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 401 – 564 of 564Marshal, I did post another comment before the one at 5:37pm, 8/25. I hope it went through okay.
Bubba:
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.
But I HAVE offered what I consider an above and beyond reasonable AND biblical explanations of my positions where I think I am the one going with the plain meaning of Jesus' teachings and you all are the ones ignoring that. I HAVE offered clearly obvious alternative interpretations.
I wonder, are you all just missing it? Is it the case that you have been so accustomed to the human traditions and opinions that you believe that you aren't even SEEING obvious, direct answers when they're offered?
For instance, I've been quite clear that I think the Bible clearly teaches that God is a God of perfect justice and perfect love. And ANY human interpretations of various texts that besmirch God's justice and love ARE anti-biblical and anti-Christian, from my point of view. Perhaps the most glaringly obvious of these is where you all think that, IN SPITE of clear biblical teachings of God's just and loving nature, that YOU personally hold the opinion that torturing the vast majority of humanity for eternity is NOT a rebuke of God's just and loving nature. You've not even tried to defend it, beyond saying that you hold the personal opinion that it's not our various misdeeds and "sins" that require eternal torture, it's the having a "rebellious heart," and yet you provide NO evidence for it other than you think in your personal human opinion that the Bible hints at it.
Just in case my earlier comment didn't go through for some reason, I'll try it again. If you already received me dealing with this point, Marshal, no need to publish both.
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."
Bubba, I understand that THAT is your personal opinion. I understand that your Lewis quote is HIS personal opinion. That's not in question.
The question is, do you have any proof that your personal opinion is objectively right? Where is your PROOF - objective, demonstrable proof that what we'll be tortured for an eternity for is because we have this theoretical "rebellious heart" you believe in? THAT is the question that you're not answering. Merely repeating that this is what you personally are saying is NOT an answer to the question.
DO YOU HAVE PROOF? WHERE? IF you don't have objectively provable proof, then just say so clearly. That's what I'm asking.
Do you understand the question I'm asking and WHY it is important?
My further question is, EVEN IF you could prove that all humans have this "rebellious heart," WHO SAYS that the only moral punishment is to torture humans for an eternity for having one? Based upon what?
AND UNDERSTAND: IT MUST be something other than, "Well, I read X in the Bible and that makes me personally think that both we objectively have a "rebellious heart" AND that the only just punishment is eternal torture..." That is begging the question. It's a logical fallacy.
Do you even understand the problem that you are having in this conversation? Is it possible you're so indoctrinated that you are not even SEEING the rational and biblical problem you're having in answering this question, which is why it goes unanswered?
This is, as always, quite strange.
Dan,
I believe I'm current with all comments intended to appear here. The one to which you refer now appears twice, so I'll leave it to you to delete if you want. I don't personally mind it appearing twice...despite its content. Also, someone is still posing as you, though that attempt would have appeared in the most recent post, had I not deleted it. It clearly didn't look as if you wrote it. If you notice such a comment with your name on it, just let me know the date and time and I'll delete it.
Art,
It's too bad that Dan was so scared of yrou comment that he was compelled to delete it, and that you can't remember what you said that triggered him so.
The obvious easy way to resolve this would be to see the offending comment and to be able to judge it. Unfortunately, Dan's fear precludes this and his track record of misrepresenting and lying about deleting comments doesn't help him now.
I find Dan's insistence on the existence of "minor sins" continually amusing. He's never defined what those "minor sins" are, nor explained the cut off point between "minor" and major sins, nor explained whether or not an accumulation of "minor" sins can equal major sins. Yet, he acts as if this unproven hunch is a foregone conclusion, while complaining that the scripture Bubba offers is somehow insufficient to stand against his unproven hunches.
Bubba,
What I've gotten from Dan in similar conversations is not that he believes mankind is basically good, but that he believes mankind is intrinsically good. Maybe that's a distinction without a difference, but it seems as though he's been clear that humans are born 100% without sin, and that it is theoretically possible to live a sin free life.
Craig...
What I've gotten from Dan in similar conversations is not that he believes mankind is basically good, but that he believes mankind is intrinsically good. Maybe that's a distinction without a difference, but it seems as though he's been clear that humans are born 100% without sin, and that it is theoretically possible to live a sin free life.
To be clear:
1. I recognize the reality that every human is imperfect, with perhaps the exception of babies/infants. This is observable reality and there are biblical teachings that agree with that reality. This is an important starting point to understand. It's one thing for perfect people to be perfect. Of course they are. What else would they be?
But to expect imperfect humans to be perfect is just irrational, like expecting a mouse to grow wings and fly to the moon. It just won't happen.
2. Given that we are imperfect, we humans, nonetheless, don't generally set out to be bad or do bad things. Rather, with some exceptions, we tend to strive to do the right things, even if imperfectly. We don't typically innately have a desire to rebel. At least I don't see much evidence that this is a widespread phenomenon. Maybe I've just been fortunate to be around dozens and hundreds and thousands of such people in my life, but that's been my experience.
Perhaps rhaps it would help if you all define what you mean by Rebellious Hearts and Good?
3. Newborns have not sinned and thus, are without sin. To say otherwise is a rather outside-the-norm claim and you'd have to support it with something more than just your claim. If you want to say that these babies were born as humans and thus, will be imperfect, as is common for humanity, that's one thing. But we can't reasonably say they are actively sinning, EVEN IF you personally want to interpret a passage that way. It's a nonsense claim.
Dan
Craig...
I find Dan's insistence on the existence of "minor sins" continually amusing. He's never defined what those "minor sins" are, nor explained the cut off point between "minor" and major sins,
And I find it strange if you want to insist that killing a baby is just as wrong as stealing a lollipop and even stranger if you want to suggest it's just to punish both misdeeds with eternal torture.
Is that what you're suggesting?
Average rational adults can recognize that murder and rape are vile assaults on human rights with atrocious harm involved. A great injustice. And rational adults can recognize that stealing a lollipop is wrong, but it's not like it's a great human rights tragedy. To punish them with the same penalty would be unjust.
Do you somehow disagree?
Dan
I answered Bubba's request about Good People by saying...
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."
An anology: some conservatives claim that the Earth is flat because of a line or two that they interpret to mean the Earth is flat.
Now, we don't NEED to present biblical text to try to "prove" the Earth is a sphere. We can look to the data to say, um, no. The data shows a spherical globe. NO MATTER what some people interpret the Bible to say, the Earth is a sphere.
Likewise, I see good people. Objectively. Demonstrably. I don't need a Bible verse to tell me what I see with my eyes is real. Rather, you all need to explain what you mean by your irrational claims.
How is that mistaken? You DO acknowledge if data shows something to be true, it doesn't matter what the Bible does or doesn't have in its pages, right?
Dan
NO "conservatives" cite any verse in Scripture to claim the earth is flat. But even if you were to have embraced grace by choosing not to pretend any conservative has or would, your analogy still represents a complete failure. Your "data" is to suggest people doing good things means they're good from a Biblical perspective. But it isn't a Biblical perspective. It's a "Dan" perspective, or a human perspective based on what individuals...alone or in groups...determine to be criteria for establishing what makes for a "good" person.
So you don't see "good" people. You see people who do things you label "good" and by that metric choose to label them "good" as well. Doing good works alone does not align with the Scriptural evidence of pagans and non-Christians doing good works. What's more, your notions of what constitutes "goodness" is personal, even if shared by other Jeff St people or anyone else. Literally millions of others have a different standard, with some far different than yours.
"Data" is meaningless for this purpose and for most others where we differ on what's truly Scriptural. Here, your "data" is limited by, not only how much you know of any given person...including your immediate family members, for example...the fact that you can't know every detail about their thoughts, feelings and motivations.
And as we can see with your full-on, totally unChristian seething hatred of Donald Trump, your "data" is totally skewed by your personal choices regarding how you rank someone on the "goodness" scale. Trump you hate and rationalize it based on rumors and things you hear without having done jack shit to verify or refute any of it. At the same time, you wet yourself over similarly negative tales of those you've elevated to sainthood, be it a total schmuck like Biden or Harris, to someone like MLK Jr. From these to Trump, you've chosen to label them according to your whims.
You haven no "data" which contradicts Scripture, particularly on issues of morality and "goodness". There is none good but God.
Marshal...
What's more, your notions of what constitutes "goodness" is personal, even if shared by other Jeff St people or anyone else
By all means, give your working definition of good. Or is it the case that you think we have no way to define Good?
Myself, I don't think it's that difficult. Good: moral, kind, helpful, compassionate, considerate... you know, good.
And most people I know live lives to some degree of good. Many people I know are literally in helping professions, pouring out their lives in service to others.
On what basis would you say they're not good, these people you don't even know?
Dan
From Psych Central...
"being a “good” person means embracing qualities that promote positive outcomes and well-being for humanity as a whole. Compassion, empathy, integrity, and kindness are just a few examples of what makes someone “good.”
This is what I and I think most people think of as being a good person. By these sorts of standard definitions, of course, there are good people. We can see them with our own eyes. Heck, you're probably a good person, aren't you? In spite of your belligerent, vulgar words and various attacks, you're probably even doing THAT in an attempt to do good... or are you being intentionally bad when you go vulgar and abusive?
Dan
Dan,
1. Likewise there are Biblical teachings that your hunch is not consistent with. Why would I choose your hunch and your cherry picked, proof texts, over the whole of scripture? You make claims about some people being sinless and prefect, with zero proof of your claims.
2. Well, as long as you have unprovable anecdotal evidence who could possibly doubt you. Because clearly your "experience" and ability to know people's deepest thoughts and actions when you can't see them is much more convincing than scripture.
3. Impressive bit of circular reasoning and self validation there.
"Is that what you're suggesting?"
No. Of course this is a stellar job of moving the goal posts away from your inability to define your sin categories, prove that they exist, and demonstrate that your claims are True. Well done.
"Do you somehow disagree?"
Yes, I disagree with you imposing your hunches on something that is properly reserved for YHWH.
"given the reality of objectively good people, by normal standards and measures of Good,"
1. What are the objective, universal, "normal standards" of measuring good?
2. What is "Good" as opposed to good? Is there some secret "Good" that is self existent and therefore needs to be capitalized as if it's a distinct entity?
3. Given that Jesus was clear that "no one" except YHWH was "good", why would I believe you over Jesus?
Craig...
1. What are the objective, universal, "normal standards" of measuring good?
We don't have any. You don't have any.
Rather, we have our moral reasoning which is pretty effective, even if imperfect.
Asking that is like, "well, where is our teleporter so we can move from place to place instantly? If we don't have that, then we can't get anywhere!"
Well, of course, we can. We can walk, for instance.
Bemoaning not having something no one has is irrelevant.
Do you acknowledge you, we don't have an objective, universal source for understanding Good.
2. What is "Good" as opposed to good? Is there some secret "Good" that is self existent and therefore needs to be capitalized as if it's a distinct entity?
I've explained. I'm just talking about good, as commonly defined. How do YOU define it?
3. Given that Jesus was clear that "no one" except YHWH was "good", why would I believe you over Jesus?
You're begging the question. Did Jesus mean literally that no one is good? That's the question at hand. You can't just assume your opinion is right, then point to your opinion as proof.
You understand that's begging the question?
Dan
Marshal...
How I define "good" depends on the context in which such a question arises. Am I comparing two or more people against each other, or am I considering what "good" references according to Christ?
Sooo... how are you defining Good, then?
It appears you're saying you "don't have any problem with we humans labeling some people as good..."
Well, that's literally what I'm doing. I'm acknowledging the reality of good people, as you appear to agree with.
And I'm NOT saying we are as good as an omniscient, perfectly loving and just and good God. Of course.
So, are you saying that YOUR personal human theory is that, unless we're as good as God (ie, perfect) we're not ACTUALLY good? And that the penalty for imperfect humans not being perfect is not only that we're not as good as God, but that we've done something deserving of eternal torture?
?!
If so, do you at least see how people of good faith might find that theory/subjective human opinion to be lacking in any rational support and that, indeed, it runs contrary to the biblical concept of a just and loving God?
And can you see that I'm not being rude or mean when I note that... I just disagree with that unsupported human opinion.
And don't say, but the Bible says... no good people. You've already agreed that there are, OF COURSE, good people. You can't cite the Bible verse/idea in question as the answer to the question. That's a logical error.
Did Jesus and other biblical authors mean that there are literally no good people, that indeed, we're all totally depraved and evil - even the babies ! - that's the question being asked.
Looking forward to some respectful, good faith answers to these questions.
Dan
One more point, on the biblical word, Good (agathos in Greek) in Mark 10, where Jesus says there's no one good... it's just the typical word good, or beneficial, of kind character.
And there are, of course, several men who are described as good or righteous in the Bible. Job and Noah, for example.
The question remains, did Jesus mean there are NO good people? Or was he using hyperbole or otherwise figurative? Given the reality of good people, as both Marshal and the Bible testify to, it can't reasonably be literal.
That's the point you need to address with something more than just citing a verse and insisting it must be taken literally.
Dan
"How I define "good" depends on the context in which such a question arises."
Bingo, good when applied to comparing human beings to each other is a relative term, informed by the biases of the one doing the comparison. When Jesus references good, it seems to be an objective standard based on YHWH. In comparison to YHWH , who is the very essence or standard of good, there is no human who meets that objective standard.
1. Great dodge, admitting that you have no standard to make the statements you make.
2. Answer the question asked. What makes "Good" unique and special enough to merit a capital letter.
3. In the absence of you offering any counter interpretation, I see no reason to choose not to take Jesus at the plain meaning of His words. If you have an alternative explanation that fits the context, offer it. But to simply blow off taking the statement as if it means what it says is stupid.
"And I'm NOT saying we are as good as an omniscient, perfectly loving and just and good God."
But you do seem to be saying that the small group of people you claim are "good" are "good" enough for salvation, correct?
Craig, if you're not going to answer questions, just get out of the way and let the good faith conversation continue. I will ask you another question/point out another hole in your human theories:
good when applied to comparing human beings to each other is a relative term, informed by the biases of the one doing the comparison. When Jesus references good, it seems to be an objective standard based on YHWH. In comparison to YHWH , who is the very essence or standard of good, there is no human who meets that objective standard.
"It seems to be..." IT SEEMS... to YOU. That is YOUR personal interpretation and that's fine, as long as you recognize it is your personal opinion and naught else.
Also, the PERFECTION of God is not the definition of Good. That's perfect. Jesus didn't say "no one is PERFECT," he said no one is GOOD. And since clearly there ARE good people (as good is typically understood and as the Greek word being used even indicates) so Jesus clearly must not be speaking literally, but figuratively somehow. Right?
OR, do you hold the opinion/theory that Jesus was giving a NEW definition of the term Good... and that no one is GOOD (meaning perfect) and thus, ALL those who are imperfect should be tortured alive for an eternity for the "crime of being imperfect... even when we didn't have a choice, being imperfect humans." Is THAT your personal human theory? If so, then you'll have to address the Justice problem that you all have.
Or maybe just step out of the way if you're not going to answer questions. Bubba and I can continue without your sniping.
Also:
But you do seem to be saying that the small group of people you claim are "good" are "good" enough for salvation, correct?
NO. NO. NO. I'm saying we are saved by God's GRACE, not by good works. Period.
I'm also just noting the justice problem you all have when you want to imagine that "god" (as you theorize) will torture people for an eternity for the crime of being imperfect... IF that's what you're saying.
I've given an alternative explanation. Did you miss it?
One more thing:
1. Great dodge, admitting that you have no standard to make the statements you make.
Admitting reality is not a "dodge..." Do you seriously think that admitting reality is some kind of "dodge..."?
Or are you pretending that YOU have some secret super-special way of objectively universally "proving" Good and you're not willing to answer the question or you'll have spoiled the secret?
And I go back and forth between capitalizing Good, just as a way of making it stand out, as opposed to just being a good word in the middle of a sentence. I apologize if that offends you or confuses you somehow. Given more time in a limitless world, I might stop and italicize good each time I use it to SPEAK of the notion of "being good," but I figured you all were adult enough to figure it out.
Good Lord, have mercy.
Craig:
But to simply blow off taking the statement as if it means what it says is stupid.
I AM extremely curious: IN SPITE of me offering explanation after explanation, explaining my position and WHY I hold it and WHY it's even a biblical position to take... In SPITE of me answering this question for probably decades now, I don't think you all have even heard my answer.
Is it the case that you do not understand that I HAVE offered an "alternative explanation" that fits the context and I'm NOT blowing off your human opinions simply because you can not and have not even TRIED to support your opinion with anything more than, "Well, it's what I think the Bible teaches..." Do you not understand I've offered my biblical, rational reason to oppose what I believe to be your UN-biblical, irrational and wholly unsupported opinions/theories? I don't know/haven't counted, but I've probably answered that question at least half a dozen times in this thread alone. Did you miss them?
I'll wait.
"Also, the PERFECTION of God is not the definition of Good"
I never said that it was.
"And since clearly there ARE good people (as good is typically understood and as the Greek word being used even indicates) so Jesus clearly must not be speaking literally, but figuratively somehow. Right?"
No, you've laid no foundation for that claim.
"OR, do you hold the opinion/theory that Jesus was giving a NEW definition of the term Good... and that no one is GOOD (meaning perfect) and thus, ALL those who are imperfect should be tortured alive for an eternity for the "crime of being imperfect... even when we didn't have a choice, being imperfect humans." "
No.
"Is THAT your personal human theory? If so, then you'll have to address the Justice problem that you all have."
No. I have no "justice problem", that's something you've made up based on your subjective, personal, biased, imperfect definition of justice.
"I've given an alternative explanation. Did you miss it?"
If by "alternative explanation: you're referring to your claim that Jesus was speaking figuratively based on your subjective, personal, anecdotal experience that's hardly persuasive.
"Admitting reality is not a "dodge..." Do you seriously think that admitting reality is some kind of "dodge..."?"
Yes. You admitting the reality that you have no objective standard on which to base your claims is helpful, interesting, and revealing. Yet it's still dodging the question asked.
"Or are you pretending that YOU have some secret super-special way of objectively universally "proving" Good and you're not willing to answer the question or you'll have spoiled the secret?"
No, my pointing out the reality that you have no standard on which to base your claims, is nothing more than that. My pointing out your failure does not equal my making a claim on the subject. Again, your ability to move goalposts to divert attention away from the flaws in your claims is impressive.
"And I go back and forth between capitalizing Good, just as a way of making it stand out, as opposed to just being a good word in the middle of a sentence."
Interesting choice to use nonstandard English grammar randomly with no apparent reason. But I appreciate your snarky answer to a reasonable question, even if if makes no sense.
You've offered an "alternative explanation" with no evidence that your explanation is more likely to be correct than the plain meaning of the text. One that actually contradicts the plain meaning of the text, and one that is solely based on your imperfect, anecdotal, subjective, personal hunches based on limited observation of a small sample.
I would add another criticism of Dan's "good faith" arguing that it is bad form to try and tie an irrelevant point to a point being discussed. In this case, the point regards who is "good" or what constitutes "good". If it is the case on the table, stick to it. Once a resolution has been established, then move on to another point, such as "eternal 'torture'". Until then, "eternal 'torture'" is a distraction.
As to "goodness", I don't think it's out of line to regard it in terms of perfection, such that when two Gospels report Jesus as having affirmed "there is no one good but God", it's a matter of highlighting the truth that God is the embodiment and model of goodness...a standard which we can never meet because only God is truly good. The best we can be is some much lower facsimile of good, but still be regarded by each other as good. In Scripture, we see several verses encouraging us to be "holy" (Lev 19:2, 20:7, 20:26 and again re-stated in 1 Peter 1:16). But we aren't by nature "holy" or we would not be encouraged to aspire to that lofty state. It's the same with "goodness". Only God is holy. Only God is good. Compared to Him, we aren't even close because "holy" and "good" are absolutes. God never "misses the mark" and that's what makes Him uniquely good and holy. We can't fail to miss the mark and that's why we're not truly good or holy. We can only strive to be. By striving we impress other people such that we may be regarded by many as "good" or "a holy man", but that's relative to other people, not to God who truly is good and holy.
Dan and his peeps like to regard each other as good, but given his enabling of perversion and support for infanticide...and worse, his cheap rationalizations therefor...he and they are far from "good". They aspire to their personal understanding...and preferences, actually...for what constitutes good.
Marshal:
I would add another criticism of Dan's "good faith" arguing that it is bad form to try and tie an irrelevant point to a point being discussed. In this case, the point regards who is "good" or what constitutes "good". If it is the case on the table, stick to it. Once a resolution has been established, then move on to another point, such as "eternal 'torture'".
I saw the one as an extension of the other, so I didn't deliberately cross some boundary that should not be crossed. But by all means, let's stick to the problem you all have with the reality of good people.
Again, good has a definition, one we've covered. And you all seem to admit that there ARE good people by the standard (and Biblical) definition. So then, you all are trying (it appears to me) to ADD TO the typical definition of good to say that we aren't REALLY good unless we're perfect, which is moving the goal post.
Do you allow that there are, by standard English (and Greek) definitions, good people in the world?
Is it your position that, the reality of good people notwithstanding, that God has some secret new definition of good that means one must be perfect?
Or explain your position, give your definition and we can move on. Or just get out of the way and we'll see if Bubba handles these questions in a more respectful, rational manner.
And to be clear, My position:
1. There are good people in the world based on rational, moral observations. There ARE good people whose lives have been poured out in loving kindness and work for justice in a wide variety of ways. Observably. Objectively.
Do you agree?
2. These are not perfect people because there are no perfect people... But one can be good and not perfect.
Do you agree?
3. With the exception perhaps of Jesus (although he never made any such claim) and babies, as far as I can see... that is, I can see NO rational basis for saying , "that 3 week old baby is SO imperfect..." ? It's an opinion based on nothing. Are you trying to argue that babies are not perfect?
3a. You may want to try to argue that the newborn or 3 week old baby is "imperfect" by nature of having a theoretical "sin nature," but that is a human theory, not an objective fact. Objectively, we can see that all humans are imperfect and babies will one day be imperfect, but that doesn't mean that the baby itself is imperfect.
If that's your theory, support it with something besides, "I REALLY think that baby has a 'sin nature.'"
4. In short, you all appear to have this theory that, in spite of the reality of good people (as good is typically measured), that they aren't "good enough" for God.
Is that your theory?
5. Do you recognize it as a human theory/opinion, NOT an objective fact?
Art,
In a previous version of this conversation I attempted to get Dan to affirm the eternal nature of Hell, regardless of the conditions (taking the "torture" out of the equation), as I recall he was unwilling to agree that Hell is eternal.
Dan,
First, this is not your blog. Craig is free to post comments within the limitations of what I'll accept as worthy of publishing (note feo's comments as an example of those who aren't).
Second, "I saw the one as an extension of the other"...except that it's not. Not even a little. These are two distinct issues.
Next,
"Again, good has a definition, one we've covered."
And even by the definitions you've chosen, you don't qualify, nor does anyone else. It's simply a word we choose to apply to those we regard as more worthy of the term. The definition of good doesn't allow for "less than good" when applied to one's state of being. One cannot be "good" and ever be "not good" yet still worthy of the title. "Good" is an absolute term. "Mostly good" isn't the same thing. It's not "good enough" for the appropriate use of the word "good". So while we may regard some people as "good", we're simply acknowledging they are better than others. I never regard anyone as good as without flaw, yet everyone we call "good" is flawed and thus not truly "good".
Furthermore, your definition of good is subjective and self-serving, such that your acceptance of particular behaviors clearly anathema to Christian teaching belies the term ever coming within light years of you.
So then, this: "...you all seem to admit that there ARE good people by the standard (and Biblical) definition." No. We admit we use the term as it is commonly used, but not by definition. We believe people do good, but doing good doesn't make one good, despite our referring to them as good people. Typically, saying someone is a good person simply means we can trust they will strive to do good, which isn't the same a "being" good.
" So then, you all are trying (it appears to me) to ADD TO the typical definition of good to say that we aren't REALLY good unless we're perfect, which is moving the goal post."
No. We're not. The reality is that you're diminishing what good is in order to tell yourself you or someone else is good despite not being perfect.
" Do you allow that there are, by standard English (and Greek) definitions, good people in the world?"
No. Because the standard definition does not allow for imperfection. The definition isn't "almost perfect" or "close to perfect". It doesn't allow for any asterisk...and we all have at least one asterisk.
" Is it your position that, the reality of good people notwithstanding, that God has some secret new definition of good that means one must be perfect?"
It's not a "secret". Christ made it clear that God is the standard...not Dan's opinion. Are you "as good" as God? The mere asking makes me laugh!
"Or explain your position, give your definition and we can move on."
Asked and answered, again, and comprehensively and in a manner you've proven incapable of overcoming. I stand with Christ's definition, which is that there is no one good but God. I stand with the several Scriptural verses which confirm we are all sinners. We can't be both sinner and good at the same time. But we can be sinners who strive to be good. It's this latter statement you confuse with "good".
"Or just get out of the way and we'll see if Bubba handles these questions in a more respectful, rational manner."
I'm not in the way posting on my own blog. There's no conversation in which I'm obliged to avoid participating.
YOU, on the other hand, are indeed obliged to explain how any comment of mine is truly disrespectful or irrational. Do it now.
Craig:
eternal nature of Hell, regardless of the conditions (taking the "torture" out of the equation), as I recall he was unwilling to agree that Hell is eternal.
Once again: I do not believe in "hell." I certainly don't believe in "hell" as you all believe in it - as a place of eternal torment where the vast majority of humanity is sent for the "crime" of being imperfect... or being "not good enough by Marshal's definition..." or of having a "rebellious heart..." all of which you all fail to define/make clear.
Further, as I've said over the years, while I tend to believe in an afterlife, in a heaven with the Beloved Community/God, I am for the most part, agnostic about an afterlife. As an objective fact, we have no data on which to form definitive, authoritative opinions about an afterlife.
I believe in Jesus and God and Jesus' teachings and God's realm come on earth as it is in heaven. THAT much, we can understand and evaluate and embrace. Any guesses from any of us about an afterlife are entirely guesses, with NO objective data to operate from.
Do you all acknowledge that reality?
(Apologies, Marshal, for addressing Craig's apparently rude and off-topic comment, I'm just trying to be clear on what I have said.)
Dan,
As to your "positions":
1. No. I disagree. You're again subjectively labeling people as "good" because of a limited supply of good works which you've observed them doing. That doesn't make the "good". That makes them people striving to do good. Not at all the same thing, even if we subjectively choose to regard them as good people, which is no more than a short hand way of saying these are sinners striving to do good works.
2 I disagree, despite our human penchant for using the term to apply to certain people because of their striving to do good works and to be good.
3. Babies are people born with a sin nature. That's not the same as saying they're even capable of committing a sinful act. But having a sin nature is what makes us all sinners...not simply that we say "Shit!" now and then.
3a. That we are all born with a sin nature is not a "human tradition/opinion". It's Biblical teaching and thus fact if you give any credence at all to Scripture...which you do only when personally convenient.
4. Also not a "theory" but a Biblical teaching and thus fact...if you give any credence at all to Scripture...which you do only when personally convenient.
5. Didn't you just ask me this? This whole time I've been speaking from the perspective of Biblical fact. You've been rejecting those facts on the basis of your personal preferences and (*snicker*) "reason". NONE of us are "good enough" for God. If this were not so, He would not have sent us Christ to die for our redemption and sanctification so that God would regard us as "good enough". This is Scripture 101. Can't believe you didn't pick up on this with your years of "serious and prayerful" study.
Craig,
"In a previous version of this conversation I attempted to get Dan to affirm the eternal nature of Hell, regardless of the conditions (taking the "torture" out of the equation), as I recall he was unwilling to agree that Hell is eternal."
Dan's hoping to get out early.
Marshal theorized, with no support:
And even by the definitions you've chosen, you don't qualify, nor does anyone else.
Good definition: :"being a “good” person means
embracing qualities that promote positive outcomes
and well-being for humanity as a whole.
Compassion, empathy, integrity, and kindness
are just a few examples of what makes someone “good.”
I'll speak for my wife as just one example.
* My wife has been a social worker for 38 years.
