"That is, the question is, DO YOU consider the notion of a welcoming God, blasphemous?"
Over at the cesspool, Dan is on a rant because he didn't like Art's answer to his question. So, since I'm not welcome over there and I'm certainly not going to subject myself to Dan's random and capricious rules, I'll deal with this here.
I'll start by noting that the question itself is deeply flawed. The flaw in the question is that it presupposes that Dan's hunch about what it means to be a "welcoming god" is both Biblical and accurate.
As Art notes in his answer to Dan's question, fashioning a god in one's own image or based on one's own preconceptions is pretty much blasphemy by definition.
Personally, I can't get past the notion that a god must welcome people based on Dan's terms, rather than on the god's own terms. That this "welcome" seemingly comes without limits or conditions. That repentance is seemingly not a factor at all. The notion that one Biblical account supports this notion, despite the fact that the account is widely believed to be a later addition to the text and that it doesn't represent reality, seems problematic as well.
So yes, I would say that I do consider DAN'S HUNCH about a "welcoming god" blasphemous.
91 comments:
For one who claims to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture over the entirety of his adult life (thus far?), and hold so many beliefs which are antithetical to Christian teaching as presented in Scripture, it would seem a logical conclusion that such a person has created a god in his own image and likeness. This necessarily indicates the One True God is denied by such a person, in essence God doesn't exist. That's blasphemy.
As you know, what started this conflict was Dan's choice to portray Jesus as having worn a "Pride Flag" "like a 'gay' Superman". The very notion, too, is antithetical...absolutely a polar opposite...to the character of Christ as presented in Scripture. It is not Christ by definition, to presume Christ would model "pride" in that which He has called abomination because He shut down what was believed to be a clever trap by His adversaries. That's blasphemous to suppose such a thing simply because of Dan's love of sexual perversions.
Imagine if someone posted a similar post, but instead of Christ wearing the flag of perversion and sexual immorality, He wore a red MAGA hat and the host insisted Christ's slap-down of the "religionists" suggested He was "Making Jerusalem Great Again" like a 1st century Donald Trump! Dan would soil his Pampers at such a suggestion despite a comparison to Trump being far less derogatory than to one who takes pride in living in rebellion against God.
I have no argument with your conclusion.
Obviously the notion that Jesus would demean the rainbow symbol that He used as a sign of His promise to Noah is absurd. Beyond that, the notion that Jesus would agree with everything done under the pride flag is beyond absurd.
Obviously, the notion of replacing the pride cape with a MAGA hat would be equally wrong. To cast Jesus as the defender of 21st century political movements is problematic at best.
To be clear, scripture absolutely supports the concept of YHWH welcoming His children into His Kingdom. But that doesn't mean that the door get thrown wide open and He allows everyone in. If you are Reformed, you generally believe that those welcomed were decided long ago. If you're not then you might believe that our inborn goodness and ability to avoid sins, might trigger this welcome. You could predicate YHWH's welcome on socioeconomic status, I guess. Or you could go full universalist and acknowledge that Hitler gets in along with every other evil human.
Other than the last, everyone believes that YHWH's welcome has limits.
Clearly, to compare Trump to Jesus fails miserably. And despite the fact that I wouldn't put a MAGA hat on Christ, I believe I can easily argue that by comparison, the "MAGA movement" comes significantly closer to mirroring the teachings of Christ than any movement promoting/enabling pride in perversion.
And this is what Dan is doing...suggesting that Jesus would embrace the movement itself by wearing such symbol of obvious evil and then bristle at his blasphemy being called out.
"A welcoming God". This is Dan's rationalization of his blasphemous post. There's no one God won't welcome who repents of their sins and accepts Christ as their Savior. Dan insists the latter is enough. But that implies that one who doesn't repent has actually accepted Christ as Savior. This is living by one's own terms, putting one's self above God.
I'm sticking with it being a bad idea to pretend that Jesus is on board with any political movement. There areas where the conservative side is probably more closely aligned with Jesus, and likewise on the left. The problem with the left is their desire to take the work that should belong to The Church, and delegate it to the government.
The problem with Dan's assumption is that part of the movement represented by the pride flag is the gay couple that bought kids and sexually assaulted them. IF, I SAID IF, the pride flag represented ONLY those who were engaged in a loving, faithful, monogamous "marriage" then Dan MIGHT have somewhat of a point. The problem is that those "marriages" are not the norm, and the pride flag represents all of the extremes of the movement.
The problem I see is that all too many treat their political affiliation as an idol. That they put faith in politics that should rightly be put in YHWH.
As I said, YHWH is welcoming on His terms. As He's God and Dan isn't, then it's only logical that YHWH gets to set the terms for Himself.
I guess we missed the obvious. The pride flag didn't exist when Jesus walked the earth, and as an observant Jew it's unlikely He would have worn one anyway.
If the pride flag represented ONLY those who were engaged in a loving, faithful, monogamous "marriage", it would still represent abomination and still antithetical to Jesus and His teachings.
Craig:
Dan is on a rant because he didn't like Art's answer to his question.
No rant. I'm just noting the reality that Marshal did not ANSWER the question in any direct manner. And that's one of the rules you two have, because you so often don't answer questions (the actual question asked) in the real world. As a point of fact as demonstrated by Marshal on this post.
Craig:
So, since I'm not welcome over there and I'm certainly not going to subject myself to Dan's random and capricious rules
1. You ARE welcome to comment on my blog.
2. But I DO expect you to engage in polite conversation (no vulgar and childish "butt buddy" type comments) and I expect you to answer the questions that are asked of you. It's strange that you view that as "capricious."
Craig, entirely missing the point (and making my point) claimed:
I'll start by noting that the question itself is deeply flawed. The flaw in the question is that it presupposes that Dan's hunch about what it means to be a "welcoming god" is both Biblical and accurate.
I made a direct and reasonable claim:
I believe in a welcoming God. A God who came very specifically to welcome and preach literal good news to the literally poor and marginalized.
As a point of fact in the real world, I DO believe in a welcoming God. A God who literally said he'd come to preach good news to the poor. There is no falsehood in that. IT IS WHAT I LITERALLY believe.
I then asked the question:
Do you consider that blasphemous?
That is: Do you consider it blasphemous that I believe in a welcoming God, one who came (just as he literally said) to preach welcome and good news to the poor and marginalized?
Now, IF YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR HEAD that I mean something beyond that, you can start with answering that question AND THEN go on to what you fear I am actually suggesting. But in that comment and question, I'm just asking you, on the face of it: DO YOU BELIEVE that believing in a welcoming God is blasphemous?
You COULD say, "OF COURSE, it's not blasphemous to believe in a welcoming God, BUT it depends on what you mean by that..." And you can add your own caveat. OR, you COULD say, "NO, I do not believe in a welcoming God." That's fine, too, if that's what you believe. But just answer the question. It's a reasonable question and you can just take it at face value and give your answer to that question.
You all are choosing to do neither. You ALMOST did that, Craig, when you offered this bit of unsupported nonsense:
So yes, I would say that I do consider DAN'S HUNCH about a "welcoming god" blasphemous.
You don't get to tell me what my hunch is. For one thing: YOU HAVE A TERRIBLE RECORD of understanding other people's words and positions. (and as always, given how pisspoor your guesses about my positions have historically been, I can't see how you can have ANY faith in your ability to understand Jesus' or Paul's words!).
But here's your chance to try to make some rational adult commentary. You COULD say, "Dan, I theorize that when you say you believe in a welcoming God, that you are trying to demand God must believe what you say..." or whatever your irrational little theory is. But empty claims are just slander, gossip and bearing false witness.
By all means, try to make your case like an adult, if you wish.
Or just be clear and say it directly: NO, I, Craig, do NOT believe God is a welcoming God.
Just answer or ask clarifying questions. That's what adults do when they're rational and engaging in good faith discussions like, you know, rational adults.
Here's an example of how Marshal literally did NOT answer the question and, instead, chose to engage in slander and false claims. I had stated and asked the reasonable position and question:
"I believe in a God of Grace and Love, one who, of course, welcomes and loves all of us, even Marshal.
Do you consider that blasphemous?"
Marshal responded (but didn't answer):
Of course He loves me, as I seek to subordinate my life to Him completely (still working on it).
NOTE: Which, on the face of it, sounds like a very graceless, works-based answer. Does God love you ONLY because and when you "seek to subordinate your life to him... completely..."??
Marshal continued...
But He doesn't love me so much that He'll not have expectations of me regarding that subordination. In my case it's based on His teachings, including those I find inconvenient, difficult and in conflict with my nature and desires.
1. I did not say here nor have I ever said that God does not have "expectations" of humanity. We were created in the very image of God, a little lower than God, to do good works... we are expected to preach good news to the poor and to ally with the poor and the marginalized, as Jesus taught quite clearly (you know, in his literally writings/words that you suggest you're looking to). That is NOT me saying God has "no expectations of us."
Understand?
2. I fully understand and believe that we humans find many of Jesus' teachings "inconvenient, difficult and contrary to what we often want" (paraphrasing), and I have never said otherwise, in spite of this false insinuation.
OF COURSE, people like you (and really, all of us) find it inconvenient to love and welcome the poor and marginalized... to be peacemakers. But these are literally the teachings of Jesus. You know, the ones you say you're looking to.
So, once again, you are literally answering some OTHER question than the one I asked, and it's a question built upon false premises about what I believe.
Once again, if you gentlemen can't understand MY words (and quite literally, you're not... and I'm the one who would know!), then why are you so bull-headedly certain you're understanding Jesus' words? Is your arrogance completely blinding you to the possibility that you could be mistaken?
Marshal...
"There's no one God won't welcome who repents of their sins and accepts Christ as their Savior."
1. So, God's grace is contingent on human decisions, is that your theory?
2. For what it's worth, I think there is great rational moral common sense that God wants us to repent for misdeeds. BUT, what if we in our humanity - what if YOU, in your own imperfect and so-often graceless human imperfections - don't perfectly understand the Right Way 100% of the time..?
Do you theorize that God's almighty grace is rendered useless by our human imperfections?
Is God unwilling to forgive us if we sin in ignorance?
If so, where is the grace?
If so, isn't that a salvation by works scheme?
Reasonable questions for you to ignore.
Craig...
"The flaw in the question is that it presupposes that Dan's hunch about what it means to be a "welcoming god" is both Biblical and accurate. "
Why don't you explain what YOUR theory about what you personally think my "hunch" is about a welcoming God is?
I'll wait.
While I'm waiting...
"As Art notes in his answer to Dan's question, fashioning a god in one's own image or based on one's own preconceptions is pretty much blasphemy by definition."
Perhaps you'd make a stronger case against what you think my opinions are if you also explained your theory of what it means to "fashion a god in one's own image" looks like.
Do you mean
IF a mortal reads the Bible, prays for understanding and reaches some conclusions about God, THEN they are fashioning God in their own image?
If so, isn't that precisely what you all do?
More questions to ignore, even if they're rational, respectful questions.
Art, perhaps you didn't read what I actually wrote, or were confused about the point. To be clear, the pride flag represents ALL of the variations of behavior withing that extremely broad community. The point is that Dan's general argument is that "stable, monogamous, loving, faithful" "gay marriage" is "blessed" by YHWH. The reality is that those relationships are far from the norm in that community (those communities) and Dan's image of Jesus wearing the pride flag would include Jesus supporting any and all of the possible permutations. I thought that emphasizing the qualifiers in my hypothetical would have been sufficient, apparently not.
