What follows are responses to questions Dan asked me in the comments section of his Nov 3 offering. It's rather lengthy, but as he deletes all my comments these days because he hasn't the stones to actually deal with them, I decided to copy and paste them here before I post them there, where he'll no doubt delete them rather than rebut or debunk any of it like a man. It refers to Jesus saying to the rich young man, an episode appearing in three of the Gospels, there is no one good but God. It's pretty straightforward and therefore troubling to Dan, who can't seem to provide an alternative explanation for what Jesus meant, because Dan wants to believe he's good (despite his lying, heresies and support for immoral behaviors) and that he knows "good" people so therefore Jesus was wrong or something. None of has anything to do with the post to which it's attached, but Dan digresses when he thinks he can score points doing so. Anyway...
"Are you even reading what we're writing?"
Yes. Question 1 answered.
"JESUS refers to people as GOOD."
Not in any of the verses you listed. That's what I was asking you to provide.
"He commands people to DO GOOD."
Not the same as being good. It's a goal to which we're to aspire and strive.
"CLEARLY, Jesus believed in Good people."
Even MORE CLEARLY, Jesus said there is no one good but God. Why, one can actually find a verse where He says just that!
"BEYOND THAT, we can look around us and see Good people."
BEYOND THAT, we can look around us and see people WE pronounce as "good" people. We've already covered that. Still looking for Jesus referring to some specific person as "good". You don't seem to have such a verse to present.
""Marshal... "Here again, you're doing no more than speaking of how we refer to each other relative to others. Christ isn't doing that."
"SAYS WHO?"
Says me, based on the fact that it's exactly what you're doing.
"I GET that YOU PERSONALLY, in your mind, when YOU read this, YOU INTERPRET this to be Jesus is literally saying that ONLY GOD is Good in ANY WAY and that any people are NOT GOOD."
I'm not "interpreting". I'm repeating what Scripture records Jesus as having said, which is that there is no one "good" but God. But your addition to my words "in ANY WAY" seems very much like your lie about Lev 12:22.
"YOUR are choosing to interpret it woodenly literally, even while you don't do the same for "poor" and other words."
I have the same sound and accurate understanding of this verse as I do every verse in which the word "poor" appears. Can't say the same for you.
"You don't gouge out your eyes as Jesus literally commanded."
Now you're just lying again, because Jesus didn't tell anyone to gouge out their eyes. EVER! He merely said it would be better one did rather than sin through them and suffer eternal punishment or hell (whichever was the case in the passage where He mentioned eye-gouging). Didn't you say you seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture?
"You don't take ALL words literally, but you are CHOOSING to interpret this one literally and literally is the ONLY way YOU personally are guessing is appropriate to interpret it."
I never said I take ALL words literally. That's what you want to believe I do. I said I take Scripture literally, or the teachings therein. And again, I'm not "interpreting" this verse. I'm repeating it. There's no guess work involved or necessary because it's so crystal clear. Perhaps it's your guilt over not being a good person that is the problem with your objection. That I can understand. None of us are. It's just that some of us try to be, and you're a heretic.
"But just because YOU PERSONALLY think it doesn't mean that it doesn't mean that no one else's opinions are invalidated by your random, whimsical hunches."
"Whimsical hunches." That funny as well as pathetically desperate. My opinions are spot on until someone can persuade me otherwise. That takes evidence. Got any?
"Now, I'm done giving you grace."
OK, that's even funnier! You delete my comments. Where's the grace in that? "I'm done giving you grace." That's a stitch.
"Do you know any good people?"<i>
I know many people I refer to as "good". Question 2 answered.
"I'm asking you do you know any good people as good is defined in the English language? Answer the damn question."
I just did. Question 2 asked again and answered again.
"Define Good as you are using it. Give a definition."
That's a demand, not a question. The issue isn't how I define the word. The issue is that there is no one good but God, according to Jesus...someone you pretend to follow.
"Does that mean that others who aren't perfectly good can't possibly still be good?"
Compared to some, yes. But it's only a reference...a means to describe someone's character. I wouldn't use it to describe you, specifically, but I know plenty of people about whom I would use the word because they're better than most people. But I believe what Christ says because...well...He's the Son of God. I want Him to like me.
Question 3 answered.
"And if so, based on what?"
Actually, I'm sure I made this clear several times now, but what the hell...based on comparisons to other people and my understanding of what constitutes a good person generally speaking, though there is really no one good but God.
Question 4 answered.
"Your say so?"
Given you're asking me my opinion of people I know, yes.
Question 5 answered.
"Jesus regularly refers to good people..."<i>
Not that you've demonstrated.
"or humans doing good."
Doing good and being good are not the same. Bad people can do good. Indeed, given there is no one good but God, that clearly isn't the least bit uncommon. He wants us to do good.
"Do you think Jesus was speaking metaphorically in all those places?"
No. Question 6 answered.
"Which seems to suggest that any humans defining Good are only using their own made-up definitions. Is that true for you, as well...or are you an exception?"
Doesn't suggest that in the least. Everyone has there own ideas of who qualifies for the word. Consider how many mothers of dead thugs cry about the thug being "a good boy". And no, I'm not using a made up definition, but applying the actual definition to human beings, none of whom are actually good according to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ...who ought to know. He is the Son of God, after all. He's not totally dim. Question 7 answered.
"Jesus and other biblical writers referring to Good people or telling people to be good..."
The other biblical writers don't matter given the issue revolves around what Jesus said. None of the verses you've provided satisfies the one question you're dodging...what did Jesus mean when He said there is no one good but God? I gave you the only two possibilities (both of which I believe are true). You think He was "messing" with the rich young man. And now, you post a bunch of verses which do not provide an example of Him referring to any person as "good". Fictional people referring to other fictional people as "good and faithful servant" is a specific person Christ Himself is referencing as "good". Encouraging people to be good, isn't the same as saying anyone is good. Speaking of how a good person behaves (should behave, actually) isn't the same as saying some specific person is good.
"(So, you're saying that God's a liar, Marshal. Got it.)(Or are you saying a man can be "BLAMELESS AND UPRIGHT" but still not Good??!)(The utter arrogance!)"
What's with all the parentheses? It's not arrogance to speak the truth. It's arrogance to say a sin isn't a sin, which is what you do. Here, blameless and upright doesn't mean the same as not being a sinner or one with a sin nature, which a good person can't have.
Question 8 answered.
Also, there's this:
Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. Romans 5:7
This suggests a difference between righteousness and goodness, and thus, one can't be quick to regard "blameless and upright" as the same as "good"...especially since Jesus said there is no one good but God.
"... and of course, I could go on and on."
Please don't...unless you actually have a verse that will prove your point. If you do, why didn't you lead with it?
"Now, about people doing good things, Marshal says, "Encouraging folks to be good or holy doesn't mean they are."
That is what MARSHAL thinks. But Jesus rebukes Marshal's foolishness, saying...
"A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him"
So, who should we believe? Jesus or Marshal?
Marshal or our own eyes?"
Those last three are actually the same question, so I'm going to take the chance of calling them all Question 9 as I answer it now:
Jesus' words there doesn't rebuke me and thus, in this case Himself when He said there is no one good but God. Once again, He is speaking of what a good man should or does do, not that there is a good man. That is, if you want to be a good man, there first must be good stored up in you (as opposed to lies, heresies and support for immoral behaviors) in order to be able to bring out good things.