* She has also been a deacon, minister, chaplain and Sunday School teacher much of her adult life
* She has dedicated her life to embracing qualities that promote positive outcomes
* She has helped house homeless families, veterans, children and those with addictions
* She has patiently worked with those with mental illnesses, being understanding that some of their behavior is beyond their control
* She has acted with compassion, empathy, integrity and kindness
* Further, beyond this lifetime of kindness and being a compassionate helper to the poor and marginalized, she has also helped raise two amazing children
* Those children, themselves, have gone on to be adults seeking to be compassionate and helpful
* She has welcomed strangers, the homeless and immigrants into our house and our lives, gone out of her way to give them support to be healthier, better humans
...and I could go on and on.
* ALSO, she has none of the more egregious "sins" of abusers, molesters, killers, neglecters, cheating, etc. She does not steal, she does not intentionally cause harm or do anything but, from the goodness of her heart and her rational recognition of the wisdom of the Golden Rule and the welcoming of the Beloved Community.
By ANY rational, adult understanding of the typical understanding of good, she is a good person. The same can be said of nearly all of my church members and others in my extended community.
Now, GIVEN THE REALITY of the data at hand, on what basis would you dare suggest she (or these others) are not good people, as good is defined above?
The claim is obtuse and entirely unsupported AND you have no data on which to guess otherwise.
Is it not the case that you are PRESUMING because YOU PERSONALLY want to take Jesus' line "There is no one good..." literally instead of figuratively, that you're dismissing the possibility out of hand, regardless of the evidence precisely because you are presuming YOUR personal opinion is the "right" one, even though you can't support it?
Further, Marshal, you WILL gladly admit that we do not/ought not take every line in the Bible or of those attributed to Jesus literally? That is, have you plucked out your eye when it caused you to sin OR did you recognize that as hyperbole/figurative?
You DO allow that some lines are figurative in the Bible and some, you think, should be understood literally, right?
Then what is your authoritative, infallible rubric for deciding which lines are literal and which are figurative?
More questions for you to ignore. But maybe Bubba will tackle them.
Marshal: 1. No. I disagree. You're again subjectively labeling people as "good" because of a limited supply of good works which you've observed them doing. That doesn't make the "good". That makes them people striving to do good.
PROVE IT.
Or admit you can't prove it.
Those are your options.
Don't be obtuse.
Marshal:
2 I disagree, despite our human penchant for using the term to apply to certain people because of their striving to do good works and to be good.
PROVE IT, or admit that you can't prove it. Be factual: This is YOUR PERSONAL and unsupported opinion, not a fact, right? Can you admit that much?
If you can't, then explain with data/proof why your opinion gets to trump reality.
Marshal:
3. Babies are people born with a sin nature. That's not the same as saying they're even capable of committing a sinful act. But having a sin nature is what makes us all sinners...not simply that we say "Shit!" now and then.
The question was: Are you trying to argue that babies are not perfect?
3a. That we are all born with a sin nature is not a "human tradition/opinion".
It literally is a human opinion, subjective and unsupported with objective data. YOU THINK it, but that doesn't make it a fact.
But by all means: PROVE IT.
Or admit that you can't. (Hint: As always, you merely citing a bible passage or a phrase from Harry Potter or your favorite playboy magazine and saying, "Because it says so HERE!" is not objective proof.)
Same for 4 and 5. IF all you have to support it is YOUR PERSONAL UNPROVEN HUMAN OPINION OF WHAT YOU PERSONALLY THINK IN YOUR HEAD THAT A BIBLE VERSE MEANS TO YOU is literally a subjective opinion.
How is it that you all don't understand this?
Bubba?
Marshal:
Also not a "theory" but a Biblical teaching and thus fact...if you give any credence at all to Scripture...
So, it is objectively, demonstrably a "biblical teaching" that Jesus literally said he'd literally come to preach the literal good news to the poor, the imprisoned, the sick and to release the captives. There is literally NO hint that Jesus is speaking metaphorically there in that text or context.
Jesus was quoting the Prophet Isaiah who likewise, gave no indication of speaking metaphorically.
This same Jesus talked about the Realm of God that welcomed the poor and marginalized throughout his life and teaching. WAY more so than any hints of "all humans are evil" or "atonement theories." WAY more than any condemnation of gay folks marrying. It was observably a central theme in the teachings of Jesus, where he mentioned that sort of thing more than anything else except perhaps for the "realm of God," which is actually in the same vein.
Jesus being on the side of the literally poor and "least of these" is objectively a "biblical teaching" and therefore, I wonder: Do you think it is a FACT? Or do you take all those passages in a more figurative sense, even though he talks about them WAY more than "no good people..."?
The reality is that the texts say what they say and we humans interpret them the best we can, but our interpretations ARE human opinions, subjective and unproven.
You demonstrate this by your rejection of Jesus literal teachings as to be "rightly understood" (according to YOU) as figurative.
The difference is, even when the topic is so overwhelmingly obvious as Jesus' teachings about wealth and poverty and the realm of God, I acknowledge that my opinions about those obvious teachings ARE still my opinions, opinions I can't prove, any more than you can even come close (or even ATTEMPT) to prove with your personal human opinions.
But I don't guess you even see that, do you?
Bubba, do you recognize that our human opinions about Jesus coming to preach good news to the poor and marginalized and Jesus mention of "no one is good..." ARE our human opinions, unproven and unprovable?
Marshal theorized:
It's not a "secret". Christ made it clear that God is the standard...not Dan's opinion. Are you "as good" as God?
So... you're saying one has to be "as good as God" in order to be saved, and ANY imperfection, ONE SIN, even, means that you are doomed and deserving of an eternity of torture.
Is that your opinion?
Do you see why the two issues ("goodness" and eternal damnation) are interlinked and how, IF one can't prove their theory that merely being imperfect is somehow deserving of an eternity of torture as the penalty, then your human theory (not "biblical fact" - once again, THAT is the question and you're begging the question... fallacy) falls apart?
August 28, 2024 at 3:12 PM
To begin, I have limited time at the moment, so I don't know how much I'll cover until that limited time runs out. I just know it won't be all of it, and until I do, I insist you not respond to anything I post now until I've responded to all five comments. Should Bubba appear to continue his half of your discussion with him, respond to him only until I complete my response to all five comments. By the way, you've not provided any evidence any of my comments had been either disrespectful or irrational. I clearly insisted you prove that first. Coward.
Now, to your comments. I promise no respect whatsoever as your responses are clearly disrespectful to me.
" Marshal theorized, with no support:"
I don't "theorize" unless I state that I'm putting forth a theory. Everything I've said in my last comments are facts. You continue to dispute them with what is far more "human tradition" than anything I ever present. But again, I'm not dealing with the issue from a "human" perspective, but from a Biblical one exclusively.
"Good definition: :"being a “good” person means..."
This "definition" is again a human perspective. As I stated earlier, it is the means by which we communicate to each other the general quality of another person's character, but that quality is subjective. YOUR notion of what constitutes "good" is personal and not universally shared, except perhaps in the most general sense. More to the point, that definition lists things that people do which are generally regarded as "good things" or "good acts" or "good works" and so when someone does those things we tend to label that someone as a "good" person based on those acts alone and in comparison to other people. The point isn't a matter of comparing a "good" person to other people, but comparing any person to God. It was the point of Christ's statement that there is no one good but Him, and it was the point of each of those verses I listed in which we are encouraged to "be" holy, because He is holy and in every passage which speaks of each of us as possessed of sin natures...that we are all sinners. One can't be "good" and a sinner at the same time. One is either the one or the other. Only Jesus was good, because He's God. The rest of us are sinners. That's not a "theory". That's Biblical teaching and not at all "figurative" simply because you need it to be in order to feel "good" about yourself.
And even by the definitions you've chosen, you don't qualify, nor does anyone else.
"I'll speak for my wife as just one example."
Please don't, because I don't give a flying fuck about your wife, children, fellow congregants or anyone you know if YOU'RE the one describing them as if I don't know you're an inveterate liar. Your anecdotal offerings are wholly irrelevant, and worse, fail to prove a damned thing. You're just repeating what I've acknowledged anyway...that many people strive to do good things.
But since you brought her up, does she align with your positions on abortion, homosexual behaviors, tapping the wealth of the rich against their will, open borders? If so, she is not "good". She's morally corrupt like you, but does good things as well.
Now here's where you pretend I've insulted your wife, kids and fellow congregants, except everyone can still see what I've actually said.
"By ANY rational, adult understanding of the typical understanding of good, she is a good person."
Any "human" understanding. Not by a factual Biblical understanding. And if she believes like you do on the several issues I listed in my question, then she is in rebellion as you are. That's not "good".
"Now, GIVEN THE REALITY of the data at hand, on what basis would you dare suggest she (or these others) are not good people, as good is defined above?"
As stated several times now most clearly and unequivocally, on the basis of Biblical teaching..."good as defined above" is self-serving and a human definition. So even if she's aligned with my position on the small list I presented (abortion, homosexuality, etc.), she's only "good" in comparison to those who don't do what she does, but not "good" as Christ described "good".
" The claim is obtuse and entirely unsupported AND you have no data on which to guess otherwise. "
Except for Scripture, which is all the data I need in a discussion about spiritual matters. I know Scripture is way down on your list of authoritative sources on these matters, but I revere the Word as a bit higher on mine.
"Is it not the case that you are PRESUMING because YOU PERSONALLY want to take Jesus' line "There is no one good..." literally instead of figuratively, that you're dismissing the possibility out of hand, regardless of the evidence precisely because you are presuming YOUR personal opinion is the "right" one, even though you can't support it?"
The case is that YOU are doing the presuming in order to feel better about yourself, your wife and kids and your fellow congregants. But here's the thing: I feel really good about many people I know, such as my wife and daughters, who all are better people than I am. I'm quite proud to be among them, in fact. But they're sinners, too. They are "good" in comparison to many, if not most other people. They're not good in the truest sense of the word according to Jesus. We're all fine with it because why wouldn't/shouldn't we be? Does acknowledging reality detract from their degree of goodness? No. Not in the least.
"Further, Marshal, you WILL gladly admit that we do not/ought not take every line in the Bible or of those attributed to Jesus literally?"
This is deceit. We're not talking about "every line in the Bible", are we? No. We're not. But you use this cheap tactic all the time and doing so belies your claim you're interested in...or even understand the concept of..."good faith" discourse. Stop doing it. So I'll ignore the questions because they're bullshit distractions and asking them doesn't win you any points. The only questions which matter are why you refuse to accept what Scripture attributes is Christ's words and where in the passage in which it's found is there evidence He didn't mean what He said?
This concludes my response to the first of your last five comments.
August 28, 2024 at 3:20 PM
I said:
"2 I disagree, despite our human penchant for using the term to apply to certain people because of their striving to do good works and to be good."
Dan responded...in his petulant way:
"PROVE IT, or admit that you can't prove it. Be factual: This is YOUR PERSONAL and unsupported opinion, not a fact, right? Can you admit that much?
If you can't, then explain with data/proof why your opinion gets to trump reality."
I have proven it. But what you now need to prove is that there are no perfect people. How can you make that claim if you can't? There's over 8 billion people in the world. Have you met them all?
In the meantime, MY proof is that even by your own admission, you refer to someone as "good" because of the things they do...that is, the "good" things they've done of which you are aware. You don't even consider any acts of theirs which are not "good". And when forced, you speak of imperfection, but hey...they're still good people! What's the cutoff? Are they good if only 51% of what they do is good, while the other 49% isn't? How many good deeds must one do in order for Dan Trabue to regard one as "good"? It's totally subjective on your part, based on YOUR subjective standards for that which constitutes "good". What you insist is "data" in support of your position is no better than your self-serving opinion. YOUR opinion is in no way "reality".
"The question was: Are you trying to argue that babies are not perfect?"
No, because they aren't. You said it yourself: "2. These are not perfect people because there are no perfect people"
Perhaps your convoluted position is that babies are perfect because they don't commit sinful acts intentionally. Well, if that's the case, how can you be so happy to abort them when still in the womb?
I had said:
"3a. That we are all born with a sin nature is not a "human tradition/opinion"."
You repeated your false position:
"It literally is a human opinion, subjective and unsupported with objective data. YOU THINK it, but that doesn't make it a fact."
It's not "human opinion". It's Biblical teaching. Objective, easily learned Biblical teaching. That makes it a fact. At least it is to actual Christians and those of us who strive to be among them.
And here's where you act like your typical lying asshole self again:
"Or admit that you can't. (Hint: As always, you merely citing a bible passage or a phrase from Harry Potter or your favorite playboy magazine and saying, "Because it says so HERE!" is not objective proof.)"
I don't cite Harry Potter books or your favorite porn magazine (likely a homosexual one), neither of which an actual Christian would group together with Scripture even in a petulant fit from being bested. It's disrespectful and demonstrates your low regard for Scripture to do so. But then, it's well known Scripture's very low on your list of authoritative sources.
I remind you that this is a discussion of spiritual matters, and you continue to choose your (*snicker*) "reason" and worldly "data", while I continue to cite Scripture to support my beliefs on spiritual matters. Indeed, this began with the question of whether citing the truth of Scripture to a sinner (homosexuals) constitutes "harm".
"Same for 4 and 5. IF all you have to support it is YOUR PERSONAL UNPROVEN HUMAN OPINION OF WHAT YOU PERSONALLY THINK IN YOUR HEAD THAT A BIBLE VERSE MEANS TO YOU is literally a subjective opinion.
How is it that you all don't understand this?"
Because while you pretend that "we all" use "reason" to understand Scripture, you do jack shit to prove you have any legitimate reason to believe as you do, and worse, that our positions are wanting. If you disagree with what we assert a verse or passage means...as you constantly do when it conflicts with your worldly positions...you need to provide an definitive alternative which can be supported with a direct line between a verse or passage from Scripture...not "data" from other sources which are tainted by your subjective preferences. Our "human opinions" are totally supported by Scripture in ways you constantly fail to demonstrate your "human opinions" are.
As always, it comes down to no better than one more "Nyuh uh" rebuttal.
This concludes my response to your third of your last five comments. I've done gone and spent too much time tonight. Do NOT attempt to respond until I get to the last two or they will not be posted (I suggest you copy and save it if you really want to post it. I won't be saving any response from you I see in the queue before I complete my response to your final two comments)
"Once again: I do not believe in "hell." I certainly don't believe in "hell" as you all believe in it - as a place of eternal torment where the vast majority of humanity is sent for the "crime" of being imperfect... or being "not good enough by Marshal's definition..." or of having a "rebellious heart..." all of which you all fail to define/make clear."
Excellent job of restating your obvious position without addressing my point. My point was that, based on your previous statements, that you do not believe in an eternal "Hell" of any sort. Taking "torture" out of it, do you believe that Hell is eternal separation from YHWH? Do you believe that there is some sort of pro rated punishment (as in actual pain/'discomfort/etc) based on some sort of chart that ranks sins and assigns punishment? Do you believe that there is ANY punishment for sin after death? Is reward OR punishment eternal?
When you are unclear about what you DO believe (not what you can objectively prove), and are vague about what you DO NOT believe, how can we be blamed for our confusion?
"Further, as I've said over the years, while I tend to believe in an afterlife, in a heaven with the Beloved Community/God, I am for the most part, agnostic about an afterlife. As an objective fact, we have no data on which to form definitive, authoritative opinions about an afterlife."
Well, that's vague and unhelpful, and ignores the reality that Jesus Himself spoke extensively on both Heaven and Hell.
"Do you all acknowledge that reality?"
I acknowledge the reality that you have vague, unformed, mealy mouthed, hunches about a topic Jesus addressed frequently. I acknowledge that those hunches raise more questions than they answer, which I suspect is intentional.
August 28, 2024 at 3:54 PM
Sorry for the wait. I'm again low on time, but hope to finish up now.
"So, it is objectively, demonstrably a "biblical teaching" that Jesus literally said he'd literally come to preach the literal good news to the poor, the imprisoned, the sick and to release the captives."
Two things: first, this is another dishonest tactic which belies your claim of debating in "good faith". You struggle to make your point about whatever verse is the subject of discussion by bringing up another unrelated verse. Setting aside the fact that this verse you're now referencing has been discussed and my position supported by numerous scholarly commentaries and references to other verses which support it, if it was true that I am wrong about one verse, that has no bearing on whether or not I'm wrong on another.
Secondly, It is indeed a fact that Scripture tells us that Jesus literally said He came to preach the Good News to the less than accurate list of people mentioned. I'll note you stopped short of saying "literal" poor, imprisoned, sick, etc. A good move on your part.
"Jesus was quoting the Prophet Isaiah who likewise, gave no indication of speaking metaphorically."
It is notable, setting aside scholarly commentaries also referring to this passage in the same way as with the Luke version, that some translations use the word "meek" instead of "poor", which also suggests the materially poor were not the object of either passage, despite them being included.
"It was observably a central theme in the teachings of Jesus, where he mentioned that sort of thing more than anything else except perhaps for the "realm of God," which is actually in the same vein."
Assuming that's true, it still neither means materially poor...because there's no report of Him having increased anyone's net worth, or having gotten any imprisoned person release (ask His cousin John)..., nor that the number of times he speaks of it means He didn't mean it when He said no one is good but God. Again, this tactic fails you every time.
"Jesus being on the side of the literally poor and "least of these" is objectively a "biblical teaching" and therefore, I wonder: Do you think it is a FACT?"
I take it as a fact that He's not referring to the materially poor unless He's speaking specifically about an actual person who is materially poor. Take the old woman giving her last two coins to the Temple. He referenced her to make a point and there's no record of Him laying a sawbuck on her afterwards. His point wasn't about her poverty of wealth, but about her wealth of faith that she would see fit to give her last coins to God.
"Or do you take all those passages in a more figurative sense, even though he talks about them WAY more than "no good people..."?"
I take as literal what He says literally, figurative what He says figuratively, metaphorically what He says metaphorically and I take as hyperbole what He says in a hyperbolic manner. It takes no great thinker to determine which is which. It only takes truly serious and prayerful study. You should try it sometime. Use a real Bible.
"You demonstrate this by your rejection of Jesus literal teachings as to be "rightly understood" (according to YOU) as figurative."
No I don't. But note that even his figurative expressions are literal teachings. So now what?
"The difference is, even when the topic is so overwhelmingly obvious as Jesus' teachings about wealth and poverty and the realm of God, I acknowledge that my opinions about those obvious teachings ARE still my opinions, opinions I can't prove, any more than you can even come close (or even ATTEMPT) to prove with your personal human opinions."
We've gone through your series of posts on the Bible and Economics and found you have far more study to do. You clearly haven't done that yet.
"But I don't guess you even see that, do you?"
You see only what you want to see. You reject what you don't like seeing, especially when what you see exposes your poor understanding of the Scripture you don't even revere. (Too much unChristiany stuff!) I've done far better work supporting my positions than you've done supporting yours, and you've never succeeded in demonstrating my positions are in any way erroneous.
"... human opinions, unproven and unprovable?"
Just because you can't prove your opinions have legitimate basis doesn't mean that's true of us or anyone else. This "unproven and 'unprovable'" tactic is just your way of rationalizing not abiding the Truth you don't like. We can prove our moral, spiritual and Christian positions by citing Scripture which remains the basis for our opinions and positions. That's not enough for you for whenever you run into that which confounds your clinging to your personal preference, you demand even more proof. It's nothing more than your default move when you can't make your case.
My comment of 10:31 PM represents my response to the fourth of Dan's last five comments. What follows is the final comment response:
August 28, 2024 at 5:26 PM
"Marshal theorized:"
I don't "theorize" Dan. I present truths supported by Scripture.
I had said:
"It's not a "secret". Christ made it clear that God is the standard...not Dan's opinion. Are you "as good" as God?"
You didn't answer the question. Instead, you said:
"So... you're saying one has to be "as good as God" in order to be saved, and ANY imperfection, ONE SIN, even, means that you are doomed and deserving of an eternity of torture."
Nothing at all in my previous statement has anything to do with what's brings about our salvation. Thus, the answer to the following question of yours...
"Is that your opinion?"
Is clearly "No." Stop doing this. Stick to the issue being discussed without your diversions.
"Do you see why the two issues ("goodness" and eternal damnation) are interlinked and how, IF one can't prove their theory that merely being imperfect is somehow deserving of an eternity of torture as the penalty, then your human theory (not "biblical fact" - once again, THAT is the question and you're begging the question... fallacy) falls apart?"
They are not interlinked at all. They are two distinct issues. We're discussing the issue that no one is good but God. There's absolutely no logical fallacy at play on my part. You're just not good at this whole "debate" thing.
This concludes my responses to all of Dan's last five comments. I know I'm supposed to refrain from interjecting per Bubba's request and my assurance that I won't. But I did anyway. Sue me.
One more thing: I've no doubt Dan will find it hard not to pursue what I didn't mean to take as far as it went, but I'm not likely to respond any time soon so that the discussion between he and Bubba may resume. However, there's a comment submitting for publishing by Craig which I will now release, and it may find it's place above according to when he tried to have it posted. Maybe not. Things are different on Blogger, so who knows?
Craig's questions:
Taking "torture" out of it, do you believe that Hell is eternal separation from YHWH?
Best guess about something no one knows? No.
For NOTHING can separated us from the love of God.
Do you believe that there is some sort of pro rated punishment (as in actual pain/'discomfort/etc) based on some sort of chart that ranks sins and assigns punishment?
I literally do not know, nor do you. Do you acknowledge you don't know?
Do you believe that there is ANY punishment for sin after death? Is reward OR punishment eternal?
I literally do not know, nor do you. Do you acknowledge you don't know? As stated clearly many times now, I am agnostic on ANY details of a possible afterlife, given we have no data on which to make informed decisions.
My best guess/unsupported belief?
I do not believe that anything can separate us from the love of God. Period. Beyond that, no one knows.
Let's see if Craig answers my questions to him.
Or anyone else, for that matter.
Dan
Dan,
If you wish to continue pretending you're a Christian, you might want to refrain from pretending "we don't know" what has been established by clear and unequivocal Biblical teaching. To wit:
"Best guess about something no one knows? No."
We do know this, as Scripture does indeed teach of eternal separation for those not saved. Jn 14:6
"I literally do not know, nor do you. Do you acknowledge you don't know?"
Scripture teaches of eternal punishment for sin. You've clearly expressed an opinion based on (poorly supported) Biblical teaching. Stop dancing.
"I literally do not know, nor do you. Do you acknowledge you don't know? As stated clearly many times now, I am agnostic on ANY details of a possible afterlife, given we have no data on which to make informed decisions."
This is more tap-dancing. Borrow a spine and explain what you believe and why using actual Scripture. If you're trying to say that we have no physical evidence of an afterlife, you'd have to show how anyone is demanding such from you. We have Scripture...the Holy Bible upon which the Christian faith is based and which you reject while pretending you don't. It's all in there. If you can cite any of it to provoke a belief in an afterlife, then all your claims of revering, abiding, believe in Scripture is just crap and posturing for the benefit of the secular world.
"I do not believe that anything can separate us from the love of God. Period. Beyond that, no one knows."
By your logic, we don't even know that. What's more, assuming it's true, it's contingent upon God actually loving you. There's a big difference between God desiring that none should perish and God loving us in a way which results in our eternal place in His Holy Presence. Furthermore, it requires our devotion to His Will in such a way which assures we're worthy of His Love. You're in rebellion against Him based on your rejection of at least two clear commandments of His. It's a stretch for one to presume one has His Love while being rebellious as you are.
Marshal:
Borrow a spine and explain what you believe and why using actual Scripture.
1. Who SAYS I have to cite Scripture to explain my beliefs in God and Jesus' teachings?
2. As an objective point of fact, we simply factually, demonstrably DO NOT KNOW what any afterlife may or may not be like. We have zero data on which to establish a firm, definitive opinion, much less an objectively proven one.
Do you recognize that simple, observable reality?
IF you truly think in your head that you CAN objectively prove your afterlife opinions, then do so. But note: Merely saying, "Here is a verse in the Bible that I and many people who believe as I do think means X..." is not objective proof. It literally isn't. That's the very definition of a subjective and unproven opinion.
Do you recognize that reality?
3. I did offer a biblical passage (one of many) that points to what I BELIEVE subjectively, even while I can't prove that hunch any more than you can prove your hunches.
Do you recognize that reality?
I cited the passage that "Nothing can separate us from the love of God." It's a simple and straightforward claim that Paul makes (Romans 8, if you're not familiar) and IF you're a biblical literalist, then it says what it says. Why would you make it metaphorical?
And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love.
Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,
neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—
not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love.
No power in the sky above or in the earth below—
indeed, nothing in all creation will
ever be able to separate us from the love of God
that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.
IF you're merely wanting to have someone jump through your biblical hoops, there are many such passages that are straightforward and have no caveats.
cont'd...
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ
all
will be made alive...
For Christ also suffered for sins once
for all,
the righteous for the unrighteous,
to bring you to God...
Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation
for everyone,
but Christ’s one act of righteousness
brings a right relationship with God and
new life for everyone.
And on and on it goes. And yes, of course, I recognize that there are other verses that hint at other outcomes. So what? The thing to recognize is that there are some verses that speak of a more universalist God and other verses that point to a more bleak outcome for many (most, according to some). YOU are choosing to elevate the "eternal damnation" passages (the few of them) as overruling the more universalist passages.
I'm doing it the other way (IF I were one to treat the Bible as a rulings book, which I don't and which I reject as an unsound human theory regarding the Bible and the various teachings found therein) thinking of course that a God who literally loves the whole world and all of humanity who is not willing that ANY should perish (another biblical reference, in case you might miss it).
The difference between you and I is that you are choosing to pit more mean-spirited, graceless, unjust interpretations of some Bible verses against the more grace-full, loving and just interpretations of other Bible verses. BUT, I'm not doing the opposite. Rather, I'm noting that I believe in and affirm a perfectly loving, perfectly just God and using basic common sense and moral reasoning noting that a perfectly loving and just God will NOT act in ways that are not perfectly loving and perfectly just.
Which is the problem that you all are still not even addressing, other than casually suggesting, "Nyah! We don't HAVE to prove our opinions rationally, or even explain the irrational nature of our unjust, unloving, graceless human opinions. We're just objectively right!"
No, you're clearly not objectively right, as you've given zero objective data to support your hunches and human traditions.
I don't think you all see the problem you all are having in not even addressing this hole in your thinking.
Marshal...
By your logic, we don't even know that.
Yes. Exactly. We 100% do not have objectively proven knowledge of any details about a theoretical afterli. That's what I keep saying quite clearly and directly.
What's more, assuming it's true, it's contingent upon God actually loving you.
Well, you personally might hold an opinion that there is a perfectly loving God who DOESN'T love everyone. I would disagree with at opinion, if that's the opinion you hold.
But if so, do you recognize it as your subjective and unproven opinion?
There's a big difference between God desiring that none should perish and God loving us in a way which results in our eternal place in His Holy Presence. Furthermore, it
requires our devotion to His Will
in such a way which assures
we're worthy of His Love.
I suspect that even your comrades may find this to be at least sounding like a works-based idea of salvation ... We have to PROVE our devotion to God in order to be saved?
Our salvation REQUIRES our devotion in just such a way to appease god... is that what you're saying?
You're in rebellion against Him based on your rejection of at least two clear commandments of His.
Prove it.
Rebellion is a deliberate effort. You know that the Boss wants X done and you rebel as a choice, instead doing the opposite of X.
At worst, I disagree with YOUR personal opinions about what God does and doesn't want.
Disagreeing with your human opinions is not the same as deliberately rebelling against what God wants.
Consider, what if you were wrong and God really DOES celebrate gay folk getting married. Are you then, in your sincere belief in opposing that, deliberately disobeying and rebelling against God?
Or would it just be the case you were in good faith, ignorantly mistaken?
Dan
"1. Who SAYS I have to cite Scripture to explain my beliefs in God and Jesus' teachings?"
Me. Also, everyone else here who insists you explain your perverse and heretical positions you claim are Biblical. There's no being Christian, no belief in God and Jesus' teachings without Scripture. Thus, in order to explain your beliefs and why you have them, you must have Scriptural support otherwise you're just spewing your own desires and preferences and attaching the word "Christian" to it all. That might work for Jeff St nincompoops and other leftist secular asshats, but not for those who for years have been patiently waiting for you to man up and back up your positions.
