There is a wide ranging discussion spread over a couple of blogs that boils down to one's view of "regulated worship" and "Christian Liberty". While both constructs seem to have significant basis in scripture, they are still an attempt to corral a bunch of widely separated scriptures and to give those scriptures a label to express a scriptural concept in a sort of shorthand.
At one of the blog I posited that this whole discussion really boiled down to how one answers a few questions, and listed the questions. Since they were ignored over there, and since some folks who might not comment there might comment here, I'm going to list them here.
1. Are there any limits on what is appropriate in corporate worship at all?
2. If a book contains any rules does that automatically classify it as a "rule book"?
3.
If a book, or compilation of books contain a number of different
genres of literature, dose that fact automatically invalidate one of the
genres?
4. Does the human construct of "Christian Liberty"
automatically trump the human construct of "Regulated Worship", even
though both have scriptural support? If so, why?
5. Does the construct of "Christian Liberty" have any limits at all?
I honestly think that #1 and #5 are the most significant, but that's just me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
118 comments:
I was too busy trying to get you to directly answer some other questions to ever get around to this, but glad to answer them.
1. No. Not biblically. Ever.
1a. Also, given that the Bible is not a rule book but a book on grace, to try to "find" "limits on worship" doesn't seem like a wise thing to do.
2. No. The "Little Bunny Foo Foo" (which has been made into a book) contains the rule, "I don't want to see you Scooping up the field mice and bopping them on the head." But to call this book a rule book would be silly and missing the point.
Just because there are rules found in a book does not make it a rule book. Those who'd try to lift out the rules and insist that they come from a rule book telling us how to live would be mistaken.
3. No. Not sure what the question means, but to answer the question, No.
4. No. However, one of the common, traditional Christian hermeneutics when it comes to striving to understand the Bible is to interpret the obscure and odd through the clear and obvious. For instance, Love one another is very clear as a biblical teaching and as a reasonable moral teaching apart from the Bible. When one finds a verse that says, "Hate your mother, hate your father..." that is obscure. It's odd. We ought not lift out that verse as a ruling and say, "It's in the Bible, therefore, THE RULE FROM GOD is to hate your mother and father. Jesus clearly said it! It's a ruling from GOD!!!" No. We interpret the obscure and odd through the clear. Clearly since God is a God of love, since it's reasonable to love one another, then that can't mean what it says on the face of it.
Christian Liberty is like Love One Another. It is a reasonable ideal to embrace. Thus, if you have another "rule" (..."you have liberty EXCEPT when it comes to worship, then you've got a prescribed set of rules to follow!!!") we should interpret the obscure through the clear. As a general rule/rubric.
5. We ought not harm others. NOT because there is a clause in the Bible that says so, but because we don't want to be asses. Or monsters.
~Dan
Just to be clear, when I say there are no biblically-given "limits" to worship, I mean, there are none given to us in the Bible. Paul did give a limit to women in his day that they shouldn't wear jewelry or expensive clothes. The OT no doubt gave some instructions to some people at a specific time and place.
But has God given us "limits" on worship? No, never, not in the Bible and not in person to anyone that I know of.
It strikes me a bit odd that some people (not you, necessarily) think God really cares about how we worship God. That a god would take offense at people who "improperly" worship that god, makes that god seem a bit less like a god and more like an angry toddler.
So once again we see that Dan has no problem dictating God's behavior. That is so gracious. It strikes me as wholly typical that Dan questions what God might find suitable and acceptable to Him. This is why I find it hard to regard Dan as a Christian, or even one who believes and reveres the One True God.
And of course, as if it hadn't happened, it has been restated those parts of Scripture from which those who believe there is indeed some evidence for Regulated Worship draw their conclusions. Dan simply says, " No, never, not in the Bible..."
Well, if that's the case, then there must be some other explanation for those several passages from which the concept is drawn. As is typical, Dan offers none. He simply rejects that which he doesn't like.
Never dictated God's behavior. Didn't happen. I may have disagreed with an opinion YOU hold, but then, you're not God.
I'm saying quite clearly that "the concept" is point blank not in the scriptures. Its invented using scriptures as a starting point, but its not there. Literally.
It'd be like citing the story of Jonah and extracting out a "marine rehabilitation principle" that says, "God wants us to throw sinners into the ocean to undergo a repentance process..." Sure, you could extrapolate out that ridiculous principle, but it's literally an invention, NOT part of the story.
No. It's not like that at all and you once again demonstrate that you lack the ability to effectively create an analogy that sells your point. Drawing conclusions from Scripture, and then naming the concept for convenience, has no relation to an idiotic analogy of tossing sinners into the ocean, primarily because there is no basis for supposing that God implied that as a mandate for anyone.
And yes, you dictate God's behavior with regularity every time you suggest that what is clearly written about Him in Scripture is not possible for any god that you'd ever worship.
And your constant suggestion that I hold myself up as God, or that I am conflating my opinion with God's demands something akin to an alternative to anything I say with regard to what Scripture/God teaches. Until you choose to attempt such a perilous task, you're blowing smoke up your own skirt in an attempt to convince yourself of your unbiblical positions. Far easier to disparage those who think differently (for the crime of thinking differently) than to actually lay out a convincing argument. You disagree with me? What a freakin' surprise. When do we hear what's wrong with our positions besides charges of "insane", "immoral" or other such crap that also goes without saying. "Insane"? Why? What makes it so and what better explanation for our positions/interpretations exists?
I don't hold myself up as God. Never have and you haven't taken any pains whatever to demonstrate how that charge is even rational.
I don't conflate my opinion with God's. I hold opinions based on the clear revelation of God's will as found (easily so) in Scripture.
I've defended in detail every position I hold and with equal detailed shown the abject flaws in your interpretations that you laughingly pretend led to your positions. When have you done anything like that in rebutting a position of mine, or Craig's, or Stan's or anyone's. We show you where concepts are presented in Scripture and you counter by saying "It's not in there". An obvious lie given you've just be shown the opposite.
WE know you disagree. We know you don't believe. Put on your big-boy pants and bring some "HARD DATA" that you so routinely demand of us.
primarily because there is no basis for supposing that God implied that as a mandate for anyone.
And there is NO basis for supposing that God implies rules for worship, especially in the modern context.
Why do you think a god would need us to behave a certain way as we worship/meet together? That sounds like a very insecure god, not the Almighty God of the Universe.
I don't worship a wimpy god.
And Marshall, everytime you make some claim that I am denying God when what I'm actually doing is disagreeing with YOUR HUNCHES about God it is as if you are conflating your hunches with God. Your opinions and God's Word are not one and the same. I don't disagree with God when I disagree with you.
See the problem you are having?
Now, make it clear, "I, Marshall, hold these opinions and think that x, y and z are reasonable... or so it seems to me. And if you disagree with x, y and/or z, well, you're disagreeing with what I think is a reasonable opinion..." then we're all cool. It's when I disagree with x, y or z and you make your false claims that I'm disagreeing with God is when you are conflating your words with God.
And Marshall, I've always defended my positions to you, too. That you don't understand or get my defense doesn't mean I have done it.
Just to clarify.
1. You are claiming that there are absolutely zero limits on what can take place during Christian worship. None? Zero? Anything goes? Free for all?
2. Ok, you can at least acknowledge the reality that the Bible does contain rules, but that it is not a rule book. Now perhaps you can acknowledge that no one is claiming that the Bible is a rule book, but that it is a book that contains rules.
3. Again, I appreciate you acknowledging that the presence of multiple genres in the Bible does not mean that the rules are invalidated by the other genres. Not bad.
4. So, your answer is really yes, Christian Liberty does trump Regulated Worship. Look just be honest and admit that you have two scripturally supported, yet ultimately human constructs, and you are clearly prioritizing one over the other. You are claiming that one is a "rule" while the other is not. Just be honest about it.
5. So, why would you answer a yes or no question with something other than a yes or no.
"I was too busy trying to get you to directly answer some other questions to ever get around to this, but glad to answer them."
I get it, you missed or ignored them at your blog and thought you'd try to continue to perpetrate the "no one ever, ever, answers any of my questions" whine. Except, your questions have been answered. But keep up the fictional narrative if it helps.
"Just to be clear, when I say there are no biblically-given "limits" to worship,..."
You mean that there are "biblically given limits", you just choose to decide that they don't apply in any way shape or form.
"And there is NO basis for supposing that God implies rules for worship, especially in the modern context."
Despite at least four citations from Scripture, you insist there is no basis. What a loon and a liar. And what would "modern context" have to do with anything as regards a God that doesn't change? You think our advanced knowledge means anything as far as how God wants us to relate to Him? Unlike you, I try to act on His terms, not my own.
"Why do you think a god would need us to behave a certain way as we worship/meet together? That sounds like a very insecure god..."
So, I suppose you would have no problem with your kids getting your attention by saying, "Hey asshole!" because to object would indicate insecurity on your part.
No. I think it's because you simply do not revere God enough to make any effort that does not comport with your kumbaya notion of what Christianity is. You'll go to church in any rag you pull out of the hamper and pretend God wants you the way you are. Why would I think that how we worship would concern God considering it's all about Him. Not at all. He only concerns Himself with how we treat each other, but cares not a whit about how we treat Him. Right. Makes total sense.
"I don't worship a wimpy god."
No. You worship a fictitious god made in your own image.
Out of time.
You mean that there are "biblically given limits", you just choose to decide that they don't apply in any way shape or form.
In the text, the rules are found in stories and in those stories, the rules are NOT universal rules but specific to the people and place.
The question, then, is why are you extrapolating out universal rules from a book that is all about grace, NOT rule following and, even so, the rules are literally not universally given? On what rational and consistent basis are you taking some "rules" "literally" and ignoring the literal text?
Look, here's a rule LITERALLY in the Bible: DO not cut the hair on the side of your head. You dismiss that rule (and rightly so, it was literally not given to you). The question is why do you insist that some rules are universally demanded of God and not others?
And regardless, as noted, the Bible is not a rule book (a [point you still don't understand).
Despite at least four citations from Scripture, you insist there is no basis.
I can easily cite 10 scriptures that I SAY mean Marshall likes to eat poo and he really really ought to do so. But if the words aren't there that say it, it doesn't mean anything.
The words don't say what the interpreters are suggesting. One can READ INTO the text whatever they want, doesn't mean it's there.
You'll go to church in any rag you pull out of the hamper and pretend God wants you the way you are.
Why do you worry about the clothes you wear or the food you eat? Consider the lilies of the field... are they not clothed more beautifully than Solomon in all his glory?!
~Jesus (give or take, from memory)
Yeah, I really don't think God gives a damn about your suit and tie or my flip flops and tie dye. But then, I DO try to take Jesus fairly literally.
Craig...
You mean that there are "biblically given limits", you just choose to decide that they don't apply in any way shape or form.
I am saved and live by Grace, not by your human rules that you want to extrapolate out and say apply to me. I am trusting in God's grace. NOT Craig's rules. Again, I don't think God gives a damn about your rules.
Beyond that, we ALL decide what rules are important to live by. YOU have rejected out of hand the COMMMAND FROM GOD (to israel) to not cut the hair on the side of your head. What? Do you set your reasoning above God's Word?
Do you see the lack of graciousness and the legalism in your words when they are flipped back on your own reasoning?
"In the text, the rules are found in stories and in those stories, the rules are NOT universal rules but specific to the people and place."
Objective proof to back up the above fact claim?
"The question, then, is why are you extrapolating out universal rules from a book that is all about grace, NOT rule following and, even so, the rules are literally not universally given?"
1. Please prove that the Bible is 100% about grace and 0% about anything else. Please prove that the rules in the Bible are 100% not universal. Otherwise, stop commenting and making claims you can't back up.
2. Why do you dispute Jesus?
"On what rational and consistent basis are you taking some "rules" "literally" and ignoring the literal text?"
On the rational and consistent basis that it is possible to determine from the context which rules are universal and which are not. This might shock you, but this is not a new or novel concept and there are plenty of good resources that you could look at if you had the tiniest bit of interest in broadening your horizons.
"The question is why do you insist that some rules are universally demanded of God and not others?"
The bigger question is why do you ask the same question more than once before I have a chance to answer it? The bigger, bigger question is what is it that allows you to simply assume and assert that your position is the default, "reasonable", "rational", position with out actually having to demonstrate that your hunches are fact?
"And regardless, as noted, the Bible is not a rule book (a [point you still don't understand)."
