For anyone who has followed Dan over the recent past,(phrase removed to avoid further offense to Dan). I have asked Dan repeatedly why he refuses to listen to the clear teaching of Jesus on this subject. He finally addressed my question in the thread between he and Bubba. His response is, in essence, that one cannot forgive a wrong done to someone else. I beg to differ. In support of my position I offer the following scripture in numerous translations.
Mathew 6:14-15
NASB
14"(S)For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.15"But (T)if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.
The Message
14-15"In prayer there is a connection between what God does and what you do. You can't get forgiveness from God, for instance, without also forgiving others. If you refuse to do your part, you cut yourself off from God's part.
KJV
14For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
ESV
14(AA) For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15(AB) but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
NKJV
14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
ASV
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Young’s Literal Translation
14`For, if ye may forgive men their trespasses He also will forgive you -- your Father who [is] in the heavens;
15but if ye may not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
The reason I choose this passage is very simple. Dan has repeatedly used the Sermon on the Mount as a piece of scripture which he believes is accurately presented. It would seem that this would give credibility to this particular scripture as an accurate representation of the words of Jesus.
I am intentionally limiting this to this one topic, I'm sure it will go elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
116 comments:
For anyone who has followed Dan over the recent past, he has made it very clear that there is one person whom he refuses to forgive.
Last chance, fella: Stop lying about me if you wish me to visit your place. THIS above is a blatant lie.
It is not my place to forgive this perverted moral degenerate for the sin he did against another person. IF Brother P had sinned against ME, I could forgive him. His sin is not against me, so I have nothing to forgive him for. It's NOT the case that I'm not forgiving him, it's the case that I can't forgive him because his actions weren't against me.
Lie no more. It is a real sin, as opposed to your made up shit you just spread about me.
Now let me try this again in a way that perhaps we can find common ground.
You say it is our role to forgive, regardless if the transgression was not against us, specifically?
Then show me how it's done, brother Craig. There's this pervert scum who kidnapped, molested, abused, imprisoned and raped an 11 year old girl - kept her as a sex slave for 18 years. If ever there was someone in need of forgiveness, it's this man. Show me how it's done, Craig. Forgive that man.
Because, according to the way you're taking Jesus' words above, all it takes is Craig to forgive them and they WILL be forgiven.
Hallelujah! What power you have, Craig. While you're at it, forgive me of all my sins and - why not? - just go ahead and forgive the whole world of their sins. If our sins are wiped away by Craig's generous forgiveness, then we can all get into heaven.
Show us all how it's done and save the world while you're at it.
Do you really think that is what Jesus had in mind when he uttered those words? There's a term for that line of thinking: Cheap grace.
Man, if all it takes is Craig to say the word and we can all be forgiven, then we can all be saved, just like that. No repentance required. No decision to follow in Jesus' steps. Nothing. Just Craig's forgiveness.
IF that is what Jesus meant by that. But I think you and I both agree that mouthing forgiveness without genuine repentance means little.
Sure, we can do as Jesus did on the cross and forgive those who sin in ignorance ("forgive them father, for they know not what they do...") and we can certainly forgive those who sin against us, at least on our side of the fence. But even so, our forgiveness of those who trespass against us means nothing without their repentance. And our "forgiveness" of crimes not committed against us means even less and, indeed, would be a mockery of God's grace and justice, it seems to me.
Another problem (minor, compared to the cheap grace problem) with your particular passage is that it has to do with US getting forgiveness from God. IF we are not willing to forgive those who trespass (transgress) against us, then God is not prepared to forgive us.
It is not talking about US forgiving those who trespass against OTHERS.
If either of y'all mind my joining in, PLEASE let me know, and I won't comment again.
I do beg your pardon for commenting now and would appreciate if these comments were left standing, even if you would ask me not to comment further.
In the meantime, I'm very tentative about this subject because I've been struggling (and recently growing) through the difficulty of forgiving loved ones for hurt that they've caused me.
The question of forgiving someone for sins against OTHERS involves deep and largely uncharted waters for me, so a lot of my thoughts are very, very provisional.
One thing worth noticing is that, of the many translations Craig quotes, none of them actually specifies that God will forgive you only if you forgive others for their transgressions "against you."
It doesn't mention transgressions "against anyone," either, so it may not be that either position is clearly implied.
In the Lord's Prayer, we are taught to ask the Father to forgive our debts as we forgive "our debtors," which makes Dan's position the more obvious position, but I'm not sure that even this implies that we have the ability and/or duty to forgive ONLY those who have trespassed directly against us.
In his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, John Stott wrote about the connection this passage makes between our forgiving others and God's forgiving us.
"This certainly does not mean that our forgiveness of others earns us the right to be forgiven. It is rather that God forgives only the penitent and that one of the chief evidences of true penitence is a forgiving spirit. Once our eyes have been opened to see the enormity of our offence against God, the injuries which others have done to us appear by comparison extremely trifling. If, on the other hand, we have an exaggerated view of the offences of others, it proves that we have minimized our own. It is the disparity between the size of debts which is the main point of the parable of the unmerciful servant [Mt 18:23-25]."
Maybe the truly penitent spirit is eager to forgive others whenever he can. Maybe forgiving our direct debtors is only the starting point.
To reiterate an observation from that other thread, ultimately all sins are against God. Consider Psalm 51:4, which Scripture asserts is a Psalm of David in the context of his adultery with Bathsheba and even(!) his murder of her husband:
"Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your sentence and blameless when you pass judgment."
If all sins are against God, who came to earth incarnate in Christ, and if the church is the Body of Christ, do we not have the opportunity (and arguably the duty) to extend to all sinners the offer of God's forgiveness, at least in Christ's name?
And if a person is indignant (possibly righteously indignant) about a sin committed against another person, does that not suggest that he has sorta-kinda shared in the victim's offense? That he is offended on the victim's behalf?
It's possible to sympathize with one's fellow man and share in his outrage. And, it's possible to be outraged as a member of the offended community: the victim is (to some non-zero degree) part of the society to which you belong, and so a crime against that person is, in some (even small) sense, a crime against the entire community.
If either sympathy or social connection binds you to sharing the victim's offense, it may also enable you (or even require you) to have some role in the offender's forgiveness.
[continued]
[continued]
I've been reading a good bit on the subject, in When Forgiveness Doesn't Make Sense, by Robert Jeffress. He makes the point that forgiveness doesn't actually require repentance on the offender's part or always result in reconciliation between the two parties: that it doesn't erase the consequences of his actions, and it doesn't require the victim to forget what happened.
Instead, he argues that what is biblical (and frankly more healthy) is "unilateral" and unconditional forgiveness, which entails the following:
1) Admitting that someone has wronged you.
2) Acknowledging that, as a result, the offender owes you a debt.
3) Releasing the offender of his obligation to pay back that debt.
And that's it, at least on your part. It's not cheap because you "swallow" or absorb the costs of the offender's debt -- just as Christ accepted the debt we owe God by dying in our place.
Jeffress writes that more is required for reconciliation:
"While repentence isn't necessary for granting forgiveness, it is vital for receiving forgiveness. Augustine once said, 'God gives where He finds empty hands. A man whose hands are full of parcels can't receive a gift.'"
So it's not only not cheap in our giving it (since we accept the debt), it's not cheap in their receiving it, either.
Applying this idea to how God forgives us, I can see a resolution to the problem you raise here, Dan, writing, "If our sins are wiped away by [anyone's] generous forgiveness, then we can all get into heaven."
Well, has God forgiven the sins of the entire world? I'm inclined to say that He has, because everyone's obligation to pay back the debt caused by sin HAS been released. The debt has already been paid by God Incarnate Himself, on the cross.
The question isn't whether God forgives Bob's sins or Bill's sins, but whether Bob or Bill receive the forgiveness that He has already purchased and already offers -- and that act of receiving is what entails repentance and requires faith, faith being the means of our justification.
[continued]
[continued]
I reiterate my belief that the Bible clearly teaches (esp. in Rom 3:24-25) that our justification has God's grace as its source, Christ's death as its grounds, and our faith as its means.
God's grace is clearly universal in its scope: God loves the whole world (Jn 3:16) and is not willing that any would perish but that all would come to repentance (II Pet 3:9).
I'm very strongly inclined to believe that Christ's death is probably also universal in its scope. Jn 3:16 teaches that God loved the world that He sent us Son, implicitly to die for our sins. In Rom 5:6-8, Paul teaches that Christ died for the ungodly, and that while we were sinners Christ died for us: surely it's possible that He died for ALL sinners and not just those who accepted God's grace through faith.
(I note here, not the first time, the connection Paul makes between God's love and Christ's death, that "God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us." Since God's love is clearly universal, perhaps Christ's death is also universal.)
What's not universal is faith. Some accept God's grace through faith, and they are therefore justified before God and reconciled to God. Some do not.
Those who do not receive forgiveness from God, through faith, may have nevertheless been forgiven through God's grace and Christ's death.
God did all He could to send them the invitation to the wedding feast, and they didn't answer it. Or, they tried to get through the gates on the merits of their own work -- their own attempts to pay back their debt to God -- rather than accepting through faith that God has already paid that debt through Christ.
What more must God do in order to write one's name in the Lamb's book of life? Nothing: the debt has already been paid by Christ's death.
It is finished.
What remains is only our part of the puzzle: our repentance of our sin, and our faith in Christ.
Since there's nothing left for God to do, surely it's not absurd to suggest that God has already forgiven everyone, insofar as all our debts have already been released, because they have all been paid.
It's possible -- and the more I consider it, the more convinced I am -- that God has already forgiven all of us, but He is reconciled to those (and ONLY to those) who receive that forgiveness.
Wow! Fantastic words, Bubba. I concur with them, pretty much entirely (I say it that way because it deserves multiple readings---I might see it differently later, though I don't think so.)
Particuarly, I agree that the act of the offender has nothing to do with our granting forgiveness. One who has offended me does NOT have to atone to me in order for me to be required, I believe, to forgive. I think Dan comes dangerously close to blurring the line between our actions towards God and those toward each other. They are not the same at all.
First of all, we cannot grant salvation, nor forgive anyone in any manner that will secure salvation for them. That's between the offender and the Lord. But if we do not forgive, it is as if we have given offense to God, as a separate issue apart from whatever occurred between the offender and ourselves. In a sense, by not forgiving our offenders, we have given offense to them. This is how I see forgiveness between human beings.
As to the issue between Dan and Mark, Dan claims that Mark has not done anything directly to Dan and thus, there is nothing Dan can do forgiveness-wise for Mark. Yet, Dan holds "the offense" against Mark as if Mark indeed hurt Dan. This is evident by the inappropriate names he uses to refer to Mark ("perverted moral degenerate"). I say the name calling is inappropriate because the language Mark used in his hypothetical question to Dan is not common, not characteristic, but used out of frustration for Dan's evasive dodging of Mark's question (a charge often leveled against Dan).
As a sidebar, I feel entitled to speak on this due to the fact that the transgression in question took place at my blog. I know Mark's remarks were not said to accuse anyone. It was only said to provoke a direct and honest answer to the underlying question to which Mark sought an answer from Dan. Graphic enough to compell me to delete them, the words were nothing most men haven't heard gazillions of times without the merest blink of an eye, but as the hypothetical involved someone close to Dan, he used the situation, in my opinion, to close off communication with Mark and avoid the question to which everyone else still awaits an answer.
So as I see it, Dan has taken offense (I think that's obvious) and being offended has need of showing forgiveness. I certainly have not held against Dan his common tactic of asking questions like, "So if God said 'rape little puppies', you think that's OK?" I'm offended that he would be so flip in his hypothetical involving Almighty God. There's very little difference between what Mark did and such comments by Dan, since neither of them are suggesting that the subject is actually doing what is suggested in the hypothetical. (That's why it's hypothetical.)
Another way to look at it would be that I don't think Dan would have held this so severely against Mark, nor even thought of him as a "perverted moral degenerate" had Mark not used a loved one of Dan in the hypothetical. He'll likely disagree, but I'll say now that I'll find it hard to believe if he does. The point is that because it involved a loved one, Dan has indeed taken it upon himself to be offended as if it was an offense directly against him (An attack on my family is an attack on me).
Dan needs to find it in his heart to forgive Mark like a good Christian should.
To address the idea that Craig should forgive the guy who kidnapped the girl, this is a weak argument. That man did nothing to Craig or anyone Craig knows. It is NOT the same as what is between Mark and Dan. Not even close. There was direct engagement between Dan and Mark that doesn't exist in the least between Craig and the rapist. This is the type of hyperbolic exercises that Dan likes to use to make his cases, but, as we can see in this issue, one must be careful just how one tries to use the same technique on Dan. Mark's was a legitimate hypothetical poorly delivered and for that, Dan would see him crucified. So much easier than answering the question.
Now, I wonder if Mark forgives Dan for his reaction? I'll have to ask him.
Marshall, are you saying then, that Craig should NOT forgive this man? Why not?