And Dan starts to rant over hear. The problem is, as usual, that you don't like our answers or they don't fit your demands, not that they don't exist. Of course, you bitching about something that you regularly engage in, is bizarre as usual. Maybe, if you set an example, we'd follow it.
1. You've made it very clear that I am not welcome at your blog. I see no reason to engage in a forum where I am not accorded the same freedom I accord you.
2. You expect me to do that which you refuse to do when you comment here. Yet I allow almost every single comment you post.
"I made a direct and reasonable claim:"
For you I guess it's as direct as you're likely to get, and I guess that by your subjective standards that it is reasonable to you. The problem is that you haven't proven that your claim is objectively (exclusively) True. It's merely your hunch. That you believe something does not make it True and certainly is not proof.
Yes, you did ask the question and Art answered it. As did I.
Yes, I believe that your hunches about what "a welcoming god" is are blasphemous. Or at a minimum, incomplete.
Because asking the same question, which I've already answered at least twice now, within the same comment (unread when you repeated yourself) is exactly how "reasonable adults" have a conversation.
You then, again, demand that I again "answer" a question (already answered) for a third time in a single comment. While demanding that I "answer" in specific ways determined by you. If you demand this much control at my blog, why would you think I'd conclude that I'm welcome at your cesspool?
You are correct, I would never tell you what your hunch is. However, when you state your hunch quite clearly and emphatically, I can respond to the claims you make and the hunches you express. Of course, you choosing to do (again) what you bitch about simply make you look like a petulant, childish, brat throwing a tantrum.
For someone ho bitches about what "adults do", your demanding that I jump through your hoops and behave exactly as you demand, is hardly the stuff of adulthood.
That you've chosen to ignore my answers to your idiotic question, based on your unproven hunch, isn't my problem.
Yes, I already read Art's answers to you at your cesspool. Repeating them here, while pretending like they aren't answers, doesn't make you look rational, reasonable, or adult.
My "theory" about what you mean by a "welcoming god" is as follows. You seem to believe that a "welcoming god" is "A God who came very specifically to welcome and preach literal good news to the literally poor and marginalized.". Is my "theory" somehow mistaken?
One example of you "fashioning a god in your own image" your insistence that YHWH "blesses gay marriage". Another is your insistence that Jesus came either primarily or exclusively to "preach literal good news to the literally poor and marginalized". (Don't even start with your bullshit. I am aware of your one pet proof text. I'm not even suggesting that the "poor and marginalized" were not included in The Gospel that Jesus preached. So don't waste any time trying rehashing your out of context, proof text, based hunch.) Especially when you hunch about the "good news" seems to exclude things like repentance, and a spiritual dimension.
It's your job to make a strong case for the hunches you believe. It's not my job to do anything. I've made various arguments against your narrow hunch about Jesus' purpose, which you've never addressed let alone refuted, that you haven't done so isn't my problem.
"IF a mortal reads the Bible, prays for understanding and reaches some conclusions about God, THEN they are fashioning God in their own image?"
If those conclusions are not directly supported by Scripture or contradict Scripture, then yes.
"If so, isn't that precisely what you all do?"
If I do so, I do so unintentionally. If someone can show me where I have imposed my preconceptions or worldview on Scripture, I am grateful for that and will reconsider my conclusion and modify it of appropriate.
When you said "ignore", you must have meant answer.
Dan's game is simple (to be expected from the simple minded person he is). He asks questions of the kind presented here and at his Blog of Lies and Perversions, as if they reflect his positions and beliefs. To any extent they might is incredibly superficial. I already know what he means by "a welcoming God" and don't need to go through any process to get to it. After 17 years or more of his crap, that superfluous and redundant. To cut through this dishonest crap is simply efficient, since eventually he'll fail spectacularly to defend his heresies while hiding behind his "I might be mistaken" crap, which is impossible after 17 years of being schooled. He does it all to protect his heresies, such as his devotion to sexual perversions and his willful enabling of it, and his defense and support of infanticide, not to mention his selective "grace embracing" as he constantly attacks his president while defending truly perverted people.
As to his default "good news to the 'literal' poor and marginalized", he's been schooled on this as well and I even again offered him a link to a comprehensive analysis of what "poor" means in the context of the passage in question. Confident he hasn't read it, and certainly hasn't offered any equally scholarly counter to it, he continues to pretend his socialist bent is somehow a reflection of Christ, as if Christ's purpose was to relieve poverty, which He never did throughout His earthly ministry.
So Dan's questions to me were absolutely answered directly, because my answers take into account what is well known about Dan and cuts to the chase. His questions always lead to his cherished heresies while never backing them up with solid Scriptural evidence. I know where he's going every time and he never fails push the same debunked nonsense.
There's nothing Christ ever did or preached which one can use to rationalize imagining Him draped in the flag of the perverts. It takes creating Him in Dan's own image to do so, and that's blasphemy. His routine rote citation of what being a Christian means is a lie when he so constantly defends what is so clearly antithetical to Christian teaching.
Finally, Dan can't point to one thing about my positions (or Craig's) which suggests wrong or incorrect conclusions about Scripture. Perhaps an actual theologian who isn't a homosexuality loving, abortion embracing "progressive" can, but Dan hasn't. Ever. Not even come close.
Yes, Dan does a good job of "asking questions" based on unproven premises and intended to elicit only the answer he wants. Of course he gets mad when we answer in ways other than his intended response.
Of course we know what "welcoming god" means to Dan, it's not rocket science. Hell, it not even bottle rocket science. That he chooses to ignore the fact that I addressed his "welcoming god" bullshit and pretends that I haven't is simply more straw man crap.
He's obsessed with this concept that his gospel is only/primarily for the literally, materially poor (which excludes him) and the politically oppressed (oppression that somehow excludes the victims of the single most oppressive force on earth right now). He's so obsessed with his gospel that he stays silent while thousands of Christians are killed for their faith. That he bases his hunch on one out of context passage, and ignores or dismisses all evidence to the contrary, is why we don't uncritically accept his gospel.
"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
"You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
"The name Jesus, announced to Joseph and Mary through the angels (Matthew 1:21; Luke 1:31), means “Yahweh saves” or “Yahweh is salvation.”"
"Emmanuel means “God with us” and is a name for Jesus."
I've gone into more detail elsewhere, but the earliest mention of Jesus mission, and His very name, reference salvation from sin. Not saving people from poverty and oppression.
Dan dooesn't know what to do with a direct answer. I regularly answer his yes/no questions with yes or no, and he claims that I don't answer. I have post upon post of me literally giving 1:1 answers to his questions, along with hundreds of comments where I literally quote his question, followed directly by an answer. At this point, it's just his shtick. He can't really believe his own bullshit because there's too much evidence to the contrary, and he can't acknowledge that this is one more example of him demanding from others what he won't demand from himself.
Obviously Dan can't point to anything specific in his claims about YHWH and gays, because there is nothing to point to that is specifically on the topic. He can cherry pick, eisegete, infer, and bullshit, but can't be specific.
Look, I freely admit that I can be wrong about scriptural interpretation. One of the benefits of Christian history and scholarship is that we have records of these sorts of disagreements. The difference between us and Dan is that Dan points to himself, where we point to Scripture.
Dan can't or won't point to one specific bit of evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures, Christian Scriptures, the writings of the early Church, or the Quran that back up his central claim about homosexuality. Because the evidence doesn't exist.
Craig (and Marshal said the same vague, unsupported nothing):
Of course we know what "welcoming god" means to Dan
What welcoming God means to Dan:
1. A God who is Welcoming. (Truly boys, I'm just NOT that complicated of a guy. When I say that God is grace-full, forgiving, welcoming, I just mean what those words commonly mean).
Do you think someone affirming the notion of an actually welcoming God is "blasphemous..."? Because, frankly, that seems exceedingly strange and, even more frankly, exceedingly grace-less. More on blasphemy in a minute.
2. That when Jesus says that God so loved the world that God wasn't willing that ANY should perish, then I think it means just what he said... that God is welcoming to all and it's not GOD'S desire that anyone person should perish because God so loves humanity. Period. Just what I'm saying, which is just what Jesus said. That's what I mean.
Do you think that someone who's reading the Bible and taking texts like this fairly literally and reaching that conclusion in good faith is somehow "blasphemous..."? Because, seriously??
3. I further note the reality that Jesus repeatedly said things about the Gospel and the literal poor, that he'd come to preach the good news of welcome and inclusion to the poor and marginalized, and not just in that one passage where he's just citing what Isaiah also affirmed... I note the reality that this is a constant theme in Jesus' teachings of being welcoming to all.
Do you think someone who reads such passages and takes them as a fairly literal reflection of God's will is somehow committing "blasphemy..."?
I mean... ??
More on blasphemy in a minute...
"I believe in a God of Grace and Love, one who, of course, welcomes and loves all of us, even Marshal. Do you consider that blasphemous?"
As Dan thinks that asking the same question over and over again will magically conjure up the answer he wants, here's his latest iteration.
The problem I see with the question as formulated is how Dan intends the words "God, Grace, Love, and welcomes" to be interpreted. I'll note that Dan randomly capitalizes words like Grace and Love as if that somehow, magically turns them into something else.
I know the answer to my question already. Dan will spew some blathering, equivocal, word salad that doesn't really mean anything and pretend that he's some fount of divine knowledge.
If this god's love doesn't align with ("14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[g] 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.") then it seems like a problem.
"36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."
Dan has one cherry picked series of verses, which directly quote an OT prophecy (which Dan likely has problems with), and magically gives his cherry picked proof text preeminence over the rest of the testimony of the Gospel writers about Jesus' mission.
(continued)
(continuation)
This is what can happen when you divorce the OT (myth and revenge fantasies) from the NT, you lose critical context which Jesus and His (Jewish) followers would have been steeped in. For example, would not the people who heard Him read a passage from Isiah 61 not have taken that passage in the context of the entire prophecy contained in the span of 10-12 chapters which appear to be one continuous prophecy?
Would that not have understood that "Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God: your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear. For your hands are stained with blood, your fingers with guilt, Your lips have spoken falsely, and your tongue mutters wicked things." is directly related to the section Jesus read? Would they not have understood the context in light of YHWH's promises of riches and glory in chapter 60? Would they not have understood that the reason why Jesus was sent to do those things was to "for the display of his(YHWH's) splendor.?
Less than 10 verses after Dan's proof text, we see ("I delight greatly in the Lord; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness,
as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. For as the soil makes the sprout come up and a garden causes seeds to grow, so the Sovereign Lord will make righteousness and praise spring up before all nations.") more language of salvation, righteousness and the sovereignty of YHWH.
How could observant Jews in the 1st century possibly have taken parts of two verses (obviously they didn't have chapter/verse breaks) out of the larger context and applied a woodenly literal interpretation about only/primarily material poverty and governmental oppression to that out of context snippet.
Chapter 62 speaks of the glorification of ZIon, while 63 speaks of YHWH's vengeance of redemption. 65 speaks of Judgement and salvation. Surely we can't ignore the context, can we?
How is it possible to conjure up an interpretation where one takes parts of 2 verses out of a much larger context and assign only those 2 verses a woodenly literal meaning while not treating the entire discourse in the same way?
Now we're into questions that Dan will likely not answer. Or at least not answer in a satisfactory manner.
From the BibleTools page...
Blasphemy
from 989; vilification (especially against God):
--blasphemy, evil speaking, railing.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
́blasphēmia
1) slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another' s good name
2) impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty
That's what the biblical writers were speaking of when they invoked the notion of blasphemy.
