I mentioned this in one of my comments in a recent thread, but wanted to give it it's own post. Dan insists that humans are "beloved", "accepted", and similar terms, but isn't particularly clear about what that might look like in practice.
What I think is causing the confusion is that Scripture seems to indicate that there are at least two levels to being "beloved" and "accepted".
I think that the first is encapsulated in the concept of the Imago Dei. The belief that humans are created, and bear the very image of YHWH, and as such have a high degree of intrinsic value and worth. That YHWH loves and accepts His creation because we are created in His image, seems to be the baseline. This love is shown in YHWH's reason for forbidding murder, that we are created in His image. That YHWH loved His creation so much that He provided the means to reconcile the break in the created relationship caused by Sin. "For YHWH so loved the world..." is an example of that sense of love or acceptance. As human parents we should love all of our children regardless of whether or not they reciprocate our love, or they break the family relationship. Our children inextricably bear the image of their family, sometimes in appearance, but always in their genetic makeup. Nothing can totally sever the transfer of that image from generation to generation. So, we absolutely love and stand ready to accept our children back into the fullness of the family relationship. I should note that those who ascribe to a Materialist/Naturalist/Darwinian worldview will strongly object to all of the above. Likewise someone who holds to the view that the Creation is somehow metaphorical, will also object to the above. The problem with that, in this context, is that the concept of a high intrinsic value of humanity grounded in a Creator God is lost, and some substitute must be found that gives humanity an equally high value.
The most obvious example of this is in YHWH's relationship to Israel. YHWH created all humans, yet He had a unique and special relationship with Israel. His plan was to provide salvation to all of humanity through Israel. In Scripture it continually demonstrates YHWH's special love and care for Israel and her predecessors, and His desire that Israel remain separate from the societies that surrounded them.
Which leads us to the second aspect of YHWH's love and acceptance.
As image bearers of YHWH, who have had our created relationship with Him severed by Sin, YHWH stands ready to offer a redemption of those created relationships to those who "choose" repentance. (I'm not a fan of the choose language, but can't think of a better option right now.) This is what might be termed salvation by many. It's what Jesus speaks of when He talks about being "sons and daughters of YHWH" or "inheritors of the Kingdom of YHWH". Much like a child who's broken the familial relationship with their parents, is not functionally a member of the family or an inheritor, there are those who likewise are not "inheritors of the Kingdom of YHWH".
Where I believe the confusion lies is in conflating the inherent worth, "love" and "acceptance" accorded to all who bear the image of YHWH, and the "love" and "acceptance" reserved for those who are "joint heirs" with Christ. The problem, I believe, is that the terms can be interchangeable but that they describe a different type of relationship depending on context. To use another family analogy, I we certainly have some degree of love for our extended family. Yet our love for our immediate family, and their position as heirs, is different in kind or degree than for our extended family.
A potential solution for the confusion might be in adapting the terminology. To find a different term for the Imago Dei expression of love and the "joint heirs to the Kingdom of YHWH" expression of love. This is a situation where we have a both/and instead of an either/or. It would be foolish to deny that YHWH loves and accepts His creation at some level. It would be equally foolish to deny that there is no division (think sheep and goats) between all of created humanity. Saved/unsaved, elect/not elect, sheep/goats, the terminology isn't as important as the concept that not all will share equally in the fullness of the eternal aspect of the Kingdom of YHWH.
Obviously some have argued that YHWH's love applies equally to all, and that all will "go to heaven", this raises questions of justice because it seems insane to posit that Hitler and Mother Theresa are both treated in exactly the same way. Likewise, some argue that life on earth is all that there is. It seems strange to me that an eternal, all powerful God would create humanity and not share eternity with them.
In conclusion, I fully agree that YHWH loves and accepts His Creation on a very basic level. I also agree that when all of Creation is reconciled and redeemed, there will be some who will not share in that experience.
75 comments:
Jesus affirms that conclusion by speaking of those who choose the wide path. He does so again with the parable of the sower.
Those are two other examples where Jesus does affirm the conclusion that there will indeed be two options for humanity. The wide road example is helpful because it makes clear that the easy/well traveled path is the one that leads to destruction, while the other is harder and less traveled. Which leads to the conclusion that the majority or people will go to destruction. However, I'd opine that the wide road has regular exit ramps that will connect us with the narrow road.
As for the sower, it seems reasonable to conclude that the sower wants every seed to flourish, yet acknowledges that not all will flourish equally. Good husbandry tells us that the best course is to put more effort into those seeds/plants that have the best chance of flourishing.
Both good examples.
Craig appears confused. That might be telling. Craig:
Dan insists that humans are "beloved", "accepted", and similar terms, but isn't particularly clear about what that might look like in practice.
I mean, beloved. What that looks like? It looks like someone who cares for you, wants the best for you, welcomes you, supports you, holds you accountable, never gives up on you. You know, LOVE?
Like a parent's love, for instance (as the biblical authors oft note). A love that lasts and does not give up. That gives aid where needed, chastens where needed (chastens for the purpose of redemption/saving, but not for destruction!)
You know, LOVE.
Are you saying you don't know what love LOOKS like, at its best?
Or are you saying you're not sure that God loves with the same sort of determined parental love that welcomes, allies with, lends aid and support to and does not give up on?
I don't find the concept of what loving looks like, difficult. I DO find it difficult to do authentically and consistently, but I suspect God's better than you or I at it.
Are you actually thinking I'm "not clear" on what I mean by it?
How could I be more clear?
Craig opined...
"What I think is causing the confusion is that Scripture seems to indicate that there are at least two levels to being "beloved" and "accepted"."
To be clear, you're saying...
"IN MY OPINION
WHICH I REACHED USING
MY OWN HUMAN REASONING
I, personally suspect that there are at least two levels of being accepted and loved...
In my personal opinion reached using
MY personal human reasoning..."
Is that fair and accurate?
Craig opined a theory of...
"the concept of the Imago Dei.
The belief that humans are created, and bear the very image of YHWH, and as such have a high degree of intrinsic value and worth."
Can I assume you affirm this theory?
Craig...
"Yet our love for our immediate family, and their position as heirs, is different in kind or degree than for our extended family..."
Okay. That's another theory you personally hold, having reached it using your own personal human reasoning, right?
Do you then opine, using your personal human reasoning, that God is like a parent TO SOME, but more like an aunt or second cousin to others? Or even more removed from others?
Why do you make this guess? Is it safe to say that it's only your guess, and nothing you can prove? Or that any other humans in your human traditions can prove?
Just trying to figure out precisely what it is you're guessing AND if you can affirm it's an unproven guess.
It's almost inherent in the analogy that few will use any of those off ramps given the perceived more pleasurable journey on the wide, easy path. Just sayin'.
I believe the soil, or wherever the sower tosses the seeds, represents people. The good soil are those receptive to the Word.
Those are my takes on those two examples.
I agree in theory, that the wide road is seductive and easy, and that inertia is a thing. Yet we do see people who get off.