You say there is no comparison and, indeed, the situations are different as I DID know the person who was transgressed against. But that does not change Craig's or Bubba's argument: They are saying that we ought to forgive those who have done no wrong against us, but whose transgression is against someone else entirely.
So, please fellas, show me how it's done. Forgive the rapist/kidnapper dude.
Step up and do it so I can at least see what it looks like and what purpose you perceive there to be in doing so.
Let me be clear that I am a HUGE believer in forgiveness. We are saved by grace and we, in turn, ought to be prepared to be gracious. We, of all people. This is exactly one of the hypocrisies that people hold against Christians - their often entire lack of charity, grace and forgiveness towards others. This harsh attitude of "YOU'RE A SINNER! YUCK!"
Additionally, there are huge personal reasons to be forgiving - storing up anger and bitterness towards someone who has wronged you is bad for YOU, the wronged. A forgiving heart releases a load of weight from the forgiving one, even if the offender is not repentant.
This is what I think the Bible is clearly talking about - holding a forgiving heart, full of God's grace, especially towards those who wrong us.
But I don't think it is talking about just willy nilly going around forgiving people lightly or that you don't even know and whose offense was not against you.
I hold a forgiving heart towards this person (who has indeed, demonstrated by his actions that he is what we traditionally call a pervert and moral degenerate, it's not "name-calling" to identify something for what it actually is). I feel pity for this person, he appears to be wholly oblivious to his own sin and ugliness and that is sad for him.
But I don't think the Bible is telling us to go around forgiving others who have not sinned against us, especially when their crimes are especially egregious. And lying, slander, gossip, hypocrisy, perverse talk about someone they don't know, these ARE ugly, egregious acts. It's just that the traditional church too often downplays those sins which is tends to be actually guilty of and instead prefer to say the "great sins" are the sins of sexuality, or drugs or other sins that aren't a problem for them.
Regarding the notion that this passage is not talking specifically about those who sin specifically against us, it's true that these two verses don't say that. BUT, the verse coming shortly before 14 and 15 DOES.
...and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; (ie, those who owe US, specifically US)
...If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.
But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.
Context, gentlemen. Context.
Dan,
Dan first comment, you have clearly said that you will not forgive he who's name cannot be written. However, in the interest of being a nice guy, I'll re-word the post.
Dan second comment, I say nothing. I merely quote the words of Jesus. If you would like to stop putting words in my mouth it would probably help to find the common ground you say you seek.
Dan third comment, you have added a word (us) that is not in the verse. Therefore you are arguing a point that no one has made.
Bubba, Amen. I have been through a similar situation where I had been wronged by another believer. I worked with him to try to achieve some sort of resolution, all the while it became more obvious that it was not going to happen. I finally realized that unless I forgave him, it was going to continue to eat away at me. So I finally just had to forgive him, realize that I would probably never get the same from him and move on. It was an incredibly freeing thing to do, and a practice I would highly recommend. Thanks for your thoughts, feel free to jump in any time.
Marshall, thanks. I completely agree that it seems problematic to claim offense at something done to another (with all the vitriol that has entailed), while at the same time claim that since nothing was done to you that you can't forgive.
Dan comment 4. To the extent I can offer the kidnapper dude forgiveness I offer it to him.
Dan comment 5. "We are saved by grace and we, in turn, ought to be prepared to be gracious." I agree completely with this comment. It is however somewhat undermined by your gracious use of the phrase "perverted moral degenerate". It would seem that this would be a great place to demonstrate this graciousness.
"storing up anger and bitterness towards someone who has wronged you is bad for YOU, the wronged" again I agree, however once more you undermine your stated position by continuing to harbor "anger and bitterness".
Dan comment 6. I did consider the context. The fact that the earlier verse has the qualifier in no way militates against a reading that accepts the broader view as these verses clearly do.
The issue here, despite your efforts to make it so is not so much interpretation, as translation. You have been fairly clear that this is a passage that you believe should be taken literally as written. IF you look at context it certainly does not rule out a more inclusive forgiveness.
Dan, you say the situation is about forgiving someone "whose transgression is against someone else entirely."
But one has the ability to sympathize with the victim, and there may well be a sense where a crime against one person is a crime against the entire society or community.
You seem to be more inclined to collectivism, so I frankly don't understand why you don't grasp that our connections with society may give us the opportunity (or even the responsibility) to forgive those whose offense did not directly affect us.
I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples where someone decided to shun a person (giving him "the silent treatment") for some offense against a third party. If one can hold a grudge for offending someone else, one can surely let go of that grudge, in act otherwise known as forgiveness.
You write:
"Additionally, there are huge personal reasons to be forgiving - storing up anger and bitterness towards someone who has wronged you is bad for YOU, the wronged. A forgiving heart releases a load of weight from the forgiving one, even if the offender is not repentant."
This is all quite true.
But is it possible to store up anger and bitterness toward someone who has wronged a third party? ABSOLUTELY, and I can't imagine you really disagree.
Is storing up that anger and bitterness bad for you even if its about an offense toward someone else? I can't see why not: bitterness is bitterness, and it'll eat away at you regardless of the content.
Is it possible to release the burden or load of this anger toward someone for his offense toward a third party? Is it healthy to do so? Yes, and yes.
Dan, I've tried to focus on the question of forgiving third-party offenses in the general case, rather than the apparent specifics of any individual case.
But it does seem to me that you're holding a grudge and "storing up anger and bitterness" against someone for offending a third party.
You seem to be holding a grudge and refusing to let go of that grudge.
If you're holding on to bitter anger against that person, even for an act against a third party, you CAN let go of that anger, and doing so could be accurately described as forgiveness.
Not doing so is probably not healthy, and it's not evidence of a forgiving heart.
To expand the discussion a bit, clearly all sins are first and foremost offenses against God. Second they are offenses against the "target" of the sin. But, I would like to venture the opinion that there is also an offense against the community.
The analogy, I believe, can be found in secular and military law. In secular law murder is an offense against (I believe) decency and order. In the military offenses are against (again I'm not sure the phrase is completely correct) good order and discipline.
So, it seems to me (warning we're heading into opinion here) that the kidnapper dude did, in a sense, sin against me as a member of his scociety.
Honestly this started when I found a copy of an old sermon in my dad's stuff the other day, which brought this on. I may throw in some excerpts as he seems to be arguing for a more inclusive vision of forgiveness.
Bubba, it appears we were writing almost the same thing at the same time.
Sure looks that way.
Dan, one minor footnote is that I bristle when you condemn "lying, slander, gossip, hypocrisy, perverse talk about someone they don't know," as "ugly, egregious acts."
I don't remember much outrage from you when even prominent leftists said the worst sort of things about Sarah Palin: I guess you were too busy denigrating her expertise on energy because of her religious beliefs.
About slander, you condemned Jeremiah Wright in the mildest possible terms for his hateful theory that the U.S. government invented AIDS as an act of attempted genocide; you defended him against the supposed slander from his critics, but that didn't stop you from slander of your own, when you invoked the imagery of lynch mobs.
Even most most recently, you don't take any pains to accurately describe conservative objections to Obama's speech to the schools -- specifically its timing and its initially politicized teachers' resources.
As I have repeatedly noted, you're very selective about things like slander and lying.
About the evils of hypocrisy -- that ugly, egregious act -- you're repeatedly hypocritical.
That's not the focus of this discussion, but I don't want to let pass your implausible claim to the moral high ground.
Well, once again, it seems we disagree. I think clearly Jesus is talking about forgiving those who trespass against you. I come to that conclusion because Jesus says, "forgive those who trespass against you..."
You all, I believe, mistake righteous indignation with hurtful anger. There are times we OUGHT to be angry. Paul says, "be angry and sin not..." When there is injustice, when there is oppression, when people are raped or kidnapped or lied about or slandered, these are ALL excellent times to be angry. These are all excellent times to use strong words.
Jesus did so. John the Baptist did so. "HYPOCRITE!" they yelled. "Vipers! White-washed tombs!" Jesus went in to the temple and overturned tables and chased out the moneychangers and their animals for taking advantage of the poor in the temple. He called them "robbers."
It is not an unhealthy anger to name a pervert a pervert, an oppressor an oppressor, a rapist a rapist, a robber a robber. This naming of the sin and associating it with the sinner is often used in the Bible and I don't think you all really think it's wrong.
Paul continues after telling us to be angry and sin not, saying, "don't go to bed angry..." and I don't (generally). I don't give the perverts and hypocrites and pharisees of the world much thought beyond when I've identified them for what they are.
In this case, I called the person in question on the carpet for their wrong. I called for them to repent for this sin against another. He chose not to and rather rejoiced in his hypocrisy and ugly sin, instead.
You all think that Jesus (when he told us to forgive those who trespass against US) meant that we ought to forgive other people for the sins they commit against a third party.
I disagree. I think that's cheap grace. I think it's denigrating to, for instance, the raped girl to "forgive" her unrepentant rapist. THAT would be an additional crime against the girl, seems to me.
Now, when the Amish got shot and killed a while back (in Indiana? Pennsylvania?) and their community came together and jointly forgave the shooter, WOW! what an exhibition of grace. But they were the ones involved. I don't think you will see them coming forward to forgive this child rapist. It's not their role and it would be pouring salt into the wound of the people actually involved to do so.
You are free to disagree. I'll continue to think you are wrong.
But, please, by ALL MEANS, I pray that you adopt this more forgiving attitude towards those who disagree with you. For those who honestly think that gay marriage is a good thing, for those who honestly disagree with you on biblical inerrancy and other matters, please, adopt this grace-full and forgiving attitude. THAT would be an appropriate place for forgiveness and grace.
I suspect that you won't and will, instead, display the hypocrisy of your positions. "Grace" and "forgiveness," when one of your own is unrepentant and engaging in lies, slander and other evil. But NO grace when it comes to mere matters of disagreeing on extrabiblical points.
Craig said...
Dan first comment, you have clearly said that you will not forgive he who's name cannot be written. However, in the interest of being a nice guy, I'll re-word the post.
Thank you. I do not believe that to be the case that I ever wrote I WILL not forgive him, just that I CAN not forgive him, inasmuch as it's not my role, since he sinned against someone else, not me. IF I DID ever say that, I apologize for making an error, for that's what it would have been.
Dan, at a bare minimum, righteous indignation is consistent indignation: as selective as you are in condemning things like slander and dishonesty, you probably shouldn't compare yourself to John the Baptist, much less Jesus Christ.
Your hypocrisy is blatant even in this one comment.
"But, please, by ALL MEANS, I pray that you adopt this more forgiving attitude towards those who disagree with you. For those who honestly think that gay marriage is a good thing, for those who honestly disagree with you on biblical inerrancy and other matters, please, adopt this grace-full and forgiving attitude. THAT would be an appropriate place for forgiveness and grace.
"I suspect that you won't and will, instead, display the hypocrisy of your positions. 'Grace' and 'forgiveness,' when one of your own is unrepentant and engaging in lies, slander and other evil. But NO grace when it comes to mere matters of disagreeing on extrabiblical points."
Whether "gay marriage" is extrabibilical is part of the argument: funny, you JUST told me in the other thread that you changed your mind on the subject by reading the Bible.
But you just wrote, here, that there's nothing wrong with accurately describe those who are acting immorally.
"It is not an unhealthy anger to name a pervert a pervert, an oppressor an oppressor, a rapist a rapist, a robber a robber. This naming of the sin and associating it with the sinner is often used in the Bible and I don't think you all really think it's wrong."
We don't, but when we believe that you who condone homosexual behavior are immoral, and we say so, you condemn us as unloving.
You still reserve for yourself the right to call others as many names as you want, for the sake of naming a sinner a sinner.
Dan:
You say calling a pervert a pervert is not necessarily evidence of an unhealthy anger, and you remind us that the Bible establishes a pattern of such blunt condemnation.
The Bible is also consistent in condemning the act of two men laying together.
Would you have a problem with calling such men perverts? Or is doing PRECISELY what you do, evidence of an ungraceful and unforgiving spirit on the part of theological conservatives?
After all, there is more biblical condemnation of gay male relationships than Mark's hypothetical question...
But you just wrote, here, that there's nothing wrong with accurately describe those who are acting immorally.
And I don't. If you think that I'm mistaken about gay marriage and that, in my error, I'm leading people astray, then say so.
I would disagree with you and you would disagree with me and that would be that.
This is what I did with the one who perversely lied and slandered someone he did not know - I pointed it out, said I had had enough of him and tried not to talk with him any more. You all are the ones who keep bringing it up.
But I have no problems with disagreement. Tell me that you think I'm wrong if you wish. I don't call that unloving, just wrong, in this case.
But there's a difference between naming a sin and calling someone on it (and probably we ALL would do better and be more biblical to do this individually in emails, which I tried to do in the case in question - and the outreach was met with rebuke and ridicule) and OVERstating the disagreement, suggesting that anyone who holds THAT position clearly does not love the Bible or clearly is not a Christian.
Just stick to the facts at hand: Disagree with me on gay marriage (or whatever the issue may be). Tell me you think I'm mistaken. I'm okay with that. You're just wrong and that happens...
