So Sleepy Joe will now have uninterrupted nappy time after January 20, 2025. He's dropped out of the race and...*snicker*...backs Harris!
I'm still trying to get details on this development, and can't get to the television for a while. But just this much is...I don't know what it is. Surprising? Shouldn't be. The guy shouldn't have been president at all...EVER...much less run for a second term after the mess he's made of the nation. He selected Harris more as an insurance policy (the way Obama selected him for VP) rather than because he believed her competent to take over. I don't know any Dem who would've been a better choice than her, anymore than I don't see any Dem as having been a better choice than Biden.
What matters at this point is how this impacts the election. Many were falling away from Biden because he's about to drop dead at any minute, not because of his career and presidency of incompetence. Will any be invigorated by Harris? We know that the superficial is what counts most for progressives. They'll see a woman of color and then pretend she's competent for the job so they can have a woman of color in the position.
I believe the Dems will offer other alternatives, but would they be serious about and "let the best candidate win", or would it be nothing but a token gesture because they fear the outcry of "THE FIRST WOMAN OF COLOR" is rejected because she's a total buffoon?
Again, I believe the stupidest voters in America will be energized by the mere fact that the Dead Man Walking dropped out of the race. "NOW Trump's gonna get it!" The stupidest voters in America would elect road kill rather than risk a safe and prosperous nation. So real Americans aren't out of the woods yet. They weren't before Joe bailed. The Dems will still cheat.
Whomever the Dem nominee is, the threat of increased suffering should that specific jackass win is still very real. As bad as Joe is, it's the party which needs to bail, too.
This changes nothing.
564 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 564 Newer› Newest»You say, "You all" believe this... and implicitly YOU DON'T?!
No. I believe in a God of grace. A God that promotes grace, not rule following. A God that has seen throughout the history of humanity that those who embrace "rule following" have often inevitably going the way of the Pharisees, and that way is not God's Way. Rather, God's Way is a Way of Grace, not rule-following.
Do you disagree?
Dan:
"What I'm saying is that you all believe that God has rules that God wants us to follow."
Bubba:
Yes, of course, obviously so, and obedience to God's will is an indispensable component to a right relationship with God, albeit one that results from saving faith and isn't a cause for salvation.
You say, "You all" believe this... and implicitly YOU DON'T?!
Absolutely not. If it were INDISPENSABLE to perfectly obey "God's Will" before we could be saved, well shit, friends, we're all doomed! Right?
I am a believer in a God of GRACE, not a god who demands perfect understanding and actions.
Do you actually disagree?
Do you think that it is actually an INDISPENSABLE component to salvation to perfectly obey God??
Bubba:
Is "love your neighbor" not a moral law from the supreme and almighty Law-giver? Is it just a suggestion from God? Is it not from God at all?
Love your neighbor is part of the Way of Grace. It is not a "rule," which demands perfect adherence, because we're imperfect and we'll never perfectly comply with rules in a complex world of nuanced situations where we are imperfect humans.
Do you think imperfect humans can or "must" perfectly love their neighbors?
But no. I do not think - if you look at the Bible and just basic human moral reasoning - "Love your neighbor" is a "moral law" from a "supreme Law-giver." It is my opinion that this is a pharisaical corruption of good understanding of holy texts or just basic moral reasoning.
Love your neighbor is a rational understanding from an almighty God - and from just our nature, we who are created in the image of an almighty God - that is consistent with a Way of Grace that God is actually about. But it IS a way of grace, not a bunch of rules to try and fail to perfectly adhere to.
Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.
I think you're getting "the Bible" exactly backwards. In my opinion.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Am I perhaps kicking things off on my end with Comment 201, maybe?
...I've decided that insomnia is a pain in the ass, even more so than going a few rounds with Dan. I do appreciate prompt posting from the admin side of things, but I'm more than happy with the sort of leisurely online dialogue that I'm planning, where I plan to keep things concise and focused.
In lieu of more organized thoughts on the second straight evening without a full night's rest, I'd like to point out a few recent lines that really stick out to me.
---
Dan,
You write that you welcome "a genuinely fruitful conversation on REASONED morality," [emphasis in original], but I don't know quite what you mean... I wonder if I'm off-base by thinking you mean perhaps reasoned morality in contrast with REVEALED morality, where we accept the authority of the prophets God chose to author the Old and New Testament texts.
(Later you write about, "a healthy, biblical, consistent and rational understanding of biblical texts on the one hand, and on reasoned, rational morality on the other." It seems I do understand you here.)
---
I asked you to "walk me through the text" to reach your conclusions, and you write, "I had a whole series of me explaining my change of view about the Biblical text and messages that many humans (again, myself, once upon a time) interpreted to mean some things I no longer believe to be moral, rational, or biblical."
But I wasn't asking for your "view about" the text, but your interpretation FROM the text.
About the Bible being "a rulings book" (a phrase I reject), you write, "it's not and it's antibiblical to try to force it to be read that way, says I and many other rational people of good faith."
But I don't see any arguments from you or these "many other" phantoms FROM THE TEXT. I don't see what specifically makes that view "antibiblical."
I'm not even sure how you can say that "antibiblical" is even a thing, AT LEAST going by your prior claim that Biblical morality "is not really a thing."
(Then again, you write about reason "which is consistent with the various biblical teachings on moral questions, for what it's worth." If ALL those various moral teachings cohere into a unified whole without contradiction, I don't see why we couldn't call that unity "biblical morality.")
---
You write:
"We are a beloved community of God. We treat one another as God's beloved community. The church of God."
It's not clear to me what makes you think that you're not merely play-acting, that you are in fact what you claim to be, namely beloved by God.
After all:
"If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." - John 14:23
That claim by Jesus seems awfully focused on rules.
You distinguish between rules and love...
"Our church is not a church of rules, it is a church of grace and love."
...when there's no necessary conflict between the two, not when God's rule IS the command to love and the details elaborate on that command.
"But [the youth speaker] wasn't 'right' because he found a scripture that told him and us he was right. He was right because he was speaking from a place of grace and welcome, of cherishing the good and decent and standing against those who'd cause harm."
I'm not sure that's how one can really determine what's true, correct, and right. Good motives are no guarantee of omniscience or perfect thinking, and this sort of approach runs the risk of confusing subjective good feelings about a speech with the objective correctness (or incorrectness) of its contents.
I could go on, but I'll try to answer one question presently.
Dan, you ask:
Q1-D. Is the Bible "THE SOURCE" for understanding morality?
(Here, I'm labeling the first question I happen to be answering from you in the context of this more formal and explicitly two-person dialogue.)
A. No, God Himself is the source of the moral law, and He is supremely revealed, not in a written text but in the living Word -- God Incarnate, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Jesus presumed to have authority on moral matters. When someone asked about what moral law is supreme, Jesus answered the question, and He even did so on His own authority.
The problem post-apostolic disciples of Christ have is a simple one, that Christ is not currently with us on earth to answer subsequent questions or elaborate upon them. Jesus isn't on earth, nor are the OT prophets whose texts He affirmed to the smallest penstroke, nor even the NT apostles whom He personally commissioned and equipped to preach in His name.
The good news is that there's an obvious solution to this problem: the prophets and apostles left behind a written record of their teachings, including their eyewitness testimony of Jesus' words and deeds and their theological elaboration of His identity and His accomplishments, found everywhere from Isaiah 53 to Romans 8 and Hebrews 5.
IN THEIR ABSENCE, this text is the authoritative source of their teaching for which there is NO reasonable rival. It's not like we have tape recordings.
---
Having answered your question, I'll reiterate mine.
Q1-B. DO YOU BELIEVE IN SIN APART FROM HARM? In other words, do you believe that there are behaviors that qualify as sinful offenses against God even though they may not be remotely harmful to anyone else?
I'll keep an eye out for your answer.
Welp, I missed comments 201 to 205, and there are a few things worth clarifying briefly.
Q2-D. DO you agree that your opinion that "obedience to God's will is an indispensable component to a right relationship with God...." IS your personal human opinion, not a demonstrable, objective fact?
A. NOPE, I disagree, it's easily demonstrated that it's a clear claim from Scripture.
Many are quite familiar with the wonderful teachings of Eph 2:8-9...
> For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
...but we should NEVER overlook the very next verse, 2:10.
> For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
We are not saved BY works (per vv. 8-9) as a precondition of salvation, but we are instead saved FOR good works (v. 10) as something God intends as an outcome.
Or put more simply, moving from the apostolic to the dominical, we're supposed to love God, but Jesus Himself teaches that loving God entails obedience to God.
> If you love me, you will keep my commandments. - Jn 14:15
I didn't say one, single, solitary thing about being required to have a "PERFECT" understanding of God's will or a "PERFECT" implementation of that will, only that obedience is part of the picture, and an indispensable part of God's plan for those He saves.
---
You write:
"Love your neighbor is part of the Way of Grace. It is not a 'rule,' which demands perfect adherence, because we're imperfect and we'll never perfectly comply with rules in a complex world of nuanced situations where we are imperfect humans."
Like "magic book" and "rulings," "rule" is your term, not mine: what I said is that "Love your neighbor" is a moral law.
Either way, it's not clear to me where you get the idea (notion? hunch? merely human opinion and can we not all agree on that?) that perfect obedience is required.
There's no reason that Christians SHOULD choose to sin, but God has us covered for when we INEVITABLY do.
> If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - I Jn 1:8-9
God forgives us when we stumble and repent, but that's only part of the story, ideally far less than half of what goes on in the life of a believer. What ought to be routine is the increasing maturity of a life of general obedience to God's will.
I really cannot see what's remotely controversial about this.
Very short on time here, but a quick response:
Q1-B. DO YOU BELIEVE IN SIN APART FROM HARM? In other words, do you believe that there are behaviors that qualify as sinful offenses against God even though they may not be remotely harmful to anyone else?
I believe sin is that which causes harm. There may be a range of harm, but it's what causes harm in one way or another.
There are the "missing the mark" types of sin, the simply failing to be perfect.
"I was too harsh with Bubba, and I shouldn't have said that is an 'idiotic' comment to make..." I failed to be perfect. That is, observationally and almost certainly, the vast majority of wrong-doing, of "sin." Which is why Jesus referred to the "missing the mark," notion so often, I'd suggest.
Then, there are the hugely harmful sins of slavery, oppression, cheating the poor, etc, that Jesus and the prophets spend so much time warning about and harshly condemning.
But sin isn't "that which causes harm" because there's a line in the Bible saying so. It's reasonably so. We can use our God-given reasoning to figure that out. And slavery or running swords through babies aren't wrong because there's a line in the Bible saying so. They're wrong because they're harming innocents, egregiously so.
Do you agree that it is always a great oppressive harm to run swords through babies and children, and thus, it's always a great evil? OR, do you think it depends?
If the latter, on what basis does it depend?
How do you determine what is moral and not moral?
Dan asked:
Q1-D. Is the Bible "THE SOURCE" for understanding morality?
Bubba answered:
A. No, God Himself is the source of the moral law, and He is supremely revealed, not in a written text but in the living Word -- God Incarnate, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
And thank you for the answer... that's fine, as far as it goes.
But, do you acknowledge that this is your personal human opinion, not an objectively proven fact?
Do you acknowledge that God has not said that "I am the source of the moral law..."? Not in the Bible and not to you personally?
Rather, this is your personal interpretation and opinion on the matter, isn't it?
And being your personal human opinion - you being a fallible human with imperfect knowledge and opinions and all - that you could be mistaken about this?
For my part, my opinion is that God is not "the source of the moral law." Rather, morality is just what happens when we live. We may live closer to the mark/ideal of being perfectly kind/loving/helpful, etc OR we may live further away and missing that mark of perfection. Or, in some cases, we may be actively engaging in deliberate rejection of the notion of living in a perfect way.
I just don't think "THE MORAL LAW" is a reasonable (and as it turns out, biblical) way of thinking of morality.
Not that I can prove my opinion any more than you can, but that's my take on it.
Now, I DO think that a perfect, all-knowing God could TELL us, "You know, Dan, when you called him a doo-doo head, that was lacking in love..." and of course could set us right, but I don't think "God is the source for the moral code" is biblical or reasonable.
To further clarify a point, while waiting, let me just say that I am not, of course, saying that there are not rules that appear in the Bible.
The ancient Hebrews have a variety of rules spelled out for them:
When can you enslave someone?
When can you sell your children and under what circumstances?
When is it acceptable to stone a child to death for disrespecting their parents?
We are told that we should be welcoming to foreigners.
We are told that sometimes, God commanded at least Israel to wipe out a city and kill everyone, including the babies.
etc, etc.
These are all rules that were given specifically to the ancient Hebrews.
Likewise, there are rules that appear in the NT, like...
Who can be a pastor
How to organize deacons and the church to best support the community, specifically the poorer folks
They were told to disagree respectfully
They were told to watch out for rich oppressors
The rich oppressors were warned NOT to oppress
etc.
What we don't have in the Bible are teachings that "HERE are the moral laws that God wants you all to follow universally." and "HERE is the explanation for what that might mean in different cultures and times and places" or even, "HERE is the rubric for understanding which rules are universal and which rules are time and place-specific."
Nor are we told that the Bible is the primary repository of/authority for moral rules.
Am I mistaken?
Even if I AM mistaken, even if there were such stipulations in the Bible somewhere, who says that anyone else who doesn't care about the Bible or treat it as a rulings book should care?
Dan:
Q2-D. DO you agree that your opinion that "obedience to God's will is an indispensable component to a right relationship with God...." IS your personal human opinion, not a demonstrable, objective fact?
Bubba:
A. NOPE, I disagree, it's easily demonstrated that it's a clear claim from Scripture.
Is it an OBJECTIVE FACT is what I'm asking. Not that you think it is a "clear claim." Objective, as in demonstrably provable to all, regardless of personal opinions.
To be clear, I'm not saying we Christians aren't striving to walk God's way of grace by God's grace, I'm asking if you acknowledge that this opinion:
"obedience to God's will is an indispensable component to a right relationship with God...."
...IS your subjective personal opinion? If it's not, objectively prove it. Note: Merely citing bible verses is not objective proof. Who says that the Bible verses are rightly representing God? Who says your understanding of those bible verses are factually correct? To objectively prove it, you need independent data, not subjective interpretations of an unproven textual passage.
For instance, when you drop back to simply a Bible verse and your interpretation of it:
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
We are not saved BY works (per vv. 8-9) as a precondition of salvation, but we are instead saved FOR good works (v. 10) as something God intends as an outcome.
That is not objective proof. For one thing, the passage literally does not say "obedience to God's will is an indispensable component to a right relationship with God...."
Secondly, while one might CHOOSE to interpret it that way, the text itself does not insist it be taken that way.
Thirdly, who says the text is accurately representing God?
It's literally a subjective opinion. This is vital to understand.
Now, if you want to change what you're trying to prove, you could try something like:
"I know not everyone accepts biblical text as authoritative or factual, and I can't objectively prove that to anyone, but IF you accept biblical text as something like authoritative or factual, then here is what I think is clear..." and state your opinion.
And even then, you'd have to clarify what you personally think you mean by "authoritative or factual..."
In other words, you have a ways to go to prove this opinion is objectively correct and quite frankly, I'm telling you, you can't.
I mean, it would be astonishing for Bubba to be the first person in all of history to objectively prove that sort of claim. If objective proof is out there, where?
In the unsupported opinions of people insisting their opinion is correct?
Let me try this in another way that may illuminate the matter. If I change the phrase you can't objectively prove to this:
"obedience to Dan Trabue's will
is an indispensable component to a right relationship with Dan...."
Do you still think it's true (or substitute Bubba, if you prefer).
You see, people CAN disagree with me and not be in "obedience" to my will and STILL be in a right relationship with me. My children do it all the time. HOW is this possible? Because I do not insist upon someone being "in obedience" to my will to have a good/right relationship with me.
But Dan's not God, you might protest. Indeed, and if even imperfect, impatient DAN can maintain a right relationship with someone not in obedience with me, then SURELY an almighty God is all the more capable of handling disobedience or "not being in obedience..."
In other words, right relationships are not dependent upon agreement or alignment.
Dan,
Pay closer attention to your use of italics. Your "clarifications" are unclear enough without a failure to properly employ tools making it worse.
Thanks in advance.
Dealing with what Jesus said about commandments. One key thing he noted was when the Law-Followers (Pharisees) were confronting him and trying to trap him...
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied:
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
We see in the Gospels a story of a protagonist and his antagonists.
We have Jesus who said he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized... who repeatedly rebuked the wealthy and powerful and the rule-followers and instead offered welcome and inclusion to the poor and oppressed. This is THE storyline of the story of Jesus.
The Rule-Followers on the one hand.
The Grace-Giver on the other.
The one who said, "You know, for all your rules that you use to oppress, separate, divide and keep down... it's really as simple and gracious as Love God, Love humanity. God made the Sabbath for humanity (grace) not humanity for the Sabbath (law-following)..." THAT man, Jesus on the one hand, while the others used laws for oppression and repression.
"She was caught in adultery!" They scream. "What shall we do with her? STONE HER, as the law dictates."
"Neither do I condemn you," Jesus replies. With Grace, not legalism.
What was "the commandments..." the "teachings" that Jesus gave? FOLLOW THESE RULES? No. It was Love. Grace. Love God. Love humans. Welcome in all the poor and oppressed. Love, love, love.
THAT is the clear and unmistakable teaching of Jesus, and that in direct and defiant opposition to the Rule-Followers... the legalists. Seems to me.
Now, you may ultimately disagree with my understanding of this Gospel of Jesus, but you can't say I don't actually hold it, nor can you say I don't hold it at least in part due to the teachings I find in the bible. You have your way of understanding and I have my way and the objective fact is that neither of us have anyone to whom we may appeal for a ruling on "Yes, Dan is objectively right..." or otherwise. These are our subjective opinions.
That's a vital starting point for this kind of consideration, seems to me.
What Jesus said that you quoted (for what it's worth):
If you love me, you will keep my commandments
What Bubba said about that:
what I said is that "Love your neighbor" is a moral law.
Jesus did not call it a "moral law." That's your spin on it. I think it's a Way of Grace. That's MY spin on it.
Jesus said that line in John 14 in the context of pending execution by the religious extremists. He begins that passage by lovingly comforting his disciples...
“Do not let your hearts be troubled.
You believe in God; believe also in me.
God’s house has many rooms;
if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there
to prepare a place for you?
And if I go and prepare a place for you,
I will come back and take you to be with me
that you also may be where I am.
You know the way to the place where I am going.”
It is loving and gracious and comforting. "You KNOW the Way to the place where I am going..."
Jesus continuing:
Thomas said to him,
“Lord, we DON’T know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
Jesus answered,
“I am the way and the truth and the life..."
Jesus is the Way, not rule following, not making God THE SOURCE for Moral Authority. But this Way of grace, love, welcome and inclusion.
Jesus does say that line about "if you love me, you will keep my commandments..." in the midst of this comforting, but when Other Judas is still confused and scared, Jesus continues with...
“Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching.
Jesus' TEACHING. And was Jesus a teacher of laws? Or of GRACE?
I say, biblically speaking, taking the whole of Jesus written testimony we have, it's biblically clear that the Rule Followers were the Pharisees and they and that way were in opposition to the Grace-Embracers, which was Jesus' way, his teaching.
Biblically speaking, I think this is clear, but it is my personal human opinion, one I can't prove.
Just as your opinion on this are YOUR subjective human opinions which you can't prove, not objectively.
There may or may not be some merit to some of your thoughts here, but for here and now, I'm focusing on recognizing in humility that we're all speaking of subjective opinions here, not something that can be objectively proven.
We can objectively prove that the Bible has text that records Jesus saying "Follow my commandments" and "follow my teachings." THAT is objectively provable. But did Jesus really say them? What did he mean by these words? What does Jesus think about "moral authority..."? THESE are ideas that we can't objectively prove.
With me?
If not, then objectively prove one of these claims. Just pick one.
While I'm waiting...
Bubba:
Either way, it's not clear to me where you get the idea (notion? hunch? merely human opinion and can we not all agree on that?) that perfect obedience is required.
So, how imperfect can our obedience be and still be saved? If we're 75% "getting morality right" then we're okay, but not 70%?
Or is it the case that if we're only 10% "getting morality right" we're in trouble? How far is "too far wrong/too many 'rule breaking' infractions to be saved," and what is your objectively provable justification for this guess?
I would guess that you'd agree with me that it's NOT about getting morality "right" a certain percentage of time, but you tell me.
To be clear, I'm NOT saying that perfect obedience is necessary, because as noted, I'm not a legalist/one who says we have to get morality "right."
What I'm saying is that it's not about following rules, at all, because I believe in grace, not legalism. I believe that Jesus' teachings and Way are a Way of Grace, not legalism.
While waiting, I'll deal with another Bubba question:
I didn't say one, single, solitary thing about being required to have a "PERFECT" understanding of God's will or a "PERFECT" implementation of that will, only that obedience is part of the picture, and an indispensable part of God's plan for those He saves.
This was presumably in response to my series of clarifying questions:
A. WHO do you think "Christ is," and what do YOU personally think that Christ "says he is" and what do you, personally, think - in your personal human opinion - that Jesus "tells us" "scripture is..."?
B. And is ANY of that anything more than your opinion? (in your opinion?)
C. Do you think you and those who agree with you have a perfect understanding of Jesus is, with no error?
D. Presumably, you are not so arrogant that you would claim to have "perfect understanding of who Jesus is and what he taught about Scripture," so, IF you think you have potential error in what you think Jesus thinks, where is that error?
E. IF you can't define where that error might potentially lie, is there ANY part of your personal human opinions about Jesus that are not potentially wrong?
Indeed, you did not say you had perfect understanding, that was not my point. Rather, my clarifying questions was to clarify that you do NOT, indeed, have perfect understanding. I just didn't want to presume you thought that because you all keep telling me I'm misunderstanding you. So, I asked the question.
The point of that line of questions, then, is:
IF you don't have perfect understanding of God, of the bible, of biblical interpretation or of the various author's intent,
THEN, how do you know you are understanding perfectly correctly any given line of scripture, much less that your extrapolations are perfectly correct?
The only reasonable answer is, you don't know perfectly that your understandings are perfectly correct. Right?
You might think, as I think, that your (my, in my case) opinions are REASONABLY correct... that they make sense given what we know in the world and about biblical text.
But then, we have competing "confidences," then. You are confident that your opinions and understandings and interpretations - while not perfect or provable - ARE reasonably correct.
And I am confident that MY opinions are reasonably correct.
Right?
And in that case, to whom do we appeal for a judgment?
Another fallible human?
A tradition that comes from many fallible humans?
No, we just can't perfectly know as objective fact that our understandings and opinions are indisputably right or wrong.
Where am I mistaken?
And before you go there, understand: I am NOT saying that I find the biblical authors difficult to understand, nor that the overarching message/messages of the whole of the Bible are difficult to understand. By and large, I think it is all pretty obvious and self-evident. Nonetheless, you manage to disagree with me for the same reason, perhaps.
[1/N: Part 1 of N]
Dan,
As I wrote before: I prefer questions that seek to discover what it is I believe over any that seek to confirm your prior understanding of what I believe. I consider myself an open book, but I don't like strawmen or leading, self-serving questions where you want me to confirm that your view is just plain commonsense.
"Do you agree...?" "Do you disagree?" "Do you actually disagree?" "Do you acknowledge...?"
I'm trying to tackle things one question at a time -- I ask one, you ask one -- but by my count, you have framed questions like that AT LEAST **EIGHT** TIMES since this dialogue kicked off in earnest with comment #201.
I would prefer you try another approach.
---
On the subject of why we're doing this, earlier you wrote:
"I'm trying it from a slightly different angle this time in an effort to further clarify, so we'll see if you understand it this time any more than you did before.
"And note: I'm saying to 'see if you'll understand my view...' NOT that you'll agree with my view. Just understand how a rational person of good faith who actually does love and honor biblical teachings can indeed manage not to agree with your personal human opinions and traditions." [emphasis in original]
THAT'S A PERFECT GOAL FOR THIS CONVERSATION, mutual understanding entirely apart from unanimous agreement.
I frankly don't think very highly of you, Dan, and I've made that perfectly clear, but I would dearly LOVE to discover that I'm wrong about you.
It would take too long to elaborate here and now, but this is the first time in a VERY long time that I'm actually hopeful on that score!
I DEARLY want to understand your position even if it turns out that I still believe your position is incompatible with Scripture and/or Christian orthodoxy. At the same time, I would LOVE for you to understand me at least so that you set aside the ridiculous language about the Bible being "a magical book of rulings," and perhaps even to see that people like me simultaneously affirm grace AND the law, both to the utmost.
So long as we're making progress, however slow, I would see value in this dialogue.
More than that, if I DO end up understanding you more than I already do, you might find me a more charitable adversary. I would potentially stand up for you even when I think you're wrong, in such cases where I would think you're being misunderstood or even maligned.
WE MIGHT END UP AS FRIENDS!
[2/N]
About my first and thus far only question:
Q1-B. DO YOU BELIEVE IN SIN APART FROM HARM? In other words, do you believe that there are behaviors that qualify as sinful offenses against God even though they may not be remotely harmful to anyone else?
A: "I believe sin is that which causes harm. There may be a range of harm, but it's what causes harm in one way or another."
An excellent response, clear and to the point! I think I understand you, but I hope (and am honestly optimistic this time!) that further discussion will confirm my understanding OR otherwise clarify your position.
It seems that we could treat the ideas of sin and harm as categories in a Venn diagram, like this simple diagram from Wikipedia:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Venn_diagram_of_legs_and_flying.svg
I think it might help to elaborate on this diagram.
[DIGRESSION]
There are two categories, A and B, and there is overlap but not complete overlap.
- A NOT B: two legs, can't fly: penguins and ostriches
- A AND B: two legs, CAN fly: robins and bats (and drgonflies?) [1]
- B NOT A: can fly, doesn't have two legs: rockets and paper airplains
In our discussion, the question is whether there's complete overlap, and I don't think there is.
