This week we lost Ravi Zacherias to cancer. While I'm sure that his family will mourn his loss, we know that he is with Jesus. He will be greatly missed.
A link to WK with a timely post.
https://winteryknight.com/2020/05/20/how-do-you-explain-the-gospel-to-a-non-christian-in-two-minutes-4/
255 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 255 of 255"I accept and believe in the ENTIRE BIBLE."
As long as no one questions your interpretations, and you get to decide what's hyperbole, what's myth, and what's fiction.
No, look at my words: I ACCEPT AND BELIEVE THE ENTIRE BIBLE. You might hold different interpretations than I do and that's okay, but it doesn't change the fact that I accept and believe the entire Bible. YOUR opinions being different don't change that. PLEASE question my interpretations all day long, if you think I've got something wrong. And I'll do the same for you.
"Are you disagreeing? With reality?"
I'm not blindly accepting that you get to dictate reality.
I'm not asking you to blindly accept anything. I'm asking about a VERY SPECIFIC circumstance.
YOUR opinions and interpretations about a biblical passage that lead YOU to believe something about God ARE YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinions. That you hold these opinions is not proof that those opinions are facts. IF you can't prove it demonstrably and authoritatively, they are YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinions.
Do you agree with that reality?
Or am I mistaken? If there is something you can't prove authoritatively and objectively, is it somehow NOT your subjective opinion? If so, how? It seems to be a literal contradiction of the word.
"Again, the premise I set up is that a man who punishes a woman for lying to him by torturing her for an extended time is criminally insane or criminally irrational. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE PREMISE leading to that conclusion?"
No, as an absurdly outlandish hypothetical, constructed to demand a particular answer, it fulfills the role of forcing agreement with an outlandish premise.
It is absurd and outlandish to ask "If a man tortures a woman for lying, is that unjust and disproportionate?" ...? Why?
The ultimate question we're trying to get to is...
If a god punishes a human who died with "typical sins," with an eternity of torment, is that unjust and disproportionate...?
It's a very similar scenario. The main difference (and it is a big one, and yet...) is that we're talking about a man torturing a woman for sins versus a god torturing humans for sins for an eternity. But the question we're trying to get answered is: IS there a point where a punishment becomes unjust because it is disproportionate?
I'm just trying to use some real world, believable scenario that we can use by way of comparison.
Do you think a perfectly just and loving God might be extremely MORE harsh and cruel in the punishment than a mere human? If so, why?
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, I am suggesting that there is justice which comes from God’s very nature. Justice in this meta sense is rooted in the nature of God, not in human reason.
Humans, because we are created in God’s image and likeness, grasp justice in a more limited sense. Because we are sinful, flawed, imperfect humans, the way we dispense justice is a flawed and imperfect reflection of God and His nature. You surely can’t be suggesting that humans dispense justice as justly as God.
Sure you’re imposing a framework on God. You’re quite clear that if you “and the mice in your pocket” find something attributes to God “unjust”, then you’re insisting that your interpretation is right.
From here on out, let’s stop the foolishness of arguing from authority, speak for yourself and stop trying to speak for others. If you want to get all these people you claim to speak for on the record, let them do it. I’m tired of the vague claims of hosts of people.
Also, the made up word thing is stupid and pointless, please stop it.
Dan, I’d find your Bible comments more credible if your default response to virtually everything was to disagree.
Jesus said, “X,Y, Z”. No, he didn’t mean that, hyperbole!!!!
Get over it, your as bad as the JWs. You act like this conversation is in a vacuum and that we haven’t seen your shtick before.
If you’re going to announce that something is “reality”, you’ll need to offer proof.
Going forward, if you do the rhetorical “reality” question bullshit, just assume that in the absence of proof of your claim, that I don’t accept your assertions about what is reality.
I’d another of your bullshit semantic Gabe’s where you try to make objective claims, without accepting the burden of proof.
No, since you’ve never explained the basis for your assumptions (unproven) about “normal sins” and how those get passed on, I see no reason to take either of your absurd hypotheticals seriously.
Why not just admit that the whole notion of God judging us for our sins, and assigning reward and punishment based on something you don’t understand just makes you feel icky and you’d just as soon ignore, or explain away all of the scripture that points towards that scenario. Just admit that your either a universalist, or that you’re ok with a small number of people that you decide are realllllllly bad get punished and everyone else hats off with a slap on the wrist.
I agree with your first paragraph (I might quibble and say Justice just IS what it is, and Love just IS what it is, and Peace just IS what it is... and God IS all these things perfectly... that is, God didn't "invent" justice and it's not necessarily coming from God's nature. Justice is just the word assigned right living... but I can set that aside).
I agree with your second paragraph and no, I don't think we understand or dispense justice as well as God.
But then, you say, "Sure you’re imposing a framework on God. You’re quite clear that if you “and the mice in your pocket” find something attributes to God “unjust”, then you’re insisting that your interpretation is right."
No. I'm saying THIS is our understanding of justice and I have no reason to believe that God understands justice differently. I understand Justice as dispensing punishment in a just manner, not in a manner wildly disproportionate to the crime. That is the understanding of justice that we humans tend to think of when we talk about justice.
IF SOME HUMAN says, "Well, I think God will send a plague to kill innocent babies to punish the crimes of the city," then I think they are advocating something that is NOT just and does not therefore fit the notion of God's justice.
THOSE people are imposing a framework of "justice" that is unjust, as justice is understood (since we don't punish innocents for the crimes of others! Of course we don't!! That would be an injustice.)
So, if some HUMANS advocate anything that is contrary to our understanding of justice, no matter how flawed it might be, then THEY are the ones imposing an unjust framework on God, contrary to justice.
That is, justice does not punish innocent people,
justice does not dispense punishment in a manner wildly disproportionate to the crime,
justice does not favor the rich,
justice does not simply ignore oppression,
justice listens to the cries of the oppressed and acts...
If someone says, then, that "God wants us to enslave the Muslims and their innocent children because they are the wrong religion and that way, we can teach them God's TRUE ways...." we would object because they are promoting unjust actions (based on justice as we understand it) in the name of a just God. That person is talking about something that is NOT justice.
Thus, I'm not "imposing a framework on God," I'm saying this is justice as we understand it, even if we understand it in a flawed manner.
Imposing a framework on God would be saying, "HERE is something that is NOT what we understand to be just, let's impose this NEW understanding of actions and call them Justice..."
I’d find your Bible comments more credible if your default response to virtually everything was to disagree.
Jesus said, “X,Y, Z”. No, he didn’t mean that, hyperbole!
I disagree with your interpretations when they differ from mine and when I think you're are not consistent with Jesus' teachings or good common sense or justice or morality. What should I do differently?
