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:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 571 Newer› Newest»Answering yet more of your questions...
"Are your really suggesting that the Hitler/Stalin types throughout history are being (or can be) "restored"?"
Sure, in theory. Are you really suggesting the God is impotent to save the worst sinners? Isn't that a foundational claim made by many conservative evangelicals?
"What does "restoration" even mean in your hunch?"
Made whole, brother. Saved. Born again.
Seems to me I hard a story once about a son who went and squandered everything in vulgar and indecent living. And that father REALLY wanted to punish that son for all eternity.
Wait. That's not how the story went. He really wanted to see that son made whole and restored to the family. And that is what happened. Hallelujah!
What does being made whole look like to me? I'd say for all christians it looks like the prodigal son story.
Are you familiar with the work being done around restorative Justice? It's powerful stuff. I suspect you'd actually like it.
Try doing it with evidence and data of your own.
Marshal... "They don't warrant eternal punishment to Dan, and thus God cannot feel they do."
You're missing the point. This is not about me. Those sins are not considered worthy of even a lifetime of punishment, much less an eternal punishment, to any rational people in all history. Can you find one rational person who would say something like that? You can't.
Thus, if you think that in spite of all of humanity's opinion about Justice, you think the God thinks something differently.... The onus is on YOU to prove that. You're the one making the outlier and insane sounding claim. You have to prove it, we don't have to prove that you're mistaken.
You haven't and you can't.
"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)…”
Why yes, yes he did.
"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."
Well, I guess if you're predisposed to find certain things (or not) you might come to this conclusion.
"And what else is interesting is that the notion of Grace is not mentioned by name by Jesus, either."
Ahhhhhhh, the "Jesus didn't use this specific English word canard."
"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."
Jesus spent a lot of time talking about Hell, but let's ignore that. What a strange hunch, that Jesus talked a lot about something He never mentioned by name.
"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."
Multiple, yes. Majority, no.
"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."
It's interpreting how hard you try to avoid the notion of a Kingdom of God, trying to substitute all sorts of other terms in it's place. It's also interesting that you acknowledge that Jesus expected repentance, but insist that those nasty "evangelicals" are completely wrong about repentance.
You're right. This is long, uninteresting, and uninformative. Still no earthly idea what this mysterious "way of grace"/"way of Jesus" actually is and no hint of whether or not they are synonymous.
Marshal.. "these so-called "typical human sins" are of a sort that Dan purposely chooses for their seeming insignificance."
As I've tried to make clear, I'm not saying these typical sins are nothing or insignificant. Not at all. Gossiping and slander and Sexual harassment, even, these are all serious shit. But no one thinks they should be penalized for a lifetime for having slandered or gossiped, no matter how bad it is...
I'm not saying they're insignificant. I'm saying that you have not demonstrated that these typical sins are worthy of eternal punishment from a Justice point of view.
Craig... "I guess if you're predisposed to find certain things (or not) you might come to this conclusion."
Again, I was raised conservative. I believe this shit hoheartedly. It wasn't that I wasn't looking for it. I already believed it. It's just the more I looked at The Bible, the less Biblical and rational I found this to be.
It's fine to disagree with me, but don't assign motives that don't exist. That doesn't help the conversation.
Craig... "Ahhhhhhh, the "Jesus didn't use this specific English word canard."
???
????!!!??
I am specifically speaking about Jesus gospel of grace. So clearly I'm not saying that Jesus didn't use the word therefore he isn't talking about it. You do understand this, right?
Ya'll keep going with this "Specific word canard" canard when it's nonsense. Come on. you all aren't this stupid.
"Come on. you all aren't this stupid."
No, but when you meander around the question and start wasting my time, it's sometimes easier to get sarcastic because of the lack of substance.
"But no murder, rape, theft, assault, slavery, sexual harassment. Just the typical sins common to humanity."
Which really means that you have absolutely no idea what sins he really struggled with, you're just making assumptions based on your own superficial impressions.
"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?"
No.
"If you are, do you recognize how awful that sounds?"
I'm not.
Of course, you still haven't actually done what I asked.
"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"
While a agree that the above points are part of the Kingdom of God, they aren't the totality of the Kingdom of God. If this Kingdom of God was intended to provide "food, healing, community, inclusion" for only the "poor and marginalized" then why was is it such a dismal failure? During Jesus 3 year ministry, He and His closest followers left multiple people unfed, unhealed, and excluded from their community. Jesus closest followers were not "poor and marginalized". Yet Jesus did talk about Hell quite a bit, He did talk about repenting from sin quite a bit, I'm not sure how to turn the Kingdom of God into something based on economic circumstances with out ignoring or re casting much/most of what Jesus said.
"then it seems to me"
As usual, the lynch pin of any argument Dan makes. It's not really about what scripture says, it doesn't matter what the "experts" say, as long as it "makes sense" to him he'll do what's necessary to make everything else fit. Which means that it's all just an opinion and really not worth much effort to respond to.
"It’s the affirmation and acceptance of this WAY that Jesus taught."
So you're just suggesting that we must do the work of accepting an affirmation, you just posit a different affirmation than others do. Yet, you still haven't defined what specifically is being affirmed.
"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."
Really, how does this work? Is it just some magical/osmosis kind of thing? Salvation from what? To what?
" 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."
Where does Jesus explicitly teach this?
" 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."
1. I do recall that bit of fiction.
2. You've misrepresented it quite a bit.
3. That actually contradicts Jesus teachings.
4. It's a fictional allegory.
5. Where's the scriptural support for this hunch.
6. Are you saying that if this fictional Muslim woman does the right actions, that she's part of the "way of Jesus", even though she doesn't know it?
7. That Jesus somehow makes her part of this "way" without her knowledge or assent based solely on her actions?
"Embracing the Way of Grace that Jesus taught, that is how you recognize the followers of Jesus."
Exactly my point. People who deny the existence of Jesus, who follow gods of philosophies other than those taught by Jesus, who persecute those who follow Jesus, certainly aren't "embracing" the "Way of Grace that Jesus taught".
Of course, now we're back to an action on the part of humans being necessary.
"Why is he extending that if we can't choose to accept the invitation??"
That's an interesting question.
1. You were quite clear that Jesus "chose" people, not invited them, which is it?
2. It appears that you are suggesting that the fulcrum of slavation, the essential aspect of it, a human action in "choosing", correct?
3. Are you suggesting that Jesus is just a passive spectator waiting for humans to do all the work?
"Do you think Jesus is some kind of jersey?"
No, I don;t think that Jesus is either a cow or an athletic uniform shirt.
"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?"
If one takes John 3:16 out of context, and edits it, it can say pretty much anything. The problem is that 3:5-6, 13, 16 (how does "gave" fit with your hunch?- and it's clear that the end is "eternal life", not some vague "way of Jesus"), 17-21, all point away from your hunch. While 3:22-36 are a reasonably clear case for Jesus' deity.
Then, of course, John 3 references John 1 which also makes the case for Jesus' deity.
Finally, virtually every translation I saw uses the phrase "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." or something similar, not the universal "all". Of course, If you are really arguing that "all" is a more correct translation that virtually every English translation, AND that "all" literally means every person who's ever lived, then you just included the "rich" equally with the "poor".
"Are you really suggesting the God is impotent to save the worst sinners?"
No, just trying to understand your hunch and gain details.
"Isn't that a foundational claim made by many conservative evangelicals?"
I don;t speak for them, so I couldn't say for sure.
"Made whole, brother. Saved. Born again."
Finally a pretty concise answer, thanks. Could you clarify a few things?
1. If we aren't "whole", what has caused us to be not "whole"?
2. Saved from what? Saved to what?
3. What does "Born again" mean in this construct?
"Seems to me I hard a story once about a son who went and squandered everything in vulgar and indecent living. And that father REALLY wanted to punish that son for all eternity. Wait. That's not how the story went. He really wanted to see that son made whole and restored to the family. And that is what happened. Hallelujah! What does being made whole look like to me? I'd say for all christians it looks like the prodigal son story."
Interesting.
"Are you familiar with the work being done around restorative Justice? It's powerful stuff. I suspect you'd actually like it."
Yes.
"It's fine to disagree with me, but don't assign motives that don't exist. That doesn't help the conversation."
That's good advice, maybe you should think about following it.
Craig...
"1. If we aren't "whole", what has caused us to be not "whole"?"
To use religiousy language, I would say Sin. When we do wrong to others, to ourselves, to our world, to our God, we tend to break things - relationships, hearts, health, etc. The more we tend to do right, the more whole we tend to be.
Is that clear?
"2. Saved from what?"
Broken-ness. Hellish decisions and living. War. Crime. Disease. Broken relationships.
Clear enough?
"Saved to what?"
The Realm of God. To more whole, healthy, holistic, happy living. To better communication and interaction with others and the world around us. To a healthier, safer, more delightful community.
If you're asking if we are saved TO "heaven" or "pie in the sky by and by..." I tend to think yes, but we have no way of knowing or proving that, so that's just speculation. But certainly, we would be saved to living in the realm, grace, love, forgiveness of God and community, here and now. And that isn't speculation.
"3. What does "Born again" mean in this construct?"
Just a figurative way of saying, born into/brought into/buying into this Realm of God's grace way of living.
Is that clear enough?
Craig...
"1. You were quite clear that Jesus "chose" people, not invited them, which is it?"
To generally answer that question directly: I don't see that it has to be one or the other, but then I'm not sure of the context of what you think I've said.
I'm not sure where I said Jesus "chose" people. I can't find it and so am unsure of the context of what you think I said. I think it's reasonable to believe that God chose humanity to be created in God's own image. Jesus chose to join us in humanity and still does, in the least of these.
I also think it's reasonable to note that Jesus regularly used the language of invitation to explain inviting people to his realm.
So, both.
I don't see anywhere where Jesus suggests he forces someone to join the realm against their will and so, it would seem that if we're invited and not forced to comply, THEN we choose to accept the invitation or not.
Do you disagree?
"2. It appears that you are suggesting that the fulcrum of slavation, the essential aspect of it, a human action in "choosing", correct?"
The essential aspect of it is Grace. God's Grace. IF there were no grace to choose and our only choices were rape, war and murder, then any human action would be pointless. So, first grace, then the invitation to join that grace/that Way, then the option to choose to accept that invitation. All of it.
Do you think otherwise?
"3. Are you suggesting that Jesus is just a passive spectator waiting for humans to do all the work?"
I think Jesus is an active participant in the creation of grace, in the propaganda of grace and - for those spiritually-minded amongst us - the Calling of Humanity via the Holy Spirit. I don't think Jesus forces anyone to accept that way of Grace.
Do you?
And please don't tell me what you think Scripture demands, so that you have no choice in the matter - tell me what you think, IN YOUR MIND, Scripture means TO YOU. Your interpretation is part of the process, it's not some separate Thing apart from your own brain and reasoning.
Craig... "2. You've misrepresented it quite a bit."
Sigh.
Here's the passage from Lewis' The Last Battle. I think I got it spot on and don't think you can demonstrate that it's "misrepresented." At all.
"“Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that
I have served Tash all my days and not him.
Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him.
But
the Glorious One bent down his golden head and
touched my forehead with his tongue and said,
Son, thou art welcome.
But I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.
He answered, Child,
ALL the service thou hast done to Tash,
I account as service done to me.
Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding,
I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said,
Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one?
The Lion growled
so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said,
It is false.
Not because he and I are one, but
because we are opposites,
I take to me the services which thou hast done to him.
For I and he are of such different kinds that
no service which is vile can be done to me, and
none which is not vile can be done to him."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1104698-then-i-fell-at-his-feet-and-thought-surely-this
Craig... "" 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."
Where does Jesus explicitly teach this?"
Explicitly? Probably nowhere. IMPLICITLY?
The story of the Roman (pagan/non-Jew, non-Christian) Centurion, perhaps?
"The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue...
'Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed.'
...When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, ‘I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.’"
Luke 7
Perhaps Paul in speaking to the mixed crowd of pagans in Athens (if you're not worried about looking at Paul)...
"“People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you."
Acts 17
But perhaps the most clear instance is the non-follower who was doing good and healing...
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,
for whoever is not against us is for us.
Truly I tell you,
anyone
who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward."
Mark 9
And yes, he does say gives water "IN MY NAME..." but keep in mind that this is in the context of one healing who was NOT one of his known followers. Does one NEED to be a known follower of Jesus to be healing or giving water "in his name..."?
After all, as Jesus said (in the context of ANYONE doing good), WHOEVER is not against us is for us. Or, maybe the guy was not an immediate, known follower of Jesus or in his "in" group, and yet, he was healing literally "in the name of Jesus..." because he'd heard generally about him... I don't think we can prove it either way, just on the text and context.
Do you think when Jesus said "WHOEVER is not against us is for us..." he only meant some small number of Others, and not literally WHOEVER?
But the Jesus who regularly included those who were not counted as religious or faithful followers of God, the outsiders of the Jewish traditions - the ones that the religious ones scorned as being "unclean..." The Jesus described in the Bible does not strike me as rejecting someone because they don't "name him" or take his name.
To turn your question on you: Are there any places Jesus explicitly teaches that a Grace-full Muslim widow (or other "pagan"/"non-believer") CAN'T be also a follower of Jesus?
I guess that depends on if you think "accepting Jesus" is more about affirming the belief that even demons can affirm, that Jesus is God and "died to save us" - or if "accepting Jesus" is more about living in, embracing and accepting his WAY that he taught. I think the latter is the most rational and biblical view.
Dan...
"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?"
Craig...
"No."
I'm glad to hear that.
SO just to be clear, are you saying that the relatively decent human being (just starting there) who never affirms Jesus is God, THAT person is not deserving of eternal punishment/torture for not affirming Jesus as God?
If you and I agree on that point, why don't you get Marshal to clarify. I think he DOES think these typical sinners DESERVE to be punished for an eternity for failing to "accept Jesus."
++++
Dan... "But no murder, rape, theft, assault, slavery, sexual harassment. Just the typical sins common to humanity."
Craig... "Which really means that you have absolutely no idea what sins he really struggled with, you're just making assumptions based on your own superficial impressions."
? This was a close friend. I know he never committed any atrocities - rape, murder, assault, child abuse, etc. I'm sure he struggled with typical sins.
This is what I'm getting at - the typical sins that we deal with... the relatively "small stuff" that would never get anyone landed in jail or even arrested... can we agree that such wrong doings do NOT deserve a life long penalty?
And if you agree to that, do you think they deserve an ETERNAL punishment? Eternal TORMENT, even?
Or how about this:
1. Do you think it's our sins (of whatever size) that condemn us to being deserving of eternal torment?
2. OR, do you think it's failing to say, "Jesus is the living Son of God who died to pay for our sins..." that makes us deserving of eternal torment?
3. Or something else?
Please clarify.
Shocking. I give a simple, direct two letter answer to a question and somehow that generates a massive response. Talk about overkill. Apparently answering no to a question, isn’t simple and direct enough. Now I’ve got to waste all sorts of time tomorrow with this moronic bullshit.
"Is that clear?"
Reasonably.
"Clear enough?"
Clear enough.
"Is that clear enough?"
Sure.
"Do you disagree?"
Given how vague and un detailed your answer was, I can say that it's likely I do. I see nothing in scripture that sounds like your hunch, therefore I'm likely to go with scripture over you.
" Do you think otherwise?"
Again, given the vagueness, I really have very little to agree or disagree. Given the totality of what you've said, it seems as though you are placing the most weight on the action of human choice, but I'm just not sure.
"Do you?"
In the absence of a concise, detailed definition of the "way of grace", and absent any scriptural support for that term of definition, I just can't answer definitively. However, the idea of answering without involving scripture seems absurd and pointless. I'd guess that, since you've demanded as much from me, that your hunches are formulated without reference to scripture. Or that you place your individual interpretations of scripture on such a high level that you'll ignore anything except your hunches. I believe that I will pass on that.
The obvious problem with your taking theology from a fictional narrative, is that Lewis is describing a situation with two God figures. One is good and one is evil (similar to some pagan religions), Christianity teaches that we have one God, and Jesus teaches that all who are not for Him are against Him.
I'll stick with scripture, not fiction for my theology, thanks.
Dan said... ""1. You were quite clear that Jesus "chose" people, not invited them, which is it?"
To generally answer that question directly: I don't see that it has to be one or the other, but then I'm not sure of the context of what you think I've said.
I'm not sure where I said Jesus "chose" people. I can't find it and so am unsure of the context of what you think I said. I think it's reasonable to believe that God chose humanity to be created in God's own image. Jesus chose to join us in humanity and still does, in the least of these.
I also think it's reasonable to note that Jesus regularly used the language of invitation to explain inviting people to his realm.
So, both.
I don't see anywhere where Jesus suggests he forces someone to join the realm against their will and so, it would seem that if we're invited and not forced to comply, THEN we choose to accept the invitation or not.
Do you disagree?"
To which Craig responded...
"Given how vague and un detailed your answer was, I can say that it's likely I do. I see nothing in scripture that sounds like your hunch, therefore I'm likely to go with scripture over you."
???
Did you even read what I wrote? I was answering YOUR question "Which is it (Jesus "choosing" us or "inviting" us)?"
My answer is both. What details do you need? AND I asked YOU "I see no place where Jesus forced someone to join God's realm... DO YOU DISAGREE?"
And you respond, saying my answer was vague and undetailed?
BOTH is literally a correct answer. Jesus literally is shown inviting people and choosing people in the Gospels. What more detail do you need? This answer is, itself, vague and nonsensical.
And you respond you see nothing in Scripture that sounds like my hunch...
You see NOTHING in the Gospels where Jesus invites people? Really?
You see NOTHING in the Gospels where Jesus chooses people? Really?
What in the world are you talking about? Of course, we see instances of both in the Gospels.
Are you saying that those passages are NOT in there?
And I asked you a fairly straightforward question: DO YOU THINK JESUS forces people to join the Realm of God?
And you ignored it, I guess?
Your response is nonsensical and just factually wrong - observably so - in the context of what was written.
What are you talking about?
"Explicitly? Probably nowhere. IMPLICITLY? The story of the Roman (pagan/non-Jew, non-Christian) Centurion, perhaps?"
Well done. Deciding to construct a theology of this undefined "way of Jesus" based NOT on Jesus' explicit teachings, not even on Him implicit teachings, but on something that you perceive MIGHT be buried in those implicit teachings. Pretty impressive leap, taking something you've inferred, from Jesus' implications and labeling it the "way of Jesus".
"Are there any places Jesus explicitly teaches that a Grace-full Muslim widow (or other "pagan"/"non-believer") CAN'T be also a follower of Jesus?"
No. There were no "Grace-full" Muslim women in first century Rome. However, Jesus frequently teaches (and the apostles/Paul reinforce)that he came to bring salvation to the Gentiles and that The Church to be was the new Israel. In real life, we can see that some Muslims do follow Jesus. They choose to follow Him at the risk of losing their families, livelihood, and even their lives to do so.
More irrational and simply false conclusions from Craig...
"Given the totality of what you've said, it seems as though you are placing the most weight on the action of human choice, but I'm just not sure. "
What I literally said was FIRST (primarily, of first importance, essentially...) there is the offer of the option of Grace. WITHOUT THAT, any choices we make are meaningless. IF there is no option to CHOOSE grace, then, well, we can't choose grace, can we?
SO, of UTMOST AND PRIMARY concern is GRACE.
I don't know how to say that any more clear.
Do you understand what I'm saying is of primary importance on this question?
(Hint: THE ANSWER IS GRACE, the OFFER of Grace as an option. NOT HUMAN anything, but Grace, God's grace, GRACE, GRACE, GRACE - any other "interpretation" is just stupidly, inanely false)
And then, I say, we have the OPTION OF CHOOSING Grace, once that primary option from God is available.
It's not difficult if you just read my words.
So, given that we can't choose grace unless it's first offered, do you agree that Grace is the first consideration in "accepting Jesus" and then ACCEPTING the offer is a secondary and necessary component of accepting Jesus?
Or do you think that God forces people to "be saved..."?
Or is there some other option where humans have no choice, but they aren't forced?
"Did you even read what I wrote?"
Yes.
"What details do you need?"
I'd start with what % is Jesus and what % is human choice or effort?
Are you suggesting that the ultimate decision rests with Jesus or with humans?
Those are the ones that pop up first. The general, vague, multiple names for the same thing, lack of details, etc, are really the reason why I can't buy into your hunch.
"What more detail do you need?"
Asked and answered.
"And you respond you see nothing in Scripture that sounds like my hunch... You see NOTHING in the Gospels where Jesus invites people?"
I don't see Jesus inviting or choosing people to follow some vague, undefined, "way of Jesus.". Further, in the Gospels (as opposed to the rest of scripture) Jesus is frequently calling or inviting people to something more significant than a basic level of salvation.
"Really? You see NOTHING in the Gospels where Jesus chooses people? Really? What in the world are you talking about?"
Maybe I'm looking deeper than you on this. I'm trying to understand the mechanism whereby people are saved. I'm trying to understand if salvation is (in your hunch) a cooperative effort between Jesus and humans, or if it's all from Jesus or all from humans.
"Of course, we see instances of both in the Gospels. Are you saying that those passages are NOT in there?"
No, I'm saying that Jesus doesn't invite people into a vague, undefined, "way of Jesus". Frequently He invites them into a life that involves persecution, ridicule and death, I'm not seeing that in your vague, undefined, "way of Jesus". If you can't define in some detail what Jesus is inviting or choosing people for, then the invitation or choice becomes pointless.
"And I asked you a fairly straightforward question: DO YOU THINK JESUS forces people to join the Realm of God?"
I've been quite clear that I believe that Jesus calls people to "take up their cross and follow Him". My confusion is more about your terms, than Jesus' calling. You use the terms "Kingdom/Realm of God", "way of Jesus", "way of grace/Grace" seemingly interchangeably, without providing much detail about what they entail, or if they even mean the same things. As a general rule, I'm unlikely to agree to something that isn't well explained or vague. More so when you are involved.
"And you ignored it, I guess?"
Do you think that simply adding a ? to a declarative sentence, magically produces a coherent question?
"Your response is nonsensical and just factually wrong - observably so - in the context of what was written."
that's your unproven claim at this point.
"What are you talking about?"
Your lack of definition and vagueness about what Jesus is calling people to engage in.