- A NOT B: sin but not harm: I would include idolatry, including worshipping a graven image [2]
- A AND B: sin and harm: murder [3]
- B NOT A: harm but not sin: capital punishment [4]
NOTES:
1. There's some ambiguity in the first example, does A mean "has STRICTLY two legs" or "has AT LEAST two legs"? Where do dragonflies belong? In the Wikipedia article on Venn diagrams, the authors limit themselves to living creatures but assume the category means "strictly" two legs; so, B NOT A would include flying insects. I take the opposite approach in both cases -- AT LEAST two legs, but not necessarily living creatures -- and hence B NOT A includes aircraft. I couldn't think of a living creature that flies but has fewer than two legs!
2. About idolatry, here again there may be room to disagree: idolatry is strictly between you and God, and my definition of "harm others" doesn't include self OR God, but maybe one can harm a personal and loving Creator, despite His transcendent timelessness and holiness and omnipotence, if by your actions you GRIEVE him!)
(FWIW, about harm, Feo's random, derogatory comment at your place is a good reason for me to prefer having our dialogue here.)
3. I don't know if you had ever noticed, but I frequently invoke what I would call the "Big Four" of crimes -- that is to say, sins against God that are also harmful to man, so obviously so that they should be (and usually are) criminalized by society:
FRAUD, THEFT, ASSAULT, and MURDER
Assault can be seen as similar to murder, just less costly to the victim. These four encompass Commandments 6, 8, and 9 from Exodus 20, and they are the obvious primary infractions against a fellow human being's core rights to life and liberty, particularly as the latter implicitly includes the right to property.
4. Here again there's room to disagree, as some people think ALL instances of taking human life qualify as murder. I don't: cf. Ex 20:13 & Ex 21:12, and the principle obviously precedes and transcends the ancient Israelite covenant, which we can see from Gen 9:6 & Rom 13:4.
[END DIGRESSION]
[3/N]
As I indicated with the second set of examples above, I personally believe that there is NOT perfect overlap between sin and harm. There are sins that are not harmful, and there are instances of harm that -- because they are for a greater good -- they do qualify as sins against God. On the contrary, they may even be REQUIRED by God.
It seems you disagree, and here I need to quote you a few times.
"There are the 'missing the mark' types of sin, the simply failing to be perfect.
"'I was too harsh with Bubba, and I shouldn't have said that is an "idiotic" comment to make...' I failed to be perfect. That is, observationally and almost certainly, the vast majority of wrong-doing, of 'sin.' Which is why Jesus referred to the 'missing the mark,' notion so often, I'd suggest.
"Then, there are the hugely harmful sins of slavery, oppression, cheating the poor, etc, that Jesus and the prophets spend so much time warning about and harshly condemning."
Okay, you distinguish between what we could possibly call minor sins ("missing the mark") and major, "hugely harmful" sins.
Follow-up question:
Q2-B. Do you cound the minor, "missing the mark" sins as harmful, too? That is to say, does being too harsh in calling something (or someone!) idiotic qualify as causing that person harm, or nah?
An answer would clarify whether you do think sin and harm are distinct categories after all.
I strongly suspect that you do, NOT because of the "SIN NOT HARM" category but because of the "HARM NOT SIN" category -- B NOT A. After all, you JUST recently confirmed that A) you believe that stigmatization and social ostracism is harmful and yet B) you support using these harmful acts as a means to "punish" (YOUR WORD) those who merely profess the belief that homosexual acts are sinful.
You explicitly connected the punishment for theologically conservative Christians to how they (or just their forebears!) previously treated homosexuals.
"Not all active harm can be punished by law, because of the great vagaries of that sort of abusive and destructive/dangerous language, but it can be punished by you all being rejected by polite, moral society.
"There are more than one way to punish someone.
"You should know. Conservatives have been punishing LGBTQ folks for centuries in ways that don't involve legal penalties."
The attitude you display is frankly vengeful -- eye for an eye -- so I hope for your sake you categorize at least SOME behaviors as harmful but NOT sinful!
But going back to the A NOT B category of "SIN NOT HARM," I do find it remarkable that you don't mention any category of sin that directly involves God apart from our neighbors...
- No other Gods
- No graven images
- Don't take the Lord's name in vain
...and I don't think it's true that Jesus focused on social harm to the exclusion of all other categories of sin.
AFTER ALL, most of the middle section of The Sermon on the Mount focuses on our devotion to God -- our prayer life and whether we worry -- and before that He equated mere hate and lust with outright acts of murder and adultery:
> But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. - Mt 5:28
It seems to me that such adultery of the heart caused NO real harm whatsoever -- I wonder if you disagree! -- but Jesus still warned against it and harshly condemned it!
I strongly suspect that your view on sin isn't as comprehensive as Christ's.
[4/N, possibly 5 parts in total]
That's my response to your answer to my question Q1-B. I've already answered some of your questions which, in answering them, I labelled as Q1-D and Q2-D to help keep this conversation well organized.
[NOTE: if you want to track our questions, too, go for it, but for clarity's sake PLEASE do use some other notation!]
You responded to my answer to Q2-D thus:
"Is it an OBJECTIVE FACT is what I'm asking. Not that you think it is a 'clear claim.' Objective, as in demonstrably provable to all, regardless of personal opinions.
"To be clear, I'm not saying we Christians aren't striving to walk God's way of grace by God's grace, I'm asking if you acknowledge that this opinion:
"'obedience to God's will is an indispensable component to a right relationship with God....'
"...IS your subjective personal opinion? If it's not, objectively prove it. Note: Merely citing bible verses is not objective proof. Who says that the Bible verses are rightly representing God? Who says your understanding of those bible verses are factually correct? To objectively prove it, you need independent data, not subjective interpretations of an unproven textual passage." (emphasis mine)
That's an astonishing question from someone who claims to follow Jesus, when Jesus affirmed the divine authorship of OT Scripture and His hand-picked Apostles affirmed the divine authorship of NT Scripture: "Who says that the Bible verses are rightly representing God?"
"That is not objective proof. For one thing, the passage literally does not say 'obedience to God's will is an indispensable component to a right relationship with God....'
"Secondly, while one might CHOOSE to interpret it that way, the text itself does not insist it be taken that way.
I wonder if you have an alternative interpretation or are just arguing from a massive amount of silence. My position is that a text's meaning REALLY can be quite conclusively clear in the absence of any plausible alternative.
"Thirdly, who says the text is accurately representing God?
"It's literally a subjective opinion. This is vital to understand."
No, it's not, Dan.
I believe that clear-cut communication is possible between two people. The evangelist wrote with the stated intent that his reader would have CERTAINTY (Lk 2:4), and I believe language makes that kind of certainty possible.
Q3-D. Who says the biblical text is accurately representing God?
A. The Bible itself makes that claim. In this particular case, Paul claims to be writing as an apostle of Christ by God's will (Eph 1:1), and I believe he is ENTIRELY CREDIBLE in making that claim, rooted in the prior credibility of Christ's historical resurrection and in Paul's calling as His apostle. Elsewhere Paul explains that the Spirit of God imparts the very words that the apostles use to teach (I Cor 2:9-13, esp v. 13), and so we can trust in what later theologians would call the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture.
You're no doubt welcome to disagree with me, but my response is that you do not even attempt to live up to the standards that you seek to impose on others; here, you do not attempt to meet the burden of proof that you demand from others.
My position is "literally a subjective opinion," is it? Prove it: "objectively prove it," as you tell me that I must do. I'll be waiting.
It may be worth elaborating on, but in the meantime I *DO* indeed think that one can have true confidence even in claims that cannot be proven scientifically or mathematically. That "confidence" that Luke wanted for Theophilus? IT REALLY IS OUT THERE FOR THE TAKING.
[5/5, last comment for now!]
Wrapping up for the evening, I see you brought up my mention of Matthew 22:35-40, specifically where Christ taught to love your neighbor.
"Jesus did not call it a 'moral law.' That's your spin on it. I think it's a Way of Grace. That's MY spin on it."
Okay.
Q3-B. What did Jesus call it?
That's not a trick question, the answer is right there in the passage itself -- and I believe the answer is just one indication that there's NO conflict between the Biblical concepts of law and love!
"Jesus' TEACHING. And was Jesus a teacher of laws? Or of GRACE?"
(I'm not sure that "teaching" is precisely the word choice found in the most literal, word-for-word English translations...)
Of laws or grace? Of laws or love? WHY CAN IT NOT BE BOTH IN EQUAL MEASURE?
I ask that last question rhetorically, and I have an answer -- and a LOT more to say, to boot, including a VERY important distinction between law and legalism! -- but I don't have the time to elaborate right now. It can wait until my next response.
[2nd set of comments, Part 1/4]
...insomnia is a helluva thing, something I wouldn't wish on anybody. I don't often ask people to pray for me, and certainly not online friends and acquaintances, but I would appreciate anyone's prayers for healing this hypomanic insomnia and the underlying bipolar disorder, a relatively recent diagnosis.
In the meantime, I'm having a late-night snack and listening to Achtung Baby, I'm not going to sleep anytime soon, and I don't have much else better to do, so here are a few more thoughts, where I won't actually label every question I ask OR answer but WILL start using more italics for quotes.
(I do HATE Blogger's new comment interface. I miss the ability to preview my comment one last time before posting it.)
---
Dan,
You've repeatedly drawn a contrast between law and love, and I'm not sure I see it, nor do I think my position on the law requires anything resembling perfect obedience.
I think I should tackle a few quotes, one after the other in topical order rather than strictly chronologically.
1. "I believe in a God of grace. A God that promotes grace, not rule following. A God that has seen throughout the history of humanity that those who embrace 'rule following' have often inevitably going the way of the Pharisees, and that way is not God's Way. Rather, God's Way is a Way of Grace, not rule-following."
> Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. - Mt 5:17 (ESV)
...and "often inevitably"? Which one is it? Does rule-following inevitably lead to disaster, or only often?
2. "Love your neighbor is part of the Way of Grace. It is not a 'rule,' which demands perfect adherence, because we're imperfect and we'll never perfectly comply with rules in a complex world of nuanced situations where we are imperfect humans."
I still don't know where you get the idea that a rule "demands perfect adherence." I don't think EVERY rule allows for exceptions, but some surely do: see Mt 12:18, esp v. 5 which is absent from the passage in Mark 2 that you've cited, QUITE reasonably, too.
But can we actually obey the law of love even in our complex AND fallen world? Not in our own power, but Scripture emphatically teaches our empowerment through the Holy Spirit, that as we rely on Him, we ACTUALLY CAN fulfill the law!
> For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. - Rom 8:3-4
[2nd set, 2/4]
3. "Love your neighbor is a rational understanding from an almighty God - and from just our nature, we who are created in the image of an almighty God - that is consistent with a Way of Grace that God is actually about. But it IS a way of grace, not a bunch of rules to try and fail to perfectly adhere to."
Here, I'm not sure what you mean about how the command/law/rule/way is simultaneously "from" God and "from" our nature. Are you suggesting that the command has been revealed to us, not through the special revelation of Scripture but through the general revelation to EVERYONE (cf. Ps 19:1 & Rom 1:19)? Or is our awareness of the moral law just simply an aspect of our being made in God's image?
I think here we might actually agree more than disagree, but I would need to know more: CS Lewis has written about how all cultures recognize the basics of morality (what he called "the Tao") but his Mere Christianity is emphatic about how the moral law is morally obligatory, that we really SHOULD but disastrously DON'T obey.
4a. "I do not think - if you look at the Bible and just basic human moral reasoning - 'Love your neighbor' is a 'moral law' from a 'supreme Law-giver.' It is my opinion that this is a pharisaical corruption of good understanding of holy texts or just basic moral reasoning."
What in the world happened to the law being "a rational understanding FROM AN ALMIGHTY GOD"? It doesn't look like you think God gives us the law after all, despite the dramatic imagery of Exodus 20 and the "I say to you" formulation from Matthew 5.
But sure, I'm willing to bite: which SPECIFIC holy texts in particular have been corrupted, and what are the true messages or meanings?
4b. "For my part, my opinion is that God is not 'the source of the moral law.' Rather, morality is just what happens when we live. We may live closer to the mark/ideal of being perfectly kind/loving/helpful, etc OR we may live further away and missing that mark of perfection. Or, in some cases, we may be actively engaging in deliberate rejection of the notion of living in a perfect way.
"I just don't think 'THE MORAL LAW' is a reasonable (and as it turns out, biblical) way of thinking of morality.
"Not that I can prove my opinion any more than you can, but that's my take on it.
"Now, I DO think that a perfect, all-knowing God could TELL us, 'You know, Dan, when you called him a doo-doo head, that was lacking in love...' and of course could set us right, but I don't think 'God is the source for the moral code' is biblical or reasonable."
I might ask about "reasonable," but BIBLICAL, Dan? Really? Based on what books of the Bible, specifically? Give me chapter and verse, PLEASE.
[2nd set, 3/4]
Here, I genuinely and GREATLY appreciate this particular clarification: it actually does help me tremendously in terms of understanding your view:
5. "To further clarify a point, while waiting, let me just say that I am not, of course, saying that there are not rules that appear in the Bible.
"The ancient Hebrews have a variety of rules spelled out for them...
"Likewise, there are rules that appear in the NT...
"What we don't have in the Bible are teachings that 'HERE are the moral laws that God wants you all to follow universally.' and 'HERE is the explanation for what that might mean in different cultures and times and places' or even, 'HERE is the rubric for understanding which rules are universal and which rules are time and place-specific.'
"Nor are we told that the Bible is the primary repository of/authority for moral rules.
"Am I mistaken?
"Even if I AM mistaken, even if there were such stipulations in the Bible somewhere, who says that anyone else who doesn't care about the Bible or treat it as a rulings book should care?"
To answer the last question first, everyone should care if the Bible contains such profound truth because that truth applies to everyone, was revealed ultimately TO everyone (see the Great Commission), and was given to us by EVERYONE'S Creator.
But I would be happy to set aside these sort of questions because it seems that they don't apply to either of us. You have said that you have a high view of the Bible, that Bible study is what led to your current beliefs, and that you are a devoted follower of Jesus who was both authoritatively revealed in Scripture and who personally affirmed Scripture.
"For the Bible tells me so" should suffice for people like you and me.
It seems that you believe the following four claims about the Bible.
- The Bible contains universally applicable moral laws.
- The Bible ALSO contains culturally conditional moral laws that only apply (or did apply) to certain people.
- The Bible unfortunately does NOT clearly delineate between those two groups of laws.
- AND, the Bible doesn't assert itself as the supreme source of moral laws.
Q4-B. Is that an accurate summary of the claims you just made? Does it sum up what you believe?
I ask because, while I *DO* strongly reject the fourth claim (my argument would begin but certainly not end with Heb 1:1-4), I have no problem with the first three claims! I actually agree with you about all three, but I don't find the problem NEARLY as intractable as you apparently do.
But that's a subject I'll have to tackle later!
[2nd set, 4/4]
To your credit, you also write, "If it were INDISPENSABLE to perfectly obey 'God's Will' before we could be saved, well shit, friends, we're all doomed! Right?" OF COURSE, RIGHT! Amen and amen, a thousand times over!
You ask, "Do you think that it is actually an INDISPENSABLE component to salvation to perfectly obey God??"
I didn't say salvation, I said [QUOTE] "a right relationship with God." I would VERY LITERALLY go to my own cross before recanting the idea that works-based obedience is both subordinate to AND logically subsequent to salvation by God's grace alone, through Christ's death alone, received by faith alone, all to God's glory alone (and assured by the uniquely authority of Scripture alone)!
What I have particularly in mind is, neither the moment of justification with which salvation begins nor the ultimate glorification with which it culminates, but rather the life-long process of SANCTIFICATION between those two great milestones.
---
That's about all I have the energy to tackle for now. I could say more over the weekend, whether or not you have a chance to reply first.
I look forward to seeing what you have to say! I'm genuinely digging this conversation, and I hope you're having a good week.
I have a few minutes, but on my phone, so that moves slowly for me.
Q1-B. DO YOU BELIEVE IN SIN APART FROM HARM?
I do not think that all harm is sin. The example of giving a child a vaccine, for instance. It causes pain, and so harm, in that sense. But it's not a moral wrong to do it.
How do we know? Moral reasoning, not the Bible.
But I would tend to think that all sin, or wrong-doing, causes harm. That harm might be damage to/strain on a relationship (with people, God, our planet...) or it might be physical or emotional damage to someone.
I could be convinced otherwise, but that seems right to me.
Dan
Another stab at this great beast...
"For the Bible tells me so" should suffice for people like you and me.
Not me. The Bible tells me (if I read it as you do) that sometimes "god" commands humans to run swords through children and how to properly sell your children into slavery or sex slavery (ie, forced marriages). The Bible may have those lines, but it don't tell me that it's so, nor does it tell me that God says it is so.
D 08-09 1: Even if you disagree, can. you see how that makes complete moral sense to many of us?
(It's hard to keep track of all these questions, so I'll start by giving my initial and the date the question is asked with 1, 2, 3... to keep track for the day.)
Bubba (I'll answer after each one of these):
It seems that you believe the following four claims about the Bible.
- The Bible contains universally applicable moral laws.
I need to clarify, there are RULES found in the Bible. Some of them we recognize today as atrocious, greatly evil rules. Some we may agree with strongly. BUT, the rules found in the Bible that are fairly universally applicable are universally applicable NOT because there is a line in the Bible, but because make good moral common sense, given a notion of human rights and doing no harm/the golden rule.
D 08-09 2: Do you agree that these rules (such as don't murder) are universal NOT because there is a line in the Bible that says so, but because they are innately wrong, an affront to human rights?
D 08-09 2: If you don't agree, do you see how that makes sense to many of us?
- The Bible ALSO contains culturally conditional moral laws that only apply (or did apply) to certain people.
IT would depend. I'm glad to allow that some dietary laws that were followed back then were followed for that particular time and people, but there are OTHER laws that weren't moral even then - regardless of the culture - like the command to go and stab babies and their families to death. I say it is always wrong to murder innocents and why? Because of human rights and moral reasoning, NOT because there is a line in the holy text that says so or a belief that some people thought "god" was telling them to do so.
I maintain that a perfectly loving and just God would never command moral atrocities.
D 08-09 4: Do you agree that a perfectly loving/just God would not command a moral atrocity?
D 08-09 5: Perhaps you think that there is an exception to that notion or a loophole that says, "YES, it's always wrong to stab innocent babies... UNLESS it's 'god' who's telling you to do it, then it can't be wrong..."? If so, I disagree with that human theory.
D 08-09 7: Do you agree that this would be an unproven human theory that you hold, not an objective fact, IF you hold that opinion?
- The Bible unfortunately does NOT clearly delineate between those two groups of laws.
IF we were to accept the notion that there were rules in the Bible that were intended to be some universal/some temporal, I would say, yes, of course, there is NO criteria, no rubric that is objective and indisputable for determining "Which are universal and which are not?"
D -08-09 7: Do you agree that there is no universal indisputable objective rubric for making that determination?
- AND, the Bible doesn't assert itself as the supreme source of moral laws.
That is correct. The Bible literally nowhere asserts itself as the supreme source of moral laws. NOR does "the Bible" do so in other words. Period.
cont'd...
For one thing: "The Bible" doesn't say, doesn't assert, doesn't think, it doesn't "tell" us anything. The bible is a soul-less, dumb and un-opinionated lump of pages. (One I love, to be sure, but I love it too much to misrepresent what it does and doesn't do. It contains the many writings of many humans. In that regards, I hold a high view of the Bible and biblical interpretation.)
There are many human writers in the Bible who have a lot to say about a wide variety of ideas and sometimes rules, and we might have a talk about what Jesus is recorded as having said... or what the unknown authors of Genesis were thinking and trying to communicate, but as you noted elsewhere, we have no way of checking with those authors to confirm what their thinking and intentions were.
I get that we (myself included) may sometimes say things like "But the Bible says..." but in this conversation, where the content and intention of biblical authors - or what God's intention is - is the question at hand, I think it is useful to be clear on that point.
Q4-B. Is that an accurate summary of the claims you just made? Does it sum up what you believe?
No, it does not sum up what I believe and I've clarified why. Does that help?
Bubba, does it help for me to stop there and allow some catch up to happen or would you prefer I continue? I'm okay either way. In the meantime, a quickie that I think is quite important and seems to be 1. A point of big difference between you and I and how we read the Bible, etc and 2. An easily established point to deal with.
My position is "literally a subjective opinion," is it? Prove it: "objectively prove it," as you tell me that I must do. I'll be waiting.
I THINK you're responding here to me saying that your opinion is literally a subjective opinion and you are asking me to prove it objectively that your opinion IS a subjective opinion. Is that right? Assuming so:
As I've said many times, IF someone says to me:
There are rainbow unicorns living on the dark side of the moon, farting sunshine.
THEN, I will respond:
No, you're literally, objectively wrong. There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER in all the known universe and alternative multiverses anywhere at all ANY support for that claim.
IF they then ask me to objectively prove that claim, I easily respond:
I already have. There is NO DATA in ALL THE UNIVERSE to support that claim.
All they have to do at that point is present the data that shows I'm mistaken.
Same for you. You're making the outlandish claim with no data. I'm saying the onus is on you for presenting data to support your claim.
How is that mistaken?
NOW, it MAY be possible that the person responds: I can't present that data because I don't have access to it, but STILL, it is an objective fact... and IT COULD BE A FACT. But the reality is, he's done nothing at all to prove it and, thus, HE doesn't know it is objectively a fact because he's never seen data to objectively prove his unicorns.
Believe me, I've looked for "objective proof that the Bible is literally the Word of God" or your personal claim/opinion:
"'obedience to God's will is an indispensable component to a right relationship with God....'
...and other such unproven claims about biblical opinions. In ALL the googleverse that I've seen, it's not out there. Now, is it possible that I've missed it? Sure. But then, all you have to do is show me the link. You don't even have to write down the whole theory and its proof, just show me the link.
But think about that: IF it were true that it was objectively proven that the Bible is God's literal word and inerrant (for instance), that would be HUGE. There'd be MULTIPLE ways to easily find such amazing proof of claims out there.
It's not. But, by all means, prove me wrong. Objectively, though, not some other guy merely asserting it reallllly is a fact.
It may be worth elaborating on, but in the meantime I *DO* indeed think that one can have true confidence even in claims that cannot be proven scientifically or mathematically. That "confidence" that Luke wanted for Theophilus? IT REALLY IS OUT THERE FOR THE TAKING.
Oh, as you no doubt can tell, I agree. I DO have strong confidence in my opinions about God, the Bible, morality and spirituality. I do not find the Bible or moral reasoning that difficult at all. The problem remains, even though we're both confident in our various contrasting opinions, that doesn't settle the matter if we disagree.
Right?
Dan, not everyone would agree with your hunch about moral reasoning: not the Buddhist whose aim is detachment in order to avoid causing OR experiencing any suffering, not the gnostic who thinks suffering is just another illusion in the Matrix-like world in which we live, not the doctor who takes the Hippocratic Oath to an absurdly literal extreme, and not the serial killer who thinks his victims' sufferings are irrelevant in comparison to the pleasures he experiences.
You ask, "How do we know?" but do you really KNOW? In which case, where is your objective evidence? Or if it only SEEMS right, why say that we can KNOW something when we can't, and why should anyone trust your judgment over anyone else's?
For what it's worth, the Bible's teachings make it ABUNDANTLY clear that some instances of harm are not only NOT sinful, they're morally obligatory: I've already pointed out capital punishment, authorized in Gen 9, commanded again in Ex 21, and implicitly endorsed in Rom 13.
But sin causes harm, and that can include God? How exactly can we harm God?
Or it includes harm to the relationship with God? You mean certain behaviors interfere with what could easily be described as a right relationship with God? Could these behaviors be contrary to what God would prefer? Is that not another way of saying that such behaviors are sinful BECAUSE they are contrary to God's will?
Earlier you said, "I am a believer in a God of GRACE, not a god who demands perfect understanding and actions."
Well, what does God demand? Anything? Nothing?
Your comment here obliterates a lot of the clarity your earlier comments seemed to provide. Maybe you shouldn't comment by phone.
I would like to say thank you, Bubba, for the polite tone of conversation.
Earlier, you noted:
I DEARLY want to understand your position even if it turns out that I still believe your position is incompatible with Scripture and/or Christian orthodoxy. At the same time, I would LOVE for you to understand me at least so that you set aside the ridiculous language about the Bible being "a magical book of rulings,"...
As I've explained, what I mean by that is the concept that you all believe that the answers to morality are found in the Bible. We can find rules for morality in the Bible that are applicable to today. The Bible is God's "instruction manual." THAT is what I mean by it.
Am I mistaken in my understanding of your understanding on that point?
Then, I will sometimes refer to it as a "magical rulings book" as a gentle poke at what I find to be the inconsistency in that human opinion ("God's instruction manual," the "primary source for moral and theological understanding..."), one we've already referred to: IF you don't have a rubric for sorting out what is literal and what is figurative, what rules are universal and which rules aren't... OR any proof that God intended to use the pages of the Bible as a rulings book, then how do you know ANY of your opinions about those rulings are reliable?
Does that make sense? And is it too harsh or cruel for me to refer to it as a "magic rulings book," when the "magic" is a good-natured (intended to be) jibe at the problem of "But how do we determine??? Abracadabra! We just do!" It's part of the reason that young conservative Dan had to abandon the notion of an inerrant rulings book Bible and the jibe is at young me, as much as anyone. I could never answer that question because, of course, there is no answer. Which is what I expect we'll see from you when you deal with that problem.
and perhaps even to see that people like me simultaneously affirm grace AND the law, both to the utmost.
I have no doubt that you do, as young conservative Dan, did. Probably as the Pharisees did. I just think that the evangelical/conservative take on "rules-bible" is ultimately in conflict with grace. NOT because we don't take steps to be loving, kind, etc and NOT be abusive or oppressive, etc, but because that is part of the lesson of Jesus and the Pharisees. Ultimately, the rules and the rules-followers kill Jesus.
Or try to.
It is
for freedom
that Christ has set us free.
Yes, yes, brother Paul!
Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be
burdened again by a yoke of slavery...
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command:
“Love your neighbor as yourself.”
If you bite and devour each other,
watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
Watch out, yes, sir, Paul!
for the fruit of the Spirit is
love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness and self-control.
Against such things
there is no law!!!
AMEN!
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world,
why, as though you still belonged to it,
do you submit to its rules!!!!:
‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’?
These are all destined to
perish with use
Why, Paul?
because they are based on human commands and teachings.
Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom,
with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and
their harsh treatment of the body,
but they lack
any value
in restraining sensual indulgence.