So Dan, you've totally failed yet again, pretending to have a different explanation for the especially clear and direct statement of Christ's, while not providing it at all, and then trying to pretend He meant something different by providing 13 verses which don't do what you said they do (and yet can go on and on).
Jesus said there is no one good but God. I know you believe yourself to be on par with God. You often expect Him to subordinate His will to your liking. But I choose to believe Jesus because I want Him to like me. You want Him to change enough for you to like Him. Good luck with that.
47 comments:
I guess I should have posted them then copied so the italicized bits would actually be italicized here. I'll fix it later.
First, I've done this multiple times before and can tell you that it's likely a waste of time as you won't get any acknowledgement of the fact that you answered all of Dan's questions.
The problem is that Dan can't provide an alternate explanation of "There is no one good but God" that is supported by scripture, and that fits the context. He's essentially saying that you are wrong in your reading, without explaining why you're wrong and offering a more accurate alternative.
The text is clear and unambiguous, and I see no reason to insert any alternate meanings for the words used.
And yet, the equivocating continues, with assistance from his troll whose comments I don't read.
Craig... "The text is clear and unambiguous, and I see no reason to insert any alternate meanings for the words used. "
So, you DON'T think there are any good people in this world? When I mentioned that on your post, you said we were misunderstanding conservative teaching on this point. At the very least, can you see how you are being vague and unclear?
No, you HINT. Conservatives are not saying that there are no good people.
AND, you say, you see no reason not to take Jesus literally?
Do you not see how that is confusing/unclear?
Why not just say clearly what you believe?
Marshal has finally clarified somewhat. He has said (on my post) that he doesn't think there any "good" people, but that he (Marshal) defines Good as "God." Thus, Marshal doesn't think there are any GOD people. Which of course is true. There aren't any people who are rocks, any cars that are fish and no humans that are God. Because, of course not. Different categories of Things!
But GOD is not the standard English definition of Good. IF you want to say there are no God-people, then fine. I agree with you, as those words are used and understood. BUT, if you want to make the rather extraordinary claim that there are no GOOD people as Good is typically understood, then the data contradicts that hunch.
If you further want to THEORIZE in your head that Jesus thinks that only God people are Good and no God people exist, so there are no God people (and thus, no one "Good" by this deviant, non-English definition)... well, you're welcome to hold that theory in your head. But you'll have to excuse the rest of us who disagree with that hunch you have.
Jesus clearly refers to doing good and good people - as do other places in the Bible which you all have said is elevated to being Jesus' words - and says that those who do good do so because of the good in their heart/themselves... so, Jesus clearly believes in Good people. So, Craig, to answer your statement/theory ("I see no reason to insert any alternate meanings for the words used."), THAT is a rational and biblical reason. We recognize that the various biblical authors and Jesus himself recognized Good people, so if he then truly meant there are no good humans, then that would contradict what he has said, what others have said and just basic common sense/reason.
Even if you ultimately don't reach that conclusion for your own sake, do you not see how it's a rational and biblical reason to disagree with your hunches (or apparent hunches, since you are vague and unclear on what it is you believe)?
"So, you DON'T think there are any good people in this world?"
You continue to reject the fact of Christ's words because of how humans use the words in describing other people compared to other people. Recall the concept of good works being as dirty rags. The same concept is at play regarding "good" people. We acknowledge good works (ladling out a bowl at the soup kitchen), while they're not all that impressive to God. We acknowledge some folks are better than others to the point where we classify them as "good" (and we must accept others would disagree for valid reasons), yet Christ says there is no one good but God.
Thus, there's no confusion but what you wish to inject in the positions of those of us who take Christ at His word. You only pretend.
"Marshal has finally clarified somewhat."
No. I've clarified it perfectly and in terms apparently not simple enough for you. "My" definition is based on Christ's straightforward and unambiguous statement regarding no one being good but God. But "my" definition is irrelevant, even if untrue, because the issue is what Christ said...not what I say. More importantly, the issue seems clearly to another case of you rejecting the plain and unambiguous words of Christ/God.
"But GOD is not the standard English definition of Good."
So reject the words of Christ in favor of what the world says. After all, He's only the Son of God...what the hell does He know?
"BUT, if you want to make the rather extraordinary claim that there are no GOOD people as Good is typically understood..."
BUT, that's not the issue. The word is "typically" understood one way, and Christ clarifies its proper application another way...and you bitch because it indicts you and those you also wish to regard as "good". Boo-hoo.
"Jesus clearly refers to doing good and good people..."
Yet you came up with no examples after posting at least a dozen which doesn't get it done, and they said you could go on and on. And again, "doing good" is different than "being" good. I know many who have reputations for sinfulness yet still there is good in them. Which are they? Sinners or good people? I know which one YOU are. I know which one I am. Christ said there is no one good but God. What more do you need? What I need is for you to provide a legitimate alternative explanation which you can back up with something other than verses that don't help your case...as you've provided at your blog thus far.
Marshal... "My" definition is based on Christ's straightforward and unambiguous statement regarding no one being good but God. But "my" definition is irrelevant, even if untrue, because the issue is what Christ said."
Logical fallacy. Question begging. Again. The question is, when Jesus said there is no one good but God, was he speaking metaphorically or was he redefining good?
You take the view that he meant it literally. But for you to say, "we know he meant to take it literally because I personally THINK that he meant to take it literally..." is circular reasoning. A logical error.
There has to be something more than your say so that he meant to take it literally. Unless you want to argue that everything that Jesus said he meant to be taken literally. But you don't believe that... and that'd be a separate argument that you'd have to support at any rate.
Again, do you not see the logical fallacy in your reasoning and claims?
Marshal... "And again, "doing good" is different than "being" good."
So you say. Prove it. You can't. As noted already, Jesus contradicts that theory you have.
Marshal... "I know many who have reputations for sinfulness yet still there is good in them. Which are they? Sinners or good people?"
Again, who says they can't be both? Since all of humanity is prone to error and sin, by that measure, no one is good. BUT it's a whimsical measure that you're making up. Reality doesn't support that. Reason does not support that.
In fact, one can argue that if we were perforce perfect, then being good would be meaningless. It's not a choice that we're making or a series of choices we're making. We just have to be perfect little robots. Goodness comes, in part, from the ability to choose to do wrong or right and choosing to do right. That choice is what makes it good.
Your empty declarations of what makes good are meaningless personal opinions unvalidated by logic or The Bible.
Think about that a minute. Do you think that all sinners are by definition bad people? Do you think your wife, your mother, your children are bad people? Because they're imperfect?
If so, what a hellish household to grow up in.
"No, you HINT. Conservatives are not saying that there are no good people."
No hinting at all.
"AND, you say, you see no reason not to take Jesus literally?"
No, I didn't say that exactly.
"Do you not see how that is confusing/unclear?"
No.
"Why not just say clearly what you believe?"
I have done so multiple times, I see no reason to do so again, unless you do so first.
"Logical fallacy."
Which logical fallacy would that be exactly? Name it and we'll see if it applies here. (Wagers taken at the pari-mutuel window.)
"The question is, when Jesus said there is no one good but God, was he speaking metaphorically or was he redefining good?"
I'm going with option #3, which is that Jesus was clarifying what "good" truly is.
"You take the view that he meant it literally."
