"EITHER PROVE that God is limited to opinions that affirm older texts with rules specific to an earlier people - PROVE IT OBJECTIVELY - or admit that this is just your personal opinion, not something you can objectively prove."
While I'm not welcome to comment at the cesspool, and I wouldn't bother trying, I do occasionally stop in there to see what is being spewed. From what I gather, it appears that Art is arguing that the Holy Spirit isn't going to teach anything that contradicts existing scripture. While the above appears to be Dan's devastation counter. The fact that it's in bold and has ALL CAPS makes it especially devastating.
Based on this, I see one obvious question that I haven't seen Dan answer.
"Will the Holy Spirit teach anything that directly contradicts the existing scriptures?"
For example, if the Holy Spirit teaches me that "Thou shalt murder." is the new official teaching, should I accept that and start murdering people?
This obviously raises other questions.
How does one prove that some "new" teaching is "from the Holy Spirit"?
What do we do when we have one person claiming that the Holy Spirit brought them a "new teaching", which contradicts a "new teaching" that the Holy Spirit brought someone else?
Would the Holy Spirit give two contradictory teachings to different people?
Since we're told that the Holy Spirit will lead up into "Truth", then how could two "Truths" contraction each other?
It seems as though the Holy Spirit could bring "new teachings" on certain things as things have changed since the 1st century BC. But it seems like those "new teachings" would be more along the lines of clarification, than something completely different.
For example, it could be argued that Jesus' teaching about lusting after women being rape could be clarified to mean that watching porn is equal to lusting after women and therefore is rape. I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit would provide a "new teaching" telling us that porn is now perfectly OK and is not rape.
That seems to be the crux of the matter, which I haven't seen a good answer from the peanut gallery. If these "new teachings" are simply updates of existing teachings, then that doesn't seem problematic. If they contradict earlier teachings, that does seem problematic. In all of the demands to "PROVE IT", the matter of proof of the contentions of the peanut gallery seems to be lacking. I haven't dug deep, but it seems like a bunch of repetition of "Of course the Holy Spirit teaches new things", with very little in terms of proof or examples.
In conclusion, like so much, this seems to be essentially an argument from subjective experiences, and nothing else. "X must be a new teaching of the Holy Spirit, because it seems like it should to me." Ot something of that nature. I guess, it'd be nice to see proof produced, not just demanded.
47 comments:
Craig:
I see one obvious question that I haven't seen Dan answer.
"Will the Holy Spirit teach anything that directly contradicts the existing scriptures?"
For example, if the Holy Spirit teaches me that "Thou shalt murder." is the new official teaching, should I accept that and start murdering people?
That you don't think you haven't seen me answer it doesn't mean the answer isn't there or isn't obvious. But here:
I. GOD will not contradict GOD, I do not believe. Certainly not as a rule (there are biblical places where God changes God's mind, but let's set that aside).
II. That SOME HUMANS have personal opinions about what God said in the Bible is not objective proof that their human opinions are the same as God's Word.
III. I happen to believe that, RATIONALLY speaking - regardless of what some individual passages might say in the Bible - a perfectly just God opposed to the killing or enslavement of innocents will NOT command enslavement or killing of innocents.
What about you? Will YOU make clear what your personal hunch is on the matter? DOES God sometimes command people to slaughter a whole city, including its children and infants?
IV. So, for someone like me with a rational belief in a perfectly just God who would not command people to kill other people or any other evil, my answer is rationally consistent: NO. Period.
But what about you? Is it not the case that, to YOU, because there are some words in your magic rule book that say God DID in fact command people to slaughter babies, you will not say that it's always wrong?
Now, I know that I took FOUR entire points to make clear my position, but was that something you can understand?
Do you think I'm being irrational in my clear and direct opinion?
Do you think I'm being ungodly in my clear and direct opinion?
Craig:
How does one prove that some "new" teaching is "from the Holy Spirit"?
Well, that happens regularly, doesn't it? I mean, YOU all claim that God would not bless gay folks doing something as deeply decent and loving as committing together in marriage IF they are gay or lesbian. But that is objectively demonstrably NOT a biblical teaching. It is literally a new teaching (new, from Biblical times, although it has certainly been a long-held tradition amongst extremist religions of all sorts).
How do we "prove" it OBJECTIVELY? We simply can't.
Period.
THAT is the direct and observably factual answer.
IF you could, you would, but you can't, nor can I.
Can you admit that this has been proven repeatedly (that you all have never objectively proven your opinions on any of these matters of disagreement)?
What has been "proven" repeatedly? "Proven," HOW? Do you mean that many religious extremists have all agreed with one another that they are the Right Ones? The Pharisees certainly thought so, but that didn't get them very far with Jesus, did it?
I can't "admit" something has been proven that has never once been proven.
What do we do when we have one person claiming that the Holy Spirit brought them a "new teaching", which contradicts a "new teaching" that the Holy Spirit brought someone else?
We reasonably consider it using our God given reasoning. What else would you encourage? That we listen to what SOME HUMANS say, "But HERE is what God says in the Bible and that means X..."? WHY should we care what such a human opines about biblical text?
Would the Holy Spirit give two contradictory teachings to different people?
No. I don't think so. Not two contradictory teachings to two people in the exact same position/scenario. On the other hand, I certainly can see a perfectly all knowing God would recognize the rational notion that not all situations are the same. Stealing from the poor to enrich a billionaire's election campaign by scaring gullible fools into giving them their scarce money IS a wrong sort of stealing - it causes harm to innocent dupes. Stealing the carburetors from Nazi engines to enable oppressed people to escape is a GOOD sort of stealing, because the purpose is to protect the oppressed.
Do you disagree that the situation makes a difference? If you do, why should I care about that human opinion of yours that would enable Nazis to capture and kill innocent people? Can you at least understand how, from a rational moral reasoning point of view, that hunch of yours is morally atrocious?
Your questions answered. Your turn.
Answering more questions/dealing with other points raised...
Craig:
Since we're told that the Holy Spirit will lead up into "Truth", then how could two "Truths" contraction each other?
Two truths won't contradict each other. Period.
BUT, there can be different circumstances that make a difference in the behavior in question. Stealing carburetors from poor people to enrich one's self? BAD. Stealing carburetors to prevent Nazis from killing innocent people: GOOD.
Do you disagree?
It seems as though the Holy Spirit could bring "new teachings" on certain things as things have changed since the 1st century BC. But it seems like those "new teachings" would be more along the lines of clarification, than something completely different.
Agreed. For instance, God has CONSISTENTLY been described as a perfectly just, perfectly good and loving God. AND, in the context of Old Testament peoples, that sometimes (if you take the text literally) involve God commanding the enslavement of people, the slaughter of children and babies - this, even though slavery and infanticide are clear moral wrongs.
Now, MAYBE, some might theorize, that IN THE CONTEXT of ancient settings, such normally-evil behaviors could be defended. Somehow.
But that would not change the rationally-defensible notion: A perfect God IS perfectly just.
And so, we might later clarify that of course, enslaving people is always a great and atrocious evil, an affront to human rights and basic decency, as is slaughtering children. So, to clarify, IF it happened as literally described in ancient texts, then clearly - to clarify - that is NOT in any way normative to morality. It IS, indeed, immoral to enslave people and slaughter children. Always and in all circumstances.
Likewise, maybe in the context of ancient cultures bigoted against women or LGBTQ folks, some behaviors were disapproved of. MAYBE. BUT, to clarify, of course, it is a good, moral and rational thing for two people to join in a loving marriage arrangement, gay or straight. Because of course it is. So, to clarify, JUST BECAUSE ancient people and places were not prepared to accept human rights for all to the degree we do now, that does not change the reality that human rights for all IS a moral good.
Why are these not reasonable clarifications to misunderstanding God in ancient times?
That "human rights" is not actually a "new teaching," as "human rights" are reasonably implied from the notion of the biblical perfectly loving, perfectly just God. It's just a clarification on longstanding bigotries and bad understanding?
HOW is that not rational? HOW is it unbiblical?
Dan's trying to back up feo, who was the goof who brought up the HS teaching new things. He gives no real evidence, but as is so often the case with what little Dan will offer, feo cites verses and passages and inserts his own preferred understanding, which the text itself doesn't support. I'm somewhat bored with the discussion as responding to feo was provoked by boredom itself. Thus, I'm not sure how much more I will attempt to add there, and now that Dan has entered the fray with his typical childish ultimatums, demanding proofs he won't even attempt to offer for an alternative position he ostensibly finds more appealing, I've no doubt that further commenting will be deleted. In other words, the usual stuff.
Oh...one other thing. I don't think looking at porn would be criticized as anything other than adultery, in the same way Christ regarded lusting after another as adultery. A small quibble, but as such I would reckon the Spirit would "update" the notion in this way.
