I saw yesterday that there has been a court ruling regarding the ban on evictions that was imposed due to COVID, which struck down the ban. This is one of the after effects of to response to COVID that isn't talked abut much and which will possibly/probably end up being worse that anyone imagined.
At first glance, the notion of preventing landlords from evicting people because of the government response to COVID seems like a compassionate and nice thing to do. At least it's nice for the renters. But as for the rich landlords, well screw them.
Let's start with the obvious. People who own rental property do so to make money. However, they first have to pay their expenses. Most likely they have a mortgage or LOC on the property, they are also required to maintain the property to at least the standards required by the city the property is in. They have insurance, assessments, a savings account to pay for major repairs of improvements, and other costs they bear. The money for those things comes from the rental income. Unfortunately the eviction moratorium (at least in MN) doesn't require that the renters continue to pay rent, nor that they make up any back rent. So, you have landlords with reduced income but the same expenses, forced to allow renters to live for free in their property. For over a year.
Now if the Federal and State governments had agreed to make the landlords whole during this period, we probably wouldn't be concerned (beyond the massive increase in the deficit), but the various governments decided that the property owners should bear this burden alone.
So let's jump ahead to the point where this moratorium ends, what happens then.
1. Instead of a smaller group of people being evicted each month and "trickling" back into the rental market, you now have a "flood" of people that all hit the market at once.
2. The rental market over the last few years has been marked by high demand, low supply, and rising prices with make it difficult for lower income people to find affordable places to live.
3. The people who own rental property and who've been living with reduced or no income for over a year will properly raise the rents they charge as a way to recoup their losses.
4. Or they will be forced to sell in a market where prices are increasing weekly, which will also result in higher rents.
5. Various jurisdictions will likely try to legislate caps on rent or rent increases, which will likely force some property owners to sell as they are unable to make a profit with artificial caps on rent.
6. Many cities have made the construction of new affordable housing impossible due to the various zoning limits and permit fees.
I'm sure there will be more results that I missed here, but the big takeaway is that the lower end of the rental market is likely to be a giant shit show within 60-90 days of the removal of the moratorium.
Just one more thing to thank our governments for.
571 comments:
1 – 200 of 571 Newer› Newest»Craig...
"At first glance, the notion of preventing landlords from evicting people because of the government response to COVID"
When you say things like this, it's almost like you're saying that it's the government's fault (Trump's?) for responding to Covid in the manner dictated by medical experts, as opposed to it being DUE TO COVID (and NOT "the government's response to Covid..."). The best advice coming from medical experts was to slow things down, not congregate, wear masks. This is what responsible businesses and states were doing.
HOWEVER, due in part to Trump and others like him who failed to follow the advice, this disaster has been spread out much longer and made much worse. Just trying to clarify that this happened NOT because of government action, but because of a very real, very deadly virus and due to NOT following the advice of experts sufficiently.
In other nations that wore masks, kept distant, etc, there was not so nearly a bad economic hit from this virus.
Just to clarify that point.
But I'd think that this is an area where Democrats and GOP should be able to find some common ground. We have had, before this crisis and throughout it, an affordable housing crisis across the nation. We simply need MORE affordable housing (ownership and rental) because there's not enough to match the demand, even before the pandemic. Now, here's one set of ways that Biden's proposing to assist both renters and landlords. Are these steps something you can support?
"Biden’s plan calls for
extending the national eviction and foreclosure moratorium until Sept. 30.
It also includes $25 billion more in rental assistance to
help the nation’s landlords and
$5 billion in homelessness protection...
The National Association of REALTORS has been advocating for rental assistance since Congress passed the first round of pandemic relief, the CARES Act, in late March 2020. NAR and other industry groups argued that a federal eviction moratorium without rental assistance would lead to a crisis in which housing providers couldn’t cover their costs and tenants would fall further and further behind in payments."
https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/2021/01/15/biden-plan-calls-for-25b-in-rental-assistance-extending-eviction-ban
Seems reasonable to me, as a stopgap measure. And of course, put plans in place to create sufficient affordable housing, which isn't going to happen magically just by trusting the market, but will require a PLAN. As they say, a goal without a plan is just an empty wish.
Seems reasonable to me. You?
The point being that before and as we move past the moratorium, there's something in place to deal with it. We don't want to have MORE homelessness thanks to Trump's inaction (and others before him) nor do we want landlords driven to bankruptcy. But the answer isn't in ignoring a very real and deadly virus nor ignoring the very real and deadly affordable housing shortage.
"Affordable housing
will take some of the $2.3 trillion pie President Joe Biden is serving up as part of his
sweeping American Jobs Plan.
The wall-to-wall infrastructure plan...
allocates $213 billion for
a wide variety of housing issues
designed to help low-income households and home buyers on a tight budget...
Biden’s plan takes aim at everything from
the high cost of rent to
exclusionary zoning laws,
which contribute to the severe housing shortage in the U.S."
FIVE elements of the plan
1. Rehab, Retrofit and Build 1 Million Homes for Renters
2. Build 500,000 Affordable Houses for Low- and Middle-income Buyers
3. Eliminate Exclusionary Zoning Laws
4. Update and Upgrade Public Housing
5. Focus Clean Energy Investments on Disadvantaged Communities
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/bidens-infrastructure-plan-earmarks-213-billion-for-housing-heres-how-hed-spend-it/
Seems reasonable (if not enough) to me.
You?
"The blueprint also proposes to
increase funding for Homeless Assistance Grants by $500 million to $3.5 billion,
to expand tribal housing resources from $747 million to $900 million,
to expand the HOME Investment Partnerships program by $500 million to $1.9 billion,
to invest $180 million to support
2,000 new homes for seniors and people with disabilities,
to increase fair housing activities by $12 million to $85 million,
and to provide $800 million across HUD programs to
rehabilitate public and affordable housing and
provide energy-efficient upgrades"
https://nlihc.org/resource/president-biden-proposes-15-increase-hud-budget-fy22
As someone who works with and is well-aware of the severe challenges facing those with disabilities when it comes to housing, this seems like a good idea.
You?
So, maybe some common ground? Looking at Biden's proposals and your points...
1. Instead of a smaller group of people being evicted each month and "trickling" back into the rental market, you now have a "flood" of people that all hit the market at once.
This is the reality we're in. What do we do now? Seems like Biden's proposals are dealing with that reality in which we live.
2. The rental market over the last few years has been marked by high demand, low supply, and rising prices with make it difficult for lower income people to find affordable places to live.
Biden's proposals help with this, although it's not going to happen overnight.
3. The people who own rental property and who've been living with reduced or no income for over a year will properly raise the rents they charge as a way to recoup their losses.
Biden's proposals take care of this (or at least address it).
4. Or they will be forced to sell in a market where prices are increasing weekly, which will also result in higher rents.
Not sure.
5. Various jurisdictions will likely try to legislate caps on rent or rent increases, which will likely force some property owners to sell as they are unable to make a profit with artificial caps on rent.
Not sure. I'm not sure that this is the problem you see it to be, not sure if Biden's plans deal with this.
6. Many cities have made the construction of new affordable housing impossible due to the various zoning limits and permit fees.
Biden's proposal deals with this.
Seems like you might find some common ground with Biden's plans. Can we count on your support that far?
I found this whole thing to be incredibly moronic given all the costs you mentioned with regard to owning rental properties. There's no similar allowances for buyers...those who hold mortgages, pay utilities on their homes, upkeep, etc. This is nothing more than a class warfare assault on landlords, whether it was meant to be or not. More importantly, precisely and egregiously, it's just another case of government policy enacted without true consideration for the potential negative consequences. My wife and I have been renters since this Covid nonsense began in earnest about a year ago. We haven't missed a rental payment. You know why? Because we both were still going to work. Our jobs were deemed "essential" by morons with no real authority or intelligence to determine such things.
My heart goes out to landlords and other business owners who have had their rights so abused by fascists in government.
In 2015 the Census Bureau reported that 75% of rental properties were owned by individual investors. That means that Bob bought an extra house to rent out or Ted and Alice moved to a new home and rented out their old one. It refers largely to people like my uncle who bought an 8-apartment complex to try to supplement his income. Not the rich folks. These individual investors are referred to as "mom-and-pop landlords." Sure, there are rich folks that own property to rent, but it is not, by far, the norm. So it is not, by far, the rich folk that are taking a beating on this. I understand the problem of crisis and need and all, but our current cultural mantra of "hate the rich" coupled with our ignorance of just who owns what (like "make those rich McDonald's owners pay higher wages" when, in fact, more than 90% of them are owned by individual investors trying to make ends meet) is doing all sorts of damage we refuse to acknowledge.
Art,
I'll grant that the policy was enacted with good intentions, but it's clearly been implemented in such a way as to place an incredibly large portion of the burden on landlords, with virtually none on the renters. The reality is that many people have not been as conscientious as you and are not paying their rent.
Stan,
You are correct. There is this strange notion that the only people who own rental property are "the rich" coupled with the notion that "the rich" are rolling in liquid assets. The reality is that the, potential, liquidation of rental properties in certain cities or areas will actually benefit "the rich" who will buy properties up and be much less responsive than the "mom and pop" landlords. Any relief that doesn't protect the landlords will be disastrous.
And yet, I have yet to see anyone anywhere say all landlords are wealthy people. I have not seen that being said... certainly not by mainstream liberal leaders.
I Would be willing to bet that you cannot support this claim. Go ahead, kick against another straw man. Knock him down. If it makes you feel good.
How about all the data I sent you about Biden's actual solutions to the problems? Are you ready to find some common ground cand work for solutions or do you just want to bitch and moan about fake problems?
"When you say things like this, it's almost like you're saying that it's the government's fault (Trump's?) for responding to Covid in the manner dictated by medical experts, as opposed to it being DUE TO COVID (and NOT "the government's response to Covid...")."
Yes I intended to make the point that this is a direct result of actions taken by the government (state and federal).
"The best advice coming from medical experts was to slow things down, not congregate, wear masks. This is what responsible businesses and states were doing. HOWEVER, due in part to Trump and others like him who failed to follow the advice, this disaster has been spread out much longer and made much worse."
Which has absolutely noting to do with the specific topic of this post. None of those things demands imposing a blanket moratorium on evictions.
"Just trying to clarify that this happened NOT because of government action, but because of a very real, very deadly virus and due to NOT following the advice of experts sufficiently."
That's interesting because the only entity who could impose this moratorium IS the government. Therefore, the moratorium is literally government action.
"In other nations that wore masks, kept distant, etc, there was not so nearly a bad economic hit from this virus."
Yet, in other nations that didn't there was also not nearly as bad of an economic hit.
"Just to clarify that point. But I'd think that this is an area where Democrats and GOP should be able to find some common ground. We have had, before this crisis and throughout it, an affordable housing crisis across the nation."
Yes we have, I mentioned it in the post, but thanks for repeating this.
"We simply need MORE affordable housing (ownership and rental) because there's not enough to match the demand, even before the pandemic."
Again, thanks for repeating the obvious. Those of us in the industry are well aware of this fact, and the reality that government regulation is a significant driver in the inability to build affordable housing.
"Now, here's one set of ways that Biden's proposing to assist both renters and landlords. Are these steps something you can support?"
Without details, I couldn't begin to answer.
"Biden’s plan calls for extending the national eviction and foreclosure moratorium until Sept. 30."
This will simply make the problem worse when those people all get evicted at the same time and need housing. FYI, the eviction moratorium DIDN'T stop the legal steps leading up to eviction. So kicking the can down the road and adding more people to the flood seems like a shitty idea.
"It also includes $25 billion more in rental assistance to help the nation’s landlords and $5 billion in homelessness protection..."
If that's enough to get the landlord's made whole, then it's a start.
"The National Association of REALTORS has been advocating for rental assistance since Congress passed the first round of pandemic relief, the CARES Act, in late March 2020. NAR and other industry groups argued that a federal eviction moratorium without rental assistance would lead to a crisis in which housing providers couldn’t cover their costs and tenants would fall further and further behind in payments." https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/2021/01/15/biden-plan-calls-for-25b-in-rental-assistance-extending-eviction-ban"
Since this is literally the topic of the post, again thanks for repeating what I've already said.
"Seems reasonable to me, as a stopgap measure."
That's mighty generous of you. One wonders why there was zero dollars in Biden's 2 trillion dollar bill for this. Obviously, this predates Biden, but Biden had the opportunity to do something and chose not to. Let's live in the present, not the past, we can't change past mistakes.
A"nd of course, put plans in place to create sufficient affordable housing, which isn't going to happen magically just by trusting the market, but will require a PLAN. As they say, a goal without a plan is just an empty wish. Seems reasonable to me. You?"
I'm well aware of goal setting strategies, thanks. I've also addressed this in the post. Failure of cities/counties/states to reduce the costs are the biggest obstacle currently. The massive increases in the costs of building materials is the other.
"The point being that before and as we move past the moratorium, there's something in place to deal with it. We don't want to have MORE homelessness thanks to Trump's inaction (and others before him) nor do we want landlords driven to bankruptcy. But the answer isn't in ignoring a very real and deadly virus nor ignoring the very real and deadly affordable housing shortage."
Well, thanks for that. I was unaware that either the virus or the housing problems were being "ignored". I will say that your seeming concern for the plight of the landlords is both surprising and encouraging.
Dan,
FYI, pay close attention to the following, it will make my life easier.
1. Until I wade through the rest of your comments, DO NOT make any further comments. I've got a lot on my plate and adding to that will only make things worse.
2. I've been clear that this is a result of government action. When I use the term government I am referring to all levels of government, bot parties, and multiple administrations. I AM NOT making this a partisan issue. Therefore any further attempts to make this about Trump will simply be deleted. I refuse to waste my time dealing with partisan bullshit.
These are two eminently reasonable and rational temporary restrictions. If you choose to ignore them, I will simply delete your comments. If you can't be reasonable and play along temporarily, then I see no reason to give you the respect you won't give me.
Do you understand this?
Since your recent screed came before my warning, I'll leave to deal with later. I'll simply say this. If you're going to bitch that I haven't gotten to all the comments you wrote fast enough to satisfy your impatience, then you should probably just stop now and leave. I'm not going to let responding to you derail more important things.
Shut up, be patient, and chill out.
Dan,
I had time to look through the rest of your comments, and I'll start by saying this.
Until those proposals are actually turned into legislation, they are simply the equivalent of campaign promises. They're pipe dreams, nothing more. While some of them might be end up being helpful, none of them will have any effect in the near term. Some of them seem like examples of the federal government overreaching it's authority.
I'm hesitant to address specifics because it's virtually certain that none of these proposals will make it through the legislative process unchanged, and it's pointless to get too bogged down in details of something that's only theoretical at this point.
"Biden’s plan takes aim at everything from
the high cost of rent"
By doing what specifically, and how will this help landlords? Will this put rental caps in place?
"to exclusionary zoning laws,
which contribute to the severe housing shortage in the U.S."
1. Zoning is a municipal issue, why would cities give up the ability to make those decisions locally?
2. Do you really think that the feds are better equipped to make zoning decisions than local governments?
3. Won't zoning issues be different for each city?
"1. Rehab, Retrofit and Build 1 Million Homes for Renters
2. Build 500,000 Affordable Houses for Low- and Middle-income Buyers
3. Eliminate Exclusionary Zoning Laws
4. Update and Upgrade Public Housing
5. Focus Clean Energy Investments on Disadvantaged Communities"
1. Does Biden realize that new construction is currently on a 12-18 months backlog in many parts of the country, and that building materials are at record high prices? Who's going to build/rehab these homes and where will they go?
2. Same questions as above. Also, 500,000 houses will make a tiny impact on the totality of the problem.
3. This is such a vague statement as to be meaningless. It's also a city issue, not a federal issue. The reality is that FDR's racist housing policies were all rolled back legislatively in the past, and there is no "exclusionary zoning" that is codified in law at the current time.
4. Public housing has been a monstrous failure since the 60's, but let's pour more money into it. Without any actual specifics, this seems like a waste of money.
5. "Clean Energy" as it relates to housing is both more expensive to build, but also requires a much higher level of active commitment on the part of homeowners. Absent details, this just sounds like pandering to the greens.
"This is the reality we're in. What do we do now?"
That's a great question. Whatever we do now has to include some way of making investors who own rental property whole and to avoid any further harm to them. Further, it's incredibly important to keep rental rates for privately owned properties tied to market forces.
"Biden's proposals take care of this (or at least address it)."
In what specific way do Biden's proposals "take care" of this?
"Not sure. I'm not sure that this is the problem you see it to be, not sure if Biden's plans deal with this."
It's already being seriously discussed here, and it will likely become more popular going forward. It's a great way for politicians to "fix" a problem while simply not actually doing anything.
"Biden's proposal deals with this."
Specifically how?
"Seems like you might find some common ground with Biden's plans."
Seems like it's theoretically possible, once there are actually specifics.
"Can we count on your support that far?"
In the absence of anything remotely specific, I'd have to say no.
The problem with "Biden's proposals", vague and general as you've presented them, is that they don't address the single biggest problem that's driving this problem.
Dan,
I apologize if you confused my setting of some temporary limitations, and communicating those limitations in a blunt and straightforward was as anything but a desire to communicate in a clear, firm manner how things would be handled. I'm sorry that your past actions led me to conclude that I needed to set some clear, firm boundaries in order to keep things under control.
Craig...
"Seems like you might find some common ground with Biden's plans."
Seems like it's theoretically possible, once there are actually specifics. "
Well, in my experience with this sort of thing, the Feds usually provide dollars and how those dollars are spent is decided by local gov'ts. The point is that Biden is making efforts to get the money out to local entities to get the job done and that's the starting point, right? So, maybe begin by applying pressure to the GOP (people like McConnell) NOT to be obstructionist with this vital plan.
Craig... " that I needed to set some clear, firm boundaries"
Funny.
Craig, you may not realize this, but you don't DO "clear." You specialize in vague and unclear and confusing. Case in point, I have ZERO idea what you're talking about ("my setting of some temporary limitations... communicating... blunt and straightforward...")... straightforward about WHAT? I don't know. NO ONE CAN know because you quite clearly have not said. You see, we don't know what goes on inside your head and your words do not communicate much, since you talk in vague accusations about... something, but who knows what?
Do you GET that if you say you've been blunt and straightforward and I'm sitting here wondering "blunt and straightforward... about what??" then perhaps you have NOT been straightforward, blunt, clear or anything more than vaguely opaque?
"It also includes $25 billion more in rental assistance to help the nation’s landlords and $5 billion in homelessness protection..."
Hmm. Giving landlords their own money to help them out. Nice.
