If "eternal torture" is so incredibly horrible. If it is the antithesis of "loving" and "just". is eternal separation more loving and more just? Is annihilation? Is allowing the worst of humanity the same result as the best of humanity? Is it just to force someone who spent their entire life being hostile to YHWH, to spend eternity with YHWH?
127 comments:
What do you hypothesize?
Dan
What I hypothesize is immaterial. I'm not the one making claims. But I guess anything to avoid answering questions...
FYI, I personally think that annihilation is the easy way out. It doesn't seem to fit the justice paradigm of being punished/rewarded based on one's actions.
I think eternal separation is people hoping that an eternity of loneliness and separation from YHWH is going to be a picnic.
I think that having the same end result for Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler is the antithesis of justice.
But I get it, answering questions is hard for you.
Sigh. Not that I'm saying any of these are my theories, but...
"If it is the antithesis of "loving" and "just". is eternal separation more loving and more just? "
Is being separated more loving and just than eternal torture? Well, yes, of course. Who would say otherwise?
"Is annihilation?"
Again, yes. Of course.
Do you disagree?
"Is allowing the worst of humanity [receiveing ???] the same result as the best of humanity? "
No.
"Is it just to force someone who spent their entire life being hostile to YHWH, to spend eternity with YHWH?"
No.
But again, none of these are MY theories or MY claims.
Do you understand that?
Dan
Again, I am not arguing an annihilation answer, as you can tell by the way I never said that.
D
Craig...
"answering questions is hard for you."
And yet, I DID answer your questions about positions I haven't taken.
As is so often the problem, you've read my words and formed erroneous opinions about what I am and am not saying.
Dan
Again with the goal post move. I never said that those were your theories, but they are common theories. I doubt anyone will ever know your theories given your propensity for vagueness, lack of specificity, and obfuscation.
"Again, yes. Of course."
Another apparent fact claim, with no proof and no explanation.
Again, I never said that those were "YOUR THEORIES" you obtuse idiot. You hide YOUR THEORIES. So it's implicit in my not saying that those were "YOUR THEORIES", that I would know that they were not.
Just in case you're slower than usual today, those are the alternate theories that I hear offered most frequently.
Eternal separation, Annihilation, and Universalism. I guess there could be some sort of semi Universalism/Purgatory where you get punished for your sins for a while and then get a free pass. I've never heard anyone who's advocated that hybrid and it's certainly foreign to scripture, but people make up all sorts of stupid crap.
It's cute how you insist that "none of these are MY theories or MY claims.", being evasive, vague, and cagey about what your secret theories are.
You know with a high degree of certainty what is NOT just and loving when it comes to YHWH, but you offer no alternatives.
Therefore, I'll repeat myself for your edification because apparently my stating things clearly was inadequate for your limited comprehension/attention span.
I NEVER EVEN HINTED THAT THOSE WERE "YOUR THEORIES", YOU CAN TELL THAT BY THE WAY I NEVER SAID ANYTHING THAT EVEN HINTS AT THAT. YOU CAN FURTHER TELL THAT BECAUSE I WAS QUITE CLEAR THAT THESE WERE A FEW COMMON ALTERNATIVES.
I appreciate your commitment to the straw man though.
I'll grant that, after being called out, you did finally answer some questions. Yet you mostly just repeated your straw man, goalpost move bullshit. Whatever salves your fragile ego.
Craig...
"being evasive, vague, and cagey about what your secret theories are.
You know with a high degree of certainty what is NOT just and loving when it comes to YHWH, but you offer no alternatives."
1. I note the reality that no one has definitive, authoritative data about an afterlife.
That's being direct, honest, clear and factual. It's NOT being evasive, vague or cagey.
How is that factual answer anything but direct and crystal clear?
I'd love to know the answer to that.
2. And I know, along with the rest of humanity, what is and isn't loving and just in general terms.
Holding people accountable for misdeeds and crimes is loving and just.
Punishment that is wildly disproportionate to the misdeeds is neither loving or just.
We created in the image of God get that.
Do you disagree?
Dan
1. Excellent job of restating my points. Excellent goal post move. I merely asked about your "theories" not about what "definitive, authoritative data" you have.
Because it's being "crystal clear" in answering a question not asked and in moving the goalposts to avoid actually answering the question asked.
2. Well, that's quite a vague, unhelpful pile of bullshit. But nothing more than a regurgitation of previously spewed bullshit long on vagueness and obfuscation, short on anything else.
I disagree with your qualifications to impose your hunches on YHWH.
5 comments, no theories or hypotheses.
Dan,
I apologize. I went to hit publish on your recent comment and I must have hit delete. I'm sincerely sorry, it happens occasionally, but I feel bad for the mistake.
Based on what I saw, you seemed to be very proud of your self that you did finally get around to "answering" my questions, a point which I never denied. Your answers clearly seem more focused on the straw man you've created, and on obscuring what you theories you do hold. But nonetheless there were answers after a few false starts.
Again, I apologize for losing the comment. You are, as always welcome to resubmit.
Briefly and from memory, I noted the reality that we have no objective proof or authoritative information about an afterlife, so I am mostly agnostic about any details because I do not see HOW we can have hard opinions about a topic we have no hard data upon.
I further noted that I DO theorize and affirm a belief in a perfectly loving, perfectly just God. So, to extend that to any impacts upon a possible afterlife, I just affirm and re-affirm my commitment to that theory, that God is perfectly loving and perfectly just. I note that this is rationally consistent IF one affirms a loving, just God premise.
I further note that if any HUMANS have an opinion that THEY theorize that God's justice is unrecognizable to humans, that this is a theory without rational support or hard data. IF they theorize that sometimes, it IS just to punish someone for an eternity for the misdeeds common to humanity, then that is not a rationally or biblically consistent theory. It's a self-defeating theory and it requires a twisting of the notions of love and justice that I do not support.
No problems about losing comments. Accidents happen, I hold that against no one, not even you.
Craig, you asked/noted in your initial post:
If "eternal torture" is so incredibly horrible. If it is the antithesis of "loving" and "just". is eternal separation more loving and more just?
It would help me to understand if you could answer: Do you think that the notion of eternal torture for typical temporal misdeeds is NOT an atrocity against justice? That a parent doing such a punishment for "only" a lifetime would NOT be a loving parent in any way at all and, indeed, that it's a horrific evil? And if you don't find it atrocious and evil, can you make that case in a rational manner?
Briefly and from an earlier comment you apparently missed, I literally never asked for "objective proof or authoritative information" about anything. Given that reality, why keep haring on something I never asked for. I DID point out the obvious, that you clearly are absolutely positive that you know what "will not" happen, yet you have nothing (speculation, theory, hunch) to offer on what you think will happen. Thant's a bold stance to take, confidently asserting a negative, while hiding from even attempting to assert a positive case. Because you've constructed a two layered defense to hide behind (the "we have no objective proof..." layer and the "I absolutely know what "will not" happen layer") I'm sure you feel confident that you can continue to hide your theories. By all means, hide them, just stop pretending that you know anything on the topic and stop bitching about the theories others offer.
Yes, you have affirmed that you believe in a "perfectly loving..." as long as that God does not stray from your (imperfect, biased, flawed, sinful, human hunches) about what is "just and loving". I got that.
I do so love it when you make shit up, use that made up shit to build a straw man, then boldly defeat the straw man.
That you don't support any of these things goes without saying. That you supporting something is a demonstration of the Truth of your hunch is your arrogance and hubris showing.
To clarify, I have never said that YHWH's justice is "unrecognizable". What I have said is that it is possible, even likely, that YHWH has more and more accurate information than I have and that He might dispense justice in ways that my (limited, sinful, imperfect, flawed) human mind can totally grasp.
But if you think you can totally grasp every aspect of YHWH's justice, thats' quite a claim.
Craig:
I DID point out the obvious, that you clearly are absolutely positive that you know what "will not" happen, yet you have nothing (speculation, theory, hunch) to offer on what you think will happen.
And I DID point out the obvious: That, GIVEN the premise of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God, then it is rationally consistent to note that the human theories of a hell of everlasting torture is not consistent with the premise. It's a rational failure.
The only way you all might try to get around it is to completely redefine love and justice to be something horribly backwards from typical understandings.
I have never said that YHWH's justice is "unrecognizable". What I have said is that it is possible, even likely, that YHWH has more and more accurate information than I have and that He might dispense justice in ways that my (limited, sinful, imperfect, flawed) human mind can totally grasp.
But the problem you have is that it does deadly damage to the terms of love and justice as they are typically and reasonably understood.
It's one thing to say, "Wow, God forgave that child rapist and let that child rapist into heaven..." I don't understand how that's possible!" It's another thing to claim, "Wow, that person was a relatively good person who never committed any atrocities. They possessed the typical misdeeds of humanity, being greedy, being impatient, getting wrongly angry... and yet, because they didn't repent the right way or believe in God the right way, God sent them to everlasting torture."
One may be beyond our understanding, but the other is contrary to the notions of love and justice.
Re: The notion that 'God's ways are inscrutable and not the same as humanity's ways...' (not your quote, but one of the verses typically ripped out of context for this kind of conversation.
I would point out that this passage (Isaiah 55) is a passage that is ALL about God's Welcome, especially and specifically for the poor, oppressed and marginalized.
Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost...
Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.
7
Let the wicked forsake their ways
and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
8
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055&version=NIV
It's a passage of an open welcome to ALL who thirst and want more. Not a passage saying we can't understand justice or love.
fyi.
Once again, Dan commandeers the authority to dictate what is disproportionate to that which God finds most objectionable.
No, it is most certainly NOT an injustice given the what leads God to sentence anyone to eternal punishment (I would consider listening to you for the rest of eternity to be more torturous than being on fire for that same period).
It is pathetic and cheap to continue to bring up a parent analogy, especially when the analogy doesn't match. There's no misdeed a child can do which would even lead a mother to punish the child for his entire life. Perhaps when the child is a teen or young adult that might occur, but not what most consider to be a child.
But the parent analogy doesn't work with God, as His terms are pretty basic, with one being totally pleasing to Him and the other being totally displeasing. The former results in eternity in His Holy Presence, and the latter being cast out into whatever eternal punishment actually is.
The problem isn't what justice is. The problem is that Dan seeks to dictate to God what is the just punishment for those who run afoul of His terms. Moreover, Dan dares to suggest that punishment for a crime is evil if Dan prefers a different punishment than that which is prescribed by the Lawgiver. Let a kid try that with his mother. Let a lawbreaker try that in a criminal or civil court of law. The ultimate choice to follow or reject the Law results in the Ultimate Reward or Punishment. Therefore, it can't be evil to have the Ultimate Punishment for transgressing the Law being your fate. (I use the word "Law" loosely here to get the point across) And we absolutely know that Ultimate Punishment will not be short lived, but last forever. The details of how that will manifest exactly remains to be seen, and I don't want to. You can tell me what it's like if communication is allowed.
That's kind of the point. Both YHWH and us must agree that his hunches (unproven and imperfect as they are) must be binding on all, including YHWH.
"Do you think that the notion of eternal torture for typical temporal misdeeds is NOT an atrocity against justice?"
I do not have the information, nor breadth of knowledge and experience to answer this question definitively. Of course neither do you, but that doesn't stop you from (on this rare occasion) answering definitively.
"That a parent doing such a punishment for "only" a lifetime would NOT be a loving parent in any way at all and, indeed, that it's a horrific evil?"
Apples and oranges. Before you start, unless you're going to make the argument that YHWH is literally both biological parents of every child, then admit that the parent/child language is figurative or (at best) indicative of an adoption relationship between YHWH and some people.
"And if you don't find it atrocious and evil, can you make that case in a rational manner?"
The only "case" I'm making is that Jesus (in the very red letters that you prize above all else) says on multiple occasions that "hell" is going to be both eternal and unpleasant. As you haven't offered an alternative explanation, only excuses and reasons why the existence of "figurative" language elsewhere in scripture means that those specific passages are "figurative", I'd say the ball is in your court.
That you can come up with rationalizations and excuses based on your subjective hunches, doesn't automatically make those hunches as certain as you present them. That you are unwilling to see the problem with your hunches, and that your lack of an alternative explanation, is an epic fail is your problem. This encapsulates your problem quite succinctly. You believe that I, or you, have the authority to define things like "justice and love" and that we, well you, have the authority to impose your definitions on others.
No, YHWH being YHWH and exercising His prerogatives as the Sovereign, Creator of all that exists is not my problem at all. He's God and I'm not.
The only "deadly damage" is to your personal, human, subjective definitions.
Interesting, that you claim that YHWH giving mercy to those He chooses IS "beyond our understanding", but that for YHWH mete out punishment is "contrary to OUR notions". That is quite the arrogant claim. That the Sovereign , Creator, God of the Universe is beholden to your "notions of love and justice", and that you have (close to) perfect knowledge of His ways is beyond my ability to comprehend in it's arrogance.
That you can come up with rationalizations and excuses based on your subjective hunches, doesn't automatically make those hunches as certain as you present them. That you are unwilling to see the problem with your hunches, and that your lack of an alternative explanation, is an epic fail is your problem. This encapsulates your problem quite succinctly. You believe that I, or you, have the authority to define things like "justice and love" and that we, well you, have the authority to impose your definitions on others.
No, YHWH being YHWH and exercising His prerogatives as the Sovereign, Creator of all that exists is not my problem at all. He's God and I'm not.
The only "deadly damage" is to your personal, human, subjective definitions.
Interesting, that you claim that YHWH giving mercy to those He chooses IS "beyond our understanding", but that for YHWH mete out punishment is "contrary to OUR notions". That is quite the arrogant claim. That the Sovereign , Creator, God of the Universe is beholden to your "notions of love and justice", and that you have (close to) perfect knowledge of His ways is beyond my ability to comprehend in it's arrogance.
That you can cherry pick ONE (member that you're the one arguing that number of mentions reveals that Truth of the passages), passage from a part of the Bible that you insist is not accurately recorded and doesn't represent history to eisegete tells me all I need to know about your arrogant claims.
I'd take this bullshit more seriously if you weren't so intent on not advocating Universalism.
That verse 8 totally demonstrates the idiocy of your arrogant claims, just makes you look increasingly desperate and stupid.
The problem in this thread is that I attempted to remove the "torture" aspect from the conversation. "What if it's eternal isolation/separation?". "What if it's only torture for a limited time?". What if YHWH just annihilates those He hasn't chosen for salvation?"
Yet, Dan is so fixed on the "torture" aspect (an really isn't "torture" in the eye of the beholder to some degree?) that he's ignoring everything else. I suspect that this is because it's easier to generate an emotional reaction when it's phrased as "eternal torture", and it's easier to get worked up that way.
I prefer to let YHWH be God and I'll be His adopted child. I don't need to make authoritative pronouncements on things wayyyyyyyyyy above my pay grade.
Dan seems to need to do those things.
I liken it to a situation where the (human) justice system arrests someone on a trumped up charge, changes evidentiary rules and excludes exculpatory evidence, and after conviction imposes a ridiculously harsh sentence.
I may not like it, I may avail myself of all appropriate means to object, I use extra legal means to object, but the fact remains that the court has the legal standing to make the decisions it made. Even if those decisions are later reversed, the court still has the discretion and authority to make decisions I personally don't like. What I don't do, is try to force my personal preferences on the court.
I find that last comment (about heeding/going along with what a court says) to be morally shallow and intellectually uncalled for.
And you're still question begging. I am NOT DISAGREEING WITH GOD. I'm disagreeing with your personal human interpretations and the evil things YOU are saying about "god," as if God has some super secret, vague and inscrutable understanding of love and justice that is so beyond us that "god" COULD torture someone for an eternity and it could possibly be loving and just.