I can't understand exactly you keep pretending that anyone has ever, actually, in reality made the claim that the Bible is a "rule book". Despite constantly pointing out the fallacy of your assumption, not only do you continue to pretend, but now you insist that you (rather than I) know best what position or opinion I hold. One more example of the humility deficit.
"The words don't say what the interpreters are suggesting."
The words certainly don't say what Biblical scholars and theologians say they mean, but Dan with his "incredible morality" and extensive theological and linguistic education, is much better able to interpret scripture.
"I DO try to take Jesus fairly literally."
While denying that He had rules (commandments) that He expected His followers to live by.
Not all of His followers, just the very few who actually heard Him speak they had to follow His commandments, but the rest of us, nope.
"I am saved and live by Grace, not by your human rules that you want to extrapolate out and say apply to me."
1. It's interesting that someone who defines morality by his adherence to human made rules takes this stance.
2. I've never proposed a set of rules that determine who is saved or not, so your suggestion that I have seems to indicate a reality deficit as well as a humility deficit.
"I am trusting in God's grace. NOT Craig's rules. Again, I don't think God gives a damn about your rules."
Once again, I have no rules. Nor have I suggested that I have rules. I agree that God probably doesn't give a damn about something that doesn't exist. If, however, your rejection of the very possibility that God might actually have some universal rules seems shortsighted and prideful,
"Beyond that, we ALL decide what rules are important to live by. YOU have rejected out of hand the COMMMAND FROM GOD (to israel) to not cut the hair on the side of your head."
Unless you can provide proof of your claim you need to retract it. You are speaking from ignorance and prejudice and not from fact or reality.
"What? Do you set your reasoning above God's Word?"
Nope, that's you. Not me. Never claimed to.
"Do you see the lack of graciousness and the legalism in your words when they are flipped back on your own reasoning?"
No. I can't see past your continued insistence that I have said and believe things that I have not said nor do I believe despite the reality.
"In the text, the rules are found in stories and in those stories, the rules are NOT universal rules but specific to the people and place."
Objective proof to back up the above fact claim?
For instance, Leviticus 18 begins...
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to
the sons of Israel
and say
to them,
‘I am the Lord your God.
You
shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are
you
to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.
You
are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them
Again, LITERALLY, in the text, the rules are LITERALLY given specifically to the people in the stories. Which is what I said.
Now you could GUESS that MAYBE a good theory would be that these rules that were given specifically to Israel are also good rules to insist upon us, but the text literally has a story that gives the rules LITERALLY to them. Objectively speaking, that is literally what the story says.
Understand? Agreed?
And actually, even more literally and given the patriarchal nature of this ancient people, the rules were given literally to the men of Louisville, not the women or children.
Just sayin'...
"Men of Louisville???"
Sorry, Men of Israel. Whoops.
Once again, I have no rules. Nor have I suggested that I have rules. I agree that God probably doesn't give a damn about something that doesn't exist. If, however, your rejection of the very possibility that God might actually have some universal rules seems shortsighted and prideful,
Why? It may be an article of faith amongst conservative and fundamentalist type Christians that God has some set of universal rules God wants us to live by, but why should I take their word for it? And what is shortsighted or prideful about disagreeing with conservative Christians? I don't know what you mean here.
YOU have rejected out of hand the COMMMAND FROM GOD (to israel) to not cut the hair on the side of your head."
Unless you can provide proof of your claim you need to retract it. You are speaking from ignorance and prejudice and not from fact or reality.
Gladly, I'll gladly take you at your word on this. Tell me that you obey the OT rule given to the ancient Israeli men to not cut the hair on the side of their heads and I will gladly retract my claim. I BELIEVE, however, that you do NOT follow that rule. You reject it as not being applicable to you.
Tell me I'm mistaken. (No need to show me a photo of your long side hair, I'll take your word for it).
1. Please prove that the Bible is 100% about grace and 0% about anything else. Please prove that the rules in the Bible are 100% not universal. Otherwise, stop commenting and making claims you can't back up.
I am glad to always point out my opinion is my opinion. And I never stated that my opinion is that the Bible is 100% about grace. It is my opinion, rather, that it is a BOOK of grace. It's ultimate teaching is to teach grace.
There are stories throughout the Bible that take on all sorts of topics and teach all sorts of lessons and sometimes provide all sorts of rules and actions of ancient people in specific times and places. I am saying that I think, in my opinion, that the bible is best understood through the lens of Jesus, which, I believe, is a lens of grace, specifically as contrasted against legalism.
2. Why do you dispute Jesus?
Hasn't happened. Why do you make false claims?
You, on the other hand, can read a literal text where Jesus literally commands his followers to sell their stuff, give it to the poor and lay up treasures in heaven (and literally NOT here on earth) and yet you dispute that this is to be taken as a literal command to all his followers. Why do you dispute this literal take on Jesus' literal words?
Once again, I have no rules. Nor have I suggested that I have rules.
So, you and I agree that there are not literal rules to be taken from the text as universally applicable because they are there in the Bible? Cool.
Of course one example of one specific rule doesn't prove your point. You claim that there are zero universal commands, prove the claim you made not one you didn't. Actually I think your claim is that all rules are time/place /people specific, but that's just the converse of how I just said it. Either way you still need proof.
Nice try, but your claim is that I have "rejected out of hand" your cherry picked command. That claim is false, I have studied and considered those type of ceremonial commands and have concluded that they do not apply to the Church. Further I don't reject in context either.
Sure you have, Jesus gave numerous commands to His followers. Not only do you not obey them, you deny their existence or relevance. So, yeah, you pretty much do.
Nice dodge, your original false was that I had accumulated a group of rules that I had determined must be obeyed. Now you've come up with something different entirely. Please keep making crap up, it's amusing.
It's interesting that you castigate me because you make assumptions about my interpretation on one specific commandment (without actually knowing my position, just more assumptions based on prejudice), yet you proudly refuse to acknowledge, let alone obey this command. It's mutch easier to use it as a club, than to obey it.
Every rule in the Bible is given in the context of the times, Craig. Find one that isn't. The beginning of Lev 18 is not just for one rule, it's all the rules that are following. And the emphasis on "To YOU, ISRAEL" is repeated often.
No, it is obvious, even to you all, that these rules are, at least in part, NOT given to all people. If you want to make the case that these OT rules are for all times and all people, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you don't accept the literal limitations/parameters setting up the rules but then insist the rule is to be taken as literal and universal.
The same is true for Paul's rules he offers. They're given in the context of the times and people he's writing to in his letters. If you want to prove that Jesus intended his "sell your stuff and give your money to the poor" is for all people... oh, wait, you don't take that one literally.
Well, that's another problem with this legalist position... on what bases do you reject some rules as not universal and others as universal.
Jesus gave numerous commands to His followers. Not only do you not obey them, you deny their existence or relevance. So, yeah, you pretty much do.
That I disagree with YOUR HUMAN HUNCHES about what Jesus meant is not evidence that I deny Jesus. You are trying to extrapolate our some specific rules and call them universal when they come from the context of a book of grace.
I disagree with YOUR rules and YOUR treating them as rules precisely because I embrace Jesus' teachings.
"You
shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are
you
to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes."
It is not enough to say that God is speaking to His Chosen. You can't look at these verses and not see what is obvious: what God is prohibiting Israel offended Him when practiced by Egypt and Canaan unless you want to make a case that doing a goat was OK for those people, and only God's Chosen were denied. Is that what you are saying? If not, then the only possibly explanation is that God doesn't like those behavior prohibited in Lev 18 regardless of who engages in them.
And who were God's Chosen People? They were those God decided would be an example of how all people were to behave. They were set apart by the Mosaic Law so that they would stand out as being God's Chosen...people of God. "Children" of God, if you will.
"I can easily cite 10 scriptures that I SAY mean Marshall likes to eat poo and he really really ought to do so."
Let's see 'em, and then let's see you make your case for that and prove beyond all doubt what a corrupt and twisted liar you are. I'm giddy with anticipation.
"The words don't say what the interpreters are suggesting."
Not to the extent you desperately need it to in order to make your case, but the implication is more than a gentle hint for those that have so inferred. But then, you raise the bar to whatever level works best for you, making the need for the bar superfluous.
"One can READ INTO the text whatever they want, doesn't mean it's there."
No one does that better than you, Dan. "Lev 18:22 refers only to "some forms" of homosexual behavior". That isn't something at which there is the slightest hint.
"Why do you worry about the clothes you wear or the food you eat? Consider the lilies of the field... are they not clothed more beautifully than Solomon in all his glory?!"
Not even remotely referring to the level of respect and reverence we display in our choice of clothing and behavior at Sunday service. Nice try and again, an example of you forcing meaning that isn't intended by the verse you abuse.
"Yeah, I really don't think God gives a damn about your suit and tie or my flip flops and tie dye. But then, I DO try to take Jesus fairly literally."
No. He cares about the heart, Dan. Yours says it doesn't matter what crappy clothes you wear to church. Mine says my God is worth the effort to do at least something as simple as to dress as if He's not just another punk on the corner. But hey, that's me. My God is real. Yours is fictitious.
"I am saved and live by Grace..." You are deluded and use "grace" as a license to reject that which is inconvenient or objectionable to you.
"Again, I don't think God gives a damn about your rules."
I'm pretty certain He cares about HIS rules...rules that Paul says are what teaches us the difference between sin and righteousness. But you don't need God's Will for that. You decide for yourself what pleases God or doesn't. Why should we go by what God says with regard to that? He's just the Supreme Being. Not important at all.
And that's the point, Marshall, I don't conflate YOUR rules as being God's rules. YOU say gay guys ought not get married. Not God. YOU say the clothes we wear to meetings are important, not God. YOU say this worship theory is from the text, not God.
See the difference?
Look, I don't think you all are getting what I mean by mistreating the Bible as a Rule or Rulings Book.
I'm not saying it's ONLY a rule book, that it's nothing but a book of rules. I'm saying that I believe you all treat it like a rulings book, THE rulings book. It is THE PRIMARY (only?) SOURCE for getting rulings on how to live morally and what to believe theologically. That is, after all, Sola Scriptura, is it not?
That is what I am rejecting as irrational and unbiblical. And so, when Marshall says something like "I'm pretty certain [God] cares about HIS rules..." in a conversation where we're talking about Marshall's or Craig's OPINIONS about various rules like about marriage or sexuality or gender or war or abortion, then you are acting as if YOUR HUMAN HUNCHES about those rules ARE God's rules. Which is why I keep pointing out that I do not conflate your human opinions with God's rules.
And the reason you all reach these opinions where you are so certain that your hunches are one in the same as God's rules, it seems to me, is because you are treating the Bible (somewhat haphazardly and rationally inconsistently) as a Rulings Book: You find five texts that seem TO YOU to suggest that God was offering a universal rule about all gay behavior and then, that conclusion becomes the same as "Yes, that IS what God is saying..."
The problem is...
1. You have no rationally consistent rubric for "deciding" what is and isn't a "universal rule from God to all people" beyond, "It's obvious..."
and
2. I don't think the notion of the Bible as a rulings book (ie, Sola Scriptura) is biblically or rationally consistent.
My approach (as contrasted with the rulings book approach) is that the Bible is a book of stories and we may very well learn valuable LESSONS from those stories, but learning lessons is not the same as receiving rulings.
We read of the ancient Israelites and how they were warned about living like the people in the land before them/around them, and we learn the lessons of being careful of assimilation into a less-than-Godly/healthy narrative. NOT that we ought not cut the hair on the side of our heads.
We read the stories of God "commanding" people to wipe out or enslave a people, right down to the infants, and we learn of how serious a matter it is to not walk in Godly paths of Grace... NOT that it is moral to hold slaves or kill babies in some instances. IF we lift the latter rulings, we are embracing a "rule" that is contrary to Godly paths of Grace, a biblically and rationally inconsistent reading.
And on I could go, and have gone in the past. Just trying again to try to get you to understand what I'm actually saying, because you all don't seem to be understanding.
Happy Father's Day, men.
One of the rational and biblical inconsistencies with treating the Bible as a rulings book is that you wind up with no morality. There is only What God Says to do at what God says not to do and we cannot know that perfectly, in your line of reasoning.
That is, if there is a line that says God commands people to kill babies or enslave people or sell your children or force your daughter into a marriage, then you cannot say that any of that is morally wrong... there is no morality in this review. This is not rational. Nor is it biblical.
how can one make it rational consistent and biblical case for Morality given approach? I do not see how that is possible.