Given the renters are not working because of LOCAL mandates, not anything Trump did wrong, it seems the answer is to end the mandates and let businesses operate as before.
Dan,
I'm sorry that you couldn't understand, or didn't read my clear reasons for firmly requestion that you not post additional comments until I'd had time to deal with your first round. I'm sorry that was so difficult for you and that it's bothered you so much that it's taken over the majority of your follow up comments. I certainly hope that you can get past your pique.
This whole "vagueness" bullshit is almost like some kind of gaslighting thing.
1. Your talking points are still just a bunch of vague hopes at this point and without details, I see no reason to support any of these vague pipe dreams.
2. The "local" folks you're so fixated on are part of the problem, so let's give them more unrestricted $$ to spend how they'd like.
3. This "plan" still doesn't address the biggest problem.
Craig...
"The "local" folks you're so fixated on are part of the problem, so let's give them more unrestricted $$ to spend how they'd like."
Sigh... How are local governments part of the problem, specifically?
Craig...
"3. This "plan" still doesn't address the biggest problem."
Sigh.
Which is WHAT, precisely?
Way to not be vague.
It's not so much being vague as it is waiting to see if you've actually put any thought into this, as opposed to simply regurgitating talking points from the Biden website.
"How are local governments part of the problem, specifically?"
Leaving aside the fact that I've already pointed out a couple of things, I'll give you a few examples.
1. Zoning laws.
2. permit fees.
3. Failure to maintain local infrastructure. Specifically wastewater and storm water handling capacity.
The biggest problem is that people can't afford housing if they don't have jobs you moron. As long as the government is continuing to prevent the economy from fully re opening and returning to pre COVID levels, those on the lower end of the income scale will not be able to afford things like housing. It's actually pretty simple. People need income to afford to live.
The fact that you're so focused on how much (borrowed) money that feds can pass out to anyone and everyone, that you've ignored the most basic aspect of the problem. The reality is that the closures and restrictions disproportionately affect the very same people who are most pressured by the high cost of housing.
I wrote about this months ago. While I'm not a fan of governments passing out money to people in general, the fact that the government took away people's ability to work at jobs they had without providing replacement income is ridiculous. In my mind, it's akin to eminent domain and the requirement to compensate property owners at fair market value for taking their property.
In short, none of these "proposals" will make a bit of difference to those most affected as long as they don't have jobs.
I guess noting the reality that you haven't answered my questions, nor provided specifics, while chiding me for both of those things will go ignored as usual.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're blaming cities and States for Listening to the experts and putting restrictions in place for businesses, etc. But your ignoring the economic and social cost of ignoring expert opinion. Am I right?
Last year, they noted that listening to experts and putting restrictions in place likely saved millions of lives. If we had lost millions of additional lives globally, that also would have had economic impacts. Agreed?
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/09/872441984/modelers-suggest-pandemic-lockdowns-saved-millions-from-dying-of-covid-19
No, you're not right. But you're determined to be right, and that's enough for you.
But, I am suggesting that governmental officials on all levels should be accountable for the decisions they make and the results of those decisions.
The problem with measuring reality against models, is that there is no way to accurately model an unprecedented situation.
I'll note that you've gone from extolling the virtues of Biden's "plan", to nitpicking what you think I've said. The turning point seems to be when the lack of specifics or details was pointed out.
I'm pointing out that the reality is that (regardless of the reasons) the government has mandated actions that have caused significant economic problems. Therefore their actions are responsible for the economic situation we find ourselves in, and the Biden administration/DFL controlled congress has done very little to rectify the situation. I know that the second Trump impeachment was so much more vital than dealing with the economy or the housing crisis.
Craig... "to nitpicking what I said..."
?? I ASKED YOU, is THIS what you're saying? That's not nitpicking. It's LITERALLY trying to see if I understand you.
I BELIEVE that Biden's plan deals with some of the specifics (not counting "shutting down cities," IF that's what you're talking about) of your complaints. But you keep rebuffing that possibility and I'm not sure what you're talking about as a counter proposal. So, I'm trying to understand your actual complaints and position.
For instance, you said in your post, "the various governments decided that the property owners should bear this burden alone."
Which gov't has done this?
Can you cite the state or city that made this proclamation so that I can better understand the specifics of what you're worried/concerned/complaining about?
From the federal level, there appears to have been a plan in place (at least on Biden's part) to make sure the landlords are NOT bearing burdens alone. Do you support that IDEAL (if not the specifics) in Biden's plan?
Craig... "t the reality is that (regardless of the reasons) the government has mandated actions that have caused significant economic problems."
The reality, properly understood, is that we have had a global pandemic that has caused the deaths of millions of people. Rightly understood, that has an economic and social impact. Now, to try to LIMIT that deadly and costly impact, many gov't leaders have listened to the experts (both medical and economic) who advised putting reasonable restrictions in place, given the very real threat to economies and lives.
Agreed so far?
Now, NO ONE knows now or knew then the "right balance" of precaution vs economic concern, but these gov'ts followed the advice of experts to the best of their understanding to deal with this real global pandemic to avoid both economic and health/life impacts. IF these various governments had NOT followed this advice and the death toll was in the tens of millions instead of the millions, we all would have regretted it and that WOULD have had a negative economic impact.
Agreed so far?
SO, when you couch it in terms like "the government has mandated actions that have caused significant economic problems," it sounds like you're not heeding the flip side of the coin - that doing nothing would ALSO have significant economic problems. But are we agreed that either set of actions/policies - restricting or NOT restricting - would have had significant economic problems?
As far as the Biden administration not doing enough, it seems like to me that they're trying. What would you have them do? Biden is really trying to get GOP buy in to these solutions/getting money to help... why are you framing it as the Biden's administration fault instead of the GOP's fault for blocking Biden's efforts?
And yes. The people the United States in the world expected responsible American citizens to hold trump accountable. It was a pain that he was such a corrupt president and thus got in the way of Congress doing their job, but they could not ignore his corruption and his anti- Liberty Actions. We the people expected them to take action. It would have been a dereliction of their duty to ignore it. Why is it that you blame Congress for doing their job instead of trump for being corrupt? What has become of the modern gop?
Dan continues to act as if only the experts he cites are unassailable, while opposing experts are to be dismissed outright as wackjobs, conspiracy theorists or some other nonsensical, partisan crap. The only "experts" who insist the restrictions saved millions of lives are the "experts" who promoted the restrictions in the first place.
I'm curious... You and I both agree there is a housing crisis (an affordable housing crisis?). This is a topic we've been working on in Louisville (by "we," I mean my church family, my wife in her work and the extended progressive community in Louisville and around the nation) for most of the 38 years of my adult life. I'm a bit familiar with the topic - not as familiar as my wife, the social worker, of course, and her colleagues, but I'm fairly familiar with it. And with that background, I'm aware of the various proposals supported by Democrats and even more promoted by progressives that even the Democrats are afraid to take on (primarily because they know that it will get no where with Republicans, more so than actually disagreeing with them).
What I'm not familiar with, in all those years in this field, is what specifically the GOP policies would be to help deal with affordable housing, beyond deregulation and "let the free market do magic..." neither of which have proven affective with affordable housing.
Can you name some policies to deal with current affordable housing problems that the GOP is actually advocating? Something proactive and helpful specifically for the poor within a year? I'm sure some proposals exist, but I can't think of any.
If the GOP can't think of any, then how about getting behind the Democrats' proposals and policies to at least TRY to do something more than wishful thinking?
Looking at the Low Income Housing Coalition's evaluation of the two party's platforms last year, this seems to confirm that the GOP doesn't really have much to offer...
https://nlihc.org/resource/democratic-party-and-republican-party-platforms-address-affordable-housing
I agree that there is a severe lack of affordable housing for both sale and rental across the country. There is also a significant shortage of available housing across all price levels. There is also a significant shortage/cost increase in the costs of building materials.
Agreeing with those premises is simply acknowledging reality. I'm glad you acknowledge reality.
I also have fairly significant and more direct involvement in multiple aspects of this situation than you do, but I don't see the benefit in bragging on my "expertise".
I guess I don;t see the value in trying to make this some sort of partisan issue. I've worked with a lobbied GOP members of various legislatures who supported all sorts of things to support housing in general and affordable housing in particular. Further, it seems like the solutions should be based on empirical evidence, not on partisan politics.
In the absence of any specific policies or details for me to comment on, and given my experience, I guess I don't understand what is gained by trying to divide on this issue.
I, for example, could point out that the very notion of redlining has it's legal genesis with FDR. I could point out that I've been critical of some of the things that both state and federal government across two administrations for how things have been handled. I've intentionally been bi partisan in my criticisms of the actions of officials on both sides.
I don't see the value in making this partisan, sorry.
"Why is it that you blame Congress for doing their job instead of trump for being corrupt?"
1. I blame congress for wasting time and money on an absurd "impeachment" of a POTUS who'd already left office. While simultaneously blaming Trump for his actions. It's not that hard.
"What has become of the modern gop?"
Lots of bad things. Too much to detail, and off topic.
I was never able to afford to buy a home until I was in my late 30's or early 40's. I rented. I sought rental options I could afford and constantly sought out employment that provided better income than I was making at the time. Until I was able to afford to live anywhere on my own, I found roommates to cut the costs. This is how the problem of "affordable housing" is resolved.
If you think you can profit in some way by providing cheaply built housing to allow those who can't afford better to have a place to live, then by all means, do so.
At some point bleeding-heart morons who demand others sacrifice to create utopia must do something to promote better life choices that reduce poverty in the first place, rather than enabling the bad choices and pretending the consequences are the fault of others.
"It was a pain that he was such a corrupt president and thus got in the way of Congress doing their job, but they could not ignore his corruption and his anti- Liberty Actions."
You keep making claims that Trump was a corrupt president. At some point it would be nice to see you do a post providing specific examples of his "corruption" as a president. I'm especially interested in his "anti-liberty actions". That would be very entertaining.
This post is not the place for it anymore than repeating your hateful assertions.
Well, the majority of your fellow citizens disagree with your hunch that the impeachment was a waste of time. Or rather, it was a waste of time and resource BROUGHT ON by Trump and which then required decent representatives to represent we, the people. You're on the wrong side of the US on this point. Once he was openly corrupt and criminally irresponsible, RESPONSIBLE citizens and legislators wanted to do the right thing.
Law and order and all that. As Rep Cheney made clear.
"Well, the majority of your fellow citizens disagree with your hunch that the impeachment was a waste of time."
1. I don't shape my opinions based of the winds of "public" sentiment.
2. One more instance of an unproven claim being treated as fact.
3. Clearly there were no more pressing issues for congress than a second failed impeachment against an ex president.
"I BELIEVE that Biden's plan deals with some of the specifics (not counting "shutting down cities," IF that's what you're talking about) of your complaints. But you keep rebuffing that possibility and I'm not sure what you're talking about as a counter proposal."
What you "BELIEVE" about Biden's "proposals" is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is the details of Biden's "actual proposals" IF those "proposals" ever get put into legislation. Beyond that, it's just your wishful thinking about Biden's pipe dreams. A total waste of time.
I haven't made a "counter proposal" as of yet. I wasn't aware that I was required to.
" For instance, you said in your post, "the various governments decided that the property owners should bear this burden alone." Which gov't has done this?"
In the case of the eviction moratorium, the Federal government and any states that have enacted eviction moratoriums have written those in such a way as to place any and all financial burden on the landlords.
"Can you cite the state or city that made this proclamation so that I can better understand the specifics of what you're worried/concerned/complaining about?"
Google Eviction Moratorium and you'll be in the ballpark.
"From the federal level, there appears to have been a plan in place (at least on Biden's part) to make sure the landlords are NOT bearing burdens alone. Do you support that IDEAL (if not the specifics) in Biden's plan?"
Since "Biden's plan" isn't "in place" the above is simply nonsensical. The reality is that landlords have been shouldering the financial burden alone for over a year, with no concrete help in sight. Again, I'm talking about actual legislation that has or will pass and be signed into law. Anything else is just someone's pipe dream.
"Agreed so far?"
No
"Agreed so far?"
No
"But are we agreed that either set of actions/policies - restricting or NOT restricting - would have had significant economic problems?"
Given the reality that this is complete speculation, why would I agree.
"As far as the Biden administration not doing enough, it seems like to me that they're trying."
Where have I singled out the "Biden administration"? I have pointed out that they haven't done much/anything YET, but I've been clear that my criticism is non/bi partisan.
"What would you have them do?"
Step one would seem to be focusing on getting back to or exceeding the pre COVID employment numbers.
"Biden is really trying to get GOP buy in to these solutions/getting money to help... why are you framing it as the Biden's administration fault instead of the GOP's fault for blocking Biden's efforts?"
Ahhhhhh the "blame the GOP" canard. What specific legislation has the Biden administration/DFL majority written and brought to the floor of either chamber of congress? What specific bills have GOP congressmen/senators blocked from being brought to the floor of either chamber of congress?
It's interesting that even though the DFL has control of the legislative and the executive branches of government, it's somehow the fault of the party that has control of neither branch.
The question is, do we focus on the price of housing, or do we focus on why some can't afford housing?
The Biden admin wants to push more "affordable housing"...that is, more Cabrini Greens and Altgeld Gardens...while Trump policy resulted in more people working which results in more people able to afford better housing.
I've no problem with the concept of "affordable" housing. I certainly could never afford the sprawling mansions of the type I was born to inhabit (despite the loving, but poor parents to whom I was born). But I aspired to better than the types of "affordable" housing in which those who don't aspire to better inhabit and too often degrade. This, of course, isn't true of all their inhabitants, but there is this problem which makes locating the development of affordable housing problematic all by itself. There's a "not in my neighborhood" attitude that isn't altogether irrational. Thus, I'm concerned that any push for affordable housing will ignore such rational concerns to the detriment of the existing neighborhoods in which or near which such housing will be developed. Too often, the result is the housing is built and a new cycle of negative consequences result, after which a cry for more spending follows.
The area where I now live is not like the inner cities. It's suburbia. But it does contain its areas of concern; places where even the police are not pleased with visiting and pizza delivery drivers prefer not to go. These are all low cost "affordable" housing...apartments of mostly low income and minority (mostly Hispanic) people. Again, while not all are "undesirables" (my daughter had close friends who lived in one such complex...really nice people), they have a higher percentage of them for sure. This percentage is largely responsible for the overall "look" of the places. It's just how it is. Even in these areas, though not as bad as some city areas, there are those who never rise above this level of existence from one generation to the next. They all go to the same schools as my daughters did, too. So education opportunities isn't the problem (though as with our previous home of almost 40 years ago, the once highly rated school system fell to poor ratings with the introduction of Spanish speaking immigrants).
I say all this to point out the folly of the demand for affordable housing that doesn't take into account the character of those who will avail themselves of it. It's ludicrous to say all people behave the same way. The town next to the one in which I was raised didn't look much different than mine. I went to school in that town (took a bus to the Catholic school there) and most of my friends lived there. The town looks a lot different now (not in a good way), and eventually, so did much of the area in which I was raised. The homes in many areas of these towns are more "affordable" than in other areas, just as most of the apartments are. Too many of them seem to be taken care of as if no one cares. It takes on a kind of snowball effect as it deteriorates. The people who populated these towns when they were developed in the late 1950's/early 60's were those fleeing the city to provide a better life for their kids. The properties looked to me like high class places as everyone was keen on regular lawn care and landscaping. They were stepping stones for some, though even today, one original owner in the cul de sac in which I lived remains and the place looks like it always did (apart from an addition). Other parts of town look like crap, where it never did anywhere 60 years ago.
Biden's plans will bring to suburban areas more of this kind of thing, both in terms of what kind of housing will be built within them, as well as for whom they will be built. The communities themselves will lose authority to determine zoning policy and what results may only serve to drive out people and leave behind that which they came to escape. Do those who support Biden's ideas even care?
I really didn't want to go off topic, but Dan doesn't allow truth and facts at his blog where he pretends Liz Cheney is eligible for sainthood.
"Well, the majority of your fellow citizens disagree with your hunch that the impeachment was a waste of time."
There's no honest poll you can cite to back up this claim.
"Or rather, it was a waste of time and resource BROUGHT ON by Trump..."
Trump did nothing to justify either impeachment farce. They were both the result of Trump-hating morons wasting the public's time and money to thwart Trump's presidency and re-election because they knew they had no way to attack him on the merits of his policies and their results.
"...and which then required decent representatives to represent we, the people."
Here Dan indulges his routine fantasy of supposing "decent" representatives are "decent" because he agrees with what they're doing. They do not represent the people who count, i.e. honest, hard-working Americans who finally had a president who put them first.
"You're on the wrong side of the US on this point."
Another fantasy. Not even every lefty believes Trump did anything wrong to justify being impeached. No. We're on the wrong side of liars and on the side of truth.
"Once he was openly corrupt and criminally irresponsible, RESPONSIBLE citizens and legislators wanted to do the right thing."
Still waiting to hear about Trump's corruption. I don't suppose Dan will ever take the time to provide that information. And again, to Dan, "RESPONSIBLE citizens and legislators" are identified by whether or not they agree with Dan and other stupid people like him.
Cheney wasn't concerned with "law and order and all that". She was concerned with revenge against Trump, law and order be damned. In that, she's just as morally bankrupt as Dan and the rest of the leftists.
Some questions around the following of expert guidance.
Did experts recommend putting people with COVID into nursing homes and similar facilities?
Was this done?
What does the data say about the results?
Texas decided to fully open up a while back, what was the response of the experts to this announcement?
What does the data show has happened since TX opened up completely?
Some who criticize those who question experts have, in the meantime, no problem questioning Scripture.
Or in dismissing the work of the "experts" who study scripture.
"The question is, do we focus on the price of housing, or do we focus on why some can't afford housing?"
I don't see this as an either or situation. We clearly need to focus on getting the economy back to pre COVID levels and to continue to grow the economy from there. Yet was also need to look at the reasons why housing stock is not affordable and work to change the factors that can be changed.
The notion of the government mandated, high rise, high density, institutional warehousing of low income people has been demonstrated to be a failure, and if Biden wants to go back to this idiotic model then he's an idiot.
I believe that part of the problem is to strike a balance between the natural human tendency to place a low value on things that are free (and to fail to care for them), and providing help where it is needed.
As usual there doesn't appear to be much advocated by Biden that is new an innovative in this area.
Marshal... "Some who criticize those who question experts have, in the meantime, no problem questioning Scripture."
Two things...
1. Questioning YOUR preferred human interpretations of Scripture is not The same as questioning scripture. You are not God, nor are you The Bible.