And look, if you want to remove torture (you know, an eternity of burning alive in flames - or something equivalent to that) from the equation, I'm fine with that.
If you want to leave it at:
We have NO objective way of understanding if there is a hell or what it would be like;
We CAN trust God to be just, whatever God does...
I'm fine with that. That is what I've been saying. But it's not what your comrades believe, by and large and you SEEM to be allowing for the possibility that MAYBE your "god" DOES do something comparable to burning people alive forever AND that this is not unjust or unloving if God does it. But I reject that human tradition and opinion as contrary to reason or the biblical witness, writ large.
And maybe that's the difference between us. We're both fine with thinking that of course, a loving and just God WILL be loving and just... BUT, you include within that the human theory that maybe god does create humans specifically to send to hell and maybe that hell is something like torture. I, on the other hand, find that to be a filthy slur to the notion of a loving, just God, as described in the Bible.
And because I have a high view of both the Bible and God, I reject that theory as rationally and biblically ridiculous and not a little evil. AND I note the reality that this thinking (that maybe "god" does hate most of humanity and did create most people for the purpose of eternal torment) IS a human theory, naught else.
Are you willing to meet me that far?
Dan
1. What you find/don't find is of no concern to me at all. Simply put, I don't care. You have no moral high horse, or any high horse and I have no interest in your sanctimonious bullshit.
No, I'm not. Of course you're still creating straw men. I'm done trying to deal with crap you make up and pretend that I've said.
Given that I've tried to remove the "torture" aspect multiple times and you keep bringing it up, you're clearly not fine.
"We CAN trust God to be just, whatever God does.."
Except you keep demonstrating that you don't "trust God...whatever God does". You've literally demanded that everyone agree that it is impossible for YHWH to do X or Y and still be just. Unless this is one more time where "whatever" really doesn't mean "whatever". Of course, you literally contradict yourself within a couple of sentences of your pious claim.
Again, what your tiny, limited, faulty, personal "mind" subjectively "finds" has no meaning beyond your tiny little skull.
Again, you arbitrarily place the very plain meaning of the words of the Jesus you claim to follow, contained in the Red Letters you give primacy over all other scripture, contained in the Bible you claim to love. I'm simply choosing to take Jesus words at face value. I'm simply NOT choosing to assign some secret meaning and interpretation that I refuse to share with anyone else to Jesus words.
What a strange way of expressing this "high view" of God and the Bible.
Until you provide a detailed, specific, alternative interpretation for the texts where Jesus specifically refers to "hell" as extremely unpleasant that aligns with the plain meaning of the text, as well as the context, I see no reason to "meet you" anywhere. Why would I compromise with someone who's position is to pass judgement on YHWH/Jesus/scripture based on your personal, subjective opinion.
I understand why my court example gets your panties in a wad. It's because, for as long as I've interacted with you, you've been uncomfortable with the notion of a God with significant authority or sovereignty as well as with the notion that Scripture contains any authoritative communication from YHWH. The very idea of acknowledging the authority of a person or entity that doesn't align 100% with your hunches. and submitting to that authority, is anathema to you.
Based on the revelation of YHWH in scripture and on what I've experienced, I completely, 100% trust in the Sovereignty, of YHWH as well as all of His attributes. I come to Him humbly, totally reliant on His grace through the finished work of Jesus. If I'm one of the people who gets told "Go away, I never knew you.", I completely affirm that it is His prerogative to make that choice. In all honesty, I could care less about what "hell" is like. My hope is in spending eternity in the presence of YHWH and Jesus, not obsessed over what happened to those who ended up in "hell".
If you want to pass judgement on your caricature of, your hunches about what other people believe, go ahead. That's on you.
In scripture, every time an angel appears or YHWH shows Himself, those who are present either fall down in fear/respect, or are hidden. I suspect that you're one of the folx who seriously think that when you come face to face with YHWH that you'll give Him a piece of your mind and tell Him what for. I'd love to see that.
Except you keep demonstrating that you don't "trust God...whatever God does".
Of course, I do. That's when I object to you all when you make claims about God that are contrary to the notion of a good and loving God. I am objecting to your vilification/demonization of God, not to God.
Look, if someone said that "god" likes to destroy little babies and command other people to do the same, would you NOT object to that portrayal of the Loving, Just God of the universe? That's what I'm doing.
Along those lines, you ridiculously stated:
You've literally demanded that everyone agree that it is impossible for YHWH to do X or Y and still be just.
Of course I do. You almost certainly do, as well. Again, my example above. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for God to command humans to beat up, rape, torture or otherwise harm babies. That is contrary to the notion of a Good, Loving, Just God.
Do you seriously disagree?
If so, well, you're not one to be taken seriously as a morally rational adult.
Speaking of failing to be a morally rational adult...
Until you provide a detailed, specific, alternative interpretation for the texts where Jesus specifically refers to "hell" as extremely unpleasant that aligns with the plain meaning of the text
But YOU are the one who is just destroying the meaning of Loving and Just without providing ANY rational explanation of HOW can one do evil acts of torture and murder and be loving and just. You just redefine those words to meaningless.
Do you not see that this is precisely what YOU are doing with your assault on Love and Justice as concepts (AND your blasphemous portrayal of God who might hate and torture people!)?
"That, GIVEN the premise of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God, then it is rationally consistent to note that the human theories of a hell of everlasting torture is not consistent with the premise. It's a rational failure."
Only if one truly understands what a perfectly loving and just God God is. That is, how it manifests. You don't. More to the point, you demand that can only be understood in a manner personally pleasing to you. Said another way, if God doesn't manifest HIS love and justice in a manner which pleases Dan Trabue, it's not truly perfectly loving and just. Dan Trabue doesn't give a whit how God might manifest perfect love and justice. Dan Trabue only cares that it must conform with Dan's demand about how it must. Dan Trabue insists this means those like myself have a different understanding or definition for "love or "justice". That's not at all the case. We just don't pretend that our human manifestation of love and justice is on par or equal to that of our Sovereign God, whose ways aren't our ways. Again, it's akin to the difference in how two humans regard a given act. Two people might each think a third person driving across our lawns is a bad thing. But one might have a greater love for his lawn than the other, and thus that one might prefer a harsher response to the lawn job than the other. Dan Trabue doesn't think God should be so serious about God's expectations of us. Dan should go pound sand. His opinion is worthless compared to the reality of God's expectations.
What's more...and this I believe is of far greater importance...I don't care how God regards the likes of a Dan Trabue, who I personally think is a prime candidate for "Depart from me evildoer. I don't know you". If God chooses Dan's good enough, that's up to God. MY job is to do all I can to make it obvious to God that I won't be unknown to Him.
As we haven't ripped anything out of context, Dan perverts the context itself. Dan just can't help himself but to inject his socialism onto any verse or passage he can. This is not speaking of the material poor. Good gosh! It's ALL figurative language, yet Dan insists on pretending otherwise where it serves his marxism.
Well, that's it, Craig. Dan intentionally seeks to evoke a a response to the idea of eternal punishment which is as horrible as possible for the purpose of implying a horrible eternity makes God some kind of moral monster...that it somehow conflicts with the idea of a just and loving God. But as he constantly tries to bring up a mother and child analogy, no good mother rejects punishment for her child because the child regards it as a horrible response...and unjustly horrible response...to his behavior. Dan's position is basically an intentional lie, and I suspect it's because he chooses to believe the sins he supports he supports out of some "mistaken" understanding of that which is so clear. That is, if those sins are indeed wrong, he and those he defends shouldn't be punished for their rejection of God's will because they were "mistaken"...as if they actually could be given how clear Scripture is.
One would think that no good mother would end her child's life for her convenience either.
No, you literally don't. Once you declare that YHWH is "evil" if He chooses a punishment that you don't like, you demonstrate that you only "trust God" as long as He does what you think He should do. This notion that you get to decree what a "good and just" God can or can't do and remain within your good graces, simply reinforces my conclusion. Clearly you have problems with all of the possible "whatever"s. Unless "whatever" doesn't really mean whatever, but instead means "whatever Dan approves of".
Who are you to demand anything? By what authority do you declare what YHWH does just or unjust? Do you not understand how presumptuous it is to pass judgement on YHWH. Yes, I do seriously disagree with you and your human hunches, especially when they're unproven.
Excellent, I ask you do do something and you simply refuse to do so. Blaming me for some made up bullshit. I'm not assaulting anything (except maybe your human hunches), nor is quoting the words of Jesus and taking them at face value blasphemous.
I understand, it's hard to conjure up an actual explanation for your human hunches and secret alternative meanings to Jesus words. It's because your bullshit "figurative language" crap is merely something for you to hide behind so you don't have to demonstrate your human hunches to be True.
What's the point of "figurative language"? Is it not used to communicate a real, actual point? Why would Jesus (The Truth) use "figurative language" to paint a picture He knew to be false?
Either you or Jesus is lying, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it's not Jesus.
"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for God to command humans to beat up, rape, torture or otherwise harm babies."
This in no way reflects the point being made. You bring this up as if what we're defending is in any way comparable. But just punishment isn't like that. Just punishment isn't evil. God's notion of what punishment is appropriate for what transgression is just because God is just. By your "logic" (I use quotes because logic is not something you truly understand), punishment is evil. How does that make sense? Is it OK if I assault your women folk? If not, should I be allowed to do so without any punishment as a consequence? How would that "logic" impact crime rates do you think?
But of course, while to sensible people known punishments for transgression can be a deterrent factor, but punishment is not meant for deterrence. Punishment is meant to provide justice for the aggrieved. You demand that God not be aggrieved by that which transgresses His Will.
The most startling and outrageous aspect of your position is that you're far more concerned with how God chooses to enact His Perfect Justice than you are preaching His Will and imploring those to whom you preach to stay on the straight and narrow. But when they reject His Will, and then die, there's no court appointed solicitor to lighten their deserved punishment. It's too late.
And as we continue to affirm, the notion of eternal reward with no eternal punishment as well is nonsensical and illogical. The seriousness of sin is more than you're willing to acknowledge and your presumption that it's not worthy of the eternal punishment of which Christ so plainly speaks is without intelligent and legitimate support.
Is it me or "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE" when referring to an all powerful, sovereign a tiny bit presumptuous?
Obviously, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, yet you act surprised at that turn of events.
The problem, I believe, is that Dan is uncomfortable with the idea of anything approaching an orthodox view of eternal reward or eternal punishment. I think he's stated that he hopes that there is some sort of nice existence after death, but as he can't actually prove the existence of anything, it's not something he's that interested in.
I'd argue that eternal reward is also unjust. It is far more than our actions would deserve. I think that this is where Dan goes wrong. His view of sin as individual actions, which exist on a sliding scale and can (maybe?) be mitigated by good works, would seem to lead naturally to a view where justice is a matter of counting the sins, categorizing them, and coming up with a "just" punishment. Once that punishment is served, the bill is paid, and everything is set right. Yet isn't that the opposite of The Gospel? That we are not saved by our works, but by YHWH's grace? That we are unable to do enough "good works" to save ourselves. It's essentially a works based salvation, after death.
Of course, I'm drawing conclusions based on hints, innuendo, and vague answers because Dan won't simply give a straightforward answer when it comes
Craig:
I'd argue that eternal reward is also unjust.
So, you think it's unjust, you theorize, to be kind and give people a "reduced sentence," as one might call it?
I would disagree with that theory.
But then, I'm not a legalist who believes in a harsh and black and white god. To me, grace and justice go hand in hand and I know that at least many conservative religionists view those concepts as something like opposites.
Do you think grace and justice are opposites?
Craig:
His view of sin as individual actions, which exist on a sliding scale and can (maybe?) be mitigated by good works,...
Well, sin IS made up of individual actions. If I am drinking and driving and as a result cause you to wreck, that is an individual wrong that I've done. An individual wrong that has consequences beyond that individual wrong.
And as a point of observable reality, there IS a range of wrongs that can be done. I can take the last cookie without asking and maybe someone else wanted it and thus, I was selfishly taking a cookie... but that is nowhere near as comparable in "bad-ness" as raping someone. Of course, not all misdeeds are equally bad. I'd say the suggestion that all misdeeds are equally bad is an opinion lacking in adult moral reasoning.
Do you disagree? If so, based upon what?
Craig...
would seem to lead naturally to a view where justice is a matter of counting the sins, categorizing them, and coming up with a "just" punishment.
Justice is holding people accountable - in a measure commensurate to the harm/wrong done - for wrongs/harm done. Or, more precisely:
Justice is the ethical , philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably by the law and by arbiters of the law, that laws are to ensure that no harm befalls another, and that, where harm is alleged, a remedial action is taken...
Do you find this to be an acceptable, reasonable definition of Justice?
And if so, I would note that the point of Justice is never simple minded revenge or inflicting harm for harm. The point of justice is more reasonably the notion that remediation and restitution happen, that order and community are restored, as much as possible.
Are you familiar with the concept/practice of Restorative Justice? Its focus is not on punishment but on restoring right relationships. It's sort of a progressive ideal and practice being promoted today, but it's also quite biblical. As the people at the traditonalist website, Got Questions say:
"The goal of restorative justice in Scripture is the full restoration of the relationship between God and sinful humans."
That's what I think rational, Godly justice is. Not a mere counting of the number of misdeeds, but taking into consideration the people and circumstances involved and working for restoration of community.
Do you find that reasonable and biblical, as well?
Craig:
The problem, I believe, is that Dan is uncomfortable with the idea of anything approaching an orthodox view of eternal reward or eternal punishment.
Yes, I DO strongly disagree with the human theories that people like you (and me, once upon a time) hold about "eternal reward/eternal punishment." MY opinion, which is different than yours, is that this is a very unbiblical and irrational set of theories you all hold and it serves to (try to) undermine God and God's ways. It's a blasphemy of God as reasonably and biblically understood.
I'm sure you're fine with me disagreeing with your opinions, though, right?
For instance, where you offer this opinion:
Once that punishment is served, the bill is paid, and everything is set right. Yet isn't that the opposite of The Gospel? That we are not saved by our works, but by YHWH's grace? That we are unable to do enough "good works" to save ourselves.
1. I'm not the one who holds a transactional, bottom-line business view of God and God's way of grace ("once that punishment is served, the bill paid and everything is set right..."). I mean, THAT is the traditionalists' traditions. "God had to 'pay the price' for 'our sins' and once that 'bill was paid' everything was set right... FOR the few who were saved by Jesus blood purchase of our freedom.
2. That is, I find the traditionalists' opinions on this topic to be very transactional and business-like and thus, very works-oriented, which is the opposite of Grace.
3. I am NOT saying we are saved by good works. I'm saying we're saved by God's grace. Period. And God's desire is to restore relationships between God and us and between one another and between us and the creation. It's a Way of Grace and forgiveness wherein we find salvation, not works and not some business deal based upon blood purchases.
Indeed, you all are the ones who believe that, IF HITLER had the right change of heart and said the right prayer of confession, that he would be forgiven based on Jesus' blood "covering" Hitler's holocausts... and how would that be just?
Craig:
Who are you to demand anything? By what authority do you declare what YHWH does just or unjust?
As a moral creature created in the image of God almighty and with God's Word written upon my/our hearts, I think we ALL have the authority to say, "No, we should not slaughter children. NO, we should not rape babies." I think we can rest assured that a perfectly loving, perfectly good and just God WILL BE perfectly loving and just.
AND SO, given that, when some HUMANS say that God is okay with enslaving others, with raping others, with genocide of men, women and children, we can object to what those HUMANS are doing in the name of the perfectly loving, perfectly just God in whose likeness we are created.
