"but I have so very little use for the human traditions of pie in the sky."
Obviously we have little specific idea of what this "pie in the sky" actually means, so it's hard to really understand. But, to suggest that the notion of some sort of afterlife, eternal life, that consists of eternal existence in the very presence of YHWH (in short heaven) is merely a "human tradition" is bizarre to say the least.
The obvious example is Jesus speaking to the thief on the cross, telling him "Today you will be with me in paradise.". I understand that by citing Jesus, in His humanity, it could be construed as a "human tradition", but Jesus was a unique human to say the least.
The rich young ruler asked what he had to do to inherit "eternal life" and Jesus gave him an answer, He didn't tell him that there was no such thing.
Luke 13:22-28 Jesus is clear that there will be people excluded from the "feast in the Kingdom of God", which doesn't seem to be construed as something to happen on earth.
In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus is clear that there is a "heaven" and that "heaven" is something to be emulated.
Matthew 3:16, 4:17, 11:25, 13:24, 16:1, 18:1, 19:23, 26:64, and 28:18
Mark 1:10, 8:11, 10:21, 14:62, and 16:19
Luke 3:21, 9:51, and 10:21
John 6:42 and 17:1
Acts 1:11 and 7:55
All of these verses refer to something, some place, or some state of existence that Jesus called "heaven" or the "Kingdom of Heaven". He seemed pretty intent on pointing people towards this Kingdom, and pretty confident that it was something or someplace beyond earth. He did pray that things on earth would emulate heaven, but doesn't seem to be suggesting that earth would replace of supplant heaven.
Revelation tells of a "new heaven and a new earth" where creation will be redeemed and where we will worship YHWH in His presence.
Believing as Jesus did that there is some form of existence, with Him, after death and that life on earth is not all that there is to existence, is not merely a "human tradition". It also isn't an excuse to avoid being the ambassadors of YHWH on earth and those who have the ability to bring some of what we'll find in heaven here to earth. While also realizing that our existence on earth is not our destiny, as has been said by others, our citizenship in in heaven even as we live our lives on earth.
Finally, no one knows what heaven is like specifically. We know that we will be in the presence of YHWH, and that we will worship Him. We know that not everyone who thinks they're best buds with Jesus will get it. We presume that it'll be better than earth given the lack of sickness, death, pain, crying, and the like and in YHWH's presence. It's probably wrong to focus solely on heaven and ignore the opportunities we have here on earth to participate in YHWH's plans and purposes, yet it's probably equally wrong to focus solely on our earthly existence and ignore the promise of heaven.
87 comments:
Craig:
Finally, no one knows what heaven is like specifically. We know that we will be in the presence of YHWH, and that we will worship Him.
Let me clarify a bit about what I meant when I said that... and it has to do with what you've said here.
NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING DEFINITIVELY about heaven and a potential afterlife with God. I personally, DO believe in an eternal heaven, time past our known life with the beloved community of God. I happen to believe that, even though I can neither objectively confirm it (no one can) nor can I objectively say what all that means or what it's like.
I would affirm that we do NOT objectively know that we will be in the presence of God, but it's something I believe.
Is all that something you, too, affirm? (I'm asking because I do not know your answer and when one doesn't know, one asks... and there's nothing wrong with that. Of course.)
So, given that any afterlife/heaven is a complete unknown and unknowable, THAT is why I don't much a damn what anybody opines about pie in the sky by and by. We just don't know.
What we DO know/affirm is that what biblical teaching, from Jesus and Mary to James and the prophets, is that what we do for the least, for the poor and marginalized, HERE, NOW, we do for God. What I DO affirm is the teaching of Peter and James, where James says, "If one of you says to them (the poor and needy), “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?..."
And where Peter says, "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others"
That is, faith without works, HERE, NOW is nothing. It's less than meaningless.
So that, those who say, "Don't you worry, poor folks, you who are suffering... things will be better by and by... MAYBE, but only if you're not one of the mistaken, confused and lost. THEN it will be hell for you by and by..."
I have NO use for that vulgar human tradition/interpretation/abuse of Scripture as it relates to "by and by."
Is that something you, to, can affirm?
Craig:
We know that not everyone who thinks they're best buds with Jesus will get it.
Not sure I agree here. I'm not one who thinks that the "sin" of being mistaken is "hell-worthy..." NOR that the bible or certainly Jesus ever says that merely being mistaken means there's no hope. That would be too much like a works-based salvation, something I disagree with, since I affirm a salvation by grace, not by works NOR by our perfect knowledge.
Craig:
"no one knows what heaven is like specifically. We know that we will be in the presence of YHWH, and that we will worship Him. "
We know what it's like to be part of the beloved community of God and, if there's a heaven, it's almost certainly like that, just reasonably speaking.
And the Beloved Community of God? It's a place of love, of grace, of justice. It's where people look out specifically for and beginning with the poor and marginalized. It's a place of actual good news, not horror-story awful news. It's a realm where the Community has your back and are on your side, wanting the best for you. It's a place where the rich oppressors and those who cause harm are opposed and brought down.
The beloved realm of God is the major emphasis of the Bible and we have much written about it in the Bible and, given common sense understandings of Grace, Love and Justice, we can reasonably anticipate the general idea of what should be in the realm of God.
We who ally with the poor and marginalized, we are already, here and now, in the presence of God... that is, if you take Jesus literally and seriously.
Do you disagree?
When Dan starts his comments by "clarifying" because he "misspoke" things are not likely to be productive at all.
It would seem that Dan is hiding behind the "definitive proof" straw man on this one. He's adding in the "ignorance" straw man as well. Topped off by cherry picking some proof texts.
"That is, faith without works, HERE, NOW is nothing. It's less than meaningless."
well, I guess that'll come as quite the surprise to the thief on the cross. You know, the one who Jesus explicitly promised that they would be together in "paradise".
"So that, those who say, "Don't you worry, poor folks, you who are suffering... things will be better by and by... MAYBE, but only if you're not one of the mistaken, confused and lost. THEN it will be hell for you by and by...""
Who says that, and only that? Unlike you, I've spent a decent amount of time with actual Christians, in actual 3rd world poverty. Strangely enough, what they cling to is exactly what you dismiss. I'll go with them instead of some rich white guy whose never experienced 3rd world poverty in person on this one. FYI, it's not an either or. As much as you'd like to pretend otherwise. It's possible to offer help to the poor, AND give them the Good News that there is something better to look forward to.
"I have NO use for that vulgar human tradition/interpretation/abuse of Scripture as it relates to "by and by.""
I have no use for your vulgar, self serving, unsupported, subjective personal, human traditions/theories/opinions either.
"Is that something you, to, can affirm?"
No, I cannot and will not "affirm" any of your vulgar, self serving, unsupported, subjective personal, human traditions/theories/opinions.
"Not sure I agree here."
Well, disagreeing with the clear words of Jesus is certainly a choice you can make. It seems strange that you'd assert that parts of TSOM are to be taken in the most woodenly literal manner possible, and that other parts are up for interpretation.
I'm going with the Jesus who said clearly that those who did all sorts of "good works" "in His name" would be told that Jesus "never knew" them.
You can play with your "mistaken" and "perfect knowledge" tropes and straw men all you want. Jesus was pretty clear, and He's much more trustworthy than you.
It's strange that someone who's so obsessed with " what we do for the least, for the poor and marginalized, HERE, NOW, " and " faith without works, HERE, NOW is nothing. It's less than meaningless." is trying to claim that he's not talking about salvation by works.
More of Dan's made up fantasy garbage.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, do "good works" believe that right things about "the rich", blah, blah, blah. Dan's personal, subjective, unproven, human traditions.
I DO tale Jesus both literally and seriously, that's why I get off my ass and go help the poor obtain housing, food, and medical care. I just don't think that my works are what saves me.
Yes, I disagree with both your lazy question and your human traditions.
I trust Jesus who said that some of y'all who obsess over doing good works in Jesus name (although I wonder how often you mention Jesus when you do you good works) are going to get a rude awakening. I trust Jesus so much, that I accept the possibility that I might be one of them.
I had said:
"So that, those who say,
A. "Don't you worry, poor folks, you who are suffering... things will be better by and by...
B. MAYBE, but only if you're not one of the mistaken, confused and lost. THEN it will be hell for you by and by...""
Craig asked:
Who says that, and only that?
1. First of all, James noted the reality he'd experienced where Christians were doing that specifically and he was warning against that simplistic approach.