"I'm glad to hear that. SO just to be clear, are you saying that the relatively decent human being (just starting there) who never affirms Jesus is God, THAT person is not deserving of eternal punishment/torture for not affirming Jesus as God?"
I'm confused. When you asked that question (worded differently)the first time was my answer of "No" not clear enough for you? Was my answer of "No" somehow ambiguous or confusing? Was my answer "No" too convoluted or vague?
Since you apparently are stumped by two letter answers, my answer to the question (as you've re-worded it) is as follows.
Yes.
" If you and I agree on that point, why don't you get Marshal to clarify. I think he DOES think these typical sinners DESERVE to be punished for an eternity for failing to "accept Jesus.""
Because I'm not confused by what Art said, and I don't need him to clarify. If you are confused, then you can ask, but I'm having enough trouble understanding your vague hunches, I see no reason to dig into Art's comments.
"This was a close friend. I know he never committed any atrocities - rape, murder, assault, child abuse, etc."
Are you really suggesting that you "know" with 100% certainty, every single "sinful" act that he committed throughout his entire life?
"I'm sure he struggled with typical sins."
Regardless of how "sure" you might be, the reality is that you don't know what sins this guy struggled with, certainly not the extent of those sins or of his struggles.
"This is what I'm getting at - the typical sins that we deal with... the relatively "small stuff""
I've always understood that you believe that some sins are "small stuff", or "minor". You've been quite clear about that for quite some time. You've been less clear about which sins are "small stuff", about how you've reached this conclusion, about whether an "excessive" accumulation of "small stuff" tips into "big stuff" territory at some point, or what that point is, or where you find Jesus talking about sin as "small stuff" or what your scriptural justification for this hunch is.
"that would never get anyone landed in jail or even arrested... can we agree that such wrong doings do NOT deserve a life long penalty?"
1. What does being arrested/thrown in jail have to do with anything?
2. No we can't agree.
Craig... "I'd start with what % is Jesus and what % is human choice or effort?"
Got it.
58.35,% Jesus
23.478%, individual human decision
18.3% community support
Roughly.
What sort of Nonsensical question is that? Of course, The Bible does not break down such decisions into percentage. of course. Of course. Of course.
Let me say that again.
Of course, The Bible does not break down such questions until percentages.
It is a stupid question, inane, irrational and irrelevant.
Wtf?
Craig... "Are you suggesting that the ultimate decision rests with Jesus or with humans?"
I'm not suggesting either. Are you suggesting that Jesus decides for us?? Bullshit, if so. I'm answering your questions, over and over. Even the stupid ones. How about you returning the favor?
Craig... "I'm saying that Jesus doesn't invite people into a vague, undefined, "way of Jesuss..."
"Come, follow me."
Jesus, who failed Craig's demands to be more specific.
"1. Do you think it's our sins (of whatever size) that condemn us to being deserving of eternal torment?"
No.
"2. OR, do you think it's failing to say, "Jesus is the living Son of God who died to pay for our sins..." that makes us deserving of eternal torment?"
No.
"3. Or something else?"
Yes.
What justifies eternal punishment/separation from God is that all sin is based in us as humans deciding that our wants and desires supersede God's. The specifics of how that disobedience plays out doesn't seem (in scripture) to be as important as the attitude of us believing that we know better than God.
Given the fact that there is so much really good material available on this topic, and that I am NOT going to try to waste my time repeating what you can find for yourself, I see no reason to go into any more detail. You likely don't agree, and your are equally likely to provide me with anything compelling enough to tempt me to reconsider, so please don't waste my time. You clearly place yourself, your Reason, and your "right understanding" above anyone or anything else, and I've long since given up on trying to change your mind.
"So, given that we can't choose grace unless it's first offered, do you agree that Grace is the first consideration in "accepting Jesus" and then ACCEPTING the offer is a secondary and necessary component of accepting Jesus?"
If I accept your premise and the fact that the term/force/being/energy "Grace/grace", is so far undefined (to my recollection), then your conclusion seems to follow those assumption.
"Or do you think that God forces people to "be saved..."?"
Given that Jesus frequently uses "dead/death" language when he talks about our condition before salvation, and given that I've never seen a dead person "choose' anything, I wouldn't use the term force necessarily. Or given the fact that Jesus was quite clear that those who aren't "for" Him are "against" Him, and talks about how "the world" "hates" Him, I also struggle with the notion of people accepting anything from someone that they "hate". Again, I'm not saying that I'd use the term "force", but Jesus seems clear that it's something beyond simply choosing A or B.
"Or is there some other option where humans have no choice, but they aren't forced?"
It seems like scripture paints a picture where Jesus is irresistible to those He's called, and that those He calls will be drawn to that irresistible grace eventually. Yet, without the possibility of a choice, things get problematic.
I'd suggest that you not rely on me to try to explain this in depth, but go do your own research instead. I don't have the time, the desire, or the responsibility to walk you through something that has been extensively dealt with by experts.
"What sort of Nonsensical question is that?"
The sort designed to elicit exactly the response I got.
"Of course, The Bible does not break down such decisions into percentage. of course. Of course. Of course. Let me say that again. Of course, The Bible does not break down such questions until percentages."
If you say so.
"It is a stupid question, inane, irrational and irrelevant. Wtf?"
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Fortunately, your opinion means virtually noting to me.
"I'm not suggesting either."
Then please, be specific and explain what you are suggesting. Scriptural support would be helpful as well.
"Are you suggesting that Jesus decides for us??"
I'm not really suggesting anything so much as trying to get more detail regarding what you are suggesting. You can tell because I'm asking questions, not suggesting anything.
"Bullshit, if so. I'm answering your questions, over and over. Even the stupid ones."
While you've likely ignored some, seeing you answer this many questions is a refreshing change.
"How about you returning the favor?"
Since I've answered virtually all of your questions, I'm not sure what else I can do. I I missed something or was to direct, feel free to point it out and ask for clarification.
"Come, follow me." Jesus, who failed Craig's demands to be more specific."
This is where yoy seem to get confused. I'm not asking for specifics about what Jesus said, I'm asking for specifics about what you are saying. I can't believe that you'd equate your vague "way of grace", "way of Jesus", "kingdom/realm/subdivision or whatever of heaven or god or whatever", with Jesus teachings. Would you?
Craig...
"What justifies eternal punishment/separation from God is that all sin is based in us as humans deciding that our wants and desires supersede God's...
1. Bullshit.
2. This is not a biblical definition of sin. It's not the English definition of sin. It's not a biblical teaching. It's not a teaching from Jesus. It's something that sounds like it came from your ass. Do you recognise that reality?
3. Further, I'm almost certain you have no way of proving this is in any way a real world reality. While I'm sure there may be some people who think about God and what they think God wants and just decide, I deliberately don't want to do what God wants on this point... I'd be willing to bet that most people do not think this and certainly the people who've never heard of God don't think this.
If you want to say that this is just your personal interpretation of sin, not something that Jesus taught, not something the God has told you, not the normal definition of the word, not the biblical definition of the word, please say so.
Dan,
Thank you for demonstrating my wisdom in deciding that I wasn’t going to get involved in discussing orthodox Christian theology 101 with you. I knew that I’d invest hours of time, providing multiple scripture references as well as the commentary of multiple experts, and you’d respond exactly as you did. No offer of proof of your hunches, no scripture, just treating your hunches as if they’re true.
Thank you for confirming my wise choice.
"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?"
How would any sins be dismissed...washed away...regardless of their severity, if he didn't accept Jesus? And what's the point of "accepting Jesus" if not for His sacrificial death being the means by which our sins are not held against us?
"If you are, do you recognize how awful that sounds?"
Do you recognize how absolutely irrelevant it is how truth might sound to the likes of you? Clearly you don't. Justice isn't determined by how it "sounds" to the Dan Trabues of the world, and we're all the better for it.
"And those aware of the OT know that I could go on all day citing such passages."
And those aware of Dan Trabue know that he could go on all day citing such passages and corrupting their meaning to appease his socialist bent.
Isaiah 66:22-24
Daniel 12:1-2
More importantly is how irrelevant it is how many OT passages speak of eternal punishment or not, as it is clearly taught in the New Testament and by Christ Himself. As if that isn't enough, we know full well of the many OT passages that speak to God's wrath and hatred of sin. This is what Dan refers to as "a petty god", because God must act as Dan demands.
"It’s the beginning of Jesus teaching what he referred to often as the Gospel of the Kingdom/Realm of God/Heaven."
The Kingdom Christ says is not of this earth.
"Good news to the poor, freedom for the oppressed, the Year of the Lord’s Favor?"
He speaks of spiritual poverty, those oppressed and enslaved by sin.
"“Repent for the kingdom of God is near.” Jesus said at the beginning of his ministry."
Repent of what and what of those who don't or won't? What becomes of them?
"“How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God…” Jesus taught when a rich man asked about being saved."
More of Dan's socialism...he continues to ignore the reality of this passage and how it has little to do with wealth as it does being enslaved to anything other than the will of God.
"I don’t think many folks – left or right or otherwise – would affirm that. After all, “Even the demons believe…”"
Of course not and no one here has ever made such a suggestion. But there's a difference in believing Christ exists and believing He is the only Way to the Father.
Craig... "Thank you for demonstrating my wisdom in deciding that I wasn’t going to get involved in discussing orthodox Christian theology 101 with you."
And yet, ALL you've offered is a made up definition, not found in The Bible or Jesus' teachings.
Tell me, is your entire theology made up of fictional definitions?
I had begun responding to Dan's comments before I realized just how much farther this discussion had done. Thus, I will simply, for now, deal with one particular comment since it is a good example of Dan's lack of comprehension or intent to corrupt meaning. It's an either/or and doesn't really matter which for the purposes of my comments:
Re: June 10, 2021 at 5:30 PM
As I can only go by what Dan presented, this story seems to me to suggest a being who fell at the feet of the "good god"...in effect recognizing him as the one, true god and accepting him as such. From that point, his good works were regarded as "Christian". Thus, it is not an example of a non-believer being granted the same consideration as a believer.
June 10, 2021 at 5:53 PM
The centurion clearly believed in Jesus...Who and What He was. Even by your citation, he clearly had faith in Jesus. Thus, it is not an example of a non-believer being granted the same consideration as a believer.
Paul, in speaking to the people of Athens, wasn't saying they were acting like Christians, but only that they were religious and worshiping something. That was just a prelude to his willingness to preach the Gospel to them. Thus, it is not an example of a non-believer being granted the same consideration as a believer.
In the passage from Mark 9, the person healing in Christ's name is clearly NOT a non-believer, since he's doing his thing in Christ's name. It doesn't matter if one is a "known" believer to you or me, but only that he is known to Him. Thus, not only is this not an example of a non-believer being granted the same consideration as a believer, it is the worst example of the bunch!
more later...
Oh...one more thing. I found the "muslim woman" example especially ludicrous. I can't see in the least how it would matter how "Christian" one acts who by their religion specifically rejects Christ as God, the Son of God or one person of the Trinity. Thus, not an example of a non-believer being considered as one.
Marshal... " I can't see in the least how it would matter how "Christian" one acts who by their religion specifically rejects Christ as God"
Muslims affirm Jesus as Messiah, if not God. As to not naming Jesus as God, this is where you want to insist that to be saved, one must literally affirm Jesus as God. Jesus never taught that this must be affirmed in order to be saved.
(Well, presumably, you don't think someone MUST affirm Jesus as God, with those words anyway, since the thief on the cross never named Jesus as God... but generally, you think that, I believe).
That they may not name Jesus as God does not mean they reject Jesus or his teachings. They do not.
It is YOUR teaching, Marshal (you and others like you) that we must affirm Jesus as God and failing to do that means you should be punished for an eternity.
Again, just as a point of fact, Jesus never taught this.
Dan,
The problem with your conclusion is that I didn't offer a 'definition", it wasn't intended as one and certainly was not in any way an exhaustive explanation of definition.
I understand that you don't like my answer, nor do you agree with it, but as you haven't offered anything remotely compelling or that demonstrates that I'm wrong, I'll stick with scripture.
Clearly you don't understand that "bullshit" isn't exactly the most effective counter argument.
Art,
You correctly point out that both Roman centurion was in fact a "believer", he was a Gentile believer, not a Jewish believer.
Art,
I do so love it when Dan lectures you on what Muslims believe and don't believe. It's almost like he thinks that you should simply believe his version, instead of believe people with much more knowledge then he.
Craig... "I'll stick with scripture."
You keep saying that without quoting scripture or reason or anything to support it. Is just an empty claim. The words you use are not found in scripture. You're understanding, whether or not you want to call it a definition, of sin is not found in scripture. You pulled it out of your ass. It has nothing to do with me liking it or not liking it. I'm just pointing out the reality that it's not in The Bible. Do you understand?
These words and this idea are NOT from the Bible...
"What justifies eternal punishment/separation from God is that all sin is based in us as humans deciding that our wants and desires supersede God's..."
"All sin is based in us as humans deciding that our wants and desires supersedes God’s."
What is that? Craig 3:16?
Is this another case of this being something that you do and you're projecting that onto others? I mean, God knows I'm not a Perfect man. But never once in my life have I thought... "huh! God wants me to do this but I'm not going to do it!"
?? Who does that? Can you name anyone who does that?
Also, PROVE it.
Or say that "this is just a little hunch I made up, just my opinion..." And be clear about it. I don't mind people making up hypotheses out of the air if they want. Just be clear that it's not based on The Bible or reality.
And the reality should not be missed...
You cannot prove this ridiculous claim.
Craig and Marshal... "You correctly point out that both Roman centurion was in fact a "believer", he was a Gentile believer, not a Jewish believer."
The Bible, unfortunately, doesn't support your claim. Nowhere in the story does it say that this man was a believer in God, just that he recognized Jesus as one with authority. And we know that he loved the Jewish people, according to the story. But literally there is no mention of him being a believer in God.
Just fyi.
The story from Luke...
"After he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum.
Now a centurion had a servant who was sick and at the point of death, who was highly valued by him. When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they pleaded with him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue.” And Jesus went with them.
When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard these things, hhe marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said,
“I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”
Muslims do NOT mean the same thing when they speak of Jesus as Messiah. They just don't. Despite mentioning Jesus, they give him little regard and rather use Him to legitimize their false religion. And yes, the fact that one rejects the deity of Christ is significant, and not at all to the benefit of the one doing the rejecting. To universalists like Dan, it likely doesn't matter how anyone thinks of Jesus.
To be clear, I'm not saying I'm an expert on Islam. I'm saying I don't believe you two jokers are experts on Islam. Nor do I believe that you speak for Muslims. Also, I can read what muslims are actually saying so I don't need your little bigoted opinions.
Marshal... "the fact that one rejects the deity of Christ is significant, and not at all to the benefit of the one doing the rejecting."
Where specifically did Jesus say this?
Where specifically did Jesus say if he didn't believe in him As God you deserve to be punished for an eternity??
Excellent job. The Roman centurion had greater faith in Jesus to miraculously heal, but that doesn’t mean he had faith in God. Well done.
Ohhhhhh, don’t worry. Your hypothetical makes it abundantly clear that you’re not an expert on Islam. We already knew that. It’s just amusing to watch you try to make authoritative claims about things you know very little about.
Of course, pointing out the reality that Islam sees Jesus as some sort of lesser prophet that paved the way for Mohamed isn’t bigotry, it’s acknowledged reality. Islam doesn’t see Jesus as the Messiah, nor as divine, just an opening act for Mohamed.
Craig... "The Roman centurion had greater faith in Jesus to miraculously heal, but that doesn’t mean he had faith in God. Well done."
You see, Craig, here we have a perfect example of your traditions blinding you. Yes, it is entirely possible that a person could see a healer and believe in the authority and power they have and not believe in God. Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be possible?
It's also possible that he did believe in God. He was familiar with Jewish teachings and it's possible he believed in the Jewish God. That also is possible.
The point is, it does not state that. You are making that assumption. Read that again.
It does not say that he was a believer in God.
You are making that assumption.
You Are reading something into the text that the text does not explicitly say.
Understand?
Craig... "pointing out the reality that Islam sees Jesus as some sort of lesser prophet that paved the way for Mohamed isn’t bigotry, it’s acknowledged reality."
Of course, the reality is that I didn't say it was bigotry to say they viewed Jesus as a prophet. What I said was that they don't hate Jesus. They honor Jesus. That too, is acknowledged reality in contrast to the claims you jokers made.
That is, they aren't hostile towards Jesus. They're hostile, perhaps, towards your view of Jesus. They do not conflate you with Jesus.
Craig... "Your lack of definition and vagueness about what Jesus is calling people to engage in."
I hope you can understand how weird, bizarre it is to be confounded by the notion of living in a way of grace. But let me spell it out even more.
Living in a Way of Jesus' Grace is being a forgiving person, one nut inclined towards hateful actions.
Living in a way of grace is being concerned For and about the least of these. The marginalized, the poor, the immigrants, children, orphans, the oppressed. And not merely been concerned about them, but aligning with them, siding with them, living with them.
Living in a way of grace is embracing simplicity and concern for the world around us.
Living in a way of grace is recognising that the sabbath was made for humanity and not humanity for the sabbath. That is, not living a life of laying down rule upon rule on others' backs and our own.
Living a way of grace means recognising we're all imperfect, and yet we're often generally striving to do the right thing. It means giving the benefit of the doubt. It means recognising that none of us are perfect. It means Not being harshly judgmental but instead building up and strengthening and encouraging.
It means when someone has broken faith and torn relationships, that we strive to restore, not cast out.
I guess it could be considered vague in that it's pretty wide open. An open invitation to accept this way of grace and live into this way of grace and follow Jesus' example, however imperfectly. It might look different from person to person in circumstance to circumstance. But that's what we find in Jesus teachings.
The fact is, Jesus never boiled salvation down to simply affirming that he is God and affirming that he died for our sins. Similarly, Jesus never said that if you fail to do these two things, you deserve to be punished for an eternity.
That's completely absent from Jesus teachings.
Does that help?
"The words you use are not found in scripture."
I never said they were.
"You're understanding, whether or not you want to call it a definition, of sin is not found in scripture."
I eagerly await proof of this fantastical claim.
"You pulled it out of your ass."
No.
"I'm just pointing out the reality that it's not in The Bible."
One more claim that you can't prove.
" What is that? Craig 3:16?"
No, it's simply a partial summary of my conclusions about the seriousness of sin.
"Is this another case of this being something that you do and you're projecting that onto others?"
No.
"I mean, God knows I'm not a Perfect man. But never once in my life have I thought... "huh! God wants me to do this but I'm not going to do it!" ??"
Once again, Dan offers himself as the standard of righteous behavior and claims that he's never done something. It's quite amusing to watch Dan's pride take over and makes these claims. Fortunately, I wouldn't actually look at Dan as an example to follow.
"Who does that? Can you name anyone who does that"
I know quite a few folks who take their own sin seriously and recognize that all sin is placing our own desires over God's. I'm not going to post names of people I know here without their permission, but I suspect Stan would agree with my summary.
"Also, PROVE it. Or say that "this is just a little hunch I made up, just my opinion..." And be clear about it."
If you won't prove your claims, why should I do what you wont? I was quite clear that I wasn't writing an exhaustive definition of sin, nor was I attempting anything more that a very basic summary of one possible way to answer your question. Maybe you should stop trying to blow this up into something it isn't. There are plenty of places where experts can answer your question, I chose the answer I chose to minimize this type of hectoring and bullshit. I guess you had other plans.
"I don't mind people making up hypotheses out of the air if they want. Just be clear that it's not based on The Bible or reality. And the reality should not be missed... You cannot prove this ridiculous claim."
Again, if you can't prove your claims (and I've pointed them out frequently over the past months), why would I do something you won't?
"Why wouldn't it be possible?"
Anything is possible.
"It's also possible that he did believe in God. He was familiar with Jewish teachings and it's possible he believed in the Jewish God."
Again, anything is possible. Are you suggesting that "the Jewish God" was a complete;y separate deity from the God Jesus' referred to as "Father" and claimed to be "one" with?
"That also is possible. The point is, it does not state that. You are making that assumption. Read that again. It does not say that he was a believer in God. You are making that assumption. You Are reading something into the text that the text does not explicitly say. Understand?"
Even if I am, you are also reading into the text. Are you suggesting that Jesus' did NOT supernaturally heal the servant? That some vague undefined "authority" convinced this Roman officer that Jesus could do what others could not? Are you really suggesting that the Centurion believed that Jesus just happened to have "authority" over disease?
"Of course, the reality is that I didn't say it was bigotry to say they viewed Jesus as a prophet."
No you just made some bullshit claim about bigotry. One that you can't prove.
"What I said was that they don't hate Jesus."
I'm unaware of anyone who said that your made up, hypothetical, Muslim "hated" Jesus. They Koran does teach that Jews and Christians must become Muslims to be "saved" and that it's permissible (even encouraged) to kill those that won't do so.
"They honor Jesus."
As a lesser, prophet inferior to Mohamed. Certainly not in the same way that Christians do.
Now your actual claim was that a "good" deed done in the name of Mohamed will be treated as a "good" deed done in the name of Jesus/YHWH. Please show me where in Islamic teaching, Christian teaching, or Jewish teaching this doctrine con be found? Surely it's explicitly in there somewhere. Why would a devout Muslim want to have their good deeds credited to Jesus instead of Mohamed? This is what happens when you get theology from fictional books of fantasy and try to impose it over scripture.
"That too, is acknowledged reality in contrast to the claims you jokers made. That is, they aren't hostile towards Jesus. They're hostile, perhaps, towards your view of Jesus. They do not conflate you with Jesus."
This is what happens when you go off on tangents.
In your hodgepodge of paraphrases of proof texts you focus on the "poor, marginalized, etc", yet earlier you were quite clear that this "invitation" was open equally to "all", including folks like Hitler and Stalin. How can something that's open to "all", including the most evil, also be focused on the "poor, marginalized, etc"? Seems to be a contradiction.
FYU, your "definition" is simply a mash up of all the crap you've been spouting for years, but haven't provided explicit scriptural support for. Where does anyone but you identify this mash up as the "way of Grace, way of Jesus, or whatever else you decide to call it"?
Craig... "Now your actual claim was that a "good" deed done in the name of Mohamed will be treated as a "good" deed done in the name of Jesus/YHWH. Please show me where in Islamic teaching, Christian teaching, or Jewish teaching this doctrine con be found?"