I take the view He was making an unequivocal fact claim which for some reason gives you the vapors...likely because you see yourself as "good". But who doesn't? Only the poor in spirit for whom Christ came to bring the Good News. They know they're not good and in need of God. Woe to you rich.
"There has to be something more than your say so that he meant to take it literally."
Actually, there doesn't. There has to be something more than your desperate hope the He didn't mean what He said. Nothing in the text...nothing in all the Gospels...suggests otherwise. That is, not without you pretending it does. Your offerings at your blog fell woefully short of succeeding in that attempt.
"Unless you want to argue that everything that Jesus said he meant to be taken literally."
I do take everything Jesus said literally, because He did mean for us to do so. But again, you clearly don't grasp what "literally" means.
"Again, do you not see the logical fallacy in your reasoning and claims?"
I only see your desperation in trying to assert such in order to protect your feelings and those of all those sinners you enable.
"So you say. Prove it. You can't."
Wow! It's an incredibly obvious distinction! Self-evident, even. In your alleged "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture, you may have come upon a teaching we are not saved by works. If our works don't save us, then how can we be good?
"Again, who says they can't be both?"
Uh...God.
"Since all of humanity is prone to error and sin, by that measure, no one is good."
Don't look now, but you just stumbled on to it! Hold it hard. Examine it and know the truth.
"BUT it's a whimsical measure that you're making up."
No. It's a Biblical principle. Christianity 101.
"Reality doesn't support that. Reason does not support that."
As with "literally", you have no true grasp of either concept.
"In fact, one can argue that if we were perforce perfect, then being good would be meaningless."
And we wouldn't need Jesus. We wouldn't need saving from God's wrath, because by being good we are not offensive to Him and unworthy of being in His presence.
"Goodness comes, in part, from the ability to choose to do wrong or right and choosing to do right."
It comes from the Blood of Christ, shed for us on the Cross as He suffered and died by substituting Himself for us. Praise Jesus! Or maybe you're speaking again about what makes us good in the eyes of our fellow man. I'm still talking about what Jesus said and the fact that it's a truth claim you reject along with other clear teachings in Scripture.
"Your empty declarations of what makes good are meaningless personal opinions unvalidated by logic or The Bible."
They're absolutely validated by Biblical teaching, as I've proven and as you have with your inadvertent admissions pointed out above.
"Do you think that all sinners are by definition bad people?"
Uh...that kind of proves it, actually. It's why no one is good but God. Our sin nature. But you again conflate Christ's words with your human tradition of using the word to describe some people in comparison to others. An honest person who seriously and prayerfully studies Scripture should have absolutely no problem with this clear distinction. But then, you're not one of those. You're one who judges God based on your human traditions. I seek to base "my traditions" on the Word of God. I don't have to understand it...though this issue is crystal clear...but, that's how those seeking to be "good" Christians roll. I encourage you to get on board.
Marshal... "Which logical fallacy would that be exactly? Name it and we'll see if it applies here. (Wagers taken at the pari-mutuel window.)"
Sigh. Already answered. Twice.
Dan, just a few words earlier:
"Logical fallacy.
Question begging.
Again. The question is, when Jesus said there is no one good but God, was he speaking metaphorically or was he redefining good?
You take the view that he meant it literally. But for you to say, "we know he meant to take it literally because I personally THINK that he meant to take it literally..." is
circular reasoning.
A logical error."
https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Begging-the-Question.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
NOW do you see why your claim is literally irrational? A logical fallacy?
Craig, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE ARE ALL BAD?
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE NO GOOD PEOPLE?
IF YOU THINK, "The text is clear and unambiguous, and I see no reason to insert any alternate meanings for the words used. "
...THEN DOES THAT MEAN YOU THINK JESUS WAS LITERALLY SAYING THERE ARE LITERALLY NO GOOD PEOPLE IN THE WORLD?
I literally do not know what your views are on this. WHY NOT CLARIFY?
Marshal, maybe YOU can see through Craig's vague incantations and tell me: IS Craig saying there are no good humans in the world? Since Craig seems determined not to answer the question directly?
Marshal... "Only the poor in spirit for whom Christ came to bring the Good News. They know they're not good and in need of God. Woe to you rich."
Wow. Thanks for the laugh. You caught me off guard with this.
Rarely has someone so perfectly rejected Jesus' literal words while defending taking Jesus' words in another place sort of literally, according to your own interpretation.
Good thing I didn't have a mouth full of drink or I'd have spewed in laughter, for sure.
What a bastard Jesus you serve.
Marshal... "No. It's a Biblical principle. Christianity 101."
Literally not factual. It's Conservative Evangelicalism 101, maybe. Calvinism 101, maybe. But no, literally not Christianity 101. For that to be true, you'd have to have ownership of Christianity, but Jesus is too wild and dangerous for any little boxes or cages you might try to trap him in.
Be careful.
Marshal... ". It's why no one is good but God."
So, your wife is a bad person. Your mother and father are bad people. You regularly tell your children that they are bad people.
Again, what a sad, depraved home you must live in. I pity your family.
Marshal... ""Goodness comes, in part, from the ability to choose to do wrong or right and choosing to do right."
It comes from the Blood of Christ,"
Prove it. Or admit you can't.
No question begging or circular arguments or any logical fallacies allowed.
And do you mean the literal blood of Jesus or is it somehow figurative and if so, what does that mean? Is it because it's magic blood or how does Goodness come from Jesus' blood? Does the blood somehow "make" people Good? And, if so, then does that mean there are good people?
So many rational questions. So few direct, rational answers.
"Question begging"
That implies I'm using the premise to prove the premise. I'm not. I'm repeating the words of Christ and adopting the definition implied by His truth claim. If no one is good but God, then God is, according to Christ's words, the true definition of "good". Whatever the odds were at the window, I won big.
Further, I insist Christ intended it to be taken as the truth because there's no reason to think otherwise. You seek to argue based on irrelevant criteria, mostly that because we as humans refer to some as "good", then by golly Christ couldn't have been speaking plainly and literally. But how we use the word is wholly irrelevant with regard Christ's usage of the word and His clarifying and accurate description of the condition of mankind.
If there's any logical fallacy at play here, it's you once again appealing to numbers to make your case. My position is therefore not merely rational, it's entirely accurate and true.
"Marshal, maybe YOU can see through Craig's vague incantations and tell me: IS Craig saying there are no good humans in the world?"
Craig's perfectly capable of defending his own position, but it seems quite clear to me he's in agreement with me that Christ spoke plainly and definitively. If Craig's saying there are no good people in the world, one must determine if he's referring to how we use the word relative to other people, or as Christ does in describing the human condition. In either case, I believe Craig has the same accurate and truthful understanding as do I.
"Wow. Thanks for the laugh. You caught me off guard with this."
The insane and other mentally challenged often laugh without just cause. I won't hold it against you. You demonstrate yet again how the concept of taking Christ/Scripture literally eludes you.
"For that to be true, you'd have to have ownership of Christianity,"
No, just honest and open to the Truth of Biblical teaching.
"So, your wife is a bad person. Your mother and father are bad people. You regularly tell your children that they are bad people."
According and compared to whom? Are you speaking of Christ's truth claim of the condition of mankind, or me describing their character relative to all other people based on subjective human criteria?
"Again, what a sad, depraved home you must live in. I pity your family."
Thanks, but no need. They're all well adjusted and unafraid of facing the truth.
"Prove it. Or admit you can't."
