"7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
13 This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister."
It's always interesting when people pull a verse or two out of context in support of some pet theological notion. It's especially strange when their proof texts (which they take as woodenly literal as possible) are immediately followed by something that contradicts a position they hold dear. In other words, 1 John 7 must be taken in a wooden literal sense that tell us that the human action of "loving" is what reconciles us to YHWH. (Works theology), but the 1 John 9-11 are not to be taken literally. I've always wondered how anyone can pick and choose like that.
44 comments:
If you believe, as I do, that the most biblical and reasonable position for a God of perfect Love to have regarding salvation is that we are saved by Grace, not by works, not by some blood sacrifice which is the only way an “angry god” who “can’t abide sin” can appeased… if we believe in Grace and salvation that comes from Grace and we read these words…
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.
Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
This is how God showed his love among us:
He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
This is love: not that we loved God,
but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Dear friends, since God so loved us,
we also ought to love one another.
No one has ever seen God;
but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
…Reading that much, we find it compatible with a Grace Way God. It’s speaking of how to recognize those who follow God: They love. EVERYONE who loves, the passage says (without defining the parameters of that) IS born of God, IS of God. They KNOW God, those people who love. Who love others.
And if they love imperfectly, does a Grace-Way God condemn them for missing the mark and abandon grace and choose instead to insist upon a literal blood sacrifice to literally “pay” for their inability to love perfectly? Well, that doesn’t seem consistent with reason, with grace or with these passages. Nothing in the words above insist upon “everyone who loves PERFECTLY and WITHOUT ANY FAILURE is of God… BUT any slight slip or inability/failure to love PERFECTLY, well, hell, boys! THOSE losers are condemned.
It's not in the passage. It’s not in reason.
Am I mistaken? If so, where?
If you believe, as I do, that the most biblical and reasonable position for a God of perfect Love to have regarding salvation is that we are saved by Grace, not by works, not by some blood sacrifice which is the only way an “angry god” who “can’t abide sin” can appeased… if we believe in Grace and salvation that comes from Grace and we read these words…
"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.
Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
This is how God showed his love among us:
He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
This is love: not that we loved God,
but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Dear friends, since God so loved us,
we also ought to love one another.
No one has ever seen God;
but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us."
…Reading that much, we find it compatible with a Grace Way God. It’s speaking of how to recognize those who follow God: They love. EVERYONE who loves, the passage says (without defining the parameters of that) IS born of God, IS of God. They KNOW God, those people who love. Who love others.
And if they love imperfectly, does a Grace-Way God condemn them for missing the mark and abandon grace and choose instead to insist upon a literal blood sacrifice to literally “pay” for their inability to love perfectly? Well, that doesn’t seem consistent with reason, with grace or with these passages. Nothing in the words above insist upon “everyone who loves PERFECTLY and WITHOUT ANY FAILURE is of God… BUT any slight slip or inability/failure to love PERFECTLY, well, hell, boys! THOSE losers are condemned.
It's not in the passage. It’s not in reason.
Am I mistaken? If so, where?
Continuing with 1 John:
"This is how we know that we live in him and he in us:
God has given us of God’s Spirit.
And we have seen and testify that God has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.
If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God,
God lives in them and they in God.
And so
we know and rely on the love God has for us."
So, more of the same, with the addition of John saying we know not only by the love we have for others, but also because “God has given us God’s Spirit…” Not sure that changes anything. The Spirit is testifying to the Love of God and the Love of the Beloved Community, God’s people for others, right? Which is basically the same thing (for when you love these Others, you do it to me, Jesus said, right?)
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
This is how love is made complete among us
so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment:
In this world we are like Jesus.
There is no fear in love.
But perfect love drives out fear,
because fear has to do with punishment.
The one who fears is not made perfect in love."
THIS is how love is made complete, is known, gives us confidence in the Beloved Community of God: We who love are LIKE JESUS, John says. Wow, right? And we have no fear in this community of Love, this Way of Grace, because fear has to do with punishment – the legalism and threat of punishment by an irrational and angry god, but we have a God who IS LOVE, not anger, hatred, whimsical punishment. A God of Grace, by which we are saved.
Is that mistaken, rationally? If so, how?
And the one who fears (and the ones who TEACH fear??) are not made perfect in Love. Hm.
Again, seems to be more of the same: God is love and when/as we love, we show we’re walking in the way of God, of Love, of Grace. And there is no fear of punishment in that Way. In that God.
John:
"We love because God first loved us.
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar.
For whoever does not love their brother and sister,
whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.
And God has given us this command:
Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister."
Again, more of the same, right?
So, I’m unsure of your attempted points. You say, vaguely:
In other words, 1 John 7 must be taken in a wooden literal sense that tell us that the human action of "loving" is what reconciles us to YHWH.
1. I’m not saying we should take any verses “woodenly literally.” That is the way of fear and legalism. The Bible is not a rule book. Sabbath was made for humanity, not the other way around.
2. But, for those who DO claim to take the Bible rather woodenly, we have a whole chapter that goes on and on in pretty clear language that those who love are of God, in God, part of the Realm of God. A way of GRACE, not legalism, not works. Do you agree that is largely the point of all these verses, taken fairly literally? If not, why not?
3. But you think, in your mind, that verses 9-11 say something other than a Way of Grace and of Love and of a Beloved Community? Are you pitting 9-11 against the rest of the passages and saying that we should take 9-11 literally but not the other passages? If so, why, reasonably speaking?
4. Verse 11 says the same as the rest: We ought to love one another, as God demonstrates in the life of Jesus. So, that really doesn’t help your case. So, that leaves 9 and 10.
5. Verse 9 says God showed God’s love for us in making God’s Self present on earth in the person of Jesus, “that we might live in Jesus.” Nothing in contradiction to salvation by Grace in that, of course.
6. Verse 10, then, has the “meat” probably of your argument: It uses a line that fits in with the legalist/angry god theology of some humans: “This is love, NOT that we loved God, but that God Loved US (humanity) (so far, so good… we agree)… “AND SENT GOD’S SON as an ATONING SACRIFICE for our sins…” so that one portion of one sentence, removed apart from the rest of the clear teaching of the chapter has a red meat line “atoning sacrifice” that IF one removes it from reason and from the rest of the passage, one COULD choose to say that salvation ISN’T about love and grace, but is about an angry god who “needs” to punish sin and sinners.
7. But I do not choose to lift those two words out of the context of the passage, nor impose some other teaching over and against reason and decency.
In short, I don’t see how this is a problem for me, your apparent desire to rip these two words from the context of the rest of the passage or the entirety of Jesus’ teachings. BUT if you are trying to take it literally, then what does that do for the rest of the passage?
In other words, John and reason say we can know the followers of God by the way they love others. Period. That’s clear, it’s not vague, it’s not hard to understand and it’s in fitting with the teachings of our Lord, Jesus. Given this clear and reasonable teaching (if you believe in/affirm love and grace), do you think that we CAN’T recognize God’s people by the way they love others? Do you think that SOME who love are NOT of God, in direct opposition to what John clearly says (and what Jesus clearly says)?
This does seem like a problem for you, but not for me.
But then, I’m not a legalist nor do I advocate extracting woodenly literal rules out of Biblical passages.
