Meme.
Being talking to Jesus.
Being: Why are you sending me to hell?
Jesus: I'm not. I'm telling you to stop sinning, repent and follow Me so you don't have to go to hell.
Being: But I don't want to follow you! I want to do whatever I want without you!
Jesus: Then I won't force you in to my presence against your will.
Being: WHY ARE YOU SENDING ME TO HELL!
This conversation isn't outrageous at all. I suspect some form of it happens often.
12 comments:
Or, perhaps more accurately, the conversation could also look like this (and this is probably more true-to-reality) IF we're talking about the PSA human theory of atonement:
Being talking to Jesus.
Being: Why are you sending me to hell?
Jesus: I'm not. I'm telling you to stop sinning, repent and follow Me so you don't have to go to hell.
Being: Well, cool. I don't want to cause pain or do wrong intentionally. But I AM an imperfect human entirely capable of losing my cool and doing wrong (at least a relatively small scale wrong - not murder or anything). What of these normal human failings?
Jesus: Doesn't matter how small the misdeed you, as an imperfect human commit, you will be sent to hell for that sin!
Being: I'll be punished, and then when the punishment is complete, I can join you in paradise?
Jesus: Nope. You'll just burn for an eternity.
Being: Jesus Christ!
Jesus: ....
Being: Okay, well, what if I apologize for those sins, THEN do I get to join you in heaven?
Jesus: Depends. HOW will you apologize?
Being: Does it need to be in a specific format?
Jesus: Yup.
Being: What is it?
Jesus: I'm not going to tell you directly or clearly. Besides, unless God "elects" you and the Holy Spirit "calls" you, then you are one of the majority who was created for eternal punishment. You won't get the chance unless you're one of the "elect..."
Being: What can I do to be one of the elect?
Jesus: Not a damned thing (pardon the pun! I kill myself sometimes!) It's not up to you if God calls you. That's up to my Dad, who art in heaven.
Being: Well, hell!
Being talking to Jesus.
Being: Why are you sending me to hell?
Jesus: I'm not. I'm telling you to stop sinning, repent and follow Me so you don't have to go to hell.
Being: Well, cool. I don't want to cause pain or do wrong intentionally. But I AM an imperfect human entirely capable of losing my cool and doing wrong (at least a relatively small scale wrong - not murder or anything). What of these normal human failings?
Jesus: Doesn't matter how small the misdeed you, as an imperfect human commit, you will be sent to hell for that sin!
Being: I'll be punished, and then when the punishment is complete, I can join you in paradise?
Jesus: Nope. You'll just burn for an eternity.
Being: Jesus Christ!
Jesus: ....
Being: Okay, well, what if I apologize for those sins, THEN do I get to join you in heaven?
Jesus: Depends. HOW will you apologize?
Being: Does it need to be in a specific format?
Jesus: Yup.
Being: What is it?
Jesus: I'm not going to tell you directly or clearly. Besides, unless God "elects" you and the Holy Spirit "calls" you, then you are one of the majority who was created for eternal punishment. You won't get the chance unless you're one of the "elect..."
Being: What can I do to be one of the elect?
I'm not going to parse this idiocy because it's a waste of time. Trying to parse Dan's straw men, false representations of things and the like aren't worth the time.
It is strange that Dan seems to bring almost every comment thread around to gay sex, and atonement. I wonder why.
I also have to note that instead of dealing with an actual post, about what PSA actually is, with resources from people much smarter than Dan, he chooses this easier path.
I can't help but note that Dan likes to change things to suit himself, regardless of whether or not his changes accurately reflect anyone else or not. He regularly tells me that my questions are wrong, and that his are right. Or sometimes is gracious enough to re write something I've written so that it's now right.
We are all called, but not all of us listen and come to Him. Dan pretends Christ has nothing to do with it, because he likes it that way.
Dan tries to mock you by perverting your post to suit his false understanding. (Is it truly a "false understanding", as in a "mistake", or an intentional perversion of truth? I'd say the latter given his inability to intelligently defend his position.)
No argument from me.
It is strange that Dan seems to bring almost every comment thread around to gay sex, and atonement. I wonder why.
It's strange how you all find "gay sex" in everything*, even when it's literally not there. I wonder why?
* In case you're not understanding: I didn't bring up anything about LGBTQ concerns in my comment on this post.
Trying to parse Dan's straw men, false representations of things and the like aren't worth the time.
I'm making a joke playing off your little meme. What "straw man" or "false representation" am I doing?
The satirical (but legitimate) points I was making here are:
1. Typical human failures and sins do not rationally rise to the level of "deserve to be tormented in hell forever" as conservative religionists theorize.
Is that mistaken (that is, do PSA types NOT suggest/demand that just typical human failures and sins are what cause us to deserve going to hell)?
2. That PSA types tend to believe something along the lines of "merely apologizing for sins is not sufficient... one must also 'make Jesus the Lord' of their lives, as well, and acknowledge Jesus as God's son and acknowledge that Jesus rose from the dead..." is that incorrect, that at least SOME PSA types believe/push that theory?
2a. In other words, if someone repents for their sins/is sorry for their sins and, even imperfectly, turns FROM those known sins... BUT, they don't "make Jesus the 'Lord of their lives...'" the apology is insufficient... so that there are at least two things to do to gain/receive "salvation..." REPENT and MAKE JESUS LORD. Is that an incorrect summary of at least some PSAers?
