to her as a "whiny baby-mom"?"
My mother never tried to punish me for an eternity for my wrongs. She's not petty and tyrannical and evil, like your little flaccid god in your mind.
You see, YOU are beginning with the assumption that "God DOES ABSOLUTELY DEEM our petty normal sins to be SO offensive as to deserve everlasting torment."
Isn't that right?
But THAT is precisely the question that is being raised. And yes, I did read your first little boy link that does JUST what you are doing: Start with the assumption and demand that others prove them wrong. You've got to make your case first.
Why?
Because YOU are the one demanding an utterly unjust human vision of what your god is - that your god is willing to punish someone an eternity for petty sins. Here on earth, such a punishment would be balked at as evil. IF you had a loved one placed in jail for life for every day sins, YOU would be outraged. At least, if you were a halfway decent human being, you would, and not a coward.
First of all: Make clear what your position is:
DO YOU really believe that it could be just to punish someone a lifetime for petty sins OR is that utterly evil?
THEN, you can make your case, "Well, I think TO GOD, our petty sins ARE a great evil deserving of eternal torment because..." AND MAKE YOUR CASE.
You can't assume your case and ask people to defer to such an evil proposition.
To deal with some of your links' nonsense and unsupported, irrational AND UNBIBLICAL claims... From Faith.edu:
"1. What we see happening with the modification of the doctrine of eternal Punishment is a reflection on God Himself. The very center of this discussion is the Bible’s teaching regarding the character and sovereign working of God. We are witnessing the remaking of God in our own image, making Him the kind of God we can defend and wish Him to be."
Of course, the position of BOTH SIDES (we'll call it both sides for now, acknowledging that there is a spectrum of beliefs/opinions on the topic) is a reflection on God's Self.
For those who argue as you do: YOUR reflection of god is a petty little tyrant god who is impotent in the face of sin and your god's only response is to punish it for an eternity (unless the human in question repents in just the right way). YOUR reflection of God is that god is fine with an unjust response to sin - unjust as it is rightly known and EVEN AS YOU almost certainly would agree, if you'd just make it clear.
For those who argue as I do: OUR reflection of God is a God that is Just AND Gracious AND fair AND reasonable... NOT an irrational tyrant baby god, but a Good and just God as we understand those words.
In other words, both of our views are reflections on what we think about God. It's just that mine is more biblical and rational and moral than yours.
Do you understand that much?
In stating it this way, the author, like you, is starting with the presumption that THEIR interpretation of god's notions of justice is the right one and others are just disagreeing with their god. When what is actually happening is we're disagreeing with THEIR OPINION of God and of justice and they can't just make the assumption that they're right. They have to make their case.
Understand?
"2. The denial of eternal punishment includes denying some other doctrinal matters, such as the immortality of the soul, and also the modifying of others, such as the holiness of God, the consequences of sin, the nature of salvation, and the meaning of dying and perishing."
The denying of their/your human ideas of eternal punishments means denying THEIR opinions about these various matters. But we're doing so in order to maintain a more rational and biblical view on these topics.
That they/you can view God as "holy" and yet, have your holy god be fine with wildly disproportionate punishments for typical sins is a presumption that I'd say they/you make in error. It's certainly not biblical.
Again, all of this is starting with the presumption that God supports wildly disproportionate punishments that would be considered evil in a human and THAT is not biblical and not something you all are supporting.
I can go through, point by point, with all your links and show how wrong-headed and arrogantly presumptuous they are... but that's the same that I've been doing with you, to no affect.
Part of the problem with some (all?) of your links is this presumption that they are the ones speaking for god and the Bible and how DARE we disagree with god (their opinions of god, that is)? Here's a good link that points out how these people/you are not even relying upon orthodox Christianity.
"For instance, many Christians insist that if you question hell, you are rejecting what has always been agreed upon by the Church, yet the doctrine of eternal torment was not a widely held view for the first five centuries after Christ, particularly in the early Eastern Church, the Church of the early apostles and Church fathers such as Paul, Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, and others.
What we do see during this time is the expansion and proliferation of pagan myths about the afterlife, which were then repackaged as eternal, fiery torment in the Western (Catholic) Church, primarily by Latin theologians and Church leaders from Rome. It seems this was most likely motivated by political expediency. The idea of eternal torment was a prime tool for controlling the average churchgoer with fear and was congruent with secular mythologies of the time. Later, pop culture added fuel to the fire (pun intended) through imaginative works like Dante’s Inferno...
The big point we are building up to here is that the early church fathers DID NOT believe in eternal torment. We aren’t talking about the first guy or two post-Paul. We are talking about the first 5 centuries after Christ.
Let me repeat that, just so we are clear.
Eternal torment was not a pillar of church doctrine for the first 5 centuries after Christ."
https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/how-when-the-idea-of-eternal-torment-invaded-church-doctrine-7610e6b70815
And on it goes.
Marshal... "it wouldn't matter because all of what is posted is based on Scripture and you reject Scripture because you want hate the God it describes and prefer the fiction you've invented to take His place."
MY position is also based upon the Bible. Just a better and more rational and consistent understanding of the Bible than your human traditions.
God and justice in the Bible...
“The Rock, His work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.” (Deuteronomy 32:4).
“Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you.” (Psalm 89:14).
"Even though we speak like this, beloved, we are convinced of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation.
For God is not unjust.
God will not forget your work and the love you have shown for His name as you have ministered to the saints and continue to do so." (Hebrews 6)
“God has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you but
to do justice, and
to love kindness, and
to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8)
"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? So if you who 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!
In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7)
“But woe to you Pharisees!
For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and
neglect justice and the love of God.
These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others,” (Luke 11:42).
"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." (Ezekiel 18:20)
+++++++
DON'T Neglect the justice and love of God, Marshal. For God IS a just God. God will not punish one person for the sins of another. God gives according to the need and deed out of love, not out of blind impatient vengeance.
God's very nature is that of a Just God - a God that responds JUSTLY, not irrationally, childishly harshly. What parent would give their child who asked for a piece of bread a stone instead? AND, what parent, when faced with a child who lied and stole a piece of candy would cut off their tongue and hands in retribution? GOD IS A JUST AND RIGHTEOUS God, bound by love, not irrational knee jerk vengeance. THIS IS BIBLICAL. You can't deny that.
The question then becomes, well, what do we mean by justice? AND THAT is why you should answer the questions that are put to you, to clarify what YOU (not God, but YOU) mean when you consider justice.
More...
Some more reflections to help illustrate the reasonable concept of Justice as talked about in the Bible as a reflection of a perfect, just and loving God.
"The word “retribution” (from the Latin retribuere) simply means “repayment”—the giving back to someone of what they deserve, whether in terms of reimbursement, reward, or reproof. Usually the term is used in the negative sense of punishment for wrongful deeds rather than in the positive sense of reward for good behavior. When the word is used in isolation, it tends to evoke the idea of vengeance or retaliation.
When it is paired with the word “justice” however, it implies a more measured delivery of punishment as due recompense for wrongdoing..."
[Dan - if one is to REPAY for a theft of $100, the rational and just response is to repay the $100, and perhaps some additional to compensate for the ordeal. However, if one has stolen $100, to demand repayment of $1 BILLION... PLUS having their hand cut off... that is not a repayment that is just, that is an irrational vengeance-style repayment, not one based in grace, love AND justice.]
"As a justification for inflicting punishment, retributive justice requires that the recipient must be guilty of wrongdoing (the principle of deserts) and that
the pain of the penalty must be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime
(the principle of equivalence).
In these circumstances the imposition of punishment is not only appropriate, it is morally necessary in order to satisfy the objective standards of justice (the principle of justice). Understood in this way, many justice theorists conceive of retributive justice as a moral alternative to revenge and
as a check against arbitrary or excessive punishment...
"In addition, the basic retributive concepts of guilt, desert,
proportionality,
and atonement are widely attested in the Old Testament legal and cultic system, and undergird moral and theological teaching in the New Testament as well. Furthermore, since God is inherently just, and God’s judgments are never capricious, biblical accounts of divine judgment on sin, both within history and at the end of time, may also be regarded as demonstrations of retributive justice. The biblical story ends with an affirmation of the retributive principle of just deserts: “See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work” (Revelation 22:12).
Accordingly, biblical justice is
retributive justice insofar as it turns on the principles of moral culpability,
measured recompense,
and the rule of law.
It would be a mistake to conclude, however, that biblical teaching on justice is wholly or solely controlled by some impersonal metaphysical principle of measure for measure. Instead it has a distinctively personal and relational character. Justice in ancient Israel involved doing all that was needed to create, sustain, and restore healthy relationships within the covenant community...
Justice is satisfied by
the restoration of peace to relationships,
not by the pain of punishment per se.
Then justice (misphat) will dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness (sedeqah) abide in the fruitful field. The effect of righteousness will be peace (shalom), and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust forever. Isaiah 32:17 (cf. Psalm 85:10)"
It's a good article to help recalibrate a better understanding of Justice as found in the Bible and supported by good plain common sense.
https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/163072.pdf
Re: May 27, 2021 at 7:23 PM
"Again, I'm not complaining about God."
Uh...yes you are.
"YOU have not shown that God demands to punish someone for an eternity for petty human sins of the every day sort."
Nor have I made that argument.
"YOU have not shown that God does not demand penalties be proportionate to the crime."
Nor have I made that argument.
"YOU have not shown that God deems our every day sins to be worthy of eternal damnation."
Nor have I made that argument. See a pattern here?
"These are all YOUR ideas..."
No. They're actually not. They're ideas you have projected onto me because you either are a mental defective lacking in comprehension skills, or you're unable to argue against my actual position. Either is likely.
Re: May 27, 2021 at 7:29 PM
"My mother never tried to punish me for an eternity for my wrongs."
How nice. That has nothing to do with my point.
"You see, YOU are beginning with the assumption that "God DOES ABSOLUTELY DEEM our petty normal sins to be SO offensive as to deserve everlasting torment.""
No. That's not an assumption I've made.
"And yes, I did read your first little boy link that does JUST what you are doing: Start with the assumption and demand that others prove them wrong."
Uh...no...he, like me, begins with a premise and then goes on to support the premise with Scripture. Doing so results in you being put in a position of accepting the premise or mounting an argument against it. Helpful hint: "Nyuh uh" isn't an argument.
"Because YOU are the one demanding an utterly unjust human vision of what your god is - that your god is willing to punish someone an eternity for petty sins."
Again, not an argument I've made. I simply demand that you read Scripture...even go so far as to "seriously and prayerfully" study it...accepting it's truth rather than rejecting that which offends you personally in favor of your own invention, which is called "idolatry".
"Here on earth, such a punishment would be balked at as evil."
Evil people often regard God's will as evil. It's part of what makes them "evil".
"First of all: Make clear what your position is:"
I've done that. In fact, I've done that "first of all". Why you want to project onto me arguments I've not made is likely for the reasons as I've speculated already.
"DO YOU really believe that it could be just to punish someone a lifetime for petty sins OR is that utterly evil?"
Not an argument I've made.
"THEN, you can make your case,"
But that's not my case. Your continued insistence that it is means you're required to go all the way up to the beginning of this comment thread and find my actual position, and then admit that I've never made the case you insist on projecting onto me.
I'll wait here while you don't.
Re: May 27, 2021 at 7:50 PM
"To deal with some of your links' nonsense and unsupported, irrational AND UNBIBLICAL claims"
Now here you're just defaulting to your default position of liar. The link you read is neither nonsense (typical "nyu uh" response by you), nor unsupported and as such isn't irrational given that support is based on Biblical verses and passages.
You're going to need to furnish the actual link from which you pulled those quotations. "Faith.edu" is woefully insufficient. I suspect it has much that foils your objection.
""1. What we see happening with the modification of the doctrine of eternal Punishment is a reflection on God Himself."
First of all, like I said, without a direct link to whence ever this comes, I have no idea of exactly what their argument is. But from the first sentence, I contend that the "modification" is by those, like you, who reject the doctrine of eternal punishment.
"For those who argue as you do: YOUR reflection of god is a petty little tyrant god who is impotent in the face of sin and your god's only response is to punish it for an eternity (unless the human in question repents in just the right way)."
Of course, that's your typical piss-poor misrepresentation of my position, complete with your typical grace-embracing denigration of the Scriptural description of God because you can't bear the truth.
"YOUR reflection of God is that god is fine with an unjust response to sin..."
"Unjust" by YOUR human standard with no regard for the fact that you are not God nor anything remotely like Him. Therefore, you have no right or authority to dictate to Him what a "just response to sin" by Him would or should be. If it's not a big deal to Dan, it shouldn't be a big deal to God and if it is, there's something wrong with God. Good luck with that.
"For those who argue as I do: OUR reflection of God is a God that is Just AND Gracious AND fair AND reasonable"...
...by your standards and terms. But you fail to demonstrate or prove...or even explain...God is none of those things if eternal punishment is true. You only assert He can't be just, gracious, fair or reasonable if eternal punishment is true, because your pantywaist nature can't bear the truth. That's too bad.
"In other words, both of our views are reflections on what we think about God. It's just that mine is more biblical and rational and moral than yours."
Says you, but saying so doesn't make it so. More specifically, YOU saying so definitely doesn't make it so!
"In stating it this way, the author, like you, is starting with the presumption that THEIR interpretation of god's notions of justice is the right one and others are just disagreeing with their god. When what is actually happening is we're disagreeing with THEIR OPINION of God and of justice and they can't just make the assumption that they're right. They have to make their case."
Which I've done with far more Biblical evidence than you have the honesty and integrity to acknowledge. You prefer to simply make this lame attack on "interpretation" as if the plain wording of Scripture requires some special deciphering. Thus, you're not disagreeing with anyone's opinion, you're disagreeing with the clear teaching of Scripture because, again, your pantywaist nature can't bear the truth. Boo-hoo.
""2. The denial of eternal punishment includes denying some other doctrinal matters, such as the immortality of the soul, and also the modifying of others, such as the holiness of God, the consequences of sin, the nature of salvation, and the meaning of dying and perishing.""
This is exactly what you need to do to pretend you're correct in your corruption of Scripture. I'm surprised you even posted it. Must have been a mistake.
"That they/you can view God as "holy" and yet, have your holy god be fine with wildly disproportionate punishments for typical sins is a presumption that I'd say they/you make in error."
Yet, you can't come up with anything from Scripture that supports your position. Yet, you deign to dictate what constitutes "holiness" where God's concerned. As before, if God doesn't measure up to your notion of justice, holiness, goodness, love, etc., then He's not worth your devotion and worship. Fine. Good luck with that. In the meantime, what I support is distinctly Biblical because it is based on...well...the Bible and what it teaches.
"Again, all of this is starting with the presumption that God supports wildly disproportionate punishments that would be considered evil in a human and THAT is not biblical and not something you all are supporting."
Again, not something I've supported. All of this is starting with your presumption that eternal punishment is a disproportionate sentence for that which is a transgression against God Himself. It requires that God acts in a manner that is a direct and identical parallel for how He mandates we're to act...that there can be no difference despite the fact that He's God and we're just lowly human beings with no comparison to Him aside from being created in His image and not as a clone of Him. Everything I've put forth is absolutely and accurately based on Biblical teaching which you reject when it offends your pantywaist sensitivities.
Re: May 27, 2021 at 8:16 PM
"I can go through, point by point, with all your links and show how wrong-headed and arrogantly presumptuous they are..."
...but you'd actually have to read them and understand them first. Then, you'd have to lie out your ass as is your way.
