Dan posted something at his blog where he takes on his caricatures of how those he deems "conservatives" deal with our human sin nature. I'm not going to deal with specifics, because I've gotten involved in this conversation before with Dan. I'm merely going to point out that his entire argument seems to be that YHWH will not treat people in certain ways. Yet as I skimmed his post, I saw absolutely zero examples of scriptural support for his positions. As usual, his entire argument seems to be based on his individual, biased, unsupported, opinions about what he thinks YHWH should do. My experience with this discussion is that Dan might throw out some vague, cherry picked, out of context, proof texts about YHWH being "loving", but nothing that specifically addresses the scriptural basis for concluding that YHWH takes sin very seriously. He seems satisfied to pull out of context quotes from people like Sproul and ridicule him (ad hom?), than to actually make a biblically supported, positive case for his version of how things are.
Monday, March 27, 2023
I just skimmed...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
306 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 306 of 306Dan still can't provide a rational reason why Paul used the term "all" when he actually meant "not all". He's throwing bullshit against the wall to see if anything will stick, and he's frantically deploying one of his magic words "hyperbole" as if his announcing of something being hyperbole relieves him from providing an alternative explanation.
The funniest is his attempt to suggest that sin is ubiquitous (which means found everywhere), like it doesn't mean something strikingly similar to all.
Amusing diversion, still stupid.
Jesus told a story about two debtors who had their debts forgiven. One's debt was small, one's was large. He asked which one would be more appreciative of their forgiveness, and the answer was the one with the larger debt. He them applied this logic tot forgiveness of sins. When I talk about the seriousness and universality of sin, and how sin is an attempt to place ourselves in the role of God, I do so because I realize that I am the one who's bee forgiven much. I realize that if I minimize or try to excuse my sins (I've only had a few minor sins), that I also minimize YHWH's grace and forgiveness.
Likewise, Jesus spoke of the sick being the one's who need a Dr. Well someone who is convinced that they're ot sick, or just have a minor ailment, are much less likely to avail themselves of the available cure.
I'm not looking for angles or ways to minimize my sin, I'm not focusing on loopholes, I'm trying to put my sin is perspective against YHWH's holiness, and to appreciate His grace and forgiveness.
This notion of wasting time trying to nail down the exact second when a baby "sins", is simply a stupid distraction from what's important.
"Is this something that you can objectively prove or a subjective opinion you hold but can't prove?"
I'd say neither.
"To be clear, you're saying, "of course, I Craig believe this lie to be a sin..." or are you saying, "I, Craig know objectively and authoritatively that as a proven point of fact, this lie is considered by God and IS a sin..."?"
I'm saying neither of those things.
"One can know and understand a great deal bit of quite important things in life without being able to objectively prove things."
Yet you continue to demand proof, double standard much.
"Do you disagree?"
No, but I'm not the one who demands proof from others, then uses this sort of dodge when asked to hold mysefl to the same standard I hols others to.
"That's a serious, reasonable question. You WOULD oppose your loved ones being enslaved, even if you can't prove it's wrong, correct?"
And my serious answer is that if I held a subjective moral code, I would personally oppose it, but realize that I had no grounds to condemn someone else's subjective moral code.
"Yes. Of course. Once again, just because we can't objective prove that kidnapping and slavery are great evils, if someone came here, kidnapped your loved ones and sent them to be enslaved, you WOULD know enough to call it evil and atrocious, would you not?"
Again, as long as you acknowledge that you are only expressing a subjective opinion based on your personal subjective moral code, then you do whatever makes you feel good.
"But the fact that we can't prove objectively that slavery is a great evil does not/should not stop us from saying, "Nonetheless, we can REASONABLY recognize that slavery is a great horrific affront to self-evident human rights and all humanity should stand in opposition to it!" Do you agree?"
As a subjective opinion, there is no problem. See above.
Dan still can't provide a rational reason why Paul used the term "all" when he actually meant "not all". He's throwing bullshit against the wall to see if anything will stick, and he's frantically deploying one of his magic words "hyperbole"
?? IN ALL OF HUMANITY, this tendency to sin, to make mistakes, to do wrong IS A COMMON reality. IN ALL of humanity.
But does that mean that infants commit sins? Don't be preposterous.
THAT is an exceedingly rational, exceedingly clear and exceedingly biblical explanation/reason. I HAVE provided a rational reason - THIS one, over and over in a variety of ways. The point being that sin in common to humanity, NOT Paul insisting that newborns commit sins.
Do you REALLY think that Paul is insisting that newborns commit sins?
Do you REALLY think that David was insisting he was a worm and committing sins in his mother's womb??
No. It IS hyperbole. Literally. I'm done pointing that out. You constantly repeating "Dan hasn't given an explanation" is just stupidly false, as anyone can see my exceedingly rational explanations, repeated over and over in a variety of ways to help you see that, EVEN IF you ultimately don't agree with the reasoning, it IS a direct and clear answer that reasonable people can understand.
As to your complaint about Ubiquitous, I'd just remind you of the actual definition:
"existing or being everywhere at the same time : constantly encountered : widespread"
Ubiquitous does not perforce mean ALL or each and every. It's more geographically oriented in nature. "WHERE there are people, you will find sinners..." NOT "and that means newborns commit sins."
Seriously, are you doing okay? You seem confused.
I'll simply note that I see no reason to suspect that YHWH is limited by the "standard English definitions" of words and concepts. I suspect that, while those definitions and concepts might not be incorrect, they are unable to fully capture the extent of how YHWh sees those topics.
"Well, given the reality that God doesn't overtly insert God's Self into our every day affairs, doesn't stop to give housing to an unhoused person or help someone unemployed find employment, yes. God operates in this world through our hands and feet and minds and actions."
That is quite a claim. I'd ask for proof of this claim, but I know that proof will not be forthcoming. The notion that YHWH is limited to what humans can accomplish, is fascinating to me. Who knew that we had the ability to limit what YHWh plans and will.
"Why not?"
The whole convention of not answering a question with a question is clearly foreign to you. You do understand that answering a question with a question is not actually answering the question, correct?
"The point is doing good. If following rules from some magic rule book leads you to doing WRONG - even committing atrocities (perhaps by a sin of omission, by the way), in spite of following the "rules," you've missed the point.
That is fascinating. When you say "The whole point", I am concluding that you mean that "doing good" is the single most important message that YHWH want's us to get. That there is absolutely no higher purpose in the universe than to "do good". Is this really what you are claiming? Are you really claiming that absolutely nothing is of more importance to YHWH that His creation doing "good" works?
"This is the problem with woodenly literal thinking instead of using your God-given reasoning. You would find problems with "lying" to protect a child or "stealing" (carbeurators from the Nazi's cars) to save people's lives. YOU would call those "sins..." and fail to get the point. Completely. Horribly."
Coming from someone who is selectively woodenly literal, this is amusing. However, this elevation of human "Reasoning" as the final arbiter of good/evil, right/wrong, and everything else is pretty much par for the course.
Dan:
"Is this something that you can objectively prove or a subjective opinion you hold but can't prove?"
Craig:
I'd say neither.
But you can't prove it in any objective, authoritative, demonstrable sense, is that what you're saying?
"Do you think it wise to make accusations about motives you don't know? Does it not bother you that this is a false claim? A stupidly false claim? A lie, if you will?"
I'm just an imperfect human who sometimes fails to hit the mark and makes mistakes, why would you respond with such a lack of grace to an imperfect human who sometimes makes mistakes?
As long as you do so, I don't necessarily see how my stating my conclusions based on your words is a major problem. No, pointing out that your use of the term "imperfect" clearly appears to be a less offensive substitute for the word "sinner", doesn't bother me at all.
""Sin..."? In what sense? Helping someone on the Sabbath while technically breaking the "sabbath rule..."? Jesus was quite clear that following the rule and failing to do good was missing the point."
Actually, the point was that the law had been added on to in ways that went far beyong the original law, that Jesus was the giver of the law, and that Jesus was the fulfillment of the law.
"Of course, these are good - not bad - actions. Helpful and kind actions, not "sin.""
Clearly you are the one with the authority to make these pronouncements and the rest of us must abide by your pronouncements. Your ability to declare good and evil with 100% accuracy is a gift to be celebrated. I stand in awe of your knowledge os good and evil and your great prowess in divining what the real sins are, it's incredibly awe inspiring and humbling.
I'll simply note that I see no reason to suspect that YHWH is limited by the "standard English definitions" of words and concepts.
And I'll simply note that I, TOO, see no reason to suspect that God is limited by standard English definitions. But I likewise see no reason to suspect that God is an irrational prankster God, demanding that we love one another, but by love, that god means rape and molest.
And if some humans say that they suspect that Jesus, for instance, meant something different than just the plain words he used taken directly, well, I will note that I see no reason to go along with their whimsical human guesses.
Do you suspect that God sometimes is quoted using words like justice, love, poor, rich and that God, in those instances, intends some secret meaning other than the plain understanding of the words?
If so, do you mind if I don't give that theory much regard?
Art,
Feel free to comment here knowing that your comments will be posted uncensored and without false characterization regularly. The one exception to this is the rare occasion when I accidentally delete a post instead of approving it. On those rare occasions, I will let you know, apologize, and ask you to recreate your comment as best you can. I am happy to provide a space where people's comments can be posted (generally) with no interference.
Craig...
Clearly you are the one with the authority to make these pronouncements and the rest of us must abide by your pronouncements. Your ability to declare good and evil with 100% accuracy is a gift to be celebrated.
No. Once again and for the thousandth time (no doubt), NOT 100% accuracy, but with reasonable accuracy.
Seriously: You think nuns stealing Nazi carburetors to help innocent people escape is a SIN? A BAD thing as opposed to a GOOD thing??
If so, do you recognize how weird and overtly irrational/immoral that theory is?
And once again, before you go there: NOT YOU, NOT ME, NONE of us can objectively PROVE that it's immoral with 100% certainly, but it is self-evident that this would be a moral GOOD, not a moral WRONG.
What would be your argument that this example of stealing is an actual sin, an actual moral wrong? That you find a line in a magic rule book and that rule must be taken 100% woodenly literally??
Now, I'm out for the weekend. Gonna go laugh, worship, and rock.
That is quite a claim. I'd ask for proof of this claim, but I know that proof will not be forthcoming.
Again, it is on the one making an EXTRAORDINARY, outlier claim to provide proof. I don't have to prove there are no unicorns on the moon. It suffices to say there is no data to support the claim. The one making the outlier claim has to provide SOME DATA to begin to prove the claim and then others can respond to the data. That's how it works.
But empty claims can't be rebutted with anything more than, You have no data to support that claim.
But truly - and I can't tell you how much I want you to make your case - IF you have seen God's literal hands literally in action, literally lifting up a crying baby to offer comfort, literally providing healing to a dying person, literally restoring limbs to those without limbs... I would LOVE for you to show me I'm wrong. That would be AMAZING. I'd LOVE for you to do that.
I'm just noting that there is no known data to show God actively doing so much as wiping a baby's butt to help a tired momma.
What many religious types (all religions, not just Christian groups) will say (along with many charlatan "healer" types) is, "That person reported having cancer and now the cancer is GONE! Praise God! God stepped in and provided that healing!" is a claim of healing, but it's not documented and proven that it was God that did the healing.
But please, honestly, show me the data. I'd believe your theory if you provide the data.
And my serious answer is that if I held a subjective moral code
In the real world, you HAVE a subjective moral code. YOU do not possess some arcane secret perfectly objective known moral code. IF you are implying that you do, it's a lie and a damned lie.
Again, THAT would be an outlier claim and the burden of proof is on you to PROVE that claim, if that's a claim you're making.
But - and I know I've said this before - IF you imagine that you DO have an authoritative, objective moral code, then WHY in the name of all that is good and holy would you not share that with everyone else? Doesn't your moral code teach you that, to know to do good and not do it is wrong? To KNOW you should help and refuse to do it is wrong?
If you provide an objective moral code, I would LOVE it.
In all these extraordinary magic religion claims you make, I honestly truly sincerely would LOVE for you to prove them. They are some amazing claims and they would be SO VERY COOL.
If you would prove them.
But your continued refusal to be clear or to even try to prove these sorts of claims is evidence that you are probably just not operating in good faith or just not as intellectual adept as you appear to be.
my serious answer is that if I held a subjective moral code, I would personally oppose it, but realize that I had no grounds to condemn someone else's subjective moral code.
What a cowardly response to evil actions. I'd hate to have to rely upon you and your imaginary moral code. It's lacking in just basic morality.
Craig...
When I talk about the seriousness and universality of sin, and how sin is an attempt to place ourselves in the role of God, I do so because I realize that I am the one who's bee forgiven much.
And that is a good thing and I'm fine with you doing that. People recognizing their state of need is a good, positive thing, or at least can be.
Craig...