Just don't expand it beyond the particular behavior at hand, don't misrepresent the Other's position, don't twist their words.
After all, there is more biblical condemnation of gay male relationships than Mark's hypothetical question...
Actually, no. There is a TON more condemnation - clear and unequivocal, NT and OT - on lies, slander, unloving behavior than there is on ANY gay behavior in the Bible and, as repeatedly noted, gay marriage is not condemned at all in the pages of the Bible.
I would suggest it's best to withhold the stronger condemnations to behavior that is clearly condemned in the Bible and that is obviously a sin. Lying, slander, gossipmongering, these ARE specifically condemned - add the pornographic and degrading nature of the words in question and you have a further indication of the clarity of the sin at hand.
Gay marriage is not condemned so I don't think it would be wise or biblically fair to call two gay married men "perverts," nor would it be just or wise to call someone who happens to be homosexual a pervert just based on that information, any more than it would be wise or just to call a heterosexual a pervert just based on that.
Biblically speaking, Dan, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, because the Bible is clear that God made us male and female for a man (male) to become one flesh with his wife (female).
You might as well argue that the Bible is silent of promiscuous chastity or deceptive honesty.
It's not clear -- to me at least -- that Mark's hypothetical question was lying, slanderous, etc., etc., and it's certainly not clear that he's a pervert for asking it.
But if you think you're justified in going that far, I'm not sure why one isn't justified to conclude that your clear defiance of what the Bible clearly teaches is in conflict for stated love of Scripture.
"Gay marriage is not condemned so I don't think it would be wise or biblically fair to call two gay married men 'perverts,' nor would it be just or wise to call someone who happens to be homosexual a pervert just based on that information, any more than it would be wise or just to call a heterosexual a pervert just based on that."
Either you don't know Romans 1, or you don't care what it says, but never let us suggest that you don't love the entire Bible, that would be unfair.
Right.
Now, to the topic at hand, I do have a couple of questions for you all...
1. I wonder WHERE in the Bible you all are getting the notion that it's required that we forgive someone who has sinned against someone else?
In this passage from the beatitudes, Jesus is clearly speaking to forgive those who trespass against YOU (ie, the individual), we are to forgive those who wrong US specifically. But it does not say that we ought to forgive someone who has wronged someone else.
Is there ANY biblical basis for this position? I'm not aware of any. Every biblical case (except for Jesus on the cross asking God to forgive them their sins of ignorance...) that I can think of or find in a search of forgiveness involves forgiving those who've wronged you, transgressed against you, pretty specifically.
Do you have any biblical reason for believing this other than this passage from Matt (which does not say what you suggest it says)?
2. Do you all believe someone can be forgiven by God if they have not repented? Let's set aside the notion of "unrecognized sin," or "sins of ignorance" - sinful behavior done by someone who is not aware of the sinful nature of their action.
I'm speaking about willful sin. Will this person be forgiven by God if they don't ask for forgiveness?
3. Are you all saying that those who sin in ignorance, that it's "okay" - that is, God doesn't hold it against them the same way that God holds willful sin against us?
4. What do you make of Jeremiah 18...
But you know, O LORD, all their plots to kill me.
Do not forgive their crimes or blot out their sins from your sight.
Let them be overthrown before you; deal with them in the time of your anger.
Is there an appropriate time for praying such a prayer?
But if you think you're justified in going that far, I'm not sure why one isn't justified to conclude that your clear defiance of what the Bible clearly teaches is in conflict for stated love of Scripture.
What defiance? I held your position on gay marriage and, after prayer and Bible study, changed my position in an effort to NOT be in defiance with what I understand the word of God to be.
No, you can charge me with being MISTAKEN, but "defiance" implies that I'm holding my position IN SPITE of what the Bible says when, in fact, I hold it BECAUSE of what the Bible does and doesn't say. Wrong? Possibly. Defiant? No. That would be a mistake.
That's the difference.
Now, is it possible that the person in question is IGNORANT of the Truth that we ought not slander those we don't know, nor make up and announce for the whole world to see on the internet supposed graphic sexual details of this stranger's life - is it possible that this person is that clueless? To be honest, I find that hard to believe.
Question: Do you think it's possible that someone could actually think it's okay and good to describe graphic sex acts of someone else's grandmother or daughter in a public forum like the internet?
In truth, we KNOW that some people have read the Bible and come to the conclusion in good faith that gay marriage is a good thing because there are people like me bearing witness to that reality. If I'm mistaken, then it's an honest mistake.
I find it hard to believe that ANYONE could actually make an "honest mistake" about describing graphic sex acts of a stranger.
Dan, I gave my own answers to some questions I raised, but I would like to know whether you disagree.
1) Is it possible to store up anger and bitterness toward someone who has wronged a third party?
2) Is storing up that anger and bitterness bad for you even if its about an offense toward someone else?
3) Is it possible to release the burden or load of this anger toward someone for his offense toward a third party?
4) Is it healthy to do so?
If your answers are "yes" to all of these questions, then I don't see why you preclude the possibility that one can forgive a person -- i.e., release the burden of anger toward that person -- even for an offense against a third party.
I'm not sure the Bible requires such forgiveness, which is I described my position as provisional.
You ask, "Do you all believe someone can be forgiven by God if they have not repented?"
It appears that all of us have been forgiven by God already. As I explained above, His grace and Christ's death are universal in their effects: there's nothing more for God to do in order to forgive us.
As I've already written, since there's nothing left for God to do, surely it's not absurd to suggest that God has already forgiven everyone, insofar as all our debts have already been released, because they have all been paid.
What remains is whether the individual will receive that gift through faith.
I wish you wouldn't ask questions I've already addressed at great length.
About your position on the Bible and "gay marriage," if it's true that you're simply mistaken and not willfully defiant of what the Bible clearly teaches -- e.g., about why we were created male and female -- then your ability to reason is REALLY suspect.
As I already said the last time you brought up Mark's comment as some vague test of my moral reasoning skills, I do think (without knowing all the details) Mark's comment was probably clearly immoral, but not necessarily that it's the perverted, pornographic, slander that you insist that it is.
You add:
"In truth, we KNOW that some people have read the Bible and come to the conclusion in good faith that gay marriage is a good thing because there are people like me bearing witness to that reality. If I'm mistaken, then it's an honest mistake."
Your witness to this reality is pretty worthless because the arguments you present in defense of your position are so obviously poor.
You STILL have not explained which passages of the Bible convinced you that God blesses "gay marriage" (much less why). That's one thing Mark has repeatedly requested, but you find it easier to go apeshit about the admittedly uncivil lengths he's gone to try to elicit an answer, than you do to actually provide that answer.
What passages convinced you that God blesses "gay marriage"? You don't answer: you can't answer, because there are no passages that can reasonably justify that conclusion.
But you skip right over that inconvenient fact to insist that, just because you claim the Bible changed your mind, it must be that people can disagree in good faith about this issue -- never mind your implausible arguments and consistently evasive behavior.
If your answers are "yes" to all of these questions, then I don't see why you preclude the possibility that one can forgive a person -- i.e., release the burden of anger toward that person -- even for an offense against a third party.
My answers are...
1. Yes
2. Depends, generally yes, but it depends on what you do with the anger - Anger is a good and Godly thing to have, it spurs us into action against injustice...
3. Yes
4. Yes
I think it is precluded (generally) because...
1. The Bible does not TELL us to do what you're suggesting and I think that's important...
2. Some crimes can be especially egregious and have a vast and damaging impact on a huge number of people, or on a few (or one) people in devastating ways. For me to "forgive" the child raper in another city, whom I neither know, nor do I know the child or her family, is hurtful damaging to the aggrieved. The LAST thing a rape/murder victim's family needs is someone going around as a pollyanna forgiving an unrepentant sinner. That does not help the sinner, and it hurts the family. It might even give the sinner the notion that, "Hey, my crimes not so bad, somebody's forgiven me for it, already. Maybe I don't have to make amends for my crime after all. Not that it was a crime..."
3. It is an instance of cheap grace, against which I stand, preferring to hold to God's glorious real grace.
4. And, again, there is no real compelling reason to forgive an unrepentant stranger, generally. No biblical reason, no Godly reason, no logical reason, no moral reason. Why would I?
Dan,
You repeatedly and purposely make false statements about Mark. He slandered no one. He lied about no one. He plainly and clearly asked a "what if" question about someone who's orientation you provided, in his futile attempt to elicit an answer for his original question. The crude nature of the hypothetical would never have come to pass if you weren't so evasive about the original question.
You could have easily responded to the question and at the same time scold him for it's crude and graphic nature. But instead, you twist what he said (I would never have deleted it if I thought you'd carry on in such a blatantly dishonest manner) and create this lie that he slandered someone. Thus, you owe MARK an apology.
In addition, Mark DID apoplogize but you weren't satisified that he was sincere enough. So that's another lie on YOUR part against Mark. Was he sincere? Only he knows and God know. Hard for the rest of us to really feel through the world wide web.
As I DID delete his words from that fateful day, I can say that they were graphic. But as to what he said and the proper level of indignation therefor, righteous or otherwise, I hold that you are woefully unjustified. In fact, I suspect it's largely put on at the worst, and exactly as Bubba describes it in its inconsistent nature at best.
continued---
continuing---
As to the rapist question, I cannot as a Christian hold any hatred for the creep, though I can remain totally aghast and pissed about his actions. What part of a loving spirit is separate from a forgiving one? Where is that line drawn exactly? A loving nature consists of forgiveness and compassion and empathy and likely a host of other emotions and qualities that are each manifestations of that loving spirit we're supposed to have. It does not require mercy on the civil level, though it can. Yet, we can ask God to grant mercy to such people if He so chooses to provide it and I think that's a proper manifestation of the Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself attitude we're each supposed to cultivate within ourselves. Do you think Scripture imposes a limit as to the extent of that attitude?
At the same time, I think you prove our case with your example of the Amish. Not every member of that community was harmed or even attacked by the time it was all through, but they forgave as a community. That is simply a small sample or example of the type of forgiveness of which Bubba and Craig speaks. They forgave because they felt as a community of Amish they were all victims of the attacks on the specific people harmed. It's no different with the rapist and our response to him and his actions. I believe he should be punished, for justice demands it and a civil society needs it. But we can still treat him with a loving and forgiving spirit.
continued---
continuing---
Finally, Dan,
I think you come really close to lying against us when you wonder about our attitudes regarding homosex enablers. What makes you think we aren't acting out of love and forgiveness and compassion? Simply because we oppose the absurd notion that somehow God changed His mind about the sinfulness of their sexual behavior? Or that we reject the equally goofy notion that because He condemns the behavior as sinful, that somehow He would still bless a marital-like union between two such sinners? It's a lie and a slander to suggest such a thing, especially without ever directly questioning whether or not we hate homosexuals or wish them harm of any kind. Indeed, we feel they are already harming themselves, as the CDC supports for their physical beings and the Bible supports for their spiritual beings. If only you had that level of compassion for your GLBT brothers and sisters.
Marshall said...
You could have easily responded to the question and at the same time scold him for it's crude and graphic nature.
1. I don't remember it as a "what if?" kind of question, at all, I recall that it was a statement about someone whose pseudonym I had used, but a real person and he made up his pornography about her.
2. I'm not at all sure that even if it was framed in "what if" language that would have made it any less offensive, it was an attack upon this person he does not know, it was slander, it was gossiping and it was ugly as hell - NOT because sex is dirty or bad, but because he was talking about someone else whom he DOES NOT KNOW.
I can't believe you all don't seem to get that THIS was the offensive part, not the mere pornographic nature of his words.
3. I had not answered this person because I had already dismissed him as crude and ugly in his approach to Christianity and saw nothing to be gained by conversing with him. He responds by engaging in both slander and pornography ABOUT someone he knows nothing about, demonstrating how perverse and degraded this person is and how black his soul is, Lord have mercy on him.
Mark DID apoplogize but you weren't satisified that he was sincere enough.
He apologized (barely) for his inappropriate pornographic words, not for his attack upon a complete stranger.
It's a lie and a slander to suggest such a thing, especially without ever directly questioning whether or not we hate homosexuals or wish them harm of any kind.
You'll have to provide a quote. I have NO idea of what you're talking about. I did not say you hate homosexuals or wish them harm. It sounds, again, like a false accusation or misunderstanding. Provide a quote and I can see better what in the world you're talking about.
Dan,
I'll repeat, you continue to insist that the text says something it doesn't say. You then insist that the verses that do say forgive those who sin against you somehow contradict those who say "forgive others for their transgressions". Yet you provide no basis for your assertions and no reason to believe that one excludes the other.
Who knew this would blow up like this.
"1. I don't remember it as a "what if?" kind of question, at all..."