"Part of the problem with some (all?) of your links is this presumption that they are the ones speaking for god and the Bible and how DARE we disagree with god (their opinions of god, that is)?"
The problem is that when you are unable to contend with the truth, you default to this bullshit about people "speaking for God" as if what is said is not based on sound Biblical teaching. If that were true, you'd have some sound Biblical teaching that at the very least puts our truthful position in question. So far, bupkis.
""For instance, many Christians insist that if you question hell, you are rejecting what has always been agreed upon by the Church, yet the doctrine of eternal torment was not a widely held view for the first five centuries after Christ,"
You once again choose your citations according to agreement with your positions. But this isn't even true regarding the early church:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/what-did-early-christians-believe-about-hell/
The reality is that there have always been those who felt one way as well as those who believed the other. The true question is which side has the Bible to back them up. As most of my previous links clearly prove, the Bible supports the "eternal punishment" side of the equation. BTW, some of those your guy cites, like Origen, were more Universalists, which is not Biblical. Some devoted Christians believe things that aren't true. One must always go back to Scripture to know the truth.
Your guy is full of crap.
Re: May 28, 2021 at 8:26 AM
"MY position is also based upon the Bible. Just a better and more rational and consistent understanding of the Bible than your human traditions.
God and justice in the Bible..."
Not one of the verses/passages that follow the above serve your objection to my (the Biblical) position on the issue. Not. One.
"DON'T Neglect the justice and love of God, Marshal."
I never do and I'm not doing so now. Can't say the same for you.
"God's very nature is that of a Just God - a God that responds JUSTLY, not irrationally"
Not at issue here.
"GOD IS A JUST AND RIGHTEOUS God, bound by love, not irrational knee jerk vengeance."
So now you suggest that eternal punishment is "knee jerk vengeance"? That's some world-class hubris right there.
"The question then becomes, well, what do we mean by justice?"
Not only is this not at issue, but you have failed to demonstrate eternal punishment is not just. You merely assert it is because it offends your pantywaist sensibilities.
Re: May 28, 2021 at 8:37 AM
The link attached to this comment does not serve your position. It also misses the mark as you continue to do by focusing on that which is irrelevant. As such, I'll offer just a few words in response.
"the pain of the penalty must be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime"
But serious to whom? Clearly, with this bit, your source suggests this is determined by him and those like yourself. I leave that to God.
The article fails by basing all on human notions of how justice must look in order to legitimately bear the title "Just". But God is not human. God has an entirely different idea about what is seriously offensive to HIM and doesn't require your input for determining such. This is where you continue to go wrong. Everything you've said on this subject is contingent on God matching your notion of appropriateness. But who are you to judge what God should find offensive and to what degree? That level of arrogance is beyond the pale, but so common to you.
In the spirit of keeping things orderly, I've chosen to move Dan's last several comments to follow those of mine, which took some time to complete. While attempting to finish them, Dan intended to respond to the first couple I completed, but I had intended to complete them all before any response to any of them could take place. Thus, what follows is how Dan's comments would have occurred had things gone they way I had intended they did. It should not affect anything other than continuity of discourse, which I believe is maintained by moving them. I'll leave the dates and times intact, even though they will seem out of place according to date and time.
Deal with it. The most important thing is that I actually continue to post all of Dan's comments. That's a grace not extended to me at his blog.
Blogger Dan Trabue said...
Marshal... "Not an argument I've made." x4 or so.
Okay, so it had appeared to me that you were making the argument/holding the human belief that God will punish those who sin and fail to repent in the right way to an eternity of suffering/torment.
The writer at Ligonier says...
"We have already seen John define that fire as eternal conscious punishment in the lake of fire for the devil "
THEY believe that people who are sinners who fail to repent for that sin in the right manner and fail to "trust in Jesus" in the right manner will go to an "eternal conscious punishment" and they make clear that by "eternal," they mean non-ending/everlasting punishment. Specifically for temporal sins.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THEM,
that IF one fails to repent and "trust in Jesus" in the right way,
they will be punished by God for an eternity?
EVEN IF their sins were the
typical lies and petty thefts, gossip and slander of normal humans...
that THESE SINS "earn" someone a rightful eternal penalty/punishment - torment even?
Do you or do you not believe that?
Because you keep saying "that's not an argument I've made" and it sure as hell sounds like it is. You're linking to people making that exact argument.
They even use some of the same presumptuous, arrogant-as-hell language that you use in your objection.
Ligonier: "the argument that it is unjust of God to punish sinners eternally for temporal sins.
It strikes me as presumptuous for human beings to tell God what is just and unjust.
We would do better to determine from His Holy Word what He deems just and unjust."
We're NOT telling GOD what is just and unjust. We're telling YOU and THEM what we recognize as just and not just. Our disagreement is with YOU ALL, not with God. Quit this arrogant conflation of YOUR DUMB-ASS OPINIONS that you can't/don't support with God. YOU AIN'T GOD. YOUR OPINIONS are not the same as GOD'S.
How do people so inept and apparently stupid get so proud as to conflate your irrational and ghastly hunches with God's Word?
Pride cometh before a fall, boys.
May 28, 2021 at 5:28 PM
Blogger Dan Trabue said...
Marshal...
" Your continued insistence that it is means you're required to go all the way up to the beginning of this comment thread and find my actual position"
I keep asking because I can't get you to be clear? WHY IN THE HELL then, would you opt to once again be vague and cryptic. Say what you believe, boy. Be an adult.
I see this near the top of your threads...
" The reality, however is that sinners...we...put Him to death, and thus that includes more than merely the "rich and religious and powerful" with whom you're so perversely obsessed."
So, are you saying WE ALL deserve to be punished for an eternity because WE ALL killed Jesus?
Because, of course, we literally did not do that. This is not a biblical argument nor is it grounded in reality.
IS THAT YOUR HUNCH?
Or, one of the first times that you talk about justice, you say...
"I would insist that there is no justice by letting a sinner off the hook."
Is THAT what you think? That by committing even one relatively minor sin - or 100 - that we are on the "hook" to "pay" for those sins and THE ONLY JUST payment is an eternity of punishment/torment?
Because that's not biblical, not Christ-ian (part of the words of Jesus). It's more Billy Graham or Jonathan Edwards, but not a teaching of Jesus or that God has told you.
But rather than me continuing to wade through your vague and unsupported comments, WHY NOT just clarify your position.
IF SOMEONE - Ralph - commits 1000 sins by the time he is 25 and they are the typical sins of humanity - lying, cheating on a test, gossip, slander, going 70 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, cheating on one's girlfriend... hell, cheating on one's wife! - IF Ralph has committed those sins and NEVER "given his life to Jesus and repented of his sins" in the way evangelicals call for... DO YOU THINK Ralph is righteously deserving a punishment of an eternity of torment?
And if so, how is that not an affront to Justice?
Here, I think you'll fall back on "how do we know that it's an affront to GOD'S SENSE of Justice..." but if you do that, THEN SHOW HOW 1000 typical sins is such an affront to God's justice that the only punishment suitable is an eternity in a fiery hell? SAYS WHO? SUPPORT IT.
Grow up and clarify what your position is and be prepared to support it with something more than "Ah, but there are these ten verses that use the words 'eternal punishment,' therefore, that means that God thinks 1000 typical sins deserve that punishment as a matter of justice..." That is a leap of logic that YOUR group is making that is not supportable biblically, rationally or morally. YOUR position (not God's) is evil as hell.
Support it or shut up and admit you can't. And you can't.
May 28, 2021 at 5:40 PM
Blogger Dan Trabue said...
Marshal... " find my actual position, and then admit that I've never made the case you insist on projecting onto me."
And citing several evangelical conservatives who are stating exactly what I've sensed your position is, is that not sufficient to say, "Yes, your position is what these fellow conservatives' position is - that people who commit typical sins are "deserving" of an eternity of torment if they don't repent in just the right way..."?
And if it IS your position, perhaps you'll admit I've understood you precisely correctly?
May 28, 2021 at 5:57 PM
Marshal... "Yet, you can't come up with anything from Scripture that supports your position. "
Dan: GOD IS A JUST GOD. The Bible. Over and over.
Do you disagree that God argues that God is a just God?
No, you almost certainly don't.
Now, what YOU need to do is demonstrate that God means something DIFFERENT than we do when we say justice. YOU need to demonstrate that God is okay with horrifically overly harsh penalties OR show where God explains how even ONE minor sin (ONE lie, for instance) is SO horrible that it demands eternal hell.
That ball has remained in your court most of this conversation.
It's that simple.
May 28, 2021 at 7:40 PM
Blogger Dan Trabue said...
Marshal said he's not supported this...
"all of this is starting with the presumption that God supports wildly disproportionate punishments that would be considered evil in a human and THAT is not biblical..."
Then answer the question directly:
DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE that punishing a 25 year old for the rest of their life for the 1,000 typical sins he's done would be unjust?
No hemming, hawing or caveats. Just answer the question. Stop weaseling. You've already hinted that "in theory" it would be wrong. It's not theory. IT IS AN EVIL to put your child in jail for the rest of their lives for the little sins they did in their first two decades. Evil. Agreed?
This is not a hard question.
Assuming you can truly agree, THEN you have to explain why God punishing a 25 year old for their typical sins with an ETERNITY of torment is just, rational or moral?
THEN you have to show where God said God would punish someone an eternity for minor sins and
THEN you'd have to explain (if you find any verses that YOU THINK fit that requirement) WHY that verse is not hyperbolic or imagery or to be taken literally, WHEN it conflicts with the rational moral understanding of Justice.
The problem is, you find an verse that makes it SOUND like god may punish someone an eternity for relatively minor sins and you have the choice of explaining WHY it should be taken literally AND explaining how it's just OR, you can dumbly push off the topic as irrelevant and avoid the hard work of explaining why it should be taken literally when literally is nonsensical and evil.
May 28, 2021 at 7:51 PM
At this point, I believe I've re-positioned Dan's comments in the order in which he posted them, but after my comments which were in response to already posted comments of his. Due to the presence of granddaughters who sleep in my office, I must delay my response to Dan's latest embarrassing (for him) comments until sometime tomorrow.
Re: May 28, 2021 at 5:28 PM
"Okay, so it had appeared to me that you were making the argument/holding the human belief that God will punish those who sin and fail to repent in the right way to an eternity of suffering/torment."
For the many times I've said "Not an argument I've made"...or words to that effect...the above quote bears no relation. However, you're getting closer to my position than any of those many times I've said "Not an argument I've made"...or words to that effect.
"DO YOU AGREE WITH THEM,
that IF one fails to repent and "trust in Jesus" in the right way,
they will be punished by God for an eternity?
EVEN IF their sins were the
typical lies and petty thefts, gossip and slander of normal humans...
that THESE SINS "earn" someone a rightful eternal penalty/punishment - torment even?"
First of all, I don't "agree with them" so much as they and I agree on what Scripture teaches with regard to eternal punishment. Where you go wrong...and here I'm appeasing your laziness as it's been my position from the start which you could have found had you gotten off your ass to re-discover what you should well know...is that it is not the particular sin(s) that matter. Let's see if you stumble upon the more specific point...
"We're NOT telling GOD what is just and unjust."
You most certainly are. The proof is in all the passages and verses presented in all of my links that supports the premise which is an accurate representation of God's will. You, without any passage or verse which contradicts any of it, presume it is us who are conflating opinion with God's word. Again, if this were so, it should be easy enough for you to prove it. Instead, when you see the proof of Scripture presented to you, you default to this standard whine. It has no power, no influence, because it's clearly not the case at all. It's just what you wish were true so that you don't have to face the truth of Scripture on this subject...as you do with so many other subjects you find personally objectionable.
"How do people so inept and apparently stupid get so proud as to conflate your irrational and ghastly hunches with God's Word?
Pride cometh before a fall, boys."
In your typical ironic hypocrisy, you fail to see that plank of pride in your own eye in daring to accuse those like me as either inept or stupid and then lying that we're conflating "irrational and ghastly hunches with God's word". Rather arrogant to call God's word irrational and ghastly given our position comes straight from Scripture. Indeed, Scripture is so clear on the subject there's really little need for interpretation. And again, through it all and in your typical manner, you do nothing to present evidence in support of any alternative understanding in which anyone can have any faith is superior to what we believe. Nothing but "nyuh uh".
Must step away from the keyboard to address other things. Hold your water until I've responded to all you've posted thus far.
Marshal... "is that it is not the particular sin(s) that matter. Let's see if you stumble upon the more specific point..."
Again, I have NO idea. Why in the world are you playing this childish game?
Is it that humans are IMPERFECT and thus, ANY sin shows that they are imperfect and your tiny castrated god-child can't abide imperfection and so, in a hissy fit, he must respond with eternal torture?
What a sick, sick god you follow.
Re: May 28, 2021 at 5:40 PM
"I keep asking because I can't get you to be clear"
I was perfectly clear at the beginning when you weren't really reading my comments. If you didn't understand then, then is when you should have sought clarification. The reality is that you chose instead to impose upon me positions and opinions you regard as easier to face than those I actually expressed.
"Say what you believe"
I did, girl. At the beginning. Be an adult and pay attention to what others are actually saying when they say it.
"So, are you saying WE ALL deserve to be punished for an eternity because WE ALL killed Jesus?"
No. And the quote of mine to which this question of yours is a response doesn't even remotely hint at that. There are two disparate points you try to conflate: We're all deserving of God's wrath, and Jesus died for us. Neither of these two points are un-Biblical in any way.
"Or, one of the first times that you talk about justice, you say...
"I would insist that there is no justice by letting a sinner off the hook."
Is THAT what you think? That by committing even one relatively minor sin - or 100 - that we are on the "hook" to "pay" for those sins and THE ONLY JUST payment is an eternity of punishment/torment?"
How do you go from "no justice by letting a sinner off the hook" to your inane and wildly unintelligent question? Is that what they taught you in journalism school? But yes, I do think there is no justice in letting a sinner off the hook. What follows after that is classic non sequitur.
"But rather than me continuing to wade through your vague and unsupported comments, WHY NOT just clarify your position."
Because you'd only corrupt it again with your witless projections and we'd be right back here again with you demanding I clarify what wasn't unclear in the first place. None of my comments are unsupported and any that seem vague to you is a result of you asking questions unrelated to my clearly stated position. I will say, however, that the more you stray from a point you haven't the means to rebut, the less interested I am in responding as you demand to that which I never said. Because you do this as a matter of routine, you are required to wade through whatever necessary to find what I actually said that you find troubling but cannot rebut. Indeed, if you were ever as direct as I routinely am, we'd never be in these situations.
"And if so, how is that not an affront to Justice?"
I might have answered this question if it wasn't contingent on agreeing with what you think other evangelicals think. I deal only in what Scripture says and only refer to other sources when those sources provide with more clarity what I see Scripture say. That is, if I think someone else has already provided a good explanation of whatever is at issue, why should I make the effort myself? That "someone else" has already done a good job of it. It doesn't matter if that "someone else" is an Evangelical, a Lutheran or a Roman Catholic.
"Grow up and clarify what your position is and be prepared to support it with something more than "Ah, but there are these ten verses..."
What unjustified arrogance! First, my position was made clear. Go find it. Secondly, however many verses I present won't matter to one like you who isn't prepared to present anything more substantive than "Nyuh uh" in rebuttal. "Grow up" indeed! Thirdly, since you don't regard Scripture as a viable source of knowledge and understanding of God and His nature and will, I insist you provide us with a better source if even ten verses aren't enough for the likes of you. Actual Christians accept the word of God spoken but once. Just how many verses are enough for you to make any difference?
