Followed be a couple of possible comparisons/questions.
" Are we the light in the way that the sun is the light? In other words, do we within ourselves provide what is necessary to generate light?"
"Or are we light like the moon is light? Do we simply reflect the light of something greater. Or do we reflect the original light?"
As a way of hopefully disconnecting what I may think, from my sincere hope that Dan will expound upon how he views this, I have offered to start this thread in order to separate any conversation about my views from what I hope will be the opportunity for Dan to expound more fully on his views.
If this solution proves acceptable to Dan, I will edit this post and begin the process of answering. If it is no acceptable, I will consider the value of continuing.
Of course, if anyone else wants to chime in please feel free to do so.
ANSWERS
"In what sense are we "the light"?".
Since this was pretty directly aimed at the intent of the original post, I'm not sure how much value my answer has, but here goes.
I would say that we are "the light" to the extent that Jesus "The Light" shines through us.
" Are we the light in the way that the sun is the light? In other words, do we within ourselves provide what is necessary to generate light?"
I would argue that from a Biblical standpoint that whatever "light" we have is a result of how well we allow "The Light" to shine through us. There is too much scripture that refers to our natural state as "walking in darkness", or being "dead" as well as to God being the source of light to believe that we (in and of ourselves) are capable or interested in truly being light.
I would argue that from a Biblical standpoint that whatever "light" we have is a result of how well we allow "The Light" to shine through us. There is too much scripture that refers to our natural state as "walking in darkness", or being "dead" as well as to God being the source of light to believe that we (in and of ourselves) are capable or interested in truly being light.
"Or are we light like the moon is light? Do we simply reflect the light of something greater. Or do we reflect the original light?"
I think this is closer to the Truth. Jesus clearly made the claim "I Am The Light". There are two elements to that claim. The "I Am", where He is claiming divinity and equality with YHWH, as well as the "The Light" where He is making a claim of exclusivity. So, if Jesus is the singular Light, then the best we can claim is that some of His "light" is shown through our lives. Strangely, one way we demonstrate Jesus light is by obeying His commandments. So, even though it's not a precise analogue, I think that to say we are "light" to the extent that we reflect "The Light" is a reasonable way to look at the situation.
141 comments:
Without consideration or comment on anything "Dan", I think we can figure out from the text what the "light of the world" means. Jesus said, "You are the light of the world" (Matt 5:14) and went on to compare it to a bright city on a hill. Then He said, "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." (Matt 5:16) In the same way that a city gives light, we ought to. What light? "They may see your good works." So Jesus was saying that our good works are the light that brings glory to the Father.
Before we end that thought, though, we should take in the rest of the biblical facts on our good works. We know, for instance, that "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10) Not works we dig up; works He prepares beforehand. We also know that the work we do is the product of God who is at work in us to have both the will and the power to accomplish them (Phil 2:13). So it's not like it's our efforts, our work, our "light". It is His work in us.
So, Stan and I largely agree. Does that help you understand my position/points?
The main point where I might stray from Stan is that I don't see it as either/or... I see it more as both/and.
That is, Jesus is speaking of OUR works, literally our good actions are the light of the world in the text in question. He is not speaking of a reflected light or something that God specifically is doing, he is speaking of the works of people being the light of the world, making the world a better place... AND, it can be said more generally, that a case can be made that this is God's work in and through us. "We are God's hands, we are God's feet..."
I don't think the text in question supports an either/or, but both/and makes the most sense. Perhaps Stan can agree with that, too. I don't know.
Anyway, does that make more sense, now that Stan is saying much the same thing as I've said?
~Dan
Again, Dan, "good" according to whom? You? On whose terms do we define "good"? I've asked this question of you many, many times and you refuse to respond. You must assume that YOUR notion of what is good, pure, noble, whatever, is by default exactly what Jesus means or God means or Scripture means. That's problematic given the types of immorality you support and enable.
Good is good, Marshall. Jesus did not define it. Will you demand it of him, too?
I don't mean anything secret or weird by good, I just mean Good. Doing kind acts. Taking a widow some dinner. Helping children with homework. Standing by refugees or others when they are marginalized or demonized. Refusing to go along with oppression.
"Good" - To be desired or approved of. That which is morally right. ~The Dictionary
By Good I mean, Good. How do you think I'm defining it?
I think it is obviously good to help other people in need. Do you disagree? Do you think Jesus disagrees?
I think it is obviously morally good to not be an ass on the internet or to look for arguments where none exists. Do you disagree? Do you think Jesus would disagree?
I define Good as it is generally defined in English. Do you define it some other way?
If so, that is on you, not anyone else.
~Dan
Dan,
Thank you for confirming the wisdom of my choice to avoid an argument with you on this. The fact that you think that you and Stan are saying the same thing as well as some other things convince me that the fundamental differences in approach are worlds apart. I'm sincerely grateful to you for showing me this and appreciate it.
Thanks
"By Good I mean, Good. How do you think I'm defining it?"
In some worldly, non-Christian manner. In "good" akin to "SSM is a beautiful thing" way. In your typically Dan-rather-than-Christ terms that do not reflect actual Biblical teaching. When speaking of Christ-followers being "light", it is ludicrous to imply that it means something so ambiguous as "helping people in need", or merely "doing good deeds"...particularly if it is Dan Trabue defining what that means.
And no, your citations of dictionary definitions isn't nearly enough, because it leaves my question wholly unanswered, "To be desired or approve of" by whom? "That which is morally right" on whose terms? You're merely dodging the question because it indicts your progressive, anything goes dogma.
"I think it is obviously morally good to not be an ass on the internet or to look for arguments where none exists."
Then stop being such an ass by preferring to infer ill intent in my questions. There's no argument sought by asking such questions as those I pose. The argument comes when you run away, equivocate and tap-dance in typical Dan Trabue manner. So based on YOU'RE history, I would say without reservation that Jesus would absolutely disagree with YOU'RE misrepresentations of His Way, that is no more than using His words as a cover for YOUR "of the world" progressive humanism.
"I define Good as it is generally defined in English. Do you define it some other way?"
I seek to promote "good" as it is defined by God through His Word in Scripture. To the extent that any human being can actually be "good" (there is only One who is good, said Jesus), being so must align with Scriptural notions of that which pleases God...not the world, not some vague dictionary definition and certainly not what Dan Trabue says is good, noble, pure, etc.
In some worldly, non-Christian manner.
By "Good," I mean simple kindness, simple decency, simple helpful actions. Are you suggesting that these are non-Christian??
Surely you don't mean what you say.
Marshall...
When speaking of Christ-followers being "light", it is ludicrous to imply that it means something so ambiguous as "helping people in need", or merely "doing good deeds"
As I pointed out repeatedly on my blog, Jesus quite clearly, directly and literally offered his explanation for his light metaphor, so that people see the GOOD DEEDS humans are doing. Jesus literally explains what he means. What is ludicrous about taking Jesus' words literally?
I'm guessing at this point that you just missed or misread the passage in question and now that it's been pointed out, you don't really disagree with what is literally being said. Is that fair? Just a simple misunderstanding on your part? Fair enough, no problem. It happens.
Marshall...
I seek to promote "good" as it is defined by God through His Word in Scripture.
Where do you think God "defined" good in the Bible? What did God say?
I'm guessing you're not speaking so much of what God has said, but what you've interpreted, but that's not the same as what God has or hasn't said. Your understanding is not one in the same as God's Word. Agreed?
Craig...
Thank you for confirming the wisdom of my choice to avoid an argument with you on this.
I don't know what argument you think you're avoiding, Craig. I offered a poem based upon Jesus' figurative words speaking specifically and literally about good deeds. That's the text. Are you trying to say that the text doesn't say what it says? Surely not. I mean, I guess if you're denying what it says, we might argue with you, but I can't imagine you'd deny such a clearly literal text.
So, I literally don't know what argument you think you're avoiding. It appears you have asked me some questions that you are not willing to answer yourself, even when I calmly and clearly answered them for you to help you understand what I thought was already pretty clear.
The fact that you think that you and Stan are saying the same thing
I said that Jesus explained in Matt 5 that Light was a metaphor for Good Works. Stan literally agreed with me, directly. We are literally saying the same thing in regards to that passage.
Now, Stan went on and appeared to offer an opinion that appeared to be taking an either/or approach to a passage that I don't see as reasonable and thus, disagree. On THAT point, I am not saying that we're saying the same thing.
So again, none of this really makes much sense.
Just fyi. Do with that what you will.
Peace, fellas.
Marshall, some biblical reflections on Good, as used in the Bible...
"For human beings goodness involves right behavior, expresses itself in kindness and other praiseworthy qualities, includes avoiding evil, and springs from the inner person...
Because God is good, he is good to his people; when people are good they behave decently toward each other, based on God's goodness to them. Moses' invitation to Hobab expresses this emphasis: "Come with us and we will treat you well, for the Lord has promised good things to Israel" ( Num 10:29 ). The general biblical words for "good/ goodness" include this idea of right behavior..
The goodness God's people exhibit shows itself in various moral qualities, notably kindness; hesed [d,s,j], translated "goodness" or "kindness, " serves as one of the major synonyms of tob [b'f], "good, " in the Old Testament. In the New Testament many words describe the specific characteristics and behaviors of good people, including "just/justice, " "righteous/ righteousness, " "holy/holiness, " "pure/ purity, " "gentle/gentleness, " and "kind/kindness." If "goodness" is the general term, these other specific terms show what goodness means in daily living...
For the Christian or the faithful Israelite, goodness has never been a matter of outward behavior alone; it comes from within."
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/good-goodness/
Of course, God never says, "here is the definition of good, as I mean it..." If you're claiming that, you're making it up. But surely you aren't opting to make stuff up, right?
So, tell me more about how God "defines" the notion of Goodness, and does so in ways that are different than what we generally understand as Good in English.
This isn't the first time we've gone down the "attempt to limit God to the English dictionary definition of something" road.
According to Jesus only God is good, and He is The Light, but that doesn't matter. Because it's all about our works.
Also if "the light", is merely us doing works that appear good, then what is the light focused on? What does it illuminate? What's the point?
1. As a point of fact, I am not attempting to limit God in any manner. That is a simply clearly false understanding of anything I have ever said. Please don't make false claims.
2. The point is, we speak in English. We have common understandings of words when we communicate in English. IF you wish to use a word in a non-standard manner, then the onus is on you to clarify your non-standard use of the word. Expecting people communicating in English to use standard English definitions or explain it when they use a term in non-standard is NOT limiting God. It's expecting humans to communicate in a rational manner. Attempting to limit humans is not the same as attempting to limit God.
Do you understand the mistake in your false claim? That is, do you understand reality?
I would suggest that if you want to speak about God's nature and you think God is X-ish and Z-ish (but you've been using, for instance, Good and Just but don't really mean standard English definitions of those words), you'd communicate more effectively by using some other term than ones that already have standard definitions. As opposed to saying God is Good (but by good, I don't mean normal 'good' but X-ish.
Reasonable, yes?
According to Jesus only God is good
According to Jesus, WE ARE THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. By which, he clarifies, he means we should do good works (the very good works that another passage tells us WE WERE BORN TO DO.) Now, you and I agree that God is perfectly good, but the fact is, humans do good on a regular basis. This is observable. This is demonstrable. Jesus and the Bible writers expect it of us.
So while I agree with you that only God is perfectly good (of course), humans are sometimes good, are entirely capable of doing good. You have done good. I have done good My children have done good. This is observable and demonstrable.
I have never said (and don't believe) that humans are perfect, but if you want to make the claim that humans don't do good, well, the onus is on you to support it in the face of observable reality. Or, if you want to define "good" in some non-standard manner, the onus is on you to do that.
That Jesus calls us to do good and thus, calls us to be the light of the world does not take away from God's perfect goodness, nor does Jesus calling US to be the light of the world (metaphorically speaking) does not take away from the greater reality that God is the light of the world (metaphorically speaking).
You, like Stan, appear to be insisting upon an either/or solution. It sounds as if you're suggesting "God is the Light of the World, thus WE CAN NOT BE," but you have no reason to make that guess, not over and against Jesus' expectation that we be the light of the world.
Also if "the light", is merely us doing works that appear good, then what is the light focused on? What does it illuminate? What's the point?
Jesus said that we are the light of the world. He clarified that this means we should do good works, and thus, glorify God. Jesus is clearly using the term metaphorically. Thus, it is not literally "focused on" anything. It's a metaphor. Now, in the metaphor, Jesus explains that HUMANS doing good work serves to glorify God, so, if you want to think of the metaphor that way, our human good works "focuses" the light on God. Metaphorically speaking. It "illuminates" God, metaphorically speaking. The point, then, is at least partially to glorify God. I would say that is one point. Another point is to simply to help, to make the world a better place and to not be an ass, which is sufficient explanation or point, too.
Wow, that's almost Orthodox. Not bad. It kind of contradicts what you've said elsewhere, but that's never bothered you before.
As to your #1. as long as you continue to insist that how God sees and defines good is encompassed in one English dictionary definition, then you are attempting to limit God by imposing a definition on Him.
But again, thank you for reminding my why I didn't want to get into an argument.
It's interesting that you claim that you are taking Jesus literally, yet you then add to what He literally said and give your opinion the same status as Jesus words.
It's clear that the only reason He literally actually gave was that our "good works" literally "glorify God". Nowhere does He mention "good works" for the sake of improving the planet, just to "glorify God". Now when you combine that specificity with what Stan mentioned earlier, it becomes more clear that there are no "good works" absent God working through us.
At best you could argue the the improvement to the physical world is a side benefit, but you can't get that from the one passage you've chosen to quote.
We do not glorify God by promoting, participating in or tolerating that which displeases God. That is not light at all. That is darkness. Being an ass also means perverting tracts such as the one now at issue to include as "good works" anything that is displeasing to God, because it is pleasing to the ass...such as promoting and enabling sexual immorality or the killing of one's own children, which Dan now claims is not immoral.
So again, I charge Dan with abusing words to preach "good works" on HIS terms rather than on God's terms. We are taught to flee sexual immorality. God reveals examples of sexual immorality in Leviticus 18 and 20. Dan supports sexual immorality and enables those who engage and promote it, as well as the means by which the immoral avoid the consequences of having done so. These Dan regards as good deeds which are clearly contrary to Biblical teaching. Thus, Dan is not light at all merely because he might treat the needy well. Indeed, if he is influencing them by his enabling of evil, he is not truly doing good works regardless of how much soup he ladles out to the hungry.
A man sees a beggar being ignored by others. He walks up to the beggar and gives him $50. "Spend it to better your situation," he says. The beggar asks how he can do this when no others do anything. "I am a Christian," says the man. At this, the beggar is intrigued. "Tell me more about being a Christian," he says to the man. The man then goes on to tell the beggar of all he does for the glory of God. In this way, the man is truly letting the Light of God shine through, and the Light attracts the beggar.
But then the man speaks of his work promoting sexually immoral behaviors. He speaks of taking money from those who have a lot of it, to give to others. He speaks of supporting women who will eventually kill their own children. He speaks of allowing hundreds or thousands to die while engaging in vain attempts to convince the despots to live peacefully rather than moving to force out the despots. All these things and more the man refers to as "good deeds" he does for the glory of God. They are "good" because the man has set the terms for what constitutes "good works". None of it, save donating to the beggar's cause, reflects anything Scripture teaches about sexual morality, justice for the innocent and most vulnerable, covetousness/greed, or defending those who are oppressed. None of it are examples of what is pleasing to God, and thus, do not glorify Him, nor does any of it shine His light through the man at all.
It kind of contradicts what you've said elsewhere, but that's never bothered you before.
You can't support this statement. It's a false claim. Another one.
Suffice to say, if you've read something that you THINK means something that is contradictory to what I just said, you misunderstood my actual words. That happens. Case in point...
It's interesting that you claim that you are taking Jesus literally, yet you then add to what He literally said and give your opinion the same status as Jesus words.
1. I am taking Jesus' words literally in that passage. He clearly literally said that we ARE the light of the world and he clarified that by that, he means our good works make us a light to the world.
2. I have offered many opinions. Including the scandalous notion that doing good works makes the world a better place. I'm not saying that Jesus said this, just that it's a reasonable (and actually quite nutty to disagree with) opinion to hold. DO YOU SERIOUSLY DISAGREE that good and kind deeds don't make the world a better place?
I mean seriously, fellas, here I am saying something as innocuous, obvious and innocent as "Doing good things is good..." and you all seem to want to kick at the goads against it every step of the way. You all seem to want to fight against everything, even the notion that it's good to do good.
Jesus have mercy.
Case in point, all of Marshall's diatribe above. There's nothing there to even respond to. I just wasted a minute of my life reading those words.
Do you really think that this sort of attack is somehow helping to spread light?
Marshall, probably what would be more reasonable would be for you to say, "Huh, Dan has a post about how Jesus says we are all light, when we do the good works that glorify God... well, that is certainly true. But I disagree with Dan when he says that giving a big hug, a wedding gift and a 'congratulations!' to a gay couple getting married is a good thing to do. I think what is good in that instance is to tell them how wrong they are for getting 'married,' that there is no such thing as gay guys getting married. But still, it is true that doing good is a good thing to do. Dan is right on that point..." Like that. Rather than arguing against a post where I advocate the crazy notion that doing good is good.