2. I didn't say that some were saying that and only that.
3. Help me understand: Is it not the case that you affirm a belief that many humans will NOT go to heaven? Is it not the case that you affirm a belief that MOST humans will not go to heaven? And indeed, is it not the case that you affirm a belief that most of humanity will not only NOT go to heaven, but will suffer in eternal torment for their temporal crimes/"sins," no matter how relatively small those misdeeds are? Or perhaps worse, that they'll be condemned by god to an eternity in hell for the "crime" of "not accepting" God/Jesus in just the right way?
4. My point then was just to reiterate what James made clear: "That is, faith without works, HERE, NOW is nothing. It's less than meaningless."
Or, as the Apostle James put it, "But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?"
That is, I said lightweight teachings about pie in the sky without allying with the poor and marginalized and without love is meaningless/useless. James says that faith without works is dead.
Do you suspect James has it right and I've said something significantly different than James?
1. Yes, they did. Unfortunately that is not the entirety of what they "noted". That you choose to exclude or minimize that which doesn't fit in your little box doesn't help your case.
2. Ok, whatever you say.
3. I acknowledge that Jesus clearly taught that not everyone would "go to heaven". That He taught that only "a few" would do so. That He taught that "many" would follow the wide path that "leads to destruction" and few would go through the "narrow gate that leads to life". I "affirm" that Jesus did not teach that "most" would "go to heaven". I affirm that Jesus teachings indicate that those who do not "go to heaven" will suffer some sort of eternal negative consequences. What those specifically are I don't know, and don't see how the specifics are important. I also know that Jesus frequently used very unpleasant imagery to describe this situation. I'm not YHWH, and I'm not privy to His reasons for deciding who He saves and who He doesn't. I trust in His sovereignty.
Are you suggesting that anyone who accepts Jesus' teachings as you've paraphrased them is wrong? Are you suggesting that "most" will "go to heaven"?
4. Where exactly did Jesus say that specific formula? He did make clear that "good works" without faith were completely valueless. Yes, works that are a result of faith are dead. Faith/regeneration/salvation produces works, works do not produce faith/regeneration/salvation. They are inextricably linked, in the proper order.
Yes, I "suspect" that the entirety of your eisegesis would convey a completely different "theology" than the small snippet of James that you've plucked out of context to use as a proof text for your preconceived notions.
Craig:
Unfortunately that is not the entirety of what they "noted". That you choose to exclude or minimize that which doesn't fit in your little box doesn't help your case. ...
Topped off by cherry picking some proof texts...
I acknowledge that Jesus clearly taught that not everyone would "go to heaven". That He taught that only "a few" would do so."
You keep repeating this "cherry picking" canard, failing to see the rational failure in it.
The reality is that Jesus (and other biblical writers) said MANY things. It's not like Jesus ONLY said "Not everyone would go to heaven" and "wide is the road and many are there who go to destruction..."
Jesus (and others) also said things like
* "I came to seek and save THE LOST." Period.
* "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”
*"For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world."
* "[Jesus] was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." (John)
* "we trust in the living God, Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (Paul)
* "how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to all men!" (Paul)
*"good news of great joy that will be for all the people" (the angel)
* “God has sent the Son as Savior of the world.” (John)
* “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.” (the Samaritans, speaking of Jesus)
* “This is good and acceptable in the sight of our God our savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (Paul)
That is just a sampling of things Jesus said or that others said that state very clearly (on the face of it) that God intends to save ALL.
At the same time, I recognize that there are a few verses (almost certainly not so many nor as clear) that speak of "those confessing Jesus will be saved..." (which could be taken as a salvation of works, by the way... it's your CONFESSION that saves you - while at the same time there are other verses that say merely confessing does not save you).
There are still other verses that speak of a more directly works-based salvation. One example is those who aid and ally with the poor and marginalized THOSE are the ones going to heaven, while those who don't do this will be sent "to torment." Another example is when Jesus tells the rich man that in order to be saved, he needed to sell what he had, give it to the poor and follow him.
Again, I could go on. Jesus and the biblical authors say a great deal many things on many topics some of which seem contradictory and internally inconsistent.
So, when I point to the great number of verses that speak of a more "come to save ALL." Period... approach, I'm not cherry-picking. I'm noting the real world existence of such verses and noting how common they are. And when you point to the places where it mentions a burning hell for the rich oppressors or just for some people who didn't "confess him," you too are not necessarily cherry picking. You're noting the reality of the verses being in the text.
The thing is: We BOTH (all) try to reconcile such verses and try to make consistent sense of them? Is Jesus speaking more metaphorically when he speaks of eternal torment (as I think is clear)? Well, that's one way of understanding them. Is Jesus NOT meaning "ALL" in the many places he mentions coming to save ALL (or "the Lost" or the poor and oppressed). Well, that's YOUR way of understanding them. But you can't deny the more universalist-sounding verses exist.
More...
For my part, I'm not landing on one or the other of the various ways of interpreting these individual verses. What I do is look to the CLEAR to understand the obscure and more inscrutable (a very standard rubric for understanding biblical or other texts). And I always seek to understand the variety of biblical teachings through the specific words of Jesus who I believe (and I'm not alone) is the most clear representation of God.
And another thing I do is recognize that the Bible is specifically NOT 100% objectively clear about "salvation" or "heaven" or "hell..." that is, there's not ONE place that authoritatively says, "While you're reading the Bible and hearing this and that on notions of hell, hades, sheol, heaven, paradise, God's realm, salvation, etc, HERE are the key verses to guide you to understanding them."
I suppose you can agree to that? OR, conversely, if you HAVE the one (or few) objectively authorized passages and words that define beyond question how to interpret these ideas, please share. But assuming you do not have those objective sources (and you don't), it would be helpful for you to be clear that you absolutely do NOT have an authorized objective subset of verses that objectively define these ideas.
So, given all of that, what I do, instead, is look at the obscure through the clear and I see (perhaps you can agree) that the Bible and certainly Jesus are VERY clear that God is a good God, a God of perfect love and perfect justice.
So, whatever we may THINK about a wide variety of verses on many topics, we should begin with the understanding that God is perfectly good, perfectly loving, perfectly just.
Is that notion reasonable to you?
GIVEN that, then I use my God-given moral reasoning to sort out, for instance, "So, if God is perfectly just, then God is not going to act in an unjust or whimsical manner, nor is God going to act in an unloving, ungracious manner and I need to understand these concepts of salvation, heaven and hell through that perspective." GIVEN that bit of very clear understanding, AND given the confusing mishmash of the various hellish passages, we can understand that God would not punish people disproportionate to the crime. God would not punish people (imperfect people, at that) for merely being imperfect and, in their imperfection, not understanding some arcane and obscure rulings on how to be saved.
And on it goes.
The point being, I'm not cherry picking or proof texting any more than I think you intend to do. I'm just using my God-given reasoning to reach the best and most obvious understanding, just as you are trying to do (presumably).
Does that seem reasonable to you?
Likewise, it's not like Jesus ONLY said all the stuff you claim about the poor. The problem you have is that your cherry picked proof texts don't contradict Jesus' words about how only a few will enter the "narrow gate that leads to life". The problem is that if you limit yourself to your proof texts, you are arguing for a universal salvation which you claim not to believe. That you can cherry pick some of what Jesus said and use that to argue against other things Jesus said seems bizarre to say the lease.
Sure you're cherry picking, you've just dismissed or minimized the verses you don't like because they don't fit your eisegesitical model and decided all on your own that your proof texts are somehow the texts that really matter.
That you think that your vaunted Reason somehow magically makes your proof texts compelling when taken out of the context of the entirety of Jesus' teaching, speaks volumes to your hubris.
Blah, blah, blah, Dan says this so it must be True, blah, blah, blah. More self serving driven that uses lots of words to say virtually nothing.
When you place your major focus on "I, MY" as if you possess some magical power to interpret for others by cherry picking proof texts to perform your magical eisegesis, you lose me. I see no reason to place as much faith in you as you do. That you regurgitate the same old drivel based on your prejudices, preconceptions, and subjective feelings, is both boring and useless.
No, ignoring, minimizing, or dismissing certain teachings of Jesus because they don't fit in your eisegetical box to be judged by your subjective Reason seems like the antithesis of "reasonable".
That you personally can't figure things out, doesn't mean that others can't or that finding answers is impossible. You simply exclude or redefine things to get the answers you prefer.
When you place your major focus on "I, MY" as if you possess some magical power to interpret for others by cherry picking proof texts to perform your magical eisegesis, you lose me. I see no reason to place as much faith in you as you do.
So, NO, you do not see your very basic rational failure. YOU are The ONE who understands the texts correctly and those who disagree with the almighty Craig are disagreeing with God. When CRAIG ignores clear text (All means All!), he's not "ignoring, minimizing or dismissing," but when he thinks Dan is, then DAN is the one who is cherry picking and dismissing.