I'm not surprised, for you chose to accuse Mark of "verbally raping" your aunt right from the get-go. I had sought to correct that purposeful misrepresentation almost immediately. Since the original comment was deleted, you've taken shelter in the knowledge that proof cannot be brought forth and thus you stick to the lie that he was attacking her, which he definitely was not. Keep in mind that your own decision to present your aunt as a lesbian (and we really have no way of knowing you even have an aunt, much less a lesbian aunt) is itself a suggestion of the type of sexual behavior in which she might engage. Mark merely asked you how you'd feel to find she engages in such behavior. Mark, nor any of us, could possibly even know that she DOES, for you've not given any hint that she even has a partner. His question had nothing to do with whether she does or not, but only was meant to understand how you'd react to such knowledge. Indeed, he didn't need to use her in the hypothetical at all, but people do not consider actions in the same way when the subject is hypothetical as they do when the subject is a personal relation or friend.
So as I say, Mark did NOT slander or attack your aunt because he was not suggesting that she actually DOES engage in lesbian sex. That wasn't the point of his question in the first place. This is the absolute fact of the case.
"I can't believe you all don't seem to get that THIS was the offensive part..."
Only according to you. I also remember that you took no pains to ask him to restate, explain or clarify his question, you didn't ask something like, "Are suggesting in your crude manner that my aunt engages in...etc..." as you would have any of us do had we jumped as far to a conclusion as you have done with Mark. As Bubba often suggests, your rules of engagement change according to your whim.
Your third point in your list contains something unfamiliar, that is that you had already dismissed him. Perhaps you had, but if so, any further remarks should have been ignored as well, no matter how crude nor whatever his intent. "Black soul"? That's just over the top.
"He apologized (barely) for his inappropriate pornographic words, not for his attack upon a complete stranger."
Sez you. I'm not going to once again track down the thread to check this out. But then, he didn't attack anyone, you just chose to take it that way.
"You'll have to provide a quote. I have NO idea of what you're talking about. I did not say you hate homosexuals or wish them harm."
You're correct. And I have to remember to be careful with my rhetoric when debating with you as your choice of what to take literally vs. what not is always in doubt. However, it is not a stretch to wonder how one wouldn't get that idea when you argue for the "saintliness" of those you know who engage in sinful behavior, or when you defend their demand that society allows and recognizes their unions as marriages.
I'll repeat, you continue to insist that the text says something it doesn't say. You then insist that the verses that do say forgive those who sin against you somehow contradict those who say "forgive others for their transgressions".
Here's what the verses say, once again...
Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.'
[end of Lord's prayer, beginning of Jesus' commentary...]
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
In the NIV, it actually says "against you," making it more clear. In the other versions, as you noted, it just says, "For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you."
Now, your point, I take it, is that Jesus says this model prayer, concluding with us forgiving those who sin AGAINST US. Then Jesus makes some commentary about it saying, "If you forgive others for their transgressions, God will forgive you..."
Your point is that this is indicating Jesus is ADDING to what he said, that he is indicating that we ought not forgive only those who sin against us, but that we ought to forgive others we don't even know for their sins, too?
I guess you could take it that way, but I don't buy it. I think the NIV probably has it right. In that context, it makes sense that Jesus is still carrying on in the same context as the prayer. That is how it seems textually to me.
Beyond the text, though, it just doesn't make logical or moral sense for me to presume to forgive this man who transgressed against someone I don't even know. I don't think your position makes biblical, logical or moral sense.
You do. I disagree.
I guess that is your ENTIRE biblical argument? That one passage that does not seem to swing in your way?
I suppose you know that the other places where Jesus talks about forgiveness, it's always in context of sinning against "you?"
When Peter asks him, "how many times must I forgive someone who sins AGAINST ME?" Jesus tells him 7 times 70 (without end) and he tells the parable of the unforgiving servant (who would not release the debt owed him by his fellow slave, even though the master released HIS much greater debt...). This seems to me to be pretty clear in what the message of forgiveness is: Because we have been forgiven for much in our transgressions against God, likewise, we too, ought to forgive those who transgress against us.
As even Bubba agrees, the Lord's prayer passage is not really saying what you're saying (MAYBE it could be taken that way, but it's not clearly saying it)and not only that, but there is no one single passage in the Bible that says what you're saying, as far as I can tell.
If that is your entire biblical, logical and moral argument for this point, then I find it wanting and, because I value the Bible's teaching so much, as well as logic and morality, I don't accept your position. Feel free to disagree.
Marshall, you've said nothing really to respond to, so I shan't.
Your points have nothing to back them up. Your hunches. Your thin as vapor opinions. You're welcome to them.
If you have a problem with some SPECIFIC thing I've said, bring it up (if it's within the purview of this post, or email me if not). Otherwise, have a good day.
Dan,
Interesting you brought up the NIV since it is the ONLY translation that adds the text you want. It is also interesting that the NIV is one of the least exact translations. No real surprise there.
As I said several times, I intentionally limited this to this one verse. Primarily because you have already made it clear that the Sermon on the Mount is a part of Jesus teaching you take literally, therefore it should be safe to quote,
Finally, thank you for confirming one of my points. In a previous verse he says "...against you" then he expands the command. Which is not something out of character for Jesus teaching.
Thanks.
Craig, would you mind answering my question?
Is it your position that because of this one passage, that you think this means that God expects us to forgive everyone? Just because of one passage that does not even definitely say that?
Is that your whole biblical argument for that position?
Also, you just said...
Finally, thank you for confirming one of my points. In a previous verse he says "...against you" then he expands the command. Which is not something out of character for Jesus teaching.
? How does that confirm your point?
Dan,
My point is that your argument that we are ONLY to forgive those who directly wrong us does not comport with the teachings of Jesus. You desire to minimize this teaching for some reason, I'm not exactly sure why.
My point has always been that v. 14-15 expand the teaching beyond your narrow interpretation. In your recent post you agreed with that. Therefore thanks.
You still ignore your inconsistency. Since there was no wrong done to you, yet you continue to behave as if there was. I've said it before, I salute your cleverness. You have constructed a situation where you can have your cake of outrage and eat the I don't have to apologize part too. Impressive.
Craig, you're not making sense.
My point is that your argument that we are ONLY to forgive those who directly wrong us does not comport with the teachings of Jesus. You desire to minimize this teaching for some reason, I'm not exactly sure why.
This is not complicated: It's because I don't think that's what the Bible is saying.
YOU are presuming that when Jesus was telling us to forgive those who trespass against us, that he then proceeded to expand upon that. I DID NOT SAY THAT, that's your presumption.
The scriptures do not specifically say that and I don't think they imply it.
In truth, looking at the various English translations, one COULD suggest that is what the passage means, but it does not definitively say that. It simply does not.
Once again, is that your ENTIRE biblical argument? This one passage that could be taken either way (but which I think leans MY way, not yours)?
You go on to say:
You still ignore your inconsistency. Since there was no wrong done to you, yet you continue to behave as if there was... You have constructed a situation where you can have your cake of outrage and eat the I don't have to apologize part too.
I have done no such thing. It is my position
1. that BOTH this pervert on the blog and this pervert who kidnapped and raped a child HAVE committed a wrong.
2. that we (Christians, concerned people, citizens) OUGHT to be outraged at such vile behavior. Do you disagree? Do you think we ought to say, "eh, no big deal..."?
3. that it is not our place to forgive someone who has not wronged us.
4. that the Bible does not tell us to do so and that logic and morality suggest we ought NOT.
5. that, nonetheless, we can and should be outraged at injustice.
Which point do you disagree with? Is it the case that you think we ought NOT be outraged and angered about injustice?
Is it the case that you think this one SLIM Bible passage that POSSIBLY could be taken to mean what you THINK it means, means that this is the one and only way to take that passage?
That slandering someone with pornographic language or raping a child are wrong?
Which of my positions do you disagree with? Because I don't see anything a reasonable adult and certainly a Christian could POSSIBLY disagree with.
At the very most, I think a Christian might make the case that MAYBE Jesus' words ought to be taken that way, but there is nothing conclusive whatsoever about the passage in your direction and no further biblical support, so I am wholly confused at what your point could possibly be.
Enlighten me. Answer some questions, please.
Dan,
Once more. If you are not going to respond to what I actually write, then you could save us both some time.
I have repeatedly responded to my point here. I am simply reading the plain text. No more, no less. It seems reasonable and obvious that Jesus ( as he did elsewhere) gave or restated a command, then expanded it. You are adding something to the text that the majority of translators don't add. It is your choice to narrow this, feel free, but it would seem there are consequences.
To answer your questions.
1. Given the hypothetical nature of Mark's comment, I'm not completely comfortable with calling him a pervert (you have not established that he actually perverted anything). I am also not willing to equate what Mark did with what the guy in CA did. But, if you truly seek to be graceful (as you suggested that we should be) then maybe you should be the bigger man and accept Mark's apology, stop the name calling (also graceful), and let it go. For to continue to equate the two merely wastes time.
2. Once again you present a wooden binary choice. Are you so incapable of forgiving someone who has done something. Are you really suggesting that forgiveness is simply saying "no big deal"?
3. "For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.15"But (T)if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions." Feel free to define others as narrowly as you want, I'll choose to err (if I am an error) on the side of broadly forgiving others.
4. You have chosen, without giving any real foundation, to interpret the Bible as not saying something. Your choice.
The more correct statement would be that (Your)"logic and morality suggest we ought NOT.". Since you have given me no reason to do so, I'll pass on accepting your logic.
Are you really saying that it is immoral to forgive someone, really?
5. We can (I'm not aware of any Biblical mandate to) be outraged at injustice. The fact that you choose to be disproportionately outraged isn't really compelling.
There, I answered your questions.
I love seeing how you choose what to respond (or what not to respond to) to in these conversations.
I have repeatedly responded to my point here. I am simply reading the plain text. No more, no less. It seems reasonable and obvious that Jesus (as he did elsewhere) gave or restated a command, then expanded it.
Well, here is one of our differences. It seems reasonable and obvious TO YOU that this passage means what you think it means. It does not seem reasonable nor obvious to me, at all, that it means what you think it means.
We have a disagreement. Do you at least see my point that your suggested way of interpreting this one passage is not the ONLY way of interpreting it?
then maybe you should be the bigger man and accept Mark's apology, stop the name calling (also graceful), and let it go.
1. I HAVE let it go. You all keep dredging it back up.
2. This person has not apologized for the offense in question. He has apologized barely for using bad, pornographic language. THAT is not what I think is all that serious. Using naughty language can be in poor taste and coarse, but I don't know that it is a sin, even. Describing someone else's supposed sex life IS the wrong - it's slander, it's lying, it's gossip. THESE are the sins committed, none of this has been apologized for.
3. IF he recognized his actual sin and since the person slandered is not aware of the sin against her, one might reasonably forgive such a person.
4. But since he has not apologized nor even recognized what he has done wrong and since I'M not the person wronged, I can't really forgive him, it's not my place.
You disagree. I disagree with you. The Bible does not address or support your position, at least clearly.
Now what?
Now what? You're a liar, that's what. It is not a hunch, it is a fact that Mark did NOT accuse your aunt of anything. He was asking for your reaction to finding out she engages in immoral behavior. He didn't state that she DOES engage in moral behavior. His only "sin" was using course language to describe the behavior. What if he had simply asked "What would you say if you knew she engages in lesbian sex?" It's the same question he asked using different words. And YES, it is the same hypothetical style he used with the slang terms instead. These are the facts of the matter, not my personal hunch. Remember, it was on my blog. I was the one who, apparently now foolishly, deleted the comments to spare the sensitive. If only there was some way to retrieve Mark's comment I would cut and paste them here for all to see to expose you.
So dismiss my remarks all you want. I know the truth as well as you do, as well as Mark does, and as well as anyone who was able to read the remarks before I deleted them.
And BTW, using course language, even more than once, does not make one a pervert. It only means they've chosen a low class form of speaking. Using one's body in a manner not of its natural function IS perverted by definition.
And BTW, using course language, even more than once, does not make one a pervert.
No, it does not. Describing someone else you don't even know in sex acts in a public forum does.
As does defending such behavior.
He was asking for your reaction to finding out she engages in immoral behavior. He didn't state that she DOES engage in moral behavior.
This is such bullshit, Marshall. Excrement from your brain to the world's eyes.
Consider: WHAT IF I proceeded to graphically describe your mother's body and various sex acts that she might be engaged in RIGHT NOW, this very Sunday morning?
Does the fact that I said, "WHAT IF" and asked it as a question make it okay? NO! I feel dirty just writing that hypothetical. IT WOULD BE PERVERSE, ugly-as-hell, sinfully wrong for me to do so.
As it would be if you defended my doing so.
I suppose when it comes right down to it, it seems you all have a perverted sense of right and wrong and you just truly don't recognize at least this sin when you see it.
Lord, forgive them all, for they apparently - as hard as it is to believe - just don't know what they do.
Dan,
Since you have given no reason for your belief that somehow Jesus teaching explicitly says do not forgive anyone except those who have directly wronged you, I choose not to accept your wooden literal narrow interpretation. If I was to do so I would have to believe that the parents of the girl kidnapped by the CA person have no grounds to forgive the guy since much of what he did did not hurt the directly. You choose to narrow Jesus teachings, fine.