Are you not willing to say to the person who says, "God wants us to punish them by raping their babies" that NO, God does not and would not order such a thing?
If you're not willing to take a stand on even that very basic, obvious evil, what good is your personal human opinions and traditions?
Again, I'm literally not objecting to God. I'm objecting to what some humans say about God.
There is a HUGE difference.
Marshal...
"By your "logic" ..., punishment is evil."
That is 100% the point. Punishment CAN be evil. It can be unjust. You almost certainly agree with that.
Do you agree that punishing a child for stealing a cookie by cutting off their hand IS an evil, unjust Punishment?
This is precisely the point. For Punishment to be just, it must be proportionate to the crime.
How is that wrong?
Marshal...
"Punishment is meant to provide justice for the aggrieved."
The point of any punishment for rational, decent people, and biblically as well, is to restore order and relationships. Not merely punishment, and certainly not disproportionate punishment.
Dan
That's not what I said, and I don't care what you think.
No.
"Do you disagree?" Pretty much. I'd argue that referring to sin as only action, minimizes sin and is incredibly simplistic. I understand why you do it.
"If so, based upon what?"
The fact that you haven't proven your claims.
"Do you find this to be an acceptable, reasonable definition of Justice?"
It's limited, simplistic, biased toward some human justice systems, but as far as it goes it's not totally inaccurate. That you're basing your (objective) definition on human "ethical and philosophical" ideas which are (by definition) subjective, imperfect, flawed, and all the rest, seems problematic absent an objective philosophical and ethical basis.
Why, oh why, do you spend so much time making up bullshit straw men?
That's great, you cherry picked something with no source, no context, no nothing and pretend like it's authoritative.
No, I almost never find anything you say without proof to be either reasonable or Biblical.
I'll note that one aspect of OT justice that seems pretty explicit is that justice is impartial. That the rich are not treated better than the poor and the powerful better than the weak. But, that goes both ways. You don't impose a harsher justice on the rich than on the poor, etc. Obviously this is not, and never has been accomplished perfectly by humans. Yet, one might think that YHWH would manage to dispense justice impartially. Not favoring the poor over the rich or the weak over the powerful.
Yes, you do disagree with some "human theories" even if those "human theories" align with the very words/teachings of Jesus. You also emphatically agree with "human theories" which have absolutely zero grounding in scripture (god blesses gay marriage, minor sins, to name a couple). So this whole "human theory" bullshit really comes back around to which "human theories" you like or have concocted, more than a blanket dislike of "human theories" in general.
1. We'll never know if this is accurate or not because of your reluctance to speak specifically to what is required for salvation, and what the appropriate punishment for sin might be. I'll note that you object strenuously to the extreme of eternal punishment, you don't seem to want to admit to universal salvation, and you've been vague (although hinted at) some formula of temporary punishment followed by "salvation".
2. Once again, who cares what you find when you distort the views of others. Strangely enough, the term Jesus Himself used on the cross was a term that was used for the final payment of a debt. But hey, Jesus' words on the cross are just one more "human tradition".
3. Blah, blah, blah, blah. The problem is that you're just not clear about what those words and phrases actually mean. When you hint that it's possible for a child, born perfect and 100% free from sin, to live a sinless life because they didn't commit any sins, that's not grace, that's works. When you hint that the punishment in "hell" is temporary and that when it's over those souls are "saved", that's also works.
No, that's not what I believe at all. Yet, clearly Jesus Himself offered salvation to the thief of the cross, literally at the very moment of his death. Jesus told a parable about this as well. The problem is that grace, Biblical grace, is not just. For Jesus to have paid the price to cover our sins, to welcome in someone who repents on their death bed, to welcome the Prodigal home with a feast, none of those are "fair" or "just".
That's quite the claim. Obviously, you can say whatever you want. Strangely enough, you have no authority to impose your standards on others.
"Are you not willing to say to the person who says, "God wants us to punish them by raping their babies" that NO, God does not and would not order such a thing?"
No. Because I am not omniscient nor am I eternal, I have no factual or objective basis to state categorically that YHWH did not (at specific times and for specific purposes) command the Hebrews to do things that seem horrible to our 21st century minds. To hide behind your usual excuse, I have no direct knowledge or proof so I cannot speak on the topic. Do I personally find it problematic, yes. But I'm not YHWH.
"If you're not willing to take a stand on even that very basic, obvious evil, what good is your personal human opinions and traditions?"
Again, I wasn't there in those few specific instances thousands of years ago which you obsess over. I have no possible way to determine with 100% accuracy whether or not YHWH did command what scripture says He did. Also, again (how many times are you going to beat this dead horse and expect me to pretend like I haven't addressed this numerous times in the past?) what I personally might feel about things credited to YHWH isn't really the issue.
"Again, I'm literally not objecting to God. I'm objecting to what some humans say about God."
In the absence of 100% objective proof that those humans were wrong and you are right, your whole shtick is just your own personal human opinion.
"There is a HUGE difference."
Between you as a finite, limited, flawed, sinful, imperfect, human and YWHW the Creator God who's responsible for the existence of everything that is (and for you). Yes that difference is "HUGE", perhaps you should be mindful of your position relative to YHWH and try a little humility.
"Do you agree that punishing a child for stealing a cookie by cutting off their hand IS an evil, unjust Punishment?"
This is one of Dan's stock examples of a punishment that's "evil" according to him. I'd like to explore this a bit.
1. Is there an age when cutting off a hand for theft becomes "just"?
2. Is there a value to the stolen goods that causes cutting off a hand to become "just"?
3. IS a religious/legal system that requires cutting off the hands of thieves automatically and entirely "unjust"?
4. Would cutting off a finger, be more "just" than cutting off the entire hand as a punishment for a more "minor" infraction?
5. If one was from a culture where theft might literally result in the death of the victim, would cutting off a body part become "more just"?
6. If the theft of something did directly result in the death of the victim, would not death become the appropriate and "just" punishment?
7. If punishment is indeed proportional to the damage to the victim of the crime, then why would the death penalty not be "just" for certain crimes?
8. If any "people" decides among themselves to form a society, culture, religion, legal system based on punishment proportional to the damage to the victim, are you declaring that "society..." to be inherently and objectively "unjust"?
9. How does one punish someone who murders, rapes a child, or any equally heinous crime in such a way as to restore the relationship with the victim?
10. How is some version of "an eye for an eye" not proportionate?
That's probably more questions than you've ever answered in one thread, and I am confident that you won't really answer all of these. But hope springs (Irish Springs) eternal.
Craig...
"1. We'll never know if this is accurate or not because of your reluctance to speak specifically to what is required for salvation..."
??
What do you mean? I've been abundantly clear. GRACE.
GRACE is what saves us. God's grace is where our salvation comes from.
IBELIEVE IN SALVATION BY GOD'S GRACE, ALONE. PERIOD.
As I've been saying consistently for decades in conversations with you.
But, is it also our works, Dan...?
No. I believe in salvation by grace. Period.
But what about saying a certain prayer, or by repenting in just the right way, or by affirming a certain set of beliefs, Dan?
No. I believe in salvation by grace. Period.
How is it possible that you think I've been reluctant to speak specifically on this topic?
If I had to guess, I'd guess you find Grace alone to be a vague answer, but it's not if you believe in God's grace alone. That IS the answer.
Dan
I'll answer your questions when I'm at my computer, even while you continue to dodge answering questions.
Dt
To your last questions (about the barbaric notion of dismemberment as punishment):
1 - 5. No. No. No. NO. HELL NO.
Because, of course. Now would YOU finally start answering some questions...
Do you opine that sometimes dismembering human bodies is a just and appropriate punishment for crimes like stealing? OR would you agree with the modern world that it is, of course, barbaric and hellishly unjust?
6. If death were to result from someone's actions, is death (ie, deliberate capital punishment) an appropriate and just punishment? That is, is it moral and just to kill someone for the crime of killing someone? No, I don't think so, at all. I think such action is antithetic to justice, it teaches precisely the wrong moral and rational lesson.
7. Why is capital punishment not apt and just for some crimes? Because it teaches the wrong moral/justice question. If killing someone is wrong, then killing someone to prove that it's wrong only justifies the notion of killing someone.
However, I will acknowledge when we're talking about wide-scale atrocities (holocaust events, deliberate widespread murder and rape of people, for instance), maybe it's appropriate, as in putting a dangerous animal down if it keeps harming people, out of safety's concern. But I don't really think so, even then, as I think life in prison serves the same person.
8. No, I'm not saying that. Not at all. If a society decides it's okay to rape babies or enslave people or forcibly wed the girls of a captured enemy... that doesn't make it morally or rationally correct.
Do you think so?
9. I'd tend to leave that question up to the survivors of such crimes.
10. Because, as Gandhi noted, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. It's functionally stupid approach and emphasizes the need for more rational ways of dealing with serious crimes. It's not proportionate because, again, if we're going to say it's WRONG to rip someone's eye out, then ripping the perpetrator's eye out is precisely the wrong approach, from a justice point of view.
And as Jesus noted, there are better ways. While long ago in more barbaric times, the notion of an eye for an eye may have been better, more just and more gracious than the prevailing wisdom back then (back then, if you rip someone's eye out, the response might be to murder the person... "an eye for an eye" was a step towards a more moderating grace approach to justice), but Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek. To forgive, which is God's way, as described in the Bible.
NONE of these easily answered questions deal with the problem that you all have with the reality that MOST human wrong-doing is far and away removed from even ripping out someone's eye. MOST human wrong-doing is being rude, being impatient, telling relatively harmless lies, etc.
Given that reality, HOW is it Godly, loving or just to punish someone for an eternity (of whatever punishment you want to guess at) an apt response for typical misdeeds of a fallen humanity?
And while I answer your questions repeatedly, you will once again, NOT answer mine.
Am I correct?
But even if you don't, the question, unanswered, exposes your problem with your human traditions about "justice."
Dan/Craig:
"Do you agree that punishing a child for stealing a cookie by cutting off their hand IS an evil, unjust Punishment?"
This is one of Dan's stock examples of a punishment that's "evil" according to him.
Can you just acknowledge that this is an extremely common point of view? That's it's not something unique to me that IT IS OF COURSE EVIL to cut off a child's hand for stealing a cookie?
WHY do we have to process something as patently obvious as the great evil of dismemberment as punishment?
Is it possible that you imagine in your head that it is possibly not a grotesque evil and horror show to dismember children (or adults) as a punishment? Especially for relatively minor misdeeds, but truly, regardless.
I mean, how vulgarian and brutally primitive IS your personal code of morality that this has to be debated or considered even for a minute?
Dan
Craig, you've said/suggested a few times things like this:
The only "case" I'm making is that Jesus (in the very red letters that you prize above all else) says on multiple occasions that "hell" is going to be both eternal and unpleasant. As you haven't offered an alternative explanation, only excuses and reasons why the existence of "figurative" language elsewhere in scripture means that those specific passages are "figurative", I'd say the ball is in your court.
I have often offered credible reasons as to why Jesus was clearly not being literal in his handful of quotes about something that you consider to be hell and eternal damnation, and what is a more reasonable alternative as to WHY we should take them figuratively.
Do you think that it's so difficult for you to consider something that isn't directly fitting with your human theories that you just don't see them when I offer them? Look, here it is again:
1. We believe in and affirm a literally loving and just God... that these are defining traits of God. We affirm this because of the multitude of biblical verses about this and because it's rational, if one assumes a perfectly loving, perfectly just creator God.
2. Therefore, any time that there might be a verse or five verses that SOUND like it might be describing God in an unjust, unloving manner, we can assume that it can't possibly be taken literally because we DO affirm a loving and just God.
3. And further, any humans that insist upon describing God in ways that are contrary to being perfectly loving and perfectly just because they found a verse (or five) that TO THEM made sense to take it literally... well, why would we agree with them that it should be taken literally IF it results in an opinion that God acts unjustly and unlovingly?
4. AND if they try to make a case of "Well, but we may not understand Love or Justice and thus, what SEEMS TO US (and the very definition of those words) to be unjust and evil, well that's just our misunderstanding..." We have to ask them, "But well, why? Why not just accept it as figurative in some sense?"
And when that's a reasonable question that they never answer, that says something.
5. So, given the handful of mentions of something like "hell," what IS a reasonable alternative understanding?
A. We MUST read Jesus understanding the teachings OF Jesus and through the lens of Jesus' teachings and his story.
B. In Jesus' story, we are faced with a protagonist - Jesus - who is all about welcome, love, being open to all, beginning with the poor and marginalized, the very people Jesus said he'd come to preach good news to!
C. AND, we are faced with the antagonists of the rich and powerful - the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the ruling elites... people who oppressed the poor and marginalized - the very people Jesus keeps insisting that he'd come to welcome and save. These oppressive elites live lives and teach ways that are the antithesis to Jesus' good news for the poor and marginalized. They teach a legalistic life of rules and purity traditions that one had to observe in order to be saved. They were anti-Christ in every way.
con'td...
D. To these rich and powerful oppressors - those who added back-breaking rules to those already oppressed, who did not live lives of grace, but of graceless rule-ishness - to THOSE people, Jesus was harsh and said, "Depart from me, for when I was poor and hungry and marginalized, you did NOT welcome me. To hell with you!" These warnings of a hellish existence were expressed almost exclusively (if not exclusively) towards the graceless ones, the oppressors. Jesus never says "Most of humanity will go to be in torment forever..." even if there is one verse where he speaks of the wide way and the narrow way...
E. That "narrow gate" passage is in the context of the SOTM, where Jesus is directly and indirectly addressing the graceless way of the Pharisees. Where he keeps on addressing the pride and hubris and burdens of the way of the Pharisees and contrasting his good news message with that.
The PHARISEES are keeping people out of the realm of God, but Jesus is welcoming people INTO the realm of God. On and on it goes.
I would therefore propose that the obvious message in the Narrow is the gate passage is that it is addressing the Pharisees, the rule-keepers, the graceless... they assume that of course, they are "in," but Jesus tells them, Not so fast, men, that gate is narrow! TO THEM, not to people in general.
F. The advantage to this is you don't have to torture or reinvent a new meaning for easily understood concepts like Love and Justice.
Unless and until you all come up with some plausible reason to murder the meaning of love and justice, this is WAY more rational and biblical than insisting that Love and Justice don't mean Love and Justice.
Or, look at the Luke 13 passage where Jesus speaks of the Narrow Door (as opposed to the narrow gate). Look at the context of the whole chapter and the gracelessness of the Pharisees' way in contrast with the welcoming way of Jesus and grace. Can you not expand your mind a bit and see that it is at least possible that Jesus is addressing the Pharisees/graceless ones specifically when speaking of the Narrow Door?
In the very next passage (Jesus answering "Will there only be a few who get in?"), we see Jesus saying that people will come from the N, S, E and W to join him at the welcome table - imagery used to mean "The whole world!" then says that many who are first will be last (referring clearly to the prideful Pharisees) and the last will be first (referring clearly to the common people, the poor and marginalized). WHO are those who don't get in? MOST of humanity? Or the graceless ones who weren't willing to be welcoming?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2013&version=NIV
Dan
""By your "logic" ..., punishment is evil."
That is 100% the point. Punishment CAN be evil. It can be unjust. You almost certainly agree with that."
That's not the point I making. It's bad enough you move your own goal posts. Leave mine the hell alone. I was referring to the conclusions your words provoke one to draw, that punishment is evil. I was clearly and plainly speaking of "just" punishment, that being punishment God mandates for transgressions He regards as worthy of punishment. God sentencing you to eternal punishment can't be unjust or He would not have so sentenced you. It's just that simple.