Whoa! Ya gotta love Paul and his warnings against the Pharisees of legalism.
Good gosh. More perversions of Scripture! It's getting harder with each of Dan's comments to remain silent.
But that's not why I'm posting now. I'll get to that when the time comes. I just wanted to strongly encourage Dan to write down his comments, save them in a file, and submit them one by one as they are answered by Bubba. Stop piling on "while you're waiting for Bubba to respond." You're just cluttering, confusing and making it more difficult to deal with your heresies and why you're so wrong...which you are.
("young conservative Dan" my ass! You have no understanding of the term "conservative".)
Bubba made some comments at 3:36 on August 9, without making clear what he was referring to, so, I'm not totally clear on his points. For instance, he said:
Dan, not everyone would agree with your hunch about moral reasoning: not the Buddhist whose aim is detachment in order to avoid causing OR experiencing any suffering...
What is my hunch about moral reasoning? That it's a fairly reliable source for recognizing harm?
Perhaps, I'll let any Buddhists speak for themselves. It might rightly be recognized that moral reasoning is the worst possible way to determine moral/right behavior... other than all other methods.
Feel free to clarify your intentions.
Dan
I should have time to comment at some length by tomorrow night, but until then, I want to chime in and share Marshal's concerns: I would GREATLY prefer that we try to tackle one topic at a time and one question at a time.
MAYBE we could even try limiting ourselves to the (4096-character?) comment length and just commit to one comment at a time!
I won't restrict myself in that way unless we both agree to it, but it's something to consider.
Bubba
PS - In the meantime, astute readers might note that I've been adding the occasional URL to my name, for some reason or another... :-)
Bubba asked...
Well, what does God demand? Anything? Nothing?
What does an Almighty, perfectly loving, forgiving and gracious parent-like God demand, reasonably speaking?
Probably the same thing I "demand" of my children. Nothing.
Love Hopes, love desires, love expects, loves wants... but love doesn't demand. Demands are the stuff of tyrants, not perfectly loving parents. Seems to me.
Now, in the case of extreme harm, love also acts to stop... as in the case of the rich oppressor denying laborers their wages or an oppressor enslaving people.
Even then, I don't know that it's a demand, more of an expectation.
Do unto others...
Dan
Commandments are demands. Expectations are demands. Daring to compare God to your buffoonish parenting style demands people think like buffoons to accept such comparison as "good faith discourse".
You finish your comment clearly implying you don't know the answer to Bubba's question, or that you don't know how to answer it. Either of those would be honest, "good faith" responses than your typical pablum.
I've carved out an opportunity for you Dan. I've set aside this thread so as to use that opportunity to cut the crap and cut to the chase. I'm not interested in your attempts to appear pious, holy, or as an actual Christian. No one else is, either. Make your claim or response and bring substantive evidence to support it, or don't comment or respond at all. We know your opinions quite well. We want to see the concrete source of that opinion. Opinions are based on facts, reality, something testable. Don't dare again to support opinion with opinion.
Marshal...
I've carved out an opportunity for you Dan.
Oh, thank you! THANK you! I shall never strive to abuse this gracious opportunity thou hast given unto me. Bless you, bless you, bless you.
Geez, fellas, lighten up.
I've offered to have this discussion on my blog where it doesn't have to be this slow, back and forth, waiting for you to post our comments (since comments on my blog appear automatically/right away). I appreciate Bubba wanting to have a conversation and, thus far, I think we are having that conversation. If you don't want to be "burdened" for it to happen here and "force you" to "carve out an opportunity," I really don't need you to do it.
Don't do me any favors, oh mighty kind man.
[rolls eyes]
Don't dare again to support opinion with opinion.
Again, you're going to have to light up, Sally and get over yourself.
I've made clear - as have you all - that we ARE dealing with our opinions on these matters. Our subjective opinions. As a point of objective reality in the real world, you all can't objectively prove your opinions on these questions we're talking about. If you could, you would. If objective proof for your opinions on these unprovable matters existed, it would be out there. Google would turn it up. YOU all would present it, "Here Dan, here is one of the dozens of ground-breaking links that have objectively proven our ideas about God and morality."
But you don't present it because you can't, because it IS your subjective opinion, naught else.
And don't guess that this is me trying to be mean to you... I can't prove my subjective opinions about these questions, either. NONE of us can. I'm just pointing to the reality as we know it.
That seems to really get under your all's skin, doesn't it? Relax, it's okay for you to not be able to prove unprovable matters. It's just reality.
Marshal,
1. I share your frustration, but I hope -- more optimistically than perhaps ever before! -- that we can actually come to an even greater level of mutual understanding than ever before. It just might take a while because we're exploring some very deep waters.
Patience! (For the Jedi, it is time to eat as well!)
2. I actually still agree with you that Dan gives no evidence of TRULY understanding the political conservatism of Mark Steyn & Thomas Sowell or (more importantly) the theological conservatism of CS Lewis & John Stott. Up until this very conversation, I would have agreed with you that all the evidence indicates that Dan didn't grow up as conservative, either.
I'm now beginning to question that, but now's not the time to elaborate.
3. I just now realize, all this time I've been addressing you as "Marshall" with two L's, not one-L Marshal!
I notice that the blog's title has only one L, but the web address URL is MarshallArt.Blogspot.com. Now I'm curious about the discrepancy, LOL!
---
Dan,
About the tone, you're quite welcome!
I'll be honest, I've called you plenty of derogatory things in my day, but I've tried to be honest in my name-calling: when I've called you a sociopathic liar, it's because I genuinely thought the term to be accurate, having concluded that it's the ONLY reasonable explanation for how and what you had written in our exchanges.
I've always tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but at a certain point common human misunderstandings become inadequate to explain why, for instance, it was like pulling teeth to get you to answer the simple question of what Jesus taught regarding our being made male and female.
As I just told Marshal, it doesn't make sense to elaborate now, but I'm now seriously doubting the hyper-negative conclusions that I've drawn about.
I'd like to see how far this conversation goes in having us reach a heretofore unprecedented level of mutual understanding: it would be WONDERFUL if we could really, finally see eye to eye!
We'll find out if we can get there!
---
I mention Buddhists and Gnostics and sociopaths because they all disagree with orthodox Christianity on some very important points, and as I best as I understand your beliefs, they disagree with you, too.
If you and a Zen master disagree in some detail of ethics or morality, potentially a significant detail, it's not clear why you should trust yourself more than him.
You write, "It might rightly be recognized that moral reasoning is the worst possible way to determine moral/right behavior... other than all other methods."
I'm not saying moral reasoning is bad, I'm just saying the Bible is better: it not only contains the teachings of our Lord and Savior, it also contains the Jewish Scriptures He affirmed to the smallest pen stroke AND the written artifacts of the apostolic teaching which He provided to the church.
---
You quote Paul's assertion that Christ has set us free and that He has done so for the sake of freedom. Indeed, amen a thousand times over! But it raises the obvious question:
FREEDOM FROM WHAT?
Freedom from our humanity? Surely not, Jesus was fully human even after the Resurrection.
Freedom from God? Again, surely not, and I don't think we're granted the freedom FROM religion that
I can give you the obvious answer, but maybe three hints will help.
1. It AIN'T the law.
2. It's RELATED to the law.
3. It's found just a couple sentences later, in Gal 5:4.
Marshal, so long as you're willing to humor me/us, I'd appreciate being able to continue the dialogue here without having to jump to Craig's or Dan's or some other genuinely neutral venue.
...if you want, you could retitle this blog post to reference "Bubba & Dan," and if you decide that we need to wrap up, just let me know, and I'll post my concluding thoughts.
Thanks, bud!
Bubba...
I would have agreed with you that all the evidence indicates that Dan didn't grow up as conservative, either.
I feel a need to respond to, question yall about this strange (to me) line of speculation.
As oft-noted, I literally was raised
At Victory Memorial Baptist Church in Louisville, KY...
A literally conservative and traditional Southern Baptist church that
Literally taught traditional conservative teachings like...
Inerrancy
The Solas
To read and revere the Bible
Atonement
That homosexuality, abortion and "feminism" were objectively morally wrong
That women shouldn't be deacons or pastors...
They leaned towards young earth creationist (but there may have been a few people who disagreed)
That Adam and Eve were literal historical figures...
Etc, etc.
And I believed all that.
In what possible sense is that NOT being raised in a traditional, ultra-conservative church?
Or is it the case that you're guessing (with no proof) that I'm lying about all that?
It's a matter of historical record that could be demonstrated if you just wanted to reach out to former VMBC members. It seems a strange thing to doubt.
Dan
Bubba,
I have no problem with your exchange taking as long as you're willing to continue. Indeed, it's really a condensed version of what we've all been doing in dealing with Dan since at least 2008. I see no reason to alter anything on my end. Take whatever time you need.
August 11, 2024 at 1:58 PM
Dan,
You seem to believe that being raised in what you say is a conservative environment equates to proper inculcation of conservative understanding. Herein lies the problem with your tired citation of your "conservative" upbringing and beliefs. None of that has in any way ever manifested in any comment of yours since we've first engaged in blog debate. You've demonstrated no understanding of conservatism. For example, if you want to say "conservatives oppose homosexuals", that's not being conservative in and of itself. You clearly have dismissed all correction about how those like myself respond to that abomination in our culture. It's a most superficial thing to say, not a true and accurate description of conservative positions, but it's about as deep as you ever get. Thus, you can call yourself anything you like, but when you go beyond that, you prove your lack of understanding.
Worse than that, it does absolutely nothing to further your positions...to justify them or explain why you believe them to be a more accurate understanding of Biblical teaching, or anything else for that matter. It's irrelevant and superfluous to continue pretending that bringing it up matters in any way. It indicates true stupidity to have fully grasped the conservative position on the faith, yet you rejected that for what is clearly unBiblical and heretical. So it would serve you to never again pretend such a claim would impress or persuade in your favor. It doesn't. It doesn't enhance your weak arguments in defense of your current beliefs and positions.
It's not who raised you or how. It's whether or not you ever learned. It's clear you hadn't learned much of anything.
Marshal:
It's not who raised you or how. It's whether or not you ever learned. It's clear you hadn't learned much of anything.
What Bubba said:
I would have agreed with you that all the evidence indicates that Dan didn't grow up as conservative, either.
I'm directing this at the stupidly false and silly claims that I was not raised as a conservative. I literally was. IN a conservative church. BY conservative people... some of whom have rejected me as a friend and a Christian because I've grown to disagree with them. I literally grew up as a conservative, believing traditionally conservative ideas and holding traditionally conservative opinions. That's just the reality of it all.
Why do you all reject just that simple reality?
If you want to say, "Dan WAS raised as a conservative and did believe traditionally conservative ideals... BUT, I don't think he ever really understood them..." or something like that, you could argue that. It would be a mistaken idea, as well, but you could argue that. But to guess that I wasn't even RAISED as a conservative by conservative people, well, it's just demonstrably false and ridiculous.
Do you get that much?
Bubba asked me some questions:
You quote Paul's assertion that Christ has set us free and that He has done so for the sake of freedom. Indeed, amen a thousand times over! But it raises the obvious question:
FREEDOM FROM WHAT?
Freedom from our humanity? Surely not, Jesus was fully human even after the Resurrection.
No. I'm not saying we were/are given freedom from our humanity. Okay?
Freedom from God?
No, I'm not saying we were given "freedom from God." I'm not even sure what that would mean.
In the context of biblical teachings, especially the teachings of Jesus, but also Pauline teachings, AND just plain moral common sense and reasoning, we are given freedom from the harmful, punitive, destructive notion of a graceless rule-following. We are NOT created for the Sabbath and for the rules. Rules were created for us. We are NOT under the power of the rules and those who insist we must follow their rules. We ARE under the power of God's grace, that liberty that recognizes that life can be difficult and we will simply not always KNOW how to "hit the mark" of perfection. We're not expected to be perfect when we can't, in this life of Grace.
Rather, we recognize that we are free in grace to IGNORE what other humans might insist are "rules you must follow," especially when those humans are acting in a graceless, pharisaical manner. We are free in grace to love, to forgive, to welcome, to support... THESE ideas are that we are are free to embrace. We are free FROM legalistic abusive demands of following human rules that the powerful ones tell we must follow.
We are free FROM mindless rule following and free TO embrace grace.
FYI: In Galatians, Paul I believe is speaking of the so-called "Judaizers" who insisted that Gentile converts must first "become Jewish" by following "Jewish laws" about circumcision. But more broadly, it's about not living under laws that other humans tell you that you must abide by.
Why? What is your opinion on the matter?
August 11, 2024 at 6:45 PM
"I'm directing this at the stupidly false and silly claims that I was not raised as a conservative."
I'm not seeing where anyone's made that "stupidly false and silly claim". What I do see is your stupidly false and silly attempt to reframe the actual claim to one more easily defended. Note Bubba's actual words, which you copy/pasted before perverting what he said:
"I would have agreed with you that all the evidence indicates that Dan didn't grow up as conservative, either."
It's not a question of how you were raised, might have been raised or that you insist you were raised as conservative. You're not now a conservative, never manifest any understanding of what that means and as such it's unlikely you understood at one point in your life and now simply don't. No. You were never conservative, regardless of what you were taught or how well.
"I literally grew up as a conservative, believing traditionally conservative ideas and holding traditionally conservative opinions. That's just the reality of it all."
The actual reality of it all is that rote repetition of conservative concepts and principles...assuming you were indeed well schooled in such...does not equate to being conservative, just as your rote repetition of Christian principles doesn't make you are Christian.
"Why do you all reject just that simple reality?"
Not so much "rejection", but a long established fact that any citation of reality by you likely isn't.
"If you want to say, "Dan WAS raised as a conservative and did believe traditionally conservative ideals... BUT, I don't think he ever really understood them..." or something like that, you could argue that."
That's a far more accurate representation, and basically what the argument it, without all the alleged autobiographical irrelevance. The fact is again, you never manifest any understanding of conservatism and as such it's a stretch to suggest you ever did and now somehow can't recall it well enough to speak of it accurately.
"But to guess that I wasn't even RAISED as a conservative by conservative people, well, it's just demonstrably false and ridiculous."
Not nearly as ridiculously false as copy/pasting a quote from someone then immediately following it with a corruption of what that someone said...which you did after quoting Bubba.
For my part, I'm quite certain that over the years I've expressed pretty much what you think we "might" be suggesting or "might" want to argue, which that despite what you say about how you were raised, you no more had an understanding of the conservatism you claim to have been taught as you have now. That's all that matters with regard to that. And given that's all that matters, I say again that it doesn't serve you in the least...doesn't enhance any argument of yours for any of your positions...to claim that you were ever conservative. Indeed, it makes your current beliefs all the more moronic, given they are not as evidence/fact based as conservatism is. Thus, it's admission you've rejected truth in favor of self-satisfying fantasy.
You want to argue your positions? Try bringing evidence and stow all mentions of what "young Dan" allegedly believed.
Do you get that much?
I take "didn't grow up as a conservative" to mean that I was not a conservative when I was younger and/or that I wasn't raised by conservatives. Bubba can clarify what he meant if he wants.
As to your opinion, IF I believed traditional conservative thoughts and ideas, as mentioned, then why do you think I wasn't "actually" a conservative?
If believing in and affirming conservative ideals doesn't make one a conservative, what does?
I'm guessing you mean that even though I affirm a belief in all the dozens of various conservative beliefs, that I didn't understand them, maybe? But how so? On abortion, for instance, I believed abortion was wrong, always. I believe that the fetuses was no different from a born baby and a blessing of life from God, and so, aborting a baby was murder. Period.
How is that not affirming and believing in conservative belief?
This makes literally no sense.
Dan
Bubba...
Freedom from what?...
The answer is found in Gal. 5:4.
Galatians 5:4:
You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Freedom from trying to be justified by the law, then?
Dan
I don't have time to comment at length -- that might change tonight, it might be tomorrow or even Wednesday until I have any real bandwidth -- but I just wanted to address one comment and question by Dan.
"I'm directing this at the stupidly false and silly claims that I was not raised as a conservative. I literally was.... Why do you all reject just that simple reality?"
What evidence do we have, Dan?
None of us grew up with you; I live six hours away; I've only ever been to Louisville once in my life, and we didn't meet up while I was in town.
(Now that would have been interesting! I was in town for a wedding more than ten years ago, and the thought crossed my mind that I could have dropped in at Jeff Street that Sunday morning, unannounced and pseudonymously. We could have had lunch and you would have never known it, but we had far better plans, namely a gigantic brunch hosted by our friend's mom.)
(Brief aside: the Jeff Street website isn't very informative or at least well organized for potential guests: I couldn't find VERY basic information, such as the Sunday morning schedule. I would have to call the church office to find out when exactly the Sunday service starts, and that can be off-putting for visitors.)
How do we know you're telling the truth? OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T KNOW; WE CANNOT KNOW!
All we can do is go by what you've written, and at least until we've had this VERY fruitful conversation, I've long since drawn the conclusion that you're not particularly honest.
(For example, you portray yourself as a quite reasonable moderate when you are as partisan as they come -- as am I, but I make no bones about my being damn near a reactionary when it comes to being 1., a theologically conservative Christian who [for instance] affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, and 2., a politically conservative American who supports free markets, traditional values, and a strong foreign policy. And you frequently demand evidence that meets a ludicrously high standard that you rarely if ever seem willing to apply to your own arguments.)
More than that, you don't seem particularly well informed about religious or political conservatism! This is one H-U-G-E reason I so dislike the "magic rulings book" rhetoric: that's a phrase that no inerrantist would EVER use.
(Do you use that phrasing with your friends from back home? If so, that might be a reason why conservative Christian friends from back home have become frustrated with you!)
And it's not as if you can regurgitate (or even better, restate in your own words!) the arguments of, say, John MacArthur or Thomas Sowell even if you personally reject those arguments.
All we can go by is what we read from you.
"What evidence [do we] have of [your] reality, beyond that of [our] senses? Why [should we] doubt [our] senses?"
In brief, I have personally doubted your claims regarding your conservative background because -- TO ME, AT LEAST -- you don't seem like you really understood your former life. If pressed, I would say that you're probably telling the truth about your autobiography but that MAYBE you never really grasped the culture that you ultimately abandoned for theological and political leftism.
That would only be a guess, but it would be my best guess.
Art,
I completely understand why, but you just couldn't do it. You just couldn't keep out of this.
Bubba...
I have personally doubted your claims regarding your conservative background because -- TO ME, AT LEAST -- you don't seem like you really understood your former life.
But, why? That's what I can't figure out.
Abortion: wrong because it kills a human life and God cherishes life.
Homosexuality: wrong because God says men and women should be chaste before marriage and only marry the opposite sex. Thus, a man and woman having sex in the confines of marriage is the only moral, God-approved way to have sex. All other sexual expression is immoral because the Bible tells us so.
Fallen nature of humanity: Because of the sin/fall of Adam, all humanity has a sin nature and that sin nature separates us from God. If we die separated from God, we WILL be punished for an eternity in hell (which, at the time, I took to mean a literal burning hell OR something equally awful.)
I could go on but in each case, I believed just the traditional conservative Christian line.
What do you imagine I'm misunderstanding and based on what?
Why would I make up a fake biography?
Dan
August 12, 2024 at 7:21 AM
"As to your opinion, IF I believed traditional conservative thoughts and ideas, as mentioned, then why do you think I wasn't "actually" a conservative?
If believing in and affirming conservative ideals doesn't make one a conservative, what does?"
If you don't understand that in which you claim to believe, or claim to have believed...which you've made crystal clear over the years on the blogs...then you can't truly believe in conservatism. One must understand first, then belief comes. Without understanding, then one believes something else, not that which one misunderstands.
August 12, 2024 at 7:40 AM
"I'm guessing you mean that even though I affirm a belief in all the dozens of various conservative beliefs, that I didn't understand them, maybe? But how so? On abortion, for instance, I believed abortion was wrong, always. I believe that the fetuses was no different from a born baby and a blessing of life from God, and so, aborting a baby was murder. Period.
How is that not affirming and believing in conservative belief?"
Clearly you didn't believe it, because no conservative...no one truly honest, truthful with a determination to be honest and truthful...would reject fact as you clearly have, if you truly believed that, to instead promote the lie you now embrace, that we can't know whether or not the conceptus is a person endowed by God with the unalienable right to life of which you now prove yourself so unworthy and undeserving.
Moreover, from the time of your alleged "conservative youth", advances in science have only affirmed more firmly the truth regarding the conceived yet unborn which supersedes all the spurious and cheap rationalizations used to justify taking the life of that person in utero. No conservative acts as you have.
As I said, rote repetition of concepts and principles doesn't indicate true understanding and acceptance, but rather that you were as much a "useful idiot sheep" for the cause of what you regard as a group of conservative people as you are for the lies you now embrace.
So again, conservatives don't reject facts and truth. It's the adherence to facts and truth which makes one a conservative, because all beliefs and positions of the conservative are based on facts and truth. You didn't "believe". You accepted without understanding, like a robot, and have never demonstrated any understanding of conservatism and/or conservatives since.
"This makes literally no sense."
Your claim of having been conservative makes no sense.
Dan
August 12, 2024 at 7:40 AM
Craig,
"I completely understand why, but you just couldn't do it. You just couldn't keep out of this."
So I'm weak. Sue me.
Seriously though, my jumping in is more a matter of refereeing the contest rather than joining a side. As always, a great problem we have with Dan is his dishonest style of discourse...what he'll still regard as "good faith". But "good faith" demand sticking to the point, not embellishing with irrelevancies and that which does not support his positions. I don't freaking care about his claims to having "believed as" we do. I want nothing more than the evidence he thinks he has to defend holding his opinions which should at the same time support his claim that ours are somehow unBiblical. All else is wasted time and keystrokes. What's more, it gives him room to go off on his tangents, further obscuring the conversation.
These and other typical Dan tactics are dishonest and not at all evidence of arguing in good faith.
Take for example his ending question in his last comment:
"Why would I make up a fake biography?"
Who said he "made up a fake biography"? I know I never did. I'm pretty sure I didn't see Bubba say that. I read all comments before I post them, so I'm pretty sure I would remember him doing that.
BTW, I looked up "good faith" as it pertains to discourse, as I had meant to do when Dan defined it as being based on one's beliefs. The search engine on my phone provided multiple explanations, several which asserted belief in one's own position was not required. They all tended to point to how one argues....honesty in an attempt to present facts and evidence in support of a position. Straying from that strays from good faith. I want less assertion and more evidence/facts.
Marshal, it looks like you had an open "B" HTML tag that was never closed, and it has affected the formatting of every subsequent comment.
THIS ought to fix it. :-)
Dan, the Internet is notorious for the emergence of false-flag "concern trolls" who falsify their background to advance their agenda. This long predates the Web, with "seminar callers" to radio programs: "Dittos, Rush, I'm a life-long Republican [yeah, right] but I'm voting to reelect Clinton over Dole because of [insert talking points here]."
But even despite that potential motivation, I've never been inclined to believe that you were outright lying about your life. Instead, I've ONLY thought that the bona fides of your conservative upbringing means less than you think because it's clear you don't actually understand the conservative mindset.
It's a very biblical principle: you might have been WITH people like us in your early days, but the truth is, you never were one of us.
Bubba:
Re: Jeff St Website, I know. We're not the most up-to-date on our website. We're actually in the process of seeking a new pastor (after our last pastor retired after 39 (!!) years!!!) and we're hoping maybe they'll be someone with more tech savvy than we are. If you have the tech savvy to make suggestions to improve it, we'd love to hear from you!
Re: Jeff St, in Louisville: You are welcome to visit at any time you might be passing through Louisville. Even if you disagreed with our beliefs, I suspect you'd have a good time and be impressed by our small group of saints... we are a lovely and impressive little group of believers. We are welcoming to all, including you. Just be kind.
Bubba:
How do we know you're telling the truth? OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T KNOW; WE CANNOT KNOW!
Who lies about their own biography/their own upbringing? WHY would I make that stuff up? I literally DID grow up in the very conservative, very traditional, very Southern Baptist Victory Memorial Baptist Church in Louisville, just around the corner from Churchill Downs.
While it may not be easy, it's certainly possible to find members who grew up in that church while I was there and to a person, they'd identify it as a traditional conservative SB church. We even have a FB private group for "People who grew up in VMBC in the 1950s-1980s" and they're still around. They appear to be, by and large and with a few exceptions, still very traditional/conservative.
Why would I make any of this up? Who does that?
I mean, I know there are "russian (and other) bots and spammers" that exist but they are fairly easily identified and don't tend to have the same story for NEARLY TWENTY YEARS (as of next year, I'll have been blogging as consistently myself for 20 years). I am, of course, literally who I say I am. I literally grew up on Whitney Ave just a mile away from VMBC, where I literally was raised in traditional SB teachings from my birth in 1963 until my marriage in 1985. And even then, our first church was the ultra-conservative (possibly even more conservative than Southern Baptists) Westside Nazarene Church in the west end of Louisville. We left there in about 1987/1988, which is about the time I BEGAN (just barely) the process of no longer identifying as conservative. (That full "transformation" didn't happen until about 1996, fyi.
Of course, it may not be easy, but it's all demonstrable if anyone REALLY doubted my story, with just a relatively few phone calls or emails. My very conservative best friends (the guys who I was in a Contemporary Christian band - Remembrance - from 1982 - 1991) would probably be more than glad to testify to all of this, as well as to their deep sadness that I've "left the faith," as they likely view it now.
WHO makes up all this back story and for what possible reason would I make it up?
Here is a video of my very conservative Christian band from 1991 or 1992, the last year we played together.
https://youtu.be/VZxgQP-R6jc
Marshal...
my jumping in is more a matter of refereeing the contest rather than joining a side.
One of the difference between me and you, Marshal, is that I in no way view this as a "contest," and truly, as a good faith conversation. It's just a conversation with me answering questions from Bubba and trying my very best to help him (and all of y'all) to understand what it is I'm saying and not saying.
To that end, I'm not deliberately "embellishing with irrelevancies" or otherwise in any way being disengenuous. I'm seriously, deliberately trying to help you all understand my positions by giving you answers to questions to the best of my ability. You may feel free to think that I've not done a good job in that maybe you're not actually understanding what I'm saying, but you can't say I'm not offering answers in good faith to help you understand.