"That you don't think you haven't seen me answer it doesn't mean the answer isn't there or isn't obvious. But here:"
Which is just a way of saying that you haven't directly answered previously, but you've hidden hints somewhere.
"I. GOD will not contradict GOD, I do not believe. Certainly not as a rule (there are biblical places where God changes God's mind, but let's set that aside)."
So, which is it? YHWH won't contradict Himself, or He will only contradict Himself occasionally.
"II. That SOME HUMANS have personal opinions about what God said in the Bible is not objective proof that their human opinions are the same as God's Word."
Which is just you repeating your same old narrative without specific proof that specific humans are specifically wrong about specific passages. Further, this is irrelevant to this topic.
"III. I happen to believe that, RATIONALLY speaking - regardless of what some individual passages might say in the Bible - a perfectly just God opposed to the killing or enslavement of innocents will NOT command enslavement or killing of innocents."
A. What you "happen to believe" is irrelevant. The fact that you place your "Reason" over "some passages in the Bible" is telling.
"What about you? Will YOU make clear what your personal hunch is on the matter? DOES God sometimes command people to slaughter a whole city, including its children and infants?"
Why would I answer this irrelevant question? How does it have anything to do with you allegedly answering the question I've asked?
Of course, this tactic of asking a question I've answered multiple times to distract from the fact that you haven't definitively answered the question you claim to be answering, is old and tired. It's just a set up so you can bitch that I never, ever, ever, answer any questions you ask and then urn away from being pushed to give specific, direct, answers your self.
"IV. So, for someone like me with a rational belief in a perfectly just God who would not command people to kill other people or any other evil, my answer is rationally consistent: NO. Period."
But how about just answering the question asked.
"But what about you? Is it not the case that, to YOU, because there are some words in your magic rule book that say God DID in fact command people to slaughter babies, you will not say that it's always wrong?"
What is it with you asking the same question, that I've already answered, multiple times in the same comment? Do you think it's helpful or productive? Do you think it's answering the question I asked? Are you simply a childish, impatient, demanding, idiot?
"Now, I know that I took FOUR entire points to make clear my position, but was that something you can understand?"
Well, since only one of your "points" was even indirectly related to answering my question, and that point was equivocal, I'm not sure what you're so proud of.
"Do you think I'm being irrational in my clear and direct opinion?"
I think that the fact that you think that your equivocal, off topic, hunch was "clear and direct" is irrational.
"Do you think I'm being ungodly in my clear and direct opinion?"
Delusional, and obfuscating, sure. But no more ungodly than usual. Which is, of course, also irrelevant.
Art,
The problem with Dan backing up the troll, is that the troll is arguing that the Holy Spirit is engaged in supernatural works, and Dan's usual response to anything supernatural is to demand "PROOF". This is Dan seeming to go against his usual demands for "PROOF" of everything, simply because the troll sees him as a useful idiot who will allow him to post his comments with virtually zero attempt to control what he says. It's like Dan craves the "support" of the troll, and the troll craves Dan's platform. Clearly the troll hasn't been able to sustain his own platform.
I agree with you about porn, yet I remember Dan advocating women participating in porn in previous conversations. My point is that I don't think that the HS would modify Jesus' teaching on adultery in such a way that porn was now acceptable.
"Well, that happens regularly, doesn't it?"
Does it? Please provide some direct, objective, unequivocal proof of your claim.
"I mean, YOU all claim that God would not bless gay folks doing something as deeply decent and loving as committing together in marriage IF they are gay or lesbian."
Not exactly, but if lying about what we "claim" makes you feel good, then go right ahead.
" But that is objectively demonstrably NOT a biblical teaching. It is literally a new teaching (new, from Biblical times, although it has certainly been a long-held tradition amongst extremist religions of all sorts)."
1. The "teaching" that homosexual sex is "an abomination" is not a "new teaching".
2. There is absolutely zero "teaching" that marriage somehow magically transforms "an abomination" into a "blessing".
3. You have regularly and specifically claimed that "God blesses gay marriage". Yet this claim of yours is explicitly NOT a Biblical teaching, and has no support historically throughout Christian teaching.
4. Given that your claim that "God blesses gay marriage" is not supported by scripture, and presupposes that the "abomination" of homosexual sex is somehow "blesses" by "marriage", is absolutely without support in scripture the burden of proof lies with you to "PROVE" your claim.
5. Are you claiming that the HS has told you that "God blesses gay marriage"?
"How do we "prove" it OBJECTIVELY? We simply can't."
You keep saying this, yet you don't apply the same standard to yourself. If the HS has told you that "God blesses gay marriage.", then why won't you prove this?
"Do you disagree that the situation makes a difference?"
No, I do not think that the HS is going to contradict that teachings of YHWH, or things it has said elsewhere deepening on the "situation".
"If you do, why should I care about that human opinion of yours that would enable Nazis to capture and kill innocent people?"
You shouldn't care about things that you've made up.
"Can you at least understand how, from a rational moral reasoning point of view, that hunch of yours is morally atrocious?"
What are you talking about? Do you understand that the point of this post is whether or not the HS will contradict YHWH as revealed in scripture? Do you understand that you've referred to this "hunch of yours", without identifying this "hunch"?
To answer this bizarre question, I would never place my "reasoning" over a direct command from the HS. I would never place my "reasoning" in a place of contradicting YHWH. I would never place my "reasoning" as the final arbiter of what is "moral".
"Your questions answered. Your turn."
Given the fact that you haven't managed one single unequivocal answer, this is quite a claim. The fact that you don't seem to understand how for off topic your questions are is quite distressing. Unless the of topic questions are merely a pretext to give you an excuse to run away and feel like you can blame my "not answering" your off topic "questions".
"Two truths won't contradict each other. Period."
This answer sounds like the sort of simple, direct, unequivocal answer I always hope for. Then it's immediately followed by a negation of the seemingly simple, direct, unequivocal answer.
"BUT, there can be different circumstances that make a difference in the behavior in question. Stealing carburetors from poor people to enrich one's self? BAD. Stealing carburetors to prevent Nazis from killing innocent people: GOOD."
Or stealing could always be against YHWH's law and therefore wrong, and YHWH could take that wrong behavior and use it for a good result because He's sovereign. Are you really suggesting that YHWH, through the HS, has said that "stealing is wrong" and then given you some exceptions to that rule? Or are you saying that your "Reason" is the better judge of what is wrong and right than YHWH? Are you really saying that stealing is acceptable when it's in the service of defeating Hitler, but killing isn't?
"Do you disagree?"
When you present your unproven (off topic) hunch as if it's some sort of objective Truth, I will virtually always disagree with your unproven (off topic) hunch.
"But that would not change the rationally-defensible notion: A perfect God IS perfectly just."
How would one "rationally defend" this "notion" without being able to objectively prove anything about it? (I know this is off topic, but it's such a bizarre claim that i can' let it go)
"BUT, to clarify, of course, it is a good, moral and rational thing for two people to join in a loving marriage arrangement, gay or straight. Because of course it is."
So, where specifically has this claim been "clarified"? Or are you simply offering "Of course it is." as some sort of "PROOF"? It's an excellent argument from silence.
"Why are these not reasonable clarifications to misunderstanding God in ancient times?"
Because your subjective, fallible, imperfect, biased, "Reason" is not an objective standard.
"That "human rights" is not actually a "new teaching," as "human rights" are reasonably implied from the notion of the biblical perfectly loving, perfectly just God. It's just a clarification on longstanding bigotries and bad understanding?"
Are you really claiming that the 21st century, politically liberal, concept of "human rights" is a direct, specific "teaching" from the HS?
"HOW is that not rational? HOW is it unbiblical?"
Well, since "rational" is a subjective standard and unique to you, it's completely appropriate for you to believe that your subjective, imperfect, biased, prejudiced, fallible, human hunches about what is subjectively "rational" are your truth. For those subjective hunches to apply beyond yourself, requires "PROOF".
Since you haven't presented any Biblical support for your subjective hunches, it would seem that they are extra biblical at a minimum, and likely unbiblical as the only rationale you've offered to ignore the text is your "Reason" (as noted is subjective).
Dan has raised an interesting (if unintentional) point/question.
If YHWH and Allah (or any other deity or religion) are really exactly the same, and that all are equally valid paths to the same result, then why do so many things contradict between these equal paths to the same place?
I have to note that it is seemingly impossible for Dan to have a discussion on almost anything without making gay sex and focal point. One wonders why.
I have to concede that I also refer to homosexuality as it stands as the perfect example of "modern progressive" moral corruption...how the progressive distorts to serve his agenda. For example, I've been waiting literally since 2008 for Dan to produce any Biblical evidence that Lev 18:22 refers to "some forms of homosexual behavior" rather than homosexual behavior period.