"Whatever you did for one of the police of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."
-Jesus
For starters. I can give others. But beyond citing the capacities, we are not limited to biblical passages. God gave us brains to use. God gave us reason to use. Do you disagree? If not, Then use it.
The reality is, there are not multiple different types of justices. There's the Justice the God wants, and then there's a Justice of Islam or the Justice of pay is or the Justice of paganism or heatherns or atheist. Justice is what Justice is. If we are practicing good, fair, reasonableJustice, then we are engaging in God's Justice. There is no other Justice but God's Justice. The same thing for love. If we are loving for others, supporting, nurturing, healing,Is reaching out to others in love, we are engaged in God's love. Love and Justice and grace, these ideals cannot be separated from god. They are the nature of all that is good which is the nature of all that is God.
Do you disagree?
Therefore, the person who thinks they are following Buddha or satan, even, but who is acting in ways of Justice and forgiveness and love, they HAVE embraced the Way of Jesus. Unless you want to separate Jesus from love and Justice and mercy and all these good things, against which there is no law?
Do you think that the one who is feeding or clothing or visiting The least of these is NOT doing it to Jesus? Do not take that part of Jesus words literally?
Craig... "yet earlier you were quite clear that this "invitation" was open equally to "all", including folks like Hitler and Stalin. How can something that's open to "all", including the most evil, also be focused on the "poor, marginalized, etc"? Seems to be a contradiction."
The way of Jesus grace, in his own preachings and teachings, shows that it begins with the least of these. From beginning to end, Jesus focused on the marginalised and outcast. Just as a point of reality as we read the words in The Bible.
That is, Jesus begins his ministry by saying God Had anointed him to preach good news to the poor and marginalized. That's at the beginning. Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats is near the end of his Ministry. There too was the clear unmistakable call to minister to and with and alongside the least of these.
Agreed?
If we rich christians ignore the very literal context of Jesus' ministry, if we ignore the call to preach good news to the poor, then we're going to be likely to misunderstand the gospel.
For the record, from what I read and hear, the poor of the world do not miss this very important starting point of understanding the gospel.
And that's not saying that it's exclusionary to others, but it begins there. Why? I'd say because the least of these are the most in need, Of course. But also the way of grace is most easily understood when we begin with the poor and marginalized. When we're living this way of grace, this way of common good, and we begin by lifting up the most marginalized, we lift all ourselves up. In that context, living simply makes all the more sense. And in that context we see that living in a just manner makes all the more sense. In that context come up becomes clearer why wealth is such a trap.
Indeed, it is difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God, as Jesus clearly literally said. Why do you think that is?
Craig... "... How can something that's open to "all", including the most evil, also be focused on the "poor, marginalized, etc"? Seems to be a contradiction."
I think sing it as a contradiction is a very real risk that we wealthier Western christians have. But I don't think it's a contradiction to the poor of the world.
As we understand this way of grace and inclusion beginning with the poor and marginalised, It opens our eyes to the traps of wealth. Thus, we wealthy are not excluded... But we are invited to sell all we have and come follow Jesus. As Jesus said to the rich young man.
It is clearly an important beginning point, according to Jesus.
Let go of that wealth which is a trap, which is dragging you down beneath the waters to drown. Let it go, let it go.
Craig... "They Koran does teach that Jews and Christians must become Muslims to be "saved" and that it's permissible (even encouraged) to kill those that won't do so."
And The Bible contains passages that say it's acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery or to kidnap the orphaned daughter of an enemy and forced her into a marriage... ie, rape her.
But does the reality of these types of passages being in The Bible or in the Korean mean that it should be interpreted those ways? I say no about The Bible passages and many perhaps most muslims would say no to killing christians. You can't have it both ways. Too many christians engage in dishonest I said Jesus where they push the most awful meaning of Koranic passages but want to give the most gracious meaning to biblical ones. It's a dishonest way to talk about other faiths.
"Whatever you did for one of the police of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." -Jesus For starters."
Really, who is Jesus speaking to? In this little snippet, it seems as if He's saying that doing good to those He considers "brothers and sisters" is the key. Certainly doesn't seem to the the explicit, blanket command you'd like.
"I can give others."
But you won't.
"But beyond citing the capacities, we are not limited to biblical passages. God gave us brains to use. God gave us reason to use. Do you disagree?"
Sure, Reason is one tool for us to use, but I'm not sure that it trumps scripture.
"If not, Then use it. The reality is, there are not multiple different types of justices. There's the Justice the God wants, and then there's a Justice of Islam or the Justice of pay is or the Justice of paganism or heatherns or atheist."
What in the hell are you talking about? First you play games with this "way if grace/Jesus", then you play with this "realm/kingdom/neighborhood/whatever of God", now you're trying to add something else to the discussion. You can try all you want to continue to add/obfuscate but I'm not playing along.
"Justice is what Justice is. If we are practicing good, fair, reasonableJustice, then we are engaging in God's Justice. There is no other Justice but God's Justice. The same thing for love. If we are loving for others, supporting, nurturing, healing,Is reaching out to others in love, we are engaged in God's love. Love and Justice and grace, these ideals cannot be separated from god. They are the nature of all that is good which is the nature of all that is God. Do you disagree?"
Whether I disagree is irrelevant. First, I'm not following you down any more detours. Second, unless you can prove your claims, I'm not interested.
"Therefore, the person who thinks they are following Buddha or satan, even, but who is acting in ways of Justice and forgiveness and love, they HAVE embraced the Way of Jesus."
Well, if they even find out about the bait and switch, they'll likely be pissed. It sounds like Jesus might not force people to follow Him, but He's not above tricking them.
"Unless you want to separate Jesus from love and Justice and mercy and all these good things, against which there is no law? Do you think that the one who is feeding or clothing or visiting The least of these is NOT doing it to Jesus? Do not take that part of Jesus words literally?"
I get it, you are arguing that all roads lead to Jesus even if you don't want to admit it. But I'm not going down that detour either, since you can't prove any of it.
"But does the reality of these types of passages being in The Bible or in the Korean mean that it should be interpreted those ways?"
Well, I guess that it would start by acknowledging whether or not the Bible and Koran are equally True and authoritative. Then one would have to look at the context, then one would have to look at how those verses are being applied in current times, in order to start to answer that question.
"I say no about The Bible passages and many perhaps most muslims would say no to killing christians."
Well as long as you "say no" and are willing to speak for "most muslims" then it's settled.
"You can't have it both ways."
Thank goodness I'm not trying to.
"Too many christians engage in dishonest I said Jesus where they push the most awful meaning of Koranic passages but want to give the most gracious meaning to biblical ones. It's a dishonest way to talk about other faiths."
Well thank goodness I'm not one of those.
FYI, how many "christian" countries are currently enforcing the death penalty for blasphemy? It seems like looking at how theocracies treat those who turn to minority religions might be a good way to evaluate things.
"Thus, we wealthy are not excluded... But we are invited to sell all we have and come follow Jesus."
Really is "selling all we have" a requirement to "follow Jesus"?
Have you "sold all" you "have" or do you plan to?
"As Jesus said to the rich young man."
Did Jesus really say this to any one else? Did he say it to ANY other rich person He encountered? Why would anyone assume that this is a universal rule?
"It is clearly an important beginning point, according to Jesus. Let go of that wealth which is a trap, which is dragging you down beneath the waters to drown. Let it go, let it go."
I understand, we must first engage in the work of "letting go of that wealth", sell all that we have, then we are allowed to take the first step on the ladder of following Jesus. I'm quite sure you can prove this to be the case.
I might parse that last comment at some point, but it just seems like a rehash of all the same old gobbledygook that Dan's never actually provided any explicit scriptural support for, and more of how we have to do things to earn our way into this "way of grace".
Craig... "Did Jesus really say this to any one else? Did he say it to ANY other rich person He encountered? Why would anyone assume that this is a universal rule?
...I understand, we must first engage in the work of "letting go of that wealth", sell all that we have, then we are allowed to take the first step on the ladder of following Jesus. I'm quite sure you can prove this to be the case."
See, you're reading this as a Legalist, not as one who embraces the Way of Grace.
The Legalist says, "Here's THE RULE. Abide by it or Else!"
The community in the Way of Jesus' Grace has this conversation:
"Wow, Jesus really is concerned about the poor and how the wealthy are so often trapped in their own little hell by their wealth. This is something to watch and pay attention to!"
"So... shall we all sell everything we have?"
"No, no, that would be the way of legalism, the way of Death. Jesus came preaching Grace!"
"So, shall we live in a way that is mindful of and aligned with/living with the poor and marginalized and be aware of the trappings of wealth...?"
"That sounds more like it, in general... but you know, for ME, I really am feeling call to sell at least most of what I have because I have trouble with this addiction to all the Stuff I have and too often, find myself living For..."
"Well, good for you. How can we support you in that?"
...
Like that. So, begin by embracing GRACE, not legalism, because Jesus' way is a Way of Grace, first and foremost.
As I've been saying.
"Did Jesus really say this to any one else? Did he say it to ANY other rich person He encountered? Why would anyone assume that this is a universal rule?"
1. Not a universal rule, as noted. Grace, not Legalism.
2. Did this message go to anyone beyond the rich your ruler? Yes.
Luke 12, we find the parable of the rich fool, the admonition to gracefully live simply and trust God, and then Jesus says to all the followers listening...
"“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
Thus, a universal rule? No.
An important guideline? Certainly.
As we see in Jesus' teachings.
Craig... "t seems like a rehash of all the same old gobbledygook that Dan's never actually provided any explicit scriptural support for, and more of how we have to do things to earn our way into this "way of grace". "
I wonder: Do you recognize that, while I believed as you do, once upon a time, I now see all the misplaced Scripture cherry-picking to defend an eternal hell to punish "sinners" for failing to repent in just the right way and for defending something like the Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory... I now see all those arguments as unbiblical "gobbledygook" without any specific rational biblical or reasoned or moral or justice-themed support?
Even if you disagree with my sincere conclusions, do you recognize that I, who once believed as you do now, no longer accept as biblical all the tangled reasoning you all do (I once did) to defend PSA and eternal punishment?
That now, as I read the Bible, ALL I see are roads leading to the incredibly reasonable, incredibly biblical Way of Grace as taught by Jesus and supported throughout the Bible?
If you can recognize that and that I've reached my conclusions in good faith, do you think it's possible at all that you could be mistaken?
Also I wonder, given that I love God, Jesus and the Bible and sincerely no longer believe that the PSA is biblical or moral or Godly... that I can't in good faith say that I believe that Jesus died literally to pay for our sins and yet I still embrace Jesus' way of Grace as I understand it...
that given all that, do you think such a person literally deserves to be punished for an eternity if it turns out they were sincerely mistaken?
And if so, how can you rationally defend that?
Craig... "as long as you "say no" and are willing to speak for "most muslims" then it's settled."
I'm not speaking FOR most Muslims. I'm reading what actual Muslims saying and taking that as more authoritative than your hostile witness.
I SEE what YOU say, but you do not strike me as a Muslim, nor one who is willing to give Islam a charitable consideration.
But, from an actual Muslim, I read...
"Due to the Prophet’s teachings of peace, Muslims did not want to fight back. This is where God chastises Muslims for their reluctance, for not defending their peace sanctuary, and commanded them to fight back. (Quran 2:216 & 4:75)
Discussing this verse out of context is like saying that the Bible calls for genocide. (1 Samuel 15:2-3)
Muslims did eventually abide by God’s command to defend their peace sanctuary. However, the total number of days involved in these defensive “wars” were six days. And the total number who died on both sides is less than 1,000.
Muslims were being physically attacked, tortured, harassed, and killed wherever they went. This is why God ordered them to engage in self-defense, saying, “Slay the enemies wherever you find them!” (Quran 4:89). Extremists like ISIS and Islamophobes selectively quote such verses without including God’s encouragement to peace, which almost always accompanies verses related to defensive fighting. Take the verse which immediately follows (Quran 4:89): “Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.” (Quran 4:90)...
Jihad has been twisted, misunderstood, and misused at the hands of the thugs called ISIS and bigots called Islamophobes."
https://www.soundvision.com/article/does-god-really-command-muslims-to-kill-non-muslims
I wonder then, which are you? A Muslim terrorist or a bigot called an Islamaphobe?
++++
And, to be clear, I DO recognize that there are large swaths (A majority? I'm incredibly dubious) of Extremist Muslims who, LIKE EXTREMIST CHRISTIAN'S, do engage in violence.
I condemn both the Muslim extremists and the Christian extremists.
I condemn majority Islam nations that deny rights to non-Muslims, just as I condemn those parts in US history and Christian history that denied rights to non-Christians and even Christians who didn't agree with the majority view.
I'm consistent that way.
In the meantime, I hope you can understand that I'm going to listen to an actual Muslim's opinion about Islam rather than your hunches that are what at least some Muslims call, Bigoted.
Craig... "unless you can prove your claims, I'm not interested."
I'm saying that there is only Justice. Any justice that is NOT Just, is not justice. Any love that is not loving, is not Love. And I'm saying that ALL Good things are from God (It's biblical, you know). All justice that is just is from God. All love that is loving is from God.
Do you disagree?
IF you want to argue that there are different types of justice or love, and only GOD'S justice matters and no other justice matters... then YOU need to prove that there are these other "types" of justice, of love.
I'm saying that WHATSOEVER GOOD, KIND, LOVING THINGS YOU DO for the least of these, you DO for Jesus. Jesus isn't saying ONLY if you're doing it for Christians, or even for Christian reasons. It's a blanket statement. WHATEVER GOOD, JUST, LOVING things we do, are done TO and FOR Jesus.
How could it be otherwise?
It's like saying "Not all Ups are actual UP. SOME ups are actually DOWN..." It's a nonsensical claim.
IF you're saying that SOME good, loving, just things are NOT done in the name/on behalf of the One who IS Good, Love and Just, I'm saying that's nonsensical. As IF one could do Love or Justice apart from the God of Love and Justice.
And if you want to play the little Bible quoting game...
"Truly I tell you,
whatever
you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine,
you did for me."
~Jesus, Matthew 25
"Every good and perfect gift
is from above,
coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights,
who does not change like shifting shadows."
James 1
"God is love, and
whoever
abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him."
Dear friends, let us love one another, for
love comes from God.
Everyone who loves
has been born of God and knows God.
1 John 4
"By this
everyone will know
that you are my disciples,
if you love one another.”
John 13
"From His fullness we have
ALL
received grace upon grace.
For the law was given through Moses;
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
John 1
+++++
It is the Love, Justice, Grace, Forgiveness, Community, Concern for and Alliance With the least of these that we are marked as Jesus' followers.
Not by saying "Jesus is God. Jesus died to pay for our sins with his blood."
Again, even the demons can jump that tiny and meaningless hurtle.
Craig... "Reason is one tool for us to use, but I'm not sure that it trumps scripture."
They're not in opposition. We BEGIN with our reason as we look at the Bible, humanity, all of creation and the great cloud of witnesses that went before us. AND, if we begin with reason and reach hateful, unjust, irrational, unGodly conclusions, then Scripture don't mean jack. IF we begin with reason and reach loving, just, rational, Godly conclusions, then it doesn't matter if we even LOOK at Scripture.
It's the Love, Justice, Grace of God that matters, not how we reach that place.
Agreed?
Craig... "how many "christian" countries are currently enforcing the death penalty for blasphemy? It seems like looking at how theocracies treat those who turn to minority religions might be a good way to evaluate things. "
1. The US is not a Christian nation. We are not a theocracy, by design, and that has been a great good blessing.
2. There have been many Christians from our nation who would, once upon a time at least, have advocated putting gay people in jail or worse. Indeed, in just the last ~ten years, there was a movement of US Christians who were advocating for jail times for gay folks in other nations.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/scott-lively-anti-gay-law-uganda/
3. As I noted earlier, I am opposed to any nations having religious theocratic laws that penalize non-believers, women, gay folk or others. I'm opposed to it whether it's certain Islamic-majority nations having them or majority Christian nations having them...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
Craig, you keep referencing... "then you play with this "realm/kingdom/neighborhood/whatever of God","
I prefer Realm, as opposed to Kingdom because of the sexist/patriarchal imagery of KINGdom. God is not a male, so no need to refer to God as a king and REALM means pretty the same thing as kingdom, although perhaps it's an even better description of an Other place, not a mere political kingdom run by yet another corrupt man. Why do simple little attempts of kindness and justice seem bewildering to you?
There's no need to be flummoxed by a perfectly correct synonym of a word. Why waste words with this nonsense? You've brought it up several times.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/realm
Craig... "I get it, you are arguing that all roads lead to Jesus even if you don't want to admit it. But I'm not going down that detour either, since you can't prove any of it."
1. Neither of us can prove authoritatively our opinions on these unprovable matters. If you're not going to comment on what isn't provable, then perhaps you should just quit talking about these sorts of unprovable topics.
2. No, I'm not saying all roads lead to Jesus. After all, AS JESUS said, "Depart from me, you who would not support/side with the least of these!" and AS JESUS said, as he cried as the rich man walked away from him, "How hard it is for the rich to be part of the realm of God!"
That is clearly not "all roads lead to Jesus." Those roads built on greed, oppression, causing harm, murder, killing, rape, abuse, not welcoming the foreigner and marginalized... ALL those roads do NOT lead to Jesus.
Understand?
3. What I CAN prove is that the Bible records Jesus saying, "Come unto me ALL you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
The Bible records Jesus as saying, "What you've done for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you've done it for me."
What Jesus did NOT say was "And by 'these poor brothers and sisters of mine, I mean only a subset of the poor..."
Do you suspect Jesus was wrong in these verses... that All doesn't mean ALL?
The only reason I bring up your terminology is the fact that you interchange at least 4 terms that appear to mean the same thing without any rhyme or reason. The fact that you can’t pick one term and stick with it appears to be an attempt to obfuscate. Maybe you should pick one term and stick with it to eliminate the confusion. B
Excellent, you (without really answering the question), stumbled into the correct answer. The correct answer is that there are exactly ZERO “Christian” countries where blasphemy is punished with death. ZERO.
Obviously the fact that there are multiple Muslim countries that execute people for blasphemy has absolutely no bearing on how Muslims feel about those who follow Christ.
Craig... "The fact that you can’t pick one term and stick with it appears to be an attempt to obfuscate."
? Using synonyms when you make multiple references to the same thing is a sign of obfuscation? Where do you get that from? Of course, it isn't. It's a stupid idea.
How, in The Bible they referred to heaven and the heavens and glory and the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven and multiple other terms referencing the idea/ideal of heaven in some manner or another. Are you saying the Biblical authors were deliberately obfuscating? Don't be ridiculous.
Craig... "Obviously the fact that there are multiple Muslim countries that execute people for blasphemy has absolutely no bearing on how Muslims feel about those who follow Christ."
There certainly are some bad Muslim nations as far as their laws go about homosexuality and other faiths. I'm not disagreeing with that... but, and here's the important point, I never said otherwise.
Do you understand that?
I'm not sure what point you're thinking. Are you saying that those leaders of those nations represent the values of all muslims? Bullshit. It's a stupid claim. And stupidly false. Certainly not a claim you can support.
I will certainly agree that we must watch out for religious extremists of all sorts.
"Marshal... "the fact that one rejects the deity of Christ is significant, and not at all to the benefit of the one doing the rejecting."
Where specifically did Jesus say this?"
This short sermon gives an indication.
"Where specifically did Jesus say if he didn't believe in him As God you deserve to be punished for an eternity??"
Another demand that Scripture must say what is well known in just a specific way Dan demands it must say it in order for the Truth to be true. If you truly believe that what I said is not true, Dan, then it is incumbent upon you to provide Scripture that suggests the opposite is true. This belief you have in which you can merely insist something is not likely true because Scripture doesn't express a concept in a certain manner of YOUR choosing doesn't fly. If the concept expressed is untrue, prove it with contradicting Scriptural evidence.
In the meantime, I find it absurd that anyone would even suggest that not believing in the divine nature of Christ is an insignificant thing as regards what accepting Christ means. I challenge you to produce any Scripture that suggests not accepting Christ as divine does not contradict all teachings regarding Who and What Christ is and Why and How He is essential to our salvation. Scripture...and Christ's own words...clearly teach He is divine. Reject that and what else matters as regards anything else Scripture claims He taught us? Again, absurd.
"It does not say that he was a believer in God.
You are making that assumption."
Yet you are suggesting he was not, but on no basis whatsoever except that you need him to be a non-believer in order to make your lame point. Yet, the centurion clearly believed in at least Christ having some authority over illness and death, That is, a belief in CHRIST that supersedes belief in anyone else. His faith was in Christ. He accepted Christ as something more than merely man and like him, acknowledged Christ was under authority of someone higher than Him.
It is also absurd to pretend the centurion was not aware of who Christ was and claimed to be, or at least who He was claimed by others to be.
Also interesting to note is that this Roman was one of those to whom the Jews generally did not take kindly. One could call him "marginalized" while at the same time counting him among the powerful and the oppressors. This "way of grace" is tricky.
"Of course, the reality is that I didn't say it was bigotry to say they viewed Jesus as a prophet. What I said was that they don't hate Jesus. They honor Jesus. That too, is acknowledged reality in contrast to the claims you jokers made.
That is, they aren't hostile towards Jesus. They're hostile, perhaps, towards your view of Jesus. They do not conflate you with Jesus"
Of course, the reality is that muslims do NOT view Christ as divine, they do not regard Him as Savior through Whom one finds the only way to the Father. Thus, they are hostile to the truth of who Jesus is...not OUR view of Jesus.
"Living in a way of grace is being concerned For and about the least of these."
Except of course for the unborn, the truly "least of these". And of course don't waste any time with the morally lost. Heck no. The "Christian" in Dan's fantasy world sees "living in a way of grace" as enabling sexual immorality and celebrating it as normal and moral.
Nowhere in Dan's explanation for the "way of grace" do we ever see anything akin to obeying God's commands presented so clearly and unambiguously in Scripture.
"The fact is, Jesus never boiled salvation down to simply affirming that he is God and affirming that he died for our sins. Similarly, Jesus never said that if you fail to do these two things, you deserve to be punished for an eternity."