"Support it or shut up and admit you can't."
Why don't you just delete me? Oh yeah...it's my blog. Here's an idea: Accept the truth I've presented or provide evidence the truth is something else...which you can't do or you would have by now.
Re: May 28, 2021 at 5:57 PM
"And citing several evangelical conservatives who are stating exactly what I've sensed your position is, is that not sufficient to say, "Yes, your position is what these fellow conservatives' position is - that people who commit typical sins are "deserving" of an eternity of torment if they don't repent in just the right way..."?"
I feel better now. You don't understand what any of those "several evangelical conservatives" are saying anymore than you understand what I've been saying, because none of them are saying that. (This is where you go on another tangent trying to make the case that any of those guys are saying what you need them to be saying in order to not be a moron. Don't bother.)
"And if it IS your position, perhaps you'll admit I've understood you precisely correctly?"
Well, that takes a lot of pressure off me! It ain't my position and your not understanding me at all. Go back and read my comments. You'll find your line of questioning has nothing at all to do with anything I've said.
May 28, 2021 at 7:40 PM
"Marshal... "Yet, you can't come up with anything from Scripture that supports your position. "
Dan: GOD IS A JUST GOD. The Bible. Over and over."
Marshal to Dan: That wasn't a proper response to my challenge. It's not a verse, it's not a quote. It's just you saying stuff. Henceforth you're required to copy/paste a verse or passage and cite the Chapter & Verse number and version of the Bible. No paraphrasing of Scripture (or any who comments) will be recognized as worthy of response.
In the meantime, I've never argued against God being just.
"Now, what YOU need to do is demonstrate that God means something DIFFERENT than we do when we say justice. "
Not an argument I've ever made. Now, what YOU need to do is to focus on what I actually say and deal only with that. It means you'll have to pay attention.
"YOU need to demonstrate that God is okay with horrifically overly harsh penalties..."
Another argument I've not made.
"That ball has remained in your court most of this conversation."
You prove repeatedly you don't even know where the court is nor what game is being played.
You're that simple.
Re: May 28, 2021 at 7:51 PM
Dan posts this:
"Marshal said he's not supported this...
"all of this is starting with the presumption that God supports wildly disproportionate punishments that would be considered evil in a human and THAT is not biblical...""
Then he demands I respond to this:
"DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE that punishing a 25 year old for the rest of their life for the 1,000 typical sins he's done would be unjust?"
This is not even a legit conditional statement. The question has absolutely no relation to the goofy "presumption" I never presumed and for which I never argued. It's clear to me that Dan thinks the questions is a good analogy for the Biblical doctrine of eternal punishment. It isn't, because it's neither eternal nor is it God doing the punishing in his hypothetical. It once again demands that God act like a human being, that God feel like a human being, that God regard sin as human beings do in order for Him to be a just God. Whether or not I agree with Dan's hypothetical describing an injustice, it would not mitigate the truth regarding eternal punishment, a concept which Dan's small mind can't grasp.
"THEN you have to show where God said God would punish someone an eternity for minor sins..."
Maybe...if I made that argument...which I didn't.
"THEN you'd have to explain...WHY that verse is not hyperbolic or imagery or to be taken literally, WHEN it conflicts with the rational moral understanding of Justice."
Actually, it YOU who has to explain how it IS hyperbolic, imagery or not to be taken literally, as well as you'd have to provide an alternative meaning or evidence it isn't to be taken literally. Just saying so don't make it so regardless of that being alpha and omega of your objection. What's more, you haven't been able to show that eternal punishment is irrational or immoral OR unjust.
"The problem is, you find an verse that makes it SOUND like god may punish someone an eternity for relatively minor sins and you have the choice of explaining WHY it should be taken literally AND explaining how it's just OR, you can dumbly push off the topic as irrelevant and avoid the hard work of explaining why it should be taken literally when literally is nonsensical and evil."
The actual problem is that you continue to want to make it about "minor sins" which is not an argument I've made, nor has anyone else who acknowledges the truth of the doctrine of eternal punishment. Despite your lack of authority to demand I choose according to your whims, the reality is that you're obliged to provide evidence that suggests the doctrine of eternal punishment is NOT Biblical nor just. Composing bad analogies which all suggest that God must respond to sin like you do doesn't get it done. Referring to God's justice as nonsensical and evil is blasphemous. Insisting you're referring to "my interpretation" is nonsensical or evil requires you proving it is. Again, your bad analogies and "Nyuh uh" responses don't cut it.
If ever there's a good example of what "embracing grace" and devotion to God looks like in Dan's little world, it is the comment he made on May 29, 2021 at 1:25 PM.
Still waiting for you to clarify what you mean. If you ever get around to it, let me know. In the meantime, I'm done. You've been exposed as lacking in anything to support your nonsense and you've done nothing to show that I'm NOT understanding your position.
"You've been exposed as lacking in anything to support your nonsense"
Those multiple links with a couple dozen Bible verses and detailed explanations in affirming the doctrine of eternal punishment apparently is "lacking" to you. Got it.
"you've done nothing to show that I'm NOT understanding your position"
Those couple dozen responses stating over and over "not an argument I've made" does nothing to show you're not understanding my position, either. Got it.
A bigger, brighter white flag of surrender you could not have flown. Well done.
Marshal... "Those couple dozen responses stating over and over "not an argument I've made" does nothing to show you're not understanding..."
...he said, after cowardly refusing to just clarify. Again.
Marshal doesn't clarify because he's lost. Dan isn't mistaking Marshal's position and his position is irrational and immoral and unjust.
This from the guy who shows his cowardice with every deletion of my comments at his blog. I made myself quite clear from the start. As things progressed, you've projected onto me that which my previous comments couldn't possibly imply, obfuscating and muddying the waters...and then you want ME to unravel what you've contorted. I haven't clarified because Dan hasn't demonstrated the honesty and integrity to engage according to what's actually been said. At any point he could have stopped and said, "I don't know what you mean when you said..." or an request to clarify. Instead, he chose to pretend I said something I didn't. Even when he deigned to copy/paste my words, what followed demonstrated no connection to them...no intelligent inference. Instead, intentional corruption of my meaning or some tangential turning away from the truth with which he could not contend. So he whines about being made to "wade through" all the comments that shouldn't exist if he had the Christian character to engage maturely. Poor baby.
So I'll throw him this bone: John 14:6 This verse is a response to Dan's current demand that only the words of Christ matter...as if there's no truth to the teaching that Christ is God and as such has spoken throughout both Testaments of Scripture. It also implies that which is true about those who don't accept Christ as Savior, regardless of their works. As such, it alludes to the truth of what I've been supporting throughout the more recent iterations of this discussion despite Dan's inability to comprehend. True belief in Christ and acceptance in Him as Savior is the most essential component of our salvation. Without Christ we remain separated from God because of sin, and as such our eternal destination is based on either our acceptance of or rejection of God, regardless of works. This is Biblical teaching. John 14:6 does not provide for any alternative means by which we are saved...no other ways to the Father. Scripture does not speak of any eternal destinations for "good" people that are just some form of God-less heaven-like place. If there is such a possibility, Dan has been more than welcome to present the passages or verses that support this contention. To date, Dan has only seen fit to default to his standard "Nyuh uh" response to that which I've presented, all of which is based directly on Scripture, or some form of whining suggesting a problem with my "interpretation" or his patented "you're not God/you don't speak for God" polemic.
The only person lost here is Dan.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Hm. Not one single word or suggestion there about sending people to an eternity of torment for typical sins.
Not one word.
Now, I know you read a helluva lot into phrases like this because of your evangelical traditions and allegiances. But you do acknowledge this passage says nothing about punishing anyone for an eternity for typical sins? Or for being imperfect?
Are you saying that people are/deserve to be punished eternally for not being "in Jesus..."?
If so, please explain what you mean by that.
And anyone can see that you're still childishly refusing to clarify your position.
Marshal... "It also implies that which is true about those who don't accept Christ as Savior, regardless of their works."
More questions to be ignored...
1. Is a person who does not sin but who has not "accepted Christ" deserving an eternal punishment?
2. Clearly define/explain what specifically you mean by "accepting Christ."
3. If a person has only committed typical sins AND they've never accepted Christ, they are deserving an eternal punishment for the "crime" of not accepting Christ, is that what you're saying?
Marshal... "True belief in Christ and acceptance in Him as Savior is the most essential component of our salvation."
Your problem with this line of thinking is that I have belief in Christ, and yet you don't think that's sufficient in my case.
Further, I accept Jesus as my savior - depending on what you mean by that - and yet you don't think that's sufficient in my case.
So what now?
You don't think my belief in Jesus as my lord and savior saves me, right? So what ELSE are you adding to those conditions?
Marshal... "This verse is a response to Dan's current demand that only the words of Christ matter...as if there's no truth to the teaching that Christ is God and as such has spoken throughout both Testaments of Scripture..."
Ummm... You know I haven't said any of that and don't believe any of that, right?
I have not said that only the words of Jesus matter. You know that, right? If not, do you understand now?
2. I have not said there is no truth to teaching the Jesus's God.
3. I have not said that God has not spoken through both the old and the New Testament.
I've never said or hinted at any of this period I don't know why you would think this period but now you know. Feel free to apologise for the stupid mistake and false claims.
Marshal... "This is Biblical teaching."
Indeed, I believe that sin separates us from truth, and God, and good. Never said otherwise.
The question isn't whether or not sin as negative consequences period of course it does. The question is, is it rational to suggest that a just God would penalize people for an eternity for typical sins? Saying that sin has negative consequences does not support this latter suggestion.
Do you recognize that?
Re: May 31, 2021 at 12:51 PM
"Hm. Not one single word or suggestion there about sending people to an eternity of torment for typical sins.
Not one word."
Hm. Not one single indication that you got the point, which is, what's the consequence of ignoring Christ's words? How does one get to the Father without Christ and what becomes of one then?
Thus, rather than "reading into" the verse that which the verse itself doesn't say, it is legitimate to look at it and ask such questions...if not fully obligatory...and as such presenting it lays the foundation for my larger argument in support of the eternal punishment doctrine. Perhaps if you weren't so intent on grace-embracing disparagement, it wouldn't have been so lost on you.
"Are you saying that people are/deserve to be punished eternally for not being "in Jesus..."?"
Are you saying that Jesus didn't mean what He said? That it was "metaphor" and that it isn't actually true that one cannot come to the Father but through Jesus? And if you're not, then you're obliged to provide something that speaks to what becomes of those who do not accept Christ as Savior. Where in Scripture is there an indication of some destination that is "like" heaven but without God?
If Christ is our means of having our sins forgiven, of having them not held against us, then what of those who do not have Christ as their intercessor? Where do they go? What happens to them, and how do you defend whatever argument you think you can make?
"And anyone can see that you're still childishly refusing to clarify your position."
Anyone can see you're still dancing around the point. My position has been made clear. The more I relent in responding to your equivocations, the more my position is obvious. What's NOT obvious is how you support your counter argument. You want to pretend my "interpretation" is just an unsupported hunch, while never presenting jack to support either why it's wrong or why whatever the hell your objection is legitimate. Maybe I should just say something like this:
"Empty, unsupported claims are meaningless and will be deleted.
May 12, 2021 at 4:00 AM"
Re: May 31, 2021 at 1:10 PM
"1. Is a person who does not sin but who has not "accepted Christ" deserving an eternal punishment?"
This question ignores basic Christian teaching regarding the sin nature of mankind. You want to pretend that being a nice guy means one is without sin. That is not Biblical in the least.
"2. Clearly define/explain what specifically you mean by "accepting Christ.""
A foolish question given it's been answered in so many ways over the years in which we've engaged in discourse. One has accepted Christ who acknowledges He is God and He died to save us from God's wrath.
"3. If a person has only committed typical sins AND they've never accepted Christ, they are deserving an eternal punishment for the "crime" of not accepting Christ, is that what you're saying?"
How is this different than question 1?
Re: May 31, 2021 at 2:05 PM
"Your problem with this line of thinking is that I have belief in Christ, and yet you don't think that's sufficient in my case."
Ultimately it is up to Christ Himself to determine if you're doing more than paying Him lip service. I would speculate and wager that you doing little else given the many sinful behaviors you celebrate and enable.
"You don't think my belief in Jesus as my lord and savior saves me, right? So what ELSE are you adding to those conditions?"
Asking the same question in slightly different ways won't produce a different answer. What you say you believe and how you act are two very different and conflicting things.
I'm out of time. I'll deal with your last comment later. Until then, do what you demand of others: provide support for you "hunches" and objections to my positions. You don't get to treat me here as you do at your own blog where your lip service to Christ is equally apparent as it is here. Don't be hypocritical:
"Empty, unsupported claims are meaningless and will be deleted.
May 12, 2021 at 4:00 AM"
Marshal... "Not one single indication that you got the point, which is, what's the consequence of ignoring Christ's words? How does one get to the Father without Christ and what becomes of one then?"
In the text, isolated from all else that Jesus said, "no one comes to the father except through me..."
BUT, and here's the point, THAT IS NOT SAYING THAT THOSE WHO SIN DESERVE TO BE IN HELL FOREVER. It COULD mean that No one comes through the father but through me... AND you all will come through me eventually. It COULD mean that they are separated, those who don't accept Jesus' way of grace, but being separated from God is not necessarily the same as being punished for all eternity. It COULD mean many things and it is literally NOT saying that those who sin typical sins deserve to be punished for an eternity.
It just isn't saying that. COULD it mean that? This verse, taken apart from EVERYTHING ELSE... sure it COULD mean that. But that would be irrational and we ought not take this verse out of context of the rest of Jesus' teachings.
Do you understand that this is literally NOT saying "those who sin deserve to be punished for an eternity..."? That it's literally NOT saying, "Those who don't "accept me" the right way deserve to be punished for an eternity..."?
Dan: "Are you saying that people are/deserve to be punished eternally for not being "in Jesus..."?"
Marshal: "Are you saying that Jesus didn't mean what He said? That it was "metaphor" and that it isn't actually true that one cannot come to the Father but through Jesus?"
Again, Jesus LITERALLY did not say that they deserve to be punished an eternity for not being "in Jesus." I'm NOT saying he didn't mean what he said. I'm saying he literally did not say that they deserve to be punished for an eternity for not being "in Jesus" or come "through Jesus..." DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT REALITY?
Marshal... "That it was "metaphor" and that it isn't actually true that one cannot come to the Father but through Jesus?"
I'm saying quite clearly that there is (or at least could be) a difference between "no one can come to the father but through me..." AND "those who don't come through me - meaning "accepting me" in whatever way Marshal thinks is apt are deserving of an eternity of torment.
The text is not saying what you're trying viciously to shoehorn into it. It's YOUR reading of the text, not what it literally says. You are literally reading something into the text that the text literally does not say.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
You ask me to support what I'm saying. I AM. THE TEXT does not say "thus, they're deserving of an eternity of punishment/torment." It literally doesn't. YOU prove what you're saying, YOU prove YOUR human hunches. I've already shown you that the text doesn't say what you think it says.
Dan... "1. Is a person who does not sin but who has not "accepted Christ" deserving an eternal punishment?"
Marshal... "This question ignores basic Christian teaching regarding the sin nature of mankind. You want to pretend that being a nice guy means one is without sin. That is not Biblical in the least."
I never said that "being a nice guy means one is without sin." Never said it, never suggested it. Never believed it.