But what's most glaring in almost any conversation with Dan...particularly as it regards Scripture...is how he references to totally irrelevant when it suits him, how he satisfies himself with "of course it is" or "it's self-evident", while demanding strict parameters for those like us defending our positions (Danny Double-Standard), how he avails himself of the loosest paraphrasing of Scripture, often ignoring the many conversations where definitive explanations regarding original language expose his willful perversions of the text, and a host of other fallacious methods of argument.
Another example is the constant criticism of how we've "interpreted" what is crystal clear, while he offers absolutely no alternative understanding...and certainly none with any more compelling evidence than his "reason".
And that's another thing...he believes he's capable of sound reasoning, but can't prove it. Indeed, he's proven that he's totally INcapable, as can easily be seen in his posts on the Bible and economics and posts on homosexuality and SSM. He's never provided a "reasonable" alternative explanation for every instance in the OT where God called upon His Chosen People to affect punishment on entire cities, further mocking the reality by focusing on "slaughtering infants", as if that was the sole purpose.
I have to say, a series of posts can be done to examine all the ways Dan has proven he's no understanding of "adult conversation" or "good faith" conversation. I haven't even listed every instance of his perversion of discourse in his comments above. And I've got a ton more manifestations of his dishonesty at his blog if I choose to indulge there.
Art,
I understand that it can be a good example, but to introduce it into so many threads which have no relevance? I don't get it.
Now IF Dan was arguing that the HS has given us a "new teaching" on homosexuality and that the teachings tells us "X,Y, and Z", that would be one thing. But he's not doing that. He's (apparently) arguing that homosexuality in a marriage (whatever that means) is somehow not sinful, while promiscuous homosexual sex outside of marriage might be sinful. (Sort of summarizing his positions over the years) Dan is focused on "gay marriage" which is never even hinted at in the Bible (un Biblical?) and seems to be arguing that marriage somehow makes bad behavior less bad. Kind of like beating your girlfriend is bad, but once you marry her, it's ok. He's argued in the past that if homosexuals marry, that they fully embrace things like fidelity, monogamy, and the like. Unfortunately, the actual data doesn't seem to bear out his fantasy. In any case, Dan's argument hinges on ignoring the fact that homosexual sex is what is condemned in scripture, and that there's no scriptural support for the notion that marriage changes that underlying concept.
I know, his default to "self evident" is one of his go to escapes when he's asked for proof of something. What he should be saying is, "It's self evident to me (Dan).". He implies that his hunch is somehow universal.
Again, yes. His inability to offer an alternative that fits with the text is legendary and annoying at the same time.
His hiding behind his subjective, fallible, imperfect, biased, "Reason", is one of his biggest cop outs. His placing his "Reason" as some sort of arbiter of Truth for anyone else is simply hubris. The question is whether or not he worships his "Reason", or whether he worships himself.
I feel like I've done some of those posts. I did one in particular where I just quoted many of the vile, nasty, un Christian, graceless, things he said about me. It seems that his idea of conversation is that he can't be questioned, and the his "Reason" trumps all.
It's a complete waste of time to compile his lies, vitriol, and the rest. He'll ignore it, lie about it, tell you that you misinterpreted the exact words of his that you quoted, or play his "Jesus did it" card.
Because your subjective, fallible, imperfect, biased, "Reason" is not an objective standard.
But reason is all we have. YOU DO NOT HAVE OBJECTIVE PROOF of what God thinks about various moral issues. No one does. IF you did have such proof, you all would present it. It would be world-wide news and a great revelation to all.
But no one ever in all of history so far has presented objective proof. As a point of objective fact.
NOW, I have made an objective fact claim. IF you want to disprove me, all you have to do is provide the objective data to support your opposition position. ALL you have to do is present even just ONE person or source which has provided objectively proven data about God's opinion on various moral matters. JUST ONE.
You don't do it because you can't do it. You have no objective data. Period.
Now, GIVEN that neither of us/no one has objective proof of God's opinion on slavery, NOR any rational support to say, "Ya know, sometimes, God really wants for us to enslave people and slaughter babies..." GIVEN that, we should use our moral reason to establish some boundaries.
WHY should we use our moral reason? Because these are important matters. Slavery is a gross human rights violation. Rape is a gross human rights violation. Slaughtering children, babies and infants (as you believe God sometimes commands)(apparently - you won't clarify) is a gross human rights violation. These are all REASONABLY considered grotesque evils. Even you will probably agree with that claim (although, again, you're so vague and wishy-washy on such topics, it's hard to tell).
Given the great costs at stake in such acts of evil and oppression, and GIVEN that we who follow God tend to believe that God is a God opposed to oppression, then it is imperative for us to use our God given reasoning to make the case against oppression.
Do you disagree?
Craig cowardly said:
His hiding behind his subjective, fallible, imperfect, biased, "Reason", is one of his biggest cop outs. His placing his "Reason" as some sort of arbiter of Truth for anyone else is simply hubris.
Why in the world is someone who supposedly follows a God of love and justice SO OPPOSED to using and embracing our God-given moral reasoning? The vulgar hubris in condemning those of us who embrace the notion of moral reasoning as a valid effort is staggering. To belittle moral reasoning in the face of great atrocities is to give aid and comfort to the oppressors.
You are a moral anarchist, son. Stop it. It's just not Christ-like. Take a stand for human rights and decency.
DO YOU AGREE that it is always a great evil to enslave people? To slaughter children, babies and infants?
Take a stand for justice. In the name of God.
Sure, I would go in knowing that in advance. Just the same, given how many and how often he employs such, to compile a significant percentage of them...maybe the most often used...would be a public service for any new readers (not that they don't see it themselves). Then, I could copy/paste it to his blog whenever he inundates another discussion with them. That alone would make it worth it.
I see you're still complaining about a lack of answers from me, even though I gave direct-as-possible answers. For instance:
How does one prove that some "new" teaching is "from the Holy Spirit"?
We can't objectively prove a teaching (old or new) is from the Holy Spirit. Direct, factual, concise. A clear and direct answer.
On this question, though:
"Will the Holy Spirit teach anything that directly contradicts the existing scriptures?"
...it REQUIRES clarification. What do you MEAN by "directly contradicts the existing scriptures..."? You see, you and I often don't agree on what is and isn't a directly scriptural teaching. I see an abundance of text in the Bible that repeatedly affirm what is rational IF one presumes a perfectly loving, perfectly just God.
So, the teaching that SOMETIMES God commands people to enslave others or slaughter innocents IS contrary to biblical teaching. And, at the same time, we have a few stories where the people telling the story depict God as doing just that.
Can we agree that the Bible teaches that God is perfectly loving and just... that indeed, these are two primary characteristics of God?
Can we further agree that there are Biblical passages that show "God" commanding Israel to kill babies and children wholesale? That there are passages that show Israel being commanded to enslave enemy people (including men, women and children)?
Can we further agree that there is at least one passage that teaches the very reasonable notion that a perfectly Good, Loving and Just God will not command people to do evil things?
These are ALL literally in the pages of the Bible and, on the face of it, is a great apparent contradiction (at least for those who insist stories of God commanding slavery and slaughter are literal history factually depicting what God did).
So, perforce, YOUR question -
"Will the Holy Spirit teach anything that directly contradicts the existing scriptures?"
...demands some clarification. What do you MEAN "contradicts existing Scripture..."?
You see, the problem remains that the Bible is simply not a magic rule or rulings book. The stories and rules found within the pages of the Bible don't always necessarily represent reality, at least not in any rational, objectively proven manner. So, to be abundantly clear, I had to deal with that portion of your question in some specific detail.
I say that God will not contradict God. AND I added the caveat that the Bible contains stories of God changing God's mind. God wanted to wipe out Ninevah and told Jonah he would... but then God didn't wipe out Ninevah. Or Jesus who was confronted by the Canaanite woman and Jesus said he wouldn't help her... but then he did. So, at least at times, God/Jesus are depicted in ways that might conceivably be considered changing their mind. But as a rule, I tend to think of God as consistent. That is a direct and clear answer and my caveat to the rule is also clear.
You want better answers? Ask better questions. If you ask questions that have flaws or unsupported presuppositions and vague conditions and a direct answer requires clarification.
Now, as an observable, objectively demonstrable point of fact, in the pages of the Bible there is nowhere where it says that God won't later offer different/clearer teachings. That is absent from the pages of the Bible.
There is nowhere where it says that the text of the Bible... well, of course, the Bible says ZERO about "the Bible." It was compiled by humans. But setting that aside, there is nowhere in the pages of the Bible that it says that the text of the 66 books of the Bible contain all moral teachings. Just as a point of fact, it doesn't.
Likewise, nowhere in the pages of the Bible - not one place - does it say that the 66 are THE SOLE SOURCE or even the PRIMARY source for information about God.
These are all objectively demonstrable facts. Do you recognize that much?
In conclusion, like so much, this seems to be essentially an argument from subjective experiences, and nothing else. "X must be a new teaching of the Holy Spirit, because it seems like it should to me." Ot something of that nature. I guess, it'd be nice to see proof produced, not just demanded.
