This post is in response to petulant questions posed to me by Dan in the comments section of the following post of his:
http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2022/10/trying-to-answer-misunderstandings-and.html
The reason I'm doing it here is because Dan refused to assure me he's allow me the freedom to respond in my own way, as I do for him here at my blog. He believes that because he allowed some comments of mine, which he says, basically, because I followed his rules, then I should not demand that assurance. But I know better than to take his word for such things. One false step and all the time I took to respond will be made a waste when he deletes for reasons no one can hope to follow.
That's enough background. Here we go:
It begins with this:
"Before you say anything else, PROVE this claim objectively or admit
you can't. Support your claims/answer the questions in bold. Don't
comment otherwise.
Marshal...
Given Scripture's teaching about eternal
punishment...even allowing for the fact you reject that teaching as you
do so many others...it's clear God's opinion of sin is severe and more
so than yours or you wouldn't defend so much of it so openly and
happily.
? PROVE IT."
This is my response:
I have proven it many times in past discussions, and really, it's proven again in the very quote he wants me to prove. Scripture teaches of eternal punishment. That clearly suggests (at the utter least) that God's opinion of sin is severe and more so than Dan's. Dan thinks eternal punishment is unjust for what he refers to as "minor" or "trivial" sins. God simply deals in sin and is willing to allow that some will perish, even though He desires that none should.
He goes on as follows:
"I know there are passages that speak of eternal punishment. There are
also passages that speak of God not being willing any to punish. What is
your PROOF, objective, demonstrable PROOF, that God thinks the every
day "I took the last cookie even though I knew my wife wanted it" sins
are worthy of eternal punishment, in God's opinion?
PROVE IT."
This is my response:
I've never made the case that God thinks "every day" sins...and here Dan is again referring to what he labels "minor" or "trivial" sins... are worthy of eternal punishment. My position is that God isn't basing His sense of justice on any such ranking of the seriousness of sinful behaviors. And while Dan demands proof that God wouldn't condemn on such a basis, he provides absolutely no proof that there's any specific line separating "minor" or "trivial" sins from "major" or "really bad" sins. For my part, I insist my job is to avoid sinful behaviors of all kinds without regard to how someone like Dan might categorize them, because I know from Scripture that God abhors sin. It's not a behavior which condemns us, it's our sin nature.
Dan said:
"This is an intentional distortion of the point.
Prove it, liar. What it is, is me making clear what my position is."
Of course, I stated my point and thus his words clearly distorted it as I go on to say in the next part he reprinted:
"Marshal...
Only you are suggesting the possibility of "some
secret notions of sin and justice". To say God's ways are not our ways
and we can't know God's ways as He does is not a suggestion there are
secret notions of sin and justice.
So, what DO you mean that God's ways aren't our ways? Do you think we CAN reasonably understand morality and justice issues?"
This is my response:
The first sentence of mine he quoted speak tot he distortion mentioned prior. More details of my point can be found by scrolling above (I had about a half-dozen comments in a row). But his emboldened questions are nonsensical. The concept of God's ways not being like ours is not a new or mysterious concept. In the context of this discussion, Dan can't understand how there can be eternal punishment for anyone for any reason. Personally, I don't even need to know why God has chosen to act as He does, but only that I have a duty to abide His Will, which is very clearly revealed to us in Scripture. As to Dan's second question in bold, it's not a question about which he's truly concerned. Dan seeks to promote ambiguity in which one can rationalize behaviors which aren't ambiguously prohibited. He also seeks to impose upon God a human level of moral/justice understanding. That is, if we don't have civil penalties for "minor" or "trivial" sins, by golly God mustn't concern Himself with them, either. We're all imperfect humans. We try to live by codes of morality and justice as we understand them and as we prefer them to be, with other cultures on earth having distinctly different codes by which they rule themselves. God, however, is perfect and His "understanding" of morality and justice is not like ours. Thus, if He is more offended by sin than we are, it is justice if He punishes those stained by sin more than the likes of a Dan Trabue would prefer. Boo-hoo Dan Trabue.
Moving on:
"Marshal...
"I tolerate these people in order to help them. I
do not, will not and let them know that they must never again indulge
their bad behaviors if they're truly seeking help."
Not an
effective method for dealing with some of these sins/failings. Addicts
and racists don't respond well to ultimatums. I'm interested in reform,
not judgmentalism"
This is my response:
There is no reform while bad behaviors continue. There is no reform without having first judged a person who engages in bad behavior. What the hell? And addict isn't reforming if he's still using. A racist isn't reforming if he's still a Democrat.
Dan said...
"D. None of us can objectively authoritatively prove our understandings of justice and morality. Not Marshal. Not me.
Marshal responded...
D. This doesn't make sense. Do you mean we can't prove our understandings are correct? I don't agree.
I mean PRECISELY that your opinions about justice and morality are opinions that you can NOT prove objectively."
This is my response:
Ah...the old, "I call myself a Christian but I don't know if I can trust what Scripture says about morality because I don't really have faith" line. I regard Scripture as inerrant. God's Will, as regards human behavior, is clearly revealed to us in Scripture. Only lefties pretend there's ambiguity enough to rationalize behaviors they indulge or enable in others. But to insist that clearly revealed Will of God is not proof is absurd. Of course it is. Scripture is the testimony of those who were servants of God or witnesses to their deeds. It's proof of what morality and justice looks like.
Dan said,
"You can't PROVE objectively that God is opposed to gay guys marrying."
This is my response:
Of course I can and have repeatedly over the years. It begins with Lev 18:22 and, frankly, can end there given your inability to prove your self-serving opinion of it. That verse prohibits the commission of a particular behavior. It provides no context or scenario in which it might be indulged and not still be considered detestable by God. As Neil Simpson's well known response states:
---100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
---100% of the verses referencing God's ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
---100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
---0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
This is objective proof that God is opposed to SSM. There is no early Christian apologists promoting or enabling the behavior in any way regardless of the context or scenario in which it might take place.
In the meantime, Dan as NEVER provided so much as a hint of evidence to the contrary, and all attempts he's put forth require wild speculation based on his preference that God is not opposed.
Dan said:
"You can't PROVE objectively that we are saved literally by Jesus' blood to "cover" or "pay for" our sins."
This is my response:
Of course I can and have repeatedly over the years. Indeed, there are a variety of ways we can show through Scripture that this is true. I believe Dan expects and demands that there must be a stockpile of vials filled with Christ's blood in order for this to be true. But of course, the salient point is that it is Christ's death on the cross which paid our sin debt, and thus to say we're washed clean by His blood shed on that cross is a metaphorical explanation of that most necessary sacrifice on our behalf. It's basic Christianity 101 which any serious and prayerful student of Scripture knows.
Dan said:
"You can't PROVE objectively that transgender folks are "sinning.""
This is my response:
Well of course I can and have every time the subject arose. The problem here for Dan is that unlike actual Christians, he requires more than one verse or mention of a commandment of God to acknowledge the sinfulness of a behavior. Indeed, he's taken a mocking tone for daring to present the one verse which makes this obvious. But if mere cross-dressing is prohibited, how much more so is mutilating one's body so as to appear to be a member of the opposite sex? His objection is absurd.
Now, there is one caveat to this, which is that so many of such people are mentally disordered. One has to be to believe amputating body parts will bring one joy and happiness. I would hope mental cases aren't judged in the same way as those who simply find pleasure in indulging in prohibited behaviors. I leave that to God, but will voice the truth when given the opportunity. Some simply aren't aware of the truth. Dan is and rejects it so as to appear more holy to those who most need to hear the unvarnished and unequivocal Word of God.
Dan said:
"You can't PROVE objectively that ANY of your opinions about what God
thinks about moral questions are objectively correct. NOT ONE."
This is my response:
The three previous points completely destroy this claim. What's more, all my opinions are totally grounded in and informed by Scripture...even those which I had already held prior to Biblical study (just lucky, I guess). But again, for Dan to so insist this nonsense requires that he not take Scripture seriously. He'll worry what non-Christians believe or that actual Christians might struggle to persuade non-Christians like him the truth of Scriptural teachings. I don't know, but that he doesn't believe in Scripture when it's not convenient to do so...which is quite often.
Dan said:
"These are human traditions and beliefs that are not provable.
Do you admit that reality?"
This is my response:
It's not "reality" but your wish that it be so. This "human tradition" trope is one you pull out when you have no actual argument in defense of your defenseless preferences. You want and need to believe that because "humans" have a "tradition" that the "tradition" in question is somehow unBiblical because you desperately need it to be so. There's not a single Christian tradition...I refer here to both actual Christians as well as those like yourself...which are not in some way informed by Scripture. All are "human" so this "human tradition" mantra is crap and meaningless. It's just a form of derision for that which you cannot intelligently oppose for lack of evidence, data or support of the level you demand of every opponent with whom you disagree.
Dan said:
" If you THINK you can prove it objectively, do so. OR, admit you can't."
This is my response:
Clearly I've proven every claim I've made with regard to the morality of behaviors. What we lack is Dan's body of evidences, proofs, data and support for his alternative positions. Proof is only required by him of those who disagree with him. He does not feel he is obliged to prove a thing he believes or wishes was true.
It goes on....
""Do you agree that none of us - not even conservatives like you - have a perfect understanding of justice and morality?"
Marshal didn't answer, saying instead...
A
foolish and irrelevant question. Perfection isn't required. And the
real issue isn't a matter of perfect understanding anyway, but
understanding what is clear and unequivocal.
Answer the
question, directly. Given your non-answer, I suspect that you are
willing to admit, "NO, conservatives don't have a perfect understanding
of Justice and morality."
AM I RIGHT? ANSWER THE QUESTION PUT TO YOU."
This is my response:
Dan believes he's scoring points here. Even his snippet of my response clearly demonstrates that I did answer his moronic question. I don't know how many times I must refer to humanity as imperfect in order to prevent his need to ask such questions. If I've continued to describe humanity as imperfect, then on what basis would this question be intelligent? My answer is as direct as it needs to be if the questioner was an honest person. I could also have answered in this way: Conservatives have a far better understanding of justice and morality than any "progressive Christian" ever will. But that's an entirely different debate for another time.
Dan goes on:
"Marshal...
"what is clear and unequivocal..."
According TO WHO?
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS PUT TO YOU, directly. Clearly. With no vague non-answers."
I always answer directly. I don't deal in "vague 'non-answers'". But according to whom? According to honest people who don't pretend God's Will is vague and difficult to understand in order to continue indulging or enabling that which is prohibited but personally pleasing. And example of that which is clear and unequivocal are any verses beginning with "Thou shalt not..."
Dan asks:
"
"Do you agree that we all, generally, CAN have a reasonable understanding of Justice and morality?"
Marshal responded without answering...
This suggests you're as reasonable as I am. You're not.
ANSWER
THE QUESTION PUT TO YOU. Do you agree that humanity can and does have a
reasonable understanding of morality and justice, even if it's
imperfect?"
This is my response:
My answer was as direct as it needed to be. Dan is unreasonable. I would imagine there are quite a few among "humanity" who are less so and some that are only more so by small degrees. Dan is a "diversity is our strength" guy, ignoring the diversity which clearly exists among those in this country with regard to crime in the streets alone. The understanding of morality and justice among Dan's favored political party is vastly unreasonable and superior to mine alone, much less the conservative portion of "humanity" in this country. Now consider Communist China/N. Korea. How many citizens in those countries believe as their leaders do? What about muslim majority nations? Some will throw Dan's lesbians off roofs with their hands bound behind them because of their understanding of morality and justice.
That's about where I'm going to leave it. Dan goes on a bit further with his usual crap...pretending I'm "conflating hunches with God's Word". Like I said...crap. "Conflating hunches" is what Dan says when he's unable to prove his opposing opinion is Scriptural and unwilling to try. He just wants those who oppose his enabling of immorality to concede they might be wrong, while never doing jack shit to support the possibility he could possibly be right.
I've never failed to support my positions. I've referenced Scripture and have been accused of "speaking for God" when repeating what Scripture says God has said. I've never said anything which God has NOT said. Dan does all the time. Dan proves nothing, supports nothing, provides no evidence, proofs, facts or data. He then dares to suggest HE'S the adult in an adult conversation.
Now I have to decide if I'm going to bother to attempt to post this at his blog.
92 comments:
"This is objective proof that God is opposed to SSM. There is no early Christian apologists promoting or enabling the behavior in any way regardless of the context or scenario in which it might take place."
Yeah, Satan is pure evil but actually pretty shrewd (though I can't say the same for his Cabana Boys, such as the one you address). Yet it still took him 2,000 years to convince small parts of the church to believe the pro-pervert lies. And even then, the people he "convinced" were already in rebellion against God over female "pastors," the deity of Jesus, the authority of scripture, etc.
Discussions over whether God sends people to Hell over "small" sins are pointless, because no one has a lifetime of just "small sins." Our default destination is Hell because it is a fallen world, and we are only saved by God's grace.
Art,
I applaud the effort, and agree that Dan's inability to guarantee that he won't randomly delete comments at his cesspool, leaves you with no alternative other than to respond here.
The problem with all of his demands that you "prove" things are as follows.
1. He'll never actually prove anything he says or any claims he makes, yet will demand that everyone else do so.
2. He frequently defaults to "we don't/can't know", "it's self-evident", or "Reason", in lieu of actual proof.
3. His standards of "proof" are fluid at best, unreasonable at worst.
It's a hopeless task to try to prove something to someone who thrives on ambiguity, equivocation, and appeals to himself. It's almost like he wants to deny that anything can actually be proven, while clinging to his ability to judge others in universal/objective terms.
I've asked Dan multiple times to provide one example of any Biblical writings, extra biblical writings by Hebrew religious writers, extra Biblical writings by any of the early church fathers, or anything from the early history of Judeo Christian writings that referred to homosexual activity or (SSM) is either neutral or positive terms. He's been clear that his stance that "God blesses gay marriage" has absolutely zero Biblical support, and he's ignored my requests for extra biblical support from Jewish or early Christian sources. It's simply an argument from silence.
Neil,
It would be good if Dan can get to the point he's trying to make by his focus on "trivial" sins. I suspect it's just a way he'll use to rationalize supporting those who engage in prohibited behaviors he believes should not be or are not prohibited. I can't get over how this is in direct conflict with the notion of putting God above everything. Clearly, those he defends do not put God above their chosen behaviors. If there's any question at all about the moral status of a behavior, it seems one would "play it safe" for His sake to avoid the behavior.
Picture your buddy going up to Jesus on the cross and mocking him for willingly dying for “trivial” sins. That’s the “Christian” Left - mocking God 24x7.
Craig,
Thanks. Dan has left a few of my comments, but I've been more emphatic about mentioning his penchant for deletion on the most ludicrous of grounds, so he might simply be trying to appear more reasonable. In any case, it was a chance I wasn't willing to take given the extent of my response.
Your three points nail his MO quite well.
As to his attempts to rationalize his pro-LGBT position, he perverts Scripture in order to to that, if he's going to pretend to have any Scriptural support at all.
I don't know if we have a clear idea on whether or not Dan regards Christ's death as His purpose, much less that He would die for "trivial" sins. He mocks us for acknowledging Christ's blood washes away our sins, when that's just a euphemism or metaphor for His actual grizzly sacrifice on our behalf...which had to happen in order for our sins to be "washed away". While it's one thing to presume God could simply extent to us Grace enough to negate our sins, that's not how it played out at all, and few things in Scripture are as clear as why Christ even existed on earth but that He should be the ultimate and absolutely perfect sacrificial lamb.
“Rapid pace of US employment growth hinders Fed’s battle to curb inflation”
From the Financial Times, a fiscally centrist UK paper.
Marshal and Craig praised Trump as a job creator but blame Biden because gas and food prices have risen from Russia’s war on Ukraine.
Over half of us white people are willfully choosing to be stupid… to defend bigotry as their outlet for raging against change.
Eric
feo,
You comment's stupid and false, as is typical, though you identify as of the stupid half of the white population (not that you needed to remind us).
You also seem to identify as "Eric", which is why I allowed this comment. Or is it just another feo lie?
Against my better judgment, I'll give you ONE chance to make clear one point:
I. Clearly, by ANY rational moral judgment, taking the last cookie (that you own, in your own house) that you KNOW your wife would like, but you selfishly take it and eat it - by any rational reasonable measure, that is a MINOR TRIVIAL sin, in and of of itself;
II. Likewise, by ANY rational moral judgment, choosing to rape and then kill thousands of women as part of a genocidal process against a people is a great and tremendous, diabolical, sickening EVIL.
III. By ANY rational moral judgment, comparing the two and saying they are equally morally repugnant... that CLAIM itself, would be a great irrational evil, because of course, they're not equally evil and indeed, the "taking of the last cookie, while clearly selfish, is not reasonably called "evil," and only a person with poor moral reasoning would make such a claim. Such a claim takes away from actual evil.
IV. By ANY rational moral judgment, to say that the taking of the last cookie is REASONABLY deserving of an eternity of torment and torture. That would be a crazy and evil claim to make.
V. As to Neil's unsupported and irrational claim (which misses the point entirely) that no one has committed only minor sins ("because no one has a lifetime of just "small sins."), I would say, PROVE it. This is almost certainly a stupidly false claim and undermines actual evil.
V. a. In a world history of billions of people, some who have died young and without much experience, OF COURSE, there are going to be some who committed only minor sins. You all probably believe in some notion of "the age of accountability" which is common in conservative evangelical beliefs - that God probably doesn't judge people below a certain age before they're able to make rational moral judgments. (from the conservative "Got Questions?" website - "The concept of the “age of accountability” is that children are not held accountable by God for their sins until they reach a certain age, and that if a child dies before reaching the “age of accountability,” that child will, by the grace and mercy of God")
So, let's assume an age of accountability for a young person of 13... even 15. So, let's take a 16 year old who IS accountable for their sins and in his 16 years, he HAS done some wrong. He's been disrespectful to his parents (rolling his eyes 225 times!) and has lied to them and his siblings two dozen times (about taking the last cookie, selfishly) and maybe hundreds of such CLEARLY minor sins/wrongs... AND they never stole, killed, raped, oppressed, expressed racist hatred, etc towards anyone... they clearly have committed no major sins, so serious, grievously harmful wrongs.
Is Brother Neil SERIOUSLY saying that such a youth HAS committed "serious" crimes - crimes that REASONABLY "deserve" an eternity of torture?
PROVE IT.
He can't. You can't. It's irrational and unsupported and an evil claim on the face of it.
If you can't prove it (and none of you can or you would have by now), then have the moral goodness to admit you misspoke and apologize for your pride and hubris and support of actual evil.
Repent. Here's your chance, Neil, Marshal. If you can't support it, retract it.
WHAT SIN/set of sins has the 16 year old done that "deserves" an eternity of torture?