" For Punishment to be just, it must be proportionate to the crime.
How is that wrong?"
It's wrong by virtue of your arrogance in presuming you get to determine whether or not the punishment is proportionate to the crime. And you do this when you ignore, reject or are ignorant of the basis by which God determines one worthy of reward or punishment after death. You want it to be about stealing cookies.
It's funny. Yesterday I binged Season 4 of "The Chosen". (I don't need it to be perfect, so don't comment on how lacking it is) One episode depicted Jesus lamenting how after all He taught, His twelve still weren't getting it. If Dan was there He'd say, "Well, they're not quite as bad as Dan, but they ain't getting it."
"The point of any punishment for rational, decent people, and biblically as well, is to restore order and relationships."
No. It's not. Never was anywhere. If you're sentenced in any way for murder, how is your sentence going to restore your relationship with your victim? What an absurd invention!
Punishment is justice. God's justice is perfect, thus His choice of punishment is perfect. End of story.
Well, lying about things is always a good way to start.
Craig:
It's like you think grace is some magical thing that just somehow happens.
Wow. I mean, wow.
You give the correct answer and don't even recognize it as correct and so, choose to mock it.
YES, we can simply FORGIVE ANOTHER person. If that bully in high school who taunted you and regularly stole your lunch money, you CAN choose to forgive him. You don't need to hold a grudge. You don't need to punish him. You can forgive him. Like magic.
We CAN follow Jesus' teaching and model and just... forgive...
“Love your enemies,
do good to those who hate you,
bless those who curse you,
pray for those who mistreat you…
Then your reward will be great, and
you will be children of the Most High,
because GOD is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”
GOD, Jesus tells us, is kind and forgiving to the ungrateful and wicked. IF God can be thusly forgiving, then we, too, can forgive.
It's like grace. It's like love. It's like magic... but real.
Do YOU think, in your head, that grace and forgiveness are NOT just things that happen like magic?
Is it your theory that grace is more of a business transaction involving holy blood, and that ONLY by a blood sacrifice can grace and forgiveness happen?
And if so, do you not see how that seems more like a magical thinking kind of thing, the "Deep magic" of Narnia's lion where grace couldn't just happen, but had to have a magic blood sacrifice?
"Because, of course. Now would YOU finally start answering some questions..."
Instead of just throwing this bullshit out every time I ask you to answer questions, as an excuse, why would you not provide even one example (in this thread) of a question I haven't answered. Not counting questions I haven't seen yet.)
"Do you opine that sometimes dismembering human bodies is a just and appropriate punishment for crimes like stealing?"
I do not. Yet millions of people follow various socio/religious/governmental systems that do believe that this is appropriate. Who are you, and by what authority do you tell them that their choice is absolutely, objectively wrong?
"OR would you agree with the modern world that it is, of course, barbaric and hellishly unjust?"
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "modern world" here. In the "modern world" we see multiple countries with legal systems that prescribe things like cutting off hands for theft, death for homosexuality, death for changing religion, and slave labor for disagreeing with the government. We see a "modern world" where slavery is more prevalent than ever and a fucking UN judge just got convicted of slavery. We see a "modern world" where drug cartels submerge people in acid or hand them from bridges, to dispense their version of justice. We see a "modern world" where a few black women scammed people out of 100 million dollars in the name of "justice" and didn't do shit to actually help anyone. In the "modern world" we see "freedom fighters" who murder, rape, kill, and kidnap innocents and who let their kidnap victims (children) die from hunger and neglect in captivity. Shut the hell up about your Pollyanna, insular, sheltered, version of the "modern world".
But, that aside, I do agree that those punishments are repugnant.
6. Interesting rationalization and refutation of what seems the epitome of proportional "justice".
7. See above. It's clearly not proportional and ignores the realities that the death penalty prevents the most heinous criminals from further crimes, has the potential to be a deterrent, and draws a false equivalence between the innocent and the guilty. Of course, you can't even have a consistent position on this topic. Always with the loopholes.
8. Great non answer. To start with the false premise that my question is a claim that "you said" something is stupid. As to your further unproven claim, by what authority or objective standard do you make this claim? I guess that the existence literal societies that regularly rape children, enslave captives (or kidnap innocent children as hostages), and forcibly marry children as young as 9, isn't worth you getting vocally angry about. Because you're too pissed about things that happened thousands of years ago.
I personally oppose the societies that (in 2025) do those things. Yet, I still see no basis for you to make claims about their actions being objectively wrong/evil/immoral to lack a foundation outside of your personal preference.
9. So, you'd unequivocally support the victim/survivor desiring their attacker to be put to death. Fascinating.
10. I don't care what Gandhi said. The reality is that, unless "the world" is 100% full of people who will harm others, "the world" will never be entirely blind. Of course, the principle of "eye/eye" is 100% proportionate, it's literally the definition of proportionality. That you have opinions about what is right/wrong "from a justice point of view" is not the same as assuming that your opinions are correct and apply to others.
I do so love it when you pull one comment out of the context of Jesus larger teaching and demand that it be applied in a wooden, literal manner. Jesus also chose to not "turn the other cheek" when He violently attacked those who profaned the Temple.
I've answered this "question" multiple times. For you to pretend that I have not, is simply you choosing to lie. The problem with the question is the premise behind it. You presume, without empirical, objective proof that your hunches about the "typical" "wrong doing" are simply "minor" affronts to YHWH and that they are unworthy of significant (if any punishment). Which is fine as long as you understand that your personal hunches are just that.
To make your premise a bit more realistic, what if these "typical misdeeds" happened multiple times every day for 50, 60, 70, 80, years? Do we ignore that decades long pattern and treat each individual "typical misdeed" as it's own isolated incident, totally unrelated to the thousands/millions of identical/similar "typical misdeeds"? Do we simply ignore or brush off these "typical misdeeds" because they're typical? What if we looked at it from this perspective. YHWH, sovereign creator of all that exists, was quite clear that we are to "love others". Every one of these "typical misdeeds" is an example of choosing not to obey YHWH. I could be wrong, but a lifelong pattern of choosing to disobey the Sovereign Ruler of all doesn't seem like a minor issue.
Once again, I'm not YHWH. I cannot see everything that He sees, know everything that He knows, nor am a perfect and holy. Asking me to pass judgement on YHWH and what He chooses to do is akin to asking an ant to explain string theory. I don't know, can't know, and am not equipped to know. I do know that you'll continue to pretend like this is not an answer, and that I haven't given you this answer multiple times.
No. As you have provided no objective proof, let alone independent data, that would prove you to be correct I have no basis to agree with your delusion.
Your straw man game is weak as usual, but your persist in it.
"Can you just acknowledge that this is an extremely common point of view?"
1. As this is a made up scenario designed to elicit an emotional response, I see no reason to pretend otherwise.
2. Just because you say something doesn't make it True. If you make a claim, prove it.
"That's it's not something unique to me that IT IS OF COURSE EVIL to cut off a child's hand for stealing a cookie?"
Again, in the absence of a universal/objective moral standard, you have no grounds to make this universal/objective claim. Had you phrased this more accurately, it would be different.
"WHY do we have to process something as patently obvious as the great evil of dismemberment as punishment?"
We don't. You ignore what I've said and keep repeating this bullshit. You don't have to do so and can stop at any time. My problem is the universal/objective nature of your assertion which lacks proof if it's Truth.
"Is it possible that you imagine in your head that it is possibly not a grotesque evil and horror show to dismember children (or adults) as a punishment?"
No, but you clearly harbor in your head all sorts of things about me that aren't True. As well as an obsession with imaginary situation, while staying silent on the reality that exists in the "modern world".
"I mean, how vulgarian and brutally primitive IS your personal code of morality that this has to be debated or considered even for a minute?"
It's not. The problem is that I realize that my "personal code of morality" is just that, and that I have no external grounding or authority to apply my "personal code of morality" to others. You seem confused by that notion, and insist that you have the authority to declare the actions of others the be objectively "evil".
Craig:
The problem is that I realize that my "personal code of morality" is just that, and that I have no external grounding or authority to apply my "personal code of morality" to others.
Yes, it's well-established that we can't prove our moral opinions objectively. THAT is not what I'm asking. I'm asking YOU the rather simple question: It's a commonly accepted moral notion that bodily dismemberment is a horribly unjust method of punishment. Can you agree with the MORAL REASONING that yes, this IS an exceedingly obvious moral reality?
You have offered "reasons", which lack any proof or alternative explanation. Simply saying "X must be figurative because Jesus used figurative language somewhere else." is not an explanation. It's your unproven hunch masquerading as something profound.
1. OK.
2. Please prove this claim.
3. Because your hunch about these things is not the standard for determining their Truth.
4. Given that your entire premise is built on "seems to" you, I fail to see how it's rational to bitch if others use the same standard.
5. By all means, tell us. I'd love to hear your alternative understanding that doesn't conflict with the rest of scripture, the plain meaning of the text, and has Biblical support. FYI, this whole dismissing something as being True based on the bullshit "handful of mentions" strategy is getting old. Especially when you have so many things you hold dear and claim are from YHWH which have zero mentions in scripture.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, more of Dan's eisegesis based on his personal hunches.
D. Trotting out the "rich and powerful" canard, even though it directly contradicts the Biblical standard of equal justice for all. Strangely enough Jesus also says to those who literally "did miracles in His name" that they should "depart from Me because I never knew you". Of course, in your bastardization of Matt 25, you've literally taken a parable and added things that are not in the text.
E. Perhaps you missed the extensive context of my post where Foster addresses this in favor of choosing to cherry pick.
Great, you propose something that has no basis in fact, no direct scriptural support, no context, and ignores that the SOTM was not specifically and exclusively directed at your pet bad guys.
F. No you just have to invent new meaning that contradicts the plain meaning or the text and ignores other instances where Jesus says similar things.
I'll note that it's taken you freaking WEEKS to come up with this bullshit.
I'm done parsing your made up, fantasies.
If you say so.
The problem isn't what I think, as I'm not the one making all of these unproven claims and demanding that those unproven claims be blindly accepted as Truth.
Oh, right. I forgot, Jesus never died on the cross, never said "Tetelestai", never said He came to "give His life as a ransom for many", none of that ever happened. Lewis simply based his allegory of an fairy tale.
No it's not. I do however, think that scripture (you know, the word of YHWH) has a thread that runs from Genesis to Revelation that describes and explains the entire thing. As usual, if given the choice between scripture and Dan, I'll choose anything but Dan.
1. I personally agree that dismemberment is an unjust punishment.
2. I would never attempt to impose my personal views on others.
3. I've answered versions of this idiotic question so many times I can't keep track.
4. Your inability to comprehend that the problem is you trying to apply your subjective morality to others, while citing some unproven "commonly accepted moral theory" based on your subjective "MORAL REASONING" (because if you use ALL CAPS it automatically becomes True and beyond proof), so that you can revel in your "moral superiority" by calling those who engage in your imaginary barbarity "evil/immoral", while you remain silent on those who actively engage in similar real barbarity. Oh, you'll hide behind one of your blanket "I don't like anything that I consider evil." vague, general blandishments, and continue to refuse to speak out about real atrocities in 2025 in favor of rehashing atrocities from hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Craig...
I'll note that it's taken you freaking WEEKS to come up with this bullshit.
I'll note that I've been saying this for most of the two decades that you've been reading my words.
No you just have to invent new meaning that contradicts the plain meaning or the text and ignores other instances where Jesus says similar things.
Sigh.
A. Love and Justice have definitions. They're plain and simple and relatively easy to understand in broad generalities. In the details, we may find it more difficult to sort out what IS the most loving and most just response, but the broad generalities are clear.
B. ONE of the generally accepted notions of both justice AND love is that when some wrong has been done, some manner of dealing with it should be done. IF, for example, your daughter has punched someone else's daughter, then that behavior should be addressed in a way that is loving and just, with the goal of having right relationships restored. Your daughter may be asked to see if she sees how her punch hurt the other child, to see her crying and acknowledge the pain she's caused. Then, you may expect your daughter to apologize.
Because of justice, because of love. Easily understood, generally universally recognized. And it SHOULD be recognized because it's clearly morally righteous.
Do you agree?
C. A secondary corollary to that first concept is that ANY punishment or addressing of the first wrong doing should and MUST be proportionate to the misdeed. Now, we may not know perfectly exactly the right method of dealing with the misdeed. In the Punching example, some parents may think her seeing the pain, acknowledging the pain and apologizing is sufficient. Other parents may think it necessary to send her to a time out, while other parents may impose a penalty such as, No ice cream for you today. The relative merits to these punishments could be debated, but they are generally acknowledged as being within the realm of a loving and just punishment/addressing of the misdeed.
Agreed?
D. BUT, if the parent responds by saying, "You awful, evil child! You were born in iniquity and you will die in iniquity and when you're dead, you'll burn forever in torment! I am going to chop off your hands today so you will never punch another child again!" ...well, we morally imperfect but morally rational adults can recognize that THIS punishment has moved WAY beyond a loving and just response to a hateful, harmful, debilitating and evil response.
EVEN IF you can't objectively prove it, you DO agree that this is NOT in any way a moral, loving or just response, right? That it's not even close to moral, rational, just or loving, right? I THINK you can affirm with me that it would be an insanely evil response, lacking entirely in love or justice.
E. Given that even we fallible imperfect humans can recognize an over the top punishment that moves from loving and just to a horror show, then on what rational and biblical basis would you say that God is loving and just, but that, in your opinion, God's notion of "loving and just" includes actions that we find entirely evil?
But we've been through this all. I just think you read my explanations and problems with your personal traditions and theories and don't understand the biblical, Christian or rational problems I'm pointing to in your theories. Indeed, I don't believe you can even humble yourself enough to admit, yes, these are human theories.
And therein probably lies the problem.
Speaking of rational, moral problems...
1. I personally agree that dismemberment is an unjust punishment.
2. I would never attempt to impose my personal views on others.
You would acknowledge that dismemberment is an unjust punishment (perhaps even evil and atrocious?) BUT, you would NOT attempt to impose that rational moral view (keeping in mind, it's not like this is a fluke of one man's imagination) on others?
That is a problem.
A. By all means, tell me the specific "definition" used by YHWH for those terms. By all means, tell me how you perfectly understand the mind of YHWH and how He shows love and justice.
B. So.
No. I do not agree with your hunches about YHWH being limited and bound by your hunches about human definitions about love and justice.
C, based on your limited, subjective, human, hunches.
D. More bad analogies, repeated questions I've answered repeatedly.
E. Again, I'm not YHWH, I don't have His knowledge, holiness, power, or any of His attributes. It's a complete waste of time to pretend like I am or to impose my personal hunches on Him.
You seem to think that repeating the same words and phrases over an over without proof somehow is enough to convince.
I've literally been humbly acknowledging that I as a human have my own personal opinions on these topics, and that I would never dream of demanding that others or YHWH accept my personal opinions as binding. You're the one demanding that your unproven, personal, human opinions must be accepted and that your unproven, personal, human opinions give you the authority to pass judgement on both others and YHWH. Yeah, a lack of humility is a problem.
Again, if you're going to do this why not take the time to accurately represent what I say instead of continually constructing straw men.
1. I acknowledge that my personal opinion is that dismemberment is an unjust punishment.
2. I acknowledge that my holding of a personal opinion is not sufficient grounds for unilaterally imposing that opinion on others.
3. I acknowledge the difference between moral and legal.
4. I acknowledge that it is completely appropriate for a group of like minded people to share convictions about things, and to band together to impose those convictions on others by using various means to establish laws to prevent behaviors.