Actually, Jesus most certainly did and it's apparent in His clearly revealed teachings, as I've proven in the many verses and passages I presented in this very debate at my blog Dan abandoned once he found he had no legitimate counter argument. Now he fails again here to promote his heresies and corruptions.
""Whatever you did for one of the police(sic) of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."
-Jesus"
I didn't realize He was speaking to muslims here. I was fairly certain He was speaking to His followers with regard to how His followers were to behave. And again, those "least of these" clearly don't include the unborn to people like Dan. I doubt Jesus could possibly be cool with that.
"But beyond citing the capacities, we are not limited to biblical passages."
Well, actually we are in the sense that our "reason" (a word I use very loosely in applying to Dan) must align with Scripture, not depart from it or corrupt it.
"The reality is, there are not multiple different types of justices."
Here we go again...and then Dan goes on to suggest that what follows the above are examples of identical types of justice. Sharia law still speaks of cutting off hands of thieves, murdering daughters who "dishonor". Thus, there are different types of justice or different consequences for actions that some will refer to as just consequences.
"Justice is what Justice is. If we are practicing good, fair, reasonableJustice, then we are engaging in God's Justice. There is no other Justice but God's Justice."
And once more, Dan says these things as if he truly believes what he demands is a fair manifestation of justice MUST be matched by God's manifestation of justice. God wiped out all but Noah's family with a flood. He totally destroyed Sodom. He sent the armies of Israel to destroy other nations and cities. He struck down Uzzah for touching the ark.
Dan continues to judge God's justice based on how badly given acts offend Dan. Dan ignores how the offended feel about how just a penalty is for an offense. Dan simply has assumed all authority to dictate how one...even God...must regard the seriousness of an offense upon them.
"Therefore, the person who thinks they are following Buddha or satan, even, but who is acting in ways of Justice and forgiveness and love, they HAVE embraced the Way of Jesus."
Wow.
"Do you think that the one who is feeding or clothing or visiting The least of these is NOT doing it to Jesus?"
What a complete corruption of the teachings of Jesus!
"The way of Jesus grace, in his own preachings and teachings, shows that it begins with the least of these. From beginning to end, Jesus focused on the marginalised and outcast."
Only to the superficial understanding of the socialist like Dan. It begins with the spiritually poor, those burdened and imprisoned by their own sinfulness. It begins with the separation of man from God and with Christ being the only means by which our relationship with God is restored. Just as a point of reality as we read the words in The Bible.
"If we rich christians ignore the very literal context of Jesus' ministry, if we ignore the call to preach good news to the poor, then we're going to be likely to misunderstand the gospel."
Which you do because you view Scripture through a socialist lens. And no, you're not rich even in the sense of the rich people you think Scripture condemns. One isn't rich because one has more than nothing, like some in the world do. You simply have more than some, so cut this crap that you're rich. It's absurd, pretentious and a lie.
"For the record, from what I read and hear, the poor of the world do not miss this very important starting point of understanding the gospel."
May God send them someone who can disabuse them of this bad understanding of the gospel. YOU, however, are on your own.
"When we're living this way of grace, this way of common good, and we begin by lifting up the most marginalized, we lift all ourselves up."
NO we don't. We do not help the most needy by continually doing for them. That's absurd and proven false over and over again.
"In that context, living simply makes all the more sense."
By that "reasoning", the most destitute are doing great. There's no one living more simply than those with nothing.
"In that context come up becomes clearer why wealth is such a trap."
It's certainly a trap for you! You're obsessed with the wealth of others.
"Indeed, it is difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God, as Jesus clearly literally said."
Yet you miss the lesson...the point, as it were...which you so often do. Worse, the true lesson of this passage has been explained many times over the years and you insist on pretending it has to do with wealth. How very sad.
"As we understand this way of grace and inclusion beginning with the poor and marginalised, It opens our eyes to the traps of wealth. Thus, we wealthy are not excluded"
But you're not wealthy. Stop lying.
"But we are invited to sell all we have and come follow Jesus."
And yet you still have things. I computer, for example, and a smart phone. Much more than that, I'd wager. (Things many less than wealthy people have, in fact.)
"Let go of that wealth which is a trap, which is dragging you down beneath the waters to drown. Let it go, let it go."
(*gawk!*) How pathetically pretentious and superficial!
"And The Bible contains passages that say it's acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery or to kidnap the orphaned daughter of an enemy and forced her into a marriage... ie, rape her."
No it doesn't. These, too, have been explained to you and you prefer to insist on lying.
"But does the reality of these types of passages being in The Bible or in the Korean mean that it should be interpreted those ways? I say no about The Bible passages and many perhaps most muslims would say no to killing christians. You can't have it both ways."
No one who's engaged on these blogs try. But YOU continually ignore the context of the Biblical text regarding the passages you cite to make your lame point, while ignoring there is no alternative understanding of the koranic passages you pretend are misunderstood. In short, you're lying again. Evidently, by your example, the "way of grace" includes lying...blatantly...routinely...and continually even after having been corrected multiple times. It's a dishonest way to talk about other faiths.
"1. The US is not a Christian nation. We are not a theocracy, by design, and that has been a great good blessing."
Based on our founding and the many well known expressions on the subject from our founders, this was created to be a Christian nation...a government formed for a moral people, by which was meant Christian. Based on recent polling and studies, we're still a majority Christian nation (around 65% or better---not good). But indeed, we are not a theocracy. Were there fewer "progressive" "Christians", we'd be better blessed.
"2. There have been many Christians from our nation who would, once upon a time at least, have advocated putting gay people in jail or worse."
We still put whores in jail, as well as their johns. We still arrest bigamists. There's nothing at all immoral about a society deciding that some sexual practices be either denied by law or by cultural influence. Indeed, it is detrimental to a society to be lax in how it views sexual practices that are not within legal marriages. The last 75 years, particularly the last 50, have proven the truth of that. Enabling immoral behavior, as Dan advocates, results in more people engaging in immoral behavior.
"3. As I noted earlier, I am opposed to any nations having religious theocratic laws that penalize non-believers, women, gay folk or others."
As you note so often, you advocate for sexual immorality. Point #3 is simply a cover for that by including "non-believers, women or 'others'". This discussion has nothing to do with any of that anyway. Just another tangent.
"I prefer Realm, as opposed to Kingdom because of the sexist/patriarchal imagery of KINGdom."
Naw...you're just a feminized, woke, lefty who thinks words like "Kingdom" are "sexist/patriarchal". It's truly pathetic.
"God is not a male"
Yet He created man in His image and from man created woman. What's more, Jesus constantly refers to Him as our "Father" in heaven, and heaven as God's "Kingdom".
"Why do simple little attempts of kindness and justice seem bewildering to you?"
There's nothing bewildering to us about a feminized, woke, lefty like you pretending you've done something "kind" or "just" by crapping on the words of Scripture to serve your feminized, woke, lefty socialism. There's nothing "kind" or "just" about lying or twisting Scripture to serve an agenda, especially such a destructive one as that which you serve. Let it go, let it go.
" See, you're reading this as a Legalist, not as one who embraces the Way of Grace."
Not at all. I'm trying to understand how you can insist that Jesus was laying down a blanket rule for everyone when He spoke to the rich young ruler, yet also argue that we don't actually have to do what Jesus said to do.
""No, no, that would be the way of legalism, the way of Death."
Now I'm confused, if "selling everything" because Jesus told "us" to is the way of "Death", and being rich prevents "us" from entering the "kingdom/realm of God", then we seem to be at an impasse, don't we?
"So, shall we live in a way that is mindful of and aligned with/living with the poor and marginalized and be aware of the trappings of wealth...?"
Are you suggesting that "wealth" is not the problem, but only the "trappings" of wealth?
So, the answer is that you haven't sold all of your possessions and given the money to the poor, correct?
Have you sold any of your possessions and given the money to the poor?
Where does Jesus tell us that following His commands is "legalism" and that it will lead to the "way of Death"?
"Even if you disagree with my sincere conclusions, do you recognize that I, who once believed as you do now, no longer accept as biblical all the tangled reasoning you all do (I once did) to defend PSA and eternal punishment?"
As you repeat this trope ad nauseum, I fail to see how you think that I am unaware of your claims. Based on the fact that you frequently don't represent the doctrines you bash accurately, I don't believe that you ever really understood what you claim you believed.
"That now, as I read the Bible, ALL I see are roads leading to the incredibly reasonable, incredibly biblical Way of Grace as taught by Jesus and supported throughout the Bible?"
This is a statement, with a? Again, you've repeated some version of this trope ad nauseum, and I understand that this is your position. Unfortunately, you've been unable to provide any explicit scriptural support for your hunch being more correct than the more common doctrines on these topics. Inferences about implications just don't cut it for me.
"If you can recognize that and that I've reached my conclusions in good faith, do you think it's possible at all that you could be mistaken?"
Since I've never said I couldn't be mistaken, it seems absurd to ask if I could. However the path you took to reach your hunches, or your good faith, has nothing to do with my acknowledgement that I could be mistaken. The problem is that I'd actually need to see some explicit scriptural support for your hunches, laid out in a systematic manner, without appealing to your personal Reason to fill the gaps. I'd also have to see explanations for the areas where your hunch contradicts scripture.
"Also I wonder, given that I love God, Jesus and the Bible and sincerely no longer believe that the PSA is biblical or moral or Godly... that I can't in good faith say that I believe that Jesus died literally to pay for our sins and yet I still embrace Jesus' way of Grace as I understand it... that given all that, do you think such a person literally deserves to be punished for an eternity if it turns out they were sincerely mistaken?"
Where have I ever said that a person deserves to be punished for all eternity if they are sincerely mistaken about PSA?
"And if so, how can you rationally defend that?"
Why do you demand that I defend things that I haven't said? How is that rational? How does demanding that I defend your fantasies build your credibility?
"I wonder then, which are you? A Muslim terrorist or a bigot called an Islamaphobe?"
Neither.
I'm impressed that you can proof text the Koran, exactly the same way you do the Bible?
I'm curious, did the texts you used come from the first part of the Koran or the later parts of the Koran?
"I'm saying that there is only Justice...'
I didn't quote the whole thing because this is the only important part. I understand that you are "saying" all sorts of things. Unfortunately, there is quite a distance between "saying" something and "proving" something. As long as you're just "saying" and not proving, I see no reason to take you seriously.
"How could it be otherwise?"
I guess we could start with the fact that (even in the texts you proof texted) Jesus almost always qualifies those sorts of statements. Unless you can demonstrate conclusively that He means something other then His qualifications indicate, then you have a problem. Further, when you paraphrase, and mix your proof texts, it makes it difficult to deal with accurately. Perhaps if you'd quote, in context, it would help.
"I'm saying that's nonsensical."
Again with the "I'm saying" as if it's anything but your hunch. Asserting idiocy like this just undermines your credibility even further.
"these brothers and sisters of mine,"
Excellent, you actually quotes one of your proof texts. Please demonstrate that "these brothers and sisters of mine" definitively means "every human who has ever and will ever live".
""By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
1. The "everyone" you highlighted refers to "everyone who isn't His disciples".
2. He's literally defining the difference between His "disciples" and everyone who isn't one of His "disciples".
3. When you try to cram a proof text like this into your box, it raises serious issues about your credibility.
"Agreed?"
No.
"AS JESUS said, "Depart from me, you who would not support/side with the least of these!"
Where does one find this particular quote?
"Do you suspect Jesus was wrong in these verses... that All doesn't mean ALL?"
No. I suspect that you are wrong in your hunches about these verses.
"Come unto me ALL you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
Are you suggesting that "ALL" will actually come to Jesus?
"Using synonyms when you make multiple references to the same thing is a sign of obfuscation? Where do you get that from?"
I can be, and I get it from your tendency to obfuscate.
" How, in The Bible they referred to heaven and the heavens and glory and the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven and multiple other terms referencing the idea/ideal of heaven in some manner or another. Are you saying the Biblical authors were deliberately obfuscating?"
No. I'm saying that your words aren't scripture, and you aren't one of the Biblical authors, so I don't treat your words the way I treat their words.
The problem with your words, is that you randomly use at least 4 terms or variations of terms interchangeably without any rhyme or reason. Are they synonyms? Are they different hunches? What do they mean? Why are they used interchangeably? Why can't you pick one term and stick to it? I find that people who are interested in clarity of communication usually don't interchange random terms without definition or explanation.
"Do you understand that?"
Since I'm not sure what in the hell you're saying, I'm not really sure.
"I'm not sure what point you're thinking. Are you saying that those leaders of those nations represent the values of all muslims?"
I'm making the point that the vast majority of Muslim nations and their citizens (those nations representing the majority of Muslims on the planet), are actively engaged in enforcing laws that result in the deaths of those who follow Christ. I'm merely pointing out the reality that people who (as you claim) follow the "way of Jesus", rarely execute people for following Jesus.
"Do you think that the one who is feeding or clothing or visiting The least of these is NOT doing it to Jesus?"
Unlike you, I have no way to begin to know the motivation for why people do things. I suspect that many people do those sorts of things to draw attention to themselves and how wonderful they are. It's almost like you are saying that one's actual motives and reasons don't matter because Jesus forces their acts to be "to Jesus".
That sounds strange to me.
If Jesus called YHWH His "Father", and if Jesus referred to His "Kingdom", then are we really called to "follow" Jesus' example and hurl vitriol and expletives at those we disagree with, but NOT follow His example when we refer to His "Father", and His "Kingdom".
Seems like one more double standard to me.
Craig... "Unlike you, I have no way to begin to know the motivation for why people do things. I suspect that many people do those sorts of things to draw attention to themselves and how wonderful they are. It's almost like you are saying that one's actual motives and reasons don't matter because Jesus forces their acts to be "to Jesus".
That sounds strange to me."
I'm sure it does sound strange to you. And yet, Jesus mentioned literally NOTHING about their intentions. Those who did a kindness, did it to Jesus. Those who opted not to be kind, failed to do it to Jesus... and were held accountable.
"I suspect many do those sort of things to draw attention to themselves..."
I'm sure you do.
Even the people who did the kindnesses were flummoxed. They apparently didn't recognize that they'd done it to/for Jesus.
So, are you saying that only those who side with the least of these with the deliberate intention of serving Jesus have done it for Jesus?
If so, fine, but that isn't in the text.
Craig... "are we really called to "follow" Jesus' example and hurl vitriol and expletives at those we disagree with, but NOT follow His example when we refer to His "Father", and His "Kingdom".
In the Way of Grace, we aren't worried about trifles about which words we use, realm or kingdom. That's a meaningless difference... WHY would we worry about that? We ARE worried about those actions in solidarity with the least of these.
Because, Jesus.
Craig... "hurl vitriol and expletives at those we disagree..."
Just fyi, I don't use strong language with people, just because I might disagree with them. But I do sometimes use strong language to rebuke people acting in a pharisaical manner. Following the example of my Lord.
Craig... "Jesus called YHWH His "Father", and if Jesus referred to His "Kingdom", then are we really called to "follow" Jesus' example..."
Do we see anything, anything at all in Jesus's words, though it causes us to think that he cares a damned bit about whether we refer to a realm of God or a Kingdom of God? The answer is no period of course not!
On the other hand, do we see anything in Jesus words that makes us think that he cares if religious zealots load law upon law on the backs of regular people in a graceless manner? Does Jesus care if profiteers show up in the synagogue and charge the poor extra money that they can afford so that they can worship? Yes, we can see that Jesus does care about that.
Would you even try to disagree?
Dan...
"See, you're reading this as a Legalist, not as one who embraces the Way of Grace."
Craig...
"Not at all. I'm trying to understand how you can insist that Jesus was laying down a blanket rule for everyone when He spoke to the rich young ruler, yet also argue that we don't actually have to do what Jesus said to do."
Sigh. I repeat:
See, you're reading this as a Legalist, not as one who embraces the Way of Grace.
The legalist hears what he considers a rule and wonders how we obey it. The one living by grace hears what SOME might consider a rule and seeks to understand the guidance towards Grace behind it and NOT treat it like a rule.
I. Am. Not. A. Legalist.
I am not insisting that Jesus laid down a rule. Do you know why? I am not a legalist.
So, when you say, "I'm trying to understand how you can insist that Jesus was laying down a blanket rule for everyone..."
You need to stop and remind yourself that Dan is not a legalist. He's not looking for a blanket rule. That's what a legalist does and, as noted, I am not a legalist.
Craig... "yet also argue that we don't actually have to do what Jesus said to do."
The Christian who is living under a grace economy Would say while Jesus is not giving us rules to beat us into submission (the pharisaical approach), we do take what Jesus says seriously.
We don't see these sorts of teachings - which are not limited to this one instance - and say, it's not a rule therefore we don't obey it. We ask, what is Jesus getting at here? Clearly, given the preponderance of warnings about wealth and the abuses of wealth, if we're a wealthy person we need to listen closely and look for the way of grace to follow.
"Do you think that the one who is feeding or clothing or visiting The least of these is NOT doing it to Jesus?"
Interesting question. Al Capone had soup kitchens. I wonder if he was credited with feeding Jesus when his motivations didn't include actually feeding the needy so much as hiding his criminal activity. It seems to me that Christ's teaching on this issue implies the conscious act of doing for Jesus, rather than the more "accidental doing for Jesus" Dan seems to be suggesting. By that logic, all collateral benefits of acts are credited as "doing for Christ", regardless of the motivations behind the acts themselves. I really don't think that's what Christ had in mind, but Dan certainly is suggesting such.
Craig... "Come unto me ALL you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
Are you suggesting that "ALL" will actually come to Jesus?"
I'm saying that it is a literally an invitation to all, as it is literally written in the text.
Do you disagree that the invitation is to all, as it's written in this text?
...
You know, I'd really like to sit down in person with people like you and Marshal. This way of communication is clumsy and difficult. You both make so many unsupported and subjective claims as if they're objective facts. You ask so many questions that get miss/away from the point I'm making and it's just a slow slog to communicate this way. Marshal, for his part, has made all sorts of claims about what the text of the gospels say - even when they literally don't say it - and then, when I point that out, he and you both say things like "You're wanting us to find the exact words we're talking about and I'll make it clear AGAIN that I'm not looking for the phrase when I say things like that... I'm talking about the IDEA. The IDEA of PSA, for instance, is not found in Jesus talking about the Gospel...
And at any rate, while Marshal (and maybe Craig) is making these unsupported claims about what is literally not there and in the meantime, when I quote Jesus' actual words and try to take them somewhat literally, Marshal (and maybe Craig) dismisses a literal interpretation... and on it goes.
I often wonder if things would be easier at all in an in person conversation?
Craig... "I can be, and I get it from your tendency to obfuscate."
I literally do not obfuscate. You may misunderstand, but it is NOT from me choosing to obfuscate. Intention is usually involved when one is obfuscating and I have never chosen to obfuscate, just as a point of fact. And you can't support such a claim, otherwise. Clearly, given these hundreds of comments in THIS thread alone, you can see how I'm trying mightily to communicate and clarify and then RE-clarify when you don't understand.
Given your history of not answering the questions that were asked of you and just not answering, in general, you're not really in a position to make such a claim. And yet, I get that you probably DO think you answer most questions and do so clearly, but given the reality of me having to say, "um, I never said that... you can tell by the way my words never say that..." over and over and over again that you're not understanding me, as opposed to me having said something that was deliberately confusing.
Words have meanings.
Craig...
"The problem with your words, is that you randomly use at least 4 terms or variations of terms interchangeably without any rhyme or reason. Are they synonyms? Are they different hunches? What do they mean? Why are they used interchangeably?"
Kingdom of God. Realm of God. The Way of Jesus. The Way of God's Grace. The Realm of Heaven, the Path of God's Grace... CLEARLY these are all synonyms or at least, near synonyms... especially when you read them in context of my actual writings. There's no reason why this should throw you off so terribly much. I'm using them interchangeably because they are synonyms speaking to the same idea. And I may use other terms, still. I'm quite sure I do.
Martin Luther King's Beloved Community, for instance. The Church of Grace, for instance.
That idea being, in the context of my writings on the topic, living in the Way as Jesus taught in his actual teachings, the Way that Leads to Heaven and Good and Grace and away from hell and discord and hate. And I would think you would recognize by now that I don't use "heaven" to refer solely to some potential pie in the sky by and by... I'm talking about the Realm of God, the Grace-Filled Beloved Community. my church and the extended church who embrace Jesus' grace, who stand allied with the poor and marginalized, we are walking by God's grace in the Path of Heaven.
In the Realm of God.
Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done ON EARTH, as it is in Heaven.
Heaven is not a destination, it's a Way.
Prepare ye the Way of the Lord.
For Behold! The kingdom of God is in the midst of you.
Heaven should not be a future goal, it should be what we're living into, NOW.
ALL of this is saying the same thing.
I DO get that it's a different way of referring to Heaven than what I was raised with and what you may still believe, but Good Lord! We've been talking for ten plus years... were you still honestly confused by this?
If so, I sincerely apologize and just ask: IS IT CLEAR NOW?
"I DO get that it's a different way of referring to Heaven than what I was raised with and what you may still believe, but Good Lord! We've been talking for ten plus years... were you still honestly confused by this? If so, I sincerely apologize and just ask: IS IT CLEAR NOW?"
Yes, it's clear now. It's too bad you couldn't have clarified the first time I brought it up. Perhaps, you'd be considerate enough to pick one term and stick with it.
" I literally do not obfuscate."
Once again that's quite the unproven claim.
"You both make so many unsupported and subjective claims as if they're objective facts."
This is now the funniest thing you've ever written, bar none.
"You ask so many questions that get miss/away from the point I'm making and it's just a slow slog to communicate this way."
I know this'll shock you, but the purpose of my asking questions isn't to make your life easier. I ask questions to gain clarity about things that I don't understand.
"The IDEA of PSA, for instance, is not found in Jesus talking about the Gospel..."
Why look. It's an unsupported, subjective claim, made as if it were an objective fact.
"I quote Jesus' actual words and try to take them somewhat literally, Marshal (and maybe Craig) dismisses a literal interpretation... and on it goes. I often wonder if things would be easier at all in an in person conversation?"
My problem is not when you quote Jesus' words, but when you paraphrase them and treat your paraphrase as if it were a quote. Obviously, I frequently disagree with your hunches about the interpretation, especially when you can't explain why your hunch contradicts the plain meaning of the text, or ignores parts of what is said.
But, yes it would probably be easier in person. Although, I communicate with a fair number of people this way, and you are the only one who finds things this difficult.