2. Likewise, if we are concerned about striving to follow God and doing what is right, then we should question our own understanding of scripture. Scripture is not there telling us how to interpret things. That is what we must do as rational adults.
God gave us a mind for us to use. Not to blindly go along with your so called experts or your personal hunches.
Dan,
Some questions around the following of expert guidance.
Did experts recommend putting people with COVID into nursing homes and similar facilities?
Was this done?
What does the data say about the results?
Texas decided to fully open up a while back, what was the response of the experts to this announcement?
What does the data show has happened since TX opened up completely?
In case you missed them the first time.
To your "two things", Dan:
"1. Questioning YOUR preferred human interpretations of Scripture is not The same as questioning scripture."
Where you're concerned it is, especially as you constantly refuse to present an alternative "interpretation" for anything you question.
"You are not God, nor are you The Bible."
Nor do I have to be to easily understand plain English.
"2. Likewise, if we are concerned about striving to follow God and doing what is right, then we should question our own understanding of scripture."
Well, you certainly should question yours.
"Scripture is not there telling us how to interpret things. That is what we must do as rational adults."
Maybe someday, God willing, you'll be one of them.
"God gave us a mind for us to use."
Got any plans for one day using yours?
"Not to blindly go along with your so called experts or your personal hunches."
Now it's confirmed. True experts and sound "hunches" are only those which align with Dan. Got it.
My answer to all your questions is, "I don't know."
I didn't know those questions were put to me. I've not talked about any of those topics and so I have not made any comments about those topics so I'm not sure how I would know you were thinking I might answer them.
As you so often note, not everything you write is directed to me.
Like this comment from you, for instance... "in dismissing the work of the "experts" who study scripture."
Since I've never dismissed the work of experts who study scripture, I would assume that this dig was not directed at me.
"I didn't know those questions were put to me."
Given that you are the only one who's been touting following the "experts", I would have thought it obvious that any questions that referred to "experts" would have been addressed to you. However, I corrected my mistake.
"I've not talked about any of those topics and so I have not made any comments about those topics so I'm not sure how I would know you were thinking I might answer them."
Really, you haven't talked about the topic of following the "experts" as it relates to handling COVID? You haven't been suggesting that failing to follow the guidance of "experts" would have been worse? It seems as if you are going to tout the following of "experts" based on their predictions and projections, that it would be appropriate to compare those projections with empirical data. I guess your trust in the "experts" is so complete that you don't feel that looking at the actual data is worthwhile.
"As you so often note, not everything you write is directed to me."
I do note that.
https://archive.is/6PuOl
Why would we actually look at the data, and compare it to what the "experts" recommended, than compare the results before simply believing that the "experts" are right and shouldn't be questioned?
Craig... " Why would we actually look at the data..."?
Again, is this directed towards me? Because I do advocate looking towards the data and listening to experts.
And then you brought up a handful of specific cases and I'm gonna have to tell you this because apparently you don't know it, I don't know ALL the stories about ALL the data about ALL the cases and ALL the experts. I am not familiar with every instance of what experts are saying. And when I'm not familiar with it, I don't comment on it. So while yes, I do advocate listening to experts, that does not mean I am aware of every single instance of what every expert is saying or all the data.
You understand this, right?
Craig... "Really, you haven't talked about the topic of following the "experts" as it relates to handling COVID?"
Really, I literally have not spoken to any of the specific stories that you are citing. If you want to ask me generally about listening to experts, I will tell you, yes! Generally we should listen to experts.
If you want to ask about specific story, I would need to know the story, wouldn't I?
These last two comments are the funniest thing I've seen in quite a while.
The amount of gyrations being engaged in to avoid answering simple questions about information that is readily available is impressive.
Dan has repeatedly (and in these two comments) made reference to following the "experts". What Dan appears to be saying in these two comments is that we should follow "experts" in some vague general sense, but that when it comes to specifics he just can't comment without being spoon fed all of the details.
1. In the state of NY, governor Cuomo encouraged the placement of COVID patients in nursing homes. This was a major story, I'm surprised you are unaware of it. When Cuomo decided that it was appropriate to place COBID patients on nursing homes, was he following the recommendations of "experts"?
2. Were the results of Cuomo's decisions positive or negative? Did Coumo follow the advice of "experts" or not?
3. Are you aware of the state of Texas? It's the geographically largest state in the lower 48, and many people have heard of it. Their governor, Abbott, chose to lift COVID restrictions in March. Were you aware of this?
4. If you are aware of Abbot's decision ( or took the time to Google it), can you recall anything (or research anything) that the "experts" said about that decision at the time? Hint, Biden used the term "Neanderthal" when he commented on this.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56255701
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56297329
5. What did the "experts" say when Abbott announced his lifting of restrictions?
6. What does that data say about the results of the restrictions being lifted?
Dan,
Would you be surprised that a study looking at the results of the "expert" recommendations you speak so highly of concluded "A study released last month of the effects of lockdowns in 10 countries was damning. Not only did researchers find that “mandatory stay-at-home and business closures” resulted in “no clear, significant beneficial effect … on case growth in any country,” but in some cases, lockdowns were actually “pro-contagion.”"?
Would you agree that if "experts" recommend actions that are "pro-contagion" that those "experts" should be ignored?
"You understand this, right?"
Of course I understand this. I understand exactly what you're trying to accomplish.
"If you want to ask about specific story, I would need to know the story, wouldn't I?"
I guess I assumed that you'd be at least passingly familiar with the Cuomo/nursing home scandal (since you actually commented on it in another post), and with the fact that TX ended COVID restrictions in March. Both of these stories have gotten significant coverage on the national news. Maybe your ignorance is your problem, not mine.
It's not even so much as what Dan knows or doesn't know...or more truthfully what Dan claims To know...but rather his constant default to unnamed "experts" of whom we've run afoul the moment we post comments which conflict with his favored position. It's the citing of these unnamed "experts" as a means to stifle and dismiss out of hand. And of course it's the woefully unfounded assertion no highly knowledgeable experts exist who could possibly disagree with Dan's favored "experts".
The bit of reading I've done about Covid restrictions and Texas, it sounds like you're not understanding the experts, not that the experts were wrong.
In the past year, many times cities or states have lifted restrictions and the experts warned it wasn't time and, sure enough, the cases promptly rose. This happened at Thanksgiving. It happened at Christmas. And maybe more than that. And each time, there was a resurgence of cases and deaths, as the experts warned.
THIS time, in March when Texas lifted their restrictions (after months of vaccines being in place) again, the experts warned that it's too soon, not enough data is known. AND, this time, it appears (so far) that Texas dodged a bullet and maybe it was time. But if so, that's just dumb luck... not the experts being wrong.
Do you understand that and why it's just dumb luck?
It would be one thing if Texas had experts looking at data and their experts said, "Given our specific circumstances and the data we have on hand, we believe that we'd be safe in ending restrictions."
But so far as I can see, Texas didn't do this based on expert opinion. They did it IN SPITE of expert opinion and got lucky.
That's nothing to brag about.
As to the scientists being "wrong..." This is not a precise science, predicting epidemiology trends. Doctors and scientists, when presented with life and death possibilities, TEND to be conservative on making predictions and suggesting policies. That's something that conservatives should be able to understand... not so much modern WhiteTrumpVangelical "conservatives."
"But if so, that's just dumb luck... not the experts being wrong."
This is quite the claim, please prove this claim. Also explain why TX has lower numbers since March that states with more restrictions.
"Do you understand that and why it's just dumb luck?"
I don't, but please prove this claim with hard data. I'm eagerly awaiting your proof.
The rest of your comment certainly didn't have any proof, nor did it really answer the question.
Art,
There's a reason why Dan defaults to unnamed "experts" in these conversations. There's also a reason why Dan never cites the hard data and spends so much time equivocating about what the "experts" say and providing excuses when the data disagrees with the "experts".
I've seen scant little explanation by the "experts" Dan favors for anything involving this virus. But I've seen all manner of expert explanation for why restrictions beyond protecting the aged and most vulnerable were a grand waste of time. Indeed, from the very beginning there have been quite a few doctors and scientists who have exposed Anthony Fauci as the buffoon his long history has shown him to be on the one hand, or the conniving self-promoter cashing in on the other.
I have no unnamed experts. And talking about Fauci. Who. CDC. All the experts that are doing all the talking that we're all familiar with. Good God.
Oh, Dan can name one "expert", well done. If I recall correctly, Fauchi warned us that TX dropping all restrictions would result in carnage or some such doomsday prediction. I guess he couldn't have been much more wrong.
I also guess that Dan isn't interested in looking at the data from the study I provided. Just more of his "trust the experts" shtick.
So, Dan played the "I'm not familiar with the TX reopening and NY nursing home stories" as a way to avoid dealing with them, yet expects us to magically know what unnamed "experts" he's placing his faith in. Double standard much?
Is this the same CDC alleged to have kept schools closed to appease teacher unions? Would that be the same WHO accused of being in the pocket of the CCP? Those experts?
Probably right. The handling of schools was one of the biggest farces of the last year. the fact that the lowest risk demographic was treated as if they were at significant risk, while the actual education suffered was ridiculous.
I was talking to a friend who is a teacher and they mentioned that they just scrapped a month worth of material they usually would have taught in order to be finished with the school year "on time". My first reaction was to wonder how important that material is if it's possible to simply skip it.
More troubling is the thought that they're skipping important material resulting in retarding the speed at which students acquire the proper amount of education for each grade. But hey, as long as the teachers are kept safe from having to actually leave their homes to teach in person...That's what's really important, right? Not the kids. That would be silly.
Shameful.
Shameful? What a callous prick. Probably a guy who never taught a day in his life and doesn't know what in the fuck is talking about. Go to hell.
As To Marshal's venomous and irresponsible and diabolical lie that teachers don't want to be in person teaching, the data says otherwise. Reality says otherwise.
In the real world, where teachers are by-and-large a dedicated group of professionals who pour their lives out for our nation and get so very little respect, especially from conservatives like Marshal, we see his vicious attack for what it is. Shame on you, Craig, for letting such deviant lies go unaddressed in your own space. As with conservatives who remain quiet on trump's deviancy, we see and we recognise that you are every bit as much a part of the problem as the marshals and the trumps of the world.
Stop the assault on facts and truth.
https://www.aft.org/press-release/new-poll-shows-americas-teachers-want-return-classrooms-amid-growing
It's always so refreshing to see haw well Dan models the Christlike attributes of love and grace, and how boldly he demonstrates the fruits of the spirit.
Great. Marshal attacks teachers calling them lazy, unconcerned and cowardly, but Craig gives that shit a pass, and is, instead, whining about naughty words. Grow up, boys.
You would, no doubt, side with the pharisees and chastise Jesus for being too harsh.
Dan...
"Marshal, complaining about teachers being lazy or irresponsible makes you a callous prick. Go to hell."
Craig...
"Dan is being mean - ignore Marshal's attack on teachers... Dan's being mean!! and THAT is what I'll complain about!"
Jesus...
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written,
My house shall be called the house of prayer;
but ye have made it a den of thieves!"
Craig...
"Jesus is being mean. Never mind the Pharisees and the moneychangers' attacks on the poor... Jesus is being just too mean and THAT is what I'll complain about!"
We see, Craig.
Yeah...Dan's a real embracer, isn't he?
My daughter is a teacher. My youngest daughter's roommate is a teacher. I don't regard them as equivalent to the teachers unions that have dictated, demand and defend this nonsensical remote learning failure which has harmed so many students in so many ways. And that's assuming Dan has a comprehensive survey of all the teachers who are NOT in school teaching.
Apparently there are only 800 teachers in America. But I would suspect most want to be in class. I know the two I know personally (I actually know quite few more than that, but I'm referring to those with whom I'm closest) would prefer to be in class and I know most parents would prefer their kids be in class. I would say the latter group is a greater majority than those teachers who wish to be in class.
In any case, note how Dan cites the very people most responsible for the remote learning situation and how long it's been foisted upon our kids despite the science lefties like Dan like to pretend they follow. All schools could have been in full attendance since the normal start of the school year but for the union Dan now cites being so opposed for reasons unrelated to that science.
Yet unlike the private sector, all levels of education in this country did not fail to receive full income during this time of part-time work. Teachers were paid. Universities were paid. No one lost but the kids and their parents. And Dan dares pretend the righteous response is somehow irresponsible, venomous and diabolical. But this is typical of Dan who is more concerned with demonizing conservatism he's never understood rather than deal with the real issue, which in this case is the education of America's kids. No one is more deviant than Dan and those like them for their ongoing corruption of reality for the furtherance of their nation-destroying schemes.
"Shame on you, Craig, for letting such deviant lies go unaddressed in your own space."
This from the guy who promotes deviant lies of his own, of his political heroes and of his personal pet troll at his own blog.
Impressive, Dan falsely accuses Art of claiming that teachers are "lazy", and gets pissed when I point out his lack of grace and lack of Christlike behavior.
Dan seems to confuse being Christlike with being The Christ. Jesus had the authority to say what He did, Dan doesn't. Jesus never lied or engaged in falsehood, Dan does so frequently.
I suspect that Dan is unaware of the actions and words of the leaders of teachers unions, and thinks that pointing out those actions and words is an "attack" on every single teacher.
Craig... "Dan does so frequently."
Says Craig, making a stupidly false claim that he absolutely can't prove, because it's false.
No doubt, Craig doesn't recognize the irony.
Dan's thing is to respond to reasoned opinions with rhetoric as inflammatory as he can make it, while tightly clutching his pearls and feigning the vapors.
Craig false claims, in an attempt to accuse me of making frequent false claims...
1. Jesus never lied or engaged in falsehood, Dan does so frequently.
(Stupidly false claim that I engage in false claims frequently. One you can't support.)
2. Dan seems to confuse being Christlike with being The Christ.
(You did couch this in terms of "SEEMS to..." but it's still a false suggestion in a line of false claims.)
3. Jesus had the authority to say what He did, Dan doesn't.
(James also attacked the rich and powerful, he wasn't Jesus. OF COURSE, we have a responsibility AND AUTHORITY to follow in the steps of Jesus in calling out those religious zealots - and others - who abuse and attack others)
4. Dan falsely accuses Art of claiming that teachers are "lazy", and gets pissed when I point out his lack of grace and lack of Christlike behavior.
(Marshal has more than once maligned or attacked public school teachers and he did so here. MY words... "attacks teachers calling them lazy, unconcerned and cowardly" and spoke of Marshal's "...diabolical lie that teachers don't want to be in person teaching..." - which I then refuted with the data. What Marshal said was " But hey, as long as the teachers are kept safe from having to actually leave their homes to teach in person...That's what's really important, right? Not the kids."
And that is an implication that teachers are uncaring and undedicated. Now, IF he was only directing that towards teachers unions (which he didn't state), it would STILL be a stupidly and diabolically false slander full of the sort of slanderous bile that today's conservatives regularly heap on teachers and their unions. And ALL of that was merely to point out YOU were giving a pass to this attack on teachers... while choosing to attack me for rebuking THAT attack. Just as many conservatives and powerful religious zealots have ALWAYS attacked the Jesuses, the MLKs, the Rosa Parks who stood up for justice and against lies and attacks. And then this further attack on me is still leaving Marshal's attacks un-dealt with.)
5. How about this: PROVE that teachers or even the unions are uncaring and undedicated to their students and I will gladly apologize. But you can't do that because that, too, is another stupidly false claim.
6. "I suspect that Dan is unaware of the actions and words of the leaders of teachers unions, and thinks that pointing out those actions and words is an "attack" on every single teacher."
He said NOTHING about teachers unions. HIS WORDS were a broad swipe against teachers. EVEN SO, neither of you can prove that teachers unions are uncaring and undedicated. That's a bullshit lie that is typical of today's trump "conservatives" who no longer give a single damn about facts or trying to support their claims. This is evidenced in your making stupidly false claims and attacks like these regularly without even pretending to support them with data.
7. "gets pissed when I point out his lack of grace and lack of Christlike behavior."
I pointed out how Jesus rebuked the religious hypocrites of his day. This IS Christlike behavior and it IS a grace to the teachers I'm defending. I'm not pissed that you're trying to accuse me of a lack of grace and a lack of Christlike behavior - hell, I'm an imperfect guy! I'm pissed because you're giving a pass to attacks on teachers and instead are choosing to complain about who I've phrased my rebuke. When Jesus, Paul, James and others routinely strongly rebuked the oppressors, the slanderers, those who make false claims and stir up dissension.
Look at that... at least seven false claims in a few dozen (?) words from Craig... ALL in an attempt to say I "frequently" make false claims.
Have you no shame? No intellectual integrity?
1. I've repeatedly pointed out your false claims in a fair degree of specificity. I suspect your objection hinges on the semantics of disputing the frequency of your false claims. The reality is that yo do, and I've pointed them out in the past.
2. No, it's not.
3. I get it. You now seem to be claiming the authority of one of the Apostles, is this the case? Do you really believe that you have the authority to call out people as you do. Obviously you do, one wonders why you think so.
4. "implication" That's all I need to hear. You've inferred something based on your biases and responded with your usual vitriol based on your inferences.
5. Because noting I provide you will matter, so why should I bother. I'd point out the case of the Chicago teachers union president as an excellent example (look it up it was widely covered), but you'll likely find some way to excuse anything I provide so I see no reason to waste your time.
6. You disagree with my opinion, big deal.
7. No, you're not pissed when your ungraceful, vitriolic, and non Christlike behavior is pointed out. Just reading your grace filled, humble response is all we need.
1. No. I do not frequently make false claims. Like once a week. Like once a month, even. That is a false claim. It is a stupidly false claim. Anyone can see it. You can't support it.
I have no doubt that you think in your little head that I have frequently made a false claim, but that's more about you misunderstanding than me making the false claim.
Understand?
Craig... "3. I get it. You now seem to be claiming the authority of one of the Apostles, is this the case? Do you really believe that you have the authority to call out people as you do."
Of course I believe we should imitate Christ. Jesus and the apostles were not claiming some special authority. Prophets and people throughout history have always rightly called out oppressors and those who attack unjustly. Because, of course we should. Do you seriously think we should not? Good God! No wonder you were a silent little lamb during the Trump years. You've got a messed up version of what working for Justice/ Following Christ looks like.
Please clarify. Do you think that Jesus and the apostles had some special, unique-to-them authority to call out oppression and wrongdoing? If so, do you recognise that you can't support that claim biblically or rationally?
Of course, The Bible is quite clear that we are rightly to pursue being a prophet or speaking truth to power. Because, of course we are. It's not some special unique to Jesus or apostolic power, unique to them.