Doesn't that seem more reasonable and, well, good?
Craig, perhaps (you tell me) the problem you have with some of my posts/ideas/reasoning is that I think that we can reach conclusions based on information from all over. For instance, I don't need the Bible or Jesus to tell me that it's good to do good. It's observable from the results of seeing actual good done.
I do not hold to the opinion that every action and belief must be justified by a corresponding biblical verse(s) and thus, I don't try to make every opinion based on a bible verse.
Maybe it's the case that you hold to the opposite idea, that we can't know anything is good apart from finding justification for it in the Bible.
Or not, you tell me. I just thought maybe that explains why you seem to be finding fault with the outlandish proposal that I wrote poetically about, that, "Jesus says we are the light of the world... when we do good things, we make the world a 'lighter,' better place. If Jesus said that, who are we to disagree?"
For what it's worth.
1. Yet, you've ignored the part where He explicitly says why these good works are done.
2. Yes, you've added this "good works are good for society", to what is clear and explicit. You may be correct, but the text doesn't say that. Therefore you've added your opinion to the clear text.
As for the contradiction, early in the other thread, you insisted that the point of doing good works was to better society, then you've accepted that the text actually suggests something else.
Of course you've also ignored the amply demonstrated Biblical principle that without God humans are incapable of doing good.
I guess that part isn't one you take literally.
"You all seem to want to fight against everything, even the notion that it's good to do good."
No. We, or at least I, hope to get some idea from you as to what "good" means in the expression "do good". You refer to Matt 5 without any hint as to whose terms one should rely when deciding what is or isn't good. This is what I hoped to provoke by my "diatribe" above (a most ungracious, unChristian way to refer to a request for clarification---typical of you). So let me go further in my request:
You say that we are to do good works as a means of manifesting the notion that we are "the light of the world". You cite Matt 5 to support this, wherein Christ says to us "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."(v.16 NIV) But what does He mean by "good deeds"?
I would suggest that he isn't talking about acts of charity, and I will back this up later. But previous to the above "let your light shine" words, He speaks of being persecuted because of Him. Non-believers do what they call "good deeds", even acts of charity. Would that constitute the same "light"? Would those who see a non-believer doing "good works", knowing that person is a non-believer, necessarily praise God as a result? I would suggest that because of v.11-12, and then from v.17 onward, that "good deeds" may be a reference to living as a Christian generally rather than any specific "work" or "deed" that you might prefer to have in mind.
What's more, we see at the start of Chapter 6 that Christ tells us, "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven." (v.1 NIV) Thus, how does our "light" shine when we are doing "good works" in a manner that does not allow everyone to see us do them?
Now your "poem" is even more problematic than merely leaving the question of "good" on whose terms unanswered. It also shows that you're injecting into Christ's words a meaning you prefer that promotes your "progressive" agenda. In other words, not hardly a "literal" understanding of Christ's words at all. Indeed, not even a good "hunch".
Also, though it shouldn't be necessary to spell this out any further for one for whom "grace" is so important, but my "diatribe" illustrates that what passes for "good" for one person, isn't necessarily good to another, or even necessarily good at all. The fact of the matter is, whenever you refer to that which is good, noble, pure, kind, etc. (referring to another favorite verse you like to abuse), you are referring to that which is good to you, which is too often contrary to what is good to God.
I'd suggest that this entire discussion puts the focus on US and what WE DO. In essence it makes God's Kingdom dependent on OUR works. It also allows US to decide what works are GOOD and to assume that as long as WE decide those works are GOOD, that those works must advance Gos's Kingdom.
Of course Dan's insistence that it's objectively good and Godly to actively celebrate a gay wedding is predicted on the unproven assumption that homosexual behavior is inherently not sinful and that this is an objective fact. Clearly neither of those assumptions are unquestionably correct. That raises the question, "If Dan is wrong about the sinfulness of homosexual activity, then his "good work" isn't he actually encouraging sin and causing those he encourages harm?". One of his major arguments has always been that we can't "know" if certain behaviors are sin. Yet he is behaving as if he "knows" that homosexual behavior is NOT sin. The clear problem with this position is that if one is consistent, then there is an equal likelihood that homosexual behavior IS sinful, and his actions ignore that likelihood. So in his example, it's at least equally likely that what he presumed to be a "good work", could be the opposite.
That's why these are important questions and why it's worthwhile to seek actual answers, rather than to assume that our assumptions are good enough.
If I wasn't clear enough, I'd suggest that anything that puts the focus and onus on us and our works, is simply another version of works righteousness and has little to do with grace.
That's indeed relevant to my point, which has little to do with the concept of doing good deeds than it does having to do with who decides what is "good"? "Good" on whose terms?
Also, the actual meaning that Dan infers from the verse from which he takes his position and on which his "poem" deals is also suspect given that Christ later teaches us NOT to do our works of righteousness before men, but in private. Hard to let the light shine when you are told to not let anyone see your "light".
All in all, this whole thing is the result of Dan's poor ability to truly study Scripture. It is another example of how he sees what he wants to see, while there is, in this case in the very next chapter, something that totally contradicts his "understanding" of what he thinks Christ "literally" says. Not hard to see how he can come to his conclusions about what Christianity teaches when he doesn't even read the whole thing.
Craig...
I'd suggest that this entire discussion puts the focus on US and what WE DO.
That much you got right. The passage that I took as a starting point for my poem is exactly about what WE DO, according to Jesus. That is exactly the point of my poem and, I think clearly, the passage in question.
The point of my poem, one more time, less poetically, more for clarity:
Jesus said
WE ARE THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD
Wow.
That is crazy for Jesus, the son of God to say that WE are the light of the world. But that is exactly what he said. Literally what he said.
"You are the light of the world.
A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.
Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl.
Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.
In the same way, let your light shine before others,
that they may see your good deeds
and glorify your Father in heaven.
We are the light of the world.
When/As we do good deeds,
we make the world a lighter, brighter, better place. I think that is clearly what Jesus is saying. And I don't think it's really controversial. That's just a plain straightforward reading of the text in question. Why are kind deeds, good deeds like a light? Because they make the world brighter, better, more clear.
So, to the degree that you think that I'm saying that Jesus is saying what WE DO makes the world a better, brighter place, that is what I'm saying, so you got that right. Very good.
Now, what is the problem with that? You all appear to be saying that there is something controversial about this nutty claim that we make the world better, brighter, with OUR deeds, what WE DO (as you emphasized it). What is controversial about that?
Are you truly suggesting that we do NOT make the world a better place by kind, good deeds?
Again, I can not tell you how baffling this all is.
At least on one hand...
On the other hand, it appears that here is your reality:
There are at least two themes found in the Bible.
1. Do good, we are the light of the world when we do good, we are God's children, created to do good works, etc.
The texts are clearly there.
2. We are evil. NO ONE DOES GOOD. Only God is good.
Those texts are likewise there.
Now, it appears that you all are saying that we MUST take the latter entirely concretely literally and, having taken them literally, we then MUST take the former figuratively, since they can't both be true (at least in your minds).
The question then is why would you take the latter literally and make figurative the former?
Is there data to support that no one does good? No, of course not. Indeed, the data is there that shows that people DO regularly do good deeds. It's simply not a question. So it's not because of observational data that you hold this view.
No, it appears that you all hold this view because it is your religious tradition to take the "We are worms" type passages literally, in spite of evidence to the contrary and then re-arrange and explain away the other passages to make sense with the others.
The question remains, other than tradition, why take the latter literally?
I know of no good reasons. At all. And so, I don't hold to that view.
NOTE: Acknowledging the reality that people DO, in fact, do good, is not to say that all people do good all the time. That we are some how perfect. No, it is just acknowledging that, just as Jesus expected us to do, We CAN do good and should do so.
That is sort of the point (or one point) of my poem. IF Jesus believes we can do sufficient good to be the light of the world, wow, that's a lot of pressure, but who are we to disagree with Jesus?
Do you think Jesus was wrong for saying we can be the light of the world, as we do good acts?
~Dan
Marshall...
That's indeed relevant to my point, which has little to do with the concept of doing good deeds than it does having to do with who decides what is "good"? "Good" on whose terms?
You're over thinking it. I'm not speaking in grand mystical terms that are arcane and difficult to understand. I'm simply speaking of doing good, just as Jesus appears clearly to be speaking of.
Help a little old lady cross the street if she could use the help. That is good. No one really questions if that is good, it just is.
With your community, arrange for dinners and food for a family who has lost a loved one so that they don't have to worry about preparing meals and so that they see their community taking care of them (if that is what they want). That is a kindness. it is good. No one really questions if that is good, it just is.
Adopt an orphan or take in a refugee without a home (in all my examples, if they want it, of course).
Walk more for health, for the good of the community and for the environment as opposed to driving everywhere.
Have some kind words for your neighbors. Bake a batch of cookies for new neighbors moving in.
Tutor a child who could use some help in a class.
Throw a party for a lonely friend.
Mentor a young adult.
Share food with the hungry.
On and on. I'm talking about simple basic kindness and goodness. Ideas with which we can almost certainly agree 99% of the time.
Now, there are bound to be the 1% of the time where I or you think an action is a kindness and a good action (celebrating the marriage of my lesbian neighbors for me, criticizing them if they ask and refusing to celebrate the marriage for you, perhaps?) and the other disagrees. But I'm thinking that has to be the exception. I simply don't think doing good is that hard to figure out and to celebrate and embrace and agree with.
I'm not talking about the 1% where I may disagree with you or you with Craig or whatever. I'm just speaking of doing good that EVERYONE recognizes as such.
So, to your question, "Good on whose terms?" I'm just saying good as commonly understood, recognizing there will be times when people disagree (is it good to give a beggar $1 when they ask? People, conservative and liberal, of good will disagree... but they agree it's important to be kind and helpful).
Do you truly think that this is that difficult? That you and I disagree on what is a good act in more than half the possible actions? Or do you agree that you and I almost certainly can agree probably well north of 90% of the time?
Now, when I say, "Good as is commonly understood," it goes without saying that for those who wish to follow God, their desire is to do the good that God wishes... But here again, I don't really think that what God thinks of as good (as seen in the Bible) is drastically different than what anyone wishes as good. Indeed, Christian philosophers (such as CS Lewis) say that the similarity to what we commonly conceive of as good is one of the strong arguments for a creator God.
And thank you for making my point. Your focus on human works and deeds is totally consistent with your previous opinions. Your choosing to ignore those portions of scripture that don't fit your worldview is also consistent.
Your works focused "theology", fits in with the culture at large and with progressive "theology". I'm honestly glad when you abandon the kind of "faux orthodoxy" you sometimes adopt and let your humanist/universalist real self come out.
I get that your proud of your good works, you publicize them, your proud of them and of yourself for doing them. Unfortunately you rarely use them to glorify God, or seemingly even being God into the conversation.
Art,
The short version of Dan's last comment is that he's more concerned about doing "good works" and basing the worth of those works on what others think about him, than in glorifying God.
Your focus on human works and deeds is totally consistent with your previous opinions. Your choosing to ignore those portions of scripture that don't fit your worldview is also consistent.
I have not ignored the parts where it says that NO ONE IS GOOD. I've said quite clearly, I think that quite clearly such passages are figurative, not literal. As the data supports.
That I take those passages as figurative/hyperbolic is not to say that I ignore them. That I disagree with your hunches about them is not to say that I disagree with God or the Bible.
Are you suggesting that those who say, "Passage X is probably figurative," are ignoring or hating the Bible/God? If so, are you not doing that yourself, when you "ignore" or take as figurative Jesus literal words?
Or are you only making accusations and still not answering questions that would help clarify where you're going wrong in making your false claims about my actual positions.
Speaking of false claims...
Your works focused "theology", fits in with the culture at large and with progressive "theology".
I don't have a works-focused theology. I take Jesus literally when he says that WE ARE THE LIGHT of the world when WE DO GOOD DEEDS. That isn't to say that works save us or are a focus, only that I strive to follow Jesus and agree with the incredibly reasonable position that we should be good and do good.
Are you really suggesting that believing that Jesus taught that we should do good deeds is somehow "works focused..."? If so, isn't it the case that your problem is with Jesus' literal words, not with me?
I get that your proud of your good works, you publicize them, your proud of them and of yourself for doing them.
Of course, this is false. I posted this poem about how WE are the light of the world, according to Jesus. I didn't say a single thing about my personal actions. I did insist that you do good and that we all do good and that we SHOULD do good. But it is simply false that I am taking a negative sort of pride in any good works personally. It's simply not in my words, Craig. Please, be respectful to the truth.
Indeed, lest it is unclear (and since I never said anything like this), boasting about good works is, itself, not a good thing to do. It's why I never do it.
I HAVE noted that we all do good things, but that isn't boasting, it's just noting reality. I am proud of the work that my friends and family and church and community does to help the world be a brighter place, but there's nothing wrong with being proud/happy when people do good.
Are you suggesting that encouraging and supporting and even noting the good works of others is somehow negative/"bad..."? Based on what?
The short version of Dan's last comment is that he's more concerned about doing "good works" and basing the worth of those works on what others think about him, than in glorifying God.
Sigh. The short version of this is that it appears you wish to engage in false claims and ad him attacks to demonize those who (I guess?) disagree with you about it being good to do good. But thou shalt not, man.
Again, I can't tell you how baffling it is that you all are taking such a strident stand against someone saying, "Jesus literally says that we are the light of the world. We should be doing good deeds..."
Wow. I just don't know what to do with that, Craig.
"Are you suggesting that those who say, "Passage X is probably figurative," are ignoring or hating the Bible/God?
No, I'm suggesting that writing off passages as "figurative" without providing a rational alternative interpretation is the functional equivalent of ignoring them. It takes absolutely zero ability to say "that"s figurative" and just move on. In the absence of a compelling reason to assert "figurative" and an reasonable interpretation, it's just a dodge.
"If so, are you not doing that yourself, when you "ignore" or take as figurative Jesus literal words?"
Except, I'm not. If I was, you might have a point. But I'm not, so you don't
So, by any measure, I'm doing good things. The difference is, It's not about me.
What difference? Where am I pointing to ME? Name one single place.
You can't because it hasn't happened. Anymore than when you just cited some of the good things you're doing that you're pointing to you. You're just acknowledging reality. I acknowledge reality that you do good things and I do good things (and that only rarely and to make a point) and most of us do good things, at least at times.
Why make this a personal attack based upon false claims that you can't support (because, as noted, they are false)? Why not just agree? "Yes, it is indeed good to do good. When we do that, we are lighting up the world, making it a better place and thereby glorifying God..."
What is there to disagree with?
It's interesting that Dan, can't even admit the possibility that he could be wrong about some of the "good works" he's so proud of.
Can't admit? I don't even know what the heck you're talking about, so how can I "admit" what you're not making clear?
So focused on myself? You can't support that claim.
Just as a point of fact.
it's interesting that you can't admit that reality about your own false claims.
You know, the inverse is true, as well: When we slander, attack, demean and make false claims, we bring darkness to the world and not glory to God.
Here's a prayer that, in the future, when someone says, "You know, it's good to do good..." that you could agree with such a simple and decent statement.
I'm suggesting that writing off passages as "figurative" without providing a rational alternative interpretation is the functional equivalent of ignoring them.
There is a verse where Jesus says NO ONE IS GOOD BUT GOD. I look around and observe, rationally in the real world, that people DO Good... so given that reality is able to show that people DO do good and that the SAME Jesus also said that people DO do good, I think, "Well, that's probably not a passage to take literally. It does make sense, in context, to take it figuratively, however. As a way of emphasizing, using figurative hyperbole, our fallen nature. And Jesus says this about himself ("Why do you call ME good, no one is good but God...") when we know that clearly we think of Jesus as good.
So, I have and do provide reasonable explanation of why we should take the passage figuratively. As a point of fact.
So what do you mean by saying I am doing this "without providing a rational alternative interpretation..." I've literally provided a rational explanation of why to take it figuratively.
The question, then, is why would you insist on taking it literally when real world data says that isn't so?
It takes absolutely zero ability to say "that"s figurative" and just move on. In the absence of a compelling reason to assert "figurative" and an reasonable interpretation, it's just a dodge.
So, where is your reasonable compelling explanation of why we should take Jesus words that say we are the light of the world as we do good works as figurative?
Saying, "Well, there's another passage that says No one does good, so it can't be literal" is not a compelling rational explanation. It is a random selection of one passage over the other.
Your entire premise focuses on the ability of humans to do good things absent God. I'm pointing out that I do things, because of my relationship with Christ. The reason I don't talk about it much is that it's not about me. It's not about works, it's about God.
I'm sorry that you haven't read enough of my comments to connect my lengthy discussion of the downside of the possibility that your wrong about what you think "good deeds" are. Perhaps it's not can't admit, but didn't pay attention.
As to your "explanation", it's your opinion. Usually when one attempts to interpret scripture, it's helpful to actually use context and the rest of the text to inform your opinion. "It sounds like hyperbole, so it must be." Isn't exactly compelling scholarship.
I would incline toward taking it literally because it squares with the Biblical narrative, it is consistent with God's nature.
It's interesting that you can, with a straight face, get all bent out of shape about something I haven't said. Especially since you haven't done what you demand of me.