Do you understand that this is a false representation of what I've said? It's just a stupid strawman argument, a logical fallacy. AND this false claim is being used here to try to dodge the question (intentionally or not).
And so, I repeat: Is a person who does not sin but who has not "accepted Christ" deserving an eternal punishment?
Please answer.
I think for most moral and rational people, it would be an easy question to answer: Someone who doesn't do ANY intentional wrong can not reasonably be punished with some eternal punishment. That would be a grossly evil and ridiculously irrational thing to do.
Dan: "2. Clearly define/explain what specifically you mean by "accepting Christ.""
|
Marshal: "A foolish question given it's been answered in so many ways over the years in which we've engaged in discourse. One has accepted Christ who acknowledges He is God and He died to save us from God's wrath."
So, by "accepting Christ," YOU BELIEVE that it means they A. Acknowledge Jesus is God (I do) and B. they must accept the human teaching of blood sacrifice to "pay for" sins. Even though this is NOT a teaching of Jesus, to "accept Jesus," one must affirm your pet human tradition theory of atonement.
Why? Says who? Where did Jesus insist upon this?
Didn't happen. It's the theory of penal substitutionary atonement that evolved centuries after Jesus death and resurrection, not a teaching of Jesus. Period.
Re: May 31, 2021 at 10:27 PM
OK. So now you're NOT choosing to take Christ's words literally. Got it. What exactly is your rule for when you will and when you won't.
In the meantime, you once again fail to provide any supported explanation for what the verse means if it does not actually and literally mean that no one comes to the Father but through Christ.
"BUT, and here's the point, THAT IS NOT SAYING THAT THOSE WHO SIN DESERVE TO BE IN HELL FOREVER."
Good thing I didn't say anything like that. But you clearly bring it up to avoid the point, and the question that it provokes. What of those who do not accept Christ? What of them? How do they get to the Father if not through Christ and what happens to them if they have no other way?
Re: May 31, 2021 at 10:33 PM
"Again, Jesus LITERALLY did not say that they deserve to be punished an eternity for not being "in Jesus.""
Again, this is not a counter argument, Dan, and saying it over and over again does nothing to mitigate the implications of NOT being Christian. What becomes of such people and how do you support your belief? I didn't bring up John 14:6 as the alpha/omega of my argument, but only as an essential piece of it. You can't even get around that, yet you want to pretend there is no eternal punishment.
"You ask me to support what I'm saying. I AM. THE TEXT does not say "thus, they're deserving of an eternity of punishment/torment.""
I'm asking you to support your counter position regarding eternal punishment...not a typical "nyuh uh" response to something I'm not even saying. YOU insist the doctrine of eternal punishment is false...that there is no such doctrine. Then what is taught in its place? That unbelievers go to some nice place but simply don't get to be with God? Where in Scripture is such a thing taught? YOU have insisted eternal punishment is untrue. What does Scripture teach if not that and what evidence from Scripture do you have to support the contention that actually debunks this long held understanding?
In the meantime, I have provided evidence from Scripture that supports the doctrine of eternal punishment. I've provided links with dozens of verses/passages which speak of it. I've done my part...repeatedly. You, as is your way, have done nothing buy "nyuh uh" me all freakin' day long.
Re: June 1, 2021 at 2:03 AM
"I never said that "being a nice guy means one is without sin." Never said it, never suggested it. Never believed it."
Then your question...
"1. Is a person who does not sin but who has not "accepted Christ" deserving an eternal punishment?"
...is pointless.
"Do you understand that this is a false representation of what I've said?"
YOU are false. You want to have your cake and eat it, too. Your question suggests that one who does not sin is without sin. Since Scripture teaches we are all sinners, born of sin, possessed of a sin nature, then it goes beyond "a person who does not sin" because there is no such person. YOU certainly aren't such a person!!
"I think for most moral and rational people, it would be an easy question to answer: Someone who doesn't do ANY intentional wrong can not reasonably be punished with some eternal punishment. That would be a grossly evil and ridiculously irrational thing to do."
I'm sure God is quite cool with you referring to Him as grossly evil and ridiculously irrational. But you err with your works based understanding of salvation.
"It's the theory of penal substitutionary atonement that evolved centuries after Jesus death and resurrection, not a teaching of Jesus."
Again you're off on a tangent, and you've never disproven that doctrine, either...which is a teaching of Christ as I've proven with His words as well.
Marshal... ""1. Is a person who does not sin but who has not "accepted Christ" deserving an eternal punishment?"
...is pointless."
HOW? IF A PERSON HAS NOT SINNED (think, baby, for instance or someone with extremely limited cognitive functioning perhaps) AND has not accepted Christ... IS such a person deserving of eternal torment?
It's a reasonable question. Just answer it.
Of course, I can answer it from a rational perspective - HELL no, of COURSE someone who has not sinned has done NOTHING deserving of eternal punishment. It's a stupidly insanely evil claim to make IF anyone is making it. ARE you making that claim?
Marshal... "So now you're NOT choosing to take Christ's words literally. Got it. What exactly is your rule for when you will and when you won't."
I don't know what this is in response to, but no, I've never taken all of Jesus' words literally. I take them all seriously. And sometimes, when one takes his words seriously, one recognizes that they are best understood figuratively. Of course. You think this, too, or have you plucked out your eyes?
Dan: "BUT, and here's the point, THAT IS NOT SAYING THAT THOSE WHO SIN DESERVE TO BE IN HELL FOREVER."
Marshal: "Good thing I didn't say anything like that."
BUT THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO CLARIFY.
So, you do NOT believe that people who sin "deserve hell..."?
Please clarify. This doesn't need to be this hard.
You read my words and read other things into them that are often just wrong or misguided.
I read your words and ask questions if I'm not sure of your meaning and you just continue to dodge the question and give vague non-answers. Answer the question. Be an adult. Reason and talk like an adult.
The Trump years are over and idiot-talk is no longer in vogue.
Marshal... "What of those who do not accept Christ? What of them? How do they get to the Father if not through Christ and what happens to them if they have no other way?"
What do you mean by "accept Christ..."? By "accept Christ," do you mean, "Accept the human tradition of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement..."? What happens to people who don't accept your traditions?
Not a damn thing. We're not required to heed to your little human traditions. Of course.
What happens to those who opt to NOT "accept Christ," including his teachings and the Way he demonstrated in his example?
Well, for one thing, I'd think they would be separated from God, by their choice. Of course. What does that look like in the afterlife?
I DO NOT KNOW.
No one does.
No one has reported to us what precisely the afterlife is like, what specifically happens to people who refuse to accept Jesus' Way (that, as opposed to accepting human traditions and theories about atonement)... We know what it means here on earth, though. To the degree that we reject Jesus' way, his simplicity, his love for fellow humans, his siding with the least of these, his rebukes of the rich and powerful, his way of Grace... to the degree an individual rejects that way, we know such a person is creating a little hell for himself and those around him.
What specifically does that look like in the afterlife? I just don't know.
And neither do you.
Marshal... ""Again, Jesus LITERALLY did not say that they deserve to be punished an eternity for not being "in Jesus.""
Again, this is not a counter argument, Dan, and saying it over and over again does nothing to mitigate the implications of NOT being Christian. What becomes of such people and how do you support your belief? I didn't bring up John 14:6 as the alpha/omega of my argument, but only as an essential piece of it. You can't even get around that, yet you want to pretend there is no eternal punishment."
All I can do is point out the reality that THIS TEXT, the one YOU cited, says nothing about deserving an eternal punishment for not being "in Christ" or not "accepting Christ."
ALL I can do is point out that reality. IF you're going to cite this text as some sort of proof that those who don't "accept Jesus" will be and deserve to be punished for an eternity, ALL I can do is point out that this is not what the text says.
What about that is impossible for you to comprehend?
Marshal... " YOU insist the doctrine of eternal punishment is false...that there is no such doctrine. Then what is taught in its place?"
Grace, my man. God's sweet grace. Why would you want to believe in anything else?
And I know, to you, you THINK you're talking about "grace" when you say... whatever it is you're saying. IF you're saying that those who commit typical sins are deserving of an eternal punishment, THAT is not grace.
IF you're saying that those who don't "accept Jesus..." and by that, you mean, accept YOUR pet human theory of atonement, that such people deserve an eternal punishment, THAT is not grace.
Don't you see?
Where is the Grace in saying, "IF you don't accept MY pet human theory of atonement, you deserve to be punished for an eternity..."? Where is the rationality or justice in that?
What about my words are you failing to understand?
What do I mean by Grace, then? Is that your next question? I mean Grace. I mean not always getting precisely what we deserve, but getting forgiveness. I mean standing with and alongside the least of these in a Way that is welcome to ALL those who've been typically left out... AND graciously open to even the wealthy oppressors... if they repent and give up that god of wealth and oppressive actions/attitudes. That is, by EMBRACING that way of Grace that Jesus actually taught, that THIS is the way to Salvation.
Isn't that a much more Christ-ian understanding of Jesus' actual words?
Just to answer some more questions I've already answered...
" That unbelievers go to some nice place but simply don't get to be with God? Where in Scripture is such a thing taught?"
In the afterlife? I don't know what happens precisely. Neither do you. Are you wanting me to take wild guesses about something none of us know about? I can do that, but what would the point be?
As to Scripture, it has given us many stories and notions - sometimes contradictory - about what the afterlife is like. For Hebrew folk, the first 4000 years of the Bible's timeline, there was no clear notion of heaven taught and words like "sheol" appear to be speaking of the grave, not hell.
From Rabbi Rose...
"The subject of death is treated inconsistently in the Bible, though most often it suggests that physical death is the end of life. This is the case with such central figures as Abraham, Moses, and Miriam...
In fact, the more pessimistic books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man..."
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/heaven-and-hell-in-jewish-tradition/
Marshal...
"YOU have insisted eternal punishment is untrue. What does Scripture teach if not that and what evidence from Scripture do you have to support the contention that actually debunks this long held understanding?"
Grace. I believe in Grace. THAT is what is clearly taught throughout both testaments. THAT is what is clearly taught in Jesus' words. And, IN THE CONTEXT and THROUGH THE LENS of Jesus' words, that is what is taught in the rest of the NT.
And grace is not a blood sacrifice payment to a god impotent to forgive outside of a blood payment (that is a vulgar type of pagan theology, not Christian). It's a Way. THE Way that Jesus taught, as I've already alluded to.
Grace is the alternative to your irrational and unjust and immoral and UNBIBLICAL view of eternal punishment. And just to be clear, I DO get that there are verses that, taken in isolation and out of context of Jesus' words, where one could make a case for eternal punishment... IF one ignores Jesus' words and reason and justice. But why would one do that?
Marshal... "YOU are false. You want to have your cake and eat it, too. Your question suggests that one who does not sin is without sin."
????
I mean... ????
?????
MY question suggests that
ONE WHO DOES NOT SIN
is
WITHOUT SIN.
Well, yes. LITERALLY. One who does not sin IS LITERALLY "without sin..."
??
WTF?
Are you thinking that one who NEVER SINS is someone who is "WITH sin..."?
What does that even mean?
That they have a mythical, figurative "sin nature..."? That is, in other words, they are imperfect? Well, yes, of course. Are you thus suggesting the rather insane notion that being imperfect - EVEN IF one never sins - is deserving of eternal torment/punishment?
Do you recognize how evil that sounds, just on the face of it? Like insane person sort of evil, right? Like the crazy person who kidnaps babies to do them harm because of the "sin inside them..."
Do you at least recognize how crazy and evil that sounds?
Marshal... "YOU are false... Your question suggests that one who does not sin is without sin."
What precisely is false in thinking that those who have not sinned are without sin, which is literally the same thing, restated? Those who read ARE readers. Those who are unemployed ARE without paid work. It is what it is. What do you think is false in it?
Marshal... "Since Scripture teaches we are all sinners, born of sin, possessed of a sin nature, then it goes beyond "a person who does not sin" because there is no such person. YOU certainly aren't such a person!!"
1. You know, don't you, that the term sent nature to speak about babies is not in The Bible?
2. Yes, there are places that use phrases like I was born into sin, or I was sinful from birth, but these are not literal descriptions of reality. They are clearly figurative language. No newborn baby sins. You recognise that reality, don't you?
3. Yes, The Bible uses ideas like we have a sinful nature, but what is meant by that? Clearly, we are all imperfect. None of us always does the right thing. A sinful nature just means that we are imperfect. As God-created us. As we are born.
4. Which leads back to my question. Does being imperfect mean that we are justly, righteously due an eternal punishment for being imperfect? I say that that very suggestion is outrageous and a huge distortion of any biblical teaching. It is clearly grossly injust.
Do you think we are due an eternal punishment for being imperfect?
Wow. Nine comments and still no evidence from Scripture that debunks or rebuts my position. In the meantime, I've provided many verses that affirm the doctrine of eternal punishment.
Worse, were the roles reversed and I presented nine comments that did not abide your demand for evidence, they'd all be deleted. So score another point for hypocrisy.
So what have you provided with these nine comments?
---Continued willful misrepresentation of why I presented John 14:6 despite my clarification.
---Semantic games, such as taking Christ's words literally versus seriously, neither of which you do when it's not convenient for you to do so. By the way, the hyperbole of plucking out one's eye or cutting off one's hand comes from a teaching about hell...or "Gehenna"...which are everlasting.
---Constant references to what you "think" or don't "think", as if you actually "think". But speculation and opinion require some kind of basis as well that goes beyond one's capricious kumbaya sensibilities. You offer nothing.
---Constant questions of that which Scripture has clearly taught as if there's some ambiguity. I'm speaking here of our sin natures and what it means for our salvation. It means far more than mere imperfection. We're not judged on whether or not our arms are equal in length or we have two legs. This is just more obfuscation and it's intentional on your part.
---Constant questions referencing that which I never said.
---You continue to want to insist that eternal judgement is based on works.
All this and more indicate clearly you have no true and legitimate or logical argument against the doctrine of eternal punishment, and as such you have no understanding of the difference between what makes us deserving of punishment or reward in the eyes of God, despite the clear teaching of Scripture...something you claimed repeatedly to have studied seriously and prayerfully. What a joke.
Marshal... " Nine comments and still no evidence from Scripture that debunks or rebuts my position."
Um... Pointing out that the text IN THE BIBLE does not say - literally does not say - what you are saying it says IS "evidence from Scripture."
Asking you questions about your personal human interpretations of Scripture IS dealing with the Scripture.
You recognize this reality, right?
And the questions remain unanswered.
Another question to probably be ignored...
"were the roles reversed and I presented nine comments that did not abide your demand for evidence"
I'm wondering: What precisely is it you think I need to provide evidence for?
When I say, "The text literally does not say that..." I'm pointing to your passage and noting that it literally doesn't say what you seem to think it implies. What "evidence" do I need to provide beyond pointing out that it's not there, what you think is there?
Marshal... "Continued willful misrepresentation of why I presented John 14:6 despite my clarification."
Well, it can hardly be "willful misrepresentation" if I have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. I've asked multiple questions about your John 14:6 passage and what you think it implies and I'm waiting for clarification. Is it the case that you think asking questions is somehow a will misrepresentation??
Marshal... "Constant questions of that which Scripture has clearly taught as if there's some ambiguity. "
If you mean YOUR human hunches about what Scripture says, I DO question it because I don't think it's saying what you think it's saying. If you want to call that "ambiguity," that's your word, not mine. I don't think there's ambiguity in any passages you've cited. I think you're clearly mistaken, leaning hard on human traditions more so than what the text actually says especially in light of what Jesus taught us.