Now, given that: Do you gentlemen truly think that old Dan, who loves God and loves the Bible and wants to be a follower of Jesus, Dan's Lord and Savior... that when old Dan reads texts such as the ones I've mentioned and genuinely believes that the best understanding - the most rational, moral, biblical understanding of God and God's grace is that
* God loves and wants to welcome ALL people, as multiple texts say and as just makes sense if one believes in the notion of a perfectly loving God;
Do you think that a person reading the Bible and reaching that conclusion is somehow SPEAKING EVIL of God???! Is SLANDERING GOD??
Isn't it more reasonable to say (if one wishes to invoke notions of blasphemy) that those who say God does NOT love everyone... that God is NOT welcoming to all, that God IS willing that many perish and are in torment forever... indeed, that MOST of humanity, God is willing for them to suffer for eternity... that THAT notion does seem, right on the face of it and obviously, to be speaking evil of God? Is slandering God? IF ANYONE is blaspheming, wouldn't it be those who speak evil of God that way?
And regardless, if Dan is actually mistaken (instead of the more likely case that Craig and Marshal are mistaken), that Dan STILL is not speaking evil of God in any way, right? How can you possibly make that rationally valid or anything but insane?
Do you TRULY think that saying "God is welcoming and loving" is speaking ILL of God?
What a bizarre comment. Dan merely regurgitates what we've said as if we hadn't said what we'd said.
1. I've already answered this, but because we're supposed to be kind to the weaker among us, I'll do so again. Clearly there is a sense in which YHWH is "welcoming", yet that "welcoming" comes with limits. My problem is not with YHWH's actual nature, but with Dan's unproven hunches about His nature.
2. This is interesting. The paraphrasing here leaves me with questions.
A) If YHWH "wasn't willing that ANY should perish", are you suggesting than no one actually perishes?
B) What exactly does perishing entail?
C) If some people do "perish" than how is it possible that YHWH's will is thwarted?
"Do you think that someone who's reading the Bible and taking texts like this fairly literally and reaching that conclusion in good faith is somehow "blasphemous..."? Because, seriously??"
I'm not sure how paraphrasing snippets of text, out of context, is actually "taking the texts fairly literally". As you just acknowledged that you only take them "fairly literally", please be specific about what parts you take literally and what parts you only take "fairly literally". Please explain how you conjure up degrees of literal? To directly answer your question- yes I am convinced that your hunches about the topic at least flirt with blasphemy, if not cross the line.
3. So, in Matt 25, was Jesus "welcoming all"? In your out of context, proof texting of Matt 23, was Jesus "welcoming all"? I've addressed the context of the Isiah prophecy and asked you questions, so I (unlike you) won't repeat myself.
Of course, Dan then repeats himself once again.
Craig said:
This is what can happen when you divorce the OT (myth and revenge fantasies) from the NT, you lose critical context which Jesus and His (Jewish) followers would have been steeped in. For example, would not the people who heard Him read a passage from Isiah 61 not have taken that passage in the context of the entire prophecy
Indeed, that is PRECISELY what I've been saying to you all for years, now. It is vitally important to read the Bible and...
1. Interpret all the Bible through the words and teachings of Jesus, who is our clearest representation of God and God's Way;
2. Interpret all the Bible through the context of all the bible, including the OT, where there was NO mention of things like PSA and no serious treatment of hell nor much talk of heaven;
3. Recognize that Jesus was a Jewish man of his time, not a modern evangelical;
For starters.
And so, looking at Isaiah...
Who is Isaiah writing to?
Much of the book of Isaiah is a prophetic warning to a wayward people. The Kingdom of Judah was devolving into idolatry and social injustice.
In chapter 1, God opens with “your sins are like scarlet… red like crimson” because Israel had not ceased doing evil nor sought justice for the orphan and the widow. The leaders loved bribes and hung out with thieves. Later, God indicted them for fasting from food but oppressing their workers, thereby negating their act of worship (Isa 58:3)...
It speaks of a world to come, the messianic age where even wolves and lambs sit together in peace (Isa 11:6, 65:26) the lion with a fatted calf “and a little child shall lead them.”
The ancient places of Israel and Jerusalem will be rebuilt, the poor will be cared for, the brokenhearted will be comforted, and the prisoner will be freed...
When God judges the nations in the prophets, especially Ezekiel, it is so that they will know the name of the LORD. Not a vengeful way like you might see in a shoot-em-up film. God lets Israel and all the nations of the earth suffer the consequences of their sin so that they will cry out to him for mercy. God’s character is always to have mercy. As Paul reminds us, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
How does God do that? Through Jesus’ ministry plan:
Proclaim the good news of the LORD to the poor
Bind up the brokenhearted
Proclaim liberty to exiles and displaced persons
Open the prison to those who are bound
Proclaim the LORD’s justice, mercy, and favor...
https://www.cmj-usa.org/the-gospel-according-to-isaiah
And on it goes. Good reading. And just as a note: This appears to be a pretty traditional-sounding source... they're just rightly noting the context of Isaiah and the OT as it relates to Jesus' own words about how he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized.
Indeed, we MUST keep in mind the context of all the OT, where God over and over again identifies God's Self as on the side of the poor, the oppressed, the mistreated... the marginalized AND God stands against the oppressors, the rich and powerful, the abusers of the poor and marginalized.
PLEASE, Lord, almighty! PLEASE read Jesus' words with an eye towards Jesus' Jewish traditions and upbringing and context.
Now Dan enters the pedantic, semantic, portion of his obfuscation.
"Do you think that a person reading the Bible and reaching that conclusion is somehow SPEAKING EVIL of God???! Is SLANDERING GOD??"
Not always. I would say that to misrepresent what YHWH speaks through the entirety of Scripture based on some out of context proof texts, making claims about YHWH which scripture doesn't support, and attributing what your Reason tells you to YHWH is pretty close.
"Isn't it more reasonable to say..."
If one chooses to value one's own imperfect, subjective, selective, and fallible Reason as one's final arbiter, it might be. As you haven't demonstrated that we should value your Reason as highly as you do, you have a problem extrapolating any of your hunches beyond yourself.
"...that those who say God does NOT love everyone... "
Where have Art or I said this? (Quote and link mandatory. If you are going to make these Kinds of claims/inferences, you need to prove them or retract them)
"...that God is NOT welcoming to all, that God IS willing that many perish and are in torment forever... indeed, that MOST of humanity, God is willing for them to suffer for eternity... "
Unfortunately, that particular line of thinking runs through Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. It's just taking Scripture literally.
"...that THAT notion does seem,..."
The problem is that while it might "seem" that way to you individually, you and your "seem" don't dictate reality. I could care less how things "seem" to you. It's just one more instance of you thinking that you can impose your subjective hunches on others.
"...right on the face of it and obviously, to be speaking evil of God?"
I'm not sure that quoting Scripture is "speaking evil of God", that's your unproven hunch, not reality.
"Is slandering God?"
I wouldn't say that Scripture could possibly slander YHWH.
" IF ANYONE is blaspheming, wouldn't it be those who speak evil of God that way?"
No one is "speaking evil of God" by quoting Scripture.
"And regardless, if Dan is actually mistaken (instead of the more likely case that Craig and Marshal are mistaken), that Dan STILL is not speaking evil of God in any way, right?"
By all means prove your claim that we are mistaken.
I'd argue that putting your words in YHWH's mouth could be construed as problematic at best.
"How can you possibly make that rationally valid or anything but insane?"
Because your subjective hunches about rationality or sanity, are not the standard I measure myself by. But your hubris and pride are impressive.
"Do you TRULY think that saying "God is welcoming and loving" is speaking ILL of God?"
If the meaning you impose on "welcoming and loving" is contrary to Scripture, then sure.
Back to the "blasphemy" conspiracy theory you all have against people like me, when I say things like...
how he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized.
And when I note how Jesus REPEATEDLY says things like this (and NOT just the one time at the beginning of his ministry where he says why he's come, contrary to your false claims), I'm taking Jesus' words there pretty literally, because contextually and rationally, that makes sense. It's of one cloth, as they say, with the rest of Jesus' teachings.
So, when I read and take such things in good faith pretty literally (being the clear words of Jesus, backed up by other words of Jesus, backed up by the prophets and other OT writers, backed up by James and other apostles...), is it your theory that humans who disagree with your preferred theories (maybe that Jesus was NOT literally speaking of the literally poor as he literally said)... that disagreeing with YOUR OPINIONS is what makes it blasphemous?
Or are you saying that you are SO CERTAIN of your personal human opinions on the interpretation of such texts, that you can't be mistaken and your opinion = God's opinion?
And in either case, WTF? Do you see how blasphemous that sounds? How grace-less that sounds?
More questions to go unanswered.
"Indeed, that is PRECISELY what I've been saying to you all for years, now. It is vitally important to read the Bible and..."
Well, I guess you can just make shit up if you want.
1. You continually make this claim as if it objective Truth and as if it isn't Jesus speaking throughout the Hebrew Scripture and as if Jesus doesn't regularly refer to and affirm the Hebrew Scriptures.
2. This is just gobbledygook.
3. Nor was he a modern progressive christian. He was a 1st century Jew who was steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures and regularly referred to and affirmed them.
As far as the rest of your self justifying bullshit, it's not worth my time. If you're not going to answer the specific questions asked, stop the bullshit filibustering.
I see no reason to dignify your unproven hunches with my time or effort. If you are not going to engage with what I've already written, answer the specific and direct questions I've asked, don't waste my time, and stop with the "answering questions" bullshit.
Not only do I read Jesus words, and all of Scripture with an eye toward the context, I also read the OT keeping in mind that the words attributed to YHWH are the words of Jesus.
Instead of responding to more of your self justification and straw men, I'll simply note that you haven't answered the questions asked, nor dealt with my responses to your bullshit. I see no reason to dignify the crap you make up and attribute to Art and I with my time or effort.
As you choose to ignore the fact that I've answered your questions throughout this thread, I'm done answering your bullshit questions for a while. If you refuse to answer mine, you have no grounds to bitch that I'm taking a pass on yours until you learn to act like the adult you claim to be. Your unwillingness to hold yourself to the standards you demand of others is your choice, just don't expect me to respect that choice.
One last thought on context. The context of this post and Art's comments is your choice to pretend that Jesus would take the symbol of the rainbow and the covenant between YHWH and Noah and demean it by associating it with a movement which is hardly one that honors YHWH. To pretend that Jesus (a first century observant Jew and the Son of YHWH) would support the alphabet soup movement in it's entirety could absolutely be described as blasphemy.
Craig:
I would say that to misrepresent what YHWH speaks through the entirety of Scripture based on some out of context proof texts, making claims about YHWH which scripture doesn't support, and attributing what your Reason tells you to YHWH is pretty close.
But I'm NOT in any way deliberately misrepresenting what God says or what the texts say. I'm literally disagreeing with YOUR PERSONAL REASONING you've used to reach YOUR PERSONAL human opinions. Just like you presumably are doing with me.
BOTH of us are using our human reasoning to sort out how best to understand these texts in general and God, more broadly. Right?
Now, could either or both of us be mistaken in our understandings? Of course. We are fallible human beings with imperfect understandings.
Do you disagree?
THEN, the question becomes, is it blasphemy when humans (Craig, Dan, others) in good faith reach conclusions about God based on the whole testimony of Scripture, the universe and the known world that, perhaps, turn out to be mistaken?