5. I acknowledge that it is (per you) impossible to objectively prove morality, that it is therefore possible that another society has incorporated a system of morals that differ from mine, and that I have no grounds to demand that they accede to my subjective moral system. This does not preclude the actions in #4 above and using greater force to subjugate the other society and impose laws based on my moral code, or to infiltrate the other society and effect legal change via the vote.
6. In either case, we're talking about imposing law by force/coercion/vote, but not morality.
I'm sorry the notion that demanding that others accept my subjective opinions on a morality that cannot be objectively proven is so difficult for you. But I appreciate your honesty in acknowledging that you want to force others to accept your subjective hunches about morality.
"Grace", particularly by Dan's non-definition of what that might be, is at best who salvation is granted. That is to say, granted by God's volition. But it doesn't answer the question at all. It avoids it.
What I can't get past is Dan's insistence that grace is the only thing that matters, as opposed to his obsession with classifying everyone as "good", some sins as "minor", and his insistence that the gospel is all about what you do and who you feed.
It's unclear to me where grace fits in Dan's theology, given his focus on works.
"6. If death were to result from someone's actions, is death (ie, deliberate capital punishment) an appropriate and just punishment? That is, is it moral and just to kill someone for the crime of killing someone? No, I don't think so, at all. I think such action is antithetic to justice, it teaches precisely the wrong moral and rational lesson."
Setting aside the fact that God instituted this response as proper punishment for a murderer, it is exactly justice as it teaches how precious life is, that to take the life of another is so heinous a crime, that the murderer's life will be forfeit. That's about as clear an understanding of justice as there can be. Dan clearly has no understanding of justice or morality, or rejects those concepts where they conflict with his subjectively chosen positions.
"7. Why is capital punishment not apt and just for some crimes? Because it teaches the wrong moral/justice question. If killing someone is wrong, then killing someone to prove that it's wrong only justifies the notion of killing someone."
This is absurdly stupid and false. CP isn't appropriate for all crimes because now we're getting into proportionality. It's "cruel and unusual" for lesser crimes where no life is taken. CP isn't in any way intended to prove a crime is wrong. It's already known to be wrong or there would be no sentence at all. It proves just how serious murder is that this punishment is reserved for those who murder. How moronic to suggest CP rationalizes murder!
"However, I will acknowledge when we're talking about wide-scale atrocities (holocaust events, deliberate widespread murder and rape of people, for instance), maybe it's appropriate, as in putting a dangerous animal down if it keeps harming people, out of safety's concern. But I don't really think so, even then, as I think life in prison serves the same person." "purpose"??
Dan just gets worse and worse, and digs more deeply his hole. If CP is wrong, it's always wrong regardless of the severity or number of victims. It's idiotic. We begin with the unjust taking of life and work down, not up. That is, if a killing is not murder by definition, the killer isn't treated in the same way a murderer is. But if one murderer murders only one person as opposed to thousands, he's still a murderer either way. CP would be justified. This is not to say "automatic", but anyone who murders should expect to be executed (which is not "murder") for the crime.
Rape is not the taking of a life, and therefore CP is not justified.
"If a society decides it's okay to rape babies or enslave people or forcibly wed the girls of a captured enemy... that doesn't make it morally or rationally correct."
If a society decides it's OK for homosexuals to marry, that doesn't mean they haven't sacrificed their eternal inheritance.
Returning to this very strange notion that Grace is somehow "vague..."
Again, simply repeating grace as if it's a mantra isn't particularly specific or helpful. It's vague, if you will.
Grace, definitions:
* unmerited divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration or sanctification;
* disposition to or an act or instance of kindness, courtesy, or clemency;
* the Greek word for "grace" is "charis" (χάρις), which translates to "favor," "kindness," or "blessing," particularly an unearned or undeserved favor from God;
Now, just think a minute and reflect and contemplate: What IF Grace was simply what its definition SAYS it is. The Greek word used in the Bible is Charis which means simply Favor, Kindness or Blessing.
What IF that was all it meant?
And why and HOW does God forgive us? Simply the same way that God expects US to forgive others... as an act of favor, a kindness, a blessing.
What IF that's all it means? How is it, then, that saying we are saved simply by God's grace, by God's kindness, favor and blessing... how is that "vague," IF that's all there is to it?
When we poor pitiful humans find it within ourselves to forgive another who has wronged us, we do it as a simple act of will, the desire to be kind and favorable, to deliver a blessing.
Do you suspect that this is NOT all there is to it? Do you suspect some other definition is at play here... more something like a blood sacrifice, a pay-off like one would to an unforgiving mobster?
But then, that wouldn't be grace as its defined, would it?
What specifically is vague?
Thanks for pedantically copy pasting some dictionary definitions, very helpful and enlightening.
What IF that IS all it means? Your mastery of the pointless redundant question in awe inspiring.
What if? Does that mean that YHWH just bestows this salvic grace on everyone willy nilly? That it's earned if we do the right works for the right people?
OK, of course I'll simply accept your unproven hunch.
I suspect, that your simplistic, shallow, self serving hunches don't even scratch the surface. If, as you claim, humans are born 100% sinless, and can get through life with only a tiny number of "minor" sins, why do we need grace? Is being good insufficient? If so, why?
Your vagueness around the application of grace, your constant referring to the us being required to do the right works for the right people, and your dancing around some sort of universal salvation by "grace", why denying what is very obvious.
What if the word just means what the word means? Well, that would be important to know, wouldn't you think?
What if God just forgives us willy nilly, as God expects us to forgive others? Well, I'd think that would be a good thing.
Do you theorize that this would be a bad thing?
If so, why should someone accept your unproven hunch and alternative (undefined) definition of grace, love and justice?
What ARE your definitions of those words? What is the problem you have with someone "pedantically" noting the definitions of the words in question?
By the way, Pedantic: giving too much attention to formal rules or small details... WHAT about the meanings of the words in question is a "small detail..."? Especially when we're talking about how ancient words were meant in the context of the day and language? That is a foundational building block for good understanding of ancient texts, is it not?
Interestingly, in the day and time, the words for:
Good news
Grace
Justice
Love
...meant back then pretty much exactly what they mean now, how we understand them now. And why is that not important in discussions about how you want to theorize alternate meanings for these words?
Craig:
What if?
Well, it would mean that the rational, on-the-face-of-it meaning is that the God who is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should have everlasting life stands ready to forgive one and all. There are no hoops to jump through, no "blood payment," nothing but God's grace. Which, on the face of it, seems like a good thing.
Do you disagree?
Does that mean that YHWH just bestows this salvic grace on everyone willy nilly?
Sounds like it, given the words meaning. Why would we try to insist God meant something else? Would that be calling Jesus a liar?
That it's earned if we do the right works for the right people?
No. Grace by definition is freely given. It's an act of God's will out of kindness to God's beloved creation. That is, if we take it at face value just for what it says.
Craig:
If, as you claim, humans are born 100% sinless, and can get through life with only a tiny number of "minor" sins, why do we need grace?
Because life is hard and humans are imperfect. I have friends living in fear from a gov't that wants to criminalize and demonize them for just Being. They benefit tremendously from the simple grace of the beloved of God just being there for them, standing by their side against oppressors. That IS salvation for them. Surely you know people who are saved/are being saved by the love of God and the simple accepting, welcoming love of God's realm, yes? Or maybe you don't. You tell me.
Is being good insufficient? If so, why?
It's not about being good or payments or blood payments. It's about grace. Why? Because we are not perfect humans and this is not a perfect world. We have failures and graceless moments just due to our imperfect humanity. That someone I might offend in a thoughtless moment would give me the grace of forgiveness, that means the world to me.
We need love, we need forgiveness, we need grace.
Do you disagree?
Am I to gather that your opinion is that simply grace, simply love, simply forgiveness is NOT enough?
If so, can you see how and why the notion of simple grace is a very appealing, delightful, Godly notion? How it would fill one another with joy and much needed support and grit, especially right when we need it?
What, in your personal opinion, is wrong or insufficient or hard to understand about Just Grace?
Craig:
Your vagueness around the application of grace, your constant referring to the us being required to do the right works for the right people, and your dancing around some sort of universal salvation by "grace", why denying what is very obvious.
Again, I've been quite clear over the years. I lean towards something like universal grace. I do have the rational caveat that in a truly grace-based system, no one would be forced to do anything... that one could have the freedom to say, "I don't want your love, your community, your grace! Go away!" and that self-selection out is Grace, as well.
What that might look like long term in this life? I think for the grace-rejecter, it would be a rather hellish life (see our current president and his sycophants, for instance... the poor man.) What it looks like in a theoretical afterlife? Well, we simply don't know in any objective or clear fashion, do we?
And so, once again I'll ask: What is vague about simply Grace? God's kindness extended to us, God's invitation and welcome and acceptance extended to us? What is wrong with that simple grace?
What is vague about saying that God's grace is inclusive of all and that God's grace does not insist or force anyone to accept grace and love? That we don't know how HAS and who hasn't accepted that grace? Well, true, we don't know. But then, the reality is that we don't know what we don't know and that's not vague, it's just reality. Right?
"D. BUT, if the parent responds by saying, "You awful, evil child! You were born in iniquity and you will die in iniquity and when you're dead, you'll burn forever in torment! I am going to chop off your hands today so you will never punch another child again!" ...well, we morally imperfect but morally rational adults can recognize that THIS punishment has moved WAY beyond a loving and just response to a hateful, harmful, debilitating and evil response."
This is yet another intentionally dishonest attempt to defend whatever the hell it is Dan believes about God's perfect justice. While going way out of his way to invent a BS analogy about an insane woman to somehow pretend God's perfect justice isn't perfect, just or loving, he fails again on two levels:
1. Despite her insanity, Dan's "mother" is exacting justice according to her standards for proper punishment for bad behavior. It's her home, her procreation and as such, while the child is still under her authority in her home, she has the authority to dictate right and wrong according to what is displeasing to her and choose a punishment which reflects what to her is the severity of the misbehavior.
2. This BS analogy suggests that God's choosing to sentence one to an eternal suffering is akin to this woman cutting off her child's hand. The only possible way to make this analogy actually analogous to God's justice is by using this BS analogy to give an idea of just how seriously God regards sin/that which displeases Him. Clearly, in each case, the lawgiver has a very low opinion of the misbehavior. Thus again, justice, as it applies to negative behavior, is for the sake of the aggrieved and how the aggrieved regards the severity of the harm done. Outsiders don't get to judge that person's perspective and those not God certainly don't get to judge His.
In dealing with our own civil/criminal law, we decide as a community what response to crimes should be. Not everyone will agree, but we all get to weigh in (by our voting for those who do the actual legislating). That's based on an aggregate understanding of how bad a crime is and even among those who ratify the punishment, not everyone of them will agree to the same degree.
But no human is on the level of God and as such no human has any say or authority/right to dispute His Will on the subject. When He (as Father or Son) speaks of eternal punishment, then eternal punishment is what one can expect. To pretend it "figurative" demands more than just saying so, and to pretend it's "figurative" is negotiating on one's own shortcomings
Dan ignores the salient truth of those definitions. Two out of three mention "unmerited, unearned and undeserved". These words imply "works" is not a factor, or at the very least, grace is dependent upon one single "work" if any at all. But that it is unearned means we can't earn it. That it is unmerited or undeserved means we don't deserve it.
"Do YOU think, in your head, that grace and forgiveness are NOT just things that happen like magic?"<
No. I know, for it's true, that grace and forgiveness are the result of conscious choice.
God extends grace and forgiveness to all. That doesn't mean all will be showered with either. God's kindness is that He does extend both to all, including the ungrateful and the wicked. Not that He'll grant them regardless.
What if there's more than your limited, finite, imperfect, sinful, human mind can comprehend in this existence? What if we're not meant to understand everything as perfectly as you seem to want to, but instead live in faith and trust in YHWH? What if we can't know to the degree of certainty you demand and it's one of those things that we have to live with?
What is asking "What if" questions wasn't a ridiculous way to try to make a point. What if Dan has pink unicorns with rainbow horns coming out of his ass? See, stupid.
1. By definition however YHWH does things is good.
2. The willy nilly forgiveness without repentance or consequences for sin seems contrary to what we know about His character.
3. The notion that Hitler (I'm not going to list any more evil people, Hitler is the proxy for the rest) gets away with the vast amount of evil he was responsible for and just magically gets a free pass seems wrong on a cosmic scale.
The problem with "definitions" is that by their very nature they're limited. They're limited by language. We know that the word love in English is represented by multiple words in Greek. We know that word meanings and definitions change over time "not bad meaning bad, but bad meaning good). We know that even among speakers of the same language there are nuances and differences in definitions by region and subculture. We also know that when translating from ancient languages that English definitions are often a compromise or a combination, not a precise analogue. So, to answer the question after a lengthy prelude, I don't think it's as simplistic as you pretend it is, just in terms of the differences between humans. When you add in a God who is simply infinitely more than we can comprehend, it seems foolish to assume that He is limited by one or two English language definitions of a particular word. Finally, grace (in a Christianity sense) is a word that is shorthand for a much larger concept than a simple definition can encapsulate. Many Christian religious terms are like this, and are intended to communicate a doctrine or principle that covers a lot of territory in a word or two.
My definitions are immaterial. My problem with your pedantic approach is that it places limits of YHWH that I see no reason to place. While I have no doubt that our human concept of His grace captures the gist of it, I'd be an idiot to believe that we humans comprehend everything YHWH does on the subject.
Really excellent job of pedantically going off on a tangent about the definition of pedantic. It's clear that while you might not think much about the "rules" in scripture, you're obsessed with the rules you get from the dictionary.
That you seem to be implying that you have some high degree of understanding of what grace meant back in the day, I'm surprised that you lazily just copy paste some modern dictionary definition. As you, once again, have made an unproven claim I guess we'll never know.
Good news, probably generically means the same thing. The Good News/Gospel is a specific form of good news which as you regularly demonstrate is not a consensus definition.
The problem with all of these terms is that they convey, in a Christian context, more content than the simplistic definition.
But I get it, you know all the answers and it's a personal affront to you if we don't just bow to your greater knowledge and Reason.
Good point. Given Dan's focus on works, it's hard to take him seriously when he uses the term grace. Given his version of a god who can't/won't/doesn't engage in history and his wishy washy doubt of the existence of "heaven/hell" one wonders what the point is of this grace he touts. If sins is the minor inconvenience Dan portrays it as, why do we need grace or forgiveness? If we're good people, who only commit a tiny number of "typical/minor sins" what is there to fear?
Yes.
Because I'm taking the who context of scripture, and Jesus teachings into account. No, taking all of His words in the context of the meta narrative of scripture would not be calling Him a liar. Arguing that His words secretly mean the opposite of their plain meaning would be.
Yet you constantly refer to Matt 25 as an example of people who's salvation rests on doing the right things to the right people. Your entire concept of the gospel, is rooted in doing the right works for the right people. Your entire basis for determining whether or not people are "good" is based on your observation of their works.
If grace is freely given, then why was it so callously withheld in all of the Matt 25 parables?
So, salvation (to you) simply means some tiny bit of "comfort" when things in life are "difficult". Interesting take. I can totally see why so many Christians throughout history suffered and died for that pathetic/limited "salvation".
Yes, I know people who've been saved, repented of their sins, and committed themselves to discipleship.
Again with the unproven claims. Yes, when you make unproven claims I disagree with your unproven claims.
No.
No.
No.
To start with, I'm humble enough that I would never act as if I understand God's grace and how it manifests His will. I have some limited grasp, and lots of hope, but not your arrogant and prideful attitude of having it all figured out.