1 Corinthians 14:1 is helpful: “Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.”
Or, here the writer speaking of various gifts,, Speaking of God... "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;.." Ephesians 4
Here is a great resource explaining biblically why we need to speak prophetically...
https://overviewbible.com/oppression/
Craig... "7. No, you're not pissed when your ungraceful, vitriolic, and non Christlike behavior is pointed out..."
No. I'm literally not. Because I disagree with your characterization of it as non-Christ-like or ungracefungrateful. It is literally walking in Jesus steps. The religious powers that be hated him and demonized him, as well. Hell, they killed him for his vitriol!
And that's not thinking that I'm Jesus. of course! That's pointing out the reality that we've seen through the centuries and millennia that when people in power, including religious people in power, get called out for aggressive oppressive behaviors, they respond oftentimes by saying you're not being kind enough. That sort of gas lighting is as old as the pharisees.
So, I do not take offence to you complaining about my strong words (vitriol). I disagree with your characterization of them, though. Because it's unbiblical and irrational.
Craig... "7. No, you're not pissed when your ungraceful, vitriolic, and non Christlike behavior is pointed out..."
Put another way, I GET that you personally view my words as ungracious. However, I do not find that to be Biblically or rationally supported. Jesus never said do not use harsh words towards oppressor's. Instead, he modelled quite strong language against the religious zealots and pharisees of his day.
1. As I suspected, you're going to retreat behind the semantic argument regarding frequency of your false claims. "You can't support it." You claimed that Art called (all) teachers "lazy, unconcerned and cowardly". Please show us where Art said that, in those words?
3. "Jesus and the apostles were not claiming some special authority." Really, please prove this claim. Jesus made numerous claims of "special authority" , and the He specifically passed at least some degree of that authority to the apostles. I really don;t want to debate the role of Biblical prophets with you, but since most of the prophets recorded in scripture claimed to be passing on prophecy directly from God, that seems like quite a mantle for you to put on. FYI, the OT prophets frequently spoke and prophesied to the nation of Israel as a whole, not exclusively to the "oppressors". Of course your claim that I was a "silent little lamb", is simply one more of those false claims you casually throw out as if saying it makes it so. "Please clarify. Do you think that Jesus and the apostles had some special, unique-to-them authority to call out oppression and wrongdoing?"
No, I think that Jesus has a "special, unique to Him" authority as the second person of the Trinity over all of creation. I think that the apostles were delegated a limited version of that authority that was "unique to them" as His disciples.
"If so, do you recognise that you can't support that claim biblically or rationally?"
OK, if you say so.
"The Bible is quite clear that we are rightly to pursue being a prophet or speaking truth to power."
If, as you claim, it is a universal command that we "pursue being a prophet" or "speak truth to power", why have you not provided the direct scriptural citations to demonstrate the accuracy of your claim?
"“Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.”
This proof text raises more questions than it answers.
1. Are you claiming that "spiritual gifts" exist?
2. Are you claiming that everyone can posses any and all "spiritual gifts"?
3. Are you giving Paul equal authority with Jesus on this topic? If so, why?
4. Do you realize that the discussion of "spiritual gifts" is broader and more fully realized than your proof text?
5. Do you realize that Paul specifically says that not all "spiritual gifts" are given to all believers?
6. Are you claiming that the "spiritual gift" of prophecy is more valuable than any other spiritual gift?
7. Are you really claiming that these supernatural gifts can be proven to exist? Can you prove that you have the "spiritual gift" of prophecy?
7. Clearly you are completely unaffected by my pointing out your graceless and un Christlike attitude. If you were, you would have spent a bunch of time trying to justify your attitude and prooftext out of context scripture...
Craig... "1. As I suspected, you're going to retreat behind the semantic argument regarding frequency of your false claims."
As is predictable, you got it precisely ass backwards. Me throwing some dates in there was precisely to show that I was NOT talking about frequency. The point is, I don't make false claims. Certainly not intentionally. And you don't generally ever prove that I HAVE made false claims. Do you understand that reality?
Do you recognise that you cannot prove that I have made false claims on even a monthly basis? And that you can't prove that I have intentionally made a false claim to you ever? Because the reality is I haven't. I'm just wondering if you can recognize that reality when it's pointed out to you.
7 Yes, I find your vitriol to be ungracious and un Christlike. The fact that you try to hard to justify your behavior simply reinforces my belief that this is more about you being self righteous and trying to impose your rules on others than any genuine sense of extending grace of love to others.
Craig... "Really, please prove this claim. Jesus made numerous claims of "special authority" , and the He specifically passed at least some degree of that authority to the apostles."
The fact is, objectively provably, the fact is that Jesus NEVER said "I and the apostles have a unique-to-us responsibility for calling out wrongdoing in a prophetic manner."
That never happened.
I'm proving it by pointing out the reality that that claim does not exist in Jesus' words. Ever.
Now, all you have to do is find even ONE case where Jesus said something like that.
You can't.
It's a stupidly false suggestionTclear to anyone who has read The Bible.
Dan... "If so, do you recognise that you can't support that claim biblically or rationally?"
Craig... "OK, if you say so."
This is important, Craig.
It's not matter of whether or not I say anything at all about it. This is just objective reality. Either Jesus said words to the effect of he and the apostles had a unique to them responsibility to call out oppression and injustice, or he didn't.
The fact is, he didn't.
It's important that we can recognize reality. Do you recognize that reality?
Well done. You took the actual response to your question, reworded it into something I didn't actually say, then you simply asserted that your straw man didn't exist. clearly you imposed external limits on Jesus' authority that you have no grounds to, and you played the "Jesus didn't use these exact English words in this specific order" card.
I guess I shouldn't expect any serious answers or responses to any of my questions. This is why I don't like to waste time going into detail, you'll simply replace what I actually said with a straw man and then pretend like defeating the straw man ends the discussion.
"The point is, I don't make false claims"
1. I can virtually guarantee that the above is false.
2. Until you can conclusively demonstrate that every false claim I've ever pointed out to you is literally True, I fail to see why I shouldn't consider this claim to be at best, unproven, at worst false.
Craig...
"1. Are you claiming that "spiritual gifts" exist?"
Sigh. I'm saying that people are gifted at things. Some are stronger in some areas - public speaking, writing, singing, creativity, etc. - these things come more easily to some than others while others have DIFFERENT strengths. If you want to call that a "spiritual gift," that's fine.
Does that answer your question? It may depend on what YOU mean by "spiritual gifts."
I don't believe in special magic abilities, but people having strengths in one area or another? Yes, of course I believe in that.
"2. Are you claiming that everyone can posses any and all "spiritual gifts"?"
Nope.
"3. Are you giving Paul equal authority with Jesus on this topic? If so, why?"
sigh. I'm giving equal authority to all good and rational ideas. It's not a pissing contest on who has more authority between Paul and Jesus. On the other hand, I DO think it's clear when we're talking about Christianity, which is following Jesus the Christ, then we look to JESUS to understand JESUS' teachings and when someone else - Paul, James, Martin Luther King Jr - says something about Jesus' teachings, we weigh their words based upon Jesus' words, not the other way around.
Does that answer your question?
"4. Do you realize that the discussion of "spiritual gifts" is broader and more fully realized than your proof text?"
I realize that, probably for you, it is. But I suspect you're looking at "spiritual gifts" in a manner different than I am.
"5. Do you realize that Paul specifically says that not all "spiritual gifts" are given to all believers?"
Yup.
"6. Are you claiming that the "spiritual gift" of prophecy is more valuable than any other spiritual gift?"
Nope.
"7. Are you really claiming that these supernatural gifts can be proven to exist? Can you prove that you have the "spiritual gift" of prophecy?"
I said nothing about "supernatural gifts." Neither did Paul. Neither did Jesus.
Prophecy, rightly understood, is speaking Truth to Power. It's standing up for the Right and the Just on behalf of the poor and marginalized - especially as it is used in the Bible. I think we ALL have a responsibility to do that to the degree we can. I think some people are more gifted at it than others.
Does that answer all your questions?
Then how about answering mine?
Craig... "1. I can virtually guarantee that the above is false.
2. Until you can conclusively demonstrate that every false claim I've ever pointed out to you is literally True,"
Until YOU CAN PROVIDE EVEN ONE false claim I've made, I don't see any reason to jump through any hoops for you. I've already demonstrated several false claims you have made about me, showing specifically the quoted claim and why it's false.
Why don't YOU first begin by acknowledging your own false claims/errors and THEN move on to showing me EVEN ONE false claim I've made and we can go from there.
If I've made "regular" (or whatever term you used) false claims, it should be easy.
Craig...
"Well done. You took the actual response to your question, reworded it into something I didn't actually say, then you simply asserted that your straw man didn't exist. clearly you imposed external limits on Jesus' authority"
Do you have no sense of shame?
What I SAID originally was referencing Jesus' actions in the temple...
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves"
I was pointing out that Jesus also strongly rebuked religious oppressors and those who attack unjustly, as I was strongly rebuking Marshal.
What YOU said in response was
"3. Jesus had the authority to say what He did, Dan doesn't.
In response, I pushed back at your nonsense claim that Jesus had a special authority to rebuke the religious oppressors (THAT was the topic at hand), noting that James ALSO used strongly worded rebukes against rich oppressors, so it clearly wasn't something that ONLY Jesus should do.
In response, you doubled down and said...
"You now seem to be claiming the authority of one of the Apostles, is this the case? Do you really believe that you have the authority to call out people as you do."
I noted that YES, HELL YES, we have the authority and responsibility to rebuke religious and other oppressors, even to use strong words. I noted the reality that this was Jesus' EXAMPLE to us, and that there WAS NO SPECIAL AUTHORITY that Jesus claimed (in his actual words) that limited strong rebukes to only him and his apostles. That is just reality.
I responded
"The fact is, objectively provably, the fact is that Jesus NEVER said "I and the apostles have a unique-to-us responsibility for calling out wrongdoing in a prophetic manner." "
And YOU are now claiming that I've "reworded it into something" you didn't actually say. We were talking about the "authority to strongly rebuke people in the wrong" all along. Are you now claiming you were speaking of some OTHER "special authority" that was limited to Jesus and the apostles? By all means, clarify what you meant, because, as we can see, the topic was special authority to strongly rebuke wrong-doers.
Ball's in your park. I think you'd be best to cut your losses and say you misspoke and yes, of course, Jesus didn't say he and the apostles had some special authority to strongly rebuke others. Perhaps you just got off track. It happens. Admit it and move on.
Craig... "Jesus made numerous claims of "special authority" , and the He specifically passed at least some degree of that authority to the apostles."
While not totally disputing this, I'd be curious to see you provide at least one example of this, to understand what you're speaking of.
I mean, he claimed to have come specifically to preach good news to the poor, etc... but he didn't claim that as a "special authority." He rebuked the religious oppressors/authorities of the day, but he didn't claim that as a special authority. He said that he'd come to give life, more abundant, but he didn't claim that as a special authority.
When he sent out the 12, the Gospel of Luke says he gave them authority to drive out demons and heal the sick... but he doesn't say it was a special authority.
Matthew says he taught as one with authority, but nothing about claiming special authority.
The religious oppressors routinely questioned under whose authority Jesus was healing on the sabbath and preaching forgiveness to the poor and marginalized, but no claim of special authority.
In the great commission, Jesus said "all authority had been given to him" and encouraged the apostles to go out and teach the sorts of things he'd been teaching - his way of grace and reaching out specifically to the poor and marginalized - but no claim of special authority for Jesus or the apostles.
I just can't think of any places where Jesus claimed a special unique to him and the apostles authority. If anything, Jesus seemed wary of talking about "authority," for that was the way of the religious oppressors and he regularly questioned THEIR authority. A couple of times he opted not to answer the question, "By whose authority..."
What are you thinking of?
Craig... "clearly you imposed external limits on Jesus' authority that you have no grounds to, and you played the "Jesus didn't use these exact English words in this specific order" card. "
Clearly, that literally didn't happen. But, if you THINK it did, well, first off, you're mistaken. But secondly, by all means, explain what specifically you're talking about. WHERE did I "impose external limits on Jesus' authority"? How did I do so in a way that I had "no grounds to..."? Where did I play (in your mind) the "Jesus didn't use these words" card...?
And while we're at it, for ALL of you all (Marshal, Stan, anyone else who reads this)... I have NEVER SAID that, in trying to prove some point, you must find some place where Jesus "SAID THESE EXACT WORDS." That has never been an approach I have used because - and follow closely here - I. DO. NOT. BELIEVE. THAT.
That is, I believe we should not pollute. Did Jesus ever use those exact words? Of course not! Nonetheless, I think it's clear we should not pollute. I believe it is evil to own a human being as property, I think we should live simple lives, I believe we should live lives of grace, I believe we should struggle for justice especially for the poor and marginalized. I believe that and a WHOLE lot more that Jesus never literally said. That isn't the point, whether or not Jesus literally said it. It's whether it's the right thing to do or not. Does it promote justice, peace, forgiveness, healing, community, a healthy world or not?
And WHY do I think that? Well, in part because, duh, no shit! OF COURSE that's how we should live. But as a follower of Jesus, I believe it because these fit the IDEALS that Jesus taught about justice, wealth, poverty, oppression, etc. Even if those words are not used or specific ideas are not spoken to.
I have NEVER said that you must cite specific words when you're defending an idea/behavior/policy. What I have said is show me where Jesus SUGGESTED that in any of his teachings. For instance, WHERE did Jesus say we don't have the authority to strongly rebuke others?
He literally didn't. Not in those words or in any other words. Indeed, he modeled that behavior for us and why wouldn't we follow in that prophetic model?
Craig... " I'd point out the case of the Chicago teachers union president as an excellent example"
Hah! Looked up Chicago teachers union president. The first scandal I came across was that one had passed away. The local news reported...
"She was the voice of the teacher, the paraprofessional, the clinician, the counselor, the librarian and every rank-and-file educator who worked tirelessly to provide care and nurture for students; the single parent who fought tremendous odds to raise a family; and the laborer whose rights commanded honor and respect. She was a rose that grew out of South Side Chicago concrete - filled with love for her Kenwood Broncos alumni - to not only reach great heights, but to elevate everyone she led to those same heights."
SCANDAL!
Then I looked a bit more and DID find one scandal about ONE union leader (vice president, not the president according to the article I read) who advocated for keeping teaching remote and at some point did so WHILE on vacation in the Caribbean. WHAT? ONE union representative DARED to take a vacation? And you're talking about ONE union leader taking a vacation (in the Caribbean, to be sure, a bad look), but that is hardly "evidence" that A. Teachers don't care to be in the classroom teaching children or B. The UNION doesn't want teachers in the classroom or C. EVEN THIS ONE (ONE!!!) vacationing leader didn't want teachers in the classroom.
You have to get serious.
The charge that Marshal made with his caustic comment -
"But hey, as long as the teachers are kept safe from having to actually leave their homes to teach in person...That's what's really important, right? Not the kids."
...is not supported with your ONE person actually taking a vacation. There's NOTHING in this story about ONE person to suggest that even she doesn't care about the kids and are only interested in themselves.
Come on. This is not how adults debate important matters.
Craig.. . "1. I can virtually guarantee that the above is false"
Do you recognize the reality that I have never - never - deliberately made a false claim on ANY blog post or comment... ever?
Why would I?
Who would do that? Why?
Anytime I am talking about a topic regarding a policy or a behaviour, I hold my position because I think it's the right thing to do. Because I think the facts and the known data support such a position.
If I thought there were actual facts in the real world, for instance, that demonstrated beyond doubt that a fetus was a human deserving of all rights that a 20 year old is, of course I wouldn't argue in defense of keeping abortion decisions legal. Why would I? I'm not a monster that wants to do wrong. I'm trying to do right. Therefore, when talking about policy decisions or behaviors as we do on these sorts of blogs, I never deliberately make a false claim. Not one time.
Now, have I mistated things? Have I made mistakes either from memory or from lack of understanding and mistated something? Sure. I'm not perfect. But I have never knowingly made a false claim. I can say that with confidence because I just wouldn't do that... not here in this context.
I might lie about relatively minor things like how much I had to eat today or how many dr peppers I've had today, just out of embarrassment. But when I'm talking about policies, I'm trying to reach the right, factual, just and moral position. So lying about a point in order to reach a conclusion would be counter productive. It would be irrational.
And, I don't imagine that people like you or Marshal do either. Again, why would you?
I wonder if you recognize that reality and give people who disagree with you the benefit of the doubt as I give you all the benefit of the doubt...
"This is just objective reality. Either Jesus said words to the effect of he and the apostles had a unique to them responsibility to call out oppression and injustice, or he didn't."
The reality is that Jesus claimed to have authority over many things. The fact that you choose to try to limit the discussion to only two makes no sense unless it's intentionally intended to obfuscate the issue by focusing on these two specific things while ignoring all the rest.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
Yes, I recognize the reality that you have decided to limit Jesus' authority to only two things and to hinge the conversation on whether or not He used those specific terms.
"Does that answer your question?"
No, you quite clearly made the point that "spiritual gifts" are a thing. I asked you a simple yes or no question, not whether you could redefine the term "spiritual gifts".
"It may depend on what YOU mean by "spiritual gifts." I don't believe in special magic abilities,"
Why? You are the one who brought the topic up. You are the one who used proof texts to try to make some unfathomable point. The reality is that I'm trying to figure out what YOU meant when you brought "spiritual gifts" into the conversation.
"I said nothing about "supernatural gifts." Neither did Paul."
Please provide proof of your claim about what Paul was describing, or retract your claim.
"Neither did Jesus."
Again, prove your claim or retract it.
"Prophecy, rightly understood, is speaking Truth to Power. It's standing up for the Right and the Just on behalf of the poor and marginalized - especially as it is used in the Bible."
if you are going to make these claims, then you should probably prove them before I have to ask.
Craig... ", I recognize the reality that you have decided to limit Jesus' authority to only two things"
What am I limiting, in your imagination? HOW am I limiting Jesus' authority (as if such a thing can be done)? WHERE SPECIFICALLY did I say I was "limiting Jesus' authority..."?
Be specific. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Are you suggesting that YOU are limiting Jesus' authority by saying he WASN'T modeling behavior for us in speaking out strongly against injustice and oppression?
You'll recall that Jesus told his followers to go, teach "ALL THINGS I have commanded you..." Are you LIMITING the scope of ALL THINGS that Jesus wants us to teach?
Craig... " you quite clearly made the point that "spiritual gifts" are a thing. I asked you a simple yes or no question, not whether you could redefine the term "spiritual gifts"."