"Do we see anything, anything at all in Jesus's words, though it causes us to think that he cares a damned bit about whether we refer to a realm of God or a Kingdom of God?"
What an interesting non answer. You were quite clear that we are to follow the "example" of Jesus' when it comes to hurling vitriol and expletives at those you consider appropriate targets, yet you are quite dismissive of following Jesus' example when it comes to referring to His "Father" and His "Kingdom. What a strange and self serving dichotomy. BTW, yes I do think that Jesus "cares" about how we refer to things.
"The answer is no period of course not!"
Look, another unsupported, subjective claim made as if it were an objective fact.
"On the other hand, do we see anything in Jesus words that makes us think that he cares if religious zealots load law upon law on the backs of regular people in a graceless manner?"
Yes. Unfortunately, we also find many other things in Jesus' words, and they all matter. I know it's crazy, but we can follow Jesus' example in multiple things at the same time.
"Does Jesus care if profiteers show up in the synagogue and charge the poor extra money that they can afford so that they can worship?"
Actually Jesus showed up because the "profiteers" were defiling His "Father's house". We can know this because of the words He used.
"Yes, we can see that Jesus does care about that. Would you even try to disagree?"
I wouldn't. I'm also not trying to divert attention from the double standard you introduced.
"Following the example of my Lord."
But only that one example. Not the example of referring to YHWH as "Father" or to the "Kingdom" of YHWH.
"And yet, Jesus mentioned literally NOTHING about their intentions."
Really? Jesus never at any point said anything about people's intentions? He really said "NOTHING" ever?
"WHY would we worry about that?"
If the important principle is to follow Jesus' example, then it logically follows that one would follow Jesus' example in more areas than just the one.
"We ARE worried about those actions in solidarity with the least of these. Because, Jesus."
Yet you won't sell all you have and give to the poor. Strange.
This whole notion of "grace" turning Jesus' commandments into suggestions that we can follow or not, to whatever extent we want to is amusing. It's almost like you want to construct a belief system that allows you to pick and choose what examples/commands of Jesus you will follow, and to what degree you'll do so. Yet, you seem intent on treating those things like commands when you judge others.
Craig... ""The IDEA of PSA, for instance, is not found in Jesus talking about the Gospel..."
Why look. It's an unsupported, subjective claim, made as if it were an objective fact."
I made the claim quite clearly: PSA IS NOT FOUND IN JESUS' WORDS TALKING ABOUT THE GOSPEL. That is, those claims ARE NOT THERE.
You want me to objectively prove it? I POINT TO ALL OF JESUS' WORDS AND SEE THAT IT'S NOT THERE.
When I'm talking about something that isn't there, ALL I can do to prove it is point to it and say it isn't there.
If YOU want to disprove my claim, then all you have to do is point to EVEN ONE place where Jesus is speaking of his Gospel and he uses PSA terminology/ideas.
And I've noted the ONE place where one might be inclined to find some hint of PSA is Jesus teaching his followers about humility (not How to be Saved? but how to be humble) and Jesus said to embrace humility for even the Son of Man "came to give his life as a ransom..." That is the ONE place that one might could find a hint of PSA, but it's entirely absent otherwise and, as I've noted, it's talking about humility and a servant heart, not about salvation or The Good News.
Do you understand how I already HAVE provided support for this claim? Repeatedly?
Craig... "If the important principle is to follow Jesus' example, then it logically follows that one would follow Jesus' example in more areas than just the one. "
IF one is taking Jesus' words seriously, then one HEARS what Jesus said.
"Sabbath is made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath."
We hear these words and recognize it's NOT about petty rule following along the lines of what words we use or other ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT SHIT and nonsense. The Realm of God is perhaps one of the absolute best examples of this. It matters NOT ONE BIT, "realm of God," "Way of Grace," "Kingdom of Heaven..." it absolutely 100% does not mean a damned thing and to insist upon Kingdom of Heaven is exactly the sort of missed point the Pharisees had.
It wasn't about bowing down to a bunch of nonsensical Sabbath rules, as if WE were made for the Rules. It's about honoring Sabbath, honoring Rest, honoring Restoration and restoration of Community! IF one focuses on the rules of Sabbath, one runs the risk of missing the point of Sabbath.
And same for any other little nitpicky rules one might envision.
What is the MOST important rule? Jesus was asked. Love God. Love humanity. And Jesus made it abundantly clear that this love for humanity began with the least of these. "If you say 'be well, warm and fed' and do nothing to make a real difference in the life of the marginalized, then your faith means nothing."
So, the point is always, "How will this help us love one another and especially the marginalized that Jesus insisted upon siding with?" IF a rule is resulting in harm to the poor and marginalized, THEN we have a responsibility to speak out, even with strong words.
If the rule is merely to enforce using the "right words," it's missing the point.
For Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.
The rules were made for helping us, not humans made to mindlessly obey rules. Or else.
Craig... "Actually Jesus showed up because the "profiteers" were defiling His "Father's house". We can know this because of the words He used."
At a simple, grade school level, yes. But WHY was selling stuff defiling the temple? IN CONTEXT, we see that the poor were having their offerings rejected and thus, they had to purchase the "Temple Approved (TM)" doves for the poor. They were ripping off people, including poor people.
It's always important to understand the text AND the context.
"For you have made the temple a Den of Thieves!"
Don't believe me? Listen to the Got Questions? people (I believe they fall under the conservative Christian banner)...
"The money-changers provided this convenience but would demand a small sum for the exchange. Because so many thousands of people came up to the great feasts, changing money was a very profitable business and one that resulted in fraud and oppression of the poor.
Also, according to the Law, two doves or pigeons were required to be offered in sacrifice (Leviticus 14:22; Luke 2:24). Yet it was difficult to bring them from the distant parts of Judea, so a lucrative business selling the birds sprang up, with the sellers gouging the faithful by charging exorbitant prices. There were other merchants selling cattle and sheep for the temple sacrifices as well. Because of these sellers who preyed on the poor and because of His passion for the purity of His Father’s house, Jesus was filled with righteous indignation."
https://www.gotquestions.org/temple-cleanse.html
Craig. This. JUST This.
""And yet, Jesus mentioned literally NOTHING about their intentions."
Really? Jesus never at any point said anything about people's intentions? He really said "NOTHING" ever?"
I'm wondering:
1. Do you recognize that you lifted a quote from me in a conversation SPECIFICALLY and LITERALLY about the parable of the Sheep and Goats...?
2. And in THAT story, Jesus literally said NOTHING about their intentions and THAT claim I made is literally, factually correct...?
3. And YOUR question ("Jesus never at any point said anything about people's intentions?") makes it sound like you think I was making a general claim, when my claim was specifically about that story. In THAT story that I was citing, Jesus LITERALLY said nothing about their intentions.
Right?
And if you're asking me if I'm saying Jesus NEVER said anything about people's intentions... then I'm not saying that. You understand that, right?
Just to be clear, because that comment from you is typical of so many of your comments, that appear to be missing the point I'm making and not answering the questions I asked of you.
There is no way a discussion with Dan would be better engaged face to face. For one thing, writing one's thoughts gives one time to be as specific in expressing those thoughts than can be expected from an extemporaneous method. Unless I've given Dan WAY too much credit as it is, he hasn't demonstrated he's capable of taking the time to do so. How then could it be better when he's making an attempt on the spot? No. This is the best chance Dan has to get his message across accurately, and he seems unable with all the time he needs to do so.
By the same token, I'm certain the same issue exists for most everyone and for my part, I would also suffer from the urge to respond in an even more snarky manner than I do in print when one considers Dan's many methods of dancing around and issue, as well as his insipid passive/aggressive drivel ("embrace grace" for example) which is meant to act as a substitute for a legitimate response to whatever he finds too difficult to counter.
No. Dan's far better off with the written word if he'd simply stick to the point, defend his positions with the same level of "hard data" and evidence he demands of others and basically, cut the crap.
And really, if we can't get him to provide the alternative "interpretation" of whatever he tries to insist is NOT what the plain reading of a text presents when he has all the time in the world to compose a coherent answer, there's no way he'd do so in person. The fact is, he has no actual alternative or he'd have provided it every time he objects to our reasonable, honest and far more likely than not accurate understandings. I continue to be open to a logical and evidence-based alternative to whatever I believe, if only he'd step up and provide. He doesn't provide because he can't. He just doesn't like what Scripture teaches.
I must also say how impatient I am with this constant reference to "the least of these" which Dan expects us to believe is something about which he truly cares when he is such a staunch defender of the legalized murder of the truly "least of these", the most innocent, defenseless and vulnerable unborn. Who in all of history has been more marginalized than they? Who comes close?
Dan's twisted position on the topic of "rules" is another ongoing ploy he perpetuates so deceitfully. Is "do unto others..." not a "rule"? Is it just a suggestion which one can reject because of the burden it places on one? This notion that we in any way "load law upon law on the backs of regular people in a graceless manner" is no more than Dan demonizing as "religious zealots" those who hold fast to teachings of Christ and Scripture Dan finds inconvenient and problematic. I've NEVER demanded or expected anyone should do anything that is not expected of us by God as clearly revealed in Scripture. NEVER!
Moving on, Dan proves over and over he either doesn't understand what taking Scripture "literally" means, or he's intentionally perverting the concept when it suits him to do so. I play it safe and assume it can be either in any given situation. Pretending our position on a given verse is akin to believing Christ actually and literally meant people have planks in their eyes is weak and cheap and just a means by which he hopes to avoid providing a better interpretation. Speaking for myself, every verse I cite is properly presented according to what it says (the words used in the sentence or sentences) as well as according to the context in which it is found. It is also further supported as likely, if not accurate, because of complimentary verses found elsewhere in Scripture. Time and time again we find Dan being the one who injects his own socialism into the text in order to pretend his understanding is legitimate, and even then he doesn't do the job well enough to so much as nudge us in the direction of his heresies and distortions.
And then of course is the many tangents he takes at the first sign of trouble, when he's found he cannot overcome the truth he encounters.
Yeah. All of this would be so much better in a face-to-face encounter.
No thanks.
RE Intentions.
It appears that you are suggesting that while Jesus DID refer to people's intentions and motivations, that His not specifically mentioning intentions in the proof text you chose means that they aren't important in that one specific proof text. That's quite a coincidence that His failure to mention people's intentions specifically just happens to be in that proof text. It's quite amazing that He wouldn't treat people's intentions as important at all times.
RE the Temple.
It's amazing that the very quote you use to "prove" your point also proves mine. I'm shocked that Jesus would be angered only by the overcharging of the poor, and not by the overcharging of everyone.
Of course, it's strange that Jesus chose to specifically give His reasons for His response, and that those reasons never specifically mention the poor. It's almost like you're asserting an interpretive principle that says that something that is inferred and NOT said, is more important than something that is explicitly and unequivocally stated.
RE Fllowing Jesus' example.
The notion that you choose to slavishly follow your hunches about Jesus' example in one area (that of vitriolically attacking those who don't agree with you), but argue against following Jesus' example in many other areas seems strange and inconsistent. Given your propensity for expletive laden vitriolic attacks, it seems a bit self serving.
RE PSA.
Your original claim was stated as "The IDEA of PSA", once you moved the goalposts and changed the claim to "PSA IS NOT FOUND IN JESUS' WORDS" I simply stopped reading. The fact that you can so blatantly contradict yourself renders anything else a waste of my time.
Once again we see Dan proclaim the quantity of verses on any given topic makes a teaching true, not that a topic was mentioned at all. With regard to homosexuality, Dan is among those who think it matters the behavior is mentioned just a few times throughout Scripture, despite how emphatic those few verses are, particularly Lev 18:22, which leaves no room for speculation...except to "progressives", who see what they want to see.
In the same way, Dan now pretends that because Christ mentions PSA once (at least one other time he references the reason why He will die), then by golly, the concept is mere human invention. It doesn't matter that the Epistles are loaded with references to the concept. I mean, even Peter...who had a passing familiarity with Christ...refers to it as well. Then, of course, his own cousin referred to Him as "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world". I don't recall Jesus saying anything like, "Cut it out, John...that's not why I'm here!"
Dan wants us to focus on that which is "IN JESUS' WORDS", except where the words of Jesus contradict him.
And again we see Dan working on another tangent to move away from yet another area where he has failed to push his warped understanding upon us. Referencing the Sabbath has no real relevance to the corruptions Dan defends. It's a diversion from the goofy attempt to re-frame Christ's words regarding "Kingdom" to a more leftist "inclusiveness" nonsense, and Craig's reminder of Dan's picking a choosing which of Christ's examples we should follow. Muddying the waters is what Dan does.
Craig... "I'm shocked that Jesus would be angered only by the overcharging of the poor, and not by the overcharging of everyone."
Jesus? THE Jesus? Jesus Christ? Jesus of Nazareth? You read the words Jesus of Nazareth and have a hard time understanding he'd be upset specifically about overcharging the poor?
THE Jesus?
Wow. Well, knowing how conservatives disciple their followers, that's not terribly surprising. I'd suggest you go back and re-read the Gospels.
Maybe start with Luke and forget everything that conservative preachers have told you.
Good luck!
Yes Dan,
I read the words of Jesus; the Alpha and the Omega, The Way The Truth and The Life, the second person of the Trinity, the one who was with God and who was/is God, where He lays out His reasoning for cleansing the Temple (when He never mentions economic status), and I wonder why He’d think that it’s ok to overcharge anyone.
Marshal... " Is "do unto others..." not a "rule"? Is it just a suggestion which one can reject because of the burden...?"
Those living within the realm of grace come up within the teachings of Jesus about the way of grace, for such people, the idea of rejecting doing something because it is a burden is missing the point.
And as with the sabbath rule - remember, Jesus said that sabbath was made for humanity not humanity for the sabbath - The point is not slavishly heeding a rule because there's a written rule. The point is living in grace, beginning with siding with the least of these. When one begins from that point, then Do unto others is a practical way of living. Not a rule.
As John notes of Jesus' teachings... the law came through Moses, but grace and truth through Jesus.
We are not pharisaical rule-followers. That leads to death. We are followers of Jesus who taught following Grace, not rules. Life, not death.
Craig... " I wonder why He’d think that it’s ok to overcharge anyone."
Of course, once again, I never said it was OK to overcharge anyone. That was your phrase. What I said was Jesus would be SPECIFICALLY concerned about the overcharging of the poor. And we know this, because of Jesus own God damned words. Do you recognize that very very basic reality? If not, read the damned Bible. Stop using it for a pillow or a hammer. Or toilet paper. Or whatever you're using it for. Read the words of Jesus.
Art,
How could you forget those famous words of Jesus, when He was asked about the greatest commandment. He said, “Commandment, schmanndment, following commandments is the fast lane to death.”
Seriously, the notion that obeying the rules (Law, Commandments, etc) leads straight to death is so blatantly obvious throughout scripture that I can’t believe you’re not familiar with it.
It’s not about some King in His Kingdom of God, it’s about us and our making the right choices.
Craig said, I suspect ironically and sarcastically...
"...the notion that obeying the rules (Law, Commandments, etc) leads straight to death is so blatantly obvious throughout scripture that I can’t believe you’re not familiar with it."
And yet, Craig was absolutely correct. Observe, the Bible and Jesus ongoing disputes with the legalists/Pharisees who set their hopes on the Law, which kills:
"...sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment,
produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For
apart from law, sin is dead.
Once I was alive apart from law;
but when the commandment came,
sin sprang to life and I died.
I found that
the very commandment
that was intended to bring life
actually brought death.
For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded
by the commandment,
deceived me,
and through the
commandment
put me to death."
~Romans 7
"Therefore, there is now
no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
because
through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit
who gives life
has set you free from
the law of sin and death.”
~Romans 8
"God has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant —
not of the letter (law)
but of the Spirit;
for the letter (law)kills,
but the Spirit gives life"
~2 Corinthians 3
"Out of (Jesus') fullness
we have all received grace in place of grace already given.
For the law was given through Moses;
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
~John 4
[This passage is Jesus addressing the Pharisees/legalizers...
"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because
He not only was breaking the Sabbath
[see the legalism that leads to death? literally, they wanted to kill him and felt justified in it because THE LAW! ~Dan],
...but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
Jesus speaking -]
"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father;
the one who accuses you is Moses,
in whom you have set your hope."
~John 5
"For as many as are of
the works of the Law are under a curse;
for it is written,
“Cursed is everyone who does not abide by
all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.
Now that
no one is justified by the Law
before God is evident; for,
“The righteous man shall live by faith.”
However,
the Law is not of faith;
on the contrary,
“He who practices them shall live by them.”
Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the Law,
having become a curse for us
for it is written,
“Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"
~Galatians 3
"The commandment put me to death."
"For the letter brings death."
I suspect you know (but maybe you don't) that I could go on and on. The Christian teachings about how the Law and Legalism, the Way of the Pharisees, leads to Death and destruction.
But JESUS DID NOT COME for the Law.
He came for Grace and Truth.
And those who leaned on the Law, found justification to Kill the King of Grace... or at least try to.
Yet another literal object lesson showing how the Law leads to Death, in the very death of our Lord.
Thus, says the Jesus, in the Bible.
For those who have ears to hear.
Indeed, Craig. Jesus clearly taught to obey God. He made it seem rather important for believers to do. I don't recall Him making any distinction about which or whether or not we are able to pick and choose from among them which we will follow. Even with Dan's lame example regarding the Sabbath, there's no mention that we can ignore the Sabbath and not keep it holy.
As to burdens, Christ teaches "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:14) Thus, it is clear by this verse that many will choose against "the Way" because they find it a burden. The way which is hard is a way filled with "rules of life" so to speak, mandated by Christ/God by which we are to live our lives if we are truly disciples. For some, it becomes easy. For others, it's always a chore, but a chore one is willing to undertake for His sake and for His Glory.
So again, is "do unto others" not a rule? Is "judge not" not a rule? Is "choose life" not a rule?
Marshal... "Dan now pretends that because Christ mentions PSA once (at least one other time he references the reason why He will die), then by golly, the concept is mere human invention."
Again, with the misrepresentations of what I've said.
I never said that IF a topic is only mentioned once (or a few times), it's a human invention.
What I said was that JESUS DID NOT TEACH PSA (and just as a reminder, I'm using PSA as a shortcut to refer to what you all mean by "Jesus died for our sins to save us from hell by paying the price for our sins") and he didn't.
Jesus sent out his followers to preach the good news. NEVER did he mention anything like PSA.
Jesus preached many sermons and talked often about the "Good News" that he was preaching... words that we can read. NEVER DID he teach/preach PSA. He just didn't.
Now, it is a reasonable conclusion that IF Jesus kept preaching "the good news of the realm of God..." and IF we have written records of many of Jesus' sermons, there should be SOME SIGNIFICANT mention of this PSA theory in his sermons and his references to the Good News of the Realm of God.
It is completely absent.
Or, if you want to be generous, there is ONE remark in the context of HUMILITY (not salvation, not the good news) to being humble like Jesus is modeling, in that he was offering his life as a ransom...
ONE PERHAPS sort of related comment.
AND, if Jesus otherwise often mentioned PSA ideas, then it would be reasonable to consider the ONE "ransom" comment as perhaps related to that. But there is NO MENTION of it. There are NO SIGNS that Jesus was preaching a Good News about him paying a blood sacrifice to pay for sins if we accept it just the right way.
It's not there.
It's just not. I don't know what else to tell you fellas. It ain't there.
WHY in all of Jesus' teachings about the Gospel of the Realm of God and WHY in all of his sermons that we have recorded, is there NO mention of "accept my blood sacrifice to pay for your sins so you can be saved..."?
Take Jesus' words seriously.
Craig... "it's strange that Jesus chose to specifically give His reasons for His response, and that those reasons never specifically mention the poor."
This Jesus, who came specifically and literally to preach good news to the poor, who DID preach good news to the poor, specifically and pointed to that as PROOF that he was of God, this Jesus, who scandalized the religious Pharisees with his apparent rule-breaking and defense and inclusion of, and solidarity with the poor... THIS Jesus who pointed specifically to how the moneychangers were charging for the offerings that the poor had to pay... THIS Jesus would have been clearly understood in the context of the day to be specifically concerned about the poor.
You have to divorce yourself ENTIRELY from the teachings and history of Jesus and the context of the day not to know this.
Ironically, you all try to attack me for suggesting that I'm complaining about the absence of specific WORDS when I'm talking about the absence of the IDEA and yet you're complaining about the absence of the word Poor in this instance.
I'm not going to spend any time parsing Dan's comment where he argues that following the law leads to death. There are three reasons for this. 1. He missed the point of the comment. 2. Jesus was clear that there are commandments/rules/laws/royal edicts that we are to follow, and that don't lead to death. 3. I have no reason to want to go off on another chase down a rabbit hole.
"Ironically, you all try to attack me for suggesting that I'm complaining about the absence of specific WORDS when I'm talking about the absence of the IDEA and yet you're complaining about the absence of the word Poor in this instance."
Ironically, your characterization of our position is wrong.
"What I said was Jesus would be SPECIFICALLY concerned about the overcharging of the poor."
Yes you did. And I pointed out that Jesus' words at the time of the incident don't back up your hunch.
"And we know this, because of Jesus own God damned words."
This is a fascinating sentence. This notion that YHWH "damned" the very words of Jesus" is fascinating, demented, twisted, bizarre, and takes the Lord's name in vain simultaneously. Impressive feat.
"Do you recognize that very very basic reality?"
That YHWH "dammned" the very words Jesus spoke, no that's the first time I've ever heard this hunch.
"If not, read the damned Bible. Stop using it for a pillow or a hammer. Or toilet paper. Or whatever you're using it for. Read the words of Jesus."
That's quite an attack, filled with false claims.
So, let's look at Jesus' "God damned" words for ourselves.
"12 And Jesus entered the temple[a] and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13 He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”
"Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.He told those who were selling the doves, ‘Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a market-place!’"
"45 And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold, 46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.”"
The three texts that cover thin incident, and all of them have two striking similarities.
1. They all mention "My/My Father's house", and two or the three, it's intended purpose.
2. None of them refer in any way to any specific group/class/demographic of people who were specifically being "overcharged".
Now, you can try to insert other things where they don't exist, but the text is very clear as the the reason that was recorded by eyewitnesses.