I agree, yet my point remains. The farmer wants every seed to grow, yet will prune or cull some so that the healthiest plants will thrive.
Well, Dan is not off to a great start here. It could be my problem however. When I was wondering what that looks like in practice, I wasn't thinking vague generalities. The problem with Dan's opening salvo is that sometimes, "love" and 'wanting what's best" look like telling people no or telling them that they are wrong.
"Are you saying you don't know what love LOOKS like, at its best?"
No, I'm saying that I have no clue what you mean when you use these terms.
"Or are you saying you're not sure that God loves with the same sort of determined parental love that welcomes, allies with, lends aid and support to and does not give up on?"
No.
"Are you actually thinking I'm "not clear" on what I mean by it?"
Yes.
"How could I be more clear?"
That you start from a position of assuming that you couldn't possibly be more clear and provide more details, suggests that nothing I say would make a difference.
"Is that fair and accurate?"
No.
"Can I assume you affirm this theory?"
As you regularly prove, you can and do assume all sorts of things regardless of what anyone might say or how often the Truth is pointed out to you.
But yes, I do agree with what Scripture teaches about humans being created and bearing the very image of YHWH.
"Okay. That's another theory you personally hold, having reached it using your own personal human reasoning, right?"
More by observation.
"Do you then opine, using your personal human reasoning, that God is like a parent TO SOME, but more like an aunt or second cousin to others? Or even more removed from others?"
No.
"Why do you make this guess? Is it safe to say that it's only your guess, and nothing you can prove? Or that any other humans in your human traditions can prove?"
This notion that you can make up some bullshit, and assume that your made up bullshit represents what I've said, then that you can presume that I've "made this guess", is simply you demonstrating your arrogance and hubris.
Coming from someone who regularly claims that your unproven hunches are "reality", and who rarely bothers to attempt to prove the claims you make, it's bizarre for you to act like this.
Loving people looks like:
Being literally there for your children, spouse and family. Spending time with them, playing with them, reading stories together, going on hikes together, making meals together, raising a garden together, attending faith group meetings together, celebrating birthdays, anniversaries, special events, successes together. Mourning loss together.
What does celebrating successes or mourning losses look like, specifically?
It means being genuinely glad that they won the chess tournament, celebrating with a special meal, perhaps... or celebrating that they got an A (or B or C or D, even, if it was an especially hard class or at a especially difficult time). It means reminding them that, "Well, maybe that academic area is just not an area of strength for you... that's okay. We're not all great at all things and that's a vital lesson to learn! If you want, I can help you study for the next test..."
It means hugging them when they've lost a love one. Listening to them or just sitting with them in silence. Ideally, it means not saying unintentionally cruel or careless comments at such times of loss... and apologizing if you said something in a hurtful way unintentionally.
It means if someone is without housing, being sympathetic and talking with them about it if that's what they want. It may mean pointing them to resources. It may mean inviting them to at least have lunch with you or maybe even moving in for a week while they try to find a place... meeting their needs where they are in a supportive, nurturing way as you would with your own children. It means not being carelessly condemning, blaming them for their own situation. Depending on the circumstances and relationship, it MIGHT mean saying, "look, it sounds like to me (from what YOU'VE told me) that you're drinking is causing you to be unable to keep a job and that, of course, means a lack of money which may mean losing your house, right? You know this. Would you be interesting in talking with someone to help you with that addiction. Fortunately, at least right now, in our city, there are still services that let you live in free or subsidized housing while you get back on your feet, would you like to learn more about that?" (and hopefully, the gov't won't cut that funding further, because we know the research says that this sort of solution works AND ultimately saves money and resources when those people get back on their feet...)
It means saying to your international friend who came here "legally" and yet, policies have changed meaning they can no longer stay, but that it's not safe for them to return to their own country... "Look, I'm sorry about the politics of it all. I WILL vote for good and rational people to do a better job about making rational and moral immigration policies. In the meantime, let's see if we can pull together some resources to help find some solutions right here and now..." and brainstorming with them about what they want to do.
If you have a loved one who was convicted of abusing a child, it means you do what you can reasonably do to lend aid to the child and family who was hurt AND it means still loving the person who was abusive. It means helping them get the help they need and assuring them that, while what they did was wrong and harmful (and they almost certainly know that unless they're perhaps a sociopath or malignant narcissist), I want you to know that I love you and STILL want the best for you, beginning with being concerned about what is best for that child you harmed.
How long do you want me to go on with specifics?
More...
When I speak of LOVING people with a Godly sort of love, I just mean loving them as love, support, grace, forgiveness, compassion, kindness, accountability, etc are typically understood.
Do you think I'm suggesting that it means telling people, "Oh, it doesn't matter what you do. Beat puppies to death and eat them in front of children, it's all good!" NO, of course, I'm not saying that.
Do you think it means, "If you disagree with me, I'm going to talk about how evil you are and fantasize about getting in a fighter plane and bombing you and demons like you with literal excrement... OR bombs!..."
NO, of course, I'm not saying that. Do you think I'm saying, "If you don't do things just right and accept me in just the right way, then I'm going to lock you in a furnace for eternity..."? NO, of course, I'm not saying that.
I'm just talking about simple basic love and support and allyship, EVEN when people mess up, because that's just our reality.
What kind of answer do you need to understand what I am talking about when I say we should love, welcome, support, lend aid, receive aid from and be gracious to all humans? I really don't know what you're asking for unless you want an endless list of the variety of ways to specifically be loving and gracious and welcoming to all people? AND, at the same time, standing with people when others would do them harm, AND at the same time, making room to love the abusers... But that's a list of possibilities that is endlessly long, right?
Maybe you can make yourself more clear, because I think my answers WERE exceedingly clear.
One last attempt: Do you think the model of good parents is a good understanding of what it means to be loving (with the caveat of not being paternalistic/condescending, which is NOT good parenting!)... If I say we should act like good parents, does THAT tell you pretty specifically what I mean?
https://winteryknight.com/2025/10/21/another-exciting-story-of-a-famous-scholar-charles-murray-studying-christianity/
This references two recent examples of folks committed to the wide and well traveled road, who ended up taking an off ramp after looking at the evidence available to them.
That few people might take the off ramps is almost irrelevant, as it's the existence of the off ramps that is key.
If one holds to a Reformed view, then off ramps are necessary because one never knows when YHWH will exert His call to someone. I guess it could be argued that if the elect are elect from the beginning, that they are always on the narrow road, although that would seem to contradict human experience.
If one holds to an Arminian or Pelagian view, then there must be many off ramps because you never know when someone is going to exert their human will to switch roads.
Obviously, before Dan gets all hyper woodenly literal, the whole road/off ramp language is figurative, although it is based directly on Jesus words.
Craig...
I wasn't thinking vague generalities.
What I said:
It looks like someone who cares for you,
wants the best for you,
welcomes you,
supports you,
holds you accountable,
never gives up on you.