THAT is a reasonable question. By your apparent human reasoning and personal human opinions, YOUR SALVATION DEPENDS on you "getting it right..." and that's a helluva lot of loveless, graceless, works-based opinionating. How am I mistaken?
HOW is simply being mistaken and affirming "I believe God is a good, loving God who welcomes all and loves all and is not willing that any should perish..." speaking evil of God??
That, too, is a reasonable question.
Craig theorized, WITH NO SUPPORT, just his little gut hunch based on HIS human reasoning, vapid and graceless and irrational as it may be...
To pretend that Jesus (a first century observant Jew and the Son of YHWH) would support the alphabet soup movement in it's entirety could absolutely be described as blasphemy.
1. Bullshit. That is, this is a bullshit opinion offered with NO support and with no grace or reason or well-considered insight.
2. I GET that this is your opinion, but not everyone agrees with your opinion.
Do you think we must affirm YOUR personal little human opinion in order to be saved and in order to not be accidentally "blaspheming" God by saying something as "evil" as, "I affirm that I believe that God is a welcoming God, welcoming all of humanity, his sons and daughters that God loves..."?
You're missing the point and strengthening my point in your graceless human theories.
Dan:
" IF ANYONE is blaspheming, wouldn't it be those who speak evil of God that way?"
Craig:
No one is "speaking evil of God" by quoting Scripture.
! You don't see it, do you?
I'm saying that when Jesus said he'd come to preach the good news to the poor and marginalized, I'm LITERALLY quoting Scripture. When I say that I think a welcoming God is one who loves the whole world and is not willing that ANY should perish, I'm literally quoting Scripture.
And yet, you're calling me taking Jesus fairly literally "blasphemous."
Which is it?
Also, OF COURSE, people can quote scripture and promote some hateful, harmful, evil policy/action/attitude. Slavers quoted Scripture. Rapists quote Scripture. Oppressors quote Scripture.
Quoting Scripture is NOT evidence of "no blasphemy..." Right?
I said:
"Do you TRULY think that saying "God is welcoming and loving" is speaking ILL of God?"
Craig responded...
If the meaning you impose on "welcoming and loving" is contrary to Scripture, then sure.
As I've been clear: When I say God is welcoming and loving, what I mean by that is that God welcomes all loves all, and that God is not willing that any should perish.
Is that blasphemous?
Again, make it make sense GIVEN THE LITERAL MEANING of Blasphemy.
In reality, calling God a loving and welcoming God is simply NOT in any rational evaluation speaking "evil" of God or slandering God.
You personally might hold a human theory reached by your human reasoning that God is NOT loving and/or NOT welcoming, but even so, it remains that holding that God is loving and welcoming is simply not an evil thing to say.
Where specifically am I mistaken?
Craig offered a lot of rambling, I-don't-know-what, saying:
Less than 10 verses after Dan's proof text, we see ("I delight greatly in the Lord; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness,
as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. For as the soil makes the sprout come up and a garden causes seeds to grow, so the Sovereign Lord will make righteousness and praise spring up before all nations.") more language of salvation, righteousness and the sovereignty of YHWH.
How could observant Jews in the 1st century possibly have taken parts of two verses (obviously they didn't have chapter/verse breaks) out of the larger context and applied a woodenly literal interpretation about only/primarily material poverty and governmental oppression to that out of context snippet.
Then asked...
Chapter 62 speaks of the glorification of ZIon, while 63 speaks of YHWH's vengeance of redemption. 65 speaks of Judgement and salvation. Surely we can't ignore the context, can we?
How is it possible to conjure up an interpretation where one takes parts of 2 verses out of a much larger context and assign only those 2 verses a woodenly literal meaning while not treating the entire discourse in the same way?
I don't know what your questions are about. What is your theory of "an interpretation" where, you theorize "2 verses" have been taken "out of context..." etc? This is a very convoluted and unclear set of sentences. I'm glad to answer whatever you think your questions are, but only if you're more clear.
Are you okay?
And as usual, Dan goes to great lengths to rationalize his blasphemous imagery of Christ wrapped in a pervert flag by not speaking specifically to it...the actual provocation of my accusing him of blasphemy. No. He instead bleats on about this vague "welcoming god" business when the issue was his pretentious crap about a fairy flag for a cape.
So for all of his boring crapola, it remains the case that implying Christ would be OK with pride in perversion is beyond all doubt and argument, ABJECT BLASPHEMY! And in trying to double down with his typical evasion and obfuscation, he further blasphemes by referencing actual Scriptural record of God's wrath and judgement as "evil". As you say, to cite Scripture is to suggest God is evil. How is that not blasphemy? Until Dan can prove Scripture is wrong or not speaking truthfully in its depictions and descriptions of God's words, commands and behaviors, he is indeed blaspheming because he's asserting the God of Scripture isn't God at all simply because Dan doesn't like all of what Scripture relates God as having done.
To take it a step further, Dan does his usual thing of omitting that which he doesn't like and focuses only on that which has for him personal appeal, in the same way he ignores the shortcomings of people he likes, while only listing their deeds he likes, while doing just the opposite regarding people he hates.
It's clear that Dan is in full obfuscation mode at this point. He's not defended his original imagery, nor has he addressed anything either of us have written in response. He's simply reverted to being pedantic, semantic bitching, and repeating himself. In other words, nothing new of of value.
That you need to add the qualifier to "misrepresenting" speaks volumes.
...right?"
Wrong.
"Do you disagree?"
In theory, I agree that there is a chance that either of us could be wrong.
"...turn out to be mistaken?"
That's not "the question", it is merely a question. I would suggest that, given the Scriptural record, that YHWH isn't as accepting of "mistakes" as you seem to think. Where I have a problem with your "mistake" excuse is that I'm not sure that a "mistake" remains a "mistake" after the "mistake" has been pointed out. If one persists in a "mistake" and attempts to justify the "mistake", then that seems problematic.
"How am I mistaken?"
When you (intentionally) repeat things you've made up, and attribute those made up things to us, that is at best a "mistake".
"...speaking evil of God??"
If that was the extent of what you were doing, you might have a point.
This is the first of several comments since my extensive commenting/response/answering questions from yesterday. I'll simply not that, so far, Dan has not responded to anything specific that I said nor has he answered any of my questions. I've answered all of his in this comment.
1. It is bullshit. The 21st century alphabet soup movement didn't exist in 1st century Israel. The 21st century alphabet soup movement is a movement that encompasses an incredibly broad range of behaviors. To suggest that Jesus would wholeheartedly support every behavior withing this broad movement is insane.
2. So?
No, I don't think that anyone should affirm your distorted, straw man version of what you claim I believe. Unlike you, I don't demand that my beliefs be accepted as reality.
Of course, the reality is that the likelihood of Jesus taking the symbol He used to signify His covenant with Noah, and cheapening it in support of a 21st century political and social movement is tiny.
You're missing the fact that I've dealt with this bullshit already, and that you're two comment in without responding to that or answering any questions.
"You don't see it, do you?"
No, I see it. I absolutely see how you "quote" the cherry picked snippets of scripture that affirm your preconceptions, and don't bother with the rest. I'm pointing out that taking Jesus out of context, and intentionally limiting The Gospel He taught (and that was passed on directly to the Apostles), to make it a gospel of economic and political "salvation" could well be blasphemy.
I addressed this earlier, and you ignored it, but how exactly is "literally" a scale? What precisely is "fairly literally"? Is that where you cherry pick the parts that fit your preconceptions and take them in a woodenly literal manner, while writing the rest off a "figurative"? How does that work, exactly? How do you take two verses of a multi chapter prophecy in Isiah in a woodenly literal manner, and not the entire prophecy?
Still no engagement with any of my substantive points from above, and no answers to my questions.
"Is that blasphemous?"
If it's taken out of context and used as a pretext to suggest a gospel that denies sin, repentance, and redemption, absolutely. If it's used to encourage sinners to believe that YHWH welcomes their sin, absolutely. If it's used to paint an incomplete or false picture of YHWH, absolutely.
As you might remember, Satan misused Scripture by taking out of context when he tempted Jesus. Jesus rightly used Scripture to respond to the misuse of Scripture. Bragging about taking snippets of scripture out of context, and limiting The Gospel message of Jesus to exclude people based on your hunches seems pretty blasphemous.
"Where specifically am I mistaken?"
You are mistaken when you take snippets of Jesus' teaching out of context, to use as a proof text, to push a pretext and limit The Gospel Jesus and His disciples actually taught.
4 out of 5, not substantive engagement with anything I've said to counter your bullshit, and no answers from you. Meanwhile, I've answered all of the questions in the last 4 comments regardless of their repetitiveness or stupidity.
Dan finally gets around to a question or two and then only offers excuses for not answering.
If you "don't know" what those specific "questions are about", try answering any of the rest first.
It's not unclear at all. You have decided to take Jesus' use of 2 verses of a chapters long prophecy in a woodenly literal fashion, and should explain why the rest of the prophecy shouldn't be taken in the same woodenly literal fashion.
When Jesus read that portion of Isiah, He was validating pointing out that the messianic prophecy from Isiah was fulfilled in Him.
This is one example of your tendency of taking one snippet of a larger narrative, interpreting it in a woodenly literal manner, then pretending that the remaining context is "figurative" with no reason to do so.
I admire your creative excuses for not answering questions, as usual. You regularly brag about how proud you are of your Reason, and intelligence, try using them.
5 comments, and not one answer to one question, and not one engagement with any of my answers to your questions, or any of the points I've made.
This is Dan in steamroller mode. He's simply going to repeat his talking points, regurgitate his straw men, and nothing else.
Dan: "You absolutely MUST answer every question I ask, even when I repeat them multiple times. If you don't answer every one of them I'll whine and claim that you never answer any of them. Because adults answer every question, every time it's asked."
Craig: "Ok, I'll answer all of the questions you ask in this thread, even the repetitive ones. Because if I do, then Dan will be an adult and live up to the standards he demands of others."
Dan: "Not only will I not acknowledge that reality that Craig answered all of my questions in this thread, I will make excuses to not answer a single question Craig asked. Because that's how adults operate."
Because Dan is sometimes not very bright, I need to acknowledge that the above are not actual quotes but paraphrases and exaggerations intended for a comic/sarcastic effect.
This constant posing of the question about the possibility of being mistaken is typical Dan evasion. Who cares what's possible in that regard? Get to proving I am mistaken and do it in a way which prevents any further contrary argument on my part. To put a period after "welcoming God" is a lie, as it ignores the limitations of God's welcome. Jesus wasn't ambiguous in saying that no one comes to the Father but through Him. Thus, those who do not accept Jesus are not welcome by the Father. How can it be interpreted any other way and when will Dan even try to explain it? No. He evades with his constant question about "possibly" being wrong. But until he can show how I possibly might be, I'm not wrong at all. It's not pride or presumption to present Christ's own words and then accept His words as fact. It's what honest people do.
Dan's point is as perverted as he is. It's not a "belief" that Jesus would not act in a manner suggesting acceptance or tolerance or enabling of homosexuality. It's a statement of fact. He, being God Himself, called it "abomination" and/or "detestable". The only way Jesus/God will accept perverts like Dan and those he enables and celebrates as "good Christians" despite indulging in abomination, is by repenting of this evil and living as God expects them to live. There's no "I could be mistaken about men having sex with men", since it was unequivocally forbidden without caveat. The "gracelessness" is in pretending one can be so blatantly in rebellion and still be welcomed by God into His Eternal Presence.