If you even TRY to make that case, you will like evil buffoons. If you don't try, you'll be exposed as intellectually cowardly hypocrites. Your only rational moral choice is to apologize and repent.
Again, against my better judgment:
He mocks us for acknowledging Christ's blood washes away our sins
Not so much mock you as just recognize that this is not rational, it's clearly a figurative statement. Do you think that Jesus' literal running red blood somehow literally "washes" away our "sins..."?? It's not a rational claim.
Likewise, do I think a perfectly just and perfectly loving God is actual impotent to choose to forgive sins because that God CHOOSES to do so and that God is INCAPABLE to embrace grace and simply forgive sins without a "blood payment..."? Such a godling would be less grace-full and weaker than even a mere mortal, as we forgive people all the time.
Why worship or honor such a weak godling?
Grace is grace is grace. If "forgivenness" requires a "blood payment" (whatever you mean by that!), then it's some kind of sick pagan payment system, not Grace. Boys.
While I'm at it, I asked...
Do you agree that humanity can and does have a reasonable understanding of morality and justice, even if it's imperfect?"
You RESPONDED, but never not once answered...
Dan is unreasonable.
NOT WHAT I ASKED. Try again.
I would imagine there are quite a few among "humanity" who are
less so and some that are only more so by small degrees.
There are some who are less able to have a reasonable understanding of morality and some moreso, "but only by small degrees..."?
Is that what you're saying?
PROVE IT.
You can't. You won't. It's an unsupported hunch you have. But try to be more specific. Do you think that maybe only 50% of humanity is able to have a reasonable understanding of morality and 50% NOT? Or is your guess that it's more like 25% who can and 75% who can't? And it just so happens that the 25% who DO reasonably understand morality are Christians who agree with you?
Be more clear. OR, admit you don't know and have NO WAY of making a guess on this point. Say, if you think it, that it's YOUR UNPROVABLE and UNSUPPORTED HUNCH that you think most of humanity isn't able to reasonably understand morality.
On the other hand, if you can prove it, PROVE IT.
You can't and you won't because you can't. The only real question is will you admit this is your unsupported guess?
Brother Neil, who asks that I leave him out of my comments, but who regularly makes stupid claims like this about me, said...
Picture your buddy going up to Jesus on the cross and mocking him for willingly dying for “trivial” sins. That’s the “Christian” Left - mocking God 24x7.
1. You have not proven that "Jesus died for trivial sins."
2. You have not proven that there are no trivial sins.
3. You have not proven that we're mocking Jesus for not agreeing with you, Neil.
Perhaps it's YOU who's mocking Jesus by conflating your hunches with God's Word?
4. Perhaps we are honoring God by noting the reasonable notion that the Almighty Creator God of the universe is not a pagan-ish irrationally angry godling who is impotent to forgive sins without blood sacrifices? That sure sounds like, to me, you are the one disrespecting and mocking the Almighty God of the Universe. Do you recognize that just because we disagree with your impotent and angry little godling portrayal of God does not mean that we are mocking God?
Perhaps we're just respectfully and reasonably correcting YOU and noting that you are not the owner of God and God won't fit in your little conservative box?
It might take a couple of days before I can properly get to Dan's comments, much of which demonstrate he needs to re-read my post as if he's someone truly concerned with engaging in adult-level debate and discourse.
But the first thing which grabbed me was his condescension regarding his "better judgement". Imagine how bad his "worse" judgement must be!!! Indeed, his ability for judgement provokes much debate given how shoddy it continually proves it is.
So stayed tuned, and I hope my chance comes sooner rather than later. I can't wait.
Wow, the democrats actually did well in this midterm election.
Yes, Jesse. The decay of America continues. Stupid people are increasing in number. A topic for another post likely coming soon.
I wonder whether it is due to the GOP having a messaging problem and a lack of solid leadership. From Ben Shapiro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g79R34BU8Y
OK. So here we go beginning with Dan's comment on
November 6, 2022 at 7:30 PM
"Against my better judgment,"
Wow. What arrogance and unjustified condescension...as if it's a problem for him to lower himself to comment here, to seek understanding from those with whom he disagrees while "knowing" it's likely useless because somehow it's me who routinely fails to provide.
"...I'll give you ONE chance to make clear one point:"
How gracious. I feel so privileged.
"I. Clearly, by ANY rational moral judgment, taking the last cookie (that you own, in your own house) that you KNOW your wife would like, but you selfishly take it and eat it - by any rational reasonable measure, that is a MINOR TRIVIAL sin, in and of of itself;"
"Clearly" it is to you, and likely to most everyone. Too bad that's not at issue. You only need it to because it serves you to focus on the irrelevant over the more important which inconveniences you.
"II. Likewise, by ANY rational moral judgment, choosing to rape and then kill thousands of women as part of a genocidal process against a people is a great and tremendous, diabolical, sickening EVIL."
Certainly not to those who do it or profit by others doing it. That's part of the problem as you force what you want to regard as "by any rational moral judgement" on those who clearly don't believe there's anything wrong with that. You'd do yourself a service by refraining from that crap. Clearly if such people believed as you do, they would not "rape and then kill thousands of women as part of a genocidal process".
"III. By ANY rational moral judgment, comparing the two and saying they are equally morally repugnant... that CLAIM itself, would be a great irrational evil, because of course, they're not equally evil and indeed, the "taking of the last cookie, while clearly selfish, is not reasonably called "evil," and only a person with poor moral reasoning would make such a claim. Such a claim takes away from actual evil."
Clearly those who "rape and then kill thousands of women as part of a genocidal process" might have a different idea about someone eating their last cookie. Might not go well for the one discovered to have eaten it. Worse, however, is that you're basing this argument on YOUR moral reasoning and making the claim it is "good" and "rational" with which all "good" people must agree in order to be of "good moral reasoning" and therefor "moral".
"IV. By ANY rational moral judgment, to say that the taking of the last cookie is REASONABLY deserving of an eternity of torment and torture. That would be a crazy and evil claim to make."
Perhaps if we are condemned because of specific actions and sentenced accordingly. Which verse or passage suggests this?
"V. As to Neil's unsupported and irrational claim (which misses the point entirely) that no one has committed only minor sins ("because no one has a lifetime of just "small sins."), I would say, PROVE it. This is almost certainly a stupidly false claim and undermines actual evil."
Plenty of Scripture supports Neil's position far stronger than any you've never offered to support yours. So there's your path: provide support there exists anyone who has committed only "minor" sins you've never defined as such, and be sure there is proof of some limitation for what would send one to perdition, such as level of seriousness and how often it must be committed. I'll wait here while you don't.
"V. a. In a world history of billions of people, some who have died young and without much experience, OF COURSE, there are going to be some who committed only minor sins."
So you're going to move the goalposts to focus on small children to avoid dealing with adults who steal one cookie. But of course we're not speaking of small children at all, are we? You only bring it up to carve out an escape. Thus, what follows is irrelevant and not worthy of further response. Stay on point.
----"You all probably believe in some notion of "the age of accountability" which is common in conservative evangelical beliefs - that God probably doesn't judge people below a certain age before they're able to make rational moral judgments. (from the conservative "Got Questions?" website - "The concept of the “age of accountability” is that children are not held accountable by God for their sins until they reach a certain age, and that if a child dies before reaching the “age of accountability,” that child will, by the grace and mercy of God")"---
"So, let's assume an age of accountability for a young person of 13... even 15. So, let's take a 16 year old who IS accountable for their sins and in his 16 years, he HAS done some wrong. He's been disrespectful to his parents (rolling his eyes 225 times!) and has lied to them and his siblings two dozen times (about taking the last cookie, selfishly) and maybe hundreds of such CLEARLY minor sins/wrongs... AND they never stole, killed, raped, oppressed, expressed racist hatred, etc towards anyone... they clearly have committed no major sins, so serious, grievously harmful wrongs."
Let's not assume that, because you're purposely trying to find a loophole rather than acknowledge what is true. This is common to you as your loopholes are large enough through which you've sailed horrendous sins of sexual immorality and murder. But note, those sins are forgivable. Do you have any understanding of how that might be?
November 6, 2022 at 7:37 PM
"Again, against my better judgment:"
There it is again. The nerve of this moax!
"He mocks us for acknowledging Christ's blood washes away our sins
Not so much mock you as just recognize that this is not rational, it's clearly a figurative statement. Do you think that Jesus' literal running red blood somehow literally "washes" away our "sins..."?? It's not a rational claim."
Really? Where did you get that? In the comment where I said exactly that? Geez. Pay attention or stop pretending you care about "adult conversation". Adults actually peruse the comments of their opponents before making asses of themselves.
"Likewise, do I think a perfectly just and perfectly loving God is actual impotent to choose to forgive sins because that God CHOOSES to do so and that God is INCAPABLE to embrace grace and simply forgive sins without a "blood payment..."? Such a godling would be less grace-full and weaker than even a mere mortal, as we forgive people all the time."
You continue to live in a fantasy world. You want to think in terms of God's capabilities while totally and completely ignoring and rejecting what He is recorded as having done. I'm sure God could have redeemed us by farting "Old Susanna" in three-part harmony". But He chose to come in the flesh in order to offer Himself, the Perfect Sacrifice, in order to provide atonement, just as lambs and other animals were sacrificed all throughout the OT for the forgiveness of sins. This is Christianity 101 and you pretend it's some radical, outlier belief. It's fact. You might want to actually seriously and prayerfully study Scripture if you still find this basic teaching too strange to grasp.
OR, you can present, in context, any verse which says something different. I'll wait here while you don't.
"Why worship or honor such a weak godling?"
So you think submitting One's Self in human form to severe torture and execution a sign of weakness? But then, you worship an idol...an invented God who vaguely resembles the God of Scripture and mock the Real Deal as a "weak godling". Good luck with that.
"Grace is grace is grace. If "forgivenness" requires a "blood payment" (whatever you mean by that!), then it's some kind of sick pagan payment system, not Grace. Boys."
You clearly don't understand either grace or how it was manifested for our benefit. Girl. Go find an actual Christian and get educated while you still can. It's funny in a very pathetic and sick way, that you refer to Christian teaching as paganism. Blaspheming the Spirit again. You're toast.
November 6, 2022 at 7:52 PM
"Do you agree that humanity can and does have a reasonable understanding of morality and justice, even if it's imperfect?"
You RESPONDED, but never not once answered...
Dan is unreasonable.
NOT WHAT I ASKED. Try again."
It was part of my direct answer, more of which followed after your unjustified condescension. But it began with the fact that YOU are not a reasonable person at all...not as regards our years of discourse, where you prove the point with remarkable consistency. If you're going to speak of what is reasonable, you must understand the word. You clearly don't.
Next comes what is even more to the point in my response:
"I would imagine there are quite a few among "humanity" who are
less so and some that are only more so by small degrees.
There are some who are less able to have a reasonable understanding of morality and some moreso, "but only by small degrees..."?
Is that what you're saying?"
Yes.
"PROVE IT."
I did, by both describing differences in moral philosophies in this country as well as across the world.
"You can't. You won't. It's an unsupported hunch you have. But try to be more specific. Do you think that maybe only 50% of humanity is able to have a reasonable understanding of morality and 50% NOT? Or is your guess that it's more like 25% who can and 75% who can't? And it just so happens that the 25% who DO reasonably understand morality are Christians who agree with you?"
I can and I did. Are you going to tell me muslim majority countries govern under the same moral code as you made up for yourself? I acknowledge the sinfulness of homosexual practice, but I also believe it's sinful to bind a queer's hands behind his back and throw him from the roof of a really tall building to his death. In the meantime, you're so corrupt you think homosexual practice is just peachy. So tell me again about "reasonable understanding" of morality. You'll first need to apprise yourself of what morality looks like. You don't seem to know.
"Be more clear. OR, admit you don't know and have NO WAY of making a guess on this point. Say, if you think it, that it's YOUR UNPROVABLE and UNSUPPORTED HUNCH that you think most of humanity isn't able to reasonably understand morality."
In a world with as diverse a total population world-wide as we actually have, there is no consensus on morality which includes the vast majority. I spoke of muslims and homosexuals. At Craig's I recently referenced the facts regarding how prevalent slavery is in this world. Then there are the cartels with their human and drug trafficking and the murder which goes along with it. The governments of Mexico turning a blind eye rather than attacking it head on and damn the consequences. So the only way your nonsense makes for a serious question to which I need to respond, is to acknowledge that, like you, these bad actors around the world know God's truth and just reject the parts they don't like. But I feel compelled to judge people by their actions and character, not some fantasy about everyone being on the same page.
"You can't and you won't because you can't."
I can and I did because it was incredibly easy to do. The only real question is will you take your head out of your ass and actually prove YOUR position for a change? I'm guessing you can't find a pair of testicles to borrow to get the job done.
November 6, 2022 at 7:57 PM
"Brother Neil, who asks that I leave him out of my comments, but who regularly makes stupid claims like this about me, said...
Picture your buddy going up to Jesus on the cross and mocking him for willingly dying for “trivial” sins. That’s the “Christian” Left - mocking God 24x7."
Neil's not your brother. He's an actual Christian. You just pretend to be.
In the meantime, I did picture that and can't help but see Jesus with a strange, "Who let this guy in here?" look on His face. You ARE mocking God.
"1. You have not proven that "Jesus died for trivial sins.""
Where does it say He didn't? Where does Scripture list which sins matter to Him and which don't? Where does Scripture describe how many times one can commit ANY sin before which it's just dandy to commit it? Provide or admit you're full of shit.
"2. You have not proven that there are no trivial sins."
You want us to prove what YOU say is true? Shouldn't that be YOUR job?
"3. You have not proven that we're mocking Jesus for not agreeing with you, Neil.
Perhaps it's YOU who's mocking Jesus by conflating your hunches with God's Word?"
When you can prove any of us conflate our "hunches" with God's Word, that'll be the day. Saying so don't make it so, and most everything you say just ain't so.
"4. Perhaps we are honoring God by noting the reasonable notion that the Almighty Creator God of the universe is not a pagan-ish irrationally angry godling who is impotent to forgive sins without blood sacrifices? That sure sounds like, to me, you are the one disrespecting and mocking the Almighty God of the Universe. Do you recognize that just because we disagree with your impotent and angry little godling portrayal of God does not mean that we are mocking God?"
Perhaps you dishonor God in, among all the other ways you do routinely, mocking what's recorded regarding how He manifested His Grace for our salvation and how it required the sacrifice of Christ on the cross to accomplish it...just as is recorded in the Scripture you reject so constantly. Perhaps you dishonor God by mocking His plan as "paganish" and referring to Him as an "irrationally angry 'godling'" for daring to do things His way despite your revulsion. I recognize that when you reject Scripture as a description of God as an "impotent and angry little godling portrayal" that you are once again...as you so often do...blaspheming the Spirit by such mockery.
Clearly that "better judgement" line was a punchline, because you don't show sound judgement at all. But you can pretend you have a spine by actually returning with some evidence which rebuts our positions. Like that lesbian elected MA governor, it'll be a historic first.
Perhaps we're just respectfully and reasonably correcting YOU and noting that you are not the owner of God and God won't fit in your little conservative box?
"Clearly, by ANY rational moral judgment,"
I was unaware that the above is a universal, objective standard.
It seems more like it's an assertion that any moral judgement, that Dan considers rational, based on his individual (subjective, imperfect, flawed, fallen, human) hunch about what is rational to be moral. Basing morality on one's own personal preferences, then imposing it on others doesn't sound like a great way to operate.
It's the lying lefty way, Craig. They've assumed all authority to frame and label and define. Thus, Dan assumes authority here to dictate what constitutes "rational moral judgement" which, not surprisingly, comports with his personal notion of what "moral" should be. Then, he assumes there's widespread agreement with that notion of his.
Dan:
"Clearly, by ANY rational moral judgment,"
Craig:
"I was unaware that the above is a universal, objective standard."
Dan, again:
"Clearly, by ANY rational moral judgment,"
I literally made clear that I was speaking of RATIONAL moral judgments, NOT objectively proven moral judgments. You all have made clear that you don't have ANY objective moral proofs and can't even describe what you mean by that.
So, instead of attacking something I didn't say, deal with the point.
You are a man of reason. Do you REALLY think that in ANY sense that selfishly taking the last cookie is a great evil? Do you REALLY think that a rational, moral, non-insane punishment for taking the last cookie is an eternity of torture?
That's the stuff of insanity-nightmares and eldritch dark gods of Lovecraft. Not a morally rational or loving and just God.
November 12, 2022 at 5:21 PM
""Clearly, by ANY rational moral judgment,""
Emphasizing "any" makes it worse. It requires one is capable of recognizing rational judgements at all, much less any of them. That's seriously in question with you, Dan.
"I literally made clear that I was speaking of RATIONAL moral judgments, NOT objectively proven moral judgments."
How is it you came to be authorized to identify "rational moral judgements", when both what is rational and also what is moral are clearly not your forte? You just assert your opinion of either is sound, while years of discourse clearly suggest the very opposite. This is simply another attempt to pretend there's some vast consensus with what YOU think is either in order to put forth your opinion as intelligent and beyond argument. It most certainly is neither.
"You all have made clear that you don't have ANY objective moral proofs and can't even describe what you mean by that."
I won't speak for Craig, but I've been quite clear that Scripture is THE source of objective moral teaching. Do you know what I mean by "Scripture"? As a Christian, I can't think of any other source and one that is so clear and unambiguous. The only possible difficulty is for "progressive" Louisville pseudo-Christians who work to pervert it to allow for sinful behaviors because the moral teachings of Scripture are inconvenient with regard to their behavioral preferences.
"So, instead of attacking something I didn't say, deal with the point.
You are a man of reason. Do you REALLY think that in ANY sense that selfishly taking the last cookie is a great evil?"
But that's NOT the point. The point is, are we condemned due to any specific or number of sinful acts or due to our sin nature? Clearly it's the latter for without a sin nature there'd be no sinful behaviors.
What's more, no one but YOU have referred to selfishly taking the last cookie as a "great" evil. But it is indeed an manifestation of the evil of selfishness. That's a "great" evil, though it may manifest in trivial ways, such as taking the last cookie.
"Do you REALLY think that a rational, moral, non-insane punishment for taking the last cookie is an eternity of torture?"
This is something else only you have been arguing. Neither of us have suggested any such thing. I say again that I don't believe we're judged on actions as much as you want to think we are, if at all. Our actions confirm our sin nature, be it the most heinous act you can imagine perpetrated constantly throughout one's life, or one single act YOU find to be "trivial".
But let me clarify my belief based on Scripture. In either case, we are not judged by either. Whether or acts or our nature, neither is the ultimate cause of our eternal punishment. Can you guess what is?
So...the following then is comedy:
"That's the stuff of insanity-nightmares and eldritch dark gods of Lovecraft."