Again, Christianity 101. I'll get more detailed later, as no doubt you'll respond in a manner that proves you need instruction.
"No question begging or circular arguments or any logical fallacies allowed."
Were I not in a hurry here, I'd have read further before my last response. You'll definitely need instruction as you've already prepared your nonsensical response.
Yeah...reading further demonstrates your total ignorance/stupidity and need for instruction in the basics of Christianity.
Stay tuned.
You say you're not begging the question in your logical fallacies, then proceed to literally beg the question. I'm guessing you just don't understand how logic works.
Question: Jesus said "there is no one good but God." When he said that, did he mean to redefine good to mean perfect?
Marshal says "Jesus said there is no one good but God AND Jesus meant to redefine the word good to be perfect or God.
That's literally begging the question or circular reasoning. A logical fallacy.
How do we know he meant to redefine good? Because Marshal think so. And who says Marshal is right? Marshall does.
That's just not enough. It's irrational. Literally irrational. Literally a logical fallacy.
Begging the Question (literal translation from latin petitio principii) is a logical fallacy where the premise on which the conclusion is based, is already assumed to be true. And example would be:
"You say you're not begging the question in your logical fallacies..."
Here, you're assuming the logical fallacies actually exist, and then presume I'm begging the question. Thus, you're using what you falsely regard as a logical fallacy in order to "beg the question".
I'm guessing you just don't understand how logic works...in much the way you fail to understand what taking Scripture/Christ literally means.
Thanks for demonstrating further that you don't understand, at the least, what makes for a Begging the Question fallacy.
(Hint, your "an example would be..." is NOT an example of begging the question.)
(Further hint: When I say, "You say you're not begging the question in your logical fallacies" is responding factually to what you literally said. I'm simply stating, "Marshal said he is not begging the question..." and what you literally said was "If there's any logical fallacy at play here, it's you once again appealing to numbers to make your case. My position is therefore not merely rational, it's entirely accurate and true."
Are you NOT saying that you aren't question begging...?)
Good luck.
By the way, when you said this:
"You take the view that he meant it literally. But for you to say, "we know he meant to take it literally because I personally THINK that he meant to take it literally..." is
circular reasoning.
A logical error."
...you ignore the FACT you are doing what you (wrongly) accuse me of doing, but in reverse. That is, you're saying Christ didn't mean it literally because you personally THINK...or more precisely, desperately need to believe...He didn't mean it literally. You certainly have no basis for rejecting His truth claim is truth. Citing human tradition with regard common usage of the term "good" in describing anyone is not an argument against His truth claim. Indeed, it's wholly irrelevant to it. There must be some logical fallacy for that!
"Question: Jesus said "there is no one good but God." When he said that, did he mean to redefine good to mean perfect?"
He meant to clarify that there is no one good but God. It's pretty clear and unequivocal...which might be why you can't wrap your pointy head around it. Ambiguity and equivocation are essential for your eagerness to defend and enable immorality.
"Marshal says "Jesus said there is no one good but God AND Jesus meant to redefine the word good to be perfect or God."
If you wish to "quote" me, you might want to use the actual comments I've posted. I can't find this one anywhere. What I have said is not the Jesus is "redefining", but "clarifying" what "good" is. You may recall He did a lot of clarifying of Mosaic Law as well...i.e., lust=adultery, hate=murder. How do we commonly use the words "lust" and "hate"? I don't think most people immediately regard one who merely lusts as an adulterer (Christ clearly does), or one who hates as a murderer (Christ clearly does). So there's precedent for Christ clarifying what "good" is. There is no one good but God.
"That's literally begging the question or circular reasoning. A logical fallacy."
That's literally not, even with your lame paraphrasing of my actual comments/position.
"How do we know he meant to redefine good? Because Marshal think so. And who says Marshal is right? Marshall does.
That's just not enough. It's irrational. Literally irrational. Literally a logical fallacy."
And again, by your "logic" (that always makes me laugh to think you're ever actually logical in your ramblings), you're guilty of doing the exact opposite of what you wrongly accuse me of doing. How do we know He didn't mean to redefine good? Because Dan insists he didn't. And who says Dan is right? Dan does.
But aside from the fact that it doesn't reflect my position or how I argue in its defense...not in the least, in fact...it's not even my argument. YOU'RE the one who insists on asserting Christ is "redefining" a word. I'm insisting He's clarifying what "good" is in saying there is no one good but God. That is to say, the word had been used improperly in characterizing as "good" anyone who simply can't be since Christ said no one is good but God. He would know, given...you know...He's God and all. Thus, you're engaging in a straw man fallacy to improperly present my position. Literally.
"Are you NOT saying that you aren't question begging...?)
Good luck."
Do you mean, "good luck with divining my convoluted attempts to avoid proving Christ didn't mean there is no one good but God?" Because you're now moving to your typical deflection strategy to muddy up the discussion.
Look. It's simple. Christ said "there is no one good but God". If He didn't mean THAT, what did He mean? No more of this irrelevant claim to know good people. Your understanding of "good", "moral" and the like have no standing here given your constant defense of immorality. Thus...and you need to "hear" this...if you want to say you know good people, I'd need to know them personally to agree they can be compared to other people and be regarded as better. Because even on human terms, there is some choice made to dispense with what isn't "good" about a person in order to use the term at all...or to focus only on those aspects of the person which can be described...still subjectively, mind you...as "good" in order to get away with calling that person a "good" person.
Marshal... "That is, you're saying Christ didn't mean it literally because you personally THINK...or more precisely, desperately need to believe..."
No. I'm literally not. I think you're just in over your head.
IF the question is, "Did Jesus mean that literally no humans are good?" And
"Did Jesus literally redefine Good to mean Perfect?"
THEN, THAT is the question at hand.
Me NOTING that is the question at hand is merely me noting that is the question at hand. THEN, either of us can attempt to make our case, but we CAN'T make our case by saying, "Jesus meant it figuratively because that is what I think Jesus was doing..." THAT would be question begging.
Me saying, "Here's the case why it's rational to assume that he meant it figuratively: 1. Jesus talked of Good people;
2. Jesus expected us to be good and do good;
3. Jesus said that those who are doing good, it comes from the good in them;
4. OTHER people in the Bible spoke of good people;
5. The definition of Good is literally NOT Perfect and changing the meaning is irrational... why not just use the word Perfect?
6. We can SEE Good people as it's typically spoken of..."
Like that. THAT is me making a rational case for why Good does not mean Perfect and why we have no solid reason to say Jesus meant it literally and was literally redefining the word.
On the other hand, YOU saying, "We know Jesus was redefining Good to mean God because that is what the text says and I think we should take it literally..." is literally begging the question.
If you can't understand the difference, I don't know how else to help you.
By the way: Are you making ANY other rational argument BEYOND "The text says it so I think we should take it literally and assume that Jesus was redefining Good to mean God..."?
That is, if your entire argument is you REALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLY think the text should be taken literally, then you're not really even making an argument. You're just making an unsupported claim based upon your unsupported hunch and your circular reasoning. Do you understand that?
Marshal... "If He didn't mean THAT, what did He mean?"
As I have said repeatedly: It seems clear that he's merely pointing out that there's no one perfect like God is perfect. And it also seems pretty clear that he's playing a bit of a game with this man and the Pharisees to get them all to think about the nature of following God. And, he could also be pointing out that this rich man is seeing what the Pharisees are failing to see: That Jesus IS God.