Art,
Based on the evidence we have, it seems safe to say that Jesus would have shown His love to the 1st century equivalent of the ABC folx, by responding as He did with pretty much everyone else He encountered. He'd invite them into a life of taking up their cross and following Him. He'd likely have been polite, but not accepting as 21st century progressives define it. He wasn't accepting of many people during His ministry, why would that change now. He didn't accept those who only followed Him for free food, He didn't accept the Rich Young Ruler, or others without some change on their part. The point that Dan misses is that YHWH is the only one who can set the standard for acceptance. I see a difference between showing acceptance by dining with sinners, and inviting unrepentant sinners to be heirs to the Kingdom of YHWH. Love doesn't accept of ignore sin, love calls for repentance.
Of course it is. But it's more than that, I believe. It allows Dan to pretend that being wrong about something is no big deal as long as it's a mistake. If a "mistake" is pointed out, but persisted in, is it still a "mistake"?
But you are correct in noting that his framing it as a hypothetical saves him from having to prove anything. It's his way of communicating that we're "mistaken" without having to prove it to be True.
Excellent point. Jesus did speak of "wanting" all to be saved, yet He also (as you note) made it clear that there was only one path to salvation. The problem with reliance on the "wants all" scriptures is that it is clear elsewhere that not "all" are actually saved or accepted. So, either YHWH is incapable of accomplishing what He wants because His creation holds the ultimate power, or there is more to the story. Dan's favorite story about the sheep and goats makes it clear that YHWH does not simply "accept" everyone.
Dan desperately wants to be right. He clearly wants to be right and for others to be wrong. He also wants his Reason to be his guide to what's right. Which leaves him in a pickle. He can't/won't offer anything beyond his Reason or belief to prove himself right, and he won't accept anything that might demonstrate that he's not right. He needs the "mistaken" BS to hide behind, because as long as he's "mistaken" he thinks he's safe. He needs the ambiguity and thrives there, because to actually take an unambiguous stand means that he might be proven wrong.
It is statistically unlikely that he's been right and we've been wrong about every single topic we've discussed over the years. The fact that he's never (to my recollection) simply acknowledged the he was wrong and we were right about something simply seems highly unlikely statistically. So, he instead plays the "mistaken or we both could be wrong" game to preserve the illusion.
You, Stan, Bubba, and others have pointed out areas where I've been wrong and I've accepted that, and vice versa. I can't recall Dan ever doing so.
I know I'm opening up a can of worms here, but it's my blog and I can do what I want.
Dan's example, upon which his entire post hinges, is one incident which is very likely something that was added later and which is not accurate. Let's leave aside that building one's worldview on such a flimsy foundation is a bad choice. Let's leave aside that claiming "Jesus said or did" based on a story which is likely to have not happened, is an even worse idea.
Let's instead, look at where in the world (in 2025) women are being stoned for adultery, where blasphemy carries a death sentence, or where following Christ is a death sentence. Let's compare the amount of time Dan spends bitching about what some people did more than 2000 years ago, and how much time he spends writing about the same sorts of "abuses" happening in 2025.
It's easier to speculate about what people did wrong thousands of years ago, than to go after the same sort of behavior in the present.
One last thought on Dan's proof text. Jesus isn't recorded as saying that those who accused the woman were wrong to do so. The law she broke was YHWH's law, not a later addition. Jesus isn't even recorded as preventing them from pursuing the punishment. He is recorded as putting a condition on their finishing the job. What is the point He's purportedly making? Perhaps that He was the only one in that assembly who had the standing to judge and punish sin? Why did the Jewish leaders obey Him? Was it because they intuitively respected His authority? Why did they not assert their own authority (which Jesus affirmed elsewhere) and continue?
It's a strange leap to go from a vignette that may or may not have happened, to Jesus would affirm every single person and action that the "pride flag" represents in 2025. Especially skipping over the "Go and sin no more" part of the vignette.
Dan's doing it again. He ignores the original charge against him...the image of Christ wearing a fag flag...to cite generic concepts in isolation...that is, as if the generic phrases are emblematic of his entire heretical perception of God's teachings as revealed in Scripture. And this:
"If it's taken out of context and used as a pretext to suggest a gospel that denies sin, repentance, and redemption, absolutely. If it's used to encourage sinners to believe that YHWH welcomes their sin, absolutely. If it's used to paint an incomplete or false picture of YHWH, absolutely."
...is a solid and accurate summation of Dan's theology based on 17 years or more of collected heretical comments
Craig theorized...
If it's taken out of context and used as a pretext to suggest a gospel that denies sin, repentance, and redemption, absolutely. If it's used to encourage sinners to believe that YHWH welcomes their sin, absolutely. If it's used to paint an incomplete or false picture of YHWH, absolutely.
1. Perhaps. But in my case, that is absolutely NOT what I've done.
2. At the worst, I've disagreed with you about what YOU personally think the context is, based on your human reasoning that caused you personally to reach that opinion. But it's not MY opinion or one I share with you. At all.
3. So, to answer the ACTUAL question without these other questions that are NOT part of the equation (ie, "is Dan choosing to take this out of context and choosing to use it as a pretext, blah blah blah..."?) do you think daring to disagree with YOUR PERSONAL human opinions on how to understand the texts in question and believing, apparently differently than you, that God IS welcoming of all and welcoming specifically to the poor and marginalized, you know, as he literally said... is THAT somehow speaking evil of God?
Please answer the questions that are actually being asked without adding non-reality-based hunches and additional questions.
4. Asking it another way (given your poor hunches and false conclusions): Do you think that speaking highly of God as welcoming and loving in a way that may disagree with YOUR PERSONAL human opinions and interpretations based upon YOUR PERSONAL way of reading the text reached using YOUR PERSONAL human reasoning... do you think that is somehow "speaking evil" of God?
Because, surely you can agree, rational people would not reach such a wild, contra-factual conclusion, right?
Craig...
As you might remember, Satan misused Scripture by taking out of context when he tempted Jesus.
Let me ask it this way: IF and when you find out that you've been WRONG in how you've been using your handful of cherry-picked, out of context passages as a pretext to say that God is opposed to homosexuality or gay folks marrying... or your presumptions about PSA, etc... IF it turns out you were wrong (even sincerely wrong) about those, were you speaking blasphemy about God all these years/decades? Were you speaking hateful words about God, IF it turns out you were mistaken?
If so, do you deserve to be punished for an eternity for your blasphemy?
One question that Craig asked that I can find:
It allows Dan to pretend that being wrong about something is no big deal as long as it's a mistake. If a "mistake" is pointed out, but persisted in, is it still a "mistake"?
There is a presumption in this question that is faulty and erroneous. What you all have done, repeatedly, is explain why YOU DISAGREE PERSONALLY with my conclusions. I disagree with your personal human conclusions. That is, you did NOT point out my opinions are factually mistaken. You've pointed out why you personally think I'm wrong.
Do you understand the difference?
Or, is it possibly the case that you think you have objectively proven your personal human opinions are the same as God's Word in these cases? (Hint: You, of course, have not... these personal human theories and opinions you all have ARE your subjective and unproven opinions... opinions that I think are clearly irrational, at best, and approaching cruel and evil, at worst.
Of course he's doing what he does. Years of experience with Dan tells us that he doesn't change. He's quite good at pulling snippets of Scripture out of context, reading them in a woodenly literal way (even when he'll choose to to read the immediate context in the same way), and building a whole house of cards on top of his proof text.
Still looking for unanswered questions from you. In the meantime:
I absolutely see how you "quote" the cherry picked snippets of scripture that affirm your preconceptions, and don't bother with the rest. I'm pointing out that taking Jesus out of context, and intentionally limiting The Gospel He taught (and that was passed on directly to the Apostles), to make it a gospel of economic and political "salvation" could well be blasphemy.
1. It is stupidly false to claim that I have not dealt with "the rest..." Over the decades we've been chatting, I've pointed out repeatedly how I think MY conclusions are the more biblically AND rationally AND morally consistent. From Genesis to Revelation, God clearly shows God's preferential treatment for the poor (to borrow from the Catholics). On my blog, multiple times and ways, I have walked through the Gospels with Jesus to demonstrate how consistently Grace, the Beloved Community and starting with the poor and marginalized ARE THE GOSPEL that Jesus taught, and how your pet human theories of PSA are absent in any substantive way from the Gospels. AND I've pointed out how the OT and the Apostles epistles support my conclusions. It is just stupidly false to falsely suggest that I'm looking ONLY at one text or even a handful of texts. That's a bullshit claim that you can't begin to support. Given that reality, the gracious, Christ-ian thing to do would be to apologize for this false claim.
Do the right thing, son.
2. While YOU PERSONALLY may have used YOUR HUMAN REASONING to reach a conclusion that I'm taking Jesus out of context, I disagree with your personal hunches.
Is that okay with you or must I bow to your pharisaical wisdom/fiat?
3. Thus, at least as I read the Holy Word of God, I absolutely do NOT agree with your theory that I'm taking Jesus AT ALL out of context. It is MY position that I (and those who agree with me) are taking Jesus directly IN context and suggesting that the historical conservative traditions are getting it wrong by reading their opinions INTO Jesus' words.
Likewise, I personally am in NO way trying to "intentionally limit" the Gospel Jesus taught, as is evidenced by my repeated defenses of the Gospel of Jesus that I've done over the years, in contra-juxtaposition with your human traditions and theories.
That is, it is not MY intention to "limit" Jesus. I'm trying to read his teachings aright and faithfully. And in so doing, in that good faith effort to think that Jesus/God are a welcoming and loving God, HOW can you make rational support for suggesting it even MIGHT be, somehow, "blasphemous" or speaking evil of God?
Make that claim of yours make sense.
Can you at least see that for folks like me who TRULY believe that God is welcoming and loving to all, your claim/theory that God hates most of humanity (or how would you phrase it?) and is NOT willing that none should perish and that, indeed, God is willing that MOST should suffer eternal torture... can you see how to normal rational good faith people might consider THAT claim to be speaking evil of God?
1. Oh well, if you say so.
2. Again, if you say so. And disregard everyone else that I agree with.
3. What a bizarre point. You promise to answer a question, don't actually do what you promised, and then ask a stupid question. The problem with your idiotic construct and question, is that the whole thing is a straw man.
I've literally answered every fucking question you've asked you fucking moron, and now you bitch and demand that I answer them in a very specific way. Screw you.
4. Then you ask the same idiotic question again. I've addressed this idiocy in much more detail than you deserve. If you have specific problems with what I've specifically said in this thread on this topic, reference those specifically.
As you have provide no facts up to this point, I fail to see on what basis you'd make an outlandish claim about something being "counter-factual", especially as you've been vague about what the hell you're talking about.
I'll try this.
Please answer the questions.
Here's one question you asked, not sure if it's one of the ones you're speaking of. I had said (in context - which you then ripped FROM context... hint: THAT is not how to have a good understanding, dear brother):
Isn't it more reasonable to say... that
those who say God does NOT love everyone...
that God is NOT welcoming to all,
that God IS willing that many perish and are in torment forever...
indeed, that MOST of humanity,
God is willing for them to suffer for eternity...
that THAT notion does seem, right on the face of it and obviously, to be speaking evil of God? Is slandering God? IF ANYONE is blaspheming, wouldn't it be those who speak evil of God that way?
In response to PART of that full quote, you asked:
Where have Art or I said this?
Note my words, especially those in italics. I DID NOT SAY that you all are saying that, did I? Literally, no. I didn't. Because you all are not answering questions directly, it can be difficult to precisely say what you do and don't believe (frankly, especially you, Craig).