1. Really. So you are NOT saying that "WHOEVER lives in love lives in God, and God in them. EVERYONE WHO LOVES has been born of God and knows God." are objectively True statements? Are you saying that those statements should be taken figuratively/
2. "But, for those who DO claim to take the Bible rather woodenly, we have a whole chapter that goes on and on in pretty clear language that those who love are of God, in God, part of the Realm of God. A way of GRACE, not legalism, not works."
I'm confused, your original point was that we must "love" in order to be "born of God". This would seem to make our action of loving a precursor to being "born of God". Therefore our being "born of God" is wholly dependent on our work of "love". Or are you suggesting that you do agree that God sent "His one and only Son into the world as an atoning sacrifice for our sins"?
"Do you agree that is largely the point of all these verses, taken fairly literally?"
No.
"If not, why not?"
Because I read the whole passage, not just a few cherry picked proof texts.
3. "But you think, in your mind, that verses 9-11 say something other than a Way of Grace and of Love and of a Beloved Community?" Since you use those terms so loosely and with little definition, I have no idea what you think they mean in this context. "Are you pitting 9-11 against the rest of the passages and saying that we should take 9-11 literally but not the other passages?" No. "If so, why, reasonably speaking?" No, I'm wondering how 9-11 fit with your insistence that Jesus did NOT come as an "atoning sacrifice for our sins".
4. The key to the whole passage is that we can only love because YHWH loved us first and provided us the means to love in ways similar to His love. When you cherry pick the verses you use as proof texts, you leave out the whole notion of YHWH acting first.
6. Really an excellent way of making my point. You need to remove or marginalize one part of your proof text in order to make it fit your hunch. My question remains as to what gives you the authority to ignore, remove, marginalize or minimize that verse as not being taken as woodenly literally as you take the rest of the passage? FYI, 10 obviously is key, but it's not the only problem.
7. Really? They clearly contradict your claims about the passage and about how our love is required for us to be "born of God".
"In short, I don’t see how this is a problem for me, your apparent desire to rip these two words from the context of the rest of the passage or the entirety of Jesus’ teachings."
Of course you don't because you simply choose not to take that one verse in the same wooden literal fashion as you do your cherry picked proof texts.
"BUT if you are trying to take it literally, then what does that do for the rest of the passage?"
It does nothing to the rest of the passage. It's all about context, and cherry picking a few verses from the context to take in a wooden literal fashion is the problem.
"In other words, John and reason say we can know the followers of God by the way they love others."
Well, placing your "reason" on an equal footing with John is quite the bold move. As is interpreting a few cherry picked verses out of context of the immediate passage, let alone the context of John's entire writings.
Dan,
Since you haven't actually addressed whether or not you take v 9-11 with the exact same degree of literalness you take your cherry picked proof texts, I see no reason to indulge you bringing in additional cherry picked proof texts as a way of obfuscating this fact.
Therefore, I'll post your comments, I just won't address them until you deal with v 9-11 and whether or not you take those with the same degree of literalness as your proof texts.
My point is, and has been, that you present your proof texts as if they must be taken in a woodenly literal sense (or in the exact same way you take them), while skipping over texts embedded in your proof texts that contradict your hunch.
"WHOEVER lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
EVERYONE WHO LOVES has been born of God and knows God."
The above are your emphatic conclusions drawn from your proof texts, which are clear that us engaging in "love" as a work is a prerequisite for being "in God", and "born of God".
I just won't address them until you deal with v 9-11 and whether or not you take those with the same degree of literalness as your proof texts.
I apologize if I've been unclear:
I DO NOT BELIEVE in taking ANY verses in the Bible (or Quran or Huck Finn, etc) literally just because they're in the Bible.
I do not believe in taking it literally when John says "“AND SENT GOD’S SON as an ATONING SACRIFICE for our sins…" in the midst of a bunch of verses talking about the Way of God, the Identifier of God's people is simply LOVE, I do not take it to mean literally that there must be some sacrifice - some literal blood sacrifice - before God can/will forgive someone. Nor do I believe in taking John literally when he says "Those who love others, love God..." and other similar verses. I do not take such verses literally just because they are in the Bible.
With me so far?
I take the notion of
1. IF there is a God who is perfectly love, perfectly grace, perfectly justice, perfectly forgiveness...
2 and IF that God has followers
3. THEN those followers WILL love others, show grace, be forgiving and work for justice. AND, that those who do those things ARE of God who is those things.
Does that make sense?
I'm a rationalist Christian. IF we can conclude rationally, reasonably that there is a loving Creator God of justice and grace,
THEN we can conclude that the ways of Grace, Love, Justice and Forgiveness are OF that God. It's not like a Perfectly Loving God would object to someone loving, right? Love is kind of God's thing. IF you believe in a perfectly loving God who, in the words of John, IS LOVE.
Thus, I'm not looking to the Bible as a rule book to pick and choose verses that appeal to me personally. I'm looking to the God of Love and Grace and striving to walk in that way because I love that way and that God.
Now, that's me. I'm not a literalist or one who says we should obey certain rules (but not others) simply because they are in the Bible. Jesus, after all, said, "“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple."
...but does that mean I take even Jesus' own red letter words as a literal rule? No! Not because they're in the Bible and not even because Jesus is recorded as having said that do I think it's reasonable to say we should HATE our families before we can follow Jesus.
Does any of that make sense to you?
Again, I'm not a literalist.
...
BUT, for those who ARE literalists, I agree with you, for LITERALISTS, they might have a problem with 1 John because he truly emphasizes how we can recognize God's followers by their love AND then John also throws in this throw-away line about "but saved by atoning sacrifice..." AND John doesn't really describe what he means by those words.
Consider that: John is repetitively and abundantly clear that those who love are of God who is love. It's repeated and clear and reasonable, don't you think?
(and truly, I want to know: Don't you think that it's reasonable that those who love as God loves - even if imperfectly as humans are imperfect - then they are Of God... doesn't that seem rational and commonsense to you?)
But while John is clear here what he means by that, when he says:
This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
That we might live "through him..."? What does that mean? Can you see that comparing "Those who love are of God" is clear and "we might live through Jesus..." is vague and not clear?
And John continues in your favorite verse...
This is love: not that we loved God,
but that he loved us and
sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
HOW is Jesus coming to earth an "atoning sacrifice..."? Is that speaking of the 12th-15th century tradition/theory developed by church leaders in that time period, the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement? It doesn't say, does it?
Is it speaking of some version of a "ransom theory" of atonement that was favored earlier in church history? John doesn't say. It's just a line in there with no clarification.
This is love: NOT that we love God (and NOT that we love others? Even though John repeats that theme throughout this passage?) but that Jesus was an "atoning sacrifice..."?
What do YOU think John meant there, in the context of these other verses?
Do you think that those who love are NOT of God, contrary to what John repeats (and what Jesus taught)?
To more directly answer any questions you had:
So you are NOT saying that "WHOEVER lives in love lives in God, and God in them. EVERYONE WHO LOVES has been born of God and knows God." are objectively True statements? Are you saying that those statements should be taken figuratively/
1. I BELIEVE that it is reasonably true that those who love are OF God and knows God, at least to some degree. We can't prove any of these opinions about God so I don't say that I can prove it objectively, just that it is REASONABLE, given what we know of Love and IF we accept the premise that God is Love.