No. That's the stuff of Dan Trabue...the only one here who's even entertaining those ideas. Not a morally rational or loving and just God.
"Not a morally rational or loving and just God."
And here again, you determine that God is "rational or loving or just" by what seems to you "rational or loving or just". Dan says, "Surely this won't offend God all that much." Art says, "God said, 'Thou shalt not', so I won't."
"In our nation, you remain free to decide for yourself what to do in the case you get pregnant, Marshal."
I'm aware of what our laws allow, Danny-girl. That's hardly an argument against the facts and truth I presented. Perfect for a leftist asshole, but not for any honorable person.
"You have the religious and philosophical freedom to decide, "I REALLY think a fetus has a right to life and so, I won't abort" if you get pregnant."
God gives us the freedom to engage in all manner of abominations. You clearly are taking advantage of that. Real Christians don't. The fact you can't argue against with any evidence or facts is that the unborn are endowed by their Creator with the same unalienable right to life for which you are manifestly undeserving. It's a far more just outcome if you had scissors jammed into the back of your head and your small brain sucked out while being torn limb from limb than for any of those dead for which your attitude and vote makes you complicit, you murderous punk.
"BUT, in our nation, YOU do not have the freedom to impose your unproven and unsupported philosophical and religious hunches on other people."
I've offered not one hunch regarding the facts of what and who the unborn are. Nor have you. Your vile endorsement of murder is not a hunch, but a willful disregard for the humanity of the unborn, in the exact same way nazis and klansmen denied the Jews and blacks. You're cut from the very same soiled Depend Adult Diapers or used Kotex and of the same value as that absorbed by them. In the meantime, you worst of all history's oppressors, you have been a part of imposing your intentionally false ideology and will on the most innocent and defenseless of humankind in the most barbaric manner. "By ANY rational moral judgment", you're no Christian, you're no honorable man, you're a vile piece of shit who mocks God and thus you blaspheme the Spirit. Repent while you have time. Or at least pretend you're an adult and actually defend your indefensible position with something better than cancelling those who speak the truth.
"You do NOT get to take away their human rights."
As one who pretends to be a Christian, you do NOT get to take away the right to life of ANY human being regardless of their age, size or location. From the moment of conception one is a person endowed with the right. Those of you who murder the unborn without just cause...and absolutely no just cause exists...are no longer entitled to claim that right to life. That's Biblical. But leave it to a lefty to believe it is a "human right" to deny the right to life of another person. You're all the worst of scumbags.
"The GOP lost in large part because, EVEN in conservative strongholds like Kentucky, we recognize that we don't want a "morality police" forcing a fascist, anti-liberty made-up rules on people against their will."
The GOP lost in large part because there was no more compelling reason for asshole lefties to vote than to make sure no one denies them the ability to murder their own children in cold blood. Nothing's more important to a lefty than to fuck with abandon and suffer no consequences for doing so. That's the true quality of the leftist in this day and age. And you laughingly call yourselves "progressive". One of many inappropriate labels lefties affix to themselves imagining intelligent people buy into it.
"That's the stuff of fascist nations, not the US."
Says the asshole who supports and enables the murdering of innocent people.
"This is a losing cause for conservatives because it's just morally and rationally wrong."
You've proven neither. But then you've not proven you understand either word. But I'm good with losing while fighting for righteousness, the innocent, the defenseless and God's Will. You do the happy dance because you can murder infants. There is nothing lower on earth than the likes of you.
I asked the reasonable question...
Do you REALLY think that in ANY sense that selfishly taking the last cookie is a great evil?"
Marshal responded...
But that's NOT the point. The point is, are we condemned due to any specific or number of sinful acts or due to our sin nature? Clearly it's the latter for without a sin nature there'd be no sinful behaviors.
1. So, given your dodging of answering my actual question, I assume you and I agree that it's NOT a great evil to take the last cookie in your house?
2. I assume you and I agree that it would, in fact, be a great evil to punish someone a lifetime (or an eternity!) for the "sin" of selfishly eating the last cookie?
3. If so, that leaves us with this from Marshal:
A. The point is, are we condemned due to any specific or number of sinful acts or due to our sin nature?
There is no objectively provable answer to this question or your implication (that God DOES choose to condemn people for an eternity of torture for some specific number - maybe even one?? - of misdeeds, including minor sins. Do you agree that this is an unproven and unprovable hypothesis of yours?
B. Clearly it's the latter for without a sin nature there'd be no sinful behaviors.
This is an unsupported claim and a bit confusing, to boot.
I guess you think that some/all of us are reasonably
condemned for an eternity of torture for the
"sin" of having a "sin nature"
(ie, that we are imperfect humans and do wrong in varying degrees some time)
Is that your position? That having this "sin nature" you theorize about (but haven't proven) means that we are imperfect humans and sometimes, given the chance, we'll deliberately choose to do something wrong and hurtful, like selfishly eating the last cookie in your house.
Do you think it is rational or moral to punish someone for the "sin" of being imperfect humans? You don't find that to be irrational and even, evil? Would you say a parent is justified in punishing a child for a lifetime because they stole a cookie from the cookie jar after they'd been told not to take it without asking?
If so, do you not see how crazy evil that would be?
Do you agree that for a punishment to be just and moral and not insane, it has to be fitting with the misdeed? Bigger and more hurtful misdeeds get bigger punishments, but relatively minor misdeeds can NOT be punished with out-sized penalties and still be moral, just or rational, right?
Perhaps it's the case that you all don't understand why I ask these questions and their import. Let me explain.
If we can agree to the quite sensible notions that,
1. It is not rightly considered a great evil to selfishly take the last cookie; and,
2. there are, indeed, degrees of sins, from minor misdeeds and failures all the way up to great atrocities and evil like rape and genocide... that we need to understand and distinguish the difference, even if our efforts may be imperfect and imprecise; and
3. that any reasonable punishment for misdeeds MUST NEED BE proportionate and that too great or severe a punishment for a small misdeed would, itself, but a wrong and even an evil (i.e., to cut off a child's hand for taking a cookie... THAT would be an evil, not a just, response)...
If we can agree to these entirely reasonable premises, then we can see that the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God punishing someone for an eternity of torment/torture for the "sin" of being an imperfect human/having a "sin nature" (if such a thing exists) is problematic, rationally, morally and from a justice point of view.
What you all need to do, then, is justify WHY you think, in your heads, that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God would do such a thing? WHAT SPECIFICALLY is it that humans do (the vast majority of humans, you all probably believe) that is rightly punished with an eternity of torment? Merely being imperfect does not rise to that level of reasonable response.
And the problem you have is: It's not enough to say, "But there's a passage that says 'God will throw them in a lake of fire,'" because we all agree that there is figurative language used in the Bible so the existence of such verses are not sufficient. You have to make sense of why you want to take THOSE passages sort of literally but not other passages like, "God is not willing that any should perish..."
THIS is why answering these questions is pertinent to the question at hand. THIS is why it's not enough to dismiss the questions you don't like, you really need to think through them and give a rational response. IF possible.
November 13, 2022 at 3:30 PM
"I asked the reasonable question...
Do you REALLY think that in ANY sense that selfishly taking the last cookie is a great evil?""
Uh...no, proving again you have no idea what "reasonable" means or looks like, you ask this question to deceive. No one but you have referenced this act as a "great" evil. I referred to selfishness as evil. See the difference? It's crystal clear. You need to focus on this particular act in order to defend far worse acts which YOU regard as inoffensive or morally benign and as such should not result in eternal consequences.
What's worse, it indicts you as having a sin nature which leads you to constantly mocking God with your weak and desperate "Did God really say...?" arguments favoring your favored sins.
"1. So, given your dodging of answering my actual question, I assume you and I agree that it's NOT a great evil to take the last cookie in your house?"
I didn't dodge it at all. As I did again just now, I responded directly in a manner appropriate to the moronic mind whence it came. It's irrelevant to anything but your desire to pretend any specific sinful act determines our eternal destiny, as well as to defend the many sinful actions you enable and celebrate as moral "goods".
"2. I assume you and I agree that it would, in fact, be a great evil to punish someone a lifetime (or an eternity!) for the "sin" of selfishly eating the last cookie?"
You assume (wrongly) that's an intelligent question which has any relation at all to how things work. Said another way, you want me to agree to a fantasy...a fiction...a hypothetical which in no way plays out in the real world, and all to support your evil defense of immorality.
"A. The point is, are we condemned due to any specific or number of sinful acts or due to our sin nature?
There is no objectively provable answer to this question or your implication (that God DOES choose to condemn people for an eternity of torture for some specific number - maybe even one?? - of misdeeds, including minor sins."
Uh...there absolutely is, and it's basic Christianity 101. You should try seriously and prayerfully studying an actual Bible...and do it with an adult present.
"Do you agree that this is an unproven and unprovable hypothesis of yours?"
It's not my hypothesis. It's yours and I've been arguing against it. The sad part is how you pretend you actually "reason" and that reason is a reliable way to determine any moral code.
"B. Clearly it's the latter for without a sin nature there'd be no sinful behaviors.
This is an unsupported claim and a bit confusing, to boot.
I guess you think that some/all of us are reasonably
condemned for an eternity of torture for the
"sin" of having a "sin nature"
(ie, that we are imperfect humans and do wrong in varying degrees some time)
Is that your position?"
Uh...no. It's God's. Again, Christianity 101.
"That having this "sin nature" you theorize about (but haven't proven) means that we are imperfect humans and sometimes, given the chance, we'll deliberately choose to do something wrong and hurtful, like selfishly eating the last cookie in your house."
Again...that's all Biblical. If you're expecting scientific proof of our sin natures, then you're just affirming the reality that you're a liar.
"Do you think it is rational or moral to punish someone for the "sin" of being imperfect humans?"
Not my argument. But feel free to find a quote from me that so much as hints it is.
"Would you say a parent is justified in punishing a child for a lifetime because they stole a cookie from the cookie jar after they'd been told not to take it without asking?"
This isn't about breaking the laws of man.
"Do you agree that for a punishment to be just and moral and not insane, it has to be fitting with the misdeed?"
This also isn't the point despite your continued focus on it in order to deflect from the actual point. Humans determine sentencing based on how humans are offended by a given act, yet you pretend God cannot be more offended by sin than you are or else he's a "petty godling". Good luck with that opinion.
November 14, 2022 at 8:07 AM
"Perhaps it's the case that you all don't understand why I ask these questions and their import."
Not at all. We all perfectly understand you're asking these questions to deflect from the actual point in your attempt to legitimize unambiguously sinful behaviors you favor.
"Let me explain."
Dan speak for "Let me pretend I have a point relevant to the actual issue I'm avoiding."
"If we can agree to the quite sensible notions that,"
At least have the courage to insist you're merely seeking agreement with what YOU "think" (not something you do well) are "quite sensible notions".
"1. It is not rightly considered a great evil to selfishly take the last cookie; and,"
Only you have suggested anyone considered taking the last cookie to be a "great" evil. I certainly never did.
"2. there are, indeed, degrees of sins, from minor misdeeds and failures all the way up to great atrocities and evil like rape and genocide... that we need to understand and distinguish the difference, even if our efforts may be imperfect and imprecise; and"
This is mostly a "human tradition" manifested in our laws. But despite the fact that Scripture has examples which suggests some sins are worse than others...such as your constant blaspheming the Spirit, which is unforgivable...this irrelevancy is besides the point.
"3. that any reasonable punishment for misdeeds MUST NEED BE proportionate and that too great or severe a punishment for a small misdeed would, itself, but a wrong and even an evil (i.e., to cut off a child's hand for taking a cookie... THAT would be an evil, not a just, response)..."
"Reasonable" to whom? "Too great or severe" to according to whom for what? Without being specific on these questions, considering that "a wrong and even an evil" is premature.
"If we can agree to these entirely reasonable premises, then we can see that the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God punishing someone for an eternity of torment/torture for the "sin" of being an imperfect human/having a "sin nature" (if such a thing exists) is problematic, rationally, morally and from a justice point of view."
No one but you ever suggested God punishes anyone for being "imperfect", so you just wasted a horde of keystrokes with more irrelevancy.
"And you laughingly call yourselves "progressive". One of many inappropriate labels lefties affix to themselves imagining intelligent people buy into it."
It could be argued that the term "progressive" is appropriate to describe Dan's ideology in the sense that cancer progresses from stage one to stage two. Matters go from bad to worse.
That's an especially great point, Jesse!! That cancer has certainly metastasized across our once great nation. It has infected the youth of American terribly as the asshat feo celebrates the large percentage of them who voted Asshole...I mean...Democrat. (Same thing)
As you all know, I'm loath to post anything from professional racist, liar and moron, feo. But too often he tries to post such stupid crap that the comedic value is something to be shared. This is from an attempt to post on November 13, 2022 at 5:55 AM. He really should take this lunacy on the road!
"Marshal hates sex. Which must be a miserable thing for a creature of god created, among so many things, to thrive from intimacy."
Somehow, this alleged intellectual sees encouragement to keep sex in the place for which God designed as "hatred" of some kind. I'm married. The wife and I have sex when the mood strikes us, which it still does at our age, and enjoy it immensely. It's the context in which God mandates as the only moral one for the perpetration of sexual behavior. Not before marriage, outside of marriage, with those of the same sex or with animals...or even just by yourself as is likely so common with feo. The man/woman union for which the word "marriage" was created is the union to which God restricts that intimacy. feo, claiming to have been a seminary student, clearly slept through this part, or is just as stupid as his posted comments indicate.
"And so, like some Inquisitorial Savonarola, he’ll deny the world it’s god ordained benefit by refusing the ONLY reality that significantly reduces abortion AND wanton sexual obsession: FULL sex education for teenagers; FULL and easy access to all measures of contraceptives; FULL information and measures for women’s healthcare."
Lefty claptrap. First, I deny nothing to no one, even while pointing out the reality of God's moral law regarding human sexuality, which feo rejects. He also rejects what is truly the only legit and 100% effective way to reduce, if not eliminate abortions: abstinence. This works for everyone who applies it. Thus, if one does not want a child, one should refrain from engaging in the very act intended by God to produce one. Morons like feo imagine that babies just happen by magic, when least expected. ("I don't get it. I keep fornicating and my girlfriends keep having babies!!! How does that happen??")
There's no mystery as to how women become pregnant. In this day and age, the most basic fact is known to even among the youngest. The details might require a classroom education, but a simply "Don't do it" is all that's necessary and done with constant vigilance by parents and people of honor and character...people feo doesn't know. A stronger push for religious education would go much farther to dealing with obsession than sex ed. But feo has no faith in God. He's as much a fake as Dan.
"Further, being the brutalist white male supremacist he is, he’ll use his sorry rage surrounded life to force his ugly extremism on all others. A Christian terrorist in league with 9/11 extremists."
Here again this shit-for-brains self-loathing white-guilt liar of a boy accuses me of what he's never even tried to prove. But that's what liars do, right Dan? And like Dan and leftists in general, truth, facts and reality are to feo, "extremism", while he supports killing the unborn without just cause. Sad, sorry and oh so feo.
But at least we got a good laugh. Thanks, putz.
Dan...
"WHAT SPECIFICALLY is it that humans do (the vast majority of humans, you all probably believe) that is rightly punished with an eternity of torment?
Marshal...
I've already provided the answer to this many, many times, and often with Scriptural citations in support.
I'm sure you've posted words that you thought addressed this question, but I honestly don't know what your answer is. I thought it was "We have a sin nature, therefore, I think God thinks we are deserving of eternal torture..." or something close to that. But you're telling me, no, that's not it.
So, instead of saying you've addressed this, why not just answer it directly and clearly and see if you can get me to understand your view?
Here's what the traditionalists at "Got Questions" has to say about this question:
"The Bible says that God created hell for Satan and the wicked angels who rebelled against Him, but there are people in hell also (Matthew 25:41). Both angelic beings and human beings are in hell for the same reason, sin (Romans 6:23).
Because God is completely righteous and morally perfect (Psalm 18:30),
He always does what is right—there is no “darkness” in God,
not the smallest speck of imperfection (1 John 1:5).
God Himself is the standard for what is right, good, and moral.
If it were not for God being the standard of moral perfection,
created beings would have nothing to measure themselves against.
In other words, if God is perfectly righteous,
then anything that falls short of said perfection is sinful,
and every human being who has ever lived... has committed sin...
But people do not go to hell because of Adam’s sin;
they go to hell because of their own sin, which they freely choose..."
Okay, so it sounds like, to these people, they think people go to hell because we are imperfect (not being God) and we sin sometimes.
So, does that mean ANY sin will cause someone to go to hell (that is, if they don't repent in the right, conservative-approved manner)?
They continue...
God, therefore, has deemed all who commit sin will go to hell because they have failed to meet His righteous standard; they have broken His Law of moral perfection. If God did not send people to hell for breaking His laws, it could be said that God is not just
https://www.gotquestions.org/why-does-God-send-people-to-hell.html
So, do you think the Got Questions people get it right and are they stating what you believe? That because we are imperfect and choose to sin - no matter how trivial the sin or how often we sin - we are imperfect sinners and you all think that God feels the need to punish even the slightest sin/sinners with eternal torture?
THAT is what I understand from traditionalists I've read and that's what I've understood you position to be, but you tell me clearly and directly, because it sounds like you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
IF that is what you believe - that you think that God demands an imperfect humanity to be perfect ("broken his law of moral perfection") and FAILURE to be perfect at any level and the decision to commit sins at any level is deserving of eternal torture/hell?
If so, how is that not irrational and unjust, to expect people who are imperfect to BE perfect? AND to punish imperfection and even the slightest sin with an eternity of torture? HOW is that not a crime against justice?
These are reasonable questions.
Also and along these lines, Stan recently cited passages like this Pauline verse from Romans...
"For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."
Indicating that, because Stan takes this passage literally, he thinks that God literally considers all of humanity to be enemies... "At war against God," Stan posited. Because he took that line from Paul literally.
But Paul also said (in 1 Corinthians), "For as in Adam, ALL DIE. Even, in Christ, shall ALL be made alive."
But you and Stan et al do NOT take that passage literally. You do not assume, since Paul said, "In Jesus ALL will be made alive/be saved..." because you don't believe in salvation of everyone.
The point being, you all decide to recognize some passages as figurative and some passages as DEFINITELY literal. But what is your criteria to make such distinctions? Do you have any consistent rubric for making up your minds?
Another question that has never really been answered except to say, "we take what is OBVIOUSLY meant to be literal as literal..." but obvious to whom and on what basis?
Dan,
I find it interesting (but not at all surprising) that you failed to cite the punchline at the end of that "GotQuestions" piece. Then you reference Stan's blog and fail to grasp the lesson there which mirrors the aforementioned punchline.