I'd suggest, taken in context of the whole of Jesus' teachings, the best way of understanding this is...
1. Understanding that the Pharisees were the main antagonists in the Jesus' story
2. That much of what Jesus was doing was presenting an alternative Way to the Pharisees' way
3. The Pharisees way was a way of deadly legalism, in which ultimately NO ONE is perfect, so we're all "unclean" except for the rich and powerful and the ones that the Pharisees decided were Good enough
4. Jesus' Way, in opposition to that, was that it was NOT about being Good. It was about living in a way of Grace, and that this Grace was a Way that begins with watching out for, aligning and siding with the poor and the marginalized.
5. In the context of that Way - the Gospel as taught by Jesus throughout the Gospels - Jesus was pushing back against the deadly legalism of the Pharisees and their hypocrisy, AND at the same time, noting that we are ALL "Good enough" to be invited by God to the great Welcome Table of the Beloved Community.
THAT makes sense, in the context of Jesus' teaching.
On the other hand, redefining Good to be God and saying, in effect, No one is God but God, and thus, we're all BAD PEOPLE... is very much more in alignment with the death-dealing bad news of the Pharisees, rather than the welcoming Good News of Jesus.
"THEN, THAT is the question at hand."
No. The question at hand is, if Jesus did NOT mean there is no one good but God, what then did He mean when He said, there is no one good but God? I maintain He made a definite truth claim and being He is the Son of God, we can take that truth claim literally unless and until someone like you who cannot bear that truth provides definitive proof it meant something other than "there is no one good but God". Thus far, your argument is no better than that for the various reasons you list...reasons, not definitive proofs...you're simply saying it's not true because you say it is.
"1. Jesus talked of Good people"
Such as?
"2. Jesus expected us to be good and do good"
Not the same as asserting there is anyone but God who is good.
"3. Jesus said that those who are doing good, it comes from the good in them"
This assumes that because there is some good which comes from within some people, that it means those people are good. It does not, especially given we are all cursed with a sin nature.
"4. OTHER people in the Bible spoke of good people"
"Other people" are not Jesus, nor are they saying anything that mitigates Jesus' truth claim regarding no one being good but God.
"5. The definition of Good is literally NOT Perfect and changing the meaning is irrational... why not just use the word Perfect?"
Probably because "good" and "perfect" are not synonymous, even when attesting there is no one good but God.
"6. We can SEE Good people as it's typically spoken of...""
We can SEE "good people" as we regard "good" within the mortal realm of mankind...comparing some people to others based on subjective personal notions of what constitutes "good", while dispensing with those aspects of an individual which are not good in any way.
In light of these 6 points, you've failed miserably to make your case, much less a rational one given your use of irrational arguments to counter Christ's truth claim regarding no one being good but God. You finish with your circular argument regarding Christ's truth claim not being literal because you don't believe He was being literal. Question begging.
"On the other hand, YOU saying, "We know Jesus was redefining Good to mean God because that is what the text says and I think we should take it literally..." is literally begging the question."
Straw man. I never said that. You asked what MY definition of "good" is and I responded that in light of Christ's words, I'd say "Good" equals "God". But Christ didn't say that. He simply said there is no one good but God. It's really pretty easy to re-read my comments to know what I said, especially given there's no asshole deleting them because they're unassailable.
"If you can't understand the difference, I don't know how else to help you."
That's funny. Funnier still that you expect anyone to buy it.
"By the way: Are you making ANY other rational argument BEYOND "The text says it so I think we should take it literally and assume that Jesus was redefining Good to mean God..."?"
I'm not making that argument. Again, I accepted Christ's truth claim and in doing so I chose to define true "good" as "God". What I take literally...as should you and everyone...is the fact that there is no one good but God.
"You're just making an unsupported claim based upon your unsupported hunch and your circular reasoning. Do you understand that?"
Why would I, given it's not the case. I'm taking Christ at His word, andYOU are asserting without any definitive reason He meant something the truth claim doesn't assert. Indeed, I don't need to make an argument that He meant what He said as it was stated. YOU need to provide something more than subjective and tortured "reasoning" to suggest He meant something other than that there is no one good but God. You haven't done that as I've proven.
"As I have said repeatedly: It seems clear that he's merely pointing out that there's no one perfect like God is perfect."
But "perfect" and "good" aren't synonyms, so that argument fails.
"It seems clear that he's merely pointing out that there's no one perfect like God is perfect. And it also seems pretty clear that he's playing a bit of a game with this man and the Pharisees to get them all to think about the nature of following God."
You seem to think that because you wish to assert "it seems clear", there is then no possibility beyond what you want it to mean. Again, "perfect" is not a synonym of "good", so what seems to you to be the case is based on a false premise.
Also, there is no indication Jesus is "playing a bit of a game". I doubt He regards one's salvation is grist for "playing games" and flippancy. What an astounding thing for you to say! What's more, the Pharisees were not involved at all. Look closely at each Gospel version and in none of them does it suggest the Pharisees were even in the area.
"And, he could also be pointing out that this rich man is seeing what the Pharisees are failing to see: That Jesus IS God."
Actually, it makes far more sense that He's implying to the rich man that he's addressing God. To question him in the way Christ did does not at all suggest that the rich man was aware of Christ's deity. If Christ was of the mind that the dude knew He was God, it makes no sense He'd ask the question, "Why do you call me good?" and then receive no response from the dude regarding Christ's deity. You're injecting what you need to be true in order to make your extremely weak case.
To your 5 points:
1. The Pharisees were not involved in this story whatsoever.
2. Much of what Jesus was doing was preaching the Kingdom of God. You assume that because some Pharisees were corrupting Scripture for their own ends that everyone totally bought in. I don't see any evidence that was the case. Jesus' mission was not contingent on such, but responded to Pharisee tests, challenges and traps. Note that not all Pharisee questions were malevolent, but simply sincere questions.
3. The Pharisees were irrelevant to Christ's mission to the poor in spirit who didn't need the Pharisees to feel the need for God. You're so insanely wrapped up in this "rich/poor", "oppressor/oppressed" understanding of Christ's mission. It's crap and not supported by a serious study of Scripture from cover to cover. It's socialistic nonsense.
4. Jesus "way" was Jesus and the His sacrificial death on the cross on our behalf, without which there is no relationship with God.
5. Wow. This is totally non-Christian! Really, dude. Stop pretending.
"On the other hand, redefining Good to be God and saying, in effect, No one is God but God, and thus, we're all BAD PEOPLE... is very much more in alignment with the death-dealing bad news of the Pharisees, rather than the welcoming Good News of Jesus."
It is because we are not "good" that we need Christ...that He was sent for our benefit and to save us from God's wrath. It's got nothing to do with the corruption of Scripture by some Pharisees, be they those of His time, or those like you. We ARE all worthy of death. That's basic stuff, and it is because of that God sent His Only Begotten. You really need to find an actual Christian teacher. You're understanding is blatantly moronic!
Marshal... "The Pharisees were not involved in this story whatsoever...
The Pharisees were irrelevant to Christ's mission to the poor in spirit who didn't need the Pharisees to feel the need for God. You're so insanely wrapped up in this "rich/poor", "oppressor/oppressed" understanding of Christ's mission..."
You demonstrate that you're missing the central antagonistic role that the Pharisees play in the Gospel story. When you miss that Jesus was pushing back against the Pharisees, the rich and powerful and the systems that support them, you miss the Gospel.