Earlier, you noted something I can agree with, generally: " it seems like those "new teachings" would be more along the lines of clarification, than something completely different."
Indeed. The Bible has a lot of passages about a lot of topics, sometimes saying things that, on the face of it, seem contradictory. IS God a God of perfect love and justice? OR, does God whimsically choose to create most of humanity for "destruction" to try to boost that god's own little ego? IS God a God of perfect love and justice? OR, does god want to condemn the majority of humanity to an eternity of suffering for being imperfect humans and not "accepting Jesus" in the right way, as determined by modern conservatives?
Given the history of imperfect humans misunderstanding the very basic notions of Love God, Love the Creation/Love Humanity, WILL it sometimes be helpful necessary for God to remind us to use our God-given reasoning to just, you know, not be sick jerks and graceless pharisees but rather, to love and welcome all, as God wishes (as recorded in the bible, anyway)? Sure, maybe, why not.
So, it might be better to say that recognizing the human rights of gay folks, of women, of oppressed minorities is not actually a "new teaching" from God/the Holy Spirit, but just a reminder that, even though cultures may change and evolve, human rights and basic decency remain true to what God wants: To love God and love God's creation. Period.
And so, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what's "pleasing to me," as you slanderously and falsely suggest, but what is pleasing to human rights, love and grace (ie, God's Way).
And while we can't objectively prove that it's good and Godly to welcome immigrants, to support LGBTQ folks, to support women's rights, the poor and the oppressed, of course, neither can y'all prove objectively that it's good or "godly" to repress immigrants, to deny decent treatment and kindness to LGBTQ folks, to oppress women, the poor and marginalized. That NONE of us can objectively prove our positions does not mean that we should not use our God-given moral reasoning to do the best we can to promote the basic decency of loving God and loving God's creation, of supporting and allying with the least of these, the poor and marginalized. The Haitians, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the LGBTQ, the refugees, the imprisoned, the poor... you know, the people that Jesus literally said (in the Bible) that he'd literally come to literally preach the literal good news to.
Right?
Here's one example of one of your problems:
it could be argued that Jesus' teaching about lusting after women being rape could be clarified to mean that watching porn is equal to lusting after women and therefore is rape. I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit would provide a "new teaching" telling us that porn is now perfectly OK and is not rape.
You're making the leap from "It COULD be argued..." to "therefore, it must be the case that Jesus was speaking against porn."
It's one thing to say, "it could be argued..." and another thing to say, "Jesus was opposed to porn." The former is reasonably plausible, the latter is, however, not a given. It's a subjective opinion, a human interpretation of what MAYBE we COULD reason to POSSIBLY be the case, if we use our human reasoning.
Do you understand the distinction and agree that just because it COULD be argued does not equal "therefore, it is objectively factually the case..."?
As a point of objectively demonstrable fact, neither God nor Jesus have staked out an objectively provable opinion on modern porn. We might make a case one way or another based on a variety of input (biblical text on perhaps maybe similar topics, the human reasoning about concerns about justice issues around pornography, etc) but it would remain an unproven and subjective human opinion, NOT an objectively proven fact.
Right?
"But reason is all we have. YOU DO NOT HAVE OBJECTIVE PROOF of what God thinks about various moral issues. No one does. IF you did have such proof, you all would present it. It would be world-wide news and a great revelation to all."
This itself is a subjective claim that you have no proof of, yet you present it in such a way as to imply that you do have objective proof of your subjective claim.
"But no one ever in all of history so far has presented objective proof. As a point of objective fact."
By all means, provide objective proof of this objective fact.
"NOW, I have made an objective fact claim. IF you want to disprove me, all you have to do is provide the objective data to support your opposition position. ALL you have to do is present even just ONE person or source which has provided objectively proven data about God's opinion on various moral matters. JUST ONE."
If you have made an "objective fact claim", then isn't the onus on you to prove your "objective fact claim"? Of course you can't, and you won't, so you'll play this bullshit game.
"You don't do it because you can't do it. You have no objective data. Period.'
Nor do you, even though you act as if you do.
"Now, GIVEN that neither of us/no one has objective proof of God's opinion on slavery, NOR any rational support to say, "Ya know, sometimes, God really wants for us to enslave people and slaughter babies..." GIVEN that, we should use our moral reason to establish some boundaries."
Of course, you haven't proven that either of your two "GIVEN" claims are actually objectively True. Which means that your "GIVEN" claims are subjective, as is your call for using "moral reasoning".
"WHY should we use our moral reason?"
This is the wrong question. The better question is "Why should anyone else, with a different moral reasoning, accept your subjective moral reasoning?".
"Given the great costs at stake in such acts of evil and oppression, and GIVEN that we who follow God tend to believe that God is a God opposed to oppression, then it is imperative for us to use our God given reasoning to make the case against oppression."
The problem you have is that in all of your invoking of "God", you're still peddling your subjective hunches that have no authority on anyone else.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, I disagree that your subjective hunches about morality are binding or authoritative on others who have a different moral framework.
"Why in the world is someone who supposedly follows a God of love and justice SO OPPOSED to using and embracing our God-given moral reasoning? The vulgar hubris in condemning those of us who embrace the notion of moral reasoning as a valid effort is staggering. To belittle moral reasoning in the face of great atrocities is to give aid and comfort to the oppressors."
I have no objection to using "reason" in it's proper place. I have a problem with you elevating "Reason" to the entity that is the final arbiter of good and evil and that can pass judgement on YHWH. My problem isn't with "reason", it's with how you wield reason as something to force your subjective hunches on others.
"You are a moral anarchist, son. Stop it. It's just not Christ-like. Take a stand for human rights and decency."
Well, this is such an excellent example of Dan embracing grace. To lie while pretend to take a stand for "decency" is rich indeed.
"DO YOU AGREE that it is always a great evil to enslave people? To slaughter children, babies and infants?"
I'm not answering this again. Especially from someone who is advocating for Hamas to achieve it's goals through the use of such tactics.
"I see you're still complaining about a lack of answers from me, even though I gave direct-as-possible answers. For instance:"
"Direct-as-possible" is just another way to acknowledge that your responses were not direct and unequivocal>
"...it REQUIRES clarification. What do you MEAN by "directly contradicts the existing scriptures..."? You see, you and I often don't agree on what is and isn't a directly scriptural teaching. I see an abundance of text in the Bible that repeatedly affirm what is rational IF one presumes a perfectly loving, perfectly just God."
I get it, you want to make your stand on maintaining flexibility regarding what scripture says, I get that. But it doesn't answer your question, it's just an excuse to generate more smoke and equivocation. The reality is that the question can be answered without all this bullshit. If you interpret scripture to say X, then will the Holy Spirit tell you it means Y? What X and Y are is irrelevant to the question.
"Can we agree that the Bible teaches that God is perfectly loving and just... that indeed, these are two primary characteristics of God?"
I fail to see the point of asking this question again, and again. But, I am unaware of any specific uses of the terms "perfectly loving" or "perfectly just" in scripture. It's possible to draw those conclusions by inference from other scripture, but I can't see where the Bible explicitly teaches exactly those things. What we can say is that Scripture tells us that YHWH is not limited to those two attributes, that those two attributes aren't His primary attributes, and that He might see love and justice differently than we do.
"Can we further agree that there are Biblical passages that show "God" commanding Israel to kill babies and children wholesale? That there are passages that show Israel being commanded to enslave enemy people (including men, women and children)?"
Yes.
"Can we further agree that there is at least one passage that teaches the very reasonable notion that a perfectly Good, Loving and Just God will not command people to do evil things?"
Since we've moved into your subjective hunch about what one particular passage means, I can't agree with your subjective hunch without a specific reference. I further, couldn't agree with your subjective hunch over the entire context of scripture.
"You want better answers? Ask better questions. If you ask questions that have flaws or unsupported presuppositions and vague conditions and a direct answer requires clarification."
Your ability to blame others for everything is impressive. Your inability to answer a simple direct question in a simple, direct, unequivocal manner is also impressive. Your ability to waste an entire comment justifying your inability to provide a simple, direct, unequivocal answer is especially impressive. The fact that you rely on your subjective, unproven, hunches to do so, is just icing on the cake.
As I pointed out, your hunches about what scripture means are irrelevant to the answer. I have to note that your obsessively pointing out that God won't contradict God, makes it clear what you think about scripture.
"Now, as an observable, objectively demonstrable point of fact, in the pages of the Bible there is nowhere where it says that God won't later offer different/clearer teachings. That is absent from the pages of the Bible."
Which is a point that I already made. The question still would be whether or not these theoretical "different/clearer teachings" will contradict the earlier teachings. Although your use of the word different would indicate that you are wide open to contradiction.