I realize that if I minimize or try to excuse my sins (I've only had a few minor sins), that I also minimize YHWH's grace and forgiveness.
And if that's what you feel for you, I fully support you thinking that.
But not everyone may think the same way as you do and I support grace for them figuring out their relationship to the Holy in their way.
For my part, I don't know too many (a few, to be sure, but not too many) people who try to minimize or excuse their sins. Sometimes, we try to "right-size" our sins and understand that when someone thinks, for instance:
"Man! I wish I didn't drive my car as much because I'm sure concerned about God's good creation and the harm from pollution!"
That this might be balanced with, "But then, I'm driving to get people to support that they need to have healthier, more whole lives and that is a good thing..."
It's not minimizing the problems of pollution - indeed, that is recognizing it as a serious concern that we need to take seriously because of the great harm it causes - but it's also noting that it's a complex world and the answers aren't always easy.
Kind of (not exactly but kind of) like Jesus saying to the "adulterous woman" he saved, who was about to be killed by religious zealots following the letter of the law, "Neither do I condemn you... go and sin no more..." It's grace. It's recognizing Yes, that is a problem and Yes, it's complex, but I'm not going to condemn you for it and I'm certainly not going to kill you for it, just don't do it further... Remember this grace."
It's keeping an awareness of the range of sin, that there ARE times we need to chase the oppressive money changers out of the temple! but there are times for grace, too.
And trying to keep in mind the nuances of right and wrong is not, in any way, an attempt by many to minimize God's grace - God forbid! It's an effort to RAISE UP God's grace, to maximize that Grace and embrace it as fully as we can in our own imperfect lives.
Even if you ultimately might disagree (at least for yourself), can you see how in the real world, that when many of us try to recognize levels of sin and complexities of right and wrong, that we are not at all trying to minimize God's grace and forgiveness, that our intent is the exact opposite?
Thanks Craig. It sounds like you're truly "embracing grace" in ways Dan only pretends to.
As you suggest, Dan plays semantic games constantly. With his use of the term "hyperbole", it's an easy way to avoid having to prove what he's asked to prove, as well as an easy way to pervert the reality of the writer's intention. Once again, one needn't actually engage in homosexual perversions in order to be a homosexual. It only requires the desire or compulsion. When Jesus likened anger to murder, the point was to describe what leads to murder. In other words, one doesn't murder who doesn't first desire to murder, who doesn't possess the emotional state to want to murder, who's nature doesn't align with those traits of a murderer. One is a murderer first, then one commits murder. Our laws don't align with that reality, but at the same time, the need to demonstrate motive in criminal cases suggests one's nature is such that murder is possible for the accused.
In the same way, we are all prone to sin. Even infants despite their inability to act on it. And thus because we're sinners by nature...even if by chance one goes through life without ever committing the slightest cookie-stealing-level act. Only Jesus was born without sin. No one else. Indeed, why would Scripture speak of Jesus being born without sin? To contrast Him to everyone else who was ever born.
And of course, Dan can't seem to separate one's nature with one's actions. If I'm, by nature, lazy and desire to do nothing but lay in a hammock all day every day, yet I work to provide for my family, take care of things I observe as necessary to resolve without delay, do what's necessary despite the effort required, who would say I'm a lazy person? Doing what I'm supposed to do is a choice which puts my nature in a subordinate position to doing what I'm supposed to do. Our nature is to sin. We either submit to our nature or we transcend it. Even with the latter, we're likely to "miss the mark" now and then despite our desire to only do good. It can't be helped. It's our nature. We're born that way because of Adam's sin corrupting God's Creation. This is Bible 101.
Craig...
Clearly you are the one with the authority to make these pronouncements and the rest of us must abide by your pronouncements. Your ability to declare good and evil with 100% accuracy is a gift to be celebrated. I stand in awe of your knowledge os good and evil and your great prowess in divining what the real sins are
Well, if you can't tell that stealing to stop Nazis from killing is a moral good, then you SHOULD stand in awe of the rest of us who can recognize that with our hands tied behind our backs. I mean, "Stopping Nazis" is sort of Morality 101.
But the reality is, this is simply NOT a hard call.
You made false claims about my motives. I responded...
"Do you think it wise to make accusations about motives you don't know? Does it not bother you that this is a false claim? A stupidly false claim? A lie, if you will?"
Craig...
I'm just an imperfect human who sometimes fails to hit the mark and makes mistakes, why would you respond with such a lack of grace to an imperfect human who sometimes makes mistakes?
I know you're shooting for sarcasm here, but it falls flat. I merely pointed out the reality that your claims were false. There is no lack of grace in pointing out false claims. Indeed, I am recognizing that you are an imperfect man and I'm respectfully asking you, as an imperfect man, whether it's wise to make assumptions about motives when you don't know those motives?
I'm appealing to you - giving you the benefit of the doubt that you both recognize your flawed nature AND that you would not, nonetheless, to make stupidly false claims - to consider your flawed nature and thereby giving you a chance to apologize and acknowledge the false claim.
You responded with a failed attempt at sarcasm or trying, poorly, to make a point.
You had asked me...
Does the God of Truth, really need lies to help Him out?
I responded...
Why not?
The whole convention of not answering a question with a question is clearly foreign to you. You do understand that answering a question with a question is not actually answering the question, correct?
What Jesus said to his Pharisees...
“Do you hear what these children are saying?” the Pharisees asked him.
“Yes,” replied Jesus, “have you never read, “‘From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise’?”
Answering questions with questions is a reasonable and time-honored tradition REGULARLY practiced by our Lord, Jesus.
Why do you think Jesus so regularly answered questions with questions? Was it perhaps him giving people a chance to stop, slow down, answer and learn? Are you familiar with the Socratic method?
Why do you think Jesus used this method so often with his Pharisees?
https://mondaymorningreview.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/jesus-answering-questions-with-questions/
And all this whining from you and Marshal about "censorship..." Anyone can see that Marshal's comments are there and show up. Anyone can see that I'm respectfully asking Marshal reasonable questions. Anyone can read and see that I've given Marshal and you some rope. But eventually, I have started saying, "You can still comment here, BUT FIRST, answer thus question (s) before commenting further..."
When you two continue to just say, No, I'm not going to answer, then you've quit having a good faith discussion and chosen to do a mindless, bullying rant. And you're free to do that on your pages, but I'm striving for a more good-faith, respectful conversation.
So, comments and commentary are not censored*, but only if it's a respectful conversation.
*I do delete comments that are vulgar or hateful attacks or words about women. LGBTQ folks, people of color or immigrants. That has no place in decent, free society and no one will contribute to oppressive language on my blog.
Dan
" IN ALL OF HUMANITY, this tendency to sin, to make mistakes, to do wrong IS A COMMON reality. IN ALL of humanity."
Interesting that you can't bring yourself to say that "all" of humanity has and will sin, just the milquetoast hunch that there is some slight "tendency" to "make mistakes".
"But does that mean that infants commit sins?"
I've still never said infants commit sins, but maybe if you keep asking, that'll magically change.
"Seriously, are you doing okay?"
I'm doing just fine, thanks.
Your attempt to twist ubiquitous into meaning something other than all, especially your "everywhere you find", example is quite creative. Your simple assertion that something is hyperbole, without any explanation of what the hyperbole means or why it absolutely must be hyperbole, is quite repetitive.
"But you can't prove it in any objective, authoritative, demonstrable sense, is that what you're saying? "
No.
"Do you REALLY think that Paul is insisting that newborns commit sins?"
No.
"Do you REALLY think that David was insisting he was a worm and committing sins in his mother's womb??"
No.
The problem that you have is not being able to offer an alternative that fits the language used.
"And I'll simply note that I, TOO, see no reason to suspect that God is limited by standard English definitions. But I likewise see no reason to suspect that God is an irrational prankster God, demanding that we love one another, but by love, that god means rape and molest."
How strange, you continually only offer standard English definitions when you refer to YHWH and how He defines things, while acknowledging the foolishness of your doing so. It's also strange how you've attempted to suggest that anyone is seriously suggesting that YHWH defines love as rape and molest.
"And if some humans say that they suspect that Jesus, for instance, meant something different than just the plain words he used taken directly, well, I will note that I see no reason to go along with their whimsical human guesses."
Interesting, you have no problem doing so yourself and insisting that your hunches are correct, but hold a different standard for others. Not surprising.
"Do you suspect that God sometimes is quoted using words like justice, love, poor, rich and that God, in those instances, intends some secret meaning other than the plain understanding of the words?"
No. I do suspect that YHWH sees those things in a way that is much less limited than humans do, and that humans might not accurately understand the extent of what those things look like to YHWH.
"If so, do you mind if I don't give that theory much regard?"
No, I give your bizarre hunches and claims to rightly represent reality any mind. Of course, I've never said anything like that, so it's just you ignoring a straw man that you constructed.
"No. Once again and for the thousandth time (no doubt), NOT 100% accuracy, but with reasonable accuracy."
Interesting, yet you consistently make claims that certain behaviors are objectively "moral" or "immoral". I guess hiding behind the subjective standard of what you personally consider to be "reasonable", is more your speed.
"Seriously: You think nuns stealing Nazi carburetors to help innocent people escape is a SIN? A BAD thing as opposed to a GOOD thing??"
I'm suggesting two things. 1. That it might be possible to do sinful acts in the service of something that might be considered a greater good. Are you suggesting that engaging in any sinful actions is justified to get rid of Hitler? 2. That is it possible that choosing to engage in sinful behaviors is simply choosing to put trust in ourselves instead of putting trust in YHWH. Although if you are someone who denies YHWH the ability to intervene directly, then you'd probably argue that He is helpless unless humans do everything for Him.
"If so, do you recognize how weird and overtly irrational/immoral that theory is?"
Interesting example. You seem to be choosing to imply that your characterizations are 100% accurate in this example.
"And once again, before you go there: NOT YOU, NOT ME, NONE of us can objectively PROVE that it's immoral with 100% certainly, but it is self-evident that this would be a moral GOOD, not a moral WRONG."
Ahhhhhhhhhh, we trot out the "self evident" smokescreen to hide behind. I'm sorry, but you literally just used the objective terms irrational/immoral, and are now trying to pretend that they are really subjective.
"What would be your argument that this example of stealing is an actual sin, an actual moral wrong? That you find a line in a magic rule book and that rule must be taken 100% woodenly literally??"
My argument would be that forgiveness of sins is readily available and that YHWH has abundant mercy.
I don't think you quite understand what you've done here.
More of Dan making excuses for why he can't prove his claims, misrepresenting what he'd like me to have said, and turned into straw man, which aren't worthy of parsing.
"What a cowardly response to evil actions. I'd hate to have to rely upon you and your imaginary moral code. It's lacking in just basic morality."
So much packed into such a short sentence.
1. Perhaps you missed the word "IF", which indicates that I do not personally have a subjective moral code, although you seem to.
2. How does one know that "basic morality" is lacking when one is unable to define "basic morality"?
3. You still haven't explained how your subjective moral code can be applied to others who have adopted a different subjective moral code.
More bullshit that's just repeating other bullshit, which I've addressed multiple times.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, more self serving, self justifying bullshit which I'm grateful not to have to waste time with.
Finally, I can distill my moral code into two sentences.
Love YHWH with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Unless you're going to claim that the source of this moral code isn't somehow authoritative enough for it to be considered objective...
"Why do you think Jesus so regularly answered questions with questions? Was it perhaps him giving people a chance to stop, slow down, answer and learn? Are you familiar with the Socratic method?"
Do you seriously think that Jesus was a disciple of the Socratic method? Do you seriously think that you are on par with Jesus? Do you really think that your questions after questions are designed to do anything but deflect?
"Why do you think Jesus used this method so often with his Pharisees?"
Because Jesus already knew what their answers would be, and was using His questions to point them in a certain direction. But you're not Jesus. Excellent example of self justification there, I'll have to give you that much.
Of course, you do realize that answering a question with a question (despite your self justification) is still not actually answering the question. You do also realize that when your question (in answer to my question) is based on a misrepresentation or outright false understanding, that you have a problem.
"Well, if you can't tell that stealing to stop Nazis from killing is a moral good, then you SHOULD stand in awe of the rest of us who can recognize that with our hands tied behind our backs. I mean, "Stopping Nazis" is sort of Morality 101. But the reality is, this is simply NOT a hard call."
I've already addressed this idiocy once, so I won't repeat myself.
I do have questions.
1. Is theft the only sin that can be used in the service of a "moral" good?
2. If not, what other sins are allowed in order to stop a "moral" good.
3. How to you determine what sins are allowed, and what sins are off limits?
4. Why?
5. Does this "get out of jail free" card only work when "stopping NAZI's" or does it work for other evil leaders?
6. Is there a correlation between the level of "evil" and the types of "sin" that magically become "good" in order to stop them?