Again, who would waste time making up BAD faith arguments with people they don't know who (in the case of you, especially) repeatedly demonize and speak abusively about me in the most vulgar of terms?
I'm talking with you all, taking time out of my very busy day to do so, to help you understand my positions. Naught else.
As to the "fake biography," what I mean is the doubt that I am who I've said I am or that I believed what I've told you I believe.
To that end, as I've explained, I honestly was opposed to abortion, opposed to LGBTQ stuff (although at the time, all I really knew about was "homosexuals" and maybe lesbians... I had no idea about BTQ...). I honestly literally did affirm an inerrant Bible, the Solas, the Penal Substitutionary THEORY of Atonement, etc. That IS what I believed.
Your response, Marshal, appears to be, "Yeah, maybe you THOUGHT you believed that... but if you TRULY believed all of that, you wouldn't have changed your mind." Is that your guess?
If so, do you recognize that you can in no way prove that rather ridiculous claim/personal opinion?
Bubba, do you think the same thing? That I AM able to literally state what I believed which IS literally traditional conservative evangelical beliefs... but you're guessing that somehow you know that I didn't REALLLLLY believe it, even though I did?
That is what seems irrational, on your all's part. What seems deeply weird.
Bubba:
I've ONLY thought that the bona fides of your conservative upbringing means less than you think because it's clear you don't actually understand the conservative mindset.
By all means: POINT to what I believed about abortion that indicates that I didn't "understand the conservative mindset."
POINT to what I believed about LGBTQ issues that indicate that I didn't "understand the conservative mindset."
POINT to what I believed about the fallen nature of humanity that indicate that I didn't "understand the conservative mindset."
I'm not angry, I'm not upset. I'm genuinely curious.
What I believed about salvation was literally this:
I. That humanity was fallen and had a "sin nature."
II. That this fallen state separated us from God.
III. That being separated God means that we are "lost in our sin" and, if nothing changes, we are hell-bound.
IV. BUT, that God offers us a way out. IF we acknowledge our fallen state and repent of our sins and ask Jesus to be "Lord of our Lives," God, in "his" grace wanted very much to forgive us of our sins and adopt us as "his" children.
V. That those who repent of their sins, confess that Jesus was the risen son of God and ask Jesus to be "Lord of our lives," WILL be saved. Period. By God's grace, through faith in Jesus.
That is literally what I believed. WHERE was I mistaken? WHY was I not "one of you..."? WHAT am I not understanding about the so-called "conservative mindset..."?
I am genuinely interested in your answer to these questions.
Can you see how it seems presumptuous of you all to think that, because I disagree with your personal opinions now, that I never "really" believed what I actually believed? Based on what?
I'm guessing that it's because of something like, "IF someone TRULY believed what I personally believed, THEN they wouldn't change their minds." But you tell me.
Bubba...
It's a very biblical principle: you might have been WITH people like us in your early days, but the truth is, you never were one of us.
I get (and know, from personal experience) that this is a very common conservative evangelical theory. That those who APPEARED in every possible way to be "one of us" who eventually "depart" "from us" were never actually "one of us." (re: 1 John 2 - "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.")
But that was always a problematic human theory for me. Again, as with so many things, says who? It seems presumptuous and just a little too-convenient.
But again, it would raise the question: What must I do to be saved?
Believe that Jesus is the risen son of God? I believe that. Literally.
Confess my sins? I've done/I do that regularly.
Make Jesus the "lord of my life..." By God's grace, I strive to do that.
But what if I'm NOT "successfully" making "Jesus lord of my life" (even in good faith) or didn't correctly "repent of my sins..." does that mean I messed up and can't be saved by God's grace?
If that's your theory, how is that not an abuse of the notion of Grace and a leaning into a works-theory of salvation?
That was one problem I had long ago, even in my (actually, literally) conservative days.
And I guess you know that not all traditional conservative evangelicals buy into "they were never one of us" theory that some humans hold?
And do you recognize that this IS a human theory?
Dan, the Internet is notorious for the emergence of false-flag "concern trolls" who falsify their background to advance their agenda.
Of course. But how many of those have been as transparent as I have? Using my actual name. Noting my actual church and the actual church I grew up in? Citing my actual city and experience at work and with my family (my wife's been a chaplain and a social worker for 37 years, we've been married for 40 years as of next June, she attended the social work school at the Southern Baptist Seminary, my children are a whale researcher and a former Peace Corps member, I worked with helping water utilities map their pipe network, and as a public school teacher in special ed and currently as an employment specialist helping adults with disabilities find meaningful employment, etc, etc, etc)? I've been quite the open book and anyone who did actual research could verify that it's all real world factual.
You've even found our less-than-hip/current website at Jeff St.
Can you acknowledge that actual trolls are not as transparent as I've been? That you can find actual videos of me and my friends singing at my church, actual photos of me and my family, that you can find the church I grew up in (which, as is true of many churches, is no longer existing as it once was, because they merged with another EVEN MORE conservative church and it's now "Kenwood Baptist Church at Victory Memorial...")
I literally am who I say I am. I literally was raised as I have said I was raised AND I literally believed the conservative opinions that you all currently hold. You have zero data or reason to say otherwise.
Can you acknowledge that simple reality?
https://kenwoodbaptistchurch.com/welcome/history/
Bubba...
(Do you use that phrasing with your friends from back home? If so, that might be a reason why conservative Christian friends from back home have become frustrated with you!)
No, I haven't. But that's mainly because they don't want to talk with me. In my most recent comment/conversation with my best friend growing up - someone who is still ultra-conservative - he insisted that he didn't want to talk with me anymore because I had been so "insulting" towards him. I of course, apologized and said I genuinely don't know what I said to "insult" him. HE, on the other hand, had accused me of "rejecting" Jesus and making "a god in my own image" and otherwise attacking me with amazingly harsh terms - which I never held against him and wasn't angry with him about - but he also refused to tell me what I had said that had "insulted" him.
ALL I had said to him (it was about the Olympics "attack" on Christians by having a blue Jesus in speedos... or something) was that when he said that drag queens were deviant perverts who wanted to "attack Christians" (or words to that effect) that it hurts people.. people who have been traditionally oppressed. And that's a literal fact... but it wasn't an "attack" on him, I was trying to help him see how those words have a harsh/harmful impact upon others.
He is the one who spoke abusively towards me. I apologized generally and offered to apologize specifically for whatever he considered to be an attack, and he didn't answer.
Can you see how that's irrational and impossible to deal with?
Regardless, I've never even gotten so far as a reasonable adult conversation with these folks - and I've extended an olive branch and offered to talk - because they don't want to have a conversation with me. And so, no, I've never used "magic rule book" language with them, but that's by their choice.
Which is why I appreciate you being at least willing to have a conversation, Bubba, and Marshal, why I appreciate you allowing comments, even if you are abusive as hades.
Dan,
Don't whine about abusiveness. You're very abusive on a regular basis, particularly at your blog.
More importantly is that you just spent six comments doing exactly what I stated is wholly irrelevant to the end game, which is to provide evidence for your heresies and fantasies. Don't forget, this began with your still unproven claim that speaking the truth of God's Will about particular behaviors causes harm. No one cares about "young Dan Trabue" and your claim he was conservative. No one. False or true, it doesn't serve the purpose of proving your positions are more likely true than ours, or proving ours are wrongly held and that our evidence fails for legitimate reasons rather than that they confound your ability to maintain you've actually got evidence to support yours.
If I deleted your last six comments, nothing would have been lost as regards providing understanding of how you came to be so wrong and why you insist you're not. The last six comments stand as examples of departing from the point, as if the acceptance of your autobiography could possibly lead to a change of mind on this end. It doesn't. Again, you're wasting your time and ours by continuing with anything which isn't evidentiary support for your positions or a rebuke of ours. Stop doing it.
And keep in mind, that for my part at least (if not for Bubba and Craig) our positions...religious or political...are based on provable and testable data. We bring that every time you demand more, more, more from us at your blog. I'm still waiting to see something akin to the "hard data" you demand of us in defense of your positions. Your autobiography doesn't get it done.
Marshal, I genuinely appreciate your having my back, but I'm confident that I can take whatever Dan throws my way, and I intend to address everything in its own good time.
I don't need a ref so long as it's just him and me, even if he does throw punches below the belt.
I got this, he says with a sly grin!
---
Dan, you're right: as best as I can tell, you have indeed been very transparent, writing at great length over the course of literal years, it's just that you don't seem to grok the life you left behind. You don't share our accent, and you speak our language like a foreigner.
There's nothing inherently wrong with your summary of your previous view of salvation -- though it makes me curious which parts, if any, you would still affirm -- but there's nothing all that insightful either. It's a rote regurgitation of a 6th-grade Sunday School understanding of the Gospel.
Being able to quote the Preamble is a fine thing, but a person would hardly prove to be truly knowledgeable about the U.S. Constitution if, for instance, he didn't realize that -- between Article I.8's enumerated powers and the 9th & 10th amendments -- the Constitution strictly limits the powers of the federal government.
I've already given one concrete example -- your language about how the Bible is a "magic book of rulings" -- and I think I can simultaneously get this discussion back on track and weigh in on another instance where your understanding of theological conservatism is a mile wide but only ankle deep.
Q4-B. What was your prior understanding of the role of the moral law in God's plan of salvation, particularly in God's will for the Christian's life after being born again?
Bubba,
I've full confidence in your ability. My "refereeing" is as much for my sake, if not primarily. But it would serve everyone who might be reading to be relieved of wading through superfluous bullshit which adds absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. I don't expect compliance, because when has Dan ever given a flying rat's ass about the concerns of his opponents. But having insisted, we'll see if graciousness actually means a damned thing to him.
Carry on.
Bubba...
Q4-B. What was your prior understanding of the role of the moral law in God's plan of salvation, particularly in God's will for the Christian's life after being born again?
What i believed (and, in part, still believe)
1. We are saved by God's grace
2. Through faith in Jesus
3. When we confess the risen son of God
4. By the blood of Jesus
5. Which "paid" our "sin debt" for us
6. That we 100% are NOT saved by our works
7. But we are saved TO DO good works, "in Christ " BY God's grace.
8. And we know HOW to be moral (imperfectly) by reading "God's instruction book," the Bible.
Does that answer your question?
As to me not talking like a conservative Christian, of course I don't. I'm no longer a conservative religionist and I find the language itself is often problematic, which is why when I do use the religious-ese I grew up with, I'll use quotation marks.
Dan
Bubba...
There's nothing inherently wrong with your summary of your previous view of salvation -- though it makes me curious which parts, if any, you would still affirm -- but there's nothing all that insightful either. It's a rote regurgitation of a 6th-grade Sunday School understanding of the Gospel.
Sooo... being able to correctly affirm that I believed traditional evangelical theories somehow indicates that I didn't "reaaalllly" understand it, is that what you're saying?
What language would affirm that I actually understood it?
Ironically, do you all see how very legalistic that seems to be?
Help me understand.
Bubba...
even if he does throw punches below the belt.
? I feel like I've been exceedingly polite and cooperative. What do you perceive to be a punch below the belt?
Dan
Bubba...
but there's nothing all that insightful either. It's a rote regurgitation of a 6th-grade Sunday School understanding of the Gospel.
To be fair, I was trying to keep my summary very brief, because Marshal complains I write too much and also because a brief summary seemed like it would suffice.
I spent years learning a variety of summaries of the various aspects of your traditions, including Constant Contact Consciousness and Evangelism Now. I can go on in length if you prefer. My point, though, is by what reasonable measure have I ever demonstrated a lack of understanding of my former conservative religious opinions and traditions?
Dan
Bubba...
I've already given one concrete example -- your language about how the Bible is a "magic book of rulings"
That's a good example. I'm clearly not saying that this is the term YOU all use. Rather, it's my post-fundamentalist three word critique of conservative views of the Bible, especially as it regards to morality.
My reasoning is that, for y'all...
A. There are a bunch of rules in the Bible, (given to specific people at specific times)
B. That you all think that SOME (but not all) of these rules are universal... sort of... and some are not
C. But you all have no rubric internal to the Bible to make authoritative rulings on these rules... but you DO, as if you just magically know.
Hence, magic rulings book. It's meant to be descriptive, not mean-spirited, although I do also find it humorous.
Am I mistaken and you all DO have an authoritative rubric for making those calls? Please share.
Dan
Re: Bubba's suggestion that my explanation of salvation was perhaps childish and simplistic. I'll remind you what I said:
I. That humanity was fallen and had a "sin nature."
II. That this fallen state separated us from God.
III. That being separated God means that we are "lost in our sin" and, if nothing changes, we are hell-bound.
IV. BUT, that God offers us a way out. IF we acknowledge our fallen state and repent of our sins and ask Jesus to be "Lord of our Lives," God, in "his" grace wanted very much to forgive us of our sins and adopt us as "his" children.
V. That those who repent of their sins, confess that Jesus was the risen son of God and ask Jesus to be "Lord of our lives," WILL be saved. Period. By God's grace, through faith in Jesus.
In doing a google search, what I found was even MORE simplistic, ranging from "repent and accept God and you will be saved..." to, more commonly, this kind of rubric:
1. Hear the Gospel
2. Believe the Gospel
3. Repent of past sins
4. Confess faith in Jesus Christ
5. Be Baptized
6. Be faithful unto death
Or:
1. Hear the Gospel of Christ;
2. Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God;
3. Repent of all his past sins;
4. Confess that Christ is God's Son;
5. Be baptized for the remission of sins.
I mean, my explanation has more background than all of these, while including all of these elements (except for the "be baptized..." which I left off because, while there is disagreement in conservative evangelical world, I don't think most (?) evangelicals would say one must be baptized to be saved... just that we should get baptized)
So, again, I wonder what you imagine that one has to say to "prove" that they really understood these pretty simplistic (if irrational, as I view it) conservative opinions/traditions about salvation?
[1/3]
Dan:
A quick apology on my part, I misnumbered my last question to you, it should have been this:
Q5-B, *NOT* Q4-B. What was your prior understanding of the role of the moral law in God's plan of salvation, particularly in God's will for the Christian's life after being born again?
You answered that question, which I appreciate, but let me briefly digress.
---
You ask, when have you been punching below the belt? It was perhaps a poor metaphor, but I think you've been straining the guidelines of this dialogue (breaking the rules if not actually causing harm or mere offense) for a few days now, in a variety of ways:
1. You've been writing more and more when I've been trying to be more concise.
2. You've continued to ask multiple questions instead of trying to limit yourself to one key question at a time.
3. Your questions have tended to be the sort of leading, "do you not agree" questions when I've made clear that I think they're not very productive.
4. And you haven't been answering the key questions I've been asking.
As best as I can tell, you haven't answered these questions at all:
Q2-B. Do you cound [sic] the minor, "missing the mark" sins as harmful, too? That is to say, does being too harsh in calling something (or someone!) idiotic qualify as causing that person harm, or nah?
Q3-B. What did Jesus call ["love your neighbor"]?
And:
It seems that you believe the following four claims about the Bible.
- The Bible contains universally applicable moral laws.
- The Bible ALSO contains culturally conditional moral laws that only apply (or did apply) to certain people.
- The Bible unfortunately does NOT clearly delineate between those two groups of laws.
- AND, the Bible doesn't assert itself as the supreme source of moral laws.
Q4-B. Is that an accurate summary of the claims you just made? Does it sum up what you believe?
These questions still stand.
[2/3]
In one other respect, this conversation has become as frustrating as previous attempts because you seem not to notice that I've answered your questions, nor do you QUITE grasp my point in multiple places.
"Sooo... being able to correctly affirm that I believed traditional evangelical theories somehow indicates that I didn't "reaaalllly" understand it, is that what you're saying?"
NO, not at all: the traditional language you use isn't somehow proof that you don't understand conservative theology, it's just INSUFFICIENT proof that you DO understand. Like I previously wrote, a man who really understands the Constitution might be able to recite the Preamble, but a man who memorized that one paragraph doesn't grok the doc if he somehow misses the fact that the document constrains the federal government rather than the people.
What is it, then, that makes me think you don't get it? I've answered that, but I'll do it again.
You say, "I'm no longer a conservative religionist and I find the language itself is often problematic, which is why when I do use the religious-ese I grew up with, I'll use quotation marks." That's FINE, but you ALSO use jargon that is COMPLETELY foreign to the mindset, most obnoxiously that nonsense about the Bible being a "magic rulings book."
Look, there's this idea called active listening.
The best evidence that a person really understands someone else is NOT that he can repeat what was said, but that he can RESTATE what he said, in his words, but ALSO in such a way that the speaker can agree, "Yup, you got it: you understand me."
You sometimes seem to present a parody of conservative theology, and that is what has made me think you never really got it in the first place -- but I'm happy to admit that maybe I was wrong the whole time. I'd love to find out that that was the case.
---
So, returning to your answer to Q5-B (formerly my 2nd Q4-B), you essentially write that your old view was that we were saved FOR good works -- not BY good works -- as we are instructed by the Bible.
That seems like a genuinely fair assessment of the evangelical view, so let's continue...
[3/3]
I didn't number the question, but I thought it was worth asking; after you quoted Paul about how that Christ saved us for the sake of freedom, I asked, "freedom from what?"
You answered, "In the context of biblical teachings, especially the teachings of Jesus, but also Pauline teachings, AND just plain moral common sense and reasoning, we are given freedom from the harmful, punitive, destructive notion of a graceless rule-following."
What about grace-filled rule-following? Who ever said that love and law are at odds? Where in the Bible did you ever get that idea?
"FYI: In Galatians, Paul I believe is speaking of the so-called 'Judaizers' who insisted that Gentile converts must first 'become Jewish' by following 'Jewish laws' about circumcision. But more broadly, it's about not living under laws that other humans tell you that you must abide by."
You're right about the context of Paul's letter to the Galatians, but I think you make a critical error about its contents. After all, Paul urges his readers to bear one another's burdens "and so fulfill the law of Christ" (6:3).
The Christian life isn't about "graceless" or "mindless" rule-following, but obedience isn't inherently graceless or mindless! It's certainly not about following human rules, but God can and has provided divine instructions that CLEARLY apply even after being forgiven and justified, after our new birth and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
You summarized it well, what Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:8-10, that we're not saved BY good works but FOR good works, and Paul writes in Romans 8:4 that God's plan is that "the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us."
And it's not just Paul by any stretch of the imagination.
- Jesus claimed that He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.
- Jesus told us that our righteousness must exceed those of the Pharisees, who you wrongly (ludicrously) describe as religious extremists.
- And Jesus affirmed the commandments to love God, to love your neighbor, to honor your parents, and not to steal -- and along the way, He gave us a new commandment, to love each other.
There remains an important place for God's law in the lives of God's people: we must be careful not to put it in the wrong place, but we MUST NOT set it aside, either.
Bubba...
1. You've been writing more and more when I've been trying to be more concise.
2. You've continued to ask multiple questions instead of trying to limit yourself to one key question at a time.
3. Your questions have tended to be the sort of leading, "do you not agree" questions when I've made clear that I think they're not very productive.
First of all, an apology. I guess I missed where we agreed to try to do one question at a time. I'm glad to deal with one question at a time, although that seems clunky, as any one question might lead to multiple follow up questions. I'll try. So, let me begin with this series of comments.
As to the last, when I ask, "Do you agree?" It's because I've laid out what, TO ME, seems like an obvious, clear, compelling point and one I suspect you agree with, BUT, I don't want to assume you agree, BUT I genuinely want to know your opinion about the point in question. So, I'm asking, "Do you agree?"
How do you prefer?
And, I guess that's one question so I'll stop there. But this seems like the conversation will endure an insufferably long time, trying to do it this way.
I'll wait for your answer/response before continuing.
I just want to say that I would like to see this exchange last for as long as it has breath and a heartbeat of its own. I don't care how many comments results. I would say that follow up question are...in general...just fine, as they suggest the question or point wasn't fully resolved. But that can be reduced by how one chooses to form the question.
Bubba's chosen to label questions...at least in his responses. I think both sides should henceforth label their questions from here on out. Each can put their first name initial and a number, as in (if I were involved ) "Question A1". The response could begin "In response to Question A1" and end with, "does this answer Question A1 to your satisfaction?" or something to that effect.
I dunno. I'm still weighing whether to disable comment moderation, for I never wanted to enable it in the first place, were it not for feo's childish posting of the same comment literally 1000 times. Blogger doesn't have the means of blocking individual visitors, which is unfortunate. People like feo are why we can't have nice things.
Agreed about feo... it is, if one is looking for it, more evidence of the costs of multiculturalism. A society can "have nice things" only to the degree that there are shared assumptions and cultural mores, the Left and the Right in the West really constitute quite different cultures.
(Note the link in my name for this particular comment, and take a look at the comments: "In America this would be robbed and completely destroyed in under 2 weeks...")
But anyway...
Dan,
My preference would be one question at a time, but I'm happy to have a more natural and informal conversation IF you understand that I'll be choosy about how I respond. My intent here is ULTIMATELY to cover every topic you've mentioned, but not necessarily every (potentially redundant) question and NOT all at once.
I'll answer questions as it makes sense to me -- as time permits, the most important questions first, and some threads matter more to me because they're leading to some important point that I'm trying to make. I WON'T be ignoring you, and if something is really on your mind, say so, and I'll be happy to tackle it asap!
And, I do have a preference against leading questions like "Do you agree?" but I can deal with them. I can ADDRESS them just fine, I just might have trouble ANSWERING them as-stated if, as is sometimes the case, I need to rephrase the question in order to explain my own beliefs.
For myself, I'll probably continue labeling my non-rhetorical questions for easy reference. Q2-B, Q3-B, & the original Q4-B are still open questions, and I'd love for you to tackle any or all of them when you get a chance.
Bubba,
What "link in your name"? I clicked on your name and got nothing. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
Bubba...
You sometimes seem to present a parody of conservative theology,
By all means, POINT that out to me if and when I do it. I don't think I do. What I DO think happens sometimes is you all read my words, read something INTO my words that I didn't say and then attack that strawman as if it were what I said.
For instance, on the topic of abortion, I've made clear what my position was, why I opposed it:
1. Fetuses are simply pre-born human babies, deserving of a right to life.
2. All humans, fetuses included, are valued by God and those lives are not to be destroyed.
3. Therefore, all abortions are essentially murders. At the time, I didn't even support exceptions for rape/incest (it wasn't the fetus' fault it was a product of rape, therefore, killing the innocent fetus is STILL murder) and was even hesitant to support it in the case of harm or death for the mother, without an abortion. I was very zealous and extreme in my opposition to abortion.
THAT is what I literally believed and why I was so opposed to it. Where is that demonstrating a parody of conservative theology?
So far, it appears you've agreed that my statements are reasonable approximations of conservative opinions.
Now, to answer one (really two, but, well, you'll see) of your questions:
Q3-B. What did Jesus call ["love your neighbor"]?
Any time someone asks me a question with an obvious answer, I assume the question is rhetorical. We all KNOW that the text has a man asking Jesus "What is the greatest COMMANDMENT" and Jesus responding with the Love God, Love your neighbor answer. There's no debate about what the text was that led up to him speaking of that "commandment." The question is what is the intent of Jesus there? We can talk about that, if you wish.
And:
It seems that you believe the following four claims about the Bible.
- The Bible contains universally applicable moral laws.
- The Bible ALSO contains culturally conditional moral laws that only apply (or did apply) to certain people.
- The Bible unfortunately does NOT clearly delineate between those two groups of laws.
- AND, the Bible doesn't assert itself as the supreme source of moral laws.
Q4-B. Is that an accurate summary of the claims you just made? Does it sum up what you believe?
No, not fully. I answered this here on August 9, 2024 at 3:05 PM. Feel free to look it up again. But it's been answered.
I will re-answer the first point you raise so you can see that it's been answered.
You asked if I believed this and four other points:
It seems that you believe the following four claims about the Bible.
- The Bible contains universally applicable moral laws.
MY ANSWER:
"I need to clarify,
there are RULES found written down in the Bible.
Some of them we recognize today as atrocious, greatly evil rules.
Some we may agree with strongly.
BUT, the rules found in the Bible that are
fairly universally applicable are universally applicable
NOT because there is a line in the Bible,
but because it/they make good moral common sense,
given a notion of human rights and doing no harm/the golden rule."
So, again, YES there are rules found in the Bible that many of us today consider universally reasonable. BUT, their appearance in the Bible is not what makes the universally true/applicable.
Am I making sense?
Marshall:
Make sure you're looking at the marshallart.blogspot.page, not the blogger.com page, like this page here:
<a href="https://marshallart.blogspot.com/2024/07/biden-quits-and-nation-is-spared.html?commentPage=2</a>https://marshallart.blogspot.com/2024/07/biden-quits-and-nation-is-spared.html?commentPage=2</a>
The "Bubba" listed for my more recent comments should noticeably display a URL hyperlink. I've been adding a different web link to each page. See if you can find it for this comment, and let me know if you "see the light!"
More later -- will comment to Dan when I can over the next few days, things are about to get busy this evening, and it might not let up until the weekend at the earliest!
(Ugh, the link didn't turn out right -- I hate losing the ability to preview my comments -- but I hope you understood, Marshal.)
(Damned insomnia: I have a little time to comment tonight after all.)
Dan,
Your summary on abortion is a quite reasonable one, and -- pardon my being blunt -- but it makes me wonder who exactly got knocked up and convinced you that you needed to change your mind, but I'll continue to point out examples where I can, where I think you betray an inadequate understanding of theological and/or political conservatism.
Here's another: less than 24 hours ago, you actually wrote the phrase, "ultra-conservatives like Romney."
ROMNEY: the worthless managerial progressive who refused to denounce the individual mandate in his state-level precursor to Obamacare, and the John McCain wannabe who now seeks the Left's approval by denouncing conservatives every chance he can get.
And you wrote this in the context of arguing that Trump is more conservative than Reagan(!) and that modern conservatives are so extreme that we wouldn't support Reagan if he ran in the 2020's -- you happened to do this the same day I received a free 2025 Reagan calendar from the YAF, a calendar I plan to hang up in my office next year.
(The first rule of comedy: timing.)
I'm glad our conversation is going well -- truly -- but you seem to be playing the game, "Tell me you don't understand conservatism without actually saying you don't understand conservatism."
I do appreciate your two answers.
By numbering Q3-B, I think I made clear that it wasn't rhetorical: I further wrote, "That's not a trick question, the answer is right there in the passage itself -- and I believe the answer is just one indication that there's NO conflict between the Biblical concepts of law and love!"