" 2. As an objective point of fact, we simply factually, demonstrably DO NOT KNOW what any afterlife may or may not be like. We have zero data on which to establish a firm, definitive opinion, much less an objectively proven one."
No one is arguing about "what any afterlife may or may not be like". All questions put to you which relate to the subject concern whether or not there is one and who goes where in that realm. We who are Christian, we who strive to be Christian and you who merely claim to be Christian have Scripture which affirms there is an afterlife. So cut the crap with this "we don't know" dodge. You conveniently "don't know" or say "'WE' don't know" in order to carve out room to reject what you don't like while still insisting you're Christian. Keep in mind there are no "progressive" liars here but you. We actually truly argue in good faith while suffering your refusal to do so. Nonetheless, we persevere.
"Do you recognize that simple, observable reality?"
Each time you ask this stupid question, it's obvious you're demanding we accept what you want "reality" to be...rarely what it actually is. So I...and everyone else, I'd wager...recognize you're seeking to impose your invented reality upon us. I reject your invention and stick to what is plain and clear and true. Your job is to prove me wrong, not just say "Nyuh uh", which is your default.
"IF you truly think in your head that you CAN objectively prove your afterlife opinions, then do so."
I've objectively proven everything I believe and am quite specific about what I present as merely my opinion. You prove nothing and fall back on "I acknowledge it's my opinion" as if that absolves you from providing any substantive evidence or argument to support holding your opinion. That surely works at Jeff St. Not among actual adults.
"But note: Merely saying, "Here is a verse in the Bible that I and many people who believe as I do think means X..." is not objective proof."
Despite how badly and desperately you need this to be an accurate representation of how I argue my positions, it's not even within a universe of being true. You're lying to suggest it is.
"3. I did offer a biblical passage (one of many) that points to what I BELIEVE subjectively, even while I can't prove that hunch any more than you can prove your hunches."
You offer whatever superficially appears to you to support your invention and then expect that to end the discussion. It doesn't, particularly since you must twist and perverse verses and passages to have any hope of having support at all.
"I cited the passage that "Nothing can separate us from the love of God." It's a simple and straightforward claim that Paul makes (Romans 8, if you're not familiar) and IF you're a biblical literalist, then it says what it says. Why would you make it metaphorical?"
Not metaphorical, just not at all applicable in the manner you try to force it to be. Which is how you roll. It's not the blanket, universalist evidence you need to believe it is. To put it in terms a progressive fake Christian might be able to understand, it refers to things other than God or the individual being unable to separate the individual from God's love. But those like you in rebellion are already separated despite your false claims of Christian fidelity.
"IF you're merely wanting to have someone jump through your biblical hoops, there are many such passages that are straightforward and have no caveats."
I have no "biblical hoops". I have only the Bible and what it clearly teaches, which I abide without any effort made to contort it to my preferences. Thus, I may be weak in discipline and a failure at keeping His Word perfectly, but I'm not in rebellion because I strive nonetheless to put Him above my personal desires. You make Him bend to your religion, pretend He abides and then claim fidelity to Him.
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ
all
will be made alive...
But not "all" are "in" Christ. Many don't believe and verses like this do not apply to those who aren't "in" Christ. The non-believer, the Satan worshiper and those in rebellion. It's absurd to believe these verses you've cited actually justify a Universalist position because they are definitely NOT speaking of all human beings. That might work at Jeff St., but this ain't Jeff St. And universalism isn't Biblical.
"The thing to recognize is that there are some verses that speak of a more universalist God and other verses that point to a more bleak outcome for many (most, according to some)."
The thing to recognize is that there are no verses that speak of a more universalist God. That's just what Universalists say without true basis. It's a self-serving invention, not a Biblical possibility. But Scripture does indeed speak of bleak outcomes who put themselves above God, who fail to abide His clearly revealed Will in favor of their own. Bleak outcomes for those like you who ignore that which you find personally inconvenient.
"YOU are choosing to elevate the "eternal damnation" passages (the few of them) as overruling the more universalist passages."
To reiterate, there are no "universalist" passages. And I don't "elevate" passages referencing eternal separation from God. I just don't ignore them because they offend my kumbaya sensibilities. I don't ignore them because those I love despite their own rebelliousness may spend eternity apart from God's Holy Presence. I don't rationalize their behaviors and pretend they're not the sinful behaviors they are, just because I like them.
"The difference between you and I is that you are choosing to pit more mean-spirited, graceless, unjust interpretations of some Bible verses against the more grace-full, loving and just interpretations of other Bible verses."
The difference between you and I (among so many differences) is that I don't compose meaningless false drivel like this and pretend it's a legitimate argument nor a legitimate representation of what you or I are saying. And to dare say your interpretations are "just" and mine aren't is ludicrous and a deceitful attempt to impose your falsely based standards of understanding what God's justice is or looks like.
"Rather, I'm noting that I believe in and affirm a perfectly loving, perfectly just God and using basic common sense and moral reasoning noting that a perfectly loving and just God will NOT act in ways that are not perfectly loving and perfectly just."
Bull. You're rejecting all which you dislike and replacing it with your own invention which results in a false God who matches your personal preference for what a loving, just God looks like. As the actual God of Scripture doesn't adhere to that invention, you reject Him and all which TO YOU suggests injustice based on YOUR standards. Good luck with that.
"Which is the problem that you all are still not even addressing, other than casually suggesting, "Nyah! We don't HAVE to prove our opinions rationally, or even explain the irrational nature of our unjust, unloving, graceless human opinions. We're just objectively right!""
This is just an abject, intentional, willful, pernicious lie. It has not relation to how we argue our positions and we do indeed prove them objectively through the proper use of appropriate Scriptural verses and passages. When you can't intelligently counter such argument, you default to your typical "your opinion", "we can't know" and other such "painted in a corner" responses in order to maintain your lust for immorality and self-worship.
" No, you're clearly not objectively right, as you've given zero objective data to support your hunches and human traditions."
This is just your foundational lie. You do nothing to prove it isn't. You offer no evidence to support a counter opinion which isn't a weak as a flower in a hurricane.
"I don't think you all see the problem you all are having in not even addressing this hole in your thinking."
It's not any of us with the problem. You're just doing your typical Black Knight thing.
I said in reference to your statement about being separated from the love of God:
"By your logic, we don't even know that."
You responded as if I was speaking of the afterlife.
"Yes. Exactly. We 100% do not have objectively proven knowledge of any details about a theoretical afterli. That's what I keep saying quite clearly and directly."
But as to the afterlife, we don't need to speak of any details beyond that there is one...rather two potential destinations of afterlife...and Scripture backs this up. But this is another area where you pretend we can't know simply because you don't like the notion of it. You demand rock-solid evidence, but none exists of any of what Scripture says about Christianity, but you choose to believe what has personal appeal. That's not being Christian. That's being fraudulent in your claim of being Christian.
" Well, you personally might hold an opinion that there is a perfectly loving God who DOESN'T love everyone."
The verse you cite presupposes God loving an individual who cannot be separated by either God or the individual devoted to Him. It's got nothing to do with those who God might love but by His justice condemns him to punishments of some kind, specifically including not being allowed in His Holy Presence. Do you believe that devoted Satan worshipers and God-haters are welcomed lovingly into His Eternal Embrace? That's not even close to being Biblical.
"But if so, do you recognize it as your subjective and unproven opinion?"
No. Of course not, because it's a Biblical fact. What's more, even if one isn't willing to affirm that, one is far more hard-pressed to provide any legitimate evidence to argue against it. YOU certainly haven't provided any!
"I suspect that even your comrades may find this to be at least sounding like a works-based idea of salvation ... We have to PROVE our devotion to God in order to be saved?"
Only a universalist would suggest that it's enough to say "I believe" without any behavior which suggests that's true. God won't suffer such mockery. It's as if you were to say, "I totally love my wife", but treat her like total shit every waking moment. Do you think she's convinced you actually love her? Do you think God is incapable of discerning true devotion versus cheap lip service? Isn't that, in part, the failure of the Pharisees to which you stupidly try to compare us? Isn't that discernment manifested in Christ saying, "I never knew you."?
" You're in rebellion against Him based on your rejection of at least two clear commandments of His."
"Prove it."
You promote, enable, defend and celebrate homosexual behavior and the murder of the unborn. There's no arguing against either of these very well known facts about you.
"Rebellion is a deliberate effort."
You deliberately ignore God's commandments against indulging in homosexual behavior and murder and favoring those who do. Plus you lie constantly.
" At worst, I disagree with YOUR personal opinions about what God does and doesn't want."
That's another lie. I don't deal in opinions of what God does or doesn't want. I deal in what we know God does or doesn't want according to His clearly revealed Word in Scripture. You reject what is clear and unambiguous. If you had an actual evidence based argument, you wouldn't constantly default to reasserting you disagree with what you need to believe is mere opinion. Call it opinion if it helps you to sleep better, just prove it's wrong with something akin to "hard data".
"At worst, I disagree with YOUR personal opinions about what God does and doesn't want.
Disagreeing with your human opinions is not the same as deliberately rebelling against what God wants. "
That would be more compelling if what you choose to refer to as "opinions" wasn't an accurate representation of what Scripture says.
"Consider, what if you were wrong and God really DOES celebrate gay folk getting married. Are you then, in your sincere belief in opposing that, deliberately disobeying and rebelling against God?
Or would it just be the case you were in good faith, ignorantly mistaken?"
I know that's your favorite hypothetical, but there's no "if" about it. God won't "celebrate" any relationship based on behavior He's called an abomination. It's moronic to suggest such a thing.
And by the way....you're not even "ignorantly" mistaken. You're flat out crapping on His Will regarding homosexuality.
Marshal, I don't know how else to tell you. You're just factually mistaken.
Your opinions on these matters which are not provable are NOT objectively proven. They are your subjective opinions. How do I know/where is my evidence? In every word you've ever written (and those you've cited) who've never once offered objective proof.
It is a human theory - subjective and unproven - that there is ANY afterlife. It's a belief you and I both hold, but I can't prove it any more than you can.
It is a human theory - subjective and unproven - that there is ANY punishment of "eternal torture/torment." It's a belief you hold, but you can't prove it objectively. Period.
It is a human theory - subjective and unproven and frankly, a little monstrously insane - to guess that there is a god who will punish the majority of humanity with an eternity of torture for the "crimes" of having a "rebellious heart" (whatever that means - since Bubba nor y'all would even try to address it) or the crime of being an imperfect human who is, amazingly, imperfect. These are unproven theories and human traditions of humans from a more barbaric, less grace-full time.
They do not rationally align with the notion of a perfectly just and loving God and that's another vital question you all have left unaddressed.
And on and on.
Your opinions are not objectively proven.
Citing Bible verses do not objectively prove them any more than citing Harry Potter passages.
I hope Bubba is well and maybe he'll at least come back to try to address these (and more) unanswered questions, but you're really done here, Marshal. Even if you don't know it. Your insisting you can prove objectively what you can't prove objectively - or even acknowledging that you can't prove them objectively, because you apparently believe that you can/have - marks you as removed from rational adult understanding of basic concepts like objective and subjective.
Maybe you should ask someone you trust who is an expert in logical arguments to explain to you why your opinions you offer here are NOT objectively proven. I've tried and am done.
Good luck.
"Marshal, I don't know how else to tell you. You're just factually mistaken."
Then provide those alleged facts which prove I'm mistaken.
"Your opinions on these matters which are not provable are NOT objectively proven."
Absolutely untrue and your insisting otherwise is a willful lie. And again, I'm not presenting "opinions", but Biblical teachings which are proven true objectively by...you know...seriously and prayerfully studying Scripture.
"In every word you've ever written (and those you've cited) who've never once offered objective proof."
Another intentional lie. I've proven every position I've presented as a truth claim by citing Scripture which clearly and unequivocally backs me up. Your gainsaying doesn't alter that at all. Your "Nyuh uhs" don't alter that at all. You'll need something substantive if you hope to persuade one from the truth of Scripture.
"It is a human theory - subjective and unproven - that there is ANY afterlife. It's a belief you and I both hold, but I can't prove it any more than you can."
You clearly don't believe it at all, or you wouldn't so cavalierly reject so much of Scripture you find inconvenient or offensive to your personal leftist sensibilities. I do believe it because my Lord and Savior spoke of it. Why would He speak of it if it wasn't true? What evidence do you have that what He said of the afterlife can't be trusted as factual?
The fact is your argument isn't sincere. It's just another attempt to deny your own rebellion...to legitimize your false beliefs about what and who God is and how He'll respond to our behaviors... to posture to the world around you that you're a "good" person, while at the same time promoting, celebrating, defending and enabling immorality and harm.
These are not "human theories". The Biblical teachings based on the preaching of Jesus Christ, His Apostles and the prophets. There is far, far more which supports the Bible as a book of historical record than any which debunks anything within it, and it provides reason enough to take what Scripture presents as reliable truth.
Marshal...
All you've done is assert that I'm presented mere opinion...
That is a demonstrable fact. By all means, PROVE WITH OBJECTIVE DATA that there is a monster god who will punish most of humanity with an eternity of torture.
He'll, I'll make it easy for you... prove objectively that there is even ONE person who God has chosen to torture for an eternity.
I'll make it even easier for you... IF this is a provable theory of yours, just point the the website where it has been objectively proven.
You won't even TRY to do so because you objectively can't. If you could, you would.
It's a real world demonstrable fact that you can't. Your silence will testify to that reality.
Dan
I said:
"All you've done is assert that I've presented mere opinion..."
...to which YOU (Dan Trabue) replied:
"That is a demonstrable fact."
Yet, as is your routine, you do and have done nothing to actually "demonstrate" what you assert is indeed fact. No. Instead, you insist I again prove what I said is true, without actually acknowledge with accuracy what I actually said. Indeed, you insist in another irrational expression of grace embracing "good faith" argument respond with this crap:
"By all means, PROVE WITH OBJECTIVE DATA that there is a monster god who will punish most of humanity with an eternity of torture."
I've never, EVER argue for the existence of any "monster god". I believe in the existence of Almighty God, Who sent His Only Begotten Son, to die as a sacrifice for our sins, that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. This concept is even familiar to nominal Christians...CINOs in fact...with only cursory knowledge of Scripture. All who have truly studied Scripture seriously and prayerfully know it more so.
But here you go again, insisting we discuss what isn't on the table. Your diaper soiling stems from failing on the question of whether or not there is an afterlife. The only objective proof I need is the words of Christ. As I believe Christ existed as Scripture describes, and I've accepted THAT Jesus Christ of Nazareth as my Lord and Savior, on what basis should I question what He has said several times? Because some schmuck from a fake christian congregation on Jeff St in Louisville KY says otherwise? I don't think so. Especially since you provide absolutely nothing to support your objections to those facts.
I've provided tons of evidence beyond the valid and trustworthy words of Scripture, with tons of commentaries from all manner of scholars and theologians, from contemporary people all the way back to the early church fathers and also archeological tidbits which further establish the reliability of the Scripture you regard no better than lining for your bird cage.
Every time I prove my position by citing the Scripture which directly and unambiguously informs my positions and beliefs, you demand I prove...something. Scripture already proves what I say regarding any given position I present or defend. You then want me to prove that Scripture is reliable or you go with your other default of suggesting there's some flaw in my understanding which you never correct with a fact/evidence based counter point. The best you provide is some verse which superficially appears to take a different angle, when it rarely (I'm being gracious here, as it never..) does.
So from here on out, at this blog, regardless of who it is with whom you're having your discussion, you WILL have evidence to back up your opinions. That's the rule here for you. And this evidence must not be just your opinion about your opinion, but actually hard data...and you must be willing to address all criticisms of YOUR evidence to the satisfaction of those criticizing you.
I don't need to find you pictures of hell. I don't need to provide travel brochures for heaven. Christ speaks of both. Christ is real and He doesn't lie and isn't mistaken. Heaven and hell exist. Period. What it looks like and what you'll need to do to alter your clear trip to hell is not something I care to discuss. Here's the only details we need about either: those of us who believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior know He has a place for us in Heaven and that we don't want to be turned away.
And keep this in mind: the more you demand proof of the level and to the degree you always do for what's already clearly presented as truth in Scripture, the more you validate my opinion that you're no Christian. By your logic...by your argumentation regarding all for which you demand proof, there is no God, and thus, there is no right or wrong, good or evil, and that doesn't bode well for the likes of you.
When we're talking about a wild and unbelievable phenomenon that is unproven, it is always the onus of the one making the unproven claim to show objective support. If a man tells me there are flying purple unicorns on the moon, I can simply note the reality that there is no data to support it, and that's enough. HE is the one required to support the wild claim.
AND, if he tells me, but I find support for it in this sacred book I'm reading... that is not objective support and not proof of his claim.
You are that purple unicorn believer who has never proven your wild claim.
Dan
I wonder if you all truly understand how far out, weird and unbiblical modern notions of hell are? To believe in a perfectly loving, perfectly just God who will and for some conservatives out there, even PLANNED to create some people to send to an eternity of torment and torture? Without dealing with the justice problem (and it is a problem for you all, although I don't think you get it) and the Love problem, even, the claim you're making is strange on the face of it, at best... and deliberately evil at worst.
But I don't think you get that. I think you all (like me, once upon a time) are so convinced by the traditions of what you learned that you can't even imagine the possibility of you being wrong... and that you, therefore, look at you personal opinions and traditions about what the Bible does and doesn't say about hell, justice and love, and you think your traditions and human opinions are objective truth. But they're simply not. Again, ask a logic expert, they'll tell you. Your opinions are subjective and unproven.
Here's some helpful teachings about "hell..." part of a series I would recommend you read.
https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/how-when-the-idea-of-eternal-torment-invaded-church-doctrine-7610e6b70815
"When we're talking about a wild and unbelievable phenomenon that is unproven, it is always the onus of the one making the unproven claim to show objective support."
"GOD" is a "wild and unbelievable phenomenon that is unproven". When have you produced "objective" support for His existence? And I'll make it easy for you: prove even YOUR made up god exists! I you can't prove either, then this entire 450+ comment thread was pointless.
"If a man tells me there are flying purple unicorns on the moon, I can simply note the reality that there is no data to support it, and that's enough."
It's not at all surprising you regard the things of God as akin to fantasies of " flying purple unicorns on the moon". Yet another example of all which belies your claims of belief in and devotion to Him.
"AND, if he tells me, but I find support for it in this sacred book I'm reading... that is not objective support and not proof of his claim."
If the argument is "what does this sacred book say", then providing the passage wherein we read of "flying purple unicorns on the moon", then objective support has been satisfactorily provided. And that's been the essence of this entire 450+ comment discussion...what does Scripture say which supports the positions taken by either side. It's only when Scripture again confounds your worldly, secular and heretical positions do you demand proof that God exists. That's not arguing in "good faith" by any stretch of the imagination.
"You are that purple unicorn believer who has never proven your wild claim."
I am a Christian believer in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost who's presented clearly revealed and presented Biblical claims which are in no way "wild" or akin to fantasies of "flying purple unicorns on the moon"
Here's an example of a similar fantasy: people with the perfectly functioning physiology of one sex can actually be of the opposite sex.
Here's another: God blesses same-sex unions.
I have to step away for a couple of hours. Do not respond until I shred your last comment.
I told you not to respond until I've addressed your comment from September 3, 2024 at 8:00 AM, so, taking a cue from Dan Trabue's Blog of Lies, I deleted your attempt to do so. I hope you saved it.
"I wonder if you all truly understand how far out, weird and unbiblical modern notions of hell are?"
They're not. Indeed, they're not even "modern", as it's a "notion" as old as Scripture itself.
"To believe in a perfectly loving, perfectly just God who will and for some conservatives out there, even PLANNED to create some people to send to an eternity of torment and torture?"
Whether or not God created anyone for the purpose of punishing them eternally is not at issue, so stop trying again to change the subject. But our perfectly loving, perfectly just God did provide eternal punishment, as clearly taught in Scripture. He wouldn't be "perfectly loving and just" if He hadn't.
"Without dealing with the justice problem (and it is a problem for you all, although I don't think you get it) and the Love problem, even, the claim you're making is strange on the face of it, at best... and deliberately evil at worst."
Clearly it offends your atheist, fake Christian sensibilities, but it's no more evil than any punishment for lawbreakers by mankind. It's YOU who suffers from an inability to grasp God's justice, because of that offense to your atheist, fake Christian sensibilities. It's clear as day to actual Christians.
"But I don't think you get that."
You're not much for "thinking". That's why you struggle to stay focused and instead stray off on other tangents.
"I think you all (like me, once upon a time) are so convinced by the traditions of what you learned that you can't even imagine the possibility of you being wrong..."
Not at all, and despite your nonsensical attempts to pretend you were ever anything like us, you didn't understand the concepts then any less moronically than you do now. And yeah...it's difficult to imagine being wrong on something to blatantly clear and true. Being harangued by the likes of you does little to alter our conviction. You know what would? Facts. Evidence. Something direct and unassailable which overwhelms by it's clarity of truth. Got anything like that? Having read ahead, it's clear you don't.
"...and that you, therefore, look at you personal opinions and traditions about what the Bible does and doesn't say about hell, justice and love, and you think your traditions and human opinions are objective truth."
You continue with this crap about personal opinions and "human" traditions when the truth is that the truth of Scripture offends your atheist, fake Christian sensibilities. You can't preach your hippie, kumbaya god and accept the truth of Scripture at the same time. It won't fit. In our case, it isn't "opinion and/or tradition" which is objective truth. It's Scripture which is. You reject it because you can't defend your heresies with Scripture.
"Again, ask a logic expert, they'll tell you. Your opinions are subjective and unproven."
Setting aside the hilarious implication that you have any familiarity with "logic", here's a little of it for you:
If there's no afterlife, there's no need for a Savior. So to whom are you praying? In whom do you pretend so poorly to believe? From what would we need a savior?
" Here's some helpful teachings about "hell..." part of a series I would recommend you read."
I read it. I doubt you did. It's not helpful at all, except for trivia's sake. One thing it overlooks is how words and phrases are understood. For example, I met a man who taught English out of his home to Japanese immigrants. His main line of teaching had to do with "idioms". The Japanese don't understand American idioms. "Killing two birds with one stone" throws them for a loop (which is itself an idiom they likely wouldn't grasp), as they'd object to being accused of having killed one bird, much less two, though doing so with one stone might seem quite an impressive feat. Your "Brazen Church" character points to the phrase "aionas ton aionon" as meaning “Ages of the Ages” and it can ONLY mean that and has NEVER been used to mean ANYTHING BUT THAT WITHOUT EXCEPTION SO HELP THE BRAZEN CHURCH god! The Brazen one asserts that it's been "mistranslated" to mean "forever and ever". But as is not contested, much of Scripture has been translated to reflect meaning and intention, rather than a precise Greek to English (or whatever language) parallel. So "ages of the ages" could very possibly have been a means to express the concept of eternity which was well understood as such at the time it was (possibly) commonly used...an idiom.
Now, I'm not asserting this is the case here. But your author doesn't so much as hint at the possibility or the choices with which translators devoted to the Word of God must deal. No. You need to find ways to promote the heretical rejection of Christian doctrine so was to protect your devotion to sexual perversions and infanticide (among other things).
Another glaring problem with your "Brazen Church" is the following:
"...the reality is that for centuries, Christian Orthodoxy preserved itself through fear and control, opting to protect it’s doctrinal “truth” through the active suppression of opposing ideas."
...and...
"The truth is that since the very beginning" (emboldening mine) ", Church history has been rife with unrest, conflict, and even bloodshed — primarily over matters of establishing orthodoxy."
Really? Since the "very beginning"??? The first Christians may have been persecuted by Jew and Roman alike, but I've never heard they were fighting among themselves. This smacks of atheist/progressive revisionist history. As the Word was spreading, many like Paul worked to correct and guide back to the path corrupted understandings. But that's a far cry from "rife" with unrest, conflict, and even bloodshed!
But as we must consider that the earliest of church fathers were the Apostles themselves, it's lame as hell to assert that there was widespread disagreement about eternal punishment:
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/what-did-early-christians-believe-about-hell/
Notice how far astray you've taken this entire thread from defending the premise that citing Scripture to homosexuals actually represents causing harm. Anything to preserve and protect your love of sexual perversion!
I'm done reading through all this bullshit, as I've heard Dan's bullshit many times before and trying to dig through hundreds of comments isn't something I enjoy. Especially when Blogger shoots me back to the top if I comment.
I'll also note that Bubba seems to have left this thread as well.
Craig,
I get it. When a thread has progressed faster than I can keep up, I will likely just jump in wherever I choose to do so.
Dan will always regurgitate his routine bullshit, as he has no real argument to defend his positions. Bullshit is all he has. Even when he tries to offer links to support them, the links fall short. I think that's because he doesn't read them or understand them well enough to know they don't when he does read any of it.
As for Bubba, he comes and goes for a host of reasons. Not sure that he's abandoned this discussion quite yet, but if that's the case, I hope it's not because you and I posted comments while he was absent. I'm just waiting for his return at which point I'll again step aside.
One has to wonder why you all get so agitated and upset and overly-emotional? Here I am, politely answering questions from Bubba (and you both, as well) and doing so in a respectful, "Here's what I think..." sort of manner. And I'm asking questions as well... questions that I think, if answered clearly and directly, can help with a respectful, adult conversation.
You may not like my answers or agree with them, but I'm simply offering you my opinions and, when noting that something has not been objectively proven to be factual, noting that reality.
This seems to really piss you all off... make you upset for reasons that aren't known to me.
"Done reading this bullshit!"
"Regurgitate routine bullshit..."
"anything to preserve your perversion!"
"You continue with this crap about personal opinions..."
etc, etc. All the while not bothering to provide answers to reasonable questions that are vital to the conversation. I could see why I might get upset, with all the unrelenting attacks and overly emotional, irrational and unsupported aspersions on my character, but what is upsetting you all so much?
That might be a helpful thing for you all to think about.
Marshal, when I'm noting that you've not proven something objectively, that is not an attack on you, just noting the reality that merely saying, "Here is a verse in the Bible that I think clearly means X..." is not objective proof. Why does my noting that reality upset you so much?
Or perhaps, if you truly think it is a reality, then explain how YOUR personal opinions and interpretations are somehow objectively proven?
As to Bubba, I'm hoping he's well and not over-loaded... and I'm also hoping he's not abandoning a conversation that he requested... not when he has so many questions from me that he's left unanswered.
I suspect that for all three of you all, you THINK that your opinions really are "objectively proven..." or some kind of equivalent of that... but you're running into the reality that you can't provide objective proof... WHILE still thinking your opinions are objective facts... and it's causing you immense frustration, perhaps frustration that you're not even able to see or recognize... but who knows. Something to consider.
Good luck, gentlemen.
"One has to wonder why you all get so agitated and upset and overly-emotional? "
One has to wonder why you'd suspect that we are. I can call you an asshole without being emotional about it. It's more an objective observation compelled by your behavior as opposed to an emotional response to it. After all, you've been acting this way for over 16 years, so I've long stopped expecting truly good faith discourse where you're involved.
"...I'm simply offering you my opinions and, when noting that something has not been objectively proven to be factual, noting that reality.
This seems to really piss you all off... make you upset for reasons that aren't known to me."
It's been explained quite comprehensively for most of these last 16 years. You're not doing what you insist you're doing and certainly not in a manner which suggests real effort to do so. This crap about "proving objectively" is untrue. Rather, what's proven objectively results in your moving the goal posts. Proving something is Scriptural gets moved to proving it actually took place or actually exists...whichever the case may be. You alter what needs to be proven based on the initial demand having been proved.
Keep in mind what pretty much started this whole thing: The claim that reminding your perverts what Scripture says about indulging their perversions is causing harm. You've not done jack to prove THAT wild-ass claim and instead moved on to other things, as is your way.
"All the while not bothering to provide answers to reasonable questions that are vital to the conversation."
This is wholly untrue, unless you're indulging your typical double standard by suggesting what YOU don't like about our answers constitutes not answering your questions.
"I could see why I might get upset, with all the unrelenting attacks and overly emotional, irrational and unsupported aspersions on my character, but what is upsetting you all so much?"