And at the same time, given the rest of your response, it appears that you DO affirm all parts of that point...
those who say God does NOT love everyone...
that God is NOT welcoming to all,
that God IS willing that many perish and are in torment forever...
indeed, that MOST of humanity,
God is willing for them to suffer for eternity...
It appears except for the first line, that IS precisely what your theory is, right?
So, by all means, make yourself clear: DO YOU THINK that God loves all of humanity?
Craig?
Marshal?
Do you think that, for most of humanity, it is God's will that they go to hell?
Two separate but reasonable questions.
And to answer your question: I did NOT say that you believe that, did I? No. I didn't. Now's your chance to make it clear.
Damn, more questions and still no answers. You clearly lack the ability to hold the kind of "adult" conversations you demand of others.
IF, big IF, I find out that I was wrong in looking at the entirety of Scripture and how it treats things like sex and marriage I would obviously adjust my theology around the Truth. Was I "speaking blasphemy", without some specific example, I couldn't really make an informed judgement. Is it possible, even likely, that I've uttered something blasphemous in the 49 years I've been a Christian, sure. If I did, I'd have repented of it the minute I realized what I'd done. Have I spoken "hateful" words about YHWH, I can't recall, but it's possible (even likely). Thank YHWH that I can repent of my sins, mistakes, commissions, and omissions, and be forgiven.
If I (or anyone) repents of blasphemy (or any other sin), forgiveness is available. If one clings to blasphemy (or any other sin) and refuses to repent, then eternal punishment is certainly on the table.
Given the fact that your questions are virtually all built around false presumptions, I stand in awe at the irony.
I understand the distinction, I'm not sure it's a difference. For example, if you were to insist that telling lies was not a sin, I would refer you the the multiple scriptures on the subject. It's not my job to convince you, it's my job to point our your error and point you to resources to correct your error.
So, here's an example.
Let's say that you insist that 4+4=73. I show you all of the available evidence that demonstrates that 4+4=8. You choose to ignore that evidence and continue to insist that 4+4=73. At that point, it's clear that your insistence on 4+4=73 is not a "mistake", it's a choice. A choice you are free to make, but wrong nonetheless.
Once again, I have never claimed that my "personal opinions" are "God's word". You could have gleaned this yourself by noting the fact that I've never said anything of the sort. Of course, noting that "God's word" is "God's word" and that I agree with "God's word", is an entirely different matter.
Again, once again. I do not, have not, and will not, care what you "think". While you clearly value your vaunted Reason and rationality incredibly highly, I do not.
I'd argue that misleading other people about The Gospel and leading them away from what Jesus promised His followers, is incredibly cruel and evil. Even if it's done out of ignorance, but especially if it's done out of hubris.
I'm guessing that MOST of your claims that I'm not answering your questions (it's hard to say since you won't make it clear) have to come from this one section of your words which I've already explained that I'm not sure what you're asking. Here it is again, plus some more.
Craig:
How could observant Jews in the 1st century possibly have taken parts of two verses... out of the larger context and applied a woodenly literal interpretation about only/primarily material poverty and governmental oppression to that out of context snippet...
I'm guessing this is one question. Jews/humans in the first century were fallible humans. Of course, they could misunderstand/misapply some parts of OT teachings.
Do you disagree?
Probably, you're speaking specifically of Jesus, here, though (you tell me). But for Jesus, I do NOT think he was taking two verses out of context. I think YOU are misunderstanding the context of Isaiah and of Jesus.
Understand?
That is, I think JESUS understood the teachings of God to become allies specifically with the poor and marginalized, which is taught throughout the OT. If you disagree with that, I think YOU are mistaken. Not Jesus.
Craig:
Chapter 62 speaks of the glorification of ZIon, while 63 speaks of YHWH's vengeance of redemption. 65 speaks of Judgement and salvation. Surely we can't ignore the context, can we?
Nope. But I don't think you are necessarily understanding Isaiah correctly. That is, I disagree with YOU and YOUR human reasoning that is leading YOU personally to reach such conclusions which, I think, are contra-biblical and irrational and missing the point of Isaiah, in this case.
More specifically, where YOU personally using YOUR human reasoning conclude that Chap 62 is speaking of the "glorification of Zion," IN CONTEXT of the greater teachings of Isaiah and the OT, I think that Isaiah is speaking of God's faithfulness to an oppressed and marginalized people. You personally may disagree, using your human reasoning, but I do not find that disagreement to be rationally or biblically apt.
Keeping in mind that Isaiah 61, immediate preceding 62, makes clear that God is calling for a Good News to the poor and marginalized. BECAUSE, chap 61 says, God loves justice and hates robbery (of the poor, in context). THAT (and more) is the actual context of Chap 62. Not the other way around.
Ignore the context? God forbid! UNDERSTAND the actual context? Yes, let's do that. So, that answers THAT question.
You continued...
How is it possible to conjure up an interpretation where one takes parts of 2 verses out of a much larger context and assign only those 2 verses a woodenly literal meaning while not treating the entire discourse in the same way?
Again, I disagree with YOUR HUMAN theory that you personally reached using YOUR HUMAN reasoning that I am taking those "two verses" out of context. I believe I am rationally, biblically and morally understanding the exactly correctly IN context.
And that answers THAT question.
As I've already done repeatedly in dozens of ways. In short: I disagree with YOUR PERSONAL human interpretations of such passages. Am I "blaspheming" or "speaking evil" of God when I dare to disagree with your personal opinions??
Please. Be humble. Be reasonable.
Now, what other SPECIFIC questions am I missing, because I'm just not seeing it.
What was that, 3 more comments, and still no answers to any questions from Dan?
Now, Dan has moved into the "I can't find any questions" phase of the thread. It's where he's too lazy, stupid, or arrogant to actually read the previous comments to find the questions that an "adult" would have answered when they were asked. He's also moved into the ad hom attack portion of his obfuscation. He can't prove his claims, so he resorts to things like his "cruel and evil" bullshit.
I'm not claiming that I'm some amazing scholar, far from it, but I did raise some valid objections and counter points to Dan's crap, and he's got nothing. A few questions, and he's got no answers. Only demands that I answer every single question he asks, and to do so in ways the he demands.
It's Dan in steamroller mode. He's going to keep pushing his unproven hunches, and bullshit claims, no matter what.
Craig:
I'd argue that misleading other people about The Gospel and leading them away from what Jesus promised His followers, is incredibly cruel and evil. Even if it's done out of ignorance, but especially if it's done out of hubris.
So, if and when you discover that you HAVE been misleading people about the literal Gospel as Jesus taught in favor of your medieval PSA, you will admit it was incredibly cruel and evil?
Good. I pray that day comes sooner rather than later.
But right now, you can't imagine in any way that this is at all even REMOTELY possible, is that a fair assessment?
If so, the same is true for me: I can't even remotely imagine that the idea of a welcoming and loving God - beginning with the poor and marginalized as Jesus literally taught! - is somehow "speaking evil" of God.
The difference is, it's fairly reasonable to think that "Hey, he called me loving and welcoming" is in anyway anything but a positive, praise-oriented comment.
Noting that Craig just ignored that I answered multiples of his questions, here are a few more I found from him:
2. This is interesting. The paraphrasing here leaves me with questions.
A) If YHWH "wasn't willing that ANY should perish", are you suggesting than no one actually perishes?
No.
B) What exactly does perishing entail?
Eternally speaking, literally, factually, objectively NO ONE KNOWS. Period.
C) If some people do "perish" than how is it possible that YHWH's will is thwarted?
1. I don't know if ANYONE perishes eternally. Literally, no one does.
2. IF some do, I expect it's because they chose to reject God's grace and God didn't force it upon them.
Which are, I should note, answers that I've been consistently clear upon in answering similar questions for decades, now.
Continuing the diligent search.
"Still looking for unanswered questions from you."
Well, that's just a huge pile of bullshit isn't it. You're clearly back on steamroller duty instead of looking for questions.
Hint: Look for the little ? sign. The questions will usually be right before the ? sign. Hope that helps.
1. No it's not. The reality is that you simply explain that which you find at odds with your eisegesis away as "figurative", "myth", "revenge fantasies", or "hyperbole". That's not "dealing with" anything. When you say "walked through", it's more that you've trotted out your small collection of cherry picked proof texts, and never gone beyond that.
"Do the right thing, son."
No. You "do the right thing" and stop with the condescending "son" bullshit. You've been asked nicely and politely numerous times and you continue to act like a dick. Again this is your final warning. Once more, and the comment gets aborted. So, how about you do "the right thing" and hold yourself to the same standards you demand of everyone else.
2. These sorts of vague, unsupported, bullshit claims are worthless and childish.
I've never demanded that you "bow" to anything I say, why would I start now you idiot? I've given you the freedom to spew all sorts of stupid shit over here to make yourself look bad, this is just one more example.
3. Of course you "agree" with yourself that you are interpreting Scripture perfectly. Of course someone with your overabundance of hubris and dearth of humility thinks they you can validate the Truth of your own hunches. Insanity.
Regardless of your "intent" your insistence of limiting Jesus' gospel to the "poor and marginalized" or even to prioritize them over everyone else is an attempt to limit the scope of The Gospel. I don't care what you claim you "intent" is. I can't read your mind, and simply don't give a shit. I look at the entire scope of Scripture, and I see a Gospel that isn't limited by economic or political circumstances. I see Jesus sharing The Gospel with Roman officers, Pharisees, People of wealth, those in the "working class", tax collectors, murderers, and everyone in between. But you believe your self validated hunches for all I care.
Can you not see that I dealt with your "welcoming" garbage days ago? I've dealt with your "willing that none shall perish" argument as well.
I don't care what people who you consider to be "normal rational good faith people" think. I don't care that you have delusions of grandeur and that you think you speak for some vast assemblage of people. I don't order my life by what people think. Least of all you.
Ah, I found another that has been answered multiple times before, but here you do...
As you just acknowledged that you only take them "fairly literally", please be specific about what parts you take literally and what parts you only take "fairly literally". Please explain how you conjure up degrees of literal?
I've been abundantly clear over the years that I am NOT a biblical "literalist..." That is, I do not think that it is faithful to biblical text to insist upon some kind of "inerrancy" or "literal" reading of rules and theories in the Biblical text. "The Bible" makes no such demands of itself or of its readers and, I think, it is abundantly clear in Jesus' teachings that this was precisely part of the "sin of the Pharisees and legalists..."
So, I'm not talking generally about "let's take the Bible literally..." What I AM doing is noting that when I read Jesus' words about "I came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized..." or "Tell John that the poor have the good news preached to them..." or, "What you do for the least of these, you do for me..." I'm noting that this is a rational and moral conclusion regardless of other texts in the Bible, which is literally NOT a rulebook for modern moral questions.
BUT, for those who DO assert that they theorize that the bible is a rulebook for modern moral living," then the texts are literally quite clear, taken literally.
Which I do not do, but maybe YOU claim to do.
Question answered. Still looking...
"dear brother):"
I am absolutely 100% serious about this. Any comment after 4:00 PM Today will be deleted if you keep up this graceless, condescending bullshit. This isn't capricious like you, this is me giving you all sorts of opportunities to act like the fucking "adult" you claim to be and stop this shit. I'd ask for an apology, but likely won't get one, so I won't bother.
"I DID NOT SAY that you all are saying that, did I?"