You know, LOVE?
I suspect that only in dysfunctional conservative worlds do people find it confusing or too vague to understand when someone gives this sort of list.
When I say, "Cares for you..." I mean that they're there for and with you when you need it. That they celebrate when you're celebrating. That they mourn when you mourn. It means they visit you in prison, they provide health care when you're sick, they lend you money if it's needed (if they can), etc. Just think sheep and goats!
When I say, "Wants the best for you," I mean that they don't want you to suffer, or face injustices, or face injustices alone, or be sick when you don't need to be (as in when you've been exposed to poisons or had health care denied to you, etc)... I mean they don't want you to be lonely and will be glad to spend time with you if you ARE lonely. I do NOT mean, "I want the best for you, and I'm deciding what's best for you is to return to a place where your odds of starvation or rape or murder are higher..." Or, "I want the best for you and that means an eternity in torment..."
When I say, "WELCOMING," I mean, "Wow! Great to see you! I'm so glad you're here!" You know, welcoming.
I THINK those terms are fairly universally reasonably understood. They CAN mean literally millions of things, but they're all things for the good, not for destruction or for the bad.
The problem with Dan's vague and imprecise criticism is that we see Jesus Himself using language that suggest some sort of division in the type or degree of love. As noted the "sheep/goats", "dead/living", "lost/found" language used by Jesus suggests some difference in how He relates to the different groups. Further, as Art noted, the "wide/narrow" road illustration gives us "destruction/life" language and the sower illustration also suggests different levels of husbandry for each group. As we look at the Jerusalem church in Acts we see that they (the Apostles who knew Jesus best) are more focused on meeting needs within that community, than without.
While this post, as formulated, is my opinion. It is an opinion with ample basis in the whole of Scripture, and specifically in the Gospels and Acts.
What's strange in Dan's obsession with pointing out the obvious, is that he's missed the actual point. That point being that his use of ambiguous and vague terms in ways that might not be the most normal in a theological context, might be a part of the confusion. That his unwillingness to even consider that YHWH's love might look different depending on the circumstances and other factors, again might be a cause of the confusion.
I suspect, partially as a result of Dan's affinity for theological traditions that are based on more of a free-for-all approach, that this confusion and ambiguity is exactly where Dan wants to be.
Dan:
Okay. That's another theory you personally hold, having reached it using your own personal human reasoning, right?"
Craig:
More by observation.
Why do you so fear or run away from owning your own reason? Reason is NOT a bad thing. GOOD reasoning is a great blessing and POOR reasoning is an opportunity to learn and do better. But it's a God-given gift, part of that divinity of God that is within humanity, some theologians and philosophers would suggest.
Isaiah says, "COME, let us REASON together..."
Jesus says that we should "love God with all our heart and mind"
Paul says, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise,
think on these things."
It's a good and holy thing to use our reason and to EXERCISE doing so to strengthen our reasoning.
AND, before you say it, rational people would note that we not over-rely on ONLY our reason. We are to observe, test, measure, be common sense and listen to that of God within us. ALL of which requires reasoning.
Craig:
that YHWH's love might look different depending on the circumstances
If you'd read my words using your God-given reasoning, you'd KNOW (because I have not been unclear) that, of course, I tihnk God's love might look different. But that it might be BETTER than our love, not hideously, monstrously worse.
As loving parents, we might find it nearly impossible to love and forgive a child who harmed another. But God can. You almost certainly don't disagree.
As loving parents, we might find it difficult to love all our children equally, but God can. You may disagree there, but I'd say your reasoning is off, if you do. That would be loving WORSE than mere mortals can, not better.
"What do you THINK I mean by that?"
What an interesting question. If I make assumptions or draw conclusions about "what you mean" you throw a fit and make all sorts of accusations. If I ask you to explain "what you mean" you act like you expect me to draw my own conclusions. Try making up your mind and being consistent.
"I'm just talking about what any rational person means by all of that."
Well, claiming to speak for every "rational person" strikes me as an irrational and unproven claim. Especially as "rational" is not an objective term.
Unfortunately, this is the reply to Dan's comment of 6:54 AM, which was aborted due to Dan's inability to comply with a very simple request and his continued choice not to respect that request.
"How long do you want me to go on with specifics?"
Clearly what I want or ask you to do doesn't matter to you, so you do what you always do and blather on and on.
I'll simply note that "legally" almost certainly means illegally.
I'll also note that it seems strange that you seem to believe that "love" involves encouraging people to break the law.
Craig...
I suspect, partially as a result of Dan's affinity for theological traditions that are based on more of a free-for-all approach
Free for all. What a great descriptor for the Body of God, the literally beloved community, the church universal. Odd, that you seem to be disdaining it!
Free for all theology sounds just about right, to me. We're not serving some odd oligarch with ways that are inscrutable to nearly all. We don't have to have special degrees or areas of study or allegiance to one set of human traditions. It's truly, free, open, available for all to welcome, using our God-given reasoning and common sense as best we can.
Free for all. I truly like that. Thanks, again. I'll cite you on that compliment!
Craig:
I'll also note that it seems strange that you seem to believe that "love" involves encouraging people to break the law.
Wow. Absolutely. ANY unjust and cruel and harmful laws, YES, absolutely 100%, I advise all good people to disobey such laws. ANY laws that oppress or deny human rights? Reject them, fight against them.
Are you a person who lives in one of the Christian or Muslim nations who have criminalized being gay or Christian or Muslim or Jewish...? 1. Fight to see those laws change. 2. Refuse to cooperate with those laws. 3. If they endanger you and you deem it best, 100%, leave that nation and shake the dust from your feet as you go.
I'll also note that it seems strange that you seem to believe that "love" DOESN'T involve encouraging people to break unjust laws.
"Maybe you can make yourself more clear, because I think my answers WERE exceedingly clear."
Of course you do, narcissists seem to believe the absolute best of themselves and can't understand how they could have possibly done things any differently or better.
"Do you think the model of good parents is a good understanding of what it means to be loving"
In theory, it is a reasonably good example. Of course it all depends on your subjective definition of "good parents".
"(with the caveat of not being paternalistic/condescending, which is NOT good parenting!)... "
Well, Dan just subjectively defined "good parents". I guess the fact that the root of "paternalistic" is the Latin word for father, and that being paternal is literally the role of a father, slipped right past you.
"If I say we should act like good parents, does THAT tell you pretty specifically what I mean?'
Given that every "specific" example you've given involves "affirming" others choices with no limits given, or supporting in (apparently) all situations, no.
Craig:
aborted due to Dan's inability to comply with a very simple request
And I will repeat: I have NO idea what "simple request" you're demanding allegiance to. Perhaps you misunderstand the term, "Simple request..." Hint: A simple request is one that is clear and known.
If the ICE nazis break in and tell me they're arresting me for refusing to not provide taco sauce when demanded, ALL the rational person can respond is, "I had no idea that was a law... it sounds very much like you're making it up..."