Of course under your moral construct, and the dictionary definitions of morality, you can't say those things are objectively morally wrong either. You and the definers have been quite clear about the subjective nature of morality and it's being defined by societies and groups. So you can't have this both ways with a fluid subjective morality for yourself, and an objective external morality for others.
We can state that they are clearly wrong, and that is enough.
You all, on the other hand, appear to be rudderless, left with saying something like, "while it isn't wrong or immoral to cause harm in and of itself, we hold the hunch that generally speaking, God doesn't want us to harm others..."
Do you see this conundrum for you all?
As long as your standard is morality, you no objective standard to judge the actions of any group or society who have agreed on a different moral code from you. I note that you've unilaterally tried to change the discussion from morality, to right and wrong. From subjective to objective.
Perhaps, if your made up version of my beliefs even remotely resembled reality you might have a point. Unfortunately, it doesn't and you don't.
As long as your standard is morality, you no objective standard to judge the actions of any group or society who have agreed on a different moral code from you. I note that you've unilaterally tried to change the discussion from morality, to right and wrong. From subjective to objective.
I have not tried to move anything. I'm responding to your comments and questions.
The fact is, morality is not objective. We have - not you, not me, not anyone - NO objective authoritative source to definitively say, "This is moral and that is immoral." YOU appear to agree on this, am I mistaken?
If so, we agree that morality is subjective.
But, that is not to say that it's that difficult to work our way through, generally speaking. Harm is a reasonable measure that most people can generally agree upon. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Period. It's just not that difficult and most people can generally agree on at least the broad strokes of morality, which come down to Do No Harm, or Love your neighbor as yourself or other similar guidelines.
What is wrong in any of that?
As to my "made up version" of your beliefs, I don't know that I've said what your beliefs are. Perhaps you have a made up version of what I have actually said? Perhaps you're reading into my words something that isn't there?
Now, I did ASK A QUESTION about your beliefs, asking...
I'm saying that I believe you all treat it like a rulings book, THE rulings book. It is THE PRIMARY (only?) SOURCE for getting rulings on how to live morally and what to believe theologically. That is, after all, Sola Scriptura, is it not?
Which you haven't answered, yet. But asking a question is not creating a made up version of your beliefs. It is, well, asking a question and seeking clarification, saying "This is what I hear you saying about your beliefs, is that right?"
See the difference?
No, that is not an accurate version of Sola Scriptura. Just one more example of you misrepresenting something to try to force your view on it.
When you made the switch from moral/immoral to right/wrong you also tried to jump from subjective to objective.
You've put yourself in a position where you've defined a subjective morality that allows you to be "incredibly moral", while attempting to impose your beliefs about right and wrong on others. You've bitten so hard on "morality" being the definitive measure, as well as morality being both subjective and contextual. Now you want to pass judgement on the decisions/consensus that other groups/societies reach about what they believe to be moral. Just because other groups/societies make different subjective decisions about behavior doesn't make their decisions automatically wrong and yours right. In essence, you're doing what you falsely accuse us of doing, you've come up with a list of behaviors which identify you as "moral" if you engage in those works. I can't help but note that your list excludes behaviors that many consider "immoral", but which you have defended in the past (drug use, pornography, and abortion for a few examples).
Look if you want to wrap your entire moral identity in your ability to obey a few selected subjective societal rules, feel free. But don't try to move what is essentially giving in to peer pressure into a standard that gives you the ability to judge others in different societies or groups with a different (but by definition equally valid) set of moral standards.
When you made the switch from moral/immoral to right/wrong you also tried to jump from subjective to objective.
That is a fine claim, but not one representative of anything I've tried to do. Feel free to read into what I've said something I haven't, if you want, but I don't see how that helps anything.
For my part, I have remained constantly clear that I believe YOUR opinion and MY opinion about morality are subjective. Neither are authoritatively provable. I'm okay with that. Provable or not, I believe my position to be reasonable.
that is not an accurate version of Sola Scriptura. Just one more example of you misrepresenting something to try to force your view on it.
I would suggest, Craig, that you really ought to quit reading evil intent to the opinions of those who disagree with you. It just makes you seem silly.
What I said about SS:
It is THE PRIMARY (only?) SOURCE for getting rulings on how to live morally and what to believe theologically. That is, after all, Sola Scriptura, is it not?
What The Internets say about SS:
"Bible believing Christianity bases its doctrine and practice solely on the Bible." (Baptist.org)
"Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian." (GotQuestions.org)
I said that evangelicals believe that the Bible is THE ONLY source... while Baptist.org calls it the sole source and GotQuestions says "scripture alone..." Is that somehow "misrepresenting" what evangelicals believe?
I said that evangelicals believe that the Bible is the only source for getting rulings on how to live morally and what to believe theologically.
These other two places said that scripture is authoritative for "the faith and practice..." of Christians. Is that somehow "misrepresenting" what evangelicals believe?
As far as I can see, I'm just citing what evangelicals have traditionally believed in slightly different words that are saying the same thing. No intent to misrepresent, as I believe I got it quite right.
Perhaps you misspoke? It happens. Feel free to clarify, if that is something you are inclined to do.
Craig, there is just so much wrong where you are reading things into what I've said that I have not said, that it becomes very difficult to converse with you. For instance...
When you made the switch from moral/immoral to right/wrong you also tried to jump from subjective to objective.
1. I made no "switch" from morality to right/wrong. I'm using the terms interchangeably.
2. I factually did not "try" to jump from subjective to objective. I've been quite clearly consistent in saying that morality is subjective in the sense that we can't prove we hold the authoritatively "right" answer to a moral question.
These are things that I have not said that you are reading into what I said. It's not there.
You also said...
As long as your standard is morality,
Where did I say my "standard" is morality? Answer? I didn't.
That's something you are reading into what I said that simply wasn't there. I'm not even sure what you mean by that, but it's certainly not anything I've said.
You said...
It's interesting that you castigate me because you make assumptions about my interpretation on one specific commandment (without actually knowing my position, just more assumptions based on prejudice), yet you proudly refuse to acknowledge, let alone obey this command.
Where did I castigate you? What commandment?
I think you are habitually reading things into what I've said that simply aren't there. This - and opting out of direct answers to clarifying questions - makes conversations with you very difficult. Much more difficult than it need be.
Just for what it's worth.
Peace.
"And that's the point, Marshall, I don't conflate YOUR rules as being God's rules. YOU say gay guys ought not get married. Not God. YOU say the clothes we wear to meetings are important, not God. YOU say this worship theory is from the text, not God."
The difference, Dan, is that you're not honest enough or intelligent enough to accurately present our opinions in the first place, and then argue against something we haven't said. Let's review:
"I don't conflate YOUR rules as being God's rules."
But you do insist that WE do, when in fact, we're only repeating what God's rules are. I don't make up crap and say it's God's rule. Never have. For example:
"YOU say gay guys ought not get married. Not God,"
First of all, I've never said that at all. I'm quite happy to encourage "gay" guys to marry, but to women as God intends that all men who wish to marry (or indulge their sexual compulsions) should do. Paul reiterates this.
Second, I never said that God prohibits homo-marriage since there is no need, given how he abhors homosexual behavior. MY position has always been that those like yourself who suggest that God would in any way bless, condone, tolerate, celebrate or regard positively two of the same sex "marrying" each other is ludicrous in light of His prohibition against the behavior that would consummate the union. It is illogical, especially given the fact that all references to marriage in Scripture denote a male/female union and never, in all of Scripture is there so much as the slightest hint that marriage is anything but. MY position has always been that it is abjectly infantile, as well as an outright lie, that because something isn't specifically spelled out for you, as a parent would have to spell out a rule for a small child, then you can presume that Christian liberty gives you license to do whatever the hell you want, including forming unions based upon an unambiguously prohibited sexual practice.
"YOU say the clothes we wear to meetings are important, not God."
I never said God specifically mentions this specific practice (though Christ does in a parable that can imply the principle easily), but that one's choice of attire when attending Sunday service clearly indicates the level of devotion and reverence (or lack thereof in your case) one has for God.
"YOU say this worship theory is from the text, not God."
I say this "principle" is absolutely implied in the text as demonstrated by the aforementioned cited passages. What's more, one of them is actually related as a command from God.
This clarification will naturally be ignored by you due to your deceitfulness and unwillingness to adhere to that which you find inconvenient or personally objectionable and your devotion to the world over God.
"Which is why I keep pointing out that I do not conflate your human opinions with God's rules."
A far more reasonable approach would be to actually explain why our "interpretation" is false, and why your alternative explanation makes more sense. I'll take liberty in speaking for Craig and others like us that we are not so married to our "opinions" and positions that a better argument can't persuade us to think differently about what we see are unambiguous and clearly revealed rules, commands and mandates from God and whether or not any of them apply to Christians today and for all time. We are more than aware that you don't agree. We're just pining for a legitimate argument as to why. To simply say you don't agree is not enough when what we're discussing gets down to totally rejecting and/or distorting the intention and meaning of a given verse or passage. I don't know how many different ways this can be said in order to provoke you to do more than default to your standard "Nyuh uh" responses.
"The problem is...
1. You have no rationally consistent rubric for "deciding" what is and isn't a "universal rule from God to all people" beyond, "It's obvious...""
Bullshit. Aside from our own objective and reasonable understanding of what we do not find so difficult to decipher, as Craig and others have said, there are tons of resources from theologians and scholars throughout history that have provided us with that rubric. YOUR response is to pretend that it is next to impossible to know which is or isn't a universal principle. You want it and need it to be difficult in order to pretend your clearly unbiblical positions have merit or are equally valid to the truth.
Out of time. More later.
1. Yet the terms aren't interchangeable
2. Ok, except right/wrong are not subjective.
As long as you measure yourself by how "incredibly moral" you are, of course your standard is morality. It's all you've talked about in trying to justify your prideful self congratulation.
Really, your presumption about my "out of hand" rejection of a random commandment was congratulations not castigation.
Except that I've answered your direct questions, and simply read the words you wrote. Don't worry, I know how this goes. This is where you set the stage to leave the conversation all the while blaming everyone else. It's a pattern that is more and more common.
1. I made no "switch" from morality to right/wrong. I'm using the terms interchangeably.
And who gets to decide if immoral = wrong and moral = good are not interchangeable? Is that for you to decide? I think most regular people can understand when I say, "That is a moral act. It is a right way of acting..." that I am saying the same thing. Hopefully, now you, too, can understand.
2. Right/wrong are not subjective? Again, says who? Do you have the final say on what is right and wrong, when it comes to matters of morality? The Pope? Billy Graham? Who are you appealing to, for this objective and authoritative answer?
Thanks for giving me a hint to find the "out of hand" rejection of a commandment. I will be GLAD to admit a mistake and correct my claim if, indeed, you DO cut the hair on the side of your head, as God commanded in a story in ancient Israel.
But I've already asked this question and you've already dodged it. Why should I expect you to answer this time? Because you assure us you have answered all questions?
A far more reasonable approach would be to actually explain why our "interpretation" is false,
Marshall, I have done this. Over and over and over and over. I've explained why I believe my understanding of simple living makes good sense. I've explained why I disagree with your interpretation about Sola Scriptura. I've explained why I think my positions on homosexuality, what we wear to church, war/peace, on biblical interpretation, etc, etc, are the most reasonable to me and the problems I have with your positions. You keep repeating this line as if I have NOT done this. Repeatedly.
No, I CLEARLY have done this, it's what a good percentage of my blog has been dedicated to for all these years. Now, you may not find my opinion/interpretation as reasonable as yours - just like I don't find your position as reasonable, moral or biblical as mine - and that's fine. But you can't say I have not explained my positions and why I favor them.
So, why do you repeat this request?
On the theory of corporate worship (and I know you prefer to call it a principle, but it is, as a point of fact, A HUMAN THEORY, not a "principle" from God... if you prefer a Human-concocted principle, that's fine with me, I think theory is the better term), I have explained that I simply don't agree with you that the idea is advanced in the Bible. At all. Not in those words and not in other words.
Now, YOU MAY THINK, "When I read these passages, I can see where some humans can extract out this notion..." and thus, it is "biblical," TO YOU. But just because you infer this meaning out of scripture does not mean that the author implies it. It's YOUR hunch. One I disagree with.
That is explaining, at one level, why I disagree with this theory... I simply do not find it to be biblical in the least. That IS a reason to disagree with it.