Should I AGREE when I think you've got it wrong? You're not that tender that you can't take disagreement, are you?
, since you’ve never explained the basis for your assumptions (unproven) about “normal sins” and how those get passed on, I see no reason to take either of your absurd hypotheticals seriously.
I don't know what you mean. I don't say "normal sins" get "passed on." I say that a just response to any offense would have to include a just punishment. My basis for this is the basic understanding we humans have of justice. Do you suspect that human understandings of justice are wrong? If so, IN WHAT SPECIFIC way? And based on what?
The fact that you think that God understands justice the same way you do is quite a statement.
Either your claiming that you perfectly understand justice or that God looks to you for His understanding. That’s quite the claim.
Good lord, this argument from numbers thing is like a obsession. Get the hell over thinking you speak for the multitudes. If you can’t function without hiding behind some mythical crowd of people and just stand on your own, then I can’t help you.
What should you do differently, hmmmmm, that’s a good question, oh wait, I think I have a suggestion.
How about actually offering something besides “That’s hyperbole,”, or explain why you are arguing that Jesus actually meant the opposite of what He said. No, don’t that’s just crazy talk, expecting that you’ve got a consistent hermeneutic, and that you can go though the OT and point out the mythic parts, the fiction parts, and the true parts. Or maybe give me some reason to believe you over someone like NT Wright.
No I have no problem with disagreement, go right ahead. Just stop arguing from numerical (unless you have specific scholars), stop defaulting to your position being “reality”, try a little humility. That’d be a decent start.
Of course, if you’re just going to fall back if your normal “opinion” dodge maybe just start by saying that you just don’t know and that you have nothing beyond your opinion.
I’ve written multi comment strings dealing with this notion of “lesser sins”, yet you haven’t been willing to flesh things out beyond “Hitler, really bad, Trump bad, and 20 year old tiny, itty bitty sins.” Or some such vagueness.
Yes, I suspect that your notions of justice as it relates to God are significant biased towards your hunch that humans are intrinsically good. I suspect that this is exacerbated by your worship of Mystery as your god.
I suspect that your (quit pretending to speak for humanity) understanding of justice is incomplete, flawed, distorted by sin and by a worship of Mystery. I suspect that your worship of Mystery as your god, reinforces your notions of so many things being not knowable.
I look at what you write, I compare it to scripture, I compare it to various people who study and write in things like theology, worldview, and philosophy. I see nothing in scripture or from any reasonably reputable theologians (of all stripes) that agrees with you. I choose to believe that others are more credible than you. I’m not saying that you’re wrong, because it’s possible that you’re not wrong.
I’m saying that when I read someone like Greg Boyd (incredibly liberal, open theist) treats scripture as something that can be understood clearly, is accurate, and doesn’t contradict the plain meaning of the text, it makes sense. I think he’s mistaken about some things, but he’s got the balls to at least argue that he’s right about his interpretation. I can’t respect someone who doesn’t have the courage to simply say, “I believe x is true, and here are 3 sources that support my belief.”. “It’s all just opinion anyway, blah, blah, blah, excuses, blah, pablum, “HYPERBOLE!!!”, ( your trump card), blah, blah, bah, “I know everything I’ll ever need to know about conservative theology because I kind of remember the “gist” of something I read 50 years ago”, blah...
At this point, I don’t even care if you’re right or wrong, I have so little respect for you and your inability to take a stand, and how you have to hide behind some vague, anonymous “we”.
You do you, and worship Mystery all you want.
The fact that you think that God understands justice the same way you do is quite a statement.
Either your claiming that you perfectly understand justice or that God looks to you for His understanding. That’s quite the claim.
False claim, false claim and stupidly false claim. I've never said ANY of this. The question is, then, do you truly not understand how you continue to place words into my mouth that I've never said or are you deliberately trying to slander and bear false witness? Does it not concern you that you so blatantly and stupidly bear false witness?
For someone who claims to not like Trump, you sure emulate his style of corruption and dishonesty pretty closely.
I suspect that your (quit pretending to speak for humanity) understanding of justice is incomplete, flawed, distorted by sin and by a worship of Mystery
Then you suspect wrong, almost certainly. You're almost certainly not even understanding my position about justice, given your repeated misstatements about what I think. Those repeated stupidly false claims indicate either a near-complete inability to understand words or a deliberate attempt to slander and bear false witness. Which is it?
But IF you think I'm mistaken about justice, then SPEAK UP, boy. HOW? WHERE? In what way am I mistaken about justice?
Am I wrong to think that punishment that is disproportionate to the crime is not justice at all?
Am I wrong to say that you can't prove your hunches about justice?
Am I wrong to say that, even though you (nor I) can prove our positions about justice, we can reasonably agree on a wide range of justice matters?
Am I wrong to say that it is a travesty of justice to support disproportionate punishments?
WHERE am I wrong?
To hell with vague and stupidly false and unsupported accusations. They are useless and very Trump-ian of you (i.e., it's just a way to blindly and irrationally attack, as opposed to engaging in reasoned discussion). Be specific.
Craig... I’m saying that when I read someone like Greg Boyd (incredibly liberal, open theist) treats scripture as something that can be understood clearly, is accurate, and doesn’t contradict the plain meaning of the text, it makes sense.
You DO realize, don't you, that I BELIEVE the Bible is something that can be understood clearly, is accurate and doesn't generally contradict the plain meaning of the text? I just disagree with conservatives that they are understanding the plain meaning of the text.
Did you realize that about me? After all these years, you STILL don't recognize these basic notions that I hold?
Does that not make you question your ability to understand communication? Or should it say something to any readers that you have, that you're deliberately making stupidly false claims while feigning ignorance?
Re: "It's all just opinion, anyway."
Your opinions ARE your opinions. That's just the reality of it all. I don't know why you fear admitting your opinions are your opinions, nor why you fear admitting that when you can't prove something objectively, then it is your SUBJECTIVE opinion?
I think that conservatives have gotten soft in the head with years having been the bullying majority so that they can just claim they speak the truth and "facts" and not be challenged. And now that you're being challenged with reasonable questions that you can't answer, it hurts your feelings and makes you grumpy and you strike out blindly, instead of doing the work and, you know, just answering questions put to you.
It's sure how it seems to me.
What should you do differently, hmmmmm, that’s a good question, oh wait, I think I have a suggestion.
How about actually offering something besides “That’s hyperbole,”, or explain why you are arguing that Jesus actually meant the opposite of what He said.
But when Jesus says, "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." ...that appears to be clearly hyperbole. Of course there are good people in the world. We can see good people. Other than your obtuse and Trumpian/abusive style of communicating on the internet, I'm pretty sure you're a good person.