So here, I'm curious, what Scriptural text have you cited are you thinking I've wrongly asked questions about? As always, SOME clue about what the hell you're talking about would be helpful.
Marshal... "You continue to want to insist that eternal judgement is based on works."
?
Dan... "Grace. I believe in Grace. THAT is what is clearly taught throughout both testaments. THAT is what is clearly taught in Jesus' words. And, IN THE CONTEXT and THROUGH THE LENS of Jesus' words, that is what is taught in the rest of the NT.
And grace is not a blood sacrifice payment to a god impotent to forgive outside of a blood payment (that is a vulgar type of pagan theology, not Christian). It's a Way. THE Way that Jesus taught, as I've already alluded to.
Grace is the alternative to your irrational and unjust and immoral and UNBIBLICAL view of eternal punishment."
Grace, grace, Grace, Dan said. And Marshal hears "Works."
And that, while describing a system of works where one has to not just believe in Jesus and the Way of Grace that Jesus taught, but ALSO adds to that you have to repent and believe just the right way in order to be saved and not be "deserving" of an eternal punishment. In other words, you're preaching a salvation requires a certain set of beliefs that we must affirm, which is a system of works, not grace.
Re: June 1, 2021 at 6:03 PM
"Um... Pointing out that the text IN THE BIBLE does not say - literally does not say - what you are saying it says IS "evidence from Scripture.""
Um...No it's not. It's just a contradiction...the automatic gainsaying of anything I've said."
"And the questions remain unanswered."
Only mine have been. Oh, yeah...and your questions asked again after they've been answered, which means no matter how many times you ask, they've been answered.
June 1, 2021 at 7:56 PM
"I'm wondering: What precisely is it you think I need to provide evidence for?"
Good gosh. This, too, has been clearly expressed. You reject the doctrine of eternal punishment and all the verses/passages I've presented that teach it. If you think there's some other option of which Scripture speaks, present evidence for it.
"When I say, "The text literally does not say that..." I'm pointing to your passage and noting that it literally doesn't say what you seem to think it implies."
Yeah. That's called "Nyuh uh" and "Nyuh uh" isn't evidence of anything. It's just your childish petulance in response to that which threatens your kumbaya, pantywaist sensibilities.
"What "evidence" do I need to provide beyond pointing out that it's not there, what you think is there?"
As I've said repeatedly, verses from Scripture. You pointing out "it's not there" is "Nyuh uh". You aren't a scholar. You have no special insights that you've revealed which is compelling and persuasive. You have no substantive objection to all I've presented in support of my position. Good gosh, there's so much you present which is crap and I've never simply said "Nyuh uh".
"I've asked multiple questions about your John 14:6 passage and what you think it implies and I'm waiting for clarification."
It doesn't "imply" anything. It's quite emphatic and unambiguous. No one comes to the Father but through Christ. Basic stuff.
"Is it the case that you think asking questions is somehow a will misrepresentation??"
No. It's the case that you ask questions that seek to project what my words bear no hint of suggesting, implying or saying straight up. In doing so, you willfully corrupt what I'm saying or you're just so incredibly stupid that I have to find a way to explain what's clear in terms akin to "See Spot run. Run, Spot, run!" That's a big ask.
"If you mean YOUR human hunches about what Scripture says, I DO question it because I don't think it's saying what you think it's saying."
No! Really???? You've never said anything like that before!!!! What's more, you've never provided any legitimate alternative for that which you insist it doesn't say...to say nothing of providing no evidence to back up your objection. I can't think of a time in all the years we've engaged where you've deigned to do so.
"I think you're clearly mistaken, leaning hard on human traditions more so than what the text actually says especially in light of what Jesus taught us."
And yet, where some actual evidence from Scripture that would put my position in doubt would really make a difference, you provide bupkis.
"So here, I'm curious, what Scriptural text have you cited are you thinking I've wrongly asked questions about? As always, SOME clue about what the hell you're talking about would be helpful."
Go back and actually read those links I provided in comments above. Study them seriously and prayerfully if you truly know how. Or, know that I see this question as another diversion you think will distract from your obligation to provide an alternative explanation that rebuts the doctrine of eternal punishment with evidence from Scripture to support it.
Re: June 1, 2021 at 8:50 PM
And in this comment, instead of anything substantive with references to verses and/or passages from Scripture, you again bore me with your kumbaya.
I'm not "hearing" works. You're screaming it when you constantly speak of little sins resulting in eternal punishment.
You're also pushing for another tangent. But we'll discuss again your sorry fear of the truth regarding Christ sacrifice on the cross on our behalf, without which we have no salvation. "Grace" is God taking on human form to suffer torture and death we deserve in order to be regarded as sin-free as Christ Himself is. Basic stuff once again. But don't even dare try to discuss that again here. YOUR job is to provide evidence that rebuts the doctrine of eternal punishment.
Dan: When I say, "The text literally does not say that..." I'm pointing to your passage and noting that it literally doesn't say what you seem to think it implies."
Marshal: "Yeah. That's called "Nyuh uh" and "Nyuh uh" isn't evidence of anything."
No. It's called reality. EITHER your verse says that Jesus believed we should be punished eternally for failing to correctly repent for our sins or it doesn't. IT literally doesn't.
I wonder if he recognised that heaven and hell as modern christians think about it is not described at all in the odestimate?? That it was not the thinking of Jews at the time of Jesus? This is what scholars tell us. I'm just wondering if you can acknowledge that much?
Here's interesting article from Bart Ehrmann...
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824479587/heaven-and-hell-are-not-what-jesus-preached-religion-scholar-says
Marshal... "YOUR job is to provide evidence that rebuts the doctrine of eternal punishment."
That's what I'm doing by asking these questions. That's what YOU are doing by not answering them.
Not everyone studies the Bible or delves into philosophical questions the way you might want them to do.
By your inability to even try to answer most of my questions, you are demonstrating that your biblical worldview and understandings don't bear up to even casual questioning.
You've done your own rebutting.
Marshal... "It doesn't "imply" anything. It's quite emphatic and unambiguous. No one comes to the Father but through Christ. Basic stuff."
I GET that what you're thinking it means is clear to you. But perhaps you could spell out specifically what it means to you. What does "come to the father" MEAN to you?
What does "Through Christ" MEAN to you?
Before, you suggested that it meant to you (if I'm not mistaken) that one affirm PSA theory. Do you think this text - which does NOT in any way mention PSA theory - MEANS that Jesus is affirming the PSA theory, even though it doesn't say that?
Do you think that this text means, to you, that Jesus was saying that those who don't affirm PSA theory are deserving eternal punishment? Even though it literally doesn't say that?
Re: June 2, 2021 at 10:23 AM
"No. It's called reality. EITHER your verse says that Jesus believed we should be punished eternally for failing to correctly repent for our sins or it doesn't. IT literally doesn't."
If you're still referring to John 14:6, then the point is irrelevant as I never claimed it meant that...which is what "reality" looks like.
Re: June 2, 2021 at 10:52 AM
Really? Bart Ehrmann?
https://www.epm.org/blog/2020/Apr/29/heaven-hell-bart-ehrman/?refcd=904803
On the other hand, it's not surprising that you'd offer the words of an atheist to support your contention. Nothing in your offering which points to Scripture, so that comment, too, would've been deleted by you if I had offered something like it at your blog. My Alcorn link is a great answer to citing Ehrmann for anything Scripture related.
June 2, 2021 at 11:31 AM
"That's what I'm doing by asking these questions."
I don't see how given how your questions are deflective and diversionary, rarely responding to the point of anything I've said and instead projecting upon my comments that which those comments actually say.
"Not everyone studies the Bible or delves into philosophical questions the way you might want them to do."
Once more irrelevant as I'm not dealing with "everyone", but with you alone and specifically. Try to limit yourself to that.
"By your inability to even try to answer most of my questions, you are demonstrating that your biblical worldview and understandings don't bear up to even casual questioning. "
This might be true if all questions were created equal. Yours are buffoonish for the reasons given above and are weaker still for not bringing with them some evidence in support for some superior alternative understanding, if you even have one...which clearly you don't.
"You've done your own rebutting."
That's funny.
Re: June 2, 2021 at 1:45 PM
"I GET that what you're thinking it means is clear to you."
It's NOT "what it means to me". It's what it means in reality. It means that we do not get to eternity with the Father without Christ. Very basic stuff.
"What does "Through Christ" MEAN to you?"
This has been asked and answered and the answer given is not merely "what it means to me", but what it means in reality.
"Before, you suggested that it meant to you (if I'm not mistaken) that one affirm PSA theory."
I never suggested that. That is something you projected upon my citing the verse. I will not pretend such willful (or stupid) misrepresentations are worth a response. Deal with what I said, not with what you need me to have said in order to rebut what you think is easier to rebut.
And thus ends your latest attempt to avoid providing evidence for your objections to the doctrine of eternal punishment.
Dan... "Before, you suggested that it meant to you (if I'm not mistaken) that one affirm PSA theory."
Marshal... "I never suggested that."
I said, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. By all means, clarify.
Here's your comment from earlier...
Dan: "2. Clearly define/explain what specifically you mean by "accepting Christ.""
|
Marshal: "A foolish question given it's been answered in so many ways over the years in which we've engaged in discourse. One has accepted Christ who acknowledges He is God and He died to save us from God's wrath."
"JESUS DIED TO SAVE US FROM GOD'S WRATH," you said.
Isn't that the nugget of psa theory?
By all means, clarify the point. Hell, clarify ANYTHING.
Marshal... " what the verse means if it does not actually and literally mean that no one comes to the Father but through Christ. "
So you think it means literally (your word) "THROUGH CHRIST..."? I'm trying to picture that. Are we talking about a physical human Jesus that we have to cut a hole and crawl THROUGH? What does "literally through Jesus" mean? Or do you mean like Jesus is a ghostly Holy Spirit and we walk through the ectoplasmic Jesus?
You'll HAVE to explain what you mean by "literally through Jesus," because your assurance that it's "clear" is meaningless.
Marshal... "How do they get to the Father if not through Christ and what happens to them if they have no other way?"
You see, the difference between you and me is that I actually directly answer questions.
They "get to God" by God's grace. Because God loves us, because God is perfectly just and loving, God's realm is open to all. By God's grace, which is forgiveness and acceptance FREELY given to those who want it.
That IS a way, the way of Grace taught by Jesus. The way of Welcome taught by Jesus. The way of an Open Table is open to ALL, as taught by Jesus. For God so loved the world he sent God's own son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
Does that mean literally "perish" (as in destroyed in a second or literally burned to death for eternity) and literally "everlasting life..."? We don't know. We have no way of knowing if Jesus was speaking figuratively or figuratively. What we DO know is that life here and now can be hellish or can be more like God's realm.
Does that verse mean merely believe that Jesus existed? I don't think so. Plenty of awful, un-Christian people believe Jesus existed. Does that mean merely believe Jesus was the son of God... or that he rose from the dead. I don't think so. As James noted - even the demons believed in Jesus God.
more...
So, according to the Bible and reason and Jesus' own teachings, "believe in Jesus" is not merely affirmation of the God man. It's accepting the WAY that Jesus taught, the Way of grace. Accepting it, living into it. THAT's the way to salvation. Accepting Grace and all that implies.
After all, Jesus says, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." (Matt 7)
Is it works, then? "Doing the will of God..."? Well, then, it wouldn't be grace, would it. That's why I'm talking about buying into Jesus WAY of Grace is where salvation lies. And that affirmation of the WAY of grace is not limited to coming "through Jesus," whatever that means. It means through A WAY. The Way of Grace.
The way of loving and siding with the least of these (Matt 25) (those who didn't were threatened with eternal torment, after all! And even if that's figurative, that still doesn't sound good).
The way of welcoming ALL to the dinner table of God, beginning with the marginalized (Luke 14). For if you say to the hungry who come to your door, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." (James 2).
The Way of Grace which begins as it did with Jesus with Good news to the poor and marginalized (Luke 4) for THIS is how we know it's of God (Luke 7).
The Way of Grace is the way of Love for all people, "let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God." (1 John 4). WHOEVER LOVES has been born of God and KNOWS GOD.
Do you take these passages literally or somehow make them figurative?
There, a brief walk through of the Way of Grace that is biblical and rational. One that does not depend upon ignoring elements of Justice and embracing overt evil notions.
And would THIS God as found in THESE passages penalize someone for an eternity for not being "in Christ..." (whatever that means)? I see no rational OR biblical evidence for it, not without doing damage to the teachings of the Bible, taken whole and understood through the teachings of Jesus, our Lord.
"I wonder if he recognised that heaven and hell as modern christians think about it is not described at all in the odestimate"
I'd suppose that Jesus' understanding of heaven and hell goes far beyond the understanding of any human, even the authors of scripture likely didn't have a complete and full grasp of those topics.
FYI, Bart Ehrman probably isn't the best person to reference.
"That's what I'm doing by asking these questions."
I'm sorry, can you explain how asking questions is "providing evidence"? You seem to think that "asking questions" about others beliefs, is somehow providing proof of your beliefs, it's not. You haven't demonstrated that Art is incorrect, nor have you demonstrated that you are correct. Essentially, you've done nothing.
This notion that "come to the Father" and "through Christ" mean something other than the plain meaning of the text is simply obfuscation. Please, tell Art what those phrases really mean. Clearly you think you posses some sort of gnosis that others don't, so share your wisdom and knowledge.
That's enough of wading through your bullshit.
Art,
I think you are making an error in concluding that Dan believes that there will be any sort of eternal judgement.
"Bible and reason and Jesus' own teachings,"
1. Where, beyond the Bible does one find "Jesus own teachings"?
2. Are you really claiming that "Reason" is on an equal footing of authority as the other two?
"Accepting it, living into it. THAT's the way to salvation. Accepting Grace and all that implies."
I could be wrong, but the terms "accept" and "live" are both verbs. You seem to be suggesting that "accepting and living" are the "way to salvation", are you not? If so, how is that no salvation by works?
Craig...
"1. Where, beyond the Bible does one find "Jesus own teachings"?"
Only in the Bible, can we see where Jesus is quoted as saying "Do unto others as you'd want them to do unto you."
But, we can find that idea throughout cultures and religions around the world and throughout history.
"2. Are you really claiming that "Reason" is on an equal footing of authority as the other two?"
We use our reason - we MUST use our God-given reasoning - to understand the Bible. IF our reasoning is bad, then any "authority" that we may assign to the Bible is meaningless. Reason is a vital component to understanding God. Perhaps primary because with broken reasoning, any "understanding" we have is going to be hit and miss.
Am I mistaken, somehow?
I'm not saying the Bible has "authority." Period. The Bible makes no such claims for itself. God has not told us that the Bible has "authority." God has not told us that Scripture has "authority."
There is one passage, as you know, that claims that Scripture... "is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" but not that Scripture, itself, has "authority." Useful, not authoritative.
One problem with trying to assign "authority" to the Bible is the problem with reasoning. IF our reasoning is bad, any interpretations we may have of the Bible are liable to be off, and thus, the "teaching" that we would glean from the bad reasoning would be off.
How am I mistaken? Or do we agree?
Re: June 2, 2021 at 5:28 PM
You see the above emboldened date and time I've been using lately? It's to make it easier to find that which my comment is about to reference. I've become unwilling to plow through tons of comments to find snippets of out-of-context comments to which you insist I respond as if your perversions of those out-of-context comments are accurate reflections of my intent. I encourage you to do as well.
Without such, I can only assume you're still going on about my referencing John 14:6. You end by demanding "By all means, clarify the point. Hell, clarify ANYTHING."