Beyond that, I find this theory to diminish God into a petty little tyrant who gives a damn about what acts we do and don't do in our meetings together. Why would God care how we worship? What if someone's gift that they can give to God is a gift of interpretive dance, is that something God would refuse because it isn't in this god's list of rules for worship? How about rap, or heavy metal music or Shakespearean-style sonnets? None of these are listed as options in the Bible... do you really think it's reasonable to reject these out of hand because "god" might reject them? Why would God do that?
I just don't find it a biblical, plausible or grace-full theory and for these reasons, I reject it - at least for me - as not being a good theory. But I am fine with you or others holding it... just don't insist upon it.
Further, in one of Jesus' stories, he talks about those Pharisees who would add rules to followers that only serve to burden people, NOT because they are godly or rational or scriptural. To me, this theory is like that - a silly, irrational, unbiblical burden. I simply don't believe it.
Now, that IS a rational explanation as to why I disagree with this human theory. You may disagree with the explanation, but it IS an explanation.
RE: Explain why your interpretation is "false..."
I explain why I disagree with things on matters that can't be proven. Just as you do.
In these cases, it's not a matter that you can explain why my opinion is "false..." only why you disagree with it. Same for me and your opinions.
Now, if we were speaking of what the text literally says, and someone was saying a text wrong, THEN we can speak of "false" or not... But when we're merely speaking of unprovable opinions on best interpretations of texts with no author present to verify, then we're speaking in terms of agree or disagree... is it reasonable or not reasonable TO ME... but not "false..."
By way of clarification.
For instance, I can say that a justification of this human theory about worship is literally and factually not IN that text, nor does the text demand that theory in any way... but I can't say you don't infer or read into the text something like this theory and say it's false. I can only say it is literally not there, as is the case in this theory.
"Marshall, I have done this. Over and over and over and over. I've explained why I believe my understanding of simple living makes good sense."
No you haven't. I've always insisted you do this with Scripture, upon which I base all my positions. Instead, in the vast majority of cases you simply try to assert what your alleged "reason" dictates must be true in your opinion. Not good enough. In those rare times where you've risked citing Scripture, you've misused and abused Scripture and left it at that, without any response to explanations about why your interpretation is a misuse or abuse of Scripture. I refer once again to that section of Leviticus from above, wherein God speaks of the other nations who engaged in the practices Lev 18 prohibits. It's a point to which you've never responded and which is a clear indication that the behaviors therein, particularly homosexual behavior, are always and forever displeasing to God and therefore a universal prohibition. Don't give you your pat bullshit response ("well, that's your hunch and you're certainly welcome to it").
You also fail to support your childish position that somehow, without any Scriptural indication that it might be so, verse 22 refers only to "some form" of homosexual behavior. A clear case of injecting meaning you need to have exist. What's more, you've never given an explanation for why if it is so it would not also be so for most, if not all, of the rest of the prohibited behaviors in the chapter.
No consistency, no logic, no nothing but your desire that it be so for the sake of your homosexual/lesbian friends.
I could list other topics for which you've also failed to fully support your heresies and abuses of Scripture, but this one still stands as the most obvious and egregious example.
Gotta go. More later.
No you haven't. I've always insisted you do this with Scripture
and this is why, on my blog, I refer to this approach to the Bible as hellish and insane. I have as a point of fact, POINTED TO SCRIPTURE and said that clearly, the language you're advocating is not in there. As a point of fact, it isn't. YOU ARE EXTRAPOLATING OUT an opinion, which is fine, but it is not in the Bible.
Pointing out "That does not say that in Scripture" IS USING SCRIPTURE. If someone says, "The Bible teaches us to marry monkeys and adopt penguins," I can say, "NO, as a point of fact, it simply doesn't..." and that IS using scripture to make my case. Because the "case" is not IN scripture.
I call it hellish and insane because you appear wholly unable to see that I have done this repeatedly. You appear to be blinded and that leads to a graclessness and an overly emotional irrationality that is just difficult to deal with. What does one do when one can't see what is and isn't there?
Would it help for me to say, "If you look at Genesis 1, verses 10 - 35, you will see there is no mention of Worship Guideline Theory (or whatever they called it). And then, if you turn over to Matthew, Chapter 6 in its entirety and the first half of chapter 7, you will see it isn't mentioned there, either..." and keep doing that until I've gone through the whole Bible and pointed out that the theory does not exist literally in the Bible?
No consistency, no logic, no recognition of reality. What can a fella do?
"I have as a point of fact, POINTED TO SCRIPTURE and said that clearly, the language you're advocating is not in there."
But you haven't pointed to the citations offered in support of the principle and explained why they do not imply the principle...unless I missed it, which is possible. I'll wait here while you copy and paste that explanation here.
"Pointing out "That does not say that in Scripture"..."
...is just your standard "Nyuh uh" response. That doesn't cut it.
"What does one do when one can't see what is and isn't there?"
Been wondering the same thing given the several citations offered in support of the principle do indeed imply the principle of regulated worship.
I also have been wondering the same thing every time you repeat the same abject lie about Lev 18:22 referring to "some forms" of homosexual behavior when there is absolutely no mention whatsoever that it in any way possible makes any distinction of any kind with reference to the context or scenario in which the abomination takes place. Hypocrisy much? Of course you do.
"Would it help for me to say..."
No, it would not help at all, given you're simply now repeating what you've been doing all along: "Nyuh uh! It is NOT!" Rather than explaining why it is NOT implying how God wishes to be worshiped, and thus why we might want to consider the manner in which we do as well.
So yeah, go through each citation in detail, considering the full context from which those citations appear, and provide something akin to an intelligent and reasoned argument against the inferences of those who insist they establish a principle to which a name has then been attached. THAT'S what a fella, even one as deceitful and wicked as you, can do.
If it would help, Marshall, I could copy and paste each line from those passages and then say, "And THAT doesn't say anything about a Worship Rule Theory..." but perhaps you can use your imagination?
You're already doing that, Dan. You know...you're default "Nyuh uh" argument. But that does nothing to explain why anyone would be wrong to suggest that the cited verses suggest a principle (not a "theory") to which a name has been attached. Those cited verses do far more to suggest the principle in question than anything you've ever (not) presented to insist Lev 18:22 refers only to "some forms" of homosexual behavior, or that marriage might be something two of the same sex can pretend to be in and expect God would bless it. Said another way, you offer nothing from Scripture to support what you believe about a variety of things, and pretend others who cite actual verses to support their positions have nothing from Scripture.
With that in mind, what we see so often and so clearly is that for that which you prefer, no Scriptural support need exist. For that which you oppose, no Scriptural support will be acknowledged as existing, even though it clearly does. Just admit it, Dan. You've made up a god in your own image and call him "God", or "Jesus".
I don't cite scripture to "prove" my opinions because that is not my way of proving things, it's your way. I believe that approach to address moral questions is a bastardization and abuse of scripture... It misses the point of lessons found in stories found in the Bible. It is a Pharisaical, not Christian, approach to morality.
Why would you demand someone do things your way when they think your way is mistaken?
Put another way, would you ask a Jew to use the New Testament to defend their views? Would you ask a Muslim to use the Bible to defend Islamic teaching?
If not, then why would you ask a Grace-approach Christian to embrace or use a legalistic approach to explain their positions?
"I don't cite scripture to "prove" my opinions because that is not my way of proving things..."
Yeah. Why would anyone use God's Word revealed to support a position on Christian behavior? Christ says to obey God and to remember all He taught us, but to refer to Scripture to find out just how to do that is a bastardization and abuse of Scripture??? What you're saying is, in essence, that it is a bastardization and abuse of the revealed will of God. Well done. You continue to prove your "Christianity" is a farce and a fraud.
There is no way to determine morality without referring to that which teaches what morality is. It is idiotic and an abject lie.
"Put another way, would you ask a Jew to use the New Testament to defend their views?"
No. But I would insist he use the Torah to support his positions.
"Would you ask a Muslim to use the Bible to defend Islamic teaching?"
No. But I would insist he use the koran to support his positions.
In the same way, I'm insisting that one who claims to be a Christian (that would be you...laughably) show where in Scripture does there exist support for the unchristian positions you take. I don't want to hear lame crap about what you believe being only your opinion and that you don't insist you know God's will perfectly. I want something that shows what you believe is compelled by what Scripture teaches, be it OT Mosaic law or NT teaches of Christ or His apostles in their epistles.
Here's a challenge for you: cite something that explains what the hell a "Grace-approach Christian" is and how such an approach is in line with God's will? What does it mean? How does it justify rejecting the clear teaching of Scripture where that teaching prohibits what you want to do? It's a bullshit and meaningless term for which there is not only no Biblical support, but no way does it not represent YOUR version of inferring a principle upon which you've pasted a name that appeals to you. Thus, it stands as another example in a long list of hypocrisies for which you've become quite famous.
Finally, you falsely accuse me of "legalism" simply because unlike you, I do not reject teachings that I find inconvenient or uncomfortable. I am not legalistic simply because I don't adopt a self-serving, holy-sounding BS philosophy lie "Grace-approach Christianity", which is nothing more than license to do whatever I find personally appealing. Thus, it stands as yet another in a long list of lies for which you've become quite famous.
Why would anyone use God's Word revealed to support a position on Christian behavior?
Support a position? Sure. No problem.
Like this:
"In the stories of ancient Israel in the Bible, we see that there are stories where God appears to command Israel to wipe out entire nations, down to the infants, where God commands the enslavement of survivors, where God issues commands allowing for selling one's children into slavery and daughters into forced marriages. But then, later in the OT, and on into the NT, we see repeated calls for respect for people, for standing against shedding innocent blood, for basic ideas of human rights and liberties.
As we see in these other stories an ancient respect for human rights, so, too, reason supports the notion that we ought not harm innocent bystanders, that we ought to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us. Human rights, religious liberties, basic mutual respect for all of humanity, not just those like us... these are reasonable ideas and we can find support for such behavior throughout all of history and across nearly all cultures..."
To lend SUPPORT to a reasonable moral idea? Sure, we can do that. But to lift out a RULING on a behavior because "A line in the Bible says so..."? No, that's not reasonable nor is it biblical. We do it because it's right.
cite something that explains what the hell a "Grace-approach Christian" is and how such an approach is in line with God's will?
Clearly, one of the lessons of the Bible is that the rules-based legalism of the Pharisees, of those in the Early Church who tried to push rules off on others... that this is a bad idea spoken of in these NT stories. Beyond that, reasonably speaking, if God is a God of love and of Justice, if we are saved by God's grace, then reasonably speaking, we ought to embrace that grace by which we are saved in our own lives and how we treat/interact with others.
A Grace-approach Christian is one who lives by Grace, NOT by insisting "If you disagree with MY opinion on this behavior or that interpretation, then you are not saved, you hate God and the Bible..."
What does it mean? How does it justify rejecting the clear teaching of Scripture where that teaching prohibits what you want to do?
Not rejecting the "clear teaching" of Scripture. I'm rejecting your interpretation.
But then, I don't conflate your opinions with God's Word.
I can repeat that as many times as you say "the clear teaching of Scripture" when what you're talking about is your opinion.
In the stories of ancient Israel in the Bible, we see absolutely no stories that suggest that God intends that anyone
---"to wipe out entire nations, down to the infants"
---"the enslavement of survivors"
---the "selling one's children into slavery and daughters into forced marriages"
...as a command by which believers and children of God should live their lives, as if a universal command such as the prohibition against murder, theft, lying, adultery, and a host of sexual behaviors listed in Leviticus 18. To even suggest that there exists many people so stupid as to believe that stories of God using the people of ancient Israel to exact His punishment against wicked nations stands as muslim-like decree to all believers to perpetrate the same on anyone is just an example of your willingness to lie in order to protect your craven and unchristian positions on human behaviors you wish God didn't prohibit.
In the meantime, without ever having to read a word of the New Testament, we see repeated calls for respect for people, for standing against shedding innocent blood, for basic ideas of human rights and liberties.
"Reason" has been used to support slavery, still does in many parts of the world, and for the vast majority of human history was not seen as a moral problem, except by poorly treated slaves (well treated slaves would not necessarily agree). "Reason", especially what passes for reason in your fantasy world, does not and never will equate to morality. You confuse morality for fashionable behaviors upon which the label "moral" is bestowed subjectively by people like you. Without God encouraging or prohibiting a given behavior, there is no "morality" at all. It doesn't matter how many people "vote" to declare one behavior moral, and another immoral or why unless that reason is because God finds the behavior either pleasing to Him or displeasing.