You're low character, obfuscations, tap-dancing, changing the subject and going off on another tangent, providing links which don't support your position because you don't read them deeply enough to see that they don't and thus wasting our time in reading superfluous, irrelevant shit...and your outright lies. That's the short list. But again, not really getting as emotional as you seem to need to believe.
" That might be a helpful thing for you all to think about."
Oh...and unjustified condescension, like this "suggestion" above.
"Why does my noting that reality upset you so much?"
It's not reality. It's you not accepting what you demanded from me. When the issue is what Scripture says, and what Scripture says is delivered for you, you then question my understanding...even when there's no way to mistake what it says...and you do so without a fully supported alternative understanding which makes more sense. This you never do while pretending objective support was not provided.
The problem is not at all how you describe it. The problem is that you are not consistent in what you want, not honest in what results from what you say you want and your refusal to accept that what you want has been delivered but instead demand something else or something more. There's no "good faith" where base dismissal of opponent's arguments and supportive evidence is beyond any truly good faith attempt to provide. You're not being honest and spend more time disputing whether or not we've done what you've requested than in providing evidence which would render it untenable, OR, in support of what you want to pretend is the more likely and truthful position.
And now, as if all that wasn't enough, you're playing this game as if we have a problem. Typical. We'll need more than luck in our dealings with you. We'll need you to actually engage like an honest adult in truly "good faith".
I won't hold my breath. There's no precedent ever set by you to hold such expectations.
Marshal...
1. When the issue is what Scripture says, and ...
Genesis 1 and 2 literally say God created the earth... in six days... and created Adam... and, from Adam's rib, created Eve.
no one is disputing what the text literally says. Do you understand that point? The text objectively, factually has those lines and that's not in dispute.
Do you understand that much?
2. what Scripture says is delivered for you
no one is disputing the words that are found in Genesis 1 and 2. Do you understand that?
3. you then question my understanding...
Yes. Precisely. Im disagreeing with the meaning YOU personally assign to those two chapters.
even when there's no way to mistake what it says...
People of good will and who are rational adults have a wide range of opinions on Genesis 1 and 2. Some take it as literal history, that God created the universe about 6000 years ago and on one of those days, God created Adam and then, took a rib from Adam and created Eve.
Some take it to mean that there was a literal Adam and Eve, but it wasn't necessarily 6,000 years ago.
Some take it as myth, similar to other creation myths.
no one can prove objectively that there was a literal A/E no matter how long ago (although we do know the universe is objectively older than 6,000 years old).
And, yes, there IS a way to be mistaken about a literal Adam and Eve. Of course, there is.
Do you recognize that reality?
4. and you do so without a fully supported alternative understanding which makes more sense.
That the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 is told in a mythic manner IS a fully supported, rational alternative.
Just because you don't personally care for or agree with the, "Duh! Of course, it's written in a mythic style!" explanation does not negate the credibility of the explanation.
Do you understand that reality?
Dan
"One has to wonder why you all get so agitated and upset and overly-emotional?"
I, for one, am neither "agitated" nor "overly emotional". It is a waste of my time to scroll through 474 comments to the end (partially a Blogger issues) and to see Dan simply repeat the same unsupported, unproven, bullshit that he's been spewing for years, while demanding levels of proof he won't provide for his claims.
Noting that things are "bullshit" isn't anything but identifying the value of Dan's hunches. (Actually bullshit has some value as fertilizer or a heat source) while Dan's hunches don't even have that much value.
"Genesis 1 and 2 literally say God created the earth... in six days... and created Adam... and, from Adam's rib, created Eve.
no one is disputing what the text literally says. Do you understand that point? The text objectively, factually has those lines and that's not in dispute.
Do you understand that much?"
This is a blatant corruption of what occurs when Scripture is cited by those like me, along with the typical unjustified condescension as regards my ability to understand anything.
The fact is that you often dispute what Scripture says, which is why Scripture is cited to provide the verses or passages which should correct your position if you were an honest person truly devoted to the concept of truth and the Word of God. Sadly...
"no one is disputing the words that are found in Genesis 1 and 2. Do you understand that?"
Yeah...I fully understood it the first time you needlessly said that as if what words exist in Scripture is usually the issue in dispute.
"Yes. Precisely. Im disagreeing with the meaning YOU personally assign to those two chapters."
Then you're fighting a straw man, because I'm not "assigning" meaning to any verse or passage, but simply presenting the passage so as to prove the teaching of Scripture you falsely insist doesn't exist within its pages. Again, I don't "assign" or "inject" meaning, but infer meaning from the clear and unambiguous verses or passages in question. And while I have continually provided reasons and evidence why what the passage intends is well represented by my explanation of it, you provide nothing beyond "Nyuh uh" in our petulant arguments denying it.
"People of good will and who are rational adults have a wide range of opinions on Genesis 1 and 2. Some take it as literal history, that God created the universe about 6000 years ago and on one of those days, God created Adam and then, took a rib from Adam and created Eve.
Some take it to mean that there was a literal Adam and Eve, but it wasn't necessarily 6,000 years ago.
Some take it as myth, similar to other creation myths."
But I'm not dealing with "people of good will and who are rational adults". I'm dealing with you. Your constant references to other people, as in the manner of your doing so here, is a falsehood...a logical fallacy intended to enhance the validity and credibility of your disagreement by citing some alleged group of people who think differently, and the presumption that because you present this group of unknowns as "people of good will and who are rational adults", doing so necessarily diminishes the validity of mine. "Oh, they're 'good people', so you can't pretend their opinions are inferior to yours." Nonsense. Save this crap for your Blog of Lies.
" no one can prove objectively that there was a literal A/E no matter how long ago (although we do know the universe is objectively older than 6,000 years old)."
No. We don't. There's no hard data which proves anything about the age of the universe. You simply worship science above Scripture. You simply aren't convicted enough in your claim of Christian faithfulness that you're not brave enough to question the theories of the secular world. And given how often mankind has been wrong throughout human history, I feel much more comfortable believing the Words of Scripture than the desperate attempts by secular and/or godless science to dispute what Scripture says.
"And, yes, there IS a way to be mistaken about a literal Adam and Eve. Of course, there is."
So what? You're going to disbelieve the existence of Adam and Eve regardless.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
I recognize reality. Not your version of it.
"That the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 is told in a mythic manner IS a fully supported, rational alternative."
No, it's not at all "fully supported". It's strongly asserted by those who are inconvenienced by what it says. Such people like you choose to believe that the style of the authors means one is free to reject whatever serves your purpose as if what is said in the style it is said is untrue. Whether or not the claims are true is what must be proven false. You simply dismiss it as false because of the style in which it's presented. There's nothing at all compelling or sophisticated in that. It's just another manifestation of your anti-Biblical petulance.
"Just because you don't personally care for or agree with the, "Duh! Of course, it's written in a mythic style!" explanation does not negate the credibility of the explanation.
Do you understand that reality?"
The actual reality is that there is no credibility in the explanation simply because YOU want it to be regarded as such.
But here's some more reality:
You've again validated my position by again purposely straying to yet another tangent. We're not discussing Genesis here. So I will insist you go back to the earliest provocation of this entire discussion between you and Bubba (may he return soon): How is preaching the clear Will of God regarding the behavior of your beloved perverts harmful to them? Don't tell me about how lefties exploit such preaching to rationalize their brutality against perverts. Speak only to the harm of preaching God's Word and Will to them? Note that in this day and age, because of those you support, true Christians acting on or compelled by their faith are now regarded as "domestic terrorists". This stands as the only real harm resulting from preaching the Word and Will of God...harm inflicted on those doing the preaching.
[1/N]
VERY sincere apologies for the extended silence: life has been just entirely too busy for me to give this conversation the time it has deserved: sometimes I would check in and consider replying to everything, sometimes even replying to just a handful of things seemed a bit too much for the limited time at hand. Sorry about that: no guarantees it won't happen again, but I should have some more bandwidth going forward.
Dan,
Your earlier comments continue to leave the greatest impression on me, first with your hunch -- your extra-biblical and indeed unbiblical position -- that you can discern from your limited and fallible viewpoint that man is basically good, good not only to your vague standards but to the exacting standards of a holy and righteous God who looks on the heart rather than on outward appearances (I Sam 16:7).
But you effectively add to that the warning that man, good as he is on his own, should not be corrupted with the view that Scripture is uniquely authoritative: approaching the Bible with that kind of attitude is not only unhelpful, "that thinking has been a tool of oppression and control for centuries."
This is exactly the sort of two-part attitude I would expect from a humanist, not a self-described Christian with a high view of Scripture -- but then again, your view of Scripture isn't all that high, more that it documents man's work in understanding God than God's work in revealing Himself.
You could have seen how a deeper dive into Scripture is exactly what disarms the superficial views that feed oppressive narratives -- how, for example, an overemphasis on the wife's obedience to the husband is countered by the steep demands of the husband's sacrificial love and the unity of male and female in the body of Christ. Instead, you turn the New Testament narrative on its head.
It is Jesus who was the radical in His approach to Scripture, drawing out its full implications: it was the Pharisees who were looking for loopholes in declaring that hatred and lust were alright so long as they didn't lead to outright murder and adultery.
[2/N]
You say you think, "the Bible clearly teaches that God is a God of perfect justice and perfect love," but you define His justice and His love on your own terms. You do not let the Bible unpack what His justice means and how His love finds a way to satisfy His justice. Instead, you think our goodness speaks for itself and so God's "perfect justice" (your words) require something other than what the Bible -- and what Jesus Himself -- clearly teaches.
An appeal to figurative interpretation won't cut it where the text itself neither requires nor provides such an interpretation.
Jesus taught us to hate our parents, but He also taught to love everyone AND EVEN to honor our parents: the only reasonable conclusion is that the command to hate is hyperbole but meaningful hyperbole -- that there are times where our devotion to God may even be seen (incorrectly) as hatred toward rival loves.
Jesus taught us that we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood, but His closest followers did no such thing, instead repeating the observance He instituted where the bread and wine only represent His flesh and blood and our participation represents our trust in Him and His saving work.
And Jesus taught that His followers are salt and light, but not even the Apostles exhibited physical qualities of bioluminescent sodium chloride. Instead, the obvious metaphors are explained quite directly, that His followers are to remain different from the world (and not lose their "saltiness") while not retreating from the world (and not hide their light).
LOOK:
Jesus taught that, while few will enter the narrow way that leads to life, that NO ONE reaches the Father except through Jesus, many will tread the broad path that leads to destruction -- and He repeatedly taught that the destruction was an eternal judgment.
Where does THE TEXT require a figurative take on this particular teaching? IT DOESN'T.
And where does THE TEXT provide that figurative take? IT DOESN'T.
You only think a figurative interpretation is required because you bring your assumptions to the text, and even those assumptions aren't enough to explain what the text could actually mean otherwise.
[3/3]
The Medium article you cite commits what I would call an argument from Dante, suggesting that because the popular conception of hell is so heavily influenced by Dante and Milton, the concept itself really doesn't trace as far back as we think it does. The article then claims that there were quite a few universalist schools of thought floating about.
My response is that the literary devices of Dante and Milton don't have an impact one way or another on what the New Testament itself teaches, and universalism just isn't an option. The gate is wide to... what? A long detour before eternal life? No: destruction.
I personally wish it weren't so, but the safer (and, for a Christian, more intellectually honest) approach is to take Jesus at His word.
Bubba:
I personally wish it weren't so, but the safer (and, for a Christian, more intellectually honest) approach is to take Jesus at His word.
The answer, for those of us who are fans of Jesus, is ALWAYS we should take Jesus at his word. That's not at question here. The question is: Did Jesus mean literally there are no good people, full stop OR was he being figurative? You're continuing to beg the question and thus, embracing a fallacious argument. I just wonder if you see that you're begging the question.
Do you?
Likewise:
Jesus taught that, while few will enter the narrow way that leads to life, that NO ONE reaches the Father except through Jesus, many will tread the broad path that leads to destruction -- and He repeatedly taught that the destruction was an eternal judgment.
Where does THE TEXT require a figurative take on this particular teaching? IT DOESN'T.
And where does THE TEXT provide that figurative take? IT DOESN'T.
No one is disputing that Jesus used the words, "Wide is the way to destruction and narrow the path to salvation..." (My paraphrase). But what did Jesus mean?
In Luke 12 and 13, we have Jesus beginning one of his long set of warnings and encouragements IN LIGHT OF the problem of the Pharisees and their legalism, which is deadly.
Jesus begins Luke 12 warning against the yeast of the pharisees, which is hypocrisy. He continues to encourage his followers not to worry about what to say when brought before the authorities (as Jesus would soon be) by those in power, including the Pharisees. He then goes on to tell a parable about the Rich Fool, whose concern was not with the poor and marginalized, but his own wealth and overabundance.
Jesus then tells them not to worry, but to live simply, for God is in control and God loves them and is watching out for them, again with the encouragement to live in solidarity with the poor.
Like that, Jesus goes through Luke 12. And then in Luke 13, Jesus speaks of repentance BUT in light of the Pharisees who are also hearing these messages. Jesus then heals a sick woman on the Sabbath which again raises the ire of the pharisees/legalists. The religious/legalists were humiliated by Jesus' answers/words but the normal "sinners" were delighted.
So, yes, THEN, in the context of this ongoing dispute with the religious legalists, THEN Jesus mentions entering through the narrow door/way. THEN, in THAT context, Jesus says:
People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.
The "last," the least of these, the poor, the marginalized... MANY of them, from the east and west and north and south will join with the feast of the beloved community - AS IS the constant, consistent message of the Good news of Jesus - will be welcomed in. And WHO is left out? WHO did not follow the narrow way/enter through the narrow door? The hypocrites, the legalists, those who fought so hard to weigh people down and keep people out. THAT is who Jesus consistently addresses these types of warnings.
The text most definitely DOES insist on this, from Genesis to Revelation and all throughout the prophets and teachings of Jesus. For those who have ears to hear.
In other words, I truly think that "the Bible" DOES tell us precisely what I'm saying - that God is a God of justice and work with and for the least of these, NOT a God who thinks that all of humanity is evil or totally depraved.
And you truly think otherwise.
In other words, we genuinely disagree in good faith.
Where am I mistaken?
Where does THE TEXT require a figurative take on this particular teaching? IT DOESN'T.
In other words, THIS quote is YOUR personal human opinion. No doubt you hold it in good faith. I, in the mean time, disagree in good faith for just the reasons I gave: Looking at the whole of Jesus' teachings, of course it requires a figurative take on these sorts of texts. Looking at the whole of Jesus' teachings AND looking at reality, where I do see good people.
Bubba:
that you can discern from your limited and fallible viewpoint that man is basically good, good not only to your vague standards but to the exacting standards of a holy and righteous God who looks on the heart rather than on outward appearances
I disagree with YOUR personal limited and fallible human opinion that my opinion is mistaken. Can you begin with acknowledging that we have an actual good faith disagreement. YOU hold one personal human opinion and I hold a disagreeing opinion in my own personal human opinion. Do you acknowledge that YOUR opinion is a limited and fallible human opinion?
Agreed?
To further clarify:
I. I am not saying - I have not said - that "humanity is basically good." Period.
Do you understand that much?
II. I'm saying that humanity is observably imperfect. Period. Something you no doubt can agree with, is that right?
III. I'm saying that there are observably good people in the world and always have been. And by "Good," I just mean "Good," as it is typically understood. People who are selfless, giving, kind, compassionate, helpful, loving. I see them every day.
Do you disagree with that reality and if so, based on what?
IV. You say, "according to the 'exacting standards of a holy and righteous God'..." but what are those standards? Are you suggesting that God thinks (in your personal human opinion) that any humans that are not as perfect as God are, as a matter of fact, bad and evil, even?
If so, do you recognize that A. That is not the definition of Good and B. That is a crazy claim to make and C. One you can not and have not even tried to support?
Likewise in Matthew's version of entering through the narrow gate, the reader must be reading through the consistent context of Jesus' overarching themes...
1. He came in grace to preach good news and welcome and inclusion to the poor and marginalized
2. He is always speaking in contrast to the pharisees deadly and graceless legalism...
3. The welcome and inclusion is always on the side of the poor and marginalized and their allies... the warnings are consistently directed towards the religious hypocrites, the oppressors, the legalistic and those inclined to walk that graceless way.
So, with that in mind, we read Matthew 7 in the context of how the normal, poor people of the day were hearing it... as good news for them.
In that context we see Jesus giving a warning about not judging and grace, we see the teaching of the plank in their eye, we see Jesus telling them that even though human parents are "evil," even so, we know how to give good gifts. Even moreso, a perfect God knows how to give good to those who ask. Literally, grace.
And in that context, Jesus says the wide, narrow instruction... but does that mean God is graceless and DOESN'T know how to give good gifts? Or is it another warning directed towards the graceless legalists?
WHO are these warnings consistently directed towards, in the greater context of Jesus' teachings? We have every reason to NOT take this as another legalistic trap that gracelessly condemns and excludes most. That is precisely counter to the theme of Jesus' teachings.
Seems to me.
So, once again, we have competing human opinions with no authority to say, THIS opinion is the One True, God-approved opinion. Right? That, too, is the path of pharisaical legalism, not grace, is it not?
Dan
Finally, we can use our common sense and powers of observation and moral reasoning.
Just because slavery and forced marriages were an accepted and even commanded reality back then, we can still stand strong in our opposition to slavery and forced marriages as always immoral.
Just because we see lines like No one is good, we can still look and see, of course there are good people, as good is commonly understood.
If we find a line in the bible that contradicts common sense and reality, we can reasonably say, well, probably that should not be taken literally.
Just because there is a line that mentions the four corners of the earth, we don't need to try and force a literal meaning.
How is that mistaken?
Dan
Dan,
You mention hypocrisy and legalism as if they're interchangeable when they're not even necessarily related, much less the concept we affirm that you INACCURATELY describe as "legalism" -- the concept which, wholly apart from justification by works, nevertheless means that Christian disciples really should follow the instructions of their teacher and really should obey the commands of their Lord. THAT concept, Jesus never rebuked and the Pharisees never really taught because it's clear they were looking for ways to avoid the full implications of the moral law, e.g., that sins of the heart were as bad as overt acts.
Your fundementally Marxist take on Luke misses the gospel's emphasis, NOT on some redress of inequality, but on the forgiveness of sins.
Look at Luke 18:9-14. There, it is indeed surprising that the Pharisee isn't justified while the tax collector IS justified, but we see that it's not a matter of "a God of justice" rectifying the inequality.
WHAT WAS THE TAX COLLECTOR'S PRAYER?
Simply, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner."
He didn't presume upon God's justice to correct some matter of inequality between himself and the Pharisee: instead, he threw himself at God's merciful love which was (and remains) the only basis that a man like him (or us) could possibly stand justified before God.
There's a word that you don't use much -- "SINNER" -- presumably because you find it problematic and liable to be abused as a cause of oppression, but it is a far more accurate word to describe our situation.
We're not merely imperfect but "observably good" (your words) and are thus in a position to demand justice from God.
Instead, we're sinners who can only beg for mercy from God.
The good news isn't the arrival of God's justice, it's the provision of His mercy.
It is for this reason that Matthew and Luke alike emphasize God's forgiveness of our sins, another concept quite muted in your language: Jesus taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins (Mt 26:28) and thus repentance for the forgivenss of sins should be proclaimed to all (Lk 24:47).
Any conception of the gospel that misses this must be rejected as a false gospel.
Dan, in your point #2, you write that Jesus "is always speaking in contrast to the pharisees deadly and graceless legalism."
Um, where does He do this? Specifically?
I can't think of a single time where Jesus' criticism of the Pharisess was focused on legalism, however one would define it: you mention their being "hypocrites" in point 3, but I reiterate that legalism and hypocrisy are separate concepts. (One is about affirming the standards of the law, the other is about consistency in living up to those standards.) You offer not a single example to back up your claim about what Jesus is "always" doing.
Instead, we have Matthew 5:20.
> For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
- Only God is good
- "you who are evil"
- The path is narrow
- You must be more righteous than the Pharisees
It's far more sensible to take all these as literal than to harumph that each one must be taken figuratively, one after the other.
After all, Jesus' good news of inclusion is inclusion through FORGIVENESS OF SINS. Jesus came to save sinners, and the Bible could hardly be more clear about that.
[1/4]
And, Dan, I see that your conception of legalism has morphed once again.
"So, once again, we have competing human opinions with no authority to say, THIS opinion is the One True, God-approved opinion. Right? That, too, is the path of pharisaical legalism, not grace, is it not?"
Is it tho? Rly?
It seems to me that your mindset is this:
- Jesus opposed the Pharisees, and they were legalists (a claim that depends heavily on the definition used, and arguably isn't all that accurate!)
- Dan follows Jesus
- Dan's opponents must be like the Pharisees
- Dan's opponents are legalists
A H-U-G-E problem with this is the ungracious and grace-less avoidance and distortion of what it is your critics actually believe.
There are four separate concepts regarding legalism that need to be parsed out.
1. ON FANATICISM.
Legalism means an "EXCESSIVE CONFORMITY" to the law, but the Pharisees' problem wasn't the excessive conformity -- hence, Jesus' accurate accusation of hypocrisy, that they didn't really measure up -- it was the choice of law or religious code to which they conformed.
Put another way, JESUS WAS AND REMAINS THE REAL FANATIC. The Pharisees were lukewarm in comparison, but their commitment was to the wrong law to begin with.
The Pharisees' code was MERELY human traditions (cf. Mk 7:8) with an emphasis on ceremonial cleanliness and a DE-EMPHASIS on moral righteousness resulting in tons of rule-bending, where (for instance) divorce for any reason was okay so long as the paperwork was in order.
In contrast:
- Jesus' law is via divine revelation, not human tradition.
- And the emphasis of that law is INTERNAL purity, emphasizing love in all of one's relationships.
(Jesus' law is a law OF LOVE, so it's not in conflict with love at all!)
[2/4]
2. ON JUSTIFICATION.
In only one sense could it be said that the Pharisees overemphasized the law in comparison to Jesus, and that is the question of its purpose.
I saw a good line attributed to one of Billy Graham's grandchildren: "Legalism says God will love us if we change. The Gospel says God will change us because He loves us."
That sees legalism as a belief in WORKS-BASED RIGHTEOUSNESS, justification by works of the law. That's the Pharisee's self-righteous posturing in comparison to the penitent tax collector of Luke 18: "I fast, I tithe," my standing before God is assured, and instead Jesus wanted to shake people out of their complacent attitude in that they "trusted in themselves that they were righteous" (Lk 18:9).
(I wonder how many would have said that people could see that they were "observably good"!)
Evangelicals like Marshal and myself categorically and FORCEFULLY reject this kind of legalism to the greatest possible degree and in every possible respect.
Instead of justification by our own works of the law, we affirm justification by Christ's death received by faith. We merely add that we believe we are saved FOR good works (see Eph 2:10), NEVER *BY* good works -- that good works should be the result of our salvation and is never even a component of its cause.
3. ON OBEDIENCE.
We hold the biblical view that we are not saved BY good works but are instead saved FOR good works. Obedience to God's law is still part of the equation, it's just God's intended result and not one of the causes.
It is THIS that you originally decried as legalism, bending the term out of all common usage, and it's untenable.
- JESUS is our teacher, we are His disciples, and so we should follow His teachings.
- JESUS IS LORD, and so we should obey His commands.
It astounds me that this is remotely controversial.
4. ON CONFIDENCE.
But now, it seems you have distorted the concept of legalism even further: having first suggested that it's legalism to believe the law actually exists and is obligatory on those who love and worship the Lawgiver, you now suggest it's legalism even to believe the law can be understood at all.
I'll quote it again:
"So, once again, we have competing human opinions with no authority to say, THIS opinion is the One True, God-approved opinion. Right? That, too, is the path of pharisaical legalism, not grace, is it not?"
It's not, and I simply don't understand how you could get here without the presumptuous, torturous logic I mentioned earlier: Dan's following Jesus (it could not be that he's not actually following all that closely!), and so Dan's critics must automatically be like Jesus' opponents the Pharisees.
Legalism has nothing whatsoever to do with authority, and NO AUTHORITY IS NEEDED to point out the truth.
- If the earthly king walks the streets without a stitch on, it takes no special authorization for a kid to point out he's naked.
- In the same way, the King of Heaven has sent His Son to instruct us -- teaching us, for instance, to love God and to love people and that our very thoughts are as important on such matters as our outward behavior -- and it takes no special badge or decree to reiterate what has been plainly recorded for us.
I'll reiterate that God's law is the law of love, but this is not only in its contents, it is in its motivation. God told us to love BECAUSE HE LOVES US and wants for us the sort of intimate relationships (heavenly AND earthly) that are possible only when love is involved.
Believing this kind of law is clear, that is the path of legalism and not love? You're actually wrong on both counts.
[4/4]
In summary:
1. Legalism as excessive ADHERENCE to a moral code doesn't apply -- AND COULD NOT APPLY -- to the literal fanatic named Jesus because there's no way to go overboard with His law of love. It also doesn't apply to the Pharisees because they were lukewarm hypocrites, focused on rituals of external purity but just fine with lust and trivial divorce and hatred and racial prejudice.
2. Legalism as excessive EMPHASIS on a moral code arguably DOES apply to the Pharisees because justification by works puts the law in too central a position in a man's life, as the cause of his right standing before God instead of *A* consequence of that salvation.
3. But the evangelical position is NOT legalism because it's not an overemphasis to say that, while that place is certainly diminished, the law still DOES have a place in the life of faith. Only by saying that ANY emphasis is OVER-emphasis can one reach that position, and that position is licentiousness.
("Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound?" Of course not, we're supposed to walk in newness of life.)
4. And the evangelical belief in the clarity of God's revelation isn't legalism. It's not overemphasizing the law to say that we see it clearly, AT LEAST in the broad strokes I've been mentioning here, loving God and neighbor and weighing our thoughts as heavily as our actions.
There's really no place for your ridiculous accusations of legalism.
If you insist on continuing to disagree, you should define your terms so that it's clear that our positions on obedience and clarity qualify somehow as legalism.
And you should point out exactly WHERE Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for this kind of legalism. "Hypocrite" is a term found in the Gospels, such as in Mt 6:2 & 22:18, Mk 7:6, and Lk 13:15. I can't find "legalist" or "legalism" in any part of any English translation of the Bible.
Q. What exactly do you mean by "legalism," and where exactly is Jesus critical of this belief or attitude or behavior?
An answer to this two-part question would be a good place to continue what has become a long and meandering conversation.
Bubba:
you write that Jesus "is always speaking in contrast to the pharisees deadly and graceless legalism."
Um, where does He do this? Specifically?
I can't think of a single time where Jesus' criticism of the Pharisess was focused on legalism
From the ultra-conservative/traditional Ligonier Ministries:
The essential problem lay in their different understanding of the nature of God. For the Pharisees, God is primarily one who makes demands. For them, the Scriptures of the Old Testament were a set of rules that must be kept at all costs. For Jesus, as well as the Old Testament believers, God is primarily “gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love”
...The most proximate cause of the Pharisees’ antagonism toward Jesus, however, lay in His ignoring of their hundreds of elaborate but petty rules that they had devised for interpreting the law of God. Not only did they devise these hundreds of man-made rules, but they had also elevated them to the level of Scripture, so that to break one of their rules was to violate the law of God itself.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/jesus-challenges-pharisees
I don't guess that sounds familiar to you, does it? (Maybe you don't even understand why I'm asking the question...??)
Ligonier continues:
In both instances — that of the disciples eating the grain and of Jesus healing the man’s withered hand — the scriptural principle that Jesus applies is God’s Word that “I desire mercy and not sacrifice”
Or, as I regularly point out, they failed to understand the distinction that Jesus tried to make clear: God made Sabbath for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath. God doesn't create rules to live and die by or to legalistically apply - especially upon others, God gives guidelines for our sake, to help us, in grace and love.
Or, to more directly answer your question, Jesus points out the deadly legalism of the Pharisees here, in Matthew 23:
“They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them”
[The heavy, cumbersome loads are the rules that they add and add and add upon the people's back, until it becomes a crushing weight of deadly legalism.]
And Jesus continues in Matthew 23, saying:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to!”
HOW do they shut the door of the realm of God? By their legalism, by their gracelessness (same thing), by their living by rules and insisting others live by their rules, too.
cont'd...