I've answered the three questions I asked you, I see little reason to deal individually with the 300 you've spewed.
Your entire premise focuses on the ability of humans to do good things absent God.
First of all, I've been quite clear that I think it is reasonable to say that, in some sense, God is in ALL good acts.
Beyond that, by all means, prove that when a pagan or a Muslim or a Christian you don't think is a Christian does an obvious Good Thing, that God made it happen. If that's what you're saying.
What I'm saying is that there are good things that get done all the time. Deeds that 99% of the world can agree are a good thing. I'm saying that, in some sense, all good things come from God. But just as clearly, they are done by humans.
Now, are you suggesting that humans do NOT do good things unless God makes them?
Or are you saying that only Christians (or those you think are Christians) do good things?
I'm just not sure of what point you're trying to make, but by all means, present a case and demonstrate that it's more than just your opinion. I have no problem admitting that my opinions are MY opinions. You seem to think that's a problem, while at the same time, all you are offering are your opinions.
Strange, that.
I would incline toward taking it literally because it squares with the Biblical narrative, it is consistent with God's nature.
You mean, it squares with YOUR HUMAN INTERPRETATION of the biblical narrative and it is consistent with God's nature as you personally have a hunch about God's nature?
Look, I'm fine with you having a different opinion than I do. Just don't try to conflate it with fact or God's Word. If you wish to disagree that it's good to do good, and that Jesus likes it when we do it, that it makes the world a better place and glorifies God, by all means disagree. You're welcome to your opinion.
Just don't get all bent out of shape if I hold a different opinion than you do.
Beyond all that, you made a slanderous accusation of me, with no proof to support it, and you did so publicly. Such behavior is not contributing light to the world. Perhaps we should work towards bringing light and good acts, rather than attacking others over what seems like some picky semantic nonsense?
Your entire premise focuses on the ability of humans to do good things absent God.
In addition to my prior comment, my entire premise does not necessarily focus on the ability of humans to do good things absent God. I just recognize the reality that humans DO do good things. I cannot prove (nor can you) that God is present in good deeds. It is an opinion that you and I hold (to some degree or another) and thus, my premise is merely what I have said that it is:
Jesus literally called us the light of the world. Period.
By that, Jesus clarified that he meant our good deeds glorify God and, I THINK is implicit in the text and evident in reality, make the world a better place. Period.
I agreed with this premise, as I understand it.
Thus, my premise neither depends upon nor insists upon nor necessarily focuses on God's presence or absence.
Just to make that more clear and point out an error in your opinion about my opinion.
I'm going to say this and be done. The story of humanity can be encapsulated in 3 words; creation, fall, redemption. Creation was Good, the fall screwed that up, redemption has/will restore what was. Given that, any good works we du are either shadows of how things were or foreshadowing of how things will be. In either case our good works are reflect God's goodness and not something inherently good in human nature. Scripture is to consistent in pointing out the fallen nature of man contrasted with God's good and holy nature.
Where we seem to differ is your unwillingness to accept the possibility that when God pronounced creation Good, or when we talk about the nature of God being good, that there is a qualitative difference between that and helping a old woman across the street.
As happens often we're essentially having two different discussions. I'm increasingly unwilling to waste the time trying to argue against your hunches, given your unwillingness to seriously consider anything beyond your own limitations.
So feel free to continue to comment as you wish.
Where we seem to differ is your unwillingness to accept the possibility that when God pronounced creation Good, or when we talk about the nature of God being good, that there is a qualitative difference between that and helping a old woman across the street.
Prove it.
I'm increasingly unwilling to waste the time trying to argue against your hunches, given your unwillingness to seriously consider anything beyond your own limitations.
You prefer to argue your hunches, but ignore others? That's fine if you want. Just so long as you realize that your hunches aren't worth a bit more than mine. The problem is, that seems to be what you're suggesting. That when you have an opinion, it's not an opinion but a simple fact or God's Word, whereas when I have an opinion, it is just a stupid human opinion held for no good reason whatsoever.
I'm absolutely fine with you having opinions different than mine... the problem is that you don't appear to give the same grace to others.
Thank you, my point is made.
Your point being that you have opinions and I have opinions and that we each consider our own opinion to be the most reasonable and that neither can prove it?
If so, agreed.
If your point is that it's NOT good to do good (which was my point) or that Jesus called us the light of the world, as we are doing good deeds (which was also my point, and Jesus' point, in the text), then no, your point is not made. It's only bizarre.
My point being that it fruitless to argue with you.
For my part, I have not been arguing. I've been answering your questions about what seems like a non-controversial post and asking reasonable in response to your claims/comments. That's not an argument. That's a conversation.
But yes, I'm fine with you giving up trying to argue at me over the controversial notion that it's good to do good and that Jesus literally called us the light of the world and what an honor and a responsibility we have in Jesus' belief in us!
I'm simply going to repeat this. I've said everything I am prepared to say on this topic. Others have addressed the problem is with your promise, and brought up issues, that you have not dealt with. All you have done is to repeat yourself while ignoring various challenges to your promise. Given that reality, I see no reason to continue to play into this situation.
Craig,
Do you mean "premise" rather than "promise"?
Dan,
"The problem is, that seems to be what you're suggesting. That when you have an opinion, it's not an opinion but a simple fact or God's Word, whereas when I have an opinion, it is just a stupid human opinion held for no good reason whatsoever."
No. That's not the problem at all. The problem is that what we believe to be true we support with a variety of Scripture and other sources when applicable. What YOU believe to be true you do not support with anything that cannot be countered, if you care to support it at all, as I have done with your understanding of the what Christ was getting at saying His followers are "the light". You content yourself with calling our positions hunches. But even conceding that term might be appropriate, you're still left with the fact that we support our hunches and you just throw yours out there and expect that it be regarded as valid simply because you puked it out. This is crux of the difficulties everyone who has spent time in debate with has found to be the case.
What YOU believe to be true you do not support with anything that cannot be countered, if you care to support it at all, as I have done with your understanding of the what Christ was getting at saying His followers are "the light"
Again, What I have said in the post in question is that...
1. Jesus called us (at least his followers, "the crowd," however that is interpreted) the light of the world.
This is a simple fact (that he referred to "the crowd" in that manner).
Do you disagree with that reality? Presumably not.
2. Jesus was saying (by calling the crowd "the light of the world") that it is good to do good. When/as you do good, you are the light of the world, you make the world a better place.
That is just a straightforward reading of the text. It additionally has the bonus of being commonsense. It is indeed, good to be good.
Do you disagree with this fairly obvious reading? If so... REALLY? I mean, come on, are you arguing against "it is good to do good..."? That defies belief.
3. That Jesus calling the crowd the light of the world, that it is quite an honor and a responsibility... The very Son of God believes that crowd (again, however you're defining it) to be the light of the world, as they do good! Wow! That is astounding.
Are you disagreeing that it is quite an honor and responsibility to be considered the light of the world by Jesus?
Or are you saying he was not speaking to that crowd?
What very specifically do you need me to defend more than I already have?! I am almost just quoting Jesus word for word, with just a little amplification offered for emphasis and consideration. I just can't see what goads it is you all are kicking against.
4. Now clearly, I believe that "the crowd" that Jesus said that to, at the very least, extends to all Jesus' followers. That's an additional level.
Do you disagree with that? If so, really?
5. The ONLY place I can see that you all might have some ground to dispute against what I'm saying is that my thinking that, in the text and context, "the crowd" appears to be those who've followed Jesus out to hear what he says, but that there's nothing in the text or context that speaks to the degree of commitment "the crowd" has... Given that, I tend to think
5a. That doing good IS of God and does make the world a better place, whoever does it.
5b. That is, the pagan or Muslim who saves an orphanage from destruction or who adopts a refugee family, that they ARE doing a good thing...
Do you truly disagree with that? If so, really??
5c. That this good thing does make the world a brighter, better place.
Do you truly disagree with that? If so, really??
5d. That this good thing is of God, because all good gifts come from God/are part of a good God's Way.
Do you truly disagree with that? If so, really??
I just have no idea what it is about "it's good to do good" that you all are hating on so much.
To the degree that either of you would directly answer these questions, you might be making the world a better place.
And in that manner, you'd be furthering the notion that YOU are the light of the world.
All of your preceding comments do nothing with regard to my initial question posed to your at your blog: On whose terms do you define what is "good"? I offered a little fable that should have illustrated the point that what is "good" to one person isn't necessarily "good" at all. So, to do "good" for such a person is, in reality, NOT doing good at all, and quite arguably, doing "bad".
So I would agree that doing "good" is a good for the world, but that would be doing good on God's terms, not my own...and certainly not on yours.
I've already answered that question, Marshall.
Did you not see it?
When I'm speaking of doing good, I'm speaking of doing a kindness, a helpful act, a loving action... ideas that all people everywhere can agree with 90% of the time.
Feeding a hungry person is a good act.
Adopting a homeless orphan child is doing good.
Helping a little old lady across the street is doing good.
Holding a door open for the fella behind you with a smile and a nod is doing good.
Arranging transportation to the doctors for someone who doesn't have transportation and needs it is doing good.
Greeting and supporting/helping a refugee family is doing good.
I could go on and on. Most rational adults recognize most actions that are good as good.
I define "good" based on common understanding that we almost all share.
"To be desired or approved of."
Or here, this is my actual definition of good (not unique to me, by the way)...
"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."
This biblical definition has the advantage of pointing out that it's not some secret elite sort of notion. It's just doing what everyone recognizes as a kindness, a loving act, a good deed. It's just not that difficult.
Do you think God has some secret "good" that is different than what you and I recognize as good? If so, on what would you base that? Has God told you about this secret good?
Are you suggesting good is "Do unto others this secret OTHER Thing, this is good, just that no one knows about it or recognizes it.."?
How are you defining good?
And here I am answering your questions. How about answering mine? That would be a good thing to do. You know, basic decency in a common conversation. Simple respect.
You know, good.
All of your preceding comments do nothing with regard to my initial question posed to your at your blog
All of those preceding comments are pointing you to the point of my post and, assuming you can answer them in the affirmative as I believe 99% of the world could do, it points out that you agree with my post. But you tell me. You answer the questions, just as I've answered yours.
You know, the Golden Rule.
Art, yes. Autocorrect can be a pain.
Dan,
To your "questions":
1. What Christ called His followers is not a point of contention.
2. The multiple questions here still do not get the point I raise, which is, what do you mean by "do good", or "what do you think Jesus means by 'good works'"? Indeed, you're dancing around the point. Even "it is good to do good" requires defining "good" before one can agree or disagree.
3. "Are you disagreeing that it is quite an honor and responsibility to be considered the light of the world by Jesus?"
Another point not in contention.
"I just can't see what goads it is you all are kicking against."
See point 2, specifically "what do you think Jesus means by 'good works'"?
4. I do not disagree in general that Christ was speaking to those who follow Him.
5.
a. Requires defining "good" or determining on whose terms one understands what constitutes "good".
b. Irrelevant with regard to my original point.
c. Irrelevant with regard to my original point.
d. Irrelevant with regard to my original point.
"I just have no idea what it is about "it's good to do good" that you all are hating on so much."
Not "hating on" anything, save possibly your skirting of the real issue, which is restated in point 2.
"And in that manner, you'd be furthering the notion that YOU are the light of the world."
Yet with regard to point 2, I'm not yet certain you understand what Christ meant when He stated that His followers are the light of the world. So, for you to suggest that I would or wouldn't be based on YOUR criteria is meaningless.
Dan,
"When I'm speaking of doing good, I'm speaking of doing a kindness, a helpful act, a loving action... ideas that all people everywhere can agree with 90% of the time."
What you mean by "doing good" was never lost on me. But you do answer my question somewhat when you say "...ideas that all people everywhere can agree with 90% of the time." It tells me, to a great extent, on whose terms "good" is defined for you.
But here's the thing: There's a difference between "good works" and "good deeds". It's not really a subtle difference, either. You list examples of "good deeds" and believe that's what Jesus is referencing in the Matt 5:16 verse. I am prepared to provide for you, if necessary, at least a half dozen commentaries that explain "good works" as much more...to the extent that things like ladling out soup in a shelter is only a small part...and not really the most important part of what Jesus means when He says "good works".
"Good" is what is pleasing to God, not to 90% of the population. But "good works" relates to how a Christian lives with regard to his relationship with God...that all reflects that relationship and belief in God. If you're helping an old lady across the street while promoting that which contradicts Scriptural teaching, your "works" are not "good" at all. Not in the sense that Christ meant when He referred to "good works". Indeed, there is much about "good works" that does not lend itself to making "people smile and whistle with delight" when exposed to those who are said by Jesus to be the "light of the world".
Marshall...
here's the thing: There's a difference between "good works" and "good deeds".
Here's the thing: That is a theory that you hold. It is not a fact.
Do you understand that?
Here's another thing: Jesus said that our good deeds make us like a light to the world. You have no data to demonstrate that Jesus meant something other than just what it sounds like he's saying, that good deeds make the world a lighter, brighter, better place, thus bringing glory to God.
Now, look, I'm fine with you and a dozen or a thousand other evangelicals to hold these theories.
I'm fine if you all want to debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
But I don't care to engage in those debates. While I may have once engaged in that same sort of semantic dance to debate non-issues (usually in an effort to supposedly defend a human theory about human nature or God's nature or whatever), but I've decided that those such "debates," where people stretch and manipulate obvious text to something Else to make a point are simply not biblical, certainly not rational and just not worth the time.
So, you are welcome to your hunches about what Jesus MEANT to say (that he didn't say) as long as you don't try to suggest it is a fact or "what God says..." I hope you can recognize the difference between human theories and opinions and facts.
My point I was making, you do not appear to disagree with. It is, indeed, good to do good.
Doing good IS PLEASING TO GOD. Giving food to the hungry, homes to the homeless, work to the unemployed, welcome to the stranger... these ARE all pleasing to God because they are good deeds.
It's not brain science. It's not controversial. It's just reasonable and moral. I don't think you disagree, but if you want to make up this imaginary and extra biblical theory that Jesus didn't MEAN "good deeds" when he said "good deeds," or any of the above junk you offer, I'm fine with it.
I don't have the time for it, though. No offense, I just find such arguments silly and juvenile and believe it's time we move on pass mere milk, to something more meaty.
"Here's the thing: That is a theory that you hold. It is not a fact."
Oh. Well, I guess if YOU say so it must be true.
In a pig's eye.
First, my distinction is between doing favors for people (good deeds), versus living one's life according to Christian teaching (good works). All of Matthew 5-7 points to this, as we see where Christ speaks of one's righteousness not surpassing that of the Pharisees, who did not truly adhere to God's commandments. He speaks of doing the will of God, which certainly goes well beyond feeding the hungry.
Then, of course, is your selective legalism. You suggest that because Jesus speaks of "good deeds" (as it is worded in my NIV), that He can only mean giving a beggar a few bucks. God forbid we look more deeply into the meaning of verse 16!! But dare suppose that Lev 18:22 ("Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman") means what it says, and YOU insist there's some context the text itself no where presents to us. The plain reading in Leviticus does not provide for any other possibility but that one never lies with a man as one would with a woman. There is no suggestion of a context or scenario where it is OK for a man to such a thing. Yet there is much that gives a broader sense of what is meant by "good works/deeds" that you ignore. No one need rely on "hunch" or "theory" to come to a conclusion that goes deeper than your superficial, self-pleasing and forced understanding.
The controversy then, is once again YOUR preferred interpretation that you don't, and likely cannot, support with Scripture itself. You want it to mean what you say it means. You need it to be a silly argument because the consequence is that your left-wing, progressive, touchy-feely theology is indeed false. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with how much better the world is should all of mankind do nice things for each other. The light that is supposed to emanate from us is Christianity...the Gospel message of Christ's salvation. If how we live and act, including what we do for our fellow man, doesn't result in the saving of souls then our light wasn't shining all that brightly, for all our efforts, and God will not be praised by those who'd seen us.
More specifically, the POINT of letting our light shine is that the men before whom we have shined our light will praise God...NOT making the world a "lighter, brighter, better place". Even more specifically, verse 16 is about being unabashedly Christian in all we do even without any opportunity to do nice things for another.
Again, you are welcome to whatever hunches you want to hold. If you think Jesus said "good deeds" but meant something else besides, you know, good deeds, feel free to think that if you want.
Just don't tell other people that they're factually mistaken for taking Jesus literally.
As to your fallback to my not taking literally (i.e., as a rule for people today) rules given literally and specifically to the ancient Israelites, of course, I am taking it quite literally in that the text is explicitly specific to ancient Israelites, no one else. Beyond that, you are correct that I do not expand it to mean all gay activity, including marriage, are wrong because that is not what the text says.
So, while I am not a literalist, you would be mistaken to suggest that I'm not taking it literally.
Just as a point of fact.
The controversy then, is once again YOUR preferred interpretation that you don't, and likely cannot, support with Scripture itself.
Do you recognize how weird it sounds when I say, "Jesus said WE are the light of the world when/as we do good deeds, and I agree with what Jesus literally said in the passage because, you know, Jesus said it. BUT also because it is just self evident. Of course, we can all see that good deeds make the world a better place..." when I say that and take Jesus literally and you say I can't support it "with Scripture..."?