You can twist, turn, fold, spindle, or mutilate the text all you want. Unfortunately the best you can do is to make guesses, based on your inferences.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/jesus-cleanses-temple/.
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Hm. So He died so we'd be forgiven. Sounds like PSA to me.
"“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep”" (John 10:11).
Hm. Sounds like PSA to me.
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for [4] many” (Mark 10:45).
Hm. Sounds like PSA to me, and rather more directly than merely "related to PSA".
Three direct affirmations from Christ Himself of His "substitutionary" giving of His life for us. Other references abound throughout Scripture as well as the confirming of this reality by Paul and Peter at least in their Epistles.
Art,
More importantly, those sound like the "idea" of PSA. When Dan tries to move the goal posts, it's important to remember what he really claimed. I'd argue that the entirety of the Upper Room discourse was referencing His sacrificial death, as was His prayer time in the garden. One wonders what Jesus was trying to avoid, if not His death and separation from the Father.
He certainly spoke of His death quite a bit. More than anything, His death was His purpose for taking human form...His mission. Basic stuff, Biblically supported.
Obviously. I suspect that Jesus wasn’t quite clear enough for Dan.
Craig (and Marshal)... " I suspect that Jesus wasn’t quite clear enough for Dan."
Jesus: "I HAVE COME TO PREACH GOOD NEWS TO THE POOR."
I suspect Jesus wasn't clear enough for white evangelicals who seem reluctant to take Jesus literally on the main thing he talked/preached about (that, and the realm of God, which go hand in hand in Jesus' teachings).
But go ahead, keep denying it. Don't open your eyes. Choose deliberately blindness.
Or, let go of your hostility towards the actual teachings of Jesus. Be free.
Your call.
Jesus tells us that the entire law can “be summed up as Love your neighbor as yourself “. Dan tells us, that the law leads directly to death.
Who should I believe?
"I suspect Jesus wasn't clear enough for white evangelicals who seem reluctant to take Jesus literally on the main thing he talked/preached about (that, and the realm of God, which go hand in hand in Jesus' teachings)."
I have no problem taking Jesus' teachings literally. My problem comes when folks like Dan try to cast Jesus' teachings in ways that limit the scope of Jesus' teachings. My problem is not with Jesus, it's with Dan.
"But go ahead, keep denying it."
Where have I denied "it", and what "it" have I denied? Quotes and links.
"Don't open your eyes. Choose deliberately blindness."
Please prove this claim with quotes and links to back up your claim. Please write sentences that make grammatical sense in English.
"Or, let go of your hostility towards the actual teachings of Jesus."
Where specifically have I done this? Quotes and links.
"Be free."
Free from what? Only Jesus can give freedom, not you.
"Your call."
Thanks for giving me permission to make my own "call". I think I'll follow Jesus' call instead of yours.
"I suspect Jesus wasn't clear enough for white evangelicals who seem reluctant to take Jesus literally..."
What does an Evangelical's race have to do with anything? What makes you think black Evangelicals understand Scripture any differently than white Evangelicals? Why must you focus on race like a typical leftist? I suspect your "suspicion" flows from your racial hatred and socialist corruption.
It's clear you don't understand the concept of taking someone literally...especially Christ or Scripture. Jesus' concern is always with the spiritually poor, not the materially. As regards the materially poor, concern for them is supposed to be ours. Commentaries on the original language speak of "poor" being used for more than mere money, and it is absurd to continue believing Christ/God was so concerned with the materially poor that no mention of anyone else being saved takes place. The tax collector in the temple was not materially poor, but his lamentation regarding his need for God and his recognizing his own sinfulness is the poverty which concerned Christ. Indeed, this story is one that affirms Christ's concern was the spiritually poor. Thus, the beatitude...whether from Matthew or Luke...refers to those who recognize their need for God and their own inabilities without Him. That's the poverty one recognizes in one's self which makes them blessed. And it is to them Christ brought the Good News. THAT is taking Christ literally. YOU, Dan, take Him superficially.
Craig, are you guessing that Marshal is right about translating poverty to mean merely spiritual poverty? Even though clearly in the context of The Bible and the times... CLEARLY he's speaking about material wealth?
Dan,
This might get a little confusing for you, so I’ll try to go slowly and carefully.
1. I think that the text is clear that Jesus spoke to both spiritual and material poverty.
2. I think that the notion that Jesus only ever spoke of material poverty is a very shallow and biased reading of the text.
3. Given Jesus repeated references to the “spiritual” aspects of life and of His Kingdom, it seems absurd to think that He never spoke of spiritual poverty.
4. If Art is saying that Jesus never spoke of material poverty, but spoke exclusively of spiritual poverty, then I would disagree with him.
5. I guess I’d say that your both wrong.
6. Given the value Jesus puts on the spiritual, and the fact that He seems to view the material as transitory, I’d think that He’s included toward the spiritual.
I would never say that material poverty is never addressed. But once again, I think it's pretty clear that concern for the materially impoverished is supposed to be ours. That is, Jesus/God expects us to show concern for those in need.
But Christ's mission on earth, including with regard to the poor to whom He brought the Good News, is not the materially poor, but the spiritually poor. This is simply the fact, and Dan on his best day couldn't provide any verse or passage that suggests otherwise. Indeed, I've gone through his series of blog posts on the Bible and Economics, and he's way off base to say the least, injecting his own socialism into the text or simply presenting a wholly nonsensical interpretation, missing the point of the passage as is so common for him.
When Christ first spoke in the temple, the text He cited was in reference to the spiritually poor and those burdened and enslaved by sin. Once again, the story of the tax collector in the temple I referenced above, as well as the choice of Matthew who was himself a tax collector to be an apostle, demonstrates Christ was not concerned with the material wealth or poverty of those He came to save with the Good News, but of their spiritual condition.
Dan's socialism drives his focus on that which doesn't matter. The poor can be driven by material concerns just as any wealthy person can be. And wealth doesn't make every rich dude an asshole. Just as those of Christ's time were wrong to believe wealth was a sign of God's favor (though it could indeed be the case for some), Dan is wrong to suppose there's some special favor God bestows upon someone simply because they're poor. It's absurd. Dan speaks of "the marginalized", yet in doing so, he marginalizes the wealthy in the very same way. Favoritism runs two ways, and we're encouraged to avoid playing favorites. Jesus certainly didn't.
Except that I never have said (NEVER HAVE SAID) that Jesus never spoke of spiritual poverty. Because of course, I haven't. BUT, when Jesus says "I have come to preach good news to the poor," and "Tell John that I've been preaching to the poor," and "Woe to you who are rich..." and "It's difficult for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of God," and when Mary sang about bringing down the rich and powerful and when James said "Is it not the rich who are oppressing you..." etc, etc, etc, etc... in ALL these places where Jesus is clearly speaking of material wealth and poverty, he is clearly speaking of wealth and poverty, which might include being poor in spirit, but the text and context are clearly speaking directly of actual wealth and poverty.
In other words, when he told John's followers, "Tell him I'm preaching the good news of the realm of God to the poor," that he was wanting John to understand that he was preaching to the poor IN SPIRIT, or in that spot, he was clearly speaking of literal poverty? And when James said, "Is it not the rich who are oppressing you?" ...he was speaking of literally wealthy people... do you disagree with the straightforward literal reading of such texts?
7. Jesus never once elevates anyone from poverty.
8. Jesus is quite clear that there will always be poor people.
9. The notion of being saved from something makes no sense when applied to material poverty. Especially if there is nothing beyond our existence on this earth.
To your numbered points...
1. I'm speaking of SPECIFIC texts. "Tell John I'm preaching to the poor" is literally speaking of the material poor. "Is it not the rich who oppress you?" Is speaking of the literally wealthy.
2. I never said Jesus only spoke of literal wealth/poverty. See point 1.
3. See point 2 and 1.
4. Agreed.
5. Since you're speaking of a straw man version of what I've actually said, you're just mistaken. Can you recognize now where your mistake lies?
6. You'd think he's "included towards the spiritual..."? I don't know what you mean.
7. Quite a claim. I'd rather doubt that you can support that. In fact, it is clearly bunk.
Jesus taught his followers a Way that - in his day and throughout history - lifted people out of abject poverty and comforted/allied with them within it.
8. Yes. So?
9. How so? Being saved from oppression, if you are a marginalized or poor person, is a great and demonstrable reality. Because, of course it is. You'd have to explain what you mean here, because it sounds like nonsense.
"In other words, when he told John's followers, "Tell him I'm preaching the good news of the realm of God to the poor," that he was wanting John to understand that he was preaching to the poor IN SPIRIT, or in that spot, he was clearly speaking of literal poverty?"
Even if He was speaking primarily of material poverty, that doesn't exclude the possibility of spiritual poverty as well. Further, I was clear that Jesus does sometimes speak to material poverty. Pointing out one or two examples of this doesn't really help you or disprove my point.
"And when James said, "Is it not the rich who are oppressing you?" ...he was speaking of literally wealthy people... do you disagree with the straightforward literal reading of such texts?"
Based on the limited context, it appears so. Of course, James isn't Jesus. Also, this out of context proof text doesn't really prove much, in any sort of larger context.
The problem is that you're obsessed with individual trees, while I'm talking about the forest. You seem to be trying to take individual verses as proof texts to extrapolate that because X is referring to the materially poor, then A-W must also be referring to the materially poor. Without actually looking at A-W.
I rarely disagree with the "literal straightforward" reading of any texts, I usually disagree with your hunches about the meanings of any proof texts.
https://www.bibleref.com/James/2/James-2-6.html
Is it possible that James is using the example of poor people being oppressed and taken to court by the rich, to make a larger point?
Could the larger point be spiritual, not material?
1. I'm speaking of the overarching narrative of the entirety of scripture. Isn't it possible that there are specific, individual, proof texts that specifically refer to the materially poor, while the larger narrative encompasses both material and spiritual poverty? Isn't it possible that the reference to the materially poor is (or is also) a metaphor for the spiritually poor?
2. Please show us where you have ever referred to Jesus speaking about "spiritual" poverty as something positive? That raises the question. Where has Art ever spoken of poverty as exclusively material? By what standard is spiritual poverty to be dismissed as "merely"?
5. In the absence on any examples of you saying anything positive about "mere" spiritual poverty, or of you doing anything except argue against the notion, I'll stand by my conclusion. Of course you're always welcome to prove me wrong.
6. Autocorrect changed "inclined" to "included", I missed it because I was on my phone.
7. Really, please provide some specifics. Let's see some examples of people that Jesus specifically and explicitly raised out of poverty.
8. If this is so, then either Jesus is a failure, Jesus system doesn't work, or some people are able to choose poverty over non poverty, which is it?
9. I'm sorry that you're confused.
If Jesus "way" is primarily about saving people from material poverty, then why didn't he save more people from poverty?
You do realize that the very people who most closely followed Him and His "way" were oppressed, don't you?
Are you suggesting that those who knew Jesus the most closely chose not to follow His "way", that they were incompetent, or that Jesus was wrong?
Jesus all but guaranteed that those who followed His "way" would be persecuted, up to and including facing death, how does one square your hunches about Jesus' "way" with Jesus words?
You do realize that oppression and poverty are not synonymous, don't you? You do realize that the elimination of oppression, doesn't guarantee elimination of poverty, don't you?
Can you acknowledge that Jesus or those who followed His "way" have not eliminated material poverty?
The problem with your hunch is that you can't actually point to any examples of it working to eliminate material poverty. Given you acknowledgement that there will never be a point where this "way" of Jesus will actually achieve that goal you claim, I fail to see how this vision of the Kingdom of God is compelling in the least. You certainly haven't made a case for why I should follow your hunch, instead of Jesus.
Follow the "way" of Jesus and you'll be lifted out of material poverty, be comforted within our poverty, or find allies within poverty?
Is that a fair summary of your position.
Just as an aside, I looked at 45 translations of Luke 7:22. Not one of them used any term like "Tell him I'm preaching the good news of the realm of God to the poor,".
I won't say I'm perfect in never paraphrasing Scripture when it's so easy to find the exact verse, cite it and copy/paste it. But I never inject my own corrupt preference over that which is so easy to present. I don't understand Dan's need...or anyone's need...to force this "realm over 'kingdom'" feminism onto Scripture. Must come from having a leftist woman pastor.
Now back to the point which is just another tangent from the post topic:
Dan can't seem to be more specific in trying to support his notion that "poor" is always, or even most times, a reference to material poverty as opposed to spiritual poverty. Even the Luke 7:22 passage requires some proof that Christ wasn't speaking to spirituality even while healing physical ailments. That is to say, the healing of the blind is still an allegorical act of Christ's true purpose.
Then of course, Dan...either purposely or because of his unfortunate lack of comprehension and discernment...conflates ALL references to anything remotely economic as being of the same meaning when used by Christ or Scripture in general. That meaning is to promote his socialist ideology as if it is Christ's. This is because Dan is not only a race-hustler, but a class-hustler as well. To demonize the wealthy leads to a more widespread hatred of the wealthy, which leads to a sense that taking from the wealthy is fully justified...Christian, one like him might say.
Craig... "Follow the "way" of Jesus and you'll be lifted out of material poverty, be comforted within our poverty, or find allies within poverty?
Is that a fair summary of your position."
Not exactly.
Allow me to clarify.
"Follow the "way" of Jesus and you'll be lifted out of material poverty..."
I've never said that if we follow the way of Jesus we WILL be lifted out of poverty, as if it's magic.
However, to the degree that we are in a community who are walking in the way of grace as Jesus taught, the debilitating effects of poverty WILL be alleviated...
That is, if we're in a community of 1000 people where, say, 500 people have embraced the way of Jesus and who are...
1. loving their neighbors as themselves,
2. who are siding with the poor and
3. against oppressors,
4. who are sharing freely,
5. who welcome all to dinner tables,
6. Who set up systems where people are assigned the responsibility of making sure the poor are not overlooked (as with servant deacons), and
7. Who take reasonable measures to guard against an unjust accumulation of wealth (as with Jubilee laws)
Etc...
... In a system like this where a good number of people are living in community in the way of grace as taught by Jesus, there's a good and reasonable chance that poverty will be reduced and the harmful effects of poverty and marginalization will be reduced.
We know this because we see it happen In the real world.
Do you disagree?
"Follow the way of Jesus and... be comforted within our poverty"
Yes, that WILL happen IF we follow the way of Jesus.
Do you disagree?
"Follow the way of Jesus and... We will find allies within poverty."
Yes, that WILL happen IF we follow the way of Jesus.
Do you disagree?
Craig... "The problem with your hunch is that you can't actually point to any examples of it working to eliminate material poverty. Given you acknowledgement that there will never be a point where this "way" of Jesus will actually achieve that goal you claim, I fail to see how this vision of the Kingdom of God is compelling in the least. "
? Are you trying to argue that Jesus' teachings about siding with and working for the least of these, about preaching good news To the poor and marginalized... That the teachings of our Lord are ineffective and useless? That's what it sounds like you're saying. It seems rather weird, I hope you can understand.
Here's what I'm saying...
1. That Jesus made it clear that he was preaching actual good news to the actual poor and marginalized.
2. That this way that he taught candy and is an effective (if imperfect in an imperfect world) way Of impacting the world in a positive manner period of bringing thy Kingdom Come and thy will be done on Earth.
3. That when walking in this Way, it is important/vital to begin with the poor and marginalized. As we side with and support and help the poor and marginalized, we're helping everyone else.
4. That this Way would include things that look like sabbath laws... a safety net to make sure that the poor and foreigners and marginalized are not left out, and that gives them the dignity of work as well.
5. It would include things that look like jubilee laws that tried to guarantee wealth doesn't accumulate in the hands of a few which inevitably leads to oppression.
6. That this Way would include things like servant deacons (social workers...), people who had the responsibility for making sure the poor and marginalized weren't overlooked and that they were included.
7. That this Way that begins with looking out and siding with the poor and marginalized is based on wholesome, healthy, loving, just attitudes... a Do one to other as you would have them do unto you worldview.
I'm saying that a Way like this does lead- and has in the real world led to improvements... Indeed, that we would do things like Jesus did and even greater things. Things like human rights being important. Things like human liberty being honored and enshrined in law. Things like equal rights for women and minorities. Things like an end to oppression of gay people and people of different faiths.
Are you saying that these ways, this Way that Jesus taught is impotent and ineffective in the real world?
To continue answering your questions...
"You do realize that oppression and poverty are not synonymous, don't you?"
Yes, they are not synonymous. You do Realized that they often go hand-in-hand, don't you?
Indeed, I suggest that's one reason why Jesus' gospel begins with preaching to the poor and marginalized.
"You do realize that the elimination of oppression, doesn't guarantee elimination of poverty, don't you?"
Yes. You do realize that removing/alleviating oppression would go a long way towards helping the poor who've been oppressed, don't you?
"Can you acknowledge that Jesus or those who followed His "way" have not eliminated material poverty?"
Eliminated poverty? Yes, I acknowledge no one has eliminated poverty.
But, Of course, those who've been practicing the way of grace, the way of aligning with the poor and standing against oppression, those who sought to implement rules and practices that alleviate poverty... Of course people, taking such actions have REDUCED poverty and ALLEVIATED poverty and oppression. Are you trying to say otherwise?
Are you saying only perfect solutions are worth anything?
Craig...
"If Jesus "way" is primarily about saving people from material poverty, then why didn't he save more people from poverty?"
I haven't said it's primarily about saving people from material poverty. And Jesus way HAS saved hella people from poverty.
"You do realize that the very people who most closely followed Him and His "way" were oppressed, don't you?"
Yep. That's sorta the point, isn't it? Jesus specifically invited the poor, marginalized and oppressed to join this Way.
Marshal... " I never inject my own corrupt preference over that which is so easy to present. I don't understand Dan's need...or anyone's need...to force this "realm over 'kingdom'" feminism onto Scripture."
sigh. The things you will choose to whine about. I'm over here busy taking Jesus' words pretty seriously and pretty literally. I offered a paraphrase that included "the realm of God." Jesus preached about the good news of the realm of God over and over. Yes, the word is translated Kingdom, but Kingdom is just a synonym for Realm.
Why do you kick against the goads?
Why, in a conversation that's already wandered terribly long (and not confined to this particular post) do you worry about a complete and absolute brainless nothing?
Fact: Jesus preached good news to the poor.
Fact: We have no reason to try to insist that Jesus didn't mean the literal poor and the literal rich when he refers to them, the text and context is clear.
This isn't to say that we can't ALSO see some spiritual or figurative inference when Jesus is speaking of the literal poor and rich, but it's a blasphemous bullshit and the tool of the oppressor and privileged to deny the words mean what they mean.
Fact: I'm not a socialist and don't promote socialism.
Fact: I reached my conclusions after starting out as an extremely traditional ultra-conservative Southern Baptist. It was taking the words of Jesus seriously that led me to this position, not any political or "socialist" aim. Because, reality is what reality is.
Don't be a douche.
As I read Luke 7, I can’t help but wonder if all the magical healings and raisings from the dead are to be taken literally.
As for 7:22, it looks like the term is the “good news”, which would likely be interpreted as “The Gospel”. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that the “good news”, was the accounts of all the magical healings etc.
There’s no indication that there is an economic component to the “good news”.
Just to clarify, I don't wish to suggest that Christ didn't perform miracle healings. Of course He did. However, those are corporeal analogies for what Christ's purpose actually was.
Art, I agree.
" I haven't said it's primarily about saving people from material poverty."
Then enlighten me, what is Jesus' way primarily about?
"And Jesus way HAS saved hella people from poverty."
Really, please provide specifics. Are you suggesting that every person rescued from poverty has been rescued by Jesus' way? This doesn't answer my question.
"Yep. That's sorta the point, isn't it? Jesus specifically invited the poor, marginalized and oppressed to join this Way."
Except that the "oppression", "marginalization" and "poverty" all got worse because they followed Jesus. Clearly being killed for following Jesus is worse than being overtaxed by the Romans, isn't it? If they followed Jesus to be rid of those things, then they were in for a rude surprise when those things all got worse. Hell, Jesus even tells them/us that they're going to suffer for Him.
"Yes. You do realize that removing/alleviating oppression would go a long way towards helping the poor who've been oppressed, don't you?"
You do realize that this question doesn't actually answer the question asked, don't you? You also realize that it's inappropriate to answer a question with a question, don't you?
"Eliminated poverty? Yes, I acknowledge no one has eliminated poverty."
Excellent, a direct answer.
"But, Of course, those who've been practicing the way of grace, the way of aligning with the poor and standing against oppression, those who sought to implement rules and practices that alleviate poverty... Of course people, taking such actions have REDUCED poverty and ALLEVIATED poverty and oppression."
When you say this sort of meaningless blather and don't provide any actual examples, you simply don't seem to understand that your words mean nothing. FYI, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Hitler all proclaimed that their philosophies would "alleviate" poverty. Were they following the "way of Jesus"? How'd they do?
"Are you trying to say otherwise?"
No, I'm trying to ask you questions to understand how effective this "way of Jesus" is at achieving it's goal. If it's not effective, then why would anyone follow it.
"Are you saying only perfect solutions are worth anything?"
No.
"Are you trying to argue that Jesus' teachings about siding with and working for the least of these, about preaching good news To the poor and marginalized... That the teachings of our Lord are ineffective and useless?"
No. I'm trying to understand how you demonstrate the effectiveness of your "way of Jesus" is at accomplishing your stated goal. I'm also trying to understand your sense of who Jesus was/is, and how someone with the power to heal the sick and raise the dead, was unable to eliminate poverty even in the relatively small Roman province where He spent 3 years in ministry. I'm trying to understand how, if He couldn't eliminate poverty on a small scale, His way leads inexorably towards eliminating poverty on a global scale. I'm trying to understand why you think questions are statements.
"2. That this way that he taught candy and is an effective (if imperfect in an imperfect world) way Of impacting the world in a positive manner period of bringing thy Kingdom Come and thy will be done on Earth."
I'm not sure what "candy" has to do with anything. Interesting that Jesus, the only perfect being in history, chose such an "imperfect" plan. It's also interesting that you chose to edit a significant portion of the text your proof texted. I guess acknowledging that whole Heaven thing as an example of how things should work on earth might be a problem. Are you really suggesting that Jesus is the "Thy" in "Thy will be done"? Or are you suggesting something/someone else?
" Are you saying that these ways, this Way that Jesus taught is impotent and ineffective in the real world?"