Since you think you're scoring points by citing "GotQuestions", here another which came up when I put your link in the old search engine:
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-create-doomed-people.html
Then I came upon this one which is also relevant to this ongoing attempt by you to judge how God judges:
https://www.historicalbiblesociety.org/does-god-send-good-people-to-hell/
This one mirrors Neil's point:
https://www.compellingtruth.org/truth-about-salvation.html
And this one speaks to what determines our eternal fate:
https://www.compellingtruth.org/truth-about-salvation.html
While you want to argue about some fictitious guy who ate the last cookie, the fact is, as Neil says, no one has sinned only once, and as I continue to affirm, we are all sinners and there's no point in wondering about "trivial" (to you) sins versus "major" (to you) sins. All that matters is what God expects of us, which we can easily understand through His Will so clearly and unambiguously revealed to us in Scripture. You seek loopholes through which you think your abortionist and LGBT friends can squeeze through to find salvation. I seek to obey God as best I can knowing Christ paid the price for me. But He didn't pay the price so I can go on sinning while pretending I'm not...as you and yours do constantly.
I also don't bother with what eternal punishment means, focusing only eternity in God's presence. If it's possible to truly sin without knowing it, perhaps one can continue doing so and still be saved. But that's not something you can say, given the things you defend are not something an alleged serious and prayerful student of Scripture can mistake as anything but worthy of death.
You put the things of the world above the Will of God and then dare insist you're Christian. Good luck with that.
I feel like I've broken you, Marshal. You at least try to directly answer questions (even when you don't) but it doesn't feel like you're even trying... nor are you acknowledging your inability to answer the questions.
While you want to argue about some fictitious guy who ate the last cookie, the fact is, as Neil says, no one has sinned only once, and as I continue to affirm, we are all sinners and there's no point in wondering about "trivial" (to you) sins versus "major" (to you) sins.
Not some fictitious guy. In the real world, there are people who die young who haven't had a chance to have a life full of sin. And the point is not the "one sin" of the eating the last cookie. The point is that some people died who have only committed relatively minor sins. That really happens in the real world.
You all are presuming then, that SOME level of sin is the reason we're going to hell, am I right?
Is it even one sin? Is it 1,000 relatively minor sins that are "so bad" that they require an eternal punishment? In the real world, that number is estimate-able. These are reasonable questions that your position begs to be answered.
The question is, then, on what basis do you think it's rational to conclude that some guy who's committed let's say 1,000 of these selfish last cookie type sins DESERVES to be punished eternally? Do you think that's rational? Do you think that's in fitting with the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God?
IF YOU punished your children even half as harshly (say only punishing them for one lifetime), wouldn't you say that you are a very bad person?
I'm not seeking loopholes at all, of course. I honestly don't think you all are understanding scripture aright. I think you're taking literally what is figurative and then, because you've done that, you're forced yourselves into making figurative what is better understood more literally.
THE REASON you all don't take passages like "And ALL will be saved" literally is because you've already decided you need to take passages like "wide is the way to destruction and many will perish" in a more literal manner. But why could it not be the other way around?
Don't you see that in BOTH cases, both "sides" are deciding some verses are more literal and some more figurative, to try to reconcile what they're saying? WHY is the traditional evangelical choice of "THESE verses are the literal ones" the "right" answer and says who?
It's BECAUSE I take the will of God almighty and the teachings of Jesus my Lord LITERALLY and SERIOUSLY that I work for justice and building community and why I bother talking with folks like you (like I used to be).
I disagree with the way you've chosen (with no rubric other than maybe tradition and personal preference) to decide some passages should be taken literally when doing so is an affront to the notion of perfect love and perfect justice AS GOD speaks about these ideas, as talked about in the Bible.
So again, just to help me understand your position, the Got Questions people (which I DID read to the bottom, don't know how that helps you at all) said...
"God, therefore, has deemed
all who commit sin will go to hell
because they have failed to meet His righteous standard;
they have broken His Law of moral perfection."
Is that what you think?
Do you think that being imperfect and therefore sinning - ANY sin, great or small - is what means we are "due" an everlasting punishment? An everlasting separation from God and God's people?
It's a reasonable question. Why not clarify? And it's okay for you to say, "I don't know if that's exactly what I believe... I guess I'm not settled on what I believe..." or something like that if you don't know. But why not answer the question?
I've read your links and they ALL seem to be just variations on the Got Questions piece I cited earlier. So, I'm not sure what you think you're gaining by citing more of the same.
The first "compelling truth" (HA!) included this line...
"God is absolutely just and will not allow evil to go unpunished.
God is merciful, gracious, and loving"
So THIS is one reason why thinking about degrees of sin is so vital. God doesn't allow evil to go unpunished... BUT does the selfish taking of the last cookie really rise to the level of evil?
DO YOU THINK IT DOES, MARSHAL?
No, of course it doesn't. Okay, but what about 1,000 such instances of that "level" or degree of sin... would THAT collectively rise to the level of "evil?" Again, the rational response is NO.
Do you disagree?
Do you really think that someone committing 1,000 "last cookie" level of sins is actually evil or committing evil? Does that make them Evil??
If you think that, do you think it's a rational, moral conclusion?
The "compelling truth" person goes on to say that God is merciful, gracious and loving..." And, I would say, PERFECTLY so. Would you view the parent who decides to punish their child for the rest of their life by banishing them from their company because of 1,000 of this level of "sins" a merciful, gracious and loving parent??
Think about it. Really? Would you?
OR, would you call them small-minded and UNloving, not gracious or forgiving at all and certainly not just?
These are all reasonable questions ESPECIALLY if you put the things of God (Love, Justice, Grace, Forgiveness) above the traditions of humanity.
November 16, 2022 at 7:21 AM
"I feel like I've broken you, Marshal."
That's funny.
"You at least try to directly answer questions (even when you don't) but it doesn't feel like you're even trying... nor are you acknowledging your inability to answer the questions."
So I "at least try", but it doesn't fell like I'm trying? How does that work exactly? But why would I acknowledge an inability my answers prove otherwise. They may not be examples of my best work, but they're still direct responses. The problem is they're not the picture painted for you that you would like. My answers remain a clear path to the truth around which you continue to tap-dance. So you're either avoiding the truth, or you're a complete and utter moron.
"While you want to argue about some fictitious guy who ate the last cookie, the fact is, as Neil says, no one has sinned only once, and as I continue to affirm, we are all sinners and there's no point in wondering about "trivial" (to you) sins versus "major" (to you) sins."
"Not some fictitious guy."
Really? What's his name?
"In the real world, there are people who die young who haven't had a chance to have a life full of sin. And the point is not the "one sin" of the eating the last cookie. The point is that some people died who have only committed relatively minor sins. That really happens in the real world."
Where in Scripture is there any reference to a standard of "a life full of sin"? You're still hung up on this invented concept of "trivial" sins. There are places in Scripture where certain behaviors are highlighted due to their seriousness, such as your blaspheming the Spirit. But where does it speak to "trivial" sins in any way, manner or fashion? Where is there any hint of the notion that God might say, "Whoops! That dude died young! Good thing he only committed three sins!" ...as if that's possible. He still sinned. He still died with a sin nature. What did he do about it while alive?
"You all are presuming then, that SOME level of sin is the reason we're going to hell, am I right?"
No presumption. Did you EVER actually READ Scripture, never mine "seriously" or "prayerfully"?
"Is it even one sin? Is it 1,000 relatively minor sins that are "so bad" that they require an eternal punishment? In the real world, that number is estimate-able. These are reasonable questions that your position begs to be answered."
No. They're not reasonable at all, except for speculative discussion. I'm not interested in that. Again, while you pretend there's some limits as to how few one can get away with committing and still be saved, Scripture provides nothing that suggests any such thing. MY position is simply I'll do as Scripture teaches to the best of my ability, knowing Christ paid the price for my sins and sin nature and my belief and faith in Him makes any number or seriousness of my sins moot. That's Christianity 101, which should be obvious to an allegedly serious and prayerful student of Scripture. What the hell is so hard to grasp here?
"The question is, then, on what basis do you think it's rational to conclude that some guy who's committed let's say 1,000 of these selfish last cookie type sins DESERVES to be punished eternally?"
On the basis of the nature of sin and God's hatred of sin, as clearly explained in the Scripture you obviously never read.
"Do you think that's rational?"
Doesn't matter if I do or not.
"Do you think that's in fitting with the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God?"
I KNOW our perfectly loving and perfectly just God acts in ways you clearly don't understand, like or believe is fitting...as if He's required to act in a manner you find satisfying. He could hold you empty head between His thumb and forefinger and squeeze it until it pops like a grape and I don't have to know why to understand He likely had a good reason according to HIS plan.
"IF YOU punished your children even half as harshly (say only punishing them for one lifetime), wouldn't you say that you are a very bad person?"
I'm not God and how I raised and disciplined my kids has no comparison to how any human offends God by their actions. Your constant attempt to draw parallels between human behavior and God's behavior is insulting to God on its face.
"I'm not seeking loopholes at all, of course."
Of course you are. You always are, as you seek to defend various behaviors which are unquestionably sinful. You would allow those sins to continue unabated, as if they are NOT sinful, and believe the sinners partaking of them are not at risk because in other ways they appear to be Christian.
"I honestly don't think you all are understanding scripture aright."
You're not honest, and you don't think. What's more, you desperately need to believe I've got it wrong, because the truth is inconvenient for you.
"I think you're taking literally what is figurative and then, because you've done that, you're forced yourselves into making figurative what is better understood more literally."
That's funny. Stupid, but funny. What I take literally is that we're all sinners because Scripture says so. What I take literally is that Christ died to take our place and to suffer what we deserve to suffer because of our sinfulness and because of that we can stand before God as if we are without sin, and thus share in His eternal blessing.
But regardless of what you need to believe about our positions, you continue to whine about them being misguided without providing any Scriptural proof of that, nor do you provide an alternative of anything you claim we misunderstand and certainly no Scriptural evidence to back it up. Constantly suggesting we're wrong is empty without your alternative and explicit proofs.
"THE REASON you all don't take passages like "And ALL will be saved" literally is because you've already decided you need to take passages like "wide is the way to destruction and many will perish" in a more literal manner. But why could it not be the other way around?"
Because the other way around is in direct conflict with the entirety of Scripture, as well as with the words of Christ Himself.
"Don't you see that in BOTH cases, both "sides" are deciding some verses are more literal and some more figurative, to try to reconcile what they're saying?"
No.
"WHY is the traditional evangelical choice of "THESE verses are the literal ones" the "right" answer and says who?"
Now you're back to your deceptive use of the term "literal" and when it's appropriate. More importantly, you again make a suggestion of an alternative you won't provide and support. If the traditional evangelical is wrong, prove it. Provide your alternative and evidence from Scripture which supports it.
"It's BECAUSE I take the will of God almighty and the teachings of Jesus my Lord LITERALLY and SERIOUSLY that I work for justice and building community and why I bother talking with folks like you (like I used to be)."
You were never like me. You don't even understand the obvious truths I present. You simply continue (ad nauseum) to insist I'm wrong and that you don't like the truth. What's more, you absolutely DON'T take the will of God seriously, but force it to comply with your personal ideology. For example, no one who takes God seriously would defend the absurd notion of same-sex marriage as something God would bless or give approval, nor would such a person dare defend in any way the practice of abortion. Both of these are in direct conflict with His Will.
"I disagree with the way you've chosen (with no rubric other than maybe tradition and personal preference) to decide some passages should be taken literally when doing so is an affront to the notion of perfect love and perfect justice AS GOD speaks about these ideas, as talked about in the Bible."
Where? What passage supports your position? You've not provided anything which counters the truths I defend.
"So again, just to help me understand your position, the Got Questions people (which I DID read to the bottom, don't know how that helps you at all) said...
"God, therefore, has deemed
all who commit sin will go to hell
because they have failed to meet His righteous standard;
they have broken His Law of moral perfection."
Is that what you think?"
That's what is.
"Do you think that being imperfect and therefore sinning - ANY sin, great or small - is what means we are "due" an everlasting punishment? An everlasting separation from God and God's people?"
Good gosh...this is so basic!! Without Christ, we're already separated from God. The freakin' cookie doesn't matter.
"It's a reasonable question. Why not clarify? And it's okay for you to say, "I don't know if that's exactly what I believe... I guess I'm not settled on what I believe..." or something like that if you don't know. But why not answer the question?"
Don't Be An Asshole! I'm absolutely settled on what I believe because I don't equivocate on what Scripture teaches in the way your entire being and philosophy requires. Stop asking questions for which you've already gotten answers delivered more directly and comprehensively than any you've ever deigned to proved for the many questions you've never answered. Stop asking questions until you get the answer you want which comports with your perversion of Scripture to your perverse satisfaction.
November 16, 2022 at 7:34 AM
"I've read your links and they ALL seem to be just variations on the Got Questions piece I cited earlier. So, I'm not sure what you think you're gaining by citing more of the same."
Like the original you posted, they all contain the answer you pretend to seek but purposely avoid so as to promote this nonsense about "trivial" sins.
"The first "compelling truth" (HA!) included this line...
"God is absolutely just and will not allow evil to go unpunished.
God is merciful, gracious, and loving"
So THIS is one reason why thinking about degrees of sin is so vital. God doesn't allow evil to go unpunished... BUT does the selfish taking of the last cookie really rise to the level of evil?
DO YOU THINK IT DOES, MARSHAL?"
It doesn't matter what I personally think regarding some selfish person taking the last cookie. The sin isn't taking the last cookie. It's selfishness...or "greed", if you prefer. It's not that I punch you in the face. It's the intention behind it. If punching you in the face is the only way to prevent you from harming yourself, that's hardly a sin, is it? It never ceases to amaze me just how obtuse you are!
"...but what about 1,000 such instances of that "level" or degree of sin... would THAT collectively rise to the level of "evil?" Again, the rational response is NO.
Do you disagree?"
Absolutely I disagree. You think "evil" is some form of "really bad" sin. And this goes to what started this whole thing...to regard a sinful behavior as "not evil" because we might regard it as "trivial". That means YOU'RE dictating what sin is...what "evil" is. "Sin", "evil", "wickedness", "naughty boy". How is it you think yourself qualified and possessed of the authority to draw lines between these as if they are something more than synonymous? Sin and evil are the same things. Humans try to differentiate, but to what end? How can any level of sinful act not also be evil at the same time?
"Do you really think that someone committing 1,000 "last cookie" level of sins is actually evil or committing evil? Does that make them Evil??
If you think that, do you think it's a rational, moral conclusion?"
How many times are you going to ask the same question? How many times will you try without providing Scriptural evidence which opposes the truth I present?
"The "compelling truth" person goes on to say that God is merciful, gracious and loving..." And, I would say, PERFECTLY so. Would you view the parent who decides to punish their child for the rest of their life by banishing them from their company because of 1,000 of this level of "sins" a merciful, gracious and loving parent??"
Again you ask this idiotic question. Is the parent God? Can anyone have the right and authority to dictate to God how He should respond to that which offends Him, if it doesn't also offend fake Christians like you or to the same degree? Are you going to dare suggest that God shouldn't get so pissed at the sins you commit because you choose to believe they're "trivial"? Where the fuck do you get off????
"OR, would you call them small-minded and UNloving, not gracious or forgiving at all and certainly not just?"
I would call them "not God" and "nothing like God" and "not likely to be offended by sin as God is because they're craven human beings with a sin nature likely to regard themselves and their own as 'good people'".
"These are all reasonable questions ESPECIALLY if you put the things of God (Love, Justice, Grace, Forgiveness) above the traditions of humanity."
Ah...well here you go! I absolutely DO put the things of God above humanity and their perceptions, opinions, preferences and what they find actionable crimes and to what degree. YOU ABSOLUTELY DON'T!!!! You insist that God is "a petty godling" if He dares respond to sin in a manner YOU find unjust because YOU believe a given behavior is "trivial". I don't dare to presume how God might hate a given sinful action I've perpetuated. I simply seek to be forgiven and to repent of the behavior and to never again engage in it because it offends Him. It doesn't matter to me how much. Why should it? Am I God? Did what for you laughingly passed as "serious and prayerful study of Scripture" include the Book of Job? Good gosh!
But you go ahead, Dan. You keep telling God how He should not be offended by sins you regard as trivial. I'm sure you'll be just fine.
"Better judgement", indeed.
Marshal...
How many times are you going to ask the same question?
Well, I was sort of waiting for a clear answer.
How many times will you try without providing Scriptural evidence which opposes the truth I present?
The Bible has taken NO STAND on "how many sins justifies anyone being sent to torture for an eternity. I can't cite what doesn't exist. Why don't YOU cite where the Bible says, "even one regular sin can make this irrational, bloodthirsty godling deem you unfit for their vulgar, graceless presence..."? YOU DON'T and CAN'T cite anything because the Bible doesn't support your view.
And when I refer to an impotent childish godling, I am NOT speaking of the Almighty God of the universe. I'm speaking of the cruel little godling you've created in your imagination, just to be clear.
Marshal...
Is the parent God?
No. In fact, though, the Bible testifies to this basic notion that if, even imperfect human parents know how to give good gifts to their children, how much MORESO can an almighty God? The point being that God is BETTER and MORE LOVING than mere mortal parents, not more irrational and cruel.
Can anyone have the right and authority to dictate to God how He should respond to that which offends Him, if it doesn't also offend fake Christians like you or to the same degree?
No, YOU CAN'T dictate to God that your "god" must punish people for an eternity of torture for being imperfect humans. Do you get that? THAT is precisely what I'm saying. YOU are not speaking for God when you suggest that God will punish most people for an eternity for the "crime" of being imperfect humans.
On the other hand, we who are created a little lower than God CAN use our God-given reason to understand at least the basic understandings of Justice and Mercy and that for justice to be just, any punishment can't be wildly cruel and disproportionate.
It's not an offense to me, it's an offense to JUSTICE and REASON. Once again, if EVEN the imperfect human, Marshal, can understand how vulgar and evil it would be to punish his children for a lifetime for being imperfect (and I'm certain you CAN recognize that much), then YOU, too, can understand that much about justice.
Now, if YOU want to make the case that your puny godling has some different, entirely foreign notion of justice that is completely beyond our human understanding, you can try to do so. But you have not done that, yet and you can't, because you have no data to support such an irrational claim.
Are you going to dare suggest that God shouldn't get so pissed at the sins you commit because you choose to believe they're "trivial"?
Nope. But getting pissed at typical sins is not the same as saying, "You took that last cookie? WHAT?!! Go burn in hell for an eternity!"
Nuance, Marshal. Reason. Grace.
Come on, it's not that hard.
I asked if Marshal thought taking the last cookie was a great evil, deserving of an eternity of torture.
Marshal responded...
It doesn't matter what I personally think regarding some selfish person taking the last cookie. The sin isn't taking the last cookie. It's selfishness...or "greed", if you prefer.