Indeed, the answer's right there, and you didn't actually give it.
"We all KNOW that the text has a man asking Jesus 'What is the greatest COMMANDMENT' and Jesus responding with the Love God, Love your neighbor answer. There's no debate about what the text was that led up to him speaking of that 'commandment.' The question is what is the intent of Jesus there? We can talk about that, if you wish."
Let's do, but it wasn't just the questioner who used the term commandment, Dan.
> This is the great and first commandment. (ESV) - Mt 22:38
And about Q4-B, I didn't suggest it was complete, and I wouldn't because I explicitly focused on four particular claims. What I asked was, was my summary ACCURATE.
(It's basic active listening again. I carefully read what you wrote, I rephrased it in my own words, and I asked if I summarized your position accurately.)
Your answer is VERY helpful, nevertheless, so I thank you quite sincerely.
I think you presume an awful lot in saying, "Some of [the Bible's rules] we recognize today as atrocious, greatly evil rules."
What do you mean, "we," kemo sabe? No doubt you would include the command given to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which Abraham attempted to obey. But not only did Jesus repeatedly make clear that Abraham is a prominent subject of God's kingdom (Mt 8:11, Mk 12:26, Lk 13:28, & esp Lk 16:22ff.), in Hebrews 11:17-19, the author explicitly praised Abraham for his attempted filicide!
But you write, "YES there are rules found in the Bible that many of us today consider universally reasonable. BUT, their appearance in the Bible is not what makes the universally true/applicable."
What about when they appear, not only in Scripture generally, but in the words of our Lord Himself?
Let's go back to "Love God." Are you saying we should obey that command, NOT because it came from God's Son Himself, but because we may consider it reasonable?
What if we don't consider it reasonable?
Q6-B. Suppose a Christian named Tom were confident that Jesus Christ gave him a clear command that he finds unreasonable, not necessarily a DIRECT command to him personally, perhaps merely a command found in the gospels that clearly applies to all His followers. (CS Lewis points out that many people balk at the command to love your neighbor and the prohibition of revenge.) How would you counsel Tom in his moral dilemma? Would you tell him to trust and obey, or would you tell him to go with his gut, or would you tell him something else?
Here I think we're finally getting to the heart of the matter.
Bubba...
I think you presume an awful lot in saying, "Some of [the Bible's rules] we recognize today as atrocious, greatly evil rules."
I don't think so, at all, at least in some cases. For instance, OT commands to enslave people or to slaughter innocent people including children and infants. I don't think there's any doubt that modern moral consensus is that slavery is always a great evil. That deliberately targeting innocents for slaughter is a great evil.
Those are rules presented in the OT as moral commands from God, right?
And people today would reject them as moral and, indeed, denounce them as a great evil.
Do you suspect that's wrong?
Dan
Damn this lack of comment-preview, but I screwed up the HTML formatting again, opening an *I* italics block without closing it.
THIS ought to fix it, if still necessary, sorry about that, y'all!
Dan, why not address the one example I mentioned? It's a divine command to a specific patriarch and not a universal moral obligation, but then again, the command to Israel to wipe out the Canaanites wasn't universal, either.
Q7-B. Should we consider the command to sacrifice Isaac a "great evil"? If not, why not?
Bubba...
And you wrote this in the context of arguing that Trump is more conservative than Reagan(!) and that modern conservatives are so extreme that we wouldn't support Reagan if he ran in the 2020's
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I think Trump is amoral and without any significant political principles. I do NOT think he is more conservative than Reagan.
And, at the same time, I think the party - the now magop since it is fully run by Trump - is more extremist than Reagan ever was and that he would be viewed as too moderate by today's GOP/magop. Even while Trump is no real conservative.
Does that make sense? I think both things are true.
Bubba...
The best evidence that a person really understands someone else is NOT that he can repeat what was said, but that he can RESTATE what he said, in his words, but ALSO in such a way that the speaker can agree, "Yup, you got it: you understand me."
Again, there are two things happening at the same time. ANYtime that someone wants me to explain what I believed then, I can tell them in the terms I used to use/believe.
BUT at the same time, I no longer believe those things now and so I will speak in the way I do now to distinguish Dan's ideas today from back then.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but ANY time that I've literally explained to you all what I believed back then, you haven't found fault in my wording or any reason to doubt that this is not what I actually believe (well, Marshal does, but that's his issue).
That is, I opposed abortion because I thought it was the murder of a human innocent. Period. AND because I thought God was opposed to the murder of human innocents. Those ARE conservative reasons for being opposed to abortion.
(And for what it's worth, I didn't change my position on abortion because someone I knew got pregnant and had an unwanted pregnancy. To be honest, I changed my position - and it was one of the final conservative positions I left behind - because the more I listened to conservative reasons, the less rational and the less Christian and the less convincing I found those arguments. Conservatives scared me away from being anti-abortion.)
Bubba...
Q7-B. Should we consider the command to sacrifice Isaac a "great evil"? If not, why not?
Any command to kill a child is a horror and an evil. EVEN IF this "god" was going to jerk the knife away and say, "GOTCHA! Naw, man, I was just kidding. But Jesus-Me, what's wrong with you that you were gonna go along with it!?"
That is my opinion.
Do you think that there are times when it's actually not evil... and in fact, MORAL... to command someone to murder their child??
?
At the very least, can you understand how rational, morally-reasoning humans can find the suggestion a great horror?
I think that's one of the problems of treating all of the Bible as a literal history and insist that any "commands" we might find from "god" represent literal reality. It's a failure of internal consistency within the pages of the Bible.
We ought not kill children, it's a moral atrocity... BUT, sometimes "god" might command us to do that, and THEN, it would be wrong to disobey "god..."
It makes a mockery of a perfect, almighty just and loving God, IF you value the Bible's teachings. Or that's how it honestly seems to me. It represents a low view of both the Bible and of God.
Dan, I understand that you think the GOP under Trump "is more extremist than Reagan ever was," but the belief reinforces my belief that you don't really understand either politician, though I would LOVE to know which of Trump's policies you think are too extreme for Reaganism.
You've asked for what I think is evidence of your shallow understanding of conservatism, and this is the third bit of evidence I've pointed to today. I'm not going to change my mind about your understanding of conservatism simply on your say-so: your writing speaks for itself.
Getting back to the topic at hand:
Q6-B, restated: what do you suggest a Christian do if he believes one of Christ's commands is unreasonable?
Q7-B, restated: do you believe God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac was reasonable or not?
I'm not sure if you want me to continue answering your questions or wait til you address my answers and answer my questions. But because you've asked:
Q6-B. Suppose a Christian named Tom were confident that Jesus Christ gave him a clear command that he finds unreasonable, not necessarily a DIRECT command to him personally, perhaps merely a command found in the gospels that clearly applies to all His followers.
How would you counsel Tom in his moral dilemma?
IF he wants to be a follower of Jesus, he should follow Jesus as best he understands what Jesus is promoting and as best he can use his moral reasoning... so long as he's causing no clear harm to someone.
I would counsel him that IF he thought Jesus was teaching us to hate our mothers and fathers just because that line was in the Bible, that he should not be hateful to his mother and father for no reason, as that would be harmful.
I would counsel him that IF he thought Jesus/God were telling him to do harm to others (selling his daughter into slavery or the like), that he should not do that. Otherwise, sure, he should strive to follow Jesus AND he should strive to do right, those things which are good, kind, loving, helpful, pure, etc.
Does that answer your question? Perhaps if you gave an example of what Tom was pondering.
Would you tell him to trust and obey, or would you tell him to go with his gut, or would you tell him something else?
Answered above.
Look, I don't think moral questions, in general, are that hard to understand. Jesus and most religions and philosophies affirm, "love God and love people." Or at least, Do unto others.
I would always counsel people to be kind, helpful, loving, accepting, welcoming, affirming, gracious, forgiving... these things we know to be of God.
AND, if someone considers it "helpful" to say actually hurtful things, harmful - or arrogant and presumptuous - things (like "God hates f****" Or, "I'm not going to call you by your preferred pronouns, I know better than you what gender you should identify as"), I would counsel them to, once again, do no harm AND not let your biases or opinions convince you that harmful actions and words are actually helpful.
Again, I don't think it's that hard, generally speaking.
I really running out of patience. Dan's doing what Dan does and nothing is more clear or persuasive than it's ever been as a result. Somewhere around the end of August I will be opening up this discussion to comments from other than Bubba, Dan and yours truly. Thus far this seems a most fruitless experiment.
Carry on.
Marshal, I'm less sanguine about this conversation too: mutual understanding might be just out of reach, but maybe this will remain an excellent resource documenting just what Dan and I believe and the stark differences between them.
Dan:
I've tried to answer the questions you've asked -- to ADDRESS them when I cannot ANSWER them as-written -- but one reason I've wanted the more formal approach of exchanging numbered questions one-at-a-time is to avoid this particular complaint. If there's a question you desperately want me to answer, point it out, and I'll get to it as soon as it's feasible for me to do so, despite remaining quite busy in the real world.
Your question about the morality of taking human life, however, is something I'm tackling right now, but my best approach might just be asking a question in return.
Q8-B. Why exactly is murder wrong?
Here, "it just is" is unacceptable. Let me stipulate that murder and theft are both obviously immoral, but the rationale is more than just an appeal to what's obvious.
"Joey, don't steal Timmy's Pokemon cards," Joey's father might say, "because they belong to Timmy." The concept of the ownership of private property is the reason why theft is wrong.
Perhaps a similar reason underlies the prohibition of murder: it's wrong to take another man's life because he belongs to himself. If that's not the reason (and I don't think it is), what IS the reason?
How should Joey's dad explain why taking a life is wrong?
(...or, how would explain WHEN it's wrong? Not all of us believe that ALL instances of taking human life is immoral: hence, support for capital punishment and the just war doctrine.)
About Q6-B, I appreciate the answer...
"IF he wants to be a follower of Jesus, he should follow Jesus as best he understands what Jesus is promoting and as best he can use his moral reasoning... so long as he's causing no clear harm to someone."
...and I think I have a very solid real-world example: what about the outright command to ostracize an unrepentant brother, found in Mt 18:15-17?
If I understand you, this is your position:
1. Ostracism causes harm.
2. Harmful ostracism is bad when employed against "gay folks."
3. Harmful ostracism is okay -- it's proper "punishment" -- when employed against Christians who express the belief that homosexual acts are sinful.
I still don't understand how you can say #3 when you're otherwise opposed to harm in all its forms, but never mind that for now:
> [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Let's say Tom is a deacon or some other leader in a local congregation, he GENUINELY believes that Jesus commanded excommunication, but he genuinely believes stigma is harmful, and now he's part of a group facing the responsibility of deciding whether to excommunicate two church members who are unrepentant about committing adultery to the harm of their spouses.
(They say they are no longer in love with their spouses: they're in love with each other.)
What do you suggest Tom should do?
Art,
That you though that Dan would do anything else than what he always does surprises me. We've all had variations of this conversations with Dan and Dan's responses haven't changed. Given that this conversation is pushing 300 comments, and this dialogue doesn't even start until 200, it's probably too much to follow at this point. Bubba is doing a fine job responding to Dan and I fail to see how adding additional voices would help, especially after another 50-100 comments in the next weeks.
Craig,
I never thought any such thing, my friend. Why would I after 16+ years to this very same nonsense....16+ years of no change in posture, attitude or openness?
Nor do I suppose that adding additional voices would help in the least, because it's never been a matter of understanding or truth seeking for Dan, but rather a matter of pushing his leftist, anti-Christian agenda without regard for either. Nonetheless, I do not like to let falsehoods and deceptive practices just lie there without response. Bubba hasn't really been dealing with that per se, but rather just trying to act according to the agreement between them in spite of it.
Anyway, I allowed for it all and do not regret it. I'll take any and every opportunity to hit it again, though my expectations where Dan...and leftists in general, but Dan most specifically... is concerned are always very low. He gives no reason for hope in that regard. That's why so many won't even allow his comments to appear on his blog.
With that said, I leave comment 300 to be claimed by the next visitor.
Did someone say 300? :-)
WE HAVE A WINNER!
Answering Bubba's questions:
Q8-B. Why exactly is murder wrong?
Because it is a violation of human rights. Each person has the right to life, liberty and the more vague pursuit of happiness. Taking that life deprives a human of their human rights and thus, is wrong.
Your "his life belongs to himself" is equally valid and I would say just another way of saying human rights.
Why do you think it is wrong?
Bubba:
...and I think I have a very solid real-world example: what about the outright command to ostracize an unrepentant brother, found in Mt 18:15-17?
If I understand you, this is your position:
1. Ostracism causes harm.
2. Harmful ostracism is bad when employed against "gay folks."
3. Harmful ostracism is okay -- it's proper "punishment" -- when employed against Christians who express the belief that homosexual acts are sinful.
To clarify: My position is that in this world, there are people who have been historically oppressed, abused and harmed. The poor, immigrants, widows, orphans (in biblical times, for instance) and the enslaved, people of color, LGBTQ folks, women (in Biblical times and now).
To ostracize or deprive of opportunities those who are already deprived of opportunities - the poor and marginalized - adds an extra level of penalty, harm and oppression to them.
If I'm a wealthy man with all the privileges of the ruling class and some group says, "Well, we're not supporting Dan and won't give him jobs" is literally nothing to me, as a rich and privileged man.
But if I'm a poor black man in the Jim Crow US, and employer after employer denies me employment to ostracize me as a black man... or realtor/home owner after home owner refuses to sell me a house, I'm significantly more disadvantaged. Historically, to the point of oppression.
Does that seem reasonable to you, as far as that goes?
Now, to your three ostracism points.
Ostracism MIGHT cause some degree of discomfort and it may cause actual harm. It depends upon the circumstances. But ostracism itself is not wrong. Of course.
Indeed, it can be and has been a mighty tool in dealing with oppressors. To boycott a racist employer or group, to bring attention to harmful acts (as in refusing to sell a house to a family because they are black or LGBTQ), that can be a useful and non-violent tool to affect change.
On the other hand, to kick a gay fella out of his family and out of his church NOT because he's done anything wrong, but simply because he won't repent for being who he is, that does cause harm. Have you never comforted a beloved LGBTQ friend who has been kicked out and demonized by their family? When you've heard the stories as often as I have, as often as LGBTQ folks know personally, then you can recognize harm.
All of that to say that ostracism itself is not wrong. It depends on who is being harmed and why. Harming someone for being black, LGBTQ, female or otherwise part of a group that has been historically oppressed, that's something to avoid.
Does that help?
Art,
Your circus, your monkeys. I'm speaking as someone trying to follow this mess and not engage in the conversation. I applaud Bubba for wading through the excrement of Dan's tired, old, mantras and trying to play by the established rules. It seems clear that Dan is unwilling to be constrained by anything that would limit his ability to do or say whatever he wants, whenever he wants.
I do have to point out that Bubba is regularly asking Dan how he deals with a specific scripture that says specifically X. If Dan responds, it's with some scripture that's vague, and doesn't really address anything specific, which Dan then filters through his own biases. This whole conversation, as with most where Dan is involved is apples to bat guano.
Dan, I appreciate the answer, but I disagree:
"Your 'his life belongs to himself' is equally valid and I would say just another way of saying human rights."
I don't see how you can say your life belongs to yourself: you didn't create it at the beginning, and you don't judge your life to determine your soul's final disposition at the end.
You know the story of how Jesus was asked about taxes, but I wonder if you really examined His answer.
He took a coin and asked, whose image is this? The answer was Caesar's, and he responded, render to Caesar what is Caesar's, render to God what is God's.
LOOK CLOSELY: pay taxes to Caesar because the coin is made in his image.
What do we owe to God? Well, what is made in His image??
...that leads to my next question:
Q9-B. According to the Bible, why is murder wrong?
It's actually a very easy question to answer if you know the biblical history of the principle of capital punishment for murder.
re: the varied personal attacks. I truly don't get it. Bubba asked me to answer some questions from him and said he'd try to answer mine. I've been quite politely answering questions in as clear and direct manner as I can.
I can totally get you all saying, "No, I can't buy that answer as rational (biblical, whatever) because..." But that need not be a personal attack or some suggestion of me "not playing by the rules" or whatever it is you all think I'm doing.
What I'm doing is answering questions as best I can. While I don't really care about your all's ongoing insults, I just don't see the purpose other than to make yourselves look bad, but why do that?
And I'm not sure if answering another of Bubba's questions conflicts with the "rules" you all think I should be abiding by, but here's a quickie:
What do you suggest Tom should do? [regarding an adulterous couple who broke up two marriages within a church.]
That would be (and probably is, as it probably has happened in the real world) a tough situation for all involved. Depending on the details, I don't think a church would be out of line to request that the offending pair leave the congregation. Not so much about the adultery, but about the harm and on-going harm it might have. In most churches, I suspect that they would self-select out. I was in a more conservative church in my young adult years where that actually happened and they self-selected out.
Bubba:
if there's a question you want me to answer, point it out...
Do you think that there are times when it's actually not evil... and in fact, MORAL... to command someone to murder their child, OR someone else's child?
At the very least, can you understand how rational, morally-reasoning humans can find the suggestion a great horror?
Dan
Craig...
I do have to point out that Bubba is regularly asking Dan how he deals with a specific scripture that says specifically X. If Dan responds, it's with some scripture that's vague, and doesn't really address anything specific, which Dan then filters through his own biases...
1. And you think you all do something different? You do realize that is precisely one of my complaints about your collective approach...?
2. The difference being I'm clear that my opinions are my opinions.
3. Where specifically have I done that in this conversation?
Dan
I'll note that Dan, at his blog, has pulled out the "You never answer any questions." trope that he loves so much and applied it to Bubba. When all Bubba has done is answer question after question.
Starting here, Dan also asked literally TWENTY questions of me in less than 60 minutes. This is no way to run a railroad, and I've asked him to limit himself to a couple questions at a time and to post those questions here so I no longer have to manage a single conversation over multiple threads.
Ultimately, the conversations here and at his blog are colliding: here we're discussing the righteousness of God's more difficult commands, there we're discussing the righteousness of God's eternal judgment, and in both cases, Dan seems to balk at the idea that the Bible's clear teachings are compatible with God's holy justice.
---
Dan:
"Do you think that there are times when it's actually not evil... and in fact, MORAL... to command someone to murder their child, OR someone else's child?"
I am willing to answer this question and the other question you ask here after you answer mine.
Q9-B. According to the Bible, why is murder wrong?
Dan,
Focus on your conversation. We can discuss our problems with your manner some other time.
Bubba:
Q9-B. According to the Bible, why is murder wrong?
I feel like I've been abundantly clear, but I don't mind answering again.
"The Bible" doesn't "tell" us anything about why murder is wrong. The Bible holds no opinions and tells us nothing.
Jesus is recorded once as saying that even saying race is subject to judgement, but he doesn't say they're equally bad AND if he did say that, was he speaking metaphorically or literally?
You and I literally do not know.
The Bible says nothing about murder. That's the literal, direct and objectively factual answer to your question.
Do you have objective proof that says otherwise?
Dan
Saying, Raca. Dang spell check .
Dan
It looks like I left a stray [I] HTML tag open. THIS ought to fix it, sorry!
Dan, you're being deliberately obtuse, and it's moments like this that I least regret my previous conclusion that you're either a liar or an idiot.
(I'll reiterate that I think your basic intelligence is obvious, so that leaves only one option.)
"'The Bible' doesn't 'tell' us anything about why murder is wrong. The Bible holds no opinions and tells us nothing."
Fuck off with that bullshit.
Math books tell us everything from the transitive property of equality to the simple fact that 2+2 is 4. History books tell us that the Jamestown colony was found in 1607, a fact that remains inconvenient to the transparently misleading 1619 Project. And even novels like Lord of the Flies tell us about the corruption of humankind extending even into childhood.
Like its author, a book can tell us things that are false, like how Dawkins' The God Delusion infamously asserts that Yahweh is "a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
True or false, the Bible tells us many things.
- God exists.
- God commands us to love Him wholeheartedly.
- Jesus loves us -- this I know, for the Bible mentions it somewhere or another in some obscure passage.
And the Bible tells us why murder is wrong.
If you don't know where it does this, just say so, and I'll fill in the blanks. But I'd rather you see it for yourself, and I'll even give you a hint where. Think Mount Ararat.
I have a song for this occasion:
Jesus loves me, this I know
For the Bible tells me so
Wait, the Bible doesn't tell me anything
Because it doesn't have a mouth or I don't really get figurative language
It's just a rough draft, I'm still working on the rhyme and meter.
[1/2]
Ugh, after nearly two weeks, I'm still suffering from bouts of insomnia: I wonder if I'll hold up my side of this dialogue nearly as well when my schedule resumes and I don't have so many waking hours available to spend.
---
Dan, I'm going to go ahead and combine our conservation on sin over at your blog with this conversation: there's more than overlap, and I'm tired of juggling multiple threads to maintain a single conversation.
Yesterday you write, among your many other questions, the following:
"In what sense am I NOT a Christian, even by typical conservative religious opinion?
I believe in God the creator
I believe in Jesus, the son of God
Who came teaching us God's way
Who was killed by the powerful and religious
and three days later rose from the dead.
I recognize my failings as a human
and I confess my sins and
'ask Jesus to be Lord of my life.'
"What more would you require as 'proof of salvation?' What additional beliefs must I hold/ideas must I agree with in order to be saved?"
Here we're wading into very deep waters indeed, so let me explain my beliefs point by point.
1. Matthew 7:13 rules out universalism, no matter how much I would genuinely prefer that we all end up together in paradise: it seems that God takes free will too seriously to force us into heaven against our will. (See CS Lewis on "thy will be done.")
However, I believe that God's grace and mercy may well mean that more than Christians are saved. I believe that all genuine Christians end up in heaven, but perhaps more are saved, including children too young to understand sin and salvation. (I think people go too far in suggesting the OT says nothing about the afterlife; 2 Sam 12:23 is very intriguing in this regard!)
After all, the Patriarchs and (most of the) Prophets preceded Christ's earthly ministry, but clearly these proto-Christians made it into heaven, and we can know this because Abraham and Moses and Elijah make appearances in Jesus' story of the rich man & Lazarus and in the Transfiguration.
Christ is the only way to salvation: no one comes to the Father but through him, and there is no other name by which we (note:) MUST be saved, but it's not clear to me that every one who places their trust in God's Son must know that He was named Jesus of Nazareth, ostensibly the son of Joseph the carpenter, and declared by God Himself to be the Jewish Messiah (translated Christ in the Greek).
Ultimately, this is all speculation, and I think I see a good reason why it would be: God has no reason to tell us that their contingency plans for those to whom we do not evangelize. The supreme commander might plan a bombing run to blow up the bridge if we don't hold it, but all our platoon needs to know is that we're ordered to take and hold the bridge: everything is on a need-to-know basis, and the army doesn't need to know all the plans for the air force, and in fact knowledge of those plans might discourage us from doing our duty to the utmost. Who cares if we can't take this crucial bridge if we know our allies in the air are going to blow it up if we don't?
All that remains is to carry out our own orders and trust the Commander has everything covered. This is one big reason I make sure to teach the song "Jesus Loves Me" when my wife and I teach the three-year-olds class at church.
[2/2]
2. Even though I believe a man might be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ, perhaps just with a vague faith in a Creator and Redeemer God, I'm not sure how one could be saved, not merely in the absence of faith but in the outright rejection of faith.
I do believe most atheists are actually bitter, angry theists who lash out at God by denying He exists, but regardless: if salvation depends even on the most rudimentary faith in God, I don't see how an explicit denial of His existence allows that to be a possibility.
Again you ask, "What additional beliefs must I hold/ideas must I agree with in order to be saved?"
"God exists" seems to be a big one IF, that is, we are saved by faith in God. I don't see how one can have faith in a Being whose existence he outright denies.
3. But that leads me to, as it were, your confession of faith. NOTHING you wrote was wrong, all of it was good, but the omissions are glaringly obvious.
- Nothing about salvation from your sins
- Nothing about salvation through Christ's death
- Nothing about salvation by God's grace
- Nothing about salvation received by faith
- In fact, there was NOTHING about salvation at all, in whatever terminology one might see
(You asked Jesus to be your Lord, you said nothing about His being your Savior.)
That's why I consider your summary statements to be quite rudimentary for a Christian. Did you forgot about these wonderful truths? Do you downplay them? Or do you omit them because you deny them?
A man who was really transparent about his supposed Christian beliefs would explain why those beliefs did not include one single word about salvation.
Bubba:
True or false, the Bible tells us many things.
- God exists.
- God commands us to love Him wholeheartedly.
- Jesus loves us -- this I know, for the Bible mentions it somewhere or another in some obscure passage.
And the Bible tells us why murder is wrong.
False. The Bible literally tells us nothing. You don't have to like it, but that's the reality.
That is your objectively, demonstrably factual one answer, per your request. And even if it upsets you for me to precise this way, I've explained why it's important to this conversation to be precise. Perhaps if you'd deal with this distinction: there are lines in the Bible "telling us" many things, but what those passages "tell us" does not equate to God telling us... we readers need to interpret them. If you addressed that concern, then perhaps I can use the Bible tells us" language. Until you address that, I'll have to use literally precise language.
My one question to you:
There are texts in the Bible that describe God commanding Israel to enslave some people and slaughter others, including children and babies.
True or false. I'd be glad to answer more but am adhering to your one question per comment rule.
Your turn.
Dan
Bubba...
Dan, you're being deliberately obtuse
And...
Fuck off with that bullshit.
Math books tell us everything from the transitive property of equality
Clearly, my pointing out the objective reality that "the Bible" "tells" us nothing bothers you and I'm not sure if you understand why I'm doing that (it's for a vital reason, in this conversation). You can tell me if you want if you understand.
If I say, "The Epic of Gilgamesh tells us that Gilgamesh was a wild man created by the gods. The goddess Ishtar sends the Bull of Heaven to punish Gilgamesh for spurning her advances... among other things..." everyone recognizes that this is someone noting the reality that Gilgamesh has these sorts of stories with it and NO ONE thinks it is a literal story.
