I've been thinking a lot about the notion of Heaven recently. As well as the concept of the Kingdom of God and what those sorts of things look like. This video was shared with me a while ago, and I like the way that it approaches the notion of the sphere of God, the sphere of man, and how they relate and overlap. I like the idea that the spheres were created to occupy the same space, but that they became separated. After Jesus, we see some overlap, that there is a space where God's sphere and our sphere meet, as it were. But that the ultimate goal is the final reconciliation of and restoration of the original creation.
I'm sure that, like every attempt to explain the nature of the Kingdom of God, it's not perfect. Having said that, I think that talking about "going to heaven when we die", doesn't really capture the entirety of the future and of God's redemptive plan.
73 comments:
Good Lord. What BS.
They started out well enough, thinking about heaven and earth overlapping. But that "place" where they overlap is Grace, is the Beloved Community. It's not paganistic temples and animal sacrifices and an angry god that can only be appeased by blood somehow.
You always state your unproven hunches as if they were unassailable facts.
This is Dan once again rejecting the God of the Bible because He doesn't abide Dan's notion of what God should be. Of course, he'll respond, it's our "interpretations" with which he disagrees and we'll then wait in vain for a Scripture supported alternative. For example, what "beloved community" and where is that described in Scripture?
The point Dan misses (hard to believe) is that the animal sacrifices, then ultimately for us, Christ's sacrifice on the cross as the Lamb of God, results in the overlap due to, hopefully, the redemption of those for whom the sacrifices were made. There's no "beloved community" without it.
As to the "angry god that can only be appeased by blood somehow", Dan cannot hold that arrogant and condescending position and accept Biblical teaching at the same time. He rejects that teaching that clearly presents the reality that we are all sinners, deserving of death and God's justice must be satisfied. Dan might not like it, but that's just Dan once again whining about the reality that God doesn't act in a manner Dan finds personally appealing.
So it once again comes down to Dan needing to present a Scripture based argument in defense of his position. If he can do that, which is doubtful or he would already have done it...for ANY of his beliefs that contradict what we regard as obvious, not just this one.
As far as the “angry God” trope, it’s just not supported in scripture but it’s an easy way to pass judgment on God.
The common thread of much of the last few months boils down to The Gospel. If you can make The Gospel about something other than sin and our separation from a holy God, then you can make the discussion about how “good” people are. But once you redefine terms, it’s all up for grabs.
If you can make The Gospel about something other than sin and our separation from a holy God
I take the Gospel to be about GRACE and GOOD NEWS for the poor and marginalized (especially and specifically) as well as for the rest of us.
I take the Gospel to be about Grace. You take it to be about sin and separation.
Who is redefining Good News?
I just spent quite some time responding in great detail at Dan's, at two posts. We'll see if these latest comments stand. If he dumps those to feo, that's OK. I went full snark on the dude, but his comments were just too laughable to address with any semblance of snark-free respect.
But Dan still misses the point of it all. He's so fixed on the "good people" thing, that I can't help but think it's just another ploy to convince himself that those he knows are in breech of God's will can get a pass because of their other "good deeds". He has friends or fellow church members in open rebellion and supports them in that rebellion saying wrong it right. To hype good deeds is intended to divert attention from that rebellion, but there's only One who would be concerned and it is He against Whom they are in rebellion. A truly "good" Christian would not enable that rebellion in which an allegedly "good" Christian willfully choose to engage. This is all speculation, of course, but I can't understand how the reality of Biblical teaching about the nature of man can be so troubling to him, especially since Christ died so that it won't be held against us.
Dan,
I apologize, I should have known that you’d default to a wooden literal interpretation of my comment.
What I should have said, was that The Good news of The Gospel is that Jesus bridged the gap between sinful humanity and a holy God. That because of the completed work of Christ, those that belong to Him can stand before God as righteous.
Once you remove the human sinfulness component from the picture, The Gospel loses much of its meaning. If you’re a “good person”, then why would you need Jesus?
Given your imperfect knowledge of Orthodox Christian theology, it’s possible that you were genuinely unaware of what I intended to communicate, but it suspect it was more about being snarky.
Art,
What’s interesting with this whole “good people” construct is that it ignores the reality that very often people’s public persona doesn’t match their private persona. How many times do we hear the friends and neighbors of serial killers or the recent bunch of mass shooters talk about what “good people” they were? How often do we see people of great stature in the church, (Bill Hybels did lots of good things, and would have passed the “good person” text) who engage in all sorts of bad things in private.
This notion that we can make deep, significant, judgements about someone’s nature based on limited, superficial, subjective observations of a small sample of public behavior is naive at best. At worst it’s an attempt to lay the foundation to claim that there are people who are “good enough”, to be saved. How many times do we hear something like “Humans judge the exterior but God judges the heart.”, yet all of a sudden we hear that all we need is to superficially observe some exterior behaviors and we can make definitive judgments about someone’s nature.
It’s not at all about trying to usurp the place and prerogatives of God.
Art,
I’ve virtually stopped even looking at Dan’s blog. The reality is that he’s told me that I’m not allowed to comment there on enough occasions that I see no value in even engaging in the content. If Dan wants to comment here, I’ve told him that I won’t delete his comments (on purpose), and I’ll stick with that instead of wasting my time there.
Craig, it depends on what you mean by "need Jesus. We DON'T need "magic blood" to appease an irrational, whimsical and angry god.
We need Grace.
The Way that Jesus taught.
That's what we need. That Way of Grace IS good news for the poor and by extension the rest of us. Releasing the weight of the Mammon that drags us down like a drowning man whose pockets are full of gold, we can release that weight and fall back upon Grace. God's Grace. Grace towards one another.
This is indeed good news, reasonably speaking. Magic blood to appease an angry god is a business transaction with an irrational bully. That whimsical and cruel angry God you describe is more lovecraftian than Christian.
Dan,
Your entire comment is simply your hunch stated in terms that both denigrate the work of Jesus and try to appear as if your simply making a factual claim.
Your problem is that you have no scriptural grounds for your hunch, and much scripture that disagrees with your hunch. Your usual way to surmount that hurdle is to simply minimize the importance of scripture. Whether it’s the “rule book” gambit it the “Just because you interpret scripture to mean ...”, or one of your other tactics, it all comes down to the fact that it’s merely an unsupported hunch on your part.
Beyond that, we’re now back to you erecting a straw man and arguing against your perverted version of others positions.
You say you want “conversation” ( which basically means answering every random question you ask every time you ask it, while ignoring both my answers and the majority of the questions you’re asked.), yet if this is the best you have to offer, why would anyone want to have a conversation with you?
Nice job passing judgement on those who disagree with you and on God. I guess you’ve decided to ignore that whole “judge not” thing.
Personally, if it’s true that we’re judged by the standard we use to judge others, then I encourage you to keep on judging just the way you have been.
Craig... Your entire comment is simply your hunch stated in terms that both denigrate the work of Jesus and try to appear as if your simply making a factual claim.
Nope. It's my hunch stated in terms that denigrate CALVINISTS' hunches and abuse of the gospel story of Jesus and trying to point to the more historically/rationally/biblically view of the Good News to the Poor Grace that Jesus actually spoke about in the Bible, AS I SEE IT.