"I know you're shooting for sarcasm here, but it falls flat."
It's not exactly sarcasm, and clearly it doesn't fall flat.
"I merely pointed out the reality that your claims were false. There is no lack of grace in pointing out false claims. Indeed, I am recognizing that you are an imperfect man and I'm respectfully asking you, as an imperfect man, whether it's wise to make assumptions about motives when you don't know those motives?"
So you expect me to sim;ly accept that your claims are True, in the absence of proof, and to simply accept that your motives are pure.
I am pointing out that you frequently use these types of excuses as a way to dodge your responsibility to answer questions, prove your claims, and the like. Apparently the whole failing to apply the same standards to others that you apply to yourself is still a thing.
Still no excuse for you inability to expend grace to others.
"Does the God of Truth really need lies to help Him out."
"Why not?"
This is your attempt to playing Jesus, or Socrates, pathetic and childish.
You appear to be implying that the Creator God who claims that He IS Truth, really needs your pathetic lies to help Him accomplish anything. That's hubris, I'll give you that.
"And all this whining from you and Marshal about "censorship..." Anyone can see that Marshal's comments are there and show up."
1. NO one is whining. Pointing out your long history of deleting comments, then misrepresenting the contents of those comments is simply acknowledging reality.
2. Pointing out the reality that I intentionally edit or refuse to publish comments (with one exception, and that's 100% due to his behavior), on exceedingly rare occasions, is simply accurate.
3. Censorship is only a function of the government. You certainly have the right to be as capricious in posting comments at your personal blog as you'd like. I don't think either of us is complaining about the fact that you regularly delete comments, as much as the lack of a uniform standard for doing so.
4. The fact that you've got one comment thread where you haven't deleted comments doesn't mean that there aren't numerous threads where you have deleted.
5. You made it quite clear that I am not welcome at your blog unless I follow your subjective, unwritten, and variable "rules". I simply choose not to comment where I'm being restricted or have to constantly be concerned that my comments will disappear.
6. I personally have several entire posts where I posted exact copies of the comments you deleted from your blog, to pretend like this hasn't been a thing for a while is simply bullshit.
7. Pointing out WHY I choose to do certain things is not "whining", it's an explanation of the reality.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, more self serving, self justifying driven that's not worth my time to parse.
Just a quick comment after a very cursory review of new comments here...
Dan tries to pretend he's not cancelling, censoring and stifling opposing points of view because he doesn't totally delete/block everything one might post to his comments section. In the meantime, I don't block or delete ANY of his comments should he muster the courage to try and comment at my blog. I don't use cheap rationalizations like he does, or pretend he's used a harsh term I cannot handle or that will allegedly lead to death and destruction to immoral people like he does. But then, I'm far less likely than Dan to lie, given it's what he does.
To answer some of your questions, just to show you how it's done and/or demonstrate that I've already answered some of them.
1. Is theft the only sin that can be used in the service of a "moral" good?
Theft is not the only action (it wouldn't be a sin in the example I gave) that can be used for good. Of course. Pushing someone down and stopping them physically from harming someone, for instance (which is not a sin IN THIS CONTEXT) is not wrong, even though it would be assault if the motivation and situation were different. Hell, even YOU don't think all such normally "bad" things are bad in every situation. Presumably, you are okay with the police shooting and killing someone to defend lives. You may even be okay with a citizen doing so because they were afraid ("stand your ground" sort of thinking), am I right?
Would you say, "Is killing someone while standing your ground the only sin that can be used in service of a moral good..."?
2. If not, what other sins are allowed in order to stop a "moral" good.
Actions (not sins) taken to create/promote good or stop harm are moral goods, not sins... up until the "defensive" action starts harming others in unjust manner.
Would you agree? Again, think police, the military or even citizens killing someone to "protect liberty" or the citizenry or even themselves.
3. How to you determine what sins are allowed, and what sins are off limits?
Again, NOT sins, but actions. Motivations and circumstances are what make an action - any action - bad or good... sinful or humane or Godly. This is the problem with literal magic rulebook approach to morality or literally reading selected passages and failing to get the greater point.
If someone is taking an action in love to save others, to stop harm to innocents, to promote peace and healing and reduce harm, then it's not a sinful action. Of course. IF, on the other hand, someone is taking an action to "save lives" but end up killing vast numbers of innocents, then it's no longer a positive, healing, saving behavior and it's moved to bad or evil or sinful behavior. Think Hiroshima. (Which, presumably, you'd agree that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders is a great evil, BUT, I believe you've made clear, that in this case, it was a good thing. I guess your stance might be, "NO, it was still clearly a great immoral evil and atrocity... but it was worth it and can be forgiven..."?
[Shudder!]
4. Why?
Explained above.
5. Does this "get out of jail free" card only work when "stopping NAZI's" or does it work for other evil leaders?
Explained above.
6. Is there a correlation between the level of "evil" and the types of "sin" that magically become "good" in order to stop them?
I'd say so, yes. Although there's nothing magic about it. It's just the hard reality of adult moral decisions. Normally, I would never grab another man and wrestle him to the ground because of course that would be an assault and a moral wrong. Of course. But if he's beating a child, then the physical confrontation may be necessary.
Are you really thinking that in these sorts of examples, STOPPING the harm in ways that normally would be wrong (what you're calling "sin") IS a moral wrong itself, just one that's justified and can be forgiven?
Again, shudder! The evil that is promoted in that way of thinking!
OF COURSE, using force to save a child is not a moral sin. OF COURSE, stealing to stop the Nazi car is not a moral sin.
The Bible never says that anywhere. Indeed, Jesus made clear: The sabbath is for humanity, not the other way around. You see, that's the problem with this legalism approach to "sin..." It's lacking in grace to recognize that circumstances and motivations matter and it's lacking in common sense and it's just not biblical UNLESS you want to woodenly take some rules literally and not others.
Tell me: Jesus clearly and unequivocally said "Do not store treasures up on earth..." That's a direct rule from Jesus, if you are a legalistic literalist when it comes to biblical rules. Is it the case that you think savings or retirement accounts (literally storing up treasures) are sins, but "justified" sins that can be forgiven? Or is that a rule you just set aside and justify ignoring?
"You may even be okay with a citizen doing so because they were afraid ("stand your ground" sort of thinking), am I right?"
Yes, I am OK with a citizen exercising their human right to protect themselves, their family, their community, or their private property from an imminent threat. I'd also agree with the experts who would say that it's not the first option. Are you suggesting that killing people in order to topple Hitler is not acceptable?
"Would you say, "Is killing someone while standing your ground the only sin that can be used in service of a moral good..."?"
Given the fact that "killing" isn't a sin, why would I argue that it was a sin.
"Actions (not sins) taken to create/promote good or stop harm are moral goods, not sins... up until the "defensive" action starts harming others in unjust manner."
Interesting, you seem to be saying that the exact same action can be both a "sin" and a "moral good", depending on some unknown circumstance.
"Would you agree?"
I would agree that killing, in and of itself, is not a sin. I would further agree that killing to defend the innocent, is appropriate.
"Again, think police, the military or even citizens killing someone to "protect liberty" or the citizenry or even themselves."
I'm confused, are you suggesting that you support police, soldiers, and civilians killing to "protect liberty"? I've been under the impression, since you said so, that you believe that violence is a sin.
"Again, NOT sins, but actions. Motivations and circumstances are what make an action - any action - bad or good... sinful or humane or Godly. This is the problem with literal magic rulebook approach to morality or literally reading selected passages and failing to get the greater point."
What an interesting take. You seem to be saying that ALL actions are (in and of themselves) morally neutral, which means that no action is inherently wrong/sinful/immoral, am I understanding you correctly?
"Of course. IF, on the other hand, someone is taking an action to "save lives" but end up killing vast numbers of innocents, then it's no longer a positive, healing, saving behavior and it's moved to bad or evil or sinful behavior."
What an interesting hunch. This notion that the goodness, badness, morality, immorality is determined by the subjective perceptions of some anonymous third party.
"Think Hiroshima. (Which, presumably, you'd agree that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders is a great evil, BUT, I believe you've made clear, that in this case, it was a good thing."
Actually, I haven't made that clear at all. I agree with Truman that using nuclear weapons was a great tragedy that was made necessary in order to save millions of lives that would have been lost had it become necessary to invade Japan. Given the Japanese refusal to even consider surrendering, their determination to sacrifice millions of their own subjects to resist an invasion, and the inhuman actions of the Japanese dating back to the late 1930's, Truman was forced to make a difficult, but necessary, decision. Your apparent position that killing thousands in order to prevent the killing of millions, seems strange. Especially given your focus on only the nuclear bombings.
"I guess your stance might be, "NO, it was still clearly a great immoral evil and atrocity... but it was worth it and can be forgiven..."?"
I guess your obsession with making guesses about what I might say when I answer your questions, means that it's a waste of time to answer your questions.
"I'd say so, yes. Although there's nothing magic about it. It's just the hard reality of adult moral decisions. Normally, I would never grab another man and wrestle him to the ground because of course that would be an assault and a moral wrong. Of course. But if he's beating a child, then the physical confrontation may be necessary."
What a strange admission from someone who's called violence of any kind a sin.
"Are you really thinking that in these sorts of examples, STOPPING the harm in ways that normally would be wrong (what you're calling "sin") IS a moral wrong itself, just one that's justified and can be forgiven?"
Not exactly.
"Again, shudder! The evil that is promoted in that way of thinking!"
Strange, I shudder at the evil that goes unrestrained or encouraged by your way of thinking. You seemed reasonably clear that you considered the 2020 rioters to be justified in their actions because they were taking those actions in the name of a cause you believed to be worthy.
"OF COURSE, using force to save a child is not a moral sin. OF COURSE, stealing to stop the Nazi car is not a moral sin."
Again, with the ALL CAPS and the emphatic declaration, as if that makes your declaration True.
"The Bible never says that anywhere. Indeed, Jesus made clear: The sabbath is for humanity, not the other way around. You see, that's the problem with this legalism approach to "sin..." It's lacking in grace to recognize that circumstances and motivations matter and it's lacking in common sense and it's just not biblical UNLESS you want to woodenly take some rules literally and not others."
Yet more declarations laced with bizarre references to the Sabbath, that make no sense in this context. It's almost like you assume that those you oppose hold to the exact same view of the Sabbath as certain Jews did/do, with no actual evidence to support your hunch. As well, you seem determined to characterize those you oppose in uncharitable terms, while demonstrating zero grace.
"Tell me: Jesus clearly and unequivocally said "Do not store treasures up on earth..." That's a direct rule from Jesus, if you are a legalistic literalist when it comes to biblical rules. Is it the case that you think savings or retirement accounts (literally storing up treasures) are sins, but "justified" sins that can be forgiven? Or is that a rule you just set aside and justify ignoring?"
I think that your made up hunch does not accurately describe my view of that scripture. Especially when it is taken out of the context of the rest of Jesus teachings, and the actions of His closest followers.
Having said that, I fully rely on the unmerited favor of YHWH, through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to cover any and all sins I may have committed. I understand that I can only rely on His grace and mercy, which He promised to those who He chooses as sons, daughters, and heirs to His Kingdom.
Do you seriously think that Jesus was a disciple of the Socratic method?
Well, he could have been. Socrates would have been an admired philosopher at the time of Jesus' life. But I'm not suggesting he is. Just noting how he regularly answered questions with questions.
Do you seriously think that you are on par with Jesus?
? Nope. But I am a fan and follower of his. Why WOULDN'T I answer questions with questions?
Do you really think that your questions after questions are designed to do anything but deflect?
Yes, I know I am. Because I'm the one asking questions. I have no interest in defecting and a real interest in conversation, including asking questions to get people to thinking about what they're saying.
Why would you think it's reasonable to think I'm deflecting?
(See?)
Dan
Art,
Obviously anyone who's ever spent significant time at his cesspool, knows how things work. We all know that those he favors are able to comment with zero restrictions, while those he deigns to allow to comment, are heavily restricted by his capricious, random, draconian enforcement of his vague rules. It's not that hard to see, especially is one goes back a while.
What I'm finding interesting in these last couple of comments, is his notion that if he "answers" a "few" of my questions that he's somehow justified in continuing to ask more and more questions, and demand that I answer all of his questions. (Again, as reality shows, I regularly parse his comments in some detail, and address his claims while answering the vast majority of his questions.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that virtually all of this behavior can be explained by his decision not to hold himself (or his cronies) to the standards he demands of others.
You appear to be implying that the Creator God who claims that He IS Truth, really needs your pathetic lies to help Him accomplish anything. That's hubris, I'll give you that.
I believe that God expects us to be co-creators of the Beloved Community of God, to take actions (not sins) to bring thy Kingdom come, thy will be done ON EARTH. I don't believe taking actions to stop harm to be sin. That's your take on the topic, not mine.