It DOES matter that you can use your God-given moral reasoning to understand the vast difference of THE SELFISHNESS involved in taking the last cookie and actual EVIL.
If someone is imperfect enough to think, "I know it's selfish and greedy on my part, but I REALLY want that last cookie and I'm going to eat it before my wife does..." BUT that same person is moral enough to recognize that this is NOT the same as, "I know it's selfish and greedy, but I REALLY want to rape those children and take all their money from their piggy banks..."
That person has the moral ability to distinguish between the former being a minor misdeed - WRONG, to be sure, but MINOR because they can go out tomorrow and pick up more cookies and no great harm would be done - and the latter being a gross evil.
THAT is why it's vital to recognize levels of misdeeds and sins and actual evil. That's not saying the selfishness involved in taking the last cookie is an acceptable thing, it's noting that it's a minor misdeed that can be repaired.
It's why we should be able to recognize (unlike the pervert you cited on Craig's page recently) how greatly EVIL it is to force anyone into sex (ie, rape them) and that there are lines that need to be drawn. And the better we are at drawing lines even at minor misdeeds or minor selfish acts, the better person we are, more like Christ. But it's not like the selfish taking of the last cookie can't be forgiven and can only be met by an eternity of torture.
THAT would be a great evil. And that, too, is why we need to be able to understand the basics of degrees of wrong.
Marshal...
Good gosh...this is so basic!! Without Christ, we're already separated from God.
But even so, in Christ, shall ALL be made alive. God is greater than our sins. So, WHO SAYS we are separated from Christ?
As Paul notes (and basic reason acknowledges):
If God is for us, who can be against us?
God, who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—
how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?
...For I am convinced that neither death nor life,
neither angels nor demons, [nor Marshal, nor conservative evangelicals, I would add]
neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,
neither height nor depth,
nor anything else in all creation,
will be able to separate us from the love of God
that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Now, YOU may think that the almighty God of all the universe who is not willing that ANY should perish, who came to save ALL the world... that this Almighty God is actually a little wimp godling that faints at sin and can't overcome it, but who must punish the selfishness involved in taking the last cookie with an eternity of torture, but I do not place such limits on God or try to put God in that kind of cruel cage.
Marshal...
You think "evil" is some form of "really bad" sin
Um... yeah. I mean, that's literally the definition.
Evil: profoundly immoral and wicked.
Marshal...
"How is it you think yourself qualified and possessed of the authority to draw lines between these as if they are something more than synonymous? Sin and evil are the same things."
I see you saying that. But prove it.
Or tell you what, since you don't appear to have the typical English understanding of "evil" in mind, why don't you define how YOU are using "evil..."
But also understand this: If, by evil, you mean, "merely imperfect, not able to be perfect..." then you think all of humanity is "evil..." BUT if you're using this alternative reality definition, then YOU need to be able to explain how punishing people for being imperfect (not actual evil as it is usually defined) is not, itself, a great and monstrous evil?
Again with the imperfect human parents: IF they punish their child for being silly and knocking over their milk and making a big mess and then saying "oh shit..." and punish them by making them sit in the corner for five minutes... well, we could debate the relative merit of that punishment and if it's reasonable.
HOWEVER, if they punish that same child by cutting off their right hand and warning them, "If this happens again, it will be BOTH your feet that get cut off!" all of humanity would recognize that as a great actual evil. The punishment does not fit the "sin" of mere imperfection.
THIS is why it's vital to be able to distinguish between levels of misdeeds, because an appropriate response needs to happen. Which is not saying that it's okay to "sin" or that some sins might not need to have a punishment. It's just recognizing the difference between an evil over-punishment and a reasonable moral response.
Do we need to keep you away from children? I'm worried about your moral reasoning, Marshal.
Marshal, in still not directly answering questions, dodged with this...
You insist that God is "a petty godling"
if He dares respond to sin in a manner YOU find unjust
because YOU believe a given behavior is "trivial".
1. First of all, this has nothing to do with me. In our world, humanity - created a little lower than God with the ability to use our moral reasoning - recognizes the self-evident and obvious notion that for a punishment to be just, it must be proportionate. I did not make this up. It is a common and essential element to our understanding of Justice. YOU almost certainly agree. You would not want the rest of us to decide to place you in jail with only rotting, maggotty food until you died for the "sin" of being rude and making false claims, would you? Such an action would be unjust, wouldn't it?
YOU recognize the notion of proportionate response to misdeeds, do you not?
I'm calling on YOU to testify and so demonstrate that this very common, very rational, very moral understanding of proportionate punishment IS a rational understanding, not something I'm making up out of nothing.
2. Now, if YOU want to make the case that God does NOT believe in the notion of proportionate punishment for misdeeds, in a fair and rational and loving response to misdeeds/sins based on their merit and not some arbitrary and made up claim of "No, no, you have to be perfect or you deserve hell and torture forever), then the onus is on you to prove it, because on the face of it, it sounds like you're insulting God and trying to tear God down and replace God with a made-up, impotent godling.
3. It's not that I, personally, believe a behavior is trivial, it's the reality that we all recognize using our God-given moral reasoning. Selfishly taking the last cookie IS trivial. If you believe it's NOT, then the onus is on you to make the case as to WHY taking the last cookie selfishly is a great evil (and again, it would help for you to give your made up definition of "evil," if you're using it in some non-standard manner).
3a. As a side note: If you're using evil to mean merely, "imperfect," I'd ask you to use the standard definitions just so we remain clear on what we're talking about.
3b. If you are using "evil" to mean, "imperfect," then the onus is on you to make a rational case as to WHY being imperfect is rightly punishable by an eternity of torture. Because for the rest of humanity, that notion would be a great evil, in and of itself.
Dan...
"THE REASON you all don't take passages like "And ALL will be saved" literally is because you've already decided you need to take passages like "wide is the way to destruction and many will perish" in a more literal manner. But why could it not be the other way around?"
Marshal responded...
Because the other way around is in direct conflict with the entirety of Scripture, as well as with the words of Christ Himself.
Says who? WHY is saying, "We ought not take "All will be saved" literally..." itself, not in direct conflict with the entirety of Scripture?
You recognize, I suppose, that there are dozens of passages that make rather universalist-leaning claims... "ALL will be saved," for instance. You recognize this, right?
And I, of course, recognize that there are passages that sound like at least some (if not all) will be or deserve to be punished.
There is, additionally, the whole other problem of the FRONT TO BACK, GENESIS TO REVELATION descriptions of God as being perfectly loving and perfectly just and full of forgiveness and welcome. And to say that a perfectly loving and just God will punish most of humanity for an eternity for the "sin" of being imperfect... THAT IS, itself, a conflict with the Bible and Christian teaching. It is a PRIMAL conflict with the Bible's teachings, not to mention, reason.
So tell me this: What is your rubric for deciding, "Okay, well, these seem to conflict with each other... clearly there's more to the context or something figurative happening here... HERE is the system we have to decide what to take more literally and what to consider more figurative"? Do you have ANY such rubric, something that is consistent, rational, biblical and authoritative?
I'm guessing not, but you tell me. If you do have this rubric, this system, please share it with me so that I may perfectly read Scripture with the perfect understanding you have .
November 17, 2022 at 8:07 AM
"Marshal...
How many times are you going to ask the same question?
Well, I was sort of waiting for a clear answer."
They're the only kind I give. Try taking your head out of your ass and they'll be easier to see. Here's another tip: Ask intelligent questions.
"How many times will you try without providing Scriptural evidence which opposes the truth I present?
The Bible has taken NO STAND on "how many sins justifies anyone being sent to torture for an eternity. I can't cite what doesn't exist."
If that's true, then you can't insist there's no punishment for that special dude who's only committed one "trivial" sin one single time, can you? But the Bible does take a very unequivocal stand on the seriousness of sin and does so in a variety of ways, none of which is convenient for your desire that God have this arbitrary line you need to believe one can toe without overstepping and still be good. That stand the Bible does take further exposes your position of dictating to God that all the sins YOU regard as "trivial" must not offend Him anymore than they do you, as if you're the Creator.
"Why don't YOU cite where the Bible says, "even one regular sin can make this irrational, bloodthirsty godling deem you unfit for their vulgar, graceless presence..."? YOU DON'T and CAN'T cite anything because the Bible doesn't support your view."
I'm unaware of this "irrational, bloodthirsty 'godling' whose presence is vulgar and graceless".
But I've cited plenty of Scripture which informs my position and you continually choose to pervert, ignore, distort and reject those verses without an intelligent alternative take on any of them. To you, I'm just wrong "because". Then you dare use terms like "adult conversation" as if you know what that means. If you would actually study, even semi-seriously with a prayer to the One True God even now and then, you wouldn't act like I've not supported my position.
"And when I refer to an impotent childish godling, I am NOT speaking of the Almighty God of the universe."
You most certainly are, because I'm getting my info from the One True Almighty God of the universe via His clearly revealed Word to us in Scripture.
"I'm speaking of the cruel little godling you've created in your imagination, just to be clear."
I've created no "cruel little godling", but that's how you refer to the God you mock by insisting descriptions of His wrath and how we're all in need of some means by which we will be spared it are not true. Good luck with that.
"Marshal...
Is the parent God?
No. In fact, though, the Bible testifies to this basic notion that if, even imperfect human parents know how to give good gifts to their children, how much MORESO can an almighty God? The point being that God is BETTER and MORE LOVING than mere mortal parents, not more irrational and cruel."
So God's justice is irrational and cruel. That's not in evidence in anything I've ever said. But unlike you, God doesn't show love by ignoring sin natures and behaviors. No parent who truly loves his/her child will stand for ANY transgression, especially those clearly defined, regardless of how the parent's response manifests. Nor will God, but being far, far greater than we, His response will be as well. What's more, no parent is sinless as is God. So to pretend there's some parallel between any parent and God is just one more absurdity you require others to buy in order to pretend your understanding isn't the crap sandwich it is.
And by the way, cite that bit about parents giving gifts to their kids and I'll explain why you're abusing that verse as you do most every verses you cite.
"Can anyone have the right and authority to dictate to God how He should respond to that which offends Him, if it doesn't also offend fake Christians like you or to the same degree?"
"No, YOU CAN'T dictate to God that your "god" must punish people for an eternity of torture for being imperfect humans. Do you get that? THAT is precisely what I'm saying. YOU are not speaking for God when you suggest that God will punish most people for an eternity for the "crime" of being imperfect humans."
I'm not the one doing the dictating, Dan. YOU are. YOU'RE the one saying that one can commit one sin and be right with God...that God doesn't care about "one 'trivial' sin" as if Scripture says that anywhere. Indeed, it doesn't even hint at such a thing...unless of course you're prepared to present chapter and verse where it does. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath while you make me wait forever to never provide it.
And yet again, liar...I don't "speak" for God as if I say what He hasn't said or what Scripture doesn't relate. I REPEAT what God has said or what Scripture teaches. I support everything with Scripture and you support nothing except where you pervert verses to push your fake Christian agenda. And the fact you choose to ignore is that from birth we're all bound for Hell, damnation, perdition, continued separation from God...however you want to phrase it, with only ONE means by which that will not happen. Hint: saying "grace" is the wrong answer.
"On the other hand, we who are created a little lower than God CAN use our God-given reason to understand at least the basic understandings of Justice and Mercy and that for justice to be just, any punishment can't be wildly cruel and disproportionate."
First, I wish to address your new found favorite catch phrase "we who are created a little lower than God", because as is your way, you use phrases like this for effect without concern for its meaning. You use it to pretend it means we are somehow in the same league as God, or one close enough to allow the kind of presumption you favor to legitimize your other bad reasoning. There is enough dispute among scholars and translators regarding whether the original language is actually referring to God or the angels (or even "gods"), as the word can mean all of these depending on the context. To that end, I offer two of many articles I could have used for the purpose which offers clarification:
https://bibleresources.info/please-explain-psalm-85-has-god-created-us-only-a-little-lower-than-himself-or-the-angels/
This next one is by a guy whose occupation is translating languages, mostly of the more ancient variety:
https://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bible-corrections/A-Little-Lower-Than-God.html
The important take away from both is that the phrase is not at all a literal description of the difference between God and us, which is vast beyond imagining. Those like you who have manipulated God into your "pal" err in doing so. Worse, what for you passes for "reasoning" if far from reliable as your many posts and comments over the many years have clearly proven. Here, your "reasoning" is clearly fixated and obsessed with that which is not at issue...the concept of proportional justice. It's not at all a point of contention here, but you want it to be because you can't wrap your pointy head around the reality that God can be clearly acting within our human understanding of justice and still respond to sin in a manner beyond your understanding....which clearly is the case. Despite your constant objections to the charge, you are most definitely and without question dictating that He must take no more offense to sins you've decided are "trivial". Because Dan regards a behavior as "trivial", so must God lest Dan mock Him as a petty godling.
"It's not an offense to me, it's an offense to JUSTICE and REASON."
...by YOUR standards of both, which are immature and baseless.
"Once again, if EVEN the imperfect human, Marshal, can understand how vulgar and evil it would be to punish his children for a lifetime for being imperfect (and I'm certain you CAN recognize that much), then YOU, too, can understand that much about justice."
I'm not in the habit of speaking of topics by citing nonsensical hypotheticals which in no way reflect any reality, be it earthly or heavenly. Justice first requires that someone be the victim of some transgression. The best parallel is civil law versus God's law. A society is offended by an act and creates laws to prohibit the act. Break the law and justice manifests in arrest, sentencing and serving that sentence. God's offended by sin and has prohibited behaviors which manifest sin. His justice requires specific punishment which no good deeds can prevent being administered.
"Now, if YOU want to make the case that your puny godling has some different, entirely foreign notion of justice that is completely beyond our human understanding, you can try to do so. But you have not done that, yet and you can't, because you have no data to support such an irrational claim."
I don't have a "puny godling", nor do I have an invented God like yours. I worship the One True God of Scripture. You continue to pretend I'm promoting this idea of "some different, entirely foreign notion of justice" when there's nothing at all in any comment I've ever posted which so much as hints at such a thing. It's just something you say in lieu of providing Scriptural evidence which counters all the Scriptural evidence I've brought to bear to support my position...which you continue to misrepresent rather than honestly confront. Nothing about my position is irrational, but your continued attempt to frame it as such is.
"Are you going to dare suggest that God shouldn't get so pissed at the sins you commit because you choose to believe they're "trivial"?
Nope. But getting pissed at typical sins is not the same as saying, "You took that last cookie? WHAT?!! Go burn in hell for an eternity!""
And still you continue to suggest it's about the cookie. You're an idiot.
"Nuance, Marshal. Reason. Grace."
Words of which you have no understanding. You think throwing them about is an argument.
"Come on, it's not that hard."
What's hard is getting you to do what you demand of others...provide evidence in support of your position or to counter mine.
So riddle me this: Do unselfish people act selfishly?
November 17, 2022 at 8:15 AM
"I asked if Marshal thought taking the last cookie was a great evil, deserving of an eternity of torture.
Marshal responded...
It doesn't matter what I personally think regarding some selfish person taking the last cookie. The sin isn't taking the last cookie. It's selfishness...or "greed", if you prefer.
It DOES matter that you can use your God-given moral reasoning to understand the vast difference of THE SELFISHNESS involved in taking the last cookie and actual EVIL."
"Selfishness" (or "greed", if you prefer) is actual evil...which is the point of contention in this discussion, and you choose to believe there are degrees of evil which will not bar one's entry into God's eternal presence. If you can't provide any Scriptural evidence for this belief, then the belief is crap and YOUR "human tradition" which very few actual Christians would even entertain, much less believe.
"If someone is imperfect enough to think, "I know it's selfish and greedy on my part, but I REALLY want that last cookie and I'm going to eat it before my wife does..." BUT that same person is moral enough to recognize that this is NOT the same as, "I know it's selfish and greedy, but I REALLY want to rape those children and take all their money from their piggy banks...""
I know the thought of rape turns you on, but this isn't about that. You simply want to reference one evil to mitigate the seriousness of another, toward your ultimate goal of legitimizing sinful behaviors you personal don't find worthy of God's wrath.
"That person has the moral ability to distinguish between the former being a minor misdeed - WRONG, to be sure, but MINOR because they can go out tomorrow and pick up more cookies and no great harm would be done - and the latter being a gross evil."
Still waiting for your Scriptural evidence which supports your notion that God won't punish sinfulness which doesn't rise to a level YOU deem as necessary for punishment. In the meantime, moral people don't consider an immoral act they desire to commit is OK because it's "not as bad" as some other immoral act. Moral people simply don't engage in immoral behaviors. It's what makes them "moral".
"THAT is why it's vital to recognize levels of misdeeds and sins and actual evil. That's not saying the selfishness involved in taking the last cookie is an acceptable thing, it's noting that it's a minor misdeed that can be repaired."
It's far more vital to avoid any misdeed without a self-serving determination of whether one can make up for it later. That's not how sin works. One might replace the cookie, but the sin remains. It's a done deal. A teacher from my childhood illustrated it this way: sin is like nails one hammers into someone's door. One might apologize, be actually sorry and repentant and pull out the nails, but the holes are still there.
"It's why we should be able to recognize (unlike the pervert you cited on Craig's page recently) how greatly EVIL it is to force anyone into sex (ie, rape them) and that there are lines that need to be drawn. And the better we are at drawing lines even at minor misdeeds or minor selfish acts, the better person we are, more like Christ. But it's not like the selfish taking of the last cookie can't be forgiven and can only be met by an eternity of torture."
This is such bullshit and not at all Biblical. First, I don't know what "pervert" I cited on Craig's page, because I don't remember referencing any homosexuals or "transitioning" mental cases, so you'll have to refresh my memory. We are not "better people" because we only commit some sins and not others. That's laughably stupid and nothing at all like Christ who never sinned at all. And even the abomination of homosexual behavior can be forgiven if one repents of it, seeks God's forgiveness and comes to Christ. No one who is mildly familiar with Christianity will deny there is no sin (apart from your constant blaspheming of the Spirit) which can't be forgiven (and indeed hasn't already been forgiven), yet you suggest there are some sins which need not be. No punishment comes with remorse, repentance and Christ. No salvation comes without them. Christianity 101.
"THAT would be a great evil. And that, too, is why we need to be able to understand the basics of degrees of wrong."
A "great" evil is rejecting God in favor of your invented one because you find God's ways inconvenient and off-putting and what "a godling" would do. It's called "blaspheming the Spirit".
November 17, 2022 at 8:22 AM
"But even so, in Christ, shall ALL be made alive. God is greater than our sins. So, WHO SAYS we are separated from Christ?"
Scripture. Try reading it for understanding rather than for loopholes.
"As Paul notes (and basic reason acknowledges):"
...but you take out of context, as is your way when you need to pretend. Paul is speaking of believers...as in, TRUE believers who live as Christians, not fakes who assume authority to say "don't worry. This sin isn't so bad."