Do you disagree?
I'm confused, your original point was that we must "love" in order to be "born of God". This would seem to make our action of loving a precursor to being "born of God".
My original point is that John is literally saying that those who love are of God AND I think it is reasonable, IF we accept the premise of a perfectly loving God then those who Love ARE of God.
Do you disagree?
Insofar as I do not believe in a salvation or life "by works" but a salvation by Grace, I do not think that loving others is a precursor to salvation, just that those who love God are OF God. As John clearly says and which I find to be reasonable.
Do you disagree?
are you suggesting that you do agree that God sent "His one and only Son into the world as an atoning sacrifice for our sins"?
As I've noted, John is not at all in any way what he meant when he said that Jesus was an "atoning sacrifice for our sins..." so whether or not I agree with that would depend upon what MEANING one assigns to "atoning sacrifice for our sins..." Do you agree?
That is, IF someone is saying that "atoning sacrifice" means that God is incapable/impotent/unwilling to forgive EVEN ONE SIN without a blood sacrifice of a perfect being and that Jesus was that perfect being, I do not find that human theory to be either rational or biblical.
Even if you don't agree, do you understand what I am saying?
My question remains as to what gives you the authority to ignore, remove, marginalize or minimize that verse as not being taken as woodenly literally as you take the rest of the passage?
As I've made clear: I do not take any of it woodenly literal because it's from the pages of the Bible. NOT one word. I take "those who love are of God/are living in the realm/way of God" as reasonable because it seems reasonable IF one accepts the premise of a perfectly loving God.
Do you not find that to be reasonable?
FYI, 10 obviously is key, but it's not the only problem.
So, in all these words from John, you have all these clear and reasonable teachings about those who love (do you agree that the rest is clear and reasonable?) AND you have this one line a bit out of context/out of step with the rest of the passage which is NOT clear/does not literally spell out what John meant, and you think the OBSCURE passage is the one that's key?
I was taught to deal with the Bible by interpreting the obscure/hard to understand lines/passages through the clear and obvious passages. Do you agree with this rubric?
I think that answers all your questions and more.
Setting aside the part Dan quoted which affirms Christ's atoning sacrificial death on the cross...what Dan mocks as a "blood sacrifice" while it actually was just that (Lamb of God and all), Dan seems to suggest that belief in God is wholly unnecessary, as if an atheist is incapable of loving others. Indeed, even those who insist there is no God, in fact no "god" of any kind, and mock believers as well for their faith in what they insist is total fantasy, even people such as this can love other people...all people in fact. How does that work then?
This is a case where Dan could have said at the time something like, "this passage indicates the encouragement for Christians to love others" and likely have gotten away with no scrutiny. Yet, his rendering being scrutinized, he prefers to dig in at the slightest hint he again said something quite stupid, rather than concede his rendering was lacking.
1. Since "reasonably true" is a vague and undefined standard based wholly in what Dan as an individual considers "reasonable", and which casts Truth on subjective scale, Dan's response literally has no meaning outside of his individual hunches.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"My original point is that John is literally saying that those who love are of God AND I think it is reasonable, IF we accept the premise of a perfectly loving God then those who Love ARE of God".
I understand. You are claiming that we must interpret this one snippet in a wooden literal manner, while not applying the same standard to the entire passage, let alone the entirety of John's writings.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes,
Which is a way of saying that loving is a precursor to being loved by God and being born of God, while denying that you are saying exactly that.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"As I've noted, John is not at all in any way what he meant when he said that Jesus was an "atoning sacrifice for our sins..." so whether or not I agree with that would depend upon what MEANING one assigns to "atoning sacrifice for our sins..." Do you agree?"
No. But thanks for clarifying that you choose to take this one line out of context and apply a different standard to it than you do to the rest of the passage. Thanks for not explaining why you decided that this one part of the passage is the only one where John meant something other than what he said.
"Even if you don't agree, do you understand what I am saying?"
I've understood that you are saying that this one section of the whole passage is the only one that you don't take in a woodenly literal manner because your personally don't "find it" to be worthy of doing so.
"As I've made clear: I do not take any of it woodenly literal because it's from the pages of the Bible. NOT one word. I take "those who love are of God/are living in the realm/way of God" as reasonable because it seems reasonable IF one accepts the premise of a perfectly loving God."
Why you choose to take parts of the whole passage in a wooden literal sense is irrelevant. The fact is that you do. because you base it on your subjective hunches rather than the authority of scripture is irrelevant.
"Do you not find that to be reasonable?"
No.
"So, in all these words from John, you have all these clear and reasonable teachings about those who love (do you agree that the rest is clear and reasonable?) AND you have this one line a bit out of context/out of step with the rest of the passage which is NOT clear/does not literally spell out what John meant, and you think the OBSCURE passage is the one that's key?"
Well, it's the key to my point. My point being that you've chosen to pick and choose which parts of the passage you used as an example to take in a wooden literal manner, while randomly throwing out other parts because you don't "find them" to fit your hunches.
"I was taught to deal with the Bible by interpreting the obscure/hard to understand lines/passages through the clear and obvious passages. Do you agree with this rubric?"
In theory. But not through my hunches about what I "find to be" aligned with my opinions. The problem is that you've randomly taken one part from the middle of this passage and simply decided that it is the only part of the passage that is "obscure", with no reason to do so other than what you "find".
"I think that answers all your questions and more."
then you are either stupid or illiterate.
"BUT, for those who ARE literalists, I agree with you, for LITERALISTS, they might have a problem with 1 John because he truly emphasizes how we can recognize God's followers by their love AND then John also throws in this throw-away line about "but saved by atoning sacrifice..." AND John doesn't really describe what he means by those words."
1. John doesn't really describe what he means by any of the words he uses.
2. By what standard do you get to decide that John intended this to be a "throw away" line?
"Consider that: John is repetitively and abundantly clear that those who love are of God who is love. It's repeated and clear and reasonable, don't you think?"
Irrelevant, unless you are suggesting that the entire epistle of 1 John can ONLY about the one topic you decide it is about.
"(and truly, I want to know: Don't you think that it's reasonable that those who love as God loves - even if imperfectly as humans are imperfect - then they are Of God... doesn't that seem rational and commonsense to you?)"
What I think isn't relevant.
"That we might live "through him..."? What does that mean? Can you see that comparing "Those who love are of God" is clear and "we might live through Jesus..." is vague and not clear?"
Well, given that John literally doesn't say anything specific about what he means by those terms, how can one conclude that it's anything other than vague?
This is love: not that we loved God,
but that he loved us and
sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
"HOW is Jesus coming to earth an "atoning sacrifice..."? Is that speaking of the 12th-15th century tradition/theory developed by church leaders in that time period, the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement? It doesn't say, does it?"
Well, since it doesn't say anything about Penal Substitutionary Atonement, it's probably more likely that he is referring to something else. Perhaps to Jesus' pwn words on the subject, perhaps to the vast amount of scriptural reference to YHWH establishing a system of atonement for sin. Perhaps because Jesus' love for us is best demonstrated through His atoning sacrifice for our sins. Perhaps because your confusion and insistence on shoehorning in your hunches about atonement into the text isn't the best way to interpret the text. Perhaps because the atonement theory that was codified later was simply a summary of what scripture teaches, not something made up out of whole cloth.