Excellent repetition of your vague pablum.
Your first point seems to suggest a god who wants something, but in incapable of achieving what he wants because he's beholden to the humans he created.
The fact that you use this as a crude attempt to bash Trump, just reinforces your hyper partisanship, lack of grace, and inability to come up with a more relevant example.
You can ask again, and I'm going to give you the same answer I've given before. If you're to stupid, lazy, or have such a poor memory, that's not my problem. My willingness to answer questions wanes significantly after writing volumes of answers that you pretend don't exist.
It's interesting that you seem to claim that grace is this universal things that god just throws out, yet you them acknowledge that it's the human acceptance of grace that is the important factor. Your impotent god who's at the mercy of humans doesn't sound particularly impressive.
But a strong finish. Claiming that your unproven hunches are "reality" based on nothing is a bold move. You may actually have more power than your god, if reality is defined by your unproven hunches.
Craig:
Arguing that His words secretly mean the opposite of their plain meaning would be.
But that's literally what you're doing by saying that loving and just can also mean grossly evil punishments for exceeding the misdeeds. You're not just redefining love and justice, you're assigning them an OPPOSITE meaning, at least in the case of your personal opinions about salvation and punishment.
Craig:
Because I'm taking the who context of scripture, and Jesus teachings into account.
Well, I would strongly disagree. One of the rules of exegesis and textual study is to tend to interpret the obscure or hard to understand through the clear. It is abundantly clear what Justice and Love mean and eternal punishment for common temporal misdeeds is NOT that.
You seem to be doing the opposite: Interpreting the clear through the obscure, and assigning the obscure more importance than the clear, at least in this case, so that you can align with your human traditions rather than what is clear and evident.
Here's a hint, Craig: When you answer multiple questions without being clear WHAT questions you're answering, it's practically the same as not answering them at all.
You routinely throw out things like, "No. No. No. No...." WHAT are questions are those "answering..."?
But trying to follow the best I can, it seems that when I ask:
Am I to gather that your opinion is that simply grace, simply love, simply forgiveness is NOT enough?
You're answering with a direct NO. NO, God's grace, love and forgiveness are NOT enough.
IF that's what you're saying, can you see how that's an incredibly bold and frankly, not a little blasphemous, claim to make? I mean, it's your opinion and you're welcome to hold it. As long as you don't insist that opinion is equal to God's Word.
Are you glad to admit it's only your opinion and not the Word of God, authoritatively and objectively correct?
Craig:
A. By all means, tell me the specific "definition" used by YHWH for those terms. By all means, tell me how you perfectly understand the mind of YHWH and how He shows love and justice.
AA1. I do NOT perfectly understand God's mind, any more than you do. Right?
But, I have NO reason to guess that God has secret alternative definitions of love, justice and grace that are not just what they seem.
AA2. Can you admit that YOU have no authoritative data that supports your theory that God has alternative definitions of those words? Can you admit that is only your human opinion and tradition, NOT the word of God?
B. So.
No. I do not agree with your hunches about YHWH being limited and bound by your hunches about human definitions about love and justice
I have offered NO hunches about God being limited or bound by my hunches. I'm stating the reality that YOU have no data on which to guess or insist that God objectively defines justice differently. We have no reason to guess that God's definitions of justice, love and grace are so completely opposite of the basic meanings.
BB. Can you admit that reality?
BB2. Can you understand how fatally debilitating your approach to understanding the Bible where random words could possibly vaguely mean the complete opposite of how words are normally understood?
If basic concepts such as love, grace, justice and good news DON'T mean what they typically mean... if they're in parts the complete OPPOSITE of what they typically mean, then where does it stop? Does "salvation" mean "I want to burn you alive forever..."? If not, why not? And how would we know if you theorize a god who communicates in irrational, opposite-meaning words? Does "kingdom of god" mean "the torture chamber of the devil..."?
WHICH words can we trust are meaning what they mean and how do we know we're understanding the right meaning of the words?
I have way too high a view of the Bible and of God to find that theory believable or anything but an affront to God, reason and the Bible.
cont'd...
And be clear: I'm speaking of foundational concepts: LOVE, JUSTICE, Grace, Good news. IF these words don't mean roughly what we think of... if they can sometimes randomly mean the complete opposite of how they're understood, then we know nothing with any authority.
That is, if the "good news for the poor and marginalized" is that the vast majority of them will be held in torment for an eternity... even WORSE off than they are in this life... that is literally the opposite of good news.
Those concepts are foundational.
From there, we find a variety of teachings and stories and sometimes, frequently, those stories engage in symbolism, hyperbole, metaphor and other figurative language. IF we fail to understand Genesis 1 as myth, there's no huge harm done (except to science and reason, but we can set that aside). If we fail to perfectly understand the Sheep and Goats parable, if we can't agree "does the word Hell there mean something like Dante envisioned or something else?" If we don't perfectly understand or perfectly know what it means when it says there'll come a time when all of humanity will be gathered before God and sorted out... is Jesus being figurative or is he depicting a real world event that will happen one day...?
If we fail to perfectly understand the details of a story, we can still move on and operate with decent understanding. BUT, if we have no ability to generally understand the aforementioned foundational concepts of Love, justice, grace and forgiveness... well, then, can we know ANYTHING with any confidence?
You seem to be advocating an anarchical faith "system" where nothing is knowable. I do not believe in a trickster god of Chaos and so find that theory (IF IT IS WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING) irrational at best and blasphemous at worst.
If you're NOT saying we have no way of knowing the general meaning of foundational concepts and that sometimes love, justice, etc can mean the OPPOSITE of what they are understood to mean, then how do we know with any reasonable authority what they mean?
Actually that is totally incorrect. I am arguing that we as humans are incapable of fully comprehending the vastness of what is communicated.
It's like when you tell a small child you love them. They have an incomplete concept of what the love of a parent is, because they are incapable of the comprehension of an adult. It's likely that they won't fully comprehend what parental love encompasses until they're parents and experience it. That doesn't invalidate their childhood understanding of parental love, but it points out it's limits.
In the same way, we cannot comprehend the full extent of God's love, grace, and other attributes with the inherent limits to our beings. It's not bad, it's just incomplete. I'm not saying that the "narrow gate", is really not narrow or that Jesus was really only talking to the Pharisees. If anything the difference is that I'm allowing for a broader understanding than we can comprehend, a better one if you will, while you seem to be arguing that all we'll ever have is limited to what we can experience or imagine. I think YHWH is bigger than your limited experience or imagination.
I don't care what you think, how hard is that for you to understand. You are not some sort of trained, educated, Bible scholar. Your a random guy on the internet. That's not enough for "I strongly disagree" to carry any weight.
Just for example, there's a pastor/author/theologian named John Piper who could certainly be considered more of an expert than you, who's written extensively on studying the Bible as a meta narrative and how important it is to start with the meta context, then work through the layers of context as you focus in. While I would never claim that he is 100% correct, I would suggest that he possesses more credentials and credibility on the topic than you or I do. So, when I'm confronted with a difference between Dan and scripture or Jesus, I'll go with scripture/Jesus. When I'm confronted with a difference between Dan and an expert, I'll go with the expert.
Given the fact that you have a history (although better recently) of responding to things without any indication of what you are responding to, and that I, usually, quote the question right above the answer, I find this amusing.
But FYI, when you do your thing where you ask multiple questions in sequence and without them being a part of a larger bit of text, you can count on the fact that the answers are in the exact same order as the questions.
Hence, Q1=A1, Q2=A2, und so weiter. If I need to go back and copy paste them in a format that won't challenge you, ask nicely and I'll do so.
In the case of your example, my no is primarily because of your caricature of my position, and the fact that when you start a question in that manner, it is almost allows wrong. To your clarification, I'm suggesting that God's "grace..." is so much more than what you express. Therefore I'm saying no to your human theories about YHWH's "grace...", not to YHWH's actual "grace...".
As I've been clear so many times in this thread, I chose a simple direct answer to your repetitive question. You ask a question, you get an answer, you still bitch and moan.
I will admit that the "Word of God" is authoritatively and objectively correct, and that while my conclusions may be somewhat correct, I cannot fully grasp the totality of YHWH's love, grace, etc. Given my limitations, if I'm going to err I'm going to err on the side of more. I'm going to conclude that whatever YHWH is, does, or has is vastly beyond my ability to comprehend. Because of that I can live (theoretically) content with how things are, and confident that YHWH will fulfill His promises, while on earth. Simultaneously, I can live in the hope of an eternity in His presence and that (however that looks) it will exceed my imagination by orders of magnitude.
I don't need to limit YHWH to what I can see, touch, taste, smell, objectively/scientifically prove.
If you're going to bitch about the discontinuity between questions and answers, then do me the courtesy of linking your reply to the comment you're replying to. It's one of the few positives of the new format, please take advantage of it.
AA1, Then why do you continue to make absolute pronouncements and claims about things you admit you don't understand perfectly. How can you possibly tell someone that they are wrong, unless you absolutely know what's right?
AA2, As I literally just answered this in the comment I posted less than 5 minutes ago I see no reason to do so again, and continue to wonder why you ask the same question multiple times when I've had no opportunity to answer and you've had no opportunity to read my answer to the previous asking?
BB, I can admit that you've written a bunch of words and act as if your words represent a complete understanding of the topics. I can also admit that you offering unproven human theories carries no weight.
BB2, No because why would I agree with something I've never said. I'll note that it seems harmless to conclude that an infinite God might have infinite understanding, and choose to err on the side if infinite rather than finite. Further, choosing to rely on Scripture and those with more education/expertise than you also seems like a good idea.
Given that your premise if the "If basic concepts..." string of bullshit is false, and that I've answered similar questions multiple times, I see no point in encourage you to falsely characterize my position by taking this bullshit seriously.
"WHICH words..."
Given that you're default is that we can't have 100% objective knowledge of anything, if I was to agree with you my answer would have to be none of them.
Again, for the remedial readers.
I'm not saying that we can't know anything about the concepts represented by those terms. I'm not saying that what we know is automatically incorrect. I am saying that as finite humans that we can comprehend enough of the Truth to point us to YHWH, but that the finite cannot fully comprehend the infinite.
Had you chosen to wait until after I'd given my parent/child analogy perhaps this repetition wouldn't have been necessary.
If you say so, given that you seem to always come back to your personal, subjective, Reason as the deciding factor in your eisegesis I find it hard to take this declaration seriously. Especially as you've placed your personal, subjective, Reason on par with YHWH and scripture.
To be clear, you making pronouncements about "what your speaking of" as if the very fact that your "speaking of" (ignoring the obvious lack of actual speech) something gives that something some massive amount of gravitas. Further given your penchant to "speak of" things that are significantly off of the topic of the posts you comment on, the arrogant hubris could maybe be dialed back a bit.
Strangely enough, you don't seem to think that YHWH is "foundational", but that your "concepts" are His foundation. As if those concepts, unmoored from YHWH, remain as fixed an inviolable as you seem to think, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Is grace (per your hunches) "foundational" to Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, Naturalism, Materialism, Atheism, or any other faith/belief system?
The problem with this particular rant is that you can't separate these "foundational" concepts with your hunches about them or from your cherry picked definitions about them. Don't misunderstand, if you personally choose to organize your faith journey around your personal hunches about these concepts that are more foundational than YHWH, then you do you. But if that's it, then you need to lose the attitude and quit with the pronouncements. Live you life according to your hunches about this crap and stop annoying the rest of us with your arrogant bullshit.
Your insistence to ignore the fact that I have expressly made every effort to stop your bitching about Dante and to focus on simply the two/three options without getting bogged down in details. Clearly you choose not to.
I'm not wasting time with what appear to be rhetorical questions.
When you repeat this "You seem to be advocating..." bullshit after having it explained to you multiple times, you look like a total idiot or like you just don't care about things like Truth and accuracy.
As to the last sentence, I've given you all I intend to give is you continue to misrepresent me and refuse to ask specific questions about specific things I've written.
Craig...
"Strangely enough, you don't seem to think that YHWH is "foundational", but that your "concepts" are His foundation. As if those concepts, unmoored from YHWH..."
I'm glad to clarify.
I personally don't think you CAN unmoor Love (grace, justice, etc) from God. God IS Love, as we find in the Bible.
Do you think we can unmoor love from God or vice versa?
Craig...
"Is grace (per your hunches) "foundational" to Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, Naturalism, Materialism, Atheism, or any other faith/belief system?"
That would depend upon the individual, seems to me, just as it would for someone claiming the Christian tradition.
Craig...
"The problem with this particular rant is that you can't separate these "foundational" concepts with your hunches about them or from your cherry picked definitions about them."
You keep saying this, as if I'm making up some strange, foreign, new definitions of these terms. My understanding of these terms are just the universal definitions.
Do you have some other definitions, different from the standard definitions?
Dan
"Do you think we can unmoor love from God or vice versa?"
No, but I'm not the one who "foundation" is the list of "grace...".
Nice dodge on grace in other belief systems. To pretend that any organized religion/belief system does not have universal tenets and foundational beliefs is to simply ignore reality.
FYI, grace (as Chirstians know it) is actually completely foreign to all of those listed.
"Do you have some other definitions, different from the standard definitions?"
If you're not going to read what I've written, and base your questions on specific things I've written, then I'm not going to waste time answering this again.
I think I realized what the problem is though. When I hear the word grace, for example, my thoughts immediately go to action. Grace is what YHWH does for us, unrelated to anything we've done. Grace is so much more than a simple definition, that it almost seems wrong to try to cram such a huge concept into a few words. I get that we need definitions, but to obsess on the definition rather than the experience seems like sitting in a mountain cabin. intently focused on an impressionist painting of the mountains outside, instead of experiencing the mountains.
SImilarly, I can go to a dictionary and look up the definition of a mountain. I can go to a textbook, and learn about mountains. But to suggest that either of those two can compare to being at the top of a 14,000 foot mountain, surrounded by other 14,000 foot mountains is so far beyond the definition as to almost be unrecognizable. I want to experience the real mountain, I want to experience the reality of grace, nitpicking over definitions and trying to package something to big to package in a mere definition is of no interest to me.
"
Craig...
"FYI, grace (as Chirstians know it) is actually completely foreign to all of those listed."
From some of their official tenets, maybe. (Maybe.) But just as in Christianity, individual beliefs change from person to person. I personally know Grace-living Jews, Muslims and pagans. You're just factually wrong at the individual level.
Similarly, there are Christians who do not affirm salvation by grace alone, so...
Fyi, from a Muslim page...
"There is a hadith which speaks most clearly to this matter, saying that it is only by the grace of God that people enter paradise. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said that even in his case, he wouldn't enter paradise except by the grace of God. "
..
In the end, because we believe in a merciful and gracious God, we have every confidence that so long as we are sincere towards God, we try our best, despite our circumstances, to please God, to avoid error, and by the grace of God, we will enter Paradise. There is no doubt about that."
From a Jewish site...
"Grace is inherently divine and is a gift of God’s love. By extension, gracefulness, is the act of embracing God’s love of our imperfect selves. Grace is something granted to us, not as a reward for our right actions, but whenever we are able to receive God’s love – even when we fear we don’t quite deserve it."
Dan
Craig:
FYI, grace (as Chirstians know it) is actually completely foreign to all of those listed.
You would be more accurate to say
I believe that Grace, as Christians like myself and those in my personal human tradition theorize its nature, is completely foreign to these other religious traditions.
Fortunately, you all do not own Christianity or grace or understanding of other faith traditions.
Again, as a point of observable fact, I know that people in other faith traditions affirm grace of the sort that is promoted in the Bible as those in MY tradition affirm/believe to be true.
