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:
1 – 200 of 255 Newer› Newest»I don't expect it to go anywhere, but since I can't ask "Wintery"(ie, he won't answer) or Zacharias, perhaps you'll give these questions some thought and attempt answers. Zacharias says...
A “just” God does justice, which means to punish or reward appropriately.
And I don't disagree. If a god does not act justly or "do justice," then in what sense are they a Just God?
But then, what is "punish or reward appropriately..."?
Traditionally, this has been understood that any punishment that may come is proportionate to the crime. Thus, we don't kill someone for taking a loaf of bread that wasn't his, nor do we let a rapist "off" by marrying his victim. Both responses would be disproportionate to the misdeed. These would be unjust responses. Or so it seems to me and, I suspect, most people.
Do you agree?
Zacharias continues...
So too the Creator has the right to withhold a gift – i.e. eternity spent in His presence – from those who would trample on the gift, and on the gift-giver.
This raises the question, for me, about the "punishment" part, then. Sure, an entity can withhold a gift, but is there also a punishment involved that the Creator (in this case) is placing upon the individual in question? Or is Zacharias saying that the default end of humankind is an eternity of torment... BUT that a Just God will sometimes, on a whim, decide to choose an occasional "sinner," from their natural destination?
If it's the latter, it raises the question, Who set it up this way? That there is a humanity that is, by design, destined for an eternity of torment? Is it not the creator god that Zacharias is speaking of?
If so, then where is the Justice is deciding/designing, beforehand, to make an eternity of torment the default destination for all of humanity?
Zacharias continues... This fails to grasp what God is – a perfect being. We cannot impress Him.
Well, he started out with the description of what a Just God is, one that dispenses justice/punishment appropriately, that is, commiserate to the deeds or misdeeds. IF God is a perfect being and God created humanity NOT perfect, then God knows full well that they were created NOT perfect. To expect a humanity designed as imperfect to be perfect... well, that's neither reasonable nor just. And then, to say, AND, if you're NOT perfect (and you won't be!), then the punishment is an eternity of torment for even the smallest of misdeeds. Is that proportionate to the crime/misdeed? Well, no, of course not.
So, these are the reasonable questions I have for all who think that "two minute treatment" of "the gospel" is a good representation of God and God's way. If someone presented that to me, as a reasoning person (even if imperfectly reasoning) who supports the notion of justice (even if imperfectly understanding it), would be horrified by the implications and would need these questions answered before I wrote the person off as misguided.
Would you care to attempt to deal with these (as I see them) monster sized holes?
Dan,
To start with, I’m on vacation spending time with my niece who should be graduating from HS. So, I’m not going to spend a bunch of time answering you. I’m going to point out a few things though.
1. It’s WK’s post, ask him. It’s not my place to speak for him or get him to answer you,
2. Both Wallace, and Zacharias have written and spoken extensively I’d suggest you check out their voluminous output for your answers.
3. I know you get confused, but it’s not my place to try to explain to you what someone else means.
4. You’ve prattled endlessly about your encyclopedic knowledge of “conservative Christian” beliefs. I guess that was just more BS.
No, I won’t take time away from my family to do your research, or ask questions for you.
If I may be so bold, Dan chooses to ignore that which has been explained all to often over the years. God does not act they way Dan insists He must in order to be worthy of Dan's devotion, so Dan has created for himself his own "God" who has naught but a superficial resemblance to the God of Scripture, if he has any resemblance at all.
Dan's main problem here is his customary dismissal of the reality that God is not like us and that, as Scripture teaches, we cannot fully understand His ways, thoughts and plan. Dan expects that what is just/unjust to Dan, must also be just/unjust to God. If Dan believes it's a mortal sin to refer to a woman who sells her body for money as a "whore", then God surely must regard it as a mortal sin also or there's something wrong with God. Dan does little to accept the very real likelihood God is far more displeased with the woman who IS a whore than with those who acknowledge that reality about her.
In the same way, Dan here pretends there's "monster sized" holes in Zacharias' two minute presentation. As Craig rightly states, full understanding of Zacharias' position would require far more than a two minute presentation is designed to offer, any more than a movie trailer would compared to the movie in full.
Getting back to God's ways are not our ways, Dan wonders about proportionality, but again does so based on what seems right to him, without regard to the reality that God has different standards. Said another way, Dan again dictates what must be just for God to do without regard to the fullness of God's character and intentions that are beyond our ability to understand.
We as humans determine justice solely on proportionate response, but according to our current perceptions of such. God determines justice based on the presence or absence of sin. "Eternal torment"... if indeed that is what is possible...for simply not believing in Christ seems a bit much to our human sensibilities. But God doesn't act on how Dan feels about anything. He acts on whether HE, God, is pleased or displeased based on His own criteria, which is apart from what He expects of us and how we treat each other. Whether we personally like it or not is wholly irrelevant. And if the uninitiated, like Dan, judge God on human standards, then the unsaved will never be saved. God doesn't care what Dan likes or dislikes. God doesn't exist to please Dan, nor does He act on Dan's terms. This is something Dan cannot accept for by accepting God as He is, so much of what Dan wants to promote as good actually damns.
As I said, I didn't expect it to go anywhere. I just thought I'd give it a respectful try, though.
FYI, I don't get confused in the sense you're suggesting here, I am familiar with conservative beliefs and the answers don't exist out there because, as noted, these are holes in the conservative argument. If the answers were out there, I'd have heard of them.
Or are you all secretly holding these answers to yourselves in little cabals... you know the answers but no one will share them? It's a kind of Fight Club kind of thing?
Happy vacation.
Wow, Dan’s pride is on display here.
“I didn’t expect it to go anywhere “
But it did go somewhere, it just didn’t go where he wanted it to go.
“The answers don’t exist...”, this is quite the claim. I’m willing to bet that he hasn’t researched any of the multitude of resources from Ravi or Wallace in order to get the answers.
What he wanted was something spoon fed to him that confirmed his prejudices, and he wanted it NOW. Family and vacation be damned when Dan wants something spoon fed to him.
A search of Ravi’s books shows 247 results, he’s had a radio show for years, he lead a ministry with a searchable database, I’m sure a YouTube search will reveal hundreds of results.
Wallace has written 10 books, and also has an online presence.
Finally, since you didn’t ask WK, you have no way to know if he’d answer or not.
But, you keep insisting that you “have heard of” the answers, I’m sure you’ve combed through everything written and spoken by Ravi and Wallace, and have an excuse as to not asking WK.
Indeed. When it "didn't go anywhere", that's Dan-speak for, "I can't bear the truth". So, rather than deal with an explanation he doesn't like, he pretends it wasn't even offered. It's his way of slighting a person who continues to confound his attempts to portray himself as honestly searching for answers or rather, for confronting his DIS-honesty put forth as sincerity. As in the case of his troll, no one is fooled by him but himself, until he is exposed, and then he runs. So very sad when there's so often offered an opportunity to reason together.
It’s like a passive-aggressive way to act like there’s interest in a conversation by “asking questions” without having even tried to find the answers before asking then presuming the outcome before asking.
It’s similar to the other one who starts off with vitriol and falsehood, then acting surprised that no one wants more of his condescending crap.
Because everyone understands that arguing that the two people referred to in the post have been “silent” given their written/spoken/broadcast output is reasonable.
“I didn’t expect it to go anywhere “
But it did go somewhere, it just didn’t go where he wanted it to go.
By "I didn't expect it to go anywhere," all I meant is that I didn't expect you'd give a straight answer and you didn't. Nothing prideful about that. Just reasonable expectations given your history of avoiding reasonable questions.
“The answers don’t exist...”, this is quite the claim. I’m willing to bet that he hasn’t researched any of the multitude
? As far as I have ever seen in my 57 years, including ~30 years steeped in the conservative world, I have not seen answers to these questions. Have I listened to EVERY preacher and speaker who ever lived and wrote or spoke on this topic? No, of course not. But these are reasonable questions that I have never seen addressed.
But I am ALWAYS open to being shown something new. IF the answers to these rational questions are out there some place, all you have to do is point to them and I can read them. But, as I expected, you're not going to do that. I say it's because the answers don't exist.
Prove me wrong.
IF someone says to me, "There ARE unicorns out there who grow sweet maple donuts out their horns and give them to children," I'm also going to say that they don't exist. IF they do exist, the onus is on the one making the claim to support the claim.
since you didn’t ask WK, you have no way to know if he’d answer or not.
Given that I've asked questions there probably a dozen or more times and never had him/her respond, I have no reason to believe he'll respond now. With you, I thought there might at least be a chance that you'd answer.
As to your vacation complaint, I have never said that you had to answer now. I didn't even know you were on vacation when I raised the question. Enjoy your vacation. If you want to answer, then answer these reasonable questions at your leisure. I'm not rushing you. But if you're not going to answer, then just be an adult about it and say, "I don't want to answer." And if you are unable to answer these reasonable questions (as I suspect), then be adult and admit it.
But don't go on the attack on a person asking reasonable questions politely and in good faith. That does not seem like a reasonable way to communicate.
Marshal... an's main problem here is his customary dismissal of the reality that God is not like us and that, as Scripture teaches, we cannot fully understand His ways, thoughts and plan. Dan expects that what is just/unjust to Dan, must also be just/unjust to God.
1. We are created in the image of God, a little lower than God, if you take those passages literally.
2. Nonetheless, I never said that we are just like God or that God is just like us.
3. Nonetheless, I don't think God is wholly undecipherable or a complete mystery to us.
4. I think we can use our reason to think these things through. IF it's true that God is good and just and loving, then we can make some assumptions, given our limited understanding of goodness, justice and love.
5. If you think and are saying that we are wholly incapable of understanding goodness, justice or love, then what's your basis for thinking you understand anything about God?
Dan,
Don’t let the fact that I’ve been able to take advantage of some breaks to write some short comments, make you think I have time to dig into your more extensive research project.
Still hoping you’ll do your own research.
I've done THIRTY plus years of direct research first hand AS a conservative. Plus another twenty years post-conservative precisely because conservatives couldn't answer these sorts of questions.
I have not, of course, read EVERYTHING ever written by these traditionalists, but I've read extensively and am telling you, I've not seen these questions answered. IF YOU THINK that you can answer them, then say so. Just say, "This is very easy to refer you to some answers to these questions and I will as soon as I have a chance..." and that is ALL YOU NEED TO SAY.
Instead, you go on the attack against a person politely asking reasonable questions.
Anyone with eyes open can see what you're doing and not doing. Just admit that you can't answer and move on. That, or answer, when you get the chance. But stop with the ungracious attacks on simple reasonable questions.
I'm sorry if you don't think thirty years researching a question is sufficient, but trust me, it is.
The arrogance to think that just because you can't/won't answer a question is evidence that I have not done research when the facts are so hard against such a stupidly false claim is just amazing. But it is part of the problem with modern "conservatism" and "evangelical conservatism." Go on the attack against respectful, reasonable questions instead of answering them directly or admitting you can't.
Dan,
I get that you want to maintain this charade that you have this virtually perfect knowledge of what all “conservatives” think. But the bottom line is that you chose not to (and kind of lied about) asking WK (the secondary source), made no attempt to research the primary sources, and decided that you’d have me (tertiary source) do the research you were too lazy to do. But, it’s ok, you did some (undefined) research 30 years ago and that absolves you of looking for answers on your own now.
I’d ask you to specifically list the number of books by the two primary sources you’ve immersed yourself in, but I suspect you’d just google a couple of random book names and call it good.
Of course, I was preempting your tendency to get impatient when you don’t get exactly what you want immediately. In this case, it gives you plenty of time to do your own research.
The reality is that you didn’t get a “straight answer” for 2 reasons.
1. I’m not spending my vacation doing your research.
2. You’re asking the wrong person.
I might look at your questions next week, I might not. But, how about you man up and ask WK. I’m sure you think he’s afraid of your encyclopedic knowledge and that he’s too cowardly to answer. I think you’re too cowardly to ask.
I’m not attacking your questions, I’m simply pointing out the reality that you’re asking the wrong person and that you have this bizarre expectation that anyone you label as “conservative” can speak for anyone else you label as “conservative”.
Nice try with the pejorative “traditionalist”, clearly you’re much more intelligent, knowledgeable and well read than either of the two you casually dismiss.
I get that you want to maintain this charade that you have this virtually perfect knowledge of what all “conservatives” think.
I never said I had perfect knowledge. Let's stick to what I HAVE said and what you have not said. I said that I am well-familiar with conservative teachings on this topic. AND that I've never seen reasoned answers to these questions. THAT's all.
DO answers to these questions exist out there, somewhere? It's possible. I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM.
IS it possible that unicorns exist? It's possible. I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM.
IF you think you have answers, just provide them or point to them. That's all I said.
I’d ask you to specifically list the number of books by the two primary sources you’ve immersed yourself in,
Are you suggesting that the entirety of this arguments are from WK and Zacharias and that no one else has ever considered these ideas before and that they are "new knowledge" from these two sources? If so, please say so.
I was just asking some reasonable questions from you because you appear to agree with the comments put forth by Zacharias.
IF you don't agree with Zacharias or are unfamiliar with his arguments and the answers to these questions, THEN all you had to do is say so.
Just to humor you, I'll copy and paste my question here to WK for him to ignore, yet again.
Ah, I see that on WK's page, it is asking me to log in to a wordpress account in order to comment. I don't have a wordpress account. But I tried.
I sent an email, instead.
Nice try with the pejorative “traditionalist”, clearly you’re much more intelligent, knowledgeable and well read than either of the two you casually dismiss.
You keep saying "either of the two..." Are you speaking of WK and Zacharias? I've been quite clear that I'm addressing Zacharias specific comments, which are comments common to the traditionalist evangelical world. And what is wrong with the term traditionalist? These are traditional evangelicals I'm speaking of, as distinct from more progressive types. There's nothing pejorative in the word, it's descriptive.
Why find insult in every comment someone makes?
Likewise, YOU are the one who keeps insisting I'm using you while on vacation. I'm not rushing you, nor did I know you were on vacation. I didn't expect a direct answer because that has been my experience with you. Time or no vacation has nothing to do with it.
And it isn't "my research." IF you believe these rather blasphemous things that Zacharias is saying, then I have raised some questions. IF you believe them, then these are questions for you. If you don't believe them, then all you have to do is say you don't agree with Zacharias on these points. IF you believe this line of thinking, then, and if after 50 years I have not seen the answers, then why would you not just answer them, IF you have answers?
There are all manner of reasonable responses to these questions, even while on vacation.
You could have said,
I don't agree with Zacharias on these points... or I'm not clear about what he means. You'd have to ask someone else.
or
I DO agree with Zacharias and I'd be glad to answer these reasonable questions, but I'm on vacation right now, I'll get back with you soon.
or
I DO agree with Zacharias but I don't feel like answering your questions... or, I'm not able to answer your questions...
ANY of these would have been polite, direct and reasonable answers to these questions that would only have taken one sentence. But instead, you opted to respond with dozens of words that did nothing but attack and cast blame on someone for merely asking reasonable questions.
I’ve never been asked to sign in with a Wordpress account, either you misunderstood or you’re being persecuted and oppressed.
But I give you credit for finally going through the motions and pretending to ask the right person.
I’ll sort through the rest of your crap when I get home. V
“I never said I had perfect knowledge.”
This is easy, so I’ll deal with it.
I never claimed that you said that you had “perfect knowledge”, and the fact that you can’t even be bothered to correctly characterize what I actually said (one line after you cut and pasted my actual words), is one more sign that you just aren’t interested in accuracy.
I get that you just expect everyone to uncritically accept your vague and nonspecific claims as fact is simply your version of arguing from authority. You want us to accept your authority on this, without you ever demonstrating that authority.
I’m assuming (I’ll go into detail later) that you’re trying to provide an excuse to hide the fact that you’ve never actually read or listened to anything by either Zacharias or Wallace, and are justified in simply dismissing them as “traditionalists”. Of course, you haven’t demonstrated that “traditionalists”=wrong, or that either of them actually is a “traditionalist”. You’ve simply labeled them and moved on with the assumption that the label is a substitute for actually providing proof of your claims.
Dan,
Just commented on WK’s site, asking him to answer your questions. All it asked for was a name and email. It was very simple.
If you can’t figure it out,, post the comment that you’d like him to respond to here and I’ll copy/paste it there .
It's a bit presumptuous to assume that what I reported didn't happen. It required a log in that I do not have. I've emailed him and you've requested he answer. We'll see if anything happens.
My questions are the first comment I made.
Zacharias' comments he made are the same traditional comments/arguments I have heard for 50 years. I don't know if he is a traditionalist, but his comments are.
I assumed nothing. There is clearly some sort of special log in that applies only to you, which conveniently allows you to be “unable” to go to the source. Hey, the fact that you apparently didn’t even try until I pushed back.
I understand now. The simple fact that he’s making an argument similar to something you claim to have heard 50 years ago automatically invalidates what was said.
That’s quite an assumption.
If you want me to ask your questions, then edit out what’s not actually part of the questions and I’ll post them for you.
I just checked, there are 2 REQUIRED fiends to comment, NAME and EMAIL. I’m not sure what about those two is insurmountable for you, but I have no reason to doubt that you have some additional hurdles that everyone else doesn’t.
I don't know what part of, "IT REQUIRED A WORDPRESS LOG IN" you're not understanding. I went there. I entered my name and email. It THEN asked for a Wordpress log in.
That is the reality of it all. I have no reason to make something like that up.
This is the problem with modern conservatives. You run into something that doesn't make sense to your brains and you assume that other people are lying or making things up. It's an arrogance matched by the Pharisees and I'd hope that you all could see just how presumptuous and arrogant you come across when you make such stupidly false claims and suggestions.
Stupidly false accusations get you nowhere except with the dim-witted and cowardly.
I understand now. The simple fact that he’s making an argument similar to something you claim to have heard 50 years ago automatically invalidates what was said.
You apparently do NOT understand now. I never said that his making the same sort of arguments I've heard for 50 years invalidates what was said. I'm saying that the lack of answers to these reasonable questions are what invalidates what he says UNTIL such time someone can reasonably answer them.
Until that time, there are rational holes in the argument that would prevent a moral, rational or Jesus-believing person from accepting his theories.
I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about that or why the insurmountable arrogance in your not answering the questions or clarifying if you even agree with Zacharias. If you don't, just say so. THAT would be a reasonable explanation for not answering them. Saying "I'll look this all over when I'm off vacation" would be a reasonable response.
Spending hundreds of words to go on arrogant attacks with nonsense is not a reasonable response.
Dan, I’m so sorry that you’ve run into the insurmountable Wordpress log in that I’ve never seen on any Wordpress blog. I’ve offered to help, I’ve pointed out my experience, in all of that I’ve never said or implied anything about you. Nor have I run across something that I couldn’t understand and made something up. Unlike virtually your entire 5:10 comment which appears to be made up.
Of course you didn’t.
Of course, I’ve given you multiple rational reasons why I’m not answering your questions at this time. Of course, I haven’t attacked you either, so maybe your just having trouble understanding the multiple rational reasons given.
I know you have a history of demanding that I answer questions best answered by others, and a history of impatience when you don’t get your way immediately. Both behaviors are on display here.
I’m very sorry that you can’t find your answers from primary or secondary sources and that you impatiently want me to speak for three other people, but your inability and impatience aren’t my problem.
For what it's worth, here is WK's "two minute arguments" for his theory of the "gospel..."
It is so practical, you can see the need for it immediately when you talk to people in any detail. People are in rebellion against God. We want to seek our own happiness from rational constraints, moral constraints, judgments and feelings of shame.
Right away, I'd want to know where his data is to support these contentions.
Who says people are in rebellion against God?
I know of very few (if any) people I'd characterize that way. There are plenty of "bad" people, I'm sure, but even then, I rather doubt that most of them would say that they have decided to be in rebellion against God. They just are confused on questions of morality, more often than not. That would be my suspicion, anyway.
Where is the data that says humanity, by and large, wants to have their "own happiness from rational constraints, moral constraints, judgments and feelings of shame..."? I don't know of any rational adults who want to be free from "rational constraints" or "moral constraints." And the question of shame, well, there's good shame and bad shame, mental health experts would tell us. We SHOULD seek to lessen the amount of harmful self-hating shame in our lives. But there's nothing anti-Christian in that notion.
These are some claims that WK makes without support. I'd want to see some support (and he almost certainly can't provide anything more than his best guess that these claims are factual).
WK... even if we find his greatness offensive to our pride.
Any support for this?
WK... We refuse to acknowledge God in our decision-making, and not just in moral issues but in everything we do. This is just astonishing ingratitude, and for this we deserve to be punished.
By this, does WK think that because we don't "acknowledge God" (a God that we can't physically see or touch or hear) and that some people, not knowing there is a God, don't acknowledge that God... that such people "deserve" to be "punished" by an eternal torment/torture?
Where is the reasoned justice in that? Is that not a punishment way beyond rational measure to the "crime..."?
Do you see, Craig, how these are reasonable questions, even if you think WK or you have an answer to them?
I could go on with WK's arguments, but that gets to the gist of much of what I find troubling in his theories.
Dan,
What you seem to be having trouble understanding is that WK and I are not the same person. Because we aren’t the same person, it’s likely that we would answer your questions differently. What you are asking is that I answer questions for someone else. That I give you WK’s (Or Ravi’s, or Wallace’s) answers to your questions.
The reality is that you’re asking the wrong person, and demanding that I do something impossible.
I realize that the chances of you doing anything to find these answers on your own are virtually zero. I further realize that you’ll continue to give reasons why you “can’t” get the answers from the appropriate people, and continue to demand that I answer the questions as if “conservatives” are some interchangeable, monolithic group.
I’m sure you think that demanding more answers to more questions will somehow help you. Yet, asking the wrong person will rarely prove fruitful.
I’d also suggest that a “2 minute” version of the gospel is unlikely to be an in depth, exhaustive treatment. Rather, it’s likely to be more of an elevator speech intended as a way to begin a larger and more detailed conversation.
Maybe, you’re expecting it to be something it’s not intended to be.
"I realize that the chances of you doing anything to find these answers on your own are virtually zero..."
I realize that the chances of you recognizing that FORTY years (adult years) of looking for answers to these questions IS trying to find the answers on my own. But can you just acknowledge that much reality?
And if 40 years doesn't count, will 50? How many years of trying to find such answers is necessary before simply asking someone who believes such human theories to give an answer?
Do you recognize how irrational it is to insist someone find on their own something they don't think exists? As opposed to simply asking a true believer to simply answer some reasonable questions?
Also, IF you believe these theories, how is asking you asking the wrong person? If you don't believe them, just say so.
Do you agree with the theories advanced on your linked site?
If someone is giving a two minute elevator pitch, if it raises questions, then one should be prepared to answer them, yes? That is all I'm saying.
Do you agree with their theories?
"...intended as a way to begin a larger..."
If someone does an elevator pitch that makes the "product" sound horrible, I'm not so sure it's working as a good elevator pitch.
Dan,
You keep on throwing out numbers of years you’ve “studied” and simply expect everyone to uncritically accept your assertions. Yet, you frequently misrepresent “conservative” positions and haven’t (to my recollection) ever been able to give specifics of book titles or more than dropping some random “conservative” names. So, unless you can offer “proof” (if you’re going to demand proof, you should provide proof), I’ve seen nothing from you that makes me believe that you’ve been deeply invested in studying “conservative” thought since you were in your teens.
I agree that if someone is giving an elevator pitch, that the person giving the pitch should be prepared for questions.
Craig... You keep on throwing out numbers of years you’ve “studied” and simply expect everyone to uncritically accept your assertions.
The reality is that I was raised in an ultraconservative Southern Baptist church, one that emphasizes evangelism and "the gospel" (by which they meant what conservative evangelicals believed the gospel to be) and thus was taught this my first 17 years and beyond, and then studied for myself actively the next 13 years and beyond.
That's just reality. It's a reality you can't dispute because it IS reality.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
Yet, you frequently misrepresent “conservative” positions
You almost certainly can not support this allegation. The more likely explanation is that you've misunderstood what I've said, not that I've misrepresented anything. But I am certainly imperfect. IF you can point out even a single example of this, I'll be able to apologize and correct myself and be the better for it. But if you can't (and I'm pretty sure you can't), then you shouldn't make a claim that you can't support, or at least be honest and say you can't prove it, it's just your memory that this is the case.
Craig... haven’t (to my recollection) ever been able to give specifics of book titles or more than dropping some random “conservative” names.