"What do YOU think John meant there, in the context of these other verses?"
Well, I'd venture that it's possible that John was suggesting that Jesus' demonstrated His love by sacrificing His life as atonement for sin. That when John said "Greater love has no man than that he lays down his life...", that he was suggesting that sacrifice for others is how to show love. That following the greatest example of Jesus' love is something we should do.
"Do you think that those who love are NOT of God, contrary to what John repeats (and what Jesus taught)?"
Again, what I think is irrelevant. What you can demonstrate to be True is what's relevant here.
In general, I do not think that scripture teaches anywhere that our engaging in the act of "love" is the single thing the reconciles us to YHWH. I think, as John clearly says, that the actions of YHWH are the only reason why we have the ability to love.
"With me so far?"
No. Why you choose to cherry pick which verses you choose to take in a wooden literal fashion is irrelevant. the reality is that you do choose to take some verses in a wooden literal fashion, while choosing not to interpret other verses in the same passage in the same way. It's your inconsistency in choosing which random verses you choose to take literally that is the problem, not why you do it.
"Does that make sense?"
As something that you've selectively chosen as your personal subjective mantra, it does have some degree of "sense" in a subjective sort of way.
"I'm a rationalist Christian. IF we can conclude rationally, reasonably that there is a loving Creator God of justice and grace,"
I really don't care that you choose to make your personal, subjective, "rationality" the final arbiter of what YHWH might be saying. I understand that you place your personal subjective understanding as the most important factor in your personal subjective faith. Yet this doesn't explain why you have the authority to cherry pick scriptural passages out of context and apply one phrase in a wooden literal fashion, and the very next phrase you choose to throw away as too hard to understand.
Since I am aware of no one who comments on this bolg who your definition describes, I fail to see the relevance. Nonetheless, you continue to insist that certain cherry picked phrases must be taken in a wooden literal sense, without explaining how you reach those conclusions.
"Does any of that make sense to you?"
Yes, it makes total sens that you place your ability to digest the very words of Jesus as the final arbiter of their Truth. It still doesn't answer the question regarding why you choose to take certain, out of context, passages as woodenly literal while dismissing others in the same section as "throw away". FYI, I'm pretty sure I know why, I just want to hear you actually explain your process.
"Again, I'm not a literalist."
Yet, you regularly take random, cherry picked, out of context is a woodenly literal manner without explaining why those passages should be taken literally and other contiguous passages should be thrown away.
...
Dan's "commentaries" indicate he's one of those "God is love" types who suggest God loves unconditionally. Scripture doesn't teach that, but it does teach PSA.
The real issue with the "God is love" narrative Dan and his kind push is that it makes a difference on whose terms love is defined. Dan's kind does not truly draw their understanding of love from Scripture, but instead injects into Scripture their own preference for how verses like that being discussed here should be understood. Like justice, Dan insists that God must "be love" in terms agreeable to Dan.
You asked...
Well, given that John literally doesn't say anything specific about what he means by those terms, how can one conclude that it's anything other than vague?
Because, "living through him" (Jesus) IS literally vague. What does it mean to "live through Jesus..."?
But "Those who love/show love to others" is easily understood. Those who show love to others give them food when they're hungry. Help them find work when they need work. Accept them for who they are, so long as they're not hurting others. Support. Accept. Welcome. It's not hard to understand.
What does "living through Jesus" literally mean?
IF one accepts Jesus teachings about the centrality of preaching literal good news to the literal poor/marginalized, it's not hard to understand making that connection. But "paying a blood sacrifice to appease an angry god who can't be satisfied outside of a literal blood/death sacrifice..." well, that's not so clear.
Craig...
What I think isn't relevant.
Well, IF you are saying, "I, CRAIG, think that Dan's opinions are not rational or biblical..." then what you, Craig, think IS critical to the questions at hand.
HOW you, Craig, interpret various passages IS what YOU think, is it not? If, YOU, Craig, think in your head that the reasonable conclusion of various biblical passages is that an almighty God who is perfectly loving and perfectly just and perfectly gracious is impotent to forgive sin/mistakes simply as a matter of will, well, that's a pretty important personal opinion you hold.
Do you hold that? If so, why?
I think what you personally think IS pretty important IF you're going to make claims like you think that it's a given that an almighty God is impotent to simply forgive sin.
Craig...
it makes total sens that you place your ability to digest the very words of Jesus as the final arbiter of their Truth. It still doesn't answer the question regarding why you choose to take certain, out of context, passages as woodenly literal while dismissing others in the same section as "throw away"
What do you use if not your ability to digest the very words of Jesus as a "final arbiter" in your personal understanding of Jesus' words? The opinions of other humans throughout history?
If you're deferring YOUR personal understanding to that of other humans, how does that make your personal understanding (which is STILL YOUR personal understanding) any better than mine? We ALL use our understanding to understand stuff. What else are you using? YOUR personal understanding of selected humans in church history? YOUR personal understanding of the text that makes you defer to selected humans in church history? How is that not still YOUR personal understanding?
It's a reasonable set of questions.
I said...
"My original point is that John is literally saying that those who love are of God AND I think it is reasonable, IF we accept the premise of a perfectly loving God then
those who Love ARE of God".
You responded:
I understand. You are claiming that we must interpret this one snippet in a wooden literal manner, while not applying the same standard to the entire passage, let alone the entirety of John's writings.
? No. Read what I said again. I literally noted the reality that "JOHN IS LITERALLY SAYING THAT THOSE WHO LOVE ARE OF GOD."
WHY do I say that?
Because John literally said, "Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God."
THOSE WHO LOVE HAVE BEEN BORN OF GOD AND KNOWS GOD, John literally says. I noted the reality that "THOSE WHO LOVE ARE OF GOD." I substituted "ARE BORN OF GOD AND KNOW GOD" with "ARE OF GOD." Is that different?
How?
I'm literally just citing what John literally said, am I not? Paraphrasing a comment is not the same as changing the comment, right?
Oh, never mind.
Craig asked...
So you are NOT saying that "WHOEVER lives in love lives in God, and God in them. EVERYONE WHO LOVES has been born of God and knows God." are objectively True statements? Are you saying that those statements should be taken figuratively/
I am saying that IF God is a God of love who hopes others/humans love also, then noting that WHOEVER lives in Love, lives in God (as John literally claims) is a reasonable conclusion.
Do you disagree?
That is, I'm NOT making a comment/offering an opinion on whether or not John's words in this passage should be taken literally because they occur in this NT text, I'm saying this idea is a reasonable idea IF one accepts the notion of a perfectly loving God. It's not at all about the source, it's about the reasonable conclusion given a presumption.
I'm saying IF one accepts the premise of a perfectly loving God, then this claim by John is also reasonable and consistent with that premise.
Do you disagree?
Craig...
Why you choose to take parts of the whole passage in a wooden literal sense is irrelevant. The fact is that you do.