"I THINK"
Thank goodness that what YOU "THINK" is not any sort of universal standard for Truth. That YOU "THINK" something really carries precisely zero weight.
But, I'll play your game.
Let us suppose that one of your children showed up at your door wearing a MAGA hat, and TPUSA shirt, are you really telling me that your "welcome" would be exactly the same as if they showed up wearing a P-BO shirt?
"Why do you so fear or run away from owning your own reason?"
I don't. I do try to avoid placing my Reason in the same high esteem as you do, as I understand that my reason is limited, subjective, imperfect, and flawed. I view it as one tool, nothing more.
"because I have not been unclear"
Narcissistic, and arrogant much?
Obviously YHWH's love is beyond our concept of love. Yet even in our imperfect, flawed, human attempts to love we recognize that sometimes love demands correction or punishment. That it's not loving to affirm harmful behavior or even poor choices.
I'll simply note, at this point, that your conclusion seems to indicate that you haven't read or understood the points that have been made nor the scriptural (Jesus' teaching" references used. That the Scriptural/Jesus references have gone unaddressed seems to justify that conclusion.
To use Jesus' illustration.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Is it loving, welcoming, and accepting that the road that leads to destruction is wide, easy, and that many enter through it?
Is it loving, welcoming, and accepting that the gate/road that leads to life is narrow, and only a few find it?
Does YHWH love those on the road to destruction in exactly the same was as those on the road to life?
Why would a loving God even allow for a road that is wide and leads to destruction?
Craig:
Let us suppose that one of your children showed up at your door wearing a MAGA hat, and TPUSA shirt, are you really telling me that your "welcome" would be exactly the same as if they showed up wearing a P-BO shirt?
I would, of course, love them and welcome them in our home, of course.
I would NOT insist they burn in hell forever, which might be something your god might do, but not me. Making me greater than your little graceless god, doesn't it?
And that's not saying much, since I'm just another poor and imperfect human. But I DO know how to love and welcome.
Would YOU not welcome and love your loved ones if they came out as wildly liberal?
As a point of reality, I DO have family and loved ones who are on the other side of that political spectrum. Full-on MAGA hatters. And I love them and welcome them. I've invited some to come to our house for Thanksgiving next month.
And in most of their defenses, most of them continue to love and welcome me. I suspect that PROBABLY most of them even think I'm still a Christian, but maybe not.
Although in some cases, some have unfriended me and do not wish to be associated with me because I dared to disagree with them.
It's bizarre when you simply repeat what I've said as if it's some great revelation that you've come to.
"I AM The Way, The Truth, and The Life. No one comes to The Father except through Me." “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?" "I did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill the law." “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire." "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." '' “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell." "“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
All of those sound exactly like someone advocating the kind of free-for-all theology you seem to crave. It also sounds like someone who's "welcome" is limited, and who sees people ending up in a "hell of fire".
But who cares what Jesus said, when you have your Reason.
If your narcissistic, arrogant, self needs to believe that for your self esteem, feel free.
Craig questions:
Is it loving, welcoming, and accepting that the road that leads to destruction is wide, easy, and that many enter through it?
It is NOT loving to create roads that lead to destruction. For one thing. Who does that?
Beyond that, I think you're trying to treat as somewhat literal a passage that is clearly metaphorical and addressing primarily the abusers of power. This whole series of passages and chapters in Matthew is very literally speaking in light of the abuses of the powerful, rich and Pharisees. So, there's that.
In the verses right before the "wide gate" warning, we find Jesus teaching:
“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
That is Jesus teaching us that the laws are understood through love for others, NOT forcing the notion of "loving others" into the laws. That's getting Jesus ass-backwards. That is, saying, "We just stone to death the adulterous woman, because that's loving others..." is getting it exactly backwards. If the behavior one engages in is NOT loving, then it's NOT the law. Does that not make sense to you?
Is it loving, welcoming, and accepting that the gate/road that leads to life is narrow, and only a few find it?
It is NOT loving to have a gate or a door to your house that excludes most of your family. If you have a welcoming household and tell ALL the family to come enjoy a great meal, THEN you block the way for 15 out of 20 family members who come, NO, that is not loving.
Again, I think textually and contextually, clearly this is one of Jesus' ongoing warnings to the rich and powerful. Look at the text and context.
Does YHWH love those on the road to destruction in exactly the same was as those on the road to life?
If God SENDS most of those on ANY roads to an eternity of torture, NO, that "god" is not loving the majority of humanity at all, are they?
Again, if a parent did that, would YOU call that loving?
Why would a loving God even allow for a road that is wide and leads to destruction?
Indeed. Why? THAT is the question you need to answer for yourself. There IS no rational sense in suggesting there's a god (an all-powerful, perfectly loving God!) who creates roads that spell torture and eternal doom for most of that god's children.
More...
1. It's not my place to encourage others to break civil laws, that is a personal decision.
2. I probably should have been more clear that I was referring to YHWH's Law.
I guess it's strange how quiet you are about those "unjust" laws and the nations that enforce them.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard all of your excuses before. You don't spend a lot of time focusing on injustice beyond the US. You once condemned all injustice and therefore don't need to bother with specific injustices. Blah, blah, blah.
I'd just suggest you RE-read the chapters leading up to Matthew 7, and then RE-read the passages that follow the "wide and narrow gates."
You have:
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.
Who could he be talking about? Followed by...
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Hmmm... followed by...
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Hmmm... WHO in Jesus day was NOT building a house on the rock?
And the text says THE PEOPLE were amazed at these bold teachings. They understood the context. But all along these teachings of Jesus, we see the Pharisees getting angrier and angrier. They, too, understood the message and the context.
Then you are either an idiot, illiterate, or have the memory of a goldfish.
To remind you for the last time, and due to idiocy like this I've moved beyond polite requests.
From here on out, any comments that you make which include any of the terms that I or Art find to be condescending (Including, but not limited to, "son", "brother", "dear man") will be aborted. You've been asked nicely innumerable times to cease and desist this practice, yet you continue (Just last week you chose to intentionally do so after being reminded. Which gives the lie to your "I have NO idea..." bullshit.). I regularly show you significantly more grace than you show others at your blog, and I've asked politely, respectfully, nicely and repeatedly for you to stop one thing. You've continued to do what you've been asked not to, and from here on out, you will reap the consequences of your lack of respect, and your comments will be aborted.
Well played, you didn't actually answer the question I asked, and you then took your perversion of my example to an extreme. Well done.
"Would YOU not welcome and love your loved ones if they came out as wildly liberal?"
I regularly do welcome them. Yet their beliefs and actions have altered the relationship.
I asked:
Would YOU not welcome and love your loved ones if they came out as wildly liberal?"
Craig answered:
I regularly do welcome them. Yet their beliefs and actions have altered the relationship.
1. Thanks for the direct answer.
2. I have not said that behaviors might not have consequences and reactions, of course, they may. I've always been abundantly clear on that point.