Yes, I have "dropped the names" of conservatives I've read and been taught by. These include Leonard Ravenhill, Corrie Ten Boom, CS Lewis, James Dobson, Chuck Swindoll, Jonathan Edwards, Keith Green, John Wesley, Oswald Chambers, etc, etc, and dozens of conservative preachers and teachers teaching me the conservative party line on "the gospel" and the Bible.
Again, that is reality. Do you think you have some proof that I haven't read/been taught by these people (men, primarily)? If so, present it.
What "proof" do you want me to offer that I have read them? That I sat under the feet/was taught and discipled by Brother Schafer, Brother Saylor, Brother Walters, etc at Victory Memorial Baptist Church in Louisville, KY? That I was taught the Gospel, the Romans Road, PST Atonement in Sunday School classes by Miss Marie, Mr Guy, Dalton Mullins, Ms Jones... and many others over the years, including my conservative mother and father? That I traveled in a Christian band (Remembrance) for ~ten years throughout the 1980s and spent years discipling together with my bandmates?
What is wrong with you all that you can't just accept reality and need to kick at it, as if it didn't exist in the real world?
Here's a list of "classic christian books..."
https://www.pinterest.com/ronnie9441/classic-christian-books/
And on this page, I've read Tozer, Ravenhill, Edwards, Finney, a Kempis, EM Bounds, Wm Penn, Brother Lawrence, John Bunyan, Chambers, Knox, Spurgeon... at least.
How many of these authors/books have you read?
So, your idea of a specific answer is to provide a Pinterest list and some random authors you claim to have read. Well done.
Read anything written in the past 15 years?
I note that you claim to have “read Tozier” from that list. The list has multiple books by Tozier, yet you can’t/won’t identify which ones specifically.
I can’t believe that you think that being unable to recall the names of any of the books you spent 50 years intently studying actually helps your credibility. The fact that you have to look up someone else’s list of what they consider “classic” Christian books, and can’t even pick out specific books from a list, raises questions about how deep of an impression they made on you. You’re essentially claiming that you can’t remember the names of any books, but that you can remember the exact content of the books you can’t name that you read 50 years ago.
Further, I’m not sure what your claims about being raised in the SBC are supposed to accomplish? Do you really think that conservatives are so monolithic that saying “I was raised in a SBC church in the 70’s”, provides some sort of blanket credibility?
I’d be willing to bet that you couldn’t provide the name of one book you read 50 years ago and give a reasonably accurate summary of the contents and how they specifically apply to this conversation without research.
Before you even ask, don’t try your usual tactic of reversing the question. I’m not the one claiming 50 years of intense study, I’m not the one claiming this extensive, comprehensive knowledge of everything I’ve ever read or heard. In short, I would insist on refreshing my memory to make sure I was correct, but that’s why I don’t make the kind of claims you do.
Well, there's reading, studying and seeking vs understanding. The first three don't necessarily lead to the fourth. When we say, Dan, that you've never demonstrated a legitimate grasp of what conservatism is, it's certainly a general statement, but it's based on the totality of your comments over the years. Nothing you say or claim suggests understanding of Scripture, which then naturally results in a poor understanding of conservatism, given conservative Christianity is drawn directly from the clear and plain teachings of Scripture. The same is true of the politically and socially conservative, as such is drawn from the clear and plain readings of the US Constitution. So-called "progressives" distort in order to pretend they're steeped in knowledge of either. Your pretending the Lev 18:22 requires some inane belief that it is only talking about "some forms" of homosexuality, when it clearly and unmistakably refers only to an act alone, not any context or scenario in which it might take place. Then, you want to claim that your former adherence to this prohibition means you were once conservative. But clearly you didn't understand it then anymore than you do now.
So rather than use terms like "conservative" or "liberal", I'd say that you're just not bright enough to understand from either extreme.
Getting back to the issue, there have been many, many books, articles, essays and sermons that speak to the God's justice, and why seemingly good people might fail to be saved for "merely" not believing in or hearing of God/Christ. But you continue to conflate human notions of justice and demand that God abide those notions. As has been seen with you so many times, when you cannot resolve difficult issues of Scripture, you reject them, dismiss them or corrupt them to your satisfaction...such as Lev 18:22.
Thus, there is no "hole" to fill in RZ's or the conservative position on God's justice. There's only your unwillingness to accept that which you cannot comprehend and understand. It's never enough for you to say, "God says it, so I believe/abide it." You demand that God give you an explanation you can understand, and worse, accept on YOUR terms, or you will pretend there's some "hole" in the conservative argument.
But yours isn't an issue of conservative or progressive interpretation. It's an issue of personal rebellion...something else you question simply because someone might say "I believe". Jesus spoke to this. "Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord'..." You know what comes next.
I won't go round and round with you regarding your claim of conservative upbringing. As I've said each time, based on your poor understanding now, I've no doubt your understanding was poor back then. Rather than challenge anyone to interview those who know or knew you, just start backing up your positions with something other than petulant insistence and fake-Christian outrage and tantrums.
Those like you enjoy trashing "conservatives". But Bible believing people aren't conservative. They're simply Bible believing people. It is the "progressive" who has not just a poor understanding, but a conscious misinterpretation based on the fact that true belief and understanding conflicts with their personal desires. This makes them...that is, you... the most obvious of those in rebellion. We're all inclined toward rebellion. This is also taught in Scripture. It is also another point you reject as you've rejected the teaching that we're all sinners and that no one is good but God. And again, those you demean as "conservative" simply understand what is written regardless of whether or not we can resolve it sufficiently for our own tastes. But you...that which you cannot resolve to your satisfaction, is regarded as "a hole". That's your human arrogance and pride...NOT a desire to understand.
Craig... I can’t believe that you think that being unable to recall the names of any of the books you spent 50 years intently studying actually helps your credibility.
Good Lord. THAT's what you want to focus on? Not admitting your stupidly false claim was a stupidly false claim, NOT admitting that you are mistaken about my conservative bona fides, but that i didn't list specific books?
CS LEWIS: Pretty much everything. And no, I'm not going to list them.
Oswald Chambers: My Utmost for his Highest
Ravenhill: Revival God's Way, Why Revival Tarries, multiple other articles/essays by him/attended a sermon he preached in person
Tozer: Multiple essays and at least one or two books that I don't recall, "The Pursuit of God," and others
Jonathan Edwards: many of his sermons, including "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"
Corrie Ten Boom: Hiding Place, Tramp for the Lord
a Kempis: The Imitation of Christ
EM Bounds: The Necessity of Prayer, multiple essays and probably other books
Bunyan: Pilgrim's Progress
Swindoll: Multiple essays, regular listener of his program
Dobson: Multiple essays, regular listener of his program, at least one book I don't recall
Brother Lawrence: Practice of the Presence of God
Wesley: Multiple essays/excerpts
Hurnard: Hinds Feet on High Places
Sheldon: In His Steps
...I could go on, but this is just stupid. WTF is wrong with you?
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting you don't think I attended a conservative Southern Baptist church, was raised by conservative parents, was a serious student of the Bible (the Bible primarily) but also a large swath of conservative/traditional conservative authors/preachers/teachers? Where does that level of arrogance come from?
Do I recall all (or even many) of the details of all these books? Absolutely not. I don't recall details on many books I have read. What difference does that make?
Could I give great details of ONE book I read 50 years ago, when I was 7? No. I mean, that was Dr Seuss, Mark Twain, Robin Hood, etc.
Maybe you mean details from one book that I read 40 years ago, when I was 17? I could tell you the complete stories of the Narnia books. I could describe In His Steps in good detail. The Cross and the Switchblade, yes.
Could I tell you the details of Tozer's or Ravenhill's books? I know that I read them because they wrote about holiness and revival and those were hugely important to me. Could I tell you details beyond that? Probably not. But that doesn't mean a thing. I can't tell you the details of Wuthering Heights that I read at the time, either.
I'm telling you that I was raised at Victory Memorial Baptist Church in the south end of Louisville and it was a very conservative Baptist church, as were most Baptist churches in the south end (and elsewhere) in Louisville. I know because I attended church a lot, and not just mine, but many others. You can ask people who attended there and they'll tell you the same. Homosexuality, abortion, smoking, drinking, playing cards, sex before marriage... these were all taught regularly, as was the Penal Substitutionary Theory, inerrancy, reading the Bible, prayer, etc.
What sort of arrogance do you have that you would try to deny reality or what I experienced?
What is wrong with you?
Read anything written in the past 15 years?
Books? Absolutely not. I fear that modern conservative evangelicalism is a spiritually and too often morally and rationally bankrupt world view. I don't spend time reading books of bad theology, not in conservative evangelicalism, nor in conservative extremist Mormonism, nor in extremist Muslim writings? Why would I read that sort of negative writing? And with conservative evangelicalism, I don't think that anyone is writing something contrary to the tenets of conservative evangelical teachings today than they were teaching 40 years ago. That's sort of the point of conservative evangelicalism: Don't trust new teachings that are saying something different than the old teachings.
Are you suggesting that evangelicals today are contradicting what I learned as a youth?
And just to be clear: NO, I'm not saying I can "remember the exact content of the books" I read back then. But I DO remember the gist of the teachings.
For instance (and to the point that I raised in my initial comment), I recall the gist that humanity is
SO corrupt that
a perfectly loving, perfectly just God has no choice but
to condemn/send such people to hell
UNLESS God calls them to repent and they repent and "accept Jesus as their savior."
That humanity is "utterly corrupt"
because they are "dead to God,"
and they can only come alive
IF God calls them and they are gifted by God to be able to repent.
Is that a mistaken understanding of the "sin problem..." that humanity faces?
And just to point out your rational errors and stupidly false claims, where you say...
you think that being unable to recall the names of any of the books...
The fact that you have to look up someone else’s list...
You’re essentially claiming that you can’t remember the names of any books...
No, no and no. All stupidly false claims. I never said I couldn't recall the names of any of the books. I decided it would be easier to show you something that touches on the depth and number of books and authors I'd read/teachers I listened to. This was in response to your nonsense comment...
you frequently misrepresent “conservative” positions and haven’t (to my recollection) ever been able to give specifics of book titles or more than dropping some random “conservative” names. So, unless you can offer “proof” (if you’re going to demand proof, you should provide proof), I’ve seen nothing from you that makes me believe that you’ve been deeply invested in studying “conservative” thought since you were in your teens.
You said I had not given specifics of book titles. I then provided you a PAGE full of conservative book titles and authors, many of which I'd read, in addition to many others that weren't there. It was a way of visually answering your graceless question.
Again I ask you: Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that I have not read these books? That I was not raised in a conservative church by conservative parents and teachers? How is that rational? Do you not recognize how arrogantly insane that makes you appear?
I will say this: I don't have a great memory. I've read most, if not all, of Michael Crichton's books, for instance, but beyond Jurassic Park, I don't know that I could give you a name of any of the other books, at least not without a prompt. I am a huge fan of Dan Brown and have read all of his books, but beyond "Angels and Demons" and "DaVinci Code," I can't recall any of the other titles.
I AM sorry (primarily for my own sake!) that my memory is so less-than-perfect, but it is what it is. I would hope that you and others could be gracious in that weakness of mine. I don't expect it from you, but I'd hope for it.
I will repeat this, just by way of reminder (perhaps you're forgetting)...
Craig: "Yet, you frequently misrepresent “conservative” positions "
Dan: You almost certainly can not support this allegation.
Also, if you'd like to, when you get around to it - no rush - actually clarify if you agree with the traditional "gospel message" that is espoused on WK's page, then that would be helpful. If you don't agree, then you're absolutely right, there's no point in my asking you to help clarify. But if you DO agree, then perhaps you could acknowledge these are reasonable questions and you will give a shot at answering them.
In your own time, no hurry.
Dan,
I believe that I've edited your comments down to focus on the actual questions, without al of the unproven assumptions and editorializing. I'm going to look at a few things first, instead of plowing through. I'll note that I believe that you could get all of these questions answered from the primary sources, instead of going through this charade, and would encourage you to do just that.
"And I don't disagree. If a god does not act justly or "do justice," then in what sense are they a Just God?"
"But then, what is "punish or reward appropriately..."?"
"Or so it seems to me and, I suspect, most people."
"Do you agree?"
"This raises the question, for me, about the "punishment" part, then. Sure, an entity can withhold a gift, but is there also a punishment involved that the Creator (in this case) is placing upon the individual in question?"
"Or is Zacharias saying that the default end of humankind is an eternity of torment... BUT that a Just God will sometimes, on a whim, decide to choose an occasional "sinner," from their natural destination?"
"If it's the latter, it raises the question, Who set it up this way? That there is a humanity that is, by design, destined for an eternity of torment? Is it not the creator god that Zacharias is speaking of?"
"If so, then where is the Justice is deciding/designing, beforehand, to make an eternity of torment the default destination for all of humanity?"
"IF God is a perfect being and God created humanity NOT perfect, then God knows full well that they were created NOT perfect. To expect a humanity designed as imperfect to be perfect... well, that's neither reasonable nor just. And then, to say, AND, if you're NOT perfect (and you won't be!), then the punishment is an eternity of torment for even the smallest of misdeeds. Is that proportionate to the crime/misdeed?"
"Who says people are in rebellion against God?"
"I know of very few (if any) people I'd characterize that way."
Where is the data that says humanity, by and large, wants to have their "own happiness from rational constraints, moral constraints, judgments and feelings of shame..."? I don't know of any rational adults who want to be free from "rational constraints" or "moral constraints."
WK... even if we find his greatness offensive to our pride.
Any support for this?
WK... We refuse to acknowledge God in our decision-making, and not just in moral issues but in everything we do. This is just astonishing ingratitude, and for this we deserve to be punished.
By this, does WK think that because we don't "acknowledge God" (a God that we can't physically see or touch or hear) and that some people, not knowing there is a God, don't acknowledge that God... that such people "deserve" to be "punished" by an eternal torment/torture?
Where is the reasoned justice in that? Is that not a punishment way beyond rational measure to the "crime..."?
Do you see, Craig, how these are reasonable questions, even if you think WK or you have an answer to them?
I'll note that I believe that you could get all of these questions answered from the primary sources, instead of going through this charade, and would encourage you to do just that.
HOW? Zacharias is dead and WK won't respond to emails.
Beyond that, IF you agree with them on these very basic modern conservative evangelical tenets, then YOU are a primary resource, as well. I'm asking the questions to get an answer from ANYONE who affirms these positions. If you affirm them, you will do.
If you don't affirm them, then just say so.
I'll note that I believe that you could get all of these questions answered from the primary sources, instead of going through this charade
I'm guessing you might be suggesting that if I ONLY read all of Zacharias' writings, MAYBE I'd find answers to these questions somewhere in all that writing. But I'm here to tell you that I'm not going to do that. I'm not THAT interested in what he has to say to do that sort of wading for answers that I don't believe exists. What I'd be willing to bet is that, like all other conservative evangelicals that I've read before him, Zacharias doesn't even try to answer these questions.
I say that, not to knock Zacharias, but just because I have not seen answers to these questions anywhere else with other conservatives who've advocated these sorts of opinions. Mostly, what I have seen in the past is that they make certain assumptions (humanity IS utterly corrupt, humanity IS "deserving" to be punished for an eternity of torment, for instance) and then answer questions based upon those presumptions being in place. But they don't answer the questions "WHO SAYS that humanity is so corrupt each individual "deserves" to be tortured/punished for an eternity?
If they DO try to answer it, they generally have tried to tacks:
1. Blaming all of humanity based upon the worst of humanity: "Well just look at the record: Humans engaged in wars and slavery that killed millions of people... they have tortured and abused and oppressed... this IS horrible..."
or
2. Said that it's due to God being SOOOOO PERFECT that even the smallest "taint" of sin is sufficiently awful to this entirely perfect God to even be in the presence of such imperfections.
Neither of these approaches deal with the questions I'm asking.
If you have someone you think answers these questions WITHOUT making assumptions that they can't prove as a necessary starting point, please point me to them and their answers to THESE questions and I'd be glad to read them. Don't point me to an entire book with the assurance that SOMEWHERE in the book (I can't tell you where!) is the answer. If you don't know where it is, then you don't know that the answer is there.
Or, conversely, if you agree with this traditional line of conservative teaching and can answer the questions yourself, please do so.
I'm going to start with some of your broader "questions", assumptions, and preconceptions. In order to get a sense of what you are trying to accomplish and to make sure that I have a reasonable understanding, I will need to ask some clarifying questions. You, of course, are free to answer or not. However, if you choose not to answer, it will simply make things more difficult.
I'm going to give you a disclaimer before I go any further. The clear and obvious source of the things that you have questions about is scripture. I've seen nothing in your questions that isn't addressed in the NT. However, since you tend to dismiss scripture as proof, I will try to avoid that as much as possible.
My responses and questions will be in all caps, simply for purposes of clarity.
"Or so it seems to me and, I suspect, most people."
I'M ALWAYS STRUCK BY HOW CONFIDENT YOU ARE THAT YOUR OPINIONS REPRESENT THOSE OF "MOST PEOPLE". I'M FURTHER STRUCK BY HOW MUCH EMPHASIS YOU PUT ON HOW THINGS "SEEM" TO YOU.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT HOW THINGS "SEEM" TO YOU IS A UNIVERSAL SORT OF STANDARD THAT WE CAN JUDGE THINGS BY?
CAN YOU ADMIT THAT HOW THINGS "SEEM" TO YOU COULD BE WRONG?
CAN YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU REALLY CAN'T ACCURATELY OR AUTHORITATIVELY CLAIM TO KNOW HOW THINGS "SEEM" TO "MOST PEOPLE"?
"IF God is a perfect being and God created humanity NOT perfect, then God knows full well that they were created NOT perfect."
I'LL NEED TO TO PROVIDE THE QUOTE FROM ANY OF THE THREE PEOPLE QUOTED IN WK'S POST THAT SAYS THAT HUMANITY WAS CREATED "NOT PERFECT". THE SECOND CLAUSE IF YOUR QUESTION IS SIMPLY REDUNDANT.
YOUR USE OF THE TERM "IF" SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT GOD "SEEMS" TO YOU AND "MOST PEOPLE" TO NOT BE PERFECT, TRUE OR FALSE?
"To expect a humanity designed as imperfect to be perfect... well, that's neither reasonable nor just. And then, to say, AND, if you're NOT perfect (and you won't be!), then the punishment is an eternity of torment for even the smallest of misdeeds. Is that proportionate to the crime/misdeed?"
AS I POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY, IF YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE YOUR PRESUMPTION THAT HUMANITY WAS CREATED "NOT PERFECT", THEN YOUR HUNCH MIGHT BE REASONABLE.
"I know of very few (if any) people I'd characterize that way."
WHICH, AS IT DOES EVERY TIME YOU USE THIS CANARD, MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. AGAIN YOUR ARE APPEALING TO HOW THINGS "SEEM" TO YOU, AND HOW YOU CHARACTERIZE PEOPLE ACCORDING TO YOUR SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS.
"Where is the data that says humanity, by and large, wants to have their "own happiness from rational constraints, moral constraints, judgments and feelings of shame..."? I don't know of any rational adults who want to be free from "rational constraints" or "moral constraints."
I'D SUGGEST THAT YOU START WITH THE PHENOMENON OF "HOOK UP CULTURE", THEN LOOK AT THE RESEARCH REGARDING THE CONSUMPTION OF PORN BY ADOLESCENT AND PREADOLESCENT BOYS AND HOW IT SHAPES THEIR VIEW OF SEX. AS IS USUAL WITH YOU, YOU ASK FOR "DATA", BUT DO SO IN A WAY THAT IS MEANINGLESS.
THE OBVIOUS QUESTIONS ARE.
WHAT MEASURABLE METRICS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE DATA ON THAT WILL PROVIDE FOUNDATION FOR THE STATEMENT?
IF THE DATA IS PROVIDED FOR YOU, WILL YOU ACCEPT IT AND THE STATEMENT THAT YOU QUESTION?
ARE YOU REALLY SUGGESTING THAT OUR SOCIETY ISN'T LOOKING FOR PERSONAL HAPPINESS AS DEFINED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL?
DO YOU NOT AGREE THAT A SOCIETY THAT ACCEPTS THE CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL TRUTH (EVEN IF THOSE TRUTHS CONTRADICT), AND INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTIVE MORALITY, ISN'T HEADED TOWARD THE REMOVAL OF CONSTRAINTS?
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS?
"Do you see, Craig, how these are reasonable questions, even if you think WK or you have an answer to them?"
THEY ARE SOMEWHAT REASONABLE QUESTIONS, OR WOULD BE IF ASKED BY AN ATHEIST. THE PROBLEM ISN'T THE QUESTIONS OR THE REASONABLENESS OF THE QUESTIONS, IT'S THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THE QUESTIONS. IT'S THE WILLINGNESS TO BE OPEN TO THE ANSWERS, EVEN IF THOSE ANSWERS DISAGREE WITH YOUR PRECONCEPTIONS. IT'S THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTIONS IS SEEKING TRUTH. IT'S THE WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ANSWERS ARE REASONABLE, EVEN IF THEY DISAGREE WITH YOUR PRECONCEPTIONS. FINALLY, IT'S WONDERING OF YOU WILL EVER PROVIDE THE LEVEL OF "PROOF OR DATA" YOU DEMAND FROM OTHERS IN THE SERVICE OF DEMONSTRATING THE TRUTH OF YOUR PRECONCEPTIONS.
AS TO "HAVE TO ANSWER THEM", CLEARLY NEITHER WK OR I "HAVE" TO DO ANYTHING YOU ASK. YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT YOU SIMPLY ASKING QUESTIONS CREATES SOME SORT OF OBLIGATION TO ANSWER IS ABSURD AND PRIDEFUL. GIVEN THAT WK, ZACHERIAS, AND WALLACE ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF THE THINGS THAT CONCERN YOU, IT SEEMS MORE THAN REASONABLE THAT THOSE PRIMARY SOURCES SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF YOUR SEARCH. IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO PURSUE THAT AVENUE, PLEASE DON'T BLAME ME OR TRY TO INSINUATE A FAILURE ON MY PART.
"Do you acknowledge that reality?"
I acknowledge that you have made this claim repeatedly, without providing any proof (except your repetition) to support it.
"You almost certainly can not support this allegation."
"God created humanity NOT perfect"
Well that was easy. Unless you can provide proof of anyone who says that God created humanity "not perfect".
"if after 50 years I have not seen the answers", "heard for 50 years.", "FORTY years (adult years) of looking for answers", "taught this my first 17 years and beyond, and then studied for myself actively the next 13 years and beyond."
First, how about you pick one number and stick to it. I don't even care if it's he truth as long as you just pick one. Although, I'm not likely to believe that you were searching for these answers at 7.
" have "dropped the names" of conservatives I've read and been taught by."
Yet you can't dredge up the name of one actual book, sermon, or audio by any of them.
"Do you think you have some proof that I haven't read/been taught by these people"
NO, it's just strange that after 50 years of studying these people (and with your assumption that they are all equal or interchangeable) you can't offer one specific resource that you've read.
"What is wrong with you all that you can't just accept reality and need to kick at it, as if it didn't exist in the real world?"
I've never said there was anything "wrong with it", I'm merely pointing out that your lack of detail, or proof raises questions. Of course your insistence that having the "gist" of something that you might have read when you were 7, or 17, or 27, is adequate to make blanket claims about people who's work you haven;t read, is also not particularly impressive.
"HOW? Zacharias is dead and WK won't respond to emails."
Wallace has numerous media resources available for your study, many are free, have you even looked at any of them?
Zacherias also has numerous materials available, many of them free, have you looked at any of them?
WK, has years of blogging available for you to research, have you searched any of his blog?
"I'm guessing you might be suggesting that if I ONLY read all of Zacharias' writings, MAYBE I'd find answers to these questions somewhere in all that writing."
No, I'm suggesting that dismissing ALL of Zacharias' writings without having read ANY of them is simply an expression of pride and self centeredness.
"But I'm here to tell you that I'm not going to do that."
I've know this since your first comment. Your insistence that you've learned enough about what you believe the "conservative position" to have ignored everything written or said in the last 15 years tells me that you aren't really serious.
"I'm not THAT interested in what he has to say to do that sort of wading for answers that I don't believe exists."
If you're not interested enough in finding the answers you claim to seek, to look for them, why would you expect anyone else to be interested enough in answering YOUR questions, to do YOUR research, for YOU.