At this point, none of us can prove our hunches about what Jesus' intent were. We can just state what we think is the most reasonable explanation. I think that, given an independent and unbiased view of the teachings of Jesus, we can clearly see a Gospel that is directed specifically and literally to the poor and marginalized and it is a literal Good News (given the normal understanding of "good," by the by) Gospel of Grace, as opposed to the machiavellian view that calvinists and their supporters theorize about.
Two points there:
1. I am clear that my opinions are MY opinions about something that can not be proven; and
2. When I disagree with YOUR HUNCHES, I am NOT disagreeing with Jesus or denigrating Jesus' teachings, I'm disagreeing with you and your kin. I don't conflate human calvinistic opinions with God's Word and I'd advise you to not do so, either.
As to whether I'm "off" in my opinions about Jesus' teachings, I'd just ask you to conduct a thought experiment: Imagine a person coming along who knew nothing of Christianity or Church traditions, and who knew nothing about the more Calvinistic views of what the gospel means to them.
This person with fresh eyes reads the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. Do you think that they would likely tend to agree more with my rational approach of viewing the Gospel as a Good News to the poor and marginalized, and of Grace for all?
OR, do you think they'd be more likely to say, "Yes, Jesus was speaking about an angry god who must have a blood sacrifice - perfect human blood sacrifice - before that god could forgive you... and if there were no blood sacrifice - OR, if there were but you didn't "accept" that blood sacrifice in just the right way - THEN that angry god would punish you with an eternal torture for being imperfect, even when that same god MADE us imperfect..."?
Do you think fresh eyes would reach a calvinist explanation of the story?
I don't think so.
Here's the good news: You are an awful, evil, disgusting pervert and god is going to torture you for an eternity... UNLESS, you "accept" that Jesus was this god's son and sacrificed his blood to pay for your sin in a business transaction with this angry god. There was no other way. BUT, you've got to accept this sacrifice in just the right way and understand it just the right way before you are allowed to have this blood sacrifice take affect! So, be careful that you don't believe just right, because... ANGRY god DESPISES sin and sinners. And if you try and STILL don't "accept" that "good news" in just the right way (i.e., you're mistaken in your desire to be saved and don't think some of the right tenets), then you will be tortured for an eternity! AND, here's the kicker: Some of you WON'T get it! You won't be able to understand it aright, even if you THINK you understand it right!
Lovely bit of good news, that.
Nice job passing judgement on those who disagree with you and on God.
? Where did I do this?
I suspect that you're reading my words which accurately describe calvinist beliefs (albeit using words that are less flattering/more jarring than calvinists tend to use) and assuming that I'm "passing judgment" in some negative way on it or on "God." The thing is, I don't conflate your or calvinists' hunches with God's Word. I disagree with YOU, not God. You keep making that mistake. Is that what's happening here?
Do you object to the notion that calvinism is more lovecraftian than Christian? Are you familiar with the writings of Lovecraft sufficiently to know why I make that charge?
Excellent job of misrepresenting others views, while elevating your hunches.
What’s amazing is the hubris that makes you think that you have some sort of unbiased approach to scripture and that anyone who comes to the scripture will reach the same conclusion as your hunch.
Just to put a bit of reality in the discussion, my views on these matters do not come from a prior conviction that Calvin was right. My views came from looking at scripture and realizing that Calvin’s formulation was the closest to what I read in scripture, not the other way around.
Look, you’ve written volumes about your hunch about what the gospel is, and you’ve not managed to provide an unambiguous scriptural basis for your hunch. Sure, you’ve pulled a couple of proof texts, but those don’t unequivocally support your hunch, nor do they counter the scripture that points towards a more traditional interpretation. So you don’t have unequivocal support for your hunch, and you also have nothing unequivocal that demonstrates that those who don’t buy your hunch are wrong. I’d gladly compile the scripture (I could probably limit myself to the gospels) that paints another picture, and put it out for you to debunk, but it’d be a waste of time. I can predict what you’d respond already, more hunches zero proof.
Examples of you passing judgement on everyone who disagrees with you, including God are legion, although I’m sure your hubris wouldn’t recognize them if they were provided.
I object to your notion that Calvinism is anything more than a coherent explanation that systematically tied together meta narratives across the entirety of scripture. I’d object to your selective mischaracterization of anything that you disagree with as you attempt to cast things in the most negative possible (in your opinion) light.
As far as your Lovecraft references, I really don’t care. I came to my position by realizing that Calvin’s formulation most closely matched what I see in scripture. In other words, it’s a convenient matrix to encapsulate a lot of information easily. Trying to “discredit” Calvin doesn’t change the fact that both he and I started from scripture.
Of course I can see why you think a fiction writer who lived more than 300 years after Calvin, and who was a materialist is a big influence.
Maybe if you spent more time focused on scripture and less time trying to force comparisons between Calvin (a flawed imperfect Christian) and some relatively obscure fiction author it would be a better investment of your time.
What’s interesting here is that you’ve chosen to categorize me as a “Calvinist”, that you’ve chosen to represent what that means in a way that imputes as much negativity as possible. That you don’t see that putting me into a box of your creation defined by your misrepresentations of what that box is literally defined you setting up and arguing against a straw man.
To be fair, I usually don’t argue when I’m referred to as a Calvinist, because I presume it’s simply shorthand. But, if the implication is that I started with Calvin, then imposed his lens on scripture, I’ll be clear that I did not start with Calvin.
But, if you were concerned about accuracy in representing me, things would be quite different.
I wasn't suggesting that you "started with Calvin." I assume that you, like me, were taught your traditional evangelical beliefs and that those probably aligned with Calvin. That's what happened with me.
And then, I kept reading Scripture and kept listening to the arguments that Calvinists make and the more I looked at the Bible and Jesus' teachings, the less compatible I kept finding those traditional teachings to be with Jesus' teachings.
So, yes, Calvinism is a short hand way of saying that you believe people have a "bad" or "corrupt" nature and that there are, therefore, "no good humans" (by which, you don't mean that there are no good people as we understand Good, just that there is no one "really good, you know, 'good' in the 'right' sense... etc), that you believe that good "chooses" some to save, that the Way to salvation is by Jesus offering a blood sacrifice to "pay" for our sins and that this is the only way a "just/angry" god can/will forgive us, by a blood payment.
Am I mistaken in thinking this is what you believe?
The Lovecraft reference is just because his "old gods" are cruel and whimsical in a way similar to how modern evangelicals tend to paint their god. It was mostly a goof, but not far off, seems to me.
Also, it's not "misrepresenting others" when I CONTINUALLY ask questions seeking clarification. That you continually dodge reasonable questions does not mean that I'm misrepresenting you. It's just that I'm asking "Is that what you believe, because it sounds like it?" and you refuse to answer which only leaves folks wondering.
Answering questions really is a better way to communicate. And answering them directly and clearly, even better.
As to "more time focused on Scripture," how much time is that? I've been studying Scripture for 50 years now (with the caveat that the first ten years of my reading life, I was reading as a child, but still). How much more time should I spend on it?
And what is wrong with comparisons as a way to try to think things through?
More questions to go unanswered.