"Now, YOU may think that the almighty God of all the universe who is not willing that ANY should perish, who came to save ALL the world..."
But won't, as affirmed in the Scripture you've never "seriously and prayerfully studied". Many will indeed perish, and more than those who won't. It's not looking all that good for you.
"...that this Almighty God is actually a little wimp godling that faints at sin and can't overcome it, but who must punish the selfishness involved in taking the last cookie with an eternity of torture, but I do not place such limits on God or try to put God in that kind of cruel cage."
First, the one regarding God as "wimpy" is you with your hippie god who hasn't any backbone to do what he said he'd do with regard to justice. To the real God you mock, justice isn't just letting people off the hook...which is grace and mercy for those who repent and accept Christ.
But let's look at this stupid "faints at sin and can't overcome it". Sin is like your stench. You shit and piss and puke yourself and never shower in any case. Sure, your wife could tolerate it if she was forced to do so. But why should she? Why would she? "OH, c'mon, honey! It's just a little piss, shit and puke along with a lifetime of avoiding soap! You can take it!" Who are you to demand she must? Who are you to demand that God must tolerate the least hint of sin in His Most Holy Presence? On what basis can you insist that He must??? What gall!
Worse is that you ARE putting limits on Him. You're saying He's limited to punishing only those YOU think are deserving and for a time YOU insist is the only appropriate amount as if it's all based on how offended YOU are.
November 17, 2022 at 9:10 AM
"Marshal...
You think "evil" is some form of "really bad" sin
Um... yeah. I mean, that's literally the definition.
Evil: profoundly immoral and wicked."
From Merriam-Webster:
a: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
From American Heritage Dictionary:
adjective--Morally bad or wrong; wicked.
noun--The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
noun--Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction. (sorta like sin)
Cambridge English Dictionary
1. morally bad, cruel, or very unpleasant:
I looked at several other dictionaries on line and all define it in the same way. It wasn't until I looked at Wikipedia before I got something akin to yours, despite it beginning in this way:
"Evil, in a general sense, is defined as the opposite or absence of good." Sorta like sin. Shortly thereafter it says, "...although in everyday usage it is often more narrowly used to talk about "profound" wickedness and against common good." Very much what one might regard as "human tradition", but not necessarily a precise definition. In any case, it's still sin at any degree.
"Marshal...
"How is it you think yourself qualified and possessed of the authority to draw lines between these as if they are something more than synonymous? Sin and evil are the same things."
I see you saying that. But prove it."
I just did with the several definitions provided for your edification of which you are in dire need.
"Or tell you what, since you don't appear to have the typical English understanding of "evil" in mind, why don't you define how YOU are using "evil...""
As my several provided definitions clearly prove, I have a most typical English understanding...indeed, a very accurate English understanding of the word. That you want to go off on this tangent of pissing about to pretend there's some significant difference between "evil" and "sin" just further demonstrates how absurd you are.
"But also understand this: If, by evil, you mean, "merely imperfect, not able to be perfect..." then you think all of humanity is "evil..." BUT if you're using this alternative reality definition, then YOU need to be able to explain how punishing people for being imperfect (not actual evil as it is usually defined) is not, itself, a great and monstrous evil?"
You want me to understand what isn't true. All of humanity IS evil, as we are all born with a sin nature. And it isn't an "alternate reality" definition. It's actual reality untainted by leftist fake Christians who want a god who is their buddy and would never be angry or take umbrage with sin. You are totally and completely in contradiction...not to mention in total rebellion...with God and Scripture.
You also seem to think that God has any special care for the likes of us...and the likes of you in particular...that He can't exist without us to the extent that He'll allow jokers like you to indulge in whatever sins YOU regard as "trivial", believing because others might agree they're "trivial", then by golly, they are and God would be a monster for punishing anyone as He sees fit and just. Yet, you fail with alarming and prize winning regularity to find any Scripture which supports your point of view. "That none should perish" doesn't get it done as it doesn't mean it none will. All of your weak attempts to pervert Scripture are that lame and equally failures in supporting your position.
So I don't need to explain anything about who God will allow to suffer in any way for any reason He sees fit and I don't need to explain how it constitutes "a great and monstrous evil" for God to punish evil. What a moronic presumption on your part.
"Again with the imperfect human parents: IF they punish their child for being silly and knocking over their milk and making a big mess and then saying "oh shit..." and punish them by making them sit in the corner for five minutes... well, we could debate the relative merit of that punishment and if it's reasonable."
Again, there's no parallel between a parent in that situation and God in His authority to punish whom He chooses to punish.
"HOWEVER, if they punish that same child by cutting off their right hand and warning them, "If this happens again, it will be BOTH your feet that get cut off!" all of humanity would recognize that as a great actual evil. The punishment does not fit the "sin" of mere imperfection."
You seem to think there's some parallel between how imperfect beings should respond to each other versus how the one Perfect Being should respond to us. There's none. You forget that what constitutes "good" between humans is derived from God's law and will revealed to us in Scripture. He tells us how to behave. We don't tell Him, nor do we have standing to presume to judge how He deals with our imperfection, our sin natures.
We're not to presume we are god-like in our response to the transgressions of other imperfect people. God IS God and when we transgress against each other, we're also an offense against Him. But when someone like you blasphemes the Spirit, it's not an offense against me or any other human being.
"THIS is why it's vital to be able to distinguish between levels of misdeeds, because an appropriate response needs to happen."
We decide what's an appropriate response here on earth. We do so as individuals, such as parents responding to their kids in breach of the parents' rules and wishes, or societies responding to laws broken. Society...municipalities or states...doesn't respond to an offspring showing disrespect to his parents, as that's not an offense against society. Yet disobeying one's parents is a sin against God.
"Which is not saying that it's okay to "sin" or that some sins might not need to have a punishment. It's just recognizing the difference between an evil over-punishment and a reasonable moral response."
But there's no punishment resulting from our sin which is "over-punishment" just because it appears to be so to you. That's just you dictating to God what must be. If you believe He acts as you say, you must provide evidence or its just wishful thinking. But keep in mind...it's never about the cookie.
"Do we need to keep you away from children? I'm worried about your moral reasoning, Marshal."
This from the guy who defends murdering people in utero and enabling sexually immoral behavior and exposing small children to it. Yeah...I'm a threat to kids. That's rich!
November 17, 2022 at 9:46 AM
"Marshal, in still not directly answering questions, dodged with this...
You insist that God is "a petty godling"
if He dares respond to sin in a manner YOU find unjust
because YOU believe a given behavior is "trivial"."
That's not a dodge, liar. It's a direct response to your equivocations and corruptions of Scripture and God's justice. What's more, it's an absolutely accurate description of your corrupt mindset.
"1. First of all, this has nothing to do with me."
Very little does. But in this discussion, you're dictating to God how He must do His Thing.
"In our world, humanity - created a little lower than God with the ability to use our moral reasoning - recognizes the self-evident and obvious notion that for a punishment to be just, it must be proportionate."
You don't get to dictate to God whether or not His punishments are just. In our world, humanity is divided into thousands of groups all of whom have different ideas about what constitutes just punishments for whatever behaviors they regard as unlawful. Even within those groups, there are various notions of right behaviors families and others abide.
And stop with the "little lower than God" crap! You're abusing that verse in order to pretend God must not be too different than the likes of you when He metes out His justice for that which offends HIM...a decision for which He does not seek or care for your input!
"I did not make this up."
No. You just pervert the hell out of it, because perversion is what lefties do.
"It is a common and essential element to our understanding of Justice."
Theoretically, perhaps. But it doesn't account for how that manifests and the fact that, even within our own culture, we have various opinions about what is punishable and in what way. That disparity widens considerably as we investigate how it looks elsewhere in the wordl. You can't deny this reality, but you deny that God also has His own opinion on what is offensive to HIM, how much it is and how He chooses to deal with it.
"YOU almost certainly agree."
There's scant little with which you and I agree because you're a reprobate moron with no regard for God's will. To you, God is whatever you want Him to be. To me, I seek in my imperfect and humble way to be whatever He wants me to be.
"You would not want the rest of us to decide to place you in jail with only rotting, maggotty food until you died for the "sin" of being rude and making false claims, would you? Such an action would be unjust, wouldn't it?"
That's funny. You actually think "the rest of us" constitutes a large swath of the general public. The fact is, honest people of honor and character don't want "the rest of you" anywhere near our justice system. "The rest of you" have fucked it up quite badly enough already. There's still people rotting in a crappy cell in DC for trespassing in "the peoples' house", so don't pretend you have any Christian notion of "proportional" justice.
"YOU recognize the notion of proportionate response to misdeeds, do you not?"
Clearly, and as has been proven in this very discussion, I "recognize" and far better than you understand the notion of proportionate response to misdeeds. One reason why that is true is because I understand what "misdeeds" are. You defend the murder of innocent people.
"I'm calling on YOU to testify and so demonstrate that this very common, very rational, very moral understanding of proportionate punishment IS a rational understanding, not something I'm making up out of nothing."
Words mean nothing. Your position on what "proportionate punishment" looks like is where the problem lies. What you're "making up" is God's nature, so that it aligns with what you demand it must be rather than conceding what it is according the the detailed description of it provided for us in Scripture. When God grants you the authority to dictate to Him how serious sin is, then you can provide an equally perverse notion of proportionate response. God's response is perfect. You just don't like it.
"2. Now, if YOU want to make the case that God does NOT believe in the notion of proportionate punishment for misdeeds, in a fair and rational and loving response to misdeeds/sins based on their merit and not some arbitrary and made up claim of "No, no, you have to be perfect or you deserve hell and torture forever), then the onus is on you to prove it, because on the face of it, it sounds like you're insulting God and trying to tear God down and replace God with a made-up, impotent godling."
No, Dan. The onus is still on your to provide Scriptural evidence which contradicts the truth I've repeated over and over again. But it's funny that you're now going to try and pretend I'm insulting God by repeating what He says and what Scripture says about Him. But think of it this way, Dan. Suppose everyday I walk up to you and kick you as hard as I can in what for passes for your testicles. I'm going to go out on a limb and suppose you'd regard it as a great offense to you. Your general rule is that no one should kick you in the balls, but I don't much find doing so to be such a big deal. I regard it as a trivial thing that, while not necessarily nice, is something I enjoy doing. I dismiss your disdain of my behavior as you dismiss God's rebuke of sin. YOU think it outrageously evil. I don't think it's such a big deal and you shouldn't be such a crybaby. Since it's not my marvelous nuts being kicked, I can't feel how painful yours little balls getting kicked might be. I can either ignore your pleas to stop and respect your wishes I don't kick you in the particulars, or I can simply accept that it is indeed painful and not a nice thing to do. Being me, I'd take option two. Being you, you'd simply keep kicking people in the crotch, because you think you can dictate how offended others must be or not be for a given infraction.
I seek to please God, not dictate to Him as you do. More Christianity 101 for you.
"3. It's not that I, personally, believe a behavior is trivial"
That's EXACTLY what this is.
"...it's the reality that we all recognize using our God-given moral reasoning."
I'm sure the wife who continually is deprived of the cookie on which she had designs totally agrees with you. What a dickhead you are!
"Selfishly taking the last cookie IS trivial. If you believe it's NOT, then the onus is on you to make the case as to WHY taking the last cookie selfishly is a great evil (and again, it would help for you to give your made up definition of "evil," if you're using it in some non-standard manner)."
You keep insisting I'm as obsessed with the cookie as you are. I'm only interested in the selfishness YOU acknowledge is what drives the action to take the cookie in the first place. And unless you're going to alter the scenario, we're talking about an act of selfishness in which the selfishness is the problem more than the selfish act which flows from it.
You also keep insisting on using the term "great evil", as if there's any other kind of evil. Evil is evil. There are more egregious manifestations, particular from the human perspective more than anything else. But evil is simply evil. My definitions are above and all I've said comports with those definitions (as they're the same across multiple dictionaries, including those I didn't include in my list above.). Said another way, I use the term in the standard manner. YOU add the qualifier "great" or "trivial" as if you have that authority before God.
"3a. As a side note: If you're using evil to mean merely, "imperfect," I'd ask you to use the standard definitions just so we remain clear on what we're talking about."
It's our evil/sin natures which makes us imperfect to the extent that we cannot reside in God's presence. This is basic Biblical stuff. There is no discussion in Genesis of Adam and Eve "multiplying" until after the Fall of Man. Being stained with his sin, we are thus imperfect to a degree Adam and Eve weren't before their sin. This is not to say Scripture actually describes Adam and Eve as perfect beings, but they were not intended to die until they became corrupted by their sinful act. Because sin is death.
And their story is incredibly relevant to this discussion. I wish I had thought of it before. All they did was eat an piece of fruit and from that point they would decay and die. Now tell me again about God and proportionate punishment.
Oh... and I'll go further. Christ was without sin. What's "proportionate justice" about Him suffering for our sins?
"3b. If you are using "evil" to mean, "imperfect," then the onus is on you to make a rational case as to WHY being imperfect is rightly punishable by an eternity of torture. Because for the rest of humanity, that notion would be a great evil, in and of itself."
You want me to lawyer up for God? Really? I don't give a flying rat's ass what "the rest of humanity" thinks. I concern myself with what God wants and what He's provided for us in order for us to be redeemed and regarded by Him as worthy of being in His eternal presence. Sin denies us that lofty goal. So long as we're stained by sin...imperfect...we have no share in His eternal blessings. Christianity 101. Every truly serious and prayerful student of Scripture knows this and regards it as a given. Why don't you?
November 17, 2022 at 10:07 AM
""THE REASON you all don't take passages like "And ALL will be saved" literally is because you've already decided you need to take passages like "wide is the way to destruction and many will perish" in a more literal manner. But why could it not be the other way around?""
Marshal responded...
Because the other way around is in direct conflict with the entirety of Scripture, as well as with the words of Christ Himself."
THE REASON we all don't take passages like "And ALL will be saved" literally is because there is no such passage. There is nothing in Scripture which states such a thing.
"Says who? WHY is saying, "We ought not take "All will be saved" literally..." itself, not in direct conflict with the entirety of Scripture?"
It is in direct conflict with Scripture.
"You recognize, I suppose, that there are dozens of passages that make rather universalist-leaning claims... "ALL will be saved," for instance. You recognize this, right?"
No, I do not, because there are no such passages.
"And I, of course, recognize that there are passages that sound like at least some (if not all) will be or deserve to be punished."
That's only because you never truly "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture. No serious student of Scripture could believe that any passage "sound like" some will or deserve to be punishes, when passages are quite clear that many will not be saved.
"There is, additionally, the whole other problem of the FRONT TO BACK, GENESIS TO REVELATION descriptions of God as being perfectly loving and perfectly just and full of forgiveness and welcome."
...to those who abide His will and accept Christ. For those who don't, stock up on sunscreen!
"And to say that a perfectly loving and just God will punish most of humanity for an eternity for the "sin" of being imperfect..."
Perfectly comports with Scriptural teachings.
"THAT IS, itself, a conflict with the Bible and Christian teaching. It is a PRIMAL conflict with the Bible's teachings, not to mention, reason."
Still awaiting evidence of this desperate fantasy.
"So tell me this: What is your rubric for deciding, "Okay, well, these seem to conflict with each other... clearly there's more to the context or something figurative happening here... HERE is the system we have to decide what to take more literally and what to consider more figurative"? Do you have ANY such rubric, something that is consistent, rational, biblical and authoritative?"
Well, first I make sure my head isn't up my ass. Secondly, I don't pretend Scripture is a big mystery, and for our purposes here, not a mystery about how we can avoid God's wrath and what will result in our eternal punishment.
Here's the thing Dan...I've provided tons of Scriptural evidence which unequivocally affirm my correct understanding of the issue at hand. You've provided nothing from Scripture which suggests the opposite. As such, EVERYTHING I've brought to bear is consistent, rational, absolutely Biblical and as such authoritative. Scripture is authoritative. If you believe my understanding is incorrect...and clearly you do... some day you actually have to provide the passages and verse which actually prove this laughable contention. And by doing so, those passages must be unassailable and beyond my ability to poke any holes into them which you cannot fill beyond my poking holes in THAT. Never has that happened thus far. Never have you provided me with even a hint of such a challenge which I'd greatly and fondly embrace. No. The alpha and omega of your counter argument continues to be no more than "Nyuh uh", which is really the best confirmation of my understanding for which I could hope to receive from anyone. So thanks for that. You're a pip.
"I'm guessing not, but you tell me. If you do have this rubric, this system, please share it with me so that I may perfectly read Scripture with the perfect understanding you have ."
Once again, girl. So long as you insist on your ass being the permanent residence of your head, you are lost. So long as you insist on forcing your preferences onto God and Scripture, you are lost. Put God first. Be willing to deny yourself. Until you do that, you will always be condemned for blaspheming the Spirit. Good luck to you.
Again, I think I've broken you, Marshal. Thousands of words which took you no telling how much time ALL to say "nuh uh." Why not just say "nuh uh" and be done with it.
Some closing points, now that you've been thoroughly beaten and embarrassed:
1. Merely MAKING a claim of having authority from God or the Bible is not the same as having authority of God or the Bible on your side.
2. Merely MAKING a claim that you are understanding a biblical passage correctly is not the same as demonstrating you are understanding a biblical passage correctly.
3. You're still not understanding the standard definition of evil. It's not merely "imperfect" or "having engaged in some minor misdeeds."
4. I don't NEED THE BIBLE to recognize the reality of degrees of sin. It's observable. If YOU want to disprove what is clear and observable, the onus is on you to do so... NOT merely claim the notion doesn't exist because IN YOUR HEAD, YOU THINK the Bible supports your unsupported and grievously irrational and unbiblical hunch.
5. Even though we don't NEED THE BIBLE to point out reality, I've also provided Bible verses that point to the biblical notion of degrees of sin. Jesus saying, "the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin" being just one of the many that point to OBVIOUS, OBSERVABLE REALITY.
6. If you want to PROVE that there are no such things as greater or lesser degrees of sin, then YOU MUST show how selfishly taking the last cookie* is comparable somehow to rape in terms of evil. YOU NEVER HAVE supported this notion and you CAN'T, because it would be a stupidly ignorant claim.
6a. And no matter HOW many times you dismiss this as "the last cookie example" and suggest I'm ignoring the selfishness, I would just point to my repeated words where I've been CLEAR that it was an act of selfishness. A MINOR ACT of selfishness which may or may not be indicative of a person's regular character.
7. You've provided NO RUBRIC to show that you have a reasonable, biblical, reliable method of deciding when to take a biblical passage more or less literally. You don't have one, you just rely upon your feelings and traditions which are weightless, emotionally-wrought, irrational and inconsistent.