And that I listen to Jesus' teachings to do for the least of these to be humility, not hubris. It would take an incredible arrogance to know I could do good and choose NOT to, saying, "No, YOU do this good, God... YOU stop that harm... not me."
Can you see the hubris in that path?
Dan
"Well, he could have been. Socrates would have been an admired philosopher at the time of Jesus' life. But I'm not suggesting he is. Just noting how he regularly answered questions with questions."
That's a reasonable conclusion to draw if one is ignorant of first century Judaism, and how the Jews felt about Greek and Roman empires treating them.
Do you seriously think that you are on par with Jesus?
"Why WOULDN'T I answer questions with questions?"
Well, because answering with a question, still isn't an answer. At best it's a response, if the question is directly related to the question being responded to.
"Yes, I know I am. Because I'm the one asking questions. I have no interest in defecting and a real interest in conversation, including asking questions to get people to thinking about what they're saying."
Yet virtually every time you respond to a question with another question, you somehow never get around to actually answering the original question asked. Now I'm sure that you'd never do that intentionally. After all you are a finite human being with limited time, and your not answering the questions you respond to with questions is just a mistake, right?
"Why would you think it's reasonable to think I'm deflecting?"
Because your responses (questions) virtually never result in actual answers to the question that was asked. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
"I believe that God expects us to be co-creators of the Beloved Community of God, to take actions (not sins) to bring thy Kingdom come, thy will be done ON EARTH. I don't believe taking actions to stop harm to be sin. That's your take on the topic, not mine."
That's an interesting, if fanciful, take. You seem to be suggesting that the God who literally claims Truth as one of His attributes and who identified as The Truth, expects us to engage in behavior HE expressly forbade, that goes against His very nature, so we can take credit for this mythical "Beloved Community". that's quite a hunch you have, too bad it's unsupported by anything or anyone besides you.
"And that I listen to Jesus' teachings to do for the least of these to be humility, not hubris. It would take an incredible arrogance to know I could do good and choose NOT to, saying, "No, YOU do this good, God... YOU stop that harm... not me.""
If that's how you think humility works, I think you might be confused. this notion of you stepping in to do things that you don't believe YHWH can or will do sounds like hubris to me.
"Can you see the hubris in that path?"
Yes, I do see the hubris in believing that my input (including telling lies) is absolutely vital to the creation of your mythic "Beloved Community".
It's strange to think that an all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, loving, Creator God, who's very nature embodies Truth, finds your occasional good works necessary to bring about His Kingdom.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh this afternoon. It's especially amusing that after 200+ comments of not answering questions, you think that answering "a few" questions somehow offsets the ones you didn't answer.
Given the fact that "killing" isn't a sin, why would I argue that it was a sin.
Killing IS widely recognized as literally one of the great evils and sins. At least in some circumstances. Maybe in other circumstances it's not, at least to people like you.
The POINT is that it depends on the circumstances as to whether killing is not a sin. The white man who tried to kill a black teenager for knocking on his door (if those are the details, as they appear to be) IS sinning and hopefully you'd agree.
But, the person who shot and killed an active shooter who was targeting innocent people may not be sinning.
SAME action (killing) but different circumstances make it a sin. Right?
IF that is what you believe about something as serious as killing, then why would you insist there is only ONE way to view theft and that is, "as a sin..."?
You appear to already acknowledge that circumstances and motive make a difference. Is that correct?
As to your problems with questions as a response to questions, let me remind you one of the recent examples in context:
You had asked me...
Does the God of Truth, really need lies to help Him out?
I responded...
Why not?
And you responded...
The whole convention of not answering a question with a question is clearly foreign to you. You do understand that answering a question with a question is not actually answering the question, correct?
1. My answer, "Why not?" should reasonably be understood to say, "Why not? Why wouldn't I? I SEE NO REASON NOT TO. What reason IS there to not use a lie to save lives???!!"
Did you not understand that answer in this context and example? "Why not?" is a very common way of saying, "Of course!" Did you not know this?
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/416480/nuance-of-the-reply-why-not
2. Further, by answering with the reasonably clear question, "Why not?" I accomplish two things (NEITHER of which is deflecting):
a. I'm noting the absurdity of questioning whether or not the type of lie I gave as an example is a moral good. OF course, it is! WHY WOULDN'T we use that deceit to accomplish a great moral good?
b. ...which then pushes back on you to try to defend the incredibly irrational and immoral suggestion that lying to save lives is a "sin..." CAN you possibly justify saying it's a SIN to lie to save lives? Prove it.
The point being, your position is the outlier one when it comes to morality, I'd be willing to wager. I'm guessing because of your ultra-conservative religion, that perhaps in your circles and echo chambers, you get a lot of affirmation for calling that sort of lie a "sin." It's a way of pushing back and trying to get you to consider the implications of your hunch and maybe cause you to re-consider the irrationality and immorality of such a position.
You probably don't want the full and even more explicitly clear explanation, but there it is.
Yes, I do see the hubris in believing that my input (including telling lies) is absolutely vital to the creation of your mythic "Beloved Community".
Nothing mythic about it. It's observable in the real world. It's the Realm of God for the Good News of God of which Jesus spoke. It is thy kingdom come on earth, as it is in heaven, as Jesus spoke. It's the Early Church, holding all things in common. It's when two or more are gathered in the name of Jesus who came preaching good news to the poor and marginalized. It's the Amish and Hutterite and other communities of God seeking to simply live simply in ways that help the least of these, coming together to build barns and community. It's King's Beloved Community fighting for justice for the oppressed. It's everywhere the church is living according to its calling and it's observable and real, truly a loving, beloved community where all are welcome beginning with "the least of these."
Do you have any reason to suggest these observable realities are somehow "mythic..."? In what sense?
Also, hopefully you can see that this response is NOT an answer to my question, the question that I actually asked. Giving responses to questions is not the same as answering them. Unlike my questions in response to your questions, which WERE a direct and reasonably clear actual answer.
Just to be clear... my question:
"Can you see the hubris in that path?"
And your non-answer:
Yes, I do see the hubris in believing that my input (including telling lies) is absolutely vital to the creation of your mythic "Beloved Community".
Responding to a question with a dubious and irrational response to some OTHER question that I didn't ask is not an answer. Do you recognize that? To be frank, brother, it's a bit childish. "I know you are but what am I?" is fine for Peewee Herman, but...
What a strange admission from someone who's called violence of any kind a sin.
You read my words but fail to understand. I've never said (I don't think) that "violence of any kind is a sin..."
Dan:
"OF COURSE, using force to save a child is not a moral sin. OF COURSE, stealing to stop the Nazi car is not a moral sin."
Craig...
Again, with the ALL CAPS and the emphatic declaration, as if that makes your declaration True.
By all means, be specific and clear: Do you NOT agree that it's true that using force to save a child IS a moral sin???
If so, what the absolute f***?
I realized something, your claim is that sin is "missing the mark" or "mistakes", but that raises questions.
1. To "miss the mark", requires that there be a "mark" to hit or miss. It requires some delineation of the target so that one knows whether they've hit of missed the target.
2. A "mistake" is essentially acknowledging that one has done something wrong, it's just using ignorance of right and wrong in order to excuse the wrong that has been done.
3. If "missing the mark" is how you define sin, then how do you know what the mark is, and whether or not you've missed the "mark"?
4. If a mistake is unknowingly doing wrong, that still means that wrong was done. How does one know when one has mistakenly done wrong, unless there is some sort of method to determine what is right and what is wrong.
5. You can't seriously be suggesting that there is no actual "mark" to "miss", or that there is no way to judge whether of not someone has actually made a "mistake".
It took me a while to figure this out, but even as you play these semantic games, you are still acknowledging some standard that determines hit or miss, right or wrong, or however you want to twist it.
In the absence of any lists of rules, or something similar, how does one know if they've "missed the mark"?
"Killing IS widely recognized as literally one of the great evils and sins."
By who? The 10 commandments specify murder, not killing.
"IS sinning"
By what objective standard is the shooter "sinning"? What if this 84 year old man who lives alone is in the early stages of Alzheimer's? What if he was asleep and not fully awake? What if he tripped over the rug and accidentally pulled the trigger? What if the black teenager was pounding on the door and yelling?
I'm not offering excuses or suggesting that we jump to conclusions without information, I am suggesting that your claim that, objectively, the shooter had sinned might be you jumping to a conclusion. How could it have been objectively a "sin" if it was a mistake?
"SAME action (killing) but different circumstances make it a sin. Right?"
No.
"IF that is what you believe about something as serious as killing, then why would you insist there is only ONE way to view theft and that is, "as a sin..."?"
Thou shall not steal, sounds pretty cut and dried, without a lot of room for nuance.
"You appear to already acknowledge that circumstances and motive make a difference. Is that correct?"
Incorrect.
"You probably don't want the full and even more explicitly clear explanation, but there it is."
I always appreciate your self serving, self justification for why you do stupid things. You have a history of getting bitchy when you think that others are reading into your words things that you didn't mean. You frequently complain about this in various different ways.
Yet, you expect me to have magically divined your entire detailed, self justifying, self serving "explanation" from your two word response.
Maybe you should decide what's more important to you. Clarity or brevity. Knowing that brevity carries the risk that your short, flippant, response won't carry all of the detail and nuance you seem to want to pack in with it.
Of course you assumption that it goes without saying that YHWH needs you to lie in order for His Kingdom and purposes to be accomplished, is simply absurd. Just one more example of your treating your fanciful, unproven, assumptions as if they must be 100% True.
"Do you have any reason to suggest these observable realities are somehow "mythic..."? In what sense?"
Mythic in the you've chosen to use your very own made up term because the Biblical term, that Jesus used, makes you feel icky or some such bullshit. You compound that by failing to define what exactly this made up term means. I could have said bullshit, or false, or made up, I tried to be slightly kinder with mythic.
"Do you recognize that?"
yes, I recognize that I answered the question you asked, in a way that you didn't like. So you had to get all whiny and pouty and pretend like I committed some grave wrong. The reality is that believing that your lies are necessary for YHWH to achieve His plans and purposes is the height of hubris. Poor little god, he just can't accomplish a single thing unless Dan lies for him.
"By all means, be specific and clear: Do you NOT agree that it's true that using force to save a child IS a moral sin???"
This question is, frankly, bizarre. I have never claimed that following Jesus requires a strict pacifistic worldview, that would be you. I have never argued for pacifism as a requirement, default, or strong preference of followers of Jesus, that would be you.
I have always argued that force is a necessity to accomplish certain outcomes, and that pacifism fails to account for the occasional necessity of violence.
If you now believe that violence or force is sometimes necessary, then welcome to those of us who live in the real world.
Perhaps you've forgotten how vociferously you've defended Anabaptists because of their commitment to pacifism, and how often you've argued that followers of Jesus must be pacifists, and of the wonderful magical powers of NVDA. No, I read your words, asked to questions to clarify, and understood quite adequately.
This might be worth digging through your blog and finding some of your quotes on the topic.
So hard to keep up on my work days. But two things:
"*I do delete comments that are vulgar or hateful attacks or words about women. LGBTQ folks, people of color or immigrants. That has no place in decent, free society and no one will contribute to oppressive language on my blog."
It's the application of this "rule" which is so terribly flawed. It's applied on a whim, in order to avoid the actual point being made in the comment deleted, and it depends on a totally subjective notion of what constitutes "vulgar or hateful attacks"...something I don't do. There's no use of "oppressive language" my me, but only that which Dan chooses to call such for his own advantage as well as to demonize me or whomever he chooses to delete. A decent society does NOT promote and defend the vile behaviors Dan so often cherishes and celebrates.
The second point is as I scan the comments, I see Dan making an argument he's rejected when made by me so many times, which is that intention is at the root of a behavior being sinful. Thus, his "do no harm" crap and "violence is evil" crap flies in the face of his current comments. But then, it's Dan who gets to choose when an action is or isn't sinful based on his perverse and non-Christian concepts of morality.
3. If "missing the mark" is how you define sin, then how do you know what the mark is, and whether or not you've missed the "mark"?
1. It's not how I, Dan Trabue, "define sin," it is the literal English translation of the word used in the Bible. You recognize this, right? When you say it's how "you, Dan Trabue..." define it, it sounds like you think I'm pulling something out of thin air. But it's the Greek word, translated to English. It has NOTHING to do with "Dan."
Do you recognize that reality?
2. The Bible literally does not say what "missing the mark" means. God literally has not told us the specifics of what is and isn't "missing the mark."
Do you recognize that reality?
3. How do we know? The only way we can know: The best we can using our God-given moral reasoning. Using the reasonable (and biblical) measure of "Love God and love humanity/God's creation."
We have NOTHING else.
We might read the Bible to get a better understanding of moral boundaries, but even then, we MUST perforce use our God-given reasoning to understand that.
Do you recognize that reality?
