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.
506 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 506 of 506While I'm still waiting for you to actually answer the questions I'm actually asking, I'll answer another series of questions from you:
Q11.B. Is there anything that the Bible teaches, anything at all, that you believe is NOT accessible to us by human reason but which you STILL accept simply because the Bible teaches, or Jesus teaches it?
No. Nor do you. We ALL use our reasoning to think, Does Jesus meant that he literally came to preach good news to the poor, or figuratively, or both?
You use your reasoning to decide, Did Jesus mean none of us should store up treasures here on earth, and what does that mean? No savings at all..?
You DO use your human reasoning to assess the meaning of various texts, or do you not?
Do you treat every line in the bible literally or do you assess it?
Is the Bible ever instructive for you and not just a convenient source of confirmation for what you've come to believe from other places?
The Bible is EXTREMELY instructive to me. It's our only record of Jesus' words, it tells us stories of people following God in the past, it paints an extremely cohesive and consistent picture of God as a God of love and justice, which is part of the reason I reject some conservative theories about a gracelessly punitive and unjust God as contrary to biblical teachings of God's nature.
Is it ever sufficient to say, "For the Bible tells me so"?
For 2nd graders? Maybe. (Maybe.)
For grown adults, it's not a very helpful construct as far as that goes and that thinking has been a tool of oppression and control for centuries.
Why? Because adults use their God-given reasoning to sort out a wide variety of lessons and words.
We are not beholden to a speechless opinionless book that we must jump through hoops that it doesn't give.
Dan
Marshal, 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?
"By all means, give your working definition of good. Or is it the case that you think we have no way to define Good?"
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? If the former, I don't have any problem with we humans labeling some people as good and others as...something else. But that's not at issue here. The issue has to do with who is "good" enough on their own to warrant salvation and an eternity in the presence of Almighty God. According to Jesus...and the Father...that would no one except God Himself.
So you can look at all your dear Jeff St cohorts and proclaim them "good", but you're clearly doing so according to your standards and notions of goodness, and that don't mean shit. If we were truly good, we would not have needed Christ to appear and then sacrifice Himself and take on punishment He didn't deserve to save us from it.
And you Psych Central definition doesn't alter that at all. It's simply a common understand between people of what constitutes "good", based on good works alone, as if those who do good works never commit any sins at the same time. Thus, posting it was a waste of time. And of course, good people don't support abortion as a legal practice nor enable sexual deviancy as you do.
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 3:13 PM
I had said:
"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."
Dan responded:
"PROVE IT.
Or admit you can't prove it.
Those are your options."
First off, asshole, you don't get to come here and dictate what I must or must not do according to parameters of your choosing.
Secondly, I don't have to prove it because you proved it for me when you chose to cite all the wonderful things your wife does. You're basing your definition of good...applying to your wife in this case...based solely on a list of good works. And to be clear, based on the limitations of just those "works" you've chosen to list, one can justly say she seems to be more good than not. But that also doesn't mean she's actually and factually good based on a Biblical perspective. We've heard Dem presidents refer to their wives or other family members as "the best" they know. But being public figures, we know they're not "good" at all. Your wife ain't a public figure. No one here knows her are much cares to go out of their way to meet her, and she could be entirely fictitious for all we truly know. Again...you're an inveterate liar, so...
But thanks for the help in proving my point.
This concludes my response to your second 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.
Post a Comment