"There is nowhere where it says that the text of the Bible... well, of course, the Bible says ZERO about "the Bible." It was compiled by humans. But setting that aside, there is nowhere in the pages of the Bible that it says that the text of the 66 books of the Bible contain all moral teachings. Just as a point of fact, it doesn't."
Well, since I've never made this claim I fail to see the relevance or why you felt it necessary to insert one more straw man into the conversation.
"Likewise, nowhere in the pages of the Bible - not one place - does it say that the 66 are THE SOLE SOURCE or even the PRIMARY source for information about God."
Again, I'm not sure how making up straw men and inserting them into a conversation already marked by your lack of clarity and your equivocation helps.
"These are all objectively demonstrable facts. Do you recognize that much?"
Well, if you say they are, then they must be. Straw men, and irrelevant, but "facts" because Dan says so.
"Indeed. The Bible has a lot of passages about a lot of topics, sometimes saying things that, on the face of it, seem contradictory. IS God a God of perfect love and justice? OR, does God whimsically choose to create most of humanity for "destruction" to try to boost that god's own little ego? IS God a God of perfect love and justice? OR, does god want to condemn the majority of humanity to an eternity of suffering for being imperfect humans and not "accepting Jesus" in the right way, as determined by modern conservatives?"
Without wasting a bunch of time, I'll simply note that these rhetorical questions all have readily available answers, and are influenced by your preconceived notions about YHWH, morality, and your "Reason". The fact that you find these things problematic does not mean that that actual problem sexist.
"So, it might be better to say that recognizing the human rights of gay folks, of women, of oppressed minorities is not actually a "new teaching" from God/the Holy Spirit, but just a reminder that, even though cultures may change and evolve, human rights and basic decency remain true to what God wants: To love God and love God's creation. Period."
It would be "better" for you to say that because that's your subjective hunch with absolutely zero grounding in reality. But props for bringing gay sex into the discussion once again, I know you can't help it.
"And so, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what's "pleasing to me," as you slanderously and falsely suggest, but what is pleasing to human rights, love and grace (ie, God's Way)."
Unless you can objectively define "human rights, love and grace (ie, God's Way).", with a grounding that would allow your definition to be authoritative across all time, places, and cultures, we're left with your subjective hunches about these things. Which, unfortunately, are based in what you find "pleasing" (or "moral" or "rational" or "Reasonable", because isn't your ability to reach subjective hunches using those things "pleasing" to you?). Are you really trying to tell me that you have a prefect, objective, road map to every specific of what "God's Way" is?
"Right?"
I have no way to know if your subjective fantasy is "Right". "Right" is an objective concept and doesn't apply to your subjective fantasies.
"You're making the leap from "It COULD be argued..." to "therefore, it must be the case that Jesus was speaking against porn.""
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that IF Jesus' teaching about lust being equal to rape was correct, THEN it might be reasonable to conclude that anything that enables lust would be included under the same general principle. The problem is that it's an imperfect example. In reality, Jesus' command not to lust because it is equal to rape needs no clarification to include porn, porn would already be included as something that facilitates lust. Now, if you wanted to argue that Jesus was wrong regarding lust and rape, or that porn doesn't facilitate lust, go ahead. But your massive leap and inability to understand what is essentially an if/then statement seems to show your desperation to create more straw men.
"It's one thing to say, "it could be argued..." and another thing to say, "Jesus was opposed to porn." The former is reasonably plausible, the latter is, however, not a given. It's a subjective opinion, a human interpretation of what MAYBE we COULD reason to POSSIBLY be the case, if we use our human reasoning."
No, it's functionally an if/then statement. Again, if you want to argue that Jesus would support porn, go right ahead. Otherwise move off of this idiotic straw man and try to stay on topic.
"Do you understand the distinction and agree that just because it COULD be argued does not equal "therefore, it is objectively factually the case..."?"
For most normal humans with a reasonable facility with the English language the use of the word "could" makes it clear that there is no "objectively factual" claim being made. It's actually hilarious to see you getting this desperate.
The point, because you are apparently too dense to grasp it, is that it is highly unlikely that the Holy Spirit would show up in 2024 and teach you that porn is a thing that YHWH blesses and that it adds to the Kingdom of God.
"Right?"
Your inability to understand the nature of the word "could" and the concept of an "if/then" statement cause me to wonder if you even have the ability to determine if something is "Right" or not. But the straw men are coming fast a furious.
Only have time now for this:
" ALL you have to do is present even just ONE person or source which has provided objectively proven data about God's opinion on various moral matters. JUST ONE."
So long as the source isn't one of the authors of any Book of the Bible. To Dan, Scripture is completely worthless as a source, except as a source of superficial and inaccurate exploitation.
And again, it's humorous how often he and his troll will cite from Scripture after crapping on it when we do...or crapping on our accurate use/understanding of any citation we present.
Art,
Because, if you exclude any Biblical source by defining it is wholly dependent on subjective interpretation, it's easy to stack the deck in your favor. Except for those few favored passages (Matt 25, Luke 4, and parts of the Sermon on the Mount), everything else is up for grabs.
Craig:
This itself is a subjective claim that you have no proof of, yet you present it in such a way as to imply that you do have objective proof of your subjective claim...
By all means, provide objective proof of this objective fact.
Craig, you're demonstrating that you don't understand how reasoning works.
I'm telling you, man to man to your face that
YOU DO NOT HAVE OBJECTIVE PROOF OF THESE CLAIMS
and that
NO ONE DOES.
As an objective fact.
I'm ALSO telling you to your face that YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE PROOF of purple unicorns living on the moon who plot to take over the earth.
No one does.
That is to say: THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE that has been presented anywhere by anyone in all of history to objectively prove EITHER of these claims.
Now, IF somewhere, someone has stored away in a secret stash of data objective proof for purple unicorns or your opinions about God and morality,
THEN all you have to do is present it.
I'm telling you the fact that there IS no such data and the evidence is that it isn't there. Google it, it doesn't come up.
UNTIL such time as someone presents data to objectively prove I'm mistaken, then that is the reality as we know it on earth.
IF you want to support an objective claim to purple unicorns or ANY other claims, the onus is on you to do it.
I'm just stating what we can objectively see, measure, count, observe and demonstrate.
But we've covered all this before.
I point to known reality.
You insist there is some vague, arcane secret font of knowledge unknown to anyone but you and Indiana Jones.
Well, prove it. It should be easy. ALL you have to do is prove JUST ONE PURPLE UNICORN ON THE MOON.
Dan:
OR, does God whimsically choose to create most of humanity for "destruction" to try to boost that god's own little ego? IS God a God of perfect love and justice?
Craig:
Without wasting a bunch of time, I'll simply note that these rhetorical questions all have readily available answers, and are influenced by your preconceived notions about YHWH, morality, and your "Reason". The fact that you find these things problematic does not mean that that actual problem sexist.
You mean, once again, you're completely unable to answer these questions which you allege HAVE answers, but you're not willing/able to point to them. You don't even have to write them down, just POINT to the geniuses who've proven what you think they've proven. WHO has given an objectively proven answer to the problem of God commanding evil acts (and don't be fooled: Slaughtering innocent children and babies IS an evil act).
YOU all are the ones making outrageous, evil-sounding (on the face of it) claims about SOMETIMES God might command people to slaughter babies. Just point to the proof that solves this obvious moral dilemma you all have.
But you won't, will you?
Craig:
Unless you can objectively define "human rights, love and grace (ie, God's Way).", with a grounding that would allow your definition to be authoritative across all time, places, and cultures, we're left with your subjective hunches about these things.
Once again, YOU don't have an objective source for what constitutes human rights, justice or basic decency/morality. NO ONE does. So you repeating this is just to repeat a moot point.
You may as well say, "Well, Dan, why don't you grow wings that allow you to fly to heaven and get the answer directly from God?" NO ONE can do that. In the meantime, we CAN find morally reasonable common ground and it is imperative that we do so, EVEN IF YOU are entirely incompetent, impotent and unable to do so objectively.
Are you a moral anarchist?
The fact that you find these things problematic does not mean that that actual problem sexist.
That fact that I find slaughtering babies and enslaving fellow humans problematic and YOU apparently don't is your problem, not mine.
OF COURSE, slaughtering babies and enslaving humans is problematic. Can you not agree with this basic human rights notion?
GOOD GOD! Have mercy.
"Craig, you're demonstrating that you don't understand how reasoning works."
No, I'm demonstrating that you don't understand that if you're going to demand "PROOF" for everything anyone else says, then I'm going to hold you to the same standard you apply to others. I'm also demonstrating that despite your acknowledgement that "Reason" is subjective, you continue to act as if it is objective. Or at least like your subjective "Reason" can be applied to others.
"I'm telling you, man to man to your face that
YOU DO NOT HAVE OBJECTIVE PROOF OF THESE CLAIMS
and that
NO ONE DOES.
As an objective fact."
What specific claim have I made that you are referring to?