I'm sure you know that, outwardly, the Pharisees were/tended to be quite "good" people - following all the rules in a pious, righteous manner.
But they missed the point. They made rules their god and their way and their understanding of Scriptural teaching the ideal to be followed legalistically, gracelessly (sound familiar?) and failed to follow the path of grace. They neglected, as Jesus says, justice and mercy and faithfulness - faithfulness to the beloved community.
Then, there are the passages where the pharisees were legalists in the way that they eschewed the "unclean." The lepers, women, menstruating women, gentiles, foreigners... there were SO MANY "unclean people" to the legalistic pharisees, and they left no room for grace. Consider Mark 7...
Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand. There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into his mouth. Rather, it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles him.”
Now when Jesus had left the crowd and entered the house, the disciples came to him and said, “Do you know that when the Pharisees heard this saying they were offended?”
The Pharisees were offended because people were "lawlessly" breaking their rules that they had established as primary and essential, and they did so in a legalistic manner. The system of unclean-ness was a system of the Pharisees (which they took from the OT and expanded upon, much like many today do, fwiw) was fundamentally a legalistic, graceless way of separating those who are IN and those who are OUT - and MOST folks were out.
I didn't cite the many instances of this legalism because I thought it would be clear to folks like you who are familiar with biblical teachings. I could go on.
The point remains: I hold my positions for rational and biblical reasons, as I keep demonstrating. And I'm sure you hold your positions because you think they are rational and biblical. We have a good faith disagreement. I clearly think you are WAY wrong and you appear to think the same of my opinions.
What now?
CAN you acknowledge that folks like me - even if you ultimately disagree with our reasoning and conclusions - DO disagree with you all because we think your understanding of God and the Bible and reason are wrong on points such as this?
Bubba:
I reiterate that legalism and hypocrisy are separate concepts.
Of course, they are. I'm not conflating them as if they are the same thing. I am noting that Jesus objected to the Pharisees for both these reasons and that they are related, even while they are not synonymous.
Because the Pharisees and their legalistic allies raised their rules and their understanding of "scripture" to the level of God, by demanding that disagreeing with them was the same as disagreeing with God (you will allow that, won't you?), they missed the point. The point of the overall teachings of "scripture" - of God and God's ways - is GRACE. IF you say, along with the Pharisees, "NO! We MUST stone this adulterous woman to death because that is literally what the law says (right?)," then they've missed the point of grace. Grace forgives. Grace understands. Grace does not kill or destroy.
Thus, while SAYING they loved and followed "scripture," they missed the point - love, forgiveness, grace, welcome, inclusion in God's Realm - and thus, were hypocrites. They tithed the mint and cumin, but ignored grace and love and justice - the WEIGHTIER matters of the law.
Right?
By denying grace to the adulterous woman, to the leper, to women in general, to gentiles, to foreigners... they were being hypocritical, claiming to love and follow God's ways... but NOT and at the same time, denying to others what God wants to give.
As a brief aside:
Bubba:
Your fundementally Marxist take on Luke misses the gospel's emphasis, NOT on some redress of inequality, but on the forgiveness of sins.
Snort.
Why is everything always about Marxism to y'all? Noting that Jesus literally stated that he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized IS NOT MARXISM. Noting that Jesus spoke repeatedly of and in support of the poor and marginalized is not Marxism. Noting that Jesus, Mary, James, the prophets, etc, regularly denounced the rich and rich, powerful oppressors is not Marxism. I've said not one word about Marxism. The word has a meaning and I'm not a Marxist, nor have I said that I'm a Marxist.
If you all can't understand the words of people today in your own time and language, maybe you should be a bit more humble about assuming you know what Jesus and the biblical authors meant?
It's a fair question/point.
What exactly do you mean by "legalism," and where exactly is Jesus critical of this belief or attitude or behavior?
Legalism:
"In Christian theology, "legalism" (or "nomism") is a pejorative term applied to the idea that "by doing good works or by obeying the law, a person earns and merits salvation.""
From Wikipedia.
That's what I mean. In other words, just what the word means.
We see it with Jesus when he stopped the legalists from following the literal OT command to execute adulterers when he saved the so-called adulterous woman from being executed as the law commanded, literally. Jesus chose grace and his grace was in opposition/contrast to the legalists' legalism.
For one example. We also see it in Jesus' inclusion of the "unclean" and his recognition that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not the other way around.
I could continue, but that suffices for now.
Your two questions, clearly and directly answered.
Now, for you:
You say...
Instead of justification by our own works of the law, we affirm justification by Christ's death received by faith.
What if someone like me disagrees with your personal human opinions and traditions that say we must (?) affirm "justification by Christ's death to pay for our sin and salvation..."
Must we affirm that opinion before we can be saved?
Dan
Here's a helpful article from someone who sounds very traditional in his beliefs, where he expound upon pharisaical legalism...
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-making-of-a-modern-pharisee
It seems to me that your mindset is this:
- Jesus opposed the Pharisees, and they were legalists (a claim that depends heavily on the definition used, and arguably isn't all that accurate!)
- Dan follows Jesus
- Dan's opponents must be like the Pharisees
- Dan's opponents are legalists
Nope. Not my words. Not my mindset.
At all.
You read but fail to understand.
My mindset is, rather...
If you say, here is a list of rules you must follow
Here is a list of beliefs you must affirm,
Here are my personal human traditions and opinions you must agree with...
Then you might be a legalist.
Is that reasonable, in your opinion?
Dan
Dan, there are moments where I think it really is possible to make headway in terms of mutual understanding -- and this is one of those moments. THANK YOU for your response, not least because it was such a punctual reply when my own personal life has made my commenting a bit unpredictable lately.
That's a GREAT definition of legalism, and it reminds me of the synonym I was struggling to remember, namely nomism. Those are the two great pitfalls of Christian doctrine -- legalism vs licentiousness, a/k/a nomism vs anti-nomianism -- that must be avoided in no uncertain terms:
The former says that we're saved by the law, the latter says we're saved FROM the law, but the gospel says we're saved by grace in order to fulfill the law.
The legalist says, the law saves us! The anti-nomian says, the law doesn't matter!
The Christian says, the law DOESN'T save us, but the law still DOES matter, because we are saved, not BY good works, but FOR good works. Obedience to God's moral law is the result He intends from our salvation, NOT some precondition to salvation -- but I'm getting ahead of myself.
---
The definition is great, but I honestly don't see those particular episodes as the greatest evidence that Jesus stood against legalism, and I'd LOVE to see you connect the dots for me, for some or preferably all three of the examples you give.
I think the stronger passages against legalism are the ones you consider to be figurative, the ones that make clear the moral law is so high that its demands cannot possibly be met by any mere human: there is none good but God.
BE PERFECT AS YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS PERFECT. Jesus meant it, and the demand should drive us to our knees praying for God's mercy: God provides mercy and through His Spirit God even empowers us to fulfill what we could otherwise never hope to achieve on our own.
---
I appreciate your clarifying your mindset, that you think one might be a legalist if he says, "here is a list of rules you must follow."
But -- and here, I would point out that the quite good Desiring God article you cite says a lot of what I've already been saying -- the WHY matters, and it's entirely missing from your statement.
Option 1: "Here is a list of rules you must follow in order to be saved."
Option 2: "Here is a list of rules you must follow now that you have ALREADY been saved."
Those are two very, VERY different things, the former is legalism by definition, and the latter is mere Christian discipleship.
Jesus DID give rules to those He has saved:
- Love God
- Love your neighbor
- Love your enemy (overlaps #2 but obviously still essential to emphasize)
- And (the new rule or commandment) love one another
Just as the knight or samurai obeys his lord, we are to follow these instructions.
If you disagree, the follow-up question is obvious:
Q. What is a Christian -- already saved, already forgiven and justified and regenerate -- supposed to do with "love your enemy" and "love one another" if NOT obey those commandments?
And you may yet be getting to it, Bubba, but from my point of view, this set of questions, if answered by you, would go a long way toward clarity.
I. I am not saying - I have not said - that "humanity is basically good." Period.
Do you understand that much?
II. I'm saying that humanity is observably imperfect. Period. Something you no doubt can agree with, is that right?
III. I'm saying that there are observably good people in the world and always have been. And by "Good," I just mean "Good," as it is typically understood. People who are selfless, giving, kind, compassionate, helpful, loving. I see them every day.
Do you disagree with that reality and if so, based on what?
IV. You say, "according to the 'exacting standards of a holy and righteous God'..." but what are those standards?
Are you suggesting that God thinks (in your personal human opinion) that any humans that are not as perfect as God are, as a matter of fact, bad and evil, even?
If so, do you recognize that
A. That is not the definition of Good and
B. That is a crazy claim to make and
C. One you can not and have not even tried to support?
That, and the still-unresolved matter of your justice problem.
Given the reality of observably good people (as Jesus noted, by their fruit you will know them), who are, nonetheless, imperfect... HOW is it just or rational to say such people deserve to be tortured for an eternity?
The reality of good people and your collective problem of justice are HUGE rational and biblical problem that I can't find anyone, anywhere even TRYING to address beyond the question-begging assumption that your premises are correct.
Can you find any conservative, traditional source/website where anyone tries to answer these questions?
Dan
I'm glad to answer your questions, Bubba, but I'd really appreciate if you also answered mine. I think, especially, this last set of questions I've re-asked would be extremely informative and helpful.
BubbaWhat is a Christian -- already saved, already forgiven and justified and regenerate -- supposed to do with "love your enemy" and "love one another" if NOT obey those commandments?
We are to embrace love, grace, forgiveness and the beloved community. The result would be that we, indeed, love God and neighbor and enemy, even, but it's not about following rules. It's about embracing grace.
Consider it this way: rule-following is the baby steps approach to love. Mature love and grace move beyond rote rule following.
When my children were toddlers, I would strongly discourage them away from fires or hot stoves. But would I chastise my adult child away from the deadly kiln where they are working on ceramic art? I could try, but they would just roll their eyes and say, "Dad, I'm an adult. This is how I make my living..."
The point was never, Fire, Bad! The point was always love and grace.
Sabbath was made for humanity, not the other way around. It was never about rule-following, it was always about live and grace.
As Jesus rebuked the legalists, you should have grown up into the weightier matters of the law.
Even if you disagree, can you see the reasoning?
It's the difference of a child heeding the do not steal rule and the adult realizing that by stealing the carburetor from the Nazi car, they could save endangered people. We grow past mere childish rule-following into the grace, love and justice of the realm of God.
Dan
A related, follow up pair of questions that may be helpful...
If no Bible existed... OR if the Bible never said in any words that we should love humanity, do you still think that, of course, we should love one another?
Do you think rules given from God are the only way to know how to be good, or do you think that the morality is inate, just doing the right thing, the loving, kind and just thing?
Dan
...previous comments were encouraging, but on the other hand a cut-and-paste job from September 10th isn't helpful, especially when I've addressed these points if not in a numbered sequence.
Dan, I don't understand the distinction you're making AND emphasizing between "humanity is basically good" (which you deny) and people are "observably good" (which are your words verbatim). And just as I don't think it's useful to argue the legal consequences of abortion with someone who is still in denial about the deliberate killing of a fellow member of the human species, I'm not sure there's much point in explaining the doctrine of eternal damnation to someone who thinks people are "observably good" and not, well, sinners.
Jesus Christ came to save sinners. Period. This is no conjecture or human tradition, it's scriptural and is therefore trustworthy as divine revelation.
"Sinner" remains a category you studiously avoid, and I wonder what you actually think happens in the afterlife, but I remain more interested in what you think happens in this world regarding the moral obligations of Christians who have been saved from sin: it doesn't seem you have any firm beliefs that God has any real expectations for our behavior OR that those expectations, having come from the divine Lawgiver, both our Creator and now our Redeemer, are obligatory in any real sense.
The goal is mutual understanding: you seem to know what it is I believe, much as you denounce it as crazy, and I've certainly written enough about what I believe, but if you have a specific AND PREFERABLY NON-LEADING question about what it is I believe, I'll try to field it.
In the meantime, I still don't know what it is you believe regarding the relationship between the Christian and the law, other than presuming that you think (absurdly AND in the teeth of the definition you just gave) that ANY relationship is tantamount to legalism.
Bubba:
I don't understand the distinction you're making AND emphasizing between "humanity is basically good" (which you deny) and people are "observably good" (which are your words verbatim).
Interesting. I think I'm being quite abundantly clear and yet you don't understand it. It's interesting how perspective makes a difference in these sorts of things (like you saying you've answered my questions and I do not see it at all.)
The premise: NO ONE in all of humanity is good. All of humanity is bad, evil, depraved... that is saying quite literally that there is no one good in all of humanity. Not one good person anywhere. Is that correct? I mean, that IS what those words mean, right?
Saying, "We can objectively see, observe, watch and acknowledge actual good people (as good is normally understood in the English language) in the world - people who do good, kind, helpful, loving acts because they are motivated to see good promoted in the world - is an objective reality. We SEE good people." is not saying that there are no bad people. It's not saying that these good people are perfect. It's just noting the reality of good people. We need no biblical proof to acknowledge simple, observable reality.
Further, there are biblical texts that presume good people. Jesus told us to look for good fruit and you'll know it's from a good tree - by their actions you will know they are good people.
It's an observable reality that there are at least SOME good people in the world and, for what it's worth, there are biblical texts that support this.
There is a huge difference between saying there are NO good people and saying, but wait, we can OBSERVE good people. It's not saying that "humanity" (the full and total collection of humans) is good. It's noting the reality of actually good people.
What am I missing? Or what are you missing? Is that not observably objectively obviously factual?
That last comment was from me, Dan Trabue.
I've certainly written enough about what I believe, but if you have a specific AND PREFERABLY NON-LEADING question about what it is I believe, I'll try to field it.
My questions to you:
1. Do you understand WHY I see good people? That is, do you understand WHY I can see good people, because I literally know people who have good hearts who do good things, observably, demonstrably good things from an intention of helping people and the world. They don't have ulterior motives, they just genuinely want, for instance, disabled people to have a chance to have their own homes and jobs and be as independent as possible... they want unhoused people to have homes because it's a good thing for them to have, because they are humans, God's beloved children.
Do you understand WHY I maintain that, OF COURSE, there are good people in the world just as good is normally defined?
It's a reasonable question.
2. You state that it's a problem with "rebellious hearts..." that all of humanity has, in your opinion, "rebellious hearts..."
What do you mean by that? Define rebellious hearts and then provide support for it. Objective support preferably, as opposed to, "well, there is a verse and I take that verse to mean..."
Likewise, IF you are saying that all of humanity stands condemned by a perfectly loving God because, in your opinion, you think that we all have rebellious hearts, it's a reasonable thing to ask you to define it.
3. Even if you can support your "rebellious heart" hypothesis (and I don't think you can), the answer almost certainly comes down to, "Well, all people are not perfect, like God. All people get angry and behave in a mean or unloving manner from time to time..." you still have the Justice problem.
HOW is a perfect, perfectly loving and just God going to torture people for eternity for the crime of being imperfect? Where is your support for it and how do you explain/answer your justice dilemma?
Another reasonable question.
Bubba:
Jesus Christ came to save sinners. Period. This is no conjecture or human tradition, it's scriptural and is therefore trustworthy as divine revelation.
While I don't disagree with your first sentence here, depending on how you define your terms, but nonetheless, it objectively remains a subjective human opinion and a matter of tradition. And again, depending on what human meaning you assign to your premise, it is, of course, literally a human tradition. More on the meaning of your first sentence, later. I just think it's a vital point to understand that our human traditions that we can not objectively prove ARE, as a point of fact, objectively unproven human traditions.
Bubba:
I'm not sure there's much point in explaining the doctrine of eternal damnation to someone who thinks people are "observably good" and not, well, sinners.
Who says that a person can not be BOTH good and a sinner? Is it your human theory that there are NO good sinners? IF so, based upon what?
Remember: Sin = missing the mark, failing to be perfect, being imperfect. Sinners are those who are not perfect, as the Bible uses the word much of the time. (More on "sinners" later).
You have not offered yet, so far as I see, any proof or substance to support a theory that imperfect humans can't also be good.
Dan
Bubba:
"Sinner" remains a category you studiously avoid, and I wonder what you actually think happens in the afterlife, but I remain more interested in what you think happens in this world regarding the moral obligations of Christians who have been saved from sin: it doesn't seem you have any firm beliefs that God has any real expectations for our behavior OR that those expectations, having come from the divine Lawgiver
A. The word, "sinner" shows up many times in the NT in the context of contrasting Jesus' way of welcome and inclusion and grace with the legalism of the Pharisees and their allies.
For instance, when the Pharisees confronted Jesus' followers with the snide and condescending, "why is your Jesus is always dining with taxpayers and sinners!" You can hear the sneer in their words. They, no doubt, spit out the word, "sinners!" It's graceless and Jesus makes clear that they're missing the point of grace, for THAT is the law, the law summed up in "love God and love humanity." We see this repeated throughout especially the NT and the gospels, as in the Pharisees being shocked at Jesus letting himself be "touched" by that woman (!) who is a sinner!
Jesus makes it repeatedly clear that the sinners - those who miss the mark but want to do the right - are the welcome ones, the ones for whom he'd come to preach good news. It was the religious and legalists who missed this point. Jesus' way is a way of grace. "Sinners" are not the vermin that the religious legalists try to make them out to be. They get it exactly backwards.
The other way "sinners" is often used is in speaking of those oppressors, the rich, the haughty, the proud, the arrogant, the legalists... THOSE who self-exclude themselves from God's realm by self-excluding themselves from grace, embracing legalism, instead.
So yes, I don't tend to use "sinners" so much, precisely because it's been tainted by the arrogant demonization of the legalists. It causes harm, it tears down, it destroys, it blocks entry. Much the way that the Magops of today use the word "immigrant" to mean those people who are coming here as terrorists, to rape, to kill, to take over buildings and cities and vote illegally and eat your cats and dogs. Prideful bigotry against normal people by religious legalists have tainted the word and, because I'm interested in following Jesus' way, I don't use that which causes harm or pain.
You may disagree, but that's my reasoning. It would be interesting to do a deep dive on how the word "sinner" is used throughout the Bible. I would be willing to bet it's generally been a way of welcoming and including, as in Jesus coming to preach the good news to the poor, the marginalized, the "sinners," and then, on the other hand, to speak of the actual "sinners" who are the oppressors and abusers, those opposed to immigrants and the "sinners" who Jesus freely associated with.
Even if you may not agree with my reasoning, I hope you can see the point in my reasoning.
DAN!
I have chosen to step back now that Bubba has found time to continue his engagement with you here. But as this is MY blog, and this blog isn't the cesspool "Through These Woods" Blog of Lies, you are prohibited from spewing hateful, anti-Christian, progressive Jeff St lies here. To wit:
"Much the way that the Magops of today use the word "immigrant" to mean those people who are coming here as terrorists, to rape, to kill, to take over buildings and cities and vote illegally and eat your cats and dogs."
This is an intentional Jeff St. level pile of steaming feo. No MAGA people in the GOP say this shit. This is how progressive Jeff St fake-Christian liars misrepresent better people. You assholes are perverting the term "immigrant", which implies a legal entering of any nation, with "migrant", which can include both legal and the millions of illegal invaders you falsely present as poor, oppressed asylum seekers and refugees whose "self-determination" automatically subordinates that of actual United States citizens.
Most of your side of the debate between you and Bubba is based on falsehoods and lies you pretend are "opinions" as if to make it OK. But this true manifestation of your hateful and false posturing of "Christian" will not be allowed here.
You are damned well under advisement: Weigh your words carefully. These attacks will not be tolerated and you damned well better have solid, unassailable proofs and evidence to dare say such or similar bullshit here again.
NOTE: This is Dan's latest comment submission edited by me where emboldened:
Bubba:
"I still don't know what it is you believe regarding the relationship between the Christian and the law, other than presuming that you think (absurdly AND in the teeth of the definition you just gave) that ANY relationship is tantamount to legalism."
We have no relationship with the law. We have a relationship with God through Grace, not legalism. And not by abiding by a list of rules, especially made up human rules.
Does that mean that we are hedonistic libertines (Pervert Dan supposes his political opponents are more perverse than he is here)? God forbid! It just means that we embrace grace, we are not rule followers. We embrace grace and if we have a law, it is the law of Love: Love God, love humanity, love the world. And that, of grace, not legalism.
Pervert Dan, while absolutely rejecting truth in his twisted re-invention of Christianity, chooses to again malign better people as if they are more perverse than he is. In doing so, he proves beyond any attempt he could possibly make to deny it, that he is in fact, not at all a "good" person. A "good" person doesn't continue doing what he was warned not to do. It would be sad if his attempts to continue this debate with Bubba was confounded by his comments being deleted as a result of this ongoing bad behaviors. One who enables absolute and unmistakable perversions, who perverts as a rule rather than not, is prohibited from accusing anyone of perversion, especially without factual supportive evidence with each attempt. Any incidence of this behavior will not be approved for publication and no explanation will be provided for a comment submitted being disallowed for such reason. I strongly encourage Dan the Pervert to save all comments so that when they don't appear, he can alter them to satisfy this rule.
Following up on this:
I still don't know what it is you believe regarding the relationship between the Christian and the law, other than presuming that you think (absurdly AND in the teeth of the definition you just gave) that ANY relationship is tantamount to legalism.
I'm saying that we who believe in salvation by God's grace - NOT by a blood payment to pay off a debt owed by all humans to a god who is not willing/able/going to forgive us WITHOUT a blood payment - the best way to understand and interact with moral rules is through the construct of GRACE, not of law-following. This is precisely (I'd say) where the Pharisees went wrong.
As I'm sure you know, the Pharisees were largely devout people who really believed in honoring God, as they understood God, and the way they tried to do that (and enforce that it was done) was by rule-following. If you kept yourself "clean" and didn't associate with the "unclean," if you devoutly, zealously followed the rules, then you were pleasing to God.
They erred in leaning into rule-following and abandoning grace.
That is why I lean into grace. NOT to celebrate and engage in hedonism, but because Grace is the way Jesus taught.
Marshal, I'm answering Bubba's questions and waiting for him or any of you all to answer my questions. I'm being respectful and considerate and deliberate. If you're not going to post my answers, then there's no point in continuing.
I'm not playing games here. This is an adult conversation. Get involved at a rational, respectful adult level or step aside or just recognize I'm not playing your games.
It would be sad if his attempts to continue this debate with Bubba was confounded by his comments being deleted as a result of this ongoing bad behaviors.
Also, WHAT "bad behaviors..."? Bubba is asking questions and I'm giving my good faith actual opinions in response. Where is the "bad behavior" in that?
Is it possible your collective predisposition to believe in your human theories about "depraved humanity" is making you find bad behavior where none exists?
This is simply not rational, dear friends. Be better. Read better. Understand better.
So, on your blog you want to have the right to be as vulgar and debased as you want to try to demean good people you don't even know who disagree with you, and at the same time, you are going to defend a man known to be demonstrably amoral and vulgar whose actions towards women and others is demonstrably perverse, depraved? Got it. You do you.
The point remains: many conservatives have been spreading dangerously false claims about innocent immigrants who are here legally, putting them and their children in danger. And not just those people of color in Springfield, but people of color across the nation who happen to either be or "look like" immigrants. Again, I have friends who have adopted children from other nations whose skin happens to be darker and who "look foreign," and they are reporting that they fear for their children because of real, harmful words that are being spewed at children, and the bomb threats against children and adults in Ohio continues because of immoral lies and attacks against innocent Haitians... it's all adding up to a hostile environment for many immigrants and people of color. It's a diabolical thing to do.
And Vance was confronted by the parents of the child who died in an accident involving a Haitian and the dad TOLD Vance to keep his child's name out of his vulgar little mouth, using and abusing his dead child as a political tool. He demanded an apology from Vance and told him to cease and desist. Vance declined and doubled down on his vulgar abuse of dead children.
THIS is the sort of people you are endorsing/supporting.
I'll say it again and again, there are lines that should not be crossed and your candidates routinely cross them, demonstrating an arrogant amorality/immorality. For Trump and Vance, dead children are just convenient tools to rile up useful idiots.
Shame on them and shame on you.
"... it's all adding up to a hostile environment for many immigrants and people of color. It's a diabolical thing to do."
What's diabolical is the willful and unconstitutional actions of the Harris/Biden administration to flood the nation with illegals they hope will vote in our elections to keep them in power. I also believe despite not having any hard evidence...though the prospect is far more likely than the fantasies you promote as true...that these importations of illegals is intended in part...or hoped for...to incite our citizens so as to make it easier to promote the lie of a great White Nationalism and/or MAGA "threat to our 'democracy'", as if you asshole progressives care about this nation.
"And Vance was confronted by the parents of the child who died in an accident involving a Haitian and the dad TOLD Vance to keep his child's name out of his vulgar little mouth, using and abusing his dead child as a political tool. He demanded an apology from Vance and told him to cease and desist. Vance declined and doubled down on his vulgar abuse of dead children."
The dad of the dead kid is a raving, Trump-hating Democrat and is exploiting his own kid to demonize Trump and Vance. Vance has every right to call attention to the death of an American kid whose blood is on the hands of the Harris/Biden administration, those who voted for them against Trump...like the kid's dad...and the illegal Haitian who shouldn't have been behind the wheel, and certainly not behind the wheel in this country. This dad has no right or authority to demand Vance not reference his kid by name. Vance is just in doing so to highlight just one of the many problems Harris/Biden has inflicted upon this nation one just this one of many issues by which Harris/Biden have totally demonstrated their incompetence and unfitness of public office of any level. Few things are more vulgar than to have rejected Trump to allow this duo of dumbasses to so harm our nation as they have over the last four years.
THIS is the sort of people you are endorsing/supporting, and you continue to pretend the nation has somehow benefited by their unjust elevation to power. You're an asshole and a direct threat to the children of our nation, including the kids of other idiot assholes who pretend Trump is the problem. Dumbfucks one and all!
"I'll say it again and again, there are lines that should not be crossed and your candidates routinely cross them, demonstrating an arrogant amorality/immorality."
You're an amoral liar as your comments here have demonstrated beyond any doubt. Leave to an asshole like you to blame deaths made possibly by your choice of political leaders on better people like Trump and Vance, under whom far fewer will perish...as evidenced by his first four years as president.
The shame is all yours, asshat. That includes responding again with wild unsupported attacks against people far better than you will ever be.
Now...I don't want to see any more of your lies in response to my corrections of the lies you've brought already. Just snug up your panties and patiently wait for Bubba to return. I've saved a comment of yours I didn't allow here for use in my next post devoted to the stupidity and lies within it. You lucky girl!
Marshal, you are depraved and graceless. This grieving family has asked for Vance NOT to abuse his son's memory by mentioning his name. It doesn't matter if he's Democrat, Republican or Martian, it's a reasonable request from a grieving family. There is no shame in giving the grieving the grace to grieve in their own way.
This is what people hate about politics, this soul-less, grace-less partisanship hackery. Be a better man, Marshal.
And Pervert Dan replies anyway, despite being instructed not to. If the roles were reversed, and it was me ignoring his demands at his Blog of Lies, Dan would delete this comment. But that's the way Pervert Dan rolls. He's depraved (incredibly so) and graceless, as he pretends Vance is doing something wrong by "SAYING HIS NAME!!!", as the progressives demand when it suits them. Vance is not "abusing" the kid's name you lying piece of shit, hateful Christ-hater. This is a bullshit and blatant attempt by you, the kid's father and other progressive shit stains to deflect attention from why the kid died so needlessly...because an illegal hit the school bus in which the kid was riding...because the Harris/Biden administration abused immigration policies to allow the asshole to be in Springfield to slam into that bus. No...you, the kid's father and other progressive shit stains want to pretend Vance is doing something wrong by remembering a child who should still be alive and playing with his friends but for the Harris/Biden abuse of power. Take your vile hatred for better people, and your fake concern for "this grieving family"...who, BTW, is free to grieve all they need regardless of who mentions the kid's name. This isn't your Blog of Lies. YOU and this dude are among those who are engaging in "this soul-less, grace-less partisanship hackery". Not Vance or Trump. I'd tell you to be a better man, but you have to be a man to begin with and you're already given over to your corruption, so I doubt you could possibly be better. You're certainly nothing akin to "good".