If I affirm that the Bible "tells the story" of Adam being created by God and Eve being created from a rib from Adam, that is TRUE in the sense that there is a biblical text that recounts that story. But for too many conservatives, that ALSO equates to, "And therefore, that is the literal history of the first man and woman..." and the same on moral topics, too. Because so many conservatives conflate "the Bible tells me..." with, "therefore, GOD tells me," for conversations like this, it is vital to distinguish between is it a story or text in the Bible VS is it a literal fact or literal "ruling..."
If there were no presumption that when you all say, "Does the Bible tell us..." as a means to sort out an objective truth, then I could go with "the Bible tells us." But you'd have to make clear that the presumption does not exist.
I hope that makes sense.
Bubba...
Nothing about salvation from your sins
- Nothing about salvation through Christ's death
- Nothing about salvation by God's grace
- Nothing about salvation received by faith
- In fact, there was NOTHING about salvation at all
So, because you're still asking new questions, I'll answer one more. Not sure how many questions you want to keep asking while I wait for you to deal with my last one, so I'll just do this one more.
So, in your personal human opinion, if someone does not mention "salvation" in listing points about being saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, that THIS means they're not saved? Do you think it's a matter of me using the right words that needs to be in place before I'm saved? As a point of fact, I do not view being Christian in terms of being "saved from sin by the sacrifice of Jesus and his blood being used to cover my sins..." (although there may be a small element of truth to that human language talking about salvation). Do you think I need to affirm that "I was saved from sin by Jesus using his blood (literal or otherwise) to cover my sins..." in order to be saved?
1. I think Bubba is doing precisely the opposite of what you do. He's presenting scriptural support for his answers, while you simply offer your hunches.
2. No you're really not. You regularly state your "opinions" as simple direct declarations.
3. Throughout.
Bubba,
Dan regularly does that. He regularly asks the same question multiple times in one comment because he assumes that I won't answer it the first time, then bitches when I don't answer the multiple restatements of the first (answered) question.
[1/3]
Dan,
About whether the Bible or indeed any book "tells" us anything, you don't need to mention Gilgamesh because I've already made the same point with a modern work, namely Dawkins' God Delusion.
The God Delusion does indeed tell us that YHWH is a malevolent bully. It tells us something that isn't true, but it does tell us this, and perhaps more than those merely entertaining ancient epics -- Gilgamesh, the Odyssey, Beowulf, all in contrast to the instructive epic of Job -- it means to tell us something that we are supposed to accept as true, even though I reject its teachings as God-hating nonsense.
I could certainly be more precise in saying that Moses or Paul tells us something through the biblical text, but I think most mentally capable adults recognize that that's exactly what I'm saying when I say, the Bible tells us something.
You do make a good point that we should distinguish between the Bible's clear & unmistakable teachings and those merely human interpretations about which reasonable men can disagree.
For instance, I think there's room to argue over whether Genesis 1 requires six 24-hour days -- after all, in contrast to Gen 6 or Exodus or Luke, there could have been NO human eyewitnesses to events preceding our own creation! -- but there's no room to disagree that the passage teaches, as 1:1 put it quite bluntly, God created everything.
An atheist can DENY that teaching's truthfulness, but no reasonable man can deny that it's a clear and obvious teaching from the text.
I know what you'll say, "obvious to who? On whose authority do you declare things to be obvious?"
My answer is, obvious to everyone, and I need no authority JUST as the kid needed no special authority to point out that the king had no clothes. It's obvious from the text itself, and I reject the question-begging that suggests a reasonable man MIGHT have an alternate view IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT ALTERNATE VIEW.
[2/2]
Let's set the bar just below perfect omniscience: let's set it to "beyond a reasonable doubt." If you think a text arguably has an alternative meaning to the one I present, give me that alternative. Otherwise, you're just gainsaying.
I would actually categorize biblical claims into three categories:
1. Bible-eXplicit (call it "BX" for short), what the text explicitly claims; for instance, the NT clearly records that Jesus teaches His followers the command, "Love your neighbor."
2. Bible-implicit ("BI"), what the text implies to the exclusion of all possible alternatives; the parable of the Good Samaritan clearly teaches that our "neighbor" includes every human being we encounter, even though it doesn't say so in so many words.
("The Lord is one," says the Bible as a BX claim, and so simple theism is AT WORST a BI claim. So too is the Trinity: the Bible never uses the term, but its teachings point exclusively in that direction by teaching the three Persons are all God but all distinct; it teaches the Trinity in exclusion to the alternatives such as unitarianism, modalism, or polytheism.)
3. Human interpretation ("HI") where spiritually mature, literate and informed, and mentally capable adults can reasonably agree to disagree. One might think the best way to love one's neighbor is through private charity, another might prefer public welfare programs, but the Bible doesn't actually go into this level of detail.
(Similarly, the Bible commands -- "BX" -- that Christians be baptized. It's entirely a matter of human intepretation -- "HI" -- whether that baptism requires, following all the NT examples, immersion in a natural body of water and not mere sprinkling or an artificial tub of water. I personally believe in immersion, but I allow for a bathtub in the sanctuary.)
BX and BI teachings aren't merely my opinions, they're the teachings of the Bible's authors -- Moses and David and Luke and John -- and if the Bible is true about its own origins, they are ALSO authored by God.
BX and BI teachings aren't human opinions at all, they're divine revelation.
As Christians we have a responsibility to accept that revelation and to proclaim it to others. Whether and to what degree the moral obligations should be enshrined in law are merely "HI" human interpretations about which we can actually disagree.
[3/3 -- the previous comment was supposed to be 2/3, not 2/2. Marshal, please delete the VERY short comment I just posted!]
Finally, about salvation:
I'm not saying that a person must recite some special formula in order to be saved: I'm just noting that your list of orthodox beliefs appears to be WOEFULLY incomplete, and I wonder whether that's a deliberate omission.
It's like you're listing the ingredients for French toast -- egg, milk, optionally cinnamon -- but you're leaving out the bread. Nothing you list is wrong, per se, but what you leave out is substantial: it's a material omission.
"As a point of fact, I do not view being Christian in terms of being "saved from sin by the sacrifice of Jesus and his blood being used to cover my sins..." (although there may be a small element of truth to that human language talking about salvation)."
Again, if it's in the Bible, it's not merely human language, it's divine revelation, and Jesus Himself taught that His blood was being shed for the forgiveness of sins.
But here you're not being clear: you might believe that we're saved from sin just because God declares us forgiven without any restitution (from prior conversations, I suspect this is your view), or you may deny the need to be saved at all (you've recently implied that one can have a right relationship with God apart from obedience). I do wish you would be more clear.
But in my asking you to clarify your views, I didn't make the question a primary question for which I actually want an answer.
I still have a prior question that I want you to answer.
Q9-B. According to the Bible, why is murder wrong?
"So, in your personal human opinion, if someone does not mention "salvation" in listing points about being saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, that THIS means they're not saved?"
I have no way of knowing whether or not you're "saved". What I suspect is that your failure to mention salvation in any way shape or from as you listed a few talking points, is that you don't find the salvation parts of The Gospel to be particularly important or worth mentioning.
Bubba:
Q9-B. According to the Bible, why is murder wrong?
I do not know that "Scripture" has offered a reason of WHY murder is wrong. There may be words in there somewhere that suggest something like "for because mankind wast made in my image, thou shalt not take a life..." sort of in the vein of "because you were refugees/immigrants/strangers once and know of that need, you should welcome strangers..."
But we don't need to find verses within the Bible to know reasonably well that some things are wrong - things like murder, rape, oppression, slavery... these things are wrong because the infringe upon basic human rights that are self-evident. You have no right to kill me and take my life away because as a human, I have a right to life. Period. Whatever the Bible may say, that is the fundamental reason.
Do you hold another opinion?
This is the problem I have with treating the Bible as a rulings book. We don't NEED to find a line in the Bible to know that some things are wrong. As Lewis and others might rightly note, there is that (of God, I believe) within humanity that recognizes moral boundaries, even if it is imperfectly. Given sufficient time and enlightenment, we've grown to identify that as the self-evident notion of human rights. IF we start with "Well, where's a line in the bible that appears to address this point in some way?" then it seems to me we're denying that of God written (figuratively) within us, within the human psyche.
What's your opinion?
Dan
Craig...
What I suspect is that your failure to mention salvation in any way shape or from as you listed a few talking points, is that you don't find the salvation parts of The Gospel to be particularly important or worth mentioning.
What is true is that I disagree with conservative traditions and opinions about "total depravity " and human atonement theories are not the best way to rightly understand God.
Would you add, People must affirm something like human atonement and sinner theories in order to be saved?
I believe in salvation by God's grace. Period. I further believe in Jesus, as God's son and as God, and repentance and in following Jesus, but I believe in salvation by God's grace.
What other human opinions must I affirm in order to be saved?
Dan
Regarding your Bx, Bi, Hi categories, help clarify with an example.
Jesus is literally, explicitly recorded as saying that those who follow him must hate their mother and father, spouse and children, etc. or they can't be his follower.
That IS an Bx, explicit teaching of Jesus in your category system, right?
Does that mean that "the Bible teaches that we must hate our families if we want to follow Jesus..."?
Note: there are no caveats or textual clues/cues in the Luke 14 text that says Jesus is speaking metaphorically.
Dan
[1/3]
Dan,
I don't know why you put Scripture in scare quotes when we should all know what I mean: the Bible, the 66 books of the Christian canon.
Indeed, murder is wrong, but the reason matters: it's not enough to say that one has the right to life because that's just saying the same thing in different terms, just like "the right to property" is another way of saying that others shouldn't steal. The reason matters because human beings aren't the only part of the equation, God exists and has a supreme role in our lives, too.
- If taking human life is categorically wrong, then even God cannot take life.
- OTOH, if taking human life is wrong BECAUSE IT'S GOD'S PREROGATIVE, then He certainly can take life when we should not: the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.
And in fact, that's exactly what we find literally centuries before the Ten Commandments were given, in Genesis 9:6:
Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
This command that both permits and even requires capital punishment for murderers is given in the context of the Flood, when God destroyed almost all of mankind because our violence filled the earth (6:11). It was His right to end human life, and He did, and to those He spared He also gave the doctrine of capital punishment, authorizing man to take the life of murders on His behalf.
"You shouldn't take my life because I belong to God," is biblical.
"Not even God should take my life because I belong to myself," is, I think, literally diabolical.
[2/3]
You say you believe in salvation... salvation from what, exactly? You've recently argued that the doctrine of hell is inappropriate at least for the minor infractions that the typical human being commits over the course of his life.
You say you affirm salvation by God's grace, but what about salvation through Christ's death?
This is no mere "human opinion," this is what God has revealed through His prophets and apostles and supremely through His son.
The prophet Isaiah said that we would be healed by the wounds of the suffering servant, and the prophet John declared Jesus to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The apostle Paul taught that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (no scare-quotes), the apostle Peter taught that we were ransomed by the precious blood of Christ, and the apostle John taught that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
And Jesus Himself taught that His blood was being shed for the forgiveness of sins.
Why you reject these clear teachings of Jesus and His Apostles you have never satisfactorily made clear, but what is clear is that you reject revelation when you don't like it, as with the subjects of God's wrath, the moral obligation of God's law, and even the reason God made us male and female.
Christians like Craig and me have good reason to question your claim of Christian fellowship.
[3/3]
Finally, about my categorization of divine revelation and human interpretation, you ask, "Does [Luke 14] mean that 'the Bible teaches that we must hate our families if we want to follow Jesus...'?"
I believe it's explicit (BX) that Jesus taught His followers that they cannot follow Him unless they hate their families, but I think it's equally clear albeit implicit (BI) that Jesus only meant that our love for Christ should be so absolute that all other relationships are nothing in comparison, that it is AS IF we hated our parents and wife, etc.
After all, Luke 14:26 doesn't occur in a vacuum. In Luke 18:20, Jesus affirms that commandment that you should honor your father and mother, and the whole breadth of His teaching is so dominated by love -- love God, love your neighbor, love even your enemy -- that the church has rightly and consistently recognized that 14:26 contains an example of hyperbole to make a very striking point.
One could reach another conclusion only by ignoring the context of Scripture as a whole, and of course you're welcome to argue the contrary, but no such argument exists. The burden of proof is on you to show me otherwise.
Answering Bubba's question:
You say you believe in salvation... salvation from what, exactly? You've recently argued that the doctrine of hell is inappropriate at least for the minor infractions that the typical human being commits over the course of his life.,/I>
Salvation FOR grace. FOR the beloved community. We are saved from the hell of hate and selfishness and greed TO the welcoming, accepting beloved community of Grace, God's realm, where we are saved BY God's sweet grace, NOT by affirming an unending list of tenets that conservatives and Pharisees insist upon.
Do you not see the sweetness and loving embrace of a salvation of Grace, saved TO be part of a beloved community, God's realm, where grace rules, not rules overwhelm and punish grace?
Bubba:
I believe it's explicit (BX) that Jesus taught His followers that they cannot follow Him unless they hate their families, but I think it's equally clear albeit implicit (BI) that Jesus only meant that our love for Christ should be so absolute that all other relationships are nothing in comparison, that it is AS IF we hated our parents and wife, etc.
I'm quite glad to hear that you're not so legalistic that you insist upon taking that particular passage in a legalistic, literal manner.
Like you, then, I think it's equally clear that God is a JUST God, who will NOT impose unjust punishment like a lifetime of torture for relatively minor, temporal "sins" like, "I was rude to someone, and I sped and I lied about the pencils I took from work..." To suggest that those are somehow "worthy" or "deserving" of a lifetime of torture is somehow rational, biblical or otherwise, not criminally insane is, of course, obvious.
Then my next question to you is, IF you think we can dismiss a literal interpretation of "HATE YOUR FAMILY" because of the greater context of Jesus ideal of LOVE, then why is it not also okay to dismiss a literal interpretation of "NO ONE IS GOOD," in the greater context of the reality of objectively good people doing objectively good things?
Do you understand the point?
Or, why is it okay to dismiss a literal command of "HATE YOUR FAMILY" but not okay to dismiss the even more silly opinion that "Any sin is deserving of an eternity of torture?
WHY is it okay for YOU all to choose to not take some passages literally literally but not okay for us, on even more obvious positions?
Good gosh. Only eleven more days and this thread is open to all (except Dan's troll).
[1/2]
Looks like we have another hanging HTML tag, THIS ought to fix it! (Oh do I miss previewing comments!)
Dan,
The reason I interpret "hate your parents" as figurative hyperbole is NOT because reason demands it, but because Scripture itself demands it. The phrase is, let Scripture interpret Scripture, and even in the same gospel, Luke records how Jesus affirms that one should both honor one's parents AND love one's neighbor, teaching in the parable of the Good Samaritan that one's neighbor includes everyone. ("Everyone" would presumably include one's parents and spouse!)
I personally don't see anything unreasonable with the doctrine that we're all sinners in need of salvation; my own experience tells me how far I fall short of the moral demands of the Sermon on the Mount. But I don't accept "no one good but God" merely on reasonable grounds either, but on Scriptural grounds:
- In the IMMEDIATE context, the disciples despaired, "who then can be saved?" (What's impossible with man is possible with God, remember!)
- Elsewhere, Jesus teaches that "you who are evil" still give good gifts to their children.
- And Paul spends nearly three chapters in Romans arguing the universal judgment of God against sinners, both Jews and Gentiles whether they were moralizing or not.
It seems that there are several positions:
1. All humanity is evil, except for God Incarnate.
2. Some of humanity is (basically?) good.
3. Most of humanity is (basically?) good.
4. All of humanity is (basically?) good.
It seems you reject #4 because you don't say that hell is unjust even for mass-murdering tyrants, but you also seem to reject #1 even though it's the clear and consistent teaching of the Bible. What do you believe? I'd genuinely like to know more.
[2/2]
You say we are saved by God's grace "from the hell of hate and selfishness and greed" (and not evidently the hell of, y'know, HELL) but how does He save us from that? Why can't we just save ourselves and just be unselfish and renounce greediness? Your conception of our plight doesn't seem dire enough to require divine intervention.
You say, "we are saved BY God's sweet grace, NOT by affirming an unending list of tenets that conservatives and Pharisees insist upon."
I personally do not think we are saved by the law, neither an affirmation of the law nor even an outright obedience to the law because we CANNOT obey it without being saved -- more specifically, being given new life and the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
(At most, our repentance and faith entails a recognition of the moral law's obligation upon our lives, our inability to meet that obligation, and God's provision for our guilt and its penalty. "Be merciful to me, a sinner," recognizes a law against which we have sinned.)
Instead, I sincerely believe obedience is only a RESULT that God intends for our salvation, not a cause: we are saved FOR good works, not BY good works.
I never said that the law was an "unending" list of rules, either.
It ultimately comes down to two laws -- love God and love people -- and everything else merely elaborates on those laws.
How are we to love God? By keeping His name holy, by working to extend the rule of His kingdom throughout the earth, and by doing His will.
How are we to love people? We are to love our neighbor, even our enemy; we are to love one another within the fellowship; and husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church.
NONE of this is or should be seen as a burden.
And I imagine that there are more rules in your life than you let on.
Q10-B, in three parts: are there really no rules in the life of your church, with your kids, or with your spouse? Does your church not meet at the same time every week so that everyone has the same expectations? Does your wife not expect a phone call if you're out late? And when your kids were young, were they not forbidden from playing with the stove?
(And here, not knowing what Marshal said about your kids, I hope you don't take offense at my mentioning them. I have some simple rules for my kids; I'll elaborate when time permits.)
I'm genuinely curious and I hope you don't mind the personal nature of the questions.
Bubba,
Don't feel too badly. I don't know what I said about Dan's kids, either.
Actually, I said nothing untoward regarding Dan's kids. That was just a cheap rationalization for deleting my comment. He does that kind of thing a lot.
"Would you add, People must affirm something like human atonement and sinner theories in order to be saved?"
No.
"I believe in salvation by God's grace. Period. I further believe in Jesus, as God's son and as God, and repentance and in following Jesus, but I believe in salvation by God's grace."
Yet we have no idea what your hunches about "salvation" actually mean. "Salvation" from what" "Salvation" to what? "Salvation" for what?
"What other human opinions must I affirm in order to be saved?"
I'm not sure how to answer that, as you likely consider the words of Jesus to be "human opinions".
Dan does get a bit testy when you mention a hypothetical that might involve his kids.
It's interesting that Dan's post at his blog is called "The Biblical Take on Sin", when both there and here he rarely uses Biblical arguments to support his hunches. In fact, he takes Bubba to task repeatedly for actually expressing a "Biblical Take on Sin", while preferring to focus on his own personal, subjective, Reason and the consensus of others for his hunches.
It's all pretty much the same old recycled crap he's been spewing for years.
"Dan does get a bit testy when you mention a hypothetical that might involve his kids."
Naw...it's just a ruse, to give him a cheap reason to delete what he's incapable of countering. But note how many times he's supposed my/our kids or grandkids will be ashamed of me/us over our logical, factual and truthful understanding Scripture and/or current events. That would make them "progressives", and I can't think of a worse insult to heap upon my own kids and grandkids. Even still, my Dem voting step-daughters won't be ashamed because they're not idiots...aside from voting Democrat.
It's definitely a ruse to delete, but it's not like he needs much of an excuse to delete. He's gotten pissed at me because I posited a hypothetical situation involving a hypothetical child of his.
"It literally doesn't exist. We must use our reasoning, whether or not you think there are universal rules in the Bible."
Strange, Dan just clearly placed his subjective, imperfect, biased, human Reasoning over scripture as the final arbiter of things. I think this closes this conversation quite effectively. As long as Dan places his Reason above all else, any conversation becomes pointless.
Craig...
Dan just clearly placed his subjective, imperfect, biased, human Reasoning over scripture as the final arbiter of things.
Not me exclusively. I'm just noting that we ALL use our reasoning to make sense of texts and make moral judgments. So, strange, Craig appears to admit he uses no rational process to understand things. I guess this conversation is over for Craig and any others who don't want to come, reason together.
Come on, boys. This is a nothing comment. If you don't care to use your God-given reason, then step aside and let the adults have a rational, respectful conversation.
Be better, Craig.
Dan
Bubba...
Q10-B, in three parts: are there really no rules in the life of your church, with your kids, or with your spouse?
I didn't say we have no rules or guidelines in our lives.
Does your church not meet at the same time every week so that everyone has the same expectations?
We have a regular (ish) start time. It's not really a rule, but whatever.
Does your wife not expect a phone call if you're out late?
We all tend to call one another if we're going to be late. Not really a rule, more of a courtesy.
And when your kids were young, were they not forbidden from playing with the stove?
Yes, we taught them not to harm themselves, including, don't touch!
Not sure of the point, but there you go.
Dan
Bubba...
It seems that there are several positions:
1. All humanity is evil, except for God Incarnate.
2. Some of humanity is (basically?) good.
3. Most of humanity is (basically?) good.
4. All of humanity is (basically?) good.
...What do you believe?
I believe all of humanity are imperfect humans. Objectively. Demonstrably.
I believe that some times, some humans behave horribly, in an evil manner, causing much harm and anguish. Objectively. Demonstrably.
I believe that most of the time, most humans behave in a fair to good manner. They put in a good day's worth of work. They take care of and love their children, family and friends. They clean up after themselves. They appreciate God's good creation. If someone is in danger, they try to help. They defend oppressed people being bullied or harmed. They try to do the right thing. To greater and lesser degrees. Objectively. Demonstrably.
These are all things we can see in our every day lives. Do you not see that imperfect good every day? If not, how sad.
One of our homeless friends in our drop in center noticed another homeless visitor whose arms were disabled, trying to get a drink out of his bottle of water, but couldn't reach his straw. The first gentleman, seeing this stranger struggle, scooted over to his table and adjusted the straw to help the second man get his drink.
Like that. I see these momentary acts of goodness nearly every hour of every day.
I see no data to suggest we humans, created in God's image, are evil or totally depraved.
Also, I see that many times when humans DO behave in an evil manner, it is due to a poor upbringing (bigots teaching their children to be bigoted, for instance) or they find themselves in an unjust system or difficult scenario (does the slave kill their master to escape with his family? Does the woman about to be raped by her husband kill him to escape? Do the soldiers destroy a city of thousands of innocents to stop a war that is also killing thousands?..)
In all of those morally difficult situations, people will often weigh things and make the most moral question that they can make.
Dan
Sticking my neck out here a bit, I would suppose that Bubba was asking what you believe related to the four options provided, options based upon Scriptural references which preceded them. I also feel safe in suggesting he wasn't asking for another tap dance of equivocation. But based on your bloviating, it seems clear you can point to one of the four points in order to answer directly. Like you pretend to do, though you never do. "Imperfect" was not on the list of choices.
Marshal...
But based on your bloviating, it seems clear you can point to one of the four points in order to answer directly. Like you pretend to do, though you never do. "Imperfect" was not on the list of choices.
I think people of good faith can read my answers and understand that I'm stating quite clearly that far and away, most imperfect people tend to be basically good, decent people, so somewhere between 3 and 4.
The problem with Bubba's framing of his question is that he left out the reality that humans are imperfect and that life is uncertain and vague oftentimes. A list of rules is a limited way of looking at a complex, nuanced reality.
I mean, I've rarely if ever broken any of the 10 commandments (which is true for many if not most people I know), does that make us near perfect people? Well, no. We're imperfect. We miss the mark, we fail to live perfectly. But is imperfect humans being imperfect make us Bad people?
I don't think that's a reasonable opinion to hold. I see no data to support that conclusion.
But tell me, anyone, IF you think most people are totally depraved and evil, where is the data to support that conclusion? I'm guessing you all would have to use non-standard definitions of good, bad, evil and totally depraved, but you tell me.
Dan
I had said:
"we are saved BY God's sweet grace, NOT by affirming an unending list of tenets that conservatives and Pharisees insist upon."
Bubba responded:
I never said that the law was an "unending" list of rules, either.
I didn't say you did. I said, "we are saved BY God's sweet grace, NOT by affirming an unending list of tenets that conservatives and Pharisees insist upon."
I said that because I noted that I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, the risen son of God, I have confessed my sin, and want Jesus to be my Lord. What ELSE do I need to confess, because you all seem to think that I'm not Christian. Why? Because, you all said, "I didn't mention salvation" or, perhaps, because I don't affirm atonement as you all view it. Or because I don't affirm your personal opinions about an "inerrant" Bible. Or because I don't affirm some traits of God that YOU all believe to be true.
In other words, you all seem to hold out OTHER measures I need to believe in/affirm/speak about before you think I'm saved.
What else must I do to be saved, in your mind, other than believe, confess and accept?
Dan,
I'm trying hard not to involve myself in this conversation between you and Bubba, except to call you out when you do your "Dan thing", which is dishonest. No one here gives a flying rat's ass what you think other people might or might not be able to glean from your word salad, Texas Two-Stepping around a question.
There was no problem in the framing of Bubba's question. "Perfect" and "good" are not synonymous and there's nothing complex or nuanced about the difference between good and evil. That's just more of the ambiguity you must have in order to abide or reject the Will of God according to your own personal preferences.
You break the 9th Commandment constantly. One would think you're getting paid to lie, you do it so much. And that's just one of the 10 you intentionally break. You want to play this "miss the mark" game because it allows one to pretend they tried really hard not to live like a homosexual or abort their innocent child but gosh darn it, I came so close!
We are imperfect because of Adam's sin. We are all sinners who fall short of the glory of God. This fact is Scriptural, and the best part is that it's not "nuanced". It's clearly revealed to be the case. But YOU judge people by Dan's standards, not by God's. Thus, we as people can say "that man is a good man", yet still that man is evil and in need of Jesus.
The only data which matters is Biblical teaching. But that doesn't work for you because of your own depravity and worship of your invented god which bears only the most superficial resemblance to Almighty God of Scripture.
My standards of good and evil are those which are easily understood by a serious and prayerful study of Scripture. Someday perhaps you'll indulge in such a study. Use an actual Bible when that time comes.
By all means, brother Marshal, prove ANY of those rather astounding and irrational-sounding claims. ANY of them.
Clearly the Adam/Eve story is told in a mythic style. But if you can, objectively prove that we have a "sin nature" because "Adam" sinned.
Just prove anything objectively. Or have the rational courage to admit you can't.
Dan
Dan,
Again, I'm trying to stay out until the end of the month in order for you and Bubba to achieve, without interruption, whatever goal to which you and he agreed.