Said again, there is no "reason" that makes treating others with respect a moral proposition. What should anyone care how others are treated so long as others don't treat one badly? That person may "reason" that how he is treated determines what is or isn't moral, not how that person treats others. On what basis can you insist that person is wrong about what constitutes moral behavior? Because millions disagree? So what?
It also doesn't matter how many non-Christian religions feel about a given behavior. That non-Christians also find theft to be a bad thing doesn't mean that theft is immoral. It only means that non-Christians agree, and also agree with the notion of labeling theft an immoral act.
If you do not base your standards of behavior on the teachings of God as clearly revealed in Scripture, you aren't doing anything, because it actually is right or moral, but only because you have decided it is based on non-Christian reasons...that is, not Christ-based reasons. You put the opinion of the world over the teachings of Christ. This doesn't surprise me to hear you once again pay tribute to the world over God, as you do it so often. But the irony is that you aren't making your case, but making mine with regard to your false claim of being a Christian.
So, are the commandments that you think are "clearly revealed," perfectly revealed? Or does one need to use their human reasoning to sort things out? Is the Bible a perfectly revealed rulings book where there is no question on how to interpret various rules, you just look it up and it's settled? Or does one use their reasoning and thus, are right back to the same place that I suggested: We use our reasoning?
The fact of the matter, dear man, is that we ALL use our reasoning to sort out morality. Whether that is assigning a "universal rule" status to a vague, indeterminate, whimsically-chosen and changing list of verses lifted from Bible stories or using "common sense morality" and recognizing the Golden Rule (which is a universal rule found in all or nearly all religions), we use our reason to sort out morality.
Where am I mistaken?
Or do you abandon reasoning on matters of morality?
So you have it backwards, because you are backwards. To use Scripture to find support for, say, the wrongness of beating your ass is backward. Actual Christians begin with God's word and say, "No. I will not beat Dan's ass, regardless of how much good it will do him, because Scripture teaches me that it is wrong." The mere beating of your ass is not wrong simply because it causes you pain and embarrassment. That's merely your hard luck. It's wrong because God says it is. Even if I feel personally that beating your ass is not nice, that's neither here nor there compared to the Will of God, which stands as the determining factor of all that is or isn't moral.
"Clearly, one of the lessons of the Bible is that the rules-based legalism of the Pharisees..."
Not good enough. Be more specific. You don't even understand the passage you have in mind. Bring it specifically and I'll tell you why you're so horribly and idiotically wrong.
"...if we are saved by God's grace..."
This is incomplete, as you have been shown many times in the past. While one can find "saved by Grace" standing alone, it most often is part of a larger truth...that we are saved by God's grace through Christ's death/shed blood/sacrifice on the cross, etc. But even worse is this bit:
"...how we treat/interact with others..."
Based on what, exactly? Your reason? Your reason is totally faulty and clearly influenced by the world. Scripture holds the key for how that "treat/interact with others" should manifest...what it should look like. And rejecting "rules" you find inconvenient, both for yourself and in the enabling of those who indulge in prohibited behavior does NOT show that you have any idea how your non-Biblical "embrace grace" should look. It's just something you say. It's totally empty without somehow reflecting the clear teachings of Scripture with regard to human behavior.
"A Grace-approach Christian is one who lives by Grace, NOT by insisting "If you disagree with MY opinion on this behavior or that interpretation, then you are not saved, you hate God and the Bible...""
And still again you lie outright. I NEVER insist that disagreeing with my "opinion" means anything at all, since I don't speak of what my opinion is on any given behavior. I point directly to Scripture and what GOD says about it. Given that He is the Supreme Being, He gets to decide what is or isn't moral behaviors. You reject His position on the subject in favor of your laughable "reason" and the influence of the world. That's not Grace at all, but putting your own sorry ass above the Will of God.
"I can repeat that as many times as you say "the clear teaching of Scripture" when what you're talking about is your opinion."
You repeat it as many times as you think you must in order to avoid having to deal with the elephant in the living room, which is that you have no Biblically supported alternative "interpretation" for that which is clearly and unambiguously stated in Scripture. Said another way, you simply assert that what I've repeated directly from Scripture, is merely my opinion. I repeat verbatim, and to you it's my opinion. I don't say "When God says, 'Thou shalt not murder', what He means is...something that isn't murder.'" I merely repeat that He has indeed said, "Thou shalt not murder" and thus, we shouldn't murder. I don't play this bullshit game about..."Well, it doesn't necessarily mean ALL forms of murder" as if there is more than one. That's YOUR childish game. If wish to make a case that the prohibition means more than a simply reading of the RULE suggests, you have yet to make it using Scripture alone. In fact, you don't even come close. Grace? Crap. You have no idea.
"So, are the commandments that you think are "clearly revealed," perfectly revealed?"
I won't play this game of you assuming the authority to set the goalposts as you need them to be, then changing them later. There is nothing ambiguous about any of the rules for living, the commandments if you prefer, surrounding the bulk of conversations between us. I've used the example of the "STOP" sign several times in the past. Most, if not all, commands in Scripture are as easy to understand. Only a selfish and childish fraud of a Christian would suppose that maybe that Stop sign means only "some form" of stopping, or stopping sometimes in certain situations.
I don't use reason to get around the clear and unambiguous commands of God. I don't NEED to reason out when some OT laws do not apply while others do, since I'm not trying, like you, to find a loophole through which I can force my immoral friends or even my own self. There's simply no big mystery that requires the great deliberation you insist in required to figure out the typical Biblical position on human behaviors. Indeed, I don't believe you've ever even tried to present such a tricky command about human behaviors in the first place. You simply pretend that deep and serious reasoning is required to know what is expected of us by that "STOP" sign.
You don't use reason to, for instance, opt to...
NOT cut the hair on the side of your head as is commanded in the OT, or
to decide that slavery IS always immoral, even if it is practiced by Biblical characters and even commanded by God to at least some people in the Bible, or
to decide that Jesus was NOT speaking of some form of pacifism when he uttered his many teachings about turning the other cheek and loving the enemy, or
to decide that Jesus did NOT mean we should not invest in banks when he told his followers to not store up treasures in heaven?
If you didn't use your reason, on what basis do you abandon the "clear" teachings in each of these instances?
Of course you use your reasoning, or at least try to.
Are the commandments perfectly revealed, so that all one has to do is look up a topic in the bible and they can find a perfectly clear, unmistakable ruling on that topic?
I am not understanding your answer. How about a clear yes or no?
So, in your last comment, Dan, you prove you are purposely conflating "reasoning in loopholes to allow the prohibited" with "reasoning out teachings of Scripture for better understanding". You're doing the former. I do the latter.
Thus, absolutely "YES", the commandments are perfectly revealed. Of this there is no question. That which seems tricky can be resolved through honest, objective study, even if outside sources from experts and scholars might be called upon for the purpose. But as they can be determined, they are thus perfectly revealed. If there exists any part of Scriptural teaching which throughout history remains indecipherable, then perhaps we can say the commands are not perfectly revealed. Are you suggesting such teachings actually exist in Scripture? Which are those?
By all means, Marshall, please demonstrate with some data that Commandments are perfectly revealed. Or are you willing to concede that you can't prove this claim?
Of course you're silly claims about my intentions are false. I'm sure you read my words and reached what you thought was a reasonable conclusion, but it remains false.
If you can't read my words and reach a factual conclusion, on what basis should we trust your interpretations of the Bible?
I need to prove commandments are perfectly revealed to you? Really? Are you that insipid? Which one do you have a problem understanding, and why is your failure or unwillingness to understand it an indictment of the perfection of the commandment?
At the same time, you fail to express yourself in a manner that successfully conveys your intent and meaning. There's no problem with my conclusions based completely upon YOUR words. But far worse is your implication that you regard the meaning of your words is as perfectly revealed as the Will of God in Scripture. Arrogant much?
The Will of God is perfectly revealed because the One revealing it is perfect. You? Not so much.
You need to support claims if you wish for the claim to be taken seriously. What is insipid about that?
The thing is you all wish to interpret the Bible, saying, "this rule is literally from God to all people that rule is not." as if your interpretation is infallible and you speak for God. who says that interpretation is literally correct? On what basis do you make this rule Universal and that will not?
The reasonable question being put to you is what does perfect rule book mean? does that mean people cannot possibly misunderstand the stories in it and rules found within the stories? If so would that not also mean that there is no debate about anything... That it's perfectly understood?
These are only reasonable questions. that you don't answer the questions and responses Dead with insults and name-calling gives an indication that perhaps you aren't able to defend your claims. Which is fine, just be honest about it.
"You need to support claims if you wish for the claim to be taken seriously. What is insipid about that?"
It has been you questioning the clarity of Scripture, that God's Word must be "reasoned" out in order to understand, as if two can come to two different "interpretations" that are equally possible or valid, and that this is due to a lack of perfection in how God's Will has been revealed. Put another way, it is YOU who has made claim that requires support in order to be taken seriously.
"The thing is you all wish to interpret the Bible, saying, "this rule is literally from God to all people that rule is not." as if your interpretation is infallible and you speak for God."
No. That is your deceitful charge, but it is not reflective of reality. You again suggest that there is some special skill necessary to understand God's Will as it is revealed in Scripture...that because we acknowledge the truth about the meaning of a given command, teaching or story then we are taking liberties somehow, or "speaking for God" as opposed to merely repeating what He has clearly said.
Worse, and more deceitful, is the tactic of speaking in generalities rather than pointing to a specific command, mandate or rule and proving our understanding is flawed in any way, or that there truly exists a legitimate alternative understanding compelling enough to consider as a distinct possibility.
"who says that interpretation is literally correct?"
All honest people not looking to push a personal agenda. If you know any students of Scripture who fit this description, check with them.
"On what basis do you make this rule Universal and that will not?"
I'm quite certain I've answered this question numerous times over the years. Maybe you should take notes.
"The reasonable question being put to you is what does perfect rule book mean?"
You mean "The reasonable question NOW being put to you is what does perfect rule book mean?" since this stands as the first time you've ever actually asked the question.
But to answer, the rules come from a perfect God (the One in the Bible...not the one you worship) and thus His rules are perfect. What's hard to understand about this?
Further, they are laid out in a manner that can be understood by any who honestly seek to understand, either directly or through the help of other honest people if a seeker of truth lacks the intellect to do it on his own.
BUT, should one fail to understand, it is typical of someone like you to suppose there is just as likely a possibility that the failure is in the rule and how it is revealed rather than simply the limitations of the person seeking to learn the truth.
Aside from that, debate is not a problem. The debater might be, such as in your case, who chooses to avoid a true exchange or deflects from the point at hand.
In the meantime, I've never failed to defend my claims. But as Craig has found, and has so many others, you pretend otherwise when what you receive is not what you want...which is truth and truthful responses. Said another way, honesty isn't a problem on this side of the divide, but you're too much a liar to admit it.
It has been you questioning the clarity of Scripture
I have not. Look again at my words. You're reading in to what I've written something that I have not said.
that God's Word must be "reasoned" out in order to understand
Indeed, we MUST use our reasoning to read and interpret anything. How do you propose to read and understand if you don't use your reasoning.
And indeed, you DO use your reasoning. You don't read the text, "pluck out your eye" and then pluck out your eye. You use your reasoning to understand that it's not a literal command.
You don't read the text "don't store up treasures on earth" and take it literally. You interpret it to mean something else, NOT literal. That is using your reasoning.
But then, we've had this discussion repeatedly. What am I gaining by repeating myself?
"I have not. Look again at my words."
Looking at your words informs my conclusions about what you mean. You don't like the conclusions? Choose your words more carefully. By suggesting or questioning the perfection of God's revelation, you imply His revelation is not clear.
"Indeed, we MUST use our reasoning to read and interpret anything."
If this was a reflection of what you truly do, I might be in agreement. But as you have a history of abusing Scripture to force meaning that the text itself does not imply, it seems fairly clear that your notion of "reasoning" differs from mine.
"And indeed, you DO use your reasoning. You don't read the text, "pluck out your eye" and then pluck out your eye."
Typical. You again employ your common tactic of choosing something that does not in any way reflect the type of verse that is at the heart of our disagreements. You choose hyperbole as if a legitimate example of the types of verses you abuse to suit your preferences. More deceit from you.
"You don't read the text "don't store up treasures on earth" and take it literally."
Now you're taking and passage over which we've debated and are perverting the debate itself. I don't think you have an honest bone in your body.