No, I'm asking you to provide actual examples to show how effective it's been, and explanations as to why it hasn't seemingly helped as many people is it could have.
" Do you disagree?" x3 This is the third time I've tried to answer this, I'm a little annoyed with blogger.
To summarize.
I disagree with the limited, transactional, nature of your hunch. To me this sounds very much the folks who try to tell us that socialism/communism.Marxism just haven't been done correctly yet and if we can just do it right this time, it'll work.
Craig... "I'm asking you to provide actual examples to show how effective it's been, and explanations as to why it hasn't seemingly helped as many people is it could have."
1. I'm saying that the Way that Jesus taught began with the notion of watching out specifically for the poor and otherwise marginalized.
2. I'm saying that the Way that Jesus taught began with the notion of doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
3. I'm saying that Jesus taught us about a Way that included ideas like the Jubilee and Sabbath laws and deacons watching out for the poor and marginalized.
4. I'm saying that this WAY is what leads us, eventually, to the recognition of human rights, of human liberty, that all people are created equal and have certain inalienable rights.
GIVEN 1-4, I'm saying that the world is infinitely better and improved from where it was 2000 years ago BECAUSE of this Way.
I'm saying that the poor are MUCH wealthier/healthier/in a better place BECAUSE of this Way. People are better educated, more people can read, people are healthier, people live longer lives, rights are more generally recognized now than back then, women actually have rights, slavery is generally recognized as evil and where it happens, it tends to happen in the shadows, whereas slavery used to be just an accepted way of life and oppression of women was just an accepted way of life.
I'm saying that THE MORE we practice this Way, the better off the poor and marginalized will be.
Do you disagree?
I'm saying that this Way of living progressively better and more humane lives wherein ALL human rights are valued and respected and wherein there is special emphasis on human liberty and rights as it regards the poor have made the world healthier, wealthier (in a good way) and more whole.
Is this something you disagree with?
Do you disagree that the world is fundamentally better than it was in the first century? And not by some small amount, but markedly, measurably better?
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/23/14062168/history-global-conditions-charts-life-span-poverty
"sigh. The things you will choose to whine about. I'm over here busy taking Jesus' words pretty seriously and pretty literally. I offered a paraphrase that included "the realm of God." Jesus preached about the good news of the realm of God over and over. Yes, the word is translated Kingdom, but Kingdom is just a synonym for Realm.
Why do you kick against the goads?"
First of all, you brought it up when in your comment of June 12, 2021 at 3:16 PM when you said...
"I prefer Realm, as opposed to Kingdom because of the sexist/patriarchal imagery of KINGdom. God is not a male, so no need to refer to God as a king..."
The the "goad" against which I kick is the leftist feminism of pretending a reference to God and His Kingdom as Christ did is somehow patriarchal and sexist. It is well within any discussion criticizing your corruption of Scripture to suit your socialist bent. I don't consider it a "nothing" that one like you would try to insert such crap into the discussion, nor do I find your doing so any different than one of my main complaints with you which is your penchant for assuming authority to determine how others, even God, must regard what you deem cool. Once again, Christ is depicted as referring to God in male terms. Why do you regard Him doing so as sexist? Why would regard the many Scriptural authors as sexist for doing so as well? Because of your socialist feminism, not simple preference.
"Fact: Jesus preached good news to the poor."
...in spirit. It is absurd to pretend all of his followers were poor. It's statistically foolish and there's no evidence of Christ or His Apostles limiting who could listen to Christ's preaching to only the poor.
"Fact: We have no reason to try to insist that Jesus didn't mean the literal poor and the literal rich when he refers to them, the text and context is clear."
Yes we do, as I've pointed out many times over the years. But it really depends upon which specific verse or passage one uses to make a point. In your series of blog posts on the Bible and Economics, you've proven a distinct inability or intentional unwillingness to differentiate between those verses which do and those which don't. There's not even a need to suppose all references mean the materially poor, except to further a socialist agenda.
"This isn't to say that we can't ALSO see some spiritual or figurative inference when Jesus is speaking of the literal poor and rich, but it's a blasphemous bullshit and the tool of the oppressor and privileged to deny the words mean what they mean."
Well, that's a stretch! "Tool of the oppressor and privileged"! "Marxist" is a better descriptor of you.
"Fact: I'm not a socialist and don't promote socialism."
Fact: You are because you do.
"Fact: I reached my conclusions after starting out as an extremely traditional ultra-conservative Southern Baptist. It was taking the words of Jesus seriously that led me to this position, not any political or "socialist" aim."
*yawn!* THIS tired trope! But you don't take the words of Christ seriously. You take the woodenly and to further your marxism. Whether that ideology came first to corrupt your understanding of Scripture, or if your poor comprehension skills (evident as well in your goofy understanding of conservatism) in reading Scripture moved you to marxism, it doesn't matter.
"Don't be a douche."
More grace-embracing.
Craig... "Except that the "oppression", "marginalization" and "poverty" all got worse because they followed Jesus. Clearly being killed for following Jesus is worse than being overtaxed by the Romans, isn't it? If they followed Jesus to be rid of those things, then they were in for a rude surprise when those things all got worse. Hell, Jesus even tells them/us that they're going to suffer for Him."
Again, Jesus wasn't a miracle one time fix-all. Clearly, this is true for your conservative opinions about him, as well as mine. Not quite sure what you're arguing for or against here, but if you're saying that because Jesus' Way didn't "fix" things perfectly and immediately, I'd say that's a rather graceless way to judge your Lord and Savior.
I'm not saying that Jesus teachings were a simplistic magic spell, intended to fix things immediately. I'm saying (and trying to say quite clearly) that Jesus taught A WAY, a PATH that, the more it's followed, the better things will be. And, as we have seen in the real world history since Jesus came, things HAVE gotten better, significantly so. Indeed, as Jesus said, We'll do even greater things than he did.
Slavery is generally no longer legal or tolerated (although there certainly still are places where it happens). Women generally have freedoms that simply didn't exist back then. LGBTQ folk are not overtly oppressed in freedom loving nations any more as they once were.
It's a WAY that leads to Thy Will be Done, on EARTH as it is in heaven, the more we walk on that Way of Grace. Not a magic pill to abracadabra poof! "fix" things.
And you know what? Sometimes, when walking this Way in a society that is actively opposed to recognizing the rights of the poor and marginalized, we can expect opposition and even oppression. But those who walk in this Way will strive to have the strength to stay in that Way, as Jesus taught us by his example.
Do you think that things have not gotten better in the world thanks to more people more faithfully walking in this Way that Jesus taught (even if all may not name Jesus as the Author of this Way, as you probably wish they would)?
Or is it the case that you don't agree with me that Jesus taught a Way that honored human rights and defense of the least of these?
Craig... " I'm trying to ask you questions to understand how effective this "way of Jesus" is at achieving it's goal. If it's not effective, then why would anyone follow it."
By now, I've made it clear to you (I hope) that the improvement is something measured over time as the Way is followed. By now, I hope you can understand and agree that the world is significantly and measurably improved thanks to this Way.
But this question of yours makes me wonder...
1. Do you think that the vast majority of the world is not going to be saved and is, indeed, going to be punished in hell for an eternity (the whole "Wide is the path to destruction" mindset that evangelicals often suggest)?
2. If so, do you think that the vast majority of all humanity - now and throughout history - being punished/tormented for an eternity is effective way of achieving its goal... one that rational people would find compelling?
3. What do you see as the "goal" of your understanding of Christianity? Is it, as some evangelicals might say, To bring Glory to God?
4. If so, do you think that the vast majority of humanity being punished/tormented for an eternity brings glory to this god?
5. Do you at least see how such a portrayal of "god" paints a rather malignant and childish image of this god?
It’s so refreshing to see Dan choose not to answer questions or provide examples as a way to demonstrate that his hunches are correct, but instead to try to ask questions as a way to take attention away from his inability to do what he’s been asked to do.
1. I agree with what I read in scripture. Unfortunately, I see scripture supporting something close to the view you caricature.
2. I really can’t answer, that’s one of those questions that’s rightly aimed at God.
3. Scripture repeatedly and clearly tells us that bringing Glory to God is pretty important, I’m hesitant to place my feelings over scripture.
4. I don’t think I’m qualified to pass judgement of God’s plans or purposes. But for me to try to put myself in the position of “If I was God”, is absurd. I’m not, and I have nowhere near the capacity to suggest that I could design a better system.
5. I can see how someone like you might think that, but your hunches are by no means the Truth.
I am confident that an all knowing, all powerful, all wise, God who embodies Truth, Justice, Love, etc, is capable of coming up with His plans to achieve His purposes, for His glory, without input from me. I’d like to think I’m humble enough to let God be God, and be used by Him for whatever.
I answered your questions, because that’s what I do, I’ve tolerated your multiple off topic excursions in this thread, and I’m not going down this one. If you can’t prove your claims about this “way of Jesus”, and give examples of its effectiveness, that’s fine. I know I need to ask you to prove the claims you make, but I don’t expect you to actually do so. But you don’t get to do this redirect the entire conversation just because you can’t answer the questions asked, or prove your claims.
Therefore, now that you have your answers, this particular topic in this particular thread is closed. Any further comments on this detour will be deleted.
"And, you've answered my questions? Bullshit."
You asked 5, I answered 5.
If you have any specific questions that I've missed (I'm not perfect, no matter how hard I try), please bring them to my attention.
"You're on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality, the wrong side of Justice and the wrong side of the Lord God, Jesus Christ."
That's quite a claim, let's see some proof.
"Conflating your will with God's. Shame."
Damn, you are on fire with your unsupported/unproven claims. You need to start coming up with proof.
"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. " Don't deny God, man."
Interesting, I never though you were much of a believer in eschatology, especially didn't see you as a big believer in the Tribulation, who knew.
Thank God I'm not one of those people. Thanks, I've never denied God, but I'll keep that in mind.
"More later, but here again we see you conflating YOU and YOUR human opinion with God."
One more false/unsupported/unproven claim.
"AS IF disagreeing with the almighty Craig was the same as disagreeing with God."
Not even close to True, or to what I actually said.
"What's wrong with you all? You worship a sick, deviant, petty, impotent and childish little god. At least as YOU describe your god. Why do you try to conflate this bully-god in your minds with Jesus?"
Nothing. No, that's how YOU describe God, not me. (one more unsupported/unproven/false claim.
I don't.
Dan,
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough before. But, I'll repeat myself so you won't waste a bunch of time.
I answered your five questions. That line of discussion is done/finished/closed in this thread.
Don't waste any more of your time writing comments that will be deleted.
"Again, Jesus wasn't a miracle one time fix-all."
Except that He clearly was for some people.
"Not quite sure what you're arguing for or against here, but if you're saying that because Jesus' Way didn't "fix" things perfectly and immediately, I'd say that's a rather graceless way to judge your Lord and Savior."
1. I'm pointing out the reality that Jesus followers were more persecuted after they followed Him. That they were persecuted because they followed Him. That Jesus literally warned them/us that we would face more (not less) "oppression" as His followers.
"I'm not saying that Jesus teachings were a simplistic magic spell, intended to fix things immediately."
Thanks so much for repeating this, I missed it the first time.
"I'm saying (and trying to say quite clearly) that Jesus taught A WAY, a PATH that, the more it's followed, the better things will be."
So you're saying that if we follow this "way" or "path" and do the things that make up this "way" or "path", that things will become incrementally better in this present world. That if we adopt some select laws from the 10 commandments, and the Hebrew Theocracy, that things will get better.
"And, as we have seen in the real world history since Jesus came, things HAVE gotten better, significantly so."
Are you suggesting that every single aspect of the world getting "better" is related to people knowingly and intentionally following this "way" or "path", and through implementing OT laws?
"Indeed, as Jesus said, We'll do even greater things than he did. Slavery is generally no longer legal or tolerated (although there certainly still are places where it happens). Women generally have freedoms that simply didn't exist back then. LGBTQ folk are not overtly oppressed in freedom loving nations any more as they once were. It's a WAY that leads to Thy Will be Done, on EARTH as it is in heaven, the more we walk on that Way of Grace. Not a magic pill to abracadabra poof! "fix" things. And you know what? Sometimes, when walking this Way in a society that is actively opposed to recognizing the rights of the poor and marginalized, we can expect opposition and even oppression. But those who walk in this Way will strive to have the strength to stay in that Way, as Jesus taught us by his example."
"Do you think that things have not gotten better in the world thanks to more people more faithfully walking in this Way that Jesus taught (even if all may not name Jesus as the Author of this Way, as you probably wish they would)?"
I think that history shows that the Church has driven virtually all of the major movements to make things "better". I further think that this trickery of placing those who don't actually name or follow Jesus in the group of people who follow His "way" or "path" sounds a lot like Jesus forcing His way on those who don't want it. Of course, you can't provide explicit scriptural support for this notion, so I'll treat it as the unsupported hunch that it is.
"Or is it the case that you don't agree with me that Jesus taught a Way that honored human rights and defense of the least of these?"
Jesus taught that all humans were created with equal value because they were created in the image of God.
You keep using the phrase "I'm saying" as if the very fact that you say something carries some authority. Clearly, as you repeat yourself more than any adult I've ever known, you are saying all sorts of things (repeatedly). What I'm hoping for is actual evidence that directly connects what you're "saying" with specific measurable actions that are directly linked to specific components of this "way" or "path" of Jesus.
I'll give you an example. In acnient Rome, unwanted children were frequently placed outside of towns or settlements so that they would die of exposure or be eaten by animals. The early Church, following the teachings of Jesus and His aposles, would intentioanlly go rescue these children, and raise them. Despite the fact that their beliefs and actions exposed them to persecution, and potentially death.
Proof, specific examples, causation, carry more weight than "I'm saying".
"Soooo... are you saying YES, that "the goal of Christianity" is bringing God glory?"
Actually I'm saying that the goal of bringing God glory predates Christianity, and includes Judaism as well. Perhaps, the goal of all creation is to bring God glory. I'd suggest that perhaps the goal of Christianity, or perhaps better The Church,is "“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
"YOU are the one who raised the question of the goal of Christianity, I'm just trying you to directly and clearly state what YOUR idea of the goal of Christianity is. If you don't know if Christianity has a goal or what the goal is, then just say so. But answer the question."
No, I actually DID NOT raise the question of the "goal of Christianity", I raised the question of the goal of your "way/path of Jesus/Realm/Kingdom of God". If you are equating your "way/path" with Christianity, then you have quite a bit of work to do to prove this claim.
There, I answered the question with more detail, and corrected your error. You're welcome.
" I'm not asking you to "pass judgement on God."
Not in those exact words, but yes that's exactly what you are asking. You are asking that I tell you what "system" that I think would work better than God's, I'm saying I have no frame of reference to quantify what's better.
This is the third time you've asked, and I've answered twice (one of which you can't possibly have read), I'll pass on #3.
" This is almost an answer. Almost."
No, it's an answer.
"I GET that maybe you can see how I would think this. I'm asking if YOU can see how this portrayal does not effectively bring glory to God... that it paints God in a rather malignant light?"
The problem with this "question" is that it presumes that the "portrayal" (your portrayal) is a 100% accurate portrayal of God. Since you haven't proven that your portrayal is accurate, it remains only your hunch about a portrayal of God. Since I don't believe the portrayal is accurate, treating it as such gives it credibility that it doesn't deserve. The fact this that you and atheists believe that your portrayal is accurate, yet you haven't proven it to be so.
So, let's try this. The portrayal you have conjured up (as invented by you) does portray God in a "rather malignant" light. It does so because it was intended to portray God in a "rather malignant" light. Me telling you that your description does what you intended it to do isn't a big win for you.
"If you don't think so, then say so. Answer the questions, man. Don't tell me you answered them. Anyone can see that you didn't. Or say, I'm entirely unable to offer my opinions as I don't know what my own opinions are on these topics/questions. Just be direct and clear."
Answered multiple times. I can't believe that you really think that you can repeat things into reality.
"DO YOU think that the majority (let's keep it simple - just a simple majority, somewhere north of 51%) of humanity is going to hell?"
Based on scripture, I can state that it appears that a large number of people will (per CS Lewis) end up exactly where they want to be. I see nothing in scripture that puts a percentage on that number and any number I would give you would be pure conjecture.
" I'm not asking you to speak for God."
Again, yes you are.
"I'm asking YOU if YOUR opinion is that punished for an eternity for failing to "accept Jesus""
Where have I ever said that "failing to accept Jesus" is to be punished? If you want a response, you'll need to provide the direct quote and the link to the direct quote. I'm pretty sure I've actually answered no when you asked something similar. If you're going to misrepresent my position, why would I take you seriously?
"is an effective way of achieving whatever goal you think Christianity has? You HAVE an opinion, don't you?"
No, I don't think that falsely characterizing or making up something and attributing it to someone else is an effective way to accomplish any goal.
Dan,
Your inability to understand the reality that you are wasting your time continuing down this detour is quite impressive.
However, because some of my answers could have been more clear and precise, I addressed your confusion about those issues before I deleted your posts.
Since I am, by nature, someone who extends grace I will read your further comments and excerpt anything that seems worthy before I delete them. Or you can realize that you've pushed for one detour too far, go back to proving your claims, and move on.
I have no problem agreeing that Christianity has been an important factor in improving the human condition over the last 2000 years. But Dan's understanding doesn't reflect the reality in quite the way he needs to believe, because what he needs to believe doesn't truly reflect Christian teaching.
If all we did was give a man a fish, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how temporary a fix that is to the man's situation. Such has its place in our culture, and immediate needs must be addressed with such strategies. But they have no long term benefit if the underlying issues aren't addressed. Give a man and fish and what does he eat tomorrow?
Dan's not concerned about the "marginalized" as much as he is with showing how concerned for the marginalized he is. This is evident in how little attention he pays to promoting that which truly makes a difference in the lives of the marginalized. Free-market capitalism, for example, provides far more than a fish to a hungry man. It provides opportunities for the hungry man, any number of which can set him on a path to prosperity and self-sufficiency. Dan's socialism keeps him hungry and begging.
As to "the Way", the Way is Christ Himself and it's not about enabling sexual immorality. It's not about pretending the Way includes nothing in the way of "rules for living a Christian life". But as Christ said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, accepting Him into one's life as Savior is essential. But from what is He saving us? Absolutely clear in Scripture and the teachings of Christ is that He saves us from the wrath of God...God's holy justice...we deserve as sinners, as people stained with the sin of Adam. There is no way to the Father but through accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. Christianity 101...very basic stuff. But Dan thinks it's all about kumbaya.
We're taught to love the sinner, hate the sin. Dan's "Way of Grace" (or whatever he's calling it at the moment) is love the sinner, ignore or enable the sin. Dan's "way" is to presume one can change God's will about what is or isn't sinful.
Dan seems to be afraid that teaching the truth about why we need Christ, what His purpose was, what our fate is if we don't accept Him, is a roadblock to helping to bring others to the faith. Frankly, it's really to bad if the truth repels anyone. It's not something we shouldn't expect. But again, it's just as important to preach about the consequences of rejecting Christ as it is to preach about the benefits, because they are linked. The go hand-in-hand. And we're taught that few will be saved despite the fact that all are called to be. I would put the percentage of those who will suffer damnation at a much larger number than 51%. But "narrow is the path" is yet another truth Dan rejects in favor of kumbaya.
Dan,
Perhaps a way to look at you question regarding the % of people who end up in Hell, would be for you to answer this question.
When Jesus was on earth, presumably living/following/modeling this “way”, what % of the people in the area of His ministry followed Him? What % hung around for the free food and healings, but then shouted “crucify Him”?
Beyond that. If Jesus and Barabbas were both revolutionaries looking to free the people from oppression, why’d the people pick Barabbas rather than Jesus?
Craig... "Perhaps a way to look at you question regarding the % of people who end up in Hell..."
To be absolutely clear, I'm not looking for a percentage. Of course. I'm just noting the reality that most conservative christians I know believe that the vast majority of humanity is going to hell. Have you not heard that and your evangelical circles?
Craig... "looking to free the people from oppression, why’d the people pick Barabbas rather than Jesus?"
Biblically, we know the answer to this question. The religious leaders who hated Jesus stirred the crowd up to answer that way. Matthew 27. In short, Jesus was killed because of the plots of the pharisees and other powerful leaders who resented Jesus's gospel to the least of these.
Craig... "When Jesus was on earth, presumably living/following/modeling this “way”, what % of the people in the area of His ministry followed Him? What % hung around for the free food and healings, but then shouted “crucify Him”?"
We factually do not know. Why? How does that help your case, whatever it is?
"In a clear and direct manner, please explain why YOU think people go to hell? (Or, IF people go to hell). Please explain if you think some people are punished for an eternity? And, if so, WHY are they punished for an eternity?"
Sigh, how about if you do your job and prove that your claim was correct? How about if you acknowledge your false claim and apologize?
How about if you stop expecting me to do your job for you. You made (up) the claim, you deal with your falsehoods.
All you need is a quote and a link.
"We factually do not know. Why? How does that help your case, whatever it is?"
I'd guess that if the majority of the people who had actual access to Jesus during His earthly ministry chose not to follow Him, then it might be reasonable to conclude that a similar proportion of those who didn't have that sort of direct access to Him would also choose not to follow Him.
Really, we don't know that a majority of the crowd chose Barabbas over Jesus? The fact that Pilate was looking for the crowd to give him a reason to let Jesus (who he'd declared innocent), and the crowd chose to kill Jesus, means nothing? Why do you think that people after Jesus died/was resurrected/rose are going to choose Jesus at a higher rate than those He walked the earth with?
"Have you not heard that and your evangelical circles?"
Interesting assumption, please start by proving your claim that I have an "evangelical circle"?
"Biblically, we know the answer to this question. The religious leaders who hated Jesus stirred the crowd up to answer that way. Matthew 27."
Interesting, are you really saying that the "religious leaders" were able to persuade the crowd to kill Jesus even when people in the crowd had seen and heard Him? That's quite the gullible crowd.
"In short, Jesus was killed because of the plots of the pharisees and other powerful leaders who resented Jesus's gospel to the least of these."
So Jesus was killed because of His "gospel", not because He was a revolutionary, interesting.
Where does the text (Matt 27) specifically talk about "the least of these"?