I was making a point that being prophetic being a thing NOT limited to Jesus and the apostles. I cited a passage that used that term. I wasn't "clearly making a point that spiritual gifts are a thing..."
Thus, you missed the point I was making... the point that being that speaking prophetically is a thing. "Spiritual gifts" is a loaded term and NOT the point of my comment.
Do you understand now?
Thus, MY points on that issue were two:
1. That we all have things we are stronger/better-suited at than others and one of those things is being prophetic, in the tradition of Jesus and the prophets, calling out injustice, even with the use of strong words.
2. That we all, to some degree or another, are obliged to stand for/work for justice.
Understand my actual point now?
" Do you recognize the reality that I have never - never - deliberately made a false claim on ANY blog post or comment... ever?"
Proof?
"Why would I? Who would do that?"
I have no idea what motivates you beyond your obvious hatred for those you disagree with and your apparent desire to be right about virtually everything. I'm not your psychologist, I have no idea why you do things.
" If I thought there were actual facts in the real world, for instance, that demonstrated beyond doubt that a fetus was a human deserving of all rights that a 20 year old is, of course I wouldn't argue in defense of keeping abortion decisions legal. Why would I?"
Another excellent question that I have absolutely no basis to answer. Of course, since no one is claiming that a human child which is viable outside of the mother's uterus deserves all the rights of a 20 year old. The question is whether or not it is endowed by it's Creator to the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Just two rights are all anyone is discussing. If you can explain why that child should be denied those rights, then go ahead and do so.
"I never deliberately make a false claim. Not one time."
That's quite a claim, I guess asking for proof isn't going to be fruitful.
I was going to continue to parse the rest of this self serving, self congratulatory dreck, when I realized that all that was left was more exceptions, excuses, and qualifications to explain why lying was OK in some circumstances and didn't actually count.
Dan... "I never deliberately make a false claim. Not one time."
Craig... "That's quite a claim, I guess asking for proof isn't going to be fruitful."
It's the reality. If you think you have data to prove otherwise, you can present it. Otherwise, I don't see where you have any reason to make a suggestion that I would deliberately make a false claim.
In other words, if you want to make a charge, the onus is on you to support it. You recognize that, right?
I mean, do YOU ever deliberately make false claims in these types of blog discussions? Why would you? I mean, clearly you do regularly make false claims. I pointed out several just in this thread alone. But I have no reason to believe that you're intentionally making them. Are you?
"The point is, I don't make false claims."
"I never deliberately make a false claim. Not one time."
The first that leapt to mind was the charge that Trump grabbed women by the crotch. This false claim was falsely based on an interview some 15+ years ago to which I linked at least twice to prove Trump never claimed to have grabbed anyone in that way.
Not only did Dan make this false claim, he continued to perpetuate it long after first being provided the link to the actual interview. He then went on to falsely claim this as evidence of his "rapey" ways, when at worst it suggested a consensual arrangement between he and those women who would have let him grab them in such a manner were he ever to do so.
But this wasn't the worst of it. Dan also chose to falsely accuse Trump of sexual assaults for which he's presented no better than allegations, which, given his alleged experience in journalism, should have been attached to the word "alleged" or "allegedly" in order to maintain the questionable status as an honest person.
Dan's also claimed repeatedly that Trump is a racist without ever presenting evidence in support and in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Indeed, Dan has falsely claimed many things regarding Trump alone for his two false claims quoted above to stand without provoking laughter.
As to crapping on teachers, there is precedent galore, but I can't recall that I've ever spent much time on the subject much less "more than once maligned or attacked public school teachers". Craig's reference to the Chicago Teachers Union does indeed stand as evidence, as it seems they go on strike every year. Even teachers themselves speak of bad teachers, as is the case here. Then of course there are the many examples of teachers having sex with students and other such abuses that are said to be of far greater number than similar allegations against Roman Catholic priests.
The point here, at present, is to provide more evidence of how easily and often Dan engages in making false claims, as well as to provide a defense against his hateful, grace-embracing leveled against me for daring to broach the subject. Dan's response is far more to attack me than it is to defend good teachers, because general statements are not out of bounds in any case, though when dealing with Dan, they become fodder for his un-Christlike vitriol. To have to qualify every legitimate concern with "not every teacher" is boring, tiresome and worthwhile only to prevent the grace-embracing hateful response opportunity for those like Dan.
What's more, Dan is more than noted for making similar broad brush attacks on people with whom he disagrees, particularly conservatives who don't hate Trump as much as he does. Those he falsely claims are "honest and decent" because they share his hatred.
Craig... "I have no idea what motivates you beyond your obvious hatred for those you disagree with and your apparent desire to be right about virtually everything."
Of course, the reality is that I don't hate you all. Never said anything like it. You're very much like I was 25 years ago. Very much like the good people who raised me. I don't hate you any more than I hate my own conservative family members who argue in a style like you all do.
Do you think that James hated the rich people he rebuked? That Jesus hated the Pharisees he rebuked?
Strong rebukes don't equate to hate.
Yes, Dan. The union leader in Chicago stirred up a bit of controversy when she weighed in from her luxury vacation in the Caribbean (during the middle of the lockdown and travel restrictions). Of course the optics of that look pretty crappy. But that's just one well known example. Others are clearly pointless, as you'll just make excuses or justify any other examples I'd cite.
"But secondly, by all means, explain what specifically you're talking about.'
When you imposed the "call out oppression and wrongdoing" limits on Jesus' unique authority. That's what I'm talking about. I was clear that Jesus had special, unique, authority during His earthly ministry. You chose to impose that "call out oppression and wrongdoing" limits on Him.
"For instance, WHERE did Jesus say we don't have the authority to strongly rebuke others?"
Where did He say that we DO have the authority to vitriolically attack others?
"Indeed, he modeled that behavior for us and why wouldn't we follow in that prophetic model?"
1. Because not everyone is a Biblical prophet.
2. Where does Jesus deine prophecy as "speaking Truth to power"?
3. Why didn't Jesus "speak Truth to power" and "strongly rebuke" the Sanhedrin, Herod, Pilate, or demand to be taken to Rome to be tried before Caesar?
4. What specific single "prophetic model" are you following?
5. Do you consider yourself able to speak "Truth to power"?
6. If the answer to #6 is yes, then how do you know that you are speaking "The Truth to power" as opposed to "A Truth to power."?
Thank you for making my point. Jesus clearly claimed, as you pointed out, that ""all authority had been given to him". Unless you can point to anyone else who was given "all authority", I'd suggest that that alone might make Jesus' authority special and unique? Can you point to anyone else who claimed to have been given "all authority"?
"Jesus seemed wary of talking about "authority,""
Jesus seemed pretty comfortable referring to His or His Father's "Kingdom", which certainly suggests some degree of authority.
"...for that was the way of the religious oppressors and he regularly questioned THEIR authority."
yes, He did. Pointing out the Jewish leaders abuse of their authority doesn't automatically suggest that Jesus' authority is similarly flawed or abusive.
"A couple of times he opted not to answer the question, "By whose authority..." What are you thinking of?"
His answers might not have been as direct as you'd like, but I'm not sure that He didn't answer. Further, His actions proclaimed His authority, as do his statements to others groups.
I was going to parse your comment about the moneychangers, but once I realized that you chose to edit Jesus' recorded words, I realized that it was a pointless exercise.
Further, until you address my questions/response regarding "all authority" being a unique and special status, it seems pointless to re hash your semantic drivel.
" Do you think that James hated the rich people he rebuked? That Jesus hated the Pharisees he rebuked? Strong rebukes don't equate to hate."
Don't know, don't care. I see no similarities between your vitriol and expletive laden attacks and anything Jesus said. This self serving, prideful, insistence that you are in a position to authoritatively rebuke anyone is pathetic. Your lack of grace and humility speaks volumes.
"If you think you have data to prove otherwise, you can present it."
I've pointed out multiple false claims over the years, a couple in this thread. If you can't prove your claim, why should I even bother to respond.
"You recognize that, right?"
Yes, I do understand that the onus is on the one making the claim to support it. I'm waiting for you to do so. Specifically, to conclusively demonstrate the Truth of the claims I've pointed out in this thread.
"I mean, do YOU ever deliberately make false claims in these types of blog discussions?"
I've done so on occasion to make a point.
"Why would you?"
To make a point, or to draw you out when you're reluctant to commit to a position.
"I mean, clearly you do regularly make false claims. I pointed out several just in this thread alone."
You've made some unproven claims, but if you were holding me to the same standard you hold yourself to, you'd not refer to them as "false claims", but as "mistakes".
"But I have no reason to believe that you're intentionally making them. Are you?"
Asked and answered. Nice attempt to divert attention from your behavior by trying to turn the spotlight on others. Kind of a splinter/log situation it seems.
The problem is that I have not claimed that I've never made any false claims, I've never denied that I've made false claims, I'm not trying to pridefully claim something that I haven't achieved.
Finally waded through like 15 comments of mostly bullshit, some of it repeated. What a waste of my time answering and Dan's time writing.
Art,
I'd forgotten about the fact that abuse by public school teachers makes the RC abuse scandal look like nothing.
Craig... "until you address my questions/response regarding "all authority" being a unique and special status, it seems pointless to re hash your semantic drivel."
You keep saying this.
I. Have. No. Idea. What. You're. Talking. About.
If you want to make yourself clear and understood, then explain yourself. WHAT authority is Jesus claiming for himself? What authority is Jesus saying is unique to him?
Do you recognize the reality that Jesus did not say rebuking religious pharisees is something unique to him and the apostles?
Craig... "Where did He say that we DO have the authority to vitriolically attack others?"
By his God damned example you dim witted arrogant piece of shit. Quit trying to put Jesus in your pissy little box.
(Do you see what I did there?)
Or, to put it in the vernacular of Jesus' day, where he used equally strong words to say...
You blind fools! You whitewashed tombs! You brood of snakes!! Woe unto you! It will be hell for you! For you weigh down people with your pointless rules and you're not willing to lift a finger to ease their load. It will be hell for you on that day!
Why not embrace the grace of walking in Jesus steps more fully? Why do you Fight against Jesus example?
Craig... "Jesus clearly claimed, as you pointed out, that ""all authority had been given to him". Unless you can point to anyone else who was given "all authority"
1. I never said Jesus didn't have authority. Do you understand that reality?
2. I never said that all humans have all authority. Do you understand that?
3. ALL I said was that Jesus never claimed an authority UNIQUE to him and the apostles to rebuke others. It did not happen. Do you understand that very basic simple observable reality?
In The Bible, in ALLLLLLLLLLL the whole God Blessed bible, Jesus NEVER claimed that he and the apostles had a unique authority, unique to them, to rebuke others. That has not happened. I don't know what in the hell you're talking about.
Is it hard for you to admit to reality? Are you suggesting that Jesus claimed that only he and the apostles could strongly rebuke others? Because, if so, you should recognize that did not happen... You must recognize that very basic reality.
Craig... "I've done so on occasion to make a point.
"Why would you?"
To make a point, or to draw you out when you're reluctant to commit to a position"
Wow. OK. Well. That's not how I operate.
Craig... "I've done so on occasion to make a point.
"Why would you?"
To make a point, or to draw you out when you're reluctant to commit to a position..."
Is it possible then that, because you are willing to make up false claims deliberately an attempt to trick someone, that you're assuming that others use your same tactics?
Also, do you think you're witty enough to "draw me out?" Also, the reality is I'm not reluctant to commit to a position... Why would you think that?
Really are operating under a more diabolic system than I am, it would appear. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
Regarding your lie to try to trick me, Craig, I'm curious. Can you cut recall one of these times where you deliberately lied and what you were hoping to try to "draw me" into revealing? On the face of it, it sort of sounds like an awkward little attempt.
Craig... "problem is that I have not claimed that I've never made any false claims.."
Just for the record and to be clear... I Didn't say I've never made a false claim. I said on my blog and in discussions on other people's blogs I've never knowingly made a false claim. Again, why would I?
I just don't see the point. In a reasonable discussion between adults about policy and behaviour, I don't understand how it would help me in any way at all in the real world to knowingly make a false claim. That would only hurt me And my case. For me, the point is not to "win an argument," the point is to understand and improve the world based on reality, not lies.
Marshal, are you with Craig and you use false claims knowingly sometimes?
And just to be clear, I get that the false claim you're talking about - an awkward attempt to try to trick somebody (somehow,) - is not quite the same as nefariously making a false claim... Perhaps it's a little closer to being an object to lesson than an evil false claim.
Still.
I would not have mentioned the sexual abuse of students by teachers were it not for the feigned concern of teachers as none but the most perfect of self-sacrificing angels suffering against the unjust attacks by conservatives like myself (*yawn*). But the fact is were the vast majority of teachers and professors serious and intent on returning to in-school teaching, we'd have seen one of two things, with possibly the first having resulted in the second, which are:
1. Massive and ongoing outcry of the vast majority of teachers and professors across the nation demanding the re-opening of schools, and/or
2. The re-opening of schools to full, in class teaching.
Teachers/professors are allegedly highly educated people with some understanding and appreciation for the thirst for knowledge. This should suggest self-driven seeking of everything covid related, including proven treatments such as hydroxychloriquine cocktails and ivermectin which would have alloyed what fears remained regarding exposure where any such fears were justified.
But no. Instead we saw the very same sheep-like faith in Dr. Fauxci flip-flopping and outright falsehoods common among too many Americans throughout the last year and a half.
So exactly how badly did the teacher/professor population want to get back into the classroom? Not so much, I'd say.
"WHAT authority is Jesus claiming for himself?"
As you pointed out earlier, Jesus claimed "ALL authority in Heaven and on Earth" for himself.
"What authority is Jesus saying is unique to him?"
Again, as you said, "ALL authority". Is pointing out (again) what you said and asking questions based on what you said, really this difficult and confusing for you?
"Do you recognize the reality that Jesus did not say rebuking religious pharisees is something unique to him and the apostles?"
Since I never limited the scope of Jesus' authority (that would be something you did) to those two things, it should go without saying that I recognize your manipulation of my point.
So, once again, are you really saying that Jesus' claim to "all" authority was not unique to Him? That every one has "all" authority? Or that some people have also had "all" authority? Please provide names.
"By his God damned example you dim witted arrogant piece of shit. Quit trying to put Jesus in your pissy little box. (Do you see what I did there?)"
Yes. You engaged in more of the hateful, graceless, vitriolic, expletive laden personal attacks that are your stock-in-trade. Nothing particularly new, interesting, or innovative. Other than the lie that I'm trying to put Jesus in a "box".
"Why not embrace the grace of walking in Jesus steps more fully?"
I try to do so within the limits of my sinful humanity. I simply choose not to spend my time hurling expletive laden vitriol at others who don't agree with me and try to focus on more profitable things.
"Why do you Fight against Jesus example?"
I'd like to say I don't, but I have to acknowledge that my sinful nature does fight against Jesus' example of holiness. The reality is, that I'm like Paul in that respect. I do what I don't want to do, and I don't do what I want to do. The notion of setting myself as an example of how to follow Jesus doesn't really appeal to me.
" 1. I never said Jesus didn't have authority. Do you understand that reality?"
Your exact words. "In the great commission, Jesus said "all authority had been given to him" and encouraged the apostles to go out and teach the sorts of things he'd been teaching...".
I guess you could dodge this by saying that you were simply repeating what Jesus said, without actually agreeing with Jesus' claims, but it seems like saying that Jesus was mistaken, or some such, doesn't really help you very much.
On the face, this is one more false claim. Yet, I'm sure you'll come up with some creative bullshit to reverse yourself or some semantic dodge. Or, you'll just go with the "you don't understand what I'm saying" trope, without actually explaining what you "really meant".
"2. I never said that all humans have all authority. Do you understand that?"
This is why I ask you questions, because what you say isn't clear to me. When you respond like this, instead of answering forthrightly and directly, it simply makes things less clear.
"3. ALL I said was that Jesus never claimed an authority UNIQUE to him and the apostles to rebuke others. It did not happen. Do you understand that very basic simple observable reality?"
I understand that you've said that, yet you've provided 2 examples (The "all" authority claim, and the "cast out demons and heal the sick" claim), that are certainly not (as far as you've demonstrated) examples of authority for everyone. If you can explain how those two are not unique to Jesus and the disciples, I'm all for it.
"Jesus NEVER claimed that he and the apostles had a unique authority, unique to them, to rebuke others."
Since I have NEVER actually limited my questions about Jesus'/the disciples "unique" authority to this one tiny aspect, I'm not sure why you are obsessed with attacking this straw man. I was quite clear that Jesus' unique authority extended way beyond this one minor aspect. I was also quite clear that Jesus' delegated certain aspects of His authority to His disciples at various times. You haven't demonstrated that either of these notions is actually wrong, you've just kept focusing on the "rebuke" straw man. I suspect that your obsession with this one aspect of Jesus' authority is due to two factors; 1. You clearly seem to revel in your perceived authority to "rebuke" those who disagree with you. 2. It's one aspect of Jesus' authority that doesn't involve "magic" or anything supernatural.
"Are you suggesting that Jesus claimed that only he and the apostles could strongly rebuke others?"
No, you can tell that I am not because there is no example of my actually doing so. Had you simply asked this question earlier, you wouldn't have had to waste so much time with this straw man.
Craig... "What authority is Jesus saying is unique to him?"
Again, as you said, "ALL authority". Is pointing out (again) what you said and asking questions based on what you said, really this difficult and confusing for you?"
Again, Jesus literally did not say this is unique to me. Jesus literally did not say this authority to rebuke others as unique to me. It literally didn't happen. Repeat that to yourself. It literally did not happen. Do you understand those words? Literally, in Jesus words he did not say that . Do you understand?
And My pointing out that Jesus literally did not say that is not limiting Jesus authority. Do you understand this? It literally is not. I did not limit Jesus authority. Good Lord in heaven! How do you all get dressed in the morning?
Is this really difficult for you?
"Wow. OK. Well. That's not how I operate."
So. Are you suggesting that the way you "operate" is objectively that only right way to operate, or that it is inherently superior to the way others "operate"?
"Is it possible then that, because you are willing to make up false claims deliberately an attempt to trick someone, that you're assuming that others use your same tactics?"
No.
"Also, do you think you're witty enough to "draw me out?""
I don't think it's a matter of being "witty" as much as it is an attempt to get you to take a firm unequivocal position when you don't want to do so.
"Also, the reality is I'm not reluctant to commit to a position... Why would you think that?"
Because I've seen you equivocate and refuse to answer simple yes or no questions plenty of times.
"Really are operating under a more diabolic system than I am, it would appear. I say what I mean and I mean what I say."