Blind guides, son. Watch out for them.
And I DON'T think finding answer is impossible. I think I've found very rational and THE SINGLE MOST biblically-consistent and Godly understanding of the texts in question. That you personally can't figure it out doesn't mean that others can't or that finding answers is impossible. You simply exclude and redefine things to accommodate your personal human preferences.
You just don't see it, do you?
Craig...
"When you place your major focus on "I, MY" as if you possess some magical power to interpret for others by cherry picking proof texts to perform your magical eisegesis..."
HOW is this different than what you do? I'm using my God-given reasoning to interpret the text the best as I can. YOU are using your reasoning to understand the text the best you can. What's different?
It seems the only difference is that I'm gladly willing to admit that, of course, I'm using my reasoning while you seem to be vaguely suggesting (while never addressing the point directly) that you are using... SOMETHING?? other than your human reasoning.
What's the difference when I use my reasoning and you use yours?
It's a reasonable question.
Dan
I guess you could literally ignore what you've said, ignore what I've said, and make up some bullshit that has nothing to do with either of those things. The problem you have is that you are assuming facts not in evidence.
Yes, I watch you blindly stumble around regularly.
Yes, I do see that YOU think the YOU have found the best answer for YOU based in YOUR preconceptions and biases and then presume to pretend as if YOUR subjective, personal hunch is somehow universal.
Well, it's different because I don't use my subjective, biased, imperfect, Reason as the foundation for what I conclude. I don't ground everything in myself.
It may be, yet it's one that's been asked and answered ad nauseam. In short, I don't presume that I'm right. I don't presume that what I might come up with trumps anyone else. I subject my conclusions to scripture and to others. I don't make myself the focus of anything.
What's interesting is that I'm trying to establish some basic things. Essentially I'm arguing that scripture is very clear on a few basic ideas.
1. There is some existence beyond the time we spend on earth.
2. In that existence, there are two options.
3. One option is more pleasant.
4. One option is less pleasant.
5. Our works are not the determining factor as to which of those two an individual ends up in.
Dan wants to dig into details that have no bearing on those basic ideas for some reason. If there's no agreement on these basic things then arguments about details are useless. Arguments about definitions are useless. It's like Dan will bring up almost anything in order to avoid a discussion about these basics.
Craig...
"Essentially I'm arguing that scripture is very clear on a few basic ideas.
1. There is some existence beyond the time we spend on earth.
2. In that existence, there are two options.
3. One option is more pleasant.
4. One option is less pleasant.
5. Our works are not the determining factor as to which of those two an individual ends up in."
The Scripture is very clear on many points...
A. the notion of some afterlife (in the. NT, but not the OT)
B. That God is on the side of the poor and oppressed
C. That those who live by rules have missed the point which is Grace
D. That God is reliably loving and just
E. That God therefore would NOT act in unloving, unjust ways
F. The Bible contains stories literally depicting atrocities apparently commanded by god
G. That God wants to save all.
We both agree that there are abundantly clear and understandable and we disagree on the point of which ones are more literal and which ones are more figurative.
Am I mistaken on that last point?
Dan
A. If you say so.
B. Not exclusively or even primarily, certainly not to the extent that it has anything to do with salvation.
C. If you say so.
D. As long as you get to define what "loving and just" looks like.
E. See D.
F. So?
G. Really? Then why doesn't He? Is it possible that you could be wrong in this assertion? Is it possible that looking at more than your cherry picked proof texts would be helpful?
So, Dan ignores the 5 points this is actually about and decides that he should impose his pet eisegesis on my blog.
I can only assume, since Dan chose to ignore what I wrote, that Dan believes that my 5 basics are objectively false.
If you insist on asserting that your hunches are correct and should be accepted by others, then yes. If you insist that the things you believe are "clear", yet are NOT clear are really "clear" then yes.
Is punishing people for wrongdoing "unloving"?
Do you believe that you have an objective standard to measure what "too much" punishment is and that you can apply that standard to YHWH?
If YHWH "wants to save all", why does He not do so? Or do you believe that sine He wants to, that He does "save all"?
Craig...
"Well, it's different because I don't use my subjective, biased, imperfect, Reason as the foundation for what I conclude."
You, I and everyone absolutely DO use our God-given reason to understand stories and texts and the meaning behind them. Of course, you do.
If you DON'T use your reasoning to interpret biblical texts, then on what basis do you dare choose to ignore Jesus' direct command to chop off your hand and pluck out your eye?
If you're NOT using your reasoning to interpret, what ARE you using?
Dan
Well, if you say so without any actual proof of what I do, then you must be correct. Of course there's a difference between using the tools at my disposal, and placing all of my confidence in the tools, rather than in the one who provided the tools.
I could say, quite accurately, that the primary tool I use when I read scripture is the Holy Spirit.
That I'm not biting on your childish, simplistic, ridiculous, bullshit only means that it's a waste of my time.
I'm using every resource ate my disposal, I just choose not to elevate my self above other resources. I choose not to place my Reason as the final arbiter of scripture.
You can prove your claims or not, I honestly don't care and don't expect you to.
Craig...
"What's interesting is that I'm trying to establish some basic things. Essentially I'm arguing that scripture is very clear on a few basic ideas.
1. There is some existence beyond the time we spend on earth.
2. In that existence, there are two options.
3. One option is more pleasant.
4. One option is less pleasant.
5. Our works are not the determining factor as to which of those two an individual ends up in."
And I'm noting the reality that those are certainly your opinions, but that you holding those opinions do not make those theories factual.
I'm factually NOT ignoring your opinions. I'm noting that they are your opinions.
More...
To answer your questions clearly and directly (to show you how it's done)...
1. "Is punishing people for wrongdoing "unloving"?"
Rational, proportionate punishment 100 % can be loving and is vitally important. But wildly disproportionate, cruel punishment is, of course, not loving. Chopping off a child's hand for taking a cookie is cruel and just evil.
Agreed?
2. "Do you believe that you have an objective standard to measure what "too much" punishment is and that you can apply that standard to YHWH?"
No one has an objectively proven method of measuring too much punishment, but at extremes, it's abundantly obvious.
Again, Chopping off the cookie thief's hand is cruel and evil. Neither just nor loving.
Do you agree?
3. "If YHWH "wants to save all", why does He not do so? Or do you believe that sine He wants to, that He does "save all"?
A. If you're talking here and now, God doesn't force anyone to be "saved" and we can clearly see those whose actions indicate people who have not embraced grace or salvation.
God clearly allows people to make their choices. That seems/is consistent with the notion of a loving God.
Do you disagree?
B. We have no data or way of measuring what God may or may not do in any afterlife.
Agreed?
Dan
Are you really suggesting that scripture is NOT clear on those very basic, fundamental ideas?
Given how regularly I answer your questions and how rarely you reciprocate, even if your excuses for not answering are creative, I'm not sure you want me to follow your example.
1. That's not an answer, it's an unsupported claim disguised as an answer. It's literally a yes/no question, that you felt the need to obfuscate by exceeding the necessary answer tells me all I need to know. That you felt the need to redefine the question into something else entirely also speaks volumes.
2. So, you deny having an objective standard, then claim that "chopping off..." is objectively wrong. How does one determine that something is "cruel and evil" absent an objective standard for doing so, which you claim we don't have?
3.
A. So now you are asserting that we as humans how the power to thwart YHWH's "want" and to impose our will on Him. That's quite the claim.
B. This doesn't answer the question. Per your unsupported claim in A, it seems clear that He doesn't have the power or will to accomplish His "wants" and "save all". Further, I am convinced that you intuitively sense the problem with going down the YHWH "saves all" route even though every argument and proof text you use strongly indicates that you definitely want YHWH to "save all". You just don't have the courage to go all the way down this road.
Dan lists his rules for interpretation as if it validates his interpretations. It still leaves the question of why he believes any verse means what he insists it does. It's another case of Dan asserting his rules justify his interpretations regardless of how erroneous they might be...that he's fine with his interpretations because they appeal to him and his rules he allegedly applies properly allows him to be.
Dan ignores that his "SINGLE MOST" biblical consistency requires ignoring that which puts his interpretations in question. For example: "I came to seek and save THE LOST." does not mean all the lost will be saved.
In the passage wherein Jesus states "Many will say to me, Lord, Lord..." those he insists He will deny as being unknown to Him likely believed they were doing His Will while in many ways doing their own, much like Dan does. Thus, most of Dan's list which the quote I copy/pasted above must consider on who's terms they will find favor...theirs or God's. While Dan might feed the poor, he also enables and defends the wicked. He does nothing to encourage them to repent, but instead falsely claims their sin is not sinful. The wide gate allows for that and good luck to him. The narrow gate does not.