Art,
I know you've objected to my parsing Dan's comments without posting the entire comment. As you know I've done so ever since you brought that up. I've partially reverted to doing so again, because I was clear that I was going to delete Dan's comments on a certain topic. Unfortunately, there are some of those comments with little bits of wheat mixed with the chaff and I'm trying to deal with the wheat, while deleting the chaff.
Dan,
The problem with you finding quotes from other people is that those quotes don't deal with your problem.
The problem you have is that you haven't actually proven that your hunch (very few people end up in hell) is correct, nor have you proven that the other position (many people end up in hell) is incorrect. I see no value in a discussion over opinions. If you can't prove that your position is correct, which would prove that other positions are incorrect, I see no point in further muddying these waters.
I'm sure that I and the others you mentioned, do not care one little bit what your opinion about us is. Your opinions history, YHWH, Jesus, Heaven, Hell, and me are irrelevant and worthless. It'd be better if you'd lose the superiority complex and dial back the vitriol, but I doubt that'll ever happen.
Art,
You are correct in acknowledging that the Church has been responsible for many aspects of societal improvement. I pointed out one, you mentioned others. The historical motivation for this is based in the idea that all people were created in the very image of God and that all people had inherent worth and dignity because of that single fact. That's why "christians" who tried to justify chattel slavery did so by denying the humanity of those they enslaved. It's why Hitler had to refer to his "undesirables" as "subhuman". It's why pro abortion folks have to go through all sorts of hoops to convince themselves that the pre born human fetus, is not actually human (or not a "person"). It's why there is no great tradition of Muslim hospitals. The notion that we were created in the very image of YHWH is a powerful concept and has driven much good in history.
Craig... "The problem you have is that you haven't actually proven that your hunch (very few people end up in hell) is correct..."
1. My argument begins with I don't believe modern evangelicals understand the notion of hell correctly.
2. Thus, I'm not arguing that any percentage of people end up in hell as evangelicals understand it.
3. Further, I've tried to be quite clear that NONE of us have any definitive and authoritative idea of what an afterlife is like, heaven or hell. We have hunches. All of us. All of us have hunches. Not a single one of us has any authoritative facts to hold up about hell.
With me so far? Can we agree on point 3?
For more on the subject of how many folks end up in Hell, let's see what Jesus had to say directly on the subject.
"13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
So, if we take Jesus at His word "many" will take the road that leads to destruction (Hell), but "few" will take the road that leads to "life"
"15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."
Does this describe anyone?
"21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’"
This cuts directly to Dan's hunch that there are folks who are following the "path/way of Jesus" without knowing it. If people who do claim that they are doing good works in the name of Jesus (because it's all based on good works), will be told that Jesus "never knew them" and that they are "evildoers", where does one go to construct a theology that rewards certain good works because they superficially align with someones hunch about the "way/path" of Jesus?
So far Dan has offered inferences about implications about his interpretations, of a selected portion of Jesus' teachings. Nothing nearly this explicit.
Of course Dan will try to play the "right interpretation" card and insist that the text doesn't mean what it plainly says. Unfortunately, the likelihood of an alternate interpretation that makes as much sense, is (as usual), unlikely.
Craig... "The problem you have is that you haven't actually proven that your hunch (very few people end up in hell) is correct..."
What I've been trying to do is get you to clarify what it is your view is about punishment, Justice, what salvation requires, hell... anything. I'm doing this to try to establish some common ground to know how to hold this conversation. For instance, do we agree that none of us have any objective proof about what the after life is like, if there is one?
The problem I have with traditional evangelical beliefs on this topic Is that they have not proven that their notion of God punishing most people for an eternity for temporal sins/not "accepting Jesus" is Biblical or just or rational or loving. Since you push back when I cite traditional evangelical beliefs, I'm trying to get you to nail down what it is that you believe. So maybe answering some of the questions I've asked directly - the actual questions that I asked - would help.
Craig... "are you really saying that the "religious leaders" were able to persuade the crowd to kill Jesus even when people in the crowd had seen and heard Him? That's quite the gullible crowd."
I'm stating the observable fact that the text says that the religious leaders swayed the crowds to call for Jesus to be executed. Did they wait the crowd in their favor? Did they threaten those who supported Jesus with death and harassment? Did they threaten Jesus followers To be marked as Unclean or not part of gods Realm? We don't know the details. We do know that the text says that the religious leaders swayed the crowd that was there to go against Jesus.
When you have powerful religious leaders with the power to cause harm and oppress and harass people in their lives, it's pretty amazing what the powerful can get away with. You recognize this reality, right? You are aware of history, right?
In Case you're not familiar with the passage on speaking of, from Matthew 27...
"But the chief priests and the elders
persuaded the crowd
to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed."
Craig... "Jesus was killed because of His "gospel", not because He was a revolutionary, interesting.
Where does the text (Matt 27) specifically talk about "the least of these"?"
Rather than citing verses again, I would point you to my Easter post from this year. It goes into all kinds of detail and scriptures explaining how Jesus' gospel, his siding with the poor and the least of these, his speaking out against the religious, wealthy and powerful, how this led to his death. According to the text of the Gospels.
Are you suggesting that Jesus was NOT killed because of his gospel? His attacks on the religious pharisees and oppressor's?
"Are you suggesting that Jesus was NOT killed because of his gospel?"
No. I'm suggesting that Jesus was killed for The Gospel, not your hunches about His gospel.
"His attacks on the religious pharisees and oppressor's?"
I'm not going to waste time with your Easter post, because I'd be shocked if there was anything new or compelling. The fact that you couldn't come up with anything really answers my question.
What's interesting with your hunch is that the actual "oppressors" (the Romans) rarely got a negative mention by Jesus, He actually taught His followers that they should submit to Rome in civil matters. Further, the Roman justice system found Jesus innocent. If Jesus was really speaking out against "oppression" why was He not speaking out against the Romans? Why did the Romans not find Him guilty?
As far as I can tell, His problem with the Jewish leaders was their perversion and additions to the religious system outlined by YHWH in Exodus-Leviticus. That they used the system designed by and for the glory of YHWH for self enrichment and self aggrandizement. I'd argue that there is a parallel between the Jewish religious leaders and their lust for temporal power, and the RCC and it's lust for temporal power before the Reformation.
The point remains, that I've seen your proof texts, and your hunches, and I'm not impressed or compelled to jump on your bandwagon. Perhaps the problem lies with you for not presenting a compelling case, not with me.
"In Case you're not familiar with the passage on speaking of, from Matthew 27..."
No, I'm familiar with it, and don't see how it helps you. The reality is that the vast majority of the crowd, for whatever reason, chose to kill Jesus rather than to follow Him. It's not so much different throughout history, there is always someone, something, or some philosophy, urging people not to follow Jesus but to follow them/it/it. People choose who or what they follow.
As the great theologian Bob Dylan said.
"But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
Indeed you're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody"
The vast majority crowd chose to serve the Jewish leaders, not Jesus. Do you really thing people are any different since then?
"You recognize this reality, right? You are aware of history, right?"
I recognize the reality that you are reading an immense amount into the text that simply isn't there. Unfortunately you don't have the credibility as a Bible scholar to convince me that you're correct without actual direct evidence.
Craig... "Where does the text (Matt 27) specifically talk about "the least of these"?"...
"The fact that you couldn't come up with anything really answers my question."
sigh.
The text is literally tied to the least of these. Jesus, in Matthew 27, Had the pharisee's plotting and organizing to make it look like the crowd was against him.
Jesus, in Matthew 25, had just delivered his sermon on the mount where he chased as those who failed to do unto the least of these.
THEN, in Matthew 26, IMMEDIATELY following Jesus's rebuke of those failing to align with and watch out for the least of these, we read...
"When Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, “You know that after two days nthe Passover is coming, and othe Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”
Then
the chief priests and the elders of the people
gathered in the palace of the high priest,
whose name was Caiaphas,
and plotted together in order
to arrest Jesus by stealth
and kill him.
But they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people.”
There is the very direct line from Jesus preaching his gospel of grace and welcome to the least of these, to the pharisees directly and literally plotting an organized attempt to kill Jesus, to the pharisees acting it out.
Understand?
Craig... "The vast majority crowd chose to serve the Jewish leaders, not Jesus. Do you really thing people are any different since then?"
So, it IS your guess that the vast majority of people are going to be punished an eternity in hell by God? Is that right?
"1. My argument begins with I don't believe modern evangelicals understand the notion of hell correctly."
While this is interesting, it doesn't prove "them" wrong or prove you right. Your statement implies that you do "understand the notion of hell correctly". Your problem is that you haven't proven that "the modern evangelicals" notions are incorrect, and you also haven't proven that your notion is correct. Given those two facts, nothing you say is particularly compelling. Maybe the place to start is to prove your beliefs, then go from there.
"2. Thus, I'm not arguing that any percentage of people end up in hell as evangelicals understand it."
The question then becomes do any percentage of people end up in hell as you "correctly" perceive it? Or, does anyone ever "end up in hell", by any definition of hell?
"3. Further, I've tried to be quite clear that NONE of us have any definitive and authoritative idea of what an afterlife is like, heaven or hell. We have hunches. All of us. All of us have hunches. Not a single one of us has any authoritative facts to hold up about hell. With me so far? Can we agree on point 3?"
Sure, but if all we have is "hunches", then your claim the "modern evangelicals notion of hell" is not correct becomes meaningless.
I'll repeat. You best option is to make a strong, positive, evidence based, Biblically supported case for your position. If you do that, then anyone will be able to compare and contrast. I'd suggest spending less time making vague unspecific claims about the position of the other side, and more time making a strong positive case for for your position.
"What I've been trying to do is get you to clarify what it is your view is about punishment, Justice, what salvation requires, hell... anything."
Interesting. You seem convinced that you understanding my (already expressed) views about these topics is vital, so vital that it precludes you doing the same. This is my blog, and it seems like I might be able to decide what's important and what's not. So, I'd suggest that you get your hunches on the record without equivocation, before making demands of me.
"I'm doing this to try to establish some common ground to know how to hold this conversation. For instance, do we agree that none of us have any objective proof about what the after life is like, if there is one?"
I don;t care why you're doing anything. What I'm hoping is to see objective proof that your hunches are correct, so far that hasn't been forthcoming.
Do we know with precise detail what awaits us after death, no. Does scripture give us some reasonably good ideas, yes.
I've said it before, I am happy to stipulate (for the sake of this discussion) that Hell is a "benign" as eternal separation from God, but you don't seem interested in stipulating that. Hell, if I remember right you aren't interested in stipulating anything about what happens after we die, certainly not in any detail.
"The problem I have with traditional evangelical beliefs on this topic Is that they have not proven that their notion of God punishing most people for an eternity for temporal sins/not "accepting Jesus" is Biblical or just or rational or loving."
The problems this creates are as follows.
1. You haven't proven that those beliefs you "cite" are NOT Biblical or just or rational or loving.
2. You haven't provided an objective basis for any of those four terms.
3. You have set yourself us as the sole arbiter of what is Biblical or just or rational or loving. Without actually demonstrating why your hunches about this are more valid that those who you claim haven't "proven" anything.
4. You haven't laid out a compelling case based on explicit scripture as a counter to what you call "evangellical beliefs".
"Since you push back when I cite traditional evangelical beliefs, I'm trying to get you to nail down what it is that you believe. So maybe answering some of the questions I've asked directly - the actual questions that I asked - would help."
As I've already done this, and as you haven't done what you ask of me, I see no reason to enable your double standard.
"So, it IS your guess that the vast majority of people are going to be punished an eternity in hell by God? Is that right?"
Based on the words of Jesus, and what I see of human nature, I suspect that the majority of people will not choose to follow Jesus, and will reap whatever the consequences of that choice are. If hell is a thing for those who choose not to follow Jesus, then that's where they'll go.
"Understand?"
That there isn't a direct, specific link between "the least of these" and Jesus death. yes I do.
Craig... "While this is interesting, it doesn't prove "them" wrong or prove you right. Your statement implies that you do "understand the notion of hell correctly"."
I. We are speaking about fundamentally unprovable matters. Is there a literal hell after death for the majority of humanity? WE HAVE NO WAY OF PROVING IT. We have no way of glimpsing into Eternity and observing hell to see if it exists and who's there and why. It is fundamentally unprovable. You can't prove it exists or what its nature is, if it does exist. I can't prove it doesn't exist in the afterlife or what the rules are for who goes there and why.
Do you agree with that reality?
II. While neither of us can prove the existence/non-existence of hell, we CAN observe what people say about hell and weigh how rational or irrational their views are. We can't prove or disprove, but we can reasonably say that a view is more or less rational, given what we know and what we reasonably believe.
If, for instance, someone said that there is a god who wants to punish everyone (regardless of any crimes or decisions they've made) for an eternity of literal being burned alive... AND if we agree in a notion of justice that says any penalty should be proportionate to the crime... THEN we could agree that such a hell would be unjust.
If the person making this allegation ALSO says that their god is a perfectly just god (and hell, a perfectly loving god, as well!), who also wants to punish everyone for an eternity of immense torture... we can reasonably say that such a god is not a just god, given what the claims are.
We can reasonably say these two things don't match. EITHER you have a perfectly loving and just god who does not want to torture everyone for an eternity OR you can have a perfectly loving and just god who behaves in a perfectly loving and just manner, but the two claims don't consistently, rationally align.
Agreed?
Craig... "You have set yourself us as the sole arbiter of what is Biblical or just or rational or loving. Without actually demonstrating why your hunches about this are more valid that those who you claim haven't "proven" anything."
Humanity, by and large, agrees with the notion that a Just punishment must be proportionate to the crime. This is not some crazy hippy thinking, it's the mainstream of humanity.
Do you agree that the reality is that "justice demands/requires proportionate punishment" is the mainstream idea in humanity?
As to biblical, yes, it is all interpretation. I THINK it is crazy to suggest that punishing most people for all of eternity is biblical while I know many other bible readers disagree. Neither of us can prove it biblically. But rationally and from a justice point of view? I'd say the ball would be in the court of those who want to suggest a perversely disproportionate punishment is somehow rational, just or loving.
Can you imagine a good and loving father cutting off his daughter's hand - in half inch increments! - as a "loving" or "rational" punishment for stealing a candy bar? That is just plain evil, right? Can you imagine a loving mother who was also magic burning her son alive over and over again (and healing him so he didn't die in between) for 70 years for rejecting her authority? Again, that is just blatantly, overtly evil, right?
"Humanity, by and large, agrees with the notion that a Just punishment must be proportionate to the crime."
OK, so what?
"This is not some crazy hippy thinking, it's the mainstream of humanity."
This is an unproven claim, and I suspect that if you included all of humanity through history, it'd probably not look quite a good. Again, so what? Do you judge God by what you perceive as a consensus of humanity? Is God bound by the human consensus?
"Do you agree that the reality is that "justice demands/requires proportionate punishment" is the mainstream idea in humanity?"
Just to shut you up about it, I'll say yes. Although I don't think that dismemberment for stealing, death for apostasy, an undetermined sentence to a concentration camp/reeducation camp, which are all practiced in 2021 quite fit your consensus.
"As to biblical, yes, it is all interpretation. I THINK it is crazy to suggest that punishing most people for all of eternity is biblical while I know many other bible readers disagree."
Well, the very instance of disagreement instantly renders any and all positions disagreed upon equally up for grabs and invalid.
"Neither of us can prove it biblically."
What an interesting dodge. You are quite clear that "modern evangelicals" are not "correct" but you can't prove that they are not "correct", nor can you prove that your hunch is "correct". I fail to see how you have any rational grounds to declare anyone to be "incorrect", yet you do.
"I'd say the ball would be in the court of those who want to suggest a perversely disproportionate punishment is somehow rational, just or loving."
Are you suggesting that no one has every provided any attempt at providing such a thing? If you are unaware, I'd suggest doing your research, and actually demonstrating specifically what is wrong with the existing scholarship.
"Can you imagine a good and loving father cutting off his daughter's hand - in half inch increments! - as a "loving" or "rational" punishment for stealing a candy bar?"
Do you mean can I imagine a Muslim father dismembering his daughter for stealing or for engaging in sexually impure behavior, I don't have to, it happens in 2021. Am I missing the scriptural reference that mandates this punishment? Can you point it out?
"That is just plain evil, right?"
Yes, the Muslim parents who mutilate and dismember their children are engaged in acts I would consider evil. Can you point to any Christian parents engaging in these acts?
"Can you imagine a loving mother who was also magic burning her son alive over and over again (and healing him so he didn't die in between) for 70 years for rejecting her authority?"
No, I can't imagine a mother with magical powers. Are you suggesting that this is specifically what happens in hell? Or did you make it up?
"Again, that is just blatantly, overtly evil, right?"
Again, this mythical human mother with magic powers would be engaging in behavior that I would consider evil.
Again, in all seriousness. Why don't you stop with the idiotic hypothetical bullshit and pick one of two strategies.
1. State your position clearly, forthrightly, precisely, and in detail. Provide overwhelming direct evidence from scripture to support your position.
2. Take one example of the contrary position, state it accurately and dispassionately, then systematically demonstrate why that position is wrong. My suggestion is that you not take "my position", but choose someone who is better able to communicate their position and who's written extensively about their position.
I honestly don't give a shit about your hunches. There is nothing you've ever said or done that would compel me to take your hunches seriously. I further don't care if you've "said something", again not interested in what you say. I'm interested in what you can prove, or provide specific direct evidence for.
"Humanity, by and large, agrees with the notion that a Just punishment must be proportionate to the crime."
Dan continues to repeat this as if there's any disagreement between us on the basic concept. What Dan never does is explain how he has any authority to dictate to God what's an appropriate punishment for "crimes" against Him. Instead, he presumes based upon how serious sin is to Dan, not God.
"I THINK it is crazy to suggest that punishing most people for all of eternity is biblical while I know many other bible readers disagree. Neither of us can prove it biblically."
I've done so repeatedly. You simply reject it out of hand with no evidence which suggests the verses/passages I've presented are wrongly interpreted. I'm well aware at this point what your position is. But it's barely a hunch and not at all supported by Biblical evidence.
"I'd say the ball would be in the court of those who want to suggest a perversely disproportionate punishment is somehow rational, just or loving."
Only to those like Dan who presume to suggest that sin isn't as serious and God plainly regards it.
Worse, Dan tries again to compare God's sense of how egregious sin is to how humans are to respond to offenses. This is a truly perverse way of trying to defend a position.
Once again, few who suffer the punishments for their crimes regard those punishments as just. "Proportion" is a subjective matter and as a society, we debate that issue all the time. Note the differences in punishments imposed by different countries, states and municipalities. A parking ticket might be $25 in one town, but $50 in the next town over. Those paying the fine feel unjustly punished in both towns.
Dan doesn't care about sin enough to take is as seriously as God does. That's quite clear given how he presumes to negate God's law on sexual sin. Not surprising he'd give God crap about how God chooses to administer His justice. OH NO!, Dan will say. "I'm not questioning God!" Nonsense. That's exactly what Dan is doing.
"I. We are speaking about fundamentally unprovable matters. Is there a literal hell after death for the majority of humanity? WE HAVE NO WAY OF PROVING IT. We have no way of glimpsing into Eternity and observing hell to see if it exists and who's there and why. It is fundamentally unprovable. You can't prove it exists or what its nature is, if it does exist. I can't prove it doesn't exist in the afterlife or what the rules are for who goes there and why.
OK, let's look at your exact words first. You said...
"My argument begins with I don't believe modern evangelicals understand the notion of hell correctly."
Ok, if your argument begins there, then explain how you can determine that someone doesn't "understand the notion of hell correctly", when (according to you) such an understanding doesn't exist. That you are beginning your argument from a place of such weakness mystifies me. Why would you make such an absolute claim, then deny any possibility of knowing what the Truth is? Further, if that's where your argument begins, then what's next? Simply announcing that the other guys are wrong, with no proof seems like a weak beginning for a successful argument.
"" We are speaking about fundamentally unprovable matters. Is there a literal hell after death for the majority of humanity?"
You've just claimed that people are wrong about something you then claim is unprovable. You are literally beginning your argument with absolutely nothing. It's nonsense like this that leads me to believe that you aren't really serious about anything but disagreeing.
"Do you agree with that reality?"
I agree that we can't personally observe that which is beyond our direct ability to observe. However, I would say that IF one accepts the Bible as being reasonably accurate, and if one accepts the words of Jesus and he NT authors as being somewhat more than reasonably accurate, then we can glean some information about what follows our life on earth.
1. There is some sort of existence after death.
2. What that existence is like depends on something.
3, On one side we see existence in the very presence of YHWH, where all things are renewed and reconciled to Him, where there is no sorrow, no pain, etc.
4. On the other side we see an existence without the presence of YHWH. What exactly that looks like we only see through language that could be figurative.
5. One of those futures looks good, and one doesn't.
6. It's likely that someone who's spent their entire life actively avoiding YHWH would find the notion of being forced into eternity with YHWH to be an unpleasant prospect.
Can we prove those things to 100% certainty, but do the come from a trustworthy source?
"II. While neither of us can prove the existence/non-existence of hell, we CAN observe what people say about hell and weigh how rational or irrational their views are. We can't prove or disprove, but we can reasonably say that a view is more or less rational, given what we know and what we reasonably believe. If, for instance, someone said that there is a god who wants to punish everyone (regardless of any crimes or decisions they've made) for an eternity of literal being burned alive... AND if we agree in a notion of justice that says any penalty should be proportionate to the crime... THEN we could agree that such a hell would be unjust. If the person making this allegation ALSO says that their god is a perfectly just god (and hell, a perfectly loving god, as well!), who also wants to punish everyone for an eternity of immense torture... we can reasonably say that such a god is not a just god, given what the claims are. We can reasonably say these two things don't match. EITHER you have a perfectly loving and just god who does not want to torture everyone for an eternity OR you can have a perfectly loving and just god who behaves in a perfectly loving and just manner, but the two claims don't consistently, rationally align. Agreed?"
The only way to agree with that, would be to first agree that the definition of things like "Rational, loving, just/justice, etc" can only be defined by what Dan infers from his interpretations of what all of humanity thinks or believes, then applying those limited parameters to YHWH.
Since you haven't proven the underlying claims, then I'd be an idiot to agree.
While we can observe what people say about hell, I'd ask who cares what some random person says about hell? Why should I give their opinion weight just because they have one.
Post a Comment