1. Then you can't show me where Art or I have said that.
2. Show me one instance of any reasonably orthodox Christian who "says" what you claim people are saying.
"it appears that you DO affirm all parts of that point..."
What specific words of mine make it "appear" that way? Be specific if you're going to make bullshit claims.
"It appears except for the first line, that IS precisely what your theory is, right?"
No, not at all.
"So, by all means, make yourself clear: DO YOU THINK that God loves all of humanity?"
Yes.
"Do you think that, for most of humanity, it is God's will that they go to hell?"
I think that Scripture is clear that many people, maybe most, will go to "hell". I think that Jesus Himself, makes this clear.
"And to answer your question: I did NOT say that you believe that, did I? No. I didn't. Now's your chance to make it clear."
You answered one rhetorical question, by pretending that you didn't mean to include Art and I in this mysterious groups of "people" who are "saying" the words you claim they are saying. Then fail to prove your claim, about people actually saying what you claim.
Then ask multiple additional questions. That's like a 5:1 ratio of questions to answer in this one comment.
"Please answer the questions that are actually being asked without adding non-reality-based hunches and additional questions."
Take your own advice.
As I methodically walk down these comments, I've come to about 30 cases of question marks in my comments and now SEVEN question marks from you. I've answered six of those. Here's the seventh (lead up to the question):
This is what can happen when you divorce the OT (myth and revenge fantasies) from the NT, you lose critical context which Jesus and His (Jewish) followers would have been steeped in....
I literally reject that I "divorce the OT from the NT..." IF you are making that claim about me, it is an obviously, demonstrably stupidly false claim.
Do you understand that?
ARE you making that suggestion of me, in contradiction of reality?
Feel free to answer or ignore.
The question:
For example, would not the people who heard Him read a passage from Isiah 61 not have taken that passage in the context of the entire prophecy contained in the span of 10-12 chapters which appear to be one continuous prophecy?
I literally do not know. Nor do you. But it is LIKELY that GENERALLY those who heard Jesus read Isaiah 61 would have taken that passage in context of the REST of Isaiah's (and the OT's) teachings. Which, as I've repeatedly pointed out, spoke of God allying with the poor and marginalized and that God expected God's people to do the same.
Do you disagree?
Do YOU theorize that the people hearing Jesus' words would have NOT thought he was speaking of the literally poor and marginalized?
If so, that's a helluva human theory you personally have there... unproven and irrational and unlikely.
Continuing desperately to find a question that has not been answered endlessly...
Well, that's the thing. Dan's purpose is to further legitimize that which God the Father asserts is abomination by supposing God the Son's statement "Neither to I condemn you" would mean those who willfully indulge in perversion God the Father clearly and unequivocally prohibited without caveat have nothing to fear by doing so. But if Dan was truly a Christian who loved God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the Scriptures which are our source for knowing of and about Him, and if as this alleged Christian, Dan truly loves his fellow man, he would be warning those LGBTQ++++ people he finds so special of what awaits them if they continue in their rebellion. A true Christian can do this and still love these condemned people at the same time.
And even if Dan wants to insist that his laughable defense of homosexuality is compelled by his "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture, one who truly reasons can't insist that the defense is flimsy at best and therefore not rest on it as if a firm foundation. People he knows need to Truth, and all Dan is willing to provide is...well...nothing but acquiescence to their selfish carnal desires.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, most Jewish boys and many girls knew the Hebrew Scriptures intimately by the time they were 12. Beyond that, the synagogue would have had Rabbis who would have been even more familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures.
Yet, you dodge that point. By what standard would observant 1st century Jews have taken two verses out of the context of a much larger prophecy and randomly chosen only those two verse to apply in your woodenly literal manner?
Or, by what rubric do you take two verses out of a much larger immediate context and insist that they be taken in a woodenly literal manner?
"Understand?"
Yes, I do. I understand that you've decided unilaterally what Jesus took in or out of context, and it just so happens to align with your preconceptions. The issue isn't my understanding of the context, as much as you acknowledging the context. The two proof text verses are in a larger context, yet you insist that those two verses be interpreted differently than the immediate context.
"That is, I think JESUS understood the teachings of God"
Scripture tells us that the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of YHWH are the same thing. That you choose to focus on some "teachings" of the OT and not on others isn't my problem.
"But I don't think you are necessarily understanding Isaiah correctly."
Well, as long as you think so and can't muster up even a tiny bit of proof your your claims, I guess that means you are 100% right. The fact that you think that the Biblical text is somehow "contra biblical" is hilarious. I'll note that you've offered nothing to support your hunch and ignore the rest of your self serving drivel.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, the cherry picking snippet game again. Amusing as always.
"And that answers THAT question."
No it doesn't because it's merely you affirming your own brilliance with nothing to back you up. It's hubris and arrogance.
Your problem here is that you blow past questions when they are asked for whatever reason you can conjure up. Than when I spend multiple comments asking that you hold yourself to the standards you demand of others, you pull this "I can't find any questions" bullshit.
Screw you. I you won't do what you demand of others, that is you own problem. But if I was you, I'd either tone down the bitching and snark about answering questions, or I'd keep up with the questions contemporaneously.
Following that SEVENTH question of yours, you posted this comment containing question marks...
Would that not have understood that
"Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save,
nor his ear too dull to hear.
But your iniquities have separated you from your God:
your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.
For your hands are stained with blood, your fingers with guilt,
Your lips have spoken falsely, and your tongue mutters wicked things."
...is directly related to the section Jesus read? Would they not have understood the context in light of YHWH's promises of riches and glory in chapter 60?
I THINK that you're theorizing with your human reasoning that people listening to Jesus would have guessed that Jesus meant. Is that correct?
* NOTE: More on this mess in the next comment
One point to understand: When you post something like this, it's hard to tell what in the hell you're speaking about or even what passage is in question, if indeed, that is a reference to some biblical passage!
When I ask, "Do you think it is blasphemous to call God a loving and welcoming God...?" I mean everything just in common understanding of common words. YOUR "questions" appear in a muddled mess of words referencing SOME possible passage, I'm not sure, and you're asking me to guess what people 2000 years ago would have made of that passage... Well, hell, son, NONE of us know that! These questions you ask are vague with no definitive response.
Do you theorize personally that there IS one "right" answer to such vague questions about things we can't possibly prove??
Craig continued:
Would they not have understood that the reason why Jesus was sent to do those things was to "for the display of his(YHWH's) splendor.?
I don't know in any objective manner what "they" would have understood.
Do you?
And it might also depend upon what YOU theorize (or maybe THEY theorized) what YOU are guessing about what it means for "the display of God's splendor..."
What is your personal human theory about what Isaiah (or Jesus??) was intending by the "display of God's splendor..."?
Craig presumptuously asked...
By what standard would observant 1st century Jews have taken two verses out of the context of a much larger prophecy and randomly chosen only those two verse to apply in your woodenly literal manner?
You LITERALLY have not proven that I have taken ANYTHING out of context.
YOU PERSONALLY, using YOUR OWN personal human reasoning, have reached a conclusion/made an unproven human theory that I, somehow, have taken "two verses" out of context.
I disagree with your personal human opinion.
Am I blaspheming God by disagreeing with your little theories?
I find Dan's whining and pouting to be hilarious, given him demanding that I answer every question and to do so in the ways he demands. Yet, despite that, he acts as if doing for others what he demands others do for him is some sort of horrible burden.
'Hypocritical, cowardly, childish, idiot.
"So, if and when you discover that you HAVE been misleading people about the literal Gospel as Jesus taught in favor of your medieval PSA, you will admit it was incredibly cruel and evil?"
Your question assumes facts not in evidence, as they say in court. If you can prove your claim that I "HAVE been misleading people" then I'll take you seriously. FYI, if you'd pay attention to what I actually have said on the topic, rather than to your made up caricatures, you'd know that the premise underlying your question is simply false. But, by all means, demonstrate your premise to be True using actual quotes of mine.
"But right now, you can't imagine in any way that this is at all even REMOTELY possible, is that a fair assessment?"
Nope, it's just one more thing you've made up.
I don't care what you can imagine, except when you imagine that I've said things I haven't.
I've addressed this "loving and welcoming" thing at least once in this thread, I'm done.
One comment aborted, because Dan chooses incivility, condescension, and gracelessness. Let's see how many more go down.
Continuing addressing Craig's question that begins with citing Isaiah 59...
Would that not have understood that "Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God: your sins have hidden his face from you...
Your theory appears to be that it's ME taking Isaiah and Jesus out of context and you randomly cite Isaiah 59 to vaguely desperately TRY to make a case for that. Where God is speaking to some "YOU" whose "iniquities" had separated those "YOU" from God. But WHO is the "YOU" in question, in context?
Looking to Isaiah 58, that immediately precedes that chapter, we find...
“Yet on the day of your fasting, YOU do as you please
and exploit all your workers.
Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife,
and in striking each other with wicked fists.
You cannot fast as you do today
and expect your voice to be heard on high....
“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them?
That is, the YOU who are being addressed by God ARE the oppressors and the rich, those who cause harm to the poor and marginalized.
Now, are you asking do you think that Jesus and many/most of those listening to him would recognize WHO was being addressed by Jesus?
Yes, I do. That is PRECISELY WHY I am the one who is calling for understanding the text and context of Jesus AND the OT.
Do you understand that is MY reasoning and point?
And IF it is the case that you personally have some other human opinions about how best to understand the text AND context (including the OT), that I'm not disagreeing with GOD, I'm disagreeing with YOUR personal little human opinions?
Wow, all of a sudden Dan can find the questions hes' "missed". I'm so proud that he could do it all by himself.
Not really answers, but the best I'm likely to get.
1. So there is absolutely NOTHING in the entirety of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures (sometimes called the Word of God) that might shed some light on this question. Not any hints or clues at all, apparently.
2. Interesting, so it's human choice that ultimately decides people's eternal fate, not YHWH. Humans have the power to thwart YHWH's will. Good to know.
If you'd read comments, and answer questions in real time, you wouldn't have to do this and whine about it. It's your won damn fault.
Just to be clear: At this point, I've asked roughly 30 questions and you've asked roughly seven. And I've answered ALL seven, multiple times over the years, to the point where there should be NO confusion about my actual position. Whereas, you've responded, but not always answered my so far ~30 questions.
Putting down some words in response to a question is not necessarily answering the actual question. Also, saying, "NO..." is not a serious answer when it just begs more questions.
So you really are admitting that you have no rhyme or reason as to why you take some cherry picked proof texts in a woodenly literal manner, and others you blithely decide are "figurative". Yet you literally made the point of emphasizing that you take these TWO verses "fairly literally". So it seems worthwhile to explore the rubric that leads you to this conclusion.
Again, what you think but don't even bother to attempt to prove is of no interest.
I get it, you're choosing (with no infallible rubric) to cherry pick a few snippets of passages out of context and assume that those must be taken in a woodenly literal manner. I'll note that "literal" is pretty much an either or, not a sliding scale.
That you are disparaging taking the text literally (claiming that it was sinful for the Pharisees {one more unproven hunch}), yet the laud yourself for taking a few snippets "literally".
I literally, directly, clearly answered Craig's questions and he responds:
1. So there is absolutely NOTHING in the entirety of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures (sometimes called the Word of God) that might shed some light on this question. Not any hints or clues at all, apparently.
This #1 response APPEARS to be in my answer to his question 2b...
B) What exactly does perishing entail?
Which I factually, directly and clearly responded with an objective:
Eternally speaking, literally, factually, objectively NO ONE KNOWS. Period.