The point is taking Jesus (i.e., the scripture) literally! How is that not providing Scriptural support?
Again, as a point of fact, your hunches are not the same as fact or God's Word. You can respond "in a pig's eye," but that's just reality. I hope you can understand that.
~Dan
It's got nothing whatsoever to do with how much better the world is should all of mankind do nice things for each other.
Prove it.
The light that is supposed to emanate from us is Christianity...the Gospel message of Christ's salvation.
Prove it.
"Again, you are welcome to whatever hunches you want to hold."
Not a "hunch", regardless of how badly you need it to be.
"If you think Jesus said "good deeds" but meant something else besides, you know, good deeds, feel free to think that if you want."
So, despite my explaining myself clearly, you choose to misrepresent my position. Is that an example of a "good deed" to you? YOU, evidently, believe "good deeds/works", as referenced in the verse, refers only to things like telling a dude his fly's open. I'm saying that the even if we only study Matt 5-7, we can clearly see it means so much more than acts that even non-believers perform. So think of it this way: if an atheist sees another atheist carrying an old woman's groceries, do you suppose the observant atheist will then be compelled to praise God? Or if the dude carrying the groceries is a Christian, how can the atheist tell simply by the fact that the Christian is doing a "good deed", and thus be moved to praise God?
"Just don't tell other people that they're factually mistaken for taking Jesus literally."
Except that you're not actually taking Him literally at all. Yours is a very superficial and shallow understanding...which would be natural for any who only read verse 16 without all that came before and followed after it.
"...I am taking it quite literally in that the text is explicitly specific to ancient Israelites, no one else."
I see. So it wasn't wrong for the Egyptians and the Canaanites to engage in all the sexual activity prohibited to the Israelites in Leviticus 18, and thus not wrong for anyone at all throughout human history BUT the ancient Israelites of that time. Got it. YOU can have sex with a dude, just not the ancient Israelites. YOU can do any of your barnyard animals, just not the Israelites. YOU can get jiggy with your momma, just not the Israelites. Got it.
Of course, while you need to believe that prohibitions against homosexual behavior was narrowly mandated to only the ancient Israelites, Jesus immediately tells His contemporaries that He did not come to abolish that law and that heaven and earth must disappear before the Law will no longer be applicable. I mean, and it's a funny thing, this comes RIGHT AFTER verse 16...that is, it begins with verse 17!
So again, as a point of fact, you are NOT taking Jesus literally, but instead are choosing to inject a preferred meaning into His words...yet again.
What's more....
"Beyond that, you are correct that I do not expand it to mean all gay activity, including marriage, are wrong because that is not what the text says."
It doesn't have to for those who care about the will of God. For such people, a literal reading insists that the act, regardless of any context in which it might take place, is an abomination and prohibited. If it doesn't, then you can have sex with your momma and your goat after all if you marry them. Good for you.
"Do you recognize how weird it sounds when I say, "Jesus said WE are the light of the world when/as we do good deeds..."
Actually, it does sound weird because that's not what He said. He didn't say we are the light "WHEN/AS" we do good deeds. This suggests we are "the light" BECAUSE we do good deeds/works. Again, the "light" is our Christianity...our righteousness, our obedience to the will of God. THAT is what is to shine. THAT is our good works.
Those works include things like reconciling with one's brother (v.24), settling with those taking you to court (v.25), letting your "yes" be "yes", and your "no" be "no" (v.37) and of course, not breaking even the least of the commandments of the Law (v.19). In short, acting "Christian".
Chapter 6 v. 10 speaks of God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven. Do you really suppose His will is limited to giving to the needy?
You call facts "hunches" because the facts are inconvenient to your progressive, touchy-feely theology.
And finally....
"It's got nothing whatsoever to do with how much better the world is should all of mankind do nice things for each other."
"Prove it."
The verse says this (from my NIV):
"In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."
To let our light shine so that all can see how we behave as Christians so as to compel the observer to praise God. Where does it say anything about doing it to make the world a better place? That the world might indeed be better is a by-product...not the purpose of letting one's light shine. Unless, that is, you can prove otherwise. I'll wait here while you don't.
You're reading into the verses things that aren't there. Which is fine, if you want to say, "I see that it COULD POSSIBLY mean X or Y..." It's the saying "You're opinions are wrong and mine are right" that is problematic.
Your hunches are not the same as facts.
if an atheist sees another atheist carrying an old woman's groceries, do you suppose the observant atheist will then be compelled to praise God? Or if the dude carrying the groceries is a Christian, how can the atheist tell simply by the fact that the Christian is doing a "good deed", and thus be moved to praise God?
You're thinking about it in too simplistic a manner. I'd say it's more nuanced (but still quite obvious) than how you're trying to make it.
IF a Christian goes out and says, "Look, I'm a Christian and I'm doing this good deed," then that would be childish and counterproductive. And contrary to what Jesus also taught (as you noted already).
BUT, if people are doing common good actions, things that help, that are kind, that save lives, that make a positive difference, THEN, they are (in common vernacular) making the world a brighter place. A better place.
Just as a point of reality.
Now, IF people are doing these common goods, then God is pleased because God likes good actions.
(Is that a crazy thought to you? I mean, it's pretty straightforward and obvious. IF there is a God and that God is a Good God, THEN that God will like good actions.)
What makes God happy IS glorifying to God.
As I noted earlier... if MY children go out and do positive things, then they make the world a better place and my wife and I are glorified and gratified and honored and cherished because of it... It doesn't matter that anyone knows that we're their parents. It's not that petty. We simply are honored to know that they're doing good... that they ARE good people. That brings us glory.
Beyond that one angle, there is the notion (as I believe I have already pointed out) that a Common Understanding of Good is one of the bits of evidence that CS Lewis and others offer for the reality of a Good God. IF we have a common understanding of doing good (and by and large, humanity does), why? How would we all happen upon this common understanding... UNLESS there is a source for that common understanding, the argument goes. That source is God. Thus, good deeds are, themselves, an argument in favor of a good God. This, too, brings glory to God.
Two ways that God is glorified by good deeds, WITHOUT having to be petty and say, "See that good deed? I did it because I am a Christian and so, praise God, right?"
Again I would ask you, how does your understanding of "good deeds" in Jesus' words in Matt 5 bring glory to God?
Again, the "light" is our Christianity
That isn't what the text says. That is YOUR reading into the text. Jesus says that the light is our good deeds, that our good deeds are like a light to the world. That is literally what Jesus says.
You keep referencing the context of the SOTM as significant to understanding good deeds in Matthew 5, a point with which I can agree.
But what we see in the SOTM is a series of thoughts on living good lives, lives of good actions and good deeds.
Don't murder? Sure, yes, but also, don't hate.
Don't commit adultery? Sure, yes, but also, don't wrongfully lust or objectify people.
An eye for an eye (which, in context, WAS a more compassionate improvement on the way things were handled)... not so much. Not an eye for an eye, but forgiveness for sins. Being patient, understanding and loving even towards enemies!
Give to the needy? Absolutely, but do that good deed to help others, not to bring honor to yourself! Duh!
Don't store up treasures, share them!
On and on, the SOTM is, among other things, a treatise on good deeds, on good living. THIS, Jesus says, is what you should be doing! Good deeds! In so doing, you are a light to the world, and that light brings honor to God.
That is my point. Are you arguing against my actual point?
"It's the saying "You're opinions are wrong and mine are right" that is problematic."
I'm sure it is, since it's the truth. Your opinion on this verse IS wrong. If mine is not "right", it is certainly far closer to the actual meaning of v.16 based on all that came before it and followed after it. It's called "context". It's called using Scripture to explain Scripture. That means my "hunch" is far more an accurate interpretation for which "hunch" is an inappropriate appellation, if not a childish pout. "Hunch" is a word you typically use when facing a superior position against which you have no intelligent or honest counter argument.
"You're thinking about it in too simplistic a manner."
No. I'm not at all. But YOU'RE thinking about it in a too simple-minded manner.
"IF a Christian goes out and says, "Look, I'm a Christian and I'm doing this good deed," then that would be childish and counterproductive."
But is absolutely NOT something I'm suggesting any Christian should do.
"BUT, if people are doing common good actions, things that help, that are kind, that save lives, that make a positive difference, THEN, they are (in common vernacular) making the world a brighter place. A better place."
But NOT the purpose of why we are called to let our light shine before men. What's more, there's nothing anywhere in Chapters 5-7 (or anywhere in Scripture, for that matter, that I can recall) that suggests that is even a concern for why we should.
So as to whether or not doing nice things makes the world a better place is wholly irrelevant.
"Now, IF people are doing these common goods, then God is pleased because God likes good actions."
Paul speaks of those who have not heard the Good News but act in a Christian manner as those who have God's teaching "written on their hearts". But that's not the same as saying that God would be equally pleased with "good deeds" by either people who have rejected God, or who only do "good deeds" so that they are seen doing them by others. Indeed, within those three Chapters Jesus speaks against the latter of the two examples, and Scripture also speaks of good deeds being like filthy rags before God. So you're having a hard time defending the proposition that v.16 is about doing good deeds more than our being that which leads to other coming to praise God. But keep trying. Maybe you'll even convince yourself.
Worse is how you are now engaging in another practice for which you chastise me and others when you falsely claim we are "speaking for God"...by claiming YOU know what makes God happy and when. Read verses 43-48 again and then tell me that good deeds alone please God.
continuing...
Just browsed through this and I'm struck by the fact that Dan "knows" what makes God happy. It must be difficult to bear the burden of such extensive knowledge.
Personally, I've always thought that happiness was a kind of shallow emotional response to external circumstances. I really can't think of anywhere where God is referred to as being "happy".
But that's just me, I'm not the one trying to speak for God.
"As I noted earlier... if MY children go out and do positive things...etc"
...it means nothing with regard to this discussion. If MY kids do good, I am gratified that they are behaving well, but if they do it so that I receive glory, then I've not taught them well, as all glory is for God. That's #1. #2 is that THEY need to do it for God's glory. That they're good behavior reflects well on me as their parents is also gratifying, but not of any worth if they do not act for God's glory. Again, that I am well regarded as a consequence of my kids' character is a by-product, but should not be the purpose of their maintaining a good character. "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (v.48)
"Beyond that one angle, there is the notion...etc."
Also irrelevant, because all of that argument is apologetics. It is not evidence in support of your interpretation of v.16. It has no influence on the non-believer who insists there is no God and thus "good deeds" will not bring about his praise of God simply because a "good deed" is done. This is especially true of those who insist that morality is human invention.
"Again I would ask you, how does your understanding of "good deeds" in Jesus' words in Matt 5 bring glory to God?"
I have no such "understanding". Unlike you...
"Jesus says that the light is our good deeds..."
...I don't conflate "our light" with our deeds. Thus, the following...
"Jesus says that the light is our good deeds, that our good deeds are like a light to the world. That is literally what Jesus says."
...is untrue. That is literally NOT what Jesus is saying. By your logic, He could have said it in any of the following ways:
---In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your light...
---In the same way, let your deeds be done before men, that they may see your deeds...
---In the same way, let your deeds be done before men, that they may see your light...
or more ridiculously:
---You are the good deeds of the world.
Most people do good deeds in varying amounts, at various times for various people and for various reasons. Few are persecuted for doing good deeds. The salt and light bit comes after Jesus speaking about being persecuted because of him. Thus, what the "because of Him" part is significant with regard to what is meant by being salt and light. It all has to do with bringing people to God, not merely giving God glory or doing anything for His glory. Those persecuted because of Him are to not hide the fact that they are Christ followers, but let THAT light shine...let the fact that they are Christ followers shine before men, so that when men see Christ followers do good deeds, they will praise God. THAT is what v.16 is saying. LITERALLY!! That is, that is the literal take-away of v.16.
"That is my point. Are you arguing against my actual point?"
Yes. Because your insipid point ignores the punchline...which is that the men who see one's good deeds "praise your Father in heaven" because they see the light...the light of Christ...who IS the light.
You [ie, YOU people who are listening to me right now] are
the light of the world.
A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.
Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.
In the same way [ie, in the same way that a light is made to shine to be seen],
let your light shine before others,
that they may see your good deeds [ie, don't let your light, YOUR good deeds, be hidden, let them shine for all to see]
and glorify your Father in heaven.
While you may not wish to take the text literally and thus you may not "conflate our light with our deeds," that is literally what the text is saying.
That's all I have to say about that. You are welcome to your opinions and hunches and theories, but the text literally says what it literally says.
I like how Dan's idea of interpreting a passage literally, is to insert his own parenthetical explanation into the text, and then combine the two in order to take them literally. In this case, if one takes Dan's interpretation literally, then this entire thing doesn't apply to anyone other than the crowd he was speaking to.
So, neither one of you all thinks that when Jesus explains his metaphor and says, "IN THE SAME WAY, let your light shine before others that they may see your good deeds" that he is explaining that "the light" is a metaphor for good deeds as, you know, he says?
And when commentator Matthew Henry concurs with what Jesus says and I agree with, and says...
"Our light must shine, by doing such good works as men may see. What is between God and our souls, must be kept to ourselves; but that which is of itself open to the sight of men, we must study to make suitable to our profession"
...you still don't think that Jesus means our good deeds when he says, "that they may see your good deeds?"
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/5-14.htm
Or here it is from the traditionalist "Got Questions?" website...
"n the analogy of light to the world, the good works of Christ’s followers are to shine for all to see."
https://www.gotquestions.org/salt-and-light.html
Or here it is from Christianity.com...
"Our lives are to be an on-going witness to the reality of Christ's presence in our lives. When we worship God with pure hearts, when we love others as ourselves, and when we do good without growing weary, we are lights shining."
http://www.christianity.com/bible/christian-you-are-salt-and-light-11596480.html
And I'm sure you know I could go on and on. Jesus is literally using a metaphor and he literally explains the metaphor, saying that in the same way that a light brightens a city or a people, our good deeds "shine" before the world.
This is not some weird, Quaker or Marxist strangeness I'm foisting... it's basic traditional Christian understanding of what the text literally says.
Perhaps it's an English communication problem. Perhaps you're not familiar with the phrase "In the same way..." as it relates to metaphors. When people use "In the same way..." they are telling you, "Here is what I mean by my metaphor of light..." Just as Jesus literally did.
Peace brothers. I fear no more light is coming from this conversation so I'll leave you to whatever opinions you want to hold. I just hope you understand that they are your opinions, naught else.
And for all that, you've misrepresented the disagreement. Of course, you've also ignored that you've included your parenthetical addition as part of your "literal" interpretation.
1. I believe one area of contention is the potential difference between what is "Good" from God's perspective versus what's "good" from a human perspective. I actually had a fairly extensive hypothetical around this which went unresponded to.
2. "The Light" of the world v. "the light" of the world.
3. The ultimate purpose of these "good works". For example does helping someone across the street on the way to sacrifice a goat to Satan, actually glorify God. Or more to the point, does doing a "good deed" without actually acknowledging God, glorify God.
4. Your claim to "know" what makes God "happy".
5. Your "literal" interpretation that limits Jesus suggestion to those present at the time.
6. The fact that you treat this instruction as a de facto command, yet presumably would dispute that it is de jure a command.
7. Your seeming position that there is some sort of inherent, innate core of "good" in humanity that allows humans to do "good" and glorify God from this core of "good".
I don't think anyone is arguing against the notion that doing "good deeds" doesn't make things somewhat better in some way. As I see the disagreement it's not about the acts themselves, but about (as I said elsewhere) where we stand on the "Creation, Fall, Redemption" continuum. It's about the value of our works, in relation to a Holy God. It's about what it means for our "light" to point to and glorify "The Light". Ultimately it's about what happens when we focus more on our "good work", than on His finished work, and on trying to co-opt the Kingdom of God for our own ends.
1. You are welcome to believe it is an area of contention if you wish. I contend that for 90% (give or take) of so-called good deeds, most people can probably agree that they are good. Yes, it is good to feed someone who is hungry. Yes, it is good to find housing for someone who needs housing. Yes, it is good to welcome refugees, to save someone's life, to adopt an orphaned child, to say a kind, supportive word to a sad person, to pat someone on the back for a job well done.
You may think that "good deeds" are hopelessly complex and near-impossible to figure out. I don't think that is the case most of the time. You are welcome to your opinion, though.
I don't think that God thinks our attempts to do a good thing for someone is somehow different than what GOD thinks is good. You are welcome to disagree.
2. "The light" is a metaphor. In THIS case, Jesus was speaking of the crowd of followers, telling them that THEY are the light of the world. That is what Jesus literally said, clearly speaking metaphorically. In other places, Jesus refers to himself as the Light of the world. I'm speaking specifically of this passage, where Jesus is pretty clear who he is addressing.
3. Jesus did not place down any parameters for "Good deeds" in this instance. You are free to make some up and insert them, if you wish, but that's not what Jesus did, not here.
And yes, Good Lord have mercy! Of course, doing good glorifies God. why wouldn't it? Do you picture God as being super-insecure and pathetically needy? I don't.
4. It's just plain common sense. IF we are speaking of a Good God (and yes, Christians do believe that God is Good), then doing good would reasonably make a good God happy. Again, why wouldn't it?