What?!?!?!? Dan has rules for interpretation?!?!??!?!? I'd never have guessed that as his standards for what he clings to as woodenly literal change from verse to verse, and sometimes include parables.
Of course Dan is fine with his interpretations, they never disagree with his political, moral, social, or any other beliefs. It's almost magical how completely his interpretations aligns perfectly with his worldview.
To answer another question, even though it's been answered multiple times...
"you deny having an objective standard, then claim that "chopping off..." is objectively wrong. How does one determine that something is "cruel and evil" absent an objective standard for doing so, which you claim we don't have?"
I acknowledge the reality that we can't objectively prove moral questions like this. YOU can't objectively prove it, no one can. (At least if you don't accept basic human rights as objective).
Do you acknowledge the reality that you cannot objectively prove any opinions you have about moral questions? OR, if you CAN, then why in the name of all that is holy and rational would you not do so?
But as I've said, even if we can't objectively prove such questions, we can REASONABLY accept it just based upon basic common moral sense.
Do YOU agree that it is a great evil to chop off hands of cookie thieves?
Take a stand, man. If you can't affirm this VERY basic moral question, you really have no basis to talk about moral theories.
Dan
To most people, that one verse does not indicate that every single person will be saved. Dan is clearly leery of actually saying that himself because it commits him to a theological position that he doesn't want to be associated with (universalism). If one looks at the entirety of his comments on the subject he seems to be kind of a functional universalist, just not a committed universalist.
You make an excellent point. Jesus is exceedingly clear that there will be those who THINK that they are saved who will get the "I never knew you.", along with those who've spent their lives staying as far from Jesus as possible. But this raises the question about Jesus using words like "want to" or "came to".
If Jesus is who He claimed to be (YHWH incarnate) then how could He possibly be prevented from doing what He "came to" do? Who has that power? Is it possible that Jesus "came to seek and save" those who YHWH chose? That Jesus didn't come to "seek and save" every human in history, but came to "seek and save" His "sheep" "who know His name" and respond to His call? That we interpret His use of the word "all" in light of His clear teaching that not "all" will be "saved". It seems possible, maybe likely, that "all" doesn't mean everyone who's ever existed, especially in light of the rest of scripture. If not everyone who did miracles in Jesus' name will be saved, then how could anyone possibly conclude that everyone who ever existed would be saved. If Jesus saved one thief on the cross, why not the other?
Dan's faith is focused on the temporal, not the eternal. it's easier and makes him feel good to focus on "good works" and on how good he is, than to focus on something that might be larger and more significant than his pathetic, imperfect, subjective, senses and Reason can grasp.
It's an interesting thought, if feeding the poor scores you positive points does defending the wicked get negative points?
OK, you say that while simultaneously advocating for an objective standard. If "chopping off is "cruel and evil" either "cruel and evil" is a subjective standard (which has no value or requires no compliance) or it's an objective standard which does require compliance. You're literally arguing that it's impossible to know something, while you apply (and expect others to accept) a standard you dent being able to know.
I acknowledge that I wouldn't attempt to do so with someone ass admanatly opposed to the very concept as you. It would be a waste of time. I also acknowledge that there are compelling arguments in existence that I see no reason to repeat here.
"But as I've said," You say this so often that it appears that you believe that this statement carries with it some magical power or authority.
We can "accept" something, but "because you say so" is no reason to do so.
I agree that, according to my personal scale of appropriate punishments" that seems extreme. Yet, we don't know the circumstances which might change that. Of course, I'm also not a Muslim who advocates for Sharia. Otherwise, I would absolutely agree that the punishment for theft is having one's hand chopped off.
I'm happy to take a stand, I just refuse to take the stands you demand that I take.
I stand firm on the fact that we have a sovereign, creator, God who's ways are far beyond mine and my Reason. I stand firm in His character and His power and trust Him to fulfill His plans by His purposes. I stand firm in refusing to place myself over Him, and believing that He is subject to my whims and imperfect thoughts. I stand firm in my belief that I don't need to subject everything to my Reason, worldview, or opinions.
From some one who won't even stand firm in your assertion that "save all" actually means "save" ever human who's ever lived, it's rich that you demand that I do what you won't.
Craig falsely claimed:
You're literally arguing that it's impossible to know something
I'm literally NOT saying that. Just the opposite.
I'm saying there are some things that are impossible to objectively prove - notions such as morality.
BUT, I'm also saying it's NOT that hard to understand morality, to understand justice and to reach common understanding based upon moral reasoning innate to humanity. I'm saying we can REASONABLY understand moral precepts.
For instance, even though Craig can't objectively prove that it's wrong to chop off a child's hand for stealing a cookie, Craig would be quite evil to say, "Well, because we can't prove it objectively, there's no point in opposing it."
You may not intentionally be trying to advocate moral anarchy, but you certainly are doing so in practice. IF you are not willing to take a stand against chopping off childen's hands as CLEARLY evil, you are advocating moral anarchy. Anything goes, for you since you can't objectively prove it.
Craig falsely claimed:
I acknowledge that I wouldn't attempt to do so with someone ass admanatly opposed to the very concept as you.
As I've repeatedly said, I would LOVE it if you had an authoritative way to objectively prove morality and justice. I'm certainly not opposed to it and it's a stupidly false claim to say otherwise.
But for someone to say, "Well, I COULD objectively prove morality - or something like that - but I'm not willing to do so with YOU..." THAT, itself, is a clearly amoral, clearly immoral viewpoint.
Even if I can't prove it objectively, it's reasonably clear.
Craig:
1. "Is punishing people for wrongdoing "unloving"?"
I gave an answer that is very rational and thorough and as direct as possible:
Rational, proportionate punishment 100 % can be loving and is vitally important. But wildly disproportionate, cruel punishment is, of course, not loving. Chopping off a child's hand for taking a cookie is cruel and just evil.
If it HELPS you, I can answer it this way:
YES. Punishment that is rational, proportionate can 100% be loving and is vitally important.
BUT wildly disproportionate, cruel punishment is, of course, not loving.
If it helps you to see the YES. But of course, most answers have caveats.
Craig responded to my exceedingly rational and direct and accurate answer by saying:
1. That's not an answer, it's an unsupported claim disguised as an answer.
Of course, it is.
It's literally a yes/no question, that you felt the need to obfuscate by exceeding the necessary answer tells me all I need to know. That you felt the need to redefine the question into something else entirely also speaks volumes.
When one asks a value question such as this, then there will often need to be a conditional answer.
For example, "Is it okay for my children to cross the street?" The very short, simplistic answer is, "Yes, it is okay." But the BETTER answer is, "It depends upon the circumstances. How OLD are the children? How BUSY is the street? Will they be going alone or with someone?"
There IS NO ONE RATIONAL ANSWER. Surely you agree with this obvious point?
And the simple answer to the question: Is punishing people for wrongdoing unloving? Is, No. BUT, given the reality of some people who advocate for wildly disproportionate punishments not suited to the misdeed (such as the religionists who advocate a theory of an angry god willing to torture people for an eternity for the crimes of being an imperfect human, "unselected" by that godling), then the reasonable answer is the nuanced one.
You can't possibly disagree.
Well, now you're arguing a distinction without a difference. If you assert something exists, yet also assert that you can't objectively prove that thing exists, what is the functional difference between that and not knowing.
You are "saying" things you can't prove, yet acting as if "saying" those things carries some sort of weight. Who the hell cares what you are "saying".
The problem you have is with category errors. I can absolutely say that I personally believe that chopping off a hand for theft is an inappropriate punishment ANF acknowledge that I'm advocating a subjective standard. What I cannot do, based on that, is tell a Muslim that Sharia is wrong "cruel and evil" because they DO believe the chopping off hands for theft is objectively appropriate. As always, you live in the category error of insisting that nothing can be objectively proven, while acting as if your hunches about punishment must be treated as if they are objectively True.
Speaking of category errors, Dan seems confused about the difference between expressing my opinion, and my telling lies.
"THAT, itself, is a clearly amoral, clearly immoral viewpoint"
THAT, itself, is a clear attempt to apply an objective standard which you cannot prove to be objectively True. "Reasonably clear" is just a subjective, bullshit, excuse.
That I don't want to waste time "proving" something you deny can be proven and waste the effort of providing you with resources you will ignore again, is more of a problem with you not with me.
Craig:
If you assert something exists, yet also assert that you can't objectively prove that thing exists, what is the functional difference between that and not knowing.
THIS is one of the reasons I'm noting you're basically a moral anarchist.