And that is the reality of it all.
Craig, are you suggesting that YOU or "someone as-yet-unidentified" objectively knows what happens in a theoretical afterlife?
If so, please provide objective support. Or, failing that, admit I'm just factually correct.
That ball is in your court.
Craig also responded to an answer of mine by saying:
2. Interesting, so it's human choice that ultimately decides people's eternal fate, not YHWH. Humans have the power to thwart YHWH's will. Good to know.
I'm noting that we have no objective proof to support a claim that God FORCES people against their will to "accept God" or "accept salvation..."
Is it your personal human theory that God DOES force God's will upon people? If so, do you admit the reality that you can't objectively prove such a claim?
Further, I'd suggest that it's God's Will that people be loving, caring, compassionate, decent, kind, supportive and grace-full.
Do you disagree with that?
And, I further note that we poor, imperfect humans are objectively NOT always loving, kind and gracious.
Do you disagree with that?
If so, where do you find some error in my reasoning?
If not, then how am I mistaken?
Is it YOUR personal human theory based upon conclusions you personally have reached using your reasoning that God DOES force some people to be cruel, unloving and unkind? Or do those people do that on their own?
These are reasonable questions, can you agree on that much?
What a bizarre, passive agressive beginning. That I've answered your @30 questions, and you're struggling and whining about answering fewer than 10 makes you look even more like a spoiled child who demands much from everyone else, but won't reciprocate. But, at least you have MORE questions that you demand I answer.
"Do you understand that?"
I understand that in the sense that it is written in English. I'm not sure it aligns with other claims you've made but I don't care enough to do the research.
"ARE you making that suggestion of me, in contradiction of reality?"
Once again, Dan claims to define "reality", I can't take this seriously.
"I literally do not know. Nor do you."
I've spent enough time studying under people who are experts in Jewish history, and feel confident that I can reach a conclusion that is more likely than not.
"But it is LIKELY that GENERALLY those who heard Jesus read Isaiah 61 would have taken that passage in context of the REST of Isaiah's (and the OT's) teachings. "
Nice dodge, that your cherry picked proof texts are smack dab in the middle of one extended prophecy doesn't matter to the context. Let alone that the prophecy it's smack dab in the middle of contains much more specific than just about the "poor and marginalized".
"Which, as I've repeatedly pointed out, spoke of God allying with the poor and marginalized and that God expected God's people to do the same."
I've repeatedly pointed out that this was ONE FACET of a much larger body of teaching. But, this is the one rule you insist on. Again, even in the prophecy that includes Isiah 61, the author cover so many more things than merely your pet issues.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes.
"Do YOU theorize that the people hearing Jesus' words would have NOT thought he was speaking of the literally poor and marginalized?"
No.
"I THINK"
I don't care what you "THINK" even in ALL CAPS, I still don't care. If you can't quote me, then shut up about what you think.
"Is that correct?"
No.
"if indeed, that is a reference to some biblical passage!"
It's literally a quote from the extended prophecy in Isiah that you cherry picked from!
Actually, you would be mistaken in your hunch. Despite your vehemence. We actually know quite a bit about how observant Jews in the 1st century treated scripture. But what possible reason would we have for understanding how Jesus' immediate audience would have taken His words.
"Do you theorize personally that there IS one "right" answer to such vague questions about things we can't possibly prove??"
I think that it is known to a high degree of certainty how 1st century observant Jews thought about and dealt with scripture. Can we be 100% certain about that specific crowd, probably not, but we can draw good educated conclusions from what is known.
"Do you?"
See above.
"What is your personal human theory about what Isaiah (or Jesus??) was intending by the "display of God's splendor..."?"
Well, probably that YHWH displaying His splendor was one way He validated Himself to people. Much like Jesus' miracles. Maybe YHWH displaying His glory, splendor, and the like just isn't a big deal to you.
I had stated/asked:
"ARE you making that suggestion of me, in contradiction of reality?"
Craig responded:
Once again, Dan claims to define "reality", I can't take this seriously.
When we are speaking (as we are in THIS case) of MY PERSONAL opinions and what I, DAN TRABUE, think and have said, then YES, I AM THE ONE who knows best what I, DAN TRABUE, think.
Do you think, somehow, YOU know best what I think moreso than me? IN REALITY, I, Dan Trabue, DO know best what I, Dan Trabue, thinks.
Understand?
If not, do you see the irrational arrogance of such a position?
The reality of it all is that I, Dan Trabue, LOVE the OT (along with the rest of the Bible) and think it is vital to informing an understanding of the NT, just as I think understanding Jesus' teachings is vital to understanding the rest of the Bible.
And, as stated, the reality is that I understand MY views and what I do and don't believe than Craig clearly understands, given how often he falsely/incorrectly guesses what I am thinking/saying.
Do you see how arrogant it is for you to appear to say you know what I think better than I know what I think?
There is the fact that you've cherry picked two verses from a lengthy prophecy of Isiah (a Messianic prophecy) and assumed that Jesus did as you did and that His listeners would have been unaware of the larger context of the prophecy He was quoting.
No, Dan you are perfection personified. Your perfect ability to ignore the specific things that brought on the use of the term blasphemy and the games that you are playing now are simply an extension of your perfection.
Or your inability to read.
Craig:
I've repeatedly pointed out that this was ONE FACET of a much larger body of teaching. But, this is the one rule you insist on. Again, even in the prophecy that includes Isiah 61, the author cover so many more things than merely your pet issues.
1. As a point of fact, Isaiah, nor God, nor Jesus have stated that Isaiah (roughly chapters 58 - 64 or whatever passages people like you might randomly choose) are a prophecy of the future.
Do you recognize that observable, demonstrable reality?
In fact, these are human conclusions in some human traditions, NOT a biblical or God-spoken reality. Do you recognize that demonstrable reality?
2. As a point of fact, neither Isaiah, nor God, nor Jesus have stated unequivocally WHAT the overarching theme(s) or purpose of Isaiah ~58 - 62 are.
Do you recognize that observable, demonstrable reality?
3. And, objectively, Isaiah talks about many ideas and notions in this general stretch of his book, right? And ONE of the constant themes is that God is on the side of the poor and marginalized, right?
More on these passages...
The point I'm attempting to make is that the Isiah prophecy was a tiny part of a larger whole, and that the synagogue (or at least many of them) would have associated the small piece with the larger whole given their knowledge of Scripture. That Jesus was asserting that He was the prophesied Messiah was the headline. Because I was not going to quote the entirety of the extensive prophecy in Isiah, I did pull out parts that indicate that the "poor and marginalized" were not the entire topic, nor even the primary topic.
"But WHO is the "YOU" in question, in context?"
You can't be so stupid as to not know that Isiah was speaking to Israel. Can you?
"That is, the YOU who are being addressed by God ARE the oppressors and the rich, those who cause harm to the poor and marginalized."
That's quite the unproven claim. But since you made it, without proof, it must be believed.
"Now, are you asking do you think that Jesus and many/most of those listening to him would recognize WHO was being addressed by Jesus?"
No.
"Yes, I do. That is PRECISELY WHY I am the one who is calling for understanding the text and context of Jesus AND the OT."
Again with the unproven claim.
"Do you understand that is MY reasoning and point?"
Nope. As it is merely some unproven hunches, I see no reason to invest much effort in trying to understand how cherry picking snippets on one topic in a larger whole, magically means that the whole piece is only dealing with one topic.
"And IF it is the case..."
This is the indicator that you're going to make some shit up and pretend like it represents something I said. If you can't find quotes of mine to make your point, don't make shit up and demand that I validate your made up bullshit.
I've answered all of your myriad of questions. If I answer "yes" or "no" to a yes or no question, then you asked a shitty question. It's not my job to try to guess what you are trying to get at when you ask a vague, stupid, yer or no question.
Do better.
"Putting down some words in response to a question is not necessarily answering the actual question."
That's quite the pot/kettle situation you've got going here.
I've answered every damn question you've asked, voluntarily and contemporaneously. That you're pissed because I had held you to the standard you demand of me, because you don't answer questions voluntarily is your problem, not mine.
When you ask one of your idiotic, repetitive, vague, "questions" like "Do you understand", yes or no is a completely appropriate and full answer.
I was probing your knowledge. It seems like Scripture does shed some light on the subject, and the reality is that we do have access to some knowledge on the topic.
"And that is the reality of it all"
These claims that you define reality are a concern to me. Often people who make these kinds of claims are thought to be mentally ill.
"Craig, are you suggesting that YOU or "someone as-yet-unidentified" objectively knows what happens in a theoretical afterlife?"
No. I'm suggesting that we have enough information to draw some conclusions about the subject, and that claiming ignorance is likely a way for you to avoid the implications of the information we have. That we do not have 100% perfect knowledge of every aspect of the afterlife, does not mean that we have zero information.
"I'm noting that we have no objective proof to support a claim that God FORCES people against their will to "accept God" or "accept salvation...""
The problem is that I was responding to your claim that people in hell were there because of a choice that they made. Logic tells us that if an all powerful God wills that everyone be saved, that humans likely don't have the power to thwart His will. So either your hunch about YHWH's will is at odds with reality, or your hunch about the power of human choice is.
"Is it your personal human theory that God DOES force God's will upon people?"
No.
"If so, do you admit the reality that you can't objectively prove such a claim?"
I rarely feel the need to prove claims I haven't made.
"Do you disagree with that?"
It's such a bland, vague, platitude that there's not much to disagree with. Unless you are trying to suggest that our ability to meet some standard of behavior based on your adjectives is what gets us into "heaven".
"Do you disagree with that?"
No, humans sin. Every single one of us sins.
"If so, where do you find some error in my reasoning?"
The primary "error in your Reasoning" is that you place too much faith and credence in your Reason.
"If not, then how am I mistaken?"
Well, now these are just getting stupid.
"Is it YOUR personal human theory based upon conclusions you personally have reached using your reasoning that God DOES force some people to be cruel, unloving and unkind?"
No.
"Or do those people do that on their own?"
Yes.
"These are reasonable questions, can you agree on that much?"
No. It seems unreasonable to ask questions based on your hunches about things you've made up and pretend represent anything I've said.
"Do you think, somehow, YOU know best what I think moreso than me? IN REALITY, I, Dan Trabue, DO know best what I, Dan Trabue, thinks.
Understand?"
Yes, you have been quite clear about you defining reality.
"If not, do you see the irrational arrogance of such a position?"
Yes, I do think that it is irrationally arrogant to suggest that you define reality.
"Do you see how arrogant it is for you to appear to say you know what I think better than I know what I think?"
I have literally never said this or anything remotely similar to this. Do you see how arrogant you appear when you try to claim that I've said things I haven't?
Dan's just rambling now.
1. If that statement is, as you claim, "a demonstrable reality" then by all means demonstrate your claim to define reality to be True.
2. If your claim is "fact" and a "demonstrable reality" then you should have absolutely no problem demonstrating that your claim is factual.
3. Yes he does, I literally made that point in an earlier comment, but thanks for agreeing that I am correct. Yes, the "poor and marginalized" is ONE of MANY themes in this section of Isiah. But it is only one.
How about you demonstrate your "demonstrable reality" first, before you get into the weeds.
You've already made my point, why not quit after demonstrating your "demonstrable reality".
Because you're sometimes slow on the uptake. The entirety of my point was and is that the Messianic prophecy Jesus quoted was much further ranging than simply a screed about the "poor and marginalized", you've acknowledged that "demonstrable reality" so why not move on and prove your claims.
Post a Comment