Maybe you should spend less time basing your comments on your assumptions about me. Maybe if you’d stop the straw men, it would be more effective.
You literally make a claim then contradict it in the same paragraph.
What part of “I started with scripture then realized that what I found in scripture was similar to the construct laid out by Calvin,”, did you not understand? I literally told you my process, and you decide that your assumptions were more accurate.
Yes, you are mistaken in thinking that your incomplete, slanted, misrepresentation is what I believe.
The Lovecraft reference, might be vaguely similar to your straw man version of your attempt to speak for “modern evangelicals”, but misrepresentation is becoming more common.
More later.
Just because you don’t get the answers you want or ignore the answers you get, doesn’t give you license to just make stuff up and attribute it to me. Yet you do so frequently. Which brings us back to the straw man problem.
I wouldn’t presume to tell you how much time to do anything, you wouldn’t pay attention even if I showed that kind of presumption.
I’m not sure what your absurd question about comparisons meant. I’d say that bad comparisons are probably going to lead to poor conclusions.
"Who is redefining Good News?"
Not us. Why don't you tell us what it is?
"Craig, it depends on what you mean by "need Jesus. We DON'T need "magic blood" to appease an irrational, whimsical and angry god."
It's pretty standard stuff, really. Quite basic to the Christian faith and the most important message it teaches: We're sinners worthy of death, except for Christ's sacrifice on the cross being the means by which sin is defeated and a way to the Father is restored to mankind lost to us because of Adam's sin. One might expect a serious, prayerful student of Scripture to have learned all this by now.
But it's not enough that you reject this fact, Dan. You blaspheme by referring to that means of our redemption as "magic blood", and by suggesting God is "irrational, whimsical and angry" simply because He doesn't live by YOUR standards for how a supreme being must act.
Hebrews 9:11-28 makes the connection between Christ's blood and the tradition of sacrificing animals in OT Law.
Revelation 1:5 also makes reference to the necessity of Christ's blood for the washing away of our sins.
Here's but one site I could have chosen to present proof from Scripture for the necessity of Christ's "magic blood". "Magic"? I prefer the more accurate term "miracle" to describe what the shedding of Christ's blood has accomplished for us...one more miracle you dismiss (isn't this after modern history recording began?). Mock it at your own risk.
"We need Grace.
The Way that Jesus taught."
Christ never mentioned the word, and despite the word having been applied to Him, "Grace" is "unmerited favor", which is shown us by God BECAUSE we accept Christ as Savior, because we need Him as intercessor given our sin natures. We don't deserve a thing from God, but get His favor nonetheless due to Christ's sacrifice on the cross, wherein He shed His blood so that we may be redeemed. Again, basic stuff. Non-believers "show grace" toward others. Even real a**holes do.
Yours is the God of hugs and smiley faces. The God of Scripture is a God of Justice and Mercy...Justice by HIS standards, Mercy granted on HIS terms.
Art,
I agree with and appreciate your comment, but the reality is that Dan knows this. Remember he’s been a biblical scholar for between 50-60 years, and was a conservative Calvinist until receiving his gnosis. He’s like a Mormon or JW in that he uses the language of Christianity, but pours different meanings into the terms. He’s also like the prosperity gospel folks in that he slightly twists things to support his hunches. He likes to capitalize things like “Way of Grace” to make this undefined nonsense phrase seem important.
It’s always good to remind him of these things, but he’s clearly rejecting anything that doesn’t fit in his personal interpretation.
So thanks for the reminder, but he’ll just ridicule you, likely with a vitriolic profanity laced screed.
That’s how he shows tolerance and grace.
Marshal... One might expect a serious, prayerful student of Scripture to have learned all this by now.
Of course, as you can tell by reading my words, I AM familiar with the human traditions around calvinism and blood sacrifice atonement. I've talked about it for years with you. I grew up believing these human traditions. Until, slowly and increasingly, I listened ever closer to those human teachings and compared them to the teachings of, you know, the Christ. I ultimately decided that they do not align with biblical teachings, generally and Jesus' teachings specifically. And, after all, I AM a follower of Jesus, who never taught "Blood Sacrifice/Penal Substitutionary Atonement" or "TULIP."
Marshal... Christ never mentioned the word
Indeed, he didn't. Nonetheless, from even before his birth on through his life and death and resurrection, he DID teach Grace, for those who have ears to hear or eyes to read. What he DIDN'T teach was Blood sacrifice atonement or TULIP. Here's a convenient link to ways Jesus clearly taught about Grace.,,
https://escapetoreality.org/2012/02/02/jesus-reveals-what-is-grace/
Marshal... Why don't you tell us what it is? (i.e., what "Good News" is)
First of all, here's a link to a post I did years ago about the Gospel of Grace. I might tweak it some since then, but I think it's pretty helpful to explaining my position/views on Good News of God's Grace...
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-would-that-look-like.html
Secondly, I said that you are redefining Good News by telling people that good news is actually bad news for most people. That's literally opposite of what good news is.
I. The "good news" (to you all) is that we ALL are corrupt (and by corrupt, you mean, we are all imperfect, we make mistakes... it's just the nature of imperfect humanity) and because of this "nature" of being what you call "corrupt" and what I call imperfect, there is a god who is angry at "sin" or at imperfection and can't abide it. This god's anger is so thorough that god can't bear to be in the presence of imperfect/corrupt humans and that these imperfections REQUIRE that anyone is imperfect be tortured for an eternity for their imperfections.
Is that your position? Am I correct so far?
So, thus far, this good news is that we are utterly corrupt and so awful that we deserve to be tortured for an eternity.
II. Now, given that bit of horrible news, you say that the good news is that this god who is angry at imperfection/corruption IS willing to save SOME of the corrupt humans. Not all of them. Not even most of them. But some of them.
Is that your position?
III. So, the Calvinists and modern evangelicals say, this god who can't stand sin IS nonetheless willing to save a "remnant," a portion of people on the earth. This god, they say, has created many/most people to die and be tortured for an eternity, but the GOOD NEWS, they/you say, is that this angry god is "willing to save SOME" at this god's pleasure/whim. Only those who this god calls will be saved, however, and many/most will not be called.
SO, if you are not among the Called, the Elect that this god has whimsically chosen, the good news is that, well, there is no good news for them. They're just out of luck. But for the Lottery winners of Election, for THEM, there is good news.
Is that your position?
IV. From there, we get into the notion that for THE ELECT (and no others - probably most of humanity), there is the hope that this angry god will save them by killing his son and using that blood to literally (would you say literally?) "pay" the price for their imperfection/corruption/sin.
Is that your position?
V. And so, I say you all appear to redefine both Good News and Grace because
a. your "good news" is mostly bad news for most people. "You're lost, you can't be saved and you will be tortured for an eternity because your human nature is not perfect/is corrupt" and
b. because your "Grace" is a payment in blood sacrifice to "pay for your sin." it is a literal business transaction (or at least practically) and not actual grace.
Am I mistaken on any part of your beliefs? Feel free to clarify.
For someone who claims to know so much about the beliefs you despise, you certainly don’t seem to be interested in accurately communicating them. I suspect that it’s because you have a vested interest in making things you don’t like sound as bad as possible.