"What I'd be willing to bet is that, like all other conservative evangelicals that I've read before him, Zacharias doesn't even try to answer these questions."
What I'd be willing to bet is that Both Zacharias and Wallace answer your questions, although they might not be presented in exactly the same way as you present them, and that you're not motivated enough to find the answers to do your won research.
"Good Lord. THAT's what you want to focus on? Not admitting your stupidly false claim was a stupidly false claim, NOT admitting that you are mistaken about my conservative bona fides, but that i didn't list specific books?"
Not at all. Just pointing out the reality that your inability to provide any thing but someone else's list doesn't really help your assertions.
"I don't recall details on many books I have read. What difference does that make?"
Well, if you are seriously asserting that the books you read have given you the knowledge to make such broad sweeping generalizations (let alone anything specific), then your inability to remember any "details" raises questions about both your recall and your ability to compare and contrast. Literally, you're whole shtick is that you've spent 50? years intensely studying these "conservative" theologians and that you have enough knowledge to summarily dismiss EVERYTHING written or produced in the last 15 years. Yes, your inability to recall "details" is problematic.
"What sort of arrogance do you have that you would try to deny reality or what I experienced? What is wrong with you?"
No arrogance at all. I'm pointing out that your claims don't stand without proof, and you repeating (inconsistently and with additions) yourself isn't actual proof.
"Books? Absolutely not. I fear that modern conservative evangelicalism is a spiritually and too often morally and rationally bankrupt world view. I don't spend time reading books of bad theology, not in conservative evangelicalism, nor in conservative extremist Mormonism, nor in extremist Muslim writings?"
Do you realize how arrogant, presumptuous, and prideful this is? That you feel comfortable dismissing 15 years worth of media as "morally and rationally bankrupt" based 100% on some books you read 50 years ago that you can't remember the "details" of?
"Are you suggesting that evangelicals today are contradicting what I learned as a youth?"
Yes, I'm suggesting that what you perceive as "conservative" scholarship hasn't remained static. I'm saying that to make such sweeping assumptions simply points out that you really aren't seriously seeking the answers, you claim to be.
"Is that a mistaken understanding of the "sin problem..." that humanity faces?"
It's stilted and expressed in a way that is a caricature of how most conservatives would express it, but it's pretty accurate.
The problem you have with your caricature is that you haven't demonstrated that the premise is false. You can ridicule it, mock it, caricature it, or even disbelieve it, but you haven't even attempted to demonstrate that it's not true.
Isn't that the point? To find out what things are true?
"I decided it would be easier to show you something that touches on the depth and number of books and authors I'd read/teachers I listened to. This was in response to your nonsense comment..."
The fact that you chose to answer in less detail rather than more detail, and intentionally chose to do so, undermines your outrage. As you demonstrated, you do remember the names of a few books you read, and you could have provided this information the first time you were asked, yet you didn't. Now that's seems like nonsense.
"You almost certainly can not support this allegation."
And yet I provided an example from this very thread.
What's amazing to me is that you base your willingness to blithely dismiss everything that everyone more "conservative" than you has written in the past 15 years (if not more), because of "details" you "can't remember" from books you "can't remember" that your read starting when you were 7. You try to make my pointing out the reality that you haven't proven any of your claims, you admissions of having a "less than perfect" memory.
Unfortunately, no one is criticizing your for a "less than perfect" memory. I'm pointing out the reality that claiming that you can ignore 15 years worth of new information, based on things you read or heard between 50 and 35 years ago is seriously faulty. Especially when you readily admit that you can't remember things like names of books, "details", and think that the "gist" is adequate.
Your problem is that you've offered your background, your 50? years of searching for these answers, the things you were taught at your SBC church, and the books you've read, as the proof that you have the ability to dismiss decades of work you've chosen to ignore. If you're going to make the claims you've made, (modern conservative evangelicalism is a spiritually and too often morally and rationally bankrupt world view.), then your qualifications to make that claim are fair game.
It's not my fault that you are using "details" you can't remember, of books you can't remember, to malign the work of people you don't know anything about and haven't studied.
This is just one more example of you choosing to look at things as they appear to be part of the groups that you perceive them to be in, rather than by looking at individuals as individuals.
One example of the kind of thing that would have helped you.
A few years ago there was a guy named Brian McLaren who got really popular and was having a lot of impact on the church at large. I'd heard some things about him that gave me pause, so I went out and bought A Generous Orthodoxy, and read it. I was able to draw some conclusions from that book. Some things I liked, and some that concerned me. So I decided to read The Last Word as well as listening to him as the keynote speaker at a weekend conference, talking with him, and researching what others said about him. By doing that it allowed me to determine that he was someone who I wasn't interested in listening to.
I've done similar things with people like Greg Boyd, and Rob Bell (although I never spent time with Bell). In all of that I was able to mine some nuggets that I found valuable, in spite of discarding the majority of their work.
Personally, I feel like it's incumbent on me to put in the time and effort to investigate individual people and their theology rather than to just declare their writings as "bankrupt" in multiple senses.
But that's just me, you've obviously chosen to dismiss and malign hundreds of people based on things you "can't remember" from decades ago.
"You keep saying "either of the two..." Are you speaking of WK and Zacharias? I've been quite clear that I'm addressing Zacharias specific comments, which are comments common to the traditionalist evangelical world."
The fact that you didn't actually read the post in detail, yet are willing to make all sorts of assertions about something you didn't pay attention to is concerning.
The post was quite clear that the VIDEO embedded was Ravi Zacharias. The part you are referring to was "For those who don’t want to watch the video, here’s a good thought about the gospel from J. Warner Wallace at Please Convince Me.".
Now the fact that I've referred to Wallace by name multiple times and you weren't interested in those sorts of "details" doesn't help your case.
"If the answers were out there, I'd have heard of them."
Proud of yourself much?
"If the answers were out there, I'd have heard of them."
Proud of yourself much?
Look, IF the answers are out there, rather than ALL these hundreds of words dodging answering the questions, why not just answer the questions and SHOW me the answers rather than criticizing me for not having found them yet in my 57 years of life?
I honestly don't believe there are any good, rational, moral, just, Godly answers to these questions, which is why I had to leave the more traditional conservative worldview. Show me where I'm mistaken. Show me answers.
Dan... "You almost certainly can not support this allegation."
Craig... "God created humanity NOT perfect"
So, it is your contention that God DID create humanity perfect? We are all perfect creations, that is your contention? Beyond that, you think that conservative Christianity contends that God created us as perfect human beings?
It seems that Billy Graham would disagree:
Why God Didn’t Make Man Perfect
"Why didn’t God make us so we couldn’t sin [ie, perfect, DAN]? The reason is simple: Then we would have been like puppets, unable to choose between right and wrong... Did God know what would happen? Yes, He did; the Bible says that God planned our salvation even “before the creation of the world”
https://billygraham.org/story/billy-grahams-my-answer-why-god-didnt-make-man-perfect/
God knew that God didn't create us perfect, Graham says, it was by design because God planned to save us from our imperfections from before the creation of the world.
But perhaps my phrasing is not the best. Allow me to clarify:
Traditionalists believe:
God created us with a sin nature and the ability to choose right or wrong
God knew we would choose wrong
Thus, God created us in such a way that God knew we'd be imperfect.
I summed that up as "God created us as imperfect human beings." I've clarified what I meant by that (which I see as one in the same, but maybe you don't). Do you STILL contend that I'm misunderstanding traditionalists' opinions on this?
Or, as the traditionalists at Ligonier Ministries speak about it...
"Those things that God has ordained include also the eternal salvation of His people, thus leaving the rest of mankind eternally damned...
As the Creator, God has the right to do with His creation as He pleases. God is just and His glory is manifested in punishing those whom He has ordained to do evil just as a potter has the right to make some vessels fit for destruction "
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/vessels-destruction/
God created SOME people to be condemned, damned and tortured for an eternity. God knowingly created them FOR THAT PURPOSE, according to those in this reformed tradition and much of conservative/Calvinist Christianity.
Am I misunderstanding that?
My apologies for the oversight in missing the attribution to Wallace. I am an imperfect human being, no doubt.
Doesn't change my point that we have THREE people (instead of two) speaking of these traditional Reformed Christian views about human nature. I'm talking about the VIEWPOINT, not the source. Which is why (again) I'm asking you IF you share the viewpoint, CAN you answer these questions?
Craig...
I'M ALWAYS STRUCK BY HOW CONFIDENT YOU ARE THAT YOUR OPINIONS REPRESENT THOSE OF "MOST PEOPLE".
Here is the context of what I said I suspect "most people" believe...
Thus, we don't kill someone for taking a loaf of bread that wasn't his, nor do we let a rapist "off" by marrying his victim. Both responses would be disproportionate to the misdeed. These would be unjust responses. Or so it seems to me and, I suspect, most people.
Again, it's how it seems to me and I SUSPECT most reasonable people.
Now, are you seriously going to make the case that most reasonable people DO think that it's a good idea, moral and just, to "punish" a rapist by forcing him to marry his victim? Get serious. This is not anything that ANY moral or rational people would advocate. Same thing for killing someone for taking a loaf of bread. Such a punishment would be disproportionate to the crime.
Are you seriously suggesting I'm mistaken?
Get real. If you ARE seriously suggesting I'm mistaken, then you have zero grounding in reality and that would explain a helluva lot.
Craig... I'M FURTHER STRUCK BY HOW MUCH EMPHASIS YOU PUT ON HOW THINGS "SEEM" TO YOU.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT HOW THINGS "SEEM" TO YOU IS A UNIVERSAL SORT OF STANDARD THAT WE CAN JUDGE THINGS BY?
CAN YOU ADMIT THAT HOW THINGS "SEEM" TO YOU COULD BE WRONG?
CAN YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU REALLY CAN'T ACCURATELY OR AUTHORITATIVELY CLAIM TO KNOW HOW THINGS "SEEM" TO "MOST PEOPLE"?
When I state something that is overtly incredibly clearly obvious, yes, I do think this SEEMS reasonable and that most people would agree. But no, I'm not saying that MY particular views on things are what should decide things. You can tell by the way I never suggested such a thing.
But I DO think some truths are self-evident. Me and other wise people. Feel free to disagree, but man! The things you choose to nitpick make conversations extremely difficult. If I have to wade through each line and defend "I think most people would agree that forcing a rape victim to marry her assailant, to 'punish' that assailant," then I don't know how you make it in daily life and conversations with rational adults.
Get serious. I think we can safely say that MOST PEOPLE will agree that raping babies, ripping your tongue out, blowing up puppies and all manner of things are grossly immoral. I don't need a poll to support such obvious comments. DO YOU THINK WE NEED POLLS to safely say these things?
Come on.
Craig...
YOUR USE OF THE TERM "IF" SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT GOD "SEEMS" TO YOU AND "MOST PEOPLE" TO NOT BE PERFECT, TRUE OR FALSE?
I think God is perfect, or as perfect as our human understanding can fathom. Thus, I don't think that those who attribute awful, unjust or immoral actions of God are fairly representing a perfect God.
I don't know if most people think that God is perfect. I do know a great many non-believers have rejected God because of the way that conservative evangelicals have portrayed their god as a monster god, horribly unjust and unloving. But as to numbers in the world, I just don't know how most people view God. I would suspect that most believers affirm God as perfect.
Craig...
AS I POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY, IF YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE YOUR PRESUMPTION THAT HUMANITY WAS CREATED "NOT PERFECT", THEN YOUR HUNCH MIGHT BE REASONABLE.
We are, as a point of observable reality, NOT perfect beings. We make mistakes. Our bodies fail us. Our minds fail us. Our reasoning fails us. We are not perfect human beings.
Do you think that we are perfect, or do you agree that we are ALL of us imperfect, as a point of fact?
If you agree with reality and acknowledge that we are imperfect, do you think God created us to be perfect and God failed?
or is being imperfect just how God created us? That God wants us to be perfect, but didn't create us incapable of not being perfect?
I WILL NOT ANSWER ANY MORE QUESTIONS PAST THIS POST IF YOU DON'T ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.
Traditionalists have described this as humanity having a "fallen, sinful nature." It's the reality of our condition.
Further, I'm guessing that most people would gladly acknowledge an inability to be perfect.
IF one believes that there is a creator God creating everything as part of a plan (as traditionalists believe), then God is creating us the way we are. It's part of this God's plan, since nothing is beyond God's plan. Do traditionalists think that God WANTS us to be imperfect? No, I don't think most would say that. But they do think God created us as we are, some even going so far as to say that some of us are created "for destruction," "ordained to do evil..."
Dan,
Part of the reason that I don’t spoon feed you answers is that if I do, you’ll ignore them. I try to point you to places where you can find answers on your own and feel the satisfaction of having your efforts pay off.
I’m not going to argue semantics over a biblical text and narrative (creation ex nihlo) that you don’t accept as anything but fiction.
I’ll point out that the arc is usually expressed as creation, fall, redemption.
As for the rest. I love how you continue to try to support your contentions that you know all you need to know about conservative thought, by repeating excuses for why you don’t remember or miss important details. You’re not helping.
Look your hatred for anything Reformed is well known, so I don’t expect any less than what you’ve done here.
But anything to divert attention from how little you actually remember.
Craig...
WHAT MEASURABLE METRICS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE DATA ON THAT WILL PROVIDE FOUNDATION FOR THE STATEMENT?
Something that demonstrates, with objective data, that by and large, humanity by and large, wants to have their "own happiness from rational constraints, moral constraints, judgments and feelings of shame..."
A survey that says, "We asked a test group if they wanted to be free from rational constraints, and 75% said they did." Same for moral constraints.
Do you seriously think that most people want to be free from rational and moral constraints? If so, you do so without anything more than your subjective opinion, largely informed (no doubt) by your religious views that all humans are utterly corrupt and not data.
I can safely say that I see no anecdotal evidence that 95% of my well-known acquaintances want this. (I know many folks with mental health problems and perhaps some of them would say this... but no one rational-thinking I know would say this. It's insane.
IF THE DATA IS PROVIDED FOR YOU, WILL YOU ACCEPT IT AND THE STATEMENT THAT YOU QUESTION?
If reliable data is provided, I always accept the evidence of demonstrable data.
If you can provide no data to support such claims, would you accept that it's a claim that's wholly unsupported by data?
Are you saying that most people you know personally (say even 60%) DON'T want to live within rational or moral constraints? If so, what sort of people are you surrounding yourself with?!
I've answered enough questions from you. Let's see if you'll do the same.
If you’re going to act is if others “assumptions” are wrong, then you’ll either need to demonstrate that those assumptions are wrong, or demonstrate that your assumptions are right. You can’t have it both ways.
One last problem with your dismissal of Zachariah and Wallace, is that by isolating one small bit of their total output you dismiss the foundation that this small part is built on.
For example, I’ve acknowledged that you’ve removed scripture from the realm of authoritative source, yet both men have done extensive work demonstrating that scripture is worthy of being taken as authoritative. The obvious problem is that you’ve decided (based on nothing but your seems) to ignore what they’ve done and declare it wrong without even bothering to pretend that it exists. I’ll grant you that the establishing your own set of rules is certainly arrogant, but cowardly.
He’ll, you’re favorite Jesus story ends with Jesus clearly condemning people to eternal torment, but if you won’t believe Him, you’re not going to believe anyone else.
That's the real problem with this guy. He'll rant all day long about conservative/traditional understanding is wrong, but he won't do anything to explain how, or worse, to explain how his "understanding" (in quotes because over the years, Dan has given much reason to doubt his ability to understand much) is more accurate or superior. Said another way, it's really easy to crap on the beliefs of others. Not so easy to explain why one is justified in doing so. Dan spends no time on the latter, while having no problem doing the former.
Why let research, investigation, evidence or facts get in the way of your assumptions.
Marshal... "He'll rant all day long about conservative/traditional understanding is wrong, but he won't do anything to explain how..."
The questions I'm asking ARE the problems I see. Even if you ultimately disagree, do you not see the problems the questions raise?
Which isn’t explaining how the “conservative positions” on everything are wrong. I believe you’ve called some “conservative positions” “blasphemy” and others “spiritually, morally, and rationally bankrupt”, yet you’ve offered no specifics and no proof. So even though no one will answer your question, you still have plenty of proof to provide.
If you can’t define an objective standard of morality, by what standard to you determine something to be objectively “morally bankrupt”?
Dan,
Once again, your questions are neither new or unique and have been addressed hundreds, if not thousands of times in just recent decades. To pretend your questions go unanswered requires at least some explanation for what's wrong with the attempts...and that means the most detailed and Scripturally supported answers. I've never seen you attempt such a thing. You simoly pretend the questions have gone unanswered.
As to what I see raised by your questions, the most obvious problem is your ongoing demand that God act in a manner that pleases you. If YOU think a response by God is unjust, you reject the response as not possible of a just God.
If you can’t define an objective standard of morality, by what standard to you determine something to be objectively “morally bankrupt”?
Even though NEITHER of us can authoritatively objectively prove moral questions, we can, nonetheless, appeal to reason as a reasonable measure of what is and isn't moral. As I have said countless times and which you can't dispute and, of course, why would you unless you're a moral anarchist (and Lord knows, you sure sound like it so much of the time when you're talking out of that side of your mouth).
Which isn’t explaining how the “conservative positions” on everything are wrong.
I can't tell if you all genuinely don't understand the moral dilemma your apparent positions pose and the great immorality and injustice that the traditionalists' portrayal of their god presents... if you don't understand it or if you do and just don't care (getting back to the moral anarchy you sometimes seem to represent).
The questions I raised are this
IF God is a moral and just God, then God won't act in an unjust manner.
IF you're saying (as traditionalists do) that God WILL punish the vast majority of humanity for being "sinners," and not only punish them but punish them with an eternity of torture... even though their "sins" are those rather typical of humankind, lies, cheating, gossip, slander, low grade theft (taking a pencil from work, for instance) or even just not recognizing Jesus as "the son of God," AND not acknowledging it with the right version/understanding of Jesus, then that presents a god who is vengeful and whimsical in punishment... not punishing justly in a manner proportionate to the crime, but in a vastly horrific way that despots and dictators might do, then you've presented a horribly unjust and unfair god who is cruel and irrational, the opposite of just and loving.
That is, if a sheriff found that a fifty year old man had spent the last 30 years of his life stealing pencils, telling lies, looking at lingerie ads in the Penney's catalog and even going above the speed limit by 20 mph... and then IF that sheriff said, "For these crimes, I'm going to kill you!" there would be great protests because the punishment doesn't fit the crime. There would be a huge outcry (well, unless it was a black man, but that's another topic).
And IF the sheriff said, NO, execution is not harsh enough for those petty crimes, I'm going to invent a drug that will let you live forever and then, I will burn you in a fire for all eternity for those petty crimes... THEN we would call that judge a monster.
Do you not recognize the awful picture of God traditionalists paint? I HAVE explained the problem with conservative thought, and there it is (or one part of it, anyway).
DO you not understand that this IS what is wrong with traditionalist thought?
Marshal... "Dan has given much reason to doubt his ability to understand much) is more accurate or superior. Said another way, it's really easy to crap on the beliefs of others. Not so easy to explain why one is justified in doing so. Dan spends no time on the latter, while having no problem doing the former."
Time on the latter:
The points I'm advocating:
1. that God is a just God and
2. that we can understand justice, if not perfectly, then at least reasonably well) and
3. Justice is good, desirable, something to work for and
4. that Justice includes punishment, BUT
5. that any just punishment should be proportionate to the offense and
6. if a punishment is wildly disproportionate to the crime, then it is no longer justice
These are reasonable, self-evident points that most rational and moral adults can agree with. IF a sheriff tries to torture you for the rest of your life for stealing 100 pencils and for telling lies and for speeding while driving, then we would rightly call that monstrous and NOT justice.
You are advocating an unjust and whimsical and monstrous god that would be like that sheriff, only the punishment would be an eternity of torture. This spits in the face of reason, morality and justice.
What about that are you failing to understand?
DO you not agree that sheriff who'd torture someone for an eternity for petty crimes is NOT acting justly?
"IF God is a moral and just God, then God won't act in an unjust manner."
And still you're demanding that God act on YOUR sense of what is just TO YOU, not on what He finds is just or unjust, worthy or not worthy of His wrath. Who are you to dictate to God, but one who is a fake.
"not punishing justly in a manner proportionate to the crime,"
And still you're insisting that God responds to YOUR criteria rather than His own. You demand that if YOU think shooting a spit wad at your classmate is petty, then God should regard it as petty as well and just blow it off. There's no way that God can be permitted by Dan to regard it as anything other than petty even if to God that act is a serious act of rebellion against HIM. (This is called "an analogy". Pay attention to how it works.)
God cannot be irrational just because YOU don't understand His rationale. For you to judge Him is not only irrational, but arrogant as hell. Literally.
"That is, if a sheriff found that a fifty year old man had spent the last 30 years of his life stealing pencils..."
That would mean you're an idiot for supposing the crime is stealing pencils. For us, that punishment would be over the top, but that's because the crime is a misdemeanor, even thirty years of it. But God wouldn't be punishing anyone for that, and no Christian who claims to have seriously and prayerfully studied the faith would ever make such a stupid and wildly apples/oranges comparison.
"Do you not recognize the awful picture of God traditionalists paint?"
No. I recognize how stupid "progressives" are in pretending that's the traditionalist view. Or how evil they are for trying to insist it is. Again, you fail to account for the vast difference between God and us. You dismiss it, in fact, presuming that God is required to abide the rules He laid out for us to follow.
"DO you not understand that this IS what is wrong with traditionalist thought?"
I understand that this is what's wrong with your understanding of traditionalist thought.
The points you're advocating again prove that you're judging God by human standards, not acknowledging that God is not like us and we are not like Him. And worse than insisting that God abide YOUR (or any human's) idea of justice ignores what is required of us to be judged by Him in a just manner...just on HIS terms, not yours. To be more specific, you have no understanding of the "crime" for which denial of salvation is the appropriate response. Hint: It ain't about stealing pencils.
"You are advocating an unjust and whimsical and monstrous god..."
Not at all. You lack understanding. My position is that you are keen on enabling sinful behaviors for which God has NEVER recanted His great displeasure and you liken those behaviors to "stealing pencils" so as to lessen their sinfulness.
"This spits in the face of reason, morality and justice."
Not at all, but you spit in God's face by presuming you can dictate what He should regard as moral and just.
"What about that are you failing to understand?"
How you cling to your poor and baseless understanding of God.
"DO you not agree that sheriff who'd torture someone for an eternity for petty crimes is NOT acting justly?"
I don't agree that it is proper to compare and earthly sheriff with God.
"So, it is your contention that God DID create humanity perfect?"
The only two indications we have are that God referred to humans as "very good", and that we were originally in direct community with God. So, while I'm not saying perfect is the most accurate word, I'm saying that it's incorrect to suggest that humanity was created sinful. Humanity was created with the ability to choose, (intrinsic to things like love) which is not the same thing.
"We are all perfect creations, that is your contention?"
Nope.
"Beyond that, you think that conservative Christianity contends that God created us as perfect human beings?"
I'm not in any way qualified to speak for "conservative Christianity" as a whole. I'll stick with the fairly common concept that there was a point where humanity "fell" from the state in which they were created.
"Am I misunderstanding that?"
I believe that you have taken things out of context and rephrased them in ways that are misleading, but that's not uncommon.
"Are you seriously suggesting I'm mistaken?"
No, I'm seriously suggesting that you are making assumptions about what "most people" believe and falling into the logical fallacy of arguing from numbers.
"I think God is perfect, or as perfect as our human understanding can fathom."
Amazingly efficient job of using weasel words.
"We are, as a point of observable reality, NOT perfect beings. We make mistakes. Our bodies fail us. Our minds fail us. Our reasoning fails us. We are not perfect human beings."
Yet the current state of humanity, is not necessarily exactly the same state humanity was created in.
"Do you think that we are perfect, or do you agree that we are ALL of us imperfect, as a point of fact?"
No, I have no suggested that humanity, in our current state, is perfect.
"If you agree with reality and acknowledge that we are imperfect, do you think God created us to be perfect and God failed?"
No, I think God created us with the ability to choose. Along with the ability to choose comes the ability to choose to sin.
"or is being imperfect just how God created us?"
No.
"That God wants us to be perfect, but didn't create us incapable of not being perfect?"
No.
"Traditionalists have described this as humanity having a "fallen, sinful nature." It's the reality of our condition."