3. It also points to the PSA notion that many conservative religionists have that UNLESS God "calls" you... UNLESS you're one of the "elect," then you CAN'T be saved, even if you want to be saved, even if you want to repent... OUR wanting is insufficient, God must have "ordained" you to be saved... otherwise, we're "dead" and "not able" to be alive to accept salvation.
Is that an unfair representation of at least some PSA types?
As far as you all go (Craig, Stan, Marshal, etc), it's hard to say because I rarely get straight answers from you on these kinds of questions, so I'm not saying for you specifically, just generally, many PSA theorists and "reformed" types.
"We have a relationship with God because God chose to pursue a relationship with us and win us over. Some object that God does this with everyone. But, if that were the case, then the reason some people believe and others don’t is that some were more genuine, spiritually attuned, or morally sensitive. That would mean that some measure of innate human goodness enables some people to believe. If people contribute of their own goodness to salvation, we have a logical problem. More importantly, we have a biblical problem.
Scripture teaches that God has chosen to save some people, and He chose them based on His own purposes, not some innate goodness on the part of the people being saved. "
https://www.gotquestions.org/saved-not-predestined.html
"It's strange how you all find "gay sex" in everything*, even when it's literally not there. I wonder why?"
This makes zero sense if one actually pays attention to reality. You're the one who brings it up regardless of whether or not it fits with he subject under discussion.
"In case you're not understanding: I didn't bring up anything about LGBTQ concerns in my comment on this post."
Then this pots is an exception.
"I'm making a joke playing off your little meme. What "straw man" or "false representation" am I doing?"
As I mentioned elsewhere. When I point out your straw men and false representations, you can almost always just look at the quote that immediately precedes my pointing out your straw men or false representations. Most of the time, it'll be easy to find.
1. This is simply you repeating your personal, subjective, hunch without a single piece of evidence to prove your hunch is correct.
"Is that mistaken (that is, do PSA types NOT suggest/demand that just typical human failures and sins are what cause us to deserve going to hell)?"
Given that it's an unsupported, unproven hunch with zero evidence to support it, it's literally nothing. No.
2. This caricture of "PSA types" shows a complete misunderstanding of the position you parody. At
2a. More gibberish. Salvation/forgiveness of sins is not through human actions. Salvation/forgiveness is through the finished work of Christ.
3. If you can't be bothered to actually understand what you rail against, why not get informed first then argue against something other than your straw men.
"Is that an unfair representation of at least some PSA types?"
It's an inaccurate representation of most of those who find PSA to be the most accurate of the major theories of The Atonement. Are there some wild, fringe, nuts who take things to an extreme, sure. But your description is clearly not accurate of fair to the majority. But then you knew that already, and went there anyway. "
"As far as you all go (Craig, Stan, Marshal, etc), it's hard to say because I rarely get straight answers from you on these kinds of questions, so I'm not saying for you specifically, just generally, many PSA theorists and "reformed" types."
I just did a post with a number of excellent resources from people vastly more informed on the topic and vastly more expert than either of us. To claim that you haven't been spoon fed the "answers" you claim to want is simply disingenuous. I'll note that your failure to actually quote any specific person/people but to make up a straw man caricature of "PSA types", just shows how uninterested in accuracy you really are.
"We have a relationship with God because God chose to pursue a relationship with us and win us over. Some object that God does this with everyone. But, if that were the case, then the reason some people believe and others don’t is that some were more genuine, spiritually attuned, or morally sensitive. That would mean that some measure of innate human goodness enables some people to believe. If people contribute of their own goodness to salvation, we have a logical problem. More importantly, we have a biblical problem."
Scripture teaches that God has chosen to save some people, and He chose them based on His own purposes, not some innate goodness on the part of the people being saved. "
https://www.gotquestions.org/saved-not-predestined.html
I'm not sure what this proves. It's a random quote from a random site, with no scriptural references.
Absurd, but not at all untypical, but Dan pretends he hasn't been informed directly and without equivocation what PSA is. Note the threads at his blog wherein this subject was exhaustively covered while characteristically ignored and corrupted by him. The "not getting a straight answer" crap is more than getting old.
Dan doesn't get a straight answer because he has established a threshold for what he considers a straight answer that preclude any answer from being satisfactory. If you ask a question with enough preconditions that it precludes a significant number of answers, that's on you not the answers. The reality is that there are a multitude of people who are more intelligent, more educated, and more expert on atonement theories than Dan ever will be. There are a multitude of excellent resources available, I posted some here and Dan didn't demolish them with his superior Reason. Yet he can't even accurately explain what he's arguing against. Further, he can't acknowledge that his hunch, arrived at using his (subjective, personal)Reason could possibly be wrong and the PSA could possibly be right.
It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
It's no more than his devotion to his preference. Preference is so much harder to defend because of its inherent subjectivity. That doesn't mean ever preference is based on something so shallow, but it certainly is in Dan's case given his years of not defending his positions in the same manner he demands of others in the defense of theirs.
Yes, it is. Dan defends his preferences as if they were objective, while hiding behind "It's my opinion" when pressed. He seems committed to the notion that if enough people reach consensus on their preference that their consensus should be treated as if it True. He has trouble with the notion that he is free to live according to his preferences to his hearts content, while not realizing that his preference doesn't necessarily apply to others.
Post a Comment