I thought about correcting your fakes characterizations, but realized that it would simply be a waste of time.
As always, Craig, you remain too cowardly or intellectually dishonest to respond to questions. I'm asking about fairly standard understandings of traditional conservative doctrine (with the caveat that I'm throwing in some words that I think are more balanced - like saying "imperfect/corrupt" - but that still convey the message) AND I'm asking you if that's your understanding.
You can't have it both ways. You can't refuse to clarify AND complain that I'm not accurately conveying your position. Not and be a rational conversationalist.
Maybe Marshal will address what you won't.
And for what it's worth, just to be sure I was operating from a traditional understanding and not relying upon my own memories/understandings of Calvinism and Atonement, I was looking up traditionalists explaining these points, so I'm not far off from what THEY say... I'm just checking to see if it's what you think.
I just realized something. It’s wrong for s holy God to get angry about sin, but it’s completely appropriate for Dan to get angry about anything that offends him. It’s wrong for God to damn people to hell, but it’s ok when Dan does it.
It’s wrong for s holy God to get angry about sin, but it’s completely appropriate for Dan to get angry about anything that offends him.
1. I never said it's wrong for anyone - God included - to get angry about sin. We ALL should be angry, for instance, when children are killed in war or starved to death or abused. Of course.
2. I of course don't get angry about anything that offends me.
I DO get angry about things like oppression or unjust harm caused to innocents. I do get angry about unjust penalties.
For instance, if a man were to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving children, was caught and had his hands cut off for that mistake, I would be angry at the penalty because it didn't fit the crime. It would not be just.
Likewise, if a perfect and loving god (supposedly) got angry because an imperfect human was imperfect and told 100 lies, was sometimes lazy, sometimes angry for no good reason, etc, and because of that human's imperfections, that god got angry and decided to torture that person for, well, ever, I would be angry at the injustice of that.
If facts matter to you.
I do want to commend Dan for his bravery. To be so forceful in attacking a caricature of a theological position by ridiculing the caricature is taking an incredible risk. To do so without demonstrating the problems with either the caricature or the reality of what he ridiculed, or without providing any sort of counter proposal is bold indeed.
We’ll done.
Dan,
Thanks for admitting that you’re perfectly content to misrepresent the positions of others, I appreciate it. I do so appreciate the “hidden sources” ploy, we’ll done. If you really spent all your time researching, why not just quote and source what these mystery sources actually said, rather than paraphrase? I’m guessing none of them used the term “magic blood”.
Again, I don’t agree with your misrepresentations, if that wasn’t clear before, maybe it is now.
So, you’re “angry God” comment was a positive? You’re suggesting that it’s appropriate for God to be angry?
I do like how you continuously ignore the other side of the Holy God/sinful human equation. You know, the part where God offers forgiveness?
I’ll give you the broad overview in three words.
Creation
Fall
Redemption
Where you’ll have a problem is with the first two. Of course, if you deny the first two, the third becomes meaningless.
FYI, it’s not fear that’s my problem. It’s the fact that, if the past is any guide, that you’ll either ignore or misrepresent anything I’ll say. It’s that I choose not to waste significant amounts of time trying to satisfy you. It’s that if you can’t correctly understand the volumes of explanation along with the scripture references, why would my explanation somehow be the magic one. Finally, if you can’t provide a scripturally supported critique of the accurate position that you caricature, why would I do something you can’t do?
Or, you could offer a logical, coherent, scripturally supported alternative to explain why “good” people need God.
Anyone can look at the last three or four interactions between us and see that I'm answering all the questions and you're answering few if any.
Again, I'm giving you a description of traditional Evangelical beliefs about God and sin and salvation and asking you to clarify where I'm making a mistake.
I'm not saying that they used the term Angry God, that would be that beloved traditional preacher, Jonathan Edward.
I'm just asking you to clarify where, if anywhere, I've gotten something wrong. I can give you the source when I'm at my computer that I was looking at. But this is nothing unusual.
Again, I am changing some phrases for clarification but they're still apt phrases. If you don't think they are, you can address that.
For instance Angry God. That comes from Jonathan Edwards. Why don't you take that up with him.
Do you think the God is not angry at send? That God cannot bear to be in the presence of sin? These are all very traditional things I grew up learning from traditional evangelicals and Calvinists. Tell me where I mistaken. You can't. Because I'm not.
And again, to show you how it's done, your last comment is a request that I'll be glad to respond to.
Again.
People need Grace. Jesus came teaching a way of Grace. God's grace.
If you believe, as I do, and as Saint Paul did, that all good things come from God, whether we're talking about Grace, or love, or Justice, all of these are of God.
We need to live lives of Grace and by grace. Without Grace or love, without Justice or decency, we end up with a hellish life and a hellish world. Because we don't WANT to have a hellish life or hellish world, we need Grace. God's grace. This just seems rational and observable.
And, lest it's not clear to you all, when I'm talking about Grace, I'm talking about loving kindness, decency, compassion, Justice, kindness, all those Grace-full ideas and acts that make for a beautiful life and world.
Now can you explain why we need magic blood? Or, if you find that term offensive, can you explain why we need sacrificial blood? (I use magic blood because that's what it was to ancient peoples. These blood sacrifices were to magically appeal to angry gods. It's a common religious throat an ancient cultures, this appeal for human or blood sacrifice to appease an angry god.)
The traditional Evangelical or calvinist belief in the need for sacrificial blood is an appeal that relies upon an appeal to itself. Can you explain why, outside of your presumptions about salvation, why we need sacrificial blood for forgiveness of sin?
Those of us who believe the Bible believe that God wants us to forgive those who do wrong to us. Out of Grace. When God expects us to forgive others, it's not dependent upon a blood sacrifice or some other transactional atonement. God expects us to forgive by grace. This is very traditional Christianity. So why do you think God has different rules for God then what God expects for us?
I'm answering your questions. I would think that just out of Saving Face, he would want to answer mine. If you could.
"And, after all, I AM a follower of Jesus, who never taught "Blood Sacrifice/Penal Substitutionary Atonement" or "TULIP.""
He never taught "grace". He never mentioned "grace", but you infer it in His teachings and even pretend that's the message of His existence. Now, you want to dismiss the whole of Scripture on account of Jesus never Himself uttering the words "Blood Sacrifice/Penal Substitutionary Atonement" or "TULIP."
"Here's a convenient link to ways Jesus clearly taught about Grace."
I've read several like this. They all simply make the same assertions you do, while not necessarily dismissing what you dismiss.
Note: I'm skipping around a bit here, because I'm prepping for work. But I'll be elaborating when time allows. There's too much to leave on the table without it, assuming Craig doesn't handle it first.
"Secondly, I said that you are redefining Good News by telling people that good news is actually bad news for most people. That's literally opposite of what good news is."
That's a perfectly idiotic way to represent my actual position. Where's the grace in that? Yet even considering your evil intent, you nail the reality. It's indeed bad news for those who reject the Truth of what Jesus does for us. Are you arguing that one needn't live on Christ's/God's terms yet can still benefit from His Grace? I believe you do given your heretical positions held so tightly by you.
More later.
"At this point, none of us can prove our hunches about what Jesus' intent were."