In this post, you repeatedly cited me responding to one or another of your points with PROVE IT and now with ALL these words where you never do prove any of your claims, you've demonstrated that you can't prove them (by your complete non-attempt to even TRY to do so) and it's quite clear you can't prove your hunches and claims because they are weightless, emotionally-wrought, irrational and inconsistent.
A few minor clarifications/final nails in the coffin:
Marshal...
THE REASON we all don't take passages like "And ALL will be saved" literally is because there is no such passage. There is nothing in Scripture which states such a thing.
1. “The Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.” (1 John 4:14)
2. Jesus is “the Christ, the Savior of the world.” (John 4:42)
4. Jesus “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)
5. Jesus “did not come to judge the world but to save the world.” (John 12:47)
13. The Gospel is “good tidings of great joy will be to all people.” (Luke 2:10)
17. “And I, [Jesus] if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (literally “drag” in the Greek, helkuo) all mankind unto Myself.” (John 12:32)
24. “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering towards us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)
31. “Since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all died, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2021/07/76-bible-verses-to-support-universal-reconciliation/
For a few examples. Now, I GET that you want to try to explain away why "ALL the word" and "ALL should come to repentance" and "not willing that ANY should perish..." etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... why YOU think that in YOUR MIND, you don't think they should be taken literally, but it's delusional to say such passages don't exist.
Again, my point: There ARE some passages that say things like "ALL WILL BE SAVED," such passages literally exist in one phrasing or another and in the DOZENS of times in the Bible. Likewise, there are passages that suggest a burning hell for some people who aren't saved. We - no one rational - can deny that these passages all exist.
The thing is, YOU think it is "more biblical" (in your head) to say, the "all will be saved" passages that DEMONSTRABLY exist should not be taken literally, and I think such claims are irrational and unbiblical. But you can't say they don't exist OR that you're explaining away why they shouldn't be taken literally. Now, you may or may not have a point (you don't), but you just can't deny that this is the reality.
Saying they don't exist just points to delusion of severe, crippling confusion on your part.
Marshal...
there's no punishment resulting from our sin which is "over-punishment" just because it appears to be so to you.
PROVE IT.
Or, after ALL these words where you have not even BEGUN to TRY to prove it, just admit that you can't and that this is only the hateful and irrational and unbiblical opinion of you and your human traditions.
The fact remains that SOME people who die young (and I'm just using them to make the point, but the principle applies WAY beyond only those who die young) who have committed relatively few sins and ALL of them have been relatively minor.
To support your point YOU MUST show why the 12 (or 15 or six, or however old you think in your head is old enough to be tortured for an eternity) year old who's lied dozens of times and hit their brother in anger 12 times and selfishly took the last cooke 23 times and even stole a cookie FIVE times is REASONABLY and MORALLY "deserving" of eternal torture/torment.
You have NEVER ONCE even tried to make a plausible rational OR biblical case for this other than choosing irrationally and whimsically to lift a handful of verses about punishment and say they should be taken literally and applied in ALL circumstances. But YOU MERELY SAYING THAT does not make it so AND it's still an irrational and evil claim.
I don't think you understand the level of actual EVIL you are claiming for your little monster-godlin.
Marshal...
"Selfishness" (or "greed", if you prefer) is actual evil
PROVE IT. PROVE that all levels of selfishness - including the selfish taking of the last cookie - is actually EVIL, "wicked," "devoid of good," "greatly wrong..." or whatever definition you choose. PROVE IT.
You can't.
PROVE IT.
You won't.
Marshal...
You want me to understand what isn't true. All of humanity IS evil, as we are all born with a sin nature.
PROVE IT.
PROVE that humanity is born with a "sin nature" (and define what you mean by that... do you mean "merely imperfect..."?? People should reasonably be tortured for an eternity because they are imperfect?? Do you recognize how monstrous and actually evil that claim is??P
PROVE that being imperfect (or having a "sin nature," that you can't prove) makes us "evil." The claim is not rational, nor is it biblical. It's a petty little human tradition that SOME humans irrationally believe and try to box their little god in with.
Marshal...
But unlike you, God doesn't show love by ignoring sin natures and behaviors.
You constantly say things like this showing that you either don't understand what I've literally said or that you're willingly setting up a strawman argument about something I have not said.
I have not said God ignores sin or bad behaviors. I literally haven't.
I have not said that bad behavior doesn't deserve being addressed in some way. I literally haven't.
So just stop wasting time with non-arguments and logical fallacies.
What I HAVE said is the simple, rational and biblical notion that for a punishment to be JUST it must be proportionate.
No more. No less.
So, if YOU want to make the case that the 12 year old who's died young and with only handfuls (dozens) of minor sins in their life actually DESERVES an eternal torture/torment/separation from their God-Creator, then YOU must support this irrational and cruel/evil claim.
PROVE IT.
You can't and you won't. We can all see that now.
Tell you what: Let me walk you through this logically, rationally, one step at a time. See if you can reasonably and biblically (if you want - or saying "the Bible doesn't say" is a fine response, too) answer these questions, directly and clearly.
1. Do you believe that BABIES (newborn, one week old... one month old, six months old... you know, BABIES) have a "sin nature" and if so, what do you mean by that, specifically in the case of babies? That they are imperfect or something more than that?
2. Do such babies (imperfect or "with a sin nature") REASONABLY DESERVE to be punished an eternity if they die as a baby?
3. How about five year olds or seven year olds. What list of sins do you think they have committed? Do you think those sins are so serious as to "deserve" an eternity of torment/deserve to be punished an eternity?
4. How about 10 or 13 year olds? What list of sins do you think they have committed and do you think those sins or that "sin nature" reasonably "deserves" an eternity of torment? What does having a "sin nature" mean for a 13 year old?
5. Do you believe in the notion of an "age of accountability" that many traditional evangelicals believe in?
https://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html
5a. If you believe in it, why? Does the Bible say anything - anything at all - about an age of accountability? Are you just using your God-given reasoning to make an assumption, even if it's not biblical?
5b. If you don't believe in an age of accountability, but you also do NOT think that a good, loving, perfectly just God would punish a baby or a four year old for their "sin nature" for an eternity... Perhaps you think that God will probably take into account their young age and make accommodations...?, WHY do you think that? Is it biblical or are you just using your God-given reasoning to figure out that for God to punish a one year old for an eternity for having a "sin nature" would be a great evil thing to do?
6. Presumably, you think that children (maybe an age that varies - what of the person with an intellectual delay that has them at a so-called "child like state" for their whole lives?) at some age WILL be held accountable for their sins and God COULD and WOULD presumably punish a 13 year old for an eternity for having a "sin nature" and taking the last cookie selfishly and rolling their eyes at their parents disrespectfully. Is that correct?
How young are you guessing that age could be?
In all of these hypotheticals, I'm guessing you can agree you have NO BIBLICAL reason to think this, correct?
Some more questions likely to go unanswered, ignored and/or mocked.
I said, speaking of the notion of God's justice being in conflict with Marshal's guesses about his little god's "judgment"...
"THAT IS, itself, a conflict with the Bible and Christian teaching. It is a PRIMAL conflict with the Bible's teachings, not to mention, reason."
Marshal responded...
Still awaiting evidence of this desperate fantasy.
Not sure what you're waiting for.
You are familiar, I suppose, with the MANY times the Bible speaks of God being a Just God?
You are familiar with the DEARTH of biblical evidence for a place of eternal punishment for most people, right?
You are familiar, I assume, that in the OT, they didn't believe in a hell, just death or the grave. Period. They just didn't. So any appeals to the OT as "proof" that God wants to/is willing to send the majority of humanity to an eternity of torment are done so contrary to the text of the OT. They didn't believe in "hell," as in a place of eternal torment.
You are familiar with the few dozen mentions in the NT of the word "hell..."? "Hell" appears about 36 times in the NT. Some of the verses are like this one, from Jesus:
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"
Many/most of the "hell" passages are like that. Direct rebukes of SPECIFIC people (in that case, Jesus rebuking - again - the religious hypocrites/pharisee types who were acting in an oppressive, contrary-to-grace manner). They are not instances of God or Jesus saying, "Ya know that sweet 16 year old girl? She deserves to go to hell for all of eternity."
Not ONE mention of Jesus or God saying typical people "deserved" to go to hell for their typical sins. NOT ONE.
You are familiar that when Jesus uses the word, Hell, he is saying "Gehenna," literally a figurative reference to the city dump outside the walls of the city. A place of great waste. He is using Gehenna metaphorically, not saying that people like the oppressive Pharisees will be sent to the city dump to burn forever, but expressing how cast out and awful it is to be an oppressor.
Jesus not one time says, "and NOT just the oppressors, but also the selfish guy who eats the last cookie... HE TOO, deserves to be punished for an eternity." Not one time. As a point of fact.
I could go on but I sort of assume you're not unfamiliar with these basic notions. We have "hell" or "punishment" being mentioned 30-40 times, none of which indicates that all of humanity "deserves" to be "punished an eternity" for the sin of having a "sin nature..." or merely being imperfect.
You can't find a single verse to support that human theory. Do you recognize that? Not one verse.
But there are multiple dozens of verses that speak to God's perfect love, justice, mercy and general nature. This is probably something you can agree with without me having to quote verses. God IS perfectly loving, perfectly just, perfectly gracious, perfectly merciful.
Do you disagree?
IF you agree that God is perfectly just and
IF there are no verses that tell you God will punish everyone - even the 8- 12- and 15-year olds - for being imperfect or having a "sin nature," (not a biblical term, by the by),
The the onus remains on you to explain WHY you think a perfectly loving and just God would punish someone for typical sins, sending them to hell for an eternity?
It's just not biblical. It happens ZERO places in the bible where God says typical sins deserve eternal punishment. It happens ZERO places in the Bible where God says, "ALL sins are equal and equally deserving of eternal punishment."
It's just not biblical. And certainly not rational for people like you to read that INTO the text when it's literally not there.
Seven more mostly lengthy comments which, at a glance, seem to be repetitions of past comments for which complete, direct and fully, factually supported responses were given. Incredible.
But seeing as how you're a little pussy who whines about not having your questions answered when they have been in such a comprehensive manner, even given the stupidity and irrelevance of a great percentage of them, I insist you post no more until each and every concern expressed in these last seven comments are resolved...despite the fact that you'll demonstrate your well-known stupidity and petulance in trying overcome facts and truths you find inconvenient.
Naturally my response will take time. I may have to do it piecemeal as I did that last batch of comments you posted. But in doing so, I will check to see if newer comments from you come in, and I will delete them without reading them. So do yourself a favor and hold your water until I'm through.
November 19, 2022 at 8:42 AM
"Again, I think I've broken you, Marshal. Thousands of words which took you no telling how much time ALL to say "nuh uh." Why not just say "nuh uh" and be done with it."
Again, you make me laugh at the absurd notion that you're even capable of "breaking" me. True comedy gold, enhanced by your lame attempt to pretend my responses have been akin to the "nyuh uh" responses for which you're so infamous. That, too, is hilarious. Another case of a liberal assert fantasy is reality because actual reality doesn't work for you.
"1. Merely MAKING a claim of having authority from God or the Bible is not the same as having authority of God or the Bible on your side."
Merely making a ham sandwich in the kitchen is not the same as having a ham sandwich from the kitchen. Can't wait to read more of this stellar argumentation. When one cites Scripture, one has Scripture on one's side. Pretty simple such that even the simple-minded should be able to understand. Then you come along and blow that assumption out of the water. I guess simple-minded is a step up from your level.
"2. Merely MAKING a claim that you are understanding a biblical passage correctly is not the same as demonstrating you are understanding a biblical passage correctly."
Merely making a claim I haven't demonstrated I'm understanding a biblical passage correctly isn't the same as proving I haven't demonstrated I'm understanding a biblical passage correctly. This becomes truer and more plain considering the demonstration of my quality of understanding comes with Scriptural evidence in support of that understanding, and your claim comes with nothing but your default "Nyuh uh" response...which is what this point #2 is.
"3. You're still not understanding the standard definition of evil. It's not merely "imperfect" or "having engaged in some minor misdeeds.""
Says the guy who must ignore the several dictionary definitions I provided which belie the laughable assertion. In any case, I find it remarkable that anyone would suggest one can be perfect and evil at the same time. More to the point, you've not provided any evidence for "evil" somehow does not include "minor" misdeeds. Please provide that support or else concede what is well known: you're full of shit from talking out your ass.
"4. I don't NEED THE BIBLE to recognize the reality of degrees of sin. It's observable. If YOU want to disprove what is clear and observable, the onus is on you to do so... NOT merely claim the notion doesn't exist because IN YOUR HEAD, YOU THINK the Bible supports your unsupported and grievously irrational and unbiblical hunch."
First of all, you've taken great pains to avoid dealing with my actual position. Secondly, that I regard one behavior as worse than another is not the same as saying the lesser is not evil. It is. It's you who fails to prove that either makes one more or less capable of being forgiven or condemned.
"5. Even though we don't NEED THE BIBLE to point out reality, I've also provided Bible verses that point to the biblical notion of degrees of sin. Jesus saying, "the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin" being just one of the many that point to OBVIOUS, OBSERVABLE REALITY."
You consistently demonstrate delusional notions of reality. So for you, I've no doubt Scripture isn't the only source of informing you of what reality is. But for the purposes of Christian discussions of things spiritual, there is no better source. Then again, only of one of us seeks to be a true Christian, and his name ain't "Dan".
References in Scripture suggesting varying degrees of sinful behaviors are references to their impact in corporeal realm, not the spiritual. And more certainly, such are irrelevant to the real point here, which is "evil" and how God responds to it as regards His Justice.
As such, there is no Biblical reference to whether or not degrees of sinfulness weigh in the "sentencing process" except as regards those not destined for heaven. All sin makes us worthy of eternal punishment as we are all sinners and the wages of sin is death.
"6. If you want to PROVE that there are no such things as greater or lesser degrees of sin, then YOU MUST show how selfishly taking the last cookie* is comparable somehow to rape in terms of evil. YOU NEVER HAVE supported this notion and you CAN'T, because it would be a stupidly ignorant claim."
Are there any other claims I haven't made you'd like me to prove? Make up a list and I'll line the litter box with it. In any case, you cling to the cookie when it's the selfishness which is the problem. In kind, it's not the rape, but the sin nature which manifests in that crime.
"6a. And no matter HOW many times you dismiss this as "the last cookie example" and suggest I'm ignoring the selfishness, I would just point to my repeated words where I've been CLEAR that it was an act of selfishness. A MINOR ACT of selfishness which may or may not be indicative of a person's regular character."
This is an example of your well-known penchant for moving the goal posts. But those not selfish don't commit selfish acts. An act by a non-selfish person might be regarded as selfish by another, but that's just the other person's opinion and one would have to scrutinize that other person before beginning to assess the opinion of the cookie guy...and still it wouldn't mean the cookie guy is selfish or acted selfishly.
But YOU invented the hypothetical to crap on the truth that selfishness is evil. So you thought up what you imagine is a good example of a single, "trivial" act of selfishness in your failed attempt to counter both the reality of selfishness being an example of "evil" and that it is by itself enough to condemn one to eternal punishment. (Which is a stretch to speculate on such things because it ignores the reality of all of us being sinners anyway condemned from birth.)
"7. You've provided NO RUBRIC to show that you have a reasonable, biblical, reliable method of deciding when to take a biblical passage more or less literally. You don't have one, you just rely upon your feelings and traditions which are weightless, emotionally-wrought, irrational and inconsistent."
First, Scripture IS my rubric, but you want a rubric for my rubric. This is how you operate. All evidence, facts, "rubrics" must have evidence, facts and "rubrics" until one throws up one's hands wondering why they bother dealing with a moron like you, who then thinks he's "broken" someone by frustrating them with crap instead of hard data and evidence.
Secondly, I don't need a "rubric" because Scripture is easy to understand in, by my estimation, at least 80% of the time.
Thirdly, I don't need a "rubric". YOU need an argument, with evidence from Scripture which counters or truly refutes my positions, proving them to be "feelings and traditions which are weightless, emotionally-wrought, irrational and inconsistent" rather than defaulting to the only argument you ever have: "Nyuh uh".
"In this post, you repeatedly cited me responding to one or another of your points with PROVE IT and now with ALL these words where you never do prove any of your claims, you've demonstrated that you can't prove them (by your complete non-attempt to even TRY to do so) and it's quite clear you can't prove your hunches and claims because they are weightless, emotionally-wrought, irrational and inconsistent."
Well, this is just a lie. I prove my position with superior arguments supported with myriad Scriptural citations, but you like to pretend that each post stands alone, without any relation to past posts dealing with the same or similar issues. It's like because you're so corrupt and unable to defend your corruption, you pretend each discussion is brand new, with issues never before addressed and thus we have to start over. Well, f**k that, Danny-girl. You're going to have to take off your skirt, borrow some big boy pants, put them on and get busy. Rather than merely talking about "mature, adult conversations", you're going to have to be mature, adult and do what you demand of others.
November 19, 2022 at 8:54 AM
"A few minor clarifications/final nails in the coffin:"
Oh, this should be funny!!
"Marshal...
"THE REASON we all don't take passages like "And ALL will be saved" literally is because there is no such passage. There is nothing in Scripture which states such a thing."
1. “The Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.” (1 John 4:14)"
Doesn't say "ALL" will be saved. Strike one.
"2. Jesus is “the Christ, the Savior of the world.” (John 4:42)"
Doesn't say "ALL" will be saved. Strike two.
"4. Jesus “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)"
Doesn't say "ALL" will be saved. Strike three.
"5. Jesus “did not come to judge the world but to save the world.” (John 12:47)"
Doesn't say "ALL" will be saved. Strike four. (Just like "woke" T-Ball.)
"13. The Gospel is “good tidings of great joy will be to all people.” (Luke 2:10)"
Doesn't say "ALL" will be saved. Strike five.
"17. “And I, [Jesus] if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (literally “drag” in the Greek, helkuo) all mankind unto Myself.” (John 12:32)"
And yet, it doesn't say "ALL" will be saved. Strike six. (The kid can't hit!)
"24. “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering towards us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)"
Doesn't say "ALL" will come to repentance. Strike seven. (Boring!)
"31. “Since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all died, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22)"
Guess what? It doesn't say "ALL" will be saved. What's more, it refers to all who believe in Christ...not "ALL". Strike eight. (Can we go home now?)
Eight examples and not one which satisfies my challenge I will re-print now: THE REASON we all don't take passages like "And ALL will be saved" literally is because there is no such passage. There is nothing in Scripture which states such a thing. Not one of those examples says that at all, nor does it suggest it when taken in the context from which you ripped them in order to force your desperate meaning upon them to pretend you've answered the challenge.
I was wrong. It wasn't funny at all. It was pathetic.