There are some categories of ideas that are beyond proving or not proving. On some points, it doesn't really matter (is the universe 13 billion years old or 20 billion years old? Was the Big Bang on a Monday?, etc) But on other points - morality and justice, it is VITAL to take a stand AND it's just not that complicated, especially for those who support the notion of human rights and liberties.
Even though Craig can't prove that Hitler was wrong or that a new Hitler today would be wrong, it is VITAL for good humans to recognize the very basics of human rights and affirm that no nation has a moral right to unjustly commit genocide. It is VITAL to take that stand because the consequences are too evil if we don't take that stand AND because it's just not that hard to affirm, "Yeah, you shouldn't enslave people, you shouldn't slaughter innocent people for the crime of being gay or Jewish or non-aryan..." EVEN THOUGH we can't objectively prove these things, it's quite clear to morally reasoning adults.
DO YOU DISAGREE?
Wow, you just can't do it. There is some pathological thing in you that prevents you from answering yes/no questions with yes/no answers. You seem to have a need to redefine or reformulate things to suit yourself.
Oh, if you say so. That's a "rational and compelling" argument "Of course it is." is a show stopper.
Of course you need to make things conditional. It's a safety valve for you.
Why would you think that your subjective opinions are such that no one could possibly disagree with your subjective opinions. The amount of hubris and arrogance required to assert that their opinions must be agreed with would be impressive for anyone else. For you, it's par for the course.
FYI, not only is punishing people for wrongdoing not UNLOVING, it can be the very essence of loving. I'm pretty sure that scripture features multiple instances of some version of "Those who He loves, He chastens.".
Again, your problem is that you've moved on from establishing the baseline (if one option for the afterlife IS unpleasant) to a completely irrelevant discussion about your opinions on what is "just". If there is no punishment, then your opinions on "just" punishment are irrelevant. If there is punishment, then your topic might have merit. But as a technique to avoid the original question/premise, it's just one more bit of bullshit obfuscation.
That's quite the leap with precisely zero evidence.
That you can make up some "categories" that seemingly only exist to protect you from having to prove your opinions and act as if those categories are objectively True and unassailable is quite the show of hubris.
Great, when will to take a stand against Islam and the imposition of Sharia?
That you're reduced to making shit up and inventing categories to magically protect your opinions, simply makes my point.
That you can't categorically affirm that Hitler deserves an eternity of punishment of the most severe sort, doesn't really help you as much as you think it does.
I'm not the one arguing that things like morality can't be proven, you are. I'm simply noting the reality that your subjective hunches about morality are not objective and that they can't be applied to others. Not only that, but you clearly don't apply your subjective hunches universally.
I appreciate the amount of effort you've invested to trying to avoid my original 5 bullet points, it's impressive.
Craig...
"I'm not the one arguing that things like morality can't be proven, you are..."
You absolutely 100% are doing exactly that, each time you hint as to having some kind of bs magical fairy dust kind of "proof" but then, fail to produce it or even TRY to produce it. Failing even to point to the brilliant research links where your lightweight magic theory has been proven objectively.
We see.
Dan
No, I'm literally not. I've literally never made an argument either way, because I'm more interested in getting your hunches figured out without introducing anything else for you to use as a diversion.
Why would I offer you more resources when you've shown that you aren't going to interact with them at all. The last time I took the time to provide you with the resources you said you wanted you ignored them from October of 2017 until last week, when you claim to have looked at one or two. If insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, I'm out to demonstrate that I'm not insane. That all you can do is distort what I actually said, doesn't help either.
Dan continues to conflate human notions of justice with God's application of justice. Chopping off the hand of a cookie thief might give an idea of punishment not fitting a crime, but that's only good insofar as we humans don't think amputation is a just punishment for stealing a cookie. WE don't think so. But even if we were to assume the theft of anything is the basis for God denying the thief a place in Heaven, it indicates that perhaps our notion of justice for that particular crime is skewed.
But it isn't such actions upon which we are denied Heaven, unless Dan can provide Scriptural evidence to that effect.
Then answer directly or be exposed as the intellectual coward you present as:
DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE TO OBJECTIVELY PROVE YOUR PERSONAL PATHETIC HUMAN OPINIONS ON MORALITY AND JUSTICE?
Dan
That's an excellent point, which I've brought up with him elsewhere. He insists that his opinions on what is "just" and appropriate must be able to be applied to YHWH because he "said so" or some such nonsense.
You're right that "WE" don't think so, yet billions of Muslims do, and we have no basis (as per Dan) to tell them that they are wrong to punish theft as they do.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, many times, I have no problem with people coming to a consensus regarding crime and punishment. If a society decides that spitting on the sidewalk is a crime, more power to them. Likewise, it's on them to decide punishments.
What Dan seems to want to do is conflate what is legal with what is moral. What is legal varies from culture to culture, as does what is moral. Dan seems convinced that everyone accept his hunches about what is moral, and that he can apply those hunches to other cultures and expect those cultures to agree.
However, only YHWH (a being beyond individual culture with authority) can decide what is sinful or what in universally/objectively immoral, and what the punishments should be. Dan may not like those decisions, and I wouldn't try to stop him, but for him to pronounce things moral/immoral or just/unjust is him stepping out of his lane and overstepping his bounds.
Simply, I don't feel that it is appropriate for me to pass judgement on the actions of YHWH, no matter what i might think.
As I've never claimed to have such a source, nor have I ever made any claims about the subject, why would you think that you can demand that I do anything?
You're the one pretending that your pathetic, subjective, prejudiced, imperfect, human opinions somehow apply to others across the globe.
Your ability to pass judgement on "opinions" that I haven't expressed is just one more example of your vaunted ability to read people's minds and make assertions about things that they've never actually said.
Impressive, yet cowardly at the same time.
So, coward, you DO NOT have an authoritative source for objectively proven morality or justice ideas and yet, you're too cowardly to come out and say.
People can see what you're doing, Craig.
But comfort yourself in this: NO ONE is out there and stepping up to objectively prove "objective morality theory. "
If it existed, it would be a colossal discovery and would be easily found with a simple google search.
It's not there precisely because it doesn't exist.
The cowardice comes in when you don't simply admit it.
Dan
Ironically, some of the best arguments for objective morality (when you DO Google the topic) has, in my experience, come from non-theists.
https://secularhumanism.org/2014/07/cont-how-morality-has-the-objectivity-that-matterswithout-god/
Dan
Well, I guess it's time for the personal attacks and vitriol to begin.
I hope that they can. I hope that they can see that I'm not wasting my time providing you with resources you'll most likely ignore, and that I'm not defending a position I've never taken or an opinion I've never expressed. I hope they see that I'm not simply allowing you to dictate what I believe based on your apparent belief that you can read my thoughts.
My admitting something that you've invented and decided that I believe is hardly cowardice.
Given that most of the "moral" arguments I've seen from non theists have consisted of reiterating that morality does not exist, "nature is red in tooth and claw", and various justifications for "survival of the fittest". I'm not surprised that you prefer a non theist perspective over that of Christians.
I'll read your link at some point, but based on a quick scan, it's nothing more than a utilitarian basis for some sort of functional moral system. Which is probably more accurately described as a legal system, not a moral system.
But again, if you're more comfortable with the atheists, maybe that's a clue about where you are on the spectrum.
Oh, it's a given that I'm WAY more comfortable with atheists, agnostics and other good people who are unconvinced (righteously so) by conservative religionists of all persuasions than I am with the religionists (who, in my estimation, do great damage to Jesus' teachings in how they claim it for their own and then distort it to a unrecognizable caricature of what Jesus actually taught). I've agnostic, pagan and other non-theists who I value as living lives with philosophies much closer to Jesus' teachings and Jesus' way, as he lived out his life.
So, on the spectrum of
Grace-Christians
Grace-pagans
rational agnostics
moderate traditionalist Christians
New Agey-universalist-types
conservative religionists/christians and
ultra-conservative religionists...
...yes, of course, I am much more comfortable with those who lean towards grace. Now, there ARE some militant, graceless self-proclaimed atheists who are harder to embrace, but I lean towards grace and love, wherever that is (even in moderate/conservative Christianity) than non-grace philosophies.
And you may or may not know this... maybe it's not been your experience, but there are huge numbers of agnostics who do not affirm "there is no morality!" and who, of course, believe in moral precepts. That they don't affirm conservative "morality" does not mean they don't affirm morality, love or grace. One of the most gracious, loving people I know identifies as a pagan. She's a great model of Jesus in this world.
Craig:
I hope that they can see that I'm not wasting my time providing you with resources you'll most likely ignore
The point is, you won't simply affirm, NO, I have no authoritative source to objectively prove my moral theories - there is no such source. Then you take offense when I point that out and give vague and non-committal pablum and attacks in response. Why not just admit it IF you don't have an objectively-proven morality? Why the vagueness?