This is your out. You use this as the means by which you can say most anything and equate your positions with ours as equally likely or possible. But it's a cheap dodge. We most usually point to specific verses that back up our positions. You point to your whimsy, or more often, simply write off our positions as mere "hunch" without any evidential support whatsoever to suggest they are unlikely.
Worse, the notion that it's impossible to understand what Christ intended...EVER...is ludicrous and makes the entire New Testament worthless. You may like all that sounds nice and fluffy to you, but what the hell good is it if we can't have any confidence in it because "none of us can prove our 'hunches' about what Jesus' intent were (sic)". But again, that's simply just something you like to say when you run up against something about which you disagree but for which you have no real substantive argument to contradict it.
"2. When I disagree with YOUR HUNCHES, I am NOT disagreeing with Jesus or denigrating Jesus' teachings..."
Well...yes you are, because most of what is being debated involves that which is not mere speculation about something ambiguous. When Jesus says, "no one is good but God alone" for example, that's pretty darned straight forward. How could His intent possibly be in question. More importantly, when are we going to see a Scripture supported piece of evidence that suggests something different than "no one is good but God alone"?
"This person with fresh eyes reads the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. Do you think that they would likely tend to agree more with my rational approach of viewing the Gospel as a Good News to the poor and marginalized, and of Grace for all?"
First, you engage in question begging by the fallacy's real meaning---assuming the initial point...in this case, that your position is the rational one. And again, stop using the term "marginalized", as it is nowhere to be found anywhere in the Bible. The issue of who "the poor" is has also not be resolved between us as you here again refuse to support your position with Scripture.
Secondly, if this person with fresh eyes reads the Bible...WHICH INCLUDES THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST...I would hope this person would consider the whole and not just the tiny piece that gives you the tingles. In doing so, it would be impossible not to see the connection between animal sacrifice (and its purpose) and the death of Christ on the cross. As Craig puts it, Christ bridging the gap between us and God by His sacrifice...which is the Good News Christ brought to the poor in spirit.
Out of time. More later.
Dan,
The fact that you think you can pretend that because you’ve answered s few more questions recently that you can ignore the recent months of running away the second the questions got too hard, that’s sweet.
Thank you for admitting that you’ve phrased your descriptions in ways that please you, but aren’t necessarily the most accurate. Unfortunately Edwards is dead, so I can’t take it up with him. I’ll have to take it up with you.
You wrote an entire comment on your hunches about grace, with absolutely zero Biblical support for your hunches. That’s impressive, but your ungrounded hunches are worth absolutely nothing.
You posit grace as a magical get out of jail free card, it’s a poorly conceived form of universalism, where good people somehow need this magical grace for some unexplained reason.
It’s an interesting fairy story, but I’m not sure if it’s anything else.
If you’re too lazy to look, I’ll try to post some links with answers to your questions. I guess explaining that things like work, family, fund raising and volunteering at a couple of disability ministries, trying to schedule time with the HS student I mentor, and the rest of life sometimes get in the way of all the answers you’ll ignore.
I just re read your “answer” and realized that it’s not an answer to the question I asked. Not the least because of your failure to support it with scripture, as asked. Simply a circular argument devoid of scriptural support topped with your hatred for the icky blood thing.
Jesus told His disciples “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”
I guess Jesus thought the His blood was important. Too bad you don’t agree with Him.
I guess when you decided to claim Paul as support for your magic grace theory, you decide to selectively omit much of what Paul says about sin and atonement,
I predict that if Dan responds to Jesus quote, it’ll be something like, “ Well he didn’t mean actual blood, it was only figurative blood.” or “He didn’t really mean that.”.
Craig... "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”
So your point in quoting this, I assume, is literally not that the physical cup that Jesus was holding was literally the New Covenant. You're taking that cup to be figurative, is that correct? Because I do. Clearly we are not saved by the Holy Grail. We all agreed that that was figurative language, yes?
Your point is that you're guessing that Jesus was speaking of the cup figuratively, which figuratively represented his blood, which that literal blood, you think is what literally saved us? Is that it? That we are saved by the literal blood that poured out of Jesus' veins, and not by grace?
And I can't help but noticing that you're not answering my questions, not telling me what specifically I'm getting wrong. If you can't tell me what I've gotten wrong, then how can I know, or how can anyone know, that I am wrong? Wrong about what?
As to your magical Grace comment, unlike you, I don't have a problem or find the notion of magical Grace to be blasphemous. When we see true Grace, God's grace, acted out in the world, the results truly are magical, miraculous, beautiful in ways that are hard to grasp.
So yes, I do think that Paul, rightly understood, does speak of Grace in the same way that Jesus did. The thing to keep in mind is that we must interpret Paul's teaching through the lens of Jesus' teaching. We must not cherry-pick isolated verses of Paul and make Jesus' words subservient to Paul's.
Craig... "You posit grace as a magical get out of jail free card, it’s a poorly conceived form of universalism, where good people somehow need this magical grace for some unexplained reason."
Some unexplained reason? I am saying the lives devoid of Grace, of God's grace, are hellish. A lack of Grace leads to war. A lack of Grace leads to rape. A lack of Grace leads to abuse. A lack of Grace leads to oppression. A lack of Grace leads to gossip and slander the damage individuals and how groups of people. Often times the poor and marginalized who are least able to withstand such assaults. These are all huge reasons to want to see grace in our lives. These are rational, observable reasons to want to have Grace.
Those reasons explain why we need Grace. In just rational terms, I don't need to point to a Bible verse to support what is rational unobservable, do I? Do you question whether or not that love, Grace, forgiveness, compassion, decency all will fight against rape and oppression and War? These are rational observable reasons.
On the other hand, what rational, observable reason can you give that we need sacrificial blood to magically bring forgiveness?
Dan,
My point is that Jesus was holding a literal cup filled with wine. The wine is symbolic of the blood from The Passover (remember, that's what Jesus was doing at the time). His point is that while the Passover blood was symbolic of the Old Covenant, that He was bringing about a New Covenant sealed by His blood. Now, I understand that ridicule and misrepresentation is a tactic you resort to, so I'm going ignoring the idiotic holy grail reference.
"Your point is that you're guessing that Jesus was speaking of the cup figuratively, which figuratively represented his blood, which that literal blood, you think is what literally saved us? Is that it? That we are saved by the literal blood that poured out of Jesus' veins, and not by grace?"
Given the fact that Jesus literal blood was spilled on a literal cross immediately after this episode, yes I do believe that there is a direct correlation between the two.
We are saved by God's grace, through the shedding of Jesus blood. I know it's important to you that you separate the two, but just like you can't separate "total depravity" from "irresistible grace", it's difficult to separate the reason for salvation (grace) from the mechanism of salvation (sacrifice).
The problem we have it this point is definitions. You use the language of salvation, but no one knows what you mean by the term. Salvation from what? Salvation to what? Why do good people need salvation?
"And I can't help but noticing that you're not answering my questions, not telling me what specifically I'm getting wrong. If you can't tell me what I've gotten wrong, then how can I know, or how can anyone know, that I am wrong? Wrong about what?"
What you've gotten wrong, here are a couple.