3. AND YET - and this is the vital Good news point - Do you/will you STILL LOVE them, still accept them, still welcome them to your home?
OR, will you punish them for the rest of their lives?
These two questions point to the difference between a God of Love, Justice and Grace (in the former) and a god of pettiness, gracelessness and injustice, devoid of love.
If you don't see that, can you at least see how people in good faith would think that and that it's not an irrational good faith conclusion to reach, IF they believed in a perfect God of Love and Justice?
Apparently I didn't answer your question sufficiently clearly, so let me try again:
Let us suppose that one of your children showed up at your door wearing a MAGA hat, and TPUSA shirt, are you really telling me that your "welcome" would be exactly the same as if they showed up wearing a P-BO shirt?
1. I don't know what TPUSA is (Toilet Paper??)
2. They would be absolutely welcomed and loved AND if and when we talked about politics, then we would strongly disagree. If they were my actual children as I raised them, they would be fine with that disagreement, because that's how I raised them. We aren't unloving or graceless towards those with whom we have disagreements.
3. Now, if it went to the extreme that this mythical MAGA child wanted to kick out our gay friends and speak ill of them, using abusive words and actions, I would insist they quit causing harm because they WOULD be causing harm. If they were MY children that I raised, they would then agree to stop because harm is the stopping point, but if they continued, they might be asked to leave UNTIL.
4. And yet, they still would be welcome, as long as they were also welcoming. Stan often refers to this as the "irrational" position we put ourselves in of being exclusive believers in inclusion. But that's not it. They are STILL welcome, they just can't do harm. Being a believer in welcoming and inclusion means, perforce, that those who'd EXCLUDE are excluding themselves, by their actions. But they're still welcome on OUR end. It's the harm that isn't welcome.
Craig:
From here on out, any comments that you make which include any of the terms that I or Art find to be condescending (Including, but not limited to, "son", "brother", "dear man") will be aborted.
Ah, that's the irrational position that I THOUGHT you were trying to enforce but I just wasn't clear.
It's ironic that you all find calling other adults "butt buddy," "p***y," "f****t," and other attacking, harmful words to be okay, but calling someone a dear man or brother is offensive. AND you do it because, in your minds, you imagine my intent is to be condescending, when my intent is just to say exactly what I mean.
BUT, even if it was condescending, that you find unbearable offense in being called Dear Brother is, if you don't mind me pointing it out, a rather toxic and weightless sense of "offense."
Wow. Just sad.
"Who does that?"
What an absolutely stupid question. Is this one of those times where you know better than Jesus what He really meant?
"That is Jesus teaching us that the laws are understood through love for others, NOT forcing the notion of "loving others" into the laws. That's getting Jesus ass-backwards."
One more unproven hunch masquerading as a claim of fact. The problem is that the context doesn't mitigate or eliminate Jesus' warnings of the consequences of following the "road that leads to destruction".
"Again, I think..."
One of Dan's magical phrases which he seems to think exempt him from proving his claims.
"Look at the text and context."
As if I haven't done so already. The problem is that the text and the context don't magically remove these warnings from being real and valid, nor is their any indication that these warnings are limited to only a few of your bogeymen.
"If God SENDS most of those on ANY roads to an eternity of torture, NO, that "god" is not loving the majority of humanity at all, are they?"
1. That's not an answer to the question asked.
2. Nothing in the texts suggests that YHWH "sends" anyone anywhere. It suggests that many people choose to follow the wide road to destruction rather than search for the narrow road to life.
3. That's a claim (disguised as a question) that you'd need to prove.
4. If YHWH forced the many off of the road they chose to be on, and forced them onto the road that they chose not to be on, how is it loving to force people to do something they don't want to?
"Again, if a parent did that, would YOU call that loving?"
I would absolutely call a parent who allows their children to experience the consequences of their decisions loving. The experience of parents I've talked to, and my own, is that trying to force your children not to do something they are determined to do is almost a guarantee that they will not listen.
"THAT is the question you need to answer for yourself."
Strange, you come here to my blog and make demands, yet refuse to abide by one request that Art and I have made.
My answer is simple. YHWH doesn't force people to love and follow Him, forced love isn't love at all. For many, I believe including you, the response would be that human free will allows for humans to thwart the will of YHWH. Or I'd refer to CS Lewis and his conclusion that no one will end up in hell that didn't want to be there.
I find it strange that the entire Hebrew Scripture (Or as Jesus called it, Scripture) is full of YHWH allowing His chosen people to follow their own roads instead of following Him.
When Jesus spoke to the Rich Young Ruler, Jesus gave Him the choice. Are you now suggesting that Jesus forced him to choose wealth over eternal life?
...and to be clear, when I say that you all being "offended" by being called "brother" is Sad, I mean, how sad for you, that THAT is the line you draw where it's not okay. Just terribly sad for you and your world you've built around yourselves, and I say that in grief and compassion for you.
Craig:
Is this one of those times where you know better than Jesus what He really meant?
No. I disagree with how YOU are interpreting Jesus. I think Jesus' words are clear and clearly a warning to the oppressors (people who might get outraged over being called a brother by the wrong person, for instance!). That you are trying to take it as a literal narrow and wide gate in speaking about all of humanity is your personal human conclusion you've reached using your human reasoning.
We all know and acknowledge that the biblical authors regularly use metaphors and imagery and most of the time, it's not made clear if the words used are best understood literally or figuratively. And so, we humans use our reasoning to sort that out.
YOU are using your reason to conclude that there is a god who creates skinny, narrow gates that keep most people out and wide roads to eternal damnation.
I use my human reason to conclude that Jesus' story is a story of good news for humanity, one of welcome for all... but that in Jesus' story, we have the counter-story of Jesus' antagonists, who are graceless and abusive with their power and position. As I understand it, this passage is more directed towards that type of person, the abusers, the antagonists in Jesus' story.
We're both using our reason, both reaching conclusions using our reason.
I think MY reason is a better understanding of Jesus' teachings that YOUR reason. I'm disagreeing with you, not Jesus.
Yes, I am aware of the entirety of Matthew.
"WHO in Jesus day was NOT building a house on the rock?"
1. Is this one of those weird instances where you randomly take something in a woodenly literal manner for some unknown reason.
2. The rock/sand example actually illustrates my point exactly. Those who build on sand are the same people who wander blithely down the wide road to destruction, and end up in a similar place.
That you insist on filtering every single thing Jesus said through your preconceptions about the Pharisees, doesn't mean that your unproven hunch is True.
I know it's hard to comprehend, but maybe the Pharisees were convicted by Jesus teachings, but wanted to cling to their power and position rather than repent? Maybe they were upset that Jesus wasn't fulfilling their version of what Messiah should be, but was fulfilling His own version of what Messiah should be?
None of this ridiculousness mitigates or eliminates the reality of what Jesus taught. Nor does it mitigate or eliminate the other examples I gave.