You really seem to be trying to make basic decency and goodness into this strange alchemic voodoo mystery and I do not see how that helps. I just don't think it's that complicated.
You are free to hold other hunches if you want, but come on... Really??
5. I did not limit Jesus' suggestion to those present at the time. I literally said the exact opposite. Perhaps you're just having trouble understanding words?
6. I don't do this. You're simply mistaken. I never used the word command, nor suggested a command. This point has no relation to any points I've made with, you know, my actual words.
7. God says that humanity is good. God says that humanity was created to do good works. God says that we are created a little lower than God! yes, I do believe that there is good in humanity. Why? I can see it on a daily basis.
I really think you all are making way too much out of a simple notion. We are the light of the world, Jesus says. When we do good deeds, we light up the world, which brings glory to God.
What any of that has to do with this human theoretical "creation, fall, redemption continuum" you just invented (and is not at all part of Jesus' words that I reference), I do not know. I'm just saying that Jesus believes in us, that we are the light of the world when we do good works, those works which God made us to do.
Peace.
Dan,
The above comment is merely a list of some items which appear to be disagreements, beyond your rather shallow assertion from earlier. I don't really expect or desire any substantive response, I just wanted to summarize the disagreement from my perspective.
5. If one takes your parenthetical inclusion to Jesus words as literally as you claim to then, yes you are placing limits.
6. I suggest reading more clearly. I was clear that while you won't actually use the word commandments, that you are de facto treating this as one. Perhaps the "de facto/de jure" were confusing to you.
7. Of course you do, which means that you're taking one tiny part of what you call "myth" in a wooden literal sense, while choosing to ignore The Fall, and volumes of Biblical evidence that argue against your point. As to the "Creation, Fall, Redemption" continuum, since I've addressed it earlier in this thread your "you just invented" comment is actually false. Of course, the fact the numerous Christian theologians and authors use this as a shorthand way to encapsulate the Biblicsl meta narrative also demonstrates the falseness of your claim. It doesn't surprise me that you're uncomfortable with the construct, it does surprise me that you're ignorant of it.
Craig, I literally have no idea what you are disagreeing with.
I am merely making the assertion that Jesus said that WE are the light of the world. Which metaphor he then explained meant that as we do good deeds, we are like the light of the world.
Are you disagreeing with what I am actually saying? It does not appear to, based on you (both of you) responses... you appear to be arguing against some other point or that you think that I hold mistaken views on what is good... or something. Both of you are just not making much sense in regards to anything I have written.
I am sorry I am not understanding, but I truly don't think it's on my end.
Peace.
Dan
Of course you don't. Multiple people have voiced multiple areas of disagreement with you and, by golly, it just doesn't make any sense to you. At one point I might have cared enough to repeat myself, but now I've realized that you either can't or won't grasp the substance of disagreement with your opinions. I don't understand it, but I accept it.
It doesn't make sense, I would respond, because you all are not making sense. You're almost certainly not disagreeing with what I'm actually saying (in that post) OR you do not understand what I'm saying and thus, respond to something that I'm not saying, which, as should be rationally expected, does not make sense.
Look, you can solve this right here, right now, by telling me which specific point I've made that you disagree with...
1. Jesus said "YOU are the light of the world," speaking to a crowd of some followers.
Presumably, since that is a simple reality, you don't disagree with that.
2. It can be reasonably extrapolated that Jesus is also saying that to at least other followers (to the degree that those in the crowd were followers).
I do not believe you disagree with that, but you tell me.
3. Jesus used "light of the world" as a metaphor.
I do not believe you disagree with that, but you tell me.
4. Jesus clarified that when he said light of the world, he meant that as we do good deeds, we are the light of the world. His exact words, "IN THE SAME WAY, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds..."
HOW are we a light to the world? In doing our good deeds.
This is not a controversial take on these words. As noted, several Bible commentaries say the same thing.
I do not believe you disagree with that, because, WHY? But you tell me.
If you do disagree with that, then are you also disagreeing with the various bible commentaries that say the same thing? If so, do you at least recognize that I'm not alone in this fairly straightforward reading?
5. That, wow, it's a real honor and privilege - and huge responsibility! - for the very Son of God to say that WE are the light of the world.
I do not believe you disagree with that, but you tell me.
That is ALL I was saying in my post. The only thing I can see that you all might be disagreeing with in what I have actually said is point 4. That Jesus was saying that letting "your light shine before others," lets the world "see your good deeds..." but really, that is almost word for word what Jesus said.
I know Marshall tried to get all verbal gymnastic-y and say that "good deeds" don't mean "good deeds," but... something ELSE... Our "Christianity..." (and what does that mean? How are they "seeing" our Christianity??)
I just don't see what it is in my points I'm actually making that you're disagreeing with.
I know that you, Craig, are hanging a lot of weight on the "light" metaphor and trying to pit Jesus against Jesus, saying something to the effect of "If Jesus said HE was the light of the world, then we can't possibly also be the light of the world..." as if Jesus can't use a similar metaphor to make two different points, but, really? Why is Jesus limited to only using the metaphor in one way? Or are you trying to limit Jesus that way?
Regardless, that is neither here nor there as to what I'm actually saying. So, if you're arguing some point BEYOND what I'm actually saying, you should make that clear. Like this, "Dan, I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR POST. But, BEYOND THAT, here is my concern..." or words like that.
If you would just address questions clearly and directly, then you would be more understandable. I hope you can accept that not as a criticism, but just a reasonable request for clarity to help you make your point.
Peace.
Dan
1. I've listed my disagreements once, I see no reason to do so again.
2. I'm not pitting Jesus against Jesus in the least. I've attempted to understand how you deal with the difference between "the light" and "The Light". I've been pretty clear about my thoughts.
But if you think repetition and misrepresentation are helpful than repeat and misrepresent as much as you want.
Bubba asked me to post this comment of his on his behalf:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday, Dan wrote, "God says that humanity is good."
Just three days earlier, in this same thread, Dan implied that claims such as this are out of bounds...
"So, you are welcome to your hunches about what Jesus MEANT to say (that he didn't say) as long as you don't try to suggest it is a fact or 'what God says...' I hope you can recognize the difference between human theories and opinions and facts."
...but never mind all that: is his claim credible?
I think Christ's own teachings undermine this belief in the goodness of humanity.
"There is only one who is good." Mattt 19:17
"No one is good except God alone." Mark 10:18, cf. Luke 18:19
Jesus said He came to seek and save the lost, with His Apostles adding that He came to save sinners, and He said He came to give His life as a ransom for many, acts that are inexplicable if humanity is good and not in need of salvation.
Even in that same Sermon on the Mount, Jesus addressed "you who are evil." Whether Jesus was addressing only the disciples mentioned in 5:1 or everyone in earshot, and whether His teachings can genuinely be applied to future generations -- to everyone or to a particular subset -- the text provides no reason to treat the "you" of 7:11 as distinct from the "you" who are salt and light.
I wonder how Dan would explain these statements without explaining them away.
"While you may not wish to take the text literally and thus you may not "conflate our light with our deeds," that is literally what the text is saying."
Yet in the very reprinting of the passage you presented preceding the above quote, Jesus is doing that at all. He speaks of how no one lights a lamp, you know...in order to see when it is otherwise dark...then covers it up...you know, in a manner that makes it counterproductive with respect to being able to see when it is dark. In that way...as in, in the way no one covers up the lamp they lit in order to see in the dark...let your light shine...the light of Christ/Christianity. And again, all surrounding verses suggest this meaning of "light".
So the text does NOT literally conflate "light" with "deeds" at all. What's more, if we are the light, what is it that is to be illuminated? Our deeds? Perhaps, but only to the extent that the connection is made between those deeds and who is doing them and why...which ultimately is to draw others to praise God...not to make the world a better place, even if the world being better is the natural by-product of bringing others to God. It's NOT a better place merely because people do good things, particularly if God is not in the mix.
You then go on to cite commentaries, beginning with Matthew Henry, but as you do with Scripture itself, you take one small bit out of context in order to validate your own self-satisfying interpretation. Henry also aligns with what I say, referring to good deeds NOT as an alternative expression for "light", but as a means by which we let the light shine. He goes on to also validate MY interpretation by citing the purpose of letting one's light shine before men...so that they might see any good deeds we do...to bring people to God...NOT to make the world a better place, regardless of whether or not doing good deeds improves the world. There MUST be a connection in the mind of those men between good deeds we do and what compels those deeds. Again, how does an atheist, who insists he needs no deity to compel him to do good because he believes doing good is an evolutionary thing, bring anyone to God? His whole point is that there is no God and none necessary for doing good. How does THAT please God?
Craig...
1. I've listed my disagreements once, I see no reason to do so again.
I haven't asked you to list your disagreements. I've asked you, politely, to answer some questions so I can understand where, in what I've actually said, you disagree. The reason to do so is so that you can be better understood. If you do not wish to be understood, that is your choice. I made it very easy for you to identify where exactly in what I have actually said you disagree. All you had to do was answer yes/no on five direct, simple questions.
Why would you opt not to be understood/make yourself clear?
Bubba...
I wonder how Dan would explain these statements without explaining them away.
1. I am not a Sola Scriptura-ist. Not as you guys use it, at any rate.
I believe that answers can be found in many places, not just one. Thus, I can look around and SEE VISIBLY that people do, in fact, do good deeds. Objectively so.
Thus, to the question: Do people do good deeds? I can answer, Yes, demonstrably.
To the question: Do even non-Christians do good deeds? I can answer, Yes, demonstrably.
It doesn't really matter what some people think the Bible might say, if they are objecting to reality, there is a problem with their human philosophy, not with reality.
Now, I certainly treasure and honor the Bible's teachings and consider them vital and important. But they are only one source of wisdom/knowledge, not the sum total of all wisdom and knowledge. Any time someone's biblical interpretation disagrees with reality, I tend to think there is a problem with their human reasoning, not reality.
So, with that said, I see in the Bible places where it says that humanity is good. Hell, I see the Psalmist say that humans are created just a little lower than God! (or "angels," depending on who's translating) So, if one takes that passage literally, then yes, of course, humanity can be and is good, at least to some degree (albeit, not as good as a perfect God, of course).
Of course, there are passages that say the opposite, that there is not ONE good human, that no one does good.
But, there you have a conflict not only with other passages in the Bible, but with reality. Again, if one's opinion of a biblical text calls one to reject reality, it is not reality that has the problem, I would tend to think.
So, there's your answer. If you want to take a biblical verse and insist upon it literally and it conflicts with reality (world created in six days, 6,000 years ago, there earth's "four corners," no one does good, etc) then you have a problem with your biblical interpretation.
Do you think that, if your interpretation makes you conflict with reality, that you can safely rely upon your human interpretation? If so, I'd just say that this is probably not a wise approach to truth-seeking. But I'd also guess that you don't think that... at least insofar as it involves other people. If someone else says, "I know it doesn't conform with reality, but I think we should take the 'four corners' verse literally..." you would feel no compunction to go along with that literal interpretation.
I see no rational support for insisting upon "no one does good" as a literal interpretation. It conflicts with the Bible and with reality.
Thanks for asking.
Marshall, your last question first...
His whole point is that there is no God and none necessary for doing good. How does THAT please God?
I've answered this. Here's that answer again, expounded upon.
It is my opinion that people doing good honors and pleases God. If a Christian does good, I think that pleases God. If a Muslim does something good, I think that pleases God. If a murderer does something good, I think that pleases God. I believe in the radical notion that we worship a Good God, and that God approves of and loves and is honored by good actions.
Do you believe that good actions do NOT honor God?
Do you believe that good deeds only honor God if someone says, "I'm doing this for God..." or "I'm doing this because I'm a Christian..."? If so, why? That's not biblical, you know. And I don't see how it is rational. That makes God appear to be whiney and needy and petty, at least to me. Our God is a good and great God and, just as good actions on the part of children brings honor to their parents and those that raised them, so too, good deeds bring honor and glory to God, who made us all to do good acts.
Do you disagree?
How specifically do good deeds NOT honor God, regardless of who does them? Is there a verse somewhere that says, "But behold, if it be a pagan or a non-believer or a Gentile who does good deeds, yea, verily, this brings no honor to God..."?
No, of course not. So, this is something you're creating from your opinion, not from the Bible and not from reality, is that fair to say?
Marshall...
What's more, if we are the light, what is it that is to be illuminated? Our deeds? Perhaps, but only to the extent that the connection is made between those deeds and who is doing them and why...which ultimately is to draw others to praise God
So, it is your human opinion that IF people know we are Christians and IF they see us doing good, then and only then is God honored by good deeds? Okay, you're welcome to that opinion.
Jesus says that WE are the light.
Agreed?
It is an analogy, agreed?
The analogy, Jesus says, Is that, "IN THE SAME WAY, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds..."
What is "your light..." in your human opinion? Our Christianity? In the same way, let your "Christianity shine" before others, that they may see your good deeds?"
How specifically does letting "your Christianity shine" work? What does that mean?
That sounds pretty vague and meaningless, in my human opinion.
...not to make the world a better place, even if the world being better is the natural by-product of bringing others to God. It's NOT a better place merely because people do good things, particularly if God is not in the mix.
I disagree. Demonstrably, the world is a better place when more and more people choose to do kind actions, instead of mean ones; when people forgive, rather than murder; when people adopt and welcome, rather than reject. Etc. Clearly, the world is made a better and brighter place by good deeds. And clearly (rationally speaking) a good God would be honored by good deeds because, how could a good God NOT be honored and pleased by such?
Do you not believe that every good and kind thing is of God, in some way?
Regarding my question to you, Marshall, about how does letting "your Christianity shine" work? What does that mean?
It seems to me that your Christianity shines when you do good deeds. Good deeds, good acts, kindness, truth, love, forgiveness, mercy, acting for justice... these are ALL things that are of God. Thus, AS we do good deeds, we "let our Christianity" shine and thus, this approach would still seem to bring us back to our good deeds being what Jesus is literally speaking of, as is made clear in the text.
As most other commentaries seemed to reiterate and agree with.
Do you think that all these other commentaries are wrong to say that good works are what light up the world, bringing glory to God?
Also, you note...
Henry also aligns with what I say, referring to good deeds NOT as an alternative expression for "light", but as a means by which we let the light shine.
This is exactly what I'm saying, what I'm saying that Jesus is saying. Our good deeds are HOW we let our metaphorical light shine. That's what I've been saying all along. "Light" is the metaphor. Good deeds are what the metaphor is referring to, the means by which we let that metaphorical light shine.
Are you not saying the same thing I'm saying? That Jesus is saying? That all these other commentaries are saying?
Once again, I've given you the areas where we disagree, you've shown no real inclination to do anything but repeat your self over and over. I can't believe that I can say or answer anything further that will improve your understanding. So, instead of simply repeating the same thing, I choose another path.
Okay, try it this way then: Name ONE AREA (relating to what I've said) that you disagree with me.
Why would you not comply with so simple a request?
I can't believe that I can say or answer anything further that will improve your understanding.
You can't believe that answering the question(s) that you are being respectfully asked with a simple yes or no could help improve my understanding? How could it not?
While waiting to see if you will help clear up what your position actually is (and specifically, as it relates to the points I was actually making), I will revisit one place where you point to some vague disagreement...
As I see the disagreement it's not about the acts themselves,
but about (as I said elsewhere) where we stand on the "Creation, Fall, Redemption" continuum.
It's about the value of our works, in relation to a Holy God.
The problem is that my post does not address this. At all. Not one way or the other do I address the "creation, fall, redemption continuum."
As to the value of our works, my post is simply pointing to Jesus' claim that our works make us the light of the world. We are the light of the world, according to the son of God.
"IN THE SAME WAY, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds..."
Thus, it appears that Jesus thinks our actions are pretty valued by him and to the world.
Do you really disagree with that?
I've already listed multiple areas where I disagree with you, but you somehow think that my repeating one of them, or listing one more will solve the problem.
No, I don't believe that my answering more questions will help, there are too many instances where I answer your questions and you don't even acknowledge,let alone deal with the answer.
You're final comment makes my point more emphatically than I ever could. I went into some detail on exactly why this is an area of disagreement earlier in this thread. It was even in response to a question. Yet, you ignored it then, and now act as if it's some random unrelated comment.
Thank you ever so much.
It will probably do no good, but let me try one more thing:
If I said to you, "But what about the street roundabouts? You have not come out as opposed to them so you must support them!" even though you had said nothing about it one way or another, and even though it has nothing to do with the topic of your post, you would probably be puzzled. "Where does that come from? What does it mean in the context of the conversation??!" you would rightly ask.
The answer is, Nothing.
An off-topic aside about topics one has not addressed in a particular post or in general has nothing to do with anything. It has no meaning and any complaints based on the off-topic vaguely are meaningless.
And, having said that, I will point out that I have addressed your off topic nothingness and pointed out the rational error.
Where you said...
The story of humanity can be encapsulated in 3 words; creation, fall, redemption. Creation was Good, the fall screwed that up, redemption has/will restore what was. Given that, any good works we du are either shadows of how things were or foreshadowing of how things will be. In either case our good works are reflect God's goodness and not something inherently good in human nature. Scripture is to consistent in pointing out the fallen nature of man contrasted with God's good and holy nature.