I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet that Bubba and Craig would tend to agree with me. Even if for all the wrong reasons. (I imagine they might say something like, "There's nothing to be gained by going on the offense of a grieving family..." as opposed to actually taking a stand against it, but they could speak for themselves, if they wish.)
If Bubba and Craig agreed with you, they'd be as wrong about the issue as you are. Trump and Vance are not wrong to cite by name anyone killed as a result of illegals being in this country by virtue of the Harris/Biden abuses of power. A Trump-hating Democrat politicizing the death of his own son doesn't change the fact that the son is dead because of a Haitian who is likely not entitled to be in this country, and less so to be behind the wheel of a vehicle on the streets of Springfield, OH. I have no doubt this Nathan Clark would be weeping a different tune if the Haitian was here and killed his son because of Trump policies, so cut the crap and stop acting like you care about the kid or his family. All you care about is demonizing men who are far better people than you.
So many Americans have been harmed in so many different ways by illegals Harris/Biden invited into this country without regard to our laws. Each of their names should be cited so as to rub the noses of assholes like you in the shit you've dumped in our house. Even illegals have been harmed in multiple ways because of Harris/Biden incompetence. Aidan Clark is forever connected with the preventable stupidity of the Harris/Biden administration, put into power by morons like you.
Dan,
I'd like to focus on the topics that have been driving this conversation.
On those subjects, a "good sinner" is a bizarre concept and one that strikes me as a contradiction in terms unless we're talking about two moral standards -- a person could hypothetically meet one standard and qualify as "good" but fall short of the other standard and qualify as "sinning." Is there any biblical reason to believe in these two standards and/or the concept of good sinners? No there isn't, and so far you haven't shown any interest in showing otherwise.
The problem with the concept is that Jesus' focus on sin isn't on mere slip-ups about the sabbath or ritualistic cleanliness: instead, the moral law that He upholds and that we violate is concerned with matters as serious as hatred and lust and dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Sin is such a serious problem that the Son of God Himself came to save sinners; the Bible further teaches that it is serious enough that the Son died to save sinners.
(If salvation from sin was something that merely could have been declared without being secured, God could have sent a prophet instead of the Son, or the Son could have just came and preached and went back. Instead, His death was "His hour," the very reason that He came.)
"Jesus Christ came to save sinners" is no mere subjective human opinion or matter of tradition. As I said, it's scriptural: it's a verbatim quote of the ESV translation of I Timothy 1:15, and if you think the explicit teachings of the Apostles are objectively subjective, it raises the question of what it would take to convince you of anything.
But I'll set that question aside, as the question that most interests me remains what you believe regarding the Christian's relationship to the moral law.
"I'm saying that we who believe in salvation by God's grace - NOT by a blood payment to pay off a debt owed by all humans to a god who is not willing/able/going to forgive us WITHOUT a blood payment...
(Jesus Himself said His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins, a doctrine that was reiterated by Peter and Paul and John. Gethsemane makes no sense unless the cross was an essential part of God's plan, and Jesus' conversation on the road to Emmaus emphasized that the crucifixion HAD to take place.)
"...the best way to understand and interact with moral rules is through the construct of GRACE, not of law-following. This is precisely (I'd say) where the Pharisees went wrong.
"As I'm sure you know, the Pharisees were largely devout people who really believed in honoring God, as they understood God, and the way they tried to do that (and enforce that it was done) was by rule-following. If you kept yourself "clean" and didn't associate with the "unclean," if you devoutly, zealously followed the rules, then you were pleasing to God."
I KNOW NO SUCH THING. They didn't zealously follow the rules -- not God's revealed commands even if they had lengthy list of human traditions -- and Jesus' criticism was that they ignored the weightier matters of the law and that they looked to human traditions to allow themselves to break oaths and to divorce for any reason and to dishonor their parents.
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU INSIST ON A TENSION OR CONFLICT BETWEEN LOVE AND THE LAW.
After all, what sums up the law? The command to love! --to love God, to love your neighbor, EVEN to love your enemies, and now to love one another.
If the law IS to love, then one obeys the law by loving!
Bubba:
On those subjects, a "good sinner" is a bizarre concept and one that strikes me as a contradiction in terms unless we're talking about two moral standards -- a person could hypothetically meet one standard an qualify as "good" but fall short of the other standard and qualify as "sinning."
On that subject, the notion that some sinners are NOT good is an .EXCEEDINGLY baffling and ridiculous (to me) concept. OF COURSE, it's not a contradiction in terms. Humans are imperfect. We "sin." We make mistakes. We shoot for perfection and fall short (as the Biblical word tells us over and over and over and over and over again)... We ARE observably imperfect. Of course.
AND YET, we are often observably good, helpful, loving, gracious, giving, kind and forgiving. We put forth the Good Fruit that Jesus tells us indicates a good tree. Regularly. AND we can SEE that, as Jesus tells us. It's not a mystery. It's something we can EXPECT TO FIND.
Why in the name of all that is holy would Jesus tell us that we can know the good people by their good actions and hearts, just as we can know the bad actors by their bad behaviors and hearts. OF course, there are good people, EVEN THOUGH they are sinners.
Bubba, are you an actively bad person? Is that what you think of yourself? WHY do you think you are actively bad... why do you think you have a rebellious heart? How many times today have you spit in the face of God and said, "NO! I will NOT be kind and loving and helpful... I want to terrorize and harm and destroy!!!"...? Did you do that one time today? One hundred times?
Are you a deliberately bad person? Who hurt you so much that you loathe yourself that way, if so?
Bubba:
Is there any biblical reason to believe in these two standards and/or the concept of good sinners? No there isn't
I, of course, disagree, for all the reasons I keep saying.
Jesus TOLD us we can recognize the good people by their good actions and hearts.
Jesus TOLD us that we are part of God's beloved community, welcome to follow in the way of grace and love.
And beyond the hundreds of biblical reasons, we can just observe using our God-given moral reasoning that yes, people are imperfect and YES, people (at least some/many of us) are deliberately and wondrously Good.
Again, I have to wonder who HURT you so bad that you hold such a loathing view of humanity?
But then, I know the answer to that. This is precisely the problem with human traditions of religious extremism like evangelicalism (and some Catholic and Jewish and Muslim extremists, too) that you (it seems to me, and obviously so) fetishize your own dirty, unclean, vulgar guilt. As if you are loathesome and that an almighty God would have no way of loving or forgiving you UNLESS someone did a God-man sacrifice and "paid" literal blood to "purchase" your forgiveness.
It's such a non-rational and harmful approach to humanity and abusive way to misuse our God-given moral reasoning.
Look, I get that your indoctrination to your particular religious traditions has made it hard/impossible (?) for you to understand that sinners can at the same time be good people, but I ask you to just think about it rationally, setting aside your religious traditions for a minute. WHY CAN'T imperfect humans (what you prefer to call "sinners") also be good? WHY did Jesus tell us to look for the good people, if we can't be good?
It's rationally and biblically irrational... or so it seems to me. I guess you honestly can't even see it, can you?
Dan
Bubba: My questions to you are:
Do you NOT know good people? Your wife (if you have one), your mother, your family, your preachers, some of your teachers, your best friends, your children if you have them... Do you NOT know one genuinely good person? Perhaps your children when they were newborns...? Do you know NO ONE who is genuinely good?
And understand, I am NOT asking you if they're perfect... One can of course be imperfect and yet good!
Or is it your opinion (wild, unsupported, irrational and strange as it may be) that one CAN NOT be both imperfect and at the same time, observably good?
For me, I know large numbers of genuinely good - morally GREAT - people. People who love not for profit but just because humans should be loved. People who give of their time and energy and money to the "least of these" NOT because they expect some profit or some pay back... NOT because they have secret desires to feel good about themselves... just entirely because they genuinely WANT that orphan child to have a family, that addicted veteran to have a home, that marginalized disabled person to have a job and community... just for the common good of it all.
Do you NOT know any imperfect person like that?
I can't tell you how strange this is to me, one who DOES know countless genuinely good, loving, helpful, Godly imperfect humans.
At the very least, can you understand how STRANGE it seems that you would hold a theory that says imperfect people can't be also good people?
Dan
As to this:
DAN: As I'm sure you know, the Pharisees were largely devout people who really believed in honoring God, as they understood God, and the way they tried to do that (and enforce that it was done) was by rule-following. If you kept yourself "clean" and didn't associate with the "unclean," if you devoutly, zealously followed the rules, then you were pleasing to God."
BUBBA: I KNOW NO SUCH THING. They didn't zealously follow the rules
I think you're just factually mistaken, from the readings I've done on the Pharisees and what I've been taught over the decades, including back in my conservative church world the first half of my life. And to be clear, what I'm saying is that they were outwardly pure and devout, SO devoted to helping the Jewish people (oppressed by Rome in Jesus' day) separate and clean from the ruling Romans... much the way that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego kept themselves ritually pure during their time in exile.
"If the law prescribed unusually strict purity requirements for priests, the Pharisees — who were not priests — would keep them.
If the law forbade certain activities on the Sabbath day, the Pharisees would forbid activities that could lead to those activities in order to build fences and keep everyone safely away from accidental law-breaking. The Pharisees loved the Scriptures and knew them better than anyone.
They were, in other words, the good guys. They were the holiest of the holy people. They were the ones with the guts to confront Rome and call their backslidden people to a higher standard of righteousness before God.
We would applaud them."
https://rachelstarrthomson.com/2018/09/11/the-tragedy-of-the-pharisees-how-good-people-become-enemies-of-god/
https://retrospectivelily.wordpress.com/2020/05/15/the-pharisees-arent-the-bad-guys-the-disciples-arent-the-good-guys/
https://people.howstuffworks.com/pharisees.htm
For what it's worth. As one of the writers above notes: The Pharisees were the GOOD and Moral followers of God... on paper. It's just that they forgot love and grace in their efforts to be pure and set apart from the "evil" secular world of Rome.
While waiting, I'll offer up another bit of explanation to something Bubba says he doesn't understand:
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU INSIST ON A TENSION OR CONFLICT BETWEEN LOVE AND THE LAW.
In the Bible, Jesus came preaching good news to the poor and marginalized. Jesus ate with and welcome the sinners.
Jesus saved the "adulterous woman" from the legalists who wanted to follow the rules and kill her for failing to follow the rules.
Jesus healed people even on the Sabbath and offended the rule followers.
On and on.
And then, in Acts and the epistles, we keep seeing a conflict between the legalists who in various ways, want to fall back on following the rules rather than rely upon grace... the legalists who wanted to insist new followers get circumcised according to the rules... the legalists who want to insist upon eating only the "right" foods... the legalists who wanted the "good news" to be only for the Jewish people, not the unclean gentiles... we keep seeing the conflict between the legalists and the grace-followers who understood that it was not about following rules, but about grace.
In every case, the legalists were not merely mistaken... not merely failing to make the distinction between being good and loving others because it's the right thing and instead, pushing for following laws because following laws was the right thing... the legalists were not merely mistaken, but they were the enemies of grace, of the Way of Grace.
They were probably often good people with good intentions who, in an attempt to be holy, missed the point of grace and welcome and inclusion. They generally tended to end up not merely wrong, but in direct opposition to Jesus way of Grace and Welcome. They became enemies of God, over and over again.
I'm not insisting upon a tension or conflict between grace and doing good/living right... I'm noting that the Bible repeatedly notes the conflict between grace followers and those who want to kill the Christ, the libertine, who ate with sinners and welcomed the unclean and saved the harlots.
It's the legalists who are setting up the conflict and tension as we find their stories in the Bible. I'm just noting that very real conflict and suggesting that there is something inherently "off" and cancerous about legalism and an over-emphasis on The Law, over and against Grace.
This is nonsensical. There is no way to pretend that Christ eating with sinners means they were OK ignoring the Law. Rank stupidity and dishonesty pushes such a notion.
Marshal:
There is no way to pretend that Christ eating with sinners means they were OK ignoring the Law. Rank stupidity and dishonesty pushes such a notion.
I think perhaps the problem you all have is in understanding nuance. I'm not saying we/they/it's okay to "ignore the law." I'm saying we who embrace the beloved community of God's welcoming grace are not LIVING under the law (as indeed, Paul and others state).
I'm stating that legalism is deadly and addictive and cancerous... it inevitably leads to harmful effects... even so far as the extreme of Jesus' religious legalists deciding they had to kill Jesus to get rid of this "sloppy" message of grace and open welcome to the unclean and sinners.
Just as was the case back in Jesus' day, so too, throughout the ages... the Israelites were an oppressed minority and slaves and foreigners and they called out to the God who is on the side of the poor, foreigners and the marginalized. And sometimes, eventually relief came. BUT then, those religious Jews had to be reminded by various prophets, "REMEMBER, you were foreigners and enslaved once!" They were continually being reminded to embrace grace and welcome.
And in the years since, we still find those religious traditionalists who fear that change is coming and that the change is "godless" or "communist" or otherwise damaging to God (as if!) or the Church... and they do not embrace grace... instead, they embrace a legalism. "Stop being gay or get out of our house... out of our church!" "We got to keep the immigrants out to protect US families..." and on and on.
Legalism brings harm nearly every time (or maybe every time, not sure). We are not under the law, we are the beloved community of God, living under grace. Does that mean that we should go out and spit in God's face or embrace slavery or tell women what they must do or otherwise engage in harmful behavior (sin, if you will)? No. It just means we're not under legalism and that we need to be wary of legalism, because the Way of Grace is a way of Welcome, inclusion, forgiveness. NOT the way of following the law that says, "STONE that adulteress to death! That is the LAW!"
More nonsensical crap. When Jesus "saved" the adulterous woman from a stoning, He didn't tell her to go and be more careful when getting jiggy with a married man. He told her to go and sin no more. In doing so, He was being a legalist, as He had done in other circumstances.
"I think perhaps the problem you all have is in understanding nuance."
So you so desperately need to believe in order to embrace your fictional notion of the faith. The concept of "not living under the law" is not one which allows for ignoring the Law, for presuming unjustly the authority to determine whether or not immoral behaviors one finds personally pleasing can be regarded as no longer prohibited and thus the indulgence in those behaviors morally benign. You can pretend all you like that my understanding of the Scripture with regard to any behavior is "opinion" or "human tradition", but lacking real evidence based arguments to back it up renders such pretense hollow and illegitimate.
The true understanding of Christian teaching relies upon accepting Christ as Savior, repentance for sinful behaviors...behaviors which conflict with the Law...and putting the Will of God above our own selfish regard...which includes rejecting behaviors in conflict with His Will, regardless of how inconvenient it might be. To "embrace the beloved community of God's welcoming grace" while crapping on His Will by continually indulging in prohibited behaviors gets one nothing. You are no more saved than who who boldly rejects God outright.
"I'm stating that legalism is deadly and addictive and cancerous... it inevitably leads to harmful effects... even so far as the extreme of Jesus' religious legalists deciding they had to kill Jesus to get rid of this "sloppy" message of grace and open welcome to the unclean and sinners."
This is fiction, to suggest that pointing out the reality certain behaviors remain prohibited, and their perpetuation indicates blatant rebellion against God is not in any way comparable to what you regard as Pharisaical behavior. Christ appealed to sinners to repent. He didn't in any way ignore their behaviors compelled by that which each of them found personally appealing...as do you lesbian grandmothers and other such friends of yours in blatant rebellion..and ignore those behaviors as insignificant to their salvation.
" Just as was the case back in Jesus' day, so too, throughout the ages... the Israelites were an oppressed minority and slaves and foreigners and they called out to the God who is on the side of the poor, foreigners and the marginalized."
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. More crap meant to provide liberty for those imprisoned by their sinfulness to go on sinning without fear. You clearly really hate such people that you would enable their sinfulness in this way!
"And in the years since, we still find those religious traditionalists who fear that change is coming and that the change is "godless" or "communist" or otherwise damaging to God (as if!) or the Church... and they do not embrace grace... instead, they embrace a legalism."
No you don't. This is just crap you say to defend immoral behaviors. Who are these "religious traditionalists" of whom you speak who fears change in the manner you suggest? There's no legitimate change which has legitimized the sexual immorality you enable, support, defend and celebrate. It's just immoral people pushing their immorality upon the culture. There's no number of people who are willing to tolerate it which can make it morally acceptable to He Who called it "detestable". If the whole world became homosexual, it wouldn't make homosexuality morally acceptable to God. What change do you mean here? It's absurd.
"and they do not embrace grace... instead, they embrace a legalism. "Stop being gay or get out of our house... out of our church!""
This is an outright, blatant lie. I demand you bring forth any of those who ever acted in such a way and give them the opportunity to defend their casting out of homosexuals from among them...as Scripture encourages we all should do with regard to the unrepentant reprobates who put their carnal desires above the Will of God. Do it. Bring them here.
"Legalism brings harm nearly every time...."
Where's your support for this wild-ass claim?
"Does that mean that we should go out and spit in God's face or embrace slavery or tell women what they must do or otherwise engage in harmful behavior (sin, if you will)? No."
But you do, liar! I again point to the two issues which illustrate your doing this very thing: abortion and homosexuality. You embrace both.
"NOT the way of following the law that says, "STONE that adulteress to death! That is the LAW!""
Cut the crap, liar! This is not even in play as no one you can identify suggests doing such a thing. Yet, adultery has NOT been made tolerable in any way by God, Christ, Scripture.
You again demonstrate "good faith" is just something you spew like puke, rather than have an actual devotion to discourse engaged in that manner.
At this point it seems clear interest in this thread has waned substantially enough that I've decided to open it up to anyone who wishes to comment on what has been said during the Bubba/Dan exchanges.
It would be nice to see Dan prove his contention that citing Scripture on the subject of homosexuality...or anything else for that matter...causes harm to anyone. In addition, I would expect to see Dan explain how perceived harm or what is called harm by those who don't like what Scripture says, obliges anyone to refrain from speaking the truth about God's Truth. I won't hold my breath for either.
Marshal, I don't know what to tell you. The stories are there, over and over and over and over and over again. "I was kicked out of my religious family." "My mother told me she had no son." "I was no longer welcomed in my church... I was asked to leave my church." death threats, threats of assault, being fired from their jobs, etc, etc.
If you have any LGBTQ friends, just ask them, the stories are so widespread and common, I'm sure you won't have any difficulty finding personal testimonies about specific situations.
Here's one page with about a book with a series of testimonies and documentation (which book, I haven't read yet, but that doesn't change the reality). These testimonies are nearly universal in the LGBTQ community - with some exceptions being the, well, exception...
"As I got more involved in queer Christian communities, I witnessed numerous friends lose their jobs for being queer, receive anonymous death threats in the mail from church members, and lose every last one of their friends, among much much more. But when I tried to talk about how bad things were to cisgender, heterosexual Christians, many told me that I was exaggerating...
I realized that so many of these experiences of discrimination happened in the dark, where no one could see what was going on. So many queer Christians kept quiet about their experiences out of fear...
What’s worse, many sexual and gender minorities leave the faith altogether, their belief destroyed in the wake of abhorrent abuses that would test the resolve of the greatest of saints. Few Christians understand the extent of the problem, and even fewer are ready to acknowledge that Christian communities are responsible."
https://christiansforsocialaction.org/resource/heavy-burdens-bridget-eileen-rivera-on-how-lgbtq-christians-experience-harm-in-the-church/
Or here:
If you grew up in any mainline denomination or evangelical Christian church and are LGBTQ+, chances are you have experienced church trauma.
https://www.thechristiancloset.com/blog/2021/9/7/4-ways-church-trauma-has-affected-lgbtq-individuals
More...
Very little research has been done in this field, but a 2022 study found that LGBTQ people who experience certain forms of religious trauma are at increased risk for suicidality, substance abuse, homelessness, anxiety and depression...
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/millions-lgbtq-americans-religious-trauma-psychiatrists-want-help-rcna135728
he current review found that the majority of LGBTQ+
individuals faced adverse religious experiences manifested by microaggressions and abuse
within a religious setting, rejection based on sexual identity, conflict between religious identity
and sexual identity, and extent of rejection of religious practice throughout the lifespan. The
impact on mental health included increased rates of depression, anxiety, internalized sexual
stigma, suicidality, substance abuse, and high-risk sexual activity.
https://ir-api.ua.edu/api/core/bitstreams/2ed055d9-bb8f-4b9a-a576-384b5c02f50d/content
https://viamedia.news/2023/11/02/collateral-damage-how-unjust-treatment-of-lgbtqia-people-harms-the-church/
And on and on it goes.
more...
Do you understand what's being said? Not that a few people were slightly less kind towards LGBTQ than one would hope... but that LGBTQ people have been traumatized, terrorized, harmed psychologically consistently by "the church's" treatment of and attitudes towards them.
Have you experienced trauma? Do you know anyone who has? If you know gay folk, you almost certainly have known someone. There's a good chance that you (like me) have even been someone who's caused trauma in the lives of innocent LGBTQ people.
When you're insulting, mocking, belittling and literally damning people for simply being who they are, loving who they love... that causes harm. And when it's nearly all of your loved ones and the respected people in your religious system (whether it's Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or other sects), it hurts. These are the "good" people who should care about you and support and love you the most. To be condemned by the "good and respected" people you've been taught to love and respect... that causes intense anguish.
Just ask your LGBTQ friends. HAVE you ever had open, honest discussions about this topic with any of your LGBTQ friends and family?
Who do you think Jesus was speaking to when he said:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.
You yourselves do not enter,
nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
As to the rest, you all are showing that you seem entirely unable to not only answer some basic questions, but that you understand the import of the questions being asked.
I. DO YOU NOT KNOW of any actually good, moral people?
Ia. Of course, there are good people. We can see them in our daily lives.
II. Do you understand that one can be imperfect and STILL be a genuinely good person?
III. If you personally disagree with that notion (that one can be imperfect but still good), do you recognize that you can't support the claim rationally or biblically (beyond just citing a few verses and insist that in your personal human opinion, those verses should be taken literally)?
IV. Even if you personally disagree with that notion that one can be imperfect but good, can you at least acknowledge that this is your PERSONAL human opinion and that you, personally, are an imperfect (or even evil?) human? WHY is your opinion anything but another subjective human opinion?
V. OR, if you think you can objectively PROVE that there are no good people, then objectively prove it. But again, merely citing a verse is not proof that the verse is correct or that it was intended to be taken literally or that your understanding of the verse is correct and authoritative.
VI. EVEN IF people are imperfect (but some, at least, are still good), how does merely being imperfect - having "sin" in one's life - rationally, morally require an eternity of torture for the "crime" of being imperfect humans?
We've seen by everyone's complete inability to even try to answer these questions (beyond merely pointing to a verse or three and saying, "but I personally take those verses to intend that there literally are no good people..." which is just repeating a subjective interpretation) that you all have no good answers to these questions for those who do not choose to agree with your personal human traditions.
I mean, no problem. I get it. I never could find good answers to those questions, either. But that's part of why I left behind that particular set of human traditions. IF there are no good, solid, rational, moral answers (beyond, "Trust my human traditions"), then it's time to stop holding so tightly to them and, if you don't reject them as unsupported, at least be a bit more humble in your insistence that these human traditions and opinions must be right.
Peace and good luck, all.
Dan,
As regards your first two pro-perv comments, you've done nothing to answer the question put to you. Instead, you bore me with more "testimonies" from the very people who put their deviant compulsions over the Will of God and pretend that's all anyone needs to hear. But I've long demanded you provide the other side of those stories...stories of those evil bastards who cast out these poor, saintly innocents simply "because of who they love and what they are". I really don't need to hear any more of the claims of oppression. I need to hear the testimonies of the families, churches and even employers who cast out these disordered people.
Having been denied the fulfillment of this request, I can only surmise that to do so would shed the type of light on the issue you feel is best obstructed, which is that these pervs were cast out because they refused to stop indulging their deviant compulsions for God's sake, or the parent's sake, demanding as they constantly do that all should regard their perversion as normal and morally acceptable.
But in your determination to elevate these sinners to sainthood, and condemn those who cast them out as "hateful oppressors"...daring to group them with other brutal sinners acting on their own sinful compulsions when confronted with a "gay" guy...you don't do jack shit to answer the question:
How does citing Scripture's unequivocal teaching against their behavior cause them harm? If all I was to do was to remind them that God was quite clear about their behavior being detestable to Him, and that there is no loophole anywhere in Scripture whereby it might be indulged and NOT be detestable, how does that harm them? The answer is simple: it doesn't. It might make them cry, because they really want to do perverse things with their sexual organs, but telling the covetous they can't take your shit doesn't particularly make them happy, either.
So cut the crap and answer the question.
As to your third nonsensical comment, all your questions have been addressed comprehensively. But I'll do so again, though more concisely (I hope).
"I. DO YOU NOT KNOW of any actually good, moral people?"
I've known many people I regard as good, moral/decent people. But that regard is based on my determining the degree to which their behaviors and beliefs qualify for that regard. I have no right or authority to demand perfection and flawless behaviors, nor can I as just another imperfect human being deign to make such a demand or even have an expectation of it. So, the standard I apply is subjective and acknowledges the lack of perfection means no one is truly "good". Thus, the people I would label as "good" are in fact sinners who seek to do and be good, which for my purposes is "good" enough to use the word to describe them. Plus, it's not as wordy as saying, "they're not perfect but they strive to do good in all aspects of their lives, so they're not on my shit list".
"Ia. Of course, there are good people. We can see them in our daily lives."
No. The best we can say is that there are people who are concerned with doing and being good in all aspect of their lives. We can apply the word "good" to them as a general descriptor, for ease of communication, but no one is good but God.
"II. Do you understand that one can be imperfect and STILL be a genuinely good person?"
You've got it backwards. No one isn't a sinner, but some sinners strive to do and be good according to some measure of what they and/or others constitute beneficial/charitable behaviors. So they seek to do and be good but are still genuinely sinners.
"III. If you personally disagree with that notion (that one can be imperfect but still good), do you recognize that you can't support the claim rationally or biblically (beyond just citing a few verses and insist that in your personal human opinion, those verses should be taken literally)?"
I just did, by the logic of my counter position alone, but also by the fact that "just citing a few verses" from the ultimate authority on the subject is indeed objective proof...unless you want to argue against the existence of God and the accuracy of the Scriptural presentation of Him and His character. What's more, and just as true, is that citing Scripture is not the same as my "personal human opinion". But if I was to concede that moronic point of argument, it's an opinion which is based on the clear and unequivocal teaching of Scripture which you've provided nothing but a far less evidence based opinion of your own. YOUR position is based solely and fully on your own personal preference, not on Scripture, because you have to ignore so much of what Scripture confirms about the nature of man to pretend your personally pleasing position is fact based. Clearly there are those who strive to do good in all they do. You insist that proves they're "good" as the term is being debated here. It does not. It only proves that they strive to do good in all they do. Nothing more. We both can certainly refer to them as "good people" when speaking of them among other folks. But that doesn't make them "good" as the term is defined by Christ. It only makes them "good" relative to other people.
"IV. Even if you personally disagree with that notion that one can be imperfect but good, can you at least acknowledge that this is your PERSONAL human opinion and that you, personally, are an imperfect (or even evil?) human? WHY is your opinion anything but another subjective human opinion?"
No, because it's not "opinion" in the truest sense of that word. My position is Scriptural teaching...teaching which is not as ambiguous as you falsely try to make it in order to protect the reputations of people who impress you. But reputations among men mean nothing to God and His regard for who or what is "good". But if you want to insist that my position is mere opinion, you must prove it wrong or provide evidence which contradicts it in some way. Citing examples of people who do nice things doesn't get it done.
"V. OR, if you think you can objectively PROVE that there are no good people, then objectively prove it. But again, merely citing a verse is not proof that the verse is correct or that it was intended to be taken literally or that your understanding of the verse is correct and authoritative."
Citing verses and passages which address the issue is indeed proof between two who insist they are or trying to be Christian. But if such isn't intended to be taken literally, it is up to you to prove that and to provide the actual teaching or message of that which is not literal. You haven't done that. At all. Ever. The same is true for my understanding. If it is wrong, you're obliged to show how with actual facts and evidence. Sort of like you continually demand of me even after I've provided a ton of it. You haven't done that. At all. Ever.