"That is to say: THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE that has been presented anywhere by anyone in all of history to objectively prove EITHER of these claims."
When you don't specify what "claims" you are talking about, I conclude that you're talking about something I never said, or that you made up and pretended that I said.
"UNTIL such time as someone presents data to objectively prove I'm mistaken, then that is the reality as we know it on earth."
Lookie, Dan decides that he gets to define reality.
"IF you want to support an objective claim to purple unicorns or ANY other claims, the onus is on you to do it."
Again with the mystery claims.
"You insist there is some vague, arcane secret font of knowledge unknown to anyone but you and Indiana Jones."
Where specifically have I done this? Where? Be specific, show me a quote and a link, or shut up and stop making shit up.
"Well, prove it. It should be easy. ALL you have to do is prove JUST ONE PURPLE UNICORN ON THE MOON."
You don't/can't/won't prove most of what you say, but demand others do what you won't.
"You mean, once again, you're completely unable to answer these questions which you allege HAVE answers, but you're not willing/able to point to them. You don't even have to write them down, just POINT to the geniuses who've proven what you think they've proven. WHO has given an objectively proven answer to the problem of God commanding evil acts (and don't be fooled: Slaughtering innocent children and babies IS an evil act)."
When you start out by telling me what I mean, I know that what follows is complete and utter made up bullshit. I meant exactly what I said. I'm not wasting more time responding to questions who's answers are readily available. Whether you like or agree with those answers is immaterial. Until you prove those answers wrong, or provide objective evidence of your hunches, stop this bullshit.
"YOU all are the ones making outrageous, evil-sounding (on the face of it) claims about SOMETIMES God might command people to slaughter babies. Just point to the proof that solves this obvious moral dilemma you all have."
More of your subjective bullshit which misstates the "argument" made so you don't have to deal with it.
"Once again, YOU don't have an objective source for what constitutes human rights, justice or basic decency/morality. NO ONE does. So you repeating this is just to repeat a moot point."
I'm confused, I asked you to define and provide proof of a claim you made. Why would you choose not to prove your claim, but to instead attack straw man? I'm not the one making claims about those things, you are. Why should I prove your claims?
"Are you a moral anarchist?"
Well, despite having absolutely zero evidence, you've already claimed that I am a "moral anarchist", so why ask the question when you've already passed judgement?
This notion that anyone who doesn't agree with your subjective, inconsistent, moral code based entirely in your spectacular abilities to subjectively "Reason" can only be a "moral anarchist", is quite the leap and quite that unwarranted pride in yourself.
This is like the fun I'm having at Dan's blog.
"I can't objectively prove it. I believe it. You can't objectively prove it either. No one can. Is it your guess, though, that God is not a perfectly loving and just God?"
If you can't prove it, then stop assuming that it is a "given", "reality", or objectively True. Simply state that it's your subjective opinion, and stop pretending like it's anything else.
My "guess" is irrelevant to this conversation. The fact that you can't prove your claims doesn't obligate me to do anything you demand.
"Not sure what you're getting at there since I have been abundantly clear that none of us can objectively prove our opinions about God."
I'm going in the direction of you acting as if your subjective hunches should be accepted as a "given" absent proof.
"I don't believe that any imperfect human has a complete grasp on notions of God, perfect love or perfect justice."
So all of your platitudes about what YHWH does, should do, or whatever are simply something you've made up?
"I don't believe that, in broad paint brushes, it's impossible to understand ANYTHING about justice or love. We recognize it when we see it. When a person welcomes in a stranger in need of housing and gives them opportunities to be warm, fed, to give back to the household and as much as possible, develop a plan for their independence, that IS love. That IS justice. (If you believe, as many of us do, that for the hungry and unhoused to be fed and have housing as a beginning point of justice, as well as love, then of course, this is reasonable)."
Again, you "believ"ing in something has absolutely zero value to this or any other conversation. It's you spewing crap and acting as if it's caviar. Stop, it's stupid and a waste of time.
"On the flip side, if a man is angry at Ralph and that man wipes out Ralph's wife, children and dog, that is an extreme act of INjustice. Because of course it is. Overt violations of human rights are relatively easy to recognize."
According to what objective standard do you make this claim? Hint, I know what the answer is.
"Is it the case that, in generalities, you think, to you, it's HARD or even IMPOSSIBLE to understand if something is loving or just?"
But you're not making claims about what you "understand", you're making claims about what YHWH "understands" and how YHWH operates.
"Again, not sure of your point here, unless you're trying to point to some sort of moral anarchist worldview."
Again, just pointing out the obvious. That you have no grounding to make any of the claims you make, yet continue to make them. The "moral anarchist" straw man is just whipped cream on your pile of bullshit.
"1. No, I'm not. You can tell by the way I've never said that.
2. In general, I don't accept the notion that human beings are evil (poor or otherwise). We're not perfect, but EVIL is a pretty wild claim to make about most of humanity. Weren't you one of the ones (at Stan's) complaining about calling everything/everyone "evil," that it dilutes the meaning of the word?"
Again, simply denying something isn't effective. The rest is just more waste of time bullshit instead of you defending and proving your claims. Or disproving the claims you act as if others make.
"Frankly, I don't know that I've ever met personally anyone who rises to the level of evil. Which begs a question: HOW are you defining evil, personally? Because it does not appear to be what the dictionary says."
More straw men, I guess that tells me that you have nothing of substance.
"(If you believe, as many of us do, that for the hungry and unhoused to be fed and have housing as a beginning point of justice, as well as love, then of course, this is reasonable).""
Feeding and housing the poor is charity. Not justice, even if they were made poor by some form of abuse. Justice would have to address the reasons why they are poor, though if poor by their own life choices, there's no injustice to address.
"Frankly, I don't know that I've ever met personally anyone who rises to the level of evil. Which begs a question: HOW are you defining evil, personally? Because it does not appear to be what the dictionary says."
I looked up the word "evil" and this is what first popped up:
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous.
The first two, if not the third as well, make the word "evil" easily applicable to Dan and his kind.
Art,
"First, I've provided Dan with scholarly understanding of the passage Dan continually abuses."
I think that the problem lies with the fact that I (and I think you) are comfortable with a "both/and" interpretation. That we are willing to accept the possibility that Jesus was not limiting the concept of "poor" to only and exclusively the materially poor. There might be specific instances where the context would suggest that conclusion, but the overall context of His ministry suggests a less exclusive interpretation. Dan on the other hand seems to be insisting that "materially poor" is the best and only interpretation and that any other interpretation is at best a tiny possibility. It's strange to be arguing for a more inclusive reading, while Dan is arguing for a more exclusive reading.
Further, the fact that Jesus never did anything to bring the materially poor out of their poverty, suggests that Jesus might not have been as concerned about the materially poor as Dan claims. I know Dan says that Jesus was more interested in including the poor/oppressed at some big metaphorical table or something like that, but other than that vague hope I don't know.
What's interesting is that Jesus was a builder by trade. It is inconceivable that he did not learn how to build things from Joseph. Which makes me wonder why we don't see Jesus' training the poor/oppressed to build things. Herod was notorious as a prolific builder, so it seems like teaching the poor/oppressed a marketable skill would have been helpful to them.
I do think that the lack of any instances where Jesus' helped someone who was materially poor/oppressed in any way beyond physical/spiritual healing is telling. Obviously, the healed had a better chance to earn a living, but there's no evidence that that's what Jesus told them to do. It seems clear that Jesus did not heal all of the sick people, or give food to all of the hungry, He certainly did not free the oppressed (He actually brought more oppression on His followers). He apparently didn't have enough money to give the poor/oppressed monetary assistance either.
This is what I struggle with. If Jesus primary purpose was to preach the gospel to the poor/oppressed, yet His gospel didn't relieve their poverty/oppression, then what was the point? Was the point that the poor/oppressed were now invited to a table in His Kingdom, at some point in the future (and not necessarily in their life on earth)? Was it simply that Jesus "heard" them, but did very little to ameliorate their conditions?
It all seems so esoteric and divisive. Jesus came for everybody, but He really came for the poor/oppressed first, but He really didn't come for the rich/oppressors, but He really did come for everyone... I don't know where it ends. To me it sounds like two different gospels (at least), but where only one of them involves an economic change (the rich need to give everything away).
It's confusing, and extra Biblical as far as I can tell.
"This is what I struggle with. If Jesus primary purpose was to preach the gospel to the poor/oppressed, yet His gospel didn't relieve their poverty/oppression, then what was the point?"
Taking Jesus' clear, direct and unequivocal words about allying with the least of these fairly literally is confusing to you, but taking a few verses in the OT literally EVEN WHEN they depict God commanding what otherwise would be a literal atrocious evil makes sense to you?
I don't think I'm out of mainstream reasoning in finding THOSE to be the verses you take literally.
Setting that aside, is it possible you aren't understanding the point of a Gospel of Grace (what I'm talking about, along with many others) beginning with the poor and marginalized?