If you think you have some secret Other method, do the world a favor and share your secret source.
If you now believe that violence or force is sometimes necessary, then welcome to those of us who live in the real world.
So, that's a YES, you recognize using force is not necessarily a sin, in and of itself?
As to your misunderstandings about what I have and haven't said about force and pacifism, well, those are your misunderstandings to own and par for the course of you reading texts and failing to understand them correctly, isn't it?
and how often you've argued that followers of Jesus must be pacifists, and of the wonderful magical powers of NVDA. No, I read your words, asked to questions to clarify, and understood quite adequately.
I'm sure you think that, but that's just more of your reading and failing to understand. To be fair, I think the problem is that conservatives, as a rule, have an INCREDIBLY hard time understanding nuance.
By who? The 10 commandments specify murder, not killing.
Murder is a specific type of killing. Is it the case that you think that someone who has been murdered hasn't been killed? That they aren't dead?
Good Lord, have mercy.
THAT is the point. You recognize that there are degrees of killing and it's justifiable in your mind in some cases but not in others. The question remains: WHY in the name of all that is rational, good and holy, do you think that there is nuance to something as literally life-and-death as killing, but theft is a single category of "sin" and ALL theft is "sin," but not all killing??
Come on. Think this through. Read for understanding.
Thou shall not steal, sounds pretty cut and dried, without a lot of room for nuance.
Once again, THIS is the problem with semi-literal (semi-literate) reading and interpretation of texts. It destroys your reasoning.
By who? The 10 commandments specify murder, not killing.
Again, murder IS a type of killing. Also, in the OT, killing (not specifically murder) is considered a moral wrong. Numbers 35:33, for instance.
But setting that aside, murder IS a literal subset of killing. In the Bible, Murder is indicating the shedding of innocent blood - innocent people who ought not have been killed. But then capitol punishment is allowed/commanded - literally killing of people who are NOT "innocent" and whose misdeeds rose to the level of justifying being killed.
But WHY is that the case for allowing to kill people for certain misdeeds but NOT stealing something from them to prevent further, worse misdeeds? Just because you find a line in the Bible and whimsically decide, "Well, then it must be okay for murder, but for NOTHING else, including theft, EVEN if it's to save innocents or punish the guilty..."?
Again, using the bible as a magic rule book where you whimsically decide to take some verses condemning some behaviors literally and extremely woodenly literally, but don't allow yourself to think beyond that literal wooden interpretation. It's a rational and biblically inept way of considering serious moral concerns.
It's a grade school approach to adult level misdeeds.
You compound that by failing to define what exactly this made up term means.
Beloved community. Realm of God. Kingdom of God. God's Way. The family of God. The Body of Christ. Church. I've made this clear over and over. How is it that you can read my words about pacifism and come away with false conclusions and yet read what I've been clear about like the Realm of God and think somehow I've not been clear about what I mean?
Dan...
"By all means, be specific and clear: Do you NOT agree that it's true that using force to save a child IS a moral sin???"
Craig...
This question is, frankly, bizarre. I have never claimed that following Jesus requires a strict pacifistic worldview
That IS the point. You've been clear that you are fine with harming and even killing people (actions that are normally "sin" EXCEPT when it's for justified reasons) and yet, you think that "Theft" must ALWAYS and ONLY be considered a sin, regardless of the reasons for the theft.
IF the circumstances make a difference between sinful "murder" and NON-sinful "killing" according to you, then why don't circumstances matter for sinful "theft" and non-sinful "helping innocent people escape an unjust punishment..."?
Understand what I'm asking: WHAT is the specific rubric why circumstances matter for murder/killing but NOT for theft/saving people's lives?
I'm guessing your answer is something like "Well, there is a line in the Bible that I take woodenly literal for killing but no such similar line for theft."
Is that the whole of it? If so, do you realize how shallow and childish that is, as regards to adult level reasoning?
If a mistake is unknowingly doing wrong, that still means that wrong was done. How does one know when one has mistakenly done wrong, unless there is some sort of method to determine what is right and what is wrong.
None of us have an infallible objectively provable method of knowing everything that is right and wrong. You don't have that. No one does. But we can reasonably know a great deal about what is right and wrong, beginning with, "Are we harming someone?" (ie, are we failing to love someone?)
But our moral reasoning, especially collectively, is at least a relatively reliable (and certainly better than NO OBJECTIVE source, which is what you have.)
Can you at last finally recognize that you, Craig, have NO objectively provable source, only your personal opinions and interpretations of Bible verses and perhaps your own moral reasoning? And do you recognize that your complete absence of having an objective source for morality doesn't mean we are without ANY moral options?
Or are you a moral anarchist?
Those appear to be the options and you appear to continue to pretend you have something else without ever having the basic decency to make your case for your pretend moral source. It's pretty unimpressive, morally and rationally and biblically speaking.
This might be worth digging through your blog and finding some of your quotes on the topic.
By all means, knock yourself out and find someplace - ANY place - where I've clearly stated what it is you THINK I've stated. And then, when you can't find it, have the decency to admit you've been reading my words and misunderstanding my meaning. Or just skip to the chase and admit that you're mistaken.
"Is this something that you can objectively prove or a subjective opinion you hold but can't prove?"
What would you consider "proof"?
"To be clear, you're saying, "of course, I Craig believe this lie to be a sin..." or are you saying, "I, Craig know objectively and authoritatively that as a proven point of fact, this lie is considered by God and IS a sin..."?"
Well, personally, I'd consider anything that is clearly spelled out in the 10 commandments to be a sin, but that's just me. But hey, if you want others to uncritically accept your assumptions, then it seem reasonable that you'd do the same.
"Do you understand that reality?"
1. I understand that you have given one definition of sin, yet I don't think that YHWH is limited to only the definition you cherry picked from an Engish dictionary.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
1. Strange, I find many passages in scripture that detail what "the mark" is.
2. How strange that you would put your confidence in this one definition from an English language dictionary, while simultaneously denying the existence of a mark to miss.
3. If it is impossible to find the "mark" you say defines sin, then how is it possible for you to so adamantly declare certain things to be "sinful"?
4. Why would YHWH establish a "mark", yet not actually tell anyone what that "mark" is?
5. How would one possibly be able to "repent" or "ask forgiveness" for sin, if there is no way to determine what is actually sinful because there is no actual "mark"?
"Do you recognize that reality?"
This seems to be one of those instances where you simply declare certain things to be "reality" yet haven't bothered to offer any proof that your claim is correct. In this case, I do not believe that our ability to acknowledge sin is completely and totally dependent on our limited, fallible, human Reason, and nothing else. I do not believe that human Reason is the catch all excuse that explains anything you want it to.
"So, that's a YES, you recognize using force is not necessarily a sin, in and of itself?"
If you mean, has that been my position for my entire adult life, and have I never even once suggested that using force/violence is a sin, yes it is. What a stupid question.
"As to your misunderstandings about what I have and haven't said about force and pacifism, well, those are your misunderstandings to own and par for the course of you reading texts and failing to understand them correctly, isn't it?"
It must be quite a burden to always be right, to always explain yourself perfectly, and to know that no one ever is able to understand the reality of what you actually say by reading your words and applying the standard rules and definitions of English to your words.
"Murder is a specific type of killing. Is it the case that you think that someone who has been murdered hasn't been killed? That they aren't dead?"
It's absolutely hilarious when you do this idiotic bullshit. All murder is killing, not all killing is murder. In this case, you seem confused by which one of those is the category, and which is the subcategory. Obviously the victim of a murder is dead, that's not the point. The point is that the commandment is not "Thou shall not kill.", it's "Thou shall not murder.", because the two terms are not synonyms.
" WHY in the name of all that is rational, good and holy, do you think that there is nuance to something as literally life-and-death as killing, but theft is a single category of "sin" and ALL theft is "sin," but not all killing??"
Well, in this case, the commandment specifically targets one specific type of killing as forbidden. In the case of theft, the commandment DOES NOT specifically certain types of theft, it's a blanket prohibition of theft.
It's interesting and funny when you get this desperate .
"But WHY is that the case for allowing to kill people for certain misdeeds but NOT stealing something from them to prevent further, worse misdeeds? Just because you find a line in the Bible and whimsically decide, "Well, then it must be okay for murder, but for NOTHING else, including theft, EVEN if it's to save innocents or punish the guilty..."?"
Unfortunately, I don't consider myself fully equipped to answer questions about why YHWH does things. I recognize that I am a limited, fallible, imperfect, human who doesn't share YHWH's attributes nor do I have any special insights into His plans and purposes.
"Once again, THIS is the problem with semi-literal (semi-literate) reading and interpretation of texts. It destroys your reasoning."
How strange. You seem to be suggesting that looking at a commandment like "Thou shall not steal.", and concluding that it means exactly what it says is somehow problematic. While you think that looking at a commandment like "Thou shall not steal", and deciding that it really means something significantly different is the appropriate way to interpret.
Strangely, you claim that I've "read into" your frequent, vociferous, and emphatic insistence that pacifism should be the default position of followers of Jesus and whine about that. Yet simultaneously you choose to read into "Thou shall not steal", all sorts of exceptions, excuses, and loopholes, as if that makes total sense.
"read what I've been clear about like the Realm of God and think somehow I've not been clear about what I mean?"
Because randomly substituting multiple terms for, allegedly, the same concept is the opposite of being clear. Because, simply coming up with a list of alternate terms, doesn't actually explain what you think those terms specifically mean.
"That IS the point. You've been clear that you are fine with harming and even killing people (actions that are normally "sin" EXCEPT when it's for justified reasons) and yet, you think that "Theft" must ALWAYS and ONLY be considered a sin, regardless of the reasons for the theft."
Nice job of just slightly twisting what I actually said, in an attempt to prove some random point.
"IF the circumstances make a difference between sinful "murder" and NON-sinful "killing" according to you, then why don't circumstances matter for sinful "theft" and non-sinful "helping innocent people escape an unjust punishment..."?"
Asked and answered.
"Understand what I'm asking: WHAT is the specific rubric why circumstances matter for murder/killing but NOT for theft/saving people's lives?"
Asked and answered.
"I'm guessing your answer is something like "Well, there is a line in the Bible that I take woodenly literal for killing but no such similar line for theft.""
Then why ask if you're going to ignore what I say and make shit up so you can pretend that your made up shit is what I've said.
"Is that the whole of it? If so, do you realize how shallow and childish that is, as regards to adult level reasoning?"
No, No.
"By all means, knock yourself out and find someplace - ANY place - where I've clearly stated what it is you THINK I've stated. And then, when you can't find it, have the decency to admit you've been reading my words and misunderstanding my meaning. Or just skip to the chase and admit that you're mistaken."
Thanks, unfortunately your search field doesn't seem to work this morning, so It might take a while longer than I'd thought.
It's interesting that you expect me to apologize, while the chances of you apologizing when I find your actual words is virtually zero. You've been quite creative in the past in coming up with excuses for why you meant something completely different from the plain meaning of what you said. Hell, you've accused me of slander for quoting you.
"We believe that wrong-doing must be stood up to, but not using the same tools or methods that the wrong-doers use. Where they say, sometimes it's okay to kill innocent people, we say, NO. Where they say, sometimes violence can result in a positive end, we see that violence leads to violence. Where they say, sometimes bombs can save lives, we know that bombs have one purpose only."
Dan Trabue
I'm sure he really meant that violence is appropriate in some instances when he said "we say no".
The search function was working this time, it made things easier.
You seem to be suggesting that looking at a commandment like "Thou shall not steal.", and concluding that it means exactly what it says is somehow problematic.
YES! IF someone says, wellll... I can't steal the Nazis carburetor because stealing is a sin..." and then stands by while Nazis capture and kill some innocents, THAT is problematic, to put it lightly. It's an evil shirking of moral duty to be more clear.
Dan
Your ability to insert things into simple declarative statements is impressive. The fact that you think that you can add a bunch of exceptions to a very clear, direct, unambiguous commandment is an indication of how hard you're willing to work to prevail.
It's just, for many of us, our pacifism springs forth from our faith.
The New Testament seems completely devoid of support for violence-as-solution, at least for Christians (a case can be made that waging war may be a legitimate role of gov’t). All of which points to, if not a command not to wage war, at least a teaching for Christians to not take part.
"In other words, God is telling Israel not to try to get many chariots and horses for defense, but to rely upon God.
In Deuteronomy, God goes on to say that "When you are in battle, and you see chariots and horses and are outnumbered, do not fear. I will be with you.""
Earlier Dan made it clear that YHWH never, ever directly intervenes to help people, yet another contradiction of his earlier writings.
"War is an evil. It has evil results."
"Violence always begets violence. War cannot bring peace and justice cannot be won through evil means."
"A proper translation of Jesus' teaching would then be, "Do not retaliate against violence with violence.""