...where you have said, "Here is a set of scriptures which I HOLD THE OPINION suggests that there is NOTHING AT ALL good in human nature..." I have pointed to reality and said, "Well, clearly, people DO commit kind, good actions. It is demonstrably true."
And as I said in response to Bubba's comments, if one forms a human opinion about a biblical interpretation that can be disproved based on, you know, reality, then one's human opinion is mot likely mistaken.
So, if you are disagreeing with reality, I will disagree with you and let you disagree with reality all you want to, but without my agreement.
The question would remain: Why would one disagree with reality?
Who knows?
My points in my post stand and your off topic human opinions fall because of reality.
Peace.
Not much time at present, but this caught my eye:
"The question would remain: Why would one disagree with reality?"
Not at all the question here so much as your perception of reality being so skewed. I'll elaborate in the next day or so.
By all means, "prove" that when we see people doing actual kind, good, decent acts out in the world, that it isn't actually good. That the person who adopts a child and commits to raising them are not actually doing a good thing. That the family that welcomes and supports a refugee family is not actually doing a good thing. That those who feed the hungry are not actually doing an act of basic decency and goodness.
Good God! The arguments you guys seem to take on are mind-blowing, sometimes!
Dan,
Again, thank you ever so much. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your demonstration of my point.
You're welcome. I assume your point is you prefer to remain vague and snarky, rather than upfront and helpful?
I guess if you believe that humanity is utterly "bad," unhelpful, uncommunicative, etc... I guess then you are helping to prove your own point, is that what you're striving for?
No, not at all. It's much more all the things I've already mentioned. Oh, and the fact that you've taken one small passage out of context twice, threw in an extra parenthetical comment, claimed that you then were choosing the literal interpretation, and keep insisting that your interpretation is "reality".
But mostly that I've addressed our disagreements and don't think that you repeating yourself is worthwhile.
Yes, I do find that having a sense of humor doesn't hurt either.
"If a Muslim does something good, I think that pleases God."
What you think doesn't count unless you can back it up with Scriptural support. I don't believe you can given that Scripture teaches in several places the worthlessness of our deeds if we do not believe in God.
"Do you believe that good actions do NOT honor God?"
Not particularly, and yeah, Scripture agrees with me. Indeed, if that were the case, then verses such as Matt 6:1 are contradictory. Clearly, the actions of the Pharisees were still technically aligned with mandates of the Law and as such were thus technically "good deeds". Yet, those actions were worthless to Christ because of the purpose was self-promotion. By your wacky reasoning, that makes the commission of those acts by the Pharisees both honoring and dishonoring God at the same time. Not likely.
And I refer you again to my hypothetical of the atheist who believes he doesn't need any deity to do good deeds. His whole shtick is that God doesn't exist and thus the atheist's position is dishonoring to God. Nothing he does can be honoring to God since his purpose, from a theological position, is that he doesn't need a god and anyone who worships a god is an idiot.
How can the deeds of anyone honor God when the people doing them are opposed to God? Where's the sense in that? Are you suggesting that God's sitting up there saying to Himself, "My, what good deeds those evil people are doing!! They must really like me!!"
Or think of it this way: You come up with an idea. Someone who hates you uses the idea and receives accolades for helping people with your idea. How are you honored? It's absurd.
"Do you believe that good deeds only honor God if someone says, "I'm doing this for God..." or "I'm doing this because I'm a Christian..."? If so, why? That's not biblical, you know."
It absolutely is Biblical, despite the condescending manner in which you present it. In fact, it's what Matt 5:16 is actually saying when read in context. Look what comes before it. v.11 begins with blessing those who are persecuted for one's faith in Christ, telling the people they should rejoice and be glad for it because "great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (NIV) It is then that He speaks of the people being salt and light. The point here is that one isn't to hide the fact that they are followers, but to live their lives in a manner that it is obvious...let your light shine. In other words, to live openly as a Christian. Think of it as coming out of the closet. That should make sense to you. So that v.16 can be paraphrased, "Let people see that you are believers so that they will see what it looks like and they will come to praise your Father in heaven." The "good deeds" is "Being Christian", not merely reaching for the Fruit Loops from the top shelf for a short lady. The type of "good deeds" you want it to mean are actually a "sub-section" of what Christ has in mind.
"That makes God appear to be whiney and needy and petty, at least to me."
That's because you judge God on human terms. You also don't like the fact that He's a jealous God and a wrathful God. But whether you like the idea or not, it's all about God. The universe revolves around Him. All honor and glory IS His. He doesn't need us. We need Him.
continuing...
"Do you disagree?"
Absolutely, because though He made us all, we are not all His children. That's also Biblical. So those who aren't do not honor Him by anything they do, no matter how good you think what they've done is. This goes to the question "on whose terms do we regard an action as 'good'?" You're clearly judging actions on your terms, or the terms of "most people". I defer to God. Despite what you'd like to believe, you and He are not synonymous.
"Is there a verse somewhere that says, "But behold, if it be a pagan or a non-believer or a Gentile who does good deeds, yea, verily, this brings no honor to God..."? "
Yeah. Here's one:
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom 8:5-8)
Indeed, Chapter 6:1-18 is describing the value of works done by those who are actually worshiping their own selves, as they perform the various deeds mentioned therein for themselves rather than for God.
Or how about Isaiah 57 & 58, which both make reference to "good deeds" from those who do not truly follow God's will? 57:12 I will expose your righteousness and your works, and they will not benefit you. 58 speaks of those in rebellion and the lack of value of their fasting and other deeds.
Do you need more, or will the above suffice?
"So, this is something you're creating from your opinion, not from the Bible and not from reality, is that fair to say?"
Clearly, it is not.
OK. I'll have to get to the rest of your comments to me later. I've been up for 23 hours and for some reason I'm a bit drowsy.
"So, it is your human opinion that IF people know we are Christians and IF they see us doing good, then and only then is God honored by good deeds?"
Honoring God is a willful act. One doesn't honor God "accidentally" or automatically. It's a matter of intent. How does an atheist intend to honor God if he doesn't believe God exists? The atheist has no desire to honor that which he believes is fictitious.
More to the point of your question, it requires agreeing with you that the deeds Christ had in mind in v.16 were of the righting the neighbors overturned trash can variety. As I have asserted, I see the text as denoting it refers to one not hiding the fact that one is Christian...living openly as a Christian, which is the light one is encouraged to let shine.
"Jesus says that WE are the light.
Agreed?"
Not at issue and not in dispute.
"It is an analogy, agreed?"
Not at issue and not in dispute.
"The analogy, Jesus says, Is that, "IN THE SAME WAY, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds...""
It's a tragically incomplete rendering of the verse, and thus all questions based on that incomplete rendering are pointless.
"How specifically does letting "your Christianity shine" work? What does that mean?
That sounds pretty vague and meaningless, in my human opinion"
So you need to insist. But I was actually quite clear and precise, so that you prefer to say it's vague and meaningless can be taken as a lie, poor comprehension, arrogant condescension or any combination of the three. "Letting" denotes "not hiding" or "allowing". That is to say, one does nothing to deny one's Christianity (belief in Christ/God)...not so much doing something to make sure people know one is a believer. The point of the verse is not doing good deeds, but to compel men to praise God. Once again, how does that happen through the works of an atheist? Keep in mind, the men before whom we are to let our light shine might not know God, and possibly are the very men Christ had in mind. This is also a problem with your hunch...it misses the point of why Christ wants us to let our light shine in the first place. YOU want it to be about making the world a better place. But Christ clearly states "that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. As I said, that's the punchline. Seeing the good deeds is the build up to that punchline. It's how men are provoked to praise God.
But again, how does that work with a non-believer (or nominal believer even) being so compelled by seeing a non-believer doing good works? What would provoke the observer to praise God? Magic? Mere chance? This is a clear case of Christ implying that we are to be the "human agency" for God...Him working through us. But that is not likely the result if the "agent" is one who is in rebellion, as is an atheist.
Referring again to "letting", I'll again use something you can understand: An open homosexual. Such a person doesn't necessarily hide the fact that he's morally corrupt...he just doesn't hide it. He's letting his corruption shine by not preventing it via keeping it a secret. "Letting" means "do not inhibit".
continuing....
"Clearly, the world is made a better and brighter place by good deeds"
But the point is that by your explanation, that is only true in human terms. Said another way, I've often said to non-believers that I insist that if even a non-believer lives life according to Christian teachings unrelated to whether or not God exists or that Christ is God, life would be better for everyone, since the teachings of Scripture are logical and demonstrably beneficial...such as abstaining from sex before marriage, for example. There's no downside to living life as Scripture teaches.
However, none of the necessarily means that it lights God's fire knowing that a non-believer is giving a co-worker a lift home. As my several citations indicate, it just as likely means nothing to God that a non-believer is the most charitable person on earth. But if you're now suggesting you know what God thinks, then you need to apologize for all the times you've chastised those like myself for citing His own words to support our contention about how He feels about a point being discussed. While I've presented evidence that good deeds by bad people don't impress God, you've presented nothing to support the contention that He cares at all how "good" a non-believer acts. Your hunch is based on nothing Scriptural at all, thus far, but merely on your own desire that it be true.
"Do you not believe that every good and kind thing is of God, in some way?"
I'll go further. I believe Scripture teaches us that ALL things work toward God's purpose. But that's not the same as saying that God is pleased that a non-believer does something Dan would regard as "a good deed" simply because it may legitimately be regarded as such "by most people".
Moving on to the next comment....
"It seems to me that your Christianity shines when you do good deeds. Good deeds, good acts, kindness, truth, love, forgiveness, mercy, acting for justice... these are ALL things that are of God"
How does an atheist's Christianity shine when he does good deeds? When an atheist refuses to obey God, what then is shining in such a way as to lead men to praise God? Thus, you continue to miss the point, which is to lead men to praise God. Your self-satisfying interpretation suggests that those not already prone to praising God will be compelled to do so when they see Adolf Hitler help a little old lady with her groceries. Can you offer any Scriptural support for that? The Pharisees did righteous acts, but were not righteous and thus their acts were meaningless to Christ. He could not have been more clear about that, but yet you ignore that to suggest the absolute opposite. How many people do you suppose were compelled to praise God by the righteous acts of those who oppressed them by their legalism? Every way one can look at this results in you being painted into a corner that you haven't come close to extricating yourself. And it's all because you choose to focus on "good deeds" rather than leading men to praise God and why they might be so compelled...because you choose to ignore deeds like "obeying God" when you refer to "good deeds" which is of the most important deeds one can do... more important than donating to charity. Even Al Capone had soup kitchens. Do you think he's behind the Pearly Gates right now?
continuing...
"It seems to me that your Christianity shines when you do good deeds."
That's backwards. We do good deeds because of our Christianity. Works is the by-product of our salvation, not the means to it. The type of good deeds you insist is being referenced by Christ is, as I phrased it earlier, only a "sub-section" of that which Christ meant by the term. All commentaries that go into detail on v.16 more than merely suggest this, including Matthew Henry's. Your interpretation ignores that worshiping, obeying and our own praising of God are also deeds that can most certainly be described by God as "good", and without which, the deeds to which your refer are really no more than just deeds. So despite what seems to be the case for you, the evidence that our light is shining is not the deeds we do, but that men praise God as a result of our light shining.
"Do you think that all these other commentaries are wrong to say that good works are what light up the world, bringing glory to God?"
No. I think YOU'RE wrong in insisting the commentaries support your position. To that end, I offer the entire section of Henry's commentary related to how our light should shine and to what end we should let it:
See here, First, How our light must shine—by doing such good works as men may see, and may approve of; such works as are of good report among them that are without, and as will therefore give them cause to think well of Christianity. We must do good works that may be seen to the edification of others, but not that they may be seen to our own ostentation; we are bid to pray in secret, and what lies between God and our souls, must be kept to ourselves; but that which is of itself open and obvious to the sight of men, we must study to make congruous to our profession, and praiseworthy, Phil. 4:8. Those about us must not only hear our good words, but see our good works; that they may be convinced that religion is more than a bare name, and that we do not only make a profession of it, but abide under the power of it.
Secondly, For what end our light must shine—"That those who see your good works may be brought, not to glorify you (which was the things the Pharisees aimed at, and it spoiled all their performances), but to glorify your Father which is in heaven." Note, The glory of God is the great thing we must aim at in every thing we do in religion, 1 Pt. 4:11. In this centre the lines of all our actions must meet. We must not only endeavor to glorify God ourselves, but we must do all we can to bring others to glorify him. The sight of our good works will do this, by furnishing them, 1. With matter for praise. "Let them see your good works, that they may see the power of God’s grace in you, and may thank him for it, and give him the glory of it, who has given such power unto men." 2. With motives of piety. "Let them see your good works, that they may be convinced of the truth and excellency of the Christian religion, may be provoked by a holy emulation to imitate your good works, and so may glorify God." Note, The holy, regular, and exemplary conversation of the saints, may do much towards the conversion of sinners; those who are unacquainted with religion, may hereby be brought to know what it is. Examples teach. And those who are prejudiced against it, may hereby by brought in love with it, and thus there is a winning virtue in a godly conversation.
Indeed, the entire point 2 supports my position on the matter that the point of v.16 is NOT to do good works to make the world a better place, regardless of whether or not by human standards it accomplishes that at the same time. The point of v.16 is to lead others to praise God. I'm always grateful when your "evidence" supports my position rather than yours. You're a pip.
continuing...
"This is exactly what I'm saying, what I'm saying that Jesus is saying. Our good deeds are HOW we let our metaphorical light shine."
Again, you miss the point, which is that how you define "deeds" is limited to your "helping little old ladies across the street" variety. Christ isn't limiting HIS meaning in this way, and commentaries like Matthew Henry's doesn't, either. What's more, letting our light shine compels such acts, but is not the light itself. When we let our light shine, me will see us perform such acts, but they will (or should, hopefully) see that we also obey God, worship and praise God ourselves. They must see that we do those acts out of religious compulsion or there will be no compulsion on their part to consider WHY we do them, much less to praise God because we do them...which is the point of why Jesus so encourages us to let our light shine.
So I am NOT saying the same thing as you...and neither is Jesus or the commentaries on this verse.
AT this juncture, I wish to go back to your constant partial presentation of v.16, as you do here:
"IN THE SAME WAY, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds..."
When you stop short as you do, you leave off the actual purpose in order to make the case that the purpose is what you prefer. You do a similarly deceptive thing when speaking of being saved by Grace while leaving out the important part about it being through Christ's having died in our stead. It's incomplete and thus a false teaching. Verse 16 is Jesus telling us why we should let our light shine. It is not that they may merely see the good deeds, but by seeing the good deeds they will be driven to praise God. In other words, they won't see the good deeds unless we let our light shine and as a result will have not been compelled to praise God. Again, consider why anyone would (or should) necessarily feel compelled to praise God because one who hates God does a deed you and "most people" consider "good"?
When you stop short as you do, you demonstrate that you are not the least bit concerned about context when in stopping short, you not only have taken the verse out of the context of the chapters in which it exists, but you've taken it out of the context of the verse itself...buy leaving off the punchline.
"Thus, it appears that Jesus thinks our actions are pretty valued by him and to the world.
Do you really disagree with that?"
Only insofar as those actions were performed by somebody who, because the light of their belief in Christ is obvious, led someone to praise God.
Here's the thing: this is another case wherein you fail to acknowledge, or intentionally or not choose to ignore, that Christ isn't concerned about worldly things, including whether or not conditions on earth improve as a result of everyone doing what you and "most people" regard as "good" deeds. He's concerned about the spiritual, and that all come to God. If the whole world is given over to doing what you and "most people" agree are "good" deeds, but no one has faith in Christ or belief in God, I don't think you can actually expect rational people to believe that Christ would resign Himself saying, "Oh well, at least everyone does good deeds". That's absurd.
I think you are clearly misunderstanding Jesus' teaching. You are welcome to your opinions, but I don't think they are sound, rational or moral.
Peace.
"I think you are clearly misunderstanding Jesus' teaching."
Yet you provide nothing whatsoever to rebut my understanding, to demonstrate in what manner it might be flawed and generally do no more than your typical "nyuh uh" response. In the meantime, I've shown your attempt to support your position to be without merit whatsoever by presenting Scriptural evidence galore.
And what exactly is immoral about my understanding? It doesn't dismiss entirely good deeds as defined by you and "most people" from the equation at all. My lengthy responses are clearly sound and more than merely rational. But your accusation attacking it on moral grounds is especially goofy. I'm dying to hear you justify that.
Art, thanks for the multiple reasonable, well supported comments making your case.
Dan, while your "I think you're mistaken" is clearly well reasoned and overwhelmingly filled with biblical and other citations that make a compelling case, ultimately I just don't find "I think your mistaken" particularly compelling or convincing.
Dan,
Given the fact that you've never provided an objective definition of morality, I find your repeated protestations that things are not moral to be quite baffling. If you can't define what something is, then it seems like it would be difficult to announce definitively what something is mot.
1. Definitions are not "objective." They are informative and they tell us how the word is commonly used, but they aren't (at least as a rule) objective. That is not the point.
http://steve-patterson.com/there-are-no-objective-definitions/
Thus, no, I can't provide an "objective definition of morality." Nor can you. No one can.
Do you think you can?