In neither case - the Grace approach or the PSA approach - are God or Jesus magically "fixing" everything for the poor and marginalized, agreed?
But in the Good news for the poor and marginalized /Grace approach, for those following in that Way (the Way Jesus taught over and over), the poor and marginalized are welcomed immediately, today, here and now. The gospel of Grace begins here and now, thy realm come, thy will be done ON EARTH, as it is in heaven.
If the gospel isn't about magic and instant fixes, but about Grace and welcome, here and now, that IS literally good news for the poor and marginalized... just even in the being included.
And further, as we saw the church of Grace grow, systems WERE put in place that began making material improvements for the poor and marginalized. The Way followers shared what they had and people were fed, dinner was held for them, deacons were appointed to watch out for the poor and marginalized.
And the more people who follow this Welcome Way of Grace, the better and better the news gets for the poor. It increasingly becomes actual good news.
Even if you hang on to more traditional theories and traditions, can you affirm that this take on it has the advantage of making, "I've come to preach good news to the poor..." make literal sense?
Dan
"Taking Jesus' clear, direct and unequivocal words about allying with the least of these fairly literally is confusing to you, but taking a few verses in the OT literally EVEN WHEN they depict God commanding what otherwise would be a literal atrocious evil makes sense to you?"
1. To be more accurate, it's taking some of Jesus' words woodenly literally out of the context of the rest of Jesus' words and the disciples words/actions.
2. Taking Jesus' quote from a source that well could be "myth" or "legend", and doesn't pass your rubric for accuracy seems selective at best.
3. Misrepresenting me and what I've said seems to violate that whole bear false witness thing, I'm glad you don't need a line in scripture to tell you that you're doing things wrong.
"I don't think I'm out of mainstream reasoning in finding THOSE to be the verses you take literally."
Let's see, Dan, evaluating Dan's position, using Dan's "Reason", finds nothing wrong with Dan's position. Of course Dan's false assumptions could be the root of the problem.
"Setting that aside, is it possible you aren't understanding the point of a Gospel of Grace (what I'm talking about, along with many others) beginning with the poor and marginalized?"
Well since your explanations of the "gospel of grace" you've concocted make no sense in the context of Jesus' entire teachings or of the teachings of those who knew Him best, that's a reasonable conclusion. Of course, the fault couldn't you yours, and the fact that it's just the social gospel regurgitated with some Jesusy words thrown is doesn't help either. Finally, you inability to tie your personal hunch about what's "first" in this gospel, to the context of Jesus' ministry and His failure to do what you say He should have done, is also a failing.
"In neither case - the Grace approach or the PSA approach - are God or Jesus magically "fixing" everything for the poor and marginalized, agreed?"
No. In your hunches case, Jesus does virtually nothing to ameliorate the condition of the poor/marginalized in their temporal lives. In the case of The Atonement, Jesus redeems all of creation at His return and those of His sheep who suffered will be redeemed as well. Or, in your case, Jesus in His earthly ministry did very little to help the poor/marginalized where he was, or after His death. In your misconception of PSA, Jesus also did nothing for the poor/marginalized because His death/resurrection made no significant difference in the human condition.
"But in the Good news for the poor and marginalized /Grace approach, for those following in that Way (the Way Jesus taught over and over), the poor and marginalized are welcomed immediately, today, here and now. The gospel of Grace begins here and now, thy realm come, thy will be done ON EARTH, as it is in heaven."
That's a lovely fantasy, except Jesus literally didn't welcome all of the poor/marginalized into anything on earth. He welcomed His followers into death, persecution, and hardship, but not out of poverty or oppression. The poor/marginalized in the area where Jesus ministered were oppressed by the Romans, The Herodians, and the some of the Jewish religious leaders. After Jesus died, how many of the poor were not poor, and how many of the oppressors were gone? After Jesus came back, and ascended, Romans, Herod, Jewish Leaders, all still there. No big poverty reduction. You quote the Lord's prayer, but can't explain what happens on earth as in Heaven? You can't explain what happens in heaven, how people get there, or what would prevent someone from going there. Vague, bland, meaningless catchphrases.
"If the gospel isn't about magic and instant fixes, but about Grace and welcome, here and now, that IS literally good news for the poor and marginalized... just even in the being included."
What does that even mean? The the poor/marginalized get into a secret club? The everyone else has to repent, and follow Jesus, but the poor/marginalized get jump to the front of some magical line? Hey poor/marginalized, y'all want to get in on some of this here persecution and torture, it'll be much better for you. Again, vague, bland catchphrases that mean everything/anything/nothing.
"And further, as we saw the church of Grace grow, systems WERE put in place that began making material improvements for the poor and marginalized. The Way followers shared what they had and people were fed, dinner was held for them, deacons were appointed to watch out for the poor and marginalized."
See this is what happens when you read things into the text, that aren't there. The only place that was documented was in Jerusalem, and even then it was not available to those were not part of the Church. It was never something aimed outside of the fellowship of the Jerusalem church, and never a substitute for salvation. But you eisegete away. Your an eisegenius.
"And the more people who follow this Welcome Way of Grace, the better and better the news gets for the poor. It increasingly becomes actual good news."
Except it didn't in the first century. It never has. Talk about fantasies.
"Even if you hang on to more traditional theories and traditions, can you affirm that this take on it has the advantage of making, "I've come to preach good news to the poor..." make literal sense?"
It make some sort of "sense" if you divorce it from the rest of Jesus' teachings and the bulk of the early church's practice, make material poverty/oppression the most significant problem facing humans, and impose a progressive theological slant on scripture, maybe. But those are some big hurdles and I can't see how to get past them.
It make some sort of "sense" if you divorce it from the rest of Jesus' teachings and the bulk of the early church's practice, make material poverty/oppression the most significant problem facing humans, and impose a progressive theological slant on scripture, maybe.
As a point of reality, Jesus' words and teachings found in the bible speak to wealth and poverty issues more than any other topic except the realm of God... which I would argue is ALSO a wealth and poverty issue.
On the other hand, Jesus NEVER preached one sermon on PSA and had maybe TWO entire sentences that, ripped from context, one might find a word (ransom, shed blood) that COULD be interpreted as perhaps referencing something like PSA IF you squint your eyes real tight.
Grace, the Realm of God, the warnings against wealth and the wealthy and powerful oppressors who operated from deadly legalism AND the inclusion and welcome of the poor and marginalized IS what Jesus said he'd come to preach and what he spent the bulk of his time speaking about.
These points about wealth and poverty are simply NOT isolated words here and there cherry-picked out of context of the Good News to the Poor and Marginalized that JESUS said he'd come to preach... they are the bulk of what Jesus had to say.
But I'm guessing your cultural and religious traditions and beliefs have made that impossible for you to see?
Ironically, it was because my conservative traditionalist teachers and preachers taught SO hard about taking the Bible seriously and especially Jesus' teachings seriously that I had to eventually notice this emphasis and the lack of a presence of modern evangelicalism's pet theories in the teachings of Jesus, my Lord. That doesn't appear to have happened yet for you. Maybe one day.
Craig:
1. To be more accurate, it's taking some of Jesus' words woodenly literally out of the context of the rest of Jesus' words and the disciples words/actions.
YOU think, in YOUR opinion that they're taking "some" of Jesus words "literally out of context" of the rest of Jesus' words. I'm pointing to the reality that Jesus spent more time talking about being welcoming and supporting of the literally poor and marginalized in his sermons and words than just about any other themes except the Realm of God.
Where is your evidence that anything I've said is taking Jesus out of context?
I think the data shows that it's quite literally exceedingly consistent to the greater context of Jesus' sermons and lessons.
2. Taking Jesus' quote from a source that well could be "myth" or "legend", and doesn't pass your rubric for accuracy seems selective at best.
You're still stuck with the problem that you appear to think myth and legend are dishonest or somehow bad. Whatever Isaiah's status and who he was or wasn't, the TEXT is a beautiful poetic rendering of the notion that a great God has for the poor and marginalized. What "accuracy" problem am I having? I'm not saying that God (or Isaiah) literally said this or not. But someone recorded this poem of prophecy speaking of a loving God's concern for the marginalized. That doesn't require proof of "this was literally God speaking" to be able to recognize the validity and splendor and reasoning of the words.
What accuracy problem do I have?
"The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of joy
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair."
3. Misrepresenting me and what I've said seems to violate that whole bear false witness thing
By all means (and as always), tell me what I've misrepresented and I will be glad to apologize and make it right. IF I misrepresented you. Most typically, when you say this, it's because you've misunderstood what I actually said rather than a case of me misrepresenting you.
But all you have to do is point to the alleged misrepresentation and I'll be glad to clarify or apologize. That ball is in your court.
"And the more people who follow this Welcome Way of Grace, the better and better the news gets for the poor. It increasingly becomes actual good news."