The fact is, I consider the claim by John to be consistent with the premise of a perfectly loving God. It has absolutely nothing to do with taking John's words literally because they're from 1 John, but because they're rationally consistent with the premise.
If there's a passage in the bible that talks about how oppression is wrong AND goes on to talk about enslaving people (an act of oppression), then I'm not defending the passage. I'm noting that being opposed to oppression is consistent with the premise of a loving and just God.
"But "Those who love/show love to others" is easily understood. Those who show love to others give them food when they're hungry. Help them find work when they need work. Accept them for who they are, so long as they're not hurting others. Support. Accept. Welcome. It's not hard to understand."
Is it really that easy? Accept what? Anything? Who decides what to accept?
So, those who "show love" in the ways you mention are then "born of God" and "know God"?
"IF one accepts Jesus teachings about the centrality of preaching literal good news to the literal poor/marginalized, it's not hard to understand making that connection. But "paying a blood sacrifice to appease an angry god who can't be satisfied outside of a literal blood/death sacrifice..." well, that's not so clear."
Interesting that you narrow down the most important part of Jesus' "good news" to focusing on the "poor/marginalized" (as we see above by giving them stuff), based on one part of one passage from one recorded "teaching" of Jesus. Ignoring the likelihood that the radical part of your proof text is Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. Ignoring the reality that Jesus' Himself spoke of Him coming to be the atoning sacrifice for our sin. Ignoring the reality that the OT contains the foundation for Jesus' coming as the sacrificial lamb. The reality is that it's not "so clear" to you personally, so you choose to brush it off because you find it "not so clear" and if you don't find it "so clear" then it couldn't possibly be clear to anyone else. It couldn't possibly be that the problem is you and your interpretive lens of what you personally find "reasonable", "rational" and acceptable.
"Well, IF you are saying, "I, CRAIG, think that Dan's opinions are not rational or biblical..." then what you, Craig, think IS critical to the questions at hand."
Since I'm not saying that...
"HOW you, Craig, interpret various passages IS what YOU think, is it not?"
If the focus and linchpin of interpretation is the "YOU", then the answer is no. My personal comfort with a passage rarely enters into my interpretative process.
"If, YOU, Craig, think in your head that the reasonable conclusion of various biblical passages is that an almighty God who is perfectly loving and perfectly just and perfectly gracious is impotent to forgive sin/mistakes simply as a matter of will, well, that's a pretty important personal opinion you hold."
Again, when you make shit up and pretend like it represents what I think/believe, you are almost guaranteed to be wrong.
"Do you hold that? If so, why?"
No.
"I think what you personally think IS pretty important IF you're going to make claims like you think that it's a given that an almighty God is impotent to simply forgive sin."
1. As usual, what you "think" is on little value to me.
2. Where have I made that claim?
"What do you use if not your ability to digest the very words of Jesus as a "final arbiter" in your personal understanding of Jesus' words? The opinions of other humans throughout history?"
I'll defer answering these questions until you answer clearly and unambiguously whether or not you consider you, your "reason" and "rationality" as the sole and final arbiter of what scripture means and of what scripture should be taken literally v. figuratively?
"If you're deferring YOUR personal understanding to that of other humans, how does that make your personal understanding (which is STILL YOUR personal understanding) any better than mine?"
As a general rule, I'd argue that the collective wisdom of thousands of years of scholars who've studied theology carries more weight than the subjective, personal, hunches of some guy on the internet. Especially when that guy makes objective claims about scripture.
"We ALL use our understanding to understand stuff. What else are you using?"
Various things.
"YOUR personal understanding of selected humans in church history? YOUR personal understanding of the text that makes you defer to selected humans in church history? How is that not still YOUR personal understanding?"
No, No, No, No.
I guess it's reasonable to conclude that you do lean entirely on your flawed, subjective, imperfect, personal hunches to create your individual theology.
"It's a reasonable set of questions."
Based on your personal, subjective, hunches about what "reasonable" means and your attempts to spin your personal, individual, subjective hunches as objectively True for others.
I know you think it's perfectly reasonable to repeat the same questions over and over, before I've even had the opportunity to answer them, but I'm not going to indulge your hubris, stupidity, impatience, and condescension by answering them more than once.
It's telling that you have to reassure yourself that your questions really are "reasonable". As if the reality wasn't self evident.
"I am saying that IF God is a God of love who hopes others/humans love also, then noting that WHOEVER lives in Love, lives in God (as John literally claims) is a reasonable conclusion."
So, are you saying that if someone "lives in love" (whatever that means) that they cannot "live in God" until after they "live in love"?
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"That is, I'm NOT making a comment/offering an opinion on whether or not John's words in this passage should be taken literally because they occur in this NT text, I'm saying this idea is a reasonable idea IF one accepts the notion of a perfectly loving God. It's not at all about the source, it's about the reasonable conclusion given a presumption."
Again, your reasoning for why you insist that these particular words of John absolutely must be taken in a wooden literal fashion is immaterial. The reality is that you clearly are insisting that this particular words (as opposed to other contiguous words) must be taken literally. I don't care why you do so. I am hoping that you will explain how you concluded that these specific words can be isolated from their context to be taken literally (as you choose to interpret them), while you choose to insist that adjacent words must NOT be taken literally. This is what happens when you don't answer the question asked. It's clear WHY you latch onto these cherry picked, out of context words and phrases to apply in a wooden, literal fashion. It's NOT clear how you decide which words to cherry pick and remove from context.
I suspect I know the answer, but I'd rather you answer the question clearly and unambiguously, instead of reaching a conclusion on my own.
If the source of these words and concepts gives them no value, then why bother stressing their source? Why not just paraphrase them, and rely on your "reason" and "rational" gifts to give them their value?
"I'm saying IF one accepts the premise of a perfectly loving God, then this claim by John is also reasonable and consistent with that premise."
If one accepts your guesses and hunches about what that phrase actually means, then your conclusions do follow. But if the fact that it's your hunch isn't persuasive, then not so much.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"The fact is, I consider the claim by John to be consistent with the premise of a perfectly loving God. It has absolutely nothing to do with taking John's words literally because they're from 1 John, but because they're rationally consistent with the premise."
Again with answering a question that I didn't ask, and have explained multiple times. Why you choose to apply your subjective hunches to this cherry picked passage is irrelevant. Why you chose to cherry pick this part of a larger passage to adopt in a woodenly, literal sense is the question at hand. Although it's clear that you will likely never answer the question I actually asked, and all I can do is keep pointing out your unwillingness to do so.
I'm wasting enough time parsing the things that are relatively on topic, I'm not going to indulge you going down another rabbit hole in order to move the conversation away from your refusal to answer the question you've been asked.
What I'm hearing you say is that YOU believe that everyone should cherry pick out these parts of this one passage in 1 John, because YOU are convinced that John agrees with YOU and YOUR hunches about how YHWH hopes that we would live, and that our "living in love" will allow us to "live in God". I hear you saying that the foundation for your conclusion is that this cherry picked snippet aligns with YOU and YOUR preconceived notions about how YHWH and people should behave because YOU trust YOUR "reason" and gifts of "RATIONAL" thought.
Close?