It's been done, repeatedly over the years. That you're still making the demand suggests you expect a different result. You won't get one. Well, except for this:
--You're wrong about the doctrine of eternal punishment. It's Biblical and taught by Christ Himself.
--You're wrong about penal substitution theory. It's Biblical and taught by Christ Himself.
--You're wrong about the significance of the Christian Holy Day of Easter and what constitutes an appropriate post in one's blog regarding that most significant day of the Christian calendar.
Re: June 2, 2021 at 8:48 PM
What occurs in this comment is insultingly nonsensical to any even nominal Christian and should be embarrassing to you while apparently not being so. This is not in the least arguing in good faith:
"I'm trying to picture that. Are we talking about a physical human Jesus that we have to cut a hole and crawl THROUGH?"
It is wholly undeserving of a a response and I won't dignify such idiocy by providing one.
"You'll HAVE to explain what you mean by "literally through Jesus," because your assurance that it's "clear" is meaningless."
Of course you're right. How foolish of me to expect that what's perfectly clear to the average human being of any faith could possibly be clear to one who chooses to reject the obvious.
"Marshal... "How do they get to the Father if not through Christ and what happens to them if they have no other way?"
You see, the difference between you and me is that I actually directly answer questions.
They "get to God" by God's grace. Because God loves us, because God is perfectly just and loving, God's realm is open to all. By God's grace, which is forgiveness and acceptance FREELY given to those who want it."
Ah...so Christ is a big liar, then. Got it. Kudos to you for calling Him out. No doubt He now stands corrected by the omniscient Dan Trabue.
"For God so loved the world he sent God's own son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."
Well, now, THAT'S kinda contradictory! That doesn't at all sound like there are other means to the Father but through Christ.
"Does that mean literally "perish" (as in destroyed in a second or literally burned to death for eternity) and literally "everlasting life..."? We don't know."
Uh...yes we do.
"We have no way of knowing if Jesus was speaking figuratively or figuratively."
Uh...yes we do. Of course, I'm relying on Jesus the big fat liar instead of the omniscient Dan Trabue, but I can't help myself.
"What we DO know is that life here and now can be hellish or can be more like God's realm."
So says the omniscient Dan Trabue. The rest of us honest people have no way of knowing what either "hellish" or "God's realm" can possibly be like.
"Does that verse mean merely believe that Jesus existed? I don't think so."
Well, aren't YOU the bright one! No one else thinks so, either.
"Plenty of awful, un-Christian people believe Jesus existed."
Case in point: Dan Trabue.
Re: June 2, 2021 at 8:50 PM
"So, according to the Bible and reason and Jesus' own teachings, "believe in Jesus" is not merely affirmation of the God man."
You so often corrupt the teachings of Jesus and the Bible and what passes for "reason" in your world doesn't resemble reason in the real world.
"It's accepting the WAY that Jesus taught, the Way of grace. Accepting it, living into it. THAT's the way to salvation. Accepting Grace and all that implies."
What YOU imply when referencing "grace" is remarkably meaningless. It's just a word you use to project some amorphous, ambiguous concept you think sounds holy and religious.
But what Jesus taught was His giving His life to save us from God's righteous judgement...His wrath...for our sins. THAT is God's grace right there. By accepting Christ as our Savior in that way...for making that sacrifice on our behalf, is the grace God bestows on us. Accepting THAT and living according to His will as a result of our gratefulness at His being so loving as to submit to that is what Christ and the Bible teaches.
In the meantime, you've offered NOTHING from Scripture which so much as hints at any other Way to the Father. And the chapters you presented in this comment do NOT support your contention in the least. As regards "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture, I continue to find no evidence of "serious" in any conclusion to which you've come.
Craig,
"I think you are making an error in concluding that Dan believes that there will be any sort of eternal judgement."
Perhaps a hastily typed comment? I believe Dan...if we pretend he is actually Christian at all...is a universalist.
Marshal... "But what Jesus taught was His giving His life to save us from God's righteous judgement...His wrath...for our sins. THAT is God's grace right there. By accepting Christ as our Savior in that way"
So... I THINK you are saying that the way to avoid being punished for an eternity is to believe that
a. Jesus is God (right?)
AND
b. agreeing with the human theory that Jesus death was to put punish Jesus in OUR place, we must affirm that theory... even if we don't think it's biblical.
AND
c. If we're mistaken on that point and don't believe that human theory and thus, can't affirm that human theory in good faith, THEN we deserve to be punished for an eternity.
Is that right?
If so, how is that NOT what I've already said... that we must agree with and affirm the human theory of PSA?
Also, is it your argument that our sins don't condemn us to an eternity of punishment. It's merely being mistaken on this one human theory? If we never sinned (say we were talking about an adult with a developmental disability that prevented them from understanding right and wrong and thus, could never choose to sin)... EVEN SO, that person deserves to be punished an eternity for failing to understand and affirm PSA?
Also...
So, it's your case that if we misunderstand the teaching of the Bible (as you interpret it) on this point and fail to affirm this one human tradition, THEN we are deserving of an eternity of punishment.
Right?
How then, is merely being mistaken - in good faith! - about a debatable point deserving of an eternity of torment/punishment? Is that rational?
Do you see how it does not come across as rational? Just?
Marshal... "And the chapters you presented in this comment do NOT support your contention in the least. As regards "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture, I continue to find no evidence of "serious" in any conclusion to which you've come."
And likewise, I find the verses you cite are not in any serious way rational, moral, just or biblical. I find your PSA human theory to be antibiblical in the extreme. Anti-God in the extreme. It paints a picture of a perverse, powerless, pouty and impotent godling.
So, on what basis besides your say so can you affirm that YOUR opinion is the right one?
Indeed, I find the verses I cite and the case I make to be biblical and rational and just in the extreme. On whose authority are you "right?"
No one's. No one's at all.
Marshal... "In the meantime, you've offered NOTHING from Scripture which so much as hints at any other Way to the Father."
In the meantime you've done nothing to show that God believes that it's OK to punish somebody for an eternity for disagreeing with this human theory of yours. You've nothing done nothing to prove or demonstrate the God thinks that is just to punish someone and eternity for disagreeing with your human theory about atonement. You've done nothing to prove that God thinks it is just to punish someone an eternity for temporal typical sins.
You've not made your case.
You've just declared "That's the way it is because that's the way I'm interpreting these passages" as if that proved anything other than is what you really really really think. That's not proof. Do you understand this?
Re: June 4, 2021 at 4:44 PM
"Marshal... "But what Jesus taught was His giving His life to save us from God's righteous judgement...His wrath...for our sins. THAT is God's grace right there. By accepting Christ as our Savior in that way"
So... I THINK you are saying that the way to avoid being punished for an eternity is to believe that "
It's remarkable that you continue to pretend what is crystal clear requires further explanation and clarification. My comment to which you respond is unequivocal, unambiguous and could not be more direct, distinct and accurate with regard to Biblical teaching, yet still you think you can pretend otherwise. Incredible!
"a. Jesus is God (right?)"
Isn't He? There's some question on this point in your mind? If we were to stop right there, how could salvation come to one who does not accept this reality? Yet even if you ignore the point, if you have any question at all regarding His deity, you still have to deal with Christ's words in John 14:6. Was He lying? If He was speaking "figuratively", "metaphorically", "hyperbolic-ally" what else could 14:6 mean? When will we get your alternative, evidence-from-Scripture based explanation?
"b. agreeing with the human theory that Jesus death was to put punish Jesus in OUR place, we must affirm that theory... even if we don't think it's biblical."
It's NOT a "human theory". It's a Biblical teaching based on Christ's own words regarding His purpose for coming into the world. It is "the Good News" of which He preached. For anyone claiming to be a "serious and prayerful" student of Scripture to insist it isn't "biblical" is to ignore reality. And to do so without a solid, Scripture-based alternative explanation simply indicates an alternative agenda...not a devotion to Christ or His teachings.
"c. If we're mistaken on that point and don't believe that human theory and thus, can't affirm that human theory in good faith, THEN we deserve to be punished for an eternity."
Again...NOT a "human theory", but a clearly taught doctrine of the faith which all honest, actual Christians acknowledge. Some use different terms than what has your diapers in a twist. Some explain it in slightly different ways. But as Christ clearly stated His purpose and as He clearly stated that no one comes to the Father but through Him, you're obliged to provide evidence of whatever alternative reality you expect is anyone to accept as true. Think we'll see that anytime soon?
"Also, is it your argument that our sins don't condemn us to an eternity of punishment. It's merely being mistaken on this one human theory?"
Not exactly and a "serious and prayerful"...or simply honest...reading of my words would have precluded asking.
"If we never sinned (say we were talking about an adult with a developmental disability that prevented them from understanding right and wrong and thus, could never choose to sin)... EVEN SO, that person deserves to be punished an eternity for failing to understand and affirm PSA?"
Maybe your developmental disability will provide you more leeway in God's eyes. I leave such things up to Him. It may be your only hope.
"So, it's your case that if we misunderstand the teaching of the Bible (as you interpret it) on this point and fail to affirm this one human tradition, THEN we are deserving of an eternity of punishment."
So at this point it is clear that you are again moving the goalposts in preferring to speak of "misunderstanding" and "developmental disability". If we deal with the former alone, the question then becomes whether or not YOU are sincerely "misunderstanding". If that's the case, I again defer to God's judgement for those with such poor comprehension skills the clearly revealed teachings and will of God are lost on you.
But that's not the case with you based on your own words. You consciously reject the clearly revealed teaching of Scripture, which means you have invented for yourself a false god by which you cannot be saved from the righteous wrath of God. Fortunately, He's continued to allow you to live, giving you time to reject your false god for the Truth.
"How then, is merely being mistaken - in good faith! - about a debatable point deserving of an eternity of torment/punishment? "
Not an argument I've made.
"Is that rational?"
Possibly...possibly not. But we're dealing with what is true and whether or not we're going to accept it. You clearly don't. Good luck with that.
More coming a bit later...until then, hold your water.
Re: June 4, 2021 at 4:47 PM
"And likewise, I find the verses you cite are not in any serious way rational, moral, just or biblical."
Except that the difference between us is you simply don't like the sound of truth and the ramifications for those YOU think are worthy of heaven based on YOUR standard of what God should regard as just reward and punishment. That is, you have no "hard data" or Scriptural evidence to present that so much as hints my presentation of the clear and unambiguous revelation of Scripture is somehow untrue or misunderstood. You simply get the vapors.
"I find your PSA human theory to be antibiblical in the extreme. Anti-God in the extreme."
Except that it's not a "human theory", nor anti-biblical, especially given it comes directly, unambiguously and unequivocally from the Bible. And it can only be "anti-God" to those, like yourself, who refuse to accept the true and full nature of God as presented so clearly in Scripture. As the truth offends your infantile sensibilities, you reject God in favor of your invented god. Good luck with that.
"It paints a picture of a perverse, powerless, pouty and impotent godling."
A rather blasphemous impression of God. Good luck with that.
"So, on what basis besides your say so can you affirm that YOUR opinion is the right one?"
This question is deceitful, as if I need some special authority or basis to understand what is so crystal clear. Thus, the answer is, on the basis of the truth of Scripture which is so crystal clear, unambiguous, unequivocal and true. Also, on the basis of no legitimate, coherent, intelligent alternative explanation from those like you for that which is unmistakably simple to understand.
And by the way, it's not an "opinion" I hold, but simply the only understanding possible of that which is so easy to understand because it is so uncomplicated and clear.
"Indeed, I find the verses I cite and the case I make to be biblical and rational and just in the extreme."
That's funny. You cite a few verses and assert they're relevant and a presentation of a better explanation for the meaning of that which is already clear. In short, you'll say anything and simply assert it's biblical without an actual case being made. Nothing at all rational about that. Rather, it's mere petulance.
"On whose authority are you "right?""
Whose authority do I need, Dan? This is another question you never answer. For now, I'll just rely on the authority of Scripture itself. I'm quite good with that. Why you reject it I'll never understand.
Re: June 4, 2021 at 5:03 PM
"In the meantime you've done nothing to show that God believes that it's OK to punish somebody for an eternity for disagreeing with this human theory of yours."
Clearly proving that no amount of Scriptural passages/verses can be enough to prove to you what you choose to reject in favor of your fantasies. And again, it's not a matter of God punishing anyone because they don't agree with me and the truth of Scripture I present (not any "human theory").
"You've nothing done nothing to prove or demonstrate the God thinks that is just to punish someone and eternity for disagreeing with your human theory about atonement."
So yet again, not an argument I've made. Nor is this:
"You've done nothing to prove that God thinks it is just to punish someone an eternity for temporal typical sins."
Thus...
"You've not made your case."
...is absurdly untrue. Just because you reject the truth, or are incapable of understanding simple concepts, doesn't mean I've not made my case. My case is made and it's strong. YOU OTOH, have failed to show why it might be wrong (which you can't do anyway, but you haven't done more than "Nyu uh" me half to death), as well as failed to provide evidence in support of some alternative possibility that doesn't make you wet yourself.
"You've just declared "That's the way it is because that's the way I'm interpreting these passages" as if that proved anything other than is what you really really really think."
That's an intentionally false representation of what I've been doing. We Christians call that "a lie". I present clear to understand verses and passages which present a picture of reality. Without a legitimate, coherent, intelligent alternative explanation from you that is compelling and persuasive supported with Scripture that isn't more than throwing random verses against the wall to see which one's stick, you have nothing that proves there's some meaning for what I've presented the words themselves don't convey.
You seem to think by saying, "How do we know the verse means what you say?" that somehow there's some legitimate question as to what is intended by the words used to form the verse in question. It doesn't work that way, Danny-boy. Come back when you have an actual case to make.
The case to be made is that
1. IF God is a good and just and perfectly loving God, then God will be good, just and loving.
2. IF God punishes people in an irrationally unjust manner, THEN God is not just.
3. IF it's true - as many evangelicals such as Marshal believe - that God WILL and DOES punish those who commit typical sins for an eternity for the sins and/or for failing to acknowledge A. Jesus is God and B. failing to recognize that they must affirm that Jesus "paid" for their sins by dying on a cross - or some variation of all that, THEN God is punishing people irrationally and unjustly.
4. Marshal has not explained in any substantive way how punishing someone for an eternity for failing to adequately do A and B is in anyway anything but atrociously unjust and irrational.
Just because Marshal believes that this is implied by the Bible is not, in and of itself, significant at all. This claim is a single piss on the largest forest fire. It's less than nothing. It's piss-vapor.
That is a significant case. Now, if you'd like to actually try to show how your case is not piss-vapor, that's on you.
Marshal... "have failed to show why it might be wrong"
I've pointed out the reality that IF a human leader tried to penalize someone for ONE lifetime for the crime of failing to correctly claim that Jesus is God, that we must affirm that Jesus died to "pay" for our sins and for typical sins, that leader would be righteously accused of war crimes. And that's NOT punishing someone for an eternity.
You have a justice problem. Until you deal with it with something more than, "I think God thinks it's okay to do what would be inhuman and evil for us to do... I think my god thinks it's okay to punish someone forever for being wrong on confessing Jesus is god and Jesus died to pay for my sins with his magic blood... I think this is what the Bible teaches..." your opinions aren't a pile of beans.
I don't think you understand the magnitude of the Justice and Reason problem you have with your opinions about the Bible.
Do you?
Marshal... " I present clear to understand verses and passages which present a picture of reality."