My words, Marshall, tell you literally and specifically, "I'm not questioning the clarity of Scripture or commandments. I'm questioning why some humans would take them literally." Those are words that I've said. Repeatedly. So, GIVEN THAT reality, then an honest man can reasonably conclude, "Okay, so he has these other words where it SOUNDS LIKE TO ME that he's saying he questions Scripture or God... but he's telling me that isn't his point, so I can rule that out. What am I to make of his words then...?" and proceed from there.
Interpreting the less-than-clear through the clear.
See how that works?
You again employ your common tactic of choosing something that does not in any way reflect the type of verse that is at the heart of our disagreements.
It's not a tactic. It's establishing a principle. The principle is:
WE all use our reasoning to sort out meaning of biblical texts.
We establish that by finding verses that you do not take literally. You reason away (and in some cases, reasonably so) a literal meaning USING YOUR REASONING and figure in USING YOUR REASONING an alternative meaning.
You agree with this principle, correct?
From there, we can reason out, "Well, some people think that there are rules in the Bible that are literally from God, and literally universal in nature. BUT, not all the rules in the stories in the Bible are that way. How do we know which are which...?"
The answer to THAT question is that we use our reasoning.
So, even if there are verses that you hold the hunch should be taken as literal universal laws from God, you USED YOUR REASONING to reach that conclusion.
In the same way, I used my reasoning to say, "No way is that a literal teaching from God... for one thing, it would make God a contradictory and whimsical God and would establish that there is no such thing as a reasonable moral code, just what this whimsical god wishes on a given day for a given people..."
In other words, we're both using our reasoning.
There is nothing spectacular or unusual about this claim, it's just reality.
"My words, Marshall, tell you literally and specifically, "I'm not questioning the clarity of Scripture or commandments. I'm questioning why some humans would take them literally." Those are words that I've said."
If those were the only words you've ever typed, you might have a defense against the charge. Unfortunately, you typed so very many more that belie those words. Should I ignore the millions of other words in order to make it easier for you to pass off this quote as the truth? I think not.
Frankly, it's no different than stating one thing and doing the opposite, except that in this case, the "doing the opposite" is a statement of some kind as well. It's also known as "talking out both sides of your mouth". Or "lying".
Gotta go. More later.
Should I ignore the millions of other words in order to make it easier for you to pass off this quote as the truth? I think not.
If you are misunderstanding the "millions" of other words, then yes, you should ignore those understandings. The thing is, Marshall, we're speaking of my opinion and I know what my opinion is. Now, I can always be mistaken in my opinions, but I'm not lying. That would be an example of a false and unsupported claim.
So, to help you better understand my actual position, I'm not saying that laws found in Scripture are imperfect or invalid, I'm saying using the term "perfect" to describe text is useless and inappropriate. A text is only as "right" as the person reading it, even IF it was intended to be a universal ruling of some sort... and of course, interpreting the text AS a universal ruling is dependent upon some human, and therefore imperfect, interpretation.
"Perfect" or "flawless" or "inerrant" to describe text just doesn't make sense, rationally speaking. You no doubt agree that a good text interpreted wrongly does not make the interpretation "inerrant" or "perfect," right?
It gets back to that old question... we're BOTH using/reading the same text and we sometimes come to differing opinions on how best to interpret it. On what basis do we say one interpretation is the One Right Interpretation? On whose authority? The one making the claim? Seems a bit self-serving and circular, as opposed to rational and objective.
All of which is not to say that I think it is a herculean or impossible task of reasonably understanding the Bible. I don't. Clearly, the early stories in at least Genesis are mythic in nature, it seems obvious to me and I (and many, many others) have no problem recognizing that. For instance.
The issue is not that I'm saying it's difficult to understand. Rather, I'm acknowledging that even though various texts and teachings seem "obvious" to very many students of the Bible, the reality is that people in good faith disagree about what is and isn't obvious. While it is clear to many that Genesis = myth, that slavery, forced marriage, total opposition to homosexuality, killing children in war, denying rights to women, etc, etc are great wrongs, clearly condemned in biblical stories and just reasonably so, at the same time, many others in good faith reach entirely opposite opinions. And so it is true on so many other questions of morality, theology and biblical understanding across the board.
So, it is not saying "This is hard or impossible to understand" a teaching/moral truth to recognize that, in the real world, people of good faith honestly reach differing opinions. And that's okay, as long as we don't default to condemning the others' character with slander attacks and irrational and unsupported false claims and just recognize that disagreements happen. Thus it has always been.
Just a quick note/question:
So, Dan, YOU'RE saying that whether or not a text is perfect is based upon the ability of the idiot reading it being able to understand it? Nonsense. It is perfect "regardless" of your ability to understand it. Your stupidity doesn't matter, especially when there are adults available to explain it to you.
Gotta go. More later.
No. I'm saying "perfect" is a meaningless term when one is speaking of text.
Perfect, inerrant, flawless... these words don't mean anything when dealing with a text where we can't get an authoritative clarification.
Now, "Factual," or "Literally factual...," that means something. One can say that Genesis creation story is literally factual and then we can deal with the claim. (And the claim may be a false claim, as in that case, but at least it means something)...
Nonsense. You're still basing your opinion on the ability of the reader. I don't see much of Scripture that is mysterious, ambiguous or difficult to understand. I see at once the flaws in how you use Scripture to defend unchristian positions you hold. And none of this suggests my own abilities are flawless. Only that they don't need to be to understand what God's Will is as revealed in Scripture, as well as how you bastardize and abuse Scripture to create your own fantasy world and your own god that resembles the One True God just enough to claim yours is Him.
BTW, you (especially) can't "deal" with the claim that the Genesis story is factual because you have no way (nor does anyone else) to go back and prove it one way or the other. But as you do, you reject it using whatever means available to you, including presuming the ability of mankind is god-like enough to provide you with certainty.
Fine. Tell me then, how do you define perfect or inerrant as you are using it?
And before you say, "Without error..." keep in mind that you don't take every line woodenly literal, as if it were without error. You don't heed all the OT laws, you don't take Jesus' command to not store up treasures literally, etc. You interpret, reasoning, "Oh, this OT law was ceremonial and specific to Israel, it's not a universal rule..." even though that is no where in the Bible. You REASON your way to that understanding.
Which is fine and right. But the point is, if it's without error but that command from God is not to be taken literally as universal, then you are saying it's without error, IF PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD.
Which is why the understanding of the reader is an important question and why, since we have no authoritative source to give a ruling on every possible biblical teaching/interpretation, it's sort of a meaningless adjective to say "it's without error..." It's without error IF properly understood AND we have no one to settle the matter on what is and isn't properly understood.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Yeah, I do. You're saying that if you set the terms for how one defines "perfect", then you have a better shot at maintaining the ambiguity you need to assume the liberty to reject what you don't like in Scripture.
"And before you say, "Without error..." keep in mind that you don't take every line woodenly literal, as if it were without error."
Whether I take any part of the Scripture "woodenly literal" or not doesn't enter into it. Fortunately, there is no reason why I should take any given line of your choosing "woodenly literal" in order help you make your unholy case.
"You don't heed all the OT laws..."
I'm not required to do so. And that's from a "woodenly literal" reading of Scripture.
"...you don't take Jesus' command to not store up treasures literally..."
Sure I do. I just don't ignore the entire context in which that encouragement exists in order to support a socialist agenda.
""Oh, this OT law was ceremonial and specific to Israel, it's not a universal rule..." even though that is no where in the Bible"
It IS in the Bible. It's just not under a heading that satisfies you...wording that you demand...in order to rationalize pretending God's will no longer applies when you find it inconvenient.
"You REASON your way to that understanding."
To the extent that I see words on a page and know what they mean, and the way they are arranged in sentences means something specific and unambiguous, yes. But to imply that there is some great mystery I must labor to unpack, no.
"...then you are saying it's without error, IF PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD."
No. I'm saying it's perfect. I'm also saying that it isn't hard to properly understand it, nor was intended to be. I'm saying you want it to be something that can't possibly be easy to understand because then you couldn't pretend you see something others don't, when the fact is you don't see it either...you just want what you want.
So yes, I do clearly understand what you are saying, even though you won't admit it to yourself, which is the first step to your recovery. You are saying that ambiguity is essential in maintaining the façade that you're "opinion" is valid or as valid as anyone other. This gives you the liberty to believe what you want rather than worrying about believing what and as you should.
So, just to perhaps save some time and to lay out the problem you all are having (from my perspective):
1. The text, you argue, is "perfect" or "without error."
2. But neither you nor I take the text fully literally. We all recognize there are metaphors, temporal rules, imagery, etc, mixed in with somewhat factual stories.
3. Thus, at the best, the text is "without error" if and only if it is properly understood.
4. This begs the question: who decides what is and isn't "properly understood..."?
5. At best, we could all here agree God, decides, but the fact is, God isn't offering us definitive authoritative clarification on questions of disputed interpretations.
6. So, one could argue, ONE DAY, when we're all in heaven, God will let us know, "Yes, Trabue's right about that one, but mistaken on this one and Marshall sorta got that one, but didn't take that one literally enough..." That is, one day we will have an authoritative answer and yes, one given interpretation may well be definitively right and the other wrong...
7. ...But right now, we simply have no way of affirming whose interpretation is the "right" one, so we have human opinions that are unprovable and imperfect. Which isn't to say that one day we might say, "Hey, Dan actually IS right on that one!" but just to acknowledge that right now, we have no way to prove who is and isn't right.
8. Now, some can counter, "But it's simply not generally that hard to figure out!" and we both may well agree with that sentiment... BUT we hold opposite opinions. "It's just not that hard to figure out... Genesis is clearly metaphorical/mythical in nature..." Dan says, while Marshall or Glenn might argue the opposite. So, we each think the interpretation is "obvious," but still we disagree, in spite of how "clear" or "obvious" we may believe, in our opinion, it is. It remains an unprovable opinion.
9. Thus, a text being "perfect" or "without error" is a meaningless term unless we have some way of authoritatively saying which specific interpretation of a text is perfect or without error.
See?
Now, to deal with your last mess...
You're saying that if you set the terms for how one defines "perfect", then you have a better shot at maintaining the ambiguity you need to assume the liberty to reject what you don't like in Scripture.
Nope. Quite literally never said that, quite literally don't think that. Quite literally, the most ridiculous and unsupported claim in the world. (okay, that last one may not be quite literally, but still...)
"You don't heed all the OT laws..."
I'm not required to do so. And that's from a "woodenly literal" reading of Scripture.
The law about cutting the hair on the side of your head... that was given from God to God's people and it was never rescinded. YOU REASONED OUT an explanation that lets you create an imaginary category of "ceremonial" laws that were temporal. One does not get that from a woodenly literal reading of the Bible.
But by all means, support this claim. Where is the text that says "the rule about haircuts for men is not universal..." or words to that effect?
I'm saying it's perfect.
Okay. WHICH interpretation of the text is perfect?
Here, here is a biblical text:
When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand.
What is perfect about that? Are you saying that women who touch men's genitals in a fight should have their hand cut off? That is literally what it says. Are you taking that passage woodenly literal and consider it perfect?
Or this one...
‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor.
“‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.
Are you saying that it is morally wrong to do what nearly EVERY employer in the US does and hold back wages overnight? Because that is literally what it says. If that is "perfect" and "inerrant" then I suppose you support daily pay and will call anything else immoral?
Or do you interpret that to NOT be a universal law (even though the text doesn't say that)?
You'll have to explain how a verse can be "perfect" by itself, without an interpretation, because as far as I see, it is only text. The bible itself makes no claims whatsoever that each text in the Bible is perfect or without error, so why would you make this extrabiblical (and presumably imperfect?) claim?
'm also saying that it isn't hard to properly understand it, nor was intended to be. I'm saying you want it to be something that can't possibly be easy to understand because then you couldn't pretend you see something others don't, when the fact is you don't see it either...you just want what you want.
Again, quite literally NOT what I'm saying. Quite clearly, the OPPOSITE of what I believe. I'm not saying it's hard to properly understand it. I'm saying that people of good will do, in fact, disagree about interpretations and meanings and no matter how "obvious" it seems to you (or me) we neither of us have any way to prove we're right by using the text alone. Just as a point of reality.
"1. The text, you argue, is "perfect" or "without error.""
More like, I state it as a fact.
"2. But neither you nor I take the text fully literally."
Which neither:
a. is in any way relevant to the perfection or inerrancy of the text, nor
b. is likely that we regard "taking the text literally" in quite the same way.