If, as you say, YHWH is a God of "perfect love" and actually "is love", how is it that He is satisfied with imperfect and limited love based (as you say) almost entirely in giving material things to those in need? Are we not to love our enemies? To love those who persecute us? Did not Jesus Himself show love to those who excited Him? Is love really only about giving things to those less materially well off than we are? Why does YHWH require us to love the poor/oppressed as the only/primary way to become "born of God"? What exactly does "born of God" mean and exactly how does that work? Why is being "born of God" something to be sought? If we are only "born of God" through "loving" the "poor/oppressed" by giving them things, then how are the "poor/oppressed" to be "born of God"? Must they somehow find and show love to those who are more "poor/oppressed" than they are by giving the more "poor/oppressed" the same gifts that you say we are to give the "poor/oppressed"?
Craig asked...
I'll defer answering these questions until you answer clearly and unambiguously whether or not you consider you, your "reason" and "rationality" as the sole and final arbiter of what scripture means and of what scripture should be taken literally v. figuratively?
?
This is easy. ANY human being with the capacity to think and reason does so with THEIR REASONING. YOU use your reasoning to understand the words, the text, the context, their intent. Same as me. What else do you have if you're not using your personal human reasoning?
So, MY reasoning is in no way the sole and final arbiter of what Scripture objectively and authoritatively and definitively means, BUT it IS what I use to sort out what I think it means. Same as you. I use my reasoning, as you do, to decide:
1. Is this 'scripture?'
2. What does that mean?
3. Do these biblical words indicate that God supports and sometimes command slavery?
4. Do these biblical words indicate that God is a just God?
5. IF God is a Just God, then how can a Just God command slavery or command the literal slaughter of literal men, women, children and babies?
6. Do these words found in the Bible indicate that we should take them as literal history? Why?
7. Should this text be considered metaphorical or figurative? Should it be taken as literal history? If one or the other, why?
And on and on. WE humans use our reasoning to understand texts and assign meaning to texts, that is how reading and reasoning work.
Do you disagree?
And again, IF you're not using YOUR reasoning, then what ARE you using to understand these various texts, ideas, philosophies and theories?
So, again: I am being abundantly clear (as always on this topic) that MY reasoning is not the sole arbiter for declaring the "right" understanding of any one text. AND YOUR REASONING is not the sole arbiter for declaring the right understanding of any one text. And the reasoning of the people in your various faith traditions are not the sole arbiter. AND the Bible is not - CAN not be the sole arbiter to "tell us" how to understand a given text. The bible can't do that, it's just words on a page, literally speaking. OUR human reasoning does not and can not be the sole arbiter of what God thinks about the various words in the Bible.
Do you disagree? If so, who do you think the "pope" is whose perfect reasoning and human understanding we DO need to bow down to?
What answer did you think I'd give to this abundantly simple to answer question?
As a general rule, I'd argue that the collective wisdom of thousands of years of scholars who've studied theology carries more weight than the subjective, personal, hunches of some guy on the internet. Especially when that guy makes objective claims about scripture.
Even if you DO trust the opinions of hundreds of other humans (thousands? Whatever) who've had opinions about what the words in the Bible mean, NONE OF THEM are God and can speak objectively for God.
Do you disagree with this simple reality?
IF you do disagree, which humans CAN speak for God? IF you have some list of these preferred humans with infallible opinions on certain matters, do you care if I don't trust your human opinion about their human opinions?
And as always, I'm not saying my opinions are objectively proven because of course, they're not. I mean, when I say, "John literally said that those who love are of God," well, that's objectively true because I'm just citing an objectively provable fact claim. But as to the meaning you or I assign to various words, neither of us can prove objectively that they are objectively proven.
Do you recognize that reality (that I've been abundantly clear on this point over the years and years where the question has been raised)?
Do you recognize the reality that neither you nor I can objectively prove what God thinks about John's words?
I've been clear. How about you?
So, are you saying that if someone "lives in love" (whatever that means) that they cannot "live in God" until after they "live in love"?
No. If you read my words, you can see that I've been abundantly clear that I believe in salvation by God's grace, not by works. John noted the idea that "THOSE WHO LOVE ARE IN GOD." I'm just agreeing that the face-value meaning of the words/that claim is a reasonable one. It's a proof of salvation, John said, not the CAUSE of salvation.
Understand?
Some questions from Craig...
If, as you say, YHWH is a God of "perfect love" and actually "is love", how is it that He is satisfied with imperfect and limited love based (as you say) almost entirely in giving material things to those in need?
How is a God who is love (as texts in the bible say and Christians traditionally believe) satisfied with imperfect and limited love?
Well, as an imperfect father who loves my wonderful but imperfect children, if they are, in fact, imperfect in how they show love (or really, in any way!), I AM satisfied with my glorious, imperfect amazing children.
Are you not?
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this question. As someone who loves my imperfect children, am I satisfied with imperfection? Well, it would be insane of me to expect perfection from imperfect people, wouldn't it?
I don't get the point.
Do you think that a perfect God would be mad at imperfect people being imperfect?
?
I mean, do you understand the question, WTF?
What ELSE can imperfect people be but imperfect?
Are we not to love our enemies?
Sure, yes.
To love those who persecute us?
Sure, yes.
Did not Jesus Himself show love to those who excited Him?
I assume here you mean those who executed him? Yes, Jesus loved them.
Is love really only about giving things to those less materially well off than we are?
No, I don't think so. Why?
Why does YHWH require us to love the poor/oppressed as the only/primary way to become "born of God"? What exactly does "born of God" mean and exactly how does that work?
God doesn't say. I think, reasonably speaking, IF we BEGIN decent behavior and actions and reason by looking out for the LEAST fortunate and MOST at-risk of being abused, harmed, oppressed and create policies, actions that alleviate their oppression, THEN the world will be better and WE'LL be better.
For instance, when we look out for the disabled in wheelchairs and we create ramps at every intersection that allow those in chairs to get up on the sidewalk, it ALSO helps out the parents who take their children out in strollers AND those children AND children learning how to ride a bike without getting in the street AND the car drivers who might potentially run down a child on a bike or a person in a wheelchair so that THEIR lives are ruined by that great awful thing.
Why do YOU think that "watching out for the least of these" is such a thoroughly biblical theme, perhaps THE most mentioned biblical theme, in terms of volume and emphasis?
Answering more questions, to show how it's done...
Why does YHWH require us to love the poor/oppressed as the only/primary way to become "born of God"?
You'll have to ask God/Jesus WHY God found it so important to begin with love for the poor and marginalized. But then, neither God (in the Bible) nor I are saying that showing love for the poor/oppressed is "the way to become born of God." I believe and I think the bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace. As I've said endlessly, not by works.
What exactly does "born of God" mean and exactly how does that work?
God literally hasn't told us, nor "how exactly" it works. Right? I think that the thrust of the verses found in the bible on this theme and just plain common sense show that being "of God" who IS Love, Grace, Justice and Forgiveness, means agreeing with God that Love, grace, justice and forgiveness are vital parts of the realm of God.
Why is being "born of God" something to be sought?
It depends on what meaning one assigns to "born of God." IF one assigns the meaning that God is unwilling/unable to forgive outside of a blood sacrifice and "acceptance" (whatever that means) of that "blood sacrifice to appease an angry god," then I don't know that is something to be sought.