Craig:
When I hear the word grace, for example, my thoughts immediately go to action. Grace is what YHWH does for us, unrelated to anything we've done. Grace is so much more than a simple definition, that it almost seems wrong to try to cram such a huge concept into a few words.
Well, unless you want to at least TRY to understand what someone means by grace or love or justice or most notions of that sort. IF we want to try to explain OUR personal understanding of Grace (love, justice, etc), THEN we will need to use our words and actions to do so.
It's a given that neither you nor me nor anyone else understands what perfect love, perfect grace, perfect justice precisely is in its entirety (or IF there is such a thing as "perfect love, justice or grace..."). But that doesn't mean we can't generally understand it and recognize great abuses of the terms.
I mean, if someone is standing on flat ground and points to a flat swamp and says, "Behold, the mountain!" the rational person can reasonably say, "I KNOW that there are many ways to understand the concept of a Mountain. But that, sir, is NOT a mountain in any meaningful real world sense."
If someone says, "I love all children" and then proceeds to rape as many children as he can, the rational person can say, "Sir, that is NOT love, that is hate, abuse and evil, it is NOT love."
The definitions - while not FULLY representative of the concepts - are not SO malleable that you can describe something overtly harmful, deviant, oppressive and evil and call it, Good, Loving or Just.
Do you disagree?
Well, since the only way to evaluate a religion or belief system is to evaluate what they claim to believe it seems like looking at the tenets would be a good place to start. I'm sure that there are individual Muslims out there who might deviate from doctrine, but as with anything, you don't base things on the exceptions. Any religion that engages on conversion under threat of death, and conquers nations using that strategy, is unlikely to have a doctrine of Grace similar to Christianity. Unless grace is YHWH holding a scimitar.
I'll note that I excluded Judaism from my list for the simple reason that Judaism and Christianity worship the same God. The problem with grace in Judaism is that they also have a strong thread of salvation by works as well.
Having said that, I'll simply note that the only other religion/belief system that has similar view of grace to Christianity is the one that Christianity sprang from. We could probably learn something.
No, it would not. That I am well read enough to have a basic understanding of the tenets of various world religions is not in any way an assertion that I own them. I'm literate, and have read/studied quite a bit. I'm comfortable with the generalization.
As most of the rest of this thread is "fruit of the stupid tree" and is tangentially related to what I've said at best. I see no reason to grace it with much attention.
That you seem intent on disagreeing, for the sake of disagreement, I'm not sure why I'd take this to seriously.
The problem is that I am not, and have not suggested that definitions are unimportant, or that you can define a swamp as a mountain. That you wasted time with that idiocy makes me wonder if you have trouble with cognitive function or reading comprehension.
The problem is when I see you do things like insist that Jesus words mean the opposite of the plain meaning of the text. "...ransom for many..." Cannot mean "There is no ransom and all are saved.", yet that's essentially what you've said.
I understand that you hate to "lose" and to be "wrong", but that you're seriously arguing with my suggestion that the definitions on the page/screen are inadequate to fully describe the thing they define, even more so when it involves experience, and that we must slavishly adhere to the exact words in the definition and all of their inherent limits.
Craig:
The problem is when I see you do things like insist that Jesus words mean the opposite of the plain meaning of the text. "...ransom for many..." Cannot mean "There is no ransom and all are saved.", yet that's essentially what you've said.
That's precisely the problem you're having. You just don't see it.
Justice, grace and love HAVE definitions and when you personally choose to interpret some passages in such a way as to call a "mountain" a "Swamp," you are "insisting that Jesus words mean the opposite of the plain meaning of the text."
Even if you ultimately disagree, can you at least not SEE how reasonable people who define these words typically would look at your definition which includes something like, "God is all-loving and perfectly just but SOME people, God just hates and created for the purpose to unjustly sending them to eternal torment of some sort," and can you see how for US, you are totally deconstructing those words/ideas?
Ransom for many COULD reasonably have been spoken metaphorically. And hint: Jesus literally did NOT "ransom" himself for many. WHO would he have ransomed himself to? The devil? God (ie, himself, since he is God)?
? It's irrational on the face of it if you try to take it literally.
The passage is in the context of the disciples competing for the roles of Top Disciples and Jesus, concerned about the lack of a giving, servant nature in the disciples said:
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Jesus was literally pouring out his life in a sacrificial manner. He came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized (he literally said, another text you try to redefine) and in the process, confronted the rich and oppressors who saw him as a threat and Jesus knew that this Way of Grace that he was teaching would lead to this confrontation and his being killed by the rich and powerful. He was literally pouring out his life (but not literally literally, as if he were a cup of water) and he is speaking of it in a symbolic way.
NO, he did not "ransom" himself to God or the "devil," that's inane, internally inconsistent, irrational.
And I'm not the one who said God wanted to see all saved. JESUS said that. But then, you don't take that literally.
Do you not see? YOU regularly make phrases "symbolic" when the text doesn't call for it, just as you imagine I do. At best, we disagree about which passages are best understood symbolically, figuratively.
But Jesus, "ransom...? That's truly "stupid tree" material, if you want to go low brow with the conversation.
Good luck in life, son. Watch out for those Stop signs. THOSE should be taken literally. (Since you appear to have difficulty differentiating between literal and symbolic texts...)
Dan is totally and stupidly unBiblical here. That God stands ready to forgive does not mean that He will. That grace is freely given doesn't mean God must give it at all, or that He gives it to all. The word "grace" doesn't imply any of this, and by Dan's insistence that it does proves Dan's a Universalist.
Scripture says there IS a "blood payment" and it was made by our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Craig:
the only way to evaluate a religion or belief system is to evaluate what they claim to believe it seems like looking at the tenets would be a good place to start. I'm sure that there are individual Muslims out there who might deviate from doctrine, but as with anything, you don't base things on the exceptions.
What is your source for the "tenets of Islam..."?
Here's what actual Muslims are saying about Grace and Islam. For one example.
Some developed a five-point Calvinism, as it is called. They link the five points to the acronym, TULIP, and the I, for TULIP, they say stands for “irresistible grace”. This refers to the point that God, according to them, bestows His grace on a person by making this person go to heaven, and that grace cannot be resisted by the person. Once God has chosen the person for this, that person is kind of locked in, of course, for a good end. Nobody wants to get out of that. However, they're emphasizing the predestination aspect of this, as far as I can understand. There's still much more for me to understand about Christianity, but there it is in a nutshell.
With that idea of grace in mind, already before Islam, we can understand that in the Quran, God is telling us that He basically gives of His bounty. It's not just simply that he gives us just our fair share, but he gives us more beyond that. It's almost like we give a tip or we give extra, over and beyond what we were supposed to pay.
So God has given us this system of a balance sheet of good and evil and says that if we do this good thing, He’ll reward us. If we do this evil, He’ll give you this punishment. Out of His grace, as a tip from Him, He can remove the punishment that we deserved and He can add more to the promises that He already gave us. He says he’ll give us this much, but He gives much more.
Because He's bountiful, gracious, kind, merciful, and He doesn't lose anything by giving to us, so He gives more and more out of His bounty.
https://www.quranspeaks.com/post/do-muslims-believe-in-god-s-grace
Also:
In fact, God’s grace and forgiveness are central to both Islam and Christianity. The idea that Islam focuses solely on deeds is a misconception; treatment of others and seeking forgiveness are just as important in Islam.
https://medium.com/christian-muslim-blogs/islam-and-grace-91cc73c95f8c
Now, they don't define grace as people in your specific human tradition of Christianity do, but other Christians don't define it that way, either. At least with the specifics of a "limited grace" only for a "limited atonement" only for "those few that god loves" and "has called..." but not all of Christianity affirms that (what I consider) heresy.
Do you affirm a so-called "limited atonement" with grace only for a minority of humanity?
Do you recognize that not all of Christianity agrees with that theory/tradition and that it IS a specific theory and tradition of only SOME humans who call themselves Christians?
I think part of the problem is that you consider your particular niche of Christianity to be the ONLY human Christianity that truly represents God's idea of Christianity. So, for you (I think) conservative relatively modern evangelical Christianity is the only "true" Christianity and all others are not Christians. But you tell me.
The bottom line: You don't get to speak authoritatively for Christianity OR for other religions as to what those other traditions do and don't believe.
I'm left to conclude that you are either illiterate, intentionally obtuse, or insane.
I am not, and since you haven't provide proof of your claim I'm confident that you cannot do so, suggesting that any of your pet "foundational" concepts are the opposite of their definition. Either prove this bullshit, or stop making the claim.
When you make up some bullshit gibberish and call it "your (my) definition" you've literally and completely divorced yourself from reality. You are arguing against yourself and expecting me to support and agree with your made up bullshit. Again, if you can't copy/paste a quote of me saying something, don't make some bullshit up and pretend I wrote it.
As far as your "ransom" bullshit. The fact that the very best your have starts with "COULD" means that you're just spewing out random, subjective, human theories. With nothing to back it. up.
I do appreciate you making my point and arguing that "ransom" cannot mean "ransom", watching you provide this excellent example makes my day.
Again, I'm not answering your questions that appear to be rhetorical.
I applaud your creativity in inventing multiple fairy stories about what "COULD" be, but why didn't you include purple unicorns?
"NO, he did not "ransom" himself to God or the "devil," that's inane, internally inconsistent, irrational."
This is pretty emphatic. It's rare that someone who has nothing better than "COULD" emphatically makes an emphatic claim that he can't prove. Your very emphatic about what it does not mean, but you have nothing to offer as to what it could mean. Beyond "COULD" and bullshit.
Again, when all you have is "COULD", made up fairy tales, emphatic unproven claims, misrepresentations, and personal attacks, it's clear that you've run out of anything rational and are left to save face by hurling insults as you appear to be setting up for running away.
Your problem is that you love the ambiguity of the "figurative language" smoke screen, and how it prevents you from having to actually have an opinion. Just say your magic words "figurative language" and you think you're off the hook from providing an explanation. "Sorry, it's "figurative language", I absolutely positively know what that "figurative language" does not mean and it's impossible for anyone to know what it does mean." I understand, sometimes cowardice seems better than taking a stand.
Of course when asked you've been unwilling to provide a guide for the rest of us to be able to magically tell which language is "figurative" and which is literal. This is too bad, given how certain you are about identifying "figurative" language.
Enjoy hanging out at your cesspool, with the sycophant you protect and platform despite his history of lies, personal attacks, and vitriol. You are shaped by the company you keep.
As Dan made clear at one point, Grace is impotent until we as humans deign to accept it. Grace, in Dan's warped theology, hinges in the act/work of human acceptance, not on YHWH.
The notion of a blood payment is woven inextricably throughout scripture from Genesis to Revelation. The OT passages point to Christ, while the NT passages reinforce Christ's work on the cross.
I'd give you a bibliography, but I don't want to take the time and effort to comb through decades of books on the subject just for you to ignore it.
Again, your ability to mine Google and cherry pick nuggets that you think help you isn't impressive as I could do the same, but again have no desire to put in work on something you'll ignore.
For you to continue to act as if "what I consider..." as some sort of authoritative claim baffles me. But if looking stupid and arrogant is your goal, continue.
I do agree that Limited Atonement is the best explanation of scripture, although the formulation is not and does not carry the authority of scripture. Given that the formulation "Limited Atonement" is not scripture, although it has significant scriptural support, I would not "affirm" it as I would scripture.
I must say, the introduction of one more path of diversion from you after you'd laid the groundwork for running away is a bold move.
Yes, I do agree that not all Christians are Reformed. I do not believe that any of the 5 points that make Reformed theology distinctive are things that any Reformed believer would say are worth dividing over. They're secondary issues for the most part.
Essentials unity, non essentials liberty, all thing charity.
So while I disagree with those who subordinate the sovereignty of YHWH to humans, It's something to debate, not divide.
I think that the majority of your problem is that you've convinced yourself that all of this crap you make up, and that all of the lies you tell are really True, and that you somehow know what I believe better than I do. But then humility has never been your thing.
The bottom line is that you don't speak authoritatively for me, and that I've never claimed to speak authoritatively for "Christianity OR for the other religions...".
I'm curious, given that Mohamad (who should be considered an expert in Islam) owned slaves, had multiple wives and concubines, married at least one child, slaughtered or ordered the slaughter and conquest of millions, and claimed to have ridden a magic flying horse out of the atmosphere is he really an embodiment of the grace shown in Islam?
Enjoy your fantasy world.
Craig:
When you make up some bullshit gibberish and call it "your (my) definition" you've literally and completely divorced yourself from reality.
What I actually said:
can you at least not SEE how reasonable people who define these words typically would look at
your definition
which includes something like,
"God is all-loving and perfectly just but SOME people,
God just hates and created for the purpose to
unjustly sending them to eternal torment of some sort,"
and can you see how for US, you are totally deconstructing those words/ideas?
1. I said SOMETHING LIKE, then summarized what the traditional reformed definition includes and which I believe you believe is correct.
2. Is it NOT the case that your understanding of Love includes the theories I cited:
I. "God is all-loving and perfectly just but
II. SOME people, God just hates and
III. God created them for the purpose to
IV. unjustly send them to eternal torment of some sort,"
Is that NOT what your notion of "love" and "justice" include?
IF it's not yours, can you acknowledge that this IS what many conservative reformed evangelicals promote?
Craig:
I do appreciate you making my point and arguing that "ransom" cannot mean "ransom",
I'm sorry. Do you SERIOUSLY believe in "ransom theory" - an idea which hasn't had traction in the church since the earliest years, something like 400 AD?
By all means: WHO was Jesus ransomed to? The devil? [snicker]
To himself?
Who ransoms themselves to themself? That is literally NOT what a ransom is, except in some scam scenarios!
Craig falsely stated:
As Dan made clear at one point, Grace is impotent until we as humans deign to accept it. Grace, in Dan's warped theology, hinges in the act/work of human acceptance, not on YHWH.
That is NOT what I've said. Grace and salvation are a gift, and incredibly powerful, marvelous, life-changing, world-changing and POTENT gifts. But as with any gift, it can be accepted or not. I could offer you $1 billion dollars and that WOULD be a huge offer, but if you chose not to accept it, I couldn't force it on you. That wouldn't change the size of the offer.
Come on, you can do better than that. For someone who (falsely/mistakenly) claims I "get your opinions wrong" so much, you'd think you'd be more cautious when making false claims about something I have not said nor do I advocate.
Reason matters.
The notion of a blood payment is woven inextricably throughout scripture from Genesis to Revelation. The OT passages point to Christ, while the NT passages reinforce Christ's work on the cross.
More correctly stated: There are blood sacrifices that happen in the Bible, sometimes from God's people (but always in a symbolic way, not intending to be a literal forgiveness "purchased" by the blood sacrifice) and sometimes by bloodier, more barbaric gods. And SOME readers of the Bible have taken these instances of blood sacrifice to formulate a theory that god is impotent to forgive unless there's a blood sacrifice.
But biblically and rationally speaking, that is an insult to God.
Oh, also, the notion of a "blood sacrifice" to "cover sins" and "pay for our salvation" moves salvation from God's grace to a crude, barbaric business deal. Now, if you WANT to believe in the literal necessity of a blood sacrifice to pay bills, go for it. But don't call that Grace, because it is no longer grace when it's a business deal.
As to your John Piper citation about "written extensively on studying the Bible as a meta narrative and how important it is to start with the meta context, then work through the layers of context as you focus in."
You know, don't you, that this is precisely what I'm striving to deal with and do, as well? It is VITAL to consider the whole context of the Bible, to get a handle on the greater themes and concepts of the various biblical texts (and those concepts boil down to God's Love, Grace, Forgiveness, Justice and the Beloved Community/Realm of God). THAT is the "meta" bottom line of the various biblical teachings, we find those themes running throughout the various texts involved.