No one who craps on the Word and Will of God like constantly do can ever be regarded as my "brother", so stop with the vile insult of associating yourself with me in that manner. I have no truck with baby murderers and pervert enablers of perversity.
Clearly you need most of the OT to be "told in a mythic style" because it allows you the liberty of dispensing with those commandments of God which you find personally inconvenient. Prove it was told in a "mythic style".
You want to talk about God as if He's real and then demand proof for that which is beyond anyone's ability to provide, and with that, you dare suggest opposing positions are mere "hunch" or "human tradition". How fucking convenient.
As per your history, you've yet to prove anything supports your positions. You've failed to supply even circumstantial evidence to support the possibility your positions are worth a damn or in any way in alignment with actual Christian teaching...which you reject when it contradicts your positions.
You've got ten days left of you debate with Bubba. Cut the crap and do what you haven't the courage to do. Our time will come then if you have a pair for the purpose.
Marshal...
you've yet to prove anything supports your positions. You've failed to supply even circumstantial evidence...
Cut the crap and do what you haven't the courage to do.
I don't know what you mean by any of this or why you get yourself all emotionally overwrought. I'm simply answering Bubba's questions with my opinions and some basic observable facts.
For instance, observable, the creation myth reads like other creation myths. "And THAT is how the leap order got its spots..." "and THAT is how languages came to be." Etc. Any other mythic stories from non biblical sources, you would say, Yes, that is told in a mythic style.
That IS a real, sincere and not unreasonable reality that I can note. Now, you may choose ultimately to disagree that it's a myth, but reasonable people recognize the similarity to this and other myths.
That's one thing. Then the other thing is, WHY this hyper-emotional over-reaction on your part? Do you get startled or angered when people in good faith merely disagree with your unproven, unprovable opinions? If so, why?
It's a big world out there, dearest brother, you'll have to adjust a bit when people disagree with you. It's not an attack or an insult. It's a difference of opinion.
Can you see how this seems to be quite an overreaction on your part?
I mean, you disagree with me, but you don't see me going ballistic, right?
If the worst thing you're called is, Brother, you're doing okay, sweet heart.
Dan
Marshal...
Cut the crap and do what you haven't the courage to do.
Cut what crap? Answering questions? That's the purpose of this conversation, isn't it?
"Do what I don't have the courage to do..."?
What does that even mean? What are you asking me to do? Answer questions? That's literally what I'm doing?
Prove an unprovable opinion? I can't do that any more than you all can.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Do you?
Dan
Marshal...
"You've got ten days left of you debate with Bubba."
Oh no! Then what? You release the flying monkeys? Release the kraken?
Why the hyper-emotional, fit of pique, apocalyptic language over simple disagreements?
What would you do over something more substantive and consequential than simple disagreements?
Dan
Marshal:
You want to talk about God as if He's real and then demand proof for that which is beyond anyone's ability to provide, and with that, you dare suggest opposing positions are mere "hunch" or "human tradition". How fucking convenient.
Again, I have no idea of what your point is. Your opinions that you can't prove ARE your opinions that you can't prove, just as is true for my opinions that I can't prove. Why does that make you so vulgar and angry and emotional?
What's wrong with acknowledging that your opinions ARE your opinions... opinions you can't objectively prove?
Lighten up, dear beloved of God.
This is my final comment to you, Dan, until the end of the month. And no, asshole...I won't be releasing the Kraken, but I will be lifting the request to any who might wish to address your bullshit corruptions you like to regard as "good faith" responses that they refrain from doing so so as to provide you and Bubba this opportunity to have at it without distraction from the rest of us. That's what this whole thing was about, putz. You've made a mockery of it so far, but I made the decision to leave you both alone until the end of the month, with only an occasional plea that you stop acting like your usual assholes self while engaging with him. That too goes unheeded because...well...you're an asshole.
I'm not at all "emotionally overwrought". I'm simply dealing with you as you are...an asshole. Not as a brother, because you aren't one. Again, if Craig, Glenn, Neil, Bubba, Stan regard me in any way as a brother, I'm quite cool with it given they aren't assholes who crap on the Word and Will of God while insisting they are nonetheless Christians. They don't support perversion or the murder of innocents as you do. They don't lie with such abandon as you do. To be referred to as your brother in any way is a great insult.
They also don't conflate proof for what Scripture says with proof for the supernatural. If the issue is what God wants, reference to Scripture is the source, not your "reason", which isn't the least bit reliable or truthful.
Finally, as to having courage to engage in true "good faith" discourse, you make unreasonable demands to back up every little statement we/I make, without equal reciprocity. Everything I've ever presented as factual or truth has been appropriately supported with actual evidence relevant to the truth claim. Everything. Not so with you.
So we're done here until Sept 1. No need to respond with your typical fake Christian crap. Wait for Bubba's next comments, and respond like you truly care to find truth, common ground or understanding with him.
I hope to comment at length today or tomorrow, we'll see.
Marshal, in the meantime, I do think this dialogue has been going pretty well, all things considering. If this week goes well, I hope you might consider extending the Dan-and-me limitation for a while longer. As much as I sometimes share your frustration, right now I wish this conversation could continue to focus on other topics.
"Not me exclusively."
Since you're the only one arguing this here, yes it's you exclusively. I'm unaware of any authority given to you that allows you to speak for anyone but yourself.
But thanks for acknowledging that my assessment of your view of your personal, subjective, flawed, imperfect, human Reason and it's role as the final arbiter of Truth was substantially correct.
Craig...
thanks for acknowledging that my assessment of your view of your personal, subjective, flawed, imperfect, human Reason and it's role as the final arbiter of Truth was substantially correct.
Yes, FOR ME, I use my human reasoning to sort through texts and moral questions. What do you use, pray tell?
If you're only here to snipe and pick, but not answer questions, then please step aside and let the reasoning adults have our conversation.
You've declined, Craig.
Dan
[1/n]
Dan,
I think this is as good a time as any to combine conversations, to merge what we've been discussing at your blog with the more significant conversation that's been taking place here.
Over there (and here), you act as if the Bible isn't clear on the moral law, as if it doesn't record that Christ fielded the question, "What is the greatest commandment?" and makes clear that NT Christians are not under the OT covenant God made with ancient Israel.
(You write, "I'm just noting that we ALL use our reasoning to make sense of texts and make moral judgments. So, strange, Craig appears to admit he uses no rational process to understand things." I doubt he does any such thing, but neither of us take the subsequent step to suggest that our conclusions are "mere human opinions" as if the text's meaning is always obscure: "'The Bible' doesn't 'tell' us anything about why murder is wrong. The Bible holds no opinions and tells us nothing." [emphasis mine])
Over here, you answered my question by affirming the belief that most or all of humanity is basically good, as if the Bible isn't clear on the dire state that man finds himself, requiring the extraordinary act of salvation that brought the Son of God first to take on our humanity and then to lay down His life on the cross.
Combined, they comprise a helluva thing to say: human rationality is so weak that we cannot determine any biblical teachings with confidence, but human morality is so strong that we don't really need the Bible's good news of salvation in any real sense. It would seem contradictory, except the common thread is obvious: we don't need the Bible's teachings, WE DON'T NEED DIVINE REVELATION, not on matters of morality, not on matters of salvation, and presumably not on any other subject, either.
Here again I run into strong evidence to support my belief that your worldview is more humanist than authentically Christian.
[2/n]
About Q10-B, I appreciate the answer, but you write, "I didn't say we have no rules or guidelines in our lives."
I think you've said plenty to imply that very thing, both in your relationship with God...
"What I'm saying is that you all believe that God has rules that God wants us to follow."
"I happen to believe that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God is NOT a 'god of rules,' but a God of Grace. It's not about embracing a perfect understanding of rules (a la the Pharisees) but an imperfect, missing the mark but still, embracing of Grace."
...and even in your relationship with your kids!
"You see, people CAN disagree with me and not be in 'obedience' to my will and STILL be in a right relationship with me. My children do it all the time. HOW is this possible? Because I do not insist upon someone being 'in obedience' to my will to have a good/right relationship with me."
"What does an Almighty, perfectly loving, forgiving and gracious parent-like God demand, reasonably speaking? ...Probably the same thing I 'demand' of my children. Nothing."
I'll happily concede that rules seem to diminish in importance as intimacy increases within a relationship -- as mutual understanding and empathy and loving concern grow for both sides -- but that's like saying "the steps" don't matter as much when the dancing becomes more familiar and intuitive. The dancers follow the steps more naturally and effortlessly, but that means they really ARE following the rules as they focus more on the relationship itself. In other words, the "spirit" of the law takes over as the letter of the law becomes more ingrained.
But the law doesn't disappear: EVERY relationship needs its conventions and protocols, it seems that you admit as much as it regards your church and marriage and children (you admit it despite yourself; I had to ask the question outright), but I would hope you see that rules matter in THE most asymmetric relationship, the one between the limited and fallible and created human being and His infinite and perfect Creator.
[4/n]
Still, you might say that you're no worse than the next guy, and I would assume so, at least about your life offline, but that's my point: NONE OF US COME CLOSE. We all fall WELL short of God's glory, and Genesis 3 is accurately referred as the Fall and not just a stumbling.
I've struggled in putting God first, in avoiding blasphemous language, in maintaining a good relationship with my parents, in being rigorously honest, in not taking what doesn't belong to me (particularly as it pertains to being on-task when I'm on the clock), and in not being envious of what appears to be the successful lives that friends and peers seem to lead.
The Sermon on the Mount puts my failings in even starker relief.
- As the years and decades have shown, I have an argumentative and even combative personality; I'm not always the first person one would think of as a blessed peacemaker.
- How often have I failed to stand up for what I know to be right? I should have been salt, but I was just like the next guy; I had a light, but I hid it under a basket.
- Lust is as bad as outright adultery, and by that measure, I'm no ideal husband.
- Anger is as bad as outright murder, and so there are times I haven't been a good neighbor, either.
- In my acts of charity, I sometimes do care about how I look to others.
- In my devotion to God, I do often let worry and anxiety overwhelm what ought to be confidence in advancing His kingdom.
- And even with the great and repeated promise that I will receive if I ask, how often do I hesitate to ask God for what I really need?
Thank God, I've matured especially over the last few years, growing in leaps and bounds not merely with God's help, but ENTIRELY due to His grace.
I was a sinner desperately in need of salvation, and now I'm a saint in constant need of God's sanctification.
I'm not sure you would or even could say the same thing, and that's a big reason I'm reluctant to call you a brother in Christ.
Instead, you portray a commitment to God's law as Pharisaism even though the Sermon on the Mount indicates that they were happy to bend the law for their own benefit; you portray them as extremists when they were entirely too worldly; and you set yourself against them when you exhibit exactly what Christ criticized about them: the self-righteousness that says, I don't need God's salvation.
[5/5]
You ask, "But tell me, anyone, IF you think most people are totally depraved and evil, where is the data to support that conclusion? I'm guessing you all would have to use non-standard definitions of good, bad, evil and totally depraved, but you tell me."
(It's an odd thing, to ask for "data" as if statistics are the only way to prove anything or even just to know something with confidence beyond a reasonable doubt!)
I would point to the clear teachings of Scripture, including Romans 1-3, and I believe our personal experience corroborates what God has revealed in His written word.
As he often has, CS Lewis put it very well indeed with the two premises that he introduced at the beginning of Mere Christianity.
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
Marshal...
Wait for Bubba's next comments, and respond like you truly care to find truth, common ground or understanding with him.
That's exactly what Bubba and I have been doing. I think Bubba would agree. Which is what makes your spleen-venting anger and outrage and Craig's little snipes all the more, well, weird.
Bubba and I are having a respectful conversation. Why are you so outraged and angry?
Dan
Dan, not presuming to speak for anyone else, I think it's clear enough from what he's written that Marshal is annoyed because he believes you deleted a comment of his at your blog, and he believes you did so without justification.
Just to start somewhere (and I think it's a good starting point), one problem you have is still the justice problem - the problem of an over-the-top punishment not suited to the crime as being unjust, itself. You say:
- As the years and decades have shown, I have an argumentative and even combative personality; I'm not always the first person one would think of as a blessed peacemaker.
- How often have I failed to stand up for what I know to be right? I should have been salt, but I was just like the next guy; I had a light, but I hid it under a basket.
- Lust is as bad as outright adultery, and by that measure, I'm no ideal husband.
Okay, sure, you are argumentative, let's say. And you don't perfectly stand up for someone else when perhaps you should. And you lust, let's say.
First off, while I know that Jesus used the hyperbolic expression that to be angry is the same as murder and that lust is as bad as cheating on your wife... no, it's just not. Just ask the person who was NOT murdered when you were angry with them, let's say. Jesus is clearly speaking hyperbolically there to make a point. Or at least reasonable people can and do reach that conclusion.
Can you allow that reasonable people might reach such a conclusion AND that you can't prove that Jesus meant it literally?
But setting that aside, okay, you were angry, rude and not as good as you should have been. You have missed the mark of perfection. But, is that somehow worthy of eternal torture? Of course, it's not. You have not dealt with this aspect of supporting your eternal damnation theories.
Please address this. Demonstrate that you CAN prove that merely missing the mark of perfection and getting angry when you shouldn't or lusting when you shouldn't is somehow deserving of eternal torture. Or, if you can't demonstrate that objectively, just say so clearly.
Can you at least see how for many of us Bible-loving, Bible-believing, High view of God people, it seems like a hellish theory (so to speak)?
"Yes, FOR ME, I use my human reasoning to sort through texts and moral questions."
I'm not sure how agreeing with me is some sort of win for you. But I appreciate you confirming your commitment to placing your subjective, imperfect, Reason as the final arbiter. I'm merely pointing out the contrast between you and Bubba.
Bubba:
(It's an odd thing, to ask for "data" as if statistics are the only way to prove anything or even just to know something with confidence beyond a reasonable doubt!
I strongly disagree. Consider: You all are making the suggestion that all of humanity are "totally depraved" and "evil," even. Not merely "missing the mark of perfection," but SO evil that the ONLY possible punishment is not only the death penalty, not only jail, but the most hellish torture for an eternity! That is some claim.
If ANY nation/state said that "those Baptists" or "those gay folk" are evil and need to be tortured and killed, any one of us would object strongly. It's an outrageous and irrational and horrifying claim. I'm not sure you all recognize how extraordinarily awful that claim is.
So, given how cruel, how literally torturous, how over the top evil those sets of claims are, asking you all for some objective proof of these crazy-sounding claims is truly called for.
Step outside of your traditions for a second and think about it with objective eyes... even if you ultimately don't agree, can't you see how irrational and beyond the pale these claims you all make are... at least to people who don't share your religious opinions?
This is a vital point of many of these conversations we're having and it's right back to the Justice concern that, to me, sinks all traditionalist conservative thoughts on these points. Please address.
Bubba:
I wonder how you could possibly know -- to name just four commandments -- whether most people put God first, abstain from abusing His name, refrain from ever taking what belongs to others, and renounce all covetous thoughts that ever cross their mind.
I don't know about in your circles, but in our circles, we share a deep communion. We are part of a beloved community. For folks like my church, my family, my work colleagues, etc... we spend a lot of time together and there's just no serious evidence of it.
Of course, it would depend on how you define those first four, for instance. No one I know knowingly abuses God's name. Why would we? We love God (at least the believers amongst us)... what purpose would be there in abusing God's name?
Are you saying you knowingly abuse God's name? If so, why?
And I don't know, maybe my people, my extended beloved community, are just better people, but no, we don't covet other people's stuff. Again, why? To what end?
Look, for years, I just accepted that, yes, of course, we are all evil... we have the most awful thoughts and rebel against God... but I did so without thinking about it. Once I started looking at the people I know and thinking about it, no, of course, we never deliberately rebel against God, covet or abuse God's name.
Are you saying you do? Give an example, please.
Now, is it possible we "sin in ignorance..." That is, we didn't realize we shouldn't be buying Ford gas powered cars because of the history of abuse of the planet and of people that Ford and cars have. We recognize that it's complex, but if God had a rule against buying Fords, we literally didn't know it. Same for supporting our LGBTQ friends and family. We do that to be faithful to God, not to rebel against God. Now, if it turns out we're wrong and God genuinely didn't want gay folks to marry, for instance, well, that would be an instance of genuinely trying to do the right thing and being mistaken.
Likewise for you all, if God (of course) wanted you to support your LGBTQ friends in their marriages and lives and you were wrong, you will have sinned in ignorance, right? Thinking you were doing the right thing.
Is that worthy of an eternity of torture?
Bubba:
he believes you did so without justification.
Even if he believes that in his head, it doesn't mean he's justified. And I'm almost certain that's not what he's angry about. He's angry about something about how I'm responding to you in a way that makes him angry.
As to my blog, I've repeatedly and respectfully asked him to make comments on topic and not to attack or demonize others. He spoke ignorantly and disparagingly of my relationship with my children (which is ridiculous, given how much we all get along). That's NOT on topic and he's not going to do that on my blog.
If that truly upsets him, he'll have to grow up a bit and get over it. Don't want to be deleted on my blog? Speak on topic and do so in a respectful manner. And don't speak of someone else's family disparagingly. It's not an irrational ask, especially given how much (way too much) grace I've given to him in his unrelenting and vulgar attacks on people he doesn't know.
Craig:
But I appreciate you confirming your commitment to placing your subjective, imperfect, Reason as the final arbiter. I'm merely pointing out the contrast between you and Bubba.
So you're saying that Bubba doesn't use his God-given reasoning? Well, maybe you shouldn't speak for someone else, ya think? And it's noted: You are NOT answering that you use your reasoning to understand things.
Given that, then do you think that it's reasonable that ANYONE pay attention to someone who insists on not using his reasoning? Of course, how would you know?
Bubba (speaking of my/Dan's views on the Bible):
we don't need the Bible's teachings, WE DON'T NEED DIVINE REVELATION, not on matters of morality, not on matters of salvation, and presumably not on any other subject, either.
1. I didn't say we don't need divine revelation. Understand that? That's literally not what I said.
2. I DID say that we don't need to find lines in the Bible to understand (albeit imperfectly) morality. You know who else said that? Paul.
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,
their consciences also bearing witness,
and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
"The Bible" is clear that God's "law" of love and grace is written upon the hearts and minds of all humanity. We can understand morality APART from the Bible. Also, EVEN IF we look to the bible, we still must use our reasoning to guess at which "rules" found in the Bible are universal rules.
That is another question I've asked you that would be helpful for you to clarify. HOW do you know which rules in your rulings book are universal and which are not? What authoritative rubric do you use?
I have been faithfully and directly answering your questions to the best of my ability (flawed human that I am). I hope you find the time to address some of these vital questions I've asked you.
Bubba:
you answered my question by affirming the belief that most or all of humanity is basically good,
as if the Bible isn't clear on the dire state that man finds himself,
requiring the extraordinary act of salvation
that brought the Son of God
first to take on our humanity and then
to lay down His life on the cross.
Bubba, the question is (one of the questions): Does God want us to affirm a penal substitutionary theory of atonement?
You can't answer that, "That's what the Bible teaches..." that's question begging. I don't think the bible teaches that at all in any way at all. It's literally a human theory that arose in the centuries after Jesus. AS a human theory, it's not proven and that's one of the questions we're dealing with.
I GET that you, personally, think that's a reasonable biblical interpretation. I strongly disagree, in favor of God's salvation by Grace, and the notion that humanity is NOT "utterly depraved" and in need of a "blood sacrifice" to "pay" for "our sins." Those quotes are ALL human theories, the questions at play here. You can't rationally merely say, "But the bible says so, and that means God says so." That is question begging.
PROVE that God says so or admit you can't. I think at this point you may even recognize it. Just admit it, that it's indeed a human theory and opinion. One you personally think is correct, but you can't prove it and you can't prove your opinion is more "approved by God" than my opinion.
To be crystal clear, my "frustration" is in Dan's unwillingness to actually engage in honest "good faith" discourse. Just in his last comment, he pulls PSA out of his ass, as if it's been a topic on the table the whole time. He has the focus of a two-year old and as if that's not enough, he continues to speak of issues which has resulted in Scriptural support which he pretends he's never before seen or heard. That's just a tip of the iceberg.
As to his blog, he lies about why he deleted me. I in no way disparaged his kids. That's a straight up lie, but as is his way, he deletes what he's incapable of effectively countering on the flimsiest of grounds, then lies about what was said to justify the deletion.
And as much as his comments here reek of dishonesty, I leave them all up so as to allow others to decide for themselves if I've spoken truthfully about him, or simply for others to decide for themselves as to his low character and fraudulent claims of being a Christian. Dan is all the evidence I need against Dan.
On your human "salvation" theories, Bubba said:
I was a sinner desperately in need of salvation, and now I'm a saint in constant need of God's sanctification.
I'm not sure you would or even could say the same thing, and that's a big reason I'm reluctant to call you a brother in Christ.
So, while I'm waiting to see if you answer my questions, you APPEAR to answer them here. You APPEAR to be saying, "It's not enough to believe in God and God's son, Jesus, nor that Jesus died and raised from the dead. It's not enough that you confess your sins and ask Jesus to be Lord of your lives, you must ALSO say something like "I (Dan) am a sinner in need of salvation." before I can be saved, in your personal human opinion. Is that right? Do I need to affirm the PS theory of atonement, as well? Do I need to affirm that God doesn't want gay folk to marry? Do I need to affirm an "inerrant Bible..."? What is the list of things I need to affirm/believe before you think I can be saved, in your personal human opinion?
Because, silly me, I believe I'm saved by God's grace, not by my correctly (in Bubba's opinion) holding the "right" theories about sin and salvation.
What must I do to be saved?
I think the problem you all are having is you recognize that Christianity is NOT a works-based faith, nor does it require perfect understanding (which would be works-based, as well) on at least some, vague set of topics. You recognize that, on the one hand, and yet... and yet, you really think if I was REALLY saved, I'd affirm some of your pet human theories. Because, you think, those theories are the same as what God wants, because you can't be mistaken on those points.
Am I mistaken?
Marshal:
To be crystal clear, my "frustration" is in Dan's unwillingness to actually engage in honest "good faith" discourse. Just in his last comment, he pulls PSA out of his ass, as if it's been a topic on the table the whole time.
And to be crystal clear, I AM engaging in good faith conversation with you all, mainly Bubba, per the request you all made. BUBBA and Craig were the ones who raised the question of my salvation repeatedly and I'm sincerely asking, "What must I do to be saved?" IF they don't accept my salvation. I noted that I believe/have done the standard conservative beliefs of
Believing in God
Believing in Jesus, the risen son of God
confessing my sins
asking Jesus to be Lord of my life.
That has not proven to be enough for you all. In THAT context, I'm asking WHAT ELSE must I do to be saved? Do I need to confess a belief in an inerrant Bible? Do I need to confess a belief in the human theory of "atonement?" Do I need to say something about "salvation from sin" (which is sort of part of the atonement theory held by many conservatives)?
They are the ones expressing disbelief of my salvation. I'm asking a reasonable, good faith question in response to them/you all. How is that not "good faith..."?
Marshal:
he continues to speak of issues which has resulted in Scriptural support which he pretends he's never before seen or heard. That's just a tip of the iceberg.
I disagree with your opinions of what you think is "scriptural support" for your opinions. I'm not saying you haven't explained your position before. I'm just saying I do not find your personal opinions on these topics either biblical or rational and, in some cases, moral.
Disagreeing with your opinion doesn't mean anything beyond that I disagree with your opinion. Just like you disagree with my opinions. But I don't get upset with you about it, do I? I don't say you're arguing in bad faith because you disagree with my opinion. It's just the reality of it, isn't it?
Why not just breathe and relax a bit?
Marshal:
he lies about why he deleted me. I in no way disparaged his kids. That's a straight up lie
What I told you clearly and respectfully on my blog:
you don't get to talk about my children. Move on.
and:
He spoke ignorantly and disparagingly of my relationship with my children
YOU framed it as "disparaging my kids," not me. I just said that you don't get to talk about my children and you DID talk about my children and their relationship with me, which you know nothing of and is none of your business. I'm not being irrational nor am I lying by laying down that guideline. If you don't like it, don't comment. My blog, my rules.
Marshal:
You're obliged to explain why it fails to be good enough and as you never expend the slightest effort to do so
But that's exactly what I've been doing ever since we've started talking. I'm answering questions explaining why I believe as I do.
Creationism:
1. Genesis etc were written in a time prior to modern history-telling, a time when all stories were told in mythic, fantastic styles.
2. The creation story reads like a myth.
3. There is no data to support a literal Adam and Eve or that the events in Genesis happened as described.
Etc. Those ARE reasons not to take the creation story as literal history.
You may not agree, but these ARE good faith explanations that many people recognize as extremely reasonable.
You're just wrong about the good faith question.
Dan
re: explaining my position with a good faith explanation.
Likewise with the theory of eternal torment for the vast majority of humanity.
1. Biblically, we see God portrayed consistently as a perfectly just and loving God.
2. Any just punishment must be proportionate to the crime.
3. Eternal torture for typical failings/missing the mark of perfection is not reasonably punished by eternal torture.
4. Therefore, we should not take the few handfuls of verses that speak of "eternal fire" literally, because it would violate the Biblical portrait of God as just.
Even if you don't agree with it, this is a perfectly rational, perfectly biblical explanation of those of us who disagree with your human theory.
Likewise, pointing to the reality that your various opinions (eternal torture, literal Genesis, "inerrant" Bible, "sin nature" of humanity) AS your personal opinions, theories and traditions IS just a demonstrable reality and as such, reasonable and good faith.
It looks like we have a lingering [B] tag. This should fix it!
----
Marshal, I definitely understand your getting frustrated, but I DO think the conversation is going / has been going well enough that I would prefer it to remain just Dan-and-me for a while longer. Meh, I'll be fine either way. :-)
---
Dan, we've both written a lot, and it might be easier to focus on one topic at a time. Instead, I'll try to hit every topic, but I'll have to be brief.
1. About the disproportionate punishment of eternal damnation, I'll reiterate, first, that proportionality would be a problem for any sin -- 100,000 years for a single murder is still literally infinitely less than an eternity -- and I'll reiterate that I believe the punishment is for an underlying rebelliousness and not merely for a short list of offenses. You can find apologetic arguments for eternal damnation (including with CS Lewis), but my focus continues to be "what does the Bible say" and not "is the Bible's teaching reasonable at first glance."