"VI. EVEN IF people are imperfect (but some, at least, are still good), how does merely being imperfect - having "sin" in one's life - rationally, morally require an eternity of torture for the "crime" of being imperfect humans?"
You keep asking this as if it's an argument any of us has made. While we're all imperfect, with a sin nature...sinners...some people do end up in God's Holy presence. You think it's because they do good things? If not, then how are they so privileged? But by your argument, if one theft of a pencil doesn't condemn someone, how does one good deed get them paradise? What's the magic number? And if there's an equal number of good deeds and bad, of equal degree, except there's one extra of either, is that the deal breaker?
I know somewhere you'll repeat your default "grace" argument, but you're still left with either a universalist position or the obligation to explain how some won't be blessed.
"We've seen by everyone's complete inability to even try to answer these questions..."
This is a lie. We on this side of the divide have provided a rather comprehensive explanation for our position on the subject, while you've simply rejected it all outright without legitimate basis. You simply don't like what Scripture says about the nature of man, the nature of God and the vast difference between the two. What's more, your counter argument is nothing BUT your personal opinion and preference. You WANT to regard certain people in your lives as good, so you you refuse to accept Christ's position that there's no one good but God, as if that has any real impact on the earthly works and character of those people in your lives. Again, we're talking of two distinctly different things: the reality of only God being good versus our labeling of people as good based on subjective criteria.
" I mean, no problem. I get it."
This condescending fake graciousness is another bit of evidence against any claim you or anyone else might have of your being "good". You choose to believe we have some problem you overcame years ago, when in fact you've rejected truths you never truly understood to embrace that which only superficially resembles Christianity. So failing to find answers, you've cast off that truth rather than seeing yourself as the problem. But you didn't fail to find them. You just dislike what you've found and from there moved toward heresy and self-pleasing rejection of that which you find inconvenient.
Good luck with that!
Marshal:
My position is Scriptural teaching...teaching which is not as ambiguous as you falsely try to make it in order to protect the reputations of people who impress you.
Is your personal human opinion infallible on these points where you're interpreting the words of the Bible in your personal opinion...?
That's a vital question to answer.
The ONLY rational answer for you - one who repeatedly affirms the infallible, imperfect and even evil nature of humanity - to give is:
No. I COULD be wrong. I AM infallible and my opinion is not perfect... OF COURSE, I could be mistaken.
Stopping a minute to answer your obvious questions:
some people do end up in God's Holy presence. You think it's because they do good things?
No. Period. I think it's because of God's grace. As I've always said.
If not, then how are they so privileged?
God's grace.
But by your argument, if one theft of a pencil doesn't condemn someone, how does one good deed get them paradise?
Glad to answer, but please answer your own question: Do YOU THINK in your head that the theft of ONE PENCIL is sufficient to say, "Dayum! That person is going to burn in hell for an eternity for stealing that pencil because THAT is what they deserve!!"..?
My answer: ONE good deed (or ten billion) doesn't "get" one into heaven/God's realm. God's grace does. Period. As I've repeatedly said.
What's the magic number?
There is NO number of good deeds that gets one into heaven. God's grace loves to welcome us. Period. As I've repeatedly made clear.
And if there's an equal number of good deeds and bad, of equal degree, except there's one extra of either, is that the deal breaker?
There is NO number of good deeds that gets one into heaven. God's grace loves to welcome us. Period. As I've repeatedly made clear.
Now, for YOU: IF one steals one pencil and otherwise lives a life of sharing kindly and giving to others in love, do you TRULY imagine in your personal human opinion that such a person should be penalized by an eternity of torture/in hell?
If so, HOW is that Godly, gracious, reasonable or anything but a great monstrous moral atrocity?
PLEASE ANSWER. (You know you can't, don't you? There IS no moral, Godly, reasonable answer to that viewpoint...)
Marshal:
I know somewhere you'll repeat your default "grace" argument, but you're still left with either a universalist position or the obligation to explain how some won't be blessed.
What is wrong with "we are saved by God's grace" as an answer?
I believe, as I've been quite clear, that God welcomes all. Anyone can refuse God's welcome, but God welcomes all. God's grace is extended to all.
Do you disagree?
The questions you are not answering point to the great biblical and rational and moral hole in your arguments and personal human opinions and traditions.
Marshal:
How does citing Scripture's unequivocal teaching against their behavior cause them harm?
Just as you probably recognize. Throughout history, humans have used biblical passages to justify all manner of great atrocities.
"We can't free the slaves. It's 'god's will' that some people should be enslaved. The Bible tells us so..."
"We can't let black men marry our white women. It's 'god's will' that the races shouldn't 'intermarry...'"
"We can't let women vote in a free republic. It's 'god's will' that MEN (specifically white men) make the decisions in families!"
ALL KINDS of great moral atrocities and evil have been done by "citing Scripture." Even on things that the Harmers and Accusers truly considered to be "unequivocally biblical..."
That people cite biblical passages to justify causing harm doesn't make it Godly. You recognize that reality, right?
Marshal:
If all I was to do was to remind them that God was quite clear about their behavior being detestable to Him, and that there is no loophole anywhere in Scripture whereby it might be indulged and NOT be detestable, how does that harm them?
Precisely because YOU - a totally depraved human, sinful from birth until death... truly a BAD and IMPERFECT man with imperfect reasoning - are the one deciding for THEM what God has told THEM.
You ain't God, son. And you deciding that YOU (and those fallible humans who agree with you) ARE the one who gets to decide what God does and doesn't want for other people is part of the problem.
For the sabbath was made for humanity, NOT humanity for the Sabbath.
The self-proclaimed "rule interpreters" have fallen on the wrong side of Jesus' message of Good news for the poor and oppressed ever since before they killed the son of God.
Indeed, NO WHERE in scripture does it appoint either Marshal or ANY of the Pharisees as the official Keepers of the Rules.
Grace, man, not legalism. Grace gives life. Your legalism kills, literally. Read the experts.
And I'm noting that you have yet to respond to whether or not you've asked your LGBTQ acquaintances about their harm done by churches to them.
Do you have even one LGBTQ person who considers you a close and trusted friend?
One has to wonder if Bubba's disappearance from this conversation has much to do with an inability to find rational, adult answers to the reasonable questions I keep asking ever-so-politely and respectfully (in spite of Marshal's constant abuse)?
I hope it's that, rather than being swamped with life or even having to deal with actual crises or something. Maybe we'll see.
Again, I would point out, IF the answers to these reasonable questions I keep asking are OUT there somewhere, you don't even have to reinvent the wheel. Just point me to a place that provides definitive support for your personal opinions on matters like
"Where is the proof that humans - all humans - are utterly/totally depraved?"
"Where is your objective, rational proof that there are NO good humans?"
"Where is your support for this human theory that even minor failures of humanity that come with us being imperfect humans are somehow rationally, justly punished ONLY by eternal torture?"
These theories/claims are not rational on the face of it. IF someone had given solid, objectively proven support for answers to these sorts of questions, one could find it with a simple google search. The claim is HUGE and proof of these theories would be world-changing.
You all never answer precisely for the same reasons that no one has ever answered: You can't support your positions and your human opinions and traditions.
But you can't even acknowledge that they ARE human opinions and traditions, can you?
Dan,
Four comments mostly repeating your falsehoods and distortions and failure to answer questions, while again asking us what has been comprehensively and exhaustively answered the million other times you've asked as if for the first time. Thus, do not respond to anything I will now be presenting until I've finished. You'll know when that happens, as I'll say so directly that I've finished.
October 3, 2024 at 4:29 PM
"Is your personal human opinion infallible on these points where you're interpreting the words of the Bible in your personal opinion...?
That's a vital question to answer."
No. It's a stupidly dishonest question because it again suggests an opinion is offered when it's been clearly stated that an actual, verbatim citation of Scripture is what is being presented to make a case. In order for you to even dare suggest mere opinion or interpretation, you'll have to provide what YOU believe the cited verse or passage actually means (were we to be actually wrong) and then support that claim with the quantity, and especially the quality of evidence you demand of us. When you finally decide to do that, I'll mark my calendar and celebrate that date appropriately for the rest of my life.
Setting that aside, what's "infallible"...or reasonably questioned as being something less...are my citations. If they are not accurately presented, then the citation is infallible. If they are accurately presented, then they are accurate and what remains is for you to do as described above if you somehow wish to make a case those verses/passages are somehow misunderstood. That's a tough job for you given the clearness of the passage/verse in question. They're cited because of how plain and easy to understand they are for the purpose of supporting an argument or position you oppose because you don't like truth. Indeed, interpretation is rarely even necessary because of how straightforward the verse/passage is. Therefore, you are rarely questioning "interpretation" of the cited verses/passages. In reality, you're suggesting there's some hidden meaning we rubes haven't the Trabue level incite to divine, so as to avoid facing the truth of the teaching flowing from the verse/passage in question.
"The ONLY rational answer for you - one who repeatedly affirms the infallible, imperfect and even evil nature of humanity - to give is:
No. I COULD be wrong. I AM infallible and my opinion is not perfect... OF COURSE, I could be mistaken."
This is purposeful obfuscation and deflection. The only real question is whether or not I AM mistaken. Wondering if it's possible is irrelevant avoidance of confronting the truth presented. If I'm wrong about something, prove it. When I cite Scripture in defense of my position against your heresies, I begin with the most obvious and straightforward verses/passages. Then, if necessary, I add as many other verses/passages which also address the point. The larger the list of citations, the probability that some several offerings down the list might be rationally subject to questioning. But the initial offerings are beyond dispute, and suggesting "you might be wrong" is meaningless if you make no intelligent, evidence supported argument to prove I might be. You don't work this way. You just leave it as "you might be wrong". (This is where you assert that you've proven me wrong and expect to be taken seriously.)
"Glad to answer, but please answer your own question: Do YOU THINK in your head that the theft of ONE PENCIL is sufficient to say, "Dayum! That person is going to burn in hell for an eternity for stealing that pencil because THAT is what they deserve!!"..? "
You continue to ask this as if it is an argument I've ever put forth.
" There is NO number of good deeds that gets one into heaven. God's grace loves to welcome us. Period. As I've repeatedly made clear."
You say this as if you mean it, yet you've often differentiated between stealing a pencil and things like "raping babies" or committing some atrocity, with the latter being a bridge too far. Moses, David, Paul would all question this, of course.
"Now, for YOU: IF one steals one pencil and otherwise lives a life of sharing kindly and giving to others in love, do you TRULY imagine in your personal human opinion that such a person should be penalized by an eternity of torture/in hell?
If so, HOW is that Godly, gracious, reasonable or anything but a great monstrous moral atrocity?
PLEASE ANSWER. (You know you can't, don't you? There IS no moral, Godly, reasonable answer to that viewpoint...)"
It depends upon the person's belief in Christ as Savior, without which no amount of good deeds matter.
"What is wrong with "we are saved by God's grace" as an answer?"
It's woefully and intentionally left incomplete and as such is a universalist position. YOUR claim suggests there is nothing I can do or not do which can deny me a place in God's eternal presence. That's universalism.
"I believe, as I've been quite clear, that God welcomes all. Anyone can refuse God's welcome, but God welcomes all. God's grace is extended to all.
Do you disagree?"
This is a different subject and moving the goal posts. God desires that none should perish. We know from Scripture that some who believe themselves to be saved won't be. Jesus will say to them, "I never knew you" and they will not covered by God's grace.
" The questions you are not answering point to the great biblical and rational and moral hole in your arguments and personal human opinions and traditions."
I've never failed to answer the vast majority of your questions. Given how stupid most of them are, I should get extra credit. Rarely have I refused to answer questions. Those I refuse to answer are those which are based on your straw man imputations. If I didn't say it, I'm not obliged to answer to it.
Gotta step away. Don't respond to this until I finish with all four of your comments.
October 3, 2024 at 4:39 PM
I had asked Dan:
"How does citing Scripture's unequivocal teaching against their behavior cause them harm?"
Dan moved the goal posts by saying:
"Just as you probably recognize. Throughout history, humans have used biblical passages to justify all manner of great atrocities."
This response is totally irrelevant to the question I posed. By this answer, we're to understand that we mustn't ever cite the truth of Scripture lest some asshat exploit the citation for evil purposes. This is pure "Danishness". What it isn't is "good faith discourse".
" ALL KINDS of great moral atrocities and evil have been done by "citing Scripture.""
Again, this bullshit response fails to answer the question. I'm not at all speaking of anything more than preaching God's Truth to those who are living contrary to it. That some abuse Scripture is irrelevant. You abuse Scripture all the time. We can discuss the abuse of Scripture some other time. It has no place in this discussion in answer to this question. You simply don't want to deal with the fact that your cherished perverts will not have salvation. How evil you are to deny them by suppressing God's Truth. You pretend that God's Truth is misunderstood, and do nothing to prove it, while at the same time assuring those whose salvation is at risk do nothing to address that risk.
"That people cite biblical passages to justify causing harm doesn't make it Godly. You recognize that reality, right?"
Don't need to, because my purpose in citing Scripture is to enlighten those who've gone astray and point them back to God, Truth and Life. It totally irrelevant to continue bringing up unnamed people who have abused Scripture to cause harm. I'm busy dealing with the spiritual, eternal harm you're causing by your own abuse of Scripture.
"Precisely because YOU - a totally depraved human, sinful from birth until death... truly a BAD and IMPERFECT man with imperfect reasoning - are the one deciding for THEM what God has told THEM."
The only thing I've "decided" to do is to to remind them of the Truth of Scripture. That would be Truth you haven't he Christian courage to acknowledge remains. What God tells them...and YOU, though you refuse to listen...He tells us all. Should a sibling eat snacks before dinner, are you "deciding for them" what your mother expects of you all? What a remarkably stupid argument!
"You ain't God, son. And you deciding that YOU (and those fallible humans who agree with you) ARE the one who gets to decide what God does and doesn't want for other people is part of the problem."
I'm not your "son", you condescending asshole, and I've never once presented myself as God. So you can cut that crap forever, and think of that bullshit the next time you accuse me of negative behavior.
And again, repeating what is unequivocally expressed in Scripture (and which you've yet to prove isn't) is not me "deciding" anything about what God expect of us all. It's citing what Scripture reveals to us what God expects of us all. I'm not misinterpreting anything, and you've no way to prove I am. I'm not expressing any "hunch" when the words of Scripture are so incredibly crystal clear. And until you can present and intelligent and compelling evidence supported argument to the contrary, you're just lying like the liar you are. You don't get to come here and insist that I'm saying something which isn't Biblical without making a legitimate case for it.
"The self-proclaimed "rule interpreters" have fallen on the wrong side of Jesus' message of Good news for the poor and oppressed ever since before they killed the son of God."
Good thing I ain't one of them, then. Not so sure about you, as you've "decided" that God's position on homosexual behavior (to name the most obvious heresy of yours) is no longer the detestable abomination He said it was without any caveat providing a context or scenario in which your "beloved" LGBT brothers and sisters can indulge their perversions and NOT be in rebellion against God.
"Indeed, NO WHERE in scripture does it appoint either Marshal or ANY of the Pharisees as the official Keepers of the Rules."
I'm pretty sure anyone who dares suggest one is Christian is expected to "obey My Commandments" and to "restore" a sinner "in a spirit of gentleness" and to "warn" a sinner "as a brother" and other such admonitions against blatantly sinful behavior. We're not to enable them in their sin as you seem sworn to do as if God told you to do so...which makes no sense.
One cannot be a proper Christian and not well understand which behaviors are not pleasing to God anymore than one can ignore those which are pleasing to Him. Enabling sinners in their sinfulness has no place in the life of any Christian, but it seems as if you think it is your duty to do so.
"Grace, man, not legalism. Grace gives life. Your legalism kills, literally. Read the experts."
I do. For example, I read the words of Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, and of Paul, Peter and John, His apostles. None of them preach what you're insisting. Obedience to God's Will gives life. Not pretending one is Christian while ignoring It.
"And I'm noting that you have yet to respond to whether or not you've asked your LGBTQ acquaintances about their harm done by churches to them."
I'm not in any way obliged to do so. YOU, however, are obliged to provide the testimonies of those your LGBT friends accuse of having harmed them. That's what I would expect from pervs I know...I would expect they give me identifying details so that I could, if I chose to do so, questions those they've accuse of causing them harm. You know why? Because that's what people concerned about justice do. They don't simply take the word of the accuser, but question also the accused. You clearly don't fucking care about the accused because of your love for sexual perversions. You choose, without legitimate basis, to presume those accused are acting badly on the word of the clearly sinful person. No family or church would cast out a sinner who is legitimately struggling to overcome their temptations. Consider a homosexual Christian who never ever had a sexual episode with another man in his entire life. Never wanted one, while at the same time being sexually attracted to certain men. Never even indulged in homoporn or celebrated (*gack*) "Pride Month" or saw anything noble or Christian in homosexuality or its agenda. He struggles with his perverse compulsion which nags at him constantly. He seeks a private session with his family and pastor and reveals his struggles to them, seeking their help and guidance with how to cope with his perverse temptations. They are the first to know he even suffers from them, as he's put on a front for most of his life, even dating a few girls along the way. Neither his family nor his pastor will cast him out under these circumstances. Even if he had an "episode" or two, but expressed sincere remorse and shame for his weakness, they would not cast him out under these circumstances.
I'd wager not one of the "victims" you mention are anything like this fictional person. They're more likely of a type who tries to suggest that they should be accepted as any other family member or congregant despite their routine rejection of God's Will in favor of their own. Of COURSE they'll be cast out, and rightly so. It would be and should be the same of any other unrepentant and reprobate sinner, as their presence among the congregation fouls the lot of them.
When I was still somewhere around a high school kid, or shortly thereafter, I worked for a merchant who was a fag. He threatened to sue another friend who suggested he was one, but he was one. It was confirmed a few years later, but really, there was no doubt. I didn't necessarily catch on, though he was a weird dude. I liked hanging with him because we would get into these compelling discussions while blowing some doobage. One time, I dropped my lighter while we were toking and playing chess. I leaned over and noticed that his dick was hanging out of his pants. I sat up and said, "Fred. Do you realize your dick is hanging out of your pants?" And he replied in the affirmative. I said, "make sure it stays on your side of the table", and we carried on. One conversation, he spoke of a party in which everyone was so stoned that no one cared with whom they were having sex. I responded, looking him straight in the eye, "As fucked up as I am willing to get, I'm never that fucked up. There's no such thing." He tried to argue against that fact, but I insisted he was just using inebriation as an excuse, as other friends of mine would for their own specific transgressions. By this time it was pretty clear with whom I was dealing, but I still liked the guy and found him fascinating.
Aside from them, there were a few among co-workers over the years, my daughter had a close friend who's gay (he played "the beast" in the HS production of "Beauty and the Beast" opposite my daughter's best friend who played Belle...he did a good job). Nice kid.
None of them ever spoke of family or church rejection. I would never have cast them out myself, given they aren't that close that their perversion impacts me personally. But had any such opportunity presented itself, there's not a one of them who wouldn't be aware of my position and unless they're total reprobates, they wouldn't be disrespectful of or toward me for it. But unlike you, I run with a better class of people, even a better class of perverts. None of them are going to whine like those of whom you speak. But were they to do so, they would do it confidently knowing they wouldn't be shit on, even though there's no way to compel me to regard them as being in the wrong...because they are.
So no, Dan. I don't have any close relationships with sexual perverts these days. But having any doesn't change a fucking thing. I've known people of a more criminal type with whom I got along famously. One such guy I worked with for a few years, did time for armed robbery. This isn't a brag, but just acknowledging I don't choose friends simply on their character being supremely high. This thug and I got along well, gambling against each other often and trash talking each other the whole time. I wouldn't fuck with this guy, but I don't fuck with people anyway and I think he knew that I wouldn't fuck with him. We both had a similar work ethic, and while he was considered a fairly dangerous guy, I never felt personally threatened by him.
My point here is that the sinfulness of others isn't necessarily an inhibiting factor in my having a relationship with someone. If the person's a total scumbag, he eliminates himself. But if he's just someone who's like those I've mentioned, few are greatly worse than I've ever been. But none of it means I'm going to abide and/or enable their particular bad behaviors nor should anyone enable mine. Christians don't do that, which is why I insist you're no Christian. You enable sinfulness and pretend your "works" make you a good person.
October 3, 2024 at 4:52 PM
Bubba shows up, then he doesn't. We're worse when he doesn't. But it could be that he just isn't up to dealing with Trabue-shit and needs to decompress from enduring it. I get it.
October 3, 2024 at 4:56 PM
"Again, I would point out, IF the answers to these reasonable questions I keep asking are OUT there somewhere, you don't even have to reinvent the wheel."
That's funny. You presume to label your questions "reasonable".
"Just point me to a place that provides definitive support for your personal opinions on matters like"
OK
""Where is the proof that humans - all humans - are utterly/totally depraved?""
In Scripture. We've provided the many citations many times. You pretend it hasn't been done. That's called "lying".
""Where is your objective, rational proof that there are NO good humans?""
In Scripture. We've provided the many citations many times. You pretend it hasn't been done. That's called "lying".
""Where is your support for this human theory that even minor failures of humanity that come with us being imperfect humans are somehow rationally, justly punished ONLY by eternal torture?""
Uh...we don't actually argue our point in that way, so this stands as a straw man objection to the truth. But again, our proof is found in Scripture. We've provided the many citations many times. You pretend it hasn't been done. That's called "lying".
"These theories/claims are not rational on the face of it."
Atheists say that kind of thing all the time.
"IF someone had given solid, objectively proven support for answers to these sorts of questions, one could find it with a simple google search."
OR, they could just look at the verses/passages to which we've linked. Doing so would demonstrate that our positions are indeed objectively proven.
"The claim is HUGE and proof of these theories would be world-changing."
Yeah. They were. When they were first revealed by God and recorded in Scripture for others to learn. Those who seriously and prayerfully study Scripture are well informed of these truths.
"You all never answer precisely for the same reasons that no one has ever answered: You can't support your positions and your human opinions and traditions."
Except that we HAVE supported our positions. You simply reject our arguments without the least bit of solid, "hard data" to contradict them. And again, we don't offer "opinions". We offer what Scripture plainly reveals and teaches. YOUR problem is you don't like what Scripture reveals. You then make the wild claim that our "interpretation" (which is really just posting the actual verse or passage, which isn't "interpretation") is somehow flawed, yet never over an evidence supporter alternative understanding.
"But you can't even acknowledge that they ARE human opinions and traditions, can you?"
Well, we would if they were. But we don't have a problem with calling our adherence to the clear and unequivocal and unmistakable Word of God our "tradition". It's our "tradition" to abide God''s clearly revealed Will. It ain't yours, that's for sure!
OK, Dan. I've finished responding to your...uh...stuff. Go ahead and submit more of it if you want to.
Marshal...
"And again, repeating what is unequivocally expressed in Scripture (and which you've yet to prove isn't) is not me "deciding" anything about what God expect of us all."
The Bible is entirely unequivocal about the hundreds of places that God, the prophets, Jesus, Mary, James, Paul and others clearly state over and over again that God is on the side specifically of the poor and marginalized. Therefore, by your reasoning, I can't be mistake and it's an objectively proven fact. After all, there are literally hundred of passages that talk on this theme ( as compared to a handful or two that even seem to address your personal opinions on LGBTQ concerns). If the Bible clearly recording a message about a topic makes it an objective fact, then you have no legs to stand upon to oppose my understanding. You're proclaiming I'm objectively correct.
Right?
But you don't agree with me, in spite of the direct words of Jesus, etc al, because you have your reasons to hold an alternative opinion. Right?
Same for me.
You have zero authority or objective proof to claim your opinions on that topic are fact or equal to God's Word.
You CAN be mistaken, mortal human. Humble thyself.
Dan
I noted...
"The claim is HUGE and proof of these theories would be world-changing."
Marshal responded... with NO support other than his say-so...
Yeah. They were. When they were first revealed by God and recorded in Scripture for others to learn.
Fine. Then cite EVEN ONE scholarly, well-reasoned website that says it has objective proof of your human traditions' human opinions. Or note that you can't find even one that attempts to objectively prove what you say HAS been proven.
I'll wait.
Dan
YOU, however, are obliged to provide the testimonies of those your LGBT friends accuse of having harmed them.
I've told you multiple stories from them. What are you looking for? Me to give you - someone who calls LGBTQ folks and their allies "perverts" and "homos" their names and personal information? That's not going to happen.
That you have no LGBTQ friends says an awful lot. It's amazing that you don't see that as the shame for you that it is says a lot.
October 5, 2024 at 11:08 AM
...wherein Dan said:
"The Bible is entirely unequivocal about the hundreds of places that God, the prophets, Jesus, Mary, James, Paul and others clearly state over and over again that God is on the side specifically of the poor and marginalized."
Uh...no, there aren't. But there are plenty which affirms that God doesn't play favorites. So if He doesn't play favorites, how can He be on anyone's side? That's not to say that He doesn't and hasn't come to the aid of those in need, including those being abused by others. But He would do the same for, say, someone upper-middle class who is oppressed by others.
It's clear you don't understand the word "unequivocal". It means there's no doubt. It's clear and straightforward. It's "unequivocal" that "Thou shalt not" means, "Don't do it." It unmistakable. Another example is your beloved sexually perverted friends. It's "unequivocal" that their embrace of their immoral, disordered urges to the point of indulging in immoral behaviors is in stark rebellion against the Will of God. This is so because God calls the behavior "detestable/abomination" and there is no point in Scripture in which it is anything more regardless of the context or scenario in which it takes place. There's no legitimate, honest argument which can contradict that absolute fact.
On the other hand, you don't even make a claim about which can be supported by ANY Scriptural evidence, because your claim is made up. My response to it exposes your claim for the marxist nonsense it is. If God is on any "side", it is on the side of those who are faithful to Him.
"Therefore, by your reasoning, I can't be mistake and it's an objectively proven fact."
You're not operating by my reasoning at all. I cite specific verses/passages which are absolutely direct and straightforward, having no ambiguity at all. There's no possibility of being mistaken about the meaning of the verse/passages I cite to support my positions. One easy way to know this is true is your abject inability and impotence in pointing out how my use of my citations is in any way flawed. You simply default to your standard "Nyuh uh" defense, offering no substance or evidence to oppose my positions.
"After all, there are literally hundred of passages that talk on this theme ( as compared to a handful or two that even seem to address your personal opinions on LGBTQ concerns)."
I regard this as attached to your false claim of "unequivocal" proof that God is "on the side of the poor". As such, there are no such passages which speak of THAT theme. But even if there was, a billion verses affirming any single thing does not diminish or mitigate the truth of a single thing affirmed by even a single verse. A single "Thou shalt not" is enough for actual Christians.
You have zero authority or objective proof to claim your opinions on that topic are fact or equal to God's Word.
You CAN be mistaken, mortal human. Humble thyself.
Dan
"If the Bible clearly recording a message about a topic makes it an objective fact, then you have no legs to stand upon to oppose my understanding. You're proclaiming I'm objectively correct."
If your "understanding" (such as it is...it's usually rank perversion) is drawn from unambiguous verses/passages, it's likely I'd already have taken the position you're presenting. At least as regards the specific verse/passage in question. But that requires that you are indeed understanding ANY verse/passage correctly, rather than injecting meaning into it in order to serve your agenda...which is far more common with you. I don't do that, because there's no agenda I would promote which isn't clearly drawn from clearly presented teachings. Lev 18:22 is unequivocal. It simply can't mean anything other than or more than "Don't do it." Yet you ignore it. You pervert it. You pretend it means something other/more than "Thou shalt not". Actual Christians don't...and certainly shouldn't...do that. It's standard operating procedure for you.
"Right?"
Clearly not.
"But you don't agree with me, in spite of the direct words of Jesus, etc al, because you have your reasons to hold an alternative opinion. Right?"
Yes. Those reasons are commonly the result of your perversion and eisegesis of the text to suit your marxist sensibilities. Unlike you, I don't simply dismiss your corrupt understandings. I bring the receipts to show your understanding is corrupt. Then you simply dismiss the receipts because they do. Thus, it's not "the same for" you. Not even close.
"You have zero authority or objective proof to claim your opinions on that topic are fact or equal to God's Word."