Craig: "However, I would suggest that using any means available to stop the beheadings and enslaving of their victims, could be a defensible position?
Dan, "Is that a question? If so, I'd say Hell no. The ends justify the means has great potential for being an immoral and amoral approach to problem-solving."
At one point Dan was pretty clear that violence was not an appropriate way to stop the beheading of innocents.
Just a few examples of Dan not advocating for violence as an option.
As to your quotes from my blog: In not ONE of them did I say it's a sin to use force to stop deadly violence. I AM against war. I am ALWAYS against violence that causes harm to innocent people.
BUT - and follow closely here - I've been clear that using force to stop violence against innocents is an acceptable thing to do, so long as the response is not causing violence against innocents as a result.
I'm wary of killing in wartime, at least today, because so often our modern weapons will hit innocent people. But I've made it clear that, in instances like Nicaragua defending against terrorists, that them using deadly force against the assailants is not an unreasonable response. I believe I've made it clear that I'm not calling that a "sin." Just like with Ukraine today, shooting back at Russian soldiers invading and killing. I'm not willing to call that a sin.
That you've read my words and failed to understand the nuance in them is on you, not me. Don't tell me what I've said and didn't say. In allthese examples, you're speaking of war, not merely using force to stop an immediate violence against the violent actors.
You cited this exchange, for instance:
Craig: "However, I would suggest that using any means available to stop the beheadings and enslaving of their victims, could be a defensible position?
Dan, "Is that a question? If so, I'd say Hell no. The ends justify the means has great potential for being an immoral and amoral approach to problem-solving."
What you asked is, and I quote:
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT USING "ANY MEANS AVAILABLE" TO STOP THE BEHEADINGS... COULD BE DEFENSIBLE..."
To THAT question, I said "Hell no!" because "ANY means possible" can include atrocities like Hiroshima. I didn't say, however, that some reasonable amount of force is a sin.
Nuance. It helps so much if you understand it when you're reading texts for understanding.
Are you prepared to admit you misspoke because you misunderstood because you read things into my words that weren't there?
Excellent job. I really think that you believe yourself. I've never seen anyone who was so good at re-framing their previous words to fit some current narrative. Totally expected.
So, when confronted with the facts and reality that shows your claims are false, rather than being adult and rational about it, you choose to double down and attack the person you've made false claims about. Rather than apologize for your misunderstanding, you pretend it's ME lying. Rather than recognizing that, of the two of us, I am the one who can authoritatively tell you what I've said, you insist you know best.
Arrogance and dishonesty are not a good path, Craig. Even if you think I'm wrong in many ways, you're just clearly wrong about this and I've demonstrated it authoritatively. Just admit it and move on.
Open your eyes, brother. You've blinded yourself.
Craig...
Because randomly substituting multiple terms for, allegedly, the same concept is the opposite of being clear. Because, simply coming up with a list of alternate terms, doesn't actually explain what you think those terms specifically mean.
I'm talking about the Church, the family of God. Those who follow the teachings of Jesus (and not necessarily the human religion that has grown up around Jesus).
Is "Those who follow the teachings of Jesus" not clear enough for you? What words do I need to use to make it clear to you?
Jesus taught us to love our enemies and our family. I'm talking about that.
Jesus taught about a way of Grace, of inclusivity, of welcome to ALL, including and starting with the Least of These. I'm talking about that.
Jesus taught about a way of loving one another in a self-sacrificial way, beginning with the poor and marginalized. I'm talking about that.
What more do you need to understand. I'd think, given all that you've read of my words, that it would be abundantly clear. But then, you do have that reading comprehension problem, so, I get that I probably need to be even more descriptive. But then, no matter how many words I use, it seems you don't understand.
Help me out: What description do you need so that you DO understand?
As to the "killing is not always murder and thus not always wrong but theft is always theft and wrong" conundrum:
If your moral reasoning begins and ends with, "Is there a line in the Bible to justify this position?" well, I would hope for more adult-level moral reasoning. The problem with that approach (IF it is your approach) is that it's lacking in moral reasoning. The Bible never tells us and God never tells us we need to find a line in the Bible to know the right moral position to take. Thus (and reasonably) I don't think this is a rational or biblical or moral approach to moral reasoning.
Peace.
"I'm talking about the Church, the family of God. Those who follow the teachings of Jesus (and not necessarily the human religion that has grown up around Jesus)."
The fact that you can offer multiple synonyms for a term that you've made up, doesn't mean that you've defined any of the terms.
"Is "Those who follow the teachings of Jesus" not clear enough for you? What words do I need to use to make it clear to you?"
No. Any specifics regarding what "teachings of Christ", you are referring to, and what following those teachings looks like in practice would be a good start.
"Jesus taught about a way of Grace, of inclusivity, of welcome to ALL, including and starting with the Least of These. I'm talking about that."
How strange, Jesus also taught exclusivity, and how following Him will divide families, friends, and communities.
Jesus taught about a way of loving one another in a self-sacrificial way, beginning with the poor and marginalized. I'm talking about that.
"What more do you need to understand. I'd think, given all that you've read of my words, that it would be abundantly clear. But then, you do have that reading comprehension problem, so, I get that I probably need to be even more descriptive. But then, no matter how many words I use, it seems you don't understand."
simply repeating synonyms, and regurgitating your bullet points, isn't particularly revealing, but I realize that you think very highly of your ability to communicate and less highly of others ability to understand your wisdom and reality.
"Help me out: What description do you need so that you DO understand?"
Specifics, scriptural support, and how this looks in real life.
Specifics, scriptural support, and how this looks in real life.
I'm surprised you don't know the answer to this. But, ok...
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat,
I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, “
I was a stranger and you invited me in,
I needed clothes and you clothed me,
I was sick and you looked after me,
I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
"They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles.
All the believers were together and had everything in common.
They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.
Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.
They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people."
"All the believers were one in heart and mind.
No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them.
For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales
And put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."
For starters. But then, I'm not a magical literalist. These are not a literal description of what specifically must be in place. Rather, it gives the priorities of the people following the Christ who came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized.
Dan
Continuing...
Specifics, scriptural support, and how this looks in real life.
In real life, I suspect we'd always want to follow in the steps of Jesus philosophically, in terms of supporting who and what he supported, teaching and advocating for what he taught, allying with who he allied with. So, just as Jesus began his ministry with this explanation...
"“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because God has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.
God has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and
recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."
So, too, I think the Beloved Community (which is from Dr King and others, not something I pulled out of thin air) or the Church (which of course is biblical, but that is what King and others were/are talking about) or those following "The Way" (again, Biblical)... should/would be doing some of these same things.
We who follow Jesus should be preaching literal good news to the literal poor and NOT just with words, but with actions (as we see in the book of Acts as it describes the early church and throughout the NT). I would think that could look like a great many things.
* It could look like actually sharing homes and resources.
* It could look like having "barn building events" (as with the Amish and others).
* It could look like programs to help the marginalized find employment and homes.
* It could look like working side by side with the poor to build affordable homes (a la Habitat for Humanity).
* It could be sitting with the grieving and on and on.
* It could be helping with healing and physical needs, especially where it's most needed.
* It would be always welcoming and inclusive, specifically and especially with the poor and marginalized - welcoming and inclusive except for those whose actions cause harm, because the harm-ers are the ones choosing not to be inclusive by their actions that cause harm.
* It would be built upon Grace, not rule-following or legalism, which is antithetical and even hostile to Grace.
* It would include some degree of simplicity, because overt financial extravagance can be antithetical to grace and welcome.
* It's the Word, made flesh in our daily lives and I can't list ALL the things it could look like, but those are SOME literal specifics and some biblical explanations of what it looks like in real life.
Does that give you enough Scriptural support (I can give LOTS more on the topic) and details?
Craig...
"I realize that you think very highly of your ability to communicate and less highly of others ability to understand your wisdom and reality."
You and I have been having these conversations for well over a decade. You know - or should know - how highly I esteem the words of Jesus and how seriously I take them. It seems like you know how literally and seriously I take Jesus' declaration that he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized. You know how I think Jesus was abundantly clear about his teaching of simplicity, of peacemaking, of allowing with the poor and marginalized.
Am I mistaken and you HAVEN'T picked up that I find these literal teachings of Jesus to be central to his Gospel? If you somehow haven't picked up on that, then indeed, there is some problem in how I communicate at least with you.
But, I don't think you've missed that. You tell me.
But, if you have understood that about how I understand Jesus and his teachings, then is it truly the case that you didn't realize with some degree of specificity that I was talking about just what I've cited in my last two comments?
Dan
"In the absence of any lists of rules, or something similar, how does one know if they've "missed the mark"?"
Dude..dontcha know? It's SELF-EVIDENT!! (I used caps AND an exclamation point to cement the truth of my response.)
As noted, Dan now promotes the notion that intention is a necessary part of determining an action to be sinful...something I've promoted many times in the past in the face of objections by Dan. I think it's far worse that Dan assigns motives where he deigns it appropriate in order to defend his favored perversions and immorality, but does not care to do so when the action is against purveyors of those behaviors, or other cherished factions of the populations he defends as "historically oppressed". For example, it seems clear from his initial position on the old guy who shot the kid at his door, Dan chose to regard the codger a racist. Then, he'll be adamant that we're the racists when we regard the behaviors of looters as...well...rank looting for personal profit, as opposed to some white-guilt, race-hustler rationalization of "hunger", "frustration" or some other lame crap.
It was pretty funny to see Dan try to pretend that murder and killing or synonymous. Yet again, murder is specific and specifically prohibited. Killing isn't, as it has its legit and often moral purpose.
So I'd like to clarify my position with regard to intention in commission of an action. An action which is sinful is still sinful regardless of the context in which it is committed. However, the context and intention can absolve us from being accused of committing a sin. That is, because we sought to do good, the sin isn't held against us, despite the act still being a sinful one.
As I mentioned, intention and motivation are mitigating factors in civil law. But technically, the act remains the same. We're simply not held to account if our motivations can be judged to have been justified. Thus, it's still a sin to steal food, for example, but to stave off our severe hunger by stealing food to eat (were there no other means of acquiring it) would mean we are not held to account for our sin. So long as we're saved, God's justice and mercy would leave us absolved.
"You and I have been having these conversations for well over a decade. You know - or should know - how highly I esteem the words of Jesus and how seriously I take them. It seems like you know how literally and seriously I take Jesus' declaration that he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized. You know how I think Jesus was abundantly clear about his teaching of simplicity, of peacemaking, of allowing with the poor and marginalized."
I know that you've made this claim ad nauseum, yet I continue to see you prioritizing certain of Jesus' teachings over other sections of Jesus' teaching.
"Am I mistaken and you HAVEN'T picked up that I find these literal teachings of Jesus to be central to his Gospel? If you somehow haven't picked up on that, then indeed, there is some problem in how I communicate at least with you."
I fail to see how your desire to offer some self serving, self justifying reasons for why you believe that your ability to communicate is always done at a high level, and why you believe that any fault in understanding is always on the part of the reader.
"But, I don't think you've missed that. You tell me."
I haven't missed you repeating your bullet points, catchphrases, and proof texts.
"But, if you have understood that about how I understand Jesus and his teachings, then is it truly the case that you didn't realize with some degree of specificity that I was talking about just what I've cited in my last two comments?"
I'll look deeper for this specificity, but on first scroll, it looks like you've just repeated all of the same boilerplate, catchphrases, proof texts, and shallow eisegesis that I've come to expect from you.
"They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."
1. This would seem to undermine your claims that we must prioritize the direct teachings of Jesus, over that of Paul and the other apostles.
2. How much of your following of this "Beloved community" is spent in these activities?
3. How much time do you spend with those you help devoting yourselves to the apostles teaching?
4. Do you regard the "apostles" teachings as equally authoritative to Jesus' teaching?
"Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles."
So, is your "Beloved community" a place where you see or celebrate a lot of "signs and wonders" being performed?
"All the believers were together and had everything in common.They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need."
This is more significant for the fact that you left out three things.
1. That this charity was focused primarily, if not exclusively, on the Church in Jerusalem.
2. We don't see this model in any other first century churches, or identified as normative beyond this specific community.
3. This is an example of private charity, aimed at a specific group of people. Not of taxation and welfare.
"Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts."
Interesting, are you really saying that you "meet together" every day to be devoted to the teachings of the apostles?
"They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.""
Excellent, using repetition of proof texts to make your data dump look bigger than it is.
"All the believers were one in heart and mind.
No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had."
Excellent, using repetition of proof texts to make your data dump look bigger than it is.
"With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them."
How much emphasis does your "Beloved community" put on the "resurrection of Jesus"? How, specifically, is your "Beloved community" characterized by "great power"? Would it be safe to conclude that your blog contents are an indicator of what you prioritize?
"For starters. But then, I'm not a magical literalist. These are not a literal description of what specifically must be in place. Rather, it gives the priorities of the people following the Christ who came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized."