When you find something in scripture that appears to contradict reality, we can usually be sure that some form of figurative language is being used.
But instead of doing that, you opt to say (correct me if I'm mistaken), "Jesus DID mean that there are no good people anywhere at any time in any way. You see, Jesus is using a SECRET MEANING of 'good' that's different than what we normally mean by good... and I can't tell you what his meaning is or offer any authoritative proof that my hunch is correct, but it IS objectively correct, although I won't say that, either..."
But why would I accept your insistence that what seems clearly to be figurative is actually secretly literal and using a different meaning of the word Good? What are the criteria for understanding when Jesus is using figurative language? Do you have anything consistent and rational? Did Jesus mean that we are LITERALLY to "hate our mothers and fathers" when he told his followers that? Or was that hyperbole?
What "proof" of "Jesus was using figurative language" do you want beyond, "CLEARLY since there are good people in the world, that he couldn't have meant it literally..."?
“No. I'm saying THIS is our understanding of justice and I have no reason to believe that God understands justice differently.”
Quote, quote, quote.
Blah, blah, pablum, pablum, blah.
“Look at me!!!”, “l love the Bible!!!”
“I”, “me”, “I” “me”
“ I worship Mystery, it’s my god.”
The problem is that you think that a challenge means that you get to set the rules, you get to exclude anything you find difficult, your interpretation of scripture is the only acceptable one, and you can hide behind he “it’s all opinion” shield. No, a challenge would be you with an open mind, where you’d expect to provide the same level of proof you demand. No, you simply repeating so version of “But we just can’t know...”, isn’t a challenge, it’s a capitulation on your part. It’s you not being able to claim one single theological doctrine as being objectively true.
I remember when Stan challenged you to assert that God’s existence objectively true. I remember a lot of equivocation and weaseling around, but no affirmation.
So no, I’m not going to waste my time, when all you have are unproven assertions.
I’ve always been quite aware of being clear when I was expressing my opinions, I should know because they’re mine. What I find problematic is you having the hubris to tell me what my opinions are. You put much too high of a value on your Reason, I’m kind of surprised you aren’t worshiping that as well. Maybe you can worship Sophia and concoct your very own personal Trinity.
As I have noted: You attack rather than discuss.
You make stupidly false charges and don't support them (because you can't because they're stupidly false).
You ignore reasonable questions rather than answer them.
We see. I just keep hoping that you'll be better.
Instead, you have gone the path of Trumpian corruption and dishonesty, as if bullying and abuse and false attacks will make your case more solid.
It doesn't.
Peace.
re: Stan "challenged me" to assert that God's existence is objectively true.
As a point of fact, I BELIEVE that God exists and that is objectively true.
BUT, as a further point of fact, none of us can objectively prove that God exists.
What else can I say but the facts?
"So no, I’m not going to waste my time, when all you have are unproven assertions."
OH!! LET ME!! LET ME!! LET ME!!
"False claim, false claim and stupidly false claim. I've never said ANY of this. The question is, then, do you truly not understand how you continue to place words into my mouth that I've never said or are you deliberately trying to slander and bear false witness? Does it not concern you that you so blatantly and stupidly bear false witness?"
You spend so much time saying crap like this, but next to nothing to clarify that which you perceive as being misinterpreted. The fact is, as has been said many times before, YOUR WORDS provoke conclusions...conclusions many people can't help but draw by reading YOUR WORDS. Those conclusions at which we cannot help but arrive due to YOUR WORDS means you're saying what you don't mean, that you don't have the ability to properly make plain your meaning or that you just can't find the words to make sound that which has easily been exposed as crap. That's totally on you, Bucky. It's been such a common thing over the years that one would expect you'd get the message, but you prefer saying whatever "profound brilliance" comes into your pointy head and expect it must be received as such. It's sad, really.
"For someone who claims to not like Trump, you sure emulate his style of corruption and dishonesty pretty closely."
Says the guy whose corruption and dishonesty has been exposed routinely over the years.
"Then you suspect wrong, almost certainly. You're almost certainly not even understanding my position about justice..."
Oh, we understand it well enough, as far as it goes, which isn't far at all. But you ignore and dismiss some important elements of it (very much like how you ignore and dismiss so much of Scripture) that have been presented a few times now in this discussion. I'll get to that later.
"Those repeated stupidly false claims indicate either a near-complete inability to understand words or a deliberate attempt to slander and bear false witness. Which is it?"
Neither, despite how badly you need it to be one or the other. Again, you might want to 86 this failed dodge and simply find a better way to make your crap sound intelligent. You know what would help? Evidence, "HARD DATA"...you know, the type of stuff you demand of us for every little thing.
"But IF you think I'm mistaken about justice, then SPEAK UP, boy."
Who're you calling "boy", punk? We've BEEN speaking up. Would you hear us more easily if you pictured us black dudes? Again, I'll get to this later.
"Am I wrong to think that punishment that is disproportionate to the crime is not justice at all?"
Theoretically...generally speaking...no. We've been pretty clear about this. You need to listen to other voices, dude.
"Am I wrong to say that you can't prove your hunches about justice?"
What hunches would those be, exactly? You haven't established that we've posited any hunches.
"Am I wrong to say that, even though you (nor I) can prove our positions about justice, we can reasonably agree on a wide range of justice matters?"
In theory, no. But what position on justice have either us put forth that is something that needs proving?
"Am I wrong to say that it is a travesty of justice to support disproportionate punishments?"
An irrelevant question given no one's suggested such support.
"WHERE am I wrong?"
Wow. What a loaded question. Not wanting to "put words in your mouth", I'm going to risk assuming you're referring to "justice" still. That's coming.
"To hell with vague and stupidly false and unsupported accusations. They are useless and very Trump-ian of you"
I know you think this is a crippling shot, but for my part, between you and Trump, I find him a more moral person than you...and I don't put him high on my list of moral examples. The things you support are far more vile and...what was that expression?..Oh Yeah!..."bile-inducing" than anything he's proven to have done. And when it comes to "vague", you're expert on that, which is why we're over 200 comments without resolution. We could easily have gotten nowhere in far fewer comments...so thanks for wasting so much time.
"You DO realize, don't you, that I BELIEVE the Bible is something that can be understood clearly, is accurate and doesn't generally contradict the plain meaning of the text? I just disagree with conservatives that they are understanding the plain meaning of the text."
BUT. YOU. NEVER. SAY. HOW.
YOU. NEVER. PROVIDE. EVIDENCE..."HARD DATA". TO. SHOW. WHERE. WE. GO. WRONG. OR. WHY. YOUR. UNDERSTANDING. IS. MORE. REASONABLE.