2. I suspect what you're asking (but you tell me) is if I have an authoritative definition of what is and isn't moral. Again, no, I don't. Nor do you. No one does.
Do you think you have a perfect authority?
3. Now, before you say, "The Bible..." I look to the Bible, too. But you and I disagree on how to read and what the meaning is of different parts of the Bible. So, the Bible itself can't be an authority, since we humans are relying upon our interpretations and understandings and none of us have the authority to speak for the various authors (or "Author," if you prefer to not take the Bible literally...)
4. That we don't have an objective definition of morality does not mean that people can't object to various actions being immoral or wrong. There is nothing at all baffling about this at all. Humanity has fairly consistent ideas of what is and isn't moral for a vast swath of actions. It is not moral to kill someone against their will, to harm someone against their will, to rape someone, etc. With the obvious caveats that the vast majority of us understand.
There is a difference between recognizing the reality that definitions are not objective and thinking "if you can't define what something is..." I CAN define what is and isn't immoral.
"concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character."
5. Thus, we are back to you all appearing to make morality and "good deeds" some baffling secret that can't be understood by humanity. But why would you make that argument? Are you suggesting you have no idea what is and isn't a good deed?
No, I don't think you are, but you tell me.
As to me not addressing Marshall's points more in-depth, I've already done so multiple times and he/you do not appear to understand the reasoning. Why address it again?
But to make this clear, here's Marshall's first explanation/human declaration in that last batch of comments...
What you think doesn't count unless you can back it up with Scriptural support. I don't believe you can given that Scripture teaches in several places the worthlessness of our deeds if we do not believe in God.
A. Says you.
B. That is, MARSHALL MAKES AN UNSUPPORTED CLAIM that unless someone can "back it up with Scriptural support," their opinion does not stand.
To put it frankly, Bullshit.
Marshall can not prove it, he can not support it and he probably does not even believe it, if we dug deep enough (there is no scriptural support for support of personal fossil fuel consumption in automobiles, but he almost certainly thinks it's okay).
C. Marshall uttered that wholly unsupported and irrational claim following me offering my opinion...
"If a Muslim does something good, I think that pleases God."
I have given my reasoning:
1. IF we accept the notion of a Good God
2. AND someone does good deeds
3. THEN rationally, it makes senses to think that anyone doing a good deed would please a good God.
Why wouldn't it?
Now, who says I have to support that with a biblical text? Why is simple reason not sufficient? Marshall does not say, nor can he, I suspect, unless he wants to devalue Reason as a way of reaching conclusions. But he will not say that, nor can he, unless he wants to undermine his biblical interpretations, which he reached using his human Reason.
I've said all this before, in various ways, but Marshall continues with this line of attack. He does not appear to understand the point and I've given a good faith effort to be clear.
The same is true for nearly each and every (if not every) one of his claims in the last set of comments. He does not understand where he errs and I've spent enough time trying to point out the rational difficulty in his claims. A good faith effort has been made.
As noted, if Marshall still wishes to hold these human hunches, I'm fine with him doing so. I'm just saying that his opinion is not the beginning and end of all wisdom.
A point I'm sure you both can agree with.
Peace.
In relation to Marshall's empty claim that it doesn't count unless you back it up with Scripture, IF I were to play that game (and keeping in mind, the onus is on Marshall to support this claim and that he can't support it), I could at least point to the case of the unsaved Cornelius whose devout acts were pleasing to God, as found in Acts 4...
At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, “Cornelius.” And he stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended cas a memorial before God...."
...but as noted, that I can play that game does not mean that Marshall's point stands. It just undermines it regardless.
~Dan
So, your declaration regarding what is and is not moral has no actual foundation or backing beyond yourself. In other words it's worthless.
It's truly amazing that you've already addressed 4-5 comments worth of material in an exhaustive and well sourced and supported form before they were made. Of course your response doesn't really address my comment
Why is it worthless? That people agree across the board that feeding the starving is a good thing, that getting jobs to the unemployed so they can live is a good thing, that denying food to the starving is a bad thing, that killing somebody's neighbor is a bad thing... what is wrong with that foundation?
And more to the point: What do you have different than what I have?
Our morality HAS a foundation. Do you disagree? And it is a foundation beyond myself... humanity in general agrees on the vast majority of what I'm speaking about. That IS beyond myself.
The problem you have, Craig, is that YOU have nothing beyond yourself. You have only your little human opinions and you don't think you can trust humanity to understand basic goodness and bad-ness, so it is all upon you and those who agree with you. So, does that not make you all a little "g" god in your own minds?
How does it not?
I'm noticing that you are making unsupported and ridiculous charges, but not answering the questions you pose yourself.
Why is that?
It is meaningless because you have no rational basis to declare anything either "moral" or "immoral" in any objective sense. The absolute best you can do is to assert that you are expressing an opinion regarding the "morality" of any given action. Or assert a collective opinion. The problem with your position is that using your own standard, the opposite position is equally likely to be true. When you build your foundation on the consensus of a group, it's only valid as long as the consensus exists or within that group.
You've had this problem for quite some time, yet continue to pronounce things as "moral" or "immoral" as if these are objective states, when it's simply an expression of your hunches about things.
Ultimately where the positions you've articulated in regards your original claim, undercut any force your claim might have. If this is simply figurative speech and subjectivity moral, then there's really no reading to follow this suggestion.
t is meaningless because you have no rational basis to declare anything either "moral" or "immoral" in any objective sense.
Says you. What is meaningless, however, is this assertion, Craig. WHO CARES if I can't declare something "objectively immoral?" IF I can't, neither can you.
Can you?
No, hell no. You can't. Not any more than me.
That you might want to think so is your problem, not the rest of the world's.
The rest of the world recognizes that, by God, YES, it is moral to feed hungry people! IT IS moral to adopt orphaned children! It IS immoral to kill your neighbor! The whole world goes by, day by day, recognizing what is and isn't moral without a single help from you or your lack of an objective morality. It simply isn't that hard.
Now, that you want to suggest that we "can't" identify moral behavior because we have no rational basis, THAT is absurd and without a rational basis.
WHY is it moral to feed someone who is hungry? Because it helps. Because if I were in that situation, I'd appreciate it. Because it makes the world a better place.. WHY is it moral to adopt an orphaned child? Because it helps. Because if I were in that situation, I'd appreciate it. Because it makes the world a better place.
That you appear to have an irrational need for an "objective" or authoritative source to "know" something is moral or not is your problem, not mine, not the rest of the world's.
Come on, Craig, be reasonable. Answer your own question:
DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTIVE DEFINITION FOR MORALITY?
DO YOU HAVE AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE FOR MORAL ACTIONS?
The answer is no, you don't. You have never provided one because you can't provide one, not beyond "Well, I CRAIG THINK, that God thinks that these actions are moral..." but that is an appeal to your own genius and not anyone else and no one else is obliged to heed a thing you think. Certainly not if you're citing your understanding as some objective, infallible source.
So, the answer is no.
Your continued failure to answer your own question is the very evidence that you can't.
That you have a problem with the rest of us recognizing morality is not to say that anyone else does.
Excuse me, Dan, but you're either lying or once again proving your inability to think. When I insist that you back something up with Scripture, it is clearly and unmistakably referring to assertions you make about something related to the faith. In this case, it is your interpretation of Matt 5:16. I'm not concerning my comments with anything BUT what you've said in this regard. Thus, if you think Christ means "XYZ" by what He says in a given verse, there must be something other than your self-satisfying opinions to back up your assertions. Why is this so troublesome for you, and why do you insist I'm making irrational demands upon you to explain yourself. A
And no, you haven't responded at all. Again, no one here is debating what passes for "good deeds" in the minds of most people. The issue is what Christ meant when He used the term in v.16. I don't know how many times I've clarified this point, but you insist on ignoring it and making it about "what most people believe a good deed is". Is helping an old woman with her groceries a good deed? Who the hell would say otherwise? The question is what makes you think that Christ is referring ONLY to acts such at these when He speaks of "good deeds" in v.16. It is about THAT for which I ask for Scriptural support. It makes a difference with regard to the teaching of Christ. Do you have some problem with improved understanding of Christ's teachings? Are you so committed to what you like something to mean that you won't change it if a better understanding is offered? This is not to say mine IS better, but despite what you prefer and need to believe, I have indeed supported my position with Scriptural support.
It's not a "game" to support one's position on Scripture with Scripture. In fact, it is consistent with your own insistence over the years that you interpret in the same way. You simply don't do it honestly or intelligently, preferring instead to find ways to support that which you like and prefer. Case in point is your referring to Cornelius. I'm going to cut your some slack and assume you cite that passage in haste without actually confirming that it supports your position with regard to non-believers doing good deeds. Cornelius was clearly a believer in God to the extent that God sent him Peter to teach him about Christ.
Anyway, I'm out of time for now. I will address your false and confused misunderstanding of my comments later. Might be a couple of days. You're truly lost.
Not much time but this: Cornelius was a believer in GOD, but he was not a Christian. I believe most commentators will agree with me on this one.
Muslims are believers in GOD, but not Christian.
The Bible shows that God was pleased by that non-Christian's deeds.
So, again, setting aside the many rational problems with your human opinion, it also fails biblically.
Still just checking in as opposed to having time for a bull blown response, but again you make a false statement, this time in comparing Cornelius with muslims. Muslims believe if "a" god, but they do not believe in God. Cornelius was indeed a believer in the tradition of the type of Jew that the Law was meant to develop, without actually being a Jew himself. In a very real sense, he was a Christian waiting to hear about Christ, which is what his story is about (together with the revelation that Christ was for all people, Jew and gentile alike). This isn't hard, Dan. But I await your enlightenment as to where there exists any "rational problems" with anything I've said. In the meantime, if you wish to "play the game", you haven't "scored" yet, and citing the Cornelius story does not stand and a score at all.
One thing I think may clear up part of our misunderstanding:
Glory is a word that is used in two ways in Scripture. It speaks to God's "awesomeness". We cannot see His Glory without dying first. Moses was prohibited from seeing anything beyond a mere glimpse of God's Glory. But as such, it is not something we can give Him, since He is Glorious already.
The other sense the word is used is similar to "praise". When we "glorify" God, we are not giving Him glory, but are praising Him. This is the sense it is used in some English translations of v.16. And equation would look like these:
glorify = praising
to give glory = to praise
But YOU said, several times, "bring" glory, which suggests/implies having glory of one's own, or having found glory somewhere or in something and then bringing it to add to what God already has in full abundance. You may not have meant this, but since you can't explain yourself clearly without further confusing things, I'm left with interpreting your incoherence.
Here's another problem inherent in dealing with your petulant refusal to consider intelligently opposing positions: YOU think it's a matter of "what I think" versus "what YOU think". It is not. It's always a matter of how one can defend what one thinks. You don't really spend any time beyond some cursory attempt that is fraught with new problems. We appeal to Scripture to defend ourselves and you satisfy yourself with the lame attack on our appeal as "hunch". Fine. If we misread Scripture, use Scripture to defend your opposition. When we say "I (state your name) think God says 'XYZ'", it's because Scripture supports what we "think" and we spell out just how that is so...by citing Chapter and verse to whatever extent is possible. YOU, on the other hand, as illustrated by your weak Cornelius attempt, so not. All we ever hope for is some intelligent and rational use of Scripture that can clear up the objections your own words provoke.
As if that isn't enough, we even explain why your explanations fail to validate your positions, and you then default to your "hunch" bullshit. As such we cannot help to conclude that you are not so much looking to improve your understanding of the faith, but instead prefer an understanding you impose upon Scripture because of how it appeals to your personally to do so. Considering how clear I find most of Scripture to understand, this is particularly curious, that what is clear isn't good enough for you.
Anyway, I look forward to addressing your responses in full...perhaps tomorrow morning.
Muslims worship God, the God of Moses and Jacob. "Allah" is just the arabic word for God, the same creator God that is spoken of in the Bible. Jewish folk worship Yahweh, the God of Moses and Jacob. "Yahweh" is just the Hebrew word for God.
They are believers in God. Period. That you disagree with their hunches about God does not mean that they do not worship God. YOU do not get to decide who is and isn't worshiping God. Sorry.
The point stands, Cornelius was not a believer in Jesus/not a Christian. From the traditional conservative site, Got Questions...
In considering the story of Cornelius in the Bible, it is important to note that being religious is not enough to save a person. Cornelius was as devout as they come, and he worshiped the one true God. Yet he still needed to hear the gospel and respond to it positively. That’s why God sent Peter, so that Cornelius could hear of the death and resurrection of Christ, which Peter clearly preached (Acts 10:39–40, 43).
It was only after Cornelius and his household received the message about Jesus that they received the Holy Spirit and were born again.
From the Christian apologetics website, CARM...
This vision eventually led to Peter proclaiming the gospel before Cornelius and all of his close friends and relatives.
This resulted in their dramatic conversion to Christianity.
I could go on. I believe that most traditional evangelicals consider that Cornelius wasn't a Christian until after he heard the Gospel from Peter. Now, that's not me, I'd be perfectly glad to consider Cornelius, the earnest seeker, a follower/Christian, but you say you belong to the tribe of conservative evangelicals, so, you'll have to take it up with them.
So, again, I'm not especially interested in the game of "find it in the Bible first" but if I did, you'd still lose.
As to this...
But YOU said, several times, "bring" glory, which suggests/implies having glory of one's own, or having found glory somewhere or in something and then bringing it to add to what God already has in full abundance.
What the text says...
In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
The TEXT says that our good deeds bring glory/result in people glorifying God. I'm just citing the text/Jesus. You'll have to take this argument up with Jesus. Feel to reject a literal interpretation of your savior if you wish.
YOU think it's a matter of "what I think" versus "what YOU think". It is not. It's always a matter of how one can defend what one thinks. You don't really spend any time beyond some cursory attempt that is fraught with new problems.
Unfortunately, it IS a matter of what you think vs what I think. Now, it is certainly true that I make a good case for what I think, but it IS what I think. Whereas, you offer your hunches about what you think. That you may wish to conflate your hunches with something greater than yourself speaks to your humility or lack thereof. But that is your problem, not mine, friend.
I do defend what I think. In this case, I'm clearly just citing Jesus own words. HE SAYS that YOU, Marshall, are the light of the world. Period. That is what Jesus says and I echoed this. Now, if you wish to explain away what Jesus says, that's your option to do so. But don't expect me to agree with you because you insist you've got other verses that support your hunches. If your hunches lean on explaining away Jesus' literal words and going against plain and simple reason/logic, I'll pass on agreeing with you.
Peace,
Dan
Muslims do NOT worship God. They worship "a" god to whom they attribute similar a similar background story as the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Jews and Christians worship the same God, as evidenced by the fact that Christ preached that fact. But Muhammad, pissed that the Jews rejected him, created his own religion that clearly conjures a god that is only superficially the same in some respects only, but vastly different is so many others.
Cornelius worshiped God in the Jewish tradition, despite not being a Jew himself. Thus, like many Jews who came to worship Christ, he was, for lack of a better term, a Christian but didn't know it. The bottom line is that he fails as an example of a non-believer who does good deeds. He clearly was a believer of the type all Jews of the time were supposed to be. (BTW, his story begins in Acts 10...not 4)
Thus, you waste keystrokes insisting that Cornelius wasn't a Christian, since I never made the claim that he was. You seem to enjoy focusing on that which is not in contention. Must be because you cannot defend that which is.
"The TEXT says that our good deeds bring glory/result in people glorifying God."
It's weird, in a sociopathic kind of way, that you type a verse and then immediately repeat your earlier misrepresentation. Here, you do it as if your bad word choices should have been taken in a manner your word choices do not compel. It would be more honest if you had simply acknowledged your sloppiness and been gracious after I suggested what provoked the misunderstanding. You know..."embrace grace". But you cannot bring to God what He already has. You were imprecise in your word choices. I made them more so. You're welcome. Be gracious and leave it at that.
Also, the text is saying, "Let your light shine so men will give glory to God." The "good deeds" part is superfluous to the point Christ was making. It is unnecessary to the point, and for such as yourself, evidently too confusing being there. It isn't about men seeing the good deeds. It's about men praising God. Do this, so that men will do that. THAT is the literal interpretation.
I can most certainly insist that non-believers don't worship God if they in fact do not, which is true of muslims. They worship something else, but it is not the "one true" God. I have my doubts about you as well.
"Now, it is certainly true that I make a good case for what I think..."
It is not the least bit true. You make a really crappy, unsupported and illogical case for what you think. Indeed, it is seems quite clear that you don't care to make a case at all give how bad a case it is.
"Whereas, you offer your hunches about what you think."
This is just a lie, plainly and simply, not to mention blatantly. I provided six lengthy arguments in a row, none of which you actually read seriously, if at all. Within them, there is quite a bit more solid than mere "hunches", but that's the wussy response we've come to expect from you when you're faced with solid evidence for an opposing view. Your responses have again been of the "nyuh uh" variety, and what "evidence" you provide doesn't even deal with any claim I've made.
You end with another diversion, pretending I'm dismissing something Jesus said. Never have. I've problems with what you think Jesus means, provided much that shows what you pretend it means isn't quite the case (if at all). In other words, I'm not going against plain and simple reason/logic. I'm going against simple-minded reasoning...an incredible lack of actual reasoning on your part in favor of a simplistic, but inaccurate interpretation of Christ's words based on all that surrounds the verse in question.