I challenge you: Read the Gospels again. It won't take long. This time, do it with an eye on how very prevalent themes of justice and the conflict between the rich and the poor are, on how very prevalent the role of the Pharisees were to which Jesus was reacting against throughout the Gospels. Read and notice how very absent - nearly non-existent the human tradition of "atonement" is in the Gospels, how very absent it is from Jesus' direct teachings... how, when he spoke of preaching the gospel, it's just never there in any sort of major way and the ONLY way to find ANY mention of the evangelical notion of Atonement is to scrap and search for a word or two that MIGHT be taken to support Atonement... all the while having to set aside the predominant, clear, main messages found in Jesus' literal words.
Open your mind and read for understanding, NOT with an eye towards finding proof-texts that support your already held human traditions and opinions.
"You demonstrate that you're missing the central antagonistic role that the Pharisees play in the Gospel story."
Not at all. I'm also not missing that you're making the Gospel story about rich/poor, oppressor/oppressed, when it's not about that at all. The Pharisees and other religious leaders were certainly the tools God used to move the life of Christ from Christmas to Good Friday, but that was peripheral to His mission despite being necessary to His purpose, which was to die in our place for the forgiveness of sin.
"When you miss that Jesus was pushing back against the Pharisees, the rich and powerful and the systems that support them, you miss the Gospel."
When you focus on Jesus "pushing back against the Pharisees", you miss the Gospel completely. It's about reconciliation between mankind and God and the means by which that is accomplished. The wealth/status of the Pharisees has nothing to do with it other than the role they played in moving Christ's story toward it's purposed end.
Your challenge is to dispense with reality and agree with your socialist worldview and how it's corrupted your understanding of Christ and Christianity. That's so incredibly sad that you make the corporeal more important than the spiritual, in direct conflict with Christ's own teachings. I can't come to such a conclusion while asserting truth is important to me. I'm well aware that the Pharisees saw themselves all set and ready because of their devotion to the Law. That means they were not among the poor in spirit for whom Christ brought the Good News by His coming...the poor in spirit who feel their need for God and see themselves as totally dependent upon Him.
But that dependency would go unfulfilled with only the Law available to them. The Law described the means of atonement by the shedding of blood. Christ was the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world. THAT is the Gospel message...that there is now the means by which we who are dependent upon God can be reconciled with Him and permitted into His everlasting presence. This is true regardless of our wealth or status if despite that we still feel that dependency and yearning.
If your mind was truly open and eager for understanding and NOT with an eye towards finding proof-texts which don't exist to support your socialist human traditions, you'd see the real message is about uniting us with God and how Christ's death was the means by which that happens. The Pharisees just put Him on the Cross. The Pharisees represent anyone who doesn't depend on God regardless of wealth or status. This is what you fail to understand in your rich/poor, oppressor/oppressed fantasy world.
Never mind that I'm not a socialist. Never mind that I don't have a socialist worldview. Never mind that you probably don't understand all of what socialist means in various context. Never mind that you can't point to any significant passage within the four Gospels where Jesus who is constantly preaching the gospel talks about atonement in the sense that you do of a blood sacrifice without which sin can't be forgiven.
Never mind reality.
Actually, I am curious. Do you recognize that you can't point to any place where Jesus preaches a gospel of blood sacrifice?
You do realize that I have never said anything about socialism at all, in any way imaginable, in my comments here? You do recognize that reality, don't you?
You're the one who's bringing up socialism, not me. Do you recognize that reality?
What I have done is point to the many places where Jesus speaks of poverty and wealth and how it's central to his gospel. It's central to the words that he is said. It's one of the most talked about topics found in the words of Jesus.
Noting that simple observable reality is not advocating socialism. Do you recognize that?
I'm curious, can you cite any words of mind and explain how you think you're getting socialism out of those words?
Marshal... "I'm also not missing that you're making the Gospel story about rich/poor, oppressor/oppressed, when it's not about that at all..."
You're welcome to your opinion. Just don't conflate it with the gospel.
I'm just noting the reality that Jesus began his ministry by saying he had come to preach good news to the poor, release for the captive. It's in the text, literally.
I'm noting the reality that Jesus talked more about wealth and poverty than just just bought any other topic... as an observable, measurable reality.
I'm noting the reality that he had an ongoing conflict throughout the Gospels, from beginning to end, with the pharisees and that conflict led to him being a arrested unjustly and being killed by capital punishment.
I'm noting the reality that Jesus never spent any significant amount of words talking about atonement in the sense that you talk about it. Again, just reality.
And I'm noting the reality that throughout the Gospels, Jesus saddened over and over with the poor and the marginalized and against wealthy oppressors and the oppressors and the pharisees. It's just in The Bible as an observable reality.
You can take all these realities and form whatever opinions you want, but these are reality.
Marshal... "Your challenge is to dispense with reality and agree with your socialist worldview..."
I'd be very curious to see just what you mean by this period what do you think my "socialist worldview" is?
As is so often the case with modern conservatives going back dozens of years, ya'll spend SO much more time talking about socialism than I or we ever do.
Strange. It's like you're trying to invent a monster or something. Or like you're little children living in fear of nightmare terrors instead of dealing with reality.
They tried to demonize MLK with socialist boogiemen, too. So you're putting me in good company. Thanks for that.
re: You can't show where Jesus preached a Gospel of "The way to be saved is for me to be killed and my "blood" (literal? Figurative??) will be used to "purchase" (ransom? pay off?) your "forgiveness" (from whom? God? The Devil??) so you can be "saved.""
I'll even help you. Here's someone from a conservative evangelical human tradition, trying and failing to find "atonement" in "Jesus' own words." He fails utterly.
https://www.billkochman.com/Articles/atonemt1.html
If you look, you'll see he found ONE place where Jesus mentions "ransom" (and "Ransom" is so baggage-laden... what the hell does that mean? Who are they paying off a ransom to? The devil? God?? God is paying off a ransom to himself??? How's that rational? Biblical?!)
...and one place where he cites Jesus (at the Final Supper with his disciples) where he uses the phrase, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
And THAT'S IT! That is his ENTIRE argument that he can find from Jesus' own words where he says anything that can be considered remotely similar to evangelical traditions of "atonement."
TWO SENTENCES.
And one of them was in a private conversation with his disciples.
AND YET, Jesus and his disciples were out preaching "the Gospel" throughout Jesus' ministry. And in ALL those sermons and lessons, not a single word clearly talking about "atonement" in the sense that modern evangelicals talk about it.
Does this not trouble you?
"Do you recognize that you can't point to any place where Jesus preaches a gospel of blood sacrifice?"
You already know He did, but you want to pretend because He didn't do it often enough to suit the likes of you, then therefore we can pretend He didn't at all. Even if all I offer is Mark 10:45...indeed, even if that's all one can offer...it's enough that we can recognize PSA is true and Biblical. But only if we're honest. You're not, so...
And you are a socialist, and a socialist of the worst kind...demanding the money of others to move your agenda along.
"You do realize that I have never said anything about socialism at all, in any way imaginable, in my comments here?"