Feel free to lump "traditionalists" into whatever box you choose. Having said that, your characterization aligns with scripture. The real question is not, "What do "traditionalists" believe, but are those beliefs correct or incorrect?". The assumption inherent in your statement is that the beliefs you attribute to "traditionalists" are false, yet you have not proven that. If "traditionalists" are correct, then it's completely appropriate to believe what "they" believe.
"Further, I'm guessing that most people would gladly acknowledge an inability to be perfect."
So.
"IF one believes that there is a creator God creating everything as part of a plan (as traditionalists believe), then God is creating us the way we are. It's part of this God's plan, since nothing is beyond God's plan. Do traditionalists think that God WANTS us to be imperfect? No, I don't think most would say that. But they do think God created us as we are, some even going so far as to say that some of us are created "for destruction," "ordained to do evil...""
I'll simply point out that you've pulled some quotes from scripture. The onus is on you to demonstrate the falsehood of scripture on this topic.
"Do traditionalists think that God WANTS us to be imperfect?"
Again, an example of you making assumptions about what a group thinks, without really defining the group or explaining why you assume a monolithic set of beliefs.
"A survey that says, "We asked a test group if they wanted to be free from rational constraints, and 75% said they did." Same for moral constraints."
So, you want something that is worded in exactly the way you want it worded and will accept nothing less.
The short answer is that I believe that modern Western society is becoming more and more open about wanting to be free from constraints. I've pointed out the phenomenon of "your Truth", that what is true for you, might not true for me, as an indicator. I've pointed out that the notion of subjective morality, is by definition a move away from constraint.
David Hume reasoned it this way. If knowledge is based ultimately on sensations, then morality too must derive from sensations-pain or pleasure. We call things good when they give us a certain kind of pleasure. We call them bad when they cause pain. Hume described morality is a matter of "taste and sentiment".
If you are denying the fact that Hume and others like have have had a significant effect on Western thought and the direction of society, then I can't help you. If you note, Hume's rubric focuses on individual sensations. It reduces morality to what makes me (as an individual) feel pleasure or pain. It seems reasonable that reducing morality to a matter of individual "taste and pleasure", would lead to the removal of constraints.
"I can safely say that I see no anecdotal evidence that 95% of my well-known acquaintances want this."
Because the "anecdotal evidence" based on an unspecific percentage of and undefined group, based on an unscientific methodology is always going to be convincing.
"If reliable data is provided, I always accept the evidence of demonstrable data."
Are you really sure you want to make this claim?
"If you can provide no data to support such claims, would you accept that it's a claim that's wholly unsupported by data?"
Whoah there. I asked you what kind of evidence you'd accept. The fact that I didn't provide you evidence to your vague standard, yet, doesn't give you the ability to leap ahead to this conclusion. The fact that you ignored the examples I've offered as possible metrics, tells me plenty about your preparation to accept evidence that doesn't support your prejudices.
"Are you saying that most people you know personally (say even 60%) DON'T want to live within rational or moral constraints? If so, what sort of people are you surrounding yourself with?!"
I'm saying that I see numerous examples (David Hume) of an increasing drive throughout Western society toward asserting individual autonomy as ultimate level of existence.
For example. There is an increasing movement to decouple legal family relationships from biology, and to replace that biological familial relationship with a family relationships based on contracts, not biology. This is one of a number of movements intended to separate reality from biology.
There are plenty of indicators that point toward a societal trend toward a self centric worldview. Unfortunately, you don't want to consider anything that isn't specifically worded the way you want.
"Even though NEITHER of us can authoritatively objectively prove moral questions, we can, nonetheless, appeal to reason as a reasonable measure of what is and isn't moral. As I have said countless times and which you can't dispute and, of course, why would you unless you're a moral anarchist (and Lord knows, you sure sound like it so much of the time when you're talking out of that side of your mouth)."
Thank you for acknowledging that you have absolutely no metric to declare anything to be "morally bankrupt". You can "appeal" some sort of undefined "reason" all you want, but it doesn't get you to "morally bankrupt".
Thank you for acknowledging that you can't demonstrate that the positions you declare to be "morally etc. bankrupt", are actually wrong.
"Do you not recognize the awful picture of God traditionalists paint? I HAVE explained the problem with conservative thought, and there it is (or one part of it, anyway)."
I'm aware of the picture you paint of what you believe is "traditionalist thought", yet I'm also aware that you haven't demonstrated that "traditionalist thought" is wrong, incorrect, or false. Your problem is in assuming that the fact that you see something as an "awful picture" somehow determines the accuracy or truth of what the picture depicts. Pictures of Auschwitz are "awful", really beyond awful, yet they depict Truth. When we see these awful pictures, we don't immediately dismiss the picture as wrong by default, we are forced to deal with the awful and determine our response. I'm much more partial to acknowledging the Truth in the awful picture, then trying to work against that awfulness. I certainly don't think, "That awful picture must represent something false." is a healthy response.
That's where you sit. Your assuming that because people you define as "traditionalists" believe something similar to "X", that "X" is wrong because "traditionalists" believe it. You've excluded the possibility that the folks you disagree with might be right. You haven't demonstrated that you are accurately representing their position. You haven't demonstrated with anything even approaching objective measurements that "X" is objectively wrong or the "non X" is objectively right. Your entire position becomes self refuting unless you expose your assumptions and anecdotes to the same level of scrutiny you demand of others. Simply asserting that "Y is reality." is facile and meaningless. As is relegating everything to the realm of opinion.
Which raises the question. If you won't do what you demand others do for you, why should others accede to your demands. Is the prospect of your ridicule really something you consider as a way to motivate others to answer questions you gave up on?
"DO you not understand that this IS what is wrong with traditionalist thought?"
Do you not understand that asserting that something is wrong, without having a standard of right and wrong (applied equally to all positions), is a meaningless statement. It's at best, an attempt to cloak your opinion in a threadbare coat of objectivity.
You claim that you are looking for answers to these questions, and that you haven't found them yet. Are you really suggesting that your failure to find answers means that answers don't exist? Or are you suggesting that your failure to find answers indicates that the positions that you are asking questions about are now falsified by your lack of answers. Isn't it possible that you have found the answers, but that you've rejected them because they don't fit your preconceptions?
Let's compare Ravi Zacharias' search for answers with Dan's and contrast the attitudes expressed.
"His (Zacharias') family was Anglican, but he was a "skeptic" until the age of 17 when he tried to commit suicide by swallowing poison. While he was in the hospital, a local Christian worker brought him a Bible and told his mother to read to him from John 14, which contains Jesus' words to Thomas the Apostle. Zacharias said it was John 14:19 that touched him as the defining paradigm, "Because I live, you also will live", and that he thought, "This may be my only hope: A new way of living. Life as defined by the Author of Life." He committed his life to Christ, praying that "Jesus if You are the one who gives life as it is meant to be, I want it. Please get me out of this hospital bed well, and I promise I will leave no stone unturned in my pursuit of truth."
"I promise I will leave no stone unturned in my pursuit of truth."
"Books? Absolutely not. I fear that modern conservative evangelicalism is a spiritually and too often morally and rationally bankrupt world view.", "And with conservative evangelicalism, I don't think that anyone is writing something contrary to the tenets of conservative evangelical teachings today than they were teaching 40 years ago. That's sort of the point of conservative evangelicalism: Don't trust new teachings that are saying something different than the old teachings.", "And just to be clear: NO, I'm not saying I can "remember the exact content of the books" I read back then. But I DO remember the gist of the teachings.", "Do I recall all (or even many) of the details of all these books? Absolutely not. I don't recall details on many books I have read. What difference does that make? Could I give great details of ONE book I read 50 years ago, when I was 7? Could I tell you the details of Tozer's or Ravenhill's books? I know that I read them because they wrote about holiness and revival and those were hugely important to me. Could I tell you details beyond that?"
I could continue, but I think the above is sufficient.
Could it perhaps be the case that the problem doesn't lie in the veracity of the claims made, but in the attitude and posture of the one seeking answers.
Dan,
If you really want answers, I have a suggestion. I took one of your questions and I copied it into this awesome thing called Google, and within seconds I had all sorts of potential answers to. "Who says people are in rebellion against God?"
https://lbf.church/what-makes-us-rebel-against-god/
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/9341
/Rebellion-against-God.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=d2JmDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT41&lpg=PT41&dq=Who+says+people+are+in+rebellion+against+God?&source=bl&ots=LDhym-0Ivi&sig=ACfU3U2cTBDLpPTjHm7NlpYmlcgfZ_sTjw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjc3vaP2NTpAhWQK80KHXM9CMcQ6AEwC3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Who%20says%20people%20are%20in%20rebellion%20against%20God%3F&f=false
https://jesusalive.cc/ques49.htm
https://www.openbible.info/topics/rebellion
To be clear, I just copied the first few links here to give you a sense of the power available to you to find the answers that you seek. I'm not saying that the precise answers you seek are in these links, but merely giving you an example of the possibilities available to you.
Last thought. You keep saying things like "If there were an answer, I would have found it.", but then you tell us that "traditionalists" answers are "morally (etc) bankrupt. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you HAVE found answers, but that you've judged those answers to be wrong?
Which, if that were the case, makes the whole "I've been searching really hard for answers for the last 50 years." narrative BS?
Oh, he's been searching, Craig. But he's not been searching for truth. He's been searching for validation of what he would prefer be true. The actual truth is inconvenient for him.
These are great responses to the goofy and deceitful positions put forth by Dan.
Since it's nigh unto impossible to get straight answers from you, this is probably going to be fruitless, but here's a question that might help get to the bottom of what you do and don't believe, and simultaneously point out the problem, as I understand it, with the conservative position of many modern evangelicals...
Suppose we have a man who dies at the age of 20 - a rational adult who is clearly beyond the age of understanding right and wrong. In his twenty years, he never "accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior," he never repented to God for his sins and just was uninterested in church. In those twenty years, he lived a fairly typical human life, with all the sins and errors of a typical person.
He told 200 lies;
he sped in his car 300 times, breaking that law;
he had sex outside of marriage 3 times;
he viewed Playboy magazines 100 times;
he took a pencil from school that wasn't his;
he said 1000 curse words (damn, shit, hell, etc);
he called in sick to work 10 times when he wasn't sick;
and, let's say, 10,000! such "sins" and mistakes and errors. He was no where near a perfect human, he committed the normal sins that many of us make in our life, along with some unique to him.
On the other hand, he never killed anyone, raped anyone, beat up anyone, assaulted anyone, abused a child, stole anything from anyone of any great value (took the pencil from school and similar actions, but nothing like stealing $20 from a store, even). His worst offense was he cheated on his girlfriend with another young woman, neither of which he was married to.
Not a perfect human at all, and he has committed hundreds (thousands?) of the "small sins" typical to humanity and none of the "big harmful crimes" that some humans do.
Now, the questions:
1. if a judge were to view his life and knew of ALL the misdeeds he did, and that judge decided to sentence him to a lifetime in prison for all those sins, would that response be just? OR would it be a great travesty and abuse of justice, a great injustice?
Clearly, it would be a great injustice.
Now, let's assume he died at age 20, with never "coming to Jesus." He meets God at the judgment seat:
2. Do you think it would be just and fair and reasonable for God to decide to sentence this man to an eternity of torture for those 10,000 sins and for failing to repent and ask Jesus into his heart?
Would that be just or would that be a great injustice, because the punishment is disproportionate to the crimes?
Anyone care to answer?
Is it not fair to say that they traditionalist evangelical response, the calvinist, Reformed response would be, "Yes, he DESERVES to be tortured for an eternity for those 10,000 sins..."?
If so, do you see who many rational, moral people would disagree with such a suggestion, NOT because we want to be free of rules, but because that response would be an affront to justice and reason and morality?
Just for giggles, looking at your first link above, Craig (What Makes Us Rebel Against God?" here is what they conclude their "arguments" with...
The next time you find yourself tempted to carry out an idea that is “better” than obedience to God, ask yourself two questions.
What leads me to believe that I have better facts and better judgment than the God who has called us to follow his word?
Am I valuing the opinions of other people over the opinion of the God who created me and rescued me through Jesus?
The problem with this is that the author is presupposing HIS HUMAN CONCLUSIONS about what is moral and what God wants are correct. For many of us who believe in God, the question is NOT "are we tempted to carry out an idea that we believe is better than God's..." The question is, "Do SOME HUMAN CONSERVATIVES really understand God's will on this point? Or, as we think is obvious, are they misunderstanding God's will and inserting their faulty human assumptions in place of God's will?"
IF they are citing "God IS okay with slavery sometimes, because we have instances with God commanding the enslavement of others at times in the bible," (for instance), we reckon NOT that God commands the enslavement of people at times, but rather that the Bible contains those stories, but that does NOT equate to God being okay with slavery at least in some circumstances.
That is, we disagree with THOSE HUMAN INTERPRETATIONS and guesses about what God wants or values because it is a strike against what is clearly moral and rational and taught by Jesus (for those of us who value Jesus' teachings) as the way of Grace.
Your first link is a bust, because it ultimately is an appeal to conservative human reasoning, not a definitive proof that we are all "in rebellion against God." We rebel against immoral human opinions and actions, NOT against God. That only serves to prove my point, not the other way around.
Marshal... "he's not been searching for truth. He's been searching for validation of what he would prefer be true. The actual truth is inconvenient for him. .."
Another stupidly false claim that ignores the reality that I was a conservative who only sought conservative truths from m conservative sources. I had no desire to "become liberal." But ultimately, the emphasis and desire to seek truth led me away what passes for conservatism these days. That is, I did not "prefer" ANY liberal ideas to be true. Why would I? I was a conservative.
But seeking truth has led me to what you consider to be liberal IN SPITE of my preferences, not because of them.
Pay attention to the facts and reality.
The question isn't whether or not you are "seeking truth", the question is. "Have you found truth?".
I think most reasonable people could agree that, on some points, I have found truth. It is a truth that love is stronger than hate. It is a truth that living a gracious life is preferable to not. It is a truth that working for justice, especially for the oppressed, is a good and moral thing to do, that it is practical for all of humanity. It is a truth that a world that abuses Justice and ignores Grace is a more hellish world.
I think most rational people could agree with all these truths. I suspect you and Marshal could agree with them, as well. We have all found these truths, even if we imperfectly put them in place.
Yes?
Dan,
As usual you set up these contrived and slanted hypotheticals intended to produce the result you want rather than any sort of real dialogue.
So, before I can answer your hypothetical I need some clarification.
RE the set up and question #1.
1. Who is the judge, and by what standard are they rendering judgement?
2. Define "small sins" and explain what makes sins "small" and "large"?
3. You seem to be saying that 500 sins per year isn't enough for punishment, what is the number that tilts the scales?
4. When you use the term "sin(s)", how are you defining the term? Who is being "sinned" against?
5. Can you explain why you are including traffic violations as "sins"?
6. You say he never killed, raped, etc. Did he ever get "angry with a brother or sister" or looked "at a woman lustfully"?
With those clear problems waiting to be addressed, I'll try a preliminary answer.
"1. if a judge were to view his life and knew of ALL the misdeeds he did, and that judge decided to sentence him to a lifetime in prison for all those sins, would that response be just?
No, it would be stupid. Why would a judge sentence a dead guy to life in prison? The reality is that there is no way to know if the sentence is just without knowing what the standards (We'd usually call them laws, commands, decrees, etc.", and what the proscribed penalty for breaking those laws was. As the question is asked there isn't enough information to really give a thorough answer.
I'll try a hypothetical. Let's say that the penalty for engaging in the sin of lying was 1000 lashes per lie. If this guy lied 200 times(knowing that lying is wrong and that it would be punished), and got 200,000 lashes, then the sentence is perfectly just. But since you've left that information out of your situation, I can only offer conjecture with many caveats.
"OR would it be a great travesty and abuse of justice, a great injustice?"
As I pointed out above, we have no way of knowing without knowing what the specific law said, and what the specified punishment for breaking that law was.
Now, to your #2.
2. Do you think it would be just and fair and reasonable for God to decide to sentence this man to an eternity of torture for those 10,000 sins and for failing to repent and ask Jesus into his heart?
All of the problems I pointed out with your #1 exist with your #2.
If you're asking me if I'm comfortable passing judgement on the God who created the universe and all that has ever existed, the God whose attributes include Justice and Mercy, Love and Wrath, (and many more), my answer is that I'm not comfortable calling YHWH unjust, unfair, or unreasonable. I think I can maybe make my point by asking some questions.
Is it "just, fair, and reasonable" for someone to be "in danger of the fire of hell." for saying "You fool"?
If the crime/sin is enumerated, and the punishment for that crime/sin is laid out, then isn't applying the enumerated judgement to the enumerated crime/sin literally the definition of justice?
I'm not aware of anyone who would seriously argue that "failing to repent and ask Jesus into his heart" is the reason why people would be sent to hell.
"Would that be just or would that be a great injustice, because the punishment is disproportionate to the crimes?"
If the punishment is enumerated along with the crime, then applying that punishment is just.
But, let's flip your hypothetical.
Let's take a person who has been abnormally sinful. His score sheet includes the following.
1,000,000 lies.
Harming others daily
Raping puppies repeatedly
10 murders, and 10,000 murders in his heart
15 rapes, 15,000 instances of looking lustfully at women
Damaging the environment
Taking food from the hungry
There aren't enough life sentences to be to adequately punish him for his crimes, and giving him the death penalty won't even begin to balance the scales of "fairness or justice". But let's say this guy goes before a judge and confesses his crimes, he sincerely and deeply repents, he stands before the court prepared for whatever the sentence might be. Then someone else steps up and says, "Punish me in his place, let him go free.", and the judge agrees. Is that "fair", is that "justice"?
To answer the question you asked, slightly reworded. If someone who has committed numerous crimes stands before the judge, unrepentant, unwilling to ask for mercy, unwilling to even admit that they'd done anything wrong, then punishing them according to the punishment enumerated for the crime is justice.
Dan,
This is what happens when you don't pay attention to what I write, but instead choose to ignore what I said and respond to your twisted version of what I actually said.
What I said.
"To be clear, I just copied the first few links here to give you a sense of the power available to you to find the answers that you seek. I'm not saying that the precise answers you seek are in these links, but merely giving you an example of the possibilities available to you."
Given that unarguable reality, it's clearly unreasonable to think that I was in any way suggesting that I was telling you that the perfect answer you claim to seek was specifically in any of those links.
Craig...
"1. Who is the judge, and by what standard are they rendering judgment?"
You're making this way too hard. In the first instance it was a human judge. And in the second situation, it was God, or at least, your understanding of God. Just read the words I wrote and respond to them.
"2. Define "small sins" and explain what makes sins "small" and "large"?"
Again, you're making this way too hard. Any rational person knows what I mean by small sins. Telling a lie because you're embarrassed to tell the truth. Taking a pencil from school. Cheating on your girlfriend. I gave examples, so that you could understand what is obvious. Small sins are those sins which have less impact and cause less harm. The normal sins that we all do everyday that don't result in death or hospitalization or great harm.
This isn't that difficult.
"3. You seem to be saying that 500 sins per year isn't enough for punishment, what is the number that tilts the scales?"
500 cents per year that have no great harm do not rate an eternity of torture as a punishment. Are you not familiar with the concept of proportionate response? You're making this way too hard.
"4. When you use the term "sin(s)", how are you defining the term? Who is being "sinned" against?"
Wrongdoing. Action that cause harm to others. In some cases, others might be sent against. In some cases the world itself or God God self might be sent against. In some cases, your own self might be send against.
You're making this way too difficult.
"5. Can you explain why you are including traffic violations as "sins"?"
Because speeding and other traffic offenses could result in harm. They regularly result in harm. To place one's own interest above others at the risk of harming others is selfish. Because of the potential for harm.
You're making this way too hard.
"6. You say he never killed, raped, etc. Did he ever get "angry with a brother or sister" or looked "at a woman lustfully"?"
Yes, let's say he did.
It's a fairly simple couple of questions. Just answer the questions.
Craig...
No, it would be stupid. Why would a judge sentence a dead guy to life in prison? The reality is that there is no way to know if the sentence is just without knowing what the standards (We'd usually call them laws, commands, decrees, etc.", and what the proscribed penalty for breaking those laws was. As the question is asked there isn't enough information to really give a thorough answer.
My apologies. The death of the 20 year old was for the second question (what should a Just God do with him?), in the first question, he was still alive. I'm sorry for that mistake.
But yes, there IS a way of knowing: If a system allowed imprisoning someone for life for minor (small or no damage) crimes and offenses, THEN that system is a corrupt and unjust system.
Do you disagree?
By what standard? Standards of justice! Look, I get that neither you nor I can definitively authoritatively prove what is and isn't perfectly justice, BUT, that does not mean that we as a world, as a society can't understand justice sufficiently well to know that killing someone for minor crimes in an injustice, because it is disproportionate to the crimes.
I don't think you are actually failing to understand what I mean by justice and what standards we're talking about, but here are some definitions/background information...
"Justice, In philosophy, the concept of a proper proportion between a person’s deserts (what is merited)
and the good and bad things that befall or are allotted to him or her.
Aristotle’s discussion of the virtue of justice has been the starting point for almost all Western accounts.
For him, the key element of justice is
treating like cases alike,
an idea that has set later thinkers the task of working out which similarities (need, desert, talent) are relevant.
Aristotle distinguishes between justice in the distribution of wealth or other goods (distributive justice)
and justice in reparation, as, for example, in punishing someone for a wrong he has done (retributive justice)."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/justice-social-concept
An action or punishment is unjust if it fails to give a person their due. If a person is punished by shunning for telling a lie in their family, that is perhaps an appropriate response to someone telling a lie. IF a person is punished by death for telling a lie, that is disproportionate to the misdeed.
Proportionate response. Giving a person their due in an appropriate amount.
Craig... The reality is that there is no way to know if the sentence is just without knowing what the standards
The standard is justice. It's an inexact standard because of your and my imperfect understanding of justice, but we can recognize its absence in the extreme. Someone being killed for telling lies is NOT just. If there are standards that allow for that in a given society, those standards are unjust.
Do you disagree?
Or are you saying that IF a society creates rules that say, "Yes, you can rape a woman and kill her by slow torture if she tells a lie..." then that is a just standard, because it's the standard the society created?
That is, of course, nonsense and poppycock.
Craig...
If you're asking me if I'm comfortable passing judgement on the God who created the universe and all that has ever existed, the God whose attributes include Justice and Mercy, Love and Wrath, (and many more), my answer is that I'm not comfortable calling YHWH unjust
But there, you're not talking about what God thinks or doesn't think. You're talking about what YOU THINK God thinks. There's a tremendous distinction. I'm asking if you're comfortable passing judgment on YOUR UNDERSTANDING of God, not on God. IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING and OPINIONS about what God thinks a just one?
Craig...
If the crime/sin is enumerated, and the punishment for that crime/sin is laid out, then isn't applying the enumerated judgement to the enumerated crime/sin literally the definition of justice?
Because JUST because a group (city, state, dictator...) says, "HERE Is the crime and HERE is the penalty for committing that crime..." does not make that law/rule Just. IF a society said, "IF a woman lies to a man, we may rape her and torture her to death as a penalty for that lie..." THEN that law is spelled out and the penalty is spelled out AND IT WOULD BE AN UNJUST LAW.
Do you agree or disagree?
Come on, this isn't hard. I'm making it as easy as possible.
Craig...
Is it "just, fair, and reasonable" for someone to be "in danger of the fire of hell." for saying "You fool"?
It is not unjust to say it. BUT, to implement an eternity of torment and torture as a punishment for saying the words, "You fool" is an affront to justice.
DO YOU DISAGREE?
That Jesus used that hyperbole in his words is NOT the same as Jesus making that argument. You know that, right?
Let's try this hypothetical, that's perhaps more reasonable.
The average life span of a human in the US is approximately 78 years. For the sake of the illustration let's acknowledge that God does have some sort of "age of accountability" and let's arbitrarily set that at 12. Further lets say that it's impossible for a child to sin in any way before they are three.
This leaves us with a lifespan of 28,470 days.
We'll subtract the 1,095 days between birth and 3.
Then we'll subtract the 3,285 days between 3 and 12.
That leaves 24,090/3,441/860 days/weeks/months of accountability, roughly.
So let's use Jesus' standards for some things and add lies.
If we accept Jesus standards for murder/anger and lust/adultery and calling people "fool" as specific things He called out and add lies.
Let's come up with some numbers.