YOU. ONLY. ASSERT.
"Did you realize that about me?"
There is oh, so much we realize about you. Very little of it is admirable.
"After all these years, you STILL don't recognize these basic notions that I hold?"
Dude. Get this through your denseness: It's not your notions or your opinions. It's what evidence you can provide that brings you to hold them. That's what we can't recognize because you don't EVER provide any. EVER.
"Does that not make you question your ability to understand communication?"
Nope. Not in the least. Indeed, it actually proves our ability is really, really good that we understand what your laughable positions are, but not why you won't provide any evidence that justifies your holding them. We can only surmise that but prefer not to do so. As we should, we just keep waiting in vain for you to deliver the level of evidence and hard data you demand of us. But you'd prefer whining about being misunderstood, that others are lying, slandering, yada, yada, yada, all freaking day long, then pretending there's something wrong with us. We fully realize that about you. After all these years, we STILL recognize these basic tactics of yours.
"Or should it say something to any readers that you have, that you're deliberately making stupidly false claims while feigning ignorance?"
There's no possible way is says that to any readers we may have possessed of even modest intelligence. That leaves out feo and you, apparently.
"Your opinions ARE your opinions."
Wow! REALLY??? And then you go on to whine about opinions again. We can defend ours. When will you defend yours?
"I think that conservatives have gotten soft in the head with years having been the bullying majority so that they can just claim they speak the truth and "facts" and not be challenged."
HA!!! You would think that. It helps you to sleep at night, no doubt. What an idiotic thing to say. We love the challenge and have our arguments and evidence at the ready. YOU, however, have just engaged in more liberal projecting as what you just said is the problem we've been working hard to get you to overcome. You don't accept challenge. You delete.
"And now that you're being challenged with reasonable questions that you can't answer, it hurts your feelings and makes you grumpy and you strike out blindly, instead of doing the work and, you know, just answering questions put to you."
HA!!!!!!!!!! That's precious!!
"It's sure how it seems to me."
Of course it is, Skeeter! It's how you NEED it to seem!!
Now, let's get to it again. Pay attention:
Disproportionate justice is that punishment that doesn't "fit" the crime. That's the concept, but in practice it is absolutely subjective. We all...at least we all SAY, we understand it. To be forced to apologize for doing something that isn't a crime and then being deleted for not doing so in incredibly disproportionate, especially given no crime has been committed. (I'm up to over 15 women in my casually administered poll, and so far it's been unanimous that you need to stop taking your cues about what women thing from radical feminist hags. Not a one of them feels the least bit offended, oppressed, assaulted or insulted by the mere mention of the words, "whore" or "slut", especially when used in discussions about actual whores and sluts like the two Trump accusers. At least half the women polled were black, so I'm listening to black voices. Black women hear those words used a lot, it seems, if they listen to hip-hop "music".)
Anyway, we humans decide how much to punish someone for a crime committed. We try to make sure the punishment isn't "cruel and unusual" or "disproportionate" to the crime. But the subjectivity comes first in deciding just how serious the crime is. If more people than not are really fed up with pencil theft, the penalty imposed will appear to some as too harsh. "It's just a pencil" they'll say, and those who chose the punishment will say, "But we're really attached to our pencils" and the punishment will stand until enough people decide the punishment is too severe for mere pencil theft. In either case, the punishment is deemed "proportional" and thus it is...whether some schmuck from Louisville agrees or not. That's because you're not the arbiter of what is just or not. You're just one joker with an opinion that you haven't the capacity to defend.
How serious is the crime? Some say very, others say not too. And agreement is had and still some say it's more serious than that and others say, dudes, it ain't that serious. Whatever punishment is decided after the agreement is reached will encounter the same opposition from both sides of the issue. TOO HARSH! TO LENIENT! Is it proportional? Depends on who is asked the question. But when it becomes law, we all submit to the notion that justice has been served when the convicted is sentenced accordingly.
You like to use your lying woman hypothetical. Well, to whom did she lie? What were the consequences of the lie? How many were harmed and how badly? Did anyone die because of the lie? Can society recover from the effects of the lie? Until we know what the lie was, how can we measure whether her punishment as described by you is proportional? Maybe it's not harsh enough. Maybe they should just execute her for all the harm her lie has caused. So you think you've got a "gotcha" question that will force the response you want? You're not that smart.
Now we look at God. How do we know God is just? How do we know His justice is perfect? Does not Scripture at least allude to this? I think it goes farther than merely suggesting such a thing. Can you at least agree to this?
So if we agree that God is just and that He is perfect and thus so is His justice, then one cannot look to the many instances in Scripture where He destroys the wicked and question whether or not His justice was proportional.
But all throughout Scripture the first Commandment is the beginning of His justice. All hinges on the acceptance of Him as Lord, and then the acceptance of Christ as Savior. Reject Him and that is the sin that is being judged, because Christ's sacrifice...very disproportionate given his degree of sinfulness...is what washes us of our sins, regardless of what the sin is. Thus, it's not the sin as the rejection of Him. Sin is a manifestation of rebellion against God and the only way to get around the wrath we deserve is to accept him.
What this means is that the seriousness of the crime is decided by God. The affront to Him is very serious business and it has been since the Fall. To HIM, the punishment that makes you wet yourself (and truly, it should cause that reaction in everyone for their own sakes) must match that crime in HIS eyes, not yours. YOU have no idea how much of an affront to Him it is, or you reject it in your own rebellious manner. You want to say that eternal punishment is too harsh because it seems so to YOU, without considering that how it seems to you is completely, totally and thankfully irrelevant and meaningless. That's putting YOU above HIM.
Now, what Scripture do you have to suggest any of this is bad understanding? I'll wait here while you again don't provide.
Marshal... BUT. YOU. NEVER. SAY. HOW.
I literally do it all the time. I did it somewhere in this post.
When Jesus says, "no one is good, no not one," and YOU ALL interpret it woodenly literal, as if there were absolutely no good people in the world. But when faced between what we can actually see in the real world and a HUMAN INTERPRETATION of a passage that contradicts what we see in the real world, then we have to acknowledge that THAT particular literal human interpretation is wrong, a bad interpretation.
There ARE good people in the world. People who go about doing good things are, by definition, good people. Jesus didn't say there are no PERFECT people in the world, he said Good. If he had said PERFECT, then we could take it literally because we can see that there are no perfect people in the world. But Good? Yes, of course, there are good people in the world.
Clearly, then, Jesus was using the term metaphorically, as hyperbole, I'd suggest, to point out that no one is good AS GOD (of course!) and to make a point with the pharisees. BUT, the point could not have been that there are no good people in the world, as good is defined normally, because there are.