The true reality (redundant, I know) is that your socialism taints your "understanding" of Scripture. More accurately, it leads you to corrupt Scripture to satisfy your socialist bent. Here, it isn't necessary that you promote socialism, but I mention it because of your constant framing of the Gospel message as some twisted "rich vs. poor" dynamic which has absolutely nothing to do with Christ's mission and your obsession. That corruption is evident in your next statements as follows:
"What I have done is point to the many places where Jesus speaks of poverty and wealth and how it's central to his gospel. It's central to the words that he is said. It's one of the most talked about topics found in the words of Jesus."
His mentions of either have little to do with material wealth, as if that's some kind of problem greater than any other foible of man. But you need it to be to satiate your socialist appetite.
"Noting that simple observable reality is not advocating socialism."
You're as fixated on wealth/poverty as you are on race. Christ was not. You're a socialist.
"I'm curious, can you cite any words of mind and explain how you think you're getting socialism out of those words?"
I just did, as I have for quite some time every time you seek to make Christianity about wealth vs poverty...which is way too often even for a socialist.
"Just don't conflate it with the gospel."
It's YOU who conflate it with the gospel as you insist on pretending Christ is concerned with material poverty in His preaching, when it is spiritual poverty which draws His attention.
"I'm just noting the reality that Jesus began his ministry by saying he had come to preach good news to the poor, release for the captive. It's in the text, literally."
And in the text, He's literally NOT speaking of the materially poor, no matter how badly your socialism demands He is.
"I'm noting the reality that Jesus talked more about wealth and poverty than just just bought any other topic... as an observable, measurable reality."
Mentioning certain words doesn't mean He's preaching about what the words represent, or that they're even important to His mission. But being a socialist, you need it to be. We've seen how many times you'll stretch a passage to make it about money, simply because money or wealth or poverty is mentioned in some manner, missing the actual message. It's rather common with you.
"I'm noting the reality that Jesus never spent any significant amount of words talking about atonement in the sense that you talk about it. Again, just reality."
Again, you think the quantity of mentions is significant compared to what it is that is mentioned. I have over a dozen verses/passages at the ready which speak to why He died and how it provided for us the means by which we can be reconciled with God. THAT is the alpha and omega of the entirety of Scripture. It begins with the Creation of all things and the first sin of Man, and then speaks of the separation of man from God until we get to Christ, whose death on the cross was the final sacrifice which saves us from our sins. I say again, Christianity 101...the point and purpose of Christ's life and death.
"You can take all these realities and form whatever opinions you want, but these are reality."
You distort the reality of what Scripture says from start to finish. What I present is not "opinion". What YOU present is neither opinion nor fact. It's a tally which you pretend says what it doesn't.
"I'd be very curious to see just what you mean by this period what do you think my "socialist worldview" is?"
If it's still a mystery to you after all these years, then you really haven't been paying attention to those with whom you engage. I've spelled it out many times over the years. You're consumed with the wealth of others and insisting they give more when you, by your own admission, could be earning and giving more yourself. You think charity is that which is mandated through tax legislation, rather than the efforts of the individual through his own desire to serve.
It's only been in recent times, with the efforts of the clown Bernie Sanders, and more recently with the more clownish AOC, that socialism has been embraced by too large a segment of American society. Prior to his rise to prominence, socialism was a word socialists didn't wish to have attached to them if they had legit hopes of getting anywhere in the political world. It took conservatives to expose them and as such, we did indeed speak of it more than you socialists yourselves. But every lefty joker who portrayed capitalism as greed exposed themselves by doing so, because they sought to replace it with the covetousness of their socialism.
We didn't invent anything. We exposed the monster from among us. Now, we're seeing more and more of your evil foisted and forced upon us.
I would never put you in the same company with MLK, and I doubt he'd ever suffer a fool like you. You pervert his message regarding race relations and I can see no evidence he'd condone the socialist crap like BLM and critical race theory.
Marshal... "you think the quantity of mentions is significant compared to what it is that is mentioned. "
NO. It's NOT about the quantity. IF Jesus, even ONE TIME, had said, "look, this is serious stuff. You can NOT be saved unless I die and "pay" for your "sins" (and explained what in the hell that means!) with my "blood" (literal, figurative?? Again, he'd need to explain what that MEANS), then you all - all of humanity - will be tortured for an eternity for failing to "accept" and acknowledge that "payment"... If he had EVER EVEN ONE TIME made this clear, then it wouldn't matter if it was only one time.
That didn't happen. Nowhere in the Gospels is such a "gospel" told by Jesus.
It's not in there. At all. Anywhere from Jesus.
Do you recognize that reality?
Dan...
"I'd be very curious to see just what you mean by this period what do you think my "socialist worldview" is?"
Marshal...
"If it's still a mystery to you after all these years, then you really haven't been paying attention to those with whom you engage. I've spelled it out many times over the years. You're consumed with the wealth of others and insisting they give more when you..."
1. Bullshit. This is a nonsense claim not found in reality, nor in my words. If you COULD post my words where I said that, you could. You can't because I haven't.
2. I DO believe in a progressive tax scheme, like Jefferson and, I'm certain, most of the citizens of the US... at least the moral and rational ones.
3. That doesn't mean that I'm "consumed with the wealth of others..." I pay very little attention to the wealth of others until such time that it appears (like with Trump and many other wealthy and powerful people), they're using that wealth to abuse and oppress others, to steal and get away with crimes and injustices.
4. As someone who is wealthier than most of the world, I want to see MY tax dollars used for justice and to atone for the manner in which the wealthiest have benefited on the backs of the poor.
5. As someone who is wealthier than a lot of people in the US, I want to pay more than those who make less than I do.
6. And, I think it's reasonable and just to see that those who make significantly more than the rest of us - those who have BENEFITED THE MOST from our system, PAY the most. Unlike Trump, who has often paid very little, for instance. And he's not alone in that.
7. As someone who doesn't identify with socialism, you STILL can't and haven't pointed to any words to explain what in the hell you MEAN by socialism.
I do not want to see gov't ownership of the means of production. That is the definition of socialism. I believe in private property, contrary to what socialism (the sort you are talking about, anyway) advocates. I'm literally not a socialist. And again, noting the reality of Jesus' focus on wealth and poverty - LITERAL wealth and poverty, don't be an ignoramus, don't deny the words of the one you call "savior..." - how that makes me a socialist. It's all a figment of your imagination as evidenced by your complete and total inability to cite a single phrase I've said that says I have a socialist worldview.
Marshal... "Prior to his rise to prominence, socialism was a word socialists didn't wish to have attached to them if they had legit hopes of getting anywhere in the political world. It took conservatives to expose them and as such"
Conservative deviants have LONG used "commie" and "socialist" to attack people like King and, today, BLM and others in between, because they think they can scare the stupid amongst us to think "oh, they're socialist (they're not) that must mean they want to see fascist policies put in place (they don't...)." It's just that these false scare words are losing their effectiveness. Conservatives can still scare themselves with these stupidly false claims, but that works for an increasing minority of the nation. Most people recognize the chasm of difference between Democratic Socialism - which is NOT fascism - and the more oppressive/fascist Socialism as it has existed in some nations.
The majority of this nation thinks it's reasonable to have policies to help the poor and marginalized.
The majority of this nation thinks health care is a reasonable thing for people to get.
The majority of this nation believes in progressive tax schemes and is opposed to regressive tax schemes and policies that cost the poor of this nation and the world disproportionately.
You've lost these arguments with the rational majority of the nation and you can only scare yourselves with these attacks.
We're just not as gullible, uninformed or, frankly, as stupid as you are, Marshal.