Finally, the point I was making is that Jesus was clearly not advocating a free-for-all theology where everyone made up their own individual, subjective, path to YHWH.
1. As usual.
2. Thank you for agreeing with my larger point, that our choices and behaviors may affect How YHWH demonstrates His love or it may alter the relationship between YHWH and the person.
3. Asked and answered. However, there might be limits.
"OR, will you punish them for the rest of their lives?"
It's not my place to punish anyone, yet how someone acts or what they believe can and does alter the relationship and might be a lifelong situation.
No, given what Scripture (and Jesus' teachings) tell us, I cannot see how anyone could (in good faith) conclude that our actions do not alter our relationship with YHWH and that our actions alter how He might express His love.
1. Then you are an absolute moron who is completely divorced from the world the rest of us inhabit. Because of your ignorance, it's Turning Point USA.
2. Given how you treat us, I find this hard to believe. But if you say that you can control your vitriol with certain people I guess I have to believe you.
3. So you do agree that parental (and YHWH's) love comes with limits.
4. Excellent, your loving welcome would be conditional on them bending to your expectations.
Strangely, that is exactly the point being made by Lewis, Jesus, and me. That the consequences, up to and including some sort of eternal negative ones, are ultimately incurred by those who end up suffering them.
"It's the harm that isn't welcome."
This is an interesting formulation. The reality is that the only ways to exclude "the harm" are to exclude the person, or to force the person to behave in the way that you demand that they behave in order to be in your presence.
That seems like a strange way to welcome or love someone.
It's always great when you make my points.
It's actually not irrational at all.
You had been asked multiple times, respectfully, politely, and nicely to refrain from those condescending terms. You intentionally chose not to respect our requests, and intentionally chose to ignore them. This is 100% on you and your choice to refuse to show respect for a reasonable, polite, request. You exercised your free will to be a condescending, disrespectful, graceless, ass, and after an extended period of you being extended more grace that you show, you are reaping the consequences for your actions.
As for the terms you find annoying, I (I can't speak for Art) am simply mirroring your actions and treating you how you treat others.
Whether your condescension is real or not, is immaterial. You were asked to stop, nicely, respectfully, and politely, and you chose to ignore those requests in a graceless show of disrespect.
That you have somehow magically absolved yourself of responsibility for your continued actions, and turned this completely around, is simply one more manifestation of your condescension, disrespect, and petulance. You have frequently bitched and moaned if we infer intent from your words, yet once again, you expect us to read your mind and know your intent. Hypocrite.
We asked nicely, you chose disrespect and gracelessness, that is 100% on you.
You've had your explanation, once again, your earlier lie has been exposed "I have NO IDEA..." , and this diversion is closed. Any further attempts to justify your graceless disrespect, or use of the terms you've been asked not to use will resort in those comments being aborted.
To be clear, I'm not "offended" by you calling me "brother". I'm frustrated at your unwillingness to show me the grace and respect you demand that I show you. I'm frustrated at your repeated passive aggressive attempts to absolve yourself of any wrongdoing in this matter. I'm frustrated that your response to a simple, polite, nice, respectful request, was to continue the behavior you'd been asked to stop, and your repeated attempts to justify your disrespectful and graceless behavior.
FYI, the abortion rule applies to any comments currently in moderation. I'll show you the respect and grace you won't show by leaving and responding to any of these idiotic, repetitive, self justifying comments I've already approved.
Indeed. You're demonstrating more graciousness than Dan deserves in again restating the request. In my opinion, you shouldn't have done it, especially since, as you've noted, he's demonstrated that he knows damned well what our expectations of him are. Better would have been to insist he does one or both of two things:
1. Search out comments where the requests have been made.
2. Save in a file all comments he submits so he can use his "reason" to determine what's said in the rejecting submissions which aren't present in the published submissions. In short, figure it out for himself.
#2 is only fair given how he doesn't do squat to explain why words he doesn't like used at his blog shouldn't be when their usage is accurate and appropriate. Thus, he has no grounds for insisting what we prohibit doesn't oblige his compliance.
I'm not interpreting Jesus, I'm taking His recorded words at face value.
That you "think" that Jesus really meant something other that what He is recorded as saying is irrelevant. As I've noted elsewhere, anytime you say "I think", I ignore anything that follows "think" as being simply one more unproven hunch.
Ahhhhhh the "metaphor gambit". Yes, the road example is a metaphor and I'm treating it as a metaphor.
"YOU are using your reason to conclude that there is a god who creates skinny, narrow gates that keep most people out and wide roads to eternal damnation."
That is simply a complete and utter misrepresentation of anything I have said. It's simply one more straw man. As such, it's unworthy of any more time.
If you say so.
Thank you, I have tried to show Dan more respect and grace than he shows me. While I occasionally allow his vitriol or lies to draw me into being less gracious than usual, or when I mirror his behavior to make a point, my goal is to treat him better than he treats me.
The simple reality is that in Dan's world, we bow to his demands, but he doesn't reciprocate. To pretend otherwise is a waste of time. He exposed his petulant, lying bullshit without me having to do a thing. He's exhausted my grace in this matter, and he's clearly done it intentionally. His repeated attempts to absolve himself from his actions, and to blame us for asking him to show a tiny bit of respect in one area, indicates that he is incapable of living up to the standards he demands of others.
It's not worth the time to save anything, it's all bullshit anyway. As always the choice is his, and which road his comments go down is 100% up to him.
"“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.
Who could he be talking about?"
Those like Dan and his pet troll, feo.
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Dan thinks this doesn't mean him and his troll, despite their ongoing choice to reject God's direct prohibition against homosexuality and murder.
"“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Hmmm... WHO in Jesus day was NOT building a house on the rock?"
All who did not abide the Will of God, be they rich or poor, "oppressors" or "the oppressed". Dan's "reason" leads him to be believe "the poor and marginalized" were perfect angels without sin. Strange given how many of the marginalized were blatant sinners.
More importantly, who is THIS day is not building a house on rock? Dan and his troll. Most of those Dan defends.
Dan doesn't believe in a perfect God of love and justice. He believes in a personally pleasing notion of love and justice and projects it upon God, which is making for himself an idol. There is no justice without punishment. Mercy is the withholding of punishment or mitigating punishment. There isn't mercy for those who choose to ignore the warnings of God/Jesus. There's only the just punishment about which we are warned for disobedience. There's no way around it but only through our acceptance of Jesus can we avoid it and enjoy God's mercy and love. True acceptance is is demonstrated by our repentance and dedication to live as Jesus taught and God the Father expects. That's also known as "the narrow path" which leads to everlasting life.
Dan likes to pretend his passive/aggression is fooling anyone. He throws in these "terms of endearment" when he's trying to foist upon us the laughable notion that he's truly a Christian in command of the moral high ground. It ain't workin'.
But it's not the words he uses, but the intention we infer (or at least the intention I infer) by his employing them, and the fact that we have our standards for appropriate word usage as does he at his Blog of Lies and Perversions despite his standards are to control the opponent and discourse, while ours is simply to not suffer his false "endearments".