And I could go on and delve into this more, looking at the greek word for Good that Jesus used, etc, but this is not for me to do (again) what I've done before, this is just a reminder that I DO show you how you are mistaken in your human interpretations.
That is SPECIFICALLY showing you how and why your human interpretations are wrong.
And now that I've SHOWN you precisely what you say I never have, perhaps you can be a good person and admit that I have done so.
And IF it's the case that you disagree with my reasoning/conclusions - no matter how rock solid they are - that doesn't change the fact that I've shown you how you are mistaken, given some basic reasoning and understanding of words and context.
Or at least explain how in the world that this is NOT showing you how you're mistaken.
"e: Stan "challenged me" to assert that God's existence is objectively true.
As a point of fact, I BELIEVE that God exists and that is objectively true.
BUT, as a further point of fact, none of us can objectively prove that God exists.
What else can I say but the facts?"
That's what I thought, that helps me greatly by reinforcing my skepticism about trying to "prove" anything to you.
If you are not willing to agree on the single foundational statement that underlies all of Christian theology, then what would ever make any sane person think that you'll agree with something that relies on the foundational statement that you equivocate.
What you're asking, when you demand proof about justice, is that the proof has to start with the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, then justice (in a Christian Theological sense) ceases to have meaning. Who cares if a nonexistent being has notions about justice. The second step is "proving" that the Bible is reliable, accurate, accurately preserved, and constitutes "data" (as you define it).
Now, there are a lot of really intelligent, educated, motivated people who have written, spoken, and produced other media, on these topics. Surely you'd agree that it's a waste of time for me to spoon feed the work of others to you, when you could just study what's out there for yourself. Cut out the middleman, in other words.
So, while I will gladly try to help you find resources that will provide answers for your questions, that will allow you the joy and satisfaction of learning and discovering all on your own, I see no reason to waste the time engaging in Theology 101.
Craig...
"If you are not willing to agree on the single foundational statement that underlies all of Christian theology, then what would ever make any sane person think that you'll agree with something that relies on the foundational statement that you equivocate..."
Are you even reading what I'm saying? I literally just said yes, I do believe in God, and I believe that God objectively exists. Did you see that?
I then went on to acknowledge that we cannot objectively prove that God exists. I can't approve it objectively. You can't prove it objectively. I've never seen anybody for objectively.
Are you suggesting that it is an essential tenet of Christianity that we must affirm that we can objectively prove God exists? Because that's just false. There's no tenet that demands agreeing that we can prove God exists. Are you involved in some kind of cult that has these extra non-traditional teachings?
Craig... "there are a lot of really intelligent, educated, motivated people who have written, spoken, and produced other media, on these topics..."
I know. I've read and listened and been taught beneath many of those teachers. And yet, I've never seen any of them objectively prove that God exists.
If you have even one teacher who can do it, who you think can objectively authoritatively prove that God exists, I would love to see that.
I believe in God and that God exists. I would LOVE to be able to say that I can objectively prove that God exists.
But I'm not going to say it if the proof does not exist. So, understand me, if you can prove it, I want to believe it. But I'm not going to let people force-feed me opinions and call them facts.
Give me the facts and I will believe. I want to believe that God can be objectively proven. I used to believe it but had to abandon it because I could not find any objective proof.
If I want to believe it, and if there are all these teachers out there who, you say, objectively prove it, why not just point me to any one of them? This is not rational.
You don't point to them because they don't exist.
People, like CS Lewis for instance, give great reasoned explanations of why it's reasonable to believe that God exists. But having a rational explanation and objective proof are two different things.
"But when Jesus says, "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." ...that appears to be clearly hyperbole."
This statement demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. There is absolutely nothing in he remainder of the text that indicates that this snippet is hyperbole. I've done a fair amount of study around that and have never seen anyone except you make this claim. This includes scholars on both sides of the spectrum. Further, your insistence of twisting "appears to be", into "is", is simply intellectually dishonest. You have no "data" to support your "appears to be", and even less to support "is". So, if your going to stick with "appears to be", then who the hell cares what it "appears to be to you"? It's not a claim, it's an equivocation. But, even if this is what it "appears to be" (to you, not to others), you have to either presume that every other similar statement means something other than what it says, or base your entire hermetic on "appears to be" (to Dan).
Most people, when confronted with something "that appears to" contradict itself compare what "appears to be" to them, with what other people say. For example, we have these things called commentaries, they're full of all kinds of useful information and "data". These commentaries come from people of all sorts of different theological perspectives, which allow you to examine things like this from various perspectives. When I lead my Bible Study, I find this very helpful so that I don't let my biases and assumptions get in the way.
"But instead of doing that, you opt to say (correct me if I'm mistaken), "Jesus DID mean that there are no good people anywhere at any time in any way. You see, Jesus is using a SECRET MEANING of 'good' that's different than what we normally mean by good... and I can't tell you what his meaning is or offer any authoritative proof that my hunch is correct, but it IS objectively correct, although I won't say that, either...""
It doesn't help things (or stoke my desire to spoon feed you answers), when you make up shit and argue against it.
I've never argued for a "secret meaning". It's simply a falsehood you've cooked up to protect your "appears to be" from the same scrutiny you apply to others. If you're going to exempt your "appears to be" from scrutiny or proof, then apply the same standards to others. I'm done dealing with coming up with corrections for your lies.
"As I have noted: You attack rather than discuss."
After dozens of comments and hundreds/thousands of words that you've ignored, please lay aside the fiction that I don't want to discuss. Anyone who's not biased can skim this thread and see that this is false. I know this might be a little technical for you, by opinions aren't claims.
Please, I beg you. Show me these false claims. Copy paste my exact words in context. Provide the proof that the claims are false. Provide proof that they aren't hyperbole, or figurative. Do it, I implore you.
"But why would I accept your insistence that what seems clearly to be figurative is actually secretly literal and using a different meaning of the word Good?"
1. I haven't insisted anything at this point.
2. Why would I accept your insistence that the phrase "is" what it "appears to be"?
"What are the criteria for understanding when Jesus is using figurative language?"
Excellent question. You're the one who is much more likely to claim the use of figurative language that I am, so why don't you provide that criteria and demonstrate why this phrase objectively meets that criteria?
"Do you have anything consistent and rational?"
There's plenty of data out there, I'd point you to it, but you wouldn't bother.
"Did Jesus mean that we are LITERALLY to "hate our mothers and fathers" when he told his followers that? Or was that hyperbole?"
Again, great question. I haven't made any claims about this, in this thread. Refer to my similar answer a couple of questions up.