"3. Thus, at the best, the text is "without error" if and only if it is properly understood."
Not at all. It is without error regardless of you ability or willingness to properly understand it. Said another way, it's not the fault of the text if you're an idiot.
"4. This begs the question: who decides what is and isn't "properly understood..."?"
Which begs the question: why do you constantly put the whole of Scripture on trial in order to avoid defending the few (possibly many) areas you refuse to accept as the Will of God? But a more general answer to your question would be: thousands of years of scholarship.
"5. At best, we could all here agree God, decides, but the fact is, God isn't offering us definitive authoritative clarification on questions of disputed interpretations."
This assumes the issues most commonly on the table between us are those that are not clearly delineated in Scripture in the first place. What's more, as you fail to get specific with the flaws you like to pretend exist in the so-called "disputed" interpretations, as you also fail to describe clearly alternative interpretations you prefer and why they truly are more likely, the only conclusion your "opinions" provoke are simply along the lines of "I don't like that, I like this better...because".
"6. So, one could argue, ONE DAY, when we're all in heaven, God will let us know..."
I don't know why'd you'd bother...you haven't made much of an argument defending the notion that we can't know with certainty now regarding those issues commonly on the table between us. That is, except that you like to avoid trying, so why not make an unprovable argument about the hereafter instead?
"7. ...But right now, we simply have no way of affirming whose interpretation is the "right" one..."
Sez you. What is more accurate to say is that YOU have no way of affirming that the interpretations understood and accepted by thousands of years of scholarship regarding most, if not all, of those issues so commonly on the table between us are not the "right ones".
"8. Now, some can counter, "But it's simply not generally that hard to figure out!" and we both may well agree with that sentiment... BUT we hold opposite opinions..."
Duh!
"...BUT we hold opposite opinions. "It's just not that hard to figure out... Genesis is clearly metaphorical/mythical in nature..." Dan says..."
As if that is really an issue of any more importance than to distract from your inability to defend your unchristian positions on some, if not most, of the issues commonly on the table between us.
"9. Thus, a text being "perfect" or "without error" is a meaningless term unless we have some way of authoritatively saying which specific interpretation of a text is perfect or without error.
See?"
I see that nothing from point 1 leads to your assertion in point 9. What still stands as true is that Scripture, God's revelation to us regarding His nature and His Will for us, including behaviors He regards as either pleasing or displeasing to Him, is perfect.
"Nope. Quite literally never said that, quite literally don't think that."
Yep. Quite actually did, but like the point of what provoked your response, you insist that unless there are specific words used by you, the words you do use cannot lead to conclusions you don't want to face. The expression that fits here is "not in so many words", but yeah, you definitely said that. Quite obviously you have a real problem expressing yourself considering how common it has been over the years for so very many people to come to conclusions about you similar to mine. You might want to try saying the opposite of what you mean given how so very many conclude what is opposite what you want them to believe.
"The law about cutting the hair on the side of your head... that was given from God to God's people and it was never rescinded."
Of course it was, serious and prayerful student of Scripture. That law was to be one of many outward signs that distinguishes God's chosen people from all others. Now, we're to be known by our fruits, not our haircuts. What's more, God's apostle stated that there is no more Jew or Gentile, slave or free. There is still sinner or saved.
"Okay. WHICH interpretation of the text is perfect?"
Pretty sure I never said "interpretations" are perfect. Yeah. Damned certain I said the text was perfect.
"When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand.
What is perfect about that?"
You apparently have a comprehension problem. Your question again goes toward one's ability to understand as a measure of the perfection of the text. I reject that obviously self-serving standard once again.
"Are you saying that it is morally wrong to do what nearly EVERY employer in the US does and hold back wages overnight? Because that is literally what it says."
And this again goes to an earlier point, made many times in the past, that how you purposely choose how to use the term "taking the Bible literally" is how rational, thoughtful and honest people seeking without agenda to understand God's Will generally means when saying such things. When such people say that, an example would be, "The Bible says don't murder, so I don't murder." The lesson is taken literally. But later, Christ says to hate is the same thing. But the literal lesson is not that "hate" is literally "murder". Any dictionary throughout history would bear out that fact. So a literalist doesn't believe the earth has four corners, or that the sun is really "rising" or "setting". You simply need us to be that simple in order to maintain your support for that which is clearly prohibited or false.
"You'll have to explain how a verse can be "perfect" by itself, without an interpretation..."
Actually, I have no such obligation. YOU, on the other hand, have obliged yourself to explain how anything that comes directly from a perfect God can be anything less than perfect itself.
"Again, quite literally NOT what I'm saying."
Again, it's not quite literally the words you're using to say it, but it is the message your words convey. You assert people of good will can disagree. Hardly an argument for why YOU disagree, for that, too, is mere avoidance and distraction. What's more, I don't regard as a person of good will he that ignores the clear teaching of Scripture without a rational, intelligent or Scripture-based argument or evidence.
"...neither of us have any way to prove we're right by using the text alone. Just as a point of reality."
No doubt you wish this was true, but clearly your intent is to have it accepted as true, because in that way you are relieved of the obligation of defending your support for that which is clearly in conflict with the teachings of Scripture. If we can't rely upon Scripture to support a position on morality or behavior...or anything else related to God and His Will...it's worthless and a sham. It gives you the liberty to believe what you want, which is what this whole thing is all about. Thanks for admitting it finally.
By all means, Marshall, prove your hunch is accurate and objectively factual. I'll wait.
I just did that. Try paying attention. Now it's your turn to prove why I'm wrong. I know I'll be waiting a long time because I have been already.
I don't think you are understanding "prove."
You are wrong about Genesis for the exact same reason you are correct about four corners.
I'm sure I can't affirm I understand any word YOU use, considering your history of abusing words.
I'm also sure that you don't really read closely the comments of those with whom you disagree. In what way am I wrong about Genesis? I don't see that I am. Why not be more specific, unless you're without a true argument?
"1. I made no "switch" from morality to right/wrong. I'm using the terms interchangeably."
I'm sure you are. You need to be able to switch from morality, which you acknowledge as being subjective to right/wrong which you use as if they are objective. It's the single biggest problem you have. You want to be able to use subjective (society/group based) morality to determine that those who disagree with your subjective morality are wrong. It's a problem.
"And who gets to decide if immoral = wrong and moral = good are not interchangeable?"
You seem to have no problem deciding that some practices are "wrong" or "immoral" and that those who engage in those practices are themselves "immoral". So, I guess you do.
"Is that for you to decide?"
No.
"I think most regular people can understand when I say, "That is a moral act. It is a right way of acting..." that I am saying the same thing. Hopefully, now you, too, can understand."
So now you are claiming that your version of "morality" or your definition of what is a "moral" act are binding on everyone. Despite your lack of any objective grounding for your opinions.
"2. Right/wrong are not subjective?"
No.
"Again, says who? Do you have the final say on what is right and wrong, when it comes to matters of morality? The Pope? Billy Graham?"
Again, you seem to have no problem making those type fo determinations, so maybe it's you.
"Who are you appealing to, for this objective and authoritative answer?"
I've been clear that morality as I', using it in this discussion is subjective. You, the dictionary, and sociologists all agree with that.
"Thanks for giving me a hint to find the "out of hand" rejection of a commandment. I will be GLAD to admit a mistake and correct my claim if, indeed, you DO cut the hair on the side of your head, as God commanded in a story in ancient Israel."
Your welcome.
"But I've already asked this question and you've already dodged it. Why should I expect you to answer this time?"
Once again, if you'd read my earlier answer that would help.
"Because you assure us you have answered all questions?"
To be accurate, factual, and clear. There are numerous posts and comment threads where I have objectively and demonstrably answered all (or virtually all) of your questions. Unlike you and your outlandish 95% claim, I have never made such a ridiculous blanket claim.
In this case, I have already answered your question. The answer is that I do not and have not rejected the command in question "out of hand".
Okay, so Craig does not believe in morality or right and wrong. Duly noted.
[rolls eyes]
For my part, while it is clear we do not have one authoritative and objective source for right and wrong/moral/immoral, I think we can clearly-enough know some things are right and wrong, know plenty well enough to create societal rules. I believe, along with our nation's founders, that some things are self-evident, that human liberty is among them, and that actions that take away human liberty (slavery, forced marriage/rape, murder, genocide, etc) are wrong and we can work to end those great evils. They are great evils because they take away from human liberty, which is self-evident, people like me would attest.
If you're wanting to take the position that these actions are not immoral and that we shouldn't give a damn about working to stop these things, feel free to do so. I rather doubt that's your position, but you're playing some weird game and I'm out of patience with it. If you want to make a point, do so. If you truly want to come out on the side of "we simply don't know what's right and wrong..." well, you've done so. Very weird position to take, but sure, you're free to do so. Just don't try to enact laws to support that weird position.
Marshall... "In what way am I wrong about Genesis?"
You are beginning with an assumption, that Genesis should be taken as literal history. This is a human assumption very similar to the idea that someone assumeing "four corners" should be taken to literally mean the Earth is a square. The Bible doesn't tell us to take "four corners" or Genesis as little history. It is a human assumption.
You do not take "four corners" or similar texts to be literal. Why not? Because it is obvious on the face of it that it should not be taken literally. Observable data insists that it must be a figure of speech because it literally would make no sense. The exact same thing is true for your take on Genesis and your human assumption that it must be literal history unless someone demonstrates otherwise. Reason and science demonstrate otherwise. That you disagree with the reason or science does not make it not so.
This is where you are mistaken on Genesis.
"Because you assure us you have answered all questions?"
To clarify further. I went through a period where I specifically and intentionally answered every question you asked. I formatted those answers so that the question and answer were paired together so that there would be no confusion. My hope was that you would at a minimum acknowledge the simple fact that I was answering all of your questions, beyond that my hope was that you might actually reciprocate. Since neither of those two things happened, I have chosen to be more selective about answering questions as my answering or not has no bearing at all on how you respond.
"Okay, so Craig does not believe in morality or right and wrong. Duly noted."
Okay, so Dan doesn't believe in representing others positions accurately. Duly noted."
"For my part, while it is clear we do not have one authoritative and objective source for right and wrong/moral/immoral, I think we can clearly-enough know some things are right and wrong, know plenty well enough to create societal rules."
1. Those statements contradict each other.
2. Of course all societies "know enough" to create "societal rules" (which is the definition of morality I've been using)
3. Those societal rules differ by society.
4. Those societal rules are arbitrary and subjective.
5. You have no objective justification or grounding to demonstrate that one set of subjective arbitrary societal rules are "wrong" while yours are "right".
Finally, my point is and has been that your are presuming that the morals that allow you to claim "incredible" morality are subjective. You acknowledge and revel in this, yet still want to apply your subjective morals to others in an objective fashion.
Subjective, arbitrary morality doesn't provide grounding to call something evil. As much as your pride in your "incredible" morality might drive you to believe otherwise, the subjective rules you live by simply have no objective authority beyond your group or society. You want to have the flexibility of subjective morality (where things like abortion, pornography, and drug use can be acceptable moral or morally neutral choices), while at the same time judge others (or their acts) as evil simply because their subjective societal rules differ from yours.
So, pick. Objective or subjective. But as long as you stick to subjective, stop trying to apply your morality to others.
You misapply what subjective means. Hint: subjective does not equal arbitrary. Perhaps that is the root of your misunderstanding.
I've never suggested that subjective means arbitrary, which might be the root of your misunderstanding.
But, that's not the point of this comment.
You probably haven't noticed this, but as of late I have changed how I respond to your not answering questions. I've tried various tactics to encourage or force you to answer and it's become clear that you will answer or not based on your own personal whims and that it is folly to try to change that.
The problem arises when you make claims that absolutely must be scrutinized before the conversation can move forward, and we're faced with one of those now.
You have claimed that there are certain acts which are "evil", since you've determined that the terms "moral/immoral" and "right/wrong" are subjective it must be ascertained what your view on the term "evil" is. Therefore, I am going to ask some questions. Once you have answered the questions as any follow up questions your answers generate then the conversation can move on. I suspect that your initial response will be to ignore or dodge the questions a a way to test my reslove. Feel free to do so, but beware of the possibility that there might be consequences. Further, feel free to ignore this, but do not think for a second that the consequences can be blamed on anyone but you.
Questions about "evil".