And like at his Blog of Lies and Perversions, (or simply "Lies and Perversions" for short), we assume the "our blogs, our rules" concept which, as at Lies and Perversions, precludes any debate on the prohibition in question.
I, for one, am not at all offended by being referred to as "brother" by someone who acts like a brother/is a brother. I do not regard as a brother anyone who so blatantly rebels against the Will of God and then asserts he's doing no wrong despite the clearly revealed Will of God being impossible to miss by one who claims to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture for as long as Dan claims to have done so.
Those I consider "brother" don't have to be perfect. Just far closer to it than Dan chooses to be.
"That is simply a complete and utter misrepresentation of anything I have said."
Ah, Craig...that's far too much grace granted for someone who is simply blatantly lying. And here's a bit of stupidity which further belies Dan's notion of what constitutes "reason":
Even if God literally created a "skinny, narrow gate", it's not the gate itself which keeps people out. It's the character of those who won't deal with what it takes to go through it. Scripture teaches "...God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear." Too many don't even try to resist temptation. Dan is one of them.
What's more, there's nothing in the metaphor which speaks to any deadline (except the understood deadline which is physical death) for entering the narrow gate. Thus, if all of humanity sought to enter THAT gate instead of the wide gate, the line would extend for billions of people and all would be able to enter. There's nothing restricting our entrance but our own selves.
The metaphor speaks to our own choices in life, and it means that too many will choose themselves over God. Dan is one of those people by all available evidence.
All this nonsense with Dan is exactly why I finally banned him from my blog. It's his way or the highway. He proves his ignorance of Scripture every time he engages you and yet YOU are the one who is ignorant according to him. I just got tired of wasting time with him.
Glenn, I get that completely. Unfortunately I promised Dan that I'd treat him better here than he treated me at his blog, and my integrity is important to me. had I not done so, things would be different.
Art,
Thanks, I try.
I was going to point out essentially what you did, but decided that it likely wasn't worth it. The narrow gate clearly isn't intended to keep people out, it's merely demonstrating that the vast majority, like maybe Dan, prefer the wide and easily traveled road.
I agree. One problem is that there is plenty of history of Dan hurling the most hateful vitriol at me, as well as blatantly lying about me. I can't ever see a situation where I would treat someone as I've been treated, then pull this "brother" crap as if none of it ever happened. If Dan Truly thought we we brothers, he would have done as we asked the first time we asked. He made his choice, now he has to deal with it.
As I noted elsewhere, even if he is 100% sincere and we are 100% misinterpreting him, the simple fact that we've asked him nicely, politely, and respectfully to stop should be enough. Instead we get this bullshit passive aggressive bullshit because Dan doesn't have the courage to simply apologize and move on.
I get the idea that Dan cherry picked a couple of snippets that might well be more applicable to himself than he'd admit.
It's so absurdly simple. Jesus came for all, His Kingdom is not built on economic or political divisions, but on Himself.
What did He say?
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
I don't know, but it sounds pretty straightforward to me, and no mention of the "poor and marginalized".
Yeah, justice without punishment doesn't sound like justice at all. That's like saying that Hitler and Mother Theresa end up in exactly the same circumstance, crazy.
So, in summary: On your first point and the title of your post, there was no confusion on my part. I just meant Loving and Welcoming as they are typically understood.
It sounds like MAYBE you personally have some confusion about what it means to be loving (like "loving people" could include "creating a system that demands eternal torture for most people..." Which is HELLA confusing and irrational and just nightmare fuel, from a rational point of view... Not at ALL the kind of loving parent we'd hope on even our worst enemies!).
So, where you irrationally opined that "isn't particularly clear about what that might look like in practice." ...is it clear to you now what at least I mean by this? Or do you need more examples? And again, how many examples are needed for you to understand and to ease your confusion? Because I can keep on providing examples if you think at some point you might no longer be confused.
And where you theorize:
What I think is causing the confusion is that Scripture seems to indicate that there are at least two levels to being "beloved" and "accepted".
You may be right. That MAY BE what is confusing to you, to have this strange concept of love which includes eternal torture as an option under the Love umbrella. But can you see how that might be a you problem, and not a problem with love as its typically understood?
As there is no way to deal with the above comment without seeming to validate the straw men, and misrepresentations, I see no reason to do so. There is a limit to my willingness to seriously engage with bullshit. As I noted elsewhere, if Dan can't accurately describe what he's arguing against, his vaunted Reason starts to seem less and less impressive.
The reality is that I specifically compiled multiple posts of your vitriolic attacks, lies, and bile. That you continue to engage in and allow the same sort of thing at your cesspool, seems to be the log in your eye. You have a long history of personal attacks, ad hom garbage, lies, misrepresentations, and straw men.
That I choose a tongue in cheek term to describe your parasite, is simply a mild response to years of your vitriol, and lies and attacks you enable from your parasite.
Damn, I should have read the whole comment before I approved it for a response. But it's one more aborted.
Marshal...
"Even if God literally created a "skinny, narrow gate", it's not the gate itself which keeps people out. It's the character of those who won't deal with what it takes to go through it."
How is this NOT the theory of a legalist?
If we're not perfectly good like God,
THEN we're bound for torture for eternity?
That, unlike even an imperfect human, God is impotent or unwilling to show grace and forgive as we're expected to?
That seems like an unholy theory of legalism/salvation by works, on the one hand and an unmoving, graceless god on the other.
Can you at least understand that's how Marshal is presenting?
I guess that noting the reality that I wrote this post in an attempt to bridge a gap that I honestly thought was not very large, and comparing my olive branch to the divisive garbage I've gotten in return should teach me a lesson about trying to bridge gaps.
Even though it's not addressed to me, I'll take a shot.
"How is this NOT the theory of a legalist?"
Because noting that there are limits to access to YHWH's Kingdom isn't legalism, unless you believe that YHWH establishing limits is legalism. Are you suggesting that YHWH does not have the authority or power to establish limits for His creation?
"If we're not perfectly good like God, THEN we're bound for torture for eternity?"
You see, when you make shit like this up that bears no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually said, it makes you look like you can't argue against people's real position and you have to resort to arguing against straw men.
"That, unlike even an imperfect human, God is impotent or unwilling to show grace and forgive as we're expected to?"
This doesn't make any sense and bears no relationship to any argument anyone has actually made in this thread. If you are arguing that YHWH offers blanket forgiveness to every human who's ever existed with absolutely no limits , then you'd have to prove that to be True before I'd take you halfway seriously.
"That seems like an unholy theory of legalism/salvation by works, on the one hand and an unmoving, graceless god on the other."
Coming from someone who espouses the Pelagian hunch that it's possible for humans to live a perfectly sin free life and that we have the perfect ability to choose not to sin, it's rich to hear this straw man from you.
"Can you at least understand that's how Marshal is presenting?"