1. Sorry, not buying it.
2. Once more with the contradictions. First you say he did not apologize, then you say he did (barely), then you proceed to judge his apology and find it unworthy. So it would appear the issue is not the apology per se, but how you interpret the apology. Again, it is your prerogative but at least admit what is clear. We all read the apology and are able to judge it ourselves.
3. What the heck does that even mean. You have spent months firing vitriol at Mark, and the party who was "damaged" by the comment doesn't even know. Methinks you have blown this way out of proportion.
4. Please make up you mind, and be consistent within the realm of an individual moment. In #2 you clearly state that Mark apologized (barely and in language that you don't approve of), now you say he didn't. Please pick a story and stick with it. Remember, although the comment is question was deleted, the apology wasn't and we all read it.
You are of course, the Bible does not in any way address or support forgiving broadly, but just Dan's narrow, wooden, literal one.
It also seems strange for you to criticize anyone for using coarse language.
For the record, if you were to describe my mothers hypothetical "sex life" in whatever terms you chose, my degree of offense would of course be in proportion to the likelihood of the hypothetical situation being through. I am sure you will take this as evidence of some failing on may part, I prefer to think I have the ability to distinguish from real and hypothetical, and a thick enough skin not to be provoked by such base remarks.
Dan,
To address something you said earlier, namely why I posted this. Honestly it started in the hope you would expand your view of forgiveness and maybe let go of some of the anger and bitterness you appear to continue to hold. However, at this point just watching you griping tightly to your narrow interpretation of what you believe forgiveness to be is way more interesting. Sad, but interesting.
One further thought, as we look back at the original comment that brought this about. It seems as though it went this way.
Dan-My aunt (or whatever) is a lesbian, who is also a wonderful saintly christian woman.
Mark-Dan are you saying that your aunt (or whatever) engages in XYZ behavior?
Dan-Mark, you are an evil perverted man, how dare you use such vile language to describe...
But, think how differently it could have gone.
Mark- Are you saying...
Dan- No that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that my lesbian aunt is not sexually active and that is why I believe her to be so wonderful.
Mark- Why Dan you could be right.
Or how about this.
Mark- Are you saying...
Dan-Yes my aunt is sexually active and while I don't appreciate your use of the graphic terms I believe that her sexuality is a wonderful gift from god and we celebrate it.
Mark-Dan thanks for clarifying.
Now I realize that these are all hypothetical versions of how the conversation could have happened, but wouldn't any of them be preferable to this.
BTW, Dan nice job not answering my questions.
"Consider: WHAT IF I proceeded to graphically describe your mother's body and various sex acts that she might be engaged in RIGHT NOW, this very Sunday morning?
Does the fact that I said, "WHAT IF" and asked it as a question make it okay? NO! I feel dirty just writing that hypothetical. IT WOULD BE PERVERSE, ugly-as-hell, sinfully wrong for me to do so."
First, I would ask what business is it of yours what my mother does in the privacy of her own home.
If your question was out of the blue, I'd figure you were just trying to be startin' something. If, however, I was being evasive with your previous inquiries and your question was a result of the frustration you felt due to my evasiveness, I'd probably use the coarse language you used as a reason to feign outrage and redirect attention to that and away from the original question, just like you had done with Mark.
The point here is that I would not have provoked such a nasty group of statements by you in the first place if I were in the same position you were in. So your "What if" is a lame angle. What reason could you have to make such statements otherwise?
If, just out of the blue, you were to start in with such nasty comments regarding my mother, I'd consider the source and ignore you altogether. But that was not the case with Mark. He didn't just drop by and make nasty comments about your aunt. He asked questions seeking justification for your position on homosexuality, you countered with anecdotal comments regarding homosexuals you personally know, including your aunt. None of these comments addressed the question, so Mark asked his hypothetical using your aunt as the subject of the question.
If you stated to me, "Your mother whores around with anyone who'll come near her." you've then attacked my mother.
If you asked me, "How would you feel knowing your mother whored around with anyone who'll come near her?" I would not get pissed in the least, since you asked a simple hypothetical question. More accurately, I would dismiss any negative thoughts toward you that the question provoked as I'd realize quickly it was a hypothetical rather than an accusation. Even had you used the nastiest expressions in your question, I would have reacted the same, though I might have questioned the need to use such language to make your point.
Plus, given that the question was in written form, giving you plenty of time to calm down and see things objectively, a far more rational response should have been given. But no, you chose the false outrage. I call it false for it's unreasonableness especially given the details of the case.
Once again, I disagree with you all. I ask that God forgives you, for you must be sinning in ignorance.
I also forgive you, Marshall, for lying when you called me a liar. I have not lied about anything and you are mistaken. Nonetheless, I forgive you.
Lord have mercy on us all and may God reveal God's will to us all, as it relates to these sorts of problems.
So you'll forgive a crime not committed, but not forgive Mark for a crime imagined. I have spoken truthfully regarding the comment he made at my blog. You have chosen another path. I say again and will stand by this statement because it is the absolute truth: Mark made no accusations or slanderous remarks against Dan's aunt. None whatsoever. Dan owes Mark an apology for this false charge he's leveled against him. Dan slanders Mark. I've no more to say on the subject.
Dan owes Mark an apology for this false charge he's leveled against him.
WHAT false charge?
I've said quite clearly that it is MY memory that he stated something about my aunt. YOUR memory is that he made it in the form of a query, not a statement.
Are you suggesting that it's NOT my memory that the comment was made in the form of a statement? I'm pretty sure that it is indeed my memory that this is how it happened. Is it your hunch that you know what my memory is better than I do?
There has been no lie. I've pointed out your mistake on that point and you repeated the lie.
I forgive you your false statement once again, nonetheless. Or are you suggesting I've lied in some other way? I can safely tell you you're mistaken. To my knowledge and memory, I have never uttered a lie on the internets. Have I been mistaken? Sure, so have you. Plenty of times. But I've not said a lie and I have not in this case. But, if you have evidence of a lie, do what you ought to do and present me with the evidence.
I say you can't because no lie has been uttered. And so, I forgive you for the lie and for repeating the lie again.
Dan,
Once again, well played. You have moved from "Mark committed verbal rape of my aunt" to "it is MY memory that he stated something about my aunt.". Quite a regression it seems.
It seems as though the issue is not what is in your memory, but what Mark actually wrote. If ,in fact, Mark wrote in the hypothetical ( and everyone but you seems to agree that he did), and your anger is based on you misremembering it, then it would seem that you have been hasty in casting the first stone. Maybe it is you that should be apologizing.
Not only that, but your double standard is mind boggling. Dan makes mistakes, everyone else lies. Dan insists that others answer his questions, yet ignores those that are inconvenient for him.
Yes, this has certainly gone a different direction than I thought it would. Maybe we should refer to Dan as Emily Littela. Oh, Mark asked a hypothetical question... never mind.
Really fellas, you're being obnoxious.
Once again, well played. You have moved from "Mark committed verbal rape of my aunt" to "it is MY memory that he stated something about my aunt.". Quite a regression it seems.
IF it was indeed my memory that this was stated as fact, not question, then why would I NOT state it as fact, not question? It IS my memory that the comment was made in attack mode, not question mode, why WOULDN'T I say it like that? I can't read your minds to know how YOU thought it was presented.
I DO remember how the accused defended himself by suggesting that was HIS memory, but he had/has very little credibility.
Aside from that, as I have noted, I don't see how making the comment as a question makes it much more palatable. The sin is the same, seems to me.
You all disagree. I forgive you for your error on this part.
Perhaps you can understand how many people out there have a hard time taking at least those from your sort of religion very seriously or as having a credible voice on what is and isn't sin, when you so easily defend what is so obviously indefensible for many if not most of us.
Not only that, but your double standard is mind boggling. Dan makes mistakes, everyone else lies.
It is, in fact, a lie to say that I have lied. I have not.
IF, in fact, things were as Marshall described them, then it WAS, in fact, a mistake because I DON'T recall it happening that way at all. To be honest, I'm pretty sure I'm describing things correctly, and you all are mistaken. Things only became "hypothetical" after the accused offered that up as his defense. Then, suddenly, that's how everyone remembered it. I have my doubts.
But since we can't prove it, I allowed for the possibility by saying IF it was stated as a question, that was not my memory of it and that it did not really change things much.
Regardless, that does not change the fact that Marshall's accusation that I lied IS a false allegation. It IS possible that Marshall merely slipped and made an error in ignorance. However, seeing as how he has not apologized for his error and, indeed, repeated it, that becomes harder to believe.
You state something incorrectly and with no support once, it could be a mistake. After you have been corrected and/or support for the false allegation has been requested and not provided, and then you repeat the false statement again, what else is it but a lie?
Still, if you prefer, I'll forgive Marshall for his FALSE STATEMENT, and allow that he could just still be confused or having trouble understanding communication concepts. And I forgive you for your nasty, attacking attitude as well.
Shall we move on now, brothers? Have we pounded these sins (realized or not) into the ground enough yet?
"Shall we move on now, brothers?"
I was hoping we could, but then you went and maligned my character. Much of this can be made more clear by anyone going back through my archives to see how it went down. I've done it at least twice (linking to the thread as well), so I'm not gonna do it again.
I stand by my accusation because I am going less by memory than by my review of the thread. And without going back an additional time, I will wager that it was ME who first explained Mark's comment as a hypothetical, not Mark, and did so almost immediately following your initial and over the top reaction to it.
I'm not surprised you remember differently since you got it wrong from the beginning (I suspect intentionally to give you a reason to ignore Mark's line of questioning). You've convinced yourself that he indeed "verbally raped" your aunt, attacked her directly, though that begs the question, why would he? You were too ready to jump down his throat for something and this provided the opportunity. "Did you hear what he said about my dear old auntie?" you cry in outrage, and once the comment is deleted one must take your word for it. But damn it all there's ol' Art over there who was watching the whole time. Oh well. Now it's his word against mine.
I think if anyone took the time to find the thread, and any mention of it in more recent threads could have a link to it, they would see that even without the comment in question, my story aligns far better with what IS there than does yours, Dan. I will stand by my statements until someone can show how I misrepresented the events as they unfolded.
Your last comments show that you are relying on the fact that the original comment was deleted (unless someone can instruct me on it's retrieval at this late date--I would surely repost it).
But because I corrected you when the comment was made, because you now act as if your version MIGHT be untrue due to the possibility of muddy memory, because the names you use in referring to Mark are woefully inappropriate even with his use of foul language at the time of the comment (and because there is nothing to which you could refer to show he has any pattern of attacking the familial relations of opposing bloggers or the use of foul language), my charge will stand. My labeling of you is at the least as accurate as your labeling of Mark.
"It is, in fact, a lie to say that I have lied. I have not."
Really doesn't that level of hubris just say it all.
Last time fellas. IF I have lied, present the lie and the evidence.
Otherwise, we shall know WHO the real liars, slanderers and bearers of false witness truly are.
And we can all forgive you, repentance or not, and you can face God as best you can hoping for grace that you do not show nor forgiveness that you ever gave.
Craig pointed out my comment...
"It is, in fact, a lie to say that I have lied. I have not."
And said...
Really doesn't that level of hubris just say it all.
I should point out that, in context, what I was saying was that IN THIS CONVERSATION, I have not lied. I think that would be obvious to most folk, but most folk aren't here and some folk here seem to have trouble grasping my meaning. So there's some clarification.
"Because, according to the way you're taking Jesus' words above, all it takes is Craig to forgive them and they WILL be forgiven."
This is a direct quote from Dan on this thread. I said absolutely nothing that even remotely resembles this. It is without question that Dan has said something that is absolutely false.
Did Dan lie?
"This person has not apologized for the offense in question."
"He has apologized barely for using bad, pornographic language."
"But since he has not apologized"
At least one of these statement is demonstrably false (since one contradicts the other two, they can't all be true.)
Did Dan lie?
I'm sure he doesn't think so.
I stand by my earlier comment, when Dan says something false it is a misunderstanding, a mistake, or something else. When anyone else says something Dan says they are lying. Convenient yes, exhibiting grace no.
I'm hoping to respond to the other thread -- at length -- this evening or tomorrow morning.
Until then, I've been keeping up with this conversation, and I think you're right, Craig.
Dan, you seem to be using inconsistent standards, not only in determining when one's inaccurate statements qualify as lying, but the burden of proof for that determination.
"Last time fellas. IF I have lied, present the lie and the evidence.
"Otherwise, we shall know WHO the real liars, slanderers and bearers of false witness truly are."
For yourself, you require actual evidence of lying for anyone to accuse you of lying.
But you apparently believe that the absence of evidence to the contrary is enough to justify your using the accusation against others.
If you had simply demanded evidence of your lying, you would have been consistent -- possibly unreasonable, almost certainly irritating, but still consistent.
When you go beyond that to suggest, quite clearly, that the absence of evidence proves that others here are lying, you show just how concerned you really are that no one make harsh accusations without solid evidence, and you further demonstrate a tendency toward hypocrisy that I've frequently criticized, most recently here.