"What "proof" of "Jesus was using figurative language" do you want beyond, "CLEARLY since there are good people in the world, that he couldn't have meant it literally..."?"
You realize that your opinion about "good people" isn't proof. Seriously, you do know that, don't you?
I'm going to ask some clarifying questions, that might seem strange if you can't assert that Jesus was the second person of the Trinity, that Jesus was God made flesh, that Jesus shares all of the same attributes of God. If you equivocate, then these will be difficult.
What is Jesus was comparing Himself and his sinlessness to everyone else?
What if Jesus meant that compared to perfection, everything else is imperfect?
What if Jesus is saying that He doesn't grade on a curve?
What if your "appears to be" is mistaken?
How does one migrate from "appears to be", to "is"?
When you switch over to unsupported claims, and start attributing your actions to others, it's usually a sign that you're "running away" because you've been pressed to hard to provide the same level of proof you demand of others.
I'm pretty familiar with the tactics you employ when things don't go your way.
Dan,
As evidence of my willingness (still) to engage, my response to your short comments is significantly longer, more detailed, and includes answers to your questions, than the comments that it's responding to.
I'll point to Art's extended comments as evidence as well.
Finally, I'll point to two series of comments (I had to break them up because of length) that go into great detail exploring some of your claims, assumptions, and prejudices. While it would be false to say that you completely ignored those comments, it's accurate to say that your minimal response didn't begin to scratch the surface of the comments.
Given that reality, I think that you need to reconsider your claims about "attacking" etc. I'm not the one referring to people who don't agree with my hunch as insane. Since I seriously doubt that you have the education or credentials (let alone the examination) necessary to pronounce someone "insane", I'd reconsider.
"I just disagree with conservatives that they are understanding the plain meaning of the text.""
Talk about a blanket statement that treats your unproven assumption as if it's objective fact without proof of the underlying assumption.
Challenge:
Pick one conservative, post the entirety of their interpretation of any text you choose in context, then demonstrate that that position fails to understand the plain meaning of the text.
You do realize that you are claiming that you CAN understand the plain meaning of the text, don't you? If you don't understand it exceptionally well, how can you determine the accuracy. It's similar to how the secret service identifies forgery. They don't study forgeries, they study the real bills until they know fakes.
"...you STILL don't recognize these basic notions that I hold?""
The problem is that we DO recognize the "basic notions" that you hold. It's that you don't understand that your "basic notions" should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and the burden of proof as any other assertions. You can't demand "proof" from others, while exempting your "basic notions" from the same burden of proof you demand from others.
""I think that conservatives have gotten soft in the head with years having been the bullying majority so that they can just claim they speak the truth and "facts" and not be challenged.""
Once again, absent proof, what you think means absolutely nothing if you can't prove it.
"Are you even reading what I'm saying? I literally just said yes, I do believe in God, and I believe that God objectively exists. Did you see that?"
Yes, I saw your equivocal statement. You might have been able to tell, because I responded to it.
"I then went on to acknowledge that we cannot objectively prove that God exists. I can't approve it objectively. You can't prove it objectively. I've never seen anybody for objectively."
You confuse "I've never seen" with "doesn't exist" or with "doesn't mean it's not true".
"Are you suggesting that it is an essential tenet of Christianity that we must affirm that we can objectively prove God exists? Because that's just false. There's no tenet that demands agreeing that we can prove God exists. Are you involved in some kind of cult that has these extra non-traditional teachings?"
I'm saying that people throughout history have died to defend the belief that God exists. Modern science was literally founded on the existence of God and the ability to discover things about His creation.
"I know. I've read and listened and been taught beneath many of those teachers. And yet, I've never seen any of them objectively prove that God exists."
OK, well if you've been "taught beneath many of those teachers" and "you've never seen it", then clearly that's enough to give up. You do realize that "I haven't seen" doesn't mean "doesn't exist", and certainly doesn't absolve you from continuing the search.
"If you have even one teacher who can do it, who you think can objectively authoritatively prove that God exists, I would love to see that."
I did a whole post a year or so ago with a list of dozens of resources, I never saw you give any indication that you even considered investigating any of them. If you're serious, start there.
"I believe in God and that God exists. I would LOVE to be able to say that I can objectively prove that God exists."
So?
"But I'm not going to say it if the proof does not exist. So, understand me, if you can prove it, I want to believe it. But I'm not going to let people force-feed me opinions and call them facts."
Then stop playing the "I've seen enough card.", and go outside of your comfort zone and open your closed mind. I can't, won't, don't care enough to do it for your you.
"Give me the facts and I will believe. I want to believe that God can be objectively proven. I used to believe it but had to abandon it because I could not find any objective proof."
Do your own homework, don't expect me to spoon feed you anything. I did an entire post with resources, unless you've demonstrated that those are wrong, start there.
"If I want to believe it, and if there are all these teachers out there who, you say, objectively prove it, why not just point me to any one of them? This is not rational."
I have, you've come up with excuses. I wrote a whole damn post with resources.
I suggested you check out Schaeffer "The God Who is There, He is Not silent" is a good place to start (You previously dismissed Scheaffer as "too Calvinist"), I've suggested multiple options by Nancy Pearcey, (you disparaged her education credentials, if I remember correctly). But, it's simply a lie that I haven't offered you resources.
"You don't point to them because they don't exist."
Except I have, you've come up with excuses. Stop lying.
"People, like CS Lewis for instance, give great reasoned explanations of why it's reasonable to believe that God exists. But having a rational explanation and objective proof are two different things."
If you say so,
Re: The existence of God
DesCartes makes some interesting claims.
Alvin Plantigna
Richard Swinbourne
WL Craig
NT Wright has an excellent book on God's Justice, just so it't not all conservatives
Greg Boyd writes about justice and evil as well, again liberal.
Finally, I'm sure that you can destroy these common arguments for God's existence.
The Kalam Argument
The Design Argument
The Fine Tuning Argument
The Moral Argument
You probably have the "gist" of the Moral Argument and can provide ironclad proof to dismantle it.
The other three might be more difficult. They tend to rely on things of a scientific nature that we weren't measurable accurately until more recently. I know you checked out 15ish years ago, so some of this might be new. But I'm sure you'll crush all 4 with "hard data", and 100% proof.
FYI. it's not unreasonable to claim something as a "fact" even if there is less that 100% proof.
Craig... "You confuse "I've never seen" with "doesn't exist" or with "doesn't mean it's not true"."
No. I literally don't.
I've never seen an argument and data that authoritatively proves objectively that unicorns exist. Nor have I seen an argument that authoritatively and objectively proves that God exists.