Except it didn't in the first century. It never has. Talk about fantasies.
Things got better in the setting of the early church in the first century.
Teaching a WAY and SYSTEMS to improve things for EVERYONE is much better than simply "fixing" the problems for one person at a time. Systemic change has more effective, long term benefits (as long as the systemic changes are good changes). Implementing deacons, social workers, teachers, aids, elder caretakers, etc, to effect change can and often does have great results.
As a point of reality, conditions for the poor have greatly improved over the centuries. Lifespans have expanded greatly (not yet to 900 years, yet, but still...), more people are better educated, slavery is, by and large, no longer legal (although it's still happening in awful numbers, just not legally), more women have rights (except in places with ancient conservative extremists in charge) and more LGBTQ folks have rights. Our wars are fewer and less deadly (still awful but hundreds, thousands dying instead of millions).
Systemic changes, more people embracing notions of human rights and grace and watching out for the least of these... as Jesus noted, we'll do things even greater than he did and this is one way to make sense of that kind of statement.
"As a point of reality, Jesus' words and teachings found in the bible speak to wealth and poverty issues more than any other topic except the realm of God... which I would argue is ALSO a wealth and poverty issue."
Which is your subjective interpretation, filtered through your subjective biases, and therefore worthless to anyone but you.
"On the other hand, Jesus NEVER preached one sermon on PSA and had maybe TWO entire sentences that, ripped from context, one might find a word (ransom, shed blood) that COULD be interpreted as perhaps referencing something like PSA IF you squint your eyes real tight."
So.
"Grace, the Realm of God, the warnings against wealth and the wealthy and powerful oppressors who operated from deadly legalism AND the inclusion and welcome of the poor and marginalized IS what Jesus said he'd come to preach and what he spent the bulk of his time speaking about."
Again, your subjective interpretations based on your subjective biases mean nothing to anyone but you.
"These points about wealth and poverty are simply NOT isolated words here and there cherry-picked out of context of the Good News to the Poor and Marginalized that JESUS said he'd come to preach... they are the bulk of what Jesus had to say."
Again, your subjective interpretations based on your subjective biases mean nothing to anyone but you.
"But I'm guessing your cultural and religious traditions and beliefs have made that impossible for you to see?"
Then you're wrong about that as well, but this is one of your tropes that is always wrong.
"Ironically, it was because my conservative traditionalist teachers and preachers taught SO hard about taking the Bible seriously and especially Jesus' teachings seriously that I had to eventually notice this emphasis and the lack of a presence of modern evangelicalism's pet theories in the teachings of Jesus, my Lord. That doesn't appear to have happened yet for you. Maybe one day."
I'm fine with the teachings of Jesus'. I have problems when you act as if your subjective interpretations, based on your subjective biases, are more accurate that what Jesus actually said.
"YOU think, in YOUR opinion that they're taking "some" of Jesus words "literally out of context" of the rest of Jesus' words. I'm pointing to the reality that Jesus spent more time talking about being welcoming and supporting of the literally poor and marginalized in his sermons and words than just about any other themes except the Realm of God."
Again, your subjective interpretations based on your subjective biases mean nothing to anyone but you.
"Where is your evidence that anything I've said is taking Jesus out of context?"
Well, I start by looking at the context of the rest of Jesus' teachings, then I look at the 3-4 pet texts you trot out, and I compare the two.
"I think the data shows that it's quite literally exceedingly consistent to the greater context of Jesus' sermons and lessons."
I don't care what you think. You have zero qualifications as some sort of expert biblical scholar, therefore your subjective interpretations filtered through your subjective biases mean nothing to anyone but you.
"You're still stuck with the problem that you appear to think myth and legend are dishonest or somehow bad."
No, I'm simply pointing out that your rubric for determining the "trueness" of an OT passage fails miserably when it comes to your pet passage. Further, you don't seem too keen on the supernatural or prophecy (as in foretelling the future with accuracy), yet you still cling to this one passage anyway and make it into something that it is not.
"Whatever Isaiah's status and who he was or wasn't, the TEXT is a beautiful poetic rendering of the notion that a great God has for the poor and marginalized. What "accuracy" problem am I having? I'm not saying that God (or Isaiah) literally said this or not. But someone recorded this poem of prophecy speaking of a loving God's concern for the marginalized. That doesn't require proof of "this was literally God speaking" to be able to recognize the validity and splendor and reasoning of the words."
Interesting, you don't seem to care for the accuracy of the text, as long as you think it's "beautiful" and fits your narrative. You act as if there actually is a loving God, who exists, and who inspired this prophecy, and who "cares for" the poor/marginalized. Yet, this god doesn't actually do much for them other then welcome them into some nebulous club sometime in the future. The time between the Isiah prophecy and Jesus' quoting it was around 600 years. 400 years of that time YHWH was silent, and during the 200 years the Jews were conquered and exiled. Why would this god you worship, do nothing about the poor/oppressed for 600 years except allow them to be more oppressed, and ignore them for 400 years? That seems like a strange way to show favoritism to the poor/oppressed. Silence and slavery, I'm not sure I like your god.
"What accuracy problem do I have?"
Too many to list.
"By all means (and as always), tell me what I've misrepresented and I will be glad to apologize and make it right. IF I misrepresented you. Most typically, when you say this, it's because you've misunderstood what I actually said rather than a case of me misrepresenting you."
I do, you ignore it, I do again, you ignore it again, then you finally blame me for your inability to read/pay attention/understand. It's just one more of your boring, childish, attempts to assert dominance.
"But all you have to do is point to the alleged misrepresentation and I'll be glad to clarify or apologize. That ball is in your court."
Since you rarely acknowledge this, I have no confidence that you'll do it now. Hint, when I mention that you've falsely or mis-represented something, it'll almost always be in the exact quote of your words immediately above. I'll trust that you are intelligent enough to figure it out.
"Things got better in the setting of the early church in the first century."
That is quite the claim. Despite my pointing out that only the Jerusalem church practiced some limited sharing among themselves (not a general aiding of the poor/oppressed), and the the Church during the first century was oppressed for their faith, killed, and persecuted, you think that was better. You do you, eisegenius.
"Teaching a WAY and SYSTEMS to improve things for EVERYONE is much better than simply "fixing" the problems for one person at a time. Systemic change has more effective, long term benefits (as long as the systemic changes are good changes). Implementing deacons, social workers, teachers, aids, elder caretakers, etc, to effect change can and often does have great results."
What an interesting notion that you've read into the scriptures. The gospel is now about a "system" that merely needs to be replicated over an over again. Despite the fact that things go worse for believers. Despite the fact that you just added in multiple jobs that aren't even mentioned in scripture, yet are a hallmark of the 20th-21st century welfare state. I knew you'd get here eventually. The move from the church caring for the church to the state taking care of everyone, it was inevitable. Where in scripture are these occupations found, "social workers, teachers, aids, elder caretakers,"?
"As a point of reality, conditions for the poor have greatly improved over the centuries. Lifespans have expanded greatly (not yet to 900 years, yet, but still...), more people are better educated, slavery is, by and large, no longer legal (although it's still happening in awful numbers, just not legally), more women have rights (except in places with ancient conservative extremists in charge) and more LGBTQ folks have rights. Our wars are fewer and less deadly (still awful but hundreds, thousands dying instead of millions)."
That's True. While much of that change can be generally attributed to The Church, it also wouldn't have happened without things like capitalism, industrialization, technology, and many other things. Now all of those things indirectly do come from YHWH's mandate in Genesis to have dominion over the earth as well as the spark of The Creator that leads humans to create after a fashion (not ex-nihlo). Strangely enough, virtually all of those things have come from the christian west, which is the most welcoming of capitalism.
"Systemic changes, more people embracing notions of human rights and grace and watching out for the least of these... as Jesus noted, we'll do things even greater than he did and this is one way to make sense of that kind of statement."
Yet that's a political/sociological notion, not a religious notion.
I'll make a suggestion. Instead of your bitching on various blogs, and helping a few people in the wealthiest country in the world, and enjoying your status as one of the richest 5% in the world (maybe in human history), how about you really demonstrate your commitment to this gospel you claim is so wonderful. Why not sell everything you have, move to (Pick your country, but Haiti, Yemen, DRC, or Sudan are options), and implement this system you tout as the gospel. Let's see you demonstrate in real life how glorious this system of "teachers, aids, social workers," and the like is at transforming a village (hell, a family) by following this "way of Jesus" you espouse. You won't, probably because you realize that your "system" will only work in a relatively rich western country with at least some trace of a christian worldview. You have the opportunity to share the gospel of Jesus, with the poorest, most marginalized, and most oppressed people in the world, yet choose not to.
So you keep shilling for this quasi governmental gospel system, unless you all of a sudden support getting government out of education, which (I suspect) rarely mentions that Jesus is the foundation of this "system".
Post a Comment