Good luck, Marshall.
Peace.
Why not just be honest and admit your surrender, rather than to pretend you've proven me wrong when you haven't and then turning tail?
1. As long as you keep insisting that certain actions are objectively "moral" or "immoral", yet can't provide and objective standard to back up your assertions, you are contradicting yourself.
2. I've offered multiple definitions of morality in various places, you've never demonstrated any of them to be incorrect. I see no reason to play that game with you again.
3. A cursory glance at the Torah, The Bible, and the Koran would satisfy any rational reader that the God revealed in the Koran is clearly "not like the others". Of course to even make that claim one would have to place the Bible (Jewish and Christian parts) on an equal footing with the Koran. That means Dan is placing Jesus on the same level of credibility as a human being who claimed to have ridden a flying horse.
1. I have not done this. I have not done this. Do you understand? I have NOT done this? Will it help if I repeat it ten times? Or could you just copy and paste it on a page and read it yourself until you understand?
I have not said that "certain actions are objectively moral." It has not happened. DO you now understand that this has not ever happened in the real world? If yes, please type, "Yes, I understand. My fault." If someone is holding a gun to your head and you can't type it, just blink, so I can understand the trouble...
I DO believe that certain actions are CLEARLY moral (or immoral) and I do not need to be able to say that they are clearly moral or immoral.
1a. The question to you was DO YOU UNDERSTAND that definitions are not objective? Well, do you?
1b. The further question to you was, DO YOU UNDERSTAND that YOU do not have an objective definition of morality?
Yes, no, or "I can't answer that." Any of those will suffice. If you're wanting to deal with what I have actually said (as opposed to arguing against something that I have never said).
Your call.
2. I have no idea what you are speaking of. What I CAN tell you is that you have offered NOT ONE SINGLE "objective definition of morality. You simply haven't. Why? Because that is not how definitions work. Have you read the explanatory link I pointed you to so that you can understand your problem with this notion?
The point remains. You have NO "objective definition" of morality. Hopefully you can agree with reality.
3. So, the God found in the OT is exactly like the NT understanding offered by Jesus? So, do you think we don't need Jesus and his teachings then?
In what possible sense is the God in the OT different in kind than the God of Islam?
You all are offering random and subjective demands upon Islam's understanding of God that you are not demanding of an ancient Jewish understanding.
Peace, salaam, good will.
1. This is tap-dancing. If one is to insist an action is moral or immoral, there must be some basis for doing so. That basis can legitimately be regarded as "objective". Thus, what difference is there in insisting an action is "immoral" versus "objectively immoral"? In either case, requesting the charge be supported is legitimate, regardless of whether or not you're unhappy with the term "objective" place before your notion of what is immoral.
2. I can't speak for Craig's exact meaning, but clearly there have been many examples of where a notion of what is moral or immoral has been supported by various passages from Scripture. While I know you don't consider Scripture to be an authority above any other, it does indeed provide the ammunition that supports our contentions. To object, one would need to provide counter passages that can each be analyzed for accurate interpretation and application. We don't get such from you, Dan. We get "nyuh uh".
3. The God of OT and NT are the same. Jesus clearly explained that to be the case, despite how atheists and progressives like yourself would pretend to the contrary.
"In what possible sense is the God in the OT different in kind than the God of Islam?"
A strange question from one who insists he is a serious and prayerful student of Scripture. You apparently regard superficial similarities and claims by muslims to be enough to justify your position. It would seem to me that your question first requires that you explain in what possible sense the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT...especially since Jesus clearly teaches there is no difference. I believe it is obvious you have again found yourself boxed into a corner and expect us to provide a means for your escape. Should you fail to explain yourself, as I'm sure you will, I will provide an answer to your question in a few days when time allows.
1. No, it's not tap-dancing. It's being precise in language. You all do NOT have an "objective definition" for morality. You don't. Period. In the real world, you do not have an objective definition for this.
The reason it's important is, if there are no criteria for what is and isn't "objectively moral," then you would be merely claiming "I'm right, objectively so," even when you are not objectively correct. You are SUBJECTIVELY, correct, IN YOUR OPINION, about this morality or that immorality.
Words matter.
Do you recognize that you have no objective definition for what morality means? For what is and isn't moral?
That is, do you recognize reality?
what difference is there in insisting an action is "immoral" versus "objectively immoral"?
The difference is recognizing reality. I BELIEVE that most people in the real world can easily agree that it is moral to help feed a hungry person, to house a homeless person, to adopt an orphan, to support a friend in need, etc. We can REASONABLY say, "Yes, of course, this is moral and good." And we can reasonably agree probably on 99% of general actions. Being able to reasonably agree on these ideas and ideals, that is sufficient. We do not HAVE to have an "objective definition," because such does not exist.
Do you recognize reality?
In either case, requesting the charge be supported is legitimate
And I can easily support my ideas of what is and isn't moral. It's MORAL to help someone in need because it's reasonable and responsible to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. The world would be hellish (an Ayn Rand paradise IS a hell for the rest of us) without that sort of rational conclusion.
Do you think I have not supported my ideas of what is and isn't moral? Do you not recognize the support I just gave (which is, by the way, the same support that Jesus gave, in so many words) as a reasonable support for morality?
To object, one would need to provide counter passages
To object MIGHT involve that, IF WE ALL CONCEDE that we want to play by your Rulebook Bible rules. We do not accept your hunches about a Rulebook Bible. So, since we do not share that premise, what you do and don't do in this regards is irrelevant to the question being asked.
If a Muslim were to say to you, "You can't oppose abortion or kidnap or slavery UNLESS you can support your opposition with support from the Qu'ran," you would shrug and say, BS. You would not accept their premise.
If you want to argue in the bigger world with other rational adults who do not share your personal premises, you need to argue on some common ground, not based on what you personally prefer.
1. Except you have. You have clearly identified certain things as both "moral" and "immoral" without qualification you have also clearly stated that morality is subjective. So, yes you have.
2. So, are you really claiming that your ability to remember is the sole determinant of reality. I have multiple times.
3. Why not just say you aren't familiar enough with the Koran to make comparisons and be done with it. I'll defer to Jesus who was pretty clear that the OT contained enough information for salvation. But, clearly the two testaments are related and one is a continuation and completion of the other.
No, random demands at all. How about just subjecting the Koran to the same level of criticism as the Bible? I guess you could try the "it's all myth" trope, which would be problematic as the Koran post dates the "myth as history" time frame.
I guess it's much more reasonable to blindly accept tales of flying horses and God dictating the Koran word for word uncritically than it is to accept the OT.
Nice try, but ignorance isn't helping you this time either.
Do you even know what Islam/Muslim means?
You do realize that the countries with the highest current instance of slavery are all Muslim, don't you?
You also realize that Muslims will claim the Allah encourages kidnapping and offer the Koran as proof?
You do realize that for a Muslim the Koran is the very specific word of Allah and that the Koran is exactly the kind of "rule book" you deride?
You do realize that the Sharia Law we hear about is exactly the temporal application of the Koran as a rule book? A rule book that sentences apostates and homosexuals to death. I'm talking about in 2017, not 600 BC.
But, you can't see any difference at all. Again, when you make these statements from ignorance it's hard to take you seriously.
Not much time at present, but this gem compels my response:
"If a Muslim were to say to you, "You can't oppose abortion or kidnap or slavery UNLESS you can support your opposition with support from the Qu'ran," you would shrug and say, BS"
You've run this lame ploy before. If I were engaged with a muslim, I'd use a far different approach because they don't believe in God...because they abide a false religion...because they take their cues from an unBibical source (the Koran).
But you claim to be a Christian. I don't see how appeals to what a muslim or any other non-Christian might believe is relevant.
I also don't see how you can continue to put the source materials of other religions on the same level as Scripture.
I will say, however, that I would fully expect a muslim to refer to his "holy book" to support his beliefs about the morality of a given action. It's what rational people of any faith do. That gives us a hint as to why you won't.
It's what Muslims do when they cut off the hands of thieves, when they kill people who renounce Islam, when they kill homosexuals, when they mutilate or sexually enslave young girls. They offer their holy book as justification. They also offer their holy book as the perfect example of God communicating to humanity. It's interesting that it's possible to express such contempt for the authority of the Bible while not expressing equal contempt for the authority given to the Koran.
It's surprising that there is such contempt directed at those whose political views are influenced by scripture and any attempt to "legislate Biblical morality", is characterized as an attempt to establish a theocracy, while not expressing the same contempt for the Muslim countries who have actually established a theocracy based on the Koran.
But it's all the same God. What crap ignorance leads people to.
Art,
In all fairness to Dan, he's spent the best part of two comment threads doing exactly that. He's trying to use his "holy book" to justify engaging in certain action which he finds "moral". Of course he's not admitting that's what he's doing, he's certainly not suggesting that we're commanded to do those things, or that the Bible has any authority.
But, in reality he's decided that this one particular "rule" agrees with his personal morality and that therefore it must be "good", and it must make god "happy" when we follow this "rule".
Please Art, at least be fair enough to acknowledge this reality.
I'm still trying to deal with the alleged reality that there is some kind of difference between saying something is moral or immoral versus objectively moral or immoral. This is of particular concern when one is so fervently insisting on a given act being one or the other. It doesn't sound all that subjective when doing so.
In fact, it seems to be a truly objective claim, as if there is no doubt or room for debate. How much more objective can it be? Indeed, he doesn't really seem to sincerely believe that an opposing opinion is of any value, that there is any rational reason for that opposing view. Thus, the debate over the use of the term "objective" seems to be a diversion so that he can avoid defending his belief. It certainly helps to validate my belief that Dan and his positions thrive and depend upon ambiguity and a superficial reading of Scripture, as is so obvious in his "understanding" of Matt 5:16. It also shows his "understanding" of "taking Scripture literally" is self-serving.
I completely agree, that making the statement that something is either moral or immoral all, is in reality making an objective claim. In the absence of qualifying the statement, the only option is That the behavior is being claimed to be objectively moral.
Where I struggle with this, is the fact that if you actually look at definitions of morality, there is a significant school of thought that morality is inherently subjective and based on what a society decides. If that is the case , Then it is quite reasonable to reach the conclusion that as long as a society decides that slavery is more than slavery is in fact objectively moral for that society. If one seeks to destro to reach the conclusion that as long as a society decides that slavery is more than slavery is in fact objectively moral for that society. If one seeks to say that slavery is immoral under any and all circumstances and in any and all societies then one is making an objective claim about the morality of slavery. If, morality is subjective then anything can be declared moral.
As I see it, if one is going to claim that any behavior is moral or immoral all under any and all circumstances then that is a claim to objective morality. If on the other hand the claim is that morality is subjective and is driven by society, then it's impossible to claim that any behavior is moral or immoral all outside of that society or group of people. Unfortunately, it seems that some want to have it both ways. They want to claim that morality is subjective yet Retain the standing to declare that certain behaviors are either moral or immoral all using the term objectively even while denying that they are doing so
Should you all ever wish to address my actual questions or talk to my actual points, please let me know. In the meantime, you are welcome to enjoy talking about points that aren't mine if it amuses you. Just know, you're tackling straw man arguments, not my arguments.
Perhaps the best way to, you know, actually address what I'm saying is to answer the questions that I am actually asking. This seems reasonable to me.
Just let me know should you ever change your minds. At this point, I'm relatively sure that you do not even recognize that you are not dealing with reality or with my actual questions and points, and I don't know what I can do to help you see it. Saying, "I didn't say that," does not appear to be enough.
Peace.
Dan
Why look, a straw man. The problem isn't that we haven't addressed what you've said, it's that we have.
Just one example...
As I see it, if one is going to claim that any behavior is moral or immoral all under any and all circumstances then that is a claim to objective morality.
The problem here is, in your words, "AS I SEE IT..." Your inability to recognize that someone is claiming that a behavior is REASONABLY MORAL - and NOT going on to say that it is objectively moral - does not mean that they are not making the claim.
As I said, the problem is probably your collective inability to understand what people are saying (or why), versus them actually saying what you prefer to think, or what you "can see..."
For one example.
For another, ALL the stuff that you all keep going on about what I said about Islam. None of your claims are addressing the point I was making or deal with what I was saying. I was offering a very apt analogy. YOU TWO would not accept a Muslim's claim (and it doesn't have to be a Muslim, it could be anyone with their own holy book different than yours) that YOU have to defend your position/make your case using the Koran because "that is where all wisdom lies," in their opinion.
In the real world, YOU TWO DO NOT SHARE THEIR PREMISES. That was my point. Not that Islam is defensible or that the Koran is a great book. I was not addressing Islam at all. I was not addressing the Koran at all. I made an apt point that you all did not address, but instead, raised hell because I was defending Islam.
Good Lord, have mercy.
I could go on and on with just about every line and point out why what you've argued against does not align with what I've said and how you have not answered the questions asked. I could, but what would be the point? You two truly don't seem to understand where you're going astray.
So, peace to you. Salaam. God's blessings.
~Dan
Not at all, I completely understand that you are trying to add a third "type" of morality. You are attempt to substitute "reasonable" for "subjective", yet acting as if this subjective category is objective. Or, put another way, Jesus is either giving a commandment or a suggestion. If it's a commandment, then we should respond in one way. If it's a suggestion then it's morally neutral in terms of our response. Beyond that, if it's a commandment or suggtion aimed specifically at His direct audience, then any applications beyond that is morally neutral.
The problem isn't so much with what you say, since you try to craft things in such a way as to leave yourself maximum flexibility, it's with the logical conclusions that follow. It's hard to reconcile the "there are no rules/commandments" philosophy with "It's immoral if you don't do what Jesus says". Now, you can (and probably are not) base your "moral/immoral" judgment on the fact that Jesus said something as much as you perceive Jesus agreeing with something you subjectivity have determined to be "moral".
Of course as long as you cling to a subjective morality, you have no rational standing to presume that your version of morality is applicable beyond yourself/your community. This also denies you the ability to call anyone's actions immoral. As long as morality is subjective, then it's also individual. The problem with your "99%of people agree" standard is that it's the same sort of appeal to numbers that you call out as a logical fallacy in others. But even if your subjective % is correct, it's still subjective and as such subject to change at any time in any group.
Again, we pretty much always understand what you are saying. What we have problems with is when what you say contradicts other things you've said, or when you try to behave as if your subjective opinion should be treated as objective fact.
Dan,
I dealt directly with your islam claim. Here it is again:
"If I were engaged with a muslim, I'd use a far different approach because they don't believe in God...because they abide a false religion...because they take their cues from an unBibical source (the Koran)."
The reason your "apt analogy" is such a bad analogy is because, as I said, I was under the impression I was dealing with a Christian. I'm not asking questions of a mixed population, but specifically of a "Christian".
So questions regarding your notion of "good", "good deeds" (particularly as it is used in v.16), "morality"...all these will certainly have different takes from adherents to different religions and ideologies. Are you both Christian, muslim, buddist, hindu, zoroastrian, wiccan....all at the same time? Or do you base your notions of "good", "good deeds" and/or "morality" on something more like a Biblical teaching?
Clearly, you base it as much on what "most people" believe with regards to any of those terms. You feel that what a muslim might say has any bearing here, and thus it appears you equate islamic teaching with Christian teaching...what "most people" think with what Jesus taught. Again, you need ambiguity and rely upon it in discussions such as these in order to avoid having to think beyond your superficial "feel good" impressions of whatever passage, verse or quote of Christ's is on the table.
Keep in mind what brought all this about: Your marveling at Christ's teaching that His followers are "the light of the world". Your unwillingness to stand on His teachings with regard to "good", "good deeds", "morality" is akin to being that lamp covered with a bowl.
Gotta go....
Craig, I comment again without reviewing any other comments. I'm not commenting on comments, but on a conversation I had recently on the question "What did Jesus mean by this?" Jesus said, "You are the light of the world" (Matt 5:14) and went on to tell us that you don't hide a light, so "let your light shine before others in such a way that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." The question, then, is "What light?" The discussion was about how that light is not works, but something internal. Fine, I said, but what does that mean? If we are to let our light shine, what does that look like? Since this light is something internal, how does it "shine"? We ended up coming around to the position that "works", which are not "the light", are the "shine" of "the light". What we do is a reflection of what is in us (Matt 15:18-19). The works, then, are a reflection of the glory of God in us. That's the light, an inner light seen only in what we do.
I said something similar earlier in this thread. That any light that comes from us is essentially a reflection or a refraction of The Light which comes from Christ.
Stan,
That's not all that dissimilar to the point Dan was making. And while it might be no more than semantics, I posited that while letting one's light shine may indeed include the "good deeds" we perform, taken with what precedes the verse it must more specifically mean "being Christian". Good deeds won't necessarily result in being persecuted by those who hate Christians or Christ. Christ reminds the listener that even the prophets took heat for their beliefs. Yet they didn't cover their light...they let it shine. Because it was known, or became known, that the prophets were sent by God, more came to praise God. The works of God through Moses overcame the works of the pharaoh's priests. It wasn't the works, but that the works were of God. The Light is God or His message (or Christ, as the case may be). This is what I have been trying to stress to Dan, and for some reason he takes offense.
Post a Comment