Dan posted this in the thread where's been ignoring and diverting attention away from multiple questions and clarifications regarding some comments he made. He's also been gracious enough to share his condescending and insulting thoughts on my inability to understand his"wisdom". This will take a bit of both correction before I answer.
"I'm left wondering if you all see any irony in suggesting that
progressive types are somehow devaluing life and yet conservative
evangelicals are the ones who insist that every human who has ever lived
is utterly disgusting and, in their natural state, deserving of an
eternal punishment of eternal torture... That these humans are
disgustingly sinful and wholly unworthy of being in God's presence... do
you see any irony in that? Why are humans to be valued if they are out
early sinful and entirely depraved?
I get why we Progressive
types value people, because we believe humanity is to be valued by
nature of being part of this creation. We don't tend to think of
humanity is utterly depraved like you all do. But given your worldview,
why is a depraved Humanity worthwhile and to be valued?"
"I'm left wondering if you all see any irony in suggesting that progressive types are somehow devaluing life..."
I'm wondering if you actually read my comment and understood it. To start with, I never even one time used the term "progressive" in any way shape or form. If you can't understand that incredibly simple fact, this might get a little deep for you.
What I did refer to is those who have a Naturalistic or Materialistic worldview. While I'm not going to go into detail as to what those worldviews entail, let's just say that referring to humans as a "computer made of meat", doesn't exactly demonstrate a high value of human life. My suggestion is that you do some research into those who hold these worldviews, before you comment more.
"...conservative evangelicals are the ones who insist that every human who has ever lived is utterly disgusting and,..."
We'll start with the imprecise broad brush. The position you misstate so poorly is not necessarily attached to "conservative evangelicals". Perhaps either research or precision would be helpful before you take to your keyboard.
The position you mischaracterize is the Calvinist position of Total Depravity. Nowhere in any honest characterization of this position is there ever a sense that humans are "utterly disgusting". The heart of this theology is that humans were created in the very image of God, and that all of creation was affected by man's fall into sin. This fall doesn't diminish the inherent value in man.
"...in their natural state, deserving of an eternal punishment of eternal torture... That these humans are disgustingly sinful and wholly unworthy of being in God's presence... do you see any irony in that?"
Do I see irony in acknowledging that sin has consequences? No. Yet, humanity's sinful nature doesn't negate the intrinsic value of being created in the image of God.
"Why are humans to be valued if they are out early sinful and entirely depraved?"
Because humans are created in the image and likeness of God.
I'll stop here and point out that you've done what many people do, in singling out one aspect of Reformed theology and divorcing it from the entirety of the theological construct.
If, the picture you paint is accurate, then why would God have sent His son to redeem both fallen, sinful humanity and all of His creation.
"I get why we Progressive types value people, because we believe humanity is to be valued by nature of being part of this creation."
Great example of combining misstating what I said, with an appeal to numbers, and misleading language.
The first, and most obvious fail is your goal post move of substituting "progressives' for the actual terms I used.
The second is your attempt to speak for all "progressive types".
The third is that I guarantee you there are plenty of "progressive types" who will vehemently disagree with your notion of "creation".
The fourth is that, if my memory serves, your version of creation might not be the same as others. So, some questions to answer before anything else.
1. When you use the term "creation" are you referring to a singular event?
2. Are you referring from "creation" ex nihilo?
3. Is there a creator? If so who?
4. Describe what "creation" means to you? Details, mechanism, who, etc.
5. What is it about "creation" that gives humans intrinsic value?
6. Can you explain why Buddhists, Shintoists, Pantheists, Panentheists, Atheists, Agnostics, or Animists would agree with your hunch?
Let's move the goal posts back for just a second, and how about if you respond to what I actually said?
"We don't tend to think of humanity is utterly depraved like you all do. "
Again, an argument from numbers and a mischaracterization of the position you are "arguing against"
"But given your worldview, why is a depraved Humanity worthwhile and to be valued?"
1. Because depraved humans are created in the very image and likeness of God.
2. Because God is the giver of life.
3. Because human sinfulness and depravity isn't the entirety of the story.
In the past you've suggested that humans are born without sin. That humans are intrinsically good. That infants are completely innocent. Correct?
If all of those things are objectively True, and human life has intrinsic value as being part of some vague and amorphous creation, then how could anyone agree that it's appropriate to end the lives of those innocent, good, sinless humans?
Since you started this, and given your recent aversion to answering questions. This post has some special rules.
1. First, acknowledge the fact that you've switched the terms and falsely characterized what I actually said.
2. Second, answer any and all questions completely and succinctly before you say anything else.
Failure to do so, will result in your comments being held, edited, or deleted depending on your attitude.
12 comments:
While you posited that humans have value because they're part of some sort of vague, ill defined creation, that doesn't explain what about that gives humans any particular value. Again, absent any details about what you mean by "creation", it's hard to understand how that confers intrinsic value on humans. Certainly not any different level of value from any other thing from the vague, ill defined creation you speak of. I'm not sure that equating the value of human life with a slug is giving a particularly high value to human life.
One more thought that might help you. Let's say you have a gold bar of great value, and it ends up in a septic tank, the present condition of the bar doesn't diminish it's intrinsic value.
In the same way: humans with a high intrinsic created value, are in a condition where that value is obscured by sin, yet that temporary condition of sin doesn't diminish the intrinsic value of the human.
I’m disappointed that you chose to ignore the rules and try to get into an argument over semantics.
In this one case, you need to follow the rules.
In addition to the semantic bullshit, you asking questions (given your recent history and the rules) is simply incredibly stupid and clueless.
3 comments, no answers. Not an impressive start. I’m not sure if the problem is reading comprehension or simply a choice to not go along with the rules.
It seems Dan is only interested in the rules he imposes willy-nilly at his own blog.
If one looks at the data, it seems as if your conclusion might be correct.
One bit of data that seems to confirm your hypothesis is the fact that Dan has mad zero effort to follow the rules, and he's been silent for days. It's not a good look for him.
I try to give him some grace by not jumping on his silence too quickly, but I think it's been long enough to begin to draw conclusions based on the data.
I try not to be too concerned about prolonged silence, given one cannot know the details of the personal, private life of another. I was recently chastised for "taking all day" to come up with evidence for my position. (Meanwhile, it's been about a week and that same person's offered no rebuttal of an kind!)
However, Dan does have a habit of letting things slide so long that it seems reasonable to conclude he's hoping the discussion will be left behind and forgotten. This possibility is further supported when one considers how often he'll attempt to submit the same point in later discussions as if brand new. Maybe he's not doing it on purpose. Maybe.
I too try to give people the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that this certainly isn’t and shouldn’t be a priority over more important things. Yet, sometimes it feels like the silence is evidence of something else. Clearly it was important enough to ask for my indulgence and assistance, and for him to promptly respond outside of the rules.
But who knows, I’m just suggesting that the data might lead in a certain direction and following the data is a good thing.
👍
It's now been enough time since this was posted to point out that Dan has 3 comments still in moderation waiting for him to follow the rules. He's had 0 comments that even attempted to follow the rules and get posted.
This leaves some interesting questions as to why this is the reality.
Hubris?
Fear?
Ignorance?
Prejudice?
Entitlement?
Superiority complex?
I'm sure there are more options, maybe I'll add them if I think of them.
Post a Comment