Lies- 1 per day
Lust/Adultery- 1 per week
Anger/murder- 1 per month
Calling someone a "fool"- 1 per day
So, we get 9 years of a "free pass" which means
3,285 lies
3,285 "Fool"
470 Lust/Adultery
117- Anger/Murder
Total- 7157
Which leaves us with
24,090 Lies
24,090 "Fool"s
3,441 Lust/adultery
860 Anger/Murder
Total 54,101
If one look at that, then add just the rest of the 7 deadly sins (sloth, greed, pride, envy, gluttony), those numbers could easily double.
That means that we have a total of 61,618 total sins, with 7,157 that don't count.
Now, since were really only counting the ones big enough that Jesus mentioned them specifically and just one of those could result in suffering "the fires of Hell", I think we can safely say these aren't small sins. Then consider that Jesus (the only perfect/sinless human has pointed these out and discussed (at least in one case) specified a penalty.
So is a total of 61,618 "major" sins with 7,157 of them not counted against you "enough"? Isn't the 7,157 a significant amount of grace? Let's not forget that we're only totaling 4 of the 7 deadlies. If we apply the average, that gets the total up to 107,831 with 12,524 as "freebies".
I'm sure you'll quibble about the numbers, but that simply brings back the question. What's the number where eternal punishment becomes a "fair" or "just" punishment?
"This raises the question, for me, about the "punishment" part, then. Sure, an entity can withhold a gift, but is there also a punishment involved that the Creator (in this case) is placing upon the individual in question?"
This is an interesting thought/question. Let's start by defining the "gift" as "forgiveness of sin and life throughout eternity future lived in the very presence of the holy God who created the universes and everything in them. An existence with no pain, sorrow, sickness, etc.".
What you are saying is that you have absolutely no problem if God chooses not to give X number of people this gift. You think it's totally fair and just for God to only invite a percentage of humanity to get this "gift".
Which then means that you also have no problem with the rest of humanity either being eliminated or spending eternity future separated from even the evidences of God we see on Earth. Essentially, leaving X% of humanity in complete and utter isolation from any hint of God and His goodness or simply vaporizing them is "just" or "fair", as long as there's no "torture" you're good.
Which raises the question. If we look at the truly evil humans who've existed, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Guevara, Pot, Kahn, Manson, etc. Humans who have caused harm, suffering, destruction, and death far beyond any possible comprehension of what constitutes "fair" or "just" punishment. Essentially, you're saying that these folks don't deserve any punishment beyond what is meted out before they die. Since Hitler wasn't punished, I guess his punishment for genocide, torture, murder, destruction, and rape is just, nothing. Hitler gets off scott free in the grand scheme of things, does that seem "fair" to you?
I understand that you struggle with this, and that you'd probably be more comfortable with some level of universalism, but if you are going to hold that view you'll need to demonstrate that Jesus didn't mean what He said in the SOTM.
"You're making this way too hard. In the first instance it was a human judge. And in the second situation, it was God, or at least, your understanding of God. Just read the words I wrote and respond to them."
Well you answered 1/2 of the question. What is it about your words that makes them not subject to clarification?
"Again, you're making this way too hard. Any rational person knows what I mean by small sins."
The fallacy of appealing to numbers again. I was unaware that you and "Any rational person" defined the seriousness of sin. It's a pretty simple question, why dodge?
"500 cents per year that have no great harm do not rate an eternity of torture as a punishment. Are you not familiar with the concept of proportionate response?"
Impressive dodge. I didn't ask for your opinion on how much "harm" these sins did. Even if I had, you have absolutely zero way to accurately judge. Try answering please.
"Because speeding and other traffic offenses could result in harm. They regularly result in harm. To place one's own interest above others at the risk of harming others is selfish. Because of the potential for harm."
Yet, it's abundantly clear that speeding does not always (or even usually) cause harm. Are you really claiming that an act that MIGHT cause harm, yet also might be justified, is a sin even if it doesn't cause harm?
"Yes, let's say he did."
So, by Jesus' own words, this hypothetical guy committed adultery and murder. But it's just "small" sins.
Are you really claiming that an act that MIGHT cause harm, yet also might be justified, is a sin even if it doesn't cause harm?
I'm more comfortable calling it wrong, rather than a sin. It might be wrong but justified, for instance (i.e., I was running my wife to deliver our baby and sped in the process out of concern for her health) or wrong but reasonable, nonetheless, or wrong, but not that wrong, given the circumstances. But yes, someone drinking and driving, for instance, is wrong because of the harm it might result in.
Do you think that calling actions that might cause harm "wrong" or "a sin" is, itself, mistaken?
I am entirely unsure what you're trying to do with all your numbers of sins. But you raise this point...
Then consider that Jesus (the only perfect/sinless human has pointed these out and discussed (at least in one case) specified a penalty.
The question then is, Was Jesus speaking metaphorically in that one case or did he mean that literally, someone who calls another a "fool" SHOULD BE TORTURED FOR AN ETERNITY as a just punishment?
I say that is horrifyingly wrong and unjust.
Do you TRULy think that eternal torture is a just punishment for calling someone a fool?
???
REALLY?
Come on, answer that question.
re: the notion of "small sins..."
Do you SERIOUSLY not think that there is a huge and obvious difference between the sin of lying (saying, for instance, "I'm sick and can't come in to work" when you really want to go fishing) and the sin of murdering and raping a child?
IF you can't recognize the vast difference in the level of harm and thus, the relative difference in the size of the sin, you are an outlier. Yes, yes, yes, of course I know that in one sense, a sin is a sin is a sin.
But in another much greater and practical sense (in particular when we're talking about matters of justice and punishment), the size or import of a sin DOES matter greatly.
We don't place people in jail for life for lying about being sick. We DO place them in jail (or should) for murder and rape. The "size" or import of the sin DOES make a difference and it is obvious.
Do you not recognize this? If you do, then why do you prattle on nitpicking about what is obvious and what I obviously mean.
If, on the other hand, you TRULY in your own little mind, not "get" that there's a mountain of obvious difference between a lie to get off work and a murder of a child, then I don't know. Ask your wife or some reasonable person you trust. You need to educate your mind, if you don't understand the difference.
It's not about my words not being subject to clarification. It's about common sense and obvious talking points and presumptions that we bring to the table when talking about justice and punishment.
Craig... by Jesus' own words, this hypothetical guy committed adultery and murder. But it's just "small" sins.
NO. By YOUR INTERPRETATION of Jesus' words, you are missing the point when it comes to a discussion of justice and punishment. Jesus is literally NOT saying that such a person committed adultery and murder and should suffer the penalty for those crimes. It's clearly hyperbole to make a point.
Do you not get that?
But then, we can disagree about Jesus' intentions in this passage and neither of us can prove Jesus' intentions, so, why not just answer with YOUR answers to these questions?
"But yes, there IS a way of knowing: If a system allowed imprisoning someone for life for minor (small or no damage) crimes and offenses, THEN that system is a corrupt and unjust system. Do you disagree?"
Yes. For example, Islam (a belief system you have written about in a very positive manner) mandates cutting off a person's hand for any theft. So, if you"re a Muslim thief, you know it could cost you your hand if you get caught so how can you complain that it's unjust or not fair? Allah, through Mohammed, laid down the law and as a Muslim you submit to that law. You'll notice that there's no scale. Like maybe losing a finger for less than 5 drachmas, 2 fingers for 6-10 drachmas and so on.
The system may be harsh and uncompromising, but that doesn't automatically equate to corrupt and unjust.
A corrupt system would allow people to buy their way out of punishment, or paying to have others punished.
An unjust system would punish the innocent.
In your example, the guy is getting punished for what he'd done. That you think it's too harsh isn't objective, it's subjective opinion.
"The standard is justice. It's an inexact standard because of your and my imperfect understanding of justice, but we can recognize its absence in the extreme. Someone being killed for telling lies is NOT just. If there are standards that allow for that in a given society, those standards are unjust. Do you disagree?"
I don't necessarily disagree with your premise. Had you been less vague in the beginning it might have helped.
1. If justice is treating "equal" crimes/sins equally (a fiction but useful), then as long as all people who commit the same crime/sin are punished equally, then by your definition that is a just punishment.
2. You are confusing harsh with just.
3. You're ignoring the fact that a sin against God isn't strictly equal to committing a crime. For example telling a lie. Given God's repeated claims that He is Truth, it could be argued that a lie is literally an act of rebellion against the Truth. So, if you lie in a courtroom, you are guilty of a crime against that earthly authority and would be punished accordingly. Yet that same lie is also an offense against the God who is The Truth, I'd suggest that He's a higher level of authority than a judge, and that the punishment would therefor be greater.
The problem is that you're trying to rationalize sin down to some minimal number of "small" sins that you believe should get a lesser punishment (but I guess you're OK with some punishment). Yet, you can't won't define what counts as "small' and what the magic number is. Both pieces of information seem crucial to you trying to set standards for God.
"But there, you're not talking about what God thinks or doesn't think. You're talking about what YOU THINK God thinks. There's a tremendous distinction. I'm asking if you're comfortable passing judgment on YOUR UNDERSTANDING of God, not on God. IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING and OPINIONS about what God thinks a just one?"
Not at all. I'm not in any way shape or form trying to define "what God thinks". I'm saying that no matter what God actually thinks or what His standards are, I'm not in a position to pass judgement of God.
"Do you agree or disagree?"
Since I was quite clear in my earlier comments, and since I don't consider your unsupported assertions of any value, I still disagree. I'd have thought you were smart enough to figure that out on your own and to know that failing to provide anything more compelling than your opinions isn't going to make me stop disagreeing.
"It is not unjust to say it. BUT, to implement an eternity of torment and torture as a punishment for saying the words, "You fool" is an affront to justice. DO YOU DISAGREE?"
Do I disagree with your opinions and hunches about what Jesus really meant, without any offer of proof to support your hunch. Yes I do.
"That Jesus used that hyperbole in his words is NOT the same as Jesus making that argument. You know that, right?"
Proof? You're seriously trying to suggest that Jesus was trying to scare people like you (who freely call people the modern English equivalent of "fool") into compliance by threatening them with a wildly inappropriate punishment that He knew was a lie? Yup, that makes a ton of sense. It sounds like maybe you're trying to convince yourself that you're all good and safe from the "fiery" future.
So, you seem pretty confident that "500" "small" sins will keep you from the really bad punishment. Although you have yet to offer proof that this is likely, let alone True. But, let's go down this road.
What level of punishment does "500" "small" sins qualify for under your much more just system?
If 500 small sins is two low, what about 5,000 smalls, 500,000 smalls, 5,000,000 smalls, at what point does racking up small sins get big punishment?
If 500 small sins gets little or no punishment, how many big sins equal the 500 small sins punishment?
Is there a number of big sins that would qualify for being "in danger of the fire of hell."?
What's the number that guarantees you the "the fire of hell."?
The system may be harsh and uncompromising, but that doesn't automatically equate to corrupt and unjust.
So, you are ENTIRELY COOL with a system that rapes and tortures a woman for lying to a man, as long as it is codified in their law, it's a "just" response to you?
If so, then you are one sick, sad soul in possession of a depraved mind.
I don't think you think this is true, but you tell me.
And no, I'm not confusing "harsh" with "just." In the rational philosophical discussion of Justice and Punishment, there is the notion of proportionality. IF a punishment is disproportionate to the crime, then the punishment is not just.
Do you seriously disagree?
"Thus, the Court applied a simplistic lex talionis, eye for an eye, retribu-tive definition of what constitutes grossly disproportional punishment.If Robinson could be read as invoking a retributive answer to the ques-tion, "Who may be punished?," Coker seemed to provide a retributiveanswer to the related question, "How much punishment may be im-posed?" A potential lesson from Robinson and Coker was this: punishment may not exceed in severity the harm caused by the offender(Coker); and a person may not be punished more severely than her personal desert (Robinson)."
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1645&context=ndlr
I'm saying that no matter what God actually thinks or what His standards are, I'm not in a position to pass judgement of God.
But God is not here in the sense of clarifying what God's opinion on matters are. Thus, when ONE HUMAN contends that God thinks something, it is appropriate for us to weigh and measure and respond to that human's understanding of what God thinks.
IF a human thinks that God or Allah is cool with rape and torture of a woman for lying to a man, and that this is a just response, there is a great onus on humans to rebuke such opinions in the name of Justice, as best we understand it.
Do you disagree?
What's the number that guarantees you the "the fire of hell."?
I'm not a believer in a literal hell, so I'm not the right one to ask that. There is NO number of sins that "sends you to an eternal hell of torture and death" because such a place is irrational and thus, non-existent.
Which is why I'm asking YOU (presumably you DO believe in
a. a hell of eternal torment/torture
b. for the vast majority of humanity for
c. punishment of their sins,
...yes?)
...it's why I'm asking if YOU think it is just to send this 20 year old "sinner" who has not engaged in any hugely harmful crimes like murder, rape, oppression, etc, but has engaged in sins more typical of humanity to an eternity of torture for those sins OR if you think that would be an affront to justice, which includes the notion of proportionality?
Let me ask another question that might help? DO YOU even believe in the notion of proportional justice? Or, for you, if a 15 year old girl tells a lie to a man, then punishing that sin by rape and torture then death is NOT necessarily unjust, even though wildly disproportionate?
Good Lord.
What you are saying is that you have absolutely no problem if God chooses not to give X number of people this gift. You think it's totally fair and just for God to only invite a percentage of humanity to get this "gift".
No, that is not what I'm saying. For everything you THINK I'm saying, just preface it with, "But then, that's probably not what you mean..."
You're seriously trying to suggest that Jesus was trying to scare people like you (who freely call people the modern English equivalent of "fool") into compliance by threatening them with a wildly inappropriate punishment that He knew was a lie?
I've not called people fools. I've been called a fool and much worse by your conservative types, but I've not called you all fools. I HAVE called ideas and actions and attitudes foolish and rebuked them and called the ACTIONS and attitudes and comments damnable or an abomination or blasphemous, but that's speaking directly to words and actions and ideas, NOT the individuals involved.
For instance, those who'd suggest that God is an angry god who is unable to forgive sin without a blood sacrifice and that such a god is so angered by sin that this god would respond by sending a 20 year old to be tortured for an eternity for relatively smaller sins... THAT attitude/idea/suggestion is portraying God in a blasphemous way, suggesting that God is not a God primarily of love and justice, but an irrational and whimsical god who strikes out in anger and acts in an unjust, monstrous way.
I'm condemning the idea being promoted, not the person's Self.
"So, you are ENTIRELY COOL with a system that rapes and tortures a woman for lying to a man, as long as it is codified in their law, it's a "just" response to you?"
Not at all. Pointing out the reality that harsh does not equal unjust doesn't express or imply approval of either. Just pointing out that reality.
"I'm more comfortable calling it wrong, rather than a sin."
Yet you chose to call it a sin.
"Do you think that calling actions that might cause harm "wrong" or "a sin" is, itself, mistaken?"
I don't have a problem with wrong, I was simply using the language you chose to use. If you chose poorly, perhaps the issue is your word choice, not my using the word you chose.
"Do you disagree?"
Again, if my original statement disagreed with you hunch and all you do is restate your hunch with no actual proof, then it's probably safe to conclude that I still disagree with you. What you're doing is arguing against something I've never said.
"'m not a believer in a literal hell, so I'm not the right one to ask that. There is NO number of sins that "sends you to an eternal hell of torture and death" because such a place is irrational and thus, non-existent."
I have to note that you've shifted from providing proof that Jesus didn't mean what His words clearly say, to making clams based on your unproven hunches. Nice try.
"What's the number that guarantees you the "the fire of hell."?"
Let's try it this way, since you've been really dodging this notion of what you believe is appropriate punishment.
What's the number of sins that guarantees someone whatever your version of the most significant punishment appropriate?
To answer your question very simply, I do believe what scripture tells us about sin, the fallen nature of man, the redemptive gift of Christ, and eternal punishment and reward.
"..it's why I'm asking if YOU think it is just to send this 20 year old "sinner" who has not engaged in any hugely harmful crimes like murder, rape, oppression, etc, but has engaged in sins more typical of humanity to an eternity of torture for those sins OR if you think that would be an affront to justice, which includes the notion of proportionality?"
What I think. What I think is that I doesn't sound to my sinful, imperfect, limited, human mind like it's particularly fair by my flawed standards. I also think that your hypothetical is slanted, and unrealistically biased toward getting the response you are searching for. I further believe that my opinion about this is simply not at issue and really doesn't mean anything.
"Let me ask another question that might help? DO YOU even believe in the notion of proportional justice? Or, for you, if a 15 year old girl tells a lie to a man, then punishing that sin by rape and torture then death is NOT necessarily unjust, even though wildly disproportionate?"
Yes. My opinion about your absurd hypothetical is that it is absurdly exaggerated to produce the answer you want, not honest dialogue. Having said that, ,my opinion is that the punishment is overly harsh, and disproportionate.
"No, that is not what I'm saying. For everything you THINK I'm saying, just preface it with, "But then, that's probably not what you mean...""
Then explain how what I quoted doesn't mean what it says? Hint, we've already seen that your word choice causes problems, don't assume that the error isn't yours.
"I've not called people fools."
Really, never? Of course you've called me worse. But that's just your situational literalism in play when it benefits you.
"I am entirely unsure what you're trying to do with all your numbers of sins. But you raise this point..."
Then you're just being obtuse. You offered a slanted, biased, hypothetical aimed at forcing the response that mirrors your opinion. I've offered a more realistic hypothetical, in the hopes that you'd be willing to stop hiding and actually take a stand.
"Then consider that Jesus (the only perfect/sinless human has pointed these out and discussed (at least in one case) specified a penalty. The question then is, Was Jesus speaking metaphorically in that one case or did he mean that literally, someone who calls another a "fool" SHOULD BE TORTURED FOR AN ETERNITY as a just punishmentI say that is horrifyingly wrong and unjust."
I say that your hunch has absolutely no value to the discussion, and in this case is just a dodge so you don't have to deal with the fact that Jesus was quite clear about how He looked at sin, and setting a much higher standard. It points out the flaw in your hypothetical, unless you are going to try to suggest that a 20 year old had NEVER lusted or been angry.
"Do you TRULy think that eternal torture is a just punishment for calling someone a fool??? REALLY?"
I think that like many things Jesus taught, including His teachings about murder and adultery, aren't about adopting a wooden literal attitude (as the Pharisees did). That's he's not just about using the word raca (vain, empty, worthless, only found in. The Jews used it as a word of contempt. It is derived from a root meaning "to spit."). So you're hollow boast "I've never called anyone a fool" is likely both wrong factually, as well as an attempt to use a maximally narrow, wooden, literal interpretation to benefit your self. So, no I think (like his expansion of adultery and murder) that this goes beyond simply not using one specific word.
Come on, answer that question. Done.
"I think most reasonable people could agree that, on some points, I have found truth. It is a truth that love is stronger than hate. It is a truth that living a gracious life is preferable to not. It is a truth that working for justice, especially for the oppressed, is a good and moral thing to do, that it is practical for all of humanity. It is a truth that a world that abuses Justice and ignores Grace is a more hellish world.
I think most rational people could agree with all these truths. I suspect you and Marshal could agree with them, as well. We have all found these truths, even if we imperfectly put them in place.
Yes?"
Sure, as long as you don't expect anyone beyond yourself to agree that those things are true outside of you and your preferences.
Last night, I saw hate triumph over love. Just one instance of many.
"Do you SERIOUSLY not think that there is a huge and obvious difference between the sin of lying (saying, for instance, "I'm sick and can't come in to work" when you really want to go fishing) and the sin of murdering and raping a child?"
That's quite a way to dodge the actual question you were asked. But, yes there is a difference in harm to the other person between the two. However, if we look at these as sins against God, then perhaps God might view things differently than you. Unfortunately, the point isn't so much about comparing disparate sins, as about trying get you to actually answer the questions I've asked. Clearly, I'd suggest that it's absolutely absurd to pretend that a person's eternal destiny is dependent on one single cherry picked sin, out of an entire lifetime. I know it's important to you that you maintain as much vagueness as you an.
I"F you can't recognize the vast difference in the level of harm and thus, the relative difference in the size of the sin, you are an outlier. Yes, yes, yes, of course I know that in one sense, a sin is a sin is a sin."
So, after you unload, you admit that I'm right.
"But in another much greater and practical sense (in particular when we're talking about matters of justice and punishment), the size or import of a sin DOES matter greatly. We don't place people in jail for life for lying about being sick. We DO place them in jail (or should) for murder and rape. The "size" or import of the sin DOES make a difference and it is obvious."
See, you keep moving back and forth between the notion of a sin (violation of God's law) and crime (violation of man's law) in an attempt to obscure your lack of specificity.
"Do you not recognize this? If you do, then why do you prattle on nitpicking about what is obvious and what I obviously mean."
Must be nice to be so proud of yourself that you believe that you are incapable of communicating poorly. I do appreciate your invitation to make assumptions about what you "obviously mean".
"If, on the other hand, you TRULY in your own little mind, not "get" that there's a mountain of obvious difference between a lie to get off work and a murder of a child, then I don't know. Ask your wife or some reasonable person you trust. You need to educate your mind, if you don't understand the difference."
Misrepresenting what I've said and arguing against that misrepresentation is usually not a great plan.
"It's not about my words not being subject to clarification. It's about common sense and obvious talking points and presumptions that we bring to the table when talking about justice and punishment."
It's more about you being unwilling to answer my question repeated multiple times.
"Craig... by Jesus' own words, this hypothetical guy committed adultery and murder. But it's just "small" sins. NO. By YOUR INTERPRETATION of Jesus' words, you are missing the point when it comes to a discussion of justice and punishment."
No, I'm reading the literal words and applying the standard English definitions, grammar, and syntax to those words.
"Jesus is literally NOT saying that such a person committed adultery and murder and should suffer the penalty for those crimes. It's clearly hyperbole to make a point."
Really, provide some proof of this claim.
"Do you not get that?"
I get that you just stated an unsupported, unproven, hunch as a fact.
"But then, we can disagree about Jesus' intentions in this passage and neither of us can prove Jesus' intentions, so, why not just answer with YOUR answers to these questions?"
Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself? You can't assert that something is "literally NOT saying that such a person committed adultery and murder and should suffer the penalty for those crimes.", then argue that the same statement is one that "neither of us can prove". It's the Law of Non Contradiction.
My answer is that I'm going with the clear direct words of Jesus, not your hunch. My opinions don't really carry much weight when I'm being asked to pass judgement on Jesus?
"Another stupidly false claim that ignores the reality that I was a conservative who only sought conservative truths from m conservative sources. I had no desire to "become liberal." But ultimately, the emphasis and desire to seek truth led me away what passes for conservatism these days. That is, I did not "prefer" ANY liberal ideas to be true. Why would I? I was a conservative."
So here you validate my conclusion that you were never conservative. A conservative doesn't seek "conservative" truths. A conservative seeks only truth. And having found truth and then abiding it, one proves one's self conservative.
"But seeking truth has led me to what you consider to be liberal IN SPITE of my preferences, not because of them."
You reject truth you find inconvenient or troublesome to understand. You were never conservative before and you haven't shown you understand what conservatism is now. You're liberal/progressive/socialist because of the falsehoods to which you cling and the truths you reject.
The rest of your tap-dancing reveals your inability to think and reason. You continue to embrace nonsensical notions and make it worse by continually speaking in extremes that color and prejudice the positions of your opponents. But even with your evil attempts to make Craig's (and my) position weak, you still ignore the reality:
If a punishment is harsh, that's a subjective opinion, not proof of injustice. If the harsh punishment is equally applied to all who break the law for which that punishment is proscribed for the guilty, the justice is served. Even your citation regarding punishment being no more harmful than the crime is a subjective position. We may all agree on it being the proper way to set punishments, but it's still subjective nonetheless. That is, I may indeed object to punishing a lying woman by raping and beating her, but if all lying women are punished in the same way, then justice was served.
I would also submit that there's a difference between punishments set by a single person...say, a king...versus punishments set under a system of government like ours, where the government is the people. If the people agree to a punishment, and the punishment is equally applied to all who commit the same crime, then justice is served. Again, one's feelings about the severity of the punishment is irrelevant because not everyone will agree with whether or not a given harsh punishment is suitable. There's one person who likely never to agree about the severity of a punishment, insisting it isn't just or proportional, and that's the convicted. There's an opposite opinion usually held by the victim or the victim's survivors. Look at the family of this Floyd fellow in the recent case. They want all four cops charged with murder. But only one cop was kneeling on his neck. They all aren't equally culpable, but they want them all charged nonetheless. The victim will almost always believe more should be done to the perpetrators.