Not in the least. But I do understand how you're projecting and arguing against straw men.
The fact that you make these claims about what you've concocted in your tiny little brain, and attribute those concoctions to us, without any actual evidence (quotes/links) that we've said what you've projected is a serious problem.
"I just meant Loving and Welcoming as they are typically understood."
You say this kind of crap as if there's no subjectivity involved and there most certainly is where YOU'RE involved. You think you can say "Love" and everyone is supposed to assume your understanding of it is aligned with God and His love. It isn't and you've proven that over the 17+ years we've been doing this dance. Thus, when Craig gets into it, he's supporting his contention of obvious confusion, and most of it is caused by you, and I would argue in most cases intentionally so as to inject as much ambiguity as you need to do what you want and still maintain you're Christian.
"It sounds like MAYBE you personally have some confusion about what it means to be loving (like "loving people" could include "creating a system that demands eternal torture for most people..." Which is HELLA confusing and irrational and just nightmare fuel, from a rational point of view... Not at ALL the kind of loving parent we'd hope on even our worst enemies!)."
This is typical Dan bullshit. We well know what it means to be loving. God didn't demand a system of torture. He created a system by which we could be saved from ourselves and our sin natures, which has cut us off from Him. You'll remember that God walked with Adam in the Garden you write off as myth and fiction. Adam sinned and from then on we've been cut off from Him...until He sent our Savior with the Good News about how to recover what sin took from us. A loving parent has rules and terms under which the parent's children are expected to abide. The more severely the kids disobey, the more severe a loving parent's response must be in order to return the kids to the straight and narrow. The difference between the typical parent and God is vast in every way shape and form. As there is with the good parent who will cast out the incorrigible child, we are cast out now and must do as our Heavenly Father expects in order to return to His House. A part of His expectations is repentance. No good parent casts out (or grounds) an unruly child and then lets them back in (or out of their room) without a display of remorse and repentance. There's no forgiveness for those who aren't contrite and penitent, otherwise there's no justice or mercy but spinelessness on the part of the parent. God isn't spineless. And as much as He would that no one perish, He's not obliged in any way, shape or form to forgive the unrepentant. Only a Jeff St buffoon would presume otherwise.
"So, where you irrationally opined that "isn't particularly clear about what that might look like in practice." ...is it clear to you now what at least I mean by this?"
We've long known what it means to you. It means anything goes so long as it doesn't bother Dan, who is sovereign and dictates to the world what is good and what is evil, and no Creator of All Things has authority to dispute it. As such, you demand God welcomes the unrepentant homosexual and abortionist. And that's how what you say looks like in practice. It would be comical if it didn't so greatly and negatively impact the eternity of those who are persuaded by your fake theology.
"
You may be right. That MAY BE what is confusing to you, to have this strange concept of love which includes eternal torture as an option under the Love umbrella. But can you see how that might be a you problem, and not a problem with love as its typically understood?"
Perhaps to atheists and fake Christians like yourself. But not to those who don't focus on that which they're very unlikely of enduring due to putting God's Will above their own.
When Dan says "as they are commonly understood", he almost certainly means "as they are commonly understood by Dan in the subjective way that best serves Dan's purpose at any given time".
You're love example is an excellent one. In scripture alone there are multiple Greek terms that are translated as love. When Dan uses love in this context, he fails to note which of those Biblical Greek types of love he is referring to. Let alone the 20th/21st century concept of love as "warm feelings". For all we know Dan is saying that YHWH "loves" in the same way that people "love" pizza. It's one more example of Dan seeking refuge in ambiguity. A quick Google search comes up with at least 10 different definitions/aspects of love without even touching on the type of sacrificial love found in scripture.
You can obviously deal with the straw men and misrepresentations if you like, I see no reason to.
It seems that Dan simply doesn't like the idea of a God who created all things, who rules all things, and who has the authority to limit access to Himself. A God with the ability to superintend the writing, compilation, and content of Scripture is a problem for folx like Dan, because if this was the case Scripture would carry more authority than Dan and his parasite are comfortable with.
"Now, for many people raised in places and positions of privilege, it may be difficult to wrap our minds around this problem. "Okay, so I've had a setback and people are speaking ill of me... Just buck up, kiddo! I'll just go ahead and pull myself up by my own bootstraps!" But that's privilege talking. That's someone who was not raised with centuries of oppression and demonizations, even sometimes by their own families."
These are the words of someone who has never been exposed to the hard work, ingenuity, and drive of those who live in places like Haiti.
Even those raised in an environment of "oppression and 'demonizations'" have never experienced "centuries" of either. Yet even those so raised have the agency to rise above it, or would were it not for "progressives" who need them to embrace the spirit of being a victim for "progressives" to feel good about themselves.
This is an interesting point. As I have some familiarity with Haiti, let's consider the people of Haiti.
When it was French, the economy was almost entirely based on plantations with slave labor. Then the slaves rebelled, defeated the French, British, and Spanish to secure their freedom. From there Haiti has been ruled by Haitians, yet they remain the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Of look at how the standard of living has gone in the countries in Africa which were colonized after the colonizers left. Of course, let's look at the Jews and Christians in countries conquered by Muslims.
As I general rule I see very few on the left side of things that acknowledge the rule that agency plays. They are generally quick to diminish agency by blaming others for the actions of individuals. It is strange that so many on the left seem to want a permanent class, even to the extent of trying to make some of the most vile humans on planet earth into victims.
As an aside. When people insist that identity is determined primarily or exclusively by what "group" people put you in, as opposed to based on individual actions and character, it facilitates a diminishment of individual agency.
Craig...
"As I general rule I see very few on the left side of things that acknowledge the rule that agency plays."
Those who speak from a position of arrogance and ignorance will only show themselves to be arrogant and ignorant.
How many years have YOU been an ally alongside those with disabilities? Alongside those living with poverty, mental illness and poverty?
We know about agency, as we have dedicated lifetimes to supporting the agency of some of the most historically oppressed.
Grow up and humble yourself. Don't be an obtuse oaf, sinking in a cesspool of your smug pride.
This is a fascinating response.
It wasn't long ago when those on the left insisted that "lived experience" was the be all and end all of virtually everything. Yet, apparently this only carries weight when it's those in the left making statements about their "lived experience". When anyone else does so, it becomes a manifestation of arrogance and ignorance.
Well, I've been involved with various disability ministries for about 15 years, and my wife worked for (and we donated to) one of the larger, global disability ministries regularly. I spent over 20 years employing the homeless, building homes for low income families, and approx 10 helping bring critically needed medical care to the poorest region of the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Oh, and I have family members dealing with mental illness.
Clearly that's not enough for the entitled, arrogant, ignorant, ass that is Dan Trabue.
It's so sweet when Dan demonstrates such grace and love to those who he claims to consider to be his "brother". It's especially sweet when Dan shows us his smug pride because he's so incredibly ignorant and possessed by his prejudices and lack of memory.
Post a Comment