That's quite a claim, care to prove it?
Multiple comments all trying to walk back the "I've never made a false claim." claim, and to shame me for something I do one occasion. Not worth wasting time with.
Craig... "are you really saying that Jesus' claim to "all" authority was not unique to Him?
Am I really saying something I literally never said? No. You can tell by the way I never said that.
"That every one has "all" authority?
Am I really saying something I literally never said? No. You can tell by the way I never said that.
"Or that some people have also had "all" authority?"
Am I really saying something I literally never said? No. You can tell by the way I never said that.
Dan... " 1. I never said Jesus didn't have authority. Do you understand that reality?"
Craig... "Your exact words. "In the great commission, Jesus said "all authority had been given to him" and encouraged the apostles to go out and teach the sorts of things he'd been teaching..."
???
My exact words, quoting Jesus, do not say Jesus didn't have authority. I think you're misunderstanding... something. I have no idea what you think this proves? Maybe you got all excited and read something into my words that I didn't say? Look at my words again and what you're saying and either clarify something or admit you wildly misspoke.
Craig... "Because I've seen you equivocate and refuse to answer simple yes or no questions plenty of times."
Another unsupported claim. No surprise.
As anyone can see who's read me over the years, I have no problem directly stating my position. Sometimes you might be asking a question that doesn't have a yes or no answer in that case I might not give a yes or no answer. But I'm never reluctant to give my opinion.
Another stupidly false claim while making the accusation that I make false claims.
By all means comment if you can support your claim, support it. Otherwise, well, we see
Craig... "Multiple comments all trying to walk back the "I've never made a false claim." claim, and to shame me for something I do one occasion."
Are you suggesting I've been "walking back" the false claim point I made? Because I haven't. Sometimes, I'm curious about what you're reading when you're reading my words. Like, I KNOW what my words say, but I'm curious about what you SEE/interpret when you read my words.
I think it would be a useful exercise one day to sit down with you in person, have you read through my words and tell me then and there what meaning you're finding in my words. And then I could clarify, "but I'm not walking back the no false claims on my blog" point I made... I've never deliberately made a false claim on my blog or in conversations with others on other blogs. I literally, truly don't see what I'd gain by doing that. And so, no, I haven't walked that back...
TO point that out to you and have you, then and there, tell me what you're seeing in my words that make you think I'm walking them back.
Or the same with the "You're limiting Jesus' authority..." It literally never happened with my words as I wrote them... what are you seeing that makes you think I'm saying something I'm not saying?
It's an interesting phenomenon. I suspect it has something to do with reading a political "opponent's" words too quickly and carelessly reading into it something that literally isn't there. But who knows?
Dan... "Really are operating under a more diabolic system than I am, it would appear. I say what I mean and I mean what I say."
Craig... "That's quite a claim, care to prove it?"
Easy. EVERY TIME I say something, making claims about facts or data or text, I will tell you what I mean by that. I won't say, "Genesis 1 reads like myth to me..." for instance, and not mean it.
I guess there are jokes I make sometimes, sarcasm, irony, etc... and those might be said to be something I don't mean. But I don't think those are what you're talking about. I think you can recognize my sarcasm and jokes for what they are.
So, I can EASILY prove it by pointing to EVERYTHING I've ever written as evidence. Now, in the midst of ALL that I've written, you can find something and point out where I said something I didn't mean, I can clarify your misunderstanding for you. Or (and this is quite unlikely), I could apologize for saying something I didn't mean. But since I've never done that (again, why would I?), that's not likely.
So, all YOU have to do to prove me wrong is point to ANYTHING that I've ever written where I didn't mean what I said (or that wasn't clearly sarcasm/irony) and you'll have shown where I did that and my claim was mistaken. But beyond pointing to EVERYTHING and saying, "it never happened," that's all I can do to prove it. The onus is on you to find something I didn't mean.
Thus, the ball's in your park.
(and to be clear... I'm not "meaning" a literal ball or a literal park, so I don't mean that literally... but I do mean it figuratively. Of course.)
Craig... "Since I have NEVER actually limited my questions about Jesus'/the disciples "unique" authority to this one tiny aspect, I'm not sure why you are obsessed with attacking this straw man."
Um, because this whole part of the conversation began when I referenced how Jesus modeled and thus authorized us to rebuke others and you began talking exception to that... I guess by expanding it to me somehow suggesting that I was somehow denying Jesus ' authority... or something. I'm not sure where or why YOU chose to expand it to authority in all areas when I was citing just the one.
Craig... "yet you've provided 2 examples (The "all" authority claim, and the "cast out demons and heal the sick" claim), that are certainly not (as far as you've demonstrated) examples of authority for everyone."
Well, certainly healing is something that a good number of people do and should do because, of course. You know, Jesus doesn't need to enumerate which good things we should do, right?
"Against such things, there is no law."
It's pretty bold for Dan to say he never "knowingly" makes false claims when he's done so repeatedly regarding Trump...particularly the constant reference to grabbing women by the crotch. But Dan loves irony so making a false claim of never "knowingly" making false claims is rather special.
"Again, Jesus literally did not say this is unique to me."
This is why your failure to answer questions is so frustrating. So maybe if you'll answer it will help clear up your confusion.
1. Does Jesus have to specifically say something for it to be True?
2. Did Jesus claim that "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."?
3. Does the word "all' actually mean all?
4. when Jesus says "given to Me", was the word "Me" referring to anyone other than Jesus as a unique individual?
5. Was Jesus correct in His claim?
6. Who else in recorded history has ever been given ""All authority in heaven and on earth"?
"Jesus literally did not say this authority to rebuke others as unique to me."
Repeating a straw man, doesn't make it True. I continue to focus on Jesus claim regarding "All authority...", and you continue to try to focus on one minuscule aspect.
"Do you understand those words?"
Yes, I understand that those words are still a straw man and a waste of time to respond to.
Do you understand that repeating or re stating a straw man, doesn't change the fact that it's a straw man? You keep trying to focus on this nonsensical notion of the "authority to rebuke" while ignoring the larger topic. Hopefully you'll answer the questions asked here and elsewhere so that I can begin to understand what the hell you're saying beyond this obsession with your alleged authority to rebuke people at will with expletives and vitriol.
"I'm not sure where or why YOU chose to expand it to authority in all areas when I was citing just the one."
The problem with this false (or stupidly wrong) claim, is that YOU introduced both of the claims I am trying to pursue into the conversation. If you are too lazy or ignorant to deal with this reality, then I see no reason to dignify your idiocy with a response.
"My exact words, quoting Jesus, do not say Jesus didn't have authority. I think you're misunderstanding... something. I have no idea what you think this proves? Maybe you got all excited and read something into my words that I didn't say? Look at my words again and what you're saying and either clarify something or admit you wildly misspoke."
This is exactly what happens when you decide that you know better than I do what I said, and when you refuse to answer questions clarifying what you mean.
The reality is that Jesus claimed "All authority in Heaven and on the earth", if he wasn't lying or deranged when He made that claim, and if you can't point to anyone else who can honestly make that claim then Jesus was definitely making a unique/singular claim about His authority. It seems clear that if Jesus is making a claim that applies only to Him across all of history past and future, that HE is making a claim that is unique. Even if He didn't use the word unique.
I'm sorry that this is so confusing for you and that the notion of Jesus having any sort of unique authority is such a stumbling block.
"Am I really saying something I literally never said? No. You can tell by the way I never said that."
Let's try it this way. When Jesus claimed that He had "all authority in Heaven and on the earth", was he telling the Truth and is there anyone else who can Truthfully make that claim?
"That every one has "all" authority? Am I really saying something I literally never said? No. You can tell by the way I never said that."
Let's try it this way.
Who else in recorded history has ever Truthfully made the claim Jesus made? Does anyone else have "all authority in Heaven and on earth"?
"Or that some people have also had "all" authority?" Am I really saying something I literally never said? No. You can tell by the way I never said that."
Again, let's try it this way.
Does everyone have the same level of authority that Jesus claimed to have?
Craig... "When Jesus claimed that He had "all authority in Heaven and on the earth", was he telling the Truth and is there anyone else who can Truthfully make that claim?"
Um... no. But I literally never said otherwise. I don't know what in the world you're talking about.
Craig... "Does everyone have the same level of authority that Jesus claimed to have?"
No. But again, I never said otherwise. What in the hell are you talking about?
ALLLLLLLL I ever said was that Jesus never claimed to be the only one who can rebuke others. Or that he and his apostles were the only ones who could rebuke others. That's all I said.
It's confusing because you're not making a damned bit of sense. It appears that you have read a huge mountain of shit into my words that I never said. But that's on you, not me. It's confusing because you are making it confusing.
Do you understand that?
Why do you find that confusing, that you're being confusing?
Craig...
"1. Does Jesus have to specifically say something for it to be True?"
No. But I never said otherwise.
"2. Did Jesus claim that "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."?"
Yes. But I never said otherwise.
"3. Does the word "all' actually mean all?"
Sure. But I never said otherwise.
"4. when Jesus says "given to Me", was the word "Me" referring to anyone other than Jesus as a unique individual?"
I don't think so. But I never said otherwise.
"5. Was Jesus correct in His claim?"
Sure. But I never said otherwise.
"6. Who else in recorded history has ever been given ""All authority in heaven and on earth"?"
No one. But I never said otherwise.
Do you want to ask me to clarify other questions where I've never stated otherwise?
For instance, do you want to ask me are there some instances where slavery is justified? My answer would be no, but I never said otherwise.
(On an unrelated note, you don't appear to be able to say the same.)
Craig... "Does everyone have the same level of authority that Jesus claimed to have?"
Let's try it this way, do you agree we all have the authority to do good? To stand against oppression? To stand against slavery? To correct false claims?
Good God, I hope you can agree with this!
"You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He may give it to you"
Above are the words of Jesus.
The first question is whether or not what Jesus is saying is True, does it correspond with reality? In other words, "Did Jesus really choose and appoint those who follow Him in order that the go and bear fruit?"
The second question is whether of not Jesus is speaking of simply appointing a bunch of farmers to plant fruit trees, or is He speaking of fruit in the spiritual sense He does in multiple places in the gospels. Is He speaking of physical fruit, or metaphysical fruit?
If we can agree that Jesus did choose those who follow Him, and that He equips them to fulfill His mission, then wouldn't Jesus be doing so with some degree of authority? If He's really telling His followers that YHWH will "answer their prayers", wouldn't that making promises on the behalf of YHWH require some level of authority? If representing oneself as in a position to make promises in behalf of YHWH, would require some level of authority, then who else in history possessed that level of authority?
"Let's try it this way,..."
This is not a good start. have you ever heard that you aren't supposed to answer a question with a question? Well, you certainly aren't supposed to answer one question with 4 or 5 questions.
Since it's my blog, and I make the rules, let's not try it your way. You like to brag about your question answering, and your ability to take unequivocal, and forthright stands on things, so let's see you do what you boast about before you try to hijack the conversation.
do you agree we all have the authority to do good? To stand against oppression? To stand against slavery? To correct false claims? Good God, I hope you can agree with this!
Once you catch up and answer all the questions asked, I'll gladly answer these questions, although they seem pointless.
To summarize your "answers", you seem to be saying the following.
1. Jesus does, in fact, have authority over all things in Heaven and one earth.
2. That when Jesus said "all" authority He literally meant all.
3. That Jesus was a unique individual, who was intentionally making the "all authority" claim about Himself alone.
4. That Jesus' claim about Himself was factually correct.
5. That no one else in history has ever been given the authority that Jesus was given.
"Do you want to ask me to clarify other questions where I've never stated otherwise?"
No, I'd just like you to answer the questions as asked, simply and directly.
Have I accurately summarized your responses, and do you agree that they above accurately reflects what you said?
Craig... "The first question is whether or not what Jesus is saying is True, does it correspond with reality? In other words, "Did Jesus really choose and appoint those who follow Him in order that the go and bear fruit?"
The second question is whether of not Jesus is speaking of simply appointing a bunch of farmers to plant fruit trees, or is He speaking of fruit in the spiritual sense He does in multiple places in the gospels. Is He speaking of physical fruit, or metaphysical fruit?
If we can agree that Jesus did choose those who follow Him, and that He equips them to fulfill His mission, then wouldn't Jesus be doing so with some degree of authority?"
While waiting to see if you're going to answer any of my questions, I'll deal with these.
Did Jesus literally mean he was choosing Mark, but not Jane... Dan, but not Craig... and for those he didn't choose... too bad for you, you're out of luck!
If THAT is what you're asking, No, I don't think that's a faithful biblical understanding of the point of Jesus, who quite clearly made an invitation to all.
IF you're asking, "Did Jesus choose Dan to be a prophet, but not Craig... And Craig to be a builder, but not Dan..." and Jesus/God specifically "gave" Craig building skills but not prophet skills and vice versa... I don't think that's a provable point. I'm not inclined to think that Jesus is somehow magically endowing us with special skills as a literal metaphysical "gift" to certain people... I'm not inclined to believe that's what he's talking about here and regardless, we can't really prove it one way or another.
We can't prove Jesus intent when he's using language like this that is rather metaphorical-sounding, so I don't think either of us can say authoritatively, but I'm not inclined to read language like the "Choosing" or "gifting" from Jesus as to mean a literal choice/gift.
On the other hand, I do think Jesus makes it clear that he's choosing ALL of us to follow/abide in the Way of Grace. And that there is no law against doing good and of course, all of us should and can, to the degree we can, choose to do good and, if literal healing/medical practice is not our gift, to the degree that we can help heal with our words and our actions, that is Jesus call for us all. (Just using "healing" as an example.)
Do I think "Whatever we ask the father in Jesus' name, God will give us..."? No, of course not. I don't think that's a literal magical incantation ("Lord, give me 2 million dollars and a yacht... IN JESUS' NAME!") to get things.
"Lord, help me explain this, help me heal this situation" maybe so. But not "whatever."
Craig... "The first question is whether or not what Jesus is saying is True, does it correspond with reality?"
Everything Jesus says is true, RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD. But does that mean he meant he's calling some and not others and the uncalled are shit out of luck? No, I don't think that's rightly understood.
Are those direct answers making sense? As with a lot of things, the answer is/can be, It depends on what you mean by that. Literally.
Craig... "This is not a good start. have you ever heard that you aren't supposed to answer a question with a question?"
Those were rhetorical questions with a clear answer, the answer being YES. That, in contrast to YOUR question which I DIRECTLY answered with a No.
Here:
"Craig... "Does everyone have the same level of authority that Jesus claimed to have?"
No. But again, I never said otherwise. What in the hell are you talking about?"
NO. I gave a direct and unequivocal answer to your question AND THEN added four more rhetorical questions to add clarity to my point.
I'm sorry if that was confusing to you.
Craig... "Have I accurately summarized your responses, and do you agree that they above accurately reflects what you said?"
sigh. Yes. Again, I gave clear and unequivocal answers. Not "answers."
We'll see if you start answering questions in a similar manner.
As a point of clarity, I don't think Jesus was nearly as into "authority" as it sounds like you are. I think Jesus' emphasis on "authority" was in response to the Pharisees of his days, who liked to pretend to authority and give rules for others, piling rules on their backs.
Just a theory I have.
Here's a passage from Jesus in John 14, where he's comforting the disciples...
"Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?
The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority.
Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me;
or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.
Very truly I tell you,
whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing,
and they will do even GREATER THINGS than these,
because I am going to the Father."
Do you think that WHOEVER believes in Jesus will do even greater things that Jesus?
Where Jesus preached good news specifically to the poor and marginalized, taught about living in solidarity with the poor and marginalized, healed the sick, actually lived with the poor and marginalized... do you think we will be doing even greater things than that?
"Yes. Again, I gave clear and unequivocal answers."
No, you didn't, but if it helps your self esteem to believe that, go right ahead.
It seems that you agree with all of the statements above regarding Jesus' authority, and His specific claim of "all authority in Heaven and one earth", yet earlier your claimed that "Jesus and the apostles were not claiming some special authority.".
I could be wrong, but it seems reasonable that "all authority in Heaven and on earth" could be considered "special" authority. I'd further argue that given Jesus status as the only person in history with this authority, that it fits the literal definition of "unique".
But please, explain how one singular person claiming "all authority in Heaven and on earth" isn't "special" or "unique".
"ALLLLLLLL I ever said was that Jesus never claimed to be the only one who can rebuke others."
Not exactly. You were quite clear that Jesus and the apostles did not have any "special" or "unique" authority.
"Let's try it this way, do you agree we all have the authority to do good?"
I was unaware that we needed the authority to do good, where do you get that notion? There are multiple places where we're taught or commanded to do good, so I'd say that if the teaching or command was from someone with authority, then yes.
"To stand against oppression?"
Sure
"To stand against slavery?"
Sure
"To correct false claims?"
Sure
So what?
" I have no idea what you think this proves?"
Well, it should prove that your claim that Jesus and the apostles had no "special" or "unique" authority is contradicted by your very responses.
"Maybe you got all excited and read something into my words that I didn't say?"
No, more like disgusted that I had to waste time dragging answers out of you to make a point because you're too prideful to concede your error.
Craig... "You were quite clear that Jesus and the apostles did not have any "special" or "unique" authority."
Bullshit. Prove it.
You continue to read my words and then read into them something I didn't say. That clearly is what is happening here.
" As a point of clarity, I don't think Jesus was nearly as into "authority" as it sounds like you are. I think Jesus' emphasis on "authority" was in response to the Pharisees of his days, who liked to pretend to authority and give rules for others, piling rules on their backs. Just a theory I have."
That's a hunch, to be sure. Yet, strangely Jesus spent plenty of time in His earthly ministry establishing His authority to do the things He did. His taking on the authority of YHWH was the reason why the Jewish religious leaders wanted to kill Him.
" As a point of clarity, I don't think Jesus was nearly as into "authority" as it sounds like you are. I think Jesus' emphasis on "authority" was in response to the Pharisees of his days, who liked to pretend to authority and give rules for others, piling rules on their backs. Just a theory I have."
"Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves."
This is an interesting choice for you to proof text, because it's an excellent example of Jesus arguing that the works He did (what you refer to as magic) was a direct result of His authority as someone who had received His authority directly from YHWH, who He referred to as His Father. It's almost as if you are arguing that Jesus was divine, and that He performed miracles.
"Do you think that WHOEVER believes in Jesus will do even greater things that Jesus?"
As I don't believe that Jesus was lying or mistaken, sure. I'm not sure that it's quite the blanket promise that you seem to be arguing it to be.