1. Is "evil" objective or subjective?
2. If it is subjective, how does the term actually carry any meaning?
3. If it is objective, then by what measure or standard do you determine what is "evil".
4. Are some acts intrinsically "evil"?
5. Are intrinsically "evil" acts always "evil" under all circumstances?
6. Does the motivation of the one engaging in the act have any bearing on whether or not the act is "evil"?
Once you answer the questions and clarify your position, please feel free to continue
One example.
7. Are you saying that it is objectively "immoral", "wrong", or "evil" for a human adult to purchase a human child at all times, in all places, and under any circumstances?
1. Subjective. Which is not to say that it is not clear what is and isn't evil, at least to most people. But as a point of fact, it is subjective. We have no objective, authoritative source to tell us what is and isn't evil. That is my hunch, anyway.
You tell me you hunch on the matter.
2. Because, like pornography, it's clear to most people when they see it. A thing need not be objectively defined to have meaning. If 99% of the people in the world can agree that rape and murder are wrong - even evil - then it's not like there is any lack of clarity on the matter. And it's not like we don't have a reason to explain why it's wrong... it's wrong because it is a violation of human rights. The great majority of the world can clearly see that humans have basic rights. We may not know them all perfectly, but there are some things that are so beyond the pale of morality that there is no doubt. Rape, murder, child abuse, for instance.
Do you think something needs to be objective to have meaning? Based on what?
3. Not objective. Oh, I suppose we could make the case that GOD KNOWS what is and isn't wrong or right to a perfect degree and, given God's perfect wisdom, we could know something is objectively wrong. But we are not God and do not have perfect wisdom.
Agreed?
4. I think so. The majority of people probably think so.
Do you disagree?
5. I don't know, probably. I mean, your side argues that killing children is intrinsically evil... EXCEPT when God wants it or except when it's for the right reason (Hiroshima, for instance). My answer would tend to be yes, intrinsically evil things are always evil, although I know you all disagree.
6. Probably. Possibly. Having said that, "I think God wanted me to do it..." does not make an intrinsically evil action NOT evil.
7. If the purpose of buying the child is to purchase their freedom, then no. BUT, if the purpose is to enslave a child and take away their basic human rights, then yes. Getting to your last question (6.), I suppose.
Waiting to see if you do or don't believe in morality.
I've never suggested that subjective means arbitrary
You said...
4. Those societal rules are arbitrary and subjective.
Lumping arbitrary and subjective together. Glad to hear you know there is a difference. So, while I may agree with the reality that morality is subjective, in the sense that it is not 100% objectively provable, I do NOT believe that it is arbitrary. When one has a set of values that determine societal rules (human rights, not causing undue harm against another's will, etc), then it is no longer arbitrary.
Agreed?
1. So, in your mind what Hitler did was not in any way objectively wrong or evil, correct?
2. So, your opinion is that right/wrong. good/evil. moral/immoral is essentially based on the opinion of the majority, correct? How do we determine if the majority always gets it right?
3. Just to make sure I've got this right. There is absolutely zero objective evil?
4. So, is your answer yes or no?
5. Again, yes, no, or I don't know.
6. Again, yes, know or I don't know.
7. To clarify, despite your earlier comment, buying children is not an intrinsically evil act?
"Waiting to see if you do or don't believe in morality."
I've addressed this in several ways throughout this discussion. Specifically, for the sake of this conversation I am sticking to the dictionary/sociological definition which you accept that morality is subjective and varies from society to society and group to group.
Obviously, I believe that these sorts of subjective arbitrary societal rules constitute morality by the dictionary/sociological definition. So, within those limits of course I believe morality exists. That is not, nor has it ever been the issue. The problem comes when you try to apply your subjective arbitrary definition of morality to a different society or group and to posit this concept of subjective evil, which you want to apply in an objective way.
Again, it's basic English language grammar. I quite clearly was using both the term "subjective" and the term "arbitrary" to describe the dictionary/sociological definition of morality. The problem you have is that you don't want to deal with the fact that if it's subjective than how can it not be arbitrary. You've made it clear elsewhere that you don't consider abortion to be immoral, yet in the absence of any objective measure that is an arbitrary distinction. It clearly violates your arbitrary (double) standard of harm to the innocent.
1. Hitler's actions were CLEARLY wrong and evil, in my opinion and in the opinion of just about everyone everywhere. We do not need to be able to say "it was objectively wrong..." to know it was wrong.
Do YOU know it was objectively wrong? Based on what?
2. My opinion, along with Jefferson and the nation's founders and a great number of folk throughout history is that something is immoral if it takes away someone's human rights. NOT based upon the opinion of the majority but if, in reality, it takes away someone's human rights.
IF the majority of the people think that rape is okay, that does not make it okay as it takes away the human rights of a person.
Do you understand the difference?
3. I've been quite clear: we have no objective and authoritative source to say something is "objectively evil" nor do I think we need such a source to recognize evil.
Do you recognize the reality that we have no such objective authoritative source?
IS there "objective evil..."? That would require an authoritative source, would it not? So, absent an objective authoritative source, NO, we do not.
4. I'm offering MY opinion: YES, I THINK that some acts are intrinsically evil. You, on the other hand, do not appear to agree. You do not think, for instance, forced marriage or rape or slavery are, in and of themselves, objectively evil... because God might command us to do these actions and God doesn't command evil. Am I mistaken?
5. I offered my opinion. I DON'T KNOW, but PROBABLY.
6. I offered my opinion: PROBABLY. I don't know about every situation, it might depend on how you're framing it. That is why it is not a definitive Yes. Is buying children always a wrong? YES! But wait, IF you're talking about "buying" children in order to give them freedom, then that's a qualifying condition. So, I'm saying yes, probably, but it's possible that there might be some qualifying condition as in the example I just gave.
Do you think it is always wrong to enslave children? To force women into marriages (ie, rape them)?
7. 7. To clarify, despite your earlier comment, buying children is not an intrinsically evil act?
I clarified: By saying "BUYING CHILDREN IS WRONG." The assumption is in place, "ENSLAVING CHILDREN is wrong..." But, if one is buying children to set them free, then one is not enslaving them. ENSLAVING CHILDREN IS WRONG. It is intrinsically evil, in my opinion AND in the opinion of all who believe that human rights are self-evidently good and violations of those rights are self-evidently wrong.
Specifically, for the sake of this conversation I am sticking to the dictionary/sociological definition which you accept that morality is subjective and varies from society to society and group to group.
I'm asking YOU if YOU believe in morality. Not what the dictionary says, but if YOU believe in the idea that there are good and bad acts, even evil acts. DO YOU?
The problem comes when you try to apply your subjective arbitrary definition of morality to a different society or group and to posit this concept of subjective evil, which you want to apply in an objective way.
Why is it a problem to say that child rape is always wrong, even if one given society thinks it is a moral good? Why is it not possible to say, "Not every society has evolved in such a way as to respect human rights for all?" Of course it is, I just said it, and the majority of the world believes it.
The problem you have is that you don't want to deal with the fact that if it's subjective than how can it not be arbitrary.
So, you ARE conflating "subjective" and "arbitrary," despite your earlier denial?
If an idea is subjective (like, "killing children in war time is wrong...") BUT you believe in human rights including the right not to be punished for someone else's actions, then it is clearly not arbitrary. That's how.
1. So, right and wrong is based on your opinion, got it.
2. Again, you can't actually enumerate those rights in an objective sense, nor can you demonstrate where they come from.
3. Yes, you have been clear that evil is in the eye of the beholder and is subjective.
4. Again, your subjective opinion.
5. Just wanted to get to to be specific and clarify.
6. Again, just trying to get you to clarify. Yes, No, don't know.
7. So, you've changed from buying is wrong to enslaving is wrong. Got it.
"I'm asking YOU if YOU believe in morality. Not what the dictionary says, but if YOU believe in the idea that there are good and bad acts, even evil acts. DO YOU?"
Perhaps the context is confusing to you. I am specifically arguing from the dictionary/sociological definition stating that morality is subjective. This is the view you espouse. Because if this I have specifically refrained from offering my views so as to avoid confusing you any further. Maybe in a different context I would talk about my views, but in this context I am exploring the problems inherent in asserting a purely subjective society/group dependent morality. Especially as it fails to provide a basis to make the leaps you make in branding others "immoral", "wrong", or "evil". If you can't establish a basis for comparative morality or to assert one moral system superior to others, then specifics are pointless.
"Why is it a problem to say that child rape is always wrong, even if one given society thinks it is a moral good?"
Saying it is not a problem at all. The problem is in assuming that the statement has any meaning beyond the individual or group who holds the opinion. You can assert it all you want, you just can't demonstrate it to be fact.
"So, you ARE conflating "subjective" and "arbitrary," despite your earlier denial?"
Not at all.
"If facts matter to you, as a moral being."
The fact is that I warned you what would happen if you commented on that post. The fact is that you claimed what you claimed. The fact is that you still claim what you claimed.
You sir are immoral and a damned liar.
...but what can we expect from a man who defends rape and slavery as "not immoral..."?
Ah, now Dan assumes moral superiority because he cannot weasel his way out of the corner into which he back himself.
There's a huge difference between "immoral" and what one or every person regards as wrong. One is fixed and the other fluid. Slavery was once universally practiced. Now it is not. Yet some find it immoral, while others do not. Those of the former group "know" it is immoral. Those of the latter do not. And Dan condescends to those of the latter for reasons more to do with being of the former than any real reason beyond his own agreement that it is wrong or harmful.
The testimony of another man unwilling to call child rape, slavery or forced marriages always immoral.
"You sir are immoral and a damned liar."
As part of your excuse to delete my comment at your place, you whined about my lack of "respectful adult conversation", I guess this is one more example of "respectful adult conversation" from you. Or, it's just one more example of Dan backed into a corner and needing an excuse to run away while still appearing to save face.
"...but what can we expect from a man who defends rape and slavery as "not immoral..."?"
Speaking of "damned liar"s. I guess it's "incredibly moral" when you lie and mis represent others.
MA,
That's what this whole thing is about is Dan's desire to assert his "incredible" moral superiority. The problem he has is that if he doesn't cling to the dictionary/sociological definition of morality as a subjective and ultimately arbitrary set of rules, then he can't claim "incredible" morality. As long as one can pick and choose what constitutes "moral" then of course it's easy to be "incredibly" moral. It's east to assert that Dan's moral code is superior to others, except that it's just a biased statement of self aggrandizing opinion.
When it comes to one of the greatest moral issues of the past 20 years, abortion, Dan is quick to excuse those who kill their children as if it's just a benign medical procedure.
The biggest problem in this discussion is that Dan is arguing the details of morality. He's fixated on what rules he needs to appear to live by in order to convince himself that he's "incredibly" moral, all the while ignoring the basis for morality. As long as the basis for morality can be subjective, peer pressure writ large, then that suits him just fine.
It's interesting that someone who denies, nay actively fights against, the very idea that the Bible contains any rules at all that apply to Christians takes so much pride in following a few subjective rules contrived by fallen, sinful human society. One more example of elevating humans above God.
As I've pointed out, Dan wants/needs the ability to claim that his moral code (or adherence to it) is superior to others yet in the absence of any objective moral code his claims of moral superiority just ring hollow.
It's interesting that Jesus never once called His followers to morality. It's interesting to see what Jesus response was to someone who claimed to practice "incredibly" moral behavior.
Seems to me that morality isn't a goal to strive for, or an achievement to be proud of, it's a by product of following the two must significant rules Jesus commanded us to follow.
But" I'm just a "damned liar", incapable of engaging in "respectful adult conversation who actively and passionately defends all sorts of evil, what do I know?
Strangely enough, it seems as though Plato agreed that without absolutes there can be no morals. Probably the only time Plato and I will be on the same page.
It's interesting that since Dan has decided to start deleting my comments based on my unwillingness to answer a question which I've already answered, and for which he's already decided what my answer must be, he can't just delete them. Instead he feels compelled to comment on them and misrepresent them. I now regret my decision not to copy them and post them here so as to deny him the opportunity to falsely represent my comments. I guess, this is now how grace is shown, by deleting comments then falsely characterizing the contents.
For a while, I was copying my own comments and saving them in a file so that I could just repost them every time he'd again delete them. But as I have a life, I would eventually give it up or, like this post, it would be moved out of easy sight by newer posts and then forget about it. I may start doing that again. It's really fun.
But yeah, that's his shtick. Deleted and then say the nastiest things about that which cannot be seen. Cheap and cowardly, but then, you and I are his only two readers.
Post a Comment