And if it existed out there in the googlesphere, ALL it would involve is just linking to the proof, IF it existed.
It doesn't, but why don't you just admit it?
Yes, he does seem to posture...at least on these here blogs. But his identifying as Christian is belied by his willful disregard for verses which can't honestly be mistaken or dismissed. Thus, I see his arguments here as nothing more than protecting his desire to disregard those teachings he finds inconvenient as if it makes any difference to us. We're unlikely to alter our opinion given he's been woefully unable to give an honest, intelligent and Scripture-based defense of his positions, and his listing of "teachings" requires not considering context to get to where he is. This just puts him in the "Depart from me" category of "believers". We might be among them as well, but it would certainly not be for doing that sort of thing.
Indeed. My response to his objections is that he isn't grasping just how seriously God takes sin and/or ignoring His teachings. We determine punishment for crimes based on how abhorrent the crime is to US. That doesn't mean that God isn't doing that very thing from His perspective by denying eternity in Heaven to those who have earned that rejection, and that what they get instead is possibly an eternity of suffering, to whatever extent it might be.
It's pretty tiresome to continually speak of what can't be "objectively proven" about that which is indeed a manifestation of one's faith. I don't need to prove anything. But failure in that regard doesn't give me license to dictate what is most important. How we deal with the needy is but one aspect of what being Christian is all about. It's not so important that other aspects can be ignored, such as rejecting unassailable, unequivocal prohibitions. Because while I can't prove there's a God, I can prove by citing these prohibitions what this God I can't prove exists expects of us. Rejecting that which is clear and then believing the "I might be mistaken that the Stop sign doesn't mean "stop"" angle gives one a pass is just false and obviously so. Thus, the "HERE, NOW" requires abiding those teachings as well. Pretending it's a matter of "interpretation" and "trying to understand as best I can" doesn't fool anyone, particularly not the God we can't prove exists.
My stand is that chopping off a hand for stealing is not wrong because some humans might believe it's excessive, but because it is overruled by "an eye for an eye" alone, and then what came later, both of which are God ordained. Without God, there's no morality, no right or wrong, just consensus according to what's fashionable at any given point in time.
"For instance, even though Craig can't objectively prove that it's wrong to chop off a child's hand for stealing a cookie, Craig would be quite evil to say, "Well, because we can't prove it objectively, there's no point in opposing it.""
This isn't true at all. Indeed, it's because we can't prove that it's wrong that Craig can't nonetheless be evil if he didn't oppose it. That's absurd to assert such a thing.
"IF you are not willing to take a stand against chopping off childen's hands as CLEARLY evil, you are advocating moral anarchy."
This is a non sequitur. He doesn't have to reject opposition to cutting off a child's hand only on the basis of morality. He can do so simply because he thinks its excessive and unnecessary. That's as good a basis as any without proving morality is a thing. Again, without God, we can indeed determine for ourselves what is acceptable punishments for behaviors we've determined for ourselves is unacceptable.
Scripture is our source for objective proof of what is moral and just. The problem is that those like Dan corrupt it where it prohibits what he prefers and where it demands what he finds personally inconvenient. Dismissing this because we can't objectively prove the Lawgiver exists is a dodge. We have evidence aplenty to render the probability of His existence very high.
What Dan finds "reasonably clear" is no more than Dan's subjective opinion, based on Dan's personal desires.
Ironically, he demands a yes/no answer to the issue of chopping off hands, because he insists there's no other answer but "NO! IT'S EVIL! PERIOD! STOP! END OF DISCUSSION!". Clearly others in the world disagree, but Dan's not the one who is wrong, simply because the thought of it disturbs him. That's his basis for good and evil. One he finds personally pleasing the other he doesn't.
Dan regards Scripture as "magical fairy dust" and then insists he reveres it. So one can revere Scripture, but as one can't objectively prove God exists, nothing in Scripture can be regarded as sacrosanct until Dan needs something from Scripture to bolster his positions. Damn. I need magic fairy dust to keep up with that nonsense!
"DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE TO OBJECTIVELY PROVE YOUR PERSONAL PATHETIC HUMAN OPINIONS ON MORALITY AND JUSTICE?"
Scripture. And as Scripture is my source, my understanding of morality and justice is neither personal opinion nor pathetic.
The true cowardice is found in those who can't bring themselves to refer to Scripture as the ultimate source of the knowledge of morality and justice. Those who won't equivocate because they can't objectively prove beyond any shadow of doubt that God exists, but still pretend they're Christians because they say so and abide personally pleasing selections of Scripture.
But, as is always the case, there is no proofs which Dan is willing to accept if it doesn't work to his advantage in furthering his agenda. He will always reject them. He's not a seeker of truth. He's a defender of his preferred beliefs.
Yes...Dan's "faith" often more closely mirrors atheists than true followers of Christ.
But I did read his link, and as you suggest it would likely be, it's tripe. I doubt Dan read it in the first place. Like Dan, he believes that we are predisposed to acting "morally", as if being raised in the western world where Judeo-Christian morality is ingrained in our culture has no bearing. It's as if these guys believe that we'd be just as "moral", have the same notions of "right and wrong" if we were born on some island no one outside it has discovered and no shred of Christianity could be found. He basically does the usual thing and insists that all peoples regard murder as immoral because it's the inflicting of harm upon another. He doesn't address what makes inflicting harm wrong.
Without God, even if people developed the same "moral code" as that handed down to us by God, what these guys regard as "morally wrong" are no more than impractical. Also, for many, voting on given behaviors as to their being either right or wrong is often a matter of self-defense and self-interest. For the Christian, murder is wrong even if there is no one to murder or not desire to murder anyone who might be around. Sans God, it's just personal opinion. If one is big and tough and unafraid of being attacked, the fear of reprisals isn't worrisome if all who might are regarded as easily vanquished should the need arise.
Indeed, the guy speaks of wrongdoers in the context of choosing to go against moral norms of the society. But here again, what makes the guy a "wrongdoer"? Going against the consensus opinion of what constitutes morality? That's pretty much the answer. So to get to the point, he does no more than apply the term "moral" to that which is no more than consensus opinion regarding behaviors. The people have deemed theft "wrong", thus, it is immoral. What drives this vote is the desire that none should steal from the voter. There's far less regard for theft when one is unlikely to be robbed, but the chance is always there so, let's outlaw stealing. That doesn't make it "immoral". That just makes it "unacceptable". And that means what's considered "immoral" now could be considered just fine at some point in the future. God says it's sin and thus, immoral always.
Let's look at it another way. He mentions helping others. But the indigent, the disabled...they're a drag on society. To help them out has no true value to society as society would be better off without them. But what if we are impoverished or lose a limb or two and can't do for ourselves? We'd like there to be some means of charity or welfare upon which we could rely, be it organizational or the guy next door. Thus, we help the poor and crippled.
But God doesn't want us to help with any expectation of reciprocity. Even the good feeling one might get from helping others isn't the point. But without God, there is nothing but self-interest which compels our help, even if that self-interest is the warm and fuzzies.
No. This guy isn't successfully arguing that morality exists without God or regardless of whether or not He exists. He's applying the term inappropriately.
Well, if you are more comfortable with atheists than with those you call "brothers", that seems a strange thing to be proud of.
Obviously, I'm talking in a "theological" sense, not in the sense of being a decent human.
Yes, there are all sorts of atheists/agnostics who affirm a moral code that is strikingly similar to what we see in scripture. They just ignore the source of that moral code and embrace it with no foundation.
Hell, we just saw Hitchens (or one of the big name atheists) make the startling admission about his comfort with a "Christian" moral code.
The problem that atheists/agnostics is that the mostly affirm Naturalism/Materialism/Darwinian theory/Evolution, none of which provides a rational basis for a universal moral system.
Why would I affirm something simply to satisfy your demands? Why would anyone think that me repeating some formula that you demand I repeat would have any meaning at all? Why would anyone conclude that you coming to my blog and demanding that I repeat some rubric that you've conjured up is you behaving in a sane or rational manner.
Well, if you are more comfortable with atheists than with those you call "brothers", that seems a strange thing to be proud of.
Well, we're all family, aren't we? That's certainly my view and one I believe is promoted by the biblical authors, including Jesus. So, yes, atheists, agnostics and conservative Christians are all my brothers and sisters, my family. Because of course, they are.
And what I'm noting is that, theologically and philosophically, I quite often identify and agree with many non-believers moreso than conservative religionists. Like Gandhi, they "get" Jesus in ways that I many conservative religionists don't.
What's wrong with recognizing that reality?