And GIVEN that meta narrative, those themes, we THEN look to the individual stories and lessons and poems and do so with an eye on those themes especially giving precedence to Jesus' take on those themes (as we consider Jesus the clearest representation of God).
And if we have some passages that, taken literally, undermine the basic themes of love, justice, grace, etc, then we can fairly safely assure a literal interpretation is not likely or consistently biblical.
Did you not know this is what I'm doing? I've tried to be consistently clear on this point, even while not using that specific post-modern language (meta-narrative).
Also, as to being an "expert," there are many ways to be expert, aren't there. One way is through schooling on the topic (depending upon the quality of the school). But another way is through constant research, reading and reflection. I am not a schooled theologian, but I am someone who has read the Bible and considered its implications for my whole reading life of 57 years. As well as being taught by extremely conservative teachers and preachers for 30 of those years and other experts for the second half of my life.
Now, that may not qualify me as an expert, but it DOES speak to my being pretty well informed on the topics. I don't know about the church you grew up in, but in my conservative Southern Baptist and (later) Nazarene experiences, they took Bible study seriously and so I was raised with that mindset. It's one of the things I'm grateful to my conservative forebears about.
Craig:
Of course when asked you've been unwilling to provide a guide for the rest of us to be able to magically tell which language is "figurative" and which is literal.
Sadly, no such guide exists. AS I'VE BEEN CLEAR ON. Indeed, I've repeatedly asked YOU ALL that very question, not because I think it exists, but to help point out to you all that no such guide exists.
You all have NO GUIDE that says which rules are universal and which are temporal, or if that's even the right language to understand rules in the Bible.
You all have NO GUIDE to authoritatively say "This interpretation about atonement is factually correct and THAT interpretation is not." or any of your other theories.
You all have NO GUIDE to say which stories are more literally historic and which are more mythic (even though in some cases, it's abundantly clear).
I've been quite consistent that we all have our personal opinions and we can argue as to which meanings are more reasonable and make most sense and which are less reasonable or make no sense, but when it comes to morals or God's opinion on specific tenets, we simply can't objectively prove them.
I am glad to admit there is no guide for authoritatively determining that. What I've been asking you all for years is do YOU acknowledge the same?
Craig:
The bottom line is that you don't speak authoritatively for me, and that I've never claimed to speak authoritatively for "Christianity OR for the other religions...".
Also Craig:
"FYI, grace (as Chirstians know it) is actually completely foreign to all of those listed."
Sounds like you're authoritatively saying with no hesitation that YOU DO know that Grace is not part of their tenets/their religions. YOU are the one who said authoritatively that grace is "actually completely foreign" to those religions.
You are now clarifying that you do NOT speak authoritatively for those religions and you may be mistaken?
Well, good. Humility is a good starting point.
"But that's literally what you're doing by saying that loving and just can also mean grossly evil punishments for exceeding the misdeeds."
This isn't just mere misunderstanding, but a willful, intentional lie. None of us has ever said anything like this. But it does validate our position...which you demonstrate as true time and time again...that you presume to dictate to God that His chosen punishment for transgressions against Him are "grossly evil" because YOU don't like it.
"You're not just redefining love and justice, you're assigning them an OPPOSITE meaning, at least in the case of your personal opinions about salvation and punishment."
First of all, "assigning opposite meaning" is "redefining". But that isn't happening in any case. It's not a matter of what those words mean. It's a matter of whether or not they're in play when affirming eternal punishment. Punishment is a part of both love and justice. The sinner or criminal doesn't get to decide what constitutes just punishment for the sinner's sin or the criminal's crime. The Lawgiver does. If you think God's punishment for transgressions is "evil", the problem is with you and you might want to spend more time in learning about how to please Him, rather than trying to dictate to Him what should or shouldn't and how He should respond if one doesn't.
"One of the rules of exegesis and textual study is to tend to interpret the obscure or hard to understand through the clear. It is abundantly clear what Justice and Love mean and eternal punishment for common temporal misdeeds is NOT that."
Who are you kidding? You've made it abundantly clear over the years that you only regard as worth your time and consideration only those parts of Scripture you find personally pleasing and dismiss and reject that those parts which you don't. For that which you find personally abhorrent, you write it off as figurative, metaphor, poetry or myth. You blow off The Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah, the killing of the first born of Egypt, the wages of sin being death and all the animal sacrifice which foreshadowed Christ's payment in His own Blood for our sins.
Where the Chosen People pleased God, they were rewarded with prosperity, peace and the ability to withstand attacks by much larger forces. They won every battle against those God sentenced to destruction.
Conversely, the yang to that yin was when they turned from God and disobeyed. They were then punished with enslavement and destruction and a loss of possessions. Now, you think there's only eternal salvation regardless of whether one choose God or rejects Him, and that there's no eternal punishment because DAN TRABUE has ruled that would be evil.
"AA2. Can you admit that YOU have no authoritative data that supports your theory that God has alternative definitions of those words?"
Once again, it's not about definitions. It's never been about definitions. It's about you dictating to God that His choice of punishment somehow means He's not perfectly loving and just. It doesn't. Not at all. No child believes his punishment, nor does any criminal and clearly nor does Dan. By wishing and hoping God does not provide the punishment you find so "evil", you clearly believe that if your wish and hope is true, then you'll never pay for your transgression. All will be forgiven as a matter of concrete inviolability, so no worries, Adolf.
Because copy/pasting the same crap is a great way to make your point.
No, that is a misrepresentation.
I don't speak for anyone but myself, although I've never heard anyone promote the specific 4 points you listed.
Well played, doubling down on "ransom" doesn't mean "ransom", with no alternative argument just smug semantic bullshit.
It is very helpful when you contradict yourself so quickly. You are quite clear that there is not actual experience of grace UNLESS/UNTIL the human performs the act of accepting the "offer". If the human is mistaken about the "offer" or isn't aware of the "offer" does that mean that they are condemned due to ignorance or being mistaken?
In your construct YHWH sits impotently with grace that He's "offering" to every human throughout history waiting helplessly until some of the humans accept. While the humans that don't accept are SOL. Sounds like a great plan.
Yes, I know you highly value your vaunted Reason as an arbiter over almost everything.
Excellent, the unproven, unsupported opinion stated as if it is an incontrovertible fact. You should listen to Dan T and what he says about unsupported/unproven claims.
If that's what you believe cool. As usual, when it comes to choosing between your hunch and scripture, I'll always choose scripture over your unproven hunch.
There was no "citation", merely a reference.
Your written words in these comment threads and at your blog would seem to indicate that if you are "striving" to do so, that you're not succeeding. Given how often you make arguments like "Ransom really doesn't mean ransom, it really means something else, but I'm not going to tell you what it really means."(somewhat snarky paraphrase, not a quote) and then cite your subjective, imperfect, biased, Reason as your primary deciding factor, I'm not sure how hard you're "striving".
But at least you say you agree, in theory, with Piper. As his much more educated than you, much more experienced in this area than you, and seems to be more intelligent than you, that's probably a good choice.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, Dan's magical rubric to magically discern which passages are really literal, and which passages are "figurative" even though he can't share that information definitively which passages (or parts of passages) are which.
Ahhhhhhhh, the self serving attempt to paint yourself as an expert or to elevate your self esteem. It's safe to say that the quality of your self study is as much of a factor or more so than that of an accredited seminary past grad program. But if you want to pretend that you're somehow just as much of an expert as Piper, do it somewhere else. Maybe write a few books, publish something in a scholarly publication, teach university classes, or something besides writing a blog before you get too big for your britches.
Maybe you could write a scholarly article or book on which biblical passages are literal, which are figurative, and what (specifically) the figurative passages definitively mean.
Given that you are the only one I know with such intimate and definitive knowledge of which passages are figurative, which are literal, and what the figurative passages DO NOT mean, perhaps you should provide one. I'm sure that all of the biblical scholars, theologians, and pastors would clamor for your wisdom and acknowledge the superiority of your Reason.
"I am glad to admit there is no guide for authoritatively determining that."
Then stop making authoritative, definitive, statements about which passages are absolutely, objectively figurative and about what they do no mean. If you don't have an authoritative guide, then it means you're just making shit up and pretending like it's authoritative.
"What I've been asking you all for years is do YOU acknowledge the same?"
Why would I acknowledge something, why would you demand that I acknowledge something that I have never claimed? Why would you demand that I acknowledge something on behalf of someone else?
Again, what something "sounds like" to your biased, prejudiced, flawed, imperfect, politically tuned ear is not reality.
Live in the world of reality, not in the world where you make shit up and pretend like your hunches are authoritative.
Again, because you're apparently stupid or comprehension impaired. My summarizing the views of other religions based on the publicly available material summarizing their tenets, is not me speaking for anyone.
For someone who often tries to speak authoritatively about what I think/believe or what positions I hold, it's amusing when you bitch about things you do.
Humility is fine, you should try it. Hubris and arrogance, you should probably trade for humility. Maybe a little less reliance on your Reason (flawed, biased, etc) to make determinations for others would be a good starting point.
"...if they can sometimes randomly mean the complete opposite of how they're understood, then we know nothing with any authority."
Fortunately, no one here is suggesting they don't mean what they mean...except you. That is, you're continually insisting we're redefining these words because you don't like God's punishment for transgressions isn't inconsistent with those terms.
"That is, if the "good news for the poor and marginalized" is that the vast majority of them will be held in torment for an eternity... even WORSE off than they are in this life... that is literally the opposite of good news."
First, the Good News was brought for everyone. That Good News begins with the reality that everyone is separated from God already and that Christ is the means by which redemption and salvation is possible.
"IF we fail to understand Genesis 1 as myth, there's no huge harm done (except to science and reason, but we can set that aside)."
That's true because those who choose to regard it as myth are those ensuring harm is done.
"If we fail to perfectly understand the Sheep and Goats parable, if we can't agree "does the word Hell there mean something like Dante envisioned or something else?" If we don't perfectly understand or perfectly know what it means when it says there'll come a time when all of humanity will be gathered before God and sorted out... is Jesus being figurative or is he depicting a real world event that will happen one day...?"
First, if Jesus was being figurative, in what way given the nature of the figurative language. It clearly speaks of a separation. So if there won't be a separation of those welcomed into God's Holy Presence versus those denied, then what possible sense does this "figurative language" make? Your position suggests Jesus' use of figurative/metaphorical language and parable isn't about something real, or that it's just stories with no purpose. That's very convenient for your kind, but is emblematic of a lack of logic and reason on your part.
Secondly, what hell truly is like is absolutely irrelevant. Jesus states that's a place all would be wise to avoid and that's enough for actual Christians, who don't want to know just how torturous it might be.
"BUT, if we have no ability to generally understand the aforementioned foundational concepts of Love, justice, grace and forgiveness... well, then, can we know ANYTHING with any confidence?"
There's no failure of any kind on our parts to understand these concepts. We have no confidence...and justly so...to expect your understanding of how they manifest in God's plan is anywhere near accurate.
"You seem to be advocating an anarchical faith "system" where nothing is knowable."
This is projection and the great irony of your arrogant suggestion is how often you speak of what we can't know, while in doing so you're rejecting what is easily known due to it's having been clearly revealed. And now to pretend we don't know what Love, justice, grace and forgiveness is just falsely stated, and purposely so. As such, every time you dare to again incite debate over the meanings of those words, we can know that you're about to avoid the true issue once again.
"I do not believe in a trickster god of Chaos ..."
You don't seem to believe in the God of Scripture, but a most superficial, self-pleasing alternative version of Him. In other words...you don't believe in God, you believe in an idol you've made for yourself.
Note how even in Dan's quotes, those religions also understand that God's grace is His to give as He sees fit, based on His own notions, plans or criteria. Neither of them suggest that God's grace will be granted to all such that all will enjoy eternity in His Presence.
It's a wonderful act of graciousness on Dan's part when he provides evidence which supports our position against his own.
Art,
I think that Dan has a concept with the reality of a thing or concept being more than the definition. As I noted earlier, we can look at the definition of a mountain, but the reality of a mountain and the variation of mountains go exponentially beyond the simple definition. In essence I'm suggesting that to confine a thing or experience to it's definition is to diminish that thing or experience. It's possible to define love, yet that definition pales in comparison to seeing your wife walk down the aisle or holding your newborn in your arms.
It's not a matter of saying love=hate or mountain=valley, but rather that love=so much more that a warm feeling and encountering a 14,000er is significantly more impactful then reading a definition or seeing a picture. Pictures of Fuji are cool, maybe even beautiful. Fuji is awe inspiring. I'm not going to fight someone over a definition, I'll absolutely fight someone if they harm someone I love. The disciples didn't die horrible deaths for a definition, they died to show the power of grace. (Hope I didn't belabor the examples)
Dan's obsesses with cramming things into a definition sized box and if the reality is bigger than his box, then he'll start his bullshit.
"Good News", bingo it's not limited. Dan's not poor, he clearly thinks he's the recipient of some good news.
Excellent point about Matt 25 and the separation. If the separation is "figurative" then Jesus is likely lying. Hell even Dan's human centered version of grace involves separating those who do the work of accepting grace from those who don't.
The problem is (again) that Dan limits those things to their English dictionary definitions, instead of acknowledging that not being able to "define" the totality of grace, is not saying we can't define a portion of what grace looks like.
Dan needs to assign this mythical trickster god to us, because his god is so pathetic that his grace has no value or effect until some random human accepts the gift.
Islam with it's Insh'a Allah is one of the most fatalistic religions out there, what kind of god shows grace by killing, maiming, raping, and enslaving those he wants to convert.
But yes, I agree that there is a common thread of sovereignty which Dan's god doesn't seem to have.
Craig...
"...grace (as Chirstians know it) is actually completely foreign to all of those listed."
Sounds like you're authoritatively saying with no hesitation that YOU DO know that Grace is not part of their tenets/their religions. YOU are the one who said authoritatively that grace is "actually completely foreign" to those religions.
Also Craig...
"Again, what something "sounds like" to your biased, prejudiced, flawed, imperfect, politically tuned ear is not reality."
Snicker.
So, when YOU SAID,
"...grace (as Chirstians know it) is actually completely foreign to all of those listed."
You didn't mean to indicate that "...grace (as Chirstians know it) is actually completely foreign to all of those listed."..?
Perhaps you can understand my confusion.
Dan
Again, this notion that when you make these declaratory claims and definitive statements about things it's perfectly OK and should simply be accepted as fact. When I make a self evident statement that "grace(as Christians know it)..." you get all high and mighty.
In a non theistic religion (Buddhism etc) sine there is no supreme being to dispense grace, it simply makes sense.
In the case of Hinduism, even if there is one god that might dispense grace, there are multiple others who'll take it away. Of course the who reincarnation until nirvana is the antithesis of grace.
can a religion who's spread was almost entirely fueled by conquest, forced conversions, and oppression of other religions really be said to offer grace as Christians understand it? I guess you could argue that choosing Islam instead of beheading is grace of a sort.
No, I meant what I wrote. It's not as complicated as you'd like to make it.
You using one of your stock excuses to lie "To my ear it sounds like" is the problem. Your assuming that I was making some sort of authoritative statement that binds anyone to anything is the problem. Simply making a general statement about the reality of the publicly available tenets of various religions isn't an attempt to be authoritative.
When you're reduced to bitching about what is essentially semantics, it tells me that you've got nothing substantive to add.
As another one of you stock excuse phrases goes, "It's self evident".
Post a Comment