Prove it. Your position (the one I used to hold, remember) makes no sense to me and it is not clear to me (and many others). So, I GET that it's clear to you and those who agree with you, but it's not apparent to many others. I GET that YOU THINK it's reality, but prove it.
Or can you at least admit that your notion of reality on this point is not something you can objectively prove?
Marshal... " Without a legitimate, coherent, intelligent alternative explanation from you that is compelling and persuasive supported with Scripture..."
I've done that over and over. YOU don't find my case compelling or "legitimate, coherent or intelligent...." and I (and those like me) don't find yours compelling, etc. largely (but not exclusively) because of the justice problem you have.
So, some people agree with me. Others agree with you. Others are somewhere else on these topics.
Do you recognize that you can't prove yours is the "right" view?
Do you acknowledge that you can't objectively prove yours represents reality (ie, independent of who looks at the case)?
Do you recognize that those like me disagree NOT because we want to be opposed to God or what's right, good, moral and just, but because we disagree with you in good faith seeking God and what is right, good, moral and just?
Re: June 5, 2021 at 8:48 PM
When I finished my last comment with "Come back when you have an actual case to make", you were supposed to develop a case for...well...any of the following:
1. Evidence that my position is wrong.
2. An explanation for your alternative understanding of that which is clearly stated in Scripture regarding the doctrine of eternal punishment.
3. Evidence of some means of coming to the Father other than through Christ.
4. Evidence to prove that Christ's death on the cross had nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin.
That evidence is to come from Scripture, beginning with verses that are as plainly expressive of your position as the verses I offered in support of the truth...which informs my position. Frankly, your case was to encompass all of these four points as you they are all connected and only on the table because you insisted on straying from the point of the post, in which you also have not succeeded in finding fault.
I've already made my case, fully and without flaw that you have the ability to find, which is why you continue to default to "Nyuh uh". But let's look at your several points:
1. God was, is and always will be all those things.
2. He does not, despite your protestations and panty-wetting.
3. You're again misrepresenting my position. Go back and read all my comments until you understand what is so clearly expressed. Here's a hint: ignore all your idiotic corruptions of that which I've said.
4. I don't need to. YOU have to explain why Scripture is wrong in the many times it explains and references the doctrine of eternal punishment. I'm not the one questioning God's will.
"Just because Marshal believes that this is implied by the Bible is not, in and of itself, significant at all."
It is not "implied". It is stated quite clearly and unambiguously. This is the case you must make: that it is not the reality Scripture describes so many times.
"Now, if you'd like to actually try to show how your case is not piss-vapor, that's on you."
Well, thank you very much, grace embracer, but I've already made my case quite clearly and comprehensively. You've done nothing to prove any of it is wrong, misguided, mistaken or even slightly off the mark. You plan on making any effort on that score before I die?
Re: June 5, 2021 at 9:20 PM
"I've pointed out the reality that IF a human leader tried to penalize someone for ONE lifetime for the crime of failing to correctly claim that Jesus is God, that we must affirm that Jesus died to "pay" for our sins and for typical sins, that leader would be righteously accused of war crimes."
Actually, you never did. But you have "pointed out" something just as goofy. But such arguments fail on at least two levels:
1. It's highly subjective and what you think is a war crime is perfectly just to someone else. Just because YOU think it's a war crime doesn't make it so...anywhere, given you have no power to dictate such things to any government, ours or of other nations and peoples.
2. What humans decide is just punishment for crimes against them has nothing to do with what God decides is just punishment for that which displeases Him, no matter how condescending you are to Him.
"You have a justice problem."
Not at all. But YOU have a reverence for God problem. That is, you have none.
"Until you deal with it with something more than, "I think God thinks it's okay to do what would be inhuman and evil for us to do... I think my god thinks it's okay to punish someone forever for being wrong on confessing Jesus is god and Jesus died to pay for my sins with his magic blood... I think this is what the Bible teaches..." your opinions aren't a pile of beans."
Let's break this one down to its component parts...because they're each uniquely Dan-ish...which isn't a good thing:
"Until you deal with it with something more than, "I think..."
But I don't "think" my position is correct. It is correct because of all the many verses and passages I've presented that affirm it's correct.
""I think God thinks it's okay to do what would be inhuman and evil for us to do..."
I respect God's authority to do whatever He wants to do. I'm not so arrogant as to presume that He and I are on the same level of existence and thus I can dictate to Him that He must not act in a way I'm unable to understand, comprehend nor in a way with which I can't be comfortable.
"I think my god thinks it's okay to punish someone forever for being wrong on confessing Jesus is god and Jesus died to pay for my sins with his magic blood..."
Your blasphemy aside, I respect God's authority to do whatever He wants to do. In the meantime, you still haven't provided any evidence of any other way to the Father if not through Jesus.
"I think this is what the Bible teaches..."
My position has been fully and comprehensively supported with multiple passages and verses from Scripture. Thus, it's not that I merely "think" my position is true and accurate, there's no doubt about it because Scripture so clearly and unambiguously does indeed teach it. I continue to wait in vain for you to so much as attempt to prove otherwise, never mind actually succeed in doing so.
"your opinions aren't a pile of beans."
I didn't offer any opinions. I presented truth and fact. I continue to wait in vain for you to so much as attempt to prove otherwise, never mind actually succeed in doing so.
"I don't think you understand the magnitude of the Justice and Reason problem you have with your opinions about the Bible."
I know you don't understand just how impossible it is for you to back that up.
Re: June 5, 2021 at 10:15 PM
"Prove it."
Really??? You demand I prove what I've proved??? That's not how it works, Sparky. We're at the point where you provide your evidence in hopes of proving I'm wrong. You can't do it. You're not capable because it can't be done and most certainly not by you.
"Your position makes no sense to me and it is not clear to me."
Not a newsflash, Skeeter. But that's because you have no sense and thus all your drivel about "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture is just talk.
"Or can you at least admit that your notion of reality on this point is not something you can objectively prove?"
Yeah, I can, but I'd be lying considering I've proven my case so well. I know like a lefty all you really have is to demand that I say I'm wrong, but honest people don't operate that way. You haven't the means by which you can force such a lie out of my virtual mouth. And as this isn't your blog, you can't delete me when you find yourself again unable to avoid the truth. That's sad. Entertaining, but sad.
"I've done that over and over."
In order to do something over, never mind over and over, you must do it at all. You've not yet provided a legitimate, coherent, intelligent alternative explanation from you that is compelling and persuasive supported with Scripture. If you want to insist you have, by all means, go back and copy and paste here the date and time of that comment where this legitimate, coherent, intelligent alternative explanation took place.
"YOU don't find my case compelling or "legitimate, coherent or intelligent...."
What "case"? The one that starts and ends with "Nyuh uh"? That's no case. That's just the automatic gainsaying of anything I've said.
"So, some people agree with me. Others agree with you. Others are somewhere else on these topics."
Irrelevant and a deflection since I'm dealing uniquely with YOU...not other people.
"Do you recognize that you can't prove yours is the "right" view?"
I recognize you desperately need that to be true, but alas and alack I've proven my position is true and accurate.
"Do you acknowledge that you can't objectively prove yours represents reality (ie, independent of who looks at the case)?"
I recognize you desperately need that to be true, but alas and alack...
"Do you recognize that those like me disagree NOT because we want to be opposed to God or what's right, good, moral and just, but because we disagree with you in good faith seeking God and what is right, good, moral and just?"
I recognize that you disagree because you can't bear the thought of those you think are nice might spend eternity in a less than comfortable place. But that inability to accept reality isn't enough to make the reality go away. Better for you would be to make a greater effort to evangelize to those people and actually pray to the One True God of Scripture (not the fiction you've invented) to use you in that regard if He so wills it.
By all means... objectively prove that your hunch is, indeed, factual. You'll be doing me a favor if you can do so.
You can't. This is why you don't.
I don't know how to help you if you can't recognize certain basic realities as realities.
Marshal... "I recognize that you disagree because you can't bear the thought of those you think are nice might spend eternity in a less than comfortable place."
You forget, I used to believe that. I didn't leave That position because I suddenly became uncomfortable with it. I left it because I no longer found it biblical, rational, moral or just. As God - through the Bible - taught me.
Dan... "You have a justice problem."
Marshal... "Not at all."
In fact, you do. Let me explain it to you.
1. You and I can both agree The Bible is full of passages from the Old Testament to New Testament, from Genesis to revelation, that talk about and affirm the notion the God is a just God. Agreed?
2. You and I both agree that the New Testament, but not the protestant, speaks of eternal damnation, hell. We both agree that there are passages in The New Testament that refer to such an outcome.
Agreed?
3. We both affirm that God is a God of Justice, as we normally understand it. Including the notion that a punishment cannot Be grossly disproportionate to the crime. Are we agreed there?
4. And so, given the understanding of Justice (including that a punishment cannot be disproportionate to the crime) AND Given these passages That seemed to refer to a never lasting punishment We have 2 options.
4a. To say that those who deserve an everlasting punishment have committed a crime that is somehow worth it or deserving of that and still be just.
4b. Assume that these passages may be more figurative Or metaphorical.
You and I both agree that not every Word in The Bible should be taken literally. We agree that Jesus wasn't suggesting we actually pluck our eyes out.He wasemphasizing the seriousness of wrongdoing, not literally commanding plucking our eyes out. Agreed?
5. Given that a figurative interpretation is a possibility, Then we have to return to the Justice problem and assuming that it should be literal. How can we say that a person who's committed typical sins and not "accepted Jesus" is Guilty of a crime so severe that eternal punishment is the only fair option?
6. IF You can answer that question rationally, meaningfully, morally and biblically, then you MIGHT have a case.
You have never answered that question.
Let me say that again.
You have never answered that question.
What you have done is PRESUME that God must have meant it literally and therefore that somehow those who don't "accept Jesus" in the way that you deem correct must be deserving of it. But that's a presumption that you hold without any proof. You're presuming it should be taken literally and asking for proof to say otherwise and when I point to the reason to think otherwise, you never support your case. You just insist that the presumption is a correct presumption.
Given the very serious and evil suggestion that you're making, you really have to make a case for your understanding of Justice in this scenario. Failing that, you fail To make your case.
Re: June 6, 2021 at 8:31 AM
"By all means... objectively prove that your hunch is, indeed, factual."
I've proven my case already. Totally and beyond a shadow of doubt in the minds of actual honest Christians. Find one and let him read for himself and explain it to YOU. Then you can lie to him and pretend it's left undone.
Re: June 6, 2021 at 8:33 AM
"You forget, I used to believe that."
You forget...I no more am convinced you were capable of proper understanding back then, regardless of what you claim to have believed, than you are now. What's more, whatever you claim to have believed at some point in the past is absolutely worthless and irrelevant with regard to the fact that I'm dealing with you and your unsupported beliefs of today.
"I left it because I no longer found it biblical, rational, moral or just. As God - through the Bible - taught me."
God, through whatever means, did not teach you what you now believe. That's your real father...the father of lies. What Scripture teaches is what I've presented through a review of all relevant passages and verses I've posted in my comments. You, on the other hand, have presented nothing but "Nyuh uh" and other fact-free objections. Your position is pure fantasy and invention devoid of any biblical support.
Re: June 6, 2021 at 1:26 PM
1. Sure.
2. Not "refer to", but "affirm" the doctrine you reject without basis.
3. Sure
4a. Which is the case.
4b. There's no "assuming". There's only gathering evidence to prove an alternative understanding of what you need to believe is figurative or metaphorical. You haven't done that. Indeed, you DON'TM do that!
5. First of all, it's not a "possibility" if you can't provide evidence that supports the premise. Without evidence, it's only your petulant preference for that which has no Biblical support.
Secondly, there's no "justice problem" simply because you want to believe that the clearly Biblical teaching is unjust by YOUR standards.
Thus, we can say that eternal punishment is just because God is offended in a way that you can't grasp. Your entire argument is predicated on the arrogant presumption that God cannot be offended by sin to a degree to which you object. In short, you don't understand the seriousness of sin the way God does, and worse, you accuse Him because of it.
6. My case has been made beyond your ability to question it intelligently. It's long past your time to present your case with evidence from Scripture. Be specific in citing precisely Chapter and Verse (not just one or the other) as well as how those verses say what you need them to say in order to not be corrupting them as you so often do.
So I shall say it again, because it is true and unequivocal, my case has been made beyond your ability to question it intelligently. It's your turn now. Get busy.
"What you have done is PRESUME...etc."
Nonsense. This is just you once again pretending what is true what you only assert is true without the slightest attempt to prove it. My case has been fully supported with Scripture. Your objections are no better than "Nyuh uh" because you have no better or you would have offered it by now. "Pointing out" my position is false or flawed isn't an argument. It's a premise at best, but more like a whine in your case.
Stop demanding what has already been done and get a spine and do your bit to prove I'm wrong. At no time have you even isolated even a single verse and demonstrated why it does not mean what I've maintained it can only mean. Indeed, you've even taken a verse (such as John 14:6) and projected onto my use of it meanings I never claimed for it.
This debate is not on the definition of justice. It's about God's justice and you dictating to God how He must administer justice and on whose terms. I've proven what is true and truly taught in Scripture (and by Jesus). You've done nothing but object in your typical petulant way.
Let me try another tack, seeing as how you have blinded yourself to understanding objectivity and proof and convinced yourself to ignore obvious realities.
Here are some of the verses offered by the "condemnation is ONLY avoided by Jesus' blood payment for our sins and the acceptance of that sacrifice...
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ
ALL will be made alive.
1 Cor 15:22
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to
reconcile to himself ALL things,
whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood,
shed on the cross.
Col 1:19-20
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for
ALL people.
Romans 5:18
[Here, Paul is speaking of the Jewish ENEMIES of the Gospel...]
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that
God may have mercy on them ALL.
Romans 11: 28-32
In each of these passages are some that the "atonement paid by Jesus' sacrifice" crowd will cite to "demonstrate" that "belief in" and "affirmation of" Jesus' "blood sacrifice" to "Pay for our sins" and "die in our place," so that we might be saved.
I didn't go back to check to see if you cited some of these, but do you agree that these are the type of verses that convince you of the magic blood payment theory? (and I KNOW you don't use those words... you know what I'm speaking of...)
You will notice that in each of these, that you say should be understood "literally" to indicate an actual "sacrifice" to "pay for our sins..." you have the allusion that God will be saving ALL. For as in Adam, all die. Even so, in Christ, shall ALL be made alive.
If some who don't confess their sins in the right way and affirm Jesus' blood sacrifice in the right way as you think these passages literally allude to, then how will ALL be made alive?
In each of these passages, there is no caveat, no indication that it's figurative OR that it's a "limited all..." as in "Yes, ALL... but by ALL, not really ALL, only those who actually confess in the right way...
Given the many passages like this, what do you do with ALL being saved (and thus, NOT some being punished for an eternity. Being punished for an eternity would preclude you from the "all" that are saved, yes? ...The ALL that are reconciled to God, according to a literal interpretation of these passages...)?
Not that this tack will help, either. Just throwing it out there.
Marshal... "This debate is not on the definition of justice. It's about God's justice and you dictating to God how He must administer justice and on whose terms."
Rather, YOU have decided that because YOU think that god will punish some people for an eternity for misunderstanding what you think is the "right" theory of atonement (ie, YOU think that unless people believe that Jesus is God AND that Jesus died to "pay for our sins...")... because you think that, YOU have decided that this is "God's justice..." but you haven't proven it. You haven't proven that God wants to/is willing to/creates some imperfect people for the purpose of punishing them for an eternity... which would normally be a gross violation of the notion of Justice.