What in interesting tactic. Throw out a few of proof texts, which aren't necessarily intended to establish normative behavior beyond that context, in order to "prove" your claims, then casually throw in a disclaimer that tells me that none of these things are things you actually do or live out. Well done.
"In real life, I suspect we'd always want to follow in the steps of Jesus philosophically, in terms of supporting who and what he supported, teaching and advocating for what he taught, allying with who he allied with. So, just as Jesus began his ministry with this explanation..."
So, after providing a few proof texts that tell us we should be devoted to the apostles teachings, and follow the example of one first century church, you now shift gears back to your stock boilerplate.
"So, too, I think the Beloved Community (which is from Dr King and others, not something I pulled out of thin air) or the Church (which of course is biblical, but that is what King and others were/are talking about) or those following "The Way" (again, Biblical)... should/would be doing some of these same things."
Much like my asking you to define "the mark", you claim exists, Please explain what "The Way" is. Where does one find the details about what "The (singular) Way" is? Are we supposed to grope around blindly and hope we stumble across this "Way"? Is "The Way" the same way for everyone? Where does one exactly look to find information about "The Way"? Are we left to hope that human Reason might accidentally lead us to "The Way"?
"We who follow Jesus should be preaching literal good news to the literal poor and NOT just with words, but with actions (as we see in the book of Acts as it describes the early church and throughout the NT). I would think that could look like a great many things.
* It could look like actually sharing homes and resources.
* It could look like having "barn building events" (as with the Amish and others).
* It could look like programs to help the marginalized find employment and homes.
* It could look like working side by side with the poor to build affordable homes (a la Habitat for Humanity).
* It could be sitting with the grieving and on and on.
* It could be helping with healing and physical needs, especially where it's most needed.
* It would be always welcoming and inclusive, specifically and especially with the poor and marginalized - welcoming and inclusive except for those whose actions cause harm, because the harm-ers are the ones choosing not to be inclusive by their actions that cause harm.
* It would be built upon Grace, not rule-following or legalism, which is antithetical and even hostile to Grace.
* It would include some degree of simplicity, because overt financial extravagance can be antithetical to grace and welcome.
* It's the Word, made flesh in our daily lives and I can't list ALL the things it could look like, but those are SOME literal specifics and some biblical explanations of what it looks like in real life."
Well we finally get to some details, sort of. These don't seem to be details about "The Way", you claim to follow as much as they seem to be some suggestions that some people might want to consider for some unknown reason. I'll note that this list has no mention of many of the things you said were important (Devotion to the apostles teaching, daily corporate worship, communion, signs and wonders, power, etc), in your first few proof texts. I'll also note that this list is simply a list of "good works". The question becomes, are these good works necessary to be a part of this "Beloved community", or to follow "The Way"? Is YHWH incapable of establishing His Kingdom, without humans?
"Does that give you enough Scriptural support (I can give LOTS more on the topic) and details?"
It raises as many questions as it answers, although I think I figured out the key to your hunches about this whole "Beloved community" thing. If you wanted to put together some sort of post that goes into more detail, that would be fine. But, I think I've hit on enough information to draw some reasonable conclusions.
Answering more questions directly and clearly, once again, to show you how it's done.
I had said:
"They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and
to fellowship,
to the breaking of bread and
to prayer."
1. This would seem to undermine your claims that we must prioritize the direct teachings of Jesus, over that of Paul and the other apostles.
? No. It literally doesn't. Unless you're suggesting that, to you, the apostle's teachings contradict or were different than Jesus' teachings. That's not something I'm saying. I'm saying that the apostles' teachings (which, as always, I love) should be interpreted through the lens of Jesus' teachings.
2. How much of your following of this "Beloved community" is spent in these activities?
It depends on the week (and it depends on what you mean - the question is a bit unclear). 50-90% of my waking hours during the week is spent in these activities. But then, I may have a more expansive notion of what learning from "teachings" and what "being in prayer" and "fellowship" looks like than you do.
3. How much time do you spend with those you help devoting yourselves to the apostles teaching?
Do I do Bible studies with my clients I work with? Is that what you're asking? I spend none of my time when I'm working with my clients in specific Bible study (well, almost none... I have spent time with people in their faith journeys with a specific religion, but not much, not directly). How much time do we spend in learning the Good, and in contemplation and in fellowship? Nearly all of it.
4. Do you regard the "apostles" teachings as equally authoritative to Jesus' teaching?
I consider teachings and understandings of teaching to be Good or Bad... Healthy or Unhealthy more so than "authoritative." "Authoritative" is a loaded word and your understanding may be different than mine.
I believe that ALL Good teachings - whether from Jesus or the Apostles or Buddha or Wendell Berry to be of God, as the author of all Good things. As a follower of Jesus, if I want to understand a passage from the NT that's not the Gospels, then I consider ANYTHING they say through the lens of Jesus' teachings. I consider Jesus the expert on Jesus' teachings and align my understanding of the Apostle's teaching through the lens of Jesus.
For instance, Jesus - who had a Good News Gospel that he regularly preached - never really talked about the medieval theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement as being integral to Jesus' teachings. So, for those humans who say that the Apostles taught PSA and that we must understand Jesus through the lens of these more modern humans who teach PSA... I do not consider THOSE humans to be anything like equally authoritative to Jesus or the Apostles.
It's all about right understanding.
That may be a confusing answer but the question I think is the wrong question so there's no way to answer it, any more than I could answer, "Do you think Green is more perfectly Blue than Blue...?" Blue is Blue and if I want to understand Blue, I look to Blue.
Craig...
Please explain what "The Way" is.
The Way was one way the church was primarily known in the first century. Consider Acts 9:
Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, and asked for letters from him to the synagogues in Damascus,
so that if he found any belonging to the Way,
whether men or women, he might bring them in shackles to Jerusalem.
Or Acts 19:
And he [Paul] entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, having discussions and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient,
speaking evil of the Way before the people,
he withdrew from them and took the disciples away with him
It's just another word for the Church, those who follow Jesus.
Where does one find the details about what "The (singular) Way" is?
Well, when we understand The Way to be another name for The Church or the Body of Christ or for those who follow Jesus, then we can begin by looking at Jesus' specific teachings and specifically about the "realm/Kingdom of God" which Jesus routinely spoke of and the Good News about this Realm of God which Jesus routinely spoke of. How does JESUS specifically describe those who follow him? They are the ones preaching and acting out good news to the poor and marginalized, who are a people of love and grace, the welcoming ones (ie, specifically welcoming the poor and marginalized). We can also look to the early church as found in the Bible and the church of God throughout history, but understanding that through the teachings of Jesus.
Is that not reasonable to you?
Craig...
Are we supposed to grope around blindly and hope we stumble across this "Way"? Is "The Way" the same way for everyone?
I personally don't think this Way that Jesus taught is that difficult. It's doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's living a life poured out in love for all and specifically/starting with the poor and marginalized. As Jesus taught.
Does this Way always look the same for everyone? No, and here's some more good news: It can look like a million things as long as it's loving grace poured out to the world, specifically/starting with the poor and marginalized. It may be selling your belongings and living in a beloved commune/community as Christian congregations have done throughout the ages.
It may look like finding work that helps traditionally oppressed people (but doing so in a justice-oriented manner, listening to THEM and allying with them and providing the support they recognize for themselves, rather than a top-down "charity" that might not even be what they want). It might be organizing for
peace-building activities or
farmer's co-ops or
connecting with developing nations to buy goods from them or
working for affordable housing or
volunteering time to help someone who can't read learn to read or
helping a formerly convicted person find employment and a fresh start outside of prison,
etc, etc.
Where does one exactly look to find information about "The Way"? Are we left to hope that human Reason might accidentally lead us to "The Way"?
Again, for followers of Jesus, we begin with Jesus. Then look to the community Jesus built around him and the teachings and examples he gave. Then look to the early church in Acts and the Epistles. Then look at the best of church history.
And I have no reason to think that healthy reasoning would deliberately and purposefully lead us to the Way. I happen to believe that God's Way is exceedingly rational and would expect our God-given reasoning to be a HUGE help in understanding it, not accidentally, but by design.
Now, there might be SOME degree of reasoning that is more cold and self-centered. "Why would I spend time helping some failing kid learn how to read? My time is full! Why would I find ways to increase affordable housing? I don't know any un-housed people!" But that would be a very shallow, rather childish sort of reasoning. Adult, healthy reasoning recognizes that it takes a village to raise a child and a beloved community.
Craig...
This is more significant for the fact that you left out three things.
1. That this charity was focused primarily, if not exclusively, on the Church in Jerusalem.
2. We don't see this model in any other first century churches, or identified as normative beyond this specific community.
3. This is an example of private charity, aimed at a specific group of people. Not of taxation and welfare
It may be "significant " for magical literalists, but not so much for the rest of us. For the rest of us, it's incredibly
1. The text and context does not literally tell us this. "and it was distributed to anyone who had need.""
1a. Why do you think Anyone doesn't mean Anyone...? (To play your magical literalism card).
2. We don't have data to state definitively that it didn't happen in the early church beyond the Jerusalem church, nor to say it was common. We can say it's unknown how widespread it was in the early church.
2a. Clearly, it has happened repeatedly throughout church history with the Amish, the Hutterites, the Church of the Brethren and others.
3. You describe it as Charity, not them. Many of us are not calling for "welfare..." But justice.
3a. Nor does it - in anyway at all - say taxation and sharing is not a reasonable option, especially for those not in the magical literalism camp. Indeed, for those who take the whole Bible seriously, we see State-level policies for just distribution of wealth in the OT.
Dan
Dan's list is just more of the usual marxist/socialist crap he pretends is the manifestation of Christian teaching...which is a lie. He speaks of works, which one needn't be Christian to do. Thus, he's doing nothing which impresses God if he works do not promote the reality which is God and His will and expectations. To Dan, those expectations revolve around posturing. "Hey! Look at me!! Ain't I a good Christian??"
Where does Scripture encourage us to preach to the "literally poor", if by that Dan means materially poor? One of the best ways to aid such people is to show them how to be materially rich. So much suffering with thus be eliminated. But they'll still be spiritually poor, in ways worse than even Dan continues to be. (Although Dan's not so much spiritually poor as he is one who has squandered his spiritual gifts to appease the immoral and corrupt)
As far as the "literally poor", I hope and pray there are some among those of this population for whom Dan has provided aid who are now making six figures at their jobs, paying down their debts and giving to charities themselves. Dan never speaks of such success stories. I hope and pray that among these recipients of Dan's charitable works are those who understand what work ethic is, what familial responsibility and obligation is, what self-discipline and self-control is. Somehow I feel certain such things aren't high on the priority list of Dan's aid toward "the poor and marginalized". And as such they remain "poor and 'marginalized'".
Throw out a few of proof texts, which aren't necessarily intended to establish normative behavior beyond that context, in order to "prove" your claims, then casually throw in a disclaimer that tells me that none of these things are things you actually do or live out.
I. The texts are not out of context. They are in the context of the Way of Jesus and God's followers.
II. They absolutely establish norms of concerns.
a. Jesus came literally preaching Good News to the literal poor and marginalized.
b. He called his followers to do the same, repeatedly establishing that if you're not acting out of love and welcome to the least of these, you're not doing that to/for/with God.
c. The DETAILS of how to live out the Beloved Community of Grace/the Church can and will vary, but the point would be living in Love, in Community, in Grace, Welcoming and siding with specifically and especially the poor and marginalized. I'm guessing you disagree and that is your prerogative, but you can't really say that I'm taking these out of context without throwing away the better half of the gospel books (and the prophets and the epistles and early church history.
I'll also note that this list is simply a list of "good works". The question becomes, are these good works necessary to be a part of this "Beloved community", or to follow "The Way"? Is YHWH incapable of establishing His Kingdom, without humans?
III. What you see and appear to dismiss as merely a "list of 'good works'" is, to many of us, the heart of the WAY that Jesus clearly and repeatedly taught about, the message that was central to his Gospel.
a. Is following in this Way of Welcome and Grace "necessary" to be a part of the Beloved Community? No, it's about Grace, not works.
b. BUT, if one is actively hostile towards - or even blithely dismissing and ignoring - reaching out to the least of these and this Way of Grace and Welcome, Jesus issues some serious warnings (thrown out into the fire where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
c. Can God create "followers" out of stones? Sure. So is God incapable without us? I don't think so. BUT, that's not how God has ever operated, creating magical followers out of stones. God has always said that WE are created to do good works in Christ. EVEN GREATER acts than Jesus, he told us.
Jesus made it clear that his good news was specifically for the poor and marginalized and that he expects us to walk in that same Good News path. There is room for disagreement about how best to walk in those steps and what is and isn't siding with the least of these, but the point is, God expects us to follow in this way if we're followers of God.