Your believe that a punishment doesn't fit the crime is not proof of injustice. It's proof only of your opinion regarding the severity of the punishment.
Now I want to add to Craig's reversing of your goofy analogy. Rather than someone from the crowd stepping up to take the place of the convicted, it would be the judge himself who takes the convicted's place. That's the reality of Christ's sacrifice. Christ/God is our judge and He gave of Himself for our sins. The underlying point, however, is the same. Is that justice that someone else should take the heat? Is justice truly served by that act?
And of course, Dan, you refuse to acknowledge the reality that God is not human, nor that you have any justification for presuming He would act like a human to that which displeases Him. What's more, you look at the magnitude of the sin, while forgetting the most important element that determines how one is judged...the acceptance of Christ as one's Savior. THAT is what determines our guilt before God. It is all over the Gospels that the only way to God is through Jesus and there's no getting there without Him. Thus, if one rejects God or Jesus, one's behavior is irrelevant.
So what of death-bed conversions? By your self-serving reasoning, the worst person imaginable coming to Christ moments before passing is not saved from God's wrath? Most people view such a thing as a grave injustice. Do you agree? If so, then you truly have no understanding of Christianity and God's justice. You think it's about stealing pencils versus murder and mayhem. It's not about either, but about what either means regarding one's relationship with God. It's sinning against Him that counts, not sinning against another person. One can sin against God without ever harming a living soul. One can't harm a living soul without also sinning against God.
It's also interesting that you reject the notion of hell, something about which Christ spoke often. Seems clear HE believed in it and He described it as everlasting. But since you reject truths you find inconvenient of difficult to resolve in your black soul, I'll simply point you to this good explanation, knowing you'll reject it as well:
https://www.redeemer.com/redeemer-report/article/the_importance_of_hell
Clearly, to you everyone gets a trophy.
I've been trying to get answers for quite some time, so I'm going to ask some questions differently to try to get clear, direct answers.
1. According to you, is there any existence beyond our physical life on earth?
2. According to you, Is there any level, number, or type of sin that results in any sort of punishment beyond our physical existence?
3. If #2 is yes, is there a graduated punishment based upon an accumulation of "small sins" that would rise to the level of punishment for a "large" sin or sins?
4. If you answered #3, what (approximately) are the magic numbers that trigger the various levels of punishment.
5. If you really believe that making one's life "hell on earth" is the extent of the consequences or punishment for sin, please state that clearly?
Art,
I agree with you vis-a-vis the Judge taking the accused's place. I chose not to add that because I was trying to focus on the concept not specifics. Thanks for pointing out the fact of that example being ignored. There's a lot to keep up with and I haven't been able to focus on what's been responded to, not what's been missed.
While waiting still (always) for clear direct answers to my questions, I'll answer these from you, just because, why not...?
1. According to you, is there any existence beyond our physical life on earth?
Yes. Which is to say, I BELIEVE so, BUT I have no way to prove it, as none of us do.
It's something we can't prove one way or the other and something we can't say what it will be like in any authoritative, objective manner, as we have no data to confirm what we might guess about the "afterlife."
2. According to you, Is there any level, number, or type of sin that results in any sort of punishment beyond our physical existence?
I don't know the answer to that, as none of us do. It is a question with NO authoritative objective answer to, just guesses.
I BELIEVE that sin/doing wrong has negative repercussions for the sinner and those around them. Here and now. I believe that much is demonstrable. As to any guesses about "punishment from beyond..." I have no objective answers. No one does.
Do you recognize that reality?
I BELIEVE that we can choose to separate ourselves from God and God's realm and that some people do so, clearly, in the here and now. Will that continue in the afterlife? I'd guess so, but again, none of us have a way to prove it or what that might look like.
3. If #2 is yes, is there a graduated punishment based upon an accumulation of "small sins" that would rise to the level of punishment for a "large" sin or sins?
#2 is not yes. I BELIEVE (but none of us can prove) that a Just God would administer any punishments for wrongdoing in a JUST manner. If there is a god in the afterlife that administers whimsical punishments without any care for Justice and proportionality, then that god is not a just god, and I don't believe in the existence of a mystical god of vengeance/wrath that is not just.
4. If you answered #3, what (approximately) are the magic numbers that trigger the various levels of punishment.
No magic numbers. We don't know what will happen in the afterlife or how God may or may not judge us. If God is just, as I believe, then I trust that God to judge us in a just manner, not in an exceedingly vengeful, irrational and harsh manner.
5. If you really believe that making one's life "hell on earth" is the extent of the consequences or punishment for sin, please state that clearly?
It is the consequence that we know of with certainty. God has not told us specifically what Judgment will or won't look like, not in any authoritative, objective sense. I DO recognize that many humans have HUMAN OPINIONS about what their guesses are about that, and I further know that many of these humans elevate their opinions about this to "God's Word," but I believe such attitudes or claims are misplaced and wrong and, if there's a just God, that God will hold such hubris accountable.
But what that looks like, we have no way of knowing.
I don't think it will go well for the oppressors and Pharisees of the world, that's my opinion.
Do you recognize that you have no authoritative way of knowing what judgment in the afterlife would look like?
Not that I expect you to answer my questions.
Craig...
You offered a slanted, biased, hypothetical aimed at forcing the response that mirrors your opinion.
BS. I have offered a TYPICAL and practical real world example. The reality is that most humans don't engage in the especially harmful/oppressive sins like murder, rape, theft, abuse, etc. The reality is that some people die at 20 having engaged in, we don't know, but let's say thousands of "little sins..." SOME of those sins are bad enough. Cheating on your wife! Wow, the damage that causes! It's horrible. Don't mistake my categorizing "little sins" to mean that they are meaningless. Some of them are quite painful to others. Some are painful to us. But still, if someone had engaged in thousands of "smaller" sins with the worst being cheating on their wife... IF someone suggested that a JUST punishment for those sins is an eternity of torture, that person sounds like a monster because they're missing the justice point of proportionality.
IF one is supporting/advocating punishment disproportionate to the deeds, THEN they are advocating AGAINST justice, not in favor of it.
So, give that my example is a practical and realistic real world scenario that is no doubt more normative than the Hitlers of the world, in what possible way is my using that scenario slanted or biased? It's slanted towards reality and biased towards an accurate representation of reality!
Marshal... If the harsh punishment is equally applied to all who break the law for which that punishment is proscribed for the guilty, the justice is served.
Again, are you two entirely unfamiliar with the concept of proportionality in dealing with Justice and punishment?
IF a punishment is sufficiently disproportionate to the crime,
THEN those doling out the punishment are NOT being just.
They are acting in opposition to justice.
It doesn't matter if they are consistently doling out unjust, disproportionate punishments, it's still unjust.
Just please answer: Are you not familiar with the concept of proportionality in questions of justice?
I hear ya. I'm happy the conversation is taking place on my off days. It's so much more difficult to keep up on my work days.
Dan,
Then what in the hell are you arguing about. You’ve just acknowledged that you have absolutely nothing other than unsupported hunches to assert. If you if you can’t make a positive, evidence based, case FOR your position being correct, and you acknowledge that you have absolutely zero grounds to assert that the orthodox Christian understanding of creation, fall, and redemption is wrong, then what in the world are you arguing about.
If you want answers to your questions try Google, William Lane Craig, Warner Wallace, Ravi Zachariahs, to start. This recent nonsensical, babble, isn’t worth any further effort on my part.
I’m sure you’ll try the usual attempts to use ridicule and attempts to shame as a desperate attempt to force things.
No, Craig. I did NOT say I had "nothing but unsupported hunches to assert."
I'm saying NEITHER of us can authoritatively, objectively prove what happens in the afterlife or what God wants us to do about justice, authoritatively speaking. BUT, I can certainly make the case that raping and torturing a woman for the crime of lying to a man IS NOT a just punishment. It is vile and reprehensible and anyone advocating this is NOT advocating justice.
Saying I can't prove what happens in the afterlife (nor can you) doe snot mean I have only "unsupported hunches." Ideas can be supported rationally even if not objectively provably.
There are some truths that are self-evident.
DO you actually disagree?
Dan,
How about you stop making authoritative pronouncements about anyone but yourself.
If you want to admit that you’ve got nothing, go ahead. But I’m the absence of you even claiming the ability to prove your hunch, you open the door for any other hunch being just as likely as yours.
You keep saying you can support your hunches, without actually doing so, and your hunches are so amorphous and vague that it’d be futile to even try.
Yes, I disagree with your unproven, vague, amorphous hunches. Mainly because there’s nothing substantial to agree with.
If you disagree, then say it directly. Say...
"I, Craig don't agree that it is overtly obvious that raping and torturing a woman for the crime of lying to a man is an atrocity against Justice. It is NOT unjust to do something like that, not necessarily. If, after all, they have rules they apply to everyone the same way, then raping and torturing a woman for lying to a man is just."
I don't believe you're that much of a monster and actually hold that belief, but if you do disagree with me, then say so in those words. Declare proudly your ignorance of what is and isn't just. Then we can put to bed any notion that you have a single idea what you're talking about.
How about you stop making authoritative pronouncements about anyone but yourself.
Here IS an authoritative pronoucement about you:
YOU CAN NOT PROVE OBJECTIVELY, AUTHORITATIVELY WHAT HAPPENS IN THE AFTERLIFE. You just can not do it as an objective fact.
IF YOU COULD, you would. But you can't and everyone can see that. THIS is an authoritative, factually reliable observation.
If you disagree, then ALL you have to do is prove it.
You can't.
If you think otherwise, you are delusional on that point.
Oh crap, stop with the demanding that work parrot your words back to you. It just makes you look desperate for control.
Trying to force me to parrot your words and making pronouncements for me. Obsessed with control often.
"Again, are you two entirely unfamiliar with the concept of proportionality in dealing with Justice and punishment?"
Quite familiar. You're clearly not familiar with the concept of subjectivity in determining appropriate punishment, and the difference between that an the equal application of whatever punishment is deemed appropriate. And as with God, you're presuming you have the perfect understanding of what is appropriate based on YOUR subjective opinion on the issue. Again, said another way, you're confusing the degree of harshness with just punishment. You're presuming that what is an affront to you must be an affront to all others and what isn't an affront to you shouldn't be regarded as a serious offense by anyone else. Who are YOU to say that I should regard one crime as more serious than another? To God, rejecting Him is a big deal whether you think it's deserving of eternal punishment or not.
Moving on to other idiocies, you continue to prove you're a fake Christian when you continue to speak of doubt about what we can or cannot know about the afterlife. As a Christian, I may not be able to prove there is one, but I can't be much of a Christian if I live as if there isn't any, or don't have the stones to defend the fact that there is. And yes, I said "fact" because I believe it's true. I believe it's true because Jesus speaks about the afterlife often in the Gospels, more often about hell. So whatever hell is, it exists in some form or fashion because I'm pretty sure that Jesus doesn't lie. And even if He's speaking metaphorically, He's speaking of the afterlife and the consequences of our belief in and obedience to God. And all available evidence proves that the most Christian-like person in the world ain't going to heaven if he rejects God.
So proportionality on earth in civil law (in the western world) has nothing to do with God's justice even if it's absolutely eye-for-an-eye proportional. Your whole argument being based on civil law is worthless in dealing with God's justice.
No, Marshal. My whole argument is not based on civil law, it's based on rational understandings of Justice as understood by right-thinking, moral and rational people.
I'm sorry you all are apparently blind to understanding it.
Art,
Dan's whole argument isn't based on civil law, nor is it based on Biblical law, nor is it based on Christ's commandments. It's based on his rational understanding of justice (although his silence on the issue of justice for those harmed by the rioters raises questions), filtered through people who agree with him, and people who he has decided are "right thinking".
The reason why we can't understand it is because it's completely based on his hunches.
I'll note the term "right thinking". The term clearly (at at minimum) implies that those who think as he does are "right" and that every one else is wrong.
right-thinking: having acceptably proper or correct convictions, beliefs, etc.
Right-true or correct as a fact.
Wrong-not correct or true; incorrect
As we see from the definitions, the very term "right" or "right thinking" (at a minimum) suggests a high degree of objectivity. It seems reasonable to assert that if something is "correct" you are referring to objective correctness.
So, Dan's wording is suggesting that he "and the mice in his pocket" have thinking that is objectively correct, he is usually skittish about asserting that he's objectively correct about anything. He's skittish because such an assertion would require (according to the standards he expects of everyone else) to provide objective proof of his claim. As we know objective proof and Dan go together like vampires and wooden stakes.
Craig... "Dan's whole argument isn't based on civil law, nor is it based on Biblical law, nor is it based on Christ's commandments. It's based on his rational understanding of justice (although his silence on the issue of justice for those harmed by the rioters raises questions), filtered through people who agree with him, and people who he has decided are "right thinking".
The reason why we can't understand it is because it's completely based on his hunches."
No, not on my hunches. But yes... My positions are based on reasoned, rational thinking about moral questions. My reasoning is informed by the data, as well as by great teachers, including Jesus my Lord.
Likewise, your opinions are formed by your reasoning and those teachers you consider important. We are all using our reasoning to reach our conclusions. It's just that some of us, are reasoning is rather shallow and would make room for saying that we can't understand Justice and that a system that oppresses and tortures others is a legitimate system, as long as it is spelled out in their laws. I would say the great thinkers, philosophers and others, like me, who agree with them, we call that insane and immoral and irrational.
Are you trying to suggest that you are not using your reasoning and logic? That would explain a lot.
"No, not on my hunches. But yes... My positions are based on reasoned, rational thinking about moral questions."
Yes, your positions are based on your hunches about what you think "reasoned, rational thinking" about moral questions is.
"Are you trying to suggest that you are not using your reasoning and logic?"
Nope.
I have to notice that you haven't acknowledged the overreach/falsehood involved in your "right thinking" claim, although I note that you essentially concede my point by changing your terminology,
I find it interesting that in your "moral code" based on your "do no harm" construct, you have no room to unleash your vitriol on a group of people who are actively causing innocent people actual harm.
Perhaps you missed the rioting exception, or the I can't tell "black folks" that harm is immoral when they're rioting clause.
On the whole, your claims about things like morals (subjective as they are) would be slightly more compelling if you applied them consistently. I know you really don't have any foundational principle that would render your "moral code" into something that can be applied universally and objectively, but your lack of even trying kind of undercuts the whole thing.
Hunches indeed. This includes the hunch that proportionality is an objective proposition. It is not. While we as a society can choose what constitutes proportional punishments to various criminal actions, that isn't universal or unanimous. Again, most who are sentence deny the proportionality of their sentence to their crime. Clearly, it's subjective and as such is not "just" in the manner of equally applying a punishment to all who commit the same crime is "just". Equal application of a sentence or law is objective. We can see it. Poor Bob beat his wife to death with a hammer and got the death penalty. Rich Bob beat his wife to death with a hammer and got the death penalty, too. That's justice. Each got the proscribed penalty the law demanded.
But if both Poor and Rich Bob got the death penalty for simply beating their wives, that would be just because they were both treated the same, even if we all agree the penalty was too severe for the crime.
And if both Poor and Rich Bob got ten years for simply beating their wives, they may both argue that ten years is not proportional to their crime, while the rest of us may say it is not enough given OUR feelings about beating one's wife.
Proportionality is subjective. And when you consider Christ's words on "an eye for an eye", proportionality in civil law falls short of His ideal. Now, I know He's referring to how we each treat each other and not commenting on civil justice. But then, you're a "turn the other cheek" geek when it comes to war, so you're once again inconsistent in your position on morality.
Marshal... This includes the hunch that proportionality is an objective proposition
I never said it was. Of course. But go ahead and knock down straw man arguments. That's rational.
Again, Marshal: IF there is a system wherein the law is created that IF a woman lies to a man, her punishment is rape, then more torture, then death... AS LONG as it is applied to everyone, do you think that is a Just system?
Because if you think that, you do not understand Justice.
EVEN THOUGH we can't authoritatively and objectively define justice does not mean that it does not exist or that reasonable people can't reach agreement on some basics.
EVEN THOUGH we can't authoritatively and objectively define where a line exists that says a punishment is too harsh and moves beyond justice to something evil does not mean that the idea of proportionality doesn't exist or that reasonable people can't find some common ground on it.
I am more than glad to say that the rape/torture/death "punishment" for a woman lying to a man is NOT just, it is a great injustice, no matter if a nation or a people agree upon it at a governmental level.
Do you agree?
Do you recognize the reality that you can not objectively authoritatively define what perfect justice is or perfect understandings of proportionality are?
so you're once again inconsistent in your position on morality.
Again, as always, that you don't understand my position does not make me inconsistent. It only demonstrates that there's so very much you can't or don't understand.
“EVEN THOUGH we can't authoritatively and objectively define justice...”
“EVEN THOUGH we can't authoritatively and objectively define where a line exists that says a punishment is too harsh...”
“I am more than glad to say that the rape/torture/death "punishment" for a woman lying to a man is NOT just, it is a great injustice,...”
If you can’t objectively define justice, and can’t define too harsh, then you have no grounds to objectively define something as “not just”.
Of course, you’ve again created a bizarre completely unrealistic, unreasonable hypothetical constructed simply for you to make objective pronouncements about something you denied you can do.
We completely understand that your position is that morality is subjective and that you even offered definitions to support your position that make clear that morality is defined by community, group, or society.
Craig...
"you can’t objectively define justice, and can’t define too harsh, then you have no grounds to objectively define something as “not just”."
Craig, you keep saying idiotic and nonsensical junk like this, even though the error in your nonsense comment has been clarified.
1. I DID NOT SAY THAT I WAS OBJECTIVELY DEFINING JUSTICE.
Now, did I say that? NO.
Understand?
2. That neither of us can define justice or "too much" doesn't mean that reasonable people can't agree on some basic common ground.
That was the point in my last comment. Are you not understanding that?
It sounds like you're advocating moral anarchy... if none if us can prove our points authoritatively means that there is no justice.
Is that what you think?
I am pretty sure what you think is not that, but that YOU and those who agree with you CAN prove your notions of justice authoritatively... but you're keeping that a secret to yourself.
Why not clarify?
Do you think you and yours CAN secretly "prove" your hunches are authoritatively factual, but you're not going to provide any support for it?
Or do you believe in moral, justice anarchy and we have no basis for finding common ground?
Of course Craig has nailed it, making my response unnecessary. I'm going to submit one, anyway.
"I never said it was. Of course. But go ahead and knock down straw man arguments."
You confuse "straw man" with "conclusion". My statement was a natural extrapolation of you argument. In the manner in which you whine about what is just or not with regard to proportional punishment, you necessarily provoked the conclusion. You further affirm it my admitting that agreement is necessary between people to decide what it or isn't appropriate punishment for any given crime. Therefore, it doesn't matter at all if you and I agree that a punishment is too harsh (or not harsh enough). "Proportional" doesn't strictly result from comparing degrees of harm, as in, how much harm was inflicted and was the level of harm inflicted by the punishment enough, not enough or too much. If enough people are aghast at the thought of someone stealing pencils, then they will without a doubt prescribe a punishment that is far too harsh for the crime in the opinion of those who don't think stealing a pencil is that big of a deal.
But YOU want to insist that if YOU think a punishment is too harsh, then it is regardless of whether or not anyone else, and how many, agree or disagree. We've seen clearly over the years that you have a huge problem identifying immoral behavior, and thus I'm not prepared to presume that you could possibly have any clue in determining appropriate punishments.
I AM, however, perfectly willing to agree that what is "proportional" is no more concrete than what is agreed upon by those tasked with making such determinations. We can say that the punishment agreed upon is just, but that doesn't make it so. It is subjective.
But whatever the punishment is, it is just that it is applied to everyone who commits the crime for which the punishment is proscribed. That's objective.
Having said all of that, what remains is God's justice and on what basis He determines punishments. Christian teaching more than suggests that there's really only one "crime" and that is rejecting Him. How our belief and acceptance of Him manifests is not quite as important (primarily, that is) as the fact that we do believe in Him. (But how our belief manifests does indeed confirm whether or not we truly believe, or only say we do while still doing what we want.) A really, really good person in YOUR mind is not saved because he's a really, really good person. He's saved because of his acceptance of God. (I'm not speaking of a works thing, but merely making a point about God's justice.)
So in the end, I don't need to know what perfect justice is. I only know that God's justice is perfect whether you like it or not, which clearly you don't. Good luck with that.
“ is NOT just, it is a great injustice,...”
The above quote is presented as an amazing objective fact, there’s no qualifications, no disclaimers, simply a statement of what “is”.
Perhaps the problem is a failure to use language precisely, or expecting others to make assumptions about what you mean. After being berated about making assumptions, I’ve stopped doing so. If you want me to start, don’t bitch.
Art,
I didn’t read your whole comment, but the last part nailed it. We trust in a God who is perfectly just. Therefore His justice is perfectly just. Whether we understand it or agree with it, isn’t the issue.
At some point, Jesus tells us we will be judged, He also tells us the way to avoid the harsh penalties. I trust Him to treat me justly.
I’ll note that the recent upheaval here has illuminated how people view justice differently.
No justice, no peace doesn’t seem interested in either.
Justice, in the Floyd case would be for the ex cops to be appropriately charged based on what evidence they have that is admissible in court in order to achieve a conviction. Upon conviction he would be sentenced appropriately under MN law.
Justice, according to many is charging all 4 with 1st degree murder without regard to the likelihood of a conviction even though the the charge would be virtually impossible to convict on. Further these decisions and actions must be completed immediately, with no time allotted for gathering ALL relevant evidence or anything else.
Justice would be pursuing the rioters, vandals, arsonists, bank robbers, and looters with the same attention to detail as the ex cops.
"The above quote is presented as an amazing objective fact,"
Having stated that in the context of me being abundantly clear that none of us can prove our opinions about Justice in an authoritative or an objective manner, it is irrationale for you to conclude that I mean something outside of what I've already stated I believe.
I did not state that this was an objective fact. Look at my words, it's not there. It is an exceedingly rational conclusion that the vast majority of reasonable people will agree with. Do you doubt that?
You cannot prove your little human hunches about Justice in an authoritative or objective Leaf actual manner. Do you recognize that reality?
There he goes again, hiding behind "it's my opinion", while stating it as if a fact that is "rational" to "most people"
Where in anything I've said about justice do you find a real problem that you can authoritatively discount or rebut? Borrow a pair and have at it.
You quite clearly asserted that justice "is". The word "is" is a claim of objective fact. Had you said something like "My hunch is...", then your statement wouldn't be a problem.
I realize that you have made that assertion, as usual it depends. However, in the absence of a stable consistent standard of proof, I see no reason to even try.
Craig... The word "is" is a claim of objective fact.
You are objectively mistaken on that claim. "IS" does not insist upon objective fact. "Craig is CRAZY if he thinks that IS must denote an objective fact..." is not necessarily being used as a fact. It denotes a CLAIM, not an objective fact.
And this is why communication with you two (and so many modern conservatives) is so difficult. You don't understand basic word usage and you nitpick each sentence and yet rarely give direct clear answers to reasonable questions.
For instance:
You can not prove that your hunches about justice are objectively factual. Do you recognize that reality?
Marshal, it's not "hiding behind my opinion" to note that something is my opinion when it is my opinion. That you two can't/won't differentiate between fact and opinion in a rational manner is on you, not me.
Do you TRULY think that most people (at least most modern, post-enlightenment people) can't agree that punishing a woman for lying by rape and torture are an extreme injustice?
Answer these questions directly, please.
"Claim of objective fact..."
"God is Good..." "God is a hater of the gays..." "The devil is a warm gun..." "Trump is the worst president ever..." These are all claims that use "IS" NOT to state a fact, but to state unproven opinions.
But you know this, don't you?
No. God is good.
The other three are made up bullshit.
They are ALL unprovable opinions, Craig. (Although a very strong case can be made about Trump...)
Do you recognize that reality?
Whatever you say Dan, clearly your pronouncements are not to be argued with.
We can all see how you refuse to answer reasonable questions. IF you can prove what you keep hinting at, PROVE IT. Be an adult and just provide the proof.
Or admit you can't (and you absolutely can't). Either way, argue like an adult.
Craig... "clearly your pronouncements are not to be argued with..."
I'm just asking you to take a breath, take a step back and look at what you APPEAR to be saying (it's difficult to say since you won't answer questions directly)...