YOU have not proven/demonstrated/supported/explained WHY God would be willing to violate this basic principle of justice. You're just assuming that your understanding of God's justice is the right one.
But I've pointed that reality out before.
Re: June 6, 2021 at 6:10 PM
So again, you're a universalist and all will be saved regardless of their behavior. Got it.
The verses you cite to pretend I'm wrong do not indicate a rule or consequence, but present the concept of God's plan. A town can develop bus routes so that ALL might move more easily and quickly about town. Not ALL will avail themselves. Thus, the plan doesn't mean the busing plan will move ALL people about town.
"I didn't go back to check to see if you cited some of these..."
I don't believe you looked at any of the verses I cited in the first place.
Re: June 6, 2021 at 10:15 PM
You continue to frame my position as what I "think", when I present what is according to the clearly revealed teachings of Scripture. I cite the verses I do because they are the basis for my position. What you've cited in your previous comments fail to rebut my position because they don't say what you think they say, whether in or out of context. I've decided nothing, except to believe what Scripture teaches. Why wouldn't I? I didn't decide the doctrine of eternal punishment is true. Scripture teaches it. I didn't decide that Christ's sacrifice is what resolves the issue of our separation from the Father. Scripture teaches it. Indeed, Christ Himself teaches these things as the verses and passages I've cited clearly prove.
You continue to insist that I haven't proven what I've clearly proven, while in the meantime, you make no effort to provide evidence from Scripture that rebuts a thing. What you DO continue doing is to impose upon God YOUR notion of justice HE is somehow required to follow in order for you to believe in Him. I assume nothing about God's justice that has not been clearly revealed to us through Scripture.
I remind you once again that were I to try to pass off at your blog the weak sauce you've presented here as a counter argument to anything you defended, you'd delete it as having failed to comply with your demands for "hard data" and answering questions directly. YOU have failed miserably in supporting your contention that eternal punishment indicates an unjust God. You simply assert it because it offends YOUR sensibilities.
But I've pointed that reality out before.
Marshal... "So again, you're a universalist and all will be saved regardless of their behavior. Got it."
I didn't say that. I don't think God forces anyone to accept God's way. I think people can choose NOT to embrace God's grace and God won't force it on them.
What that looks like in the afterlife...? I don't know how to be clearer:
I DON'T KNOW. YOU DON'T KNOW.
NO ONE KNOWS and WE HAVE NO WAY OF DEMONSTRATING ANY GUESSES WE MAY HAVE ARE OBJECTIVELY CORRECT.
Understand now?
And yet, we do recognize that a Perfectly Just Being will not be grossly unjust in their actions, just given basic reasoning.
Now, if YOU THINK that punishing someone for an eternity for making the mistake of not repenting in just the right, approved-by-Evangelical way is somehow NOT unjust, you can prove it. But since YOU'RE the one making the objectional/ugly suggestion, the burden is on YOU to prove it. Objectively.
Saying I have some verses that make me think this is NOT objective proof.
Reality, meet Marshal.
Marshal... "I don't believe you looked at any of the verses I cited in the first place."
1. I did.
2. You CONTINUE to forget that I was raised for 30 years having those verses preached and taught to me continuously. It's not like you were offering anything new or surprising or that I had not heard literally thousands of times before.
Re: Your bus analogy. You ignore the text:
" one righteous act resulted in justification and life for ALL people."
No circumstances. No "...meaning the ones who accept it in just the right way."
Just literally One act resulted in life for ALL People."
Period.
Why do you take the first half of these types of passages literally (or what you call literally) but add caveats to the second half? If you're free to add caveats to these type of verses, why are others not justified in doing so?
Marshal... "when I present what is according to the clearly revealed teachings of Scripture."
If EVERY PERSON WHO READS Scripture affirmed your hunches, then you MIGHT have a case.
The reality is that there are people of good faith who disagree with what YOU PERSONALLY find "clearly revealed." We're not making it up. We don't think you're understanding the passages you cite correctly. What you can say is that "I THINK its meaning is clear..." but given the reality of division amongst large numbers of people of good faith means that it MUST not be "clearly revealed" to the degree that you think it is.
Just reality. That's how reasoning/words work.
Re: June 7, 2021 at 8:44 PM
"What that looks like in the afterlife...? I don't know how to be clearer:
I DON'T KNOW. YOU DON'T KNOW."
Yes we do. It's in Scripture, in all the verses and passages I've presented that quite clearly state the consequences.
"And yet, we do recognize that a Perfectly Just Being will not be grossly unjust in their actions"
And yet you still haven't provided anything that supports your contention that eternal punishment is unjust...grossly or otherwise. I'm fairly certainly you don't regard it as just, but you're not God.
"Now, if YOU THINK that punishing someone for an eternity for making the mistake of not repenting in just the right, approved-by-Evangelical way is somehow NOT unjust, you can prove it."
But unlike you, I've acknowledged that it doesn't matter what I "think" about it. Also, it's not an "approved-by-Evangelical way". It's a matter of fact affirmed by Scripture...and I've proven that repeatedly. Thus, it's up to you to try to prove that it isn't the case. That'll be hard to do since Scripture clearly affirms it.
Reality meet Ducky-Dan.
June 7, 2021 at 8:45 PM
1. Then where is your evidence indicating I've somehow misinterpreted or misrepresented what the verses and passages I've presented say? You ignore them because you can't overcome the truth of them.
2. No. I continue to ignore your claim that you were possessed of any better understanding of Scripture than what you've demonstrated since. If you truly understood Scripture then, you wouldn't be such a heretic now.
Re: June 7, 2021 at 8:47 PM
I didn't ignore the text. I provided an analogy despite knowing you have no grasp of how analogies work. My analogy refers to your focus on "ALL". In those passages, there's nothing that demands "ALL" will avail themselves of what God has provided, nor that God will indeed save "ALL". It is akin to the verse suggesting God is not willing that any should perish. It doesn't mean none will.
As such, I add nothing that Scripture doesn't itself indicate clearly...indeed what Jesus Himself indicates clearly.
Re: June 7, 2021 at 8:52 PM
"If EVERY PERSON WHO READS Scripture affirmed your hunches, then you MIGHT have a case."
The truth of my case...the accuracy of my understanding of the teaches of Christ...is not dependent upon how many agree with me.
"The reality is that there are people of good faith who disagree with what YOU PERSONALLY find "clearly revealed.""
The reality is that I'm not dealing with anyone but you and I'm not at all convinced you're a person of "good faith". So leave others out of it.
"We don't think you're understanding the passages you cite correctly."
Then prove it. Provide something from Scripture that dispels my understanding of that which is so clearly revealed. Thus far, you've failed miserably. I don't even believe you have the slightest idea of how to go about defending your position or countering mine.
"What you can say is that "I THINK its meaning is clear...""
Gee, thanks, but how I've been saying what I've been saying is more accurate and truthful.
"but given the reality of division amongst large numbers of people of good faith means that it MUST not be "clearly revealed" to the degree that you think it is."
The truth of my case...the accuracy of my understanding of the teaches of Christ...is not dependent upon how many agree with me.
Just reality. That's how reasoning/words work.
Marshal... " It's in Scripture, in all the verses and passages I've presented that quite clearly state the consequences."
Is it the case that you're entirely unable to comprehend that, for instance, in the OT, there is practically no mention of a heaven or hell, as we envision it? That ancient Hebrews didn't think of it the way we do?
Are you unaware that there are a diversity of verses and what they say about the afterlife?
I'm not asking if you accept the notion of different opinions than yours. I'm just asking if you recognize that the Bible is not seen as consistent on what an afterlife might look like?
"In the first century C.E., however, very few of these ideas about the afterlife were operative; but we can begin to see the origins of our present concepts in the beliefs of early Christians.
Prior to the Second Temple period, both Jewish and Greek thought were dominated by the idea that people went to the same space after death and lived a shadowy existence. In the Hebrew Bible this space is called Sheol, and in Greek texts like The Odyssey it is called Hades...
In Luke’s Gospel we find the punishment of the rich man and the reward of the poor man Lazarus residing with Abraham in comfort after his death (Luke 16). The otherworldly reversal of fates in the story of the rich man and Lazarus mirrors the story of Er in Plato’s Republic in its focus on earthly behavior as opposed to post-mortem fate."
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/views-on-the-afterlife-in-the-time-of-jesus
Are we "destroyed" as some passages have it? Is there a literally fiery "hell," as some verses/stories describe? Is it merely being separated from God, as other passages seem to imply? For how long, do we know?
The point is, there are a variety of different descriptions of the afterlife and leading up to it and we have ZERO people reporting from an afterlife to affirm WHICH understanding is closest to right. What we have are human interpretations and theories, not facts.
That is the reality, whether you recognize it or not. IF you have definitive PROOF that is objectively demonstrable that your hunches are 100% factually correct, you can provide that. But merely pointing to verses, giving your interpretation of those verses is NOT objective proof. That is the definition of a subjective opinion.
Marshal... ""And yet, we do recognize that a Perfectly Just Being will not be grossly unjust in their actions"
And yet you still haven't provided anything that supports your contention that eternal punishment is unjust...grossly or otherwise."
No, it's just the reality that, AS WE UNDERSTAND JUSTICE, such a punishment would be unjust. YOU have given NO proof that God understands justice differently than we do. You just haven't. You literally haven't. And CERTAINLY not any objectively demonstrable proof. You've offered YOUR OPINIONS of some verses. And you're welcome to your opinions, but that isn't any kind of proof.
I don't think you're getting that your opinions are not proof.
Marshal... "Provide something from Scripture that dispels my understanding of that which is so clearly revealed."
I'm Providing something from scripture. Justice. Justice is a concept taught in scripture.
Now what you have to do is explain why God could act in an unjust way because clearly as we normally understand Justice in the human world, punishing someone for eternity for relatively minor sins is unjust. The ball has remained solidly in your park. Biblically speaking.
"But since YOU'RE the one making the objectional/ugly suggestion, the burden is on YOU to prove it. Objectively."
Since I've never seen Art make the suggestion that salvation is denied based on "not repenting in just the right, approved-by-Evangelical way", could you please provide the proof (quotes/links) so that we can determine if this claim is True or not?
I don;t want to speak for Art, but I suspect that he agrees that the apostles, Paul, Nicodemus, the thief on the cross, and others mentioned in scripture were given "salvation". I further suspect that Art would agree that the millions of people who were given "salvation" prior to the beginnings of the evangelical movement were also "saved". If those two suspicions are True, then the notion that Art is using the standard you claim he is would be categorically false. Of course, the quotes and links to his actual words would support your claim.
Re: June 8, 2021 at 9:29 AM
"Is it the case that you're entirely unable to comprehend that, for instance, in the OT, there is practically no mention of a heaven or hell, as we envision it? That ancient Hebrews didn't think of it the way we do?"
Is it the case that you're intellectually incapable of focusing on the point?
"Are you unaware that there are a diversity of verses and what they say about the afterlife?"
Are you unaware that this has nothing at all to do with the many verses, many of which from Christ Himself, that speak of eternal punishment regardless of what that looks like in reality? The issue is eternal punishment. Don't go and take the discussion on yet another tangent now that you've found yourself again failing to rebut my position.
Regarding your bibleodyssey.org link, offering some vague opinion that isn't relevant to the doctrine of eternal punishment is a waste of time and another weak deflection.
"Are we "destroyed" as some passages have it? Is there a literally fiery "hell," as some verses/stories describe? Is it merely being separated from God, as other passages seem to imply? For how long, do we know?"
Yes. Of course we know. It's for an eternity. That's what the doctrine of eternal punishment Christ teaches means.
"The point is, there are a variety of different descriptions of the afterlife..."
All of which are irrelevant in a discussion on the doctrine of eternal punishment. Stay on point.
"IF you have definitive PROOF that is objectively demonstrable that your hunches are 100% factually correct, you can provide that."
Which I most certainly have done with the many verses/passages produced teaching the doctrine of eternal punishment. Stop demanding I prove what I've thoroughly proven, and get on with providing evidence from Scripture that rebuts my position.
"But merely pointing to verses, giving your interpretation of those verses is NOT objective proof."
None of the verses I've chosen are ambiguous in any way. They're all quite explicit and direct in affirming the doctrine of eternal punishment. As such, no "interpretation" is necessary. This "your interpretation" angle is crap and dishonest. Clearly "good faith" is just a punchline to you.
Re: June 8, 2021 at 9:31 AM
"No, it's just the reality that, AS WE UNDERSTAND JUSTICE, such a punishment would be unjust."
You keep saying this as if you can speak for God with regard to how He must administer justice or how He must regard sin. He doesn't work by your permission or dictates. It doesn't matter if YOU think the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Many think a ticket for not coming to a complete stop at a completely deserted intersection at 3AM is unjust. It is you who clearly doesn't understand the concept of justice.
"YOU have given NO proof that God understands justice differently than we do."
Because I haven't made that argument. My argument is that you don't respect God enough to allow Him to determine what is just in His eyes and on His terms. Heck, it's crystal clear you don't even worship the God of Scripture.
"You've offered YOUR OPINIONS of some verses."
None of the verses I've chosen are ambiguous in any way. They're all quite explicit and direct in affirming the doctrine of eternal punishment. As such, no "interpretation"...or "opinion"...is necessary.
"I don't think you're getting that your opinions are not proof."
It's a good thing, then, I've never offered opinions as proof. But, as we've seen yet again with your link from bibleodyssey.org, you believe it's perfectly fine for YOU to offer opinions as proof.
June 8, 2021 at 10:01 AM
"I'm Providing something from scripture. Justice. Justice is a concept taught in scripture."
Another example of a comment that would be deleted by you if it was said by me at your blog in response to your demand for proof or "hard data". This has as much weight and merit as if you had said, "I'm Providing something from scripture. Camel. Camel is a concept taught in scripture." Don't waste my time.
"Now what you have to do is explain why God could act in an unjust way because clearly as we normally understand Justice in the human world, punishing someone for eternity for relatively minor sins is unjust."
I've not argued that God is acting unjustly in sentencing some to eternal punishment. It's a clearly taught Biblical concept and it is not contingent on whether or not some Louisville schmuck understands or approves of it. But you go ahead and continue dictating to God how He should respond to that which offends Him. You clearly think He needs your correction in order to be considered "Just".
Marshal... "This has as much weight and merit as if you had said, "I'm Providing something from scripture. Camel. Camel is a concept taught in scripture.""
This is, of course, utter nonsense. Camel is not "taught" in the Bible at all. Whereas, Justice is a central theme, from Genesis to Revelation.
Is it possible that you are entirely blind to the centrality of Justice as taught in the Bible?
If so, tell me and I can give you some lessons, citing some verses and help move you into the light of knowledge of Justice and Injustice.
Re: June 9, 2021 at 7:27 AM
"This is, of course, utter nonsense."
Well, well, Capt. MissThePoint. As evidence from Scripture, it has no value to simply say a word. Thus, thinking you can get away with merely mentioning "justice" rather than providing Scriptural evidence that rebuts the doctrine of eternal punishment fails in a most epic manner.
Is it possible that you are entirely blind to the concept of providing evidence and "hard data" to support your argument, despite constant and ad nauseum demands for such from me at your blog? It seems so.
"If so, tell me and I can give you some lessons, citing some verses and help move you into the light of knowledge of Justice and Injustice."
No doubt you're more than eager to go off on another tangent now that you've again found yourself unable to rebut the truth, in this case the doctrine of eternal punishment. Don't bother.
Post a Comment