After all, the afterlife and the final judgment are two areas where we must rely very heavily indeed on divine revelation. Human reason gets us almost nowhere on its own.
2. You then write, "First off, while I know that Jesus used the hyperbolic expression that to be angry is the same as murder and that lust is as bad as cheating on your wife... no, it's just not."
Well, never let it be said that you contradict Jesus!! You say that people can reasonably see this as hyperbole, but that's only if we're judging things by harm cause and not judging by what the heart wants.
For myself, I see exactly how Jesus could be -- and indeed IS -- dead serious in saying they're equivalent: in the mind, we can think exactly what we want, we can lust after those who wouldn't reciprocate and we can imagine murdering the landlord when the actual act would just be too much trouble. We can let our evil impulses run wild, and so God is just in condemning those inner thoughts in the harshest possible terms -- "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks," and, I would add, the feet run to adultery and the hands shed blood.
I can argue this pretty well, starting from the fact that Jesus taught us to be perfect as the Father is perfect, and the perfect heavenly Father (and His Son) would never indulge in such sinful thoughts even if they never resulted in physical harm. I think John Stott makes the point wonderfully in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, too.
And it's not the only time the Bible makes this bold claim.
> Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. - 1 Jn 3:15
Can I "prove" my position to your satisfaction? Almost certainly not, as your standards of proof are far beyond what's reasonable, but the kid couldn't prove that the king was naked and he was still right.
[continued]
[continued from above]
3. In passing, I note that you include yourself in some vague group of "Bible-loving, Bible-believing, High view of God people," but it's not clear to me that this accurately describes you.
- I don't see how you love the Bible when you say, even using scare-quotes, "'The Bible' doesn't 'tell' us anything about why murder is wrong. The Bible holds no opinions and tells us nothing." (Aug 17)
- I don't see how you believe the Bible when you frequently deny its clear teachings, now including Jesus' own teaching that lust is equivalent to adultery.
- And I don't see how you have a high view of God when your view of His righteousness and holiness doesn't entail His punishing sin OR His providing for its punishment in His forgiveness of sin.
You're just spouting words that seem to have no correspondence to reality.
4. I may be mistaken, but I believe the doctrine of "total depravity" means something more than just that we're all guilty sinners: it means that every aspect of every human's life or personality is depraved, albeit not necessarily TOTALLY depraved.
Nevertheless, I do see what my view looks like from the outside, but I've also been told, on good authority, that the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. Regardless of how it's seen by others, it IS the clear teaching of Scripture.
The wages of sin is death: even James ("JAMES!" as you put it) wrote that when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death (1:15).
5. Finally, I note that, in defending yourself against the claim that you have broken the Ten Commandments, you don't even mention my argument that you've repeatedly broken God's law in your conversations with us!
"Once I started looking at the people I know and thinking about it, no, of course, we never deliberately rebel against God, covet or abuse God's name."
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
For all the many times you accuse me of being like a Pharisee, it's you who display his self-righteousness.
("God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.")
Well, the Great Physician came for those who are sick, not those who are well -- or those who are convinced they are well. Maybe you would be better off leaving His radical treatment to those of us who know we need it; once again, you should be more honest about being a humanist and leave the appellation of Christian to those who genuinely look to Christ as Savior and Lord.
Art,
Why not simply repeat what Dan is so scared of? If Dan doesn't have the courage to post your comments, then you do so. I've done this before to demonstrate that Dan deletes comments then lies about their content. It shouldn't be that hard for you to do, and it's likely to further reveal Dan's cowardice and inability to deal with hypotheticals.
Bubba quoted Lewis:
They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
While I greatly appreciate Lewis' systematic, rational thinking, where I break with him is when he makes presumptions that just aren't demonstrated to be true. They may seem like reasonable presumptions to some, but has he demonstrated them to be objectively factual?
This is one of those examples.
We humans "know the law of Nature" he theorizes, and we "break it," implicitly, that we knowingly break it.
In broad terms, I think a case can be made. We can rationally, intuitively know that to take a life is depriving someone of their human rights is wrong. We can know intuitively, naturally that to attack, assault and rape someone is wrong. It's not what we would want to be done to us and it's reasonable that we should not do that to others. Again, as a matter of human rights.
But, most of humanity does not assault, murder or rape.
Rather, for most of us, it's more of "Ah! I was mean to my mother and snapped at her and I shouldn't have done that..." or even, "I thought that guy was harassing that young lady - maybe he was just flirting awkwardly, I don't know, but it seemed to be harassment - so I stepped in and told him to leave her alone... but was I over-stepping my boundaries there? Maybe, I'm not sure..." and the more normal moral quandaries and "missing the mark" that the Bible speaks of when it's speaking of sin.
We just don't always know precisely what the right thing to do is. Should I drive a gas car or not? Should I join the military or not and if I DO join, should I take part in any war they send me to or not? Should I attend that wedding or not? We just don't always have neat answers to the small potential sins that make up the vast majority of our moral choices every day.
Love my neighbor, I get. HOW to love my neighbor can be more vague and so, with us being imperfect humans, we are going to and DO miss the mark of perfection some times. But are these normal "missing the marks of perfection" somehow worthy of eternal damnation? No, of course, not. How?
That's the kind of questions you all need to start to answer to make good, biblical, rational cases for your position. That is why I believe what I do, for these rational, biblical reasons of recognizing what sin is and what it isn't and how serious various mistakes may be.
Ultimately, it is for this kind of reason that I don't think it's rational or ultimately biblical to think of "sin" as a list of dos and don'ts. I think that approach misses the point of Love your neighbor and Love your enemy and Love God.
If that helps.
Dealing with just ONE topic, Bubba:
I'll reiterate that I believe the punishment is for an underlying rebelliousness and not merely for a short list of offenses.
But you haven't proven this and you can't prove it. I know of not one person who is deliberately rebellious against either God or common decency. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know them.
I rather doubt that you all are actively deciding to rebel against God or against basic goodness (Marshal's over the top vulgarity and attempted bullying set aside), but you can tell me. I certainly have never deliberately said, "I'm going to rebel against God." I mean, who does that?
And I get that some people may say that kind of thing, but that's usually (in my experience) in rebelling against what one group or the other might be telling them "God wants..."
When you mention an "underlying rebelliousness," what specifically do you mean? Maybe if you gave some specific and real-world examples, it might help.
But, even if it's the case that you think you all have an openly underlying rebelliousness against God and morality, where is the proof of it? Your testimony? Fair enough. But then, all that would prove is that YOU all are openly rebellious against God. I know of no such people, at least amongst my beloved community group. Not one.
So, what then? IF you truly think that, in your opinion, "the Bible" teaches that humans have an "underlying rebelliousness," against what and what is a reasonably just penalty for such "rebellion," IF it exists?
I'll stop there (with one clarification in the next comment) and let you deal with that.
Bubba:
I don't see how you love the Bible when you say, even using scare-quotes, "'The Bible' doesn't 'tell' us anything about why murder is wrong. The Bible holds no opinions and tells us nothing." (Aug 17)
- I don't see how you believe the Bible when you frequently deny its clear teachings, now including Jesus' own teaching that lust is equivalent to adultery.
I'm literally NOT "denying" the Bible's "clear" teachings. I'm disagreeing with your personal human opinions about what those teachings are and aren't saying. I honestly think, in reading the Jesus text about "anger is equivalent/the same as murder" that Jesus is abundantly over-the-top obviously speaking hyperbolically. I think trying to take that literally is nonsensical and not biblical. For instance.
Look, you agree that not every line in the Bible is to be taken literally. There are parables, figurative words, hyperbole, poetry and other non-literal texts in the Bible and that is a point you agree upon, right?
AND, we have no rubric to tell us WHICH lines are figurative and which ones are literal, right? Or at the least, not one of you has provided such an authoritative rubric and I can find none when I have searched for them over the years.
And so, it is upon each one of us to use our God-given reasoning to sort out which passages are literal and which are more figurative. Right?
So this returns to the question of, WHOSE opinion can settle the matter (no one)? ...And WHY would your personal opinions hold more weight than mine (they don't)?
Now, I'll wait for you to catch up on just those two points.
Sorry, I meant to add this to your eternal damnation theory comments. You said:
You can find apologetic arguments for eternal damnation (including with CS Lewis), but my focus continues to be "what does the Bible say"
And that is one place where we disagree/part paths. I'm wanting to know,
1. What is RIGHT, reasonable, moral and good? and, along with that,
2. What does GOD want?
"The Bible" "says" a lot of things, as we've established, and not all of them good or reasonable or rational (or "biblical") IF they are taken in the wrong way or IF one doesn't understand the genre of right or IF they're just wrong. So, for me, "what does the Bible say?" and finding a passage that you presume is what GOD says is a different thing. Just because you think, in your personal human opinion, that "the Bible says" that Adam and Eve were literal people and their recorded story was roughly what happened historically... and therefore, that's factual... that your opinion is not necessarily right. It remains your opinion, your interpretation, your tradition, not necessarily what's right or actually "biblical."
After all, if "creationism" is the naked king, it doesn't matter that you interpret it somewhat literally if you're just wrong. Do you see what I'm saying?
Craig:
Why not simply repeat what Dan is so scared of?
How old are you all? Eight? Truly, Craig, I fear you're slipping. You used to seem more adult and rational than this.
Aaah! There's so much to address. I'm going to deal with one more set of opinions you expressed, Bubba, about your theories. Then try to stop. You quote me and object to my point:
"Once I started looking at the people I know and thinking about it, no, of course, we never deliberately rebel against God, covet or abuse God's name."
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
I didn't say I haven't sinned, that I have "no sin," that I haven't done wrong, haven't missed the mark. I've been quite clear that as another imperfect human, of course, I miss the mark. It's in our "sin nature," as you all like to theorize about. What I said is that I haven't REBELLED against God in any deliberate manner.
Where do you know of that I have rebelled against God? Can you point to even ONE thing I've done to rebel against God? And here, I'm not talking about merely disagreeing with your opinions about what God wants. I'm talking about deliberately "knowing" that God wants X and me deciding, "NO, I'm not going to accept X!"
Can you objectively point to ANY data to prove that claim?
I suspect that maybe what you're getting at is sinning in ignorance. Imagining, for instance, that as a point of fact, God actually DOES oppose gay folk getting married and me, THINKING that it is moral, good and Godly for gay folks to marry, supporting it in error.
If that's your guess, do you really think that people striving to do the right thing but who are sincerely wrong SHOULD be punished for an eternity of torture for the "crime" of being a fallible human and, in good faith, getting something wrong?
IF it turns out that you all are wrong about your LGBTQ opinions, do you think YOU should be tortured for an eternity for your sincere mistake?
First of all, do you understand the distinction?
In the same comment and same vein, you say:
The wages of sin is death: even James ("JAMES!" as you put it) wrote that when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death (1:15).
But is James literally saying that "Sin should and can ONLY be penalized with an eternity of torture?" No, he literally is not. You might choose to read that into the text, but it's not literally there. James says a lot, doesn't he? (I love James!) In that same paragraph you quote, he notes how God doesn't tempt/command people to sin. Taken literally, then God would not command Israel to slaughter innocent people, including babies. But you don't take that line literally. James also notes a few lines later that EVERY good and perfect gift comes from God. How is two gay folk marrying not a good and perfect gift? On the face of it (if you know any gay married couples) of course, it's good and delightful and beautiful... clearly of God, IF one believes that God wants good for us.
James also in the same passage says that real religion/Christianity is taking care of/siding with the least of these, very much in fitting with Jesus' teachings, and then goes on to warn about rich oppressors.
James says a lot of things. Profound, beautiful, wonderful things. But he literally does not say that "missing the mark" is worthy of eternal torture. Now, you may choose to interpret a few of his words that way, but that is your personal opinion and interpretation, not what James said. Fair enough?
Craig,
"Why not simply repeat what Dan is so scared of?"
I would certainly and happily do so if only I could think of what got Dan's panties in such a twist. At worst, I said something completely innocuous...a mere mention of his kids in some manner not at all directed at them in any way...but as is his way, Dan deleted the comment not for that innocuous reference to his kids, but because the point of the comment offended his girlish sensibilities to the extent such comments always do, and he chose to pretend the mention of his kids was somehow egregious and...how's he referring to me now?...oh yeah...bullying in order to rationalize his unmerited cancelling of my comment.
I have to say that of late, most of my comments at Dan's Blog of LIes have been more of the drive-by type, but still are worthy of more respect than he gives any other of my...or our...comments there. Talk about "bullying". More hypocrisy from Dan.
But note, while we've both referenced that deletion often enough, Dan chooses to respond to those references not with an accurate (if any) presentation of what I supposedly said about his kids, but simply more personal attacks on us both. Such is the way of "embracing grace".
Dan,
I would go into detail about CS Lewis's position on the moral law -- we all simultaneously know the law but fail to keep it -- but I hardly see the point. If Lewis didn't convince you, I won't either, but it's worth reiterating that he presented this position as central to "mere" Christianity.
He was right to do so. Small-o orthodoxy affirms our desperate need for salvation from sin, even if you think most of us are generally good simply because we've avoided the crimes of assault and murder.
It's still worth quoting one bit from Lewis: "None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologize to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them."
You think you're in no need of the Great Physician. Fine, then leave Him to those of us who know we need Him.
---
On the one hand, you write, "We just don't always know precisely what the right thing to do is." On the other hand, you say, "I don't think it's rational or ultimately biblical to think of 'sin' as a list of dos and don'ts."
But those "do's and don't's" elaborate on exactly how one should love God and one's neighbor and even one's enemy. You've reduced the common man's sin from outright rebellion to mere stumbling, but you dismiss the Scriptural teachings that would give us the details you say we lack.
About the interpretation of the Bible, I believe some teachings are so clear that they preclude any reasonable alternative. If someone wants to disagree, the burden is on him to show that alternative.
When I say that I believe "hate your parents" is hyperbole, I explain what verses require that we love and honor our parents, and I present an interpretation for what that hyperbole means: it means that we love God so completely that we're willing to set aside all other relationships, including love of self, to such a degree that it may even appear to be hate.
(Even today, families are torn apart when one person becomes a committed Christian. "If you love me, you would stop going to that Bible study," a mother or husband might say, but Christian devotion requires us to make a stand for Christ.)
You say you think "there is no one good but God" is figurative, BUT YOU DON'T OFFER AN INTERPRETATION FOR WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN FIGURATIVELY. You just invoke "figurative language!" as a get-out-of-jail-free card; you don't explain the figurative meaning because you don't think you have to.
Meanwhile, in that same passage, the disciples despaired that no one deserves to enter God's kingdom, and Jesus taught that it's possible with God. We have details that are entirely consistent with the idea that there really is no one good but God.
---
You say you're basically good. In the story of the Pharisee and the publican, it was only the humble tax collector who went away justified.
And you demand evidence regarding those aspects of existence where we most depend on revlation: the moral law, the afterlife, the future judgment.
Abraham in Luke 16 might have the right response:
You have Moses and the Prophets, that ought to be enough. If you do not listen to them, you wouldn't even listen if someone came back from the dead.
Unlike the rich man, you do know of someone who rose and could teach with authority what God wants and what judgment awaits us. We can't make you listen to Him, nor (what's worse) we can't even compel you to be honest about your beliefs regarding Him.
Re: Bubba's 11:50am comments on 8/24:
Bubba, is there a question there in any of that? I see none. Just your personal opinions. My question to you is, do you recognize that the various opinions you offer in that comment ARE your personal opinions (along perhaps, with Lewis and other humans...)?
You stated:
You say you think "there is no one good but God" is figurative, BUT YOU DON'T OFFER AN INTERPRETATION FOR WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN FIGURATIVELY. You just invoke "figurative language!" as a get-out-of-jail-free card; you don't explain the figurative meaning because you don't think you have to.
I'd say
1. Of course, there are good people... people whose lives are filled with reasonably good actions. The social worker striving to find homes for the homeless, the teachers working to educate children, the church full of people who welcome immigrants, etc, etc.
It's objectively observable.
Do you somehow disagree? Based on what?
That's a reasonable and serious question.
2. So, given the reality of good people (NOT perfect people, but people who live lives helping others, being kind, working for justice...), what do I think Jesus was getting at?
I think clearly, at least one thing Jesus was getting at was the failure of the legalistic to be good. They tithed and followed the rules, but failed to live up to the higher ideals of justice and community and love for the least of these. This is central to Jesus' teachings and I've repeatedly made this point. So, I'm NOT "just" pointing to obviously figurative language, I'm giving alternative explanations.
Did I fail to communicate that in a way that you understood it? If so, my apologies. Do you understand now?
Dan
Bubba stated, with NO support...
We can't make you listen to Him, nor (what's worse) we can't even compel you to be honest about your beliefs regarding Him.
Name even ONE way I've been dishonest about my beliefs? You know that you can't support this claim, right? Because I've never not been honest with y'all about my beliefs about Jesus. You DO understand that you all not understanding what I've said is not the same as being dishonest.
Come now, let's have a good faith discussion, not one littered with false, unsupported claims.
Dan
Bubba:
You say you're basically good.
To be clear, I'm saying that all of humanity is imperfect, myself included, AND that most of us do not engage in murder, theft, rape, assault, etc... the more seriously harmful wrongs, from a human rights point of view. We imperfect humans DO act imperfectly... maybe we should have been kinder to that driver in front of us, who drove badly. Maybe we shouldn't have rolled our eyes or snapped at our mothers (wives, children, etc) as often as we did.
But these typical misdeeds of most of humanity are NOT the same as murder, rape, slavery, assault, etc.
What you STILL haven't even tried to do, so far as I can tell, is deal with the Justice problem that conservatives have. HOW is eternal torture a just punishment for the variety of "missing the mark" failure to be perfect misdeeds of most of humanity?
I'm still waiting for you to address that and I hope you either try or admit you have no good, rational, moral answer to that question.
Blessings upon you as you ponder this important question.
Bubba:
About the interpretation of the Bible, I believe some teachings are so clear that they preclude any reasonable alternative. If someone wants to disagree, the burden is on him to show that alternative.,/I>
I agree. CLEARLY, the Bible teaches a Just God, a perfectly just AND loving God. This is central to a wide variety of biblical teachings about God and what is reasonable. Now, IF some humans want to suggest that this perfectly just and loving God will punish someone for an eternity with torture (which is, on the face of it, hellishly unjust), then the burden is on you all to make your rather astounding and, on-the-face-of-it, ungodly claim to that effect.
Which is why I keep waiting for you to address this gaping hole in your collective opinions. Have I missed, in all these many comments, where you have even begun to TRY to address this biblical and rational problem you all have?
I don't think I have. Still waiting...
Just to elaborate further on this:
You say you think "there is no one good but God" is figurative, BUT YOU DON'T OFFER AN INTERPRETATION FOR WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN FIGURATIVELY. You just invoke "figurative language!" as a get-out-of-jail-free card; you don't explain the figurative meaning because you don't think you have to.
Well, given the reality of objectively good people, by normal standards and measures of Good, I don't. You are the one making the unbelievable claim that there are NO GOOD PEOPLE, and indeed, that people are "totally depraved" and "evil."
Am I mistaken? Aren't those the claims you are making?
But then, how do you deal with the reality of good people (ie, people who live lives doing good)?
I know dozens of people (people that people like you all would doubt that they're Christians and, in some cases don't claim to be Christian) who daily/weekly/regularly:
* Do jobs that help the homeless, the disabled, orphans, the mentally ill, those with addictions, children in need of education, the poor, refugees, etc.
* They take these jobs knowing that they'll make way less money than they could selling cars or TVs or other "for-profit" businesses. It's not about the money for them.
* Or, in some cases, they're doing these good works outside their paid work... they adopt children in need of homes and parents, they visit the sick and elderly who are in need of company, they love their own children and families and parents and take care of them... and do a GREAT JOB of it.
* or otherwise daily/regularly engage in acts of kindness and love and compassion and justice, NOT because they get some gain out of it, but just for the love of humanity...
* AND, additionally, they aren't engaged in any of the over the top evil acts of humanity - they're not assaulting, raping, murdering, stealing... and they are appalled that some would do such awful things.
You'll need to explain - with data - HOW these people are not generally good people? Because I see them every day, and I KNOW good people exist because they are my friends, my family, people I interact with.
I'm guessing you may be trying to re-define "Good" in some non-normative way. As in, "Well, they're not perfect!" So what? No one is? IF they were perfect, then where would the goodness be? The people I know who are good are good IN SPITE of not being perfect.
Do you not see the real world problem you all have? You have to explain SOMEHOW how otherwise observably good people are not "Good," as YOU want to determine it.
And then, once you've done that, we have to assess, is your alternative definition of "good" reasonable, moral or biblical.
That ball remains in your court.
Dan, I've already addressed the issue.
As I said yesterday, "I believe the punishment is for an underlying rebelliousness and not merely for a short list of offenses," and I will reiterate that I believe CS Lewis summarizes the situation very well indeed:
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened."
I didn't say you said you were perfect, only that you said you were basically good: you seem to agree by saying that you make mistakes (not that you commit sins!) and that the infractions hardly compare to outright assault even though Christ clearly taught that lust and hatred are as bad as adultery and murder.
I do think you seem to be honest about what you believe, but not about how you would describe yourself in light of those beliefs. The list of areas is growing, where it seems you disagree even with the plain meaning of Christ's teachings in the absence of any alternative interpretation, much less a plausible interpretation.
- the reason God made us male and female
- the eternal judgment of hell
- the broad path that leads to destruction, and the many who walk it
- "there is none good but God"
- and now, the equivalence of lust and adultery, hatred and murder
And here I thought you admired the Sermon on the Mount!
You mention "many of us Bible-loving, Bible-believing, High view of God people," but that description simply doesn't seem to apply to you.
Q11.B. Is there anything that the Bible teaches, anything at all, that you believe is NOT accessible to us by human reason but which you STILL accept simply because the Bible teaches, or Jesus teaches it? Is the Bible ever instructive for you and not just a convenient source of confirmation for what you've come to believe from other places?
Is it ever sufficient to say, "For the Bible tells me so"?
This entire conversation makes clear to me the importance of a proper understanding of revelation -- that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts, that the Holy Spirit searches God's thoughts and gave the Bible's writers the very words they used to teach us God's word, and that these revelations belong to us and our children as an inheritance. (Is 55:9, 1 Cor 2:10-13, Dt 29:29)
We should look to God's revelation as the primary and supreme source of truth, not as a mere supplement to what we can reach through our own ability to reason.
And we should share Isaiah's reaction when confronted with the holiness of God.
> And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” -- Is 6:5
There's no indication that the prophet was guilty of assault or murder, but he knew he had no business standing before God: he was man of unclean lips -- just unclean lips! -- and as we should, he relied on God to save and cleanse and justify him.
I can stand with Isaiah, or more precisely I kneel beside him, before a truly holy God and a truly loving Father. I cannot bring myself to fellowship with someone who thinks our lives are merely flawed and in need of forbearance, when our lives have been sinful and in desperate need of salvation.
I worship Jesus as Savior and Lord, I do not merely admire the man as a good teacher with whom I have the liberty to disagree.
Bubba:
As I said yesterday, "I believe the punishment is for an underlying rebelliousness and not merely for a short list of offenses," and I will reiterate that I believe CS Lewis summarizes the situation very well indeed:
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened."
I KNOW you said that and I KNOW you quoted Lewis. The point I continue to point out that you're NOT addressing is, so what? What IF you personally believe that? What IF Lewis personally believes that? Where is the proof that ""There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' "? That is certainly a CLAIM that Lewis makes. Where is the proof of it? What of all the people I know, myself included, that don't generally say to God that they don't want to do right or do what God wants?
Where is the proof to support your personal human theory that humans have a rebellious heart?
Where is the proof to support your personal human theory that if you have this theoretical "rebellious heart" that the right and just and loving punishment for that is an eternity of torture?
The PROOF of your opinions is what's lacking. That, and your unwillingness to admit that this is your unproven, unprovable opinion.
You merely citing verses from the Bible or text from Lewis or your own personal opinions is not in any way proof, and certainly not objective proof. It is and remains your opinion. Will you admit as much?
Also, while you don't have proof at all that all humans are "evil," "totally depraved" or have a "rebellious heart," I DO have objective evidence of actually good people, as good is typically understood.
Perhaps if you'd do as I suggested earlier and gave your working definition of Good, you could make more sense.
Look, I appreciate the conversation and your attempts to answer me and your patience with me attempting to answer you, but from what I see, it is still coming down to you REALLY believe your opinion is correct and I don't, given the known data. I CAN point to actually good people, demonstrably, objectively good people. Jimmy Carter, for instance.
But what you're failing to do is even try to support your opinion other than pointing to verses and telling me: THIS is what I personally believe those verses to mean. That is, by definition, a subjective opinion and will remain one IF you can't prove it.
Also, until you somehow prove all the good people I know are somehow NOT good people, I simply can't ignore the hard evidence. Doesn't that make sense?
While I'm still waiting for you to actually answer the questions I'm actually asking, I'll answer another series of questions from you:
Q11.B. Is there anything that the Bible teaches, anything at all, that you believe is NOT accessible to us by human reason but which you STILL accept simply because the Bible teaches, or Jesus teaches it?
No. Nor do you. We ALL use our reasoning to think, Does Jesus meant that he literally came to preach good news to the poor, or figuratively, or both?
You use your reasoning to decide, Did Jesus mean none of us should store up treasures here on earth, and what does that mean? No savings at all..?
You DO use your human reasoning to assess the meaning of various texts, or do you not?
Do you treat every line in the bible literally or do you assess it?
Is the Bible ever instructive for you and not just a convenient source of confirmation for what you've come to believe from other places?
The Bible is EXTREMELY instructive to me. It's our only record of Jesus' words, it tells us stories of people following God in the past, it paints an extremely cohesive and consistent picture of God as a God of love and justice, which is part of the reason I reject some conservative theories about a gracelessly punitive and unjust God as contrary to biblical teachings of God's nature.
Is it ever sufficient to say, "For the Bible tells me so"?
For 2nd graders? Maybe. (Maybe.)
For grown adults, it's not a very helpful construct as far as that goes and that thinking has been a tool of oppression and control for centuries.
Why? Because adults use their God-given reasoning to sort out a wide variety of lessons and words.
We are not beholden to a speechless opinionless book that we must jump through hoops that it doesn't give.
Dan
Post a Comment