Misrepresented the entirety of Calvin's construct be eliminating pieces and misrepresenting other pieces.
Taking one aspect of Calvin's construct out of the context of the entire construct.
Yet, you haven't explained why all these good people you claim are out there need grace.
You say "a lack of grace leads to...", yet all you've done is to redefine sin as a "lack of grace". You posit that lives lacking in God's grace are "hellish", yet there are more and more people who are putting time, effort, and scholarship into insisting that their lives are not hellish without God's grace. In fact they're insisting that they can live just, moral, happy, fulfilling lives without acknowledging the existence of God and who scorn the notion of God's grace. Do you really have the standing or desire to tell them that their lives are "hellish"?
"Those reasons explain why we need Grace. In just rational terms, I don't need to point to a Bible verse to support what is rational unobservable, do I? Do you question whether or not that love, Grace, forgiveness, compassion, decency all will fight against rape and oppression and War?"
You don't have to do anything. Although, I asked you for "Or, you could offer a logical, coherent, scripturally supported alternative to explain why “good” people need God.", and you couldn't provide what I asked for in your response. So, while you don't have to provide what I asked for, you also can't lie about providing something that you didn't.
Your second question opens a can of worms.
First, all of those thing you list don't or can't fight against anything.
Second, I guess you are willing to acknowledge that some things are worth fighting for.
Third, I would argue that there are cases where war is necessary to advance the cause of love, justice, compassion, decency, rape, and oppression.
Fourth, I see people fighting in the name of everything you listed, all while denying God and doing it in the name of things other than grace.
So, in the absence of evidence that this magic grace motivates all who fight against those things your opinion tells you are wrong I don't see where you can demonstrate causation.
Here's a rational reason that pretty much everyone would understand and agree with. Most people realize that justice requires a penalty to be paid to "balance the scales", in some cases the offense is serious enough, that shedding of blood is seen as an appropriate outworking of justice.
Ultimately, the problem with this discussion (and why it's pointless to answer your questions) goes back to your opinions regarding the Nature of God, the existence of a moral code set by God, for starters. If grace, in your construct, is something that comes only from God (I'm referring to YHWH who we see revealed in Jewish and Christian scripture. In the past you've seemed comfortable putting the god revealed in the Koran on a somewhat equal footing), then how do those who don't know God get His grace? Does He force it on them? If we start with Grace coming exclusively from God, then your list of things that "lack grace" is simply a divine moral code by another name.
This leads to questions of judgement and afterlife, topics on which you've been vague. For example, you talk of "forgiveness", and "salvation". Historically those terms refer to sin. But more so, who is doing the forgiving? What happens if there is no forgiveness? Who provides "salvation"? From what? To What? Jesus speaks multiple times of Him bringing "judgement", the theme that we will be judged runs through the entirety of scripture (Matt 25 is literally a parable about us being judged), are we judged in an ultimate sense? By what standard are we judged?
If there is some sort of a judgement, what happens next? You've been pretty consistent (you're doing it here) in suggesting that hell isn't an actual place. That it's merely living out our current existence in "hellish" conditions. There are a multitude of questions I could ask, but won't. I'll merely point out that if hell is merely living out our earthly life in what you consider to be "helllish" conditions, then folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, have all gotten off pretty damn easy. "Hey, I think I'll kill millions of people and when it's time to be punished by the authorities I'll just commit suicide.". The fact that people with the blood of millions of innocents on their hands get the exact same fate as everyone else seems to be a miscarriage of justice. I'll be clear, I don't know what "heaven" or "hell" will be like. I'm petty sure heaven will be with God and Hell will be without God, but beyond that I'm not sure.
But for someone who has been so equivocal on the existence of an afterlife, of places like "heaven" or "hell", of any sort of eternal ramifications of what we do while we're alive, it's hard to understand what you mean when you use terms like "salvation", or justice, or even grace.
There's a lot there, some answers, some questions, some other stuff, but I want to close with this.
You have this strange tactic of capitalizing words that you find significant. The current one is grace. It's almost like you think that capitalizing the word gives it some sort of power, or elevates it to something independent of God.
Merriam Webster says this.
"Definition of grace
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a : unmerited divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration or sanctification
b : a virtue coming from God
c : a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine assistance"
They seem pretty clear (in this usage of the term) that grace is inseparable from God. Yet you appear to be trying to elevate grace from a gift from God to a separate entity on a level more equal to God. You've posited a "Way of Grace" (vaguely defined at best), but used in such a manner as to imply that this "Way" is equivalent or interchangeable to "The Way" (in the sense that early Christ followers used it.).
Finally, what makes this even more confusing is your inconsistency, you'll capitalize and not capitalize the word is the same sentence.
My preference would be that you stick to common English grammar and not capitalize grace as it's not a proper noun or a name. However, if you feel like you must capitalize, then please provide a detailed explanation for your choice.
Thank you.
Dan, I'm moving this comment to keep it away from my three previous comments.
"For my part, wow what happens when Grace is involved can be magical, I also think it is hard work, decisions that we can and do make. God calls us to the miraculous work of Grace and that involves working to love others. All of which can be tangible and observable. Do you disagree?"
Personally, I agree with Merriam Webster.
""1a : unmerited divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration or sanctification
b : a virtue coming from God
c : a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine assistance"
I see grace as something miraculous that comes from God. This gift might help us do or not do certain things, and doing things against our sinful nature might be difficult. But I wouldn't say that it's a result of our hard work.
Once again, you've used a term that seems to conflict with things you've said previously.
Webster defines miraculous as "of the nature of a miracle. supernatural." and defines miracle as "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs".
Now, as someone who has seen things that can only be explained by a supernatural, divine, intervention in human affairs, (specifically a suspension of the laws of physics), I take the existence of miracles pretty seriously.
Whereas, you have tended to appear as someone who sees things through a materialist lens and doesn't see God intervening directly in our reality. Further, I find the use of the term "magical" as a synonym for "miracle" to be problematic.
Given that, I hope you can understand why your use of the term miraculous raises questions for me.
One addition to the Grace/grace comment.
You appear to be using the same sort of explanation that the Word of Faith teachers use. That you are trying to establish "Grace" as some sort of independent force that can be used or manipulated to achieve certain outcomes.
Re: the capitalization of Grace in other words, sometimes I am dictating from my phone and that dictation seems to whimsically capitalize words. Sometimes I correct it and sometimes I don't.
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them."
"In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
" Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."
"For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."
Now, while I don't think Jesus was advocating cannibalism, It's clearly ridiculous to say that He isn't saying that there is something out of the ordinary about His blood, and that He directly links His blood to the forgiveness of sins.
"Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."
"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished"
"Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him"
"In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."
"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace."
"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ."
"and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."
"He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."
"How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God"
"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
"Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,"
"How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?"
"And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood."
(!/2)
(2/2)
"Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep"
"who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance."
"but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect."
"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin."
"This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth."
"the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
"and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,"
"And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation."
"I answered, “Sir, you know.” And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
What we see here is that throughout the NT there is a consistent thread that connects the blood of Jesus to forgiveness from sin. We see it in the words of Jesus, Luke, Peter and John (the three who were closest to Jesus during His time on earth. We also see it explicitly from Paul.