But IF being OF God means accepting notions of love, grace and justice, then reasonably speaking, who WOULDN'T want to align with that God?
If we are only "born of God" through "loving" the "poor/oppressed" by giving them things, then how are the "poor/oppressed" to be "born of God"?
Again, I'm not saying one is born of God BY/THROUGH loving the poor and marginalized. I'm saying that the Bible and Jesus repeatedly state that this is a sign of being OF God. And the poor and marginalized are OF God when they love and accept grace and forgiveness and justice. My longtime neighbor who struggles daily with his severe mental illness and is marginally homeless, nonetheless is one who loves the poor and marginalized and is Of God in that sense.
Must they somehow find and show love to those who are more "poor/oppressed" than they are by giving the more "poor/oppressed" the same gifts that you say we are to give the "poor/oppressed"?
Again, I STILL don't believe/affirm a salvation of works, so, no.
The reality is that you clearly are insisting that this particular words (as opposed to other contiguous words) must be taken literally.
And yet, in the real world, I literally do NOT insist that those words MUST be taken literally. I'm not a legalist, you see.
I'm saying that IF God is a God of perfect Love, THEN, those who love are IN God, in the WAY of God, rationally speaking. It has nothing to do with insisting John's words must be taken literally and instead, just recognizing how these words are reasonable.
Do you disagree? Do you think that those who love are NOT acting in God's Way?
So, showing how one answers questions, I asked...
"We ALL use our understanding to understand stuff. What else are you using?"
And you replied, vaguely...
Various things.
Which means what, specifically?
I asked...
"What do you use if not your ability to digest the very words of Jesus as a "final arbiter" in your personal understanding of Jesus' words? The opinions of other humans throughout history?"
And you replied, saying you WON'T answer until I answer questions that I now have answered (again and again)...
I'll defer answering these questions until you answer clearly and unambiguously whether or not you consider you, your "reason" and "rationality" as the sole and final arbiter of what scripture means and of what scripture should be taken literally v. figuratively?
Okay, now that I've clearly and unambiguously answered your questions (many of them!), how about it? WHAT are you using if not your reason to understand texts?
We exchanged ideas/questions:
"I'm saying IF one accepts the premise of a perfectly loving God, then this claim by John is also reasonable and consistent with that premise."
If one accepts your guesses and hunches about what that phrase actually means, then your conclusions do follow. But if the fact that it's your hunch isn't persuasive, then not so much.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
So, you disagree that the premise of a perfectly loving God is reasonable?
OR, do you disagree that a perfectly loving God would act lovingly towards humans?
OR, do you disagree that a perfectly loving God didn't say, "What you've done with the least of these, you've done it for me" and "I've come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized?"
What are you disagreeing with?
"So, you disagree that the premise of a perfectly loving God is reasonable?"
No.
"OR, do you disagree that a perfectly loving God would act lovingly towards humans?"
No.
"OR, do you disagree that a perfectly loving God didn't say, "What you've done with the least of these, you've done it for me" and "I've come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized?""
Well, since there's no record of YHWH saying that, I'd have to disagree that He did say it.
"What are you disagreeing with?"
Your eisegesis.
"This is easy. ANY human being with the capacity to think and reason does so with THEIR REASONING. YOU use your reasoning to understand the words, the text, the context, their intent. Same as me. What else do you have if you're not using your personal human reasoning?"
So your reason is the only tool at your disposal, and therefore the final arbiter of what scripture you take in a woodenly literal manner.
"So, MY reasoning is in no way the sole and final arbiter of what Scripture objectively and authoritatively and definitively means, BUT it IS what I use to sort out what I think it means. Same as you. I use my reasoning, as you do, to decide:"
So, it's not because you don't actually consider scripture authoritative and all you have left is your personal "reason" to come up with your personal hunches. None of which are authoritative or apply to anyone but you.
It's interesting that you place conditions on the possible answers to your questions. I think they call that eisegesis.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"And again, IF you're not using YOUR reasoning, then what ARE you using to understand these various texts, ideas, philosophies and theories?"
Every tool at my disposal.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"If so, who do you think the "pope" is whose perfect reasoning and human understanding we DO need to bow down to?"
I don't.
"What answer did you think I'd give to this abundantly simple to answer question?"
I was hoping for a yes or no. Unfortunately, I got both.
"Even if you DO trust the opinions of hundreds of other humans (thousands? Whatever) who've had opinions about what the words in the Bible mean, NONE OF THEM are God and can speak objectively for God."
So? I've never once claimed that anyone does/did "speak for God". I also don't only put my trust in my own flawed, imperfect, fallible, hunches based on my subjective "reason".
"Do you disagree with this simple reality?"
What "reality"? That you made up some bullshit, then asked a "question" based on your made up bullshit false premise?
"IF you do disagree, which humans CAN speak for God? IF you have some list of these preferred humans with infallible opinions on certain matters, do you care if I don't trust your human opinion about their human opinions?"
Theoretically, any. No.
"And as always, I'm not saying my opinions are objectively proven because of course, they're not. I mean, when I say, "John literally said that those who love are of God," well, that's objectively true because I'm just citing an objectively provable fact claim. But as to the meaning you or I assign to various words, neither of us can prove objectively that they are objectively proven."
Ahhhhhhhh, the "Neither of us can objectively prove..." dodge. The best you can say is that you found one version of a text purported to be from someone named John and the text contained those words, in that order. Which is no reason to assume that you have found some great, mystical Truth that applies to everyone or that should be followed.
"Do you recognize that reality (that I've been abundantly clear on this point over the years and years where the question has been raised)?"
No, you haven't. You might have convinced your self that you have, but you haven't.
"Do you recognize the reality that neither you nor I can objectively prove what God thinks about John's words?"
In which case, all you really have is the fact that you've cherry picked some words that fit with your personal philosophy and that you think might be a good way for your personally to live.
"I've been clear. How about you?"
What, specifically, have I not been clear about?
"No. If you read my words, you can see that I've been abundantly clear that I believe in salvation by God's grace, not by works. John noted the idea that "THOSE WHO LOVE ARE IN GOD." I'm just agreeing that the face-value meaning of the words/that claim is a reasonable one. It's a proof of salvation, John said, not the CAUSE of salvation."
So, when John says that "those who live in love are in God", you are saying that living in love is not necessary to live "in God"? Or that John was mistaken in the order. That it should say that "Those who live in God, live in love"?
In your proof text, without context, it seems clear that living "in love" precedes living "in God". You may claim something else, but the plain meaning of the text seems pretty clear. (Again, especially when taken out of the context of the entire book of 1 John and the rest of John's writings.
"Understand?"
No. You've merely stated your hunch, with no proof beyond you stating your hunch. Since you've admitted that you cannot prove your hunch, I must consider the source (you) on this unproven hunch and conclude that the source (you) is not worthy of believing without proof.
"Well, as an imperfect father who loves my wonderful but imperfect children, if they are, in fact, imperfect in how they show love (or really, in any way!), I AM satisfied with my glorious, imperfect amazing children."
Since you are NOT YHWH, then I fail to see how your response answers the question asked.
"Are you not?"