"If he had EVER EVEN ONE TIME made this clear, then it wouldn't matter if it was only one time."
Just because it's not clear to you doesn't mean it wasn't clear to His listeners back then. You ignore how words and expressions were "commonly understood" back then. The concept of substitutionary atonement was not a foreign concept to a people who routinely sacrificed animals for their sins...the point being that a death was required for atonement. When John the Baptist referred to Christ as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", it's unlikely no Jew of the time didn't make the connection, even if they didn't take it literally themselves that Christ would offer up His life as a sacrifice for us all.
And again, He did indeed mention no one comes to the Father but through Him, so by what other mechanism is it mentioned to explain how that can be done?
"It's not in there. At all. Anywhere from Jesus.
Do you recognize that reality?"
That's not the reality, and you need to stop asking that question until you develop an understanding of what the word "reality" means.
"1. Bullshit. This is a nonsense claim not found in reality, nor in my words. If you COULD post my words where I said that, you could. You can't because I haven't."
The real bullshit is that you reject the conclusions your words continue to provoke in all honest people who read them. And if I could not find a place where you distinctly said, "I'm a socialist", you'd reject all examples which demonstrate you are. Another game you like to play often.
"2. I DO believe in a progressive tax scheme, like Jefferson and, I'm certain, most of the citizens of the US... at least the moral and rational ones."
The first problem is the likes of you presuming you can determine what is or isn't truly moral or rational. The second is that a progressives scheme is socialist. The third is that a progressive scheme is unequal application of law. Jefferson opposed taxation of almost every kind. What you reference was a consumption tax, not an income tax which was unheard of in his time.
https://political-economy.com/thomas-jefferson-on-taxes/
https://maxfreedom.blogspot.com/2005/09/jefferson-and-death-tax.html
"3. That doesn't mean that I'm "consumed with the wealth of others..." I pay very little attention to the wealth of others until such time that it appears (like with Trump and many other wealthy and powerful people), they're using that wealth to abuse and oppress others, to steal and get away with crimes and injustices."
Yet, you favor government using the wealth of others to do just that. You pretend they don't when their doing so furthers your preferences. The very support for a progressive tax is to be consumed with the wealth of others.
"4. As someone who is wealthier than most of the world, I want to see MY tax dollars used for justice and to atone for the manner in which the wealthiest have benefited on the backs of the poor."
You're not wealthy if you are still working for a living and have choice but to do so to meet your obligations. So cut the crap. You don't need to have your taxes increased to do what can better be accomplished through the private sector and private charities. It's a bullshit concept to promote the appearance of caring.
"5. As someone who is wealthier than a lot of people in the US, I want to pay more than those who make less than I do."
No law prevents your doing so, so pony up and then shut the hell up. Rational people want the government to stop spending on that which is not their business or constitutional obligation. Jefferson was in full agreement.
"6. And, I think it's reasonable and just to see that those who make significantly more than the rest of us - those who have BENEFITED THE MOST from our system, PAY the most. Unlike Trump, who has often paid very little, for instance. And he's not alone in that."
There's nothing either reasonable nor just in unequal application of the law. Those who thrive haven't benefited any more or less than anyone from our system. They learned the system and applied their ability, discipline and effort to make the most of themselves, and assholes like you think that means they owe you. I recall part of Trump's tax returns illegally leaked to have shown he pays quite a bit. We now know Biden played the system in a more selfish manner to avoid taxes he actually should have been paying. But overall, morons and liberals (same thing) think using the tax code other libs are most responsible for imposing is the same as not paying what's owed. In the meantime, do you and yours only and ever use the EZ tax form, or do you itemize? If the latter, you're doing exactly what Trump does.
"7. As someone who doesn't identify with socialism, you STILL can't and haven't pointed to any words to explain what in the hell you MEAN by socialism."
I gotta go, so I'm saving this one for later when time allows. Try to hold your water and wait until I've responded to all of your foolishness and ignorance...or I'll implement the Trabue rule and delete for no good reason anything waiting in the queue before I'm done.
"7. As someone who doesn't identify with socialism, you STILL can't and haven't pointed to any words to explain what in the hell you MEAN by socialism."
As to this point, I've decided not to address it here for a number of reasons. None of them include "because I can't". It's off topic, frankly, and is a topic of its own which requires its own post. All in good time, lefty.
I will, however, take a moment to respond to this "not a single thing I've said" nonsense. This is where you indulge your typical raising of the bar. It's really NOT "a single thing" you've said, but the totality of all you say all the time. Thus, I've no intention of seeking out "a single thing" unless you provide one from this point on, or I happen to stumble upon one should I while looking over your past comments/posts should the need to do so arise.
"...noting the reality of Jesus' focus on wealth and poverty..."
The true "ignoramus" is he who believes Christ focused on these things. He did not.
"Conservative deviants have LONG used "commie" and "socialist" to attack people like King..."
I didn't know A.G. Robert Kennedy was a conservative deviant. I'm pretty sure he and his brothers could rationally be described as deviants. In any case, it wasn't as if there was legitimate reason for suspecting commie ties to King. The Civil Rights movement was supported by the CPUSA and King had a couple commies within his circle of advisors:
https://www.history.com/news/martin-luther-king-jr-fbi-j-edgar-hoover-communism
Indeed, in his time, members of both political parties were concerned about communism and its threat to the nation.
"Most people recognize the chasm of difference between Democratic Socialism - which is NOT fascism - and the more oppressive/fascist Socialism as it has existed in some nations."
Most morons who call themselves "Democratic Socialists" likely believe one can be "a little pregnant". Almost all "oppressive/fascist Socialism" began as "democratic". They always find plenty of gullible sheep like you to lure into the fold.
"The majority of this nation thinks it's reasonable to have policies to help the poor and marginalized."
First, this is your favorite logical fallacy: the appeal to numbers. But the reality is that it is from the right that true help for the poor and "marginalized" originates. You favor forced charity through taxation. We favor free-market policies which expand economic growth, which in turn results in more, better paying jobs for those who want them. Hey, look! Another socialist statement by you!!
"The majority of this nation thinks health care is a reasonable thing for people to get."
That's another meaningless statement without fully explaining what you mean. I've no doubt you believe in some Obamacare/socialist type system, whereas honest people of character understand one's health care is one's own responsibility, not the responsibility of the rest of the nation. An over-regulated health care industry has done more to make health care inaccessible than anything else.
"The majority of this nation believes in progressive tax schemes and is opposed to regressive tax schemes and policies that cost the poor of this nation and the world disproportionately."
The majority of the covetous believe this. The majority of Americans who understand what the founders intended, as well as those who understand economics, do not believe this at all. Name me one "tax scheme" which "cost the poor of this nation disproportionately. I'll wait here while you fail to come up with one.
"You've lost these arguments with the rational majority of the nation and you can only scare yourselves with these attacks."
These arguments haven't been won by your side at all. They've been avoided. A real debate about these issues can never result in the leftist, marxist policies you advocate because they're destructive as we're seeing now.
"We're just not as gullible, uninformed or, frankly, as stupid as you are, Marshal."
Typical. This is not a sign you've won any argument, when all you can do is make assertions and insult those who don't buy in.
"Stupid" is a person who actually and truly thought Biden was a better choice than Trump in the last election. It took being uninformed and gullible to make such a disastrous choice. The evidence of this truth abounds.
Post a Comment