"Where Jesus preached good news specifically to the poor and marginalized, taught about living in solidarity with the poor and marginalized, healed the sick, actually lived with the poor and marginalized... do you think we will be doing even greater things than that?"
Sure, of course he also preached good news to the not so poor, cast out demons, raised the dead, and was resurrected from the dead.
"Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves."
Do you agree that Jesus was establishing a unique relationship between Himself and YHWH in this text?
Do you agree that Jesus was given His authority to do the signs that He did directly from YHWH?
Do you agree that Jesus is claiming a unique level of relationship with YHWH in this passage?
Do you believe that the "works" are merely preaching and teaching?
"Bullshit. Prove it. You continue to read my words and then read into them something I didn't say. That clearly is what is happening here."
how many times to I have to copy/paste your exact words before you acknowledge that you actually wrote them?
"Jesus and the apostles were not claiming some special authority.".
That is an exact, direct, verbatim quote from you. If you want to argue that you can twist the semantics to mean something else, or that you really didn't mean what you whote, go ahead. But the reality is that you wrote what you wrote.
I'm not sure I want to wade through this comment full of self serving eisegesis any deeper than I have to, but this stuck out.
"I do think Jesus makes it clear that he's choosing ALL of us to follow/abide in the Way of Grace."
If Jesus is "choosing ALL of us" then why do do many of us fail miserably?
If by "All of us", you mean the entirety of humanity, then why do so many (perhaps a majority) fail so miserably?
Is Jesus powerless to choose?
Or does Jesus not choose all of humanity?
I do love how you proof text a passage that brims with supernatural language, then simply dismiss that language as :magical".
" Everything Jesus says is true, RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD."
What an interesting point, you agree with the JW's, how convenient. Of course that raises questions of your ability to "RIGHTLY UNDERSTAND".
"But does that mean he meant he's calling some and not others and the uncalled are shit out of luck?"
I guess if you want to ignore the words of Jesus in multiple places, or to assert that when "RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD" that they mean something diametrically opposed to what they say, then you could possibly have a point.
"No, I don't think that's rightly understood."
That's obvious. You clearly don;t think that any hint of a Jesus that goes beyond the good teacher/moral example/economic/social justice/revolutionary, isn't "RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD". The problem is that you haven't explained why your understanding is so at odds with what Jesus said.
"Are those direct answers making sense?"
Yes, they are quite revealing. I don't think they're as clear and concise as they could be, but they clearly reveal much about the Jesus you follow.
"As with a lot of things, the answer is/can be, It depends on what you mean by that. Literally."
Yet, we so rarely know what you mean, and you so rarely explain.
My problem with your eisegesis of "spiritual gifts" is that it doesn't align with virtually anything we find in scripture regarding "spiritual gifts". Starting with Jesus teaching that the "spiritual gifts" wouldn't be received until His death and resurrection (which might fall into the "magical" category), and the arrival of the Holy Spirit (which again might get into "magic" territory). Then moving on to realize that skills and talents (practicing medicine, building, playing musical instruments) aren't included in any lists of "spiritual gifts". It seems as though you are making a category area in confusing skills/talents/vocations that CAN be used to further the Kingdom of God, with "spiritual gifts" which are intended ONLY to further the Kingdom of God. It's an easy mistake to make, but I'm sure that you can do the research and figure things out without believing me.
Craig... "how many times to I have to copy/paste your exact words before you acknowledge that you actually wrote them?
"Jesus and the apostles were not claiming some special authority.".
=======
HOW many times do I have to point out to you that I WAS SPEAKING OF THE AUTHORITY TO REBUKE OPPRESSORS? I was speaking to ONE SPECIFIC (at the time) circumstance. As is often the case, taking something out of context gets you only nonsense understanding.
The CONTEXT of my quote that you ripped OUT of context...
Craig... "3. I get it. You now seem to be claiming the authority of one of the Apostles, is this the case? Do you really believe that you have the authority to call out people as you do."
Dan... "Of course I believe we should imitate Christ. Jesus and the apostles were not claiming some special authority."
And THOSE quotes were references back to previous quotes and ALL of them were about the authority to rebuke oppressors. THAT SPECIFICALLY is what that quote was about, NOT some sweeping claim.
NOW, do you understand?
Now, do you understand that I was not making a sweeping claim about Jesus' authority? I was speaking SPECIFICALLY of the case of rebuking oppressors/attackers/religious pharisees. Something WE ALL can and should do when appropriate and NOT something that Jesus claimed to have a unique authority to do?
Why not just admit your stupid error now and move on? The longer you drag this on, the more ridiculous you are making yourself out to be.
Craig... "If Jesus is "choosing ALL of us" then why do do many of us fail miserably?"
Fail what, so miserably? Do you mean, why are we imperfect and flawed humans? It's just the way we are. Indeed, the way God made us, if you believe that God creates humans.
What is it that you think we "fail..."? Clarifying that would make it easier to answer. If you're merely asking why are we imperfect, I'd say that's just the way humanity has always been. Imperfect human beings.
Do you have a problem with that? Do you see being imperfect as a "failure" or even a miserable failure?
"If by "All of us", you mean the entirety of humanity, then why do so many (perhaps a majority) fail so miserably?"
See my first answer.
"Is Jesus powerless to choose?"
Is God powerless to create a rock so large that God can't lift it?
Jesus is not powerless, but he won't act in manner inconsistent with who he is. Will Jesus choose to hate, when Jesus is love? I don't think so. Will Jesus punish people irrationally and unjustly when he is Perfectly Just? I don't think so.
Do you?
"Or does Jesus not choose all of humanity?"
I believe that God came to seek and save that category that could be called "Lost." Which I believe you would say is everyone, outside of Jesus.
I believe that Jesus invites us all to the welcome table, starting with the least of these and as many as would join in that table of Grace.
I believe that Jesus chooses all of humanity and yet, has the grace to not force it on anyone. If you want to opt out of the way of Grace, I don't believe Jesus will force it on you. Do you?
Craig... "But does that mean he meant he's calling some and not others and the uncalled are shit out of luck?"
I guess if you want to ignore the words of Jesus in multiple places, or to assert that when "RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD" that they mean something diametrically opposed to what they say, then you could possibly have a point. "
I'm sorry, are you saying that, YES, Jesus randomly chooses to call SOME to salvation but not ALL? And that those he randomly chooses NOT to call, to hell with them?
Is that your position?
Is it further your position that the vast majority of humanity, Jesus just says "To hell with you, you're shit out of luck because I didn't eeny meeny miney moe CHOOSE YOU..."
Do you recognize that you interpreting Jesus that way means you have a rather monstrous and irrational and unjust view of Jesus?
"I'm sorry, are you saying that, YES, Jesus randomly chooses to call SOME to salvation but not ALL?"
No. I'm saying that there are plenty of scriptural examples that indicate that YHWH calls some to Him based on His plans, His purposes, and to bring Him glory. There's no indication that it's "random".
"And that those he randomly chooses NOT to call, to hell with them?"
The answer above should suffice for this as well.
"Is that your position?"
It's not a position I just made up. The position you caricature is quite well represented in scripture. Except the "random" thing, that's just the part you added.
"Is it further your position that the vast majority of humanity, Jesus just says "To hell with you, you're shit out of luck because I didn't eeny meeny miney moe CHOOSE YOU..." Do you recognize that you interpreting Jesus that way means you have a rather monstrous and irrational and unjust view of Jesus?"
Again, your caricature of what's found in scripture isn't an accurate representation of what is said or what I believe, but I doubt that you care much about accurately representing the actual position of anyone who disagrees with you.
"Fail what, so miserably?"
1. Billions of people around the world fail to acknowledge that Jesus is worth following in any way, shape, or form.
2. Millions of people are actively trying to persecute those who follow Jesus.
3. Even the best of those who say they follow the way of Jesus fail to follow Him particularly well.
4.
"Do you mean, why are we imperfect and flawed humans?"
No, I mean people actively denying, persecuting, and denying the very existence of a "way of Jesus". On top of the fact that we're all sinful.
"Indeed, the way God made us, if you believe that God creates humans."
What a bizarre statement. You're claiming that YHWH chose to make us all sinful, imperfect, and flawed, and that He chose to make billions of people who deny His very existence. Yet also claiming that the notion of God creating humans is not serious.
In any case, no you are incorrect in your caricature.
"What is it that you think we "fail..."?"
I answered this in the earlier comment.
"Do you have a problem with that?"
Yes.
"Do you see being imperfect as a "failure" or even a miserable failure?"
No, I see denial of the existence of YHWH, persecution of those who follow Jesus, and internationally choosing to place one's selfish desires ahead of "the way of Jesus" as failures.
"If by "All of us", you mean the entirety of humanity, then why do so many (perhaps a majority) fail so miserably?" See my first answer."
What first answer, I haven't seen one yet. If I don't see an answer, I'll re-visit this question.
"Is Jesus powerless to choose?"
Jesus is not powerless, but he won't act in manner inconsistent with who he is. Will Jesus choose to hate, when Jesus is love? I don't think so. Will Jesus punish people irrationally and unjustly when he is Perfectly Just? I don't think so. Do you?"
We're back to answering a question with questions. It's simply incoherent and foolish.
"Or does Jesus not choose all of humanity?" I believe that God came to seek and save that category that could be called "Lost." Which I believe you would say is everyone, outside of Jesus. I believe that Jesus invites us all to the welcome table, starting with the least of these and as many as would join in that table of Grace. I believe that Jesus chooses all of humanity and yet, has the grace to not force it on anyone. If you want to opt out of the way of Grace, I don't believe Jesus will force it on you. Do you?"
This is an incredibly convoluted response. It sounds like you think that Jesus wants to save everyone, but that there are millions of people who are stronger and more powerful then He is and who can tell Him to take a hike if they want.
No I don't think that any of what you said is particularly coherent, nor consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the rest of scripture.
"HOW many times do I have to point out to you that I WAS SPEAKING OF THE AUTHORITY TO REBUKE OPPRESSORS? I was speaking to ONE SPECIFIC (at the time) circumstance."
Then perhaps you should have thought through what you were righting and been more clear. Your quote, is quite specific and pointed. Unfortunately, I simply can't read your mind.
Of course the problem is that you're still stuck with a Jesus who you agree claimed to have "all power in Heaven and on earth". Which still put's Jesus in a place of having special and unique authority over a whole lot more than just arguing with people.
It seems as though being rebuked by the one who has "all authority in Heaven and on earth" would carry significantly more weight then some idiot on the internet.
But you keep asserting that you can carry the mantle of Jesus authority in this one tiny area. You must be proud.
"THAT SPECIFICALLY is what that quote was about, NOT some sweeping claim. NOW, do you understand? Now, do you understand that I was not making a sweeping claim about Jesus' authority? I was speaking SPECIFICALLY of the case of rebuking oppressors/attackers/religious pharisees. Something WE ALL can and should do when appropriate and NOT something that Jesus claimed to have a unique authority to do? Why not just admit your stupid error now and move on? The longer you drag this on, the more ridiculous you are making yourself out to be."
Oh, I understand. "all authority in Heaven and on earth" is exactly the same as the authority you've assumed to rebuke those you disagree with?
If you are going to rebuke someone, don't you need to be coming from a position where you are representing Truth?
As I waded through all of this, one thing stands out. Dan seems to equate modeling Jesus with the use of profanity, expletives and the taking of the Lord's name in vain. I don't know that anything Jesus said to the Pharisees or money changers is on par with the vitriolic grace-embracing so common to Dan.
I will say once again, there's a vast difference between foul language flying out of the mouths of those in the habit of using foul language and the intentional typing of such on a blog. Neither is acceptable, but one is clearly worse than the other and hardly an example of modeling Christ...except to the grace-embracing Dan Trabue.
So how does one claim to have any authority to use such language? There's something seriously wrong with someone who would dare suggest it's OK because Christ also dropped F-bombs left and right.
Feel free to keep twisting what I've said to what I haven't said.
That's the Truth and we see who is and isn't representing it.
We see.
Craig... "It seems as though being rebuked by the one who has "all authority in Heaven and on earth" would carry significantly more weight then some idiot on the internet."
Clearly not to the Pharisees.
ZING!
And if you don't find that incredibly humorous and spot on, you've really been bitten by the grumpy bug. Come on, give a guy his due.
Craig... "It sounds like you think that Jesus wants to save everyone, but that there are millions of people who are stronger and more powerful then He is and who can tell Him to take a hike if they want."
There are 2 things that Jesus Once on this topic. He wants all of us to embrace grace and he wants all of us to choose to embrace grace. Jesus will not force anyone to be saved. Do you think that Jesus forces people to be saved against their will??? How ghastly, if so.
... And do you think that Jesus chooses to send some people to hell just as a matter of his own choice? Again, how ghastly if so.
Craig...
1. "Billions of people around the world fail to acknowledge that Jesus is worth following in any way, shape, or form."
Hm. I have to wonder if you can prove this? I've never seen this big data before.
2. "Millions of people are actively trying to persecute those who follow Jesus."
So... what? Ten million People? 25 million??
Out of 7 billion people on the planet??
So, less than 1%?
Well 1% of the world persecuting any group is not great, but that leaves a wide swath of the world that's not actively persecuting. Is that fair?
3. "Even the best of those who say they follow the way of Jesus fail to follow Him particularly well"
Maybe you need to hang out with better people? For my part, I'm surrounded by godly people walking in the steps of Jesus. Imperfectly, of course. And they're not Jesus, of course. But good, loving, gracious, godly people? Yes, yes.
... Keeping in mind that some percentage of those who are persecuting others, including other christians, are people who self identify as christians.
Craig... "I'm saying that there are plenty of scriptural examples that indicate that YHWH calls some to Him based on His plans, His purposes, and to bring Him glory. There's no indication that it's "random"
Okay. So your theory is that Jesus chooses to save some people and condemn others for an eternal punishment to fulfill some plan, unknown to us?
Does it matter how sinful those Jesus chooses to punish eternally are? What types of sins they've done? If they even knew it was a sin?
Does it matter if they believe Jesus is God and want to follow Jesus' Way, but didn't know they needed to affirm "...and he died to pay for my sins..."?
Or, what if they affirm Jesus is God and died for my sins, but Jesus didn't choose them... are they hell-bound?
So many questions your human theories raise.
Craig... "Except the "random" thing, that's just the part you added."
From your point of view, sure. But From how it looks to the rest of the world, there's not much difference between "I think God chooses some people to punish for an eternity for REASONS KNOWN ONLY TO MY god..." and randomly.
Or, if you think the reason is known and that reason is...
"I think God will choose some - the vast majority of the world ? - to punish because God thinks choosing to punish the majority of the world will bring him "glory ..."
If that's your theory, don't you think you might be portraying your god as a wildly irrational baby tyrant god, egotistical and needy as hell?
"From your point of view, sure."
Well, from what we learn from the scriptures, sure.
"But From how it looks to the rest of the world, there's not much difference between "I think God chooses some people to punish for an eternity for REASONS KNOWN ONLY TO MY god..." and randomly."
Then thank goodness that the Truth of any given proposition isn't determined by your hunches about what the rest of the world might think.
"Or, if you think the reason is known and that reason is... "I think God will choose some - the vast majority of the world ? - to punish because God thinks choosing to punish the majority of the world will bring him "glory ..." If that's your theory, don't you think you might be portraying your god as a wildly irrational baby tyrant god, egotistical and needy as hell?"
No, that's your biased hunch.
"So your theory is that Jesus chooses to save some people and condemn others for an eternal punishment to fulfill some plan, unknown to us?"
No.
"Does it matter how sinful those Jesus chooses to punish eternally are?"
No, I'm not God.
"What types of sins they've done?"
Not unless you can tell me which "types" of sin are OK and warrant a pass.
"If they even knew it was a sin?"
I'm not God, I can't answer this question.
"Does it matter if they believe Jesus is God and want to follow Jesus' Way, but didn't know they needed to affirm "...and he died to pay for my sins..."? Or, what if they affirm Jesus is God and died for my sins, but Jesus didn't choose them... are they hell-bound? So many questions your human theories raise."
They're not "my theories" and these questions have been addresses at length over the last couple of centuries. Maybe you should try looking for the answers from those who'd be considered "experts".
What's your alternate theory? That YHWH simply ignores sin and punishes no one in any way?
What's the tipping point where someone becomes sinful enough to be punished?
What types of sin are bad enough to be punished, and what types aren't? Who decided what sins fall into what categories?
Please point out one person who is 100% unaware that they've ever done anything "sinful"?
Who said that people "need to affirm" any specific rubric?
Jesus was quite clear that "many will say to Me: "Lord, Lord, did we not..." and that He will respond "Go away from Me, I never knew you" (or words to that effect). It seems like Jesus is saying exactly that there will be people who think they're chosen but who aren't. Why would I doubt Jesus teachings, and trust yours?
Instead of "twisting" you should have said quoting.
"Clearly not to the Pharisees"
Except that this blanket condemnation of the Pharisees and their reaction to Jesus message is inaccurate. Unless you're trying to climb up on the podium with Jesus again.
"There are 2 things that Jesus Once on this topic. He wants all of us to embrace grace and he wants all of us to choose to embrace grace."
Where exactly does Jesus say this. I've never seen any place where He said anything about "embracing grace". Given your lack of grace, maybe this is one of those speck/log situations we hear about.
"Jesus will not force anyone to be saved. Do you think that Jesus forces people to be saved against their will???"
No.
Do you think people can choose to be saved entirely through their own will, choices, or effort?
Craig... ""What types of sins they've done?"
Not unless you can tell me which "types" of sin are OK and warrant a pass."
Easy. Typical human sins - lying about how much cake you ate, being jealous of a co-worker, stealing a pencil from work, getting angry and snapping at your elderly mother in a fit of impatience, etc, don't warrant a pass and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying clearly that they don't warrant an eternal punishment. If a human ruler did that, we'd recognize it as a great evil and injustice.
Agreed?
So, if you're suggesting your god is worse than a human tyrant... what does that say about your vision of god?
Craig...
"What's your alternate theory? That YHWH simply ignores sin and punishes no one in any way?"
That God is not a crazy, unjust God and will absolutely NOT punish someone in an unjust manner. Do you disagree?
"What's the tipping point where someone becomes sinful enough to be punished?"
When we're talking about the typical sins of humanity, I don't know that line. As you note in your comments, I'm not God enough to know. But I do believe that God will not judge and punish in an unjust manner.
The point of judgment in a good and just system is always restoration. I think The Bible is clear that's how God operates.
Do you disagree?
"What types of sin are bad enough to be punished, and what types aren't? Who decided what sins fall into what categories?"