Marshal: "Dan regards Scripture as "magical fairy dust" and then insists he reveres it. "
I absolutely didn't say that. The "magical fairy dust" I refer to are YOUR all's personal human opinions of God and interpretations of Scripture. YOU all are the ones with "fairy dust," (ie, something that doesn't exist or have weight). That is what I'm joking about, BECAUSE I revere the Word of God.
But then, we've established thoroughly by now that you all tend to have a real problem with poetry and figurative language.
Truly, I wonder what research has been done on this front. I know that research has shown that conservative brains tend to have an enlarged amygdala, tending to make you all more prone to fear responses and tending to be lacking in understanding of nuance. I suspect that the lack of nuanced thinking also makes understanding poetry more difficult.
Just a guess at this point.
Craig:
Why would I affirm something simply to satisfy your demands?
A. Because it's a reasonable question? Because you keep hinting vaguely at this notion that you can know some opinions objectively, but when pressed on it, you scurry away. That leaves me not knowing if you DO think you have an objective source for objective knowledge about these questions or if you don't.
B. And because it's an EASY question to answer. "Yes, I DO think I have an authoritative source for objective knowledge." I mean, look, Marshal affirms it (even while failing to understand the problem with his "da bible" answer). Why NOT affirm it or clarify?
C. And because it's an IMPORTANT bit of information. IF it's true that there exists some secret arcane authoritative source to know objectively THE answers to morality and justice, WHO would be crazy enough to keep that hidden? WHY hide it? It's the kind of world-shattering historic bit of information that is kind of important, you know?
D. AND, likewise, it's important to affirm to the Marshals of the world, No, we have no authoritative source to objectively know "morality" and "justice."
What perhaps Marshal fails to see is when he points to the bible and says, "look, I don't think god approves of gay folk marrying because there are these six lines in the Bible" and I say, "But there are many reasons not to assume that's some kind of universal ruling or in fitting with God's grace as found in the Bible (reasons I've given repeatedly)", THEN we are left with, okay, WHOSE interpretations are authoritatively and objectively correct? Based on what? Should we bow to Marshal's personal interpretation because Marshal insists he's right? Says who? That is literally the antithesis of the meanings of Objective and Authoritative. (Although it DOES lean into the meaning of Authoritarian, but that's a different story).
Simply put, WHY NOT? Can you even give a reason why you wouldn't ever TRY to provide the data for this earth-shattering claim (IF you had it)?
Do you see how when you and Marshal (et al) avoid doing this, it's just another bit of evidence that you all objectively DO NOT have this mythical "authoritative source..."?
Or how about this:
1. Do you agree that when one googles the topic "Is there an authoritative source for objectively proven morality and justice" that no definitive links pop up? Why do you think that is?
2. Or conversely, do you have some search terms that DO result in helpful, definitive answers?
These are all reasonable questions about an important set of topics.
I mean, seriously, have you ever searched for answers to that kind of question on Googles? Nothing much pops up and what DOES pop up tends to be pop philosophers falling on one side or the other. And, as noted, the strongest cases (at least to me) seem to come from non-theists or progressive types, folks who lean towards a Human Rights kind of explanation. The other Type of best answers to that kind of search have tended to be the ones who say that it's a category error. On morality and justice, we should be looking for what is the most plausible, most defensible, NOT trying to make a case for "What is objectively known" about a topic that is impossible to objectively prove (or at least, outside of a human rights approach).
Where are the conservative religionists even TRYING to make a credible case for this?
I'm going to address Dan's one link to some degree.
I'll note going in that I have no idea of what the worldview of this group is and where they fall on the Naturalism/Materialism/Darwinism scale. If they are hard core believers of any of the three, then I can't take any of their moral proclamations seriously as "machines made of meat" can't form a universal moral code.
So far, Dan's big source is just regurgitating stuff that's been argued before and is pretty much focused on finding something else as a way to ground a universal moral system excluding the possibility of God.
Again, in a secular world where Naturalism/Materialism/Darwinism are the predominant worldview of non theists, the piece doesn't even address the fundamental problem. If humans are the result of unguided, blind, natural processes and that the highest purpose of an organism is to reproduce by any means necessary, then morality is defined by the one who kills not the one who is killed or by the one with the reddest teeth and claws.
In short, it's a lot of rambling to try to invent a substitute for God.
Craig...
In short, it's a lot of rambling to try to invent a substitute for God.
And the problem the conservative religionists have is that
A. IF they want to say, GOD is the source of morality and justice and GOD's justice and morality ARE perfect and objectively known
then the question immediately rises, Okay, but HOW do we objectively know what God's notion of morality is, especially given that we're flawed, imperfect humans without perfect understanding or knowledge?
B. And if the answer is: We have the Bible, where God REVEALS God's objective morality!
Then the obvious question that arises is: Okay, but humans of good faith across the board (including liberal and conservative fans of the Bible) disagree about almost every moral topic in some way or another. WHO decides or HOW do we objectively know which imperfect humans are understanding a moral or justice point correctly?
C. And if the answer is: Well, obviously, it is the conservative viewpoint!
Then a reasonable question arises:
D. Says who?
E. And if the answer is: A BUNCH of humans throughout history have agreed with these theories (which aren't even theories, because they're known to be true... by the very humans who insist they are correct!)
Then the immediate question arises:
F. Okay, but who says THAT group of flawed, fallible humans are the ones rightly understanding - PERFECTLY - God's opinions and do they understand perfectly enough that their personal humans rise to the level of "Objectively proven" based upon their sayso?
And on it goes. This is why I lean towards saying we can't objectively prove "morality" or "justice," at least unless one first accepts some unproven presuppositions (ie, that pile of humans understood it correctly! or Human Rights are universal and universally obvious).
These are reasonable questions that I think are quite intriguing and IF a human ever could address these various human theories and objectively prove them, that would be world-shattering and explosively good news. Why not answer these questions, then?
If you say so. Because all that stuff that Jesus taught about His followers having a unique relationship means nothing when it comes to some vague "brotherhood of man" stuff.
You recognize whatever you want, just don't call it "reality" without objective proof.
No. I don't care.
There are plenty of them.
I've not found one. There may BE "plenty" of them but maybe, like you, they're trying to keep this amazing "news" a secret or hidden.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: I'm pretty sure that you DO affirm the reality (in your unproven human opinion) of being able to objectively "know" the "right" answer on at least some moral questions or questions of justice...
And that you affirm that "reality," because you think God's Spirit has "revealed" it to you as one of God's "real" followers...
BUT, you don't want to say that publicly because some part of you recognizes that this is literally NOT objective proof.
But without you affirming one way or the other, no one can know and we're left recognizing that you both know you can't objectively prove your theories on some of these topics and that you aren't willing to just admit it.
But you tell me. Or not.
Craig, regarding your "Plenty of 'em" non-response to the question of sources that authoritatively objectively "prove" moral questions, I would just point to the Purple Unicorn theorists who will tell you that ALL the smartest people objectively "know" that there are purple unicorns living on the dark side of the moon, but they have to keep it a secret and that's why you can't find any of these purple unicorn experts (PUE) online confirming that objectively poven reality.
The answer defies reason and strains credulity and is just a bad faith answer.
I'm sure you would agree if I made that kind of argument about a progressive theory. Why you aren't willing to be forthcoming on this point and admit the reality that we all can see, I don't know.
That, too, is a mystery.
I'm not sure where it happened, and I take full responsibility for it happening, but Dan has once again succeeded in hijacking this thread and dragging it back to one of his pet diversions.
Oh, the "imaginary animal" trope. It's an oldie and stupid, but I understand why you hide behind these sorts of idiotic attempts to force people to do your bidding. Obviously the ad hom attacks and bullying are a great choice to get what you want.
That you're resorting increasingly desperate attempts to get me to do your work for me, I must conclude that the prospect of actually finding things on your won as well as the possibility that you might find something that proves you wrong really scares you. You hide from that fear by attacking me, rather than doing your won research.
I just did a quick Google search using a different term and found all sorts of resources. I was right, user error.
Craig:
If these questions are so important to you and if you really seek answers, why are you demanding that I do so?
Um... because I've searched and found NOTHING to support this theory of yours and not really much that even attempts to support it AND
because YOU say you HAVE found such resources...
Why wouldn't you?
If I had spent years trying to find someone to give me a direct, objective answer to a question and hadn't found it and went to the library and the librarian said THEY knew of a source, I'd say, "GREAT! What's that source?!" and they responded, "Oh, well, I'm not going to tell you..." that librarian was not helpful and would make me question if they DID have a source.
Again, if you did a quick google search and found "all sorts of resources," WHY NOT just point me to the resource you think is best or at least offer the search terms you're using?