"https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2021/07/76-bible-verses-to-support-universal-reconciliation/"
Ah...so you ARE a universalist. (Among other things from which no one will profit)
"Now, I GET that you want to try to explain away why "ALL the word" and "ALL should come to repentance" and "not willing that ANY should perish..." etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... why YOU think that in YOUR MIND, you don't think they should be taken literally, but it's delusional to say such passages don't exist."
Oh, I take them literally, all right. They just don't support your premise that "all will be saved", because none of them are saying that. The fact is that not all will be saved, and likely, most won't. Unless Jesus was lying (Matt 8:14). Was Jesus lying Dan?
"Again, my point: There ARE some passages that say things like "ALL WILL BE SAVED," such passages literally exist in one phrasing or another and in the DOZENS of times in the Bible."
Funny how you chose to offer eight which don't.
"Likewise, there are passages that suggest a burning hell for some people who aren't saved. We - no one rational - can deny that these passages all exist."
But those can be presented here if we chose to because they exist. None which state "All will be saved" because all won't...most won't...few will. But then, how can you know this when your claims to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture are crap?
"The thing is, YOU think it is "more biblical" (in your head) to say, the "all will be saved" passages that DEMONSTRABLY exist" which you couldn't demonstrate actually do or you would have posted them instead of either verses which don't at all in any way say that "should not be taken literally", No. I don't take literally verses which don't exist. I'm funny that way. "and I think such claims are irrational and unbiblical." Oh no! Say it isn't so!! You think it irrational and unbiblical if I don't take literally that which isn't in the Bible!! That's it. I won't be able to sleep tonight!. "But you can't say they don't exist" Even though they don't, or you would have and should have presented them. "OR that you're explaining away why they shouldn't be taken literally." I'm not trying to "explain them away". I'm stating the fact that there's no verse which says "all will be saved". "Now, you may or may not have a point (you don't), but you just can't deny that this is the reality." But it's not reality, Danny, old girl. The reality is that there is no verse in Scripture which says "all will be saved" and you haven't proven otherwise, because you can't prove what exists that which doesn't. Indeed, the very notion is counter to Scripture beyond any debate to the contrary. Matthew 8:14 alone would then make Scripture contradictory on the issue, and it isn't at all. You're just a putz who can't lacks the honesty and integrity to admit you're wrong...ever...about anything...despite being so incredibly wrong with such amazing consistency and proven to be so.
"Saying they don't exist just points to delusion of severe, crippling confusion on your part."
OK. I was wrong again. This line is incredibly hilarious projection. I know it's not nice to laugh at the developmentally challenged, but you say the funniest things!
"You have NEVER ONCE even tried to make a plausible rational OR biblical case for this"
Except for where I have quite definitively and comprehensively.
"...other than choosing irrationally and whimsically to lift a handful of verses about punishment and say they should be taken literally and applied in ALL circumstances."
How sad. You need to regard my choice of game winning verse selections as "irrationally and whimsically lifted" in order to convince yourself I'm wrong.
"But YOU MERELY SAYING THAT does not make it so AND it's still an irrational and evil claim.
I don't think you understand the level of actual EVIL you are claiming for your little monster-godlin."
You're a regular Richard Dawkins, aren't you? Maybe I'll start calling you "Dawkins".
November 19, 2022 at 9:10 AM
"Marshal...
"Selfishness" (or "greed", if you prefer) is actual evil"
PROVE IT. PROVE that all levels of selfishness - including the selfish taking of the last cookie - is actually EVIL, "wicked," "devoid of good," "greatly wrong..." or whatever definition you choose. PROVE IT.
You can't."
Why would I try? It's enough to know that selfishness is evil. I'm not the one fixated on degrees of sinfulness so that those who only engage (for now) in "trivial" sins can pretend they're not destined for eternal condemnation if they get no worse. A "little white lie" is still the words of a liar. A small selfish act is still the act of a selfish person. Indulging in rape fantasies makes one a rapist in the same way one who hates makes one a murderer. But you go ahead and pretend you're a good person because you only commit "trivial" sins. Good luck with that. In the meantime, a small manifestation of evil is still evil. Prove otherwise.
"PROVE IT.
You won't."
I just did with my sound argument above which you cannot refute without lying or again presenting a verse which doesn't apply.
"Marshal...
"You want me to understand what isn't true. All of humanity IS evil, as we are all born with a sin nature."
PROVE IT."
(I like how you use all caps so as to appear more emphatic as if you have standing to be so. It makes me laugh.)
Let's see. 1 Corinthians 15:22, Romans 5:18-19. Of course I realize that no number of actual verses saying exactly the facts are never enough for you, but these two alone make the point beyond your ability to refute them.
"PROVE that humanity is born with a "sin nature" (and define what you mean by that... do you mean "merely imperfect..."?? People should reasonably be tortured for an eternity because they are imperfect??"
I did all this hundreds of times. You no longer can make that demand until you provide legitimate Scriptural evidence to the contrary. In the meantime, here's even more citations:
Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ecclesiastes 7:20, 1 John 1:8, 1 Corinthians 2:14. Gosh, there are so many!
"Do you recognize how monstrous and actually evil that claim is??P"
To those like you who invented a hippy god. To actual Christians who understand the reality, no. Again, you demand that God regard sin as you do, rather than you regarding it as seriously as He does. Good luck with that.
"PROVE that being imperfect (or having a "sin nature," that you can't prove) makes us "evil." The claim is not rational, nor is it biblical."
You've got it backwards (what a freakin' surprise!). We're evil, having been born with a sin nature and that makes us imperfect. Basic Christianity 101. Seriously and prayerfully study Scripture and you'll see.
November 19, 2022 at 9:13 AM
"Marshal...
"But unlike you, God doesn't show love by ignoring sin natures and behaviors."
You constantly say things like this showing that you either don't understand what I've literally said or that you're willingly setting up a strawman argument about something I have not said.
I have not said God ignores sin or bad behaviors. I literally haven't."
Then what's the purpose of anguishing over "trivial" sins? Your insistence in focusing on "trivial" sins and the "disproportionate" punishment should a "trivial" sinner spend eternity in hell absolutely suggests you believe God should overlook those "trivial" sins and not implement His justice, which YOU believe requires He should. If this is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from your comments, you'll have to explain why it isn't and in the attempt provide me with more laughs.
"I have not said that bad behavior doesn't deserve being addressed in some way. I literally haven't.
So just stop wasting time with non-arguments and logical fallacies."
A lot less time would've been wasted had you stuck to the initial premise of explaining how selfishness is not evil, rather than the moronic invention of a guy taking a cookie being condemned to eternal punishment, when such is not at all a reflection of my position, an intelligent conclusion drawn from my position, but clearly suggests it's a sin unworthy of God's judgement.
"What I HAVE said is the simple, rational and biblical notion that for a punishment to be JUST it must be proportionate.
No more. No less."
Which is another example of you wasting time, given proportionality wasn't at issue until you chose to assert your presumption you can dictate to God what's a proper punishment for sin based on badly YOU'RE offended by it.
"So, if YOU want to make the case that the 12 year old who's died young and with only handfuls (dozens) of minor sins in their life actually DESERVES an eternal torture/torment/separation from their God-Creator, then YOU must support this irrational and cruel/evil claim.
PROVE IT.
You can't and you won't. We can all see that now."
As it's not my position, it's not surprising I won't try to prove it. But if every I DO want to make the case, I'll let you know. However, as I don't believe eternal punishment is a matter of who sins how much and in what way, you shouldn't expect such an argument from me.
At the same time, I would once again remind you that guilty or innocent, the vast majority of those in prisons around the country, as well as the vast majority of people sentenced to pay fines, all believe their punishment is cruel and unusual. The state believes otherwise and so does God. But go ahead and continue to whine about God's justice instead of focusing on encouraging Christian behavior (it will require you to study seriously and prayerfully what that is and be man enough to accept it...thus far you've shown no such desire).
November 19, 2022 at 10:05 AM
"Tell you what: Let me walk you through this logically, rationally," (🤣🤣🤣🤣 As if you have any grasp on what logic and rationality is! 🤣🤣🤣🤣) "one step at a time. See if you can reasonably and biblically (if you want - or saying "the Bible doesn't say" is a fine response, too) answer these questions, directly and clearly." As if that's not how I roll!
"1. Do you believe that BABIES (newborn, one week old... one month old, six months old... you know, BABIES) have a "sin nature" and if so, what do you mean by that, specifically in the case of babies? That they are imperfect or something more than that?"
I don't understand how you can not know my position on this as I've affirmed so many times that we are all born with a sin nature, just as Scripture so clearly and unequivocally states. Do you not understand what is meant by "sin nature" or are you going to once again pretend I could possibly mean it in some way which isn't standard and aligned with Scripture? How can an adult have been born with a sin nature and not be stained by that nature from birth given all adults were babies when they were born?
"2. Do such babies (imperfect or "with a sin nature") REASONABLY DESERVE to be punished an eternity if they die as a baby?"
Yes.
"3. How about five year olds or seven year olds."
Yes. Then, too.
"What list of sins do you think they have committed? Do you think those sins are so serious as to "deserve" an eternity of torment/deserve to be punished an eternity?"
It doesn't matter.
"4. How about 10 or 13 year olds?"
Yes. Them too.
"What list of sins do you think they have committed"
It doesn't matter.
" and do you think those sins or that "sin nature" reasonably "deserves" an eternity of torment?"
Yes. That is, I don't "think" it. It's the fact according to Scripture. Feel free to present a verse which says otherwise. Make sure it actually does before posting it.
"What does having a "sin nature" mean for a 13 year old?"
The same as it does for everyone else. But in what way does that matter? Everyone has one and that's all which does.
"5. Do you believe in the notion of an "age of accountability" that many traditional evangelicals believe in?"
Like most people, I'd like to believe that God takes into account such things to some extent. Whether He does or not I don't know and it's well above my pay grade to presume to expect that He should and must.
"5a. If you believe in it, why? Does the Bible say anything - anything at all - about an age of accountability? Are you just using your God-given reasoning to make an assumption, even if it's not biblical?"
More to the point, provide a verse which says otherwise, and don't waste my time with verses which say anything like "God is just" and then presume to dictate that it means what you WANT it to mean, rather than what it does mean, and be sure it's supported by Scriptural evidence.
"5b. If you don't believe in an age of accountability, but you also do NOT think that a good, loving, perfectly just God would punish a baby or a four year old for their "sin nature" for an eternity... Perhaps you think that God will probably take into account their young age and make accommodations...?, WHY do you think that? Is it biblical or are you just using your God-given reasoning to figure out that for God to punish a one year old for an eternity for having a "sin nature" would be a great evil thing to do?"
What I might speculate concerning that which isn't expressly and unambiguously stated in Scripture is irrelevant to this discussion...particularly when I'm still waiting for actual Scriptural evidence which supports your position or refutes mine. You've failed most famously thus far to provide either. But unlike you, because there is no evil in God...God being the truest definition of "good", I know that whatever He chooses to do, regardless of how it seems to me and regardless of how it might offend your girly sensibilities, it is also, by definition, good, just, holy and righteous. He can do what He wants. After all...He's the Supreme Being. He's not totally dim.
Now stick to the subject at hand.
"6. Presumably, you think that children (maybe an age that varies - what of the person with an intellectual delay that has them at a so-called "child like state" for their whole lives?) at some age WILL be held accountable for their sins and God COULD and WOULD presumably punish a 13 year old for an eternity for having a "sin nature" and taking the last cookie selfishly and rolling their eyes at their parents disrespectfully. Is that correct?"
See my last response to your idiotic question #5b.
"How young are you guessing that age could be?"
I don't. Again, refer to my response to your dumb as hell question #5b.
"In all of these hypotheticals, I'm guessing you can agree you have NO BIBLICAL reason to think this, correct?"
I'm not dealing in hypotheticals, and the only reason you are is because you can't provide actual Scriptural evidence to support your position or to refute mine.
Clearly I've broken you.
"Some more questions likely to go unanswered, ignored and/or mocked."
As is what your dumbass questions so richly deserve. They serve no purpose but to muddy the waters and is another example of your inability to understand how an actual adult conversation is done. You don't get to pretend others aren't answering questions when you aren't answering them yourself.
November 19, 2022 at 12:56 PM
"I said, speaking of the notion of God's justice being in conflict with Marshal's guesses about his little god's "judgment"...
"THAT IS, itself, a conflict with the Bible and Christian teaching. It is a PRIMAL conflict with the Bible's teachings, not to mention, reason."
Marshal responded...
"Still awaiting evidence of this desperate fantasy."
Not sure what you're waiting for."
What you claim you said is incomplete (imagine that!). This (in bold)is what required evidence:
"And to say that a perfectly loving and just God will punish most of humanity for an eternity for the "sin" of being imperfect... THAT IS, itself, a conflict with the Bible and Christian teaching. It is a PRIMAL conflict with the Bible's teachings, not to mention, reason."
It's not only not in conflict, it's reality. I think it's necessary to once again focus on the terms you choose to use serve your purpose when the terms are interchangeable. Those terms are "sin", "evil" and "imperfection". You wish to suppose "imperfect" is an otherwise good guy taking the last cookie. That's YOUR buffoonish argument projected onto me.
"You are familiar, I suppose, with the MANY times the Bible speaks of God being a Just God?"
Quite familiar and not at all at issue.
"You are familiar with the DEARTH of biblical evidence for a place of eternal punishment for most people, right?"
I'm familiar with the fact you use the number of verses on any issue you disfavor to suggest it can be ignored or dismissed. If somewhere buried within the many pages of Scripture there was a verse in which God says, "thou shalt not sit on red chairs" with no other reference to this act anywhere else, it would still carry the same weight of God's Will as any other mandate, command or encouragement repeated one hundred times. Only a lefty thinks it matters how many times a command it mentioned. A Christian obeys.
"You are familiar, I assume, that in the OT, they didn't believe in a hell, just death or the grave. Period. They just didn't."
You are familiar, if you actually read the Bible, that Christ doesn't appear in the flesh in the OT, but speaks of eternal punishment in the NT. Thus, the point is meaningless.
"So any appeals to the OT as "proof" that God wants to/is willing to send the majority of humanity to an eternity of torment are done so contrary to the text of the OT. They didn't believe in "hell," as in a place of eternal torment."
I don't believe anyone in the OT had the authority to determine how God will deal with sinners. It absolutely doesn't matter in the least what the OT people believed about it.
"You are familiar with the few dozen mentions in the NT of the word "hell..."? "Hell" appears about 36 times in the NT. Some of the verses are like this one, from Jesus:
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?""
Quite familiar. Thus, hell exists and many are so condemned to that future.
"Many/most of the "hell" passages are like that. Direct rebukes of SPECIFIC people (in that case, Jesus rebuking - again - the religious hypocrites/pharisee types who were acting in an oppressive, contrary-to-grace manner). They are not instances of God or Jesus saying, "Ya know that sweet 16 year old girl? She deserves to go to hell for all of eternity.""
Two points:
1. Your comment affirms the fact that not "all will be saved". Thanks. You're a pip.
2. What is not said about how specific persons will be punished and why means nothing. But Scripture does indeed say we are all condemned and that includes everyone. That is, there is no one who is not deserving of eternal punishment. Still yet again, Christianity 101.
"Not ONE mention of Jesus or God saying typical people "deserved" to go to hell for their typical sins. NOT ONE."
Once again we see that you require a long accepted truth of Scripture requires wording is a specific way before you'll accept the truth, which clearly makes a sham of your appealing to "reason", as if you use "reason" for anything other than carving out loopholes to enable sinful behavior. Christ said, "Only God is good". Dan needs, "Christ said, 'typical' people deserve to go to hell for 'typical' sins" in order to accept the fact we are all deserving of eternal damnation.
You really need to stop pretending you're a Christian.
"You are familiar that when Jesus uses the word, Hell, he is saying "Gehenna," literally a figurative reference to the city dump outside the walls of the city. A place of great waste. He is using Gehenna metaphorically, not saying that people like the oppressive Pharisees will be sent to the city dump to burn forever, but expressing how cast out and awful it is to be an oppressor."
Jesus uses the term symbolically to describe what's in store for those who reject Him and His ways. Doesn't matter what "Gehenna" actually is. And no...He doesn't reserve that for "oppressors", such as those who support the murder of people in utero...the worst oppressors there are.
"Jesus not one time says, "and NOT just the oppressors, but also the selfish guy who eats the last cookie... HE TOO, deserves to be punished for an eternity." Not one time. As a point of fact."
Jesus not one time says, "ONLY just the 'oppressors', unless it's the unborn they're oppressing, and never selfish people or other sinners." Not one time. As a point of fact.
"I could go on" No doubt "but I sort of assume you're not unfamiliar with these basic notions. We have "hell" or "punishment" being mentioned 30-40 times, none of which indicates that all of humanity "deserves" to be "punished an eternity" for the sin of having a "sin nature..." or merely being imperfect."
I'm quite familiar and at the same time, not stupid enough to pretend it matters that it is mentioned without direct relation to how all of humanity is deserving of death, which is totally Biblical as I've pointed out many times.
"You can't find a single verse to support that human theory. Do you recognize that? Not one verse."
John 3:18, Romans 3:10,23
"But there are multiple dozens of verses that speak to God's perfect love, justice, mercy and general nature."
Which are irrelevant to the point regarding our sin nature and what it means for our eternity.
"This is probably something you can agree with without me having to quote verses."
Yeah, because why would YOU have to support your claims with evidence? That's for everyone else.
"God IS perfectly loving, perfectly just, perfectly gracious, perfectly merciful."
Again, irrelevant with regard to how He'll deal with those who are still in sin, which is in us from birth.
"Do you disagree?"
I disagree with your hippy, Pollyanish perversion of God.
"IF you agree that God is perfectly just and
IF there are no verses that tell you God will punish everyone - even the 8- 12- and 15-year olds - for being imperfect or having a "sin nature," (not a biblical term, by the by),
The the onus remains on you to explain WHY you think a perfectly loving and just God would punish someone for typical sins, sending them to hell for an eternity?"
Again...this is not an argument I've made. I also never said He'll punish everyone.
"It's just not biblical."
I don't say what isn't Biblical, because what I say comes from Scripture.
"It happens ZERO places in the bible where God says typical sins deserve eternal punishment."
It happens ZERO places in the bible where God says ONLY extraordinary sins deserve eternal punishment.
"It happens ZERO places in the Bible where God says, "ALL sins are equal and equally deserving of eternal punishment.""
It happens ZERO places in the Bible where God says, "Each sin is unique and I have a very complex system for determining how bad each one is with unique punishments for each one."
"It's just not biblical. And certainly not rational for people like you to read that INTO the text when it's literally not there."
It's far less rational to inject into my position what I've personally never insisted and then chide me for believing what I never said. And all of this because I said the truth that selfishness is indeed evil.
Post a Comment