You appear to be saying that YOU have the ability to prove that you know authoritatively and as an objective fact that there is a God and that you have special knowledge of what specifically that God says is and isn't just.
AND that you're not going to provide us with the data to support this rather astounding claim.
! That's some claim (IF you are making it) and it could, potentially, change the world if you could prove it.
Why not either prove it or admit you can't?
And I’m clearly bowing and acknowledging that arguing against your pronouncements is futile. Once you pronounce what “reality” is, your word is law.
FYI, there are plenty of answered questions on my part in this thread, and plenty on unanswered in your part. Don’t be stupid.
No Craig, arguing against me is NOT futile IF you have data to support your claims.
IF all I see and can tell shows me that there is no way to "prove" our ideas of justice are objectively factually, authoritatively correct, then that's all I can see. BUT, I would LOVE to be able to say, "Yes, THIS idea about morality and that idea about justice is objectively, authoritatively correct."
I WANT to believe such objective data exists. I just don't see it. I LONG to be proven wrong, but you have to step up and try. You have to prove it, not just say you can prove it or, worse, not just vaguely hint that you can prove it, but not even state clearly that this is the case.
Help me out. PROVE your case or admit it. I WANT to be shown hard, demonstrable facts, but I won't bow to subjective opinions parading as facts. I need to be shown the data.
Show me.
What I am guessing is that there are two things behind your inability to show me the data:
1. It frustrates you like hell that you can't provide objective, authoritative data, you REALLY want to and maybe even believe it exists, but look as hard as you may, you can't find it either...
2. You recognize that it's NOT that you can prove it, outright, but IF ONE WOULD JUST ACCEPT some presuppositions that you can't prove, THEN you can prove it. But you don't want to admit that much, either, because it just makes you further impotent to support what you REALLY want to believe, even while you recognize that, at the heart of it, you just can't prove it.
That's my guess about you, given the data I've seen thus far. Am I mistaken?
Show me.
Two comments and every word wrong.
You see, I’d be more likely to believe you if you’re past history didn’t show a tendency to ignore facts, dats, and experts when those things clash with your hunches. Additionally, why would I do something that you won’t?
I COULD be wrong. I'm a fallible human being, after all. These were clearly MY GUESSES. But, instead of SAYING that I'm wrong, SHOW ME what I am getting wrong. Educate me, don't just deny. TEACH, don't accuse.
Craig, come on. Be an adult in discussions.
You're suggesting you hold some secret truth AND that you're not willing to share it. Do you recognize how irrational and unbelievable that makes you seem?
I can ALWAYS be educated, but I can't be bullied into submission by religious elites with no data. As it should be.
This is a third problem I think that conservative evangelical types have (and especially the white men in that group): They are used to getting their ways and just be taken as authoritative and you all don't know what to do when asked to support your claims. Instead of responding like rational adults and providing the support or admitting mistakes, you get your feelings hurt and respond with abusive false claims and attacks.
You're better than that, C. SHOW me.
No, I’m not. I’m suggesting that the answers you claim that want exist, but that you exclude possible sources because of your prejudices. I’m suggesting that my past experiences in trying to “prove” things to your satisfaction resulted in you either dismissing or ignoring multiple examples of experts who disagreed with you. What I didn’t see in those instances was you engaging with or disproving anything.
So, no I’m not going to play this bullshit game with you. Especially since you’ve already disqualified much of what I’d point you to, without even considering it.
It’s not my job to dig past your prejudices and pry open your closed and proud mind.
One thing I’ve learned from having employees, managing volunteers, studying effective strategies for missions and raising children, is that it’s never valuable to do for others what they can do for themselves. If you’re not willing to be open to people and worldviews that you disagree with, I’m not willing to fight your prejudices.
I know you think that this sort of manipulative crap works, but it just makes you look desperate.
I’m suggesting that the answers you claim that want exist, but that you exclude possible sources because of your prejudices.
Show me, don't tell me. I've looked and LIVED it for 30 years. I'm calling BS on your empty claims because it is an empty, unsupported claim. Worthless.
Why? You’ve literally referred to every single piece of material produced in the last 15 years as various kinds of “bankrupt”, with absolutely no evidence that supports your claim. You can’t even agree that scripture is reliable enough for you.
Why in the name of all that is holy, would I waste time trying to convince you that your prejudices are wrong. Seriously this 50 years of study doesn’t mean a thing when you can’t remember more than the “gist” of something you read 50 years ago.
Your prejudices are more than I want to handle. If you think stewing in the incomplete, and poor memories of something you heard 50 years ago has given you all the information you need, who am I to argue. Go ahead and revel in your poor memories and “gists” of things. If your standards are so low, that’s cool with me.
I have not referred to every single piece of material in the last 15 years as bankrupt. Look at my words, that is a false claim and a stupidly false one.
What I've said quite clearly repeatedly is that I HAVE NOT SEEN any arguments to "prove" God's justice as a fact or "prove" that your positions are objectively authoritatively factual. MAYBE IT EXISTS, but I have not seen it. I've been quite clear that I have not read "everything." Of course. But I have read from and been taught extensively by conservatives and I've not seen these answers.
IF IT EXISTS, I HAVE NOT SEEN IT. IF you have something that you can point to to support your rather unbelievable claims, THEN provide the data. If you can, you would. You can't and so you don't.
Prove me wrong. Or, conversely, help me. SUPPORT your claims. IF they are legitimate, they are an impressive bit of news and you should be spreading that news, not keeping it a secret.
My "prejudices," you'll have to remember, began as conservative prejudices. It was the paucity of support for conservative claims that led me away from believing them, NOT because I wanted to (because I WAS conservative) but because there just was a lack of support.
Just like you're demonstrating. That sort of shallow empty boasts and bullying did nothing to convince me. PROOF will convince me.
My bad, you only referred to everything produced by conservatives as “bankrupt”.
For someone who doesn’t seem to having a problem telling others why black folks should be frustrated, you’re pretty oblivious to the frustration you cause. The problem isn’t my “boasts” because I haven’t made any, nor have engaged in bullying.
As I’ve said before, I can’t recall an instance where proof conquered your prejudices, and find some other sucker to enable your intellectual laziness.
“ In the past 15 years, no. I fear that modern conservative evangelicalism is a spiritually and too often morally and rationally bankrupt world view. I don't spend time reading books of bad theology, not in conservative evangelicalism”
You can spin it until your puke from dizziness, but you literally dismissed every single piece of “conservative” scholarship I’m the last 15 years. Not because you studied a representative example, not because you read the Amazon reviews, not because you’ve debunked anything, simply because you read some books some length of time ago and you poorly remember the “gist” of some of them. By god, that’s enough. Poorly remembered “gist”s is enough to not bother with anything else.
What a pitiful excuse for inquiry.
FYI, the list of books you dredged up contains some good stuff. Although not much of it is theology.
As always, your inability to understand words is not an indication that I said what you falsely claimed. It is a stupidly false claim and remains stupidly false. That you read into words ideas that are not there is your problem, not mine.
You can spend your false claims however you want, but I literally did not say what you literally suggested that I literally said.
And as a point of fact in the real world, you have never provided objective, authoritative proof that any of my so-called prejudices we're mistaken. This is just another of the trumpian sort of stupidly false claims. It's not sufficient just to make an empty claim. You have to be able to support it. If you can't support it, and you can't, it is a false claim, or at least unsupported.
Do you not get tired of making stupidly false claims that you can't support, precisely because they are false and stupidly false? Whatever happened to rational and competent arguments from conservatives? Where they actually tried to support their claims with data, not just bullying and stupidly false claims?
Regarding my list of books, you asked for some proof that I had read or been taught by conservative Christians. I provide you an extensive list of books and teachings by very conservative, very traditional teachers and preachers. Including, but not limited to, theology.
Just another waste of words nitpicking at nothing instead of Simply providing support for your claims. Just provide support. I am embarrassed for you and conservative Christianity on your behalf. It is the dumbing-down a conservative so-called Christianity that has made intellectual cowards out of a once reasonable belief system.
I don’t need to make false claims about this, your words are right here for all to see.
You’re right, I’ve never made any claims about the accuracy of your prejudices. I’ve been very clear is pointing out that both of your prejudices and the assumptions that underly your hunches are themselves unproven.
Further, for you to dismiss an entire genre scholarship for any extended period of time with absolutely zero evidence. With only your prejudices and poorly remembered “gist”s of some books you might or might not remember, it is absolutely absurd to write off such a large amount of scholarship.
Yes you finally provided a list of books you poorly remember but have the “gist” of.
The only claim I can think of that I’ve made is that you can likely find the answers you claim to seek, if you look.
I know that’s insane to think that you have the capability of finding answers all by your big boy self.
Or maybe your right, it’s because you “fear”.
Well, all of this comedies 160 comments, just goes to show that I was accurate in my initial sentence in this thread.
I don't expect this to go anywhere.
And that was true. It's gone exactly nowhere.
Your type of conservatives have demonstrated a fear, an intellectual cowardice, an inability to engage and respectful adult conversation and answer simple reasonable questions asked in a respectful manner.
That says a couple of interesting things about you.
1. That you’re not that smart for starting this.
2. That you’re big into self fulfilling prophecies.
3. That you’re not self aware enough to comprehend where the problem might lie with you.
4. That when you’re confronted with the reality that my “claims” we’re products of your imagination and faced with the only claim I made, you had to bail.
5. If by respectful you mean condescending, demanding, and demeaning then sure.
But I’ll tell you what.
If you want to strip your questions down to the most simple and direct form you can, I’ll keep an eye out for resources for you. For when you get over your “fear”.
"And as a point of fact in the real world, you have never provided objective, authoritative proof that any of my so-called prejudices we're mistaken."
As a point of fact, I do it all the time. The problem is whether or not you want proof from the material world or the spiritual. Regardless of the point in question, you vacillate between the two as it suits you. I can prove your opinions about God/Jesus/Christianity are mistaken by going to the most reliable source...Scripture...and you will shift to demanding proof from outside Scripture. This happens with such regularity as to be almost perfectly predictable.
When I say you hide behind opinions, clearly I was referring to your use of opinion when the level and quantity of proof you demand of others is expected from you. "I'm just stating my opinion" as if it relieves you of the obligation...as if opinions worth a damn aren't the result of some evidence that supports holding them in the first place. Evidence you steadfastly refuse, if not overtly, to ever provide. Thus, you hide behind "it's my opinion". I can support pretty much all my opinions with evidence of some sort.
Dan,
Last chance.
While I'm willing to do it, It's important that the questions be yours, in your own words.
If you want to edit them down to more clear and concise questions, even if this means asking more questions, I will be happy to help you by sending you resources that I think might be helpful. This way I can assist you in discovering things for yourself, rather than do something for you that you are capable of.
Art,
Whether you've done so or not isn't the issue. The issue is that Dan has certain assumptions and prejudices (he likes to call them "reality", I believe) which he bases all of his Logic and Reason on. The problem is that those underlying assumptions and prejudices haven't been demonstrated to be true. They're his assumptions and prejudices, therefore the burden is on him to demonstrate their truth, it's not on us. Being able to simply assume that your assumptions and prejudices are "reality" and thus can't be challenged is a safe and convenient place to be. However, it's not particularly intellectually honest.
It all come down to this:
Only Dan has the wisdom and authority to dictate what constitutes morality, reason, rationality, reality, etc., and the bar one must clear to meet his standards is subject to how high he needs the bar to be reset after either of us having cleared it. And of course, it's a bar he feels no obligation to clear...unless he lays it on the ground.
Craig, regarding answering questions, why not start with these reasonable questions, respectfully asked, arising from this comment...
The issue is that Dan has certain assumptions and prejudices (he likes to call them "reality", I believe) which he bases all of his Logic and Reason on. The problem is that those underlying assumptions and prejudices haven't been demonstrated to be true.
I hold OPINIONS on notions like this one, for instance:
To dole out a "punishment" of rape and torture for the "crime" of lying to a man is a great and obvious injustice. It does not matter if the government instituted the law or even if the majority in the nation supported it, it would still be a great travesty of justice, a grave injustice. I can't objectively authoritatively "prove" that this is an injustice, NOR CAN YOU, but it clearly is and reasonable people across nations would agree. It is an injustice because the punishment is not proportionate to the crime.
Reasonable questions:
1. Do you agree that this is a reasonable conclusion (that the punishment would be a great injustice)?
2. Do you agree that it is a great injustice to penalize women with rape and assault for the "crime" of lying to a man?
3. Do you recognize that NONE OF US can "prove" authoritatively that it is objectively factual that it is an injustice*?
4. If you think you CAN prove it authoritatively and objectively, please do so.
5. It is an injustice, I opine, because the punishment is not proportionate to the "crime." Do you agree?
6. Do you agree that for any punishment to be disproportionately far beyond the weight of the crime, that this IS an injustice?
7. If you agree with this, then do you at least understand why some people say an eternal torture of "hell" to be paid for the "crimes" of common humanity is disproportionate to the everyday sins or "crimes..." (things like lies and "cussing" and cheating on your taxes or speeding in your car)?
8. Do you think you can "prove" objectively and authoritatively that the crimes of a 20 year old "typical sinner" are rationally due a punishment of an eternity of torture?
9. If so, please do.
I apologize, I was hoping that when I asked that you simplify and clarify, that you’d perhaps do that.
1. Is asking about something that isn’t clear.
2. Since this isn’t a thing anywhere in the real world, it’s pointless to even deal with as asked.
3. Makes no sense as written.
4. Is fine with minor tweaks
5. It’s clearly separated from something else, and doesn’t make much sense as it is.
6. Tweaksble
7. Convoluted and meandering, simplify and focus.
8. In the absence of any reasonable explanation of a 20 year old typical sinner, the question is too tied to your arbitrarily slanted hypothetical. Try to reconstitute it in a more general way.
9. Pointless
If you want me to keep an eye out for resources, then give me simple, specific, direct questions stripped of editorial comment and bizarre hypotheticals.
If you don’t want me to help you find resources, I’ll try to get as close as I can. If I do that, you have no room to bitch.
1. What isn't clear to you? I'm proposing a situation that I think most people in today's world can easily agree with: That it would be criminally unjust to "punish" a woman with rape and torture for the "sin" or "crime" of making a false claim to a man. I don't understand what isn't clear? Do you really need more detail? Let's say it's a 15 year old girl who lied to her father about doing her homework (she didn't really do it, but said she did). He charged her with lying to her father and in their society this is illegal and punishable by rape and torture.
Is that what you need? WHY? Why is the general scenario sufficient for you to recognize that it is a great injustice because the lie is no where rationally deserving the punishment of rape and torture?
"Since it's a thing anywhere in the real world..."
I'm using an exaggerated scenario to help establish the principle. It's exaggerated because the penalty of hell is greatly exaggerated (an ETERNITY of punishment for typical sins??? How is that proportionate??)
Dan continues to ignore one very important reality, that his entire argument is based on his nitions of what constitutes proportional punishment. Whether we agree or not is irrelevant since how punishments are decided is the result of people agreeing they're appropriate for the crimes in question. There will always be those who agree, and among those who don't will be those who believe them too harsh or too lenient. So, for anyone who hears Dan's opinion of an appropriate punishment for lying, there will be those who say, "WHOA, DUDE!! ARE YOU SOME SORT OF ANIMAL???!!!" or some other expression of disagreement. It's allsubjective.
God, on the other hand, is not subjective because His ways are not our ways, and what he believes is a serious slight against Him won't make sense to a self-satisfied, progressive fake Christian.
This is actually a good point...
2. Since this isn’t a thing anywhere in the real world, it’s pointless to even deal with as asked.
There IS no comparison to "hellfire punishment" in the real world. We wouldn't sentence a MURDERER to a lifetime of torture, much less an eternity of torture, at least not anywhere that I'm aware of. The punishment is SO over the top that it just doesn't exist in the real world. Our basic humanity (not to mention that of God in us) would tend to balk at the idea of a lifetime of torture as punishment. Although, I think some of us could see that for the more awful crimes, rape, child abuse, murder... when it came right down to it, we wouldn't go through with it.
And if we can't imagine doing torture for life as punishment for even the worst crimes, how is it rational or morally conceivable to think of torturing a person for an eternity for lesser crimes like lying, stealing a pencil or even cheating on your wife?
It's not a thing in the real world, as you so ably put it. And for a good reason - it is unjust and immoral on the face of it.
Marshal... "Dan continues to ignore one very important reality, that his entire argument is based on his nitions of what constitutes proportional punishment."
So they were my Notions of Justice are subjective. Your Notions of Justice are subjective. Our Notions of what is and isn't proportional is subjective. What is your point? That we should live in some sort moral anarchy because we can't demonstrable approve either bar positions?
Marshal... "God, on the other hand, is not subjective because His ways are not our ways..."
God is Not subjective, presumably. But your opinions about God are subjective. Do you recognize that simple very basic reality? Are you delusional? Do you think you have perfect authoritative objective understanding of God and God's ways? Because if so, if that's what you think, you are delusional.
Here's what one traditional conservative group (answersingenesis) is saying on this topic...
"God’s Eternal Holiness Demands That Hell Be Eternal, Conscious Torment
Why Eternal? The eternal, never-ending nature of the sinner’s punishment is directly related to the infinite and eternal nature of God. When you sin against an infinite God—and all sin is primarily oriented toward God—you accrue an infinite debt..."
Does it's not sound insane to you?
1. The question as written is divorced from any reference to your fanciful and imaginary punishment. Therefore it makes no sense.
"I'm using an exaggerated scenario to help establish the principle. It's exaggerated because the penalty of hell is greatly exaggerated (an ETERNITY of punishment for typical sins??? How is that proportionate??)"
Please provide proof that the "penalty of hell is greatly exaggerated".
"(an ETERNITY of punishment for typical sins???"
Yet after I've asked you time and time again, you haven't explained why "typical sins" should get a pass from punishment. You haven't explained at what point punishment becomes acceptable to you. You've dodged the issue by saying that you don't believe in hell anyway, so you don't have to have a good explanation. We are back to the fact that you are failing to prove your assumptions and prejudices to be true.
2. Your strategy of trying to conflate punishment under our justice system administered by humans and God's justice in order to serve your needs is frustrating.
Here's a hypothetical. Hitler killed roughly 12 million people (excluding military casualties) either directly or by ordering others. What punishment that can be meted our by humans is proportional to the scope of his crimes? How is it fair, just, or proportional, that he was able to escape human justice, yet isn't going to face divine justice? Are you really suggesting that the most vile of humans can escape justice by suicide?
So, lets break things down. There are three basic elements to the most common thoughts about hell.
1. Eternal
2. Conscious
3. Torment
You clearly have an objection to #1. So are you saying that you are OK with #2,3 as long as they aren't eternal. To use your absurd example of a 20 year old. You might be OK with some level of #2,3 as long as it was less than 20 years, correct?
Or is your objection to #2? Are you suggesting that #1,3 would be ok as long as the person wasn't conscious?
Or is #3 your problem. Are you suggesting that it's proportional to keep people eternally concious, as long as there's no torment?
Or, are you so wedded to your "hell on earth" concoction that you just deny the existence of the possibility of any sort of judgement or reckoning after death?
Or are you suggesting that everybody gets into "Heaven" (I'll use the term as a shorthand for spending eternity in the presence of God regardless of the specifics)?
Craig... "after I've asked you time and time again, you haven't explained why "typical sins" should get a pass from punishment."
Of course, any fool can look at my words and see that I never said that some sins get a pass. I've been consistently talking about appropriate proportionate punishment for misdeeds. The idea there's some people whose sins include lying and taking an occasional pencil are justly deserving of an eternity of torture is insane. Do you not understand that this is insane? Do you truly think that it is sane to punish someone with torture for an eternity for lying and stealing pencils?
Clearly you object to something about the way AIG expresses it's formulation. Great, you certainly don't have to agree with their views. But, that leaves us in limbo.
Are you suggesting that AIG is wrong?
Are you suggesting that AIG is objectively wrong?
Are you denying the notion that all sin is a sin against God, an act of rebellion if you will?
Are you denying God's eternality?
Are you denying God's perfection?
Your final question implies that you find their position insane, and that anyone who doesn't agree with your characterization is insane also.
This is a clever dodge. You dodge actually making any claim about the veracity of the position. You then conflate "sound insane" to "is insane". You then impugn anyone who might disagree with you as insane.
What you haven't done, is demonstrated that there position isn't true. You are assuming that there position is wrong, without actually demonstrating that it is wrong.
Let me ask this general question. If someone believes in gravity, does that belief seem insane?
Or more specifically. (this is presuming that you'll allow for the possibility that they are right and you are wrong)
If the AIG formulation accurately reflects the reality of God's justice and the consequences of sin, then wouldn't it be insane NOT to agree with that reality?
Finally, you have to admit that just because you believe that something "seems" that your belief doesn't translate into reality.
We live in a society that insists that you have "your truth" and I have "my truth". You yourself insist that there are multiple (an infinite number of) truths?
Under either of those constructs, how are the AIG folks insane for believing "their truth"?
This is why a person's concept of Truth is important.
If Truth is what conforms to reality.
If the reality is that the AIG folks definition accurately represents reality.
Then it's literally not insane to agree with their position.
Conversely
If the Truth is what conforms to reality.
If the reality is that the AIG folks definition does not conform to reality,
Then it would be insane to agree with their position.
The problem hinges on your insistence that we have absolutely no possible way to know what the reality is. Which leaves us with this.
If truth is what conforms to reality.
If reality is unknowable.
Then it's possible (technically equally) that A or Z could be true, which makes belief in either A or Z not insane.
Where your psychological diagnosis falls apart, is that you are unwilling to take a position on what the reality is. I understand why you won't, but the reality is that if something is unknowable, then there is no objective metric to determine the sanity of any belief about that subject.
So without demonstrating what the reality really is, your hunches about what seems insane are pointless.
I'll answer your questions, but it really would help if you could answer these questions.
The degree of sins and sinners are on a spectrum. You have Hitler who killed, raped, tortured and caused harm and oppressed the millions of people. He was a great sinner. You have Donald Trump the sexual deviant and corrupt liar, by all appearances a narcissist who cares only about himself and who is glad to lie and use his corruption to make himself wealthier and more powerful. Then, further back the spectrum, you have some relatively simple folks who lived relatively short lives whose sins literally were comprised of getting angry inappropriately and telling lies and punching a brother on the arm, for instance... and not much beyond that.
On the spectrum of the seriousness of sin and harm caused by a lifetime of sin, that latter person is a minor sinner by far as compared to Hitler, or even a Trump.
Do you agree with this assessment of the range of sins and sinners? Do you agree that some people can go to their death having lived a relatively short life, and still be a sinner, but whose sins were relatively minor?
Do you agree that any assignment of punishment that's going to be just should account for the level and depravity of sin?
Craig... "without demonstrating what the reality really is, your hunches about what seems insane are pointless."
Well, as we have seen, neither of us can demonstrate objectively and authoritatively what the reality is about Justice as it relates to punishment, so that leaves us with two options...
To declare that it is all meaningless and we have no way of deciding what is and isn't just or unjust.
Or
we can recognize that while we can't authoritatively prove entirely perfectly what is and isn't just, reasonable people can come to reasonable agreement on a wide range of matters. I think the latter makes sense. Do you agree?
If we can agree that there is some reasonable common ground - even though we can't prove authoritatively what is and isn't just - then we can look to experts and what they tell us about sanity and morality and justice. For instance, mental health experts would tell us that a man who thinks he can torture his wife because she lied to him is insane, or mentally ill. Correct? There are some degrees of causing harm and oppression that we recognize as Beyond The Pale, beyond what does moral or just irrational or saying, even. Correct?
If, then, we have a group of humans who are offering an opinion that they can't prove about a god that they can't authoritatively speak for that says that this god is an Angry God who hates sin so much that this god would punish the liars and pencil stealers with an eternity of torture for their sins... Why would we not conclude that this projection about what their god might do on them, rather than suppose they are correctly understanding this god who, by normal rational Justice measures would be declared criminally insane?
Craig...
"Are you suggesting that AIG is wrong?"
Yes. I think it was clearly irrational nor consistently rational or possible given the notion of a fair and just and loving God. I think, reasonably speaking, you can have a just and all-loving God who does not penalize the vast majority of humanity with eternity of torture for relatively minor sins, or you can have an angry irrational and unjust God who is not loving who does engaged in such Behavior.
"Are you suggesting that AIG is objectively wrong?"