You have to be more specific when you say this petulant crap. Which claim are you referencing specifically? I've provided just the proofs and authority I've needed to defend any claim I've made. Ultimately, like a child, you would demand I prove God's existence.
If a claim is based on what Scripture does or doesn't say, Scripture is the authority. I cite Scripture to meet challenges by you regarding what you insist Scripture doesn't say when I've presented a truth you find inconvenient, or unable to counter with Scripture. Everything we've been discussing is connected to Biblical teaching...Christian teaching...the teachings of Christ/God or His Apostles or Prophets. The issue is if everything each of us espouses properly and accurately reflects those teachings...or to what degree it might.
If, for example, you want to insist that Scripture teaches Christians are to care for the poor and needy, to render them aid and such, I'd never reject that claim, because it's true, even as stated in such a general manner. But that every mention of "the poor" means only one thing every time it's mentioned, that's not true at all and it's legitimate to challenge such an assertion. So where I've taken issue with your "understandings" (such as they are), I've done so where you've made this kind of error. Where you take issue with my "understandings" is due to your dislike for the truth, as there's no way to argue against my understandings since the verse/passages which inform them aren't malleable for such as you. They clearly mean what they clearly state as presented. Indeed, nothing demonstrates your corruptions of Scripture as you convoluted explanation rationalizing your support for homosexuals and SSM. It's laughably obvious. It's a great indictment of your character that you published that drivel without being ashamed. Your series on the Bible and Economics isn't much better...if it's even better at all!
"You CAN be mistaken, mortal human."
Of course I can! That's not at issue. What's at issue is whether or not I'm mistaken in any of our discussions. You certainly assert it routinely. Almost always! You never prove it or even come close to suggesting it might be possible. You think that by stating this irrelevancy it has some mitigating effect on the truths I present. Sadly for you, it has no effect at all.
October 5, 2024 at 5:00 PM
"Fine. Then cite EVEN ONE scholarly, well-reasoned website that says it has objective proof of your human traditions' human opinions. Or note that you can't find even one that attempts to objectively prove what you say HAS been proven."
Why? Oh yeah...because Scripture isn't the least bit authoritative, right? But hey, that's my bad. I stupidly forget I'm not talking to a Christian, but only with one who poses as one. The world-changing "theories" were affirmed in Scripture. But that's not good enough for Dan Trabue. Dan doesn't truly believe, so Scripture isn't objective proof of the Scriptural things I say, present and cite to remind you of the truth upon which you crap.
And of course you insist on this "your 'human traditions/human opinions'" crap, because such expressions allow for ambiguity. You don't like rock solid reality, especially where it's inconvenient for your personal desire for what should constitute truth. But the problem is that even if one were to concede the prospect that I'm propagating a tradition or opinion, I do so on the basis of what is true and the facts as they exist. When we speak of what Scripture says, there's very little ambiguity regarding the issues about which we often debate. You just don't like that fact and seek to insert more ambiguity into the discussion by using these expressions regarding tradition and opinion. It's your default and you believe that the truth expressed can be dismissed if your ever changing standards of proof do not allow for that truth. God exists or He doesn't. Whichever it is...and we Christians believe it is the former...isn't dependent on Dan's demand for truth never being good enough to satisfy him, nor Art's inability to provide any which is.
So if I provide scholarly, well-reasoned sites which confirms, or at least affirms, my positions on any given subject, you lack the honesty and integrity to accept the conclusions of such sites should they conclude in a manner inconsistent with your preferred desires of what truth and reality should be. For example, Robert Gagnon is extremely expert on the subject of the Bible and homosexuality. He not only can speak expertly on the original language of the text, but also cites pro-homosexual scholars who are in agreement with him, while still supporting the homosexual agenda. And despite the fact that it's unlikely you could present a pro-homosexual "expert" he hasn't already answered, you'll dismiss him as less than satisfactory anyway, and do so with nothing of substance.
What I believe comes directly from Scripture without any embellishment by me, or any attempt (not even any desire) to force a meaning the text doesn't plainly convey. The same can't at all be said for you on the issues which have separated us since at least 2008. No. You simply assert your shit and regard my positions are mere "opinion" or "human tradition" as if I pulled it out of my ass, rather than to have based my positions on the direct and clear teaching of Scripture.
You disagree about my "understanding". Somehow, "Thou shalt not" doesn't really mean "ever", and without any evidence, you suggest there are times when it's just fine to do that which God prohibited by saying "Thou shalt not".
Scripture is authoritative for me, just as it is for all actual Christians. It is proof of the things I say, because the things I say are based on it. I don't reject what doesn't work for me as you do. If there were no outside sources providing Dan approved proof for the truth claims I make regarding the faith, they would still be true. Someday, you'll either have to come to Christ and accept the Truth of Scripture, or provide solid evidence which leaves no doubt of whatever the hell alternative preference you suggest is more likely true.
October 5, 2024 at 9:38 PM
I had said:
"YOU, however, are obliged to provide the testimonies of those your LGBT friends accuse of having harmed them."
Dan falsely replied:
"I've told you multiple stories from them. What are you looking for? Me to give you - someone who calls LGBTQ folks and their allies "perverts" and "homos" their names and personal information? That's not going to happen."
What a cheap dodge! You've never provided names and personal info on the pervs you praise a peachy-keen saints. You've never provided the testimonies of those your homosexual friends accused of the "evil" things they did. You're a liar. Go ahead and link to these testimonies so I can see them in context. What I'll find is either you asserting the testimonies are true and accurate, or you simply repeating what your homosexual friends insist is true about those they accuse.
You've provide links to stories purporting to confirm what you want us to believe about harm suffered by homosexuals. Go ahead and provide links to those they accuse.
Does there exist those who cast out a homosexual simply on hearing the person was homosexual, without any attempt to come to an understanding? ("You're a fag??? GET OUT!" "B-b-but wait! Hear me out!" "NO!...GET OUT!") I wouldn't wager there isn't. I'm saying it's no where near as common as the homosexuals want people to believe so as to tug at the heartstrings of the gullible and stupid. I believe it's as I suppose...that your "victims" market themselves and the oppressed and never speak of their own refusal to accept the disordered immorality of their desires and behaviors. Rather than cop to the truth, they paint their families and churches as close-minded bigots.
"That you have no LGBTQ friends says an awful lot. It's amazing that you don't see that as the shame for you that it is says a lot."
No doubt you need to think so. But that's outrageously moronic. Typical for you, but moronic nonetheless. Clearly you didn't read of my associations with homosexuals throughout my life. That I don't have any "friends" who are homosexuals means nothing more than that I don't have any friends who are homosexual. Somehow you need to believe my positions would be altered by having a homosexual friend. If you actually read my comments above, you'd be hard pressed to explain how that could possibly be true.
The fact is that you enable sinners. That won't go well for you in the end. You might as well be a homosexual yourself. Really, dude. Stop pretending. Be yourself. You're not saved anyway.
Marshal:
because Scripture isn't the least bit authoritative, right?
The question is NOT about Scripture. I love the Bible and the words therein. The question is about INTERPRETATION of Scripture. I love and respect and honor the Bible and follow its teachings. BUT, I do not accept "Marshal Art" as THE reliable authority who can tell us how to interpret the various passages in question.
As is so often the case, you're engaging in the logical fallacy of question begging. Maybe if you studied some on reason and rational communication you could rise above these sorts of grade school fallacies and errors.
As an aside about things that Bubba (and maybe others) have often said about supposedly "leading questions..." like this one:
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.
Stating a point that I hold and asking you if you agree is NOT a leading question. It's asking a reasonable question trying to get understanding. Sometimes I might "Do you agree?" after stating my actual position and sometimes I might ask, "Do you seriously disagree?" after stating my actual position - one that seems obvious to me... but in neither case is it a leading question. It's a reasonable question.
Dan says, "I believe X is true. Do you agree?" is a clarifying question, not a leading question in any rational sense.
Just to put that dog to bed.
Dan
October 8, 2024 at 9:08 PM
Clearly, especially given the Bubba quote you presented, it's rarely as simple and straightforward as your example: ""I believe X is true. Do you agree?"". I leave it alone and for Bubba to respond to it if he's so inclined.
October 8, 2024 at 5:16 PM
This is all bullshit. First:
"I love the Bible and the words therein." -snip- "I love and respect and honor the Bible and follow its teachings."
You reject way too much of it for this to be true in any way, except on the level of loving a Harry Potter book.
"The question is about INTERPRETATION of Scripture." -snip- "BUT, I do not accept "Marshal Art" as THE reliable authority who can tell us how to interpret the various passages in question."
It's never, if ever, about "interpretation". It's about you rejecting what you find personally displeasing. If it was interpretation, you'd be ready with an alternative which is compelling because it is well defended with Scripture and scholarly commentaries. As with most every position you defend on any subject, you defend your position with the weakest and laziest of arguments, citing that which is also poorly understood by you, corrupted outright or chosen because the title/headline appears to you to be in agreement with you. It's as if you're a small child arguing you washed your hands for dinner when you didn't.
For my part, I don't need to be any authority to present from Scripture that which is so clear and straightforward. What I present is generally not much more so than "Thou shalt not...".
"As is so often the case, you're engaging in the logical fallacy of question begging. Maybe if you studied some on reason and rational communication you could rise above these sorts of grade school fallacies and errors."
It's pretty clear you don't really understand the term, and are using it to posture as more knowledgeable and schooled in debate...which is pretty funny. It seems you may be confusing "begging the question" with "raising the question", which is altogether different. I could see how that ploy could be honestly used in most any debate, but question begging not so much and certainly not in any position for which I've argued. Here's an example of "begging the question":
Gracie: Gentlemen prefer blondes.
George: How do you know that?
Gracie: A gentleman told me so.
George: How did you know he was a gentleman?
Gracie: Because he preferred blondes.
This is no way resembles how I argue my positions. In the case of arguing Christian concepts and teachings, Scripture is the ultimate source of knowledge, as it is the basis of Christian belief. How else can we have any notion of the faith but for Scripture?
But Scripture is authoritative only for Christians and when engaged in debate with someone who claims to be a Christian, too, it stands to reason that Scripture would be the initial and most authoritative source for facts and truths about Christian ideology and beliefs.
Thus, if you're going to argue against a belief, we must, like the Bereans, go to Scripture and see who is closest to what Scripture says. So on the issue on the table...only God is good...we have the clear words of Jesus as presented in the Christian Bible. We also have other verses and passages throughout Scripture which refer to man's sin nature and man's propensity to sin. In order to argue against the position we hold...that only God is good and there is no one good but Him...you need to address every citation we've presented and provide an argument why each does not mean what the arrangement of words which expresses our position is wrongly understood. To say, "I know someone who is good", isn't evidence of your contrarian position. It's just you saying "this guy is good" and providing anecdotal lists of "good deeds" to back it up. Does that satisfy Jesus' definition, though? No. It does not. It only satisfies YOUR position using a commonly agreed upon human definition of the word...a true example of "human tradition".
As such, you've not exposed any "grade school fallacies and errors" on my part, but simply write off my arguments as such out of intellectual laziness and childish petulance.
Two conflicting thoughts muddled a sentence....where I said "you need to address every citation we've presented and provide an argument why each does not mean what the arrangement of words which expresses our position is wrongly understood." It should read, "you need to address every citation we've presented and provide an argument why each does not mean what the cited arrangement of words upon which our position is based implies."
It's never, if ever, about "interpretation". It's about you rejecting what you find personally displeasing.
Of course, it is. We have YOUR personal human interpretations and traditions and MY personal human interpretations and traditions.
BECAUSE I love, honor, respect and KNOW the Bible, I know that God is portrayed as a God of perfect love and perfect justice. THAT is biblical and it's just well-reasoned, as well, IF one presumes a perfectly loving and just God. It is a biblical and rational position to hold IF one respects and knows the Bible and if one loves and honors God.
You have offered NOTHING to disprove that claim.
Now, within the Bible, if SOME HUMANS read a passage about slavery or slaughtering a whole city, including the babies and the goats, by a "command of God" and then, THOSE HUMANS say, "Well, those words are in the Bible therefore they MUST mean that God sometimes might command us to slaughter whole cities and run children and babies through with swords and spears..." Then THOSE HUMANS hold an opinion and interpretation that is disrespectful both to God and to the stories told in the Bible.
THOSE HUMANS would be saying that, even though God is portrayed as perfectly loving and just... that in their human opinion, because those stories exist, slaughtering a city of innocents must not conflict with the notion of a perfectly loving and just "god." But other humans, like me, reject that interpretation as being irrational, unbiblical and just evil, atrocious. Exceedingly disrespectful to an almighty God.
Now, you may disagree with my interpretation and understanding, BUT, you just can't say I am holding that opinion for unbiblical or irrational reasons. It has nothing to do me personally finding it "displeasing" (like broccoli, for instance), and everything to do with me finding it ungodly and unbiblical and unloving as literally hell.
Do you see how you're mistaken? Do you see that you haven't and can't support your claim I cited?
October 9, 2024 at 9:09 AM
"Of course, it is. We have YOUR personal human interpretations and traditions and MY personal human interpretations and traditions."
Of course it is not. We have me reciting...verbatim if necessary...what Scripture says to support my position....about what Scripture says. Then we have you rejecting that what I've recited is an accurate record of history because you choose to take the position that what is cited conflicts with what YOU want a "perfectly just and loving God" should look like. Therefore, neither of us is "interpreting" Scripture. I'm reciting actual verses and passages to make my point, and you're rejecting those actual passages and verses because they offend you personally.
Sometimes, my recitation is all which is needed to prove my position. Other times, I must gather other verses and passages that support a position I hold about the citation on the table. It's there where one can speak of "interpretation", but it's also there where I've proven my "interpretation" and understanding of a given passage or verse to be accurate. And as above, it's there where you simply reject it outright because you don't like the truth of it, or, you present passages and verses which don't actually refute my position, or you cite something non-Biblical to do so.
"BECAUSE I love, honor, respect and KNOW the Bible, I know that God is portrayed as a God of perfect love and perfect justice.THAT is biblical and it's just well-reasoned, as well, IF one presumes a perfectly loving and just God. It is a biblical and rational position to hold IF one respects and knows the Bible and if one loves and honors God."
No, Dan. You reject what the Bible says God commanded, what it says God has done, where what it says offends you. You presume that God must abide YOUR notions of what a just and loving God is. You do not resolve your issues in accordance with the Biblical presentation of the actual and true God you reject. To ignore those presentations of God's true justice...vengeful and wrathful...you demonstrate the opposite of loving, honoring, respecting and KNOWING the Bible, because it doesn't present the truth on Dan's terms.
"You have offered NOTHING to disprove that claim."
I've not even tried to "disprove" the fact that God is perfectly loving and just. I just don't force my preference for how that should manifest upon Him.
"Now, within the Bible, if SOME HUMANS read a passage about slavery or slaughtering a whole city, including the babies and the goats, by a "command of God" and then, THOSE HUMANS say, "Well, those words are in the Bible therefore they MUST mean that God sometimes might command us to slaughter whole cities and run children and babies through with swords and spears..." Then THOSE HUMANS hold an opinion and interpretation that is disrespectful both to God and to the stories told in the Bible."
This typically irrelevant. What's true is not that we expect that God will command we do any of those things. We simply accept that He did at one time to serve His purposes and by doing so, manifested a true illustration of his love and justice. Nobody who comes to this discussion to oppose your lunacy suggests anything like this supposition of yours. So don't bring it up again. It's a lie to do so. We're not talking about how some unnamed people might pervert Scripture. We're talking about how YOU do.
"THOSE HUMANS would be saying that, even though God is portrayed as perfectly loving and just... that in their human opinion, because those stories exist, slaughtering a city of innocents must not conflict with the notion of a perfectly loving and just "god.""
Because it doesn't.
"But other humans, like me, reject that interpretation as being irrational, unbiblical and just evil, atrocious. Exceedingly disrespectful to an almighty God."
It's NOT an interpretation. It's a presentation of Biblical fact. YOU reject that it's fact, but do so without the slightest effort to prove the presentation has some other meaning than the fact that God exacted His Justice in a manner which offends your sensitive nature. And given that those who accept the Biblical record on these issues is accurate, you regard them as evil and irrational, which in reality is you regarding God as evil and irrational.
"Now, you may disagree with my interpretation and understanding, BUT, you just can't say I am holding that opinion for unbiblical or irrational reasons."
Except that such is the case. You're rejecting what the Bible records as history and pretending it's mythical because you don't like how it sounds. There's nothing Biblical about your "interpretation" because you're not interpreting anything. You're just rejecting as false that which offends you.
"It has nothing to do me personally finding it "displeasing" (like broccoli, for instance), and everything to do with me finding it ungodly and unbiblical and unloving as literally hell."
Which means you find it personally displeasing. Because the Biblical record displeases you, you regard it as "ungodly and unbiblical and unloving".
"Do you see how you're mistaken?"
I'm not mistaken in the least. You reject the Biblical presentation of God's justice because the truth means you ain't getting off easy for your rebellion against Him. You won't be able to bullshit your way out of your likely deserved punishment. The Bible records God as being deadly serious about His opposition to sin. That would include your presuming you can dictate which sins are worthy of death and how many times they can be perpetrated without being worthy of death. That would include lying about being mistaken about that which is crystal clear.
Marshal...
It's a presentation of Biblical fact. YOU reject that it's fact, but do so without the slightest effort to prove the presentation has some other meaning than the fact that God exacted His Justice in a manner which offends your sensitive nature.
I don't know what to tell you, Marshal, other than you're just factually wrong. Your opinions about how to interpret texts that deal with justice concerns and evil atrocities are simply that - YOUR unproven opinion. You do not get to just declare, "YUP. When I say that this is a biblical fact and I'm right about God on this front and anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong..." and claim to win.
That's begging the question.
I was just listening to a scholar speaking about conversations and the reasons we humans have disputes. One of his points was that people get emotionally tied to a position and if they don't hear that a person is agreeing with their emotions, they just get even more upset and can't hear what the other person is saying/writing. He was noting this is especially true in online conversations.
Of the two of us, I am the one who knows best my reasons for holding my positions.
Of the two of us, I am the one who knows that I was raised in a ultra-conservative religious background where those conservatives taught me that God IS love and God IS just and that God will not command people to do evil.
Of the two of us, I am the one who knows that they taught me that if there is an apparent contradiction within a text, you try to make sense of it. They taught me that we first look to the teachings of Jesus, as the clearest expression of God. They taught me that some texts are best understood in a figurative manner and some are literal, just as a point of fact.
I know that the Bible objectively speaks of Good People. AND that there are a smaller handful or so of verses that say something along the lines of "there is no one who is good..."
Of the two of us, then, I know that MY reasoning for taking seriously and fairly literally the notion that God is a God of perfect love and justice and BECAUSE of that ultra-conservative, very basic/foundational notion of God is Love, then any HUMANS who tell me that God will act in an overtly unjust or monstrous manner, I will disagree with that HUMAN opinion, because it is precisely a human opinion, unproven entirely in any serious, objective manner.
Indeed, you all very rarely even TRY to objectively prove your human opinions on this point. You do just what you are trying to do: Bully and bluster your way into impotently trying to demand that YOUR opinion is the right one.
And when I disagree with that opinion, that just doubles down on your emotional response and you inability to recognize that I do indeed, as a point of fact, disagree with you for very foundational biblical and rational reasons.
Maybe if Bubba ever comes back, he'll have the intellectual wherewithal to tell you the same thing. Your opinion on these types of topics and theories IS your opinion, not a fact.
October 9, 2024 at 3:21 PM
"I don't know what to tell you, Marshal, other than you're just factually wrong."
Well, that's all you ever really have, isn't it Dan? You don't know what to tell me, so you simply assert I'm wrong. It's easy. It's not true. You haven't proven it in any way. You haven't even suggested it might be true. You simply assert, without so much as providing a single fact in support of the claim, that I'm "factually" wrong.
"Your opinions about how to interpret texts that deal with justice concerns and evil atrocities are simply that - YOUR unproven opinion."
Which opinion would that be? The only one I've presented...and it's not so much "opinion" as it is a citation of what Scripture actually says...is that Scripture says what I accept as true. By this, I'm referring to tales of God exacting his wrathful vengeance upon those who were in rebellion against Him. He accomplished this in a number of ways, one of which was to command the Israelites to totally destroy an entire town, often killing everything which breathed. You choose to regard this as God commanding people to sin as if He needs your approval as to how He exacts His Justice against unrepentant reprobates. But He is not sinning, nor are those who carry out His commands which make you pee yourself. None of this is opinion. This is all recorded history. So you have to prove the OT authors are lying about such stories, are somehow mistaken, and in doing so, prove they are only mistaken on that which you oppose and never on that which gives you a tingle. You can't have it both ways.
And again, if you want to assert the passages in question mean something other than what the words on the page present, you'll need someday to try and make that case with actual evidence in support. I ain't gettin' any younger.
"You do not get to just declare, "YUP. When I say that this is a biblical fact and I'm right about God on this front and anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong..." and claim to win."
Sure I do, especially when my arguments are actually evidence based and yours in opposition are no better than petulant "Nyu uhs". I can easily be persuaded by a compelling argument, not through perverting Scripture as you do as if you're paid to.
"That's begging the question."
Clearly you don't understand what "begging the question" means.
"One of his points was that people get emotionally tied to a position and if they don't hear that a person is agreeing with their emotions, they just get even more upset and can't hear what the other person is saying/writing. He was noting this is especially true in online conversations."
So that explains you. What does he say about those like me who patiently continue to allow those like you to assert positions without evidence?
"Of the two of us, I am the one who knows best my reasons for holding my positions."
Do those reasons include unassailable evidence which at least suggests you might be right? If so, why haven't you provided as yet?
"Of the two of us, I am the one who knows that I was raised in a ultra-conservative religious background where those conservatives taught me that God IS love and God IS just and that God will not command people to do evil."
So you say. But what you don't indicate is that you have any understanding of the conservative position. A rote description isn't understanding, anymore than rote repetition of prayer isn't sincere. What's more, you're the only one suggesting God commands or has commanded anyone to do evil. Another example:
"Of the two of us, I am the one who knows that they taught me that if there is an apparent contradiction within a text, you try to make sense of it. They taught me that we first look to the teachings of Jesus, as the clearest expression of God. They taught me that some texts are best understood in a figurative manner and some are literal, just as a point of fact."
What they allegedly taught you and how you apply it are two different things. A rote repetition of how one might understand passages and verses doesn't mean you're intelligently applying this method. You're assuming the conclusion at the beginning, which is question begging.
"I know that the Bible objectively speaks of Good People. AND that there are a smaller handful or so of verses that say something along the lines of "there is no one who is good...""
You know nothing of the sort, as my response to your Noah and Job attempts demonstrate. God is good. He is without sin. That's what makes Him good. People are not without sin and thus are not good. Thus, anyone in Scripture described as "good" is also "good" as compared to others. They are contrasted against others. What's more, those verses are clearly more exact than "saying something along the lines of..." They're saying quite specifically that mankind is sinful in nature, inclined toward sin and rejection of God. Those referred to as "good" are not referred to as being without sin, NOT inclined toward sin. Thus, the description is relative to other people.
"
Of the two of us, then, I know that MY reasoning for taking seriously and fairly literally the notion that God is a God of perfect love and justice and BECAUSE of that ultra-conservative, very basic/foundational notion of God is Love, then any HUMANS who tell me that God will act in an overtly unjust or monstrous manner, I will disagree with that HUMAN opinion, because it is precisely a human opinion, unproven entirely in any serious, objective manner."
This pap has no relevance to this discussion. No one here has told you God will act in an unjust or monstrous manner, nor has anyone told He had ever acted in an unjust or monstrous manner.
"Indeed, you all very rarely even TRY to objectively prove your human opinions on this point."
Why would we when no one here has told you God will act in an unjust or monstrous manner, nor has anyone told He had ever acted in an unjust or monstrous manner?
"You do just what you are trying to do: Bully and bluster your way into impotently trying to demand that YOUR opinion is the right one."
This is another lie, Mr. Good Faith. No one here is bullying in any way. We stand on our arguments as far better supported than your objections to them. Rather than us bullying you, you're fleeing without cause, except for confronting your own error. It's a case of "the truth hurts", which is the only way you can assert that speaking truthfully the Truth of Scripture can cause harm. But it's not harm which compels any honest Christian to stifle the preaching of Truth.
" And when I disagree with that opinion, that just doubles down on your emotional response and you inability to recognize that I do indeed, as a point of fact, disagree with you for very foundational biblical and rational reasons."
More dishonesty. First, if there is any emotional response from us toward your petulance, it's either "sadness" at your having been given over by God to your corruption (good luck with that), or "frustration" with your childish refusal to concede in any way, which belies your claim to caring about truth.
Second is the assertion that your disagreement is based on "foundational" Biblical and "rational" reasons. Throwing out a verse or two...unrelated, irrelevant or blatantly abused...doesn't get it done, especially when your "evidence" provokes as much consternation as toward any child making up bad excuses for bad behaviors.
" Maybe if Bubba ever comes back, he'll have the intellectual wherewithal to tell you the same thing."
Well, clearly that wouldn't make him "intellectual". That would make him like you. He's not at all like you. He actually has a grasp of the faith.
"Your opinion on these types of topics and theories IS your opinion, not a fact."
This is not a new assertion. It's an old, too often employed, tired premise never the least bit proven or supported. It's beyond boring.
Since it appears Bubba has withdrawn from the conversation, without trying to answer questions that remain, let me ask you one more question, Marshal.
You said...
Why would (explain your position) we when no one here has told you God will act in an unjust or monstrous manner, nor has anyone told He had ever acted in an unjust or monstrous manner?
1. YOU, Marshal, believe it is an historic fact that God commanded Israel to kill off an entire people, including killing specifically women, children and babies.
Right?
2. If ANY person or other God commanded the killing of innocents, you recognize that action (both the slaughter of babies AND the monstrous command to some man to tell him to kill babies), you would agree, would you not, that it's a monstrous, evil, despicable, hellish act, right?
If you want to answer and actually try to make a moral, rational defense for your personal opinions, please do so in a new post. I'm done with this long book of a thread.
If not, then that's fine, too.
Dan
October 19, 2024 at 4:18 PM
"Since it appears Bubba has withdrawn from the conversation, without trying to answer questions that remain, let me ask you one more question, Marshal."
I won't presume to suppose why any visitor hasn't visited. You remain and you still don't answer questions. That is, you don't answer them to our satisfaction insisting that any crap you spew should be accepted as satisfactory. Bubba will return if he so chooses, just as you do.
"You said..."
Why would (explain your position) we when no one here has told you God will act in an unjust or monstrous manner, nor has anyone told He had ever acted in an unjust or monstrous manner?
"1. YOU, Marshal, believe it is an historic fact that God commanded Israel to kill off an entire people, including killing specifically women, children and babies.
Right?"
According to Scripture, yes.
"2. If ANY person or other God commanded the killing of innocents, you recognize that action (both the slaughter of babies AND the monstrous command to some man to tell him to kill babies), you would agree, would you not, that it's a monstrous, evil, despicable, hellish act, right?"
As you present it, yes.
"If you want to answer and actually try to make a moral, rational defense for your personal opinions, please do so in a new post. I'm done with this long book of a thread."
You gave the response yourself: "If ANY person or other God commanded the killing of innocents..." That's the difference. We're talking about God commanding the killing of entire populations of towns, not "ANY person or other god" (there's only one God who deserves a capital "G". The rest are mere "gods"). The real question is, "Why did God command such a thing?" Scripture tells us and your pretend it was some self-directed act of humans who later "pretended" God told them to do that. You take this position with absolutely no evidence of any kind in support, and pretend that verses referencing God's "love and justice"...as if you understand that at all...as proof He wouldn't command such a thing. But no one who actually "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture would be so dimwitted and false.
As to "please do so in a new post. I'm done with this long book of a thread."
What a lame-assed dodge, as if scrolling a bit is a heavy burden. Why start a new thread where you'll act as if this one hadn't taken place, and spew the same crap all over again? You're a coward and have no way to truly back your self-serving positions. Be a man and keep this discussion here. I don't care if it goes 40,000 comments. Whether they're all here or spread out over multiple posts, I've no doubt you'll continue your falsehoods nonetheless.
Post a Comment