MAYBE THOSE ARGUMENTS EXIST, but I haven't seen them. At this point, I suspect that the data and arguments don't exist, because surely someone would have presented them to let the world know, but MAYBE they do.
Show me and I'll be thankful.
Craig... "I'm saying that people throughout history have died to defend the belief that God exists..."
Yes. But the question I asked was, is "You MUST affirm that you can objectively prove God exists in order to be a Christian..."?
Again, whatever. If you want to argue a distinction without a difference, cool. Apparently you’ve already digested and demolished the suggestions I had for you.
Yes, you did. I responded with the example of all of the martyrs willing to die to affirm that very thing.
However, it seems as though denying the existence of God, pretty much eviscerates Christianity.
"Marshal... BUT. YOU. NEVER. SAY. HOW.
I literally do it all the time. I did it somewhere in this post."
Find it. Copy and paste it here or re-state it. But there's no way you provided evidence to support any of it.
"There ARE good people in the world."
By YOUR standards. Even by MY standards. But Christ wasn't speaking based on human standards and there is no evidence you've ever brought to bear that He didn't mean what He said. Honest people get it easily. You think you know better than HE.
"And I could go on and delve into this more, looking at the greek word for Good that Jesus used, etc, but this is not for me to do (again) what I've done before, this is just a reminder that I DO show you how you are mistaken in your human interpretations."
First, I don't recall at all you doing anything regarding the Greek word.
Secondly, the GOSPEL may have been written in Greek, but that's not to say that Christ was speaking Greek at the time, though His words and teachings are certainly Greek to you. You did NOT make your case then. Now's not the time to rehash this passage again.
But again, you're again assuming authority you don't possess, in this case to dictate what counts as "proof" or "providing evidence". And as usual, it falls far, far short of what you demand of us, and still is no more than assertion and your opinion, which is of little value.
Craig... Again, whatever. If you want to argue a distinction without a difference, cool.
? Whatever? You JUST made a stupidly false claim. "You MUST be able to affirm that God exists and that this can be objectively proven to be a Christian..." is NOT a tenet of Christianity.
Words have meanings. Sentences have meanings. You can't just blithely make up stupidly false claims and then beat people over the heads with those false claims and be taken seriously. This is the problem of corrupt Trumpian politics.
There IS a distinction between "I affirm God exists, this is what I believe, absolutely..." and "I CAN PROVE GOD EXISTS, and I can PROVE it objectively. And if you can't say the same, you're not a Christian!" It's two entirely different claims and your claim is stupidly false.
You can't just write it off as if a stupidly false claim is the same as a fact claim.
Can you admit that this is a false claim and a stupidly false one?
People are convicted if enough circumstantial evidence is brought to bear that the defense is unable to overcome, thereby proving guilt. Dan is not convicted enough in his alleged faith to acknowledge there is far more evidence of God's existence such that the entirety of it all amounts to proof, even if technically not definitive. As you say, Craig...a distinction without any significant difference.
""And I could go on and delve into this more, looking at the greek word for Good that Jesus used, etc, but this is not for me to do (again) what I've done before, this is just a reminder that I DO show you how you are mistaken in your human interpretations.""
Allegedly could, but won't. Surprised, but not.
"? Whatever? You JUST made a stupidly false claim."
"Words have meanings. Sentences have meanings. You can't just blithely make up stupidly false claims and then beat people over the heads with those false claims and be taken seriously."
Sure. Yet in between those two claims, you sandwich a false claim yourself.
"You MUST be able to affirm that God exists and that this can be objectively proven to be a Christian..." is NOT a tenet of Christianity."
Just as a general rule, it really doesn't help you case if;
1. You have to make false claims to do so.
2. Your "evidence" about others making "false claims", is a false claim itself.
"There IS a distinction between "I affirm God exists, this is what I believe, absolutely..." and "I CAN PROVE GOD EXISTS, and I can PROVE it objectively. And if you can't say the same, you're not a Christian!" It's two entirely different claims and your claim is stupidly false."
Yes there is. Of course you're not willing to unequivocally affirm the first. Then there is the problem of what appears to be demanding that the only acceptable form of proof is 100% "objective" proof. Yet, many things are asserted as True with far less proof than you demand.
"You can't just write it off as if a stupidly false claim is the same as a fact claim."
You can't just make shit up, claim I said it, then tell me I "can't" do something I never did.
"Can you admit that this is a false claim and a stupidly false one?"
Yes, I can admit that all of the claims you attributed to me are stupidly false.
Excellent job of taking on the resources you asked for. Very powerful rebuttal.
Art,
You are of course, 100% correct. Our criminal legal system operates with a much lower burden of proof than Dan requires. Our civil legal system, even less.
Historians affirm things as factually thru with a much lower standard of proof. In all reality, based on Dan's standard of proof, we wouldn't be able to prove much of history at all.
Dan,
Quick challenge.
Prove objectively, with hard data, that Julius Caesar existed, and the he wrote Gallic Wars.
Art,
It's interesting that Jesus crucifixion is accepted with an incredibly high degree of certainty as a historical event by scholars that are actively hostile to Christianity.
https://ses.edu/minimal-facts-on-the-resurrection-that-even-skeptics-accept/
Yet Dan is seemingly unwilling to unequivocally affirm almost anything.
How could Christianity exist, if it's basis in theism, is removed?
Craig asked if I could affirm "the single foundational statement of Christianity..." that God's existence is objectively true. You suggested that when I've clearly answered this question before, that you "remember a lot of equivocation and weaseling around, but no affirmation."
I responded... As a point of fact, I BELIEVE that God exists and
that is objectively true.
That IS an affirmation that God exists and that this is objectively true. That IS AN AFFIRMATION THAT GOD EXISTS and THIS IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE.
It is LITERALLY that affirmation.
Craig went on to sat... "If you are not willing to agree on the single foundational statement that underlies all of Christian theology
When I just had agreed. Your problem? I noted that I could not prove it objectively, even though I believed it was objectively true. That is EVEN THOUGH I LITERALLY AFFIRMED what you call the single foundational statement, it was not sufficient for you. WHY was it not sufficient for you? Because I didn't ALSO affirm that I could prove it objectively.
Am I mistaken? Was there some OTHER reason it wasn't sufficient for you?
I'm going to be busy the rest of the week/weekend and may not get back for a few days.
No Dan, it doesn’t matter you’ll simply repeat yourself until you wear people down. If equivocation floats your boat, then you can worship that along with Mystery,
Again, your self focus is intriguing. You use your claim that you can’t prove something to imply that it can’t be proven. Further, by asserting that you can’t prove something, you seem to be implying that you lack the intellectual capability or capacity to prove something. Personally, to me, it looks like you’re very concerned with being able to straddle the fence . You appear to want to cling to the title of Christian, but do you want to let people who aren’t Christians know that you’re not really 100% in.