So, the question isn't whether or not the writes of the NT made a connection between Jesus blood and forgiveness of sins, the question is are they referring to the literal liquid blood in Jesus body? Is it possible that the word blood is being used as a synonym for life? Do we not hear people refer to the "lifeblood"? Does acknowledging that, while a literal Jesus shed literal blood, it's not the physical blood but the life, death, and resurrection (perfect and sinless) that is represented by the blood was what was being pointed to?
The hard thing is to acknowledge that we are trying to use words and concepts that are inadequate to describe a supernatural event. In addition, those words and phrases are translated from other languages and may mean slightly different things in modern English.
I think part of the problem is that when you remove the issue of the blood from the larger narrative, your lose the bigger picture and distort the message. For those who deny things like Jesus divine, sinless nature and His position as the ultimate sacrifice for all sin, getting bogged down in the literality of the blood is merely a smoke screen. For those who won't go beyond saying that Jesus set a good example, the issue of the blood is a pointless conversation. For those who deny the physical resurrection, the same. So maybe the better question to ask is why are we focusing on "the blood" (potentially just a semantic issue) rather than the overarching narrative?
"Re: the capitalization of Grace in other words, sometimes I am dictating from my phone and that dictation seems to whimsically capitalize words. Sometimes I correct it and sometimes I don't."
Interesting. My phone doesn't usually capitalize words that aren't normally capitalized. Which seems to indicate that your phone has a serious problem with grammar.
I'll also point out that you've been capitalizing "Way of Grace" for quite some time.
Maybe closer attention to detail might be helpful.
Ari, your concern about capitalization, I would suggest you Embrace a bit of Grace. How do you sometimes capitalize words that are expressing formal ideals like Grace and forgiveness and love. And other times I don't. And sometimes my phone capitalizes words and sometimes it doesn't.
Why in the world does that concern you so? Especially given you're more irrational typos?
Grace, man. Grace.
Regarding your recitation of traditional calvinist evengelical beliefs, what of it? I'm well familiar with the verses that Calvinists and those the associate with them site to support why they believe what they believe. What of it? You do recognize that not everybody treats the Bible as a rulings book, right?
By bringing up up politely and respectfully I am embracing grace. This isn’t an occasional typo, I mostly ignore those, it’s more of a frequent consistent occurrence.
My politely asking for an explanation and consistency isn’t nearly as ungracious as some of your comments. Just one more examples of your double standard.
The fact that you’ve decided that Capitalization is what you’re going to take from my multiple lengthy comments, and the fact that you’re playing the “rulings book” card tells me that you’re likely laying groundwork to get faux outraged and leave soon.
FYI, you clearly didn’t read what I write surrounding the large number of texts I cited, or you wouldn’t have played the “rulings book” card. Had you read it you would have noticed that I wasn’t using it as a “rulings book”. It is however a way to avoid having to explain why Jesus and those closest to them disagreed with you and why Paul doesn’t seem as one dimensional as you’d like.
It’s cool, you’re headed down the predictable path.
“My preference would be that you stick to common English grammar and not capitalize grace...”
The above is what prompted Dan to tell me to “embrace grace”.
The below is an example (not the best, but adequate) of Dan when he chooses to “embrace grace”.
“And quit conflating your own petty little half-assed human hunches with God's word. You're begging the question and doing so in a blasphemous manner.
YOU ain't God and your hunches are not God's. Your arms are too short to box with God.“
A little compare and contrast.
Re: " a little compare and contrast"
Yes, it is good to rationally and dispassionately look at the differences between our objections. I objected strongly when you conflate your words with God's word. This is a reasonable response.
By contrast, you object when I use capitalization - sometimes by choice in order to emphasize important ideas like God's Grace, or even God - and sometimes because my phone automatically puts in capital letter, and you've complained about this minor and Petty point.
( and just to be clear, my phone automatically put in a capital P on Petty, there was no intent to disrespect or overly respect the word Petty.)
So I object strongly to very objectionable problems like conflating one's words to God's word. And I suggest embracing Grace on minor things like if one chooses to capitalize the word grace when speaking about God's Grace to emphasize the idea. So, when you compare and contrast the objections, I think you can see I'm being quite reasonable.
As to your complaint that there's something grammatically wrong with using capital letters when talking about important ideas, you're mistaken.
Now, is there any chance you might actually point to anything that I've actually said that is factually mistaken? You know, support your false claims?
Well, the problem is that you "objected strongly", and I didn't "conflate my words with God's word". The problem is that you can't demand grace, yet refuse to extend grace.
As we're both aware, there is plenty of evidence out there of you exhibiting behavior that is the antithesis of "embracing grace", this is just one more of your double standards where you won't live up to what you demand of others.
Your problem is that I was gentle and respectful when I asked you to merely follow the common use of English grammar. I wasn't demanding, I didn't fill my comment with expletives, vitriol, or personal attacks. I merely, politely and respectfully expressed a preference.
"As to your complaint that there's something grammatically wrong with using capital letters when talking about important ideas, you're mistaken."
But truly epic misrepresentation. I don't have a problem with you choosing to capitalize words that aren't usually capitalized, if you choose to be honest and upfront and explain why you feel capitalization is appropriate and explain what you mean. You could have figured this out had you read my comments. For example.
"My preference would be that you stick to common English grammar and not capitalize grace as it's not a proper noun or a name. However, if you feel like you must capitalize, then please provide a detailed explanation for your choice."
I'll point out a few flaws with your line of attack.
1. It's demonstrably inaccurate.*
2. It's not a complaint.
3. It's gentle, respectful, and polite.
4. It could be perceived as contradicting your "my phone did it" defense.
5. Even if your "phone did it", all I've asked is that you either stick to common English grammar, or explain why you are deviating. Surely this isn't unreasonable.
6. It's inconsistent, which causes additional room for confusion.
7. It's interesting that you chose not to fix the error in the word "Petty", but to use it as an excuse.
There are only two potential instances I can think of where common English grammar would capitalize the word grace.
1. When it's used as a name (a proper noun)
2. When it's used as a title (Your Grace)
Since it's clear where you are heading, might I suggest that you simply acknowledge that your inconsistency abetted by your phone, acknowledge the reality, say that you'll try to be more consistent, and move on. That seems so much more civilized than spending multiple comments addressing a minor point and you working yourself up over something that you describe as "Petty". If it's truly "Petty", then it seems like you're expending a disproportionate amount of time and effort over something "Petty". Especially something that was put to you in a kind, respectful, and polite manner. You could short circuit quite a bit of your usual routine, or put the effort into the points raised that are less "Petty".
* note: this is a correct and proper use of the word "demonstrable", in that I made the claim then I promptly demonstrated that the claim was accurate. You have a tendency to label things as "demonstrable" without actually demonstrating the truth of your claim. This is just a helpful hint so that your future arguments will be more effective.
Looking back for other times when you've expressed your "embrace" or "grace" with vitriol and expletive, I found something interesting.
Apparently your phone has problems with capitalizing other words randomly as well. "Good" shows up quite often as well as some others.