1. When I have encountered someone on the wide, wide webosphere and had conversations with them, and at some point they make a point that is a false statement, I have invariably called it a false statement, or said, perhaps, "You are mistaken when you say..."
2. As conversations go on, if they feel I've made a false statement, if they point it out in a similar manner, that is how the conversation goes. I've had years of discussions with John at zeray and the fellas over at Stones Cry Out - conservatives all - and I don't believe once have either of us called the other a liar or called a statement a lie. We have disagreed strongly and often, but it has stayed on the "you're mistaken when you say..." level.
3. On the other hand, there have been others who, as conversations have gone on, have repeatedly repeated ideas falsely claiming them to be mine "Dan is a socialist," "Dan hates the Bible," etc, I have tended to repeat myself a lot, saying, "I have not said that nor do I believe that..." and "that is a false statement..."
4. When these folk have gone on to begin saying that I have lied (again, with no evidence or twisted evidence), I have tended to, at least eventually, sometimes engage in the same sort of rhetoric, responding with "That is a lie," instead of "That is a false statement."
5. Jesus tells us that by the measure we judge others, we too will be judged. Not only is that a pronouncement from God, it is, I believe, a truism about human nature. IF you begin calling me a liar and saying my statements are lies, then eventually, I will (people do) tend to respond in the same manner.
6. I tend to think that we'd do much better to stick to the statements "That is a false statement," or "You misrepresent me when you say..."
7. So, for responding to you all (that is, Marshall, Bubba, EL, Craig, etc) in the manner that you have responded to me, I DO apologize. I probably should not stoop to your level of discourse if I believe it to be wrong.
8. But, by all means, you tell me what is the preferred behavior for all of us - should we disagree with statements by saying "that is a false statement..." or should we disagree by saying "Craig is a liar..." This is your blog, Craig, feel free to make a rule and we can all abide by it. For my part, I shall try to stick to the "That is a false statement," approach.
To illustrate, Craig quoted three comments from me and said...
At least one of these statement is demonstrably false (since one contradicts the other two, they can't all be true.)
By this standard, then, Craig would probably have to say that the Bible is a book of lies. After all, Jesus said "Those who aren't with me are for me," AND "Those who aren't for me are against me," seemingly contradicting himself. One or the other must be false, by that sort of reasoning.
In fact, IN CONTEXT, what I have said consistently all along is that "The accused has not apologized for the sin committed." I've gladly noted that he has apologized for using coarse and inappropriate language, but he has not apologized FOR his slander of another person (or whatever words you wish to use for publicly undressing a woman and placing her in sex acts).
THAT, as I have said repeatedly, was what he did wrong, the language is culturally inappropriate, but not the big problem. If the person had merely described his own alleged body and sex life in graphic terms, he would merely have been crude and inappropriate. Instead, he undressed a woman he does not know with his words and placed her in a sex act. THAT is the sin and for that, he has not apologized.
So, my comments that Craig cites ARE NOT contradictory, in context. I think most people can see that, but some here apparently can't, so now I've explained that.
As to Bubba's defense of lies, when someone makes a charge ("Dan lies"), it is incumbent upon THEM to prove the charge. Otherwise, it is just an unsupported allegation and polite and reasonable people do well to presume unsupported allegations to be false, nothing more than rumor-mongering. And we all know that those who gossip are displaying a depraved mind, according to the Bible.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil...
Romans 1
Dan, I wasn't defending lies. I was pointing out your hypocrisy.
"As to Bubba's defense of lies, when someone makes a charge ('Dan lies'), it is incumbent upon THEM to prove the charge."
If you really, truly believe this, then you should have not suggested the absence of substantiating evidence proves that others here are liars.
"Last time fellas. IF I have lied, present the lie and the evidence.
"Otherwise, we shall know WHO the real liars, slanderers and bearers of false witness truly are."
What is incumbent upon THEM when someone else makes a charge, is likewise incumbent upon YOU when you bounce it back to them, for whatever reason.
I'm surprised to see you cite Romans 1, for two reasons.
First, I don't see why Romans 1 is all that important. Romans 1 is only talking about idolatrous gossips (see 1:21-23), not gossips in all circumstances.
Or isn't that how you dismiss the very same passage in its condemnation of homosexual behavior?
"When I and my community read Romans, we see Paul talking about idol worshipers and historically, we know that some idol worshipers engaged in sexual rites as part of their religious practice. So, when we read Romans, we think this is an obvious reference to such practices and, once again, NOT talking about gay marriage at all.
"For our part, we AGREE completely that worshiping idols and having sex orgies as part of religious practice is not a wholesome expression of sexuality. To that end, we agree with what Paul had to say on THAT topic. But Paul is not talking about gay marriage or homosexuality in general." [link]
And, in our discussion:
"In each of the handful of places where SOME TYPE of homosexual behavior is spoken of, there is reason to think that it is not talking about any and all homosexual behavior. Lev. 18/20 and Roms 1 are both speaking of it in the context of ritual pagan worship practices. In neither situation are they speaking of loving committed gay relationships." [link]
Well, okay.
By your logic, Romans 1 condemns gossip only "in the context of ritual pagan worship practices."
"Paul is not talking about [gossip] in general."
Right? Otherwise, how is it that Paul is condemning homosexual behavior ONLY in the very specific context of idolatry, but condemning gossip universally?
Second, Paul goes into a little bit of detail describing the idolaters' behavior.
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct." - Rom 1:26-28
(Notice that you began your quote with 1:28.)
The men were "consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
Why aren't you criticizing Paul for "undressing" these men with his words?
What sense does it make for citing the Apostle Paul to criticize Mark here, when Paul did pretty much what you found so offensive?
According to your oh-so-(inconsistently-)fragile sensibilities, Mark "undressed a woman he does not know with his words and placed her in a sex act."
In Romans 1 -- the very chapter you cite to accuse Mark of gossip -- Paul did the very same thing. According to your standards, Paul "undressed" the pagan idolaters with his words and placed them in a sex act.
And yet you still cite Paul.
Very strange.
I cite Paul because I think I rightly am interpreting that passage. I disagree with your take on it because I don't think you are rightly interpreting that passage.
Not hard at all to understand, to me.
What is incumbent upon THEM when someone else makes a charge, is likewise incumbent upon YOU when you bounce it back to them, for whatever reason.
As I have said, I should probably stick to saying, "They have uttered false statements," rather than calling it a lie. I apologize for using that phrase.
What about you? Do you object to using the terminology "Lies" when perhaps "false statement" would be more accurate? OR is it the case that you think it's okay to call DAN'S actions lies, but not okay for Dan to call Bubba's actions lies?
Will you be consistent?
What is incumbent upon THEM when someone else makes a charge, is likewise incumbent upon YOU when you bounce it back to them, for whatever reason.
And, no, not for "whatever reason." Or at least in my circle of polite company. The way I was raised (and the way the US justice system works, by the way), is that if someone produces a charge, it is incumbent upon them to substantiate the charge. Otherwise, folk are innocent until proven guilty.
I don't think it is AT ALL comparable to say, "Ralph lies," [with no support] is like "It is a lie to say that I lie, I have not..." In that case, Ralph has the benefit of doubt until such time that the accuser produces some evidence to support the charge and Ralph might be excused for responding in kind, as that's human nature.
Once again, producing charges without support is, I think a perfect way to describe gossip. And we know what the Bible says about that.
Dan:
"I cite Paul because I think I rightly am interpreting that passage. I disagree with your take on it because I don't think you are rightly interpreting that passage.
"Not hard at all to understand, to me."
What's hard to understand is your rationale for your interpretation.
In Romans 1, Paul criticizes idolaters, he asserts that "God gave them up to degrading passions" (1:26) that led to homosexual behavior, and he then asserts that "God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done," (1:28) such as strife, deceit, and gossip.
You're quite certain that 1:26-27 condemns homosexual behavior ONLY "in the context of ritual pagan worship practices."
But here you seem quite certain that 1:28ff condemns gossip in all circumstances.
Why do you treat the former as extremely specific and the latter as universal?
Certainly, that approach makes your position easier: it enables you to embrace the sexual perversion of your gay friends, while simultaneously accusing Mark of the most ugly and egregious acts.
It lets you invoke the Bible when you like what it says -- writing, in condemning Mark, "we know what the Bible says about that" -- while ignoring the rest of what WE KNOW the Bible says, even in the very same paragraph.
But that's hardly a good reason to up and decide that Romans 1 condemns gossip universally and homosexual behavior, only in very specific cases.
We're off topic, but if Craig does not mind my chasing your rabbit...
Bubba:
You're quite certain that 1:26-27 condemns homosexual behavior ONLY "in the context of ritual pagan worship practices."
But here you seem quite certain that 1:28ff condemns gossip in all circumstances.
VERY good, Bubba. You are right on to the heart of it.
I think the teaching of the Bible is that it always condemns gossip in all circumstances. On the other hand, the only circumstances some gay behavior is condemned is in the context of pagan rituals.
That being the difference and one reason why I think you're way off on gay behavior always being wrong: You have no support for such a contention. Biblically, morally or logically.
On the other hand, I DO have support for thinking gossip is always wrong. Biblically, morally and logically.
Dan:
"I think the teaching of the Bible is that it always condemns gossip in all circumstances. On the other hand, the only circumstances some gay behavior is condemned is in the context of pagan rituals.
"That being the difference and one reason why I think you're way off on gay behavior always being wrong: You have no support for such a contention. Biblically, morally or logically."
What specific passage of scripture convinced you that God condones at least some homosexual behavior?
I've repeatedly asked this question, and you've never pointed to any specific passage, because none exists. Every time the behavior is mentioned, it is condemned, so you're the one whose position has no biblical support.
More than that, the Bible is clear -- and your supposed Lord, Jesus Christ Himself, is clear -- that God made us male and female, so that a man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female), a principle which rules out all homosexual relationships as an affront to God's sovereignty as Creator.
There is nothing in the Bible -- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, NOT ONE WORD -- that suggests that homosexual intercourse is fine, so long as it's not "in the context of ritual pagan worship practices."
There is also no reason to conclude, from this particular text or the sum total of all that Scripture teaches, that Romans 1 makes the distinction you do between the homosexual practices Paul condemned and the gossip he also condemned.
I do stand to be corrected. If you can point to a specific passage where God commends homosexual relationships, DO SO.
Or if you can provide a legitimately good argument for why Romans 1 condemns homosexual behavior ONLY in certain circumstances, while it simultaneously condemns all instances of gossip, DO SO.
Don't simply refuse to defend what is clearly the indefensible, by writing that we just happen to disagree on the strengths of each other's arguments. It's open question whether you have an argument in the first place: you clearly have a position, but until that position is defended with plausible appeals to Scripture, it remains entirely unclear whether that position can be defended with an actual argument -- to say nothing of your thoroughly preposterous claim that this position was reached through careful, good-faith Bible study.
Bubba you seem to have a hard time grasping what I've said and yet you've summed it up right here:
There is nothing in the Bible -- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, NOT ONE WORD -- that suggests that homosexual intercourse is fine, so long as it's not "in the context of ritual pagan worship practices."
Yes, there is nothing to suggest that it is okay. NOR IS THERE ANYTHING TO SUGGEST THAT IT IS WRONG. NOT ONE PASSAGE IN THE PAGES OF THE BIBLE THAT CONDEMNS ALL GAY BEHAVIOR.
And so, given the absence of anything in the bible to support your position, why do you hold it?
I have repeatedly stated why I hold my position, even though the Bible is silent on it: Because I believe in marriage. I believe in committed monogamous healthy relationships. Gay and straight, I think both are okay and good and blessed.
Why do you hold YOUR position, lacking even one word in the Bible to support it?
And I've had about enough of these goofy conversations, fellas. Hold your positions and you can account to Christ for them. I shall do the same.
God's blessing and forgiveness and grace upon us all. Even amongst those of us who are reluctant to share it with others.
How thoroughly passive aggressive, Dan: prayer for God's forgiveness and grace, even as you subtly but clearly smear those who disagree with you, suggesting that we are "reluctant to share it with others."
About homosexual intercourse, you write:
"Yes, there is nothing to suggest that it is okay. NOR IS THERE ANYTHING TO SUGGEST THAT IT IS WRONG. NOT ONE PASSAGE IN THE PAGES OF THE BIBLE THAT CONDEMNS ALL GAY BEHAVIOR."
All the passages that mention it, condemn it.
None of them suggest that the condemnation is specific rather than universal.
And the Bible is clear -- as is Christ Himself -- about why we were created male and female.
The Bible is NO LESS CLEAR in its condemnation of homosexual behavior, as it is gossip. You invoke an unreasonable standard -- and do so inconsistently -- in order to find ways to ignore what the Bible clearly teaches.
"I have repeatedly stated why I hold my position, even though the Bible is silent on it: Because I believe in marriage. I believe in committed monogamous healthy relationships. Gay and straight, I think both are okay and good and blessed."
You do so in defiance of what the Bible teaches about the composition of marriage. Marriage is the union of man and wife, male and female, husband and wife: there are no passages -- NONE -- that suggest the institution is androgynous.