As you should know by now, while I believe he is objectively wrong, none of us have a way of proving that he is objectively wrong. I think reason dictates against this position.
"Are you denying the notion that all sin is a sin against God, an act of rebellion if you will?"
All sin? No. However, I don't believe there is any data to suggest that MOST sin is a deliberate act of rebellion against God. I don't believe you can provide any data to prove that.
Correct?
"Are you denying God's eternality?"
? Nope.
"Are you denying God's perfection?"
Nope.
I would suggest that perfection oh, that is, the notion of a wholly perfect God, that this too would dictate against a vengeful god who would punish the vast majority of humanity for an eternity of torture for relatively minor sins.
"Yes. I think it was clearly irrational nor consistently rational or possible given the notion of a fair and just and loving God. I think, reasonably speaking, you can have a just and all-loving God who does not penalize the vast majority of humanity with eternity of torture for relatively minor sins, or you can have an angry irrational and unjust God who is not loving who does engaged in such Behavior."
Thanks for taking way to much space to acknowledge that it's your hunch.
"As you should know by now, while I believe he is objectively wrong, none of us have a way of proving that he is objectively wrong. I think reason dictates against this position."
Which was the expected answer. Since you have acknowledged that you can't objectively prove that AIG is wrong, then logically the possibility exists that they are correct. (Statistically, it's likely that there is somewhere in the neighborhood of a 50/50 chance if you exclude all other possible options) If a reasonable possibility exists that they are correct, then it's totally irrational to suggest that their belief is "insane". But don't let Logic and Reason stop you from labeling things insane.
"All sin? No. However, I don't believe there is any data to suggest that MOST sin is a deliberate act of rebellion against God. I don't believe you can provide any data to prove that."
So, in the absence of anything more than a filibuster, your answer appears to be that you really don't believe that sin is a rebellion against God.
Is speeding rebellion against the state?
Is sin an instance of putting one's human judgement over that of God?
"Correct?"
Can I provide data, sure. Will you dismiss it without examining it, most likely. Will I bother to get you data you'll most likely ignore or dismiss, no I've got more productive things to do.
Since your not denying God's eternality or His perfection, does that mean that you unreservedly affirm those things, or is this another instance of you being unwilling to take a stand?
"I would suggest that perfection oh, that is, the notion of a wholly perfect God, that this too would dictate against a vengeful god who would punish the vast majority of humanity for an eternity of torture for relatively minor sins."
I'm sure you would. However, you'd have to demonstrate that a perfect God, punishing Sins against Himself was engaged in "vengeful" behavior. You have no grounding to assert that your conception of what God's justice "should" be aligns with reality.
Maybe the fact that you "Worship mystery and call it God", has convinced you that there is some value in turning every aspect of God into some unknowable mystery is a good thing. I could be wrong but that sounds similar to the gnostic heresy.
Craig... "Since you have acknowledged that you can't objectively prove that AIG is wrong..."
They and you cannot objectively prove they are correct. So when you say this, it's meaningless.
Craig... "If a reasonable possibility exists that they are correct, then it's totally irrational to suggest that their belief is "insane"."
This claim, itself, is irrational, an appeal to a logical fallacy. We can neither objectively prove or disprove the claim that Craig molests purple unicorns when no one is watching. That doesn't make both claims (that Craig does and doesn't molest unicorns) equally valid.
Do you understand the fallacy?
Craig... "you really don't believe that sin is a rebellion against God."
I repeat, there is no data to support that claim. Do you think that you have objective data to prove the claims? Please provide it.
I know of no studies that would prove the point one way or the other, but my suspicions would be that most people do wrong, or do bad, or sin because they're angry at someone, or they are placing their happiness and wants above someone else's. My guess is that most people don't think about God one way or the other when they sin, so, if they're not even thinking about God, I don't see how you can call it a rebellion against God. The word Rebellion implies intent. It seems to me. But, I gladly admit that as far as I know, we have no data to support a claim one way or the other.
Craig .. "You have no grounding to assert that your conception of what God's justice "should" be aligns with reality."
I have at least as much grounding, if not more, then you do to suggest otherwise. But the reality is, neither of us can prove our opinions about God authoritatively and objectively. Do you recognize that reality? It really would help if you could just begin by grounding yourself in reality and acknowledging it.
Craig... "turning every aspect of God into some unknowable mystery is a good thing."
I am quite clear in the distinction between what I think we can reasonably know, and what we can authoritatively, objectively demonstrate. I do not make claims to know authoritatively and objectively what is just opinion.
Nor should you.
But not all opinions are weighted equally. Some are more rational than others. I think we can reasonably know that a good God will be good and that a just God will be just if we're assuming that a good and just God exists. It's just a rational conclusion.
"They and you cannot objectively prove they are correct. So when you say this, it's meaningless."
Which isn't the point. Neither AIG or I referred to you or your position as "insane". I've clearly demonstrated that you have no grounding to use the term. These semsntice diversions are cute though.
"Do you understand the fallacy?"
I understand that you are attempting to apply this "fallacy" to others, while not to yourself. But that's not unusual.
"I repeat, there is no data to support that claim. Do you think that you have objective data to prove the claims? Please provide it."
Yet, the issue isn't whether I can prove a claim I haven't made. It's whether disagreeing with you makes someone "insane". Further, there's plenty of "data" in scripture, but you've got plenty of excuses not to accept that data.
"I have at least as much grounding, if not more, then you do to suggest otherwise. But the reality is, neither of us can prove our opinions about God authoritatively and objectively. Do you recognize that reality? It really would help if you could just begin by grounding yourself in reality and acknowledging it."
You keep attributing to me claims and suggestions that I haven't made. However, I appreciate your acknowledging that you have absolutely zero grounds to assert that your hunches about God's "justice" are valid.
"But not all opinions are weighted equally. Some are more rational than others. I think we can reasonably know that a good God will be good and that a just God will be just if we're assuming that a good and just God exists. It's just a rational conclusion."
Good lord, what a circular argument. "there's no possible way to know if anyone is right about God, but I'm more right than anyone else because Reason."
It's a hunch. You go ahead and make up the god you want to worship, you do you.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? You're literally arguing that we can't know anything and that it's all opinion, but that your opinion is just enough better than every one else to allow you to pass judgement.
You revel in denying that anything about God can be objectively or even reasonably know, while at the same time acting as if you're right and others are wrong by playing semantic games.
It's a sad and pathetic attempt to ignore lots of substance above.
I'm sure we'll be seeing the faux outrage soon.
I've clearly demonstrated that you have no grounding to use the term.
No, you haven't. The grounding is in the commonly accepted notion that a hugely inappropriate/disproportionate punishment in response to a lesser sin (or sins) is irrational and criminally insane in a man who, for instance, torture a woman for months for the "sin" of lying to him. If a man's response to a woman was that, mental health experts would deem such behavior or beliefs criminally insane. IF some humans are advocating a god who would engage in even greater torture (an eternity of torture!!) for lesser sins, it is irrational to the point of being crazy.
Do you recognize this reality when it comes to humans? If so, then you can begin, I hope, to see that I DO have a grounding to use the term, even if ultimately you disagree.
Craig...
. It's whether disagreeing with you makes someone "insane".
WHEN PRECISELY did I ever say that disagreeing with me makes someone insane? Clearly, I have not done this. I used the word "insane" to refer to the irrational (CRAZY irrational) suggestion that punishing someone with torture for an extended amount of time (eternity!!!) for lesser sins is commonly accepted (by mental health experts and by legal scholars, as well as the population at large) as irrational to the extreme or insane, if you prefer.
Craig... I appreciate your acknowledging that you have absolutely zero grounds to assert that your hunches about God's "justice" are valid.
Again, NOT what I said. Why not stick with what I'm actually saying, as you keep interpreting my words incorrectly.
Craig... "there's no possible way to know if anyone is right about God, but I'm more right than anyone else because Reason."
I think reason is a rational. Of course.
IF some is arguing God is perfectly good, just and loving, and
IF someone agrees and says, "Yes! And that perfectly JUST and LOVING God is going to punish you to an eternity of suffering for telling those 500 lies and stealing those ten pencils and punching your brother in the arm when he told on you for stealing a pencil!"
THEN they are arguing against a God who is perfectly good, loving and just. At least as those words are typically understood.
Do you not follow the reasoning?
It's akin to saying,
IF you make $10 for every hour you work and
IF you worked for 2 hours FOR GOD,
THEN God will refuse to give you that money and beat you with a broomstick until your intestines spill out...
It's not a rational conclusion given the inputs.
You're literally arguing that we can't know anything and that it's all opinion, but that your opinion is just enough better than every one else to allow you to pass judgement.
and...
You revel in denying that anything about God can be objectively or even reasonably know, while at the same time acting as if you're right and others are wrong by playing semantic games.
I'm literally NOT ARGUING that. Look, HERE is my argument:
We CAN know things. We can know things that have data to prove them that can objectively be demonstrated.
Further, we can REASONABLY know some things that aren't provable, but are rational.
I'm literally NOT arguing what you're saying.
On the other hand, our opinions about things we can't prove ARE our subjective opinions, by definition.
Are you disagreeing? With reality?
What we CAN'T know are unknowable and unprovable things. Like "What is God's authoritative, objectively factual opinion about abortions?" We can GUESS at such questions but we can't demonstrably, authoritatively know them as objective facts.
Rebellion: "an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler." (MW)
I see no data that says that all or even most sin is done to as an active resistance to an established ruler (God, in this case). Many people who sin, for instance, don't even believe in God. So how can they be in open resistance to something/someone they don't believe exists? They can't.
Craig... Further, there's plenty of "data" in scripture, but you've got plenty of excuses not to accept that data.
There are many lines of TEXT in the Bible, but that isn't data. Further, people read those lines of text and THOSE HUMANS interpret that data to mean this and to mean that. But those interpretations are subjective opinions, not hard data. And it has nothing to do with not accepting that data. I accept and believe in the ENTIRE BIBLE.
But when someone interprets a passage (say for instance, that because God commanded slavery that slavery itself can't be a sin, or at least isn't always a sin, in and of itself...) to mean something that is contrary to reason or morality, it is a subjective opinion.
That person CAN NOT authoritatively demonstrate that God objectively thinks that slavery is sometimes acceptable,
or that God is always opposed to abortion in every or any circumstances,
or that God is opposed to gay guys marrying,
or that God is always opposed to all wars (or supportive of all wars).
ALL of those conclusions someone takes away from reading the bible are NOT data points, they are subjective opinion points.
Do you recognize that reality/that distinction?
"No, you haven't."
Whatever, if you want to argue that a subjective opinion gives you grounds to make declare people or ideas insane, then you enjoy living in that world.
When you said, "Does it's not sound insane to you". This is what happens when you ignore multiple comments of explanation and simply repeat yourself.
If you want to lable someone "insane", because they (by your insistence) hold an opinion that can't be proven, but is equally likely to your opinion that can'y be proven, then yes you have.
"Do you not follow the reasoning?"
No, I follow your reasoning. I just haven't seen you provide any proof that you hunch is more closely aligned with reality than any other hunch. Just because you say that you use your fallible, imperfect, human reason to reach your hunch doesn't magically elevate your hunch above any other hunch. Now I know you like your unproven hunch better, it fits with your assumptions and prejudices, and you pridefully used our Reason to figure it out. It's like your child, your conceived it, bore it (wife), raised it, and love it, but that doesn't mean that your kid is better than any other kid. You're trying to sneak objectivity in the back door. You're trotting out Reason as if no one else uses reason, or that your reason is better.
If you simply had the honesty and humility to say something like, "This is what I think about X, I have absolutely zero proof that I'm right about X, but it's my hunch and I'm happy with it. If you have a different hunch, that's great. If you think that you can prove your hunch, that's cool to. It's not insane to come to a conclusion that disagrees with my hunch, it's just different.". there would be no problem. Unfortunately, you cling to thinking that your unprovable hunch is enough better that you can deride others.
"It's not a rational conclusion given the inputs."
GIGO
"With reality?"
OHHHHHHHHHH!!!! The "reality gambit". The assumption that everything you just said is "reality" and therefore beyond questioning.
No, I follow your reasoning. I just haven't seen you provide any proof that you hunch is more closely aligned with reality than any other hunch. Just because you say that you use your fallible, imperfect, human reason to reach your hunch doesn't magically elevate your hunch above any other hunch.
I believe it is quite rational that not all subjective opinions are equal.
It is a subjective opinion that God wants us to sell our daughters into sex slavery.
It is a subjective opinion that God would NEVER want us to do this.
Are you suggesting that both statements are equally valid?
If so, do you recognize how insane and irrationally immoral that makes you appear?
ARE you advocating moral anarchy, where no one can provably know anything so whatever anyone believes is fine?
And how about this, given that I've continually been answering your questions: Why not answer mine?
our opinions about things we can't prove ARE our subjective opinions, by definition.
Are you disagreeing? With reality?
It is reality, BY DEFINITION, that our unprovable opinions are subjective, not provably objectively factual.
Am I mistaken? Do you think that some unprovable opinions are authoritatively, objectively provably factual, and not subjective??
Do you not realize that this is inherently self-contradictory?
Craig... if you want to argue that a subjective opinion gives you grounds to make declare people or ideas insane
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?
"Do you agree with this assessment of the range of sins and sinners? Do you agree that some people can go to their death having lived a relatively short life, and still be a sinner, but whose sins were relatively minor?"
It's a fanciful construct, put together to support your hunch, without any actual proof, or even data.
"Do you agree that any assignment of punishment that's going to be just should account for the level and depravity of sin?"
I agree with scripture when it tells us that there will degrees of punishment in hell and degrees of reward in heaven. Sure. Do I agree that those'll be distributed according to your vague and self serving formula.
"we can recognize that while we can't authoritatively prove entirely perfectly what is and isn't just, reasonable people can come to reasonable agreement on a wide range of matters. I think the latter makes sense. Do you agree?"
Sure people can come together and use their imperfect, flawed, sinful beings to agree on an imperfect, flawed, consensus. Big F'ing deal. Monkeys and dolphins can agree to cooperate. That doesn't automatically translate to God and isn't binding on Him.
"If we can agree that there is some reasonable common ground - even though we can't prove authoritatively what is and isn't just - then we can look to experts and what they tell us about sanity and morality and justice. For instance, mental health experts would tell us that a man who thinks he can torture his wife because she lied to him is insane, or mentally ill. Correct? There are some degrees of causing harm and oppression that we recognize as Beyond The Pale, beyond what does moral or just irrational or saying, even. Correct?"
Once again, how do you get to impose this framework on God? What gives you the standing to declare God's actions "beyond the pale"?
You seem to think that God's justice is derived from flawed, imperfect, human justice. Yet, it seems more likely that flawed, imperfect, human consensus on justice is simply a flawed, imperfect, reflection of God's perfect justice. The natural assumption would be that if we compare human justice to God's justice that the likelihood is that the human justice is more likely to be flawed and imperfect than the justice it seeks to imitate.
What's interesting is that there a loud voices crying for Chauvin to be charged with 1st degree murder, when the current evidence available to the public doesn't support the charge as it exists in MN statute. So, a hypothetical.
Chauvin is charged with 1st degree murder, and the evidence does not show the elements required to convict on that charge.
The jury, who's not stupid, realizes that a not guilty verdict will result in more carnage, more fires, more harm, decides that it's better to convict someone of a crime they didn't convict (that will result in the death penalty), than to follow the law and acquit.
1. Is falsely convicting someone for a crime they didn't commit just?
2. Is doing so under duress just?
3. Would you support the events in the hypothetical?
Before you bitch, virtually every lawyer up here is agreeing that a charge of 1st degree, is a guaranteed acquittal. As long as the mod doesn't pressure the jury into ignoring both the law and their oaths.
Craig... When you said, "Does it's not sound insane to you". This is what happens when you ignore multiple comments of explanation and simply repeat yourself.
When I ASK "Does this sounds insane to you?" It is because I'm trying to determine your position. IF you'd just answer questions directly, then I would know. At this point, I still don't know what your opinion is. My educated guess is that you don't think it's insane to say,
"God’s Eternal Holiness
Demands That
Hell Be Eternal,
Conscious Torment"
I'm GUESSING you think something like "God is not like humans. God is PERFECTLY holy and can't abide sin. So then, ANY sin - even one little lie - is beyond something that a perfectly eternally holy God can abide and would DEMAND that the person with that ONE little lie be tortured for an eternity... THAT is a 'just' punishment from a holy God for even one sin..."
Which sounds quite insane/irrational in the extreme to the average person, I'm guessing. But does it sound insane to you?
I literally don't know. YOU can tell me, though, and then I will know.
Dan: "Do you agree with this assessment of the range of sins and sinners? Do you agree that some people can go to their death having lived a relatively short life, and still be a sinner, but whose sins were relatively minor?"
Craig: It's a fanciful construct, put together to support your hunch, without any actual proof, or even data.
BUT DO YOU AGREE or do you disagree? Please answer so I can know your position.
Do you think that a Hitler is objectively a worse person than, say, a 20 year old man who has lied 1000 times, stole pencils and punched his brother in the arm in anger? That Hitler's "sins" were worse than that 20 year old?
Do you not think that there are 20 year olds who fit this description? Or do you think that ALL 20 year olds have done the equivalent or murdering 6 million people, in one way or the other, so they are all equally as guilty/sinful as Hitler?
By your answer "without any proof or data..." are you suggesting that you don't know ANY 20 year olds who are relatively low grade sinners? Lies, stealing pencils and punching the brother in the arm? My proof and data is THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY, where we can SEE that many people are what I'll call low level sinners. Do you not see that data in the real world history of humanity?
I can point you to real people that I know very well who, by the age of 20, had never had sex, never killed anyone, never harmed anyone physically, who never cheated on their taxes or even in school!... do you deny their existence and that their sins truly consist of lies, envy, greed that was not acted upon, lust and maybe stealing a pencil from school and punching their brother in the arm in anger?
Or is it the case that you think 1000 lies are equivalent to a murder or a rape, in terms of harm done and how it angers a just God?
It really would help if you answered questions directly.
"So they were my Notions of Justice are subjective. Your Notions of Justice are subjective. Our Notions of what is and isn't proportional is subjective. What is your point? That we should live in some sort moral anarchy because we can't demonstrable approve either bar positions?"
My point is your arguments in arguing against God's criteria for punishment is moronic if you're going to cite human subjectivity in determining punishment to do so.
"God is Not subjective, presumably. But your opinions about God are subjective. Do you recognize that simple very basic reality?"
My opinions about God are drawn directly from Biblical teaching...our only source for knowing such things...and generally speaking are without qualification. I have no need to make presumptions in order to appease any unresolved questions I may have (I have very few). I don't need to know why God wants things in a way that seems totally in conflict with human nature, even if I'd like to know. If I cannot get answers, so be it.
YOU, on the other hand, just make shit up.
"Do you think you have perfect authoritative objective understanding of God and God's ways?"
I have a very sound and provable understanding of those ways of God revealed to us in Scripture. For that which Scripture doesn't reveal, no. I have no understanding of what can't be known while alive. You corrupt what Scripture reveals when you find it more convenient than abiding it. You whine about my understanding but don't offer squat beyond your whining to even hope of disabusing me of my understanding. You certainly offer nothing to support your alternative understanding, again, hiding behind "it's my opinion" as if that abdicates your obligation to do so.
Delusional? Not me. But you are if you think you can make shit up and pretend there's some viable reason for putting it forth as a reasonable opinion without ever presenting that reason.
"I see no data that says that all or even most sin is done to as an active resistance to an established ruler (God, in this case). Many people who sin, for instance, don't even believe in God. So how can they be in open resistance to something/someone they don't believe exists? They can't."
There you go, ironclad proof. Look at all the data, it's overwhelming.
"There are many lines of TEXT in the Bible, but that isn't data."
Sure it is. Data, is merely the information that is looked at to reach a conclusion. Data isn't proof.
"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.
"Do you recognize that reality/that distinction?"
Yes. You've conflated people's opinions about the data, for the data itself, then based your hunch on your opinion about your conflation.
"Are you suggesting that both statements are equally valid?"
No, because the second two, as constructed, are false.
"If so, do you recognize how insane and irrationally immoral that makes you appear?"
1. They're false.
2. Just because something appears a certain way to you, doesn't mean that your perception is accurate or reality. To be certain, I give very little credence to how I appear to you.
"ARE you advocating moral anarchy, where no one can provably know anything so whatever anyone believes is fine?"
No.
"And how about this, given that I've continually been answering your questions: Why not answer mine?"
I've answered many of your questions, as you've ignored much. The problem is too many of your questions are repetitive or stupid like the one above.
"Are you disagreeing? With reality?"
I'm not blindly accepting that you get to dictate reality.
"Am I mistaken? Do you think that some unprovable opinions are authoritatively, objectively provably factual, and not subjective??"
Yes, you're mistaken, but not about this. You're mistaken in your objective claims that certain things are objectively subjective and unprovable. Or more precisely, your mistaken in thinking that you can make those objective claims without proving them.
"Do you not realize that this is inherently self-contradictory?"
What. That I don't agree with a position that you made up and chose to attribute to me.
"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.
The problem that you have is when you impose the absurdly outlandish hypothetical based on a human man and a human woman, on God as if you've actually proven anything except your ability to construct a hypothetical that gets the answer you want.
I'd tweak your hypothetical to make a little more sense, but I've got to get the top put up before it rains.
Craig... I agree with scripture when it tells us that there will degrees of punishment in hell and degrees of reward in heaven.
Do you agree that your opinions on this notion of degrees is your subjective opinion, not a provable fact?
Craig... You seem to think that God's justice is derived from flawed, imperfect, human justice. Yet, it seems more likely that flawed, imperfect, human consensus on justice is simply a flawed, imperfect, reflection of God's perfect justice.
I think that there is only ONE justice, Justice. We understand justice in a flawed and imperfect manner, but we are understanding Justice AS Justice. I don't think that God has some secret arcane hidden "justice" that is entirely different than our understanding. Because then, well, what IS it? How would anyone know?! If we're unable to understand God's REAL justice and our understandings of justice are entirely different than God's, then we have no basis for any kind of justice, other than best guesses, maybe.
For instance, a part of Justice, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, is that any punishment that is doled out in the name of Justice would be proportionate to the misdeeds/crimes. I don't think we have any reason to think that this is OUR understanding of Justice, but God's "justice" has no notion of proportionate punishment.
It becomes a different Thing at that point. Not justice but, BLOOBLE, let's say. And we have Justice, which is doing the right thing, consistently and fairly in ways that honors human rights and any punishments from that Justice are just and proportionate to the crime... we have that, but GOD has BLOOBLE, and we don't know what BLOOBLE might be. It's something different.
I don't think that's rational. Is that what you're suggesting? Your second sentence seems to suggest you agree with me.
"Yet, it seems more likely that flawed, imperfect, human consensus on justice is simply a flawed, imperfect, reflection of God's perfect justice."
Given MY/OUR understanding then, I'm not "imposing" any framework on God's justice. I'm attempting to honor Justice, which is a part of God's nature. It's seeking the good, right and just, not creating something out of whole cloth and saying God has to abide by our understanding of justice that we created from nothing.
Once again, how do you get to impose this framework on God? What gives you the standing to declare God's actions "beyond the pale"?
Once again, I'm NOT imposing any framework on God or declaring God's actions beyond the pale. I'm saying that SOME HUMANS hold opinions about God that are, themselves, beyond the pale because they advocate injustice in the name of justice, which is irrational.
"When you sin against an infinite God—and all sin is primarily oriented toward God—you accrue an infinite debt..."
Does it's not sound insane to you?"
Only if you expect that God abide human notions of proportional justice. But then, offending an eternal God would justify the proportional punishment of eternal consequences. Thus, your position is not consistent.
"On the spectrum of the seriousness of sin and harm caused by a lifetime of sin, that latter person is a minor sinner by far as compared to Hitler, or even a Trump."
I wonder what punishment is proportional for a progressive asshat who has the audacity to put Trump closer to Hitler on his "continuum" than the "minor sinner". You continue to demonstrate you're a far worse and dangerous liar than Trump has ever proven himself to be. Still waiting for that great Trump lie that is worse than any told by Obama or Hillary or the standard progressive agenda.
Gotta go. But as far as I got with the most recent comments (as indicated by the last idiotic Dan quote above), it's clear that Dan still has no idea why anyone would be sentenced to eternal punishment in the first place. He is ignoring the one "crime" that does it.
Post a Comment