This isn't a complaint, it's just noting the reality that either your phone has a mind of it's own (and you don't proofread your comments), or that you have a tendency to capitalize words in an attempt to give those words something extra. Something beyond the commonly accepted definition.
To be very clear. I have no problem with you doing this. I'd just appreciate consistence and explanation of your choices, please.
Your claim that my request that you consistently follow the rules of grammar, or explain the non standard uses of the word grace, was lacking in grace.
Your claim that I conflated my words with God’s words.
That’s just 2 easy ones.
What’s interesting is that I’ve addressed. answered, and expanded on questions you’ve asked, and you’ve chosen to make your stand on these two things.
Pathetic.
All those words to talk about something as Petty as capitalization. You could have answered my questions in all that time. But then, answering the questions is counterproductive to you.
You can maintain your ignorance if you don't deal with the questions. You can continue to demonize me and others if you don't answer the questions. You can continue to say that I'm misrepresenting you when I'm asking you to clarify your positions if you don't answer the questions.
Let me know if you get around to wanting to actually dealing with the questions put to you.
Oh, well done. I make one point bout capitalization, and you focus on it for multiple comments, ignoring the questions I answered, the issues I raised, and the questions that were raised, and you're going to use this as your dodge.
The bottom line is that the issue wasn't as much about capitalization as it was about exploring your random elevation of various things to the level that they need to be capitalized. You're the one who played the "my phone did it" card, while also trying to make the point that capitalizing was appropriate.
I count roughly eight comments that don't address capitalization, and 2 paragraphs that do. You are the one who ignored the 8 comments and focused on the two paragraphs.
I understand what you're doing and I;m trying to save both of us the trouble. Just acknowledge that the random capitalization of words that aren't normally capitalized in common English usage, could possible lead to confusion about what you are trying to communicate. Then acknowledge that you'll proof read your comments, and move on. It really shouldn't be that hard. It's simple and it's over.
You won't, but you could.
"You can continue to demonize me and others if you don't answer the questions."
Except I haven't demonized you or anyone else. This is a false statement seemingly designed to draw attention away from the 8 comments addressing your questions and full of substantive content.
"You can continue to say that I'm misrepresenting you when I'm asking you to clarify your positions if you don't answer the questions."
I only say that you are misrepresenting me when it's demonstrable that you are.
I don't know if you are aware of this. But in cases of libel and slander, the Truth is a defense. So, when I demonstrated where you'd misrepresented me (provided the truth), that is an adequate defense against your misrepresentations.
If you'd rather spemd time throwing crap against the proverbial wall in the hopes that something sticks, rather that address 8 comments of the kind of substance you've been bitching about, that's fine with me. Just own the fact that it's you, not me.
8 comments, some answers, some questions, some other stuff. If you want to pretend it's not there, that's fine.
I'll tell you what. You pick 10 questions you think I haven't answered, and I'll answer them regardless of whether I've answered them before.
To SUPPORT what you THINK I've said incorrectly, you have to begin with what I've said incorrectly.
You posted a bunch of words that state the traditional view. But what did I SAY specifically that was false/incomplete/wrong?
YOU have made a series of empty charges that I'm misrepresenting you, but you have not provided the first bit of support to let me know what I'm doing wrong.
It would look like this, "Dan, when you say X, I don't believe X, here is what I believe. You've made a mistake."
But just throwing up a bunch of words and hoping that something sticks is just obfuscation.
For instance, DIRECTLY answer this question and point out any problems I'm having (although, in truth, it is a QUESTION, so I don't know that it's pointing to any problems I have... still...)
On the other hand, what rational, observable reason can you give that we need sacrificial blood to magically bring forgiveness?
I addressed this question in one of the eight comments you apparently didn’t read. I also pointed out multiple things you’ve said that are wrong.
To be fair, I addressed this at length in one of the 8 comments you’ve not acknowledged.
But, to answer your specific question, none. I can offer you nothing that you’d consider rational and observable. Forgiveness is not internal and counterintuitive, therefore it can’t be measured or observed. Magic, by definition is something that is (not as in Vegas sleight go hand) can’t be observed.
So the answer is none.
I could give you a Biblical answer which isn’t rational nor observable, but that’s readily available.
Let’s try an example.
Dan, I forgive you for all of the lies you’ve told about me, the times you’ve impugned my character, for the expletive laden vitriolic attacks, for every wrong you’ve ever done to me.
I forgive you.
Now, show me what’s rational and observable about that.
Show you what's rational and observable about forgiveness? Are you serious?
If we live in a world where everyone takes an eye for an eye and there is no forgiveness, then the whole world will be blind and we'll all be worse off for it.
If you live in a world where we do unto others as you would have them do unto us...Well, we personally would appreciate it when that happens for us and therefore, as morally reasoning creatures, we can see how it would be better for other people to extend that same Grace to them.
You see, believe it or not, we are morally reasoning creature this. We can consider and evaluate the moral benefits of our actions and other people's actions.
The golden rule of Jesus, and pretty much every other faiths tradition, is the ultimate rational moral Axiom.
Do you disagree?
Judge not, and you will not be judged. Condemn not and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. On the positive side of things, karma is a delight.
He just doesn't stop, does he?
Anyway, I want to explain mybuse of capitalization, as I seem to recall a recent comment by feo that may have been critical of that practice. I capitalize anything related to God/Jesus. I refer to "Him" as opposed to "him". The Bible I use doesn't even do this. I usually capitalize "Bible", "Scripture" and "Heaven"(though not always)...as well as a few others...out of a sense of reverence for my Creator, God and Savior. It's the same reason I try to wear my best clothes when attending church services because I don't regard God as just another dude who's like, you know, totally cool and all.
As for a reason for Christ's blood, Scripture provides and I've addressed it at least once (likely more) in the past. Whether the reason is rational to any human is irrelevant to the fact of it, and again, Dan's insistence that it must be rational to him demonstrates he demands a God that follows his rules in order to be worthy of worship and praise. "Dammit, if God can't explain Himself to my satisfaction, I'm done with Him." I think God will get over it someday.
"You see, believe it or not, we are morally reasoning creature this."
Not according to Scripture. Not according to law enforcement statistics. Not according to history or international human rights organizations. Believe it or not. That's because goodness, kindness and putting others first isn't rational and certainly not natural or it wouldn't be a teaching of Christianity. One doesn't have to be taught what is normal or rational.
In addition, what is "rational" is very often a matter of opinion...a very subjective thing.
As far as capitalization.
I tend to follow your examples.
My problem with Dan is his inconsistency in capitalizing words like Good, Grace, or other terms he seems to want to elevate to a status beyond what the word would normally have.
It’s the inconsistency and the inability to explain why (if it’s intentional) he’s chosen to capitalize and what he’s trying to communicate by doing so. B
I think it's a fair point which should not have raised hackles upon raising it.
I thought so. It boils down to choosing between following English grammar rules consistently, or providing an explanation as to why you aren’t following English grammar rules consistently.
At this point, he’s mostly blaming his phone, while arguing that it’s ok if he wants to capitalize.
Of course it’s fine if he wants to, it just seems that explaining what he hopes to communicate is a reasonable request.
But don't forget, Craig. It's Dan who decides what's reasonable, rational and pretty much all else!
Of course
Post a Comment