You do so in defiance of what the Bible teaches about homosexual behavior. Every time it is mentioned, it is condemned, and no exceptions are implied. You determine that the condemnation is particular rather than universal, because you inconsistently apply unreasonable standards to the specific passages you don't like.
And, you do so in defiance of what even Christ Himself taught about our creation.
We were created male and female so that a man would leave his family and become one flesh with his wife.
As much as you tell us you focus on Christ's "Way," you couldn't care less about this particular teaching.
And you end up ignoring passages like Matthew 19 in order to claim -- not just implausibly, but preposterously -- that the traditional Christian understanding of sexual morality has no basis in Scripture.
But thanks for continuing to prove that you have no argument.
It's funny how you so frequently get weary of these discussions at the precise moment that you can no longer obfuscate.
I'd say you all have been accusing me of obfuscating for quite a long time now, so apparently you're mistaken.
It's not the accusation but whether you can continue the charade.
You now admit that you have no biblical reason for concluding that the condemnation of homosexual behavior is particular rather than universal; or for concluding that God condones that behavior in any circumstance; or for concluding that marriage is an androgynous institution.
The arguments you have made, have been ripped to shreds. You cannot actually point to any passages of Scripture that support your position because none exist.
All that's left is either changing your view for the sake of integrity, or picking up your ball and going home, with a curt "okay" or "so what" or just telling us how weary you are of all this.
I'm not surprised to see you taken your well-worn path.
Brother Bubba, if you ever would be able to provide a biblical and logical and moral case for your position and lose the hypocrisy and ugly attitude, you might win people to your cause. You are a good thinker.
Unfortunately, it's just that your conclusions are all skewed by your cultural preconclusions and your witness is marred by your unloving and unreasonable presentation.
It remains the case that I find your position to be neither moral, nor reasonable nor biblical. You disagree.
Nonetheless, just because Bubba disagrees with me is not enough for me to abandon what I believe God's will is in order to follow Bubba's will.
You shall have to deal with God for your position and I shall deal with God for mine.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
~Jesus
Dan, in the case of our specific discussions, I don't think I have displayed an ugly and unloving attitude. I have probably been far more patient with your unproven assertions and inconsistent standards than is either necessary or perhaps even prudent. In light of Matthew 7:6, I probably should have long ago ended all attempts to have a good-faith discussion with you.
You continue to give the same sort of insubstantial comment you regurgitate every time you run out of intellectual ammunition:
"Nonetheless, just because Bubba disagrees with me is not enough for me to abandon what I believe God's will is in order to follow Bubba's will."
It's not about following my will. It never has been, and it never will be.
It's about whether we follow God's will as revealed in the Bible. You yourself claim to love the Bible and deeply revere its teachings -- and you bristle at anyone who doubts these claims -- but you've never been able to provide a plausible argument that would serve as convincing evidence that your radical beliefs really are the result of Bible study.
On this subject, your beliefs are not plausibly rooted in biblical teachings. You cannot point to a single passage that would justify your belief that God's condemnation of homosexual behavior is particular rather than universal; that God condones that behavior in any circumstance; and that marriage is an androgynous institution.
On the other hand, my position is quite clearly the result, not of "cultural preconclusions," but of the very teachings of Christ.
I believe that God made us male and female for a clearly heterosexual marital bond, where a man (male) becomes one flesh with his wife (female).
Unlike your claim that God blesses "gay marriage," this belief actually is rooted in the Bible, and I can and have (repeatedly) pointed out where.
"Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" -- Jesus, Matthew 19:4-5
It frankly appears that our conversations online really are drawing to a close. I've added a few comments at the lengthy discussion elsewhere here at Craig's, and there aren't many more subjects to discuss.
So this will all be over soon.
I've certainly been guilty of my fair share of uncharitable behavior, but I actually think I've improved on that score over the last couple years.
I think these last few lengthy conversations speak for themselves, not only in terms of the strength of our arguments, but also in terms of the Christlikeness of our characters.
You're probably a civil enough guy, Dan, and I genuinely wouldn't mind your company over a couple slices of pizza, even if we have to limit ourselves to sports and movies.
You're probably a decent enough man in other areas, at work or at home, and your fundamental beliefs about faith and politics, I'm sure are sincerely (if mistakenly) held.
But the way you go about defending and explaining these beliefs -- and engaging those with whom you disagree -- is often less than honorable and is sometimes despicable.
As I will probably reiterate when I conclude at the other thread, I stand by my belief, enunciated here, that your approach seems literally subversive. You seem willing to subvert language, forensics, the Bible and even the Christian faith itself to advance what is ultimately a very radical political agenda.
I will not pretend that your arguments are more reasonable than they are, nor will I pretend that your methods in defending that position are more ethical than they are -- not for a cheap sense of unity, not for a shallow understanding of charity, not for anything.
Your convenience is not worth my integrity.
Bubba:
but you've never been able to provide a plausible argument that would serve as convincing evidence that your radical beliefs really are the result of Bible study.
Wrong. I have provided the arguments that were plausible TO ME. The arguments and study that led ME to change my position.
That you don't agree with them only mean that YOU don't find them plausible. That's okay. I don't find your position remotely plausible either.
What of it?
You're probably a civil enough guy, Dan, and I genuinely wouldn't mind your company over a couple slices of pizza, even if we have to limit ourselves to sports and movies.
Sorry, I don't like sports...
Bubba said...
I've certainly been guilty of my fair share of uncharitable behavior, but I actually think I've improved on that score over the last couple years.
Actually, in many ways, I think this is very true. And at the same time, in many ways, I think I have gotten worse on this score over the years. Or at least, less patient. But then, it hasn't been you that have had folks repeatedly question your Christianity, your love of the Bible or whether or not I even really know what I think myself.
So, perhaps you can find some grace in your heart to be forgiving of me, given those set of circumstances.
Dan, you're asking me to forgive your impatience, only in light of our terrible treatment of you.
I hope that you don't actually think that you'll gain any credit or respect for such a passive-aggressive request.
Dan,
I've been away for a while, s I'm going to backtrack a bit.
Your constant insistence that everyone else is constantly lying is getting old. Please move on. Unless you can read minds it makes you sound kind of childish.
I'll deal with the other stuff later.
Your constant insistence that everyone else is constantly lying is getting old. Please move on.
As I noted elsewhere, you are correct. I apologize for saying "you lie," when what I should have said was "That is a falsehood." I was following the example set by you and your friends and I should have held to my own standards instead of using your methods. For that, I apologize.
My question to you is, will you hold you and yours to the same rule?
You all repeatedly repeat false statements about my positions. Usually, I could give grace and suppose it is a falsehood stated in ignorance or misunderstanding. Even when you have been corrected and you repeat the falsehood, I shall henceforth strive to call is a falsehood (or false statement or a misunderstanding) rather than name it as a lie, since I don't know your heart.
Will you do the same?
Dan,
I wanted to address a few random things you have brought up over the past few posts.
FIRST: “I've said quite clearly that it is MY memory that he stated something about my aunt. YOUR memory is that he made it in the form of a query, not a statement.
IF it was indeed my memory that this was stated as fact, not question, then why would I NOT state it as fact, not question? It IS my memory that the comment was made in attack mode, not question mode, why WOULDN'T I say it like that? I can't read your minds to know how YOU thought it was presented.”
You have tried to make this about your memory, the problem is there was an actual comment made, and the Mark has made it abundantly clear that he posed the question as a hypothetical. Like it or not the word of the author is the best record we have not your memory.
Therefore the question arises. If it could be demonstrated that the question was in the form of a hypothetical, would you dial back the vitriol?
SECOND: “"Because, according to the way you're taking Jesus' words above, all it takes is Craig to forgive them and they WILL be forgiven."
This is a direct quote from Dan on this thread. I said absolutely nothing that even remotely resembles this. It is without question that Dan has said something that is absolutely false.
Will you retract this obvious untruth?
THIRD: “8. But, by all means, you tell me what is the preferred behavior for all of us - should we disagree with statements by saying "that is a false statement..." or should we disagree by saying "Craig is a liar..." This is your blog, Craig, feel free to make a rule and we can all abide by it. For my part, I shall try to stick to the "That is a false statement," approach.”
To begin with, I would prefer that you would refrain from both profanity and vulgarity. I would also prefer that you would stop referring to Logic and Reason as if they were objective realities. If you are going to use Logic and Reason as your argument, please qualify what you mean. Failing that, please explain why your logic and reason is superior to those intelligent people who disagree with you. Having said that, I feel like someone who stumbles upon this can gain some insight into the people involved and the arguments being made, by the language that they use. So, unless someone really goes over the line, (I’ll know it when I see it) I’ll leave things as they are. If I do delete or edit a post I’ll let the poster know why and allow them to edit themselves if they want.
Contd.
FORTH: “This is such bullshit, Marshall.”
“…as opposed to your made up shit you just spread about me.”
“pervert scum”
“perverted moral degenerate”
If this is representative of your Christian love and grace, I’ll pass.
FIFTH:
RESPONSE #1
Stop lying about me
THIS above is a blatant lie.
RESPONSE #2
Because, according to the way you're taking Jesus' words above, all it takes is Craig to forgive them and they WILL be forgiven.
As we can see from your first two comments out of the gate, you certainly came out swinging. You took issue with my wording in the original post. Instead of attempting to ascertain if I could have used a word choice that better expressed your views, you assume that I have intentionally said something that is false. (Just for the record, my original wording does accurately express your position. But, out of deference to your feelings I promptly changed it. )
Not only that but the second response is in no way representative of anything that I might have said, written, or implied, yet I have not attacked you or called you names.
SIXTH: You insist on everyone answering every question you ask, no matter how outlandish or hypothetical, yet ignore many of the questions posed to you. I would ask for consistency.
SEVENTH: (from the other thread) “My question to you is, will you hold you and yours to the same rule?”
Given the fact that I have seen much more nastiness from certain posters at your blog that you allow, I’m not sure I’d be willing to dial anyone here back until I saw a similar policy at your place.
September 21, 2009 7:40 PM
It's interesting that you continually point to Logic and Reason as one of your deciding factors, when so much of Jesus teaching goes against all (at least human) logic and reason.
Turn the other cheek...
The first shall be last...
To be great, you must be a servant...
God became a man and dwelt among us...
Who loses his life gains it...
Jesus death brings life...
Any thoughts?
I think each of those are extremely logical and reasonable. Surprising to hear that you don't.
Dan,
Why should I respond to your question when you refuse to respond to mine?
But seriously, if you find the concept of the first shall be last and the last shall be first logical and reasonable (outside of Christs teaching) then I must question your logic and reason.
I'm sure you could come up with some convoluted explanation, but don't bother. Although you could answer the questions you have been asked.
If it is the case that you expect me not to call others liars, but it's okay in reverse, that you want to hold me (rightly) to ideals that you are not willing to hold yourself (wrongly) and are free to concoct false statements about me and keep repeating them after being corrected, why would I wish to engage in that sort of conversation with these sorts of people?
I think it is perfectly fair and reasonable to conclude that Dan does not find Bubba's arugments to be plausible because of stubborn adherence to a flawed understanding of Scripture, due likely to relationships with homosexuals. Further, I think it is equally fair and reasonable to state that Dan is willing to describe the weakest of arguments as plausible if they support his beliefs regarding homosexual behavior. In other words, his arguments are plausible because he says so, and that's good enough for him.
Dan does not find Bubba's arugments to be plausible because of stubborn adherence to a flawed understanding of Scripture, due likely to relationships with homosexuals.
You will recall that I changed from against gay marriage to support for gay marriage BEFORE I knew any gay folk (that I knew of) and while I was still reasonably "conservative" in most ways. Your hunch is wrong. As I have stated, whether or not you believe it, I changed my position because of prayer and bible study.
Not because I had a vested interest in supporting gay marriage for my friends' sake.
Not because I wanted to believe in gay marriage (I didn't).
Not because I had family members that were gay that I know of.
Simply through prayer and Bible study. You all seem to find that hard to believe, but it is the case.
I find my positions to be plausible simply because I think they are the most Godly, most biblical, most logical and most moral positions to hold. I would not hold them otherwise.
The fact that you disagree with my opinion does not mean that I don't hold them or that I don't hold them for the reasons I have given.
Dan,
I believe that it is reasonable, logical, plausible, and moral to expect you to be able to correct those with whom you disagree without resorting to name calling. I also believe that it is reasonable, logical, plausible, and moral for me to apply the same standards about the people who comment here that you do at your blog.
I believe that it is reasonable, logical, plausible, and moral for you to give others the same benefit of the doubt that you expect for your self.
So, if you would like to respond to my comments and questions and comments that are out there feel free. I am only asking that you treat others the way you expect others to treat you.
To Bubba, and MA, can we please stop using the word liar to describe Dan.
Thank You All
Craig, praytell, what questions are "out there" that I have not answered repeatedly?
Dan,
You've done this before, and I've cut and pasted, this time I'll let you go back and look if you are interested. This gets old and I'm to busy to play this particular game.