Nothing short of God's drivers license or documents certified by a notary public is acceptable as objective proof that God exists.
I find it fascinating that while I could concede that no absolute proof of God's existence exists that I could bring to bear, that's not to say that the body of evidence doesn't meet that standard. We know that to Dan Scripture won't do it, despite the abundance of supportive evidence for it. By this I mean if ONLY Scripture is how the attempt is made, the evidence that exists that supports its validity is beyond what exists to prove almost anything else in human existence. (What I don't mean is, for example, that I can prove frogs exist by finding and presenting a frog. We're not talking about such things.) But Scripture provides us with a great example of Dan's equivocation.
Scripture is the most comprehensive source for our knowledge of God. Testimonies of God's direct involvement in human affairs are many in Scripture, and none so compelling as those of the Gospels and the testimonies of the Epistle writers. But Dan will pretend he believes those testimonies (to a point) by not consider them worthy evidence to convince the non-believer. Without Scripture, there is no way to prove God exists. Dan can say "the heavens declare the glory of God", but where does he get that notion? Scripture. Without Scripture, anyone who claims God exists has no way to convince anyone his claim is any more worth a damn than the claims of anyone else.
So we have Scripture and all the evidence that affirms its reliability.
But it's not a drivers license, so....
I suspect even that wouldn't be enough. My favorite story is of the PCUSA pastor who said, in all seriousness, that if Jesus appeared in front of him as said that homosexuality was really a sin, that he'd tell Jesus to go away because he wasn't interested.". I suspect that many progressives are like that, it's not that the evidence isn't there, its' that they don't like the implications of the evidence. It's easier to set up an standard of proof that is impossible to meet, and then point out the failures, than it is to put aside preconceptions and examine things as they are.
I've given Dan plenty of options to consider, it's up to him to follow up. I suspect that we'll see more of what's happened in the past, but it's possible that things will be different.
What I think Dan doesn't understand is that pointing out the problems with his claims, and expecting him to provide the same level of proof he demands of others, is NOT the same as asserting that a specific counter claim is True. This is complicated when he decides to assign us some specific "claim" (based on his assumptions about us), act as if we've made that "claim", then demand that we defend the "claim" that we haven't made.
I agree that there is ample evidence that makes it reasonable to conclude that scripture is an accurate, accurately preserved, record of actual people and events. Also that it is a reliable, and understandable way for us to learn Truth about God and about His creation.
Much like Jefferson and the JW's maybe Dan should come up with his edit/version of the Bible. He can edit out or clearly identify all the parts that are myth, hyperbole, or figurative language. Perhaps he could even correctly interpret those parts as well.
But without a DL, Notarized certified copy of His birth certificate, passport, and SS card,...
"Dan can say "the heavens declare the glory of God", but where does he get that notion?"
Sure Dan can say that, but he has no basis to explain why and how they do so.
He's somewhere between equivocal and denial when it comes to God actually creating things. He's certainly equivocal when it comes to God communicating and us being able to accurately understand Him. Finally, he'd likely argue that since the "heavens" can't actually declare verbally or in writing, that the whole thing is just somebody's opinion about somebody else's opinion and that it really means, "What a pretty sunset, I wonder how it got there.".
I used that example because he said it once in response to my stating that the Bible is our source of knowledge about God. He used that verse and suggested that he would know of God by that declaration. In a sense, I would not disagree that some kind of god might be accepted by such means, but totally disagree that anyone would believe anyone would be compelled by "the heavens" alone to accept that god to be GOD. And it certainly wouldn't be the hard data he demands of others.
Yet, I’ve heard stories of exactly that happening. Paul is clear that general revelation is a thing and that it’s at least enough to point people in the right direction.
To some degree it depends on which party drives the salvation relationship. If you believe that people seek out God all of their own volition, then that might not be compelling.
Again, while it may have led some to accept that there must be a god, I don't think Paul is suggesting that it leads to Christ all by itself. How could it?
I’ve heard stories where people have been convinced that it’s not adequate to worship the creation. That there is something or someone who created what we see, this led them to Jesus. I don’t think anyone is saying that you might need more, but it’s certainly a signpost.
Let me clarify: In the absence of Scripture, without anyone referring to Christ as Lord, I have great doubt that anyone would be led to Christ by any declaration of the heavens. Such a thing would require there be someone somewhere who addresses the existence of Christ in the first place, and that He must be accepted as Lord and Savior. If no such reference to Christ exists, or the God we recognize Who is described in Scripture, what's the likelihood anyone would be led to Him? I'm saying that we know this notion of the heavens declaring the glory of God, as opposed to any old kind of deity is because of Scripture.
Paul is saying, "Look all around you, look to the heavens! Who but God could have created this?" It is an argument backing his assertion of God's existence...a God he learned of through the use of what was Scripture at that time and the religious training he received which was based upon it. It's not the source of his knowledge, but evidence supporting it.
So when some have said there must be something more, they may be unconsciously pushed toward the Truth. But they must be guided to it and come to that source from which our understanding of Him comes, without which they will just wander without direction.
Yes, creation points to the creator.
“18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.“
It appears (presuming that it’s not figurative or hyperbole), that Paul is going further in his description than you are comfortable with.
Since creation, God had directly interceded in the affairs of man. Even Cain knew of him from personal conversation. Throughout the OT His prophets spoke His words and prophesied and those prophesied came to pass. Those outside the Hebrew nations were aware of stories and tales and often were first hand witnesses to His Power. I kinda think Paul was being a bit hyperbolic.
So the question would be, within any culture where Scripture has never been shared, where no missionary has preached, have you ever heard a story of someone coming to Christ...or the God of the Bible...because of nature?
First, Paul seems pretty clear in Romans 1 that General revelation is adequate enough. I’m not going to argue against the plain meaning of the text without something specific to support that argument.
2. I think that God responds to people who acknowledge the revelation they have with more revelation. I think that you are acknowledging the fact that salvation/sanctification is a process.
If one agrees that scripture teaches that God has chosen His people, then it would follow logically that God will provide His chosen with the means to save them. If you believe that we as humans choose to follow God of our own desire, then it might be a problem.
If you’re arguing that it’s impossible to come to faith, absent a fully formed explanation of the entire Gospel, then you’ll need to come up with an explanation for those who preceded Jesus death, and the their on the cross.
I believe I already did that by referring to God's direct involvement in human affairs throughout the OT.
I’m not disagreeing with God’s involvement, I’m pointing out that Paul seems pretty clear, with no reason to doubt him.
Post a Comment