God. And I don't believe God has told you any of the specifics. But we know God is just and loving.
Craig... "Do you think people can choose to be saved entirely through their own will, choices, or effort?"
I think we are saved by God's grace. I think humans can choose to embrace that grace or to reject it.
Do you disagree?
That is, I think we are saved BY GOD'S GRACE, "through faith in Jesus," which I think Jesus teaches that means accepting Jesus' Way of Grace, not merely affirming Jesus' existence, nor affirming a theory of Atonement wherein our salvation was purchased by a blood payment. I think clearly looking at Jesus' gospel, he doesn't teach that. Rather, over and over he speaks of the welcome table open to all, or words to that affect.
"Keeping in mind that some percentage of those who are persecuting others, including other christians, are people who self identify as christians."
If this is correct, then I would argue that christians persecuting Christians is simply one more example of people who've failed to follow the "way of Jesus". Which simply reinforces my point.
Thank You.
Dan,
I'll probably regret this diversion, but I'm genuinely curious.
You frequently use multiple terms to describe the process of following Jesus, and these terms appear to be interchangeable, can you shed some light on this?
You most frequently use the terms "way of Jesus" or "way of Grace", are these two terms interchangeable and do they describe the same thing?
Back in the first century the term "The Way" was used to describe believers. Is the term "The Way" too exclusive for you to consider.
Are "the way of Jesus" and "the way of grace" simply two of many "ways" that all lead to the exact same place?
Can you define what these terms mean? You are the only person I've ever heard use them, and it would be helpful if you'd give some details as to what they entail.
"I have to wonder if you can prove this? I've never seen this big data before."
@15 million Jews
@1.8 billion Muslims
@535 million Buddhists
@500 million atheists
@104 million Shinto
@15 million animists
@1.5 billion live in communist countries
By my math, that's literlly billions of people who've chosen to follow ways other than the "way of Jesus", with many of them being openly hostile to those who follow "the way of Jesus".
I'm al little surprised at your ignorance. I'm not even counting the "nones" that Barna has identified, or the fact that much of western/northern Europe is considered "post Christian".
"So... what?"
Exactly, "so what" if Christians are being persecuted and killed for their faith, who really gives a shit about that.
"Ten million People? 25 million??"
Excellent!! You bitch that I don't provide data, then you act like this made up number is real.
Out of 7 billion people on the planet?? So, less than 1%? Well 1% of the world persecuting any group is not great, but that leaves a wide swath of the world that's not actively persecuting. Is that fair?"
Sure, if your made up number is accurate then it does leave a % that aren't actively persecuting Christians. Unfortunately, MY POINT was that billions of people choose NOT TO follow "the way of Jesus", the persecution aspect was simply an aside to explain how hostile some people are to "the way of Jesus". I was responding to your claim that Jesus "chooses" "all people" to follow "the way of Jesus", and noting that Jesus doesn't do a very good job if billions don't follow "the way of Jesus". This is a cute attempt at a diversion, but not much more.
"Maybe you need to hang out with better people?"
Or maybe just less humble people.
"For my part, I'm surrounded by godly people walking in the steps of Jesus. Imperfectly, of course. And they're not Jesus, of course. But good, loving, gracious, godly people?"
1. Placing a "?" after a statement doesn't make it a question.
2. Impressive that you're hanging out with people who are more righteous than folk like Peter and Paul.
3. I tend to be suspicious of people who talk a lot about how righteous they are.
4. The people I hang around with are sincerely trying to live as disciples of Jesus, we just choose to look at ourselves honestly and to focus on Jesus' righteousness not our own.
"And do you think that Jesus chooses to send some people to hell just as a matter of his own choice?"
Explain what you mean by "choice", please.
Are you suggesting that Jesus acts independently of YHWH and the Holy Spirit?
Craig... "By my math, that's literlly billions of people who've chosen to follow ways other than the "way of Jesus", with many of them being openly hostile to those who follow "the way of Jesus"."
Well, depends on what you mean by hostile to Jesus or his followers. The Muslims, Jews, atheists and others I've met have been clear admirers of Jesus Way (I'll explain when I have a minute). So, here again, we'd need some clarity around word meanings. Are many people around the world hostile towards evangelical teachings? Perhaps. Does that equate to being hostile to Jesus? I don't think so and don't think you could prove that.
"Easy. Typical human sins - lying about how much cake you ate, being jealous of a co-worker, stealing a pencil from work, getting angry and snapping at your elderly mother in a fit of impatience, etc, don't warrant a pass and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying clearly that they don't warrant an eternal punishment. If a human ruler did that, we'd recognize it as a great evil and injustice."
Let's start by pointing me to one individual in human history who was limited to these types of sins Then show me how many times that person committed these types of sins. If you're simply inventing some mythical person that doesn't/can't/won't ever exist, then this is simply rank stupidity.
"Agreed?"
No I don;t agree with your entire made up paragraph. I might agree with the last part.
"So, if you're suggesting your god is worse than a human tyrant... what does that say about your vision of god?"
I honestly don't care what your hunches about my "vision of God" are. I might be more intrigued if you could actually provide direct, positive, support of your hunches from scripture and could precisely define your terms. Simply asserting "hyperbole" or "figurative language" whenever something in scripture doesn't support your hunch isn't close to enough. If you can't provide a specific, direct, rational alternative, it's simply babble.
" I think we are saved by God's grace. I think humans can choose to embrace that grace or to reject it. Do you disagree? That is, I think we are saved BY GOD'S GRACE, "through faith in Jesus," which I think Jesus teaches that means accepting Jesus' Way of Grace, not merely affirming Jesus' existence, nor affirming a theory of Atonement wherein our salvation was purchased by a blood payment. I think clearly looking at Jesus' gospel, he doesn't teach that. Rather, over and over he speaks of the welcome table open to all, or words to that affect."
I'm not sure, because this gets convoluted, but it seems like you are saying that we are saved at least partially by our own "will, choices, and effort". Are you suggesting that God's grace just dangles like fruit, but accomplishes nothing until we (through our choices, efforts, will) pick the fruit? Again, unless you can explain in detail the numerous scriptures that teach something else, I'm going to have to say that your hunch is unconvincing.
"That God is not a crazy, unjust God and will absolutely NOT punish someone in an unjust manner. Do you disagree?"
Given the fact that this is simply your hunch, unsupported by scripture and void of details, there's literally nothing to agree or disagree with. Flesh this out with some scriptural support and I'll consider it.
"What's the tipping point where someone becomes sinful enough to be punished?" When we're talking about the typical sins of humanity, I don't know that line. As you note in your comments, I'm not God enough to know. But I do believe that God will not judge and punish in an unjust manner. The point of judgment in a good and just system is always restoration."
Really, where does scripture tell you this? Are your really suggesting that the Hitler/Stalin types throughout history are being (or can be) "restored"? What does "restoration" even mean in your hunch?
"I think The Bible is clear that's how God operates. Do you disagree?"
Given what I've read in the bible, and your inability to provide any convincing evidence or Biblical support for your hunch, I'll have to say that I disagree with your vague, undetailed, unsupported Biblically hunch.
"What types of sin are bad enough to be punished, and what types aren't? Who decided what sins fall into what categories?" God. And I don't believe God has told you any of the specifics. But we know God is just and loving."
So, when you boldly make assertions about how God will treat these "typical" sins, you are speaking from ignorance of what He might actually do, correct? It's simply your hunch.
My point still stands, backed by the evidence. Literally billions of people (currently living, more if we add those who lived in the past) choose NOT to follow this mysterious "way of Jesus". Out of those billions who (you claim Jesus "chose") the level of hostility ranges from indifference, to hatred. But, arguing semantics when the actual point (billions DO NOT follow the "way of Jesus"), is simply reality.
But please dive deeper into the bullshit.
Wow. Dan totally failed to rebut the eternal punishment doctrine at my blog, so he's now commandeered this conversation to fail in his rebutting here. Amazing!
"Typical human sins - lying about how much cake you ate, being jealous of a co-worker, stealing a pencil from work, getting angry and snapping at your elderly mother in a fit of impatience, etc, don't warrant a pass and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying clearly that they don't warrant an eternal punishment."
...to Dan. They don't warrant eternal punishment to Dan, and thus God cannot feel they do. That's how it works, you see. If Dan doesn't like it, God mustn't do it, because Dan has authority over God.
Another aspect of Dan's position that strikes me as rather obvious is these so-called "typical human sins" are of a sort that Dan purposely chooses for their seeming insignificance. How much more egregious then is it to not exert self-control enough to never commit them?
In any case, Dan has no Scripture to back his position. He can only type out "justice" and think that resolves that for which he has no answer. Dan simply doesn't regard sin as seriously as God does. And if Dan doesn't take it seriously, then God has not right to take it seriously, either. So says Dan.
Craig... "Let's start by pointing me to one individual in human history who was limited to these types of sins..."
Let me make it easy for you. I'll point to a lovely gentleman i knew who died at about 25, from cancer. Nothing wrong with his reasoning or intelligence, and other than his cancer - which he fought through his late teens until his death - just an average man. The son of a Baptist pastor. I knew him well.
I'm sure he had the typical sins - lust in his heart, maybe smoking cigarettes a time or two against his parents wishes, maybe he stole candy as a child, was disrespectful on rare occasions to his parents... on and on I could go with these typical sins, I guess. But no murder, rape, theft, assault, slavery, sexual harassment. Just the typical sins common to humanity.
Are you saying that, if he didn't "accept Jesus," and affirm that he "died to pay for our sins," that these typical sins would be justly punished by an eternity in torment?
If you are, do you recognize how awful that sounds?
Craig... "backed by the evidence. Literally billions of people (currently living, more if we add those who lived in the past) choose NOT to follow this mysterious "way of Jesus"."
Again, until we define this Way of Jesus, I don't think that's a claim you can realistically make. I certainly don't think you could support it with data.
Give me a few minutes til I can get to a computer and I'll explain.
You may find this to be long, but you asked for me to explain what I mean by Jesus Way of Grace that I believe he taught. Here it is…
We find, in the Old Testament, stories of oppressed people, the poor, the foreigners, the widows, those attacked unjustly. God assures us God is on their side and opposed to the rich and powerful oppressors. Over and over we get messages like this from Amos…
THERE ARE THOSE who hate the one who upholds justice in court
and detest the one who tells the truth.
You levy a straw tax
on the poor
and impose a tax on their grain.
Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them;
though you have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine.
For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins.
There are those who
oppress the innocent
and take bribes
and deprive the poor of justice
in the courts.
Seek good, not evil, that you may live.
And those aware of the OT know that I could go on all day citing such passages. There’s not much in the way of talk about heaven or hell, but there is the notion of living within the realm of God, “Where Justice rolls down like a river” and specifically to the poor and oppressed… a God whose hand is against the wealthy oppressors.
In that context, Jesus shows up and begins his ministry by saying…
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
It’s the beginning of Jesus teaching what he referred to often as the Gospel of the Kingdom/Realm of God/Heaven. And those priorities Jesus said about his Gospel? Good news to the poor, freedom for the oppressed, the Year of the Lord’s Favor? Many scholars would say that these are references to the Jubilee and the Sabbath laws – national laws implemented (or supposed-to-be implemented) by Israel in the OT.
This is a significant indicator. The Realm of God is associated with these rules that would guarantee that the least of these would be less likely to be oppressed and marginalized.
And when John the Baptist sent his followers to ask Jesus if he was the One, the Messiah, Jesus told them to tell John that
“the sick are being healed,
the poor are having the GOSPEL (literally defined, Good News, just as we think of Good News) preached to them.”
But what was that Gospel? Did Jesus make clear what the conservative evangelicals say the Gospel is… that “humans were bound for hell because of their sin and so Jesus died in their place, using his blood to pay for their sins so they wouldn’t have to be punished for an eternity (referred to as PSA, from hence)…”?
No. Jesus never clearly enunciated that. There are a couple of verses, maybe, that could be taken to hint at that, but this is not a clear teaching of Jesus.
And what else is interesting is that the notion of Grace is not mentioned by name by Jesus, either.
But whereas when one looks at Jesus’ literal words, one can’t find ANY significant emphasis on PSA, when one looks at Jesus’ teachings, one does find an emphasis on Grace and Grace over and against works, and Grace as a WAY that Jesus taught.
What we see in Jesus’ teachings, then, are multiple references to preaching good news to the poor and marginalized, including them, siding with the least of these, all being welcome to the Table of God, the Realm/Kingdom of God. In fact, Jesus often refers to his own Gospel/good news as the Gospel of the Realm of God or the Realm of Heaven (the term is used something like 30+ times in Matthew).
“Repent for the kingdom of God is near.” Jesus said at the beginning of his ministry.
“How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God…” Jesus taught when a rich man asked about being saved.
cont'd...
Jesus also said,
“For God so loved
the world
that God sent the only begotten son
that whosover
believes in him should not perish
but have everlasting life.”
But, taken literally, “Those who BELIEVE IN HIM…” won’t perish? Simply believing? You mean like, “I affirm that Jesus existed…” or even, “I affirm that Jesus is the son of God who came to earth, taught and was killed and then rose from the dead…” is that mere affirmation the totality of what it means to “believe in him…”?
I don’t think many folks – left or right or otherwise – would affirm that. After all, “Even the demons believe…”
So.
Given ALL that (and so much more – even though this is long, there’s more to say – context is so important), what do I conclude Jesus meant by this Good News of the Realm of God that he preached? Several points…
1. It was a Gospel of a Realm that reflected Jubilee/Sabbath themes
2. It was tailored to include the poor and marginalized
3. It was literal good news for the poor and marginalized – having enough, having food, healing, community, inclusion
4. It might be difficult for the wealthy to be part of it – their wealth was a trap, for them
5. It was just, loving, forgiving, welcoming, a safe haven
6. There is no mention of the typical poor or marginalized being horrible sinners in need of eternal damnation
Given these known, observable, consistent commonalities in the teachings of Jesus’ Way, then it seems to me that this Salvation of which he speaks is through NOT a simple, mindless affirmation of a few theological points – Jesus is the son of God, Jesus died to somehow “pay” for our “sin debt owed” to a god who can’t abide sin of any sort (my take on PSA, not how you’d put it, exactly) – that even the demons could affirm.
It’s the affirmation and acceptance of this WAY that Jesus taught. This WAY of living and being. We aren’t saved by our works, but in this Way of welcome, of inclusion specifically of and for and alongside the least of these, we find salvation. We won’t be perfect, but we will be living in that Way.
And it’s not one single teaching (1. It’s difficult for the rich to be saved!), it’s the series of teaching… it’s the WAY of living and being and resting in God’s Good Grace.
And thus, the rich tyrant who affirms Jesus was the son of god who died for his sins… and yet continues to oppress and harm… that person is not in The Way.
HOWEVER, the Muslim widow, poor and meager though she is, embraces a philosophy of love and forgiveness and sharing amongst the other least of these, adopting orphaned children though she’s struggling herself… THAT woman is affirming Jesus and the Way that he taught, even if she doesn’t NAME Jesus.
I suppose you’re familiar with the guard in Tash’s army in CS Lewis’ Narnia story who affirms the Way of Aslan and is thus, embraced by Aslan as a follower, even though he didn’t name Aslan? Do you recall what Aslan told him?
There is no Tash (the “bad god”) Goodness and Justice and the Aslan Goodness and Justice… there is only Goodness and Justice. If you’re acting on behalf of Goodness and Justice, of Love and Grace, then you ARE acting in my name, because I AM the God of Goodness and Justice, Love and Grace.
(That is my translation of it, I’m not bothering looking it up… you can if you don’t recall the story and doubt my version.)
This is why I say that you have not proven that there are millions or billions opposed to Jesus, simply because they don’t name Jesus. Merely naming Jesus as God is the shit of demons. Any simple-minded fool can do that. Embracing the Way of Grace that Jesus taught, that is how you recognize the followers of Jesus.
“BY this shall all people know that you are my disciples
IF you have love, one for another.”
As you know.
cont'd
That, as opposed to “By this shall all people know you are my disciples… if you affirm PSA.
To be clear… I’m not saying that there aren’t verses – primarily Pauline verses – that say things like Paul does in Romans 3…
all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
There are verses, primarily Paul, which IF ONE LIFTS THEM ALONE AND APART FROM JESUS’ Teachings, could make one think, “Hm, so salvation is by affirming Jesus is God and that he died for our sins and if we affirm those two things – and maybe if, apart from that, Jesus decided to “choose” us – THEN we can be saved by that affirmation of the Grace of Jesus… or would that be US saving ourselves by affirming that???” I get that. Again, I was raised with that.
The two major problems with this is that
A. it describes a fundamentally unjust god and that, without explaining WHY this god would act in what appears to be so very grossly unjust and
B. That this teaching is almost entirely absent from Jesus’ teachings. Jesus spent a good bit of time talking about the Gospel, but only once or twice (once, when he referred to being a “ransom” to save “many” – BUT, in the context of being humble, which was the point of that passage, embracing humility as part of the Way of Grace). That just isn't a compelling argument for many of us.
And even though I fully embraced that view of the Bible and Jesus at one time, the more I read the Bible and Jesus' teachings, the less tenable I found the idea to be and the more I have opted for this Way of Grace. And while the terminology may not sound familiar to you, the idea is rampant amongst progressive and anabaptist types and others.
For example...
https://escapetoreality.org/2012/02/02/jesus-reveals-what-is-grace/
"For the law was given through Moses;
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
John 1
Craig... "when you boldly make assertions about how God will treat these "typical" sins, you are speaking from ignorance of what He might actually do, correct? It's simply your hunch."
No. I don't think it's a mere hunch.
I guess it depends on how clear and understand-able Bible is. If you, like me, think the Bible and our God-given reason give us a reasonable understanding of the notion of Justice, then recognizing a gross injustice is pretty clear. Certainly more clear than the PSA understanding of Justice.
Craig... "Are you suggesting that God's grace just dangles like fruit, but accomplishes nothing until we (through our choices, efforts, will) pick the fruit? Again, unless you can explain in detail the numerous scriptures that teach something else, I'm going to have to say that your hunch is unconvincing."
Um, yeah. Of course.
Well, there are many biblical Reasons to think that whosoever can choose to believe and accept, just as good God-given common sense tells us. But here's one of the top of my head...
"Come unto me, ALL ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Why is Jesus extending the invitation to come to everybody - Literally ALL - Why is he extending that if we can't choose to accept the invitation?? Do you think Jesus is some kind of jersey?
Or John 3:16, for so God-loved the whole world that he gave his only be gotten son that whosoever believes in him….
Is that invitation to whosoever or not?
Post a Comment