In reviewing your questions, I am not seeing any that have gone unanswered. If you FEEL like something has gone unanswered (and it IS possible I missed something, and I'm just not seeing it), then you'd do well to let me know, IF you want the answer (or if you want me to show you where I have already answered it, as you may have missed it.
Otherwise, God's blessings upon you and us all.
Dan,
I am trying not to become as petulant as you when people don't answer your questions to your satisfaction. Suffice it to say, there is stuff on the table in this thread that you haven't responded to. If you choose not to, that's cool, but don't be surprised when others respond to you in the same way.
One freebie, just so you won't have to work to hard.
"Because, according to the way you're taking Jesus' words above, all it takes is Craig to forgive them and they WILL be forgiven."
This is a direct quote from Dan on this thread. I said absolutely nothing that even remotely resembles this. It is without question that Dan has said something that is absolutely false.
Will you retract this obvious untruth?
You believe you have not said this. I thought it was quite obvious that was what you were implying. Perhaps I'm mistaken. You began this post by saying...
His response is, in essence, that one cannot forgive a wrong done to someone else. I beg to differ. In support of my position I offer the following scripture in numerous translations.
And then offered this scripture:
"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."
I jumped to the conclusion that you believed this scripture meant that we are to forgive everyone, even if they have not wronged us.
I am not mistaken in that conclusion, am I?
I then made the further conclusion that you have quoted:
"Because, according to the way you're taking Jesus' words above, all it takes is Craig to forgive them and they WILL be forgiven."
You object to my saying this. Am I to conclude that this is NOT your position? Is it your position, then, that we ought to forgive people who have done us no wrong, but that this forgiveness does not mean that they are forgiven? What does it mean then?
If I drew a wrong conclusion, I apologize. I thought you were suggesting that we are to forgive people (even those who have not wronged us) and, since we both know that the Bible (Jesus) says that "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them."
So, if you think we ought to forgive someone who does not sin against us, do you think they are NOT forgiven? If not, then do you think Jesus was mistaken?
I was presuming that you would not have thought that Jesus did not mean that literally or that he was mistaken, and I am sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusion there, too.
You tell me.
"I thought it was quite obvious that was what you were implying."
And here is where we have problems on a regular basis. You say you thought it was obvious that he was "implying", which "implies" something not necessarily obvious to all. An implication would demand clarification whereas a more solid statement is perfectly clear. My point is that you demand clarifying questions, but don't demand as much for yourself, by your now obvious admission.
The difference, Marshall, is that I don't have a long history of repeatedly writing things that others have had to say, "That's not what I meant or said..." and others here do.
In fact, I may well have understood Craig exactly correctly. I am waiting for his explanation.
You'll have to keep in mind that I come from where most of you all are now, so I'm not unfamiliar with the thinking.
Regarding the charge of "liar", what word works better for one who isists on spreading untruths? I cannot judge accurately whether Dan believes what he says in all cases, but I can say with certainty that, for example, there is no support in Scripture for his beliefs about homosexuality. He insists otherwise without showing supporting evidence. We have shown Scriptural support for our side. What can then be said about him but that he puts forth that which is not true? That he might believe his own bilge only means that he is wrong, but the fact remains that he puts for untruths. So the question is not whether or not he lies, but whether he is lying willfully. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he knows not what he does, though it doesn't feel right.
He goes on to say that he has come to his beliefs without outside influences. I find this difficult to believe if his words about his original beliefs are true. How can one change from the right point of view to the wrong one by reading the plain words of Scripture? His attitudes about homosexuals might have been crap, but the underlying position of knowing the behavior to be sinful was correct (and still is). But then, out of the blue, to be compelled to re-read the Book and come away with a worse understanding than what he had originally doesn't make sense without then assuming he lacks a sound ability to reason, for his reasoning is crap.
I'm most interested in that change and what sparked it initially. Was the purpose of further study to divine the truth about homosexuality, or was that a by-product of some other intention?
For example, at one point in my life a friend suggested that there was nothing that prohibited his fornication. I did a cover-cover and found not only found him wrong, but found that there is little to support any notion that sex could be considered "a wonderful gift from God" rather than merely a function of our biology by which we procreate. We are allowed to indulge for the sake of its pleasure only in a marital context, but even then, not to the extent that it rules our lives. In other words, the erotic is not a consideration in the type of love of which the Bible speaks.
The by-product of my investigation regarding fornication was that sex has no real standing with God at all, that is, it's nothing special and, if anything, is more restricted than blessed, if blessed at all.
But what began Dan's renewed study that brought forth this woefully foolish belief that God would ever bless a behavior He has called an abomination? I agree with Bubba that Dan never understood conservatism during the period he considered himself conservative. There was a period in my younger years where I was the opposite. This was due to my own lack of understanding of what each leaning was. As I broke things down to their basics, and truly began to listen and learn, I was surprised to find that I was indeed conservative about most everything.
So this is what I'm most interested about Dan at this point. Just what inspired your decision to begin your restudy of Scripture? Frankly, I can't believe that an objective study can lead to where you've landed. I insist you must have been influenced by liberals and wonder if it wasn't liberals who first suggested you take that second look.
Dan,
Thank you for your response. It really raises as many questions as it answers.
1. Given your incredible sensitivity to misunderstandings, why would you assume anything and not instead ask for clarification?
2. Why would you choose to misread the scripture I posted. It clearly states (something that you have agreed with elsewhere) God will forgive you to the extent you forgive others. Nowhere in that short simple verse is there anything that suggests that I or anyone else could forgive (in the sense of Gods forgiveness) anyone's sins.
3. The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that I was implying something speaks volumes about your preconceptions of me.
4. Given the fact that I had fairly clearly limited my point when I wrote the original post why would you jump to the conclusion that I was going beyond the original limited point?
5. It would seem then, that as a result of your misunderstanding, and jumping to an erroneous conclusion that you felt that the most appropriate response was to engage in vulgarity and name calling. Is this really the best you could Logically Reason?
So, you have kind of answered one question/comment (when you insisted that there were none you had not addressed). Included in your answer was a kind of mealy mouthed half apology for "misunderstanding". Maybe you could look harder.
That's enough for now.
Hold on, I'm not at all sure I misunderstood you, I was waiting for your clarification.
Would you mind answering and clarifying so I can know if I actually owe you an apology?
Question 1:
I jumped to the conclusion that you believed this scripture meant that we are to forgive everyone, even if they have not wronged us.
I am not mistaken in that conclusion, am I?
Question (set of questions) 2:
"Because, according to the way you're taking Jesus' words above, all it takes is Craig to forgive them and they WILL be forgiven."
You object to my saying this. Am I to conclude that this is NOT the way your are taking Jesus' words (that is, it is NOT your position that if we forgive people - even those who have not wronged us - their sins are forgiven)?
Is it your position, then, that we ought to forgive people who have done us no wrong, but that this forgiveness does not mean that they are forgiven?
What does it mean then?
Dan,
1. Yes you are mistaken. My point was, is, and has been, that there is scriptural support that broadens the concept of forgiveness beyond your very narrow and literal interpretation. I never said that there was any sort of mandate that we forgive everyone, just that the door is open to extend forgiveness beyond one to one. Strangely enough your Amish example seems to make my point quite well. People forgive others for peripheral offenses all the time. Again, had you just acknowledged that you simply choose not to expand your concept of forgiveness this would have been over long ago.
In addition, your comment seems to presume that I was suggesting that I could forgive sins in the sense that God can forgive sins. Nowhere did I indicate in any way shape or form that this was the case.
#2 At this point you are just being obtuse. I have already answered this both in the original text from Matthew as well as elsewhere in this thread. So I don't feel the need to do so again. Why do continue to advance the silly claim that I am equating my forgiving someone with God forgiving anyone.
Please do me the courtesy of at least responding to something I actually said. Repeating different variations of I didn't say that is getting old.
Craig, I think I'm going to have to give up. It feels like to me I'm asking a question and getting an answer to another question besides the one I asked. I started to go through line by line to try to figure out what you're saying but, at least for tonight, I'm too tired.
We have a communication problem, it seems to me.
Okay, I think I've got a start now... You said...
My point was, is, and has been, that there is scriptural support that broadens the concept of forgiveness beyond your very narrow and literal interpretation. I never said that there was any sort of mandate that we forgive everyone, just that the door is open to extend forgiveness beyond one to one.
Then (correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that we're NOT supposed to forgive everyone - even those who have not wronged us. But that was my point.
Then you say, "Just that the possibility is there to extend forgiveness beyond one to one." What does that mean? Are you saying we should forgive SOME others who have not wronged us but not ALL others?
So, for instance, there are ten people in Louisville - whom I don't know except their names - and they have spread stolen from my Uncle, let's say. Now, you're saying I should forgive some of them for this crime against someone else besides me, but not all of them?? Or, are you saying that I should forgive all of THEM because I know my uncle, but the people in Chicago who stole from Bob the Complete Stranger, THOSE people I should not forgive?
We appear to agree that we aren't to necessarily forgive everyone, but I'm not clear on who you think we are and aren't to forgive and other what circumstances. Can you see where I'm failing to understand you?
Dan,
I'm saying that I am willing to accept the fact that there is more to forgiveness than your wooden literal interpretation. It's that simple. You have the ability to forgive others, and your forgiveness or lack thereof will impact your relationship with God.
It's not that hard.
To your example, I believe that you have the ability to forgive any and all of the above. Whether you choose to or not is between you and God.
Again, it's pretty simple.
It's interesting when you get so attached to such a narrow literal reading of a text.
This, from the literalist.
You find it odd that I think when Jesus teaches that we ought to forgive those who wrong us, and then goes on to say, if we don't forgive, we can't be forgiven, that he meant the one and only way of taking that is what it woodenly literally says and not what it says in context.
I find it odd that YOU think when the text says "god says, 'kill those babies,'" that it means just that. You're choosing all the wrong places to take the Bible literally and all the wrong places to choose NOT to take it literally.
Dan,
I have no problem taking the Bible literally, in fact I am completely consistent in supporting a literal interpretation of scripture. I'm not sure what points you hope to score by stating the obvious. I would actually hope that you might decide whether you would choose a literal or figurative interpretation and stick with it.
I also find it fascinating that you are suggesting that I am somehow interpreting this particular passage in a wooden literal sense, when I am the one suggesting a broader application of the principle.
For what I hope will be that last time, yes I do believe that God is foreign and that he holds the power over life and death. I for one do not feel the need to second guess how God chooses to use said power.
BTW, where exactly does God say "kill those babies"?
I'm in the middle of wrapping up my part of the lengthy dialogue with Dan elsewhere -- drafting a handful of comments that I'll post all at once -- but in the meantime, this discussion is still worth addressing.
Dan, you write the following to Craig:
"You find it odd that I think when Jesus teaches that we ought to forgive those who wrong us, and then goes on to say, if we don't forgive, we can't be forgiven, that he meant the one and only way of taking that is what it woodenly literally says and not what it says in context."
Does Craig think that we SHOULDN'T forgive those who wrong us? I don't think he does, and nothing he's written would imply that.
Does Craig think that our being forgiven by God is unconnected to our forgiving our enemies? He hasn't written anything to imply that, either.
(Though, anyone who believes and understands the doctrine of salvation by faith alone must see our forgiving our enemies as evidence of our accepting God's forgiveness, not as a work which prompts God's forgiveness. Writing, "if we don't forgive, we can't be forgiven," you suggest that you might have the chain of causality reversed.)
None of us here act as if we disbelieve what Christ taught in Matthew 6.
It's just that we don't think that Christ taught that forgiveness can only be given to those who have wronged you directly, because He didn't actually teach that.
He commanded us to forgive those who wrong us.
But it's an open question whether we have the capacity (and the permission) to forgive others beyond that.
It's a far more open question than your presumptuous question-begging that leads to the conclusion that the Bible's prohibition of homosexual relationships is specific rather than universal, limited to a context of idolatry rather than altogether unlimited.
(According to the Bible -- and Christ Himself -- why were we created male and female?)
Dan, is it possible to hold in your heart anger against someone who hasn't wronged you directly? You seem to concede that it is possible.
You suggest that that anger can be righteous indignation, and I agree, but it can also be unrighteous.
Righteous or not, is it possible to release that anger you hold against someone who didn't wrong you directly? ABSOLUTELY.
I believe that that release can be rightly described as forgiveness -- the unilateral and liberating act of letting go what you're holding against someone, be it a debt or obligation or (in this case) anger in lieu of such a debt.
I don't understand your problem with this conclusion: if it's wrong to describe that letting go of one's anger as forgiveness, what would you call it?
Or do you think it's impossible to let of that anger? Or do you actually think that it's always healthy to hold on to that anger, believing (implausibly) that the anger of an otherwise sinful man is always righteous when it's on the behalf of a third party?
I don't understand your objection.
And so I wonder if your unwillingness to let go of the anger you bear for some third-party offense -- anger against Mark, in this case -- is cramping your ability to think clearly about this question, in addition to souring your emotions.
Bubba,
Thank you, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Post a Comment