Which is only biblical and rational, wouldn't you agree?
Can you understand how these questions of yours might seem odd to an outsider looking in or even to just serious fans of Jesus' teachings? Do you recall what Gandhi had to say about this balking and questioning at siding/allying with the poor and marginalized?
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
using repetition of proof texts to make your data dump look bigger than it is.
Luke, writing in Acts, found it important enough to emphasize the point of how sharing all things in common was part of the church's strategy. Who am I (or who are you) to question Luke's repetition? Could it be that Luke found this to be important?
The same Luke who recorded Jesus saying "Blessed are you who are poor and hungry... woe to you who are wealthy and well-fed..."? The same Luke who recorded Mary singing about how God was lifting up the poor and marginalized and tearing down the wealthy and powerful?
Maybe thought all this Good News for the poor and marginalized stuff was important and he was noting one way of trying this out in the real world.
These don't seem to be details about "The Way", you claim to follow as much as they seem to be some suggestions that some people might want to consider for some unknown reason. I'll note that this list has no mention of many of the things you said were important (Devotion to the apostles teaching, daily corporate worship, communion, signs and wonders, power, etc)
I worship daily
when I lay in my bed still waking up
slowly coming to the new day
feeling the aches and pains of my body and
being thankful to feel them
I worship daily
when I plan to meet with people
family created by God and shared in my life
and joining in fellowship with them
and their family
their aches and pains of their bodies
and being thankful for these fellow humans
their gifts and challenges
I worship daily
when I stop for a walk through the woods
listening with an invigorating joy at the
sound of the wind breathing like God's Spirit
through the branches above
smelling the greening of the Spring
rejoicing in the new life springing up all around
and the songs of the birds and
being annoyed by the buzzing of the gnats.
I pray a prayer of thanksgiving and welcome
and breathe in the breath of God and new life
I sometimes - at least once a week -
will meet at my Church community and sing
and pray
and listen to the teachings
and worship in that holy place, too
I worship when I get down on my aching old knee
to admire a new flower
or a dying leaf
being born again in the humus and mushroom
and I worship and thank God
as my knees creak and help push me up off the ground
I worship as I push my friend in their wheelchair
into a job interview
and I pray as I hug my transgender sister
crying from the pain caused by other humans
and I worship as I send off a letter to Congress
demanding an end to the draconian laws being created
I worship and have fellowship and
engage in the teaching and learning
and prayer and anger in ALL of this
For I know that
If I go up to the heavens, God is there and
if I make my bed in the depths, God is there
If I rise on the wings of the dawn
if I settle on the far side of the sea
even there God's hand will guide me
God's right hand will hold me fast
For 'In God we live and move and have our being'
Is this how you might find time for worship and prayer and fellowship, as well?
Dan's April 22 10:41 AM comment is an excellent example of him trying to suggest that if he does DIFFERENT things than the Jerusalem church did (as recorded in Acts 1-2), he's actually following their example. More self serving, self justifying, bullshit.
"Answering more questions directly and clearly, once again, to show you how it's done."
280+ comments in, and Dan finally decides to answer a few more questions, all the while pretending that I haven't been parsing his comments, and answering his questions as they've come up.
"and it depends on what you mean - the question is a bit unclear)"
not unclear at all. You gave some proof texts that you claimed were examples of what you mean when you refer to this "Beloved community", and "The Way" entail. How is asking you if you engage in the practices you claim mark your "Beloved community", unclear?
And then, you promptly try to claim that it's more about how YOU decide to define the things YOU claim are the marks of YOUR "Beloved community",
So, you spend virtually zero time with those you "help" actually devoted to the "Apostle's teaching".
Well done. You've managed to claim that the very things you claim mark your "Beloved community" are not "authoritative" (because you don't like the word), but instead YOU rely on YOUR hunches about what you consider "good or bad" teachings. And we're back to Dan placing Dan's hunches about what is "good and bad" teaching as his barometer of what teachings he chooses to devote himself to. Blah, blah, blah, blah. What an obtuse, and self serving response.
"It's all about right understanding."
Which you seem to be claiming that you posses.
"That may be a confusing answer but the question I think is the wrong question so there's no way to answer it, any more than I could answer, "Do you think Green is more perfectly Blue than Blue...?" Blue is Blue and if I want to understand Blue, I look to Blue."
It's a creative excuse for not doing what you said you were going to do, but an excuse nonetheless. Not an answer.
"The Way was one way the church was primarily known in the first century."
That's True, unfortunately you seem clear that you (because of your "right understanding") are going to pick and choose the things that YOU prefer to adopt, not "The Way". More like "Your Way".
"Well, when we understand The Way to be another name for The Church or the Body of Christ or for those who follow Jesus, then we can begin by looking at Jesus' specific teachings and specifically about the "realm/Kingdom of God" which Jesus routinely spoke of and the Good News about this Realm of God which Jesus routinely spoke of."
What the hell does this even mean? Could you be more obtuse and confusing? So far zero specifics.
" How does JESUS specifically describe those who follow him? They are the ones preaching and acting out good news to the poor and marginalized, who are a people of love and grace, the welcoming ones (ie, specifically welcoming the poor and marginalized). We can also look to the early church as found in the Bible and the church of God throughout history, but understanding that through the teachings of Jesus."
So, your version of "The (singular) Way", is to pick and choose some of what Jesus taught, and focus on that part of His teaching, not on the entirety of His teaching.
"Is that not reasonable to you?"
No.
"I personally don't think this Way that Jesus taught is that difficult. It's doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's living a life poured out in love for all and specifically/starting with the poor and marginalized. As Jesus taught."
I don't particularly care what you "personally" "think". Your personal, individual, hunches carry absolutely zero weight outside of your "personal" thoughts. Despite your claim of "right understanding", you've offered zero evidence that your "personal" hunches should be normative for anyone except YOU.
"Does this Way always look the same for everyone?"
Interesting. You keep referring to a singular "The Way", yet claim that it's whatever anyone wants it to be. If "The (singular) Way", you keep claiming to follow, is literally billions/trillions of individual "ways", why would you keep claiming that you follow "The (singular) Way"?
To paraphrase your list of multiple, individual, "ways", you're simply asserting that these "ways" are really just a collection of good works.
"Again, for followers of Jesus, we begin with Jesus. Then look to the community Jesus built around him and the teachings and examples he gave. Then look to the early church in Acts and the Epistles. Then look at the best of church history."
Ahhhhhhhh, so we pick and choose subjectively what "we" think are these "ways"?
"It takes a village to raise a child and a beloved community."
So, we give African proverbs the same weight as the direct teachings of Jesus.
"1a. Why do you think Anyone doesn't mean Anyone...?"
Because if one clings to a proof text, while ignoring the context, one is building one's case on "shifting sand". If one looks at the rest of Acts, as well as the rest of the NT letters, it is made clear that those within The Church are the priority for charity.
"2. We don't have data to state definitively that it didn't happen in the early church beyond the Jerusalem church, nor to say it was common. We can say it's unknown how widespread it was in the early church."
Unless you choose to exclude the rest of the NT as "data". But that's just you applying your subjective conclusions based solely on your "right understanding" and Reason.
"3a. Nor does it - in anyway at all - say taxation and sharing is not a reasonable option,"
Well, if you are using your vaunted Reason and "right understanding" to reach this subjective conclusion, then you must be right.
"we see State-level policies for just distribution of wealth in the OT."
Well, sort of. In precisely ONE instance (the Israeli Theocracy"), YHWH proposed specific "rules" that only the Israelites were obligated to follow. Yet, the Bible is not a rule book, and we shouldn't take things in a "magically" literal manner. Unless, your Reason and "right understanding" tell you that you should.
"I. The texts are not out of context. They are in the context of the Way of Jesus and God's followers."
They are out of the context of the NT. But it's OK if you just use your Reason and "right understanding" to make up a new (subjective) context to self validate your hunches.
II. They absolutely establish norms of concerns."
Interesting, it's like they are establishing rules or something. Yet nowhere are these "norms" of behavior explicitly stated in any other context than the Jerusalem church.
"a. Jesus came literally preaching Good News to the literal poor and marginalized."
Among other things.
"b. He called his followers to do the same, repeatedly establishing that if you're not acting out of love and welcome to the least of these, you're not doing that to/for/with God."
Interesting example of taking the figurative language of a parable in a woodenly literal manner.
Of course, He also claaed on His followers to do more than that one thing.
c". The DETAILS of how to live out the Beloved Community of Grace/the Church can and will vary, but the point would be living in Love, in Community, in Grace, Welcoming and siding with specifically and especially the poor and marginalized. I'm guessing you disagree and that is your prerogative, but you can't really say that I'm taking these out of context without throwing away the better half of the gospel books (and the prophets and the epistles and early church history."
So, there really isn't a "the Beloved community", it's more just whatever an individual or group decides is their "way". Of course, you haven't really provided any details, because your insistence that "The (singular) Way" is really millions/billions/trillions of individual ways undermines your foundational claim that there is a "The Way".
"III. What you see and appear to dismiss as merely a "list of 'good works'" is, to many of us, the heart of the WAY that Jesus clearly and repeatedly taught about, the message that was central to his Gospel."
You are mistaken. I'm not dismissing these "good works" that you seem to say we are required to do, I'm merely asking about the reason and nature of these "good works". Hopefully you'll actually answer the questions asked.
"a. Is following in this Way of Welcome and Grace "necessary" to be a part of the Beloved Community? No, it's about Grace, not works."
then why do you keep only pointing out multiple lists of "good works" as being required to be a part of your "Beloved community"?
"b. BUT, if one is actively hostile towards - or even blithely dismissing and ignoring - reaching out to the least of these and this Way of Grace and Welcome, Jesus issues some serious warnings (thrown out into the fire where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth."
So, you seem to be saying that if we don't follow the ruled about doing "good works", that Jesus is going to torture those who don't for some undefined period of time. I guess "torture" is OK as long as it's "just" according to your hunches about what's "just".
"c. Can God create "followers" out of stones? Sure. So is God incapable without us? I don't think so. BUT, that's not how God has ever operated, creating magical followers out of stones. God has always said that WE are created to do good works in Christ. EVEN GREATER acts than Jesus, he told us."
Ok, as long as your Reason and "right understanding" have told you this secret magical knowledge, then you must be absolutely correct and beyond questioning. The problem I have is "Because I say so." doesn't actually prove anything. Of course, this contradicts you claims about rules and punishments as well.
"Jesus made it clear that his good news was specifically for the poor and marginalized and that he expects us to walk in that same Good News path. There is room for disagreement about how best to walk in those steps and what is and isn't siding with the least of these, but the point is, God expects us to follow in this way if we're followers of God."
Interesting. So your "right understanding" and reason lead you to conclude that when Jesus said that He came for "all", that He really meant "specifically" the materially poor and politically oppressed. You do understand that your use of the term "specifically" means that either Jesus came to exclude everyone else, or that Jesus has a "specific" "gospel" for the materially poor and politically oppressed, than the "gospel" for every one else.
"Which is only biblical and rational, wouldn't you agree?"
No. "Because I say so, based on my "right understanding" and Reason" is not proof of anything. Oh, and "rational" is subjective.
"Can you understand how these questions of yours might seem odd to an outsider looking in or even to just serious fans of Jesus' teachings? Do you recall what Gandhi had to say about this balking and questioning at siding/allying with the poor and marginalized?"
I don't care why your personal hunches about how some theoretical "outsider" might think about my questions. I'm not asking some hypothetical "outsider", I'm asking someone who claims to follow Christ with "right understanding" and Reason. But, it's a creative excuse.
I don't care what Gandhi allegedly said. But maybe apply his wisdom to yourself, not just others.
It's possible that despite my efforts to parse every one of your comments, and specifically answer your questions, that I might have missed some. If I did, be assured that it was only a mistake on my part. As a finite human, with limits on my time and other things, it's possible that I genuinely missed a question or a comment in the deluge of bullshit you've spewed here. So, perhaps you could embrace and display the grace you keep talking about instead of simply demanding it of others.
306 comments in this thread currently and Dan has nothing to offer but the same old proof texts, lists of talking points/catchphrases, and "Because I said so" to offer. He clearly doesn't understand how problematic it is for him to insist on "The (singular)Way', then insist that it's really "my(multiple) ways". This thread got absurd quite some time ago, but Dan kept it going with his fantasies and hunches. Because I rarely do anything to stifle people's ability to comment, I will not close the thread. Nor will I delete any further comments from Dan. However, I see very little upside to continuing to parse Dan's comments, answer virtually all of his questions, and respond to his fantasies/hunches when he's going to trickle a few answers/responses in here and there and pretend like he hasn't left numerous questions ignored and unanswered in his wake. I'm not saying that I won't occasionally point out idiocies when they appear or ask mor questions, but for the most part I'm done here.
Post a Comment