I'm not YHWH>
"I'm not sure what you're getting at with this question. As someone who loves my imperfect children, am I satisfied with imperfection? Well, it would be insane of me to expect perfection from imperfect people, wouldn't it?"
Obviously the question confuses you. I've read the context, and know how the author of 1 John answers the question. Maybe you could answer the question as asked and not talk about yourself. I'm happy that you can answer this question about yourself, now answer the question asked.
"Do you think that a perfect God would be mad at imperfect people being imperfect?"
No.
"?"
Ahhhhhhh, the "Idiotic, random punctuation marks strewn carefully (yet randomly) throughout your response tactic." As always, it just makes you look stupid.
"I mean, do you understand the question, WTF?"
Yes.
"What ELSE can imperfect people be but imperfect?"
That's true, as long as you limit the options.
"Sure, yes."
Really, your proof texts and eisegesis "poor/oppressed" don't mention this at all. Wouldn't loving our enemies necessitate loving oppressors?
"Sure, yes."
Again your cherry picked proof texts and eisegesis severely limited the options of those who you think must be loved.
"I assume here you mean those who executed him? Yes, Jesus loved them."
See above.
"No, I don't think so. Why?"
Because your example of how we are required to love others was limited to only the "poor/oppressed" and limited to giving those people stuff. Certainly an incredibly limited view of love.
"God doesn't say. I think, reasonably speaking, IF we BEGIN decent behavior and actions and reason by looking out for the LEAST fortunate and MOST at-risk of being abused, harmed, oppressed and create policies, actions that alleviate their oppression, THEN the world will be better and WE'LL be better."
Interesting. You think and say that YHWH wants/expects us to love the "poor/oppressed" as our primary focus, yet you acknowledge that YHWH never actually says what you claim He thinks we should do. SO it's really more accurate to say that- Dan thinks that YHWH really means that the cherry picked proof texts in 1 John are about loving the "poor/oppressed" in the specific way Dan tells us we should and that he has no way to prove that his hunch aligns 100% with YHWH or his proof texts.
"Why do YOU think that "watching out for the least of these" is such a thoroughly biblical theme, perhaps THE most mentioned biblical theme, in terms of volume and emphasis?"
I don't think that it is. I also don't see any evidence that "the least of these" is limited to only the "poor/oppressed" or that loving them can only be done in the way you specify.
Hell, I don't even think that "Loving the least of these" is the topic of the majority of 1 John.
"You'll have to ask God/Jesus WHY God found it so important to begin with love for the poor and marginalized. But then, neither God (in the Bible) nor I are saying that showing love for the poor/oppressed is "the way to become born of God." I believe and I think the bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace. As I've said endlessly, not by works."
Really? When you eisegeted your cherry picked proof texts you were very clear that those who love are "born of God" (still can't tell us what "born of God means, but...), and that love is primarily about providing the "poor/oppressed" with certain things that you believe are important. I've quoted your words in the first post of my series on 1 John.
"God literally hasn't told us, nor "how exactly" it works. Right? I think that the thrust of the verses found in the bible on this theme and just plain common sense show that being "of God" who IS Love, Grace, Justice and Forgiveness, means agreeing with God that Love, grace, justice and forgiveness are vital parts of the realm of God."
Got it. You really don't have a clue and certainly no specific scriptural support for your hunch, which means the the most important words in your response are "I think", because that's all you have is your hunches.
"It depends on what meaning one assigns to "born of God." IF one assigns the meaning that God is unwilling/unable to forgive outside of a blood sacrifice and "acceptance" (whatever that means) of that "blood sacrifice to appease an angry god," then I don't know that is something to be sought."
So you really don't have anything other then repeating your "blood sacrifice" canard. It's interesting that your cherry picked proof text seems to place a high value on being "born of God" (as does the larger context of 1 John) but your content to settle for your ignorance and prejudices.
"But IF being OF God means accepting notions of love, grace and justice, then reasonably speaking, who WOULDN'T want to align with that God?"
Got it. If being "born of God" (I noticed the goal post move there) means what you think it should mean, then it's a good thing. If it means anything other than what you think it should mean, then it's bad. Again the focus is on you. What if being "born of God" means persecution, oppression, injury, and death, does that fit in your Dan centered hunch?
"Again, I'm not saying one is born of God BY/THROUGH loving the poor and marginalized. I'm saying that the Bible and Jesus repeatedly state that this is a sign of being OF God. And the poor and marginalized are OF God when they love and accept grace and forgiveness and justice. My longtime neighbor who struggles daily with his severe mental illness and is marginally homeless, nonetheless is one who loves the poor and marginalized and is Of God in that sense."
Really? Where specifically does the Bible say specifically that loving the "poor/oppressed/marginalized" in the way that you clearly specified is a/the sign of being "born of God"? If you don't know what the term means, how can you be so sure that your personal, subjective hunch is right?
"Again, I STILL don't believe/affirm a salvation of works, so, no."
So, the "poor/oppressed/marginalized" can't be "born of God" because they have no one to "love" who's more "poor/marginalized/oppressed".
"And yet, in the real world, I literally do NOT insist that those words MUST be taken literally. I'm not a legalist, you see."
Really? Then why would you write a blog post based on your cherry picked proof texts in which you insist that the cherry picked proof texts mean what you say they do and that the only way to show the love that allows us to be "born of God" is by loving the "poor/oppressed/marginalized" in the specific way you tell us we should show love? Are you now suggesting that your cherry picked proof texts should be taken figuratively and the they DON"T actually mean what you say or that others are free to interpret them in a manner that contradicts your eisegesis?
"I'm saying that IF God is a God of perfect Love, THEN, those who love are IN God, in the WAY of God, rationally speaking. It has nothing to do with insisting John's words must be taken literally and instead, just recognizing how these words are reasonable."
So you are NOT saying that "those who love are IN God, in the WAY of God," should be taken literally? That it's all just metaphor?
"Do you disagree? Do you think that those who love are NOT acting in God's Way?"
As a very simplistic notion, based only on your out of context, cherry picked, proof texts, I could see how you could come to this conclusion.
I'll point out that many of the issues Dan raises are actually dealt with in the context of the entirety of 1 John, let alone the entirety of John's writings.
I'll also note that I've regularly heard progressive christians who don't like it when we quote John because John's gospel is a little bit of an outlier as it focuses more on spiritual things, and not as much on the "social gospel" that they find in M,M,L. But, all of a sudden, if we can just cherry pick a few proof texts out of context and eisegete them a bit, John is a fountain of good things.
"WHOEVER loves, lives in God."
These are Dan's words, capitalized for emphasis by him.
If this statement is True, then can we conclude that WHOEVER does not love, does not live in God?
If this statement is True, then doesn't a great deal hinge on what God thinks love is?
If this statement is True, then the action of loving must be a prerequisite to live in God.
And again, evil people, God-haters, God-deniers...these people love, too. How does Dan resolve this fact with the verse he finds so compelling?
Dan can't reconcile anything to his cherry picked, out of context, proof texts, because it's more about what his vaunted "reason" tells him is true for him, and less about what might actually be the meaning of his cherry picked, out of context, proof texts.
As I believe I've shown, his hunch about the most important topic in 1John is clearly not supported once you look at the context.
Post a Comment