This is exceedingly confounding and I hope you can see how it appears you're not arguing in good faith and, frankly, that you're probably lying. If it was as easy as a "quick google search," then give me that link?
Be a good man, dear one.
Craig:
IF the Bible is the revealed Word of God from the God who created everything that exists, a God who literally embodies Truth, wouldn't the most logical position be that the Bible is significantly better than any of the other contending options?
1. IF the Bible is the revealed word of God... but that is an unproven treatise and more than a little vague. What does one mean by "revealed word of God..."? for instance. I mean, I do think biblical scripture is inspired by God, but I also acknowledge that neither God nor the Bible have told me so. It's a human theory, and unproven. Just as an observable point of fact.
I'm not willing to make claims about God or the Bible that God or the bible haven't.
2. "wouldn't the most logical position be that the Bible is significantly better than any of the other contending options?"
Well, that is certainly a human theory and not a bad guess, but it's not proven. The Bible, after all, teaches us that we are created in the image of God, a little lower than God, with "God's Word" written upon our hearts, so one might make the case that we who are created with the light of God within us are ALSO a good source for understanding God. You may disagree with it (and I may, as well) but it's not a completely ridiculous hypothesis.
Likewise, there are biblical teachings that God is revealed through creation, so one might make a reasonable case that we can understand that of God in the witness of nature and this wild world (including in human nature, which is part of that creation). So, your theory is certainly not an awful theory, but it's not a given, either.
Just to answer your question and once again, show you how it's done.
Dan has once again succeeded in hijacking this thread and dragging it back to one of his pet diversions.
By answering YOUR post about the nature of God, the nature of God's Realm, of heaven and hell and asking you reasonable questions about it and answering your questions in return, I've hijacked the thread?
Seems like just a conversation about God, to me, as well as our human theories about God. Are you trying to limit it to just one aspect of God... perhaps your personal imagined theories about an afterlife? Seems to me that these questions (unanswered) about the nature of God and how to understand the nature of God - and by extension, the nature of morality and justice - ARE all part of the topic, but then, I'm pretty gracious and free-ranging on questions like that.
"I've agnostic, pagan and other non-theists who I value as living lives with philosophies much closer to Jesus' teachings and Jesus' way, as he lived out his life."
This isn't true. What's true is that they live according to YOUR self-serving ideas of what Jesus taught. That's not the same as what Jesus was actually teaching.
" She's a great model of Jesus in this world."
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely stupid. No pagan can possibly be a "great model of Jesus" in any world. Jesus believed in God, not a false god or a pagan god or whatever the hell this possibly made up chick believes. Being "nice" isn't enough. Not even close.
Scripture is the source of morality. God's morality, as He created it. Only fake Christians like Dan and atheists disagree. It stands as a mirror reflecting back upon them their own sin and corruption and they can't stand that, so they dismiss it as the source of morality...more precisely, they dismiss God as the source of morality.
Good gosh. Every time Dan dares to insist what "reality" is, honest people know right off he's simply conflating his personally pleasing-to-himself opinion as reality. That is, what Dan "recognizes" as "reality", we recognize for what it truly is: Dan's subjective opinion of what he'd like reality to be. And THAT is in no way promoted by biblical authors nor especially Jesus the Christ.
My presentations of what Scripture...and thus God...says are not "personal opinions/interpretations any more than my presentation of a Stop sign meaning one must stop is. And until you can prove with Scriptural evidence that my accurate presentations of Scriptural teachings aren't Scriptural and accurate, your "fairy dust" crap is just you saying "Nyuh uh" once again. I fully concede you don't truly revere the Word of God, but simply say you do, as so much of your positions on a variety of issues do not in any way conform with the Word and are indeed and beyond any debate abjectly contradictory to it. This has been established and you've yet to provide any intelligent, fact-based argument to disabuse anyone of this fact. No. You simply say...in not so many words (actually, thousands of equally unconvincing "toddler arguing his case" words), "Nyuh uh".
We have no problem with poetry or figurative language. You simply bring this up, even when the verse or passage in question is in no way either. You apply those terms, that is, to that to which those terms don't apply. And when you do, you fail, consistently to the point that it's as if it's your job to fail to provide any alternative interpretation to those verses we cite as to be taken as written.
Basically, you're just saying shit as if it's true, without ever having provided any reason for anyone to regard it as such.
The research you cite is crap. It usually is. And to cite "research shows" without providing any link to the research would get my comment deleted at your Blog of Lies.
You're not "guessing". You're making an obvious assertion, unjustly insulting us because you can't really make an intelligent argument for your positions...such as they are. I don't blame you. Your positions are consistently crappy.
Given that it's guaranteed to happen, I don't really mind it all that much....depending upon how badly I want my topic to be addressed by those who might have a different opinion. In that case, the best response to his tap-dancing tangents is to simply say, that's off topic and the topic is....whatever.
The thing is, when Dan goes off topic, he brings up other stupid shit which he fails to support, all the while pretending we've not supported our side of the question when the reality is that he just dismisses our support as if we never provided it. For me, this kind of bullshit is just allowing him to expose his own shortcomings, fake Christian persona and all his other falsehoods.
So, in the future, just tell him he's off topic and he needs to stick to the topic or opine on his bullshit at his Blog of Lies. Yeah, his crap can creep up on ya. Creeps do that.
1. Perhaps you missed the word "If" at the beginning of the sentence. When one starts with the word "If" one is generally not making a specific, definitive claim and therefore "If" statements are almost never "proven".
2. Well, that's a pretty non definitive, non specific, two sided "answer". But hey, you kind of answered one question, one time. Pat yourself on the back.
That you clearly didn't read my "theory" (It's not but who cares when you're inventing bullshit) very well. If you had you'd have noticed that I literally did NOT exclude other revelation from YHWH. Of course, given your insistence that the world evolved through unguided, natural, processes (given your lack of specificity, who really knows, but this seems within the realm of possibility), and that the only way you'd know that YHWH's nature is revealed in His Creation is from scripture, it's kind of a circular argument.
Well, given that you've spend lord knows how many posts bitching about "moral" systems and that I won't spoon feed you what you demand, it seems about right to note that you've hijacked the thread and diverted it to one of your stock topics.
Of course, the fact that the literal point of the post was to compare your comment to scripture on the single topic of our existence after we leave this part of our lives, would seem to indicate that the post isn't a space for you to make general "arguments" about all sorts of things that randomly float across the transom of your consciousness. That you've chosen to ignore the singular focus of the post, and to demand that your bullshit be given free reign, (your inability to stay on topic is amusing given how often you use going "off topic" as an excuse to delete comments at your blog demonstrating your inability to live according to the demands you place on others) then attempted to justify your bullshit because you "answered a question or two", demonstrates your hubris and arrogance once again.
Your problem is when you impose what "seems" to you, onto others. Maybe that's a problem for you.
Yeah, it pretty much is. That's my preference, but sometimes I show him the grace he denies others and let him ramble.
Given that he's essentially banned me from the cesspool, and that I see no reason to comment on a blog where comments are capriciously deleted and lied about, I am limited.
I've noticed that Dan makes virtually the same arguments as a Universalist, using the same proof texts, yet he doesn't have enough courage to simply acknowledge what appears obvious.
I also think that he's like a 90% Universalist, in that he really wants people like Trump to be punished for all eternity, but he's afraid to say that because it opens another can of worms.
Once upon a time, I asked him if there was anyone in human history who deserved some level of eternal punishment, and he wouldn't unequivocally give a specific answer.
IMO, it's that Dan likes ambiguity and dislikes taking a specific position. He hides behind his "Well, we just can't know perfectly and objectively..." straw man instead of letting his "yes be yes and his no be no".
Yet, Muslims (who Dan has sad many nice things about) do believe that Allah HAS instituted this punishment and Dan has no basis to tell them that they are wrong.
Years ago, I posted the sociological definition of morality. In short, sociologists define morality as the behaviors of mores determined by societies (tribes, clans, religions, countries, cultures, etc) to be appropriate. This is essentially the argument made by the piece Dan posted. I have no objection to deciding group morality in that way, as long as it's recognized that the only way to apply that morality beyond that group is through persuasion/force. I have no objection to Dan's personal moral decision that cutting off hands for stealing ice cream is wrong. What I DO have a problem with are the two following points.
1. His argument, as formulated, implies that there ARE offenses worthy of dismemberment. It's just that stealing ice cream is not worthy of dismemberment. Perhaps stealing the last bit of food from a family, leading to their deaths might be worthy of dismemberment. We'll never know.
2. He has no basis (save persuasion or force) to impose his moral code on others. In other words, he has no standing to refer to those who believe that dismemberment for